posted
I must say that this year's Peace prize does at least have the virtue of really pissing off the deniers. I can practically see the little flecks of foam obscuring the words of OSC's latest column, and that's quite a trick when I'm reading a computer screen rather than the vellum scroll he no doubt composed it on.
[ November 01, 2007, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Though, he does have a point mixed in all that invective. The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
More than once I've discussed it in person with people who take it as fact, and yet when pressed cannot begin to explain even the simplest elements of climate change-and I can tell that even though I'm far from an expert, or even a novice.
I'm not saying 'the science isn't in', I'm saying that for most people you hear about global warming from, the science is barely involved at all...but is routinely used as a club for deniers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though, he does have a point mixed in all that invective. The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
But that has very little to do with whether Gore knows anything about it or whether he deserved the award.
Personally, I've got no beef with Gore, but I do think it was kind of a weird "Peace" award.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
The flip side of this is that it doesn't happen is a matter of faith, deliberate ignorance, or dishonesty for nearly all of the deniers.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
Granted, but then so is particle physics, or cellular chemistry, or any branch of science, really. It's just impossible for even a competent research scientist to keep up with developments outside his own field.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, I take things inside my own field on faith, because I trust the process and in many cases the people involved.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, foaming with rabid anger seems to be the default state for OSC columns of late. I don't think it would be fair to judge others on this specific issue by his reaction.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Late to the party, but the same is true for most science.
Most juries that convict on the strength of DNA evidence or forensics probably don't understand the mechanism. Rather they trust the experts.
I don't know much about global warming (or climate change, for that matter), but its enough that there appears to be consensus to make me alter my consumption patterns. We (as humans) have learned (evolved?) to trust the crowd, for better or worse. And right now the crowd in favor of man-made climate change is pretty strong.
That said, this was possibly the worst Peace prize award ever.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Late to the party, but the same is true for most science.
That's generally speaking my point. Also, they're not simply trusting the experts, they're also trusting the experts not to perjur themselves in open court to boot, a question not generally involved in trusting experts in the field.
Scientific faith is used as a shield and a club just as religious faith often is, in that the people doing the clubbing often have little knowledge of the thing they claim proves their side to any reasonably intelligent person.
Also, this is definitely up there as crappy Peace prizes, but there are worse.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, this is definitely up there as crappy Peace prizes, but there are worse.
<debates it on its merits, directly disobeying KoM's thread title> I guess, I object to the wresting it from a Peace prize to a popularity contest. After reading over the list of winners more carefully (I have to admit my previous statement was ill-informed) I still think this is the least justifiable Peace prize, ever. There have been other throw away prizes, but this strikes me as the most egregious misapplication of the award.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though, he does have a point mixed in all that invective. The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
But that has very little to do with whether Gore knows anything about it or whether he deserved the award.
Personally, I've got no beef with Gore, but I do think it was kind of a weird "Peace" award.
But by no means the weirdest. At least Gore wasn't a mass murderer. They've given the peace prize to a couple of those in the past.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But by no means the weirdest. At least Gore wasn't a mass murderer. They've given the peace prize to a couple of those in the past.
Even those have sort-of-reasonable arguments behind them. I don't necessarily agree with the arguments, but they do make some sense. The path from "global warming awareness" to "peace" seems a bit more tangled to me.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Global warming: It runs in cycles. No serious scientific evidence indicates, let alone proves, a human cause for it. In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite, since global temperatures fell in the 1970s and 1980s, when global emissions were certainly not in retreat.
I'd like to know Card's source for this--none of the data I can find indicates temperatures fell in the 80s. The 80s have several years that are the hottest in the last 125 years.
quote: Since the start of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen approximately 0.7 °C. But this rise has not been continuous. Since 1976, the global average temperature has risen sharply, at 0.18 °C per decade. In the northern and southern hemispheres, the period 1997 2006 averaged 0.53 °C and 0.27 °C above the 1961 1990 mean, respectively.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: As my husband points out, Gore is to global warming as U2 is to starvation.
Where's my man Bono's award?
...Or Bill and Melinda Gates to vaccinations, for that matter. Although perhaps in that case they'd have to footnote it with a "But Your Operating System Is Still A Huge Pain In The Heinie, You Monopolistic Rotter" award.
It's a little sad to see this much distaste for Card's editorials on his board, isn't it?... I'm not saying anyone's wrong to say so. It's just... I wish I could say his editorial writing was anywhere close to being on a plane with his fiction.
Or... In light of the board response, that he might consider the response he's likely inspiring among those who aren't as partial to his other writing.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's extremely silly to give a Peace Prize on the basis of something that doesn't relate to peace; it's pretty clear it isn't a *peace* prize at all. But at least Gore hasn't supported genocide or ordered the murder of children, so this is actually one of the better ones.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, seriously, where else would anyone really debate Card's editorials online?
I think there were better people in line for a peace prize, but I see the reasoning behind giving it to Gore, and more specifically to the IPCC. Climate change, whether it's man made or not, whether you like it or not, is coming. There will be a massive fight for resources, and massive die off of the world's ballooning population if we don't do something to prevent it ahead of time, or at least be aware that it's a possibility. Wars will be fought over it, and people will die. All of which is fairly detrimental to peace, and Gore, as the world's biggest cheerleader (which, Mr. Card, is something he's been involved with for decades, not just in the last couple years) got the award. Do I think it was absurd and a popularity contest? I would if the IPCC didn't share in it, I see the logic. But do I think they could've made a better choice? Surely.
Here's my real beef with Card though, other than the fact that I think he's sorely misinformed entirely on this subject and really needs to take a much closer look at a much wider array of topics, and other than the fact that he just called Treehuggers terrorists (and really by extension everyone on the Left a terrorist too), he's almost arguing against himself.
Gore and the rest of the terrorists want us to switch off of fossil fuels and use renewables. Card is pissed off because we're running out of fossil fuels and Gore is distracting away from the search from an alternative? Did he even proof read the article before he posted it?
Card is on the side of President Bush and his cronies, they want to pollute the environment and don't much care for Green industry. The people on the other side want clean water, clean air, healthy forests, and clean renewable, home grown energy. How does he reconcile the people he supports with the things he claims are problems requiring solutions?
Even if you think everything Gore stands for is bunk, what he wants to actually do to solve his so called fictitious problem is still good!
And you know what, I don't think Pres. Bush CAUSED climate change or anything, but he's doing his best at times to hinder the efforts to make our country better. He's impinging on efforts from individual states to control their air quality standards, giving huge giveaways to the mining industry so they can destroy mountains, literally, creating vast devastation in the surrounding areas, opening the doorway for logging companies to invade national forests under the guise of forest maintenance, isn't doing a damned thing to clean up all the waste that's already polluting lakes and rivers around the country, and continues to say that using renewable energy and reducing emissions will harm our economy when this is a bald faced LIE. I'll repeat it: A LIE!
But what do I know? I'm just a tree hugging terrorist.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom Lehrer is said to have claimed political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the prize.
And anyone who's aware of Godwin's Law really ought to be aware that comparing those one disagrees with to the Taliban, however facetiously, is asking not to be taken seriously in part and parcel.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, seriously, where else would anyone really debate Card's editorials online?
Try the blogosphere, there are plenty out there that mention Orson Scott Card.
edit: Or heck create your own blog that gives people a medium to discuss the editorials/essays.
quote:Even if you think everything Gore stands for is bunk, what he wants to actually do to solve his so called fictitious problem is still good!
I have a problem with getting people to do good things by deception, whether intended or not. There are only a bajillion instance in history and literature of that very thing back-firing.
quote:Gore and the rest of the terrorists want us to switch off of fossil fuels and use renewables. Card is pissed off because we're running out of fossil fuels and Gore is distracting away from the search from an alternative? Did he even proof read the article before he posted it?
If we attempt to seriously undertake the renewable energy source effort taking global warming along for the ride is a monkey we don't need. You don't have to push global warming to help people understand why getting off oil is a good thing.
quote: Card is on the side of President Bush and his cronies, they want to pollute the environment and don't much care for Green industry. The people on the other side want clean water, clean air, healthy forests, and clean renewable, home grown energy. How does he reconcile the people he supports with the things he claims are problems requiring solutions?
Yes lets pigeon hole everyone who is skeptical about global warming as some, "vast right wing conspiracy," or a Bush crony. Card as much as says he is very interested in the environment, but that there are concerns far more important to the environment, like dependence on fossil fuels that should take precedence over global climate change.
There are plenty of good reasons to be pro alternate fuel without towing the global warming line. This, "You are with us or against us" attitude is ridiculous, as is criticizing the forum's host in this very thread. I shouldn't even be debating it to be honest.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This, "You are with us or against us" attitude is ridiculous, as is criticizing the forum's host in this very thread.
Are you saying that there should be no criticism of OSC on Hatrack, or just that there shouldn't be any in this thread?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This, "You are with us or against us" attitude is ridiculous, as is criticizing the forum's host in this very thread.
Are you saying that there should be no criticism of OSC on Hatrack, or just that there shouldn't be any in this thread?
Though there is no specific guideline, I personally feel that since the initial thread creating post, criticism of Mr. Card has gone past what the forum terms specify.
I don't think all the things stated in this thread could be rightly said if we were in Mr. Card's living room.
edit: The personal attacks are what are objectional to me. It's quite possible to discuss the ideas stated without making moral judgements on the writer.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Climate change, whether it's man made or not, whether you like it or not, is coming.
Isn't this statement always going to be true no matter what we do or not do? The earth's climate will always be and has always been changing and we cannot stop it no matter what we do.
quote: And you know what, I don't think Pres. Bush CAUSED climate change or anything, but he's doing his best at times to hinder the efforts to make our country better.
I'm sort of surprised that you don't believe President Bush caused global warming.
quote: Card is on the side of President Bush and his cronies, they want to pollute the environment and don't much care for Green industry. The people on the other side want clean water, clean air, healthy forests, and clean renewable, home grown energy. How does he reconcile the people he supports with the things he claims are problems requiring solutions?
Did you read the same article I did? It sure seems like you read something completely different. So unless we completely agree with Gore and his cronies then we want polluted water, dirty air, dying forests and polluting, foriegn energy? Unless you are saying that President Bush and his cronies want to destroy the planet because they are not in complete agreement with Gore and his cronies? Isn't it odd how Gore is insisting you and I must change our lives while he can simply buy a carbon offset? Or is that issue no longer relevant?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Climate change, whether it's man made or not, whether you like it or not, is coming. There will be a massive fight for resources, and massive die off of the world's ballooning population if we don't do something to prevent it ahead of time, or at least be aware that it's a possibility.
Yeah, but we have Dennis Quaid on our side, so no worries.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally Posted by Blackblade: There are plenty of good reasons to be pro alternate fuel without towing the global warming line. This, "You are with us or against us" attitude is ridiculous, as is criticizing the forum's host in this very thread. I shouldn't even be debating it to be honest.
I think I'm more than polite to OSC on a regular basis, but generally I stop being polite when someone calls me a terrorist, regardless of whose living room I'm in.
DarkKnight -
I should have been more specific. The round of climate change that is coming in the near future is coming whether we like it or not, and scienctists tell us that it will have extremely adverse effects on human life on Earth.
quote:Did you read the same article I did? It sure seems like you read something completely different. So unless we completely agree with Gore and his cronies then we want polluted water, dirty air, dying forests and polluting, foriegn energy? Unless you are saying that President Bush and his cronies want to destroy the planet because they are not in complete agreement with Gore and his cronies? Isn't it odd how Gore is insisting you and I must change our lives while he can simply buy a carbon offset? Or is that issue no longer relevant
I'm not a Gore apologist. For all the cheerleading he does, I think he's part of the old school message on Greening the planet and I think for all the good he does, he does just as much harm by setting off people like you. When everyone starts to identify the Green movement with Gore, and then attacks Gore, the Green movement is tarnished by association, and it's not fair. But though I think he's going about it the wrong way, at least he's doing something about it.
Could you list for me please though, all the things that Gore is asking you to give up? Can you? Don't get me wrong, I think a sustainable future for America and the planet will require a lot of changes in the way we live our lives, but where is this drumbeat that Gore is asking you to radically alter your life? Just give me a list, I really have no idea.
He's saying use less energy, alright, what's wrong with that? Install more efficient technology in your house or solar panels on your home. Financing options available already make the financial commitment that you the homeowner would need to make quite small, especially out west. But the point is, you can use less energy from the grid while also saving yourself some money. So what's your beef there, that Gore's policies would save you money, create jobs, and help the economy? That continues on with water usage, gasoline usage, etc. It's all about a drive for efficiency. Creating an efficient use of our natural and created resources so we get as much out of as little as we can. That's the ultimate goal.
Like I said, I think Gore is selling it wrong. Whether or not man is contributing to global warming isn't a bone even worth picking, and frankly I don't even much care what the answer is to that question. All it does is get the people who don't believe it up in arms, and by and large they attack ANY measure that is seen as Green, because Green is attached to Gore/Global Warming, and gets a negative label.
All the things that will combat global warming, if indeed we are responsible, should be done for a dozen or more fantastic reasons that all have nothing to do with climate change at all, so why are we bothering to fight over such a controversial issue at all? I think that OSC is smart enough to see through that, but I find it hard to reconcile with the invective in his article. But OSC's article is a perfect example of why Gore's particular method isn't really the best. OSC didn't just attack global warming, and he didn't even just attack Gore, he went after the entire movement, and even the entire Democratic party. It makes no sense to me, but I suspect it's an emotional response, one that I can't really blame him for.
Anyway, I think OSC was incredibly insulting, and I took personal offense to it. I think it highlights the differences in this debate, and how incredibly off track it has gotten in many ways (I mean the greater national and global debate, not just ours here on this thread).
And btw DarkKnight, I say Pres. Bush is against the environment because his policies are destructuve and harmful. I don't know or care what his personal feelings are towards the environment, I care about his actions and the effect they have. I don't know what your beef is, but I can't imagine you actually think he's had a positive effect on the envionment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Lryhawn was saying, how about we all just chill, agree that we don't have a definite answer about whether global warming is caused by humans, and then get started cleaning up the planet and using less energy. We can't possibly disagree that we need to do that.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taking the trust we place in experts with things like DNA evidence and particle physics (string-theory and inflation theory notwithstanding) and comparing it to trusting the "Global Warming" experts is the fallacy of Weak Analogy, for two reasons. One: there are dissenting voices from experts in the field with very plain-spoken arguments. Two: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.
The scientists may not be entirely agenda driven, but the impression that there is a consensus of agreement in the field has been created by those with an agenda. Kinda like evolution, though that has had a lot more time to take hold. Of course attempts have been made to make Global Warming unfalsifiable, like evolution, and with basically the same tactic (using extremely long time frames to prevent testability.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: One: there are dissenting voices from experts in the field with very plain-spoken arguments.
Why on earth is "plain-spoken" a glowing recommendation?
Why can't you say "arguments whose validity and evidenciary soundness are acknowledged by a wide spectrum of scientists in the relevant fields?"
Perhaps because it's not true?
quote:Two: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.
And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?
In a poll of 240 right-wing bloggers, 0% thought that humans were primarily responsible for global warming
0%.
And you think that all 240 bloggers came to that conclusion because they read the primary literature themselves? Because they certainly didn't come to that conclusion by paying attention to what the vast majority of people who do read (and generate) the primary literature say.
quote:The scientists may not be entirely agenda driven, but the impression that there is a consensus of agreement in the field has been created by those with an agenda.
That's so counter-factual one hardly knows what to say. There is a consensus. You can count on one hand the number of scientists within those field who think that global warming is not a problem, and half of them very openly get their paycheckes from oil and energy industires.
quote:Kinda like evolution, though that has had a lot more time to take hold.
Oh please. You yourself promised to defend your own arguments against evolution. And you chose to break your promise rather than do so. You know that you can't defend them.
Can you name, say, 1 evolution denier with a degree in evolutionary biology? Or 3 with any degree in biology at all?
Do you doubt that for every name you were to give, I could give 20?
(Whether I cold give 20 Steves would be a bit more of a challange)
In what other categories would you think that >95% agreement fails to constitute a consensus?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?"
That's a tu quoque. I never said that.
Plain-spoken arguments are good because you shouldn't expect people to get behind policy decisions based upon theories which we are told we're too stupid or uneducated to understand. If something is up for debate, and one side can be explained in very simple basic terms, and the other side depends on convincing everyone that there is no more room for debate (in an attempt to quell dissenting opinions), well that seems a little fishy to me.
And as for your challenge, why does someone need a degree in evolutionary biology to be able to make arguments against it? How about for it? If that were the case, pretty much only believers in the theory would be allowed to talk about it. Oh wait, that does seem to be the case.
No, how about degrees in biochemistry, mathematics, information theory, astronomy, or philosophy? You seem to be saying those people are not qualified to speak on the subject. In essence, you are trying to say that I'm not qualified to speak, or really to even think. I should just shut up and be spoon-fed everything from the origins of the human species and life itself to our future. Well that may work for you, but I'm not so easily controlled. And I'm not going to engage in a debate in which the rules are set up so that my side is guaranteed to lose. My starting premises are deemed inadmissible by those I'm debating. That's not fair and you know it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think all the things stated in this thread could be rightly said if we were in Mr. Card's living room.
In fairness, I don't think Card would say half of what he says in his articles if we were in his living room, either.
------
quote:Taking the trust we place in experts with things like DNA evidence and particle physics (string-theory and inflation theory notwithstanding) and comparing it to trusting the "Global Warming" experts is the fallacy of Weak Analogy, for two reasons. One: there are dissenting voices from experts in the field with very plain-spoken arguments. Two: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.
The irony here is that there are dissenting voices for both DNA evidence and particle physics, many of whom have considerably more than "plain-spoken" arguments. And many of those arguments are backed by political agendas.
quote:Plain-spoken arguments are good because you shouldn't expect people to get behind policy decisions based upon theories which we are told we're too stupid or uneducated to understand. If something is up for debate, and one side can be explained in very simple basic terms, and the other side depends on convincing everyone that there is no more room for debate (in an attempt to quell dissenting opinions), well that seems a little fishy to me.
What if one side can be explained in simple terms -- "God did it" -- and the other side requires an understanding of molecular biology?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if Galileo thought the Catholic Church's treatment of him seemed a little fishy? I mean, their arguments were very convincing (in that George Orwell 1984 "we beat you until you break" kind of way)...but I don't think physical coercion is necessarily as convincing as actual observation of the Universe. The church prelates wouldn't even look through Galileo's telescope. I don't have any problem with simple arguments. However, I'm thinking Galileo will be a hero for many more people than his captors, in the future.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Of course attempts have been made to make Global Warming unfalsifiable, like evolution, and with basically the same tactic (using extremely long time frames to prevent testability.)
I read a silly claim like that on conservapedia and I think it stems from a misunderstanding of what "testing" means. Testing just means checking that the theory corresponds with the data. Find a giraffe fossil that dates to the pre-cambrian age and you've blown evolutionary theory out of the water. I'm sure you can think of other examples.
Unfortunately for you, and other creationists, evolutionary theory is difficult to falsify because of the mountain of evidence supporting it. If you truely wanted to falsify it then you have to find multiple violations of it. Since the core of evolutionary theory has held up so well to existing evidence, an isolated violation is likely to be due to corrupt data. The same basic principle is true in other fields as well. For example, lets look at modern day theories of motion. These theories have been tested so extensively that true anomalies will be extremely rare and probably difficult to reproduce (like finding a giraffe in the pre-cambrian era). One would need an extensive collection of these anomalies for them to be taken seriously (just like one would need more than one fossil to falsify evolutionary theory).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you name, say, 1 evolution denier with a degree in evolutionary biology? Or 3 with any degree in biology at all?
Do you doubt that for every name you were to give, I could give 20?
(Whether I cold give 20 Steves would be a bit more of a challange)
In what other categories would you think that >95% agreement fails to constitute a consensus?
I'd be willing to be that at least 95% of people with degrees from Divinity School believe in the existence of God. Does that mean the consensus of experts accepts the existence of God, and that therefore we should follow their lead? I think there is a hole in this sort of reasoning...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd be willing to be that at least 95% of people with degrees from Divinity School believe in the existence of God. Does that mean the consensus of experts accepts the existence of God,
There are no experts when it comes to that particular question. Having a degree from a Divinity school doesn't make you any more qualified to have an opinion than anyone else.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone with a degree from a Divinity school I would like to say that I agree with Xavier on that. It does, however make me an expert in what people historically have believed about God. If you want to know what the difference is between Presbyterian and Catholic theology of grace you would be foolish not to take the opinion of a person with a divinity degree with more weight. If you want to know the various ways the parable of the prodigal son has been interpreted in the last 1500 years -- the degree is a good sign that the person with it might know more than the average bear.
If the question is whether or not God exists, the degree provides no special insight.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fairness, I don't think Card would say half of what he says in his articles if we were in his living room, either. [Wink]
Granted, but if he did, and we didn't like it, the correct response would not be to respond in kind.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I read the article. Swiping at foul strawmen of "the Leftist elite" and the "Leftaliban" and the 'environmentalist terrorists.' Calling the IPCC a "roomful of monkeys." I guess his reaction to the continued legitimization of anthropogenic global warming was to become angry and wastefully petty and put on a show of bald rhetoric.
So, you know, whatever. It doesn't look much like anything worth taking seriously.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Granted, but if he did, and we didn't like it, the correct response would not be to respond in kind.
If OSC talked like that in his living room that we were all in in real life, most of us would leave. Heck, if he was on this forum often and his behavior was consistent with how he has behaved here in the past or in his essays, I'm pretty sure that Hatrack would empty out pretty quickly.
This forum is alive in the form that it is in part because OSC, outside of his books, touches very lightly on it. If he started treating it like his living room, I think it would kill the parts of Hatrack I value.
That being said, I've come to try to avoid addressing OSC's articles unless someone else brings them up. I think he intends them to be destructive and I don't want the destructiveness he pushes to be introduced here. Honestly, I think the only real thing we can do within the framework of this site is to generally pretend that his columns don't exist.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If OSC talked like that in his living room that we were all in in real life, most of us would leave.
It depends. If you, Squicky, behaved in real life like you behave on this forum, I'd very happily back Scott up in his aggressive responses toward you.
I note that you have not been banned yet-- and yet people accuse Scott of not being tolerant.
quote:This forum is alive in the form that it is in part because OSC, outside of his books, touches very lightly on it.
So you agree with the Cards' estimation from a couple years ago-- that they really are not welcome in their own forum? And that you're the one being not welcoming?
quote:If he started treating it like his living room, I think it would kill the parts of Hatrack I value.
What are you talking about? You can engage in insipid blame contests with kat and Dagonee as much as you want, even with Scott around.
Or wait-- if Scott starts posting again, would you leave? I'm not generally a supporter of the Farewell thread, but I could get behind yours with gusto.
quote:I think he intends them to be destructive and I don't want the destructiveness he pushes to be introduced here. Honestly, I think the only real thing we can do within the framework of this site is to generally pretend that his columns don't exist.
Funny. This is how I generally feel about you.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
