Amidst complaints that the qualify of this group was dying, I took responsibility and left. (Entropy Aura, I push groups into chaos and/or death.)
Obviously, that was a failed venture. Certainly the chaos died down; but the group has died. So I'm coming back. Hopefully I will come up with something on topic as well, but I haven't seen Daria in ages due to work and lack of recording material. (Which wouldn't help anyway, cause all I've been getting are season 3 and "The Esteemsters.")
On Wed, 31 May 2000 03:44:00 -0600, Glenn Olson wrote:
Well, a few people couldn't see the difference between spirited debate and actual arguing and whined alot, so that those of us who *were* having fun decided it wasn't worth the effort to continue.
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
"Kyl�" wrote in message news:8h33po$iv2$[email]...
I don't know if this means you have a very high opinion of yourself, or very low self-esteem. :-)
It's rather difficult to discuss a show that has such long gaps between new episodes. Pretty much every possible topic and variation of topic has been discussed and beaten to death, so new episodes are needed in order to bring about more on-topic posts. As for the off-topic discussions, I check them out and if they don't interest me, I usually don't read the rest of the thread. However, I wouldn't say that means the quality of the group dropped off.
And for the "spirited debate" vs. "arguing and whining": I'd recommend people skip over the posts that annoy them. Works for me. :-)
nah, it's more fun to reply to the ones that annoy you. then you can have an argument, and arguments are fun.
paul and myself must be one of relatively few couples who *try* to get into arguments. :)
herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote in :
Escuse me, if you are refering to my posts about the satate of the group, I *CAN* see the difference between spirited debate and arguing, and IMHO it was looking to me at the time as if it might erupt into the latter. Also I felt at the time, that the way things where going they looked like personal insults might start flying any time soon. Also I resent the inference that I (or anyone else) was 'whining' I'm as entitled to express an opinion as anyone else here is. Tell me which would you rather have, quiet spots in the group now and again, or the group descending into a perminant state of anarchy, because everyone is arguing the toss, over something they'll never agree on, I know which I prefer.
As someone else said witht the diversity of origins members of this group, and considdering the subject matter being discussed, we where never gonna reach agreement, and debates like that have a nasty habbit of breaking out into wars.
Phill.
On Wed, 31 May 2000 15:44:17 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
All of those involved had pledged to not use insults, and the large majority have come onto record as saying they were no where near feeling insulted or trying to insult.
The debates have rarelt broken out into wars in the past, and when they do they've been quickly resolved.
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote in :
A pledge which would have no doubt lasted until someone got really pissed of with someone else's opinion, and then been ignored :)
So because I disagree with the majority my feelings on the subject are invalid ? and thefore I'm not allowed to express them is this what you are saying here ?
Maybe, but surely it is better that we catch ourselves *BEFORE* the wars break out ?
Phill.
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:34:00 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
What about this group's history makes you seem that?
No. I'm saying you are allowed to express them, but to do so is whining and I'll call a spade a spade. Didn't specifically mention you, though.
Not neccessarily. The famed atmosphere of this group brought itself out naturally, without people watching out for it. In the past, (aka the Dagny Wars), attempting to enforce it always just bred resistance.
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
And now ot make this one into a flamewar as well...
On 1 Jun 2000 19:36:54 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote:
Whining: anything I don't agree with. IE. Kyle is whining about people who want the political crap to end already.
Last time I heard that, it was used to justify calling someone a faggot kike.
I have yet to hear it used in any context *other* than the rabid extremist "anti-pc" crusading used to justify rude behaviour. Unless you are kin to God, you're not going to convince me this was an exception.
Obviously it has done so again.
Dammit people, I didn't *want* to turn into a troll. I wanted to come here and discuss Daria.
But if the only way to get rid of this "thread that never ends" is to become that most loathed of all creatures, yet keep some posts coming to this newsgroup, then so be it.
[email] (Glenn Olson) wrote in :
Hehehehe Kyle, is whining about my whining is what you are saying :)
Yeah but in this part of the would (UK) a faggot is a kind of meatball :) and a fag is a cigarette :) Ok we have heard and do know the other meanings, just don't use them nearly as much as in say the US.
Yeah while I largely think that most PCishness is bollocks, I do tend to think that there is no excuse for using anit-pcishness as an excuse to be rude, not that I'm sugesting Kyle was, he/she (don't rember which, sorry Kyle :) ), was just expressing an opinion that they are after all entitled to :)
Guess it boils down to not being able to please all of the people all of the time :)
As for the thread that never ends, hey all newsgroups have them :) Oh and BTW does anyone have any pictures of daria and jane you know ......SLAP ! Dammit I knew better than to ask that :)
Phill.
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 01:19:11 -0600, Glenn Olson wrote:
Not exactly. That whole thread was full of people disagreeing with me, and I don't recall accusing any of them of whining.
So?
I bet Hitler used that phrase too, right?
Dont' need to convince you.
Who accused you of being a troll?
Why do we have to get rid of it?
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On 2 Jun 2000 20:38:33 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote:
But now that some are saying they're sick of it...
It is hard to accuse someone of whining when you're stuck in the "Yes it is/no it's not" cycle."
See Next Paragraph. (Which I conveniently deleted, but oh well...)
No. Hitler just said "Burn them. Burn them all."
WHAT THE FUCK ELSE DO YOU CALL "TRYING TO START A FLAMEWAR"?
Did you not read my VERY FIRST LINE IN THIS THREAD????
I'll reiterate:
Because it's dead. You've gone over everything that can be gone over. Now all that's left is doing "Was not/Was too" to history, and arguing the semantics of whether human psychology and human sociology are the same thing on different scales or not.
I'm not a necrophiliac. I do not like fucking corpses.
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 05:06:03 -0600, Glenn Olson wrote:
I don't recall that person being in it. Most of the complaints have come from people long since out of the thread. Cool with me, stay out. Put a kill on it, whatever. Don't try to condescend on our fun.
Hardly universally agreed that we are in that cycle.
I know exactly what that next paragraph said, and I'm a little dissapointed anyone on here would use that sort of blanketing to discredit an idea.
That was a serious question. I don't remember anyone accusing you of that.
Oooh, you were *trying* to troll. Gotcha.
We're all having fun with it or we wouldn't be posting to it.
Then by all means, stay away from the orgy.
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On 3 Jun 2000 21:44:17 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote:
No one in the cycle ever notices.
Great, now you got *me* starting into that cycle.
I was disappointed from the minute I saw the trite cliche "a spade's a spade."
That was a serious answer. *I* accused me of trolling.
I'd thought that would be obvious, but I guess I'm the first to ever try doing that. At least, without a sockpuppet.
Hrm... I've got another account around here somewhere.
Yes. :p
Yeesh. Time for remedial communication skills. (For me.)
Wasn't aware 3 people counted as "all."
BTW, from a fellow socialist - you're losing.
I'm still descended from monkey. Point and laugh is hardwired into my instinct, when people do something I think is silly.
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 03:05:45 -0600, Glenn Olson wrote:
Clich�'s come from truths, just because they are obvious truths doesn't make them any less true. There's a big difference between a cliche to transmit an idea and an underhanded tactic like grouping someone who disagrees with you in with a universally hated group.
I'll join you.
"we all" was meant to be the people who are posting to it.
Maybe. I'm not terribly good at this things, socialism does not need me to champion it.
Do you drink your own pee? I once saw an mpeg of a monkey doing that.
Ohh, and if you want a REALLY fun thread, I just don't agree that you are descended from a monkey.
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On 4 Jun 2000 21:36:42 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote:
Which does "stop whining" count as?
There are times when I think at least a quiz, involving the deciphering of many mixed messages and arcane over-worded babbles, should be a requirement for posting to usenet.
Of course, depending on the day I take it, I might not have passed.
Maybe that's why it hasn't burnt out yet... I'll go round up another dozen people to post in it; that should finish you all off in a week.
Only when drunk.
Do you *really* want to see my try to defend creation *and* evolution at the same time, considering the mood I'm in?
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 02:49:57 -0600, Glenn Olson wrote:
Nope. I accused you of a specific action. I didn't try to say "that's the sorta thing a trotskyite, commie, right-wing extremist would say"
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On 5 Jun 2000 14:58:11 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote:
That's an answer to a true-or-false, not a multiple choice.
"Neither" might have been appropriate.
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 03:37:29 -0600, Glenn Olson wrote:
You are right, I misread it. Neither was the appropriate response, because I never told anyone to "stop whining", I just said people whined.
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On 6 Jun 2000 19:23:54 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote:
And don't you forget it :p
herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote in :
[Snip!]
Nothing about this group in perticular just similar experiences over the years on usenet in general.
So because I don't want bad feeling on the group I'm a 'whiner' right ? No you didn't specifically mention me, but since I was one of the first to express my opinion on the subject I presumed that I was one of the people you where talking about ?
I wasn't attempting to enforce, anything, by the pure nature of usenet, that would be almost impossible, short of making the group moderated, which I would be againsy, because paradoxically I don't like someone telling me what I can and can't say. Please note that at no time have I said that you all shouldn't descuss off topic stuff, just that I personally would be saddened if the group descended into chaos and pointless bikkering.
Phill.
who said agreement must be reached?
nahh.
[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :
Maybe not, but it gets kinda old when the descussion has been round and round in the same circles for the tenth time.
I assume you are being sarcastic here :)
Phill.
i wasn't, actually. :) i wouldn't continue a serious argument with someone who started on the personal insults just because i consider that to mean the other person has run out of arguments.
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 02:40:19 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Agreement to disagree must be reached eventually, else the argument lasts till eternity (and starts repeating itself long before that.)
they just burn out after a while though.
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 15:44:51 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
That was my initial assumption at the time.
Apparently, the people here have the constitution of minor deities, and are too caught up in things to realize that THEY ARE ALREADY doing the "I'm not wrong, you are" repetition endlessly.
Witness the following:
On 01 Jun 2000 19:49:42 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
IE: "No it's not." "Yes it is."
Nothing more than the blind assertions that accompanies all political posturing, when the intellectual matter has been burned off but the bodies involved have too much momentum to stop.
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 01:19:12 -0600, Glenn Olson wrote:
Yeah, so? I'm quite proud of my line in that exchange, and I'm glad the debate went on long enough for me to produce it.
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
Glenn Olson wrote:
Where? Show me an example. Aside from the trolls who post here occasionally on this newsgroup, I dare say that no one really seems to do what you're stating they do. It seems that you yourself are quite scared of intellectual bantering between people online, or at least do not want certain people to express their opinions.
I didn't think that snip followed that format at all. Those were just two intellectuals conversing back and forth regarding a particular issue that needed addressing, 'tis all. You really don't know what sub-intellectual "you're wrong and I'm right so nyah on you" online conversing looks like, do you? You really need to venture out more to the less intelligent portions of the Internet in order for you to truly see what construes "you're wrong and I'm right so nyah on you".
Um. No it isn't.
What it is is that all parties have not completely clarified something they each hold to be true so they are each trying to elaborate on previously stated comments regarding the issue(s) at hand. If anyone tries to cut off such conversation prematurely it's like only baking a cake for 30 minutes when the directions state explicitly to bake the cake for 45 minutes...the outer surface may look done but the inner heart of the matter is squishy, soft, and very dangerous to digest.
Just my $0.30 (adjusted for inflation and added centage).
LI (who welcomes any and all intellectual banter...please, my brain needs it)
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 21:29:51 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
You're just not used to seeing the *intellectual* version of that.
<snip whole post>
Not saying a damn thing more because I don't want to make this into a mud-slinging festival. There are but a few people who can handle such a thing and not take it personally. So I shall say "agree to disagree" and move on.
LI (who's noticed that the only posts she gets replies to are the negative ones...what the fuck??)
Glenn Olson said:
Actually, I was agreeing with Kyle's point that death is inevitable under any social system, and then adding that it happens more rapidly in times of revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) change. I wasn't directly contradicting him at all ... he made a rather important point.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan