Notes: solitarily growing, very fragile, turning bluish very rapidly
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.07||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.70||1||(Alan Rockefeller)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
|Could Be||1.0||5.70||1||(Alan Rockefeller)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
because it prevents the thread from dying, but props to Twizzler.
Good ideas, and glad to see a measured, moderate response from both you and Danny.
Let us return to our regularly scheduled program: Mushrooms!
But given that it won’t, I’d like to make a couple of comments.
“I have no deep-seeded, personal grievances with you. I sincerely doubt that anyone here (other than our whistleblower friend accusing you of a long list of ongoing identity crimes which have earned you something of a reputation in the Usenet community) has any deep-seeded, personal grievances with you, I sincerely respect and admire your desire to be a contributing member of the site, but there have been times when your conduct has directly invited the responses you find so reprehensible.”
I don’t agree that I’ve done anything to invite reprehensible responses. (And as for the “Usenet community”, I haven’t touched Usenet in years — too much heat and too little light for my tastes. Someone there is apparently (ab)using my name, or it’s another Paul Derbyshire.)
Certainly the responses I’ve taken issue with have been ones that stooped far lower than I could reasonably be said to have stooped.
But endless recrimination about such things will accomplish nothing good. It is better to just let the past be the past and move on.
“Accusing others of disagreeing with dubious name proposals on the basis of imagined personal biases,”
I disagree with the name proposals at issue were “dubious”. You’re assuming a conclusion there.
“responding to innocuous comments with disproportionately intricate and emotional sermons on the nature of argumentation;”
If you’re referring to the below comment on the logical invalidity of appeals to force and namecalling, I would not consider threatening to give another user a black eye “innocuous” by any stretch, unless the comment was made in jest. (I now suspect that to be the case, but it was far from clear at the time. Even so, others could take it more seriously than it was intended, and since I already did then it seems downright likely that I won’t end up being the only one to ever do so.)
Characterizing other users as “hippies” in a manner clearly intended to discredit them also seems less than fully innocuous. I agree that people primarily seeking information on psychoactive mushrooms are not who this site is meant to cater to, and that they have their own site at shroomery which they’re more than welcome to; and that they could be a distraction.
On the other hand, they aren’t evil, and furthermore dragging left/right politics into a discussion on the internet is a very reliable way to bring a thread, and sometimes a whole forum or site, down in flames.
It also distracts from what I believe to be the real concern, which is that such a user will suggest a risky practice or post dangerously wrong or incomplete information that creates a hazard for the less knowledgeable who might read it. Flaming such a user for being a “hippy” might even validate what they’ve said in some eyes; calmly specifying the error or missing safety information or whatever, without getting personal or political about it, will do far more to mitigate the risks in such cases and avoid the likelihood of the “this is dangerous!” message being lost in a morass of irrelevant noise.
“you draw attention to yourself with this behavior. Deep breaths, friend. Deep breaths.”
The same goes for people bringing politics here, threatening others with black eyes, or posting enormous paranoid screeds that read like one of those manifestos the police find scribbled in blood on all the walls when they raid the $(CITY) $(METHOD_OF_HOMICIDE)’s apartment.
If I were the site operator, I’d probably nuke this obs’s comments to bedrock on the grounds of being largely offtopic and unuseful; as it is, I recommend it just be ignored, though I know it probably won’t be. All of us may have said things in here that weren’t showing our best sides, or that got misconstrued. It’s best to move on. A problem with the Internet and its elephantine memory is that it makes moving on difficult at times…but let’s try.
I watch these discussions but never post here cuz I jus’ wanna learn.
But this comment made me wanna say:
Alan – just cuz you got positive feedback doesn’t mean there wasn’t lots of negative response, too.
“Significant artistic merit” I understand, but its pretty academic for this kind of forum. Next time ur in a intellectual property lawsuit, pull that card out, but for dumass comments on a mushroom site its a little highfalutin’.
‘Top contributor’ to to MO’, give us a frickin’ break… you post lots of ‘okay’ posts with lots of pictures, not tryin’ to hate, some of its really good but people like Jason and those lichen people (kitparish and zaca) and some of the mushroom guys are doing way better stuff and they are lower down on the list. We all now that rating system doesn’t mean too much.
And if ur gonna ask this noah guy to ‘cease and desist’ a harrasment campaign seem like you should ‘cease and desis’ urs against twizzler too. Just sayin.
Thanks for your input. Alan has lost his mind. I resent your implicating me in his recent outrageousness which I had no part in whatsoever. Toad has regained full control of her account and has vowed to prevent drunk (or sober) Alan from future sabotage.
I’m afraid it’s going to be a bit messy to retreat onto moral high ground on the subject of fun poking given your unique and colorful contributions to the (in my opinion, harmless) joke about reconciling mushroom hunting with extreme germaphobia. Chastising others for behavior you deem juvenile and embarrassing while engaging in what could just as well be perceived as juvenile and embarrassing is hypocritical. It’s also juvenile. And embarrassing.
I have no deep-seeded, personal grievances with you. I sincerely doubt that anyone here (other than our whistleblower friend accusing you of a long list of ongoing identity crimes which have earned you something of a reputation in the Usenet community) has any deep-seeded, personal grievances with you, I sincerely respect and admire your desire to be a contributing member of the site, but there have been times when your conduct has directly invited the responses you find so reprehensible. Accusing others of disagreeing with dubious name proposals on the basis of imagined personal biases, responding to innocuous comments with disproportionately intricate and emotional sermons on the nature of argumentation; you draw attention to yourself with this behavior. Deep breaths, friend. Deep breaths.
The moral of this story, and indeed the only line of this comment worth reading, is that all of this evidences the need for a proper forum, complete with side channels to allow for the rants, raves, humor and off-topic discussions which, agreed, have as much tendency to liven as to derail the observation at hand.
Alan and Danny I find your behavior juvenile and embarrassing to the whole MO community.
Alan your post as “Toad” were just disgraceful and despicable, I wish you would stick to Shroomery and leave MO to the people who want to post their finds, learn about mushrooms and not be cyber-bullied by you.
I will be the first to admit that I’m far from perfect, I have had a few run-ins with Paul on this site over ID’s, I got annoyed, he was persistent and I said a few things I shouldn’t have. The whole hazmat suite thing was a bit overboard (I do have them at work,it was a easy picture…) and poor Tim Sage and the roadkill.
CureCat shouldn’t have threatened “Micah Courteau” here, even if she was joking about it.
But to bump and re-bump this observation numerous times to get a rise out of Paul is just sad.
Overall I have absolutely no problem with Paul or his observations. I don’t care that he post everything he sees, or “gets offended” easily. Yes sometimes better judgment can be taken into account when we photograph old/rotten specimens or when we make comments but this is besides the point. The fact that Paul is out there documenting what he sees is good, more people need to be doing this. (I tried to photograph all the stuff I saw today, I failed…)
Please people get back to the mushrooms, enough of this puppet trolling.
Due to the cap shape. But it could be, the pic is not clear enough to be sure.
That’s so mature guys.
hay muchas chicas desnudas aqui.
rather than threats is the effective weapon against error. CureCat’s appeal to force, and your own use of namecalling, are by contrast fallacious arguments. Besides not addressing the real issue, they have the added problem of fostering resentment in their targets, which will lead to them entrenching rather than considering changing their minds on the matter where you believe them to be wrong.
Thus, such methods are not only unpleasant, but also less effective than the alternative.
Someone needs to keep the hippies in line, otherwise they will spout all sorts of mycological bs.
…for threatening fellow users with bodily harm?
There is no way.
Created: 2009-06-19 05:54:10 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2011-07-13 00:07:51 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 492 times, last viewed: 2016-09-02 21:07:37 CDT (-0400)