|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is the increased number of conspiracy threads a problem or not a problem? |
| I can live with the status quo |
|
55% |
[ 11 ] |
| I think some policy or moderation should be required |
|
45% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 20 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
He's a real TOSser.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
I'd recommend the following topics each be confined to one Mega thread(that is, one thread per each of the following topics)...
Kennedy assassination theories(possibly including Robert)
9-11 truth
Banking conspiracies(including the Federal Reserve and the Trilateral Commission, even though the latter isn't technically about banking)
UFOs(maybe include chemtrails in that) |
I second this proposal. I also think making them stickies will be a good way to prevent the creation of new threads. There is already a big thread on 9-11 that you can make into a sticky. But maybe you don't like the idea. Whatever. |
Stop this nonsense of lumping RFK with JFK. Next you will want to throw MLK in , after all they are all in the sixties and have three initials ending in K, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
I'd recommend the following topics each be confined to one Mega thread(that is, one thread per each of the following topics)...
Kennedy assassination theories(possibly including Robert)
9-11 truth
Banking conspiracies(including the Federal Reserve and the Trilateral Commission, even though the latter isn't technically about banking)
UFOs(maybe include chemtrails in that) |
I second this proposal. I also think making them stickies will be a good way to prevent the creation of new threads. There is already a big thread on 9-11 that you can make into a sticky. But maybe you don't like the idea. Whatever. |
Stop this nonsense of lumping RFK with JFK. Next you will want to throw MLK in , after all they are all in the sixties and have three initials ending in K, right? |
Actually, you are right. bacasper has also said so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have always wondered about these assassinations in terms of why some people are so interested about it. Why stop with Kennedy? I mean McKinley got shot in the late 19th century? Anyway, is there a way we could organize these presidential or whatever killings into one thread or something. Whether Reagan is shot at or Kennedy it boils down to killing or trying to kill a president.
Hey, what about John Lennon?
I shot the sheriff, but I didn't shoot the deputy... Oh no........... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
I have always wondered about these assassinations in terms of why some people are so interested about it. Why stop with Kennedy? I mean McKinley got shot in the late 19th century? Anyway, is there a way we could organize these presidential or whatever killings into one thread or something. Whether Reagan is shot at or Kennedy it boils down to killing or trying to kill a president.
Hey, what about John Lennon?
I shot the sheriff, but I didn't shoot the deputy... Oh no........... |
You've got a point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperFly
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: In the doghouse
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| OTOH, Ya-Ta-Boy, Gopher, Manner of Speaking, your feedback has been good so far. |
Thank you.
| Quote: |
Of course, Regicide and IGTG are posters, they want to post as they wish. What can be done in that regard?
Let's look at the concept of freedom of speech. IGTG and Regicide say any regulation even voluntary might infringe on their freedom of speech. |
My response to that would be to point out that we ALREADY have restrictions on our freedom of speech here. Dave owns this forum. Not us. He's given us permission to participate in this forum provided we agree to follow the TOS.
In addition, I've said the following in another thread and I'll repeat it here:
Personally, I don't care how many "conspiracy theory" threads are started, or threads on anything else, for that matter...I have no issue with WHAT is posted, just HOW it is (in some cases, repeatedly) posted.
I object to repeatedly starting new threads on the same topic over and over again. In some cases, a new thread is started on the exact same topic as one previously posted, and if any responses are made, they are (often) ignored by the thread author. This suggests that the thread author is, in effect, spamming the forum by simply advocating their viewpoint. I think it was Gopher who said it was the equivalent of running around and posting advertisements on somebody else's buildings and property.
Last year, there was a very long, extensive thread on the subject of the Cassini spaceprobe mission to Titan. I can't remember if it was me or Mithridates who started it, but as weeks and months went by we both made new posts to the thread, as new data from the mission was analyzed and published. We didn't need to start a new thread every time NASA issued a new press release, AKA "More on the Titan Mission..." There was no need to; keeping new information on the topic restricted to - and posted to - the same thread made it easier for readers and respondents to keep up on the topic. It's something you do if you have consideration for the people reading the material you present.
Suppose I was rabidly interested in the Spirit and Opportunity spaceprobes NASA has placed on Mars; and suppose I started a new thread every time NASA issued a new press release? I wouldn't do it because A) it's inconsiderate to the other members of the forum, and B) I would get loads of complaints along the lines of, "enough already!" It wouldn't matter whether or not they are interested in the topic, or whether or not they agree with my viewpoint. It would be the excessive and repetitious posting they would find annoying.
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Another poster brought up the point that excessive posting about conspiracies that relate to each other would infringe on the freedom of speech of other posters, because it would be akin to screaming speech by it being excessive. |
Dave's ESL Cafe Current Events Forum is a public discussion board. It is not Dave's blog, nor is it anybody else's. Anyone who joins the forum and agrees to follow its guidelines is free to start a discussion thread and/or respond to a current thread. I am sure there are a great many people who read the threads and posts on this forum, but are unable to respond - but only because they have not bothered to register for membership.
It follows, therefore, that the act of starting a thread is, in fact, a public invitation to participate in a discussion on a particular topic, the one the thread author is interested in. Thread authors do not have the power to exclude respondents, limit discussions to a particular set of individuals, or delete respondent's posts. Only the Moderators do that. The Moderators limit their powers to deleting or "editing" only those threads and posts that, in their opinions, violate the TOS.
Since any given thread author is initiating a public discussion, it follows therefore that the thread author should have consideration for any respondent post, and should be willing to accept that some responses to their thread will express opinions that the author does not agree with. If the thread author is not willing to accept this, then what is the point of the author starting the thread?
It's a public discussion forum, after all. The only person entitled to post commercial advertisements here is Dave.
Consideration for the respondents of a topic thread would and should include limiting the threads to one thread - one topic. That's not censorship. It's just doing things in an organized and considerate fashion.
Partly by being accountable to the forum community for what discussions you initiate.
Topic respondents, by the same token, should have the same consideration for the topic author. Even if the topic of the thread strikes the respondent as bizarre, off-beat, or just plain stupid, they should still be willing to treat the thread author with courtesy and consideration. They should be willing to consider the thread author's theories and viewpoints seriously and respond courteously. Otherwise, what's the point of participating in the thread?
| some forum members wrote: |
| Why not just ignore the threads you don't like? |
Because that's restricting the rights of the readers of the thread, for the convenience of the thread author. It's saying, "I'll start whatever thread I want to, and I don't give a *** about the respondents. I don't have to take any responsibility for what I post." It's infantile.
If you're not interested in considering the opinions of the respondents, why start the thread in the first place? |
Great post, agree 100%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I always thought TOS was the sock of MoS. Connect the dots, people.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, I see all conspiracy theories threads as just variations of one idea--how to explain the world's evils by obsessing over each and every little anomoly, oddity and accident and as a result, I think they all belong in one big thread, but I doubt I'd get much support for that view.  That being the case, I pretty much go along with MoS's post.
There are two issues of free speech here. The conspiracy theorists among us do have a right to post. The rest of us have a right to make fun of their peculiar ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
T = ?
O = ?
S = ? |
tos tos tos... ???
Terms Of Service ? |
Oh i see. Thanks.
Still, i'm confused.
Since when did GUIDELINES = TERMS OF SERVICE.
Morevoer, why did it take so long for someone to simply SIO?
DYGWIM? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The conspiracy theorists among us do have a right to post. The rest of us have a right to make fun of their peculiar ideas. |
OK, but please do so on the Official Bashing Thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Still, i'm confused. |
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
