posted
Scott- OSC has been deliberately insulting towards everyone on the left since the first political column he wrote in 2000. His columns are not *responses* to attacks on him, they are attacks that have provoked hostile responses towards him.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
They, as people, are completely welcome. I don't think most people here have a problem with anyone posting here or with people with certain beliefs from posting here.
However, there are standards of behavior, both explicit and implicit, and ways of conversing with people and using language that go into making Hatrack what it is. OSC, in his essays, and to some extent in his past behavior here does not follow these standards.
If he did, I'd be very welcoming. As it is, I think his interactions would be similar in character to your last post, which would be very detrimental to the forum.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to time-out this thread, because I think I need to read the whole thing before I comment, and I don't have the time now because I need to go back to the hospital soon. You should probably expect me to get back to it late this afternoon assuming all continues to go as planned with the family.
--PJ
Follow-up, a bit later than I expected. While I certainly don't agree with everything that has been said, neither do I disagree with it. However, agreeing or disagreeing isn't really what's at issue.
Yes, some people are being pretty pointed in their responses to OSC's essay -- I haven't read the essay, but it sounds like he's saying some pretty pointed things there as well. I don't think anything said about that have crossed the TOS line, though I personally don't think this forum is the best place for all of the various types of criticisms involved.
I'd rather folks powered down a bit, and perhaps self-edited a bit more. If things don't continue to escalate in tone, I'll allow people to respond to various comments (and their propriety) on their own. I'd really like not to have to do anything else with this thread.
quote:As it is, I think his interactions would be similar in character to your last post, which would be very detrimental to the forum.
What's wonderfully ironic about this situation is that you can keep badmouthing OSC with personal little digs like this, and he can't (really-- won't) do anything to stop you. For all that you, Squicky, go on and on about how detrimental his influence would be (nice trick), his attitude toward the value of this forum is the only thing keeping it alive.
The evidence-- at a minimum, the Card's continuing operation of this board-- is enough for most of us to see the ludicrousness of your position.
I think OSC appreciates the irony of being deemed a detriment to the community he sustains.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think OSC appreciates the irony of being deemed a detriment to the community he sustains."
Scott, I know you're just backing up Orson, your bro, your hearth brother, your framling, your fellow churchman, etc.. I know this isn't personal. However, if you were, in fact, a giant dick, and your tone was, in fact, totally different, would it be ironic that you regularly participate at Sake? I'm not saying that it is, I'm asking you.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I believe that what I'm saying is true. It has nothing to do with a clique-- whether that Mormonism, or sakeriver, or science fiction writers, it doesn't matter.
[ November 03, 2007, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, not accusing you of an off tone. I guess what I'm asking is, what is your tone? Sake would be a very different place if Mormons like yourself hadn't specifically asked for certain considerations. People are happy to provide those. I guess what I'm asking is, can similar considerations be asked for here? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not saying it's equivalent, merely bringing up the issue for discussion, and perhaps partially thinking out loud.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You benefit from those considerations, whether or not you specifically asked for them. Again, not accusing you of anything. I'm talking about keeping the open, frank discussion of certain subjects to certain thread(s)? You know, the sex thread and the drunk thread?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we do have those luncheons every Saturday. I think that most of us non-Mormons would enjoy a change in the meat selection at those, but we know that you specifically asked for toddler flesh, and we've tried to keep you happy.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, what in the world are you driving at?
I'm all for thread drift, but I'm not sure what this discussion has to do with what I've said to Squicky.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm expecting all of your support when my peace prize comes for seeing the asteroid impact threat years in advance and promoting the cause, okay? And for the whole Averting Human Extinction push.
I'm completely serious.
Though I really want to win the literature one, or econ or physics would be cool, too. I'll settle for peace. Yes, totally, I won't reject peace. I want to let the committee know that.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if we're going to have considerations for social conservatives there, perhaps we could have considerations for social liberals here, perhaps in the form of a certain thread or threads where Orson's columns are discussed.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, not accusing you of an off tone. I guess what I'm asking is, what is your tone? Sake would be a very different place if Mormons like yourself hadn't specifically asked for certain considerations. People are happy to provide those. I guess what I'm asking is, can similar considerations be asked for here? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not saying it's equivalent, merely bringing up the issue for discussion, and perhaps partially thinking out loud.
I am deeply skeptical as to the amount of any knowledge you might have as to what considerations Mormons get on Sakeriver, steven.
quote:Well, if we're going to have considerations for social conservatives there, perhaps we could have considerations for social liberals here, perhaps in the form of a certain thread or threads where Orson's columns are discussed.
What considerations are given there, exactly?
And given the general forum-wide reaction to most of OSC's political columns (overall either apathy or strong criticism and frequent outright contempt), I'd say that the man who's paying for it really is offering some substantial considerations.
Hell, I don't think for a second that you would be as considerate.
------------
quote:OSC, in his essays, and to some extent in his past behavior here does not follow these standards.
You and he have something in common then, it would appear: no matter the number and quality of people criticizing the tone of your criticisms, you do not stop and do not feel unjustified in making them.
Just something to think about for the inevitable next time a thread turns into a kat-squicky pissing match.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but...I've been reading that site regularly for a loooong time, at least 1.5 years. I read most of the posts there, outside of maybe the knitting thread , and read absolutely everything in the hatrack gossip, sex thread, Karl's thread, and quite a few of the others.
More to the point, I've seen it happen several times that people have voluntarily, either before being asked, or afterwards, moved a discussion to the appropriate thread. I've also seen people express the desire to move the discussion outside that thread, but then choose not to. I'm just throwing that out there. This isn't accusing you of anything specifically. I'm suggesting an idea, perhaps.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Hell, I don't think for a second that you would be as considerate."
It depends. If I had my own site, I'd probably squash nutritional discussions that I didn't like. Social conservatism, I'm noticeably more forgiving toward.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, Hatrack and sake are different places. They work differently, and have different rules, and serve different purposes. You can't extrapolate behavior from one to the other in the manner you're trying to do, even if your observations about sake were valid, which I'm not willing to grant.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:More to the point, I've seen it happen several times that people have voluntarily, either before being asked, or afterwards, moved a discussion to the appropriate thread.
Well, first off let's just drop all this "not accusing you of..." nonsense. Clearly you're not happy with the status quo over there, and equally clearly you blame Mormons in large part for that status quo.
Second, I find it unsurprising that you consider people being politely asked to move sexually graphic discussions to the thread specifically designated for those discussions to be 'pandering'. You must not be very much into communities of any sort if any consideration of certain groups or sensibilities is 'pandering' (except when it's yours, of course)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
In specific, I was suggesting that we have one or more threads devoted to discussing OSC's columns, just like on Ornery there's an entire sub-forum for Orson's World Watch columns.
Again, just suggesting.
However, ElJay, I'd like to hear more about your point re: the differences between Hatrack and sake. I admit to not having thought all this through. I'm just thinking out loud.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing more to hear. They are different places. The way things work are not the same, and you cannot reasonably expect them to be. If they were, there would be no point in participating in both of them.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And your point is?...Like I said, it's already mirrored on Ornery, and I'm just throwing ideas out there. I don't know you nearly well enough to guess what your point is. Blame that on my failings, but at least give me some hint. I consider the two sites to be part of one continuum. Also, I consider Hatrack to be a semi-permanent place, it might last another 40 years or more. I doubt it'll outlive OSC, but it might, in some changed, smaller form.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I wasn't talking about Ornery. Ornery is another site owned by OSC, and as such there you might have a point. sake is not owned by OSC, and is not part of the OSC family of sites.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm flying mostly blind here....I haven't seen any other situations where a site owner has 3 or 4 or more different sites, and then one of them gives birth to another site that he doesn't own and isn't affiliated with. I've seen sites give birth to others, but never this exact type of situation. Help. Anyone.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any case, Squicky and I weren't discussing the tone of OSC's columns. We were discussing (or rather, arguing about) the effect of OSC's posts on this forum.
Do you see the difference, steven?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just throwing out an idea, Scott, and not one that I had previously considered. The whole thing was off the cuff, and I was pretty sleepy when I started. There's less forethought that you think. To be honest, my reading of the middle third of the thread was less than complete, and I missed the whole "Squicky versus Scott" debate on OSC's level of participation here. You know? Cut a brother some slack, I was barely awake when I came back to this thread today.
Edit--dude, you were both being unnecessarily nasty there. I do think Orson would change the forum tremendously if he started weighing in on topics more regularly. As to whether it would become more teh suck, or less....we all know that's mostly a matter of perspective. If Scott confined his comments to fiction, movies, etc., it would be almost a universal good....but for better or for worse, that ship has probably sailed. He couldn't stay off politics/Clinton/Bush/etc., I think, although maybe I'm wrong.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my part, I'd like to see OSC interact with the forum more often and more deeply. But I'm not going to expect or demand that of him; it's nothing we're entitled to.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm very confused too. Is there an actual debate about the appropriateness of OSC using his Website to talk about how he feels about political issues? If not, then never mind.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm very confused too. Is there an actual debate about the appropriateness of OSC using his Website to talk about how he feels about political issues? If not, then never mind.
Wow, you deliberately misunderstand things to make your arguments valid even when you're not going to make them?
------------
Thinking that they are unique among all other people in, for example, their access to reality.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm very confused too. Is there an actual debate about the appropriateness of OSC using his Website to talk about how he feels about political issues? If not, then never mind.
Wow, you deliberately misunderstand things to make your arguments valid even when you're not going to make them?
What the hell are you talking about?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember people talking about whether or not it would be appropriate for OSC to use his website to discuss his views. In fact, I can't remember anyone ever seriously suggesting it wasn't appropriate for him to do so.
I remember a lot of discussion about whether or not his views are courteous, fair, or reasonable, though. And that's a very different thing. So different that I have serious doubts as to whether or not you really misunderstood the difference.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'm flying mostly blind here....I haven't seen any other situations where a site owner has 3 or 4 or more different sites, and then one of them gives birth to another site that he doesn't own and isn't affiliated with. I've seen sites give birth to others, but never this exact type of situation. Help. Anyone.
I haven't read ANYTHING on page 1 and nothing prior to Papa's involvement on page 2. So I have no idea what the actual thread was about. But with regard to this particular post:
I am involved in two other boards, one of which was a spin-off from the other. The parent board is a cross stitch forum started by a designer (or a friend/family member/fan, perhaps) and the designer does absolutely participate in the discussions. The VAST majority of topics are about her designs. There are some non-TW threads but not many. About 3 years ago, TW expressed a dislike for the non-stitching threads that had been taking place, and The Wagon was formed by one of the members of the parent board - not by TW or whoever started the original board - to answer that request. A good portion of the population is the same, and we often have threads that are posted to both locations. But all of the "gossip" type threads, whether it be personal stuff, news, politics, planning social events, etc., goes only to The Wagon.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen that happen with qi gong forums, too. This situation is unique, though...Orson has at least 4 sites that I know of, and there's 1 active spinoff, maybe 3 semi-active ones, to varying degrees, and then a smattering of half-efforts...it's probably not totally unique, but ...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
"We were discussing (or rather, arguing about) the effect of OSC's posts on this forum."
"If Scott confined his comments to fiction, movies, etc., it would be almost a universal good....but for better or for worse, that ship has probably sailed. He couldn't stay off politics/Clinton/Bush/etc., I think, although maybe I'm wrong."
Those were the relevant comments. I really was confused, and these late posts seemed to sum up what had passed. If you can't conceive of how I may have arrived at my tenuous conclusion, why must you apply malicious motives to my misunderstanding? Is it because you are evil and hateful?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Don't mention that to him.
Short of him reading this specific subject, I wouldn't; I don't think he will. Because I rather suspect it would be about as effective in convincing him to alter his methods as his editorial is in convincing me of the wrong of those who believe in anthropocentric global warming.
However, to clarify: if reason (or what he believes is reason) causes Card to believe that human activity is not the cause of global warming- or that the invasion of Iraq is a good idea that was well implemented and generally successful in its aims, for that matter- I wouldn't expect him to change his mind.
But I would hope he might, possibly, recognize that his editorials have virtually no chance of convincing those he villifies of the error of their ways, and apparently even cause a significant portion of those who might be inclined to agree with some his basic premises to say, "Whoa! Guy? You have issues."
Trying to turn "smart" into a pejorative, and comparing those you disagree with to terrorists, are not the tactics one should use to inspire thought, and they have the side effect of suggesting that the author is not applying thought. There's a time and place for applying heart, but if what turns up in your writing over and over again is bile, you run the danger of wearing out your liver.
I would rejoice to see an editorial that really challenged. The ones I've been reading just seem to lie there, oozing vitriol, their factuality poked full of holes by a couple of simple searches on Google.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is... Card has a certain ethos that causes some people to recognize that what he says merits some consideration, and might possibly even cause one to think, "hey, maybe there isanother way of looking at this besides the way it's portrayed in the media."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, no. When people get to shouting "You're stupid! You're evil! You faked your data! You are a traitor!" in political debate, then they do tend to get a lot of attention, without anyone actually taking them seriously. Much less thinking that they may have good points! Ye gods, this is the opposite of good points!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom: For my part, I'd like to see OSC interact with the forum more often and more deeply. But I'm not going to expect or demand that of him; it's nothing we're entitled to.
Or at least a Colbert version of him.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
My understanding of OSC is that he has commented in the past that he is more interested in encouraging and consolidating the beliefs of people who agree with him -- people and beliefs he finds often to be under attack in the mainstream media -- than any other goal. That is, I don't think it is so much debate that is the point of the columns as rallying.
I happen not to agree with him on many things, this style included, but the rhetorical style did make more sense to me after reading that.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't think it is so much debate that is the point of the columns as rallying."
I have a friend who is about our age who characterizes it as a "Baby Boom" thing. They don't discuss things calmly, almost as a generation. They're either shooting you, yelling at you, or walking away. Not that it's 100% true on an individual level, but, you know, whatever.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
