|
|
Bull Trout
Yuji Sakuma wrote:
Hi Wolfgang, The Darwinism metaphor might have been inappropriate but I used it from the angle that natural selection might be leading toward a result that only those who thrive in the insults, bad language, politics, etc. in this newsgroup will remain standing. Everyone else will be driven out. Which is exactly what you are saying ought to happen because it's a democracy. Maybe so, but this could end up with the newgroup being co-opted by a handful of people instead being supported by a potentially large number of fly fishermen with a wide spectrum of interests and attitudes who might interact and enjoy the newsgroup. ... It does absolutely no good at all to complain about the decorum of an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup. All the folderol about this newsgroup being populated with scores of intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable fly fisherman who would write prolifically and sweetly on all things fly fishing if only the malcontents would play nice is nothing but dry humping the ****ing keyboard by clueless newbies and old-timey pricks. You want sweetness and nice, start your own damn forum. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Bull Trout
"Willi" wrote For example, it seems to me that if it is OK for someone to be called an "asshole", it's also OK for that person to complain about it. i have your back on that one, willi. so, forty can sleep well, tonight. yfitons wayno (no, i am *not* sure that that's what i meant...) |
Bull Trout
Wayne Harrison wrote:
i have your back on that one, willi. so, forty can sleep well, tonight. Bless your heart. That was so nice I'm gonna give you something you're sure to enjoy. If swatting flies shut down Little Wayno's Outfitters and T-Shirt Emporium (we never close) for a day, THIS should keep you glued to the computer for weeks ! http://www.corporateradiosucksass.co...hypnotize.html ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
Bull Trout
|
Bull Trout
"Willi" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: Engaging in insult and invective puts one in the company of (if not necessarily on a par with) the likes of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Swift, Clemens, Wilde, Shaw, Mencken, and innumerable lesser luminaries, and that's just the ones who wrote in English. ****! You must be VERY special. None of those guys ever insulted me. I think some of them bear closer reading. Maybe it is just Darwinism in play. That metaphor has long been stretched way past the breaking point. No one has to participate here. Darwin had nothing to say about such a world. I disagree with your comment about wording, I don't think the discussions would be any less lively if people were nice to each other because I think more people would participate and more ideas would come forth. There are plenty of moderated fishing fora on the web. How do they compare? More to the point, if they are better why would anyone interested only in talk of fishing even WANT to be here? That one too "has long been stretched way past the breaking point". If someone complains about personal attacks, the lack of fishing related talk or some of the other behavior on ROFF, the assumption is immediately made that the person ONLY wants to talk about fishing. That MAY be true but maybe that person is just commenting about some things he doesn't like. For example, it seems to me that if it is OK for someone to be called an "asshole", it's also OK for that person to complain about it. O.K. Wolfgang |
Bull Trout
Yuji Sakuma wrote: The problem is that the vicious attacks that regularly fly back and forth in this newsgroup are almost certainly of zero interest to anybody except the protagonists. "vicious" isn't a word that i would use to describe anything written in this newsgroup. "vicious" is mike tyson biting off evander's ear, or someone clubbing a small white seal into a blood red smile - it sure isn't fortenberry or me or anyone else typing some numb words to be read in the sterile comfort of this medium. though i know as well as most that words do matter, if anyone allows this place to elevate their blood pressure or indignation, imo, they haven't suffered sufficiently or they haven't experienced the genuine daily terrors life offers up. by comparison, the exchanges in this newsgroup are vaudeville. "protagonists" may abound elsewhere, but here i find only typists of varying skills in developing or creating or stifling the reader's interest. i doubt there is "zero" interest in the exchanges among writers here, because, from my observation, everyone is interested in the writings - if only to express disgust or disinterest. i'm as guilty as anyone. still, it's the expressed reaction of the reader that distinguishes the interest; yet the reaction always betrays the interest. Unfortunately, it is not possible to know from a header what is contained in a post without actually opening it and reading it; kinda like the way i feel when i wade into a mountain trout stream... it's incredible, aint it? otherwise I for one, would not waste my time opening many posts to this newsgroup. ah, but you'd miss much of the great mystery by failing to venture forth, wouldn't you? ...not to mention the enchantment of discovering the pearl in the midst of the swine herd... The intemperate nature of contributions in recent times may have discouraged new people from participating. Who wants to be insulted by someone who doesn't even know them? It happened to me. the timid often miss the incomparable thrill of intemperate nature. sometimes, that which appears intemperate is simply uncontrolled brilliance worth the scarring experience. the person i consider my truest and most-honest friend is also my most-brutal, intemperate critic. i'd be a poorer human if i had chosen not to "open his post" or consider his "contributions". And as others have noted, the preponderance of off-topic posts may have caused many who used to post to give up. I was actually beginning to wonder if OT should be re-defined as "On Topic" and reserved for posts about flyfishing because sometimes there seem to be far fewer of them than off-topic posts. This would minimize wasted time for the (probable) majority not interested in reading about American politics in a flyfishing forum and who are innocently looking for talk about fishing. However, judging from recent posts, the worst of it seems to have passed. Another observation is that the number posters seems to be shrinking to a smaller and smaller core group- something is happening and I don't think it is good. Maybe it is just Darwinism in play. I disagree with your comment about wording, I don't think the discussions would be any less lively if people were nice to each other because I think more people would participate and more ideas would come forth. perhaps... but, i'd find it boring. that you hold a different view is an example of what intrigues and keeps me here... plus, i've enjoyed meeting and learning stuff (good and not so good) from many of the off-topic posters... even the republicans. g jeff (ok, i agree...turgid, maudlin, and full of bombay saphire) Beat regards, Yuji Sakuma |
Bull Trout
Willi wrote: Wolfgang wrote: Engaging in insult and invective puts one in the company of (if not necessarily on a par with) the likes of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Swift, Clemens, Wilde, Shaw, Mencken, and innumerable lesser luminaries, and that's just the ones who wrote in English. ****! You must be VERY special. None of those guys ever insulted me. perhaps you weren't reading carefully enough...eh? they sure insulted me... but so did henry miller, zora neale thurston, roy blount, james baldwin, kinky friedman, bill bryson, john irving, charles portis, a.a. milne, harry middleton, and every other writer i've ever read. i'm grateful for it, too. For example, it seems to me that if it is OK for someone to be called an "asshole", it's also OK for that person to complain about it. perfectly appropriate... who could doubt it? jeff |
Bull Trout
"Chas Wade" wrote in message news:m8aWb.220748$nt4.1040125@attbi_s51... "Danl" wrote: Billions and billions (pardon me, CS) of dollars are spent every year trying to expand the knowledge base. There exists a vast number of people whose jobs are to create new technology to replace the old. I don't perceive any parrallel to these endeavors within the society-controlling orthodox religions. In fact, it's quite the opposite. They fight for the status quo, stability, and are anti progress, just ask Gallaleo and Darwin. Hm.....it may be worthwhile to keep in mind that Galileo had powerful friends and allies in the Church, not only before his troubles, but also during and after. It is a mistake to assume that the official position espoused by an institution is necessarily shared by all of its members. Galileo was as much, and possibly more, a victim of political intrigues and infighting as any theological dogma. Moreover, the Catholic Church, for all its very real faults (not the least of which is a sometimes virulent and always schizophrenic institutional anti-intellectualism) has, since the middle ages, harbored a great many seminal thinkers and was, for centuries, pretty much the sole repository for scholarship in Europe. It was also instrumental in establishing and maintaining many of the great universities. The well know traditional antipathy between religion and science is largely a fiction.....one that has been dealt with admirably by a number of writers. In fact, that antipathy is greater today than it ever has been in the past, and this is largely a result of the burgeoning (mostly in the last century) of crackpot fundamentalist sects. Darwin was a religious man himself. If memory serves, he was headed toward the clergy as a young man. He also had many friends and supporters among the clergy. I'm not sure what sort of official status evolutionary theory has within most mainstream Western religious denominations today, but I get the impression that, by and large, they don't have much of a problem with it. Wolfgang |
Bull Trout
On 2004-02-10 20:00:43 -0700, "Wolfgang" said:
Hm.....it may be worthwhile to keep in mind that Galileo had powerful friends and allies in the Church, not only before his troubles, but also during and after. Unfortunately for Galileo, those weren't the folks who showed him the torture instruments. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! :-) Darwin was a religious man himself. No sane interpretation of Darwin's life could conclude he didn't die an atheist. IMO, of course. If memory serves, he was headed toward the clergy as a young man. That's right, but he made his escape on the Beagle. He also had many friends and supporters among the clergy. Closet atheists. I'm not sure what sort of official status evolutionary theory has within most mainstream Western religious denominations today, but I get the impression that, by and large, they don't have much of a problem with it. Gag. Aren't you even aware of continuing attempts to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, or do you not consider Baptists to be mainstream? ----------------------------------------------------- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter