Not the bad "sterilize retards and the poor" kind but rather positive eugenics. Today we know that things like height, intelligence, and all sorts of psychological traits are heritable.
Why should people who seek to buy the eggs and sperm of beautiful and tall Ivy League students be made to feel guilty about practicing a form of eugenics?
[ November 11, 2009, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I can't find the link for the post on introductions to hatrack for newbies. Someone have it and want to post it please?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I imagine the next post will be something like "In defense of Hitler..."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I can't wait for Clive Candy's threads to continue dancing purposefully into even more and more controversial territory just to get a response.
Tomorrow's planned hit: "What's wrong with forced sterilization?" followed by "What's wrong with the re-absorption of our old and feeble into the nutrient tanks?"
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"What's wrong with trolling?"
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I can't wait for Clive Candy's threads to continue dancing purposefully into even more and more controversial territory just to get a response.
Tomorrow's planned hit: "What's wrong with forced sterilization?" followed by "What's wrong with the re-absorption of our old and feeble into the nutrient tanks?"
HAH! I laughed out loud at that one. IM IN THE LIBRARY!!! SHHH!!!
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Again, forced sterilization of people is downright evil. But what's wrong with trying to bring superior human beings into this world? As I said, intelligence, along with other psychological traits, are heritable. What's wrong with keeping this mind?
Some countries, for instance, simply do not have enough smart people. Why shouldn't their governments set up a eugenics program that ends up creating more geniuses?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Somebody hasn't read enough Koontz.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh, questions of degree. Every parent hopes to have healthy, smart, beautiful children. Everyone, consequently, marries the smartest, healthiest, prettiest person they can attract. (By some sort of weighting of these qualities, which can vary; and in some cases "attract" means "have unprotected sex with, oops.") I do not know of anyone who sees this 'natural' method as a problem. Then, quite a large fraction of women will abort a Down's-syndrome fetus (or other problems diagnosable in the womb); and there are many people who have problems with that. Finally, a few outliers are willing to advocate forced sterilisation or killing, and most people are against that - although it's not so long ago that doctors might routinely "fail" to give clearly-handicapped newborns the slap that makes them breathe, and I suspect that my father's generation would, at least, not be particularly shocked by that. On this spectrum, looking through sperm banks for the best donor doesn't seem particularly heinous. But then again, I suspect that the stigma Clive speaks of is a bit of a straw man, existing only to the extent that it allows posts "defending eugenics" from this non-existent attack.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Yes but the natural method seems to be so...instinctive. Can a man say to a woman who is merely attractive but clearly of average intelligence "sorry, but I don't want to marry you as the chance of bringing into this world kids of average intelligence is significantly greater with you being their mother." What if he were to suggest to her that they marry, but only on the condition that she be implanted with the eggs of a pretty Ivy League student with impeccable SAT scores when they have kids? Wouldn't this man be vilified?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Also, Israel already practices a form of eugenics:
Only instead of trying to avoid children with horrible diseases, why not encourage the birth of children with awesome traits?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I AM EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL MAN. FEAR MY EXTREME AND CONVOLUTED HYPOTHETICAL RHETORIC. IT MAKES NO SENSE. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO. IT SHALL SEND YOU SCREAMING FROM THE BATTLEFIELD IRREGARDLESS!!!!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Some countries, for instance, simply do not have enough smart people. Why shouldn't their governments set up a eugenics program that ends up creating more geniuses?
We'll miss you.
No, wait . . .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Also, Israel already practices a form of eugenics:
Only instead of trying to avoid children with horrible diseases, why not encourage the birth of children with awesome traits?
*LAUGH*
Whoever added that part of the wikiarticle is ill-informed. Dor Yeshorim is based in Brooklyn (although there is an Israeli branch). And they only do genetic screening. That's hardly "eugenics".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is, actually, if fetuses with undesirable traits are screened out.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Not the bad "sterilize retards and the poor" kind but rather positive eugenics. Today we know that things like height, intelligence, and all sorts of psychological traits are heritable.
Why should people who seek to buy the eggs and sperm of beautiful and tall Ivy League students be made to feel guilty about practicing a form of eugenics?
Everyone who is surprised by this thread, raise your hands.
<crickets>
That's what I thought.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, for a given definition of 'screening', it could be considered eugenics even if they aren't actually screened out. But then that's just my personal definition-I don't know if it's right or not.
When I 'screen calls' I listen to whoever's on the line or voicemail, and then decide whether or not to pick up or call back.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My offer of tasty cookies didn't work in the other dumb trolling thread, so perhaps I should try smack? Something that really sells itself. I thought delicious cookies would, but those only proved temporarily effective. I need something both alluring and addictive. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
(My quoting of this has nothing to do with Lisa.)
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Lisa is a lonely person who gets a lot of attention on this board for saying provocative things.
Don't feed her.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. Look: Clive is clearly trolling, in the sense of trying to provoke a reaction by posting controversial stuff. But what of it? His posts have led to several threads that I, for one, found interesting, even if Clive's take on them wasn't. He doesn't do personal attacks or foul language. Compared to the state of the forum two weeks ago, I'd say this is quite an improvement. Can we do without the dang cookies?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Can we talk about pancakes now?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Like recognizes like.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I had banana pancakes with coconut syrup when I was in Hawaii two weeks ago!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It is, actually, if fetuses with undesirable traits are screened out.
It's several steps earlier; the results are used to determine whether a couple begins (or continues) dating. While that may technically be eugenics, it's not what most people mean by it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You'd have a point, KoM, except that he also doesn't do actual discussion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You'd have a point, KoM, except that he also doesn't do actual discussion.
Well yes, as I noted, Clive's take on the interesting threads was quite boring. The rest of us did some interesting discussion, though. The spark plug does no combustion, either.
quote:It's several steps earlier; the results are used to determine whether a couple begins (or continues) dating. While that may technically be eugenics, it's not what most people mean by it.
Only because most people are ignorant! Assortative mating by the assumed genetic characteristics of children was a big part of the German program. Translated, they paid bonuses for women who bore children, in or out of wedlock, by men with the correct Aryan traits. DNA testing would have been a nice added fillip, no doubt, but the principle is the same.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
KOM, I don't like how you're putting me down while endorsing my threads. It's like a case of eating your cake and wanting to have to you. You get to endorse my threads while at the same time making sure you remain on good terms with those who would wreck them.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Better the cookies than KOM's defense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Again, forced sterilization of people is downright evil. But what's wrong with trying to bring superior human beings into this world? As I said, intelligence, along with other psychological traits, are heritable. What's wrong with keeping this mind?
Some countries, for instance, simply do not have enough smart people. Why shouldn't their governments set up a eugenics program that ends up creating more geniuses?
I am going to respond to this question while being mindful of the audience.
There are many complex and integrated sociocultural, scientific, and moral issues interplaying into the issue of eugenics which I am going to conservatively estimate you are not going to be able to address. Like with sexual dynamics, homosexuality, and countless other social and moral subjects you have flailed around on, I doubt you're going to be able to work on reasonable grounds. But, for the time being, let's talk shop.
Eugenics as a subject comes in two primary forms: future implications, and historical implications. Currently, historical implications dominates the notion of what 'eugenics' represents, because it was utilized as a confirmational and advancement tool for people trying to enhance and/or legitimize their pre-existent intolerant biases.
Essentially, you had a bunch of nationalist race supremacists who believed wholly in the superiority of their own race and the necessity of preventing the encroachment of 'lesser races' upon their superior genetic (or 'genetic-cultural') stock. In the early days of applying understanding of heritable traits and evolution to scientific principles, these very same people siezed upon the use of 'scientific principles' to justify and make an ostensibly secular, objective test for eliminating deficients and lesser races and keeping the (usually white) stock pure. The "science" of eugenics developed around the pre-existent biases and motives of these fervent nationalists and was conducted with the same level of legitimacy as, say, phrenology.
Eugenic "science," was, consequently, astoundingly poor and dramatically errant. It was a classic example of bad science essentially manufactured wholesale to advance ideological aims. It was particularly guilty of poor survey and statistical models, false quantification, and blatant reification, something which I think you're advancing steadily towards confirming you are doing too.
The current modern-day implication of eugenics primarily involves the potential of designer babies, as opposed to wholesale social breeding systems. In that sense, it's 'soft eugenics,' a slightly more modern process of selective breeding that has little to fundamentally intrinsically deviate it from the very same sort of human societies have been practicing as far back as in prehistorical tribes and chiefdoms. It's just going to be certain parents of means under very specific circumstances spending money on the promise of prettier babies with less of a chance of certain illnesses. There's very little to argue here. They're not screening for intelligence. They're not engaging in a program of culling reproductive rights. It's not directed by any forces other than individual custom preference of parents, who still hold full reproductive rights that remain unchanged, in a non-program, non-organized private expenditure on designer babies.
The potential for future social genetic engineering programs won't really take root until well after overpopulation radically alters what most of the world considers fair in terms of reproductive rights.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: KOM, I don't like how you're putting me down while endorsing my threads. It's like a case of eating your cake and wanting to have to you. You get to endorse my threads while at the same time making sure you remain on good terms with those who would wreck them.
I think I am justified in saying that remaining on good terms with the Hatrackers has never been a priority of mine.
I call them as I see them: Your threads are interesting when others post in them. You're not.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think the whole thing will become irrelevant.
1) We will soon have good interfaces between machines and the human nervous system. If we want, this can augment and extend personal physical capability to the point that a mere few inches of height or pounds of muscle will be pointless, and (later) extend the capacity of human consciousness to a point where our current standard of genius will be below the mean.
2) We will sooner or later achieve a mastery of human biology that enables people to override genetic traits. Breeding for desired characteristics over multiple decades will be a quaint idea.
3) We'll either be dead or have overcome most of the challenges that require genius before too long.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: KOM, I don't like how you're putting me down while endorsing my threads. It's like a case of eating your cake and wanting to have to you. You get to endorse my threads while at the same time making sure you remain on good terms with those who would wreck them.
I think I am justified in saying that remaining on good terms with the Hatrackers has never been a priority of mine.
I call them as I see them: Your threads are interesting when others post in them. You're not.
What a cowardly thing to say. If you find these sort of threads interesting, why don't you create them yourself? You don't, because you know that that this overwhelmingly liberal community would become angry at you if do so. Puhleaze.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: KOM, I don't like how you're putting me down while endorsing my threads. It's like a case of eating your cake and wanting to have to you. You get to endorse my threads while at the same time making sure you remain on good terms with those who would wreck them.
Clive, you need to think, though. If there'd been a eugenics program before you were born, you wouldn't be here to start this thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: What a cowardly thing to say. If you find these sort of threads interesting, why don't you create them yourself? You don't, because you know that that this overwhelmingly liberal community would become angry at you if do so. Puhleaze.
... he's not going to make 'these' threads because he has no interest in making threads interesting by being a rube who argues ignorantly about fantastically controversial subjects, provoking hilarious interchange.
Which is the role that you are playing, whether you like it or not!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't know what it is, but something isn't right about Clive. It doesn't feel natural. He really feels like an alt, which really bothers me to discuss the topics that he brings up. I think it's a twisted way to engage with people socially when you create an alternate character to conduct conversations with. It's manipulation of a community, and is pretty twisted.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: KOM, I don't like how you're putting me down while endorsing my threads. It's like a case of eating your cake and wanting to have to you. You get to endorse my threads while at the same time making sure you remain on good terms with those who would wreck them.
Clive, you need to think, though. If there'd been a eugenics program before you were born, you wouldn't be here to start this thread.
And you would?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: KOM, I don't like how you're putting me down while endorsing my threads. It's like a case of eating your cake and wanting to have to you. You get to endorse my threads while at the same time making sure you remain on good terms with those who would wreck them.
Clive, you need to think, though. If there'd been a eugenics program before you were born, you wouldn't be here to start this thread.
I don't think that is fair. Smart people can have stupid kids sometimes.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Clive, the appropriate playground response is "I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nu, that's a good question, actually; why don't I start threads, provocative or otherwise? I think basically I just like browsing, and then occasionally I see a post I want to respond to. I rarely feel the urge to start a discussion on anything in particular. Besides that, Hatrack is a form of procrastination, and as such rarely deliberate. I don't say to myself "I'll go to Hatrack and start a thread". I just find myself on Hatrack in the process of oughting to be doing something entirely different. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: KOM, I don't like how you're putting me down while endorsing my threads. It's like a case of eating your cake and wanting to have to you. You get to endorse my threads while at the same time making sure you remain on good terms with those who would wreck them.
I think I am justified in saying that remaining on good terms with the Hatrackers has never been a priority of mine.
I think we can all get behind that statement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't know what it is, but something isn't right about Clive. It doesn't feel natural. He really feels like an alt, which really bothers me to discuss the topics that he brings up. I think it's a twisted way to engage with people socially when you create an alternate character to conduct conversations with. It's manipulation of a community, and is pretty twisted.
Smurfing (posting on alts) is pretty lame but ultimately something you have to treat as a baseline probable condition of the internet. Anyone who's not a known quantity (long-time interaction, met them at a con or something, can be fairly sure they're who they say they are, etc) is just a name who is anonymous and infinitely replicable.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Group hug!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: KOM, I don't like how you're putting me down while endorsing my threads. It's like a case of eating your cake and wanting to have to you. You get to endorse my threads while at the same time making sure you remain on good terms with those who would wreck them.
Clive, you need to think, though. If there'd been a eugenics program before you were born, you wouldn't be here to start this thread.
And you would?
Aw... that's so cute. Don't you mean "I know you are but what am I?"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't know what it is, but something isn't right about Clive. It doesn't feel natural. He really feels like an alt, which really bothers me to discuss the topics that he brings up. I think it's a twisted way to engage with people socially when you create an alternate character to conduct conversations with. It's manipulation of a community, and is pretty twisted.
That's a good point. He probably is an alt. And the irony is that he's accusing KoM (who doesn't give half a damn what anyone here thinks of him) of being worried about what other people think, when it's whoever's behind the alt that really has that worry. Kol ha-posel b'mumo posel, basically.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
In certain types of therapy groups, the leaders don't speak directly to the clients in the group but only comment on the "process." Like if people are asking why other clients aren't there, a group leader might respond, "There's a feeling of disappointment, today."
That's how I'm feeling about this thread.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I see nothing wrong with the concept of a 'positive eugenics' in the form of screening for negative medical traits such as illness or disorders, wouldn't blink if genetic tinkering gave the parents options to pick and choose appearance (to a degree) from a pool of their respective genetic traits and wouldn't mind if a persons genetic material was given a 'boost' in things like intelligence and creativity as long as it was offered to everyone equally and wasn't abused and strong oversight established.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You're considered to be a loathsome person by most people here. Being disliked by you is not the bad thing that you think it is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What do you mean by "eugenics"? There is an enormous difference between individuals choosing a mate with what they think are desirable genetic characteristics, and societal movements that try to promote selection of certain "genetically desirable" mates.
Nazi's didn't just force sterilize "undesirable" members of society, they paid women who mated with Aryan men. I find both sides of that coin equally objectionable.
The problems with societally driven eugenics are many fold. The first being that the heritability of traits like "intelligence" or "athleticism" is at a minimum very complex.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: ... you know that that this overwhelmingly liberal community would become angry at you if do so.
Yeaaaaah. Thats not it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You're considered to be a loathsome person by most people here. Being disliked by you is not the bad thing that you think it is.
Speak for yourself, not for "most people." Lisa is not a loathsome person.
This ridiculous exchange of attacks is loathsome, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kindly don't speak for everyone or even most people, Clive. You can't even speak well for yourself, so you're certainly not in a position to speak at all for any sort of majority.
In fact, most people around here in my opinion would hesitate to use the word 'loathsome' in reference to anyone.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think I may have used the word 'disgusting' a few times, although possibly in reference to actions or thoughts rather than people. But I am hardly typical.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I admit it: Clive is my alt! Why do you think I've been posting so little lately? Oh the shame of it all!
Hobbes Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I'm not a sock puppet.
It's really too bad, considering that the only way people here are able to fathom your existence is by believing that you don't *really* exist, except as a figment of some bored person's imagination.
So who are you? Tresopax? Now that would be interesting.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Clive I am going to take on your question because I am in the midst of writing a fine SF story based on a world where they seek to perfect the human DNA.
You have answered one of the main concerns about Eugenics already. You do not want to limit the number of un-preferred people in existence, but you want to create more preferred people. You are not wanting to kill, abort, or remove those who are not geniuses. You only want to push pro-creation into making more brilliant people.
Your one example is a bit sexist. You have a man telling a woman that she will only get married if she agrees to bear other people's children, not her own.
You can imagine how humiliating this would be for any person.
Further, it would be a lot easier just to impregnate the brilliant women with the seed of brilliant men. Would you marry a woman under the condition that sex was off limits to avoid an unwanted pregnancy that wasn't the perfect type, but you do get to raise, pay for, and take care of all those children she produces from other men?
But the big problem with Eugenics is defining the preferred type. The Nazi's main problem was the assumption that Arayan was perfection. Instead of breeding for intelligence or strength or any other useful trait, they went for Blonde Hair.
Even you seem to be stuck on "Thin and tall." What do those traits have to do with perfection accept in you own personal taste?
In my story the clones are genetically engineered for health. They live long not because they are smarter or stronger or blonde or Arayan or American or what ever. They are genetically programmed for health.
In the canine world we have used eugenics for centuries. What do we have as a result? The Pug, the Pika-poo? Designer lap dogs and giant perfections of the breed, many if not most of which must suffer from genetic problems--hips to weak to support their weight, hearts to small, aggressive behavior in tiny dogs. We let aesthetics rule our eugenics choices with these dogs, and the dogs get to suffer for it.
Do you think we'd do any better with humans?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
clive, check out these other boring forums. maybe you can make them more interesting too. sadly i dont have time to join in the discussions you generate. but what youve done here is greatly amusing.
whoa there typhoid mary
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
How come EI gets double billing?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Hardly.
I don't always like Lisa, and rarely agree with her, but one of the things I DO like is she makes up her own mind, and defends her views.
I don't see HER starting 43 threads on poorly thought out topics simply for the sake of getting noticed.
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
Oh... I have been having the worst day ever and you all have finally given me something to laugh about. Thanks
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: How come EI gets double billing?
just for fun.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What's wrong with Eugenics?
1. Who decides what traits are desirable? Will we breed people to be poets or mathematicians, musicians or politicians, strategists or artists? Will we breed marathon runners or sprinters, basketball players or gymnasts? Do we want more Schwarteneggers or more Ghandis? Who will make those value judgements?
2. The heritability of most desirable character traits is very complex and controversial. Intelligence, for example, is a complex mix of genetic and environmental factors. The genetic component of other desirable traits, like say compassion or competitiveness, is even more questionable. If Clive is correct in asserting that some countries don't have enough intelligent people, that is far more likely a result of cultural and environmental factors than genetic factors.
3. We are messing with a very complex system. We do not understand genetics well enough to predict the outcome. What will we do with "mistakes"? How do deal unintended consequences? Eugenics means experimenting on human beings. Experimentation means we can not guarantee the outcome and experimentation always involves a good percentage of failures. What do you do when the "failure" of an experiment is a person?
4. There are natural limitations of the biological system and pushing them can lead to undesirable outcomes. Tall people, for example, are more prone to back problems, breast cancer and prostrate cancer. Mathematical genius tends to come at the expense of practical and interpersonal skills. We know from breeding animals that there are always trade offs.
5. Society is also a complex system. We have no idea how increasing the number of mathematicians or endurance athletes would affect society as a whole. In this respect, this is also an experiment and an experiment that has the potential to go terribly awry.
6. Society needs diversity. We need artists and scientists, doctors and mechanics, dancers and accountants. Many people of modest intelligence make important contributions to our society. Many people of low intelligence, have talents that enrich our lives.
7. What if our eugenics program results in people who are highly capable assholes? In our society, people with extraordinary abilities are often (although certainly not always) arrogant and have little patience or compassion for others. There is every reason to expect that a eugenics program would result in people who see themselves as "superior". After all, these would be people breed to have the traits their society valued most highly. What are the chances they would not see themselves as "superior" when they live in a society that defines them to be superior. Through out human history, "superior" people have seen themselves as being exceptions to the ethical and moral rules that apply to ordinary people. Breeding "superior people" poses a very real danger.
[ November 10, 2009, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:7. What if our eugenics program results in people who are highly capable assholes? In our society, people with extraordinary abilities are often (although certainly not always) arrogant and have little patience or compassion for others. There is every reason to expect that a eugenics program would result in people who see themselves as "superior". After all, these would be people breed to have the traits their society valued most highly. What are the chances they would not see themselves as "superior" when they live in a society that defines them to be superior. Through out human history, "superior" people have seen themselves as being exceptions to the ethical and moral rules that apply to ordinary people. Breeding "superior people" poses a very real danger.
Like I said, Koontz.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I'm not a sock puppet.
It's really too bad, considering that the only way people here are able to fathom your existence is by believing that you don't *really* exist, except as a figment of some bored person's imagination.
So who are you? Tresopax? Now that would be interesting.
He's the Somalian. He said so himself.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I don't see HER starting 43 threads on poorly thought out topics simply for the sake of getting noticed.
Hahhhh..... it's funny because she does!! Oohhh.....
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You're considered to be a loathsome person by most people here. Being disliked by you is not the bad thing that you think it is.
Lisa is regardless of how abrasive she might be at times is a member of our community and an integral part of our online Nakama you are the invader who must be destroyed.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Rabbit asked:
quote:What's wrong with Eugenics?
And followed up with an excellent list of problems.
It's good to remember that the eugenics movement and compulsory sterilization weren't confined to Nazi Germany. The United States beat Germany - and provided Germany with a model for its own laws.
It's a period of our history we don't dwell on much, but it was very real to the estimated 60,000 Americans who were sterilized under eugenics laws (I tend to think that estimate is low, FWIW).
If anyone is interested, there's a fascinating firsthand account written by an inmate at an Oklahoma institution when the sterilization laws were passed in that state. The author - Marion Marle Woodson - was a journalist who had the bad timing to reach a crisis with his alcoholism several years before the founders of AA met. He allowed himself to be committed to the insane asylum as a desperate lifesaving measure. While he was there, he wrote. One of the chapters deals with The Sterilization Spectre - it's a great analysis from someone who hadn't given the issue much though prior to his confinement in an institution:
quote: I am leaving out of all consideration the question of whether society ever has the right to inflict sterilization. I am leaving that question to the churches, and the consciences of the people. Some of the greatest of the churches have taken an unyielding stand against any sterilization. I am not discussing whether it would be right to inflict sterilization for something of which the helpless victim is not willfully guilty. And I admit that at first reading and on first thought the law might appear to be a good one for society at large; but a closer analysis shows it to be as full of holes as a fish net; presenting uncounted opportunities for tragic travesties on rights while giving the perpetrators the protection of being within the law.
Full disclosure: I was responsible for getting this chapter published online. Woodson's memoir remains one of my all-time favorite books.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Hardly.
I don't always like Lisa, and rarely agree with her, but one of the things I DO like is she makes up her own mind, and defends her views.
I don't see HER starting 43 threads on poorly thought out topics simply for the sake of getting noticed.
*shifts around uncomfortably*
Yeah! Erm... What he said! Posted by the Somalian (Member # 6557) on :
You're considered to be a loathsome person by most people here. Being disliked by you is not the bad thing that you think it is.
Lisa is regardless of how abrasive she might be at times is a member of our community and an integral part of our online Nakama you are the invader who must be destroyed.
I am a veteran of this forum.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
With 33 posts in 5.5 years? I don't want to suggest that there's some sort of frequent-poster aristocracy here, but really, posting once every 2 months on average is not exactly a strong contribution to the community.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I forgot the password to "the Somalian," and in June 04 established "the_Somalian." I think I had about 800 posts with that one. By the way, "somalian" is an incorrect word. The adjective is "Somali." It was a bad name and I changed it to this one.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
While it does raise the question to what extant are lurkers a part of the community but I think its safe to say that no amount of lurking in good intention can really make up for a few days of brazen troll like behavior spouting social values so conservative it makes Ron look liberal.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The point remains: You come in here every few months, spout a few threads in which your arguments are invariably ill-considered and simplistic, and then disappear again when you've had enough of being the fixed point which our least member can argue circles around.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Really? I've ALWAYS made controversial threads? Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clive Candy:
The current modern-day implication of eugenics primarily involves the potential of designer babies, as opposed to wholesale social breeding systems. In that sense, it's 'soft eugenics,' a slightly more modern process of selective breeding that has little to fundamentally intrinsically deviate it from the very same sort of human societies have been practicing as far back as in prehistorical tribes and chiefdoms. It's just going to be certain parents of means under very specific circumstances spending money on the promise of prettier babies with less of a chance of certain illnesses. There's very little to argue here. They're not screening for intelligence. They're not engaging in a program of culling reproductive rights. It's not directed by any forces other than individual custom preference of parents, who still hold full reproductive rights that remain unchanged, in a non-program, non-organized private expenditure on designer babies.
The Nazis gave eugenics a bad image what with their misapplication of the concepts and all. Yes, violating peoples rights in anyway because of eugenics is wrong and evil and the only thing I'm concerned here is individuals deciding to take steps to bring about superior babies.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Really? I've ALWAYS made controversial threads?
Well no, there have also been some boring ones that nobody responded to.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"...the only thing I'm concerned here is individuals deciding to take steps to bring about superior babies."
You were talking about government programs too.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Clive. This isn't about ostracizing you because you're some evil invader.
It's just that you broke all the social rules. You barged into a community that existed before you made your presence known. That's kinda rude.
What fuels this forum are the relationships that exist as much as the content of our discussions. It takes serious time and energy to build your credibility on this forum, to establish your reputation and to communicate your personality.
You're being quite presumptuous.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The only thing I'm concerned here is individuals deciding to take steps to bring about superior babies.
Knock, knock, knocking down open doo--oors... Why don't you start by demonstrating that the stigma you speak so strongly against actually exists?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What's wrong with Eugenics?
1. Who decides what traits are desirable? Will we breed people to be poets or mathematicians, musicians or politicians, strategists or artists? Will we breed marathon runners or sprinters, basketball players or gymnasts? Do we want more Schwarteneggers or more Ghandis? Who will make those value judgements?
The parents of the child. It'll be left up to the free market. Of course, there is no guarantee that a child's qualities will match that of the genetic parents -- the children of Nobel science prize has shown that much, but it is true in general that smart people have smart children. If two people who scored high on the SATs mate, chances are their children will have high SAT scores as well. The question is, is it wrong for, say, an infertile couple to, instead of adopting, "order" a baby to be born via surrogacy with an egg and sperm from people with very desirable qualities? THEY know the desirable qualities they hope for in the child. The customer knows best.
quote: 2. The heritability of most desirable character traits is very complex and controversial. Intelligence, for example, is a complex mix of genetic and environmental factors. The genetic component of other desirable traits, like say compassion or competitiveness, is even more questionable. If Clive is correct in asserting that some countries don't have enough intelligent people, that is far more likely a result of cultural and environmental factors than genetic factors.
This is true, and hopefully advances in genetics will soon reveal these things. But right now, that intelligence is heritable is the position of many psychologists. Steven Pinker is a mainstream popular psychologist who holds that intelligence is a heritable trait. If you look at the yearly distribution of SAT scores, it's hard to ignore the fact that, out of something like 1.3 million students, just several hundred ever year end up with perfect scores (before the test was messed around with in 1995 perfect scores used to be earned by just a handful of people each year. Was everyone else just not trying as hard as these people? I don't think so. This pointed out to me that those who scored very high had a genetic advantage over everyone else, and if something is genetic surely it can be selected for.)
quote: 3. We are messing with a very complex system. We do not understand genetics well enough to predict the outcome. What will we do with "mistakes"? How do deal unintended consequences? Eugenics means experimenting on human beings. Experimentation means we can not guarantee the outcome and experimentation always involves a good percentage of failures. What do you do when the "failure" of an experiment is a person?
Abort it.
quote: 4. There are natural limitations of the biological system and pushing them can lead to undesirable outcomes. Tall people, for example, are more prone to back problems, breast cancer and prostrate cancer. Mathematical genius tends to come at the expense of practical and interpersonal skills. We know from breeding animals that there are always trade offs.
And a government in need of geniuses (that can't be found among that government's people) might very well decide those trade offs are worth it. But hopefully if a couple wanted to conceive a eugenic child today, perhaps the firm that provides the service would rigorously screen the people they get eggs and sperm from for all sorts harmful defects that can be passed down to the child.
quote: 5. Society is also a complex system. We have no idea how increasing the number of mathematicians or endurance athletes would affect society as a whole. In this respect, this is also an experiment and an experiment that has the potential to go terribly awry.
If we increased the number of geniuses/smart people, smartness would be cheap. Since smart people are more productive than non-smart people, this would be very beneficial to society.
quote: 6. Society needs diversity. We need artists and scientists, doctors and mechanics, dancers and accountants. Many people of modest intelligence make important contributions to our society. Many people of low intelligence, have talents that enrich our lives.
It's true, you need people to push carts and such, and surely geniuses aren't going to do that. This is a good point: there should always be people of normal to subnormal intelligence to do the jobs no one wants.
quote: 7. What if our eugenics program results in people who are highly capable assholes? In our society, people with extraordinary abilities are often (although certainly not always) arrogant and have little patience or compassion for others. There is every reason to expect that a eugenics program would result in people who see themselves as "superior". After all, these would be people breed to have the traits their society valued most highly. What are the chances they would not see themselves as "superior" when they live in a society that defines them to be superior. Through out human history, "superior" people have seen themselves as being exceptions to the ethical and moral rules that apply to ordinary people. Breeding "superior people" poses a very real danger.
People who have the IQ to get into MIT or Cal Tech are already "superior" in terms of intelligence. They're far more capable than normal people. And are they walking around considering themselves superior? Well some of them might be but in general it's considered shameful to boast of a genetic endowment you did nothing to earn.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Really? I've ALWAYS made controversial threads?
Well no, there have also been some boring ones that nobody responded to.
I acknowledge that you do not approve of my threads. Stop addressing me now. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: It's true, you need people to push carts and such, and surely geniuses aren't going to do that. This is a good point: there should always be people of normal to subnormal intelligence to do the jobs no one wants.
Ah, a volunteer!
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: It's true, you need people to push carts and such, and surely geniuses aren't going to do that. This is a good point: there should always be people of normal to subnormal intelligence to do the jobs no one wants.
Ah, a volunteer!
You know Lisa in real life?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lisa has demonstrated far more intelligence than you have. Which I realize is a low bar . . .
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
No, you are the stupid one.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pat pat*
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
*shudders*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Really? I've ALWAYS made controversial threads?
Well no, there have also been some boring ones that nobody responded to.
I acknowledge that you do not approve of my threads. Stop addressing me now.
Better men than you have tried to dictate my posts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*gay molestation*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*communist agitpropification*
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Clive is somewhat entertaining. It's a giant trollish troll, but entertaining.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey, something steven and I can agree on!
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
2 things
1. Every forum has its trolls and they are an integral part of them. They provide entertainment and, as Clive is doing, spark discussion. Honestly, I'm of the school of thought that if you don't like them, you don't take it out on them, because then you are just feeding them. A wise man once said don't argue with fools because people at a distance can't tell who is who.
2. Contrary to popular belief, Hatrack is not (or at least for a long period of time, was not) a very welcome place. I know a lot of you have been posting on this site for years and for some almost a decade, but sometimes this place can remind me of high school with all of the cliques and bickering that can carry over from thread to thread. I understand that a lot of you guys know each other fairly well, but that can be very intimidating to some of the other, newer posters on this site. There have been many, many times I have seen other members totally alienated from the Hatrack Community just because of what a few key members thought of them. Sometimes I get the impression that there is a school of thought going on around here that only the more senior members get the privilege to contribute to serious discussions, and the newer ones are expected to just look cute and agree with the general consensus like sheep. Let's be honest; there's a whole lot of dick measuring that takes place around here when it comes to post count, and it seems like a lot of people here don't take others seriously until they reach the 1000 post mark. This place can become quite hostile at times. That was part of the reason I stopped posting here, or even coming to this site. I remember when I left there were quite a few members of this site being totally harassed and picked on by other members (Blayne in particular I remember). I left after a couple of posters that I knew felt the same way about things as here as I did left, and I haven't been back long enough to determine whether anything has changed here or not, but I would like to think that it has. Just my 2 cents, take it or leave it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: it seems like a lot of people here don't take others seriously until they reach the 1000 post mark.
And yet Armoth (to give an example) gets treated quite seriously.
He's a thoughtful poster, he doesn't start threads over and over about the same thing, and he attempts to clarify when someone misunderstands him.
He also refrains from attacking those who disagree with him.
Gosh, I don't suppose any of that could be significant? nah!
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Like I said, I haven't been back here very long, and I dunno if things have changed or not. Or maybe I should've just stayed gone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Some of your critique is fair. Hatrack is not the most welcoming place on the web (for a variety of reasons) and establishing good cred does take time here.
Some of it was "i'm not a cool kid! wah!" paranoia. The "look cute and agree" bit was of the latter variety.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Sometimes I get the impression that there is a school of thought going on around here that only the more senior members get the privilege to contribute to serious discussions, and the newer ones are expected to just look cute and agree with the general consensus like sheep.
It often takes more patience that I have to suffer fools and gloss over rudeness here. I definitely agree with your statement about sheep. Of course, I run against the grain by my very nature, so I'm always bucking whatever trend is going on. That doesn't always mean I'm right, though. That fact depends on the subject, and how well-informed I am compared to my audience.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I don't want to be a cool kid. Especially on the internet.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I don't think your assessment is accurate. Many, many people have successfully integrated into the Hatrack community. You apparently did not and are now bitter because of it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I don't want to be a cool kid. Especially on the internet.
Your words say, "no, no!", but your eyes say, "yes, yes!"
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: I don't think your assessment is accurate. Many, many people have successfully integrated into the Hatrack community. You apparently did not and are now bitter because of it.
Perhaps, but I think the reason I left had a lot more to do with the way certain people here were treating certain other people here. I remember posting here quite a bit before then, and even though not everybody agreed with what I said (I was a lot younger then), I still participated here. A lot of my favorite people on the forums left around the same time I did too.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I don't want to be a cool kid. Especially on the internet.
Your words say, "no, no!", but your eyes say, "yes, yes!"
If you say so. Regardless, I meant my post to be less about my teenage angst, and more about Hatrack as a whole.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I really haven't noticed lately, nor do I remember thinking back when I first strolled onto Hatrack, that folks particularly cared about post counts. Certainly not to the extent that thought-provoking, new content was ever ignored or dismissed because the little Posts: x slot wasn't sufficiently high.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think the time I started to feel more part of the Hatrack community is when I started to recognize most posters and their specific personalities. Also, when I felt like people could do the same for me.
I've invested almost a year of serious reading and posting, and I feel like I'm only now coming out of the newbie gate. But it's no different than when you move into a new community - you're the new guy for a while.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: it seems like a lot of people here don't take others seriously until they reach the 1000 post mark.
And yet Armoth (to give an example) gets treated quite seriously.
He's a thoughtful poster, he doesn't start threads over and over about the same thing, and he attempts to clarify when someone misunderstands him.
He also refrains from attacking those who disagree with him.
Gosh, I don't suppose any of that could be significant? nah!
Thanks Rivka!!! ::beams::
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think the time I started to feel more part of the Hatrack community is when I started to recognize most posters and their specific personalities. Also, when I felt like people could do the same for me.
Now, that definitely I've noticed, then and now. Its connection to post count, though, is sort of an incidental necessity, and sometimes is overcome very quickly. Sometimes very slowly, and sometimes never.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Really? I've ALWAYS made controversial threads?
No, but you've pretty much bashed anyone who doesn't agree with you, IIRC, and been fairly abrasive regardless of your name.
This is just a :new: wrinkle, for you.
[ November 11, 2009, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think the time I started to feel more part of the Hatrack community is when I started to recognize most posters and their specific personalities. Also, when I felt like people could do the same for me.
Now, that definitely I've noticed, then and now. Its connection to post count, though, is sort of an incidental necessity, and sometimes is overcome very quickly. Sometimes very slowly, and sometimes never.
I wasn't welcomed with open arms, but that was because people thought I was an alt of someone who wasn't very well though of, due to the timing of my first postings. Also, I sorta jumped right in with long postings right away.
But I never expected everyone to be warm and fuzzy all the time. I'd rather post at a place where people take the time to get to know you, where opinions are known as opinions rather than fact (and it called a fact a citation can be asked for) than be in a forum that completely welcomes everyone equally regardless of their contributions to the community.
Post count doesn't mean squat to anyone I know who matters, not in and of itself. I MAY mean something relating to time/effort spent on the community, but even that varies on a case by case basis.
Anyone can run up 1000 posts in a few months if content doesn't matter. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Let's be honest; there's a whole lot of dick measuring that takes place around here when it comes to post count...
*laugh* No, there isn't.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I apparently passed 10000 posts sometime recently. I didn't notice it until y'all started talking about post counts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Let's be honest; there's a whole lot of dick measuring that takes place around here when it comes to post count
I guess you're right. I saw how many posts I've made here, and my dick shrank.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Let's be honest; there's a whole lot of dick measuring that takes place around here when it comes to post count...
*laugh* No, there isn't.
Yes there is Tom, and frankly I'm sick of ghost writing for you, just so you can sit on top of a disgusting 30k post count. I'm tired of it Tom! I won't be your slave anymore. There, I've said it, your secret's out and now everyone knows what a fraud you are!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Let's be honest; there's a whole lot of dick measuring that takes place around here when it comes to post count
I guess you're right. I saw how many posts I've made here, and my dick shrank.
So now you have an inny?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Its not hard to get a 30K post count when 90% of them are one liners.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're right!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
What you say!!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I really think that if the post-count *ahem* measurements were as bad as you say, I'd at least agree that some of that was going on. But I am honestly baffled at that impression. That could be just my own impression, though, since I've never cared about post counts at all, either when I started and had a low count, or now that I've been around awhile.
I really don't see where you're getting this impression from, SiyE. I think it might be in your head.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well obviously. Everyone knows that people with low postcounts also have bad personal hygiene, low IQs, and - most important in this context - persecution/victimhood complexes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, but we're not s'posed to say so!
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think you guys missed my point. Or maybe you just proved it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, proved it how?
ETA: Because, y'know, I feel pretty confident that 900, 9, or 90000 posts to your name, the complaints about post-count ego stroking would have been greeted with much the same response.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Its not hard to get a 30K post count when 90% of them are one liners.
Doing some guestimation, assuming it takes about 10 seconds for a post from Tom to appear after hitting the submit button, and even if we say all his posts took 5 seconds to write out, that's 1,500,000 seconds of time, or 25,000 minutes, or 416.66 hours of time.
Not a tiny feat IMHO.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I think you guys missed my point. Or maybe you just proved it.
here, how about a serious post:
this thread does not take postcounts very seriously at all. It is actually definitely not a community where postcount matters very much. You can take my word for it. There are no titles associated with post level. There are nearly no associations about how a higher post count confers upon a poster a more privileged status. The only person I have seen do that here in a long long time is Ron Lambert, and Ron Lambert is a crazy person who practically nobody listens to. Prior to today there had not been any active postwhoring threads (the last one had been the last post thread, if i recall) on the front page for a long time, and the one that was just made was made in jest. I am right now watching people with nearly no posts ingrain themselves seamlessly into the community with nary a word of concern. You need to re-analyze what you're asserting about this forum because for all its issues, postcount heirarchy is not one of them.
the end.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Seriously this forum doesn't even bother to point out that someone is a <insert variant of newbie/new poster here>. hardly ever ever ever.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Fairness addendum:
Veterans do tend to be a little stern with new (or apparently new) members sometimes, but as far as I can tell it's only when/because they are acting juvenile, trollish, or otherwise sending signals that they aren't interested in learning and working around the community norms. This can be a little baffling if the standards are ones that aren't generally met even by veterans, but it's still a pretty well intentioned effort to keep things civil and interesting here - not a an effort to shame or exclude new people for spite.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, but we're not s'posed to say so!
Well, you know how I feel about that sort of social falsehood. You're not supposed to point out that theists have no clothes, either, but I often do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Absolutely. It's 100% a "who is this guy" response related to an unknown quantity acting ridiculously, not postcount-heirarchism or community xenophobia or anything.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Its not hard to get a 30K post count when 90% of them are one liners.
Doing some guestimation, assuming it takes about 10 seconds for a post from Tom to appear after hitting the submit button, and even if we say all his posts took 5 seconds to write out, that's 1,500,000 seconds of time, or 25,000 minutes, or 416.66 hours of time.
Not a tiny feat IMHO.
Yes, but Tom has been posting regularly here for 10+ years. 1.5 million seconds is less than 0.5% of 10 years.
You, on the other hand, have been here only half that long and have nearly 10,000 posts, most of which aren't one liners. I'd be willing to bet that if we counted words/day rather than total posts you'd beat Tom hands down.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)