# The Civil Thread



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

This is an experiment. I want to create a thread where people do not see the need to bicker about every little thing. Theee can be disagreements, certainly, but people who post here need to agree to try to handle disagreements in a civil manner. Any topic is fair game, but we all need to be aware of each otter's hot buttons and try to avoid pressing them if possible. Apologies are acceptable if we do. No out downs or insults please. Civility is the theme. 

Basically, I'm wondering how many posts this thread can go before it gets derailed. 

First topic: communication on an Internet forum can be a complicated affair. 

Have at 'er.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> This is an experiment. I want to create a thread where people do not see the need to bicker about every little thing. Theee can be disagreements, certainly, but people who post here need to agree to try to handle disagreements in a civil manner. Any topic is fair game, but we all need to be aware of each otter's hot buttons and try to avoid pressing them if possible. Apologies are acceptable if we do. No out downs or insults please. Civility is the theme.
> 
> Basically, I'm wondering how many posts this thread can go before it gets derailed.
> 
> ...


A great idea, Frank. Sounds a bit like the Shangri-La Clubhouse thread.

As for your question, I think that what complicates communication on a forum is that some people might take a POV presented by someone personally, and then the discussion is not on the topic, but on the clash of personalities. What helps is that personal relationships develop, and thus, disagreements are accepted gracefully. For example, I consider you a friend, but not because we agree on many areas of discussion. I also consider Sinc and Macfury friends, even though we disagree of certain items. I think it all comes down to personalities.

Paix, mon ami.

(My apologies to the likes of Rp, screature, et al who I also consider friends, but did not include your names.)


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Dr.G. said:


> A great idea, Frank. Sounds a bit like the Shangri-La Clubhouse thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting points, Marc. I think it also becomes a little like family, where you've known someone so long you sometimes take them for granted and say things, insults even, that you would never say to a stranger or someone you haven't known that long. Perhaps, communication often evolves into a sort of shorthand where you assume the other person knows what we're trying to say so why go to all the trouble of explaining it. However, that can also lead to pigeon-holing, which is not a good practice in my experience. Interesting subject.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Interesting points, Marc. I think it also becomes a little like family, where you've known someone so long you sometimes take them for granted and say things, insults even, that you would never say to a stranger or someone you haven't known that long. Perhaps, communication often evolves into a sort of shorthand where you assume the other person knows what we're trying to say so why go to all the trouble of explaining it. However, that can also lead to pigeon-holing, which is not a good practice in my experience. Interesting subject.


Some valid points, Frank. I've made some good friends here in ehMacLand, even though I have never met any of them. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I too have met many great folks here, some of them in person. Many of those are no longer here, but there are some I still see on occasion. Some have been much different that they would appear to be here online than in person. Other were exactly what you would expect from their online postings.

It seems to me that civil behaviour does not include posting referee memes and the like that are insulting to others, so I will not post anything of the sort here in this thread.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> I too have met many great folks here, some of them in person. Many of those are no longer here, but there are some I still see on occasion. Some have been much different that they would appear to be here online than in person. Other were exactly what you would expect from their online postings.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that civil behaviour does not include posting referee memes and the like that are insulting to others, so I will not post anything of the sort here in this thread.



No more insulting than repeatedly referring to someone with whom one doesn't agree as a "snowflake," but point taken. We'll see how long the civility experiment lasts on this thread. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

One thing that seems to lead to vitriol online is the miscommunication arising from one or more readers not "catching" what the writer is trying to say. I see this a lot when somebody writes something that's intended to be sarcastic, but it's taken as the writer's actual opinion by readers. You don't, of course, have the usual things that help clarify somebody's meaning -- facial expressions, ton of voice, gestures. All you've got is a few lines of text.

And unfortunately, so far nobody's come up with a sarcasm font.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

VieleKatzen said:


> And unfortunately, so far nobody's come up with a sarcasm font.


Someone tried (it leans backwards). Hopefully it will gain popularity. I'm not going to say if that last sentence should or should not use the font.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> One thing that seems to lead to vitriol online is the miscommunication arising from one or more readers not "catching" what the writer is trying to say. I see this a lot when somebody writes something that's intended to be sarcastic, but it's taken as the writer's actual opinion by readers. You don't, of course, have the usual things that help clarify somebody's meaning -- facial expressions, ton of voice, gestures. All you've got is a few lines of text.
> 
> 
> 
> And unfortunately, so far nobody's come up with a sarcasm font.



These are very good points to consider, VieleKatzen. Tone contributes a great deal to any message. I try to use the winky for sarcasm/verbal irony, although some might think I was flirting with them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> These are very good points to consider, VieleKatzen. Tone contributes a great deal to any message. I try to use the winky for sarcasm/verbal irony, although some might think I was flirting with them.


You can put your concerns to rest Frank. I have never once thought you to be flirting with me.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> You can put your concerns to rest Frank. I have never once thought you to be flirting with me.



Well then I am relieved, Don. One can never be too careful these days.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Beej said:


> Someone tried (it leans backwards). Hopefully it will gain popularity. I'm not going to say if that last sentence should or should not use the font.



Some see sarcasm as a mean-spirited form of language, but I see it more as witty. I guess it depends on the intent; if I'm trying to poke a friend into laughing with me that's one thing, but if I'm just trying to make someone look stupid or uneducated, then that would be mean. I've always thought that having to spell out that something is sarcastic kind of takes away from its power. It's like starting off by saying,"Here's a good April Fool's Joke."


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> These are very good points to consider, VieleKatzen. Tone contributes a great deal to any message. I try to use the winky for sarcasm/verbal irony, although some might think I was flirting with them.


I will keep that in mind if ever I see the winky directed at me ... 

I've taken to writing /SARCASM/ at the bottom of posts ... just to reduce the possibility of miscommunication.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> I will keep that in mind if ever I see the winky directed at me ...
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken to writing /SARCASM/ at the bottom of posts ... just to reduce the possibility of miscommunication.



We do we have to do in this day and age, don't we!


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Alas, we do ... on my FB page I reposted what I thought was a really funny article about a major political figure that, IMO, was very obviously satire. 

You'll never guess what happened, of course ....

Somebody responded in a towering rage, telling me that it was "fake news" like this "that put us where we are today!" Oh, and they included a link from Snopes just to prove it was fake news. I replied, mostly in ALL CAPS, and decided at that point to take a loonnng break from FB.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Boy. "Fake news." "Alternative Facts." If the waters weren't already muddy before, they sure are now. And when you have the literalists and those with a fondness for, say, the rhetoric of language, all operating in the same communication sphere, it can become confusing indeed. As a teacher, I'm trying to get students to understand the intent behind a writer's choice of words, and what "theme" really means. Jonathan Swift didn't really mean for parents to eat their children as a solution both to the food shortage and overpopulation in "A Modest Proposal" but it freaked enough people out that he would even suggest a thing. Communication with intent truly is an art. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Good on you, I hope you're getting through! It's true that now more than ever people need to learn to _think_, especially when it comes to social sites like FB. You either learn to be _very_ skeptical, _very_ fast, or you fall ass-over-teakettle down the rabbit hole.

I used to be a reporter, so I should be wary of stuff that just crops up on the internet, and I usually am ... the operative word being "usually". I've been taken to task a couple of times by former coworkers (who are still in the business) for not checking something before I forwarded it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Boy. "Fake news." "Alternative Facts." If the waters weren't already muddy before, they sure are now. And when you have the literalists and those with a fondness for, say, the rhetoric of language, all operating in the same communication sphere, it can become confusing indeed. As a teacher, I'm trying to get students to understand the intent behind a writer's choice of words, and what "theme" really means. Jonathan Swift didn't really mean for parents to eat their children as a solution both to the food shortage and overpopulation in "A Modest Proposal" but it freaked enough people out that he would even suggest a thing. *Communication with intent truly is an art.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think most communication has intent, whether it be to simply inform/educate, provocate, entertain, make us laugh or think or feel, propaganda, etc. The only form of communication that has no *direct* intent is the use of non sequitur. I think in the writers mind they probably mean to provoke but in an abstract way, not directly. Or simply be the spring board for another unrelated idea or thought in the readers mind. Sort of like "stream of consciousness".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VieleKatzen said:


> I've been taken to task a couple of times by former coworkers (who are still in the business) for not checking something before I forwarded it.


I check news reports regularly to make sure that anything I post here is at least triangulated in some way. Often when I check a news story I find hundreds of links parroting exactly the same article word for word--and often those words are wrong.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I check news reports regularly to make sure that anything I post here is at least triangulated in some way. Often when I check a news story I find hundreds of links parroting exactly the same article word for word--and often those words are wrong.


Exactly. In this day and age "fact checking" has indeed become a somewhat arduous task, simply due to the the plethora of commentary and "reports" on basically anything you can think about. Drilling down through the pile of online communication dung takes work if you are going to speak in an educated manner on almost any topic.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> I think most communication has intent, whether it be to simply inform/educate, provocate, entertain, make us laugh or think or feel, propaganda, etc. The only form of communication that has no *direct* intent is the use of non sequitur. I think in the writers mind they probably mean to provoke but in an abstract way, not directly. Or simply be the spring board for another unrelated idea or thought in the readers mind. Sort of like "stream of consciousness".



I would agree to that. Sometimes the NS is another way of communicating "I'd like to change the subject."

And now for something completely different...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I would agree to that. Sometimes the NS is another way of communicating "I'd like to change the subject."
> 
> And now for something completely different...


Yes exactly it can work like that. As such it can be very useful in "steam of consciousness" writing where the author wants to break from a line of thought with not having to explain the reasons why and move on to something else that is in his or her mind and keep the flow going.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> I check news reports regularly to make sure that anything I post here is at least triangulated in some way. Often when I check a news story I find hundreds of links parroting exactly the same article word for word--and often those words are wrong.


That is the biggest problem today, IMO. I can't answer for other countries, but here in Canada editorial departments have been slashed to the bone and then some, because "editorial doesn't make money, it takes money." Yet the same people who say that wonder why subscriptions are dropping ... because the paper in City 'A' is a mirror image of the paper in City 'B' and City 'C' and so on ... because news services are cheaper than actual people. So if there's an error in a story put out by the news service, it goes out to every medium that uses that service.

Okay, rant over.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

screature said:


> Exactly. In this day and age "fact checking" has indeed become a somewhat arduous task, simply due to the the plethora of commentary and "reports" on basically anything you can think about. Drilling down through the pile of online communication dung takes work if you are going to speak in an educated manner on almost any topic.


And there are fewer and fewer people doing any fact checking on most of the sites that put out news, unfortunately.

It gets to the point where a lot of people simply throw up their hands and give up, because it's becoming increasingly difficult to determine which source is trustworthy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

VieleKatzen said:


> That is the biggest problem today, IMO. I can't answer for other countries, but here in Canada editorial departments have been slashed to the bone and then some, because "editorial doesn't make money, it takes money." Yet the same people who say that wonder why subscriptions are dropping ... because the paper in City 'A' is a mirror image of the paper in City 'B' and City 'C' and so on ... because news services are cheaper than actual people. *So if there's an error in a story put out by the news service, it goes out to every medium that uses that service.*
> 
> Okay, rant over.


Yes I agree. 

Not too long ago I left a voice mail message to one of the CBC News producers regarding a report from the CBC to correct an inaccurate news broadcast saying that the Gomery Report brought done the Chretien government as reported by Lawrence Wall ( a guy who has been around long enough to know better). 

Gomery brought down Martin's government, Chretien was out at that time because he wanted to be out so that "his good name" would not be tarnished. He new what was coming and he was all too willing to let Martin take the fall instead of him. He completely out played Martin.

So all that said I listened to every CBC1 newscast after that and then finally they had Lawrence Wall, not admit inaccuracy, but just add something like "the Gomery report brought down the Martin Government based on the actions of the Chretien government"

I am actually paraphrasing more accurately than what was said. So if you know where to go to complain about factual inaccuracies it can be done with some success, they certainly don't make it easy, but it can be done. 

Just an anecdotal aside.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I love CBC radio for the most part. But one of the things that pisses me off about them and the National is that they keep referring to Ontario as being Canada's largest province.

IT IS NOT!!!

Quebec is Canada's largest province, Ontario is Canada's most populated province. Period.

If you are going to be in the journalism business at the level of the CBC you should get your facts straight!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_area


















Canada by population.









Now if I was a conspiracy sort of thinking man, I would think that was the English speaking CBC trying to push down Quebec, and truth be told it happens all the time so I kind of do think that.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> Yes I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I usually read the comments sections of articles today to see if I can find "the rest of the story." They have proliferated greatly with the movement of news online rather than in print or broadcast forum, but so has the corresponding proliferation of misinformation. It's almost a case of "pick which world you'd like to live in" and then use your own confirmation bias to reinforce what you already believe to be the truth.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

screature said:


> In this day and age "fact checking" has indeed become a somewhat arduous task


I agree with this but add a question:
Was this task required before, and did we not bother to try? 

By that I mean that confirmation bias is clearly a problem in the news media people select, but were we just comfortable with it in the past due to more uniformity? I'm not sure but, for now, the problem is quite obvious.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I usually read the comments sections of articles today to see if I can find "the rest of the story." They have proliferated greatly with the movement of news online rather than in print or broadcast forum, but so has the corresponding proliferation of misinformation. It's almost a case of "pick which world you'd like to live in" and then use your own confirmation bias to reinforce what you already believe to be the truth.


Have you noticed the increase in the number of sites that are going back to moderated comments, due to (ironically, given the name of this thread) the spike in vitriol in online comments?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> I agree with this but add a question:
> Was this task required before, and did we not bother to try?
> 
> By that I mean that confirmation bias is clearly a problem in the news media people select, but were we just comfortable with it in the past due to more uniformity? I'm not sure but, for now, the problem is quite obvious.


Some publications still require an independent fact checker. Someone independent who will check with the interview sources to make sure they actually said something, etc. However, much of the news today isn't even edited--it just goes straight from the reporter's computer to the page. A sober second look would go a long way to helping.

Lately I've seen a lot of reporting that is just one news source building on the accusations of another. Thus we have a "Trump-Russia" narrative based on no evidence at all. Each report adds some innuendo to the report of the last until you have a story almost entirely supported by news reports--but no facts.

I would also say that there is a huge lack of general knowledge among reporters. For example, they'll talk about a precipitous rise in ocean levels as though this is common knowledge--when it isn't even true.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Some publications still require an independent fact checker. Someone independent who will check with the interview sources to make sure they actually said something, etc. However, much of the news today isn't even edited--it just goes straight from the reporter's computer to the page. A sober second look would go a long way to helping.
> 
> Lately I've seen a lot of reporting that is just one news source building on the accusations of another. Thus we have a "Trump-Russia" narrative based on no evidence at all. Each report adds some innuendo to the report of the last until you have a story almost entirely supported by news reports--but no facts.
> 
> I would also say that there is a huge lack of general knowledge among reporters. For example, they'll talk about a precipitous rise in ocean levels as though this is common knowledge--when it isn't even true.


Interesting. They need to question basic assumptions. An easy example is why is fascism correctly approached as horrible, but marxism is ignored as an eccentricity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Interesting. They need to question basic assumptions. An easy example is why is fascism correctly approached as horrible, but marxism is ignored as an eccentricity.


Agreed. People often publish ridiculous lists of what constitutes fascism or Nazi-ism, but creeping Marxism--cultural or otherwise--goes unnoticed.

Similarly, reporting on the situation in Venezuela seems to ignore the fact that Chavez was able to fully implement a socialist agenda in his country. The good news story of how his people were so happy with the benefits of the system seemed very widely published a few years ago. Now that the same policies have the country on its knees, the news reports seem to be reduced to sketchy tales of shortages and violence with no long-term cause.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> I would also say that there is a huge lack of general knowledge among reporters.


I'm not sure whether it's a huge lack of general knowledge ... or a lack of specific knowledge (or at least the willingness to go talk to somebody who's _got_ specific knowledge). I think you will find only a fraction of a percent of reporters have (for example) any real level of science or medical background ... so when they get a story that requires scientific or medical knowledge, they are floundering.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> Have you noticed the increase in the number of sites that are going back to moderated comments, due to (ironically, given the name of this thread) the spike in vitriol in online comments?



I get the sense they need to. Unmitigated "free speech" is not necessarily a good thing in my opinion. With great power comes great responsibility, as Uncle Ben used to say. We teach children that there's a time and place;why should it be any different for adults?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VieleKatzen said:


> Have you noticed the increase in the number of sites that are going back to moderated comments, due to (ironically, given the name of this thread) the spike in vitriol in online comments?


I've only noticed moderated comments on websites that lean to the left. The ones on the right seem to accept vitriol of all persuasions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I get the sense they need to. Unmitigated "free speech" is not necessarily a good thing in my opinion. With great power comes great responsibility, as Uncle Ben used to say. We teach children that there's a time and place;why should it be any different for adults?


Free speech should be unmitigated--or else it is not free, However, the comments section of a newspaper is private property and so commenting should be as free as they want it to be.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In my experience, even general knowledge is lacking. However, when it comes to finding experts, they often simply search out experts who have already been interviewed and fill in the story blanks with information they are already expecting.




VieleKatzen said:


> I'm not sure whether it's a huge lack of general knowledge ... or a lack of specific knowledge (or at least the willingness to go talk to somebody who's _got_ specific knowledge). I think you will find only a fraction of a percent of reporters have (for example) any real level of science or medical background ... so when they get a story that requires scientific or medical knowledge, they are floundering.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> In my experience, even general knowledge is lacking. However, when it comes to finding experts, they often simply search out experts who have already been interviewed and fill in the story blanks with information they are already expecting.


That, I think, is the end result of the overwhelming "GOTTA GET IT *FIRST*!!!" mindset (never mind about getting it _right_). My time as a reporter was on a weekly that had virtually no competition, so we were able to take our time researching stories. The dailies, and even moreso broadcast media, are too often obsessed with beating the competition to the punch.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

VieleKatzen said:


> That, I think, is the end result of the overwhelming "GOTTA GET IT *FIRST*!!!" mindset (never mind about getting it _right_). My time as a reporter was on a weekly that had virtually no competition, so we were able to take our time researching stories. The dailies, and even moreso broadcast media, are too often obsessed with beating the competition to the punch.


Yep, agree on that. Weeklies had the luxury of time to confirm facts, even over dailies, but there was little pressure in our era to publish half baked versions of a story. The internet and social media were unheard of, thus no pressure to beat anyone but radio in most markets. And radio was famous for skimping on editorial staff, so they were grateful when we hit the street. They could fill their airtime for a few days following, by reading our work word for word, in many cases.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yep, agree on that. Weeklies had the luxury of time to confirm facts, even over dailies, but there was little pressure in our era to publish half baked versions of a story. The internet and social media were unheard of, thus no pressure to beat anyone but radio in most markets. And radio was famous for skimping on editorial staff, so they were grateful when we hit the street. They could fill their airtime for a few days following, by reading our work word for word, in many cases.


Most people won't remember the large number of editions that used to be published each day. _The Toronto Star _had five at one point. You could print confirmed information and then add to it as the day wore on.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Most people won't remember the large number of editions that used to be published each day. _The Toronto Star _had five at one point. You could print confirmed information and then add to it as the day wore on.


I recall that very well. I had a best friend who won a Southam scholarship and later became editor in chief of the Star and I visited him in the Star building at 1 Yonge whenever I was in Toronto.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I get the sense they need to. *Unmitigated "free speech" is not necessarily a good thing in my opinion.* With great power comes great responsibility, as Uncle Ben used to say. We teach children that there's a time and place;why should it be any different for adults?


Not necessarily a good thing but a necessary thing IMO. Any buffoon has the right to say whatever he/she wants, it is up to the rest of us to agree or disagree. The reader/listener also bears some responsibility to speak up when pure BS is being spoken or written.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

VieleKatzen said:


> *That, I think, is the end result of the overwhelming "GOTTA GET IT FIRST!!!"* mindset (never mind about getting it _right_). My time as a reporter was on a weekly that had virtually no competition, so we were able to take our time researching stories. The dailies, and even moreso broadcast media, are too often obsessed with beating the competition to the punch.


I agree completely! It doesn't matter if it is true or not... gotta be first. It is kind of like "it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Not necessarily a good thing but a necessary thing IMO. Any buffoon has the right to say whatever he/she wants, it is up to the rest of us to agree or disagree. The reader/listener also bears some responsibility to speak up when pure BS is being spoken or written.


Excellent point.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Excellent point.


I strongly agree, Macfury. :clap:

As screature wrote, "Not necessarily a good thing but a necessary thing IMO. Any buffoon has the right to say whatever he/she wants, it is up to the rest of us to agree or disagree. The reader/listener also bears some responsibility to speak up when pure BS is being spoken or written. " This is how I feel about Holocaust deniers. We need to make sure that while they have the freedom of speech and thought, that these comments and thoughts cannot go without someone saying something to oppose such statements. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, screature is bang on.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I strongly agree, Macfury. :clap:
> 
> As screature wrote, "Not necessarily a good thing but a necessary thing IMO. Any buffoon has the right to say whatever he/she wants, it is up to the rest of us to agree or disagree. The reader/listener also bears some responsibility to speak up when pure BS is being spoken or written. " This is how I feel about Holocaust deniers. We need to make sure that while they have the freedom of speech and thought, that these comments and thoughts cannot go without someone saying something to oppose such statements. Paix, mes amis.


I find it interesting that when someone questions a particular point regarding the Holocaust narrative they are automatically written off as deniers, or anti-Semitic. Seems to me a more intelligent approach would be to address their points head on. 

Case in point is there is no way the Auschwitz crematoriums could have handled the number of bodies that have been claimed. The number of ovens is known. The capacity per oven is 12 or at most 14 corpses per day, yet the number claimed exceeds that capacity by a factor of at least ten. I would love to see that contradiction addressed head on, yet it never is. Those that bring it up are often threatened with jail time for doing so. Would it not be better to explain how those crematoriums achieved such an extraordinary level of performance?

I am also rather appalled that the other WWII holocausts are almost completely ignored. Low level firebombings of the civilian areas of many German cities killed 100s of thousands of civilians. In Japan 60 cities received similar attention and over one million Japanese civilians died in those raids. 

Interestingly neither the Germans nor the Japanese, try to use these atrocities as guilt leverage. Perhaps Don has a point that the past is the past and it is best to move forward.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> *I find it interesting that when someone questions a particular point regarding the Holocaust narrative they are automatically written off as deniers, or anti-Semitic.* Seems to me a more intelligent approach would be to address their points head on.
> 
> Case in point is there is no way the Auschwitz crematoriums could have handled the number of bodies that have been claimed. The number of ovens is known. The capacity per oven is 12 or at most 14 corpses per day, yet the number claimed exceeds that capacity by a factor of at least ten. I would love to see that contradiction addressed head on, yet it never is. Those that bring it up are often threatened with jail time for doing so. Would it not be better to explain how those crematoriums achieved such an extraordinary level of performance?
> 
> ...


I do not. In this day age and even many, many years and decades before( (even in Germany) there was desire to move on, but at the same time never forget, just like Western Remembrance day.

The exact details of the Holocaust will never be known at this point in time, even immediately after the war it was next to impossible to determine the exact details, the Germans made sure of that.

There are, I am relatively sure, plenty of made up stories and exaggerated and false memories on any side.

BUT, there is no denying Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler at the helm started WWII deliberately with the desire to eradicate certain people (genocide, at least in their own country), with the ultimate goal of creating the twisted, f**cked up, sick, demonic world that Hitler had in mind and to him it would be a Utopia/Paradise, at least as long as he was in charge.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems to me in the spirit of the 'civil' thread, the final sentence should have the words between "twisted," and "sick" edited out as it is far from civil, at least in my world. It would change the meaning and intent of the statement not one iota and is completely unnecessary. Just sayin', YMMV.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

I don't personally have a problem with those adjectives, even "f***ed up," to describe the Nazi regime, and I would say it's one thing to describe a historical event as opposed to, say, using those same words to describe someone here and now. There will be many opinions and everyone has a right to their own, but the civility I believe comes in how we express those opinions. People can disagree and still be civil about it. I have certainly had many conversations involving curse words that I would say we're still civil, and I encounter these conversations all the time in other forums. Intent means much more to me with respect to civility than the actual words. Just my opinion, and I understand why you feel the way you do, Don.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Seems to me in the spirit of the 'civil' thread, the final sentence should have the words between "twisted," and "sick" edited out as it is far from civil, at least in my world. It would change the meaning and intent of the statement not one iota and is completely unnecessary. Just sayin', YMMV.


Ok, but are we going anesthetize the thread until it has no meaning at all. We are talking about Nazis! No one here in person. Maybe there are some hidden Nazis here and I am sorry if I hurt you feelings... but not really. I don't give a chite about your feelings, you were or are twisted, f**cked up and sick IMO.

In the polite world that I live in it is ok to call a spade a spade when everyone present agrees with the sentiment. Do you not agree that Nazis are twisted, f**cked up and sick?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I don't personally have a problem with those adjectives, even "f***ed up," to describe the Nazi regime, and I would say it's one thing to describe a historical event as opposed to, say, using those same words to describe someone here and now. There will be many opinions and everyone has a right to their own, but the civility I believe comes in how we express those opinions. People can disagree and still be civil about it. I have certainly had many conversations involving curse words that I would say we're still civil, and I encounter these conversations all the time in other forums. Intent means much more to me with respect to civility than the actual words. Just my opinion, and I understand why you feel the way you do, Don.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is what I am talking about. Nothing personal to anyone here. I think Kanye West is a lousy "artist" and have much more worse things to say about him. He is not present. Does that make it uncivil for me to speak of him as such? If so I am out of this thread.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> In the polite world that I live in it is ok to call a spade a spade when everyone present agrees with the sentiment. Do you not agree that Nazis are twisted, f**cked up and sick?


No more so than the MIC cabal for promoting the needless slaughter in the middle-east, or Churchill, Eisenhower and Curtis LeMay for their part in firebombing civilian populations. 

Let the cow chips fall where they may, but let's not give our guys a free pass just because they are our guys.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> Ok, but are we going anesthetize the thread until it has no meaning at all. We are talking about Nazis! No one here in personal. Maybe there are some hidden Nazis here and I am sorry if I hurt you feelings... but not really. I don't give a chite about your feelings. you were or are twisted, f**cked up and sick IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> In the polite world that I live in it is ok to call a spade a spade when everyone present agrees with the sentiment. Do you not agree that Nazis are twisted, f**cked up and sick?



Some people are more concerned about foul language than they are about lying about someone. I guess there's different perspectives on civility, Steve. In my world, honour counts for a lot more than "viewer discretion advised" words.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I don't personally have a problem with those adjectives, even "f***ed up," to describe the Nazi regime, and I would say it's one thing to describe a historical event as opposed to, say, using those same words to describe someone here and now. There will be many opinions and everyone has a right to their own, but the civility I believe comes in how we express those opinions. People can disagree and still be civil about it. I have certainly had many conversations involving curse words that I would say we're still civil, and I encounter these conversations all the time in other forums. Intent means much more to me with respect to civility than the actual words. Just my opinion, and I understand why you feel the way you do, Don.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Valid points, Rp, as are screatures in the following post. Still, there are times when it is difficult to be civil when it comes to denying history. We can disagree in a civil manner as to should atomic weapons have been used in Aug. 1945, or were the Dresden fire bombings necessary, or was the Battle of Vimy Ridge the "coming of age of Canada" ............... but we cannot argue that these events took place. There are times when civility is VERY difficult, which is the premise of screature's posting. I have great difficulty in holding my temper when confronted with comments that the Holocaust never happened. Were 6 million innocent people murdered by the Nazis, or were 6 1/2 million murdered in their "final solution"??? The fact that this murder took place makes disagreeing on this historical fact pointless and insulting to anyone who has a degree of humanity within them. "Never again" should be more than just a slogan.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Dr.G. said:


> Valid points, Rp, as are screatures in the following post. Still, there are times when it is difficult to be civil when it comes to denying history. We can disagree in a civil manner as to should atomic weapons have been used in Aug. 1945, or were the Dresden fire bombings necessary, or was the Battle of Vimy Ridge the "coming of age of Canada" ............... but we cannot argue that these events took place. There are times when civility is VERY difficult, which is the premise of screature's posting. I have great difficulty in holding my temper when confronted with comments that the Holocaust never happened. Were 6 million innocent people murdered by the Nazis, or were 6 1/2 million murdered in their "final solution"??? The fact that this murder took place makes disagreeing on this historical fact pointless and insulting to anyone who has a degree of humanity within them. "Never again" should be more than just a slogan.
> 
> 
> 
> Paix, mon ami.



Well said, mon ami. This is even more relevant today when truth is muddied by fake news and alternative facts, where people construct the reality they prefer and truth becomes as illusory as a rainbow.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> No more so than the MIC cabal for promoting the needless slaughter in the middle-east, or Churchill, Eisenhower and Curtis LeMay for their part in firebombing civilian populations.
> 
> Let the cow chips fall where they may, but let's not give our guys a free pass just because they are our guys.


So what? One sin does not make another one worse or less worse. We choose to talk about what we want, if you don't like a topic being discussed that is fine, change it. 

There are lots of dastardly deeds that go on in any war. Genocide is one of them and one of the worst. Can we agree on that?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> So what? One sin does not make another one worse or less worse. We choose to talk about what we want, if you don't like a topic being discussed that is fine, change it.
> 
> There are lost of dastardly deeds that go on in any war. Genocide is one of them and one of the worst. Can we agree on that?


Absolutely. Makes no difference if the targets are Jews, Japs or Muslims, genocide is about as low as one can go.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Absolutely. Makes no difference if the targets are Jews, Japs or Muslims, genocide is about as low as one can go.


Peace then.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> Peace then.



And that, my friends, is how civil people settle their differences.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> No more so than the MIC cabal for promoting the needless slaughter in the middle-east, or Churchill, Eisenhower and Curtis LeMay for their part in firebombing civilian populations.


The problem here will be insult by association. Aside from talking about the idea instead of the person (works, to a point), the insult will be about all people who think X. Heartless conservatives, libtards, etc. The statements are not directed at individuals, but they clearly characterize individuals.

I don't have a solution, aside from the obvious. Be polite, and forthright, and when there is push back, double down on those practices. 

Even with that, there are beliefs, mannerisms, and values that we do not share and (shock!) find beyond the pale, or maybe just plain rude. Things will get heated, from time to time. Try not to carry grudges, even when those items repeatedly cause conflict.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A quick addendum.

I do not follow this advice at all times everyday. At some point, just use mute. beejacon


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

To those that are sensitive to Fbombs I apologize but I know plenty of civil and well educated people who use it when appropriate. Some think it is never appropriate, but I disagree, sometimes there is no better word to get your point across.

Not the stuff of Presidential or other leader's debates but in the real world at times it can be useful when used very sparingly, if for nothing else the shock factor.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> To those that are sensitive to Fbombs I apologize but I know plenty of civil and well educated people who use it when appropriate. Some think it is never appropriate, but I disagree, sometimes there is no better word to get your point across.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the stuff of Presidential or other leader's debates but in the real world at times it can be useful when used very sparingly, if for nothing else the shock factor.



Depends on who's President, no?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Depends on who's President, no?


I understand what you are getting at but a Fbomb in any Presidential debate would not be a good thing for the electoral hopes of a candidate no matter who said it. Maybe it it would garner some votes from a certain set of people but writ large I think it would be a bad thing for a candidate to use the word.

But then again Trudeau Sr. was not shy about giving the finger to the press, which amounts to the same thing and he seemed to get away with it... so yes I guess it all depends on who is the one being so rude to others in real time, let alone in the abstract to historical figures.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> I understand what you are getting at but a Fbomb in any Presidential debate would not be a good thing for the electoral hopes of a candidate no matter who said it. Maybe it it would garner some votes from a certain set of people but writ large I think it would be a bad thing for a candidate to use the word.
> 
> 
> 
> But then again Trudeau Sr. was not shy about giving the finger to the press, which amounts to the same thing and he seemed to get away with it... so yes I guess it all depends on who is the one being so rude to others in real time, let alone in the abstract to historical figures.



People loved Ralph Klein as well, and he could be a bit crude at times. 










What I find puzzling with the current POTUS is that many of his ideas and policy attempts are far more offensive than anything that comes out of his mouth or appears in his tweets. He would be the kind of person I'd consider to be pretty much the opposite of civil.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

I've learned a great deal about civility both at work and on this forum over the past few days. The most important thing I've learned is that people can have very difference perspectives on what constitutes truth, bug as long as the communication is respectful the conversation can go on. That's a pretty big revelation, because sometimes it seems like people with opposing view points will never find a middle ground. However, I've also found that it takes cooperation on both sides. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I've learned a great deal about civility both at work and on this forum over the past few days. The most important thing I've learned is that people can have very difference perspectives on what constitutes truth, bug as long as the communication is respectful the conversation can go on. That's a pretty big revelation, because sometimes it seems like people with opposing view points will never find a middle ground. However, I've also found that it takes cooperation on both sides.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Cooperation is the key to balance in life and coexistence. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Cooperation is the key to balance in life and coexistence. Paix, mon ami.


Tolerance and basic respect come to mind as well.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Tolerance and basic respect come to mind as well.


Very true, screature. All are cornerstones of living in a civil society. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

screature said:


> To those that are sensitive to Fbombs I apologize but I know plenty of civil and well educated people who use it when appropriate. Some think it is never appropriate, but I disagree, sometimes there is no better word to get your point across.


I can't operate a motor vehicle without non-stop profanity. Some of my best swear word combos were created during rush hour!


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

polywog said:


> I can't operate a motor vehicle without non-stop profanity. Some of my best swear word combos were created during rush hour!


I hear ya. I can get pretty creative when you get, for example, some nitwit who turns his/her left turn signal on ... then the right ... then the left ... then the right ...

Which I saw on the way home from work yesterday.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

polywog said:


> I can't operate a motor vehicle without non-stop profanity. Some of my best swear word combos were created during rush hour!





VieleKatzen said:


> I hear ya. I can get pretty creative when you get, for example, some nitwit who turns his/her left turn signal on ... then the right ... then the left ... then the right ...
> 
> Which I saw on the way home from work yesterday.


I am also guilty of that and I think most people who drive are as well. Thank goodness they can't hear what we are saying about them and them about us, otherwise there would most likely be fisticuffs involved and maybe even tire irons. 

At least we don't live in the US (California especially) where guns can and have been involved. Shooting someone who cut you off is definitely not civil behavior.

BTW VieleKatzen welcome to our dysfunctional, but sometimes functional community. It is always great to have a new contributing member!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> I am also guilty of that and I think most people who drive are as well. Thank goodness they can't hear what we are saying about them and them about us, otherwise there would most likely be fisticuffs involved and maybe even tire irons.
> 
> At least we don't live in the US (California especially) where guns can and have been involved. Shooting someone who cut you off is definitely not civil behavior.


I used to be guilty of this as well when seeing the antics of some drivers. My personal assistant, when I was still working, had ridden along to a meeting with me and she was shocked when I spouted some inappropriate words in her presence in the car. She looked at me at told me she called them poopy heads and would appreciate it if I did too.

Now when someone cuts me off I still call them a poopy head to this day over 20 years later and I laugh out loud while doing it. It sounds so stupid and I equate it to sounding as stupid as the bad words I used previous to that day. Now I get a laugh when I do it each time, but it still relieves my frustration just as good as the old blue streak used to do.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> I used to be guilty of this as well when seeing the antics of some drivers. My personal assistant, when I was still working, had ridden along to a meeting with me and she was shocked when I spouted some inappropriate words in her presence in the car. She looked at me at told me she called them poopy heads and would appreciate it if I did too.
> 
> Now when someone cuts me off I still call them a poopy head to this day over 20 years later and I laugh out loud while doing it. It sounds so stupid and I equate it to sounding as stupid as the bad words I used previous to that day. Now I get a laugh when I do it each time, but it still relieves my frustration just as good as the old blue streak used to do.


Ha! That is a good approach! I will have to try that out for myself. It sounds like your assistant was quite wise.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

When we moved from the Durham Region to Windsor I was shocked to see how much my car insurance went up. After about 3 days of driving here I found out why.........Windsorites have to be the worst drivers I have ever seen......give me Montreal at rush hour anytime. And, yes, I do have a propensity to curse those in front, beside, or even behind me sometimes.....there are days that if I didn't curse while driving I would be mute.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Rps said:


> When we moved from the Durham Region to Windsor I was shocked to see how much my car insurance went up. After about 3 days of driving here I found out why.........Windsorites have to be the worst drivers I have ever seen......give me Montreal at rush hour anytime. And, yes, I do have a propensity to curse those in front, beside, or even behind me sometimes.....there are days that if I didn't curse while driving I would be mute.


THat would of course be an automutation.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> THat would of course be an automutation.


Well that could be helpful regarding the cursing problem except that we would most likely curse our automated cars when they didn't do what we wanted or expected them to do. 

Somthing like this:

"F**ckin goddamn car, what were you thinking?! You should have taken 9th Street! Now I am going to be late!

At least make sure someone is there to greet me when you drop me off... Christ all mighty, I would have been better off driving myself."

Or something like that.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

screature said:


> I am also guilty of that and I think most people who drive are as well. Thank goodness they can't hear what we are saying about them and them about us, otherwise there would most likely be fisticuffs involved and maybe even tire irons.
> 
> At least we don't live in the US (California especially) where guns can and have been involved. Shooting someone who cut you off is definitely not civil behavior.
> 
> BTW VieleKatzen welcome to our dysfunctional, but sometimes functional community. It is always great to have a new contributing member!


Thank you for the welcomel  Yep, the thought of what might result if they could hear what we say (or vice-versa) makes me reconsider my wish to put a loudspeaker on my car roof ... :lmao:

And I too am very glad guns are rare here. Fisticuffs are bad enough, but are less likely to end with a fatality.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Rps said:


> When we moved from the Durham Region to Windsor I was shocked to see how much my car insurance went up. After about 3 days of driving here I found out why.........Windsorites have to be the worst drivers I have ever seen......give me Montreal at rush hour anytime. And, yes, I do have a propensity to curse those in front, beside, or even behind me sometimes.....there are days that if I didn't curse while driving I would be mute.


Interesting ... I moved here from the Niagara Region but my insurance didn't change much ... I don't think ...

I lived in Welland which is, I think, about 1/10 the size of Windsor, so driving there wasn't much of an issue. But yes, Windsor is something else again. 

However, it's not just Windsorites ... I was out and about today ... whoops! Oncoming fire truck! So I pull over to the right aaaand the twit in the Jeep-like vehicle behind me immediately boots past me before finally condescending to pull over. Their licence plate was a Michigan one. 

Still not quite as bad, though, as the Windsor driver who made a left-hand turn right across the path of an oncoming police vehicle, which was also zooming along with lights and siren going ... Seriously, lady (because the driver was female), how could you NOT see/hear that vehicle coming??


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I've been here about 6 six and I am getting to the point where I can spot a U turn here. No where else I've lived allowed U Turns at the intersections. I have an idea where you live ( general area ) do they allow on street parking where you are? On my street they all have extra wide and large driveways yet they park on the street. Snow removal is a joke some days, and I certainly wouldn't want to be a bike rider on Wildwood with little space to ride with the parked cars and the buses running. The worst though is the e-bikes on Tecumseh Road...no room at all. It was once said by someone smarter than myself that a man curses because he doesn't have the words......... I guess that person never drove behind an e-bike in Windsor.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That U-turn thing is sure different out here in the west. An intersection is the only place you can make a legal U-turn provided it is not prohibited by a sign.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Since, I really like how Michigan handles it with the turn around lanes....wish we had them here.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Rps said:


> I've been here about 6 six and I am getting to the point where I can spot a U turn here. No where else I've lived allowed U Turns at the intersections. I have an idea where you live ( general area ) do they allow on street parking where you are? On my street they all have extra wide and large driveways yet they park on the street. Snow removal is a joke some days, and I certainly wouldn't want to be a bike rider on Wildwood with little space to ride with the parked cars and the buses running. The worst though is the e-bikes on Tecumseh Road...no room at all. It was once said by someone smarter than myself that a man curses because he doesn't have the words......... I guess that person never drove behind an e-bike in Windsor.


Re: on-road parking: yes, a lot of residents (and their guests) do it, and I have no idea why, as they _all _have driveways. It is beyond annoying, since it can really cramp two-way traffic on the streets.

The U-turns at intersections surprised me as well. Don't think I've ever seen that anywhere else. I wonder if it's partly the result of virtually no police presence. My brother lives in Saskatoon and on one of his visits here he wondered where the heck all the cops were. He said it's highly unusual to see virtually no cruisers patrolling the streets.

I'd love to buy an e-bike someday, but I can see that they'd be a bit of a problem. Riders would need to treat them like bicycles and take care NOT to block the traffic behind them.


----------



## TiltAgain (Jun 27, 2016)

Dr.G. said:


> Some valid points, Frank. I've made some good friends here in ehMacLand, *even though I have never met any of them.* Paix, mon ami.


Ah Marc, but you certainly have not forgotten that I did have the pleasure of your being my tour-guide in St. John's. 

Re. the U-turn matter, I was not even aware that U-turns were not permitted in Ontario or anywhere else for that matter). I have seen a few intersections with a "No U-turn" sign in Ontario; and therefore I presumed that the absence of such a sign at intersections meant that U-turns were permitted. I guess I am just lucky that I have never been caught! My wife calls me the King of U-turns. 

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

TiltAgain said:


> Ah Marc, but you certainly have not forgotten that I did have the pleasure of your being my tour-guide in St. John's.
> 
> Re. the U-turn matter, I was not even aware that U-turns were not permitted in Ontario or anywhere else for that matter). I have seen a few intersections with a "No U-turn" sign in Ontario; and therefore I presumed that the absence of such a sign at intersections meant that U-turns were permitted. I guess I am just lucky that I have never been caught! My wife calls me the King of U-turns.
> 
> Cheers


True. Mea culpa. When I wrote that I thought of you and should have edited the posting. Of course, you were "Tilt" back then until your second coming as "Tilt Again". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

TiltAgain said:


> Ah Marc, but you certainly have not forgotten that I did have the pleasure of your being my tour-guide in St. John's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ah, good to hear from you again, Tiltagain. How is life in your end of the world, where U-turns may or may not be permitted?


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

TiltAgain said:


> Ah Marc, but you certainly have not forgotten that I did have the pleasure of your being my tour-guide in St. John's.
> 
> Re. the U-turn matter, I was not even aware that U-turns were not permitted in Ontario or anywhere else for that matter). I have seen a few intersections with a "No U-turn" sign in Ontario; and therefore I presumed that the absence of such a sign at intersections meant that U-turns were permitted. I guess I am just lucky that I have never been caught! My wife calls me the King of U-turns.
> 
> Cheers


Not sure how "permitted" they are here, but they're certainly done.  I have seen a couple of intersections that specifically allow U-turns, but like you, if it's not specifically prohibited, I assume it's allowed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

VieleKatzen said:


> Not sure how "permitted" they are here, but they're certainly done.  I have seen a couple of intersections that specifically allow U-turns, but like you, if it's not specifically prohibited, I assume it's allowed.


Based on the program that I saw called "The World's Worst Places to Drive", they are next to no road laws in India. Apparently people die every day in Mumbai road accidents. According to the Canadian driver (the host of the show) who was driving around a family in Mumbai, the rule is to never look back. He kept turning his head back to check his blind spot and they told him to stop doing that because he was making them very nervous.

I have no idea if it is the truth but that is what was in the show. Then he also drove a commercial truck from one part of the country to another which was about a 12 hour drive and he asked the usual driver how does he stay awake for so long and he said "shots of whiskey", that is what all truck drivers do.

Again I have no idea if that is true, but that was what reported on the show.

Perhaps TiltAgain can debunk or verify the validity of what was shown on the show.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

I read some time ago that that was the situation in Mexico, until people just got tired of all the traffic deaths and officials finally enacted and enforced rules of the road. (Like you, I don't know how true this is.)


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Here in Alberta, U-turns are usually against the law unless clearly marked. I was surprised when I went to California that there were actually U-turn lanes and they were quite legal. Different traffic situation I suppose. What constitutes civility in one place may not be universally true. Burping after a meal for example is considered a compliment in some circles and rude in others. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> *snip*
> What constitutes civility in one place may not be universally true. Burping after a meal for example is considered a compliment in some circles and rude in others.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Absolutely! I've got a great book (somewhere, LOL) titled _Gestures: The Do's and Taboos of Body Language Around the World_ by Roger E. Axtell. Something as simple as the "peace" sign, with the hand turned around (so your palm faces your face) can get you beaten to a pulp in the UK. :lmao: 

The legend behind that is that it's a six-hundred-year-old insult, dating back to the days of the Hundred Years War and the famed English longbow. Captured longbowmen reportedly had those fingers cut off to make them useless in future battles, so when French prisoners were marched past victorious English fighters, the English would hold up these two fingers as a jeering gesture.

Alas, as with many of the most interesting and intriguing legends, there are no historical primary sources that back this up.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> Absolutely! I've got a great book (somewhere, LOL) titled _Gestures: The Do's and Taboos of Body Language Around the World_ by Roger E. Axtell. Something as simple as the "peace" sign, with the hand turned around (so your palm faces your face) can get you beaten to a pulp in the UK. :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, that's how it is with oral histories, isn't it? Doesn't make the stories any less compelling. I quite enjoyed a lesson civility from Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry had been insulted by a guy and got a "****e bow" in return. He had to do some research into Japanese bows to figure out if he'd been wripped off and insulted further. Such a great show about putting one's foot in one's mouth.

https://youtu.be/85e4THVEb_o


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Here in Alberta, U-turns are usually against the law unless clearly marked. I was surprised when I went to California that there were actually U-turn lanes and they were quite legal. Different traffic situation I suppose. What constitutes civility in one place may not be universally true. Burping after a meal for example is considered a compliment in some circles and rude in others.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Here in Quebec and Ontario unless otherwise marked, no U-turn, a U-turn is allowed and you won't be ticketed, however if you cause an accident then you are to blame and will be ticketed for careless driving.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Civility is knowing you could point out the grammatical mistake someone has made, but holding back because the person is more important than the error. 
- FJN


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Civility is knowing you could point out the grammatical mistake someone has made, but holding back because the person is more important than the error.
> - FJN


And some times, the person IS the error. - DJS


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> And some times, the person IS the error. - DJS



That would seem to contradict what I said. Sometimes the need to be right needs to be toned down to respect the others' feelings. Trying to make someone else feel like ****e is never acceptable if one seeks civility. What are you suggesting?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> And some times, the person IS the error. - DJS


If adults choose to feel like ****e over being corrected on grammar then the problem is with the person who chooses to feel like ****e.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> And some times, the person IS the error. - DJS





Freddie_Biff said:


> That would seem to contradict what I said. Sometimes the need to be right needs to be toned down to respect the others' feelings. Trying to make someone else feel like ****e is never acceptable if one seeks civility. What are you suggesting?





Macfury said:


> If adults choose to feel like ****e over being corrected on grammar then the problem is with the person who chooses to feel like ****e.


Macfury got exactly what I was suggesting. I just offered it with fewer words.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> Macfury got exactly what I was suggesting. I just offered it with fewer words.



I have no idea what Macfury said. I don't see his contributions anymore. Hopefully it was something positive and civil.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Macfury got exactly what I was suggesting. I just offered it with fewer words.


SINC, I would go even further to say that if the grammatical correction was delivered in civil fashion, it would be _uncivil _to vent about one's hurt feelings.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I'm getting one of these made for my riding vest, sans the clown.



Freddie_Biff said:


> ...respect the others' feelings.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

So, MF, you've been put on ignore. I'm going to go with the assumption that I have been placed there, as well.

Good.

First, surprised it took this long. 

Second, typical to retreat into your shell (aka, safe space) when you are unable to defend your position in any way, shape or form (lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you...). Add this to the long list of immature things Freddie does. :baby:

Third, how long do you think it'll last? I predict it won't... :lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Oh, and I'll offer a quote on civility, too:



> True respect means taking other people's beliefs seriously and assuming they are adult and intelligent enough to be able to cope with it if you tell them, clearly and civilly, why you think they are totally, utterly and disastrously wrong. — Julian Baggini


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> So, MF, you've been put on ignore.


No idea. I don't think I would notice. I've suggested that Freddie put me on ignore for a long time, so that he'd stop being so jittery. It's one thing to have to dismantle an illogical post, but quite another to be attacked while doing your work.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Well Don, there appears to be quite a flurry of positive and civil exchanges this morning. I'm so glad these folks are starting to understand what civility means. Have a great Easter Monday.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

I believe Eleanor understood the secret to civility. I'm still working on that. It's easy to get triggered. 

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/eleanorroo385439.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Does this work as an acceptable working definition? I tend to think of civility as "how" we treat one another moreso even that "what" we say. Tone is everything, which can be a little tricky online. 

"Civility is the act of showing regard for others by being polite, like the civility you showed in speaking kindly to someone who has hurt your feelings.

Civility comes from the Latin word civilis, meaning "relating to public life, befitting a citizen," in other words, being friendly and nice to everyone. When you show civility, you use kindness and good manners. You are respectful, even if you do not like that person very much. Civility can also mean formal politeness, like your behavior at a fancy dinner."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/civility


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> It's easy to get triggered.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Which is why I'm forcing myself off Facebook posting ... although I do get sucked in once in a while, since I go back there to play a couple of games. I swear, it's Facebook is nothing BUT a gigantic trigger.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Second, typical to retreat into your shell (aka, safe space) when you are unable to defend your position in any way, shape or form (lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala,


I see benefits from the ignore function. Some posters clutter up the place with a low portion of meaningful content or insight into their thinking. I recommend at least trying it for a week. 

Agreed on if it's mostly used to avoid ideologically opposing arguments. That's an echo chamber.

The function has a few factors for me.

Share of substantive content to begin with, share of participating in honest (if heated) debate instead of general internet snark, and some other factor X(s) that I should figure out how to put into words. The other factors are not less important, they're just more complex to summarize.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> I'm getting one of these made for my riding vest, sans the clown.


:lmao: With a better font and design. I can help you with that gratis, as I am sure MF could. Maybe we both could give it a shot. Maybe you could have two jackets and wear what ever one suited you best for the occasion.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

VieleKatzen said:


> Which is why *I'm forcing myself off Facebook posting* ... although I do get sucked in once in a while, since I go back there to play a couple of games. I swear, it's *Facebook is nothing BUT a gigantic trigger*.


*I CANNOT AGREE MORE WHOLE HEARTILY *

Mark Zuckerberg had an idea. It was a good idea for the people that it served.

Then he realized, there is a lot of money to be made by doing this on a much bigger scale, so through some yadayada chite with lawyers he screwed over some friends (they did get paid very well) and began the Monstrosity that Facebook is today.

He was a kid basically at the time but he knew he had a good idea and was smart enough to make it happen and now millions of people communicate every day in a way that they never did before. Good for him, congratulations.

But there is a very dark side to Facebook that I don't need to go into details about, we all know. I think Zuckerberg never even gave a seconds thought to consider the negative aspects that his grand idea could bring about because he was just too young to even begin to forsee the problems. Quite frankly I don't think anyone did at the genesis of Facebook. 

So there it is, that is the conundrum and now we live it every day.

Pandora's box has been opened...


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> Which is why I'm forcing myself off Facebook posting ... although I do get sucked in once in a while, since I go back there to play a couple of games. I swear, it's Facebook is nothing BUT a gigantic trigger.



You may be right. It's what we procrastinators call "the dark playground." Just way too easy to get caught up in other people's drama. Here too, to be honest. Good luck breaking the ties.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Beej said:


> I see benefits from the ignore function. Some posters clutter up the place with a low portion of meaningful content or insight into their thinking. I recommend at least trying it for a week.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A good post and a civil way of explaining why everyone can use a safe space, even if you have to create it by blocking out certain parties that push your buttons. I understand. Trying it for a week is a great start.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Beej said:


> I see benefits from the ignore function. Some posters clutter up the place with a low portion of meaningful content or insight into their thinking. I recommend at least trying it for a week.
> 
> Agreed on if it's mostly used to avoid ideologically opposing arguments. That's an echo chamber.
> 
> ...


I really cannot say much more other than a great post Beej, well said.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> A good post and a civil way of explaining why everyone can use a safe space, even if you have to create it by blocking out certain parties that push your buttons. I understand. Trying it for a week is a great start.


You can always go to the Shang if that is what you are seeking. Marc servers a cup of Joe in the morning. I have to go their more often myself for peace and tranquility.

I know it would make my wife who is a Reiki Ascended Grand Master much happier if I visited the Shang more regularly or just stopped posting here at all, because she doesn't think it is good for my overall well being. The sad part is that she is probably right.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> You can always go to the Shang if that is what you are seeking. Marc servers a cup of Joe in the morning. I have to go their more often myself for peace and tranquility.
> 
> 
> 
> I know it would make my wife who is a Reiki Ascended Grand Master much happier if I visited the Shang more regularly or just stopped posting here at all, because she doesn't think it is good for my overall well being. The sad part is that she is probably right.



The Shang is all well and good, Steve, but I'm looking for topics, often controversial, that I can sink my teeth into as well. Political threads are often divisive, but they don't have to be abusive, like the ones you find here. There are two or three little trolls who just have too **** in every corner they see to mark their territory. And because there are no mods, they can harass and troll away with really very little anyone can do about it. 

Fortunately, I have found much friendlier discussions in threads like the Straight Dope, Walking Dead forums and MacDiscussions. Lots of familiar faces and names there, for sure. People can disagree about things without getting downright nasty. I've just had enough of the childish antics of a number of members here, and though it is not easy, I must rise above. I've been here too long to let it go completely, but that day may come as well.

The thing is, Steve, just like Donald Trump, some people really do not handle being ignored very well. Negative attention appears to be better than no attention at all. It's like primary school group dynamics in so many ways. But civility requires us to know and be better than that. Speak kind words, and you will hear kind echoes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just trying to think of an appropriate musical theme to go with that! And I imagine it's pretty easy to hit the "ignore" button. You're acting like you've just stormed the beaches of Normandy!



Freddie_Biff said:


> ...and though it is not easy, I must rise above.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> The Shang is all well and good, Steve, but I'm looking for topics, often controversial, that I can sink my teeth into as well. Political threads are often divisive, but they don't have to be abusive, like the ones you find here. There are two or three little trolls who just have too **** in every corner they see to mark their territory. And because there are no mods, they can harass and troll away with really very little anyone can do about it.
> 
> Fortunately, I have found much friendlier discussions in threads like the Straight Dope, Walking Dead forums and MacDiscussions. Lots of familiar faces and names there, for sure. People can disagree about things without getting downright nasty. I've just had enough of the childish antics of a number of members here, and though it is not easy, I must rise above. I've been here too long to let it go completely, but that day may come as well.


Well Frank, you have to do whatever is best for you like we all do.

Personally I am glad that there are no mods here, that is why I like it. We police ourselves. No friggin BIG BROTHER to tell us when we are out line. We simply tell each other, sometimes with very harsh words, this is not a place for the thin of skin as it used to be...

I know there are people here who yank your chains and they just do it just to get a rise out of you, but you do the exact same thing. So don't try and play the victim card. You give pretty much as good as you get.

Sure things could be better between you and FeXL and MacFury, even between you and I.

But it all begins with the "I" statement, not YOU, I.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Just trying to think of an appropriate musical theme to go with that! And I imagine it's pretty easy to hit the "ignore" button. You're acting like you've just stormed the beaches of Normandy!


Sorry I know this is inappropriate to the thread but I just noticed you upgraded. Are you happy with it?


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> You may be right. It's what we procrastinators call "the dark playground." Just way too easy to get caught up in other people's drama. Here too, to be honest. Good luck breaking the ties.


Thanks. I doubt I will ever get completely away from it. There are some great groups on there (one based on conspiracy theories, for example -- and it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum they come from) that have great people and a minimal amount of vitriol. Right now I'm trying to just play my games and go, but as I said, I do find myself responding to other people's posts. Trying to keep it down to clicking on "Like" or one of the emojis, with the occasional snarky comment thrown in. 



Freddie_Biff said:


> Speak kind words, and you will hear kind echoes.


Sometimes, yes. Perhaps even often. But not always, unfortunately.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> Thanks. I doubt I will ever get completely away from it. There are some great groups on there (one based on conspiracy theories, for example -- and it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum they come from) that have great people and a minimal amount of vitriol. Right now I'm trying to just play my games and go, but as I said, I do find myself responding to other people's posts. Trying to keep it down to clicking on "Like" or one of the emojis, with the occasional snarky comment thrown in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sad, but true. Perhaps we can't change the world directly. But we can change ourselves, which may well have the same effect. Peace out.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> Well Frank, you have to do whatever is best for you like we all do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very well then. I CHOOSE not to play those games anymore, if I can help it. And when people start acting like humans again, I may entertain what they have to say. But for now, I'm done with them. I know who FUXL is too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is the longest goodbye ever!



Freddie_Biff said:


> Very well then. I CHOOSE not to play those games anymore, if I can help it. And when people start acting like humans again, I may entertain what they have to say. But for now, I'm done with them. I know who FUXL is too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Sorry I know this is inappropriate to the thread but I just noticed you upgraded. Are you happy with it?


I never upgraded. It was a legacy upgrade conferred by EhMax, but I can't remember why--certain number of posts, I think. It makes all the ads and text links go away.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> We simply tell each other, sometimes with very harsh words, this is not a place for the thin of skin as it used to be...


I spent some time exploring the early days of EhMac at one point, threads from before I ever arrived. There was no "golden age of civility." 

Some of the tender souls who say their feelings are hurt today would have withered, dried up and blown away in that environment. It was a vicious ride... and very entertaining! There were a lot of ideas discussed simply because people weren't afraid to speak up about anything. 

MacDiscussions doesn't resemble anything I've ever seen on EhMac. It reminds me of old guys smoking pipes around a cracker barrel. Sonal moderates like Gort from _The Day The Earth Stood Still_, flashing her laser eye at them whenever they remember what it was like to be young and full of ideas.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

MacDiscussions is actually a really great place to have a conversation with people I consider old friends. So is Straight Dope. So are the Walking Dead threads and the many places I've found to discuss Trump, politics, religion and some of the fave shows like Preacher, Better Call Saul and the Leftovers. Even Facebook works great for me. It would be nice if the same kind of civility I see in these other forums, even when people strongly disagree with one another, could also prevail here, but I won't hold my breath. One thread at a time. G'night y'all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> It makes all the ads and text links go away.


That sounds useful.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with MacDiscussions--only noting that it has a low energy vibe that may be suited to you.

Here is a screen grab from the *first page* of the _Preacher_ forum at the _Straight Dope_. Someone makes an unsubstantiated claim (as you often do Freddie) and he is told immediately to **** off. You only seem to have a problem with people being asked to defend their ideas on EhMac. 




Freddie_Biff said:


> MacDiscussions is actually a really great place to have a conversation with people I consider old friends. So is Straight Dope. So are the Walking Dead threads and the many places I've found to discuss Trump, politics, religion and some of the fave shows like Preacher, Better Call Saul and the Leftovers. Even Facebook works great for me. It would be nice if the same kind of civility I see in these other forums, even when people strongly disagree with one another, could also prevail here, but I won't hold my breath. One thread at a time. G'night y'all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!!!

We have a winnah!!!

Found that mirror yet, Freddie?



screature said:


> But it all begins with the "I" statement, not YOU, I.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

While not a FB user myself, I have a close friend who is.

I've seen some of the "civility" on FB & it makes this place look like kindergarten...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Even Facebook works great for me. It would be nice if the same kind of civility I see in these other forums...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

screature said:


> I really cannot say much more other than a great post Beej, well said.


Thank you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Been checking out the Straight Dope. It's pretty much like EhMac. They expect people to supply evidence to back up their claims or they're excoriated. Some lovely discourse:

*"F*** off. If you don;t like this thread, then stay the f*** out."*

How about this gem:

*"While impossible to know the race of a poster, I'm wagering this story is brought to you by the White Trash Drama Network."*


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Gosh, Macfury, you sound a wee bit envious. That's funny. 

In any event, how would you have any idea which threads I follow on Straight Dope? There are literally hundreds of thousands to choose from. It's a great site for conversation, just as this place used to be years ago. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> In any event, how would you have any idea which threads I follow on Straight Dope? There are literally hundreds of thousands to choose from. It's a great site for conversation, just as this place used to be years ago.


For one, because you linked to the Preacher thread you participated in a few months ago.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

I've never seen that before. Interesting that it intrigues you though. Seems like the kind of company you'd keep. 

Do you consider yourself a happy person at heart? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I am pretty happy, yes. Check your PM.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

I see nothing in my PM. Sure you sent it to the right person? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I see nothing in my PM. Sure you sent it to the right person?


That would be Freddie_Biff I sent it to. You probably blocked it.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Nope. Empty in box. Sorry. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

FeXL said:


> While not a FB user myself, I have a close friend who is.
> 
> I've seen some of the "civility" on FB & it makes this place look like kindergarten...


Yep. Most of FB is not even remotely related to 'discussions' -- more like "Ready, Aim, FIRE!" practice.

And I am not commenting as a "victim." I was very much a participant.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> Yep. Most of FB is not even remotely related to 'discussions' -- more like "Ready, Aim, FIRE!" practice.
> 
> 
> 
> And I am not commenting as a "victim." I was very much a participant.



Perhaps it depends on the company one keeps. My friends are pretty decent people, and I weed out the jerks.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Thought question: when you are having a conversation with someone in real life, do you have to substantiate everything you say with evidence and proof, or do you just sometimes converse? You know, joke around, share an idea, that sort of thing? Because it seems to me an online conversation in a forum should not have to be that much different. It would appear that different people have different ideas about what the word "conversation" means. I have a sense that may be at the root of some of the uncivil exchanges here at ehMac—a fundamental difference in communication styles. Not there's anything wrong with that, unless there's disrespect involved. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes. Even in casual conversations, evidence and proof indicates that somebody respects the listener. If I don't really care what that person thinks, I may just let them go on and talk through their blowhole.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Thought question: when you are having a conversation with someone in real life, do you have to substantiate everything you say with evidence and proof, or do you just sometimes converse? You know, joke around, share an idea, that sort of thing? Because it seems to me an online conversation in a forum should not have to be that much different. It would appear that different people have different ideas about what the word "conversation" means. I have a sense that may be at the root of some of the uncivil exchanges here at ehMac—a fundamental difference in communication styles. Not there's anything wrong with that, unless there's disrespect involved.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Thought question: when you are having a conversation with someone in real life, do you have to substantiate everything you say with evidence and proof, or do you just sometimes converse? You know, joke around, share an idea, that sort of thing?* Because it seems to me an online conversation in a forum should not have to be that much different. *It would appear that different people have different ideas about what the word "conversation" means. I have a sense that may be at the root of some of the uncivil exchanges here at ehMac—a fundamental difference in communication styles. Not there's anything wrong with that, unless there's disrespect involved.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


To me the difference is plain and simple, one is spoken directly face to face one and one is written and you actually have no idea who you are talking to for the most part.

If I were were face to face with you and you outweighed me by 150 lbs, I would probably be less likely to to call you f**ktard, than I would online.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

So Macfury, in your eyes, all conversations require proof. While Screature, your level of engagement would depend on what the other person looks like. Interesting, if I'm paraphrasing you right. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Thought question: when you are having a conversation with someone in real life, do you have to substantiate everything you say with evidence and proof, or do you just sometimes converse? You know, joke around, share an idea, that sort of thing? Because it seems to me an online conversation in a forum should not have to be that much different. It would appear that different people have different ideas about what the word "conversation" means. I have a sense that may be at the root of some of the uncivil exchanges here at ehMac—a fundamental difference in communication styles. Not there's anything wrong with that, unless there's disrespect involved.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


One of the lessons I give my students each year is that "speaking" is not "writing". There are fundamental differences with these forms of communication which is often either not well understood by language learners or is so subtle that even 1st language users sometimes miss the mark. So, it is important when we write to ensure we realize that the "decoder" might have a different understanding of what the "encoder" means or is trying to say. Such as typing LOL on a condolence post may not necessarily mean "lots of love".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In a face-to-face conversation, I expect some evidence to back up a position if I have anything invested in that person. I may ask it of others, but I don't expect it.



Freddie_Biff said:


> So Macfury, in your eyes, all conversations require proof. While Screature, your level of engagement would depend on what the other person looks like. Interesting, if I'm paraphrasing you right.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Rps said:


> One of the lessons I give my students each year is that "speaking" is not "writing". There are fundamental differences with these forms of communication which is often either not well understood by language learners or is so subtle that even 1st language users sometimes miss the mark. So, it is important when we write to ensure we realize that the "decoder" might have a different understanding of what the "encoder" means or is trying to say. Such as typing LOL on a condolence post may not necessarily mean "lots of love".



That's a good observation, Rps. It is easy to misconstrue something that may be a little vague. Lots of love would be appreciated, while LOL would not. Social morés, really. However, with a million and one ways to respond available to us, one would think there are polite and respectful ways to respond without necessarily requiring agreement or require the other party to provide proof of their opinion, so that the other party can then attempt to dismantle the words you wrote down about what you think. That__-'s not conversation anymore, in my opinion. That's wanting another specimen to dissect. 

For example, if I state that there is another site I frequent for good conversation, and someone follows me there to point out what others are saying (allegedly) behind my back, people I don't ever recall having a conversation with, wouldn't that be like a form of stalking in real life? No! You're not allowed to have fun somewhere else! I find it to be rather disturbing behaviour, to be honest, and certainly the opposite of what I would call civil. Civility demands that we respect each other's space and viewpoints even if we don't agree with them. And it also demands that we respect the essence of who someone is without necessarily trying to change them.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Perhaps it depends on the company one keeps. My friends are pretty decent people, and I weed out the jerks.


True enough, except sometimes the "FIRE!!" came from people who -- except for the topic under discussion -- were friends. Or at least FB friends.

Or even total strangers who happened to stumble over my comment -- as I often did over comments by people I'd never heard of before.

And the designation of "jerk" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm quite sure that, had I been keeping track, I could point you in the direction of a number of people who considered me to be "the jerk," as well as vice-versa.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> So Macfury, in your eyes, all conversations require proof. *While Screature, your level of engagement would depend on what the other person looks like. Interesting, if I'm paraphrasing you right. *
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


No you are not. I am not talking about a dinner party with intimate friends and much can be said that is very personal and even at times insulting to the other person but it gets said. The only fear that exists is having offended your friend.

This is not that kind of place. This place is more like you go into a bar and you or someone else strikes up a conversation. Debate occurs and you have to try to keep things civil but the other person doesn't care and he weighs 150 lbs. more than you, but you still think he is a f**ktard. Unless you want a severe beating you will probably not call him that, even though in your own mind that is what he is. Online you can call someone a f**ktard because you simply can without any real consequences. Sure on some sites you get banned or shamed , big whoop. You are pretty much allowed to say anything in law to anyone so long as it does not threaten their physical well being. But on the other hand for your own well being you probably should not say insulting things to a guy who weighs 150 lbs. more than you, the results may not be legal but you are still in a hospital room or the morgue.

What I am talking about here is real life in the real world. I have been in some pretty rough and tumble situations where *real* people's bodies could be seriously hurt if the wrong thing was said and managed to diffuse the situation by intervening with my words.

What you are talking about here is paltry childish chite compared to what I have been through so suck it up and get over it. Some people are going to say things to you that you don't like, even insult you but bodily harm or even death is not involved!!!


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Civility demands that we respect each other's space and viewpoints even if we don't agree with them.


This is a land mine we all step on. Years ago it was not considered social or even correct politic to discuss sex, religion, politics and probably money. In the on line world we openly discuss these often. But we forget we may, in our discourse, actually be challenging one' beliefs....and such a challenge is interpreted as a direct challenge of the individual.....something body language, tone, cadence might show we are not.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Thought question: when you are having a conversation with someone in real life, do you have to substantiate everything you say with evidence and proof, or do you just sometimes converse? You know, joke around, share an idea, that sort of thing? Because it seems to me an online conversation in a forum should not have to be that much different. It would appear that different people have different ideas about what the word "conversation" means. I have a sense that may be at the root of some of the uncivil exchanges here at ehMac—a fundamental difference in communication styles. Not there's anything wrong with that, unless there's disrespect involved.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting question. It might depend on the person to whom I am speaking ... if it's someone that I have some knowledge of, and whom I believe has a tendency to check things out, I might ask where they heard X or Y. If it's a casual stranger, it depends on what's being said.

If nothing else, I would probably file their statement away and try to check it out later on my own.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> True enough, except sometimes the "FIRE!!" came from people who -- except for the topic under discussion -- were friends. Or at least FB friends.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Agreed. Mea culpa.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> No you are not. I am not talking about a dinner party with intimate friends and much can be said that is very personal and even at times insulting to the other person but it gets said. The only fear that exists is having offended your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well then this where we part ways. I do not believe anyone should ever half to "suck up" and "get over" abuse. Not in "real" life, and not in an online forum either. Just because one cannot see the other person does mean one should not act respectfully. I have also met some incredibly nice people who outweigh me by 150 pounds. 

Bottom line, if we can have a civil conversation, as I believe we are now, then I will engage. If it gets ugly, I will disengage. I would advise others to do the same. It is one way to keep the peace while maintaining civil disagreements. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Rps said:


> This is a land mine we all step on. Years ago it was not considered social or even correct politic to discuss sex, religion, politics and probably money. In the on line world we openly discuss these often. But we forget we may, in our discourse, actually be challenging one' beliefs....and such a challenge is interpreted as a direct challenge of the individual.....something body language, tone, cadence might show we are not.



Good point. I remember reading an article about why left-leaders and right-leaders can't convince the other side of anything. I think it had something to do with these ingrained belief systems. And the need for labels.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> One of the lessons I give my students each year is that "speaking" is not "writing". There are fundamental differences with these forms of communication which is often either not well understood by language learners or is so subtle that even 1st language users sometimes miss the mark. So, it is important when we write to ensure we realize that the "decoder" might have a different understanding of what the "encoder" means or is trying to say. Such as typing LOL on a condolence post may not necessarily mean "lots of love".


Bang on!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with MacDiscussions--only noting that it has a low energy vibe that may be suited to you.
> 
> Here is a screen grab from the *first page* of the _Preacher_ forum at the _Straight Dope_. Someone makes an unsubstantiated claim (as you often do Freddie) and he is told immediately to **** off. You only seem to have a problem with people being asked to defend their ideas on EhMac.


That does not appear to be much of a respectful or polite site from that example. Far worse than ehMac, that's for sure.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I spent some time exploring the early days of EhMac at one point, threads from before I ever arrived. There was no "golden age of civility."
> 
> Some of the tender souls who say their feelings are hurt today would have withered, dried up and blown away in that environment. It was a vicious ride... and very entertaining! There were a lot of ideas discussed simply because people weren't afraid to speak up about anything.
> 
> MacDiscussions doesn't resemble anything I've ever seen on EhMac. It reminds me of old guys smoking pipes around a cracker barrel. Sonal moderates like Gort from _The Day The Earth Stood Still_, flashing her laser eye at them whenever they remember what it was like to be young and full of ideas.


What I notice most about MacDiscussions is the lack of much action. Some times it goes two or three days without a post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Good point. I remember reading an article about why left-leaders and right-leaders can't convince the other side of anything. I think it had something to do with these ingrained belief systems. And the need for labels.


I think it's because the left leaners are most often demanding something of the right leaners--cash or loss of freedom--and the left leaners are the prime beneficiary, either directly or to salve their consciences. How do you find common ground with someone who wants to make your life worse to their own benefit?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Well then this where we part ways. I do not believe anyone should ever half to "suck up" and "get over" abuse. Not in "real" life, and not in an online forum either. Just because one cannot see the other person does mean one should not act respectfully. I have also met some incredibly nice people who outweigh me by 150 pounds.
> 
> Bottom line, if we can have a civil conversation, as I believe we are now, then I will engage. If it gets ugly, I will disengage. I would advise others to do the same. It is one way to keep the peace while maintaining civil disagreements.
> 
> ...


You have never experienced any abuse here except in your own mind, all you have received is criticism amoung adults. If you can't handle it so be it.

You seem to have a very limited idea of what constitutes "civil" discussion, have you traveled much? It seems that what you want this place to be is a "bubble" of your own creation where you can feel safe and sound. 

I am just telling you as a friend that will never happen.

I wish you all the best wherever you go in life in general and all the best to your family as well.

Steve


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> I think it's because the left leaners are most often demanding something of the right leaners--cash or loss of freedom--and the left leaners are the prime beneficiary, either directly or to salve their consciences. How do you find common ground with someone who wants to make your life worse to their own benefit?



And vice-versa.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

You keep on pounding away at this "just an idea" or "just converse" thing. While that's all well & fine, I've yet to find any of that on ehMac from you. Anywhere.

Invariably your new threads (under the guise of "just an idea!" or "how about a conversation?") all end up being nothing more than a safe space to continue pushing your same old progressive agenda.

You don't merely post ideas or just have conversations.

Therein lies the problem.

Now, in answer to your question, yes. Most times I'm having a conversation in person with one or more & a particular claim is made, I ask for some evidence to back it up. This can be on the street or in a pub having a cold one.

Can we just converse about, say, the weather? That nice ride that just rumbled past? Whether on not the band playing in the backgrund is any good? You bet. However, once extraordinary claims are made, they need some supporting evidence.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Thought question: when you are having a conversation with someone in real life, do you have to substantiate everything you say with evidence and proof, or do you just sometimes converse? You know, joke around, share an idea, that sort of thing?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> You have never experienced any abuse here except in your own mind, all you have received is criticism amoung adults. If you can't handle it so be it.
> 
> You seem to have a very limited idea of what constitutes "civil" discussion, have you traveled much? It seems that what you want this place to be is a "bubble" of your own creation where can feel safe and sound.


Agreed. You can't both guarantee comfort and expose yourself to the world of ideas at the same time. Pick one, because you can't have both.

And I also agree about true abuse. When you've had the **** kicked out of you until you can't breathe, this talk of abuse at EhMac seems like a sad joke by entitled people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Can we just converse about, say, the weather? That nice ride that just rumbled past? Whether on not the band playing in the backgrund is any good? You bet. However, once extraordinary claims are made, they need some supporting evidence.


Perfectly stated.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Who on these boards has said/done that?



Freddie_Biff said:


> You're not allowed to have fun somewhere else!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> How do you find common ground with someone who wants to make your life worse to their own benefit?


You don't. You call them on it. Just like we do here...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Who on these boards has said/done that?


Yep. I've cheered people on when they've found a place they like better.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> And vice-versa.


I want nothing of yours, and short of a criminal act, I don't care what you do.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

FeXL said:


> Can we just converse about, say, the weather? That nice ride that just rumbled past? Whether on not the band playing in the backgrund is any good? You bet. However, once extraordinary claims are made, they need some supporting evidence.


It's cloudy with rain coming and going here. I'm doing some badly needed housecleaning with what are called "horror movies" as background sound ... but when I actually step in to watch them, many of them strike me as being populated with people who are really pushing for a Darwin Award.  And many of 'em get it.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Civility demands that we respect each other's space and viewpoints even if we don't agree with them.


I don't entirely agree with this.

Respect somebody's space ... well, yes, for my own well-being, if nothing else. Unless I've brought my Wonder Woman bustier with me, I don't plan to get right up in somebody's face and challenge them. 

But respect all other viewpoints? 

No. 

I have the option of challenging them or just walking away (metaphorically or literally) but there are definitely viewpoints out there that I am under no obligation to respect. I would argue that civility demands that, if I do challenge them, I do so civilly and with what facts I can muster, and not descend to verbal bludgeoning.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well stated. It's the position of many of us here that respect is earned. Others have previously stated that they want all of their ideas to be respected out of the gate. I believe that respect is earned by not merely blurting an idea, but by supporting it as well.



VieleKatzen said:


> have the option of challenging them or just walking away (metaphorically or literally) but there are definitely viewpoints out there that I am under no obligation to respect. I would argue that civility demands that, if I do challenge them, I do so civilly and with what facts I can muster, and not descend to verbal bludgeoning.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

VieleKatzen said:


> It's cloudy with rain coming and going here. I'm doing some badly needed housecleaning with what are called "horror movies" as background sound ...


Sunny & 15 here. Discovered a hole in my air compressor tank yesterday just as I was getting ready to do some work on the Hawg. Called up Princess Auto, they had a return with about a week's work on it and a fried electric motor. Snapped that up last night for a decent price & spent most of today unhooking the old compressor from the shop lines, changing the fried new motor out for the good old motor, swapping the pulley & all the fittings, connecting the lines, tying in the electricity & stripping the compressor head & other useable parts from the old compressor.

Now I've got an old bare tank sitting on the driveway that needs to go for scrap & enjoying the view of the shiny new black one with a nice cold craft beer in my hand. It even works! 

It's been a busy but good day.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yep. I've cheered people on when they've found a place they like better.


I've told Freddie flat out that if he likes MD so much, go. I'm not interested in the slightest. There's his safe space.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> I don't entirely agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps "respect" is not the right word, but I agree with what you're saying. Perhaps another way of saying it would be this: though I may have the right to pester someone until I'm blue in the face, I am not likely to persuade them to consider my point of view by pestering them. Persuasion is often about tactics.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Who on these boards is trying to persuade you of anything?



Freddie_Biff said:


> ...I am not likely to persuade them to consider my point of view by pestering them. Persuasion is often about tactics.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

VieleKatzen said:


> But respect all other viewpoints?
> 
> No.


Agreed.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

The word "antagonistic" also comes to mind. You know it when you see it. Sometimes there are people who just have absolutely no interest in getting along. It's a hard thing for me to accept in my life, because I like to get along with others, both real and cyber, but sometimes it's impossible to find that middle ground. Some people prefer to be antagonistic and there's not much I can do about that except just not engage. I believe that's also an important part of civility. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Who on these boards is trying to persuade you of anything?


Freddie, although I am responding to FeXL's post, I am addressing you. I also don't attempt to persuade you. I consider it not worth my while, because you simply don't engage in anything like a structured discussion. 

You twist a little when your ideas are challenged until your back is to the wall and then you end the discussion or say you're bored. It's neither civil, nor respectful, but I don't really mind. It doesn't matter how you're approached--this happens about 100 per cent of the time.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Well, nobody's asking you to respond to anything I post, MF (even though you're usually first in line), and I suppose there's nothing compelling me to respond to your posts either. If you're prepared to bury the hatchet, then I would too. If not, I guess it would go pretty much the same way it's been going for the last few years. I do tire of it though, as it takes up too much of my time. Once in a while we've actually had a civil conversation...at least until something goes off the rails. C'est la vie. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

One thing I can say is that the conversation in this thread has been a fair bit more civil than some other conversations have been in the past. Thanks to everyone for trying to get along and see past our gut reactions. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The point I'm making is that nobody expects to persuade you. It's just that the ideas and criticisms you present cry out for a response. If I waited a little longer it would be someone else who would respond, not me.

You don't feel like providing an iota of evidence to support your ideas? They're just a bunch of words you've strung into a sentence? It's a meme you found somewhere without checking the accuracy of its content? Fine. Don't expect people to respect that non-effort and do expect people to explain why the post is in error. 

I'm not going to give you a safe space to post political/philosophical ideas without scrutiny. That's a non-starter. However, I am going to encourage you to understand that no further discussion is expected of you after a response to one of those posts. Nobody thinks you're going to be persuaded, and nobody expects you to follow through with anything resembling a debate. 




Freddie_Biff said:


> Well, nobody's asking you to respond to anything I post, MF (even though you're usually first in line), and I suppose there's nothing compelling me to respond to your posts either. If you're prepared to bury the hatchet, then I would too. If not, I guess it would go pretty much the same way it's been going for the last few years. I do tire of it though, as it takes up too much of my time. Once in a while we've actually had a civil conversation...at least until something goes off the rails. C'est la vie.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

VieleKatzen said:


> I don't entirely agree with this.
> 
> Respect somebody's space ... well, yes, for my own well-being, if nothing else. Unless I've brought my Wonder Woman bustier with me, I don't plan to get right up in somebody's face and challenge them.
> 
> ...


Excellent!


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Anybody heard the term "sea lioning" before? I can think of at least one person who fits this term perfectly. 












> Sea-Lioning is an Internet slang term referring to intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility and incessantly requesting evidence to back up their claims. The term was coined in September 2014 by anti-GamerGate Internet users to mock perceived online discussion tactics employed by GamerGate supporters.


http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

So where did this thread begin to go off the rails and lose its civility? I'd say about post #110 or so. Some people just have a knock for it it seems. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Can't agree with you there. Beej's post #110 did not seem obtrusive in any way to me.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

FeXL said:


> So, MF, you've been put on ignore. I'm going to go with the assumption that I have been placed there, as well.
> 
> ...
> 
> Third, how long do you think it'll last? I predict it won't... :lmao:


Two whole days...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I spent some time exploring the early days of EhMac at one point, threads from before I ever arrived. There was no "golden age of civility."
> 
> Some of the tender souls who say their feelings are hurt today would have withered, dried up and blown away in that environment. It was a vicious ride... and very entertaining! There were a lot of ideas discussed simply because people weren't afraid to speak up about anything.
> 
> MacDiscussions doesn't resemble anything I've ever seen on EhMac. It reminds me of old guys smoking pipes around a cracker barrel. Sonal moderates like Gort from _The Day The Earth Stood Still_, flashing her laser eye at them whenever they remember what it was like to be young and full of ideas.





SINC said:


> What I notice most about MacDiscussions is the lack of much action. Some times it goes two or three days without a post.


The other thing I notice about MacDiscussions is that it seems to be about substances, and usually by the same players. What are shrooms or cid anyway?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

You know what's the most fun, Freddie? Reading your "non-engagement engagement" posts. You know the ones I'm talking about. The ones where you obliquely refer to me in the third person. Yeah, those ones. You know who you're talking about & I know who you're talking about & everybody else on these boards knows who you're talking about. 

I guess that assuages your conscience of actually responding to one of my posts directly.

Just wanted to say I find them hilarious.

That said, yep, I drag you into arguments. Kicking, biting, screaming & fighting. You've never voluntarily responded to me once. Not in ten years. It's almost like I held a gun to your head or something, forcing you to answer.

<just shaking my head>

If I wielded that sort of power over people, Freddie, I would have had you erase your account years ago.

BTW, found that mirror yet? Earlier on it sounded like you were getting warm but you must have turned away & ran past it when you saw it hanging on the wall.

Jes' sayin'...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Anybody heard the term "sea lioning" before?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

SINC said:


> What are shrooms or cid anyway?


It's the sort of substances that Prog musicians use to get through the course of a normal day. Forces them to unwillingly respond to posts they don't really want to...


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> Can't agree with you there. Beej's post #110 did not seem obtrusive in any way to me.



Ah yes, my bad. Try #102.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> The other thing I notice about MacDiscussions is that it seems to be about substances, and usually by the same players. What are shrooms or cid anyway?



Shrooms and Cid are his pet German shepherds of course.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Anybody heard the term "sea lioning" before? I can think of at least one person who fits this term perfectly.


Even on this one little point you've misrepresented its meaning by editing the cartoon and the full definition. Look at the full cartoon. The guy insulted sea lions in the presence of a sea lion. That's essentially your provocative posting style. 

Later on in the same link: 



> “Sea-lioning: A hip, new term to describe that teribble, horrible circumstance when you have to actually back up your statements with evidence.”


EXACTLY!


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

FeXL said:


> You know what's the most fun, Freddie? Reading your "non-engagement engagement" posts. You know the ones I'm talking about. The ones where you obliquely refer to me in the third person. Yeah, those ones. You know who you're talking about & I know who you're talking about & everybody else on these boards knows who you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was actually thinking of someone else, but if you think the term also applies to you, have at 'er.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Even this one little point you've misrepresented its meaning by editing the cartoon and the full definition. Look at the full cartoon. The guy insulted sealions in the presence of a sealion. That's essentially your provocative posting style.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for posting the rest of the cartoon. And I suppose in your view the sea lion is not the one who is at fault. Arrr! Arrrr!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Thank you for posting the rest of the cartoon. And I suppose in your view the sea lion is not the one who is at fault. Arrr! Arrrr!


It's the guy who criticizes sea lions who is the provocateur. The sea lion's a good guy!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I missed the concept of ignoring people and then responding to them frequently. Not once in a while, but many times. Must be a "kids these days" thing.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> It's the guy who criticizes sea lions who is the provocateur. The sea lion's a good guy!



Uh yeah. I think you're reading that the opposite way from what was intended, amigo. The sea lion is a pestering type of creature who can't seem to take the hint that someone does not wish to talk anymore. Yet the sea lion persists, since it probably has nothing better to do. That's the way I'd read it anyway, and what the definition would seem to suggest.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Beej said:


> I missed the concept of ignoring people and then responding to them frequently. Not once in a while, but many times. Must be a "kids these days" thing.



Kids these days have a whole new vocabulary that I'm only partially aware of.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Uh yeah. I think you're reading that the opposite way from what was intended, amigo. The sea lion is a pestering type of creature who can't seem to take the hint that someone does not wish to talk anymore. Yet the sea lion persists, since it probably has nothing better to do. That's the way I'd read it anyway, and what the definition would seem to suggest.


Maybe if you cut out the first panel. 

The important part to note is that the term originated during Gamergate when gamers were being unfairly slagged by SJWs. The SJWs invented the term to express their annoyance at having to provide some evidence supporting such wholesale libel.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Who knows who the hell your vague allusions are referring to?

Civility would demand that you actually refer to a member by name if singling them out for criticism.

If I'm criticizing you for something, there's no doubt precisely who I'm criticizing. Nobody on the site is scratching their heads wondering, "Is that me he's talking about?"

That's being civil...



Freddie_Biff said:


> I was actually thinking of someone else, but if you think the term also applies to you, have at 'er.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

FeXL said:


> Who knows who the hell your vague allusions are referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, yes, and a fresh new way to begin the day. Have a good one, FeXL!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Nice deflection!

Not...

Good to see that your 2 day abstention from reality changed nothing.

KMHUA, Freddie...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Ah, yes, and a fresh new way to begin the day. Have a good one, FeXL!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Ah, yes, and a fresh new way to begin the day. Have a good one, FeXL!


Freddie, you yourself said that people need to address the person to whom they're referring instead of hinting at it. Why so uncivil?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Freddie, you yourself said that people need to address the person to whom they're referring instead of hinting at it. Why so uncivil?


'Cause it's "his" thread &, like most Progs, the rules are only for little people...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> It's the sort of substances that Prog musicians use to get through the course of a normal day. Forces them to unwillingly respond to posts they don't really want to...


Well I know that is not true from personal experience. You can't take mushrooms and do them the next day because they will have no effect, that is why they are not addictive. For some people I suppose they could become an irregular habit. I have ingested them maybe 6 times in my life in may late 20's and early 30's. They were great! In my case they seemed to open another portal into my mind that I didn't know existed. They were transcendental experiences that stay with you for a long time, in my case taking me out of deep depression. Obviously your YMMV. I am not advocating ingesting magic mushrooms to anyone, just to be clear.

The use of drugs and alcohol is not even remotely exclusively reserved for Prog musicians, Rob Ford anyone!!?? As you have said before, you don't understand addiction, so as I try to do myself, please do not speak about things of which you know nothing about.

That is a great part of civility.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Beej said:


> I missed the concept of ignoring people and then responding to them frequently. Not once in a while, but many times. Must be a "kids these days" thing.


Sounds correct to me.

The young adults of today are adopting the younger generation's meaning of words. Semi-old folks have to keep up if they want to understand the language as it is currently being written and spoken.... And that is not a bad thing. Semi-old folks have to know and realize that what is happening today, whether good or bad or neither has always occurred historically. it seems to be cyclical but not like circle, maybe an eliptooed either good or bad.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> Well I know that is not true from personal experience. You can't take mushrooms and do them the next day because they will have no effect, that is why they are not addictive. For some people I suppose they could become an irregular habit. I have ingested them maybe 6 times in my life in may late 20's and early 30's. They were great! In my case they seemed to open another portal into my mind that I didn't know existed. They were transcendental experiences that stay with you for a long time, in my case taking me out of deep depression. Obviously your YMMV. I am not advocating ingesting magic mushrooms to anyone, just to be clear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well put, Steve. There are many kinds of addictions as well. Drugs and alcohol are only two of many. The Beatles found great inspiration from drug use. I don't think that diminishes them in any way.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Nothing in my post about addictions.

It was an easy out for Freddie, as nobody in their right mind would actually claim somebody else forced them to respond to their posts...



screature said:


> Well I know that is not true from personal experience.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Well stated. It's the position of many of us here that respect is earned. Others have previously stated that they want all of their ideas to be respected out of the gate. I believe that respect is earned by not merely blurting an idea, but by supporting it as well.


Thank you.  Support is never a bad idea, even for ideas which (to the person offering them) seem to be self-evidently beneficial. And the more controversial the idea, the more necessary it is to have some kind of reasonably sensible argument to back it up.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Perhaps "respect" is not the right word, but I agree with what you're saying. Perhaps another way of saying it would be this: though I may have the right to pester someone until I'm blue in the face, I am not likely to persuade them to consider my point of view by pestering them. Persuasion is often about tactics.


I won't say pestering _never_ works, but it rarely does. Sometimes people have their own reasons for disagreeing with a specific idea, regardless of the proof proponents may offer, but I've also run across several people who simply dig their heels in (Facebook again ...) and that's that -- further discussion is pointless.



screature said:


> Excellent!


Thank you. 



FeXL said:


> Two whole days...


Hey, if FB made it two whole days with reasonably civil comments, I'd be worried that The End" really is Nigh!  :lmao:


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> I won't say pestering _never_ works, but it rarely does. Sometimes people have their own reasons for disagreeing with a specific idea, regardless of the proof proponents may offer, but I've also run across several people who simply dig their heels in (Facebook again ...) and that's that -- further discussion is pointless.



Supporting one's ideas is of course a good idea. However, there are some for whom any amount of supper or explanation is just never enough. Furthermore, when one attempts to explain what they mean, there are those who feel it is their sole purpose in life to pick it apart. It doesn't provide much incentive for further conversation. It's known as sea-lioning (see the previous posts on the subject) and it is inherently an uncivil way to communicate. It's like having someone dogging you at a house party when all you're trying to do is have a conversation with someone else. I'm happy to explain further to someone who is polite or respectful in their manner, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try to appease someone who's being a real jerk to me. So there's that.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Victory! Off to Game 6 in San Jose. Just had to share that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Sea lioning" is to say something provocative and then being irritated to have to back up your claim. In the gamergate origin, to make a disparaging comment about a gamer and then being asked to back up those claims. In the cartoon, to make a disparaging comment about a sea lion and then being angered when the sea lion reacts. It begins with the incivility of making a provocative statement and then taking no responsibility for the statement. 

As it applies to you, I don't believe I've ever seen you back up anything you say. It's not a matter of being asked for far more than you want to give. It's a consistent request for something and receiving nothing. However, in most cases that non-response is what people have come to expect. It signals that you simply have nothing more to bring to the table, as was expected to begin with, and that collapses your premise.

That you consistently try to turn this around on others is almost unfathomable to me. It's not your living room, it's an open forum. Don't want to be challenged? Don't say challenging things in public.

No safe spaces.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Supporting one's ideas is of course a good idea. However, there are some for whom any amount of supper or explanation is just never enough. Furthermore, when one attempts to explain what they mean, there are those who feel it is their sole purpose in life to pick it apart. It doesn't provide much incentive for further conversation. It's known as sea-lioning (see the previous posts on the subject) and it is inherently an uncivil way to communicate. It's like having someone dogging you at a house party when all you're trying to do is have a conversation with someone else. I'm happy to explain further to someone who is polite or respectful in their manner, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try to appease someone who's being a real jerk to me. So there's that.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

No, it's de rigueur. And not in the fashionable sense, either...



Freddie_Biff said:


> Supporting one's ideas is of course a good idea.


Of course having your baseless claims thrown back in your face sans supporting evidence provides little incentive to continue. That's the whole point. A wiser person would have figured this out by now & changed their methodology. You? Not so much...



Freddie_Biff said:


> It doesn't provide much incentive for further conversation.


FTFY...



Freddie_Biff said:


> It's known as whining and it is inherently an uncivil way to communicate. That said, I do it better than anybody on these boards.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mistake.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Nothing in my post about addictions.
> 
> It was an easy out for Freddie, as nobody in their right mind would actually claim somebody else forced them to respond to their posts...


So what was this supposed to mean:



> t's the sort of substances that Prog musicians use to get through the course of a normal day. Forces them to unwillingly respond to posts they don't really want to...


Are you talking about tofu, wheat grass, or some such other substance?

You don't play the dummy card well.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> 'Cause it's "his" thread &, *like all Progs,* the rules are only for little people...


Could you just quit that chite!! You don't know all "Progs". Just like any philosophy or political inclination no one is entirely the same or believes exactly the same thing.

So I would suggest that you stop making ridiculous overarching prejudiced posts that are just meant to deliberately inflame one person in particular. There is no civility or class in that, but you don't care because you are:



> Just a meat eating, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Harley riding deplorable troglodyte, back from a better place...


And very proud of it.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> Could you just quit that chite!! You don't know all "Progs". Just like any philosophy or political inclination no one is entirely the same or believes exactly the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Leopards don't change their spots, Steve.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Leopards don't change their spots, Steve.


Sure they do, I have seen it all the time personally, albeit the older you get the harder it is. Otherwise what you are suggesting is there in no possibility for humans to make a realization and change their lives. I fundamentally disagree with that as I have seen it happen so many times.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> Sure they do, I have seen it all the time personally, albeit the older you get the harder it is. Otherwise what you are suggesting is there in no possibility for humans to make a realization and change their lives. I fundamentally disagree with that as I have seen it happen so many times.


Certainly older people can and do change. I've noticed it in myself. I also recall one neighbour who was an alcoholic and an Assh01. He went way out of his way to make amends after giving up booze. I am glad I was able to forgive and take the time to get to know him over the last two years of his life. He proved himself a worthy friend.

On a personal level, if I have not made any changes over the past year, then that year was a complete waste of my time. If I find out who I'm paraphrasing I will happily give them credit.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> Sure they do, I have seen it all the time personally, albeit the older you get the harder it is. Otherwise what you are suggesting is there in no possibility for humans to make a realization and change their lives. I fundamentally disagree with that as I have seen it happen so many times.



What I'm saying is the human being in question would have to WANT to change. Absent that, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Freddie_Biff said:


> What I'm saying is the human being in question would have to WANT to change. Absent that, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.


Well that may indeed be the case. Sorry for not saying this from the outset but you two seem to be on the opposite sides of the same coin.

I really don't see much difference in approach. You both basically make a post (memes included or not) and then beat up each another enough until someone else replies either positively of negatively.

That is how it has been for months and months... You both have had all kinds of suggestions as how to change/make thinks better but neither of you seem to be capable to keep it up for very long... So guess what? You are cut from the same cloth. You were sewn differently but you are both basically the same in terms of stubbornness and rabid partisanship. Also you both seem to like to be chite disturbers. That is ok so long as it is kept in the general realm with at least some facts/citation to back it up.

Anyway, just my rant for the day, take it or leave it.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> Well that may indeed be the case. Sorry for not saying this from the outset but you two seem to be on the opposite sides of the same coin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I am at the point where I just don't really care about getting his blessing anymore nor the other chap. I have had enough of the criticism after every post; it is not warranted and it is really quite rude, to be honest. It is sea-lioning at its finest, and the irony is that one of the two thinks the sea lion is actually the good guy. 

As far as the same cloth, I beg to differ. We are both stubborn, true enough, but the chap you refer to needs a scapegoat and I am it. He has absolutely no interest in getting along, and I have no absolutely no interest in going along with the demands for "defending my position." It's just a dumb little on-line forum FFS. Nobody gets paid. And what's the point of going into great detail when people like these guys are just going to dice it up anyway? They're really honestly not worth my time.

That's the nice thing about blocking. The words come up with spoiler tags around them, which I can then choose to read or not read. Even if I read it, I can choose to respond or not respond, just as I'm doing with your post now. No need for knee-jerk reactions. I've tried them and they don't work well for me. 

I've been a part of this forum for over ten years now. I like it, or at least parts of it. I like being able to converse with others and find a way to converse even with those I disagree with. It helps improve my communication skills. And I certainly know which buttons to push. It's interesting. If the other chaos want to be civil, I'd be happy to respond. But the balk is in their court. 

Thanks for listening and for giving me something to think about. I hope you have a great weekend. And remember: game 6 for my hometown heroes the Edmonton Oilers is Saturday night in San Jose.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> If the other chaos want to be civil, I'd be happy to respond. But the balk is in their court.


Auto-correct is a cruel mistress.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Auto-correct is a cruel mistress.



Yeah, I thought about fixing that, but I thought it was funnier this way.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

screature said:


> Sounds correct to me.
> 
> The young adults of today are adopting the younger generation's meaning of words. Semi-old folks have to keep up if they want to understand the language as it is currently being written and spoken.... And that is not a bad thing. Semi-old folks have to know and realize that what is happening today, whether good or bad or neither has always occurred historically. it seems to be cyclical but not like circle, maybe an eliptooed either good or bad.


I worded my post poorly (a habit), but enjoyed reading your response on, to me, a different topic. Thanks.

My post was about the strangeness of making a point of ignoring/blocking someone and then exchanging posts with them soon after. Do we now ignore/block based on our daily mood? So be it, but not for me.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Beej said:


> I worded my post poorly (a habit), but enjoyed reading your response on, to me, a different topic. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> My post was about the strangeness of making a point of ignoring/blocking someone and then exchanging posts with them soon after. Do we now ignore/block based on our daily mood? So be it, but not for me.



Good question. I've never blocked anyone before this. I wanted to know what it would look like. For me, it's a reminder that I don't have to show up to every argument I'm invited to. I like it so far. Also, if I set a good example and can refrain from being reactive, perhaps others can as too. We shall see, as Dr. G is fond of saying. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You DON'T have to show up to ANY argument. Someone may fillet the content of your post, but responding is entirely optional.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Beej said:


> I worded my post poorly (a habit), but enjoyed reading your response on, to me, a different topic. Thanks.
> 
> *My post was about the strangeness of making a point of ignoring/blocking someone and then exchanging posts with them soon after.* Do we now ignore/block based on our daily mood? So be it, but not for me.


I know. It has happened all too frequently in the past. I have even even been guilty of such sins.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> You DON'T have to show up to ANY argument. *Someone may fillet the content of your post, but responding is entirely optional.*


Agreed. But a thinking person probably has some difficulty not responding. Maybe the Dali Lama is a good example, but the average Joe is less likely not to respond and react.

All we can do is try to do our best to try to be good people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Agreed. But a thinking person probably has some difficulty not responding. Maybe the Dali Lama is a good example, but the average Joe is less likely not to respond and react.
> 
> All we can do is try to do our best to try to be good people.


Sure, but when I respond it's because I choose to--not because I think somebody else wants me to,


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

screature said:


> Agreed. But a thinking person probably has some difficulty not responding. Maybe the Dali Lama is a good example, but the average Joe is less likely not to respond and react.
> 
> 
> 
> All we can do is try to do our best to try to be good people.



Amen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's interesting. I could decide never to respond to someone again and stick with it. I would have no problem doing it.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> It's interesting. I could decide never to respond to someone again and stick with it. I would have no problem doing it.



And that's what makes us all different, isn't it? If I choose not to talk to converse with someone, there's a reason. I don't cut off communication just as some kind of endurance test. If there's pleasant conversation to be had, I'll have it, like right this moment. I am not married to an ideal. In my life, that's what forgiveness is about it—learning to let go of grudges for my own sanity. If things go south, I can always opt out again. It's the ebb and flow of life.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There would be no grudge involved. I could make the decision and never look back. Just different personality types.



Freddie_Biff said:


> And that's what makes us all different, isn't it? If I choose not to talk to converse with someone, there's a reason. I don't cut off communication just as some kind of endurance test. If there's pleasant conversation to be had, I'll have it, like right this moment. I am not married to an ideal. In my life, that's what forgiveness is about it—learning to let go of grudges for my own sanity. If things go south, I can always opt out again. It's the ebb and flow of life.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> There would be no grudge involved. I could make the decision and never look back. Just different personality types.



Yep. On that we agree.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Hallelujah!





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






May he rest in peace.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Sure, but when I respond it's because I choose to--*not because I think somebody else wants me to,*


Of course not.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Screature, yer absolutely right. I apologize & have amended my post to more properly reflect my knowledge of Progs.



screature said:


> Could you just quit that chite!! You don't know all "Progs". Just like any philosophy or political inclination no one is entirely the same or believes exactly the same thing.


Yer damn straight I am. No apologies there...



screature said:


> There is no civility or class in that, but you don't care because you are:
> 
> And very proud of it.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Civil Thread seems to have gone mute ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VieleKatzen said:


> Civil Thread seems to have gone mute ...


Maybe because it's so dull?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Maybe because it's so dull?


Civility is never dull, mon ami. One can always find a kind word or two to express to anyone and everyone in various situations. Paix, my friend.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

I have no quarrel with civility. It's the way to get things done without becoming irritable. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Civility is never dull, mon ami. One can always find a kind word or two to express to anyone and everyone in various situations. Paix, my friend.


Not civility--the thread!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I have no quarrel with civility. It's the way to get things done without becoming irritable.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very good point, Frank. :clap:


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Not civility--the thread!


Any suggestions on how to liven it up without becoming uncivil?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VieleKatzen said:


> Any suggestions on how to liven it up without becoming uncivil?


I say, it's a jolly nice day now, isn't it?!


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> I say, it's a jolly nice day now, isn't it?!


:lmao:

It is, except

1) It's night, and

2) I keep losing the Star Wars shoot-'em-up game my nephew downloaded onto my iPad, dammit!

Oops. Shouldn't have sworn.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Darn the torpedoes--full steam ahead!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

:clap:


Macfury said:


> I say, it's a jolly nice day now, isn't it?!


:lmao:


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Darn the torpedoes--full steam ahead!


I'll second that!

I'll also second somebody launching a torpedo at this computer ...  It's in desperate need of a replacement. Had to reboot it three times this morning.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

VieleKatzen said:


> I'll second that!
> 
> I'll also second somebody launching a torpedo at this computer ...  It's in desperate need of a replacement. Had to reboot it three times this morning.


Try running OnYX on it (use the automation button). Does wonders, but be sure to get the right version for your OS. Download it free here:

https://www.titanium-software.fr/en/onyx.html


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> I'll second that!
> 
> 
> 
> I'll also second somebody launching a torpedo at this computer ...  It's in desperate need of a replacement. Had to reboot it three times this morning.



What kind of computer, VieleKatzen?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> What kind of computer, VieleKatzen?


Not sure how I now this, but I think it is a Mac Mini.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Yes, it is a Mac Mini, and I'm told (by a local Mac fix-it shop) that the problem is, it's about 7 years old ... and I put the newest OS (Sierra) on it. Certainly that is the point at which the problems started.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

VieleKatzen said:


> Yes, it is a Mac Mini, and I'm told (by a local Mac fix-it shop) that the problem is, it's about 7 years old ... and I put the newest OS (Sierra) on it. Certainly that is the point at which the problems started.


Have you tried running OnYX yet?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VieleKatzen said:


> Yes, it is a Mac Mini, and I'm told (by a local Mac fix-it shop) that the problem is, it's about 7 years old ... and I put the newest OS (Sierra) on it. Certainly that is the point at which the problems started.


RAM may be the killer here. How much you got?


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury: 2GB

Sinc: Not yet. Will try it tomorrow.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

2GB may be pushing it. I tried that upgrade on my older Mini and it just bogged out. Buying more RAM is on my to-do list.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

SINC said:


> Have you tried running OnYX yet?


Well, that was ... a lot of nothing.

I downloaded it (and was careful to download the correct version) and installed it.

Nothing.

Hmmm ... tried again. And again. And again.

Finally opened my Applications folder to find SIX attempts at installing (the original, plus 'alias', plus 2/3/4/5). There was no indication any of them had done anything.

More and more I think I just need to replace this poor thing ...


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

VieleKatzen said:


> Well, that was ... a lot of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would think your seven year old Mac mini probably doesn't have what's needed to run the newest operating system. Eventually I had to replace my eight year old MacBook for the same reason. No regrets.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When you go to "About this Mac" what model does it indicate?



VieleKatzen said:


> Well, that was ... a lot of nothing.
> 
> I downloaded it (and was careful to download the correct version) and installed it.
> 
> ...


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I would think your seven year old Mac mini probably doesn't have what's needed to run the newest operating system. Eventually I had to replace my eight year old MacBook for the same reason. No regrets.


I think you're right. (I may have mentioned this before, but when I spoke to a Mac tech about installing Sierra and the problems thereafter, she got this ... look ... on her face ... :lmao: I said, "I'm guessing by your expression I should not have put Sierra on there ....")



Macfury said:


> When you go to "About this Mac" what model does it indicate?


"Mac mini (Mid 2010)"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nothing wrong with running Sierra on that model. It's the RAM you're probably short on.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Nothing wrong with running Sierra on that model. It's the RAM you're probably short on.


Make sure to check other sources than Apple about upgrading RAM - it's a cheap and simple upgrade and you can often add more than Apple suggests.

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Mac+Mini+Mid+2010+RAM+Replacement/3107

To wit, I have 24GB in my mid 2011 iMac (which apple says supports 16)

If you do do it yourself, be sure to guard against electrostatic discharge!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

polywog said:


> Make sure to check other sources than Apple about upgrading RAM - it's a cheap and simple upgrade and you can often add more than Apple suggests.
> 
> https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Mac+Mini+Mid+2010+RAM+Replacement/3107
> 
> ...


Apple is the last source I think of for RAM. Have done it myself since day one. That Mini makes RAM upgrades fairly easy. But it should have a minimum of 4GB. I recently threw an extra 6GB of RAM into my 2008 Mac Pro, bringing it up to 16 GB and was surprised to see the improvement, particularly on web browsers.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

VieleKatzen said:


> I think you're right. (I may have mentioned this before, but when I spoke to a Mac tech about installing Sierra and the problems thereafter, she got this ... look ... on her face ... :lmao: I said, "I'm guessing by your expression I should not have put Sierra on there ....")
> 
> 
> 
> "Mac mini (Mid 2010)"


I think MacFury may be right. I have two minis and had to jack up the ram. There is a company on Tecumseh Rd called iFix, it is opposite the Fresco there. I have had work done there before and they seem okay.....but check out prices and customer reaction at other locations if you are going to upgrade. To be honest , i have found that sometimes it is cheaper to buy a new model than to do the upgrade .


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Apple is the last source I think of for RAM. Have done it myself since day one. That Mini makes RAM upgrades fairly easy. But it should have a minimum of 4GB. I recently threw an extra 6GB of RAM into my 2008 Mac Pro, bringing it up to 16 GB and was surprised to see the improvement, particularly on web browsers.


Yeah, was more a comment to VieleKatzen, in case he were to take your advice to add RAM.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Nothing wrong with running Sierra on that model. It's the RAM you're probably short on.





Macfury said:


> ... But it should have a minimum of 4GB. ...


2 GB 



polywog said:


> Make sure to check other sources than Apple about upgrading RAM - it's a cheap and simple upgrade and you can often add more than Apple suggests.
> 
> https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Mac+Mini+Mid+2010+RAM+Replacement/3107
> 
> ...


I'll check out that link, thanks. And uh ... thanks for the warning. 



Rps said:


> I think MacFury may be right. I have two minis and had to jack up the ram. There is a company on Tecumseh Rd called iFix, it is opposite the Fresco there. I have had work done there before and they seem okay.....but check out prices and customer reaction at other locations if you are going to upgrade. To be honest , i have found that sometimes it is cheaper to buy a new model than to do the upgrade .


Oddly, I went there to ask about the whole Sierra issue, and nobody mentioned RAM ...
I'll go back and ask about adding RAM and see what they say. Or maybe I could go to Staples ...


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Staples is a good place to go if you want to talk to people with absolutely no Apple expertise. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

polywog said:


> Yeah, was more a comment to VieleKatzen, in case he were to take your advice to add RAM.


I was just seconding your opinion!

4GB should cost around $60.

Canada RAM sells memory in Canada - Apple Macintosh Mac Mini Intel and G4

Installation is easy as hell, VieleKatzen:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Staples is a good place to go if you want to talk to people with absolutely no Apple expertise.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Other than to buy one, perhaps.

Used to have some really good Apple techies in the Niagara Region, where I lived for about 10 years. I'm hoping iFix is a good place but haven't really had much contact with them ... yet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VieleKatzen said:


> Other than to buy one, perhaps.
> 
> Used to have some really good Apple techies in the Niagara Region, where I lived for about 10 years. I'm hoping iFix is a good place but haven't really had much contact with them ... yet.


They're quick to sell you one--but I've heard that some of these resellers try to sell their own warranty on top of the standard one.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> They're quick to sell you one--but I've heard that some of these resellers try to sell their own warranty on top of the standard one.


Ah. Thanks for the heads-up. The iFix place, unfortunately, does not sell Macs, so if I decide to replace this one, I'll have to look around for a Mac dealer.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

I forgot about this thread. Certainly conversing politely lacks the bite of the more political threads, but it's not a bad way to pass the time.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

The weather is finally warming up to seasonal or better this week. This is as good, as it's been a long cold lonely winter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have noticed a marked improvement in people's attitudes with the warm weather finally arriving. Many more involuntary smiles abound wherever I go.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> I have noticed a marked improvement in people's attitudes with the warm weather finally arriving. Many more involuntary smiles abound wherever I go.


Yes, sunshine has that effect upon people. Paix, mon ami. :clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Sunshine almost always makes me high.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why'd you only call us when you're high?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Sunshine almost always makes me high.


It should also make you happy.  Paix, mon ami.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diwuu_r6GJE[/ame]


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think this is the creed of the snowflake. Just because you feel bad doesn't mean you have been "destroyed." Just because you don't like what you're feeling, doesn't mean other people are abnormal.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

So, Freddie, how does your calling someone an "assoholic" mesh with your whole civility thing? Acceptable behaviour? Maybe? Not so much? Meh? It's FeXL so it doesn't matter?

Jes' askin'...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If they do that, apparently there is "something wrong" with them.



FeXL said:


> So, Freddie, how does your calling someone an "assoholic" mesh with your whole civility thing? Acceptable behaviour? Maybe? Not so much? Meh? It's FeXL so it doesn't matter?
> 
> Jes' askin'...


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Had a lovely time at the Sheryl Crow concert in Edmonton tonight with my lovely bride. Great show!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Yeah? Did you tell her about your something less than civil "assoholic" comment?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Had a lovely time at the Sheryl Crow concert in Edmonton tonight with my lovely bride. Great show!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Yeah? Did you tell her about your something less than civil "assoholic" comment?


FeXL, if someone treats you bad, just remember that there is something wrong with them, not you.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

FeXL said:


> Yeah? Did you tell her about your something less than civil "assoholic" comment?



You are a living breathing example and you don’t know when to quit. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> FeXL, if someone treats you bad, just remember that there is something wrong with them, not you.




Right back at you, amigo. Decency is just not part of your makeup, unfortunately.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Had a lovely time at the Sheryl Crow concert in Edmonton tonight with my lovely bride. Great show!



Despite some people’s attempt to derail this thread, I must say Sheryl has an impressive repertoire of songs to choose from. She and her boys also had a great time playing in the amusement and water parks at West Edmonton Mall, she said. A great artist all around.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I like some of her stuff, but my fav is 'All I Wanna Do'. Catch myself humming it every so often.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Tell ya what, Freddie. I'll make a little deal with you: I'll stop when you stop. IOW, if you don't post anything assholish, neither will I.

It's called cause & effect and is a concept most on the right understand entirely & most on the left struggle with.

Your call.



Freddie_Biff said:


> You are a living breathing example and you don’t know when to quit.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Right back at you, amigo. Decency is just not part of your makeup, unfortunately.


Just because you feel bad doesn't mean someone has treated you badly, Freddie. Put some more effort into your posts and people will warm up to you.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

FeXL said:


> Tell ya what, Freddie. I'll make a little deal with you: I'll stop when you stop. IOW, if you don't post anything assholish, neither will I.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’ll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

SINC said:


> I like some of her stuff, but my fav is 'All I Wanna Do'. Catch myself humming it every so often.



That’s the one she opened with! A great performance too, complete with lap steel guitar.


----------



## VieleKatzen (Sep 4, 2016)

Macfury said:


> I think this is the creed of the snowflake. Just because you feel bad doesn't mean you have been "destroyed." Just because you don't like what you're feeling, doesn't mean other people are abnormal.


Have to agree with this. I might feel bad when I am called on the carpet at work (when I _have_ work), but if I actually screwed up, my boss is not in a position to simply ignore it, even if he/she wanted to.

Of course, if he/she decides to launch a verbal tirade and scream and rant and yell, then yeah, chances are good he/she IS an asshole.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

So, Freddie, I was jes' lookin' at this post from this very thread, you know, the so-called "_Civil_ Thread"?

Are you replying to MF in a post that was clearly addressed to me?

Shocka. :yikes:

Cerberus, indeed.

Might wanna check that hallway mirror out once more. It's probably been a while...


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

In other good news, Apple hits $1Trillion!!


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Hope everyone’s having an A-One day!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Freddie_Biff said:


> Hope everyone’s having an A-One day!


Same to you, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Freddie, it's going great!

Trump is about to turn the Blue Wave into a puddle. Frau Merkel is quitting. Brazil just got rid of the socialists.

Closer to home, Red Rachel's appointment with the unemployment line is fast approaching, le P'tit P'tat continues to offend as many Canadians as he can between now & election day next fall and that can only mean one thing: One Term Juthdin!

Woohoo!



Freddie_Biff said:


> Hope everyone’s having an A-One day!


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

FeXL said:


> Freddie, it's going great!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So apart from politics, how is it going?


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Good news for Apple today as it passes MicroSoft to become #1 again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It looks like they both fell, but Microsoft fell further.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

I keep hoping for Apple profits and stocks to go down. If they start bleeding money they must look at changing their direction. I am not a fan of their current direction and miss the Apple of old. I am obviously a minority though as they keep making money.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

wonderings said:


> I keep hoping for Apple profits and stocks to go down. If they start bleeding money they must look at changing their direction. I am not a fan of their current direction and miss the Apple of old. I am obviously a minority though as they keep making money.


I am reminded every day of Apple's fall from grace, when my iPhone tells me that I don't have enough iCloud space for a back-up, but I can't tell the phone that I don't care and never want to see the message again. Every other day, my MacPro reminds me to upgrade to Mojave, even though my graphics card can't support it. I can only tell the notice to "remind me tomorrow." The Apple of old would never have chosen daily irritation of its user base as a marketing tool.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> It looks like they both fell, but Microsoft fell further.




You miss the point. Microsoft’s market cap has been higher than Apple’s for several months. Apple has inched back up to the top spot, for now at least. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

From the charts it looks like Apple's market cap has declined, but Microsoft's has declined further.



Freddie_Biff said:


> You miss the point. Microsoft’s market cap has been higher than Apple’s for several months. Apple has inched back up to the top spot, for now at least.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 18m2 (Nov 24, 2013)

ENB.TO is doing just fine.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> From the charts it looks like Apple's market cap has declined, but Microsoft's has declined further.




Sure, for one day. You need to look at the big picture.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I am reminded every day of Apple's fall from grace, when my iPhone tells me that I don't have enough iCloud space for a back-up, but I can't tell the phone that I don't care and never want to see the message again. Every other day, my MacPro reminds me to upgrade to Mojave, even though my graphics card can't support it. I can only tell the notice to "remind me tomorrow." The Apple of old would never have chosen daily irritation of its user base as a marketing tool.


That is not just an Apple thing anymore. On a Windows 10 machine we have here at work I am constantly reminded that I need to update. I can put off till tomorrow and keep rescheduling. Other updates I have zero option for declining, when I shut down it is either update and shutdown or update and restart.

Now this is Windows 10 home. I think the Pro version has the option to ignore.

I have the same thing, I do not want to upgrade to Mojave and get daily reminders that I ignore. Apple really needs a visionary back in charge otherwise they are just any old tech company that is way to self righteous.


----------

