Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

[Symbology]

I like the word "paralogist" -- but it certainly smacks of someone who uses fallacy on purpose, who might even research and practice the use of subtle fallacious logic just so he can "win" arguments, or give the appearance of winning. A paralogist is deceitful.

 

But the poor uneducated sap who has no clue that his fancy "strawman" technique is merely a crude fallacy, deserves another name. Any suggestions?

 

How about "orthologist"? (other logic)

 

Or "subologist"? (beneath logic)

 

This reminds me very much of a small 80 page book by Dr. Harry G. Frankfurt of Princeton University. The book is called On Bull$#!% http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197049907&sr=8-1 and covers clearly the difference between BS and lying.

 

To sum up what I got from the book: BS is about deceiving others related to your purpose even though the BSer doesn't care what the truth is one way or the other.

 

Lying is about misleading others when the lier knows the truth but wants to direct others away from it.

 

Society tends to bring much harsher consequences to liers than to BSers. I think generally because it is based on intentions.

 

I would highly recommend the book by the way. He also has the other side called On Truth http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/030726422X/ref=bxgy_cc_b_text_a.

[LaurieAG]

But the poor uneducated sap who has no clue that his fancy "strawman" technique is merely a crude fallacy, deserves another name. Any suggestions?

 

Hi Pyro,

 

Some names are 'sucker' or even a cult acolyte.

[Kriminal99]

You know, a person need not be educated in order to understand straw man fallacy.

 

Unless you are considering the school of hard knocks as education...

 

If a street thug says to another street thug "Why don't you say it to my face, are you afraid what?!?!?" they are basically referring to the same thing.

 

Funny thing is not too long ago there was a slang term "busta" in ebonics or whatever you want to call "ghetto speak".

 

Like most slang terms it is constantly redefined by entertaining uses of it but at least some people used it to denote someone who would sooner shoot a gun than confront the ideas of his opponent.

 

Thus indicating a pretty direct understanding of the fallacy...

 

It is my belief that understanding of most fallacies comes from adverse conditions or random punishment. People naturally depend on and provide for each other, so it makes sense that the only time people value reason over just "going with the flow" is when someone is abused by others or when the natural enviornment just randomly punishes someone in a way that could have been avoided by understanding of things.

 

This reminds me very much of a small 80 page book by Dr. Harry G. Frankfurt of Princeton University. The book is called On Bull$#!% and covers clearly the difference between BS and lying.

 

To sum up what I got from the book: BS is about deceiving others related to your purpose even though the BSer doesn't care what the truth is one way or the other.

 

Lying is about misleading others when the lier knows the truth but wants to direct others away from it.

 

Society tends to bring much harsher consequences to liers than to BSers. I think generally because it is based on intentions.

 

I would highly recommend the book by the way. He also has the other side called On Truth.

 

Oooh I need to read that. There are way too many bsers that I know of and I have zero understanding of this behavior. I actually try to accuse them of lying, and pin down why it is lying to do what they do. And of course they just continue to bs. They don't need any reason for conviction, nothing they say makes any damn sense and they don't care. I HATE THAT..

 

Why do they do it? There must be some reason why they think it is ok? Is it just that they think there is no objective truth, but you can't debate it with them because they are shielded by a wall of BS? Why DAMMIT WHY?!?!?!

[Pyrotex]

But they think they do know...

I took several days before deciding whether or not to answer your post. It appears to be full of anger and hurt. That anger IMHO appears to be predicated on certain assumptions you make. First, the quote above. It appears to reflect your belief that you are able to interpret the intentions behind people's spoken words. My decades of experience tell me that this is a dangerous thing to believe.

Are they choosing willful ignorance? Determinist says no

According to your point of view of free will in conjunction with understanding of common fallacy Pyrotex, these people should be punished for their willful ignorance. After all they are deciding to be aggressive against people who disagree with them and refuse to consider the other point of view.

There ARE people who are actually proud of their willfull and arrogant ignorance. But such folks are rare in the circles I run around in, that is, folks with college degrees. I run into them when I have to visit my home town or other rural areas. Such folks are best just left alone. There is NOTHING to be gained by crossing swords with them.

 

Actually, my point on free will was that very few people actually have the power to exercise it. Yahoos like you describe, typically CANNOT exercise free will. They are as determined as you suggest. Another reason that there is NOTHING to gain by arguing with them. I certainly make no attempt to "punish" them. Except on Raaaaaare occassions. :hihi:

It is easy for me to become excessively angry at such people and want to say things like "At what point did you decide you knew something ignorant little sheep??!?!", etc...

Sure. It's easy to get angry, especially if you think they are willfully obtuse, willfully obdurant, willfully insulting. But generally, they aren't. I could be that you are just rubbing elbows with the wrong crowd. Try hanging out with a more intellectual crowd at an upscale coffee house.

...while I am in a constant struggle against their aggressive behavior.

More indication of your anger and hurt.

...since I may have to smack the crap out of someone (Physically or metaphorically) to take away their feeling of empowerment

More indication of your anger and rage even. And by the way, STCOOS (physically or metaphorically) just doesn't work. Haven't you discovered that yet? It does not nor will it ever "take away their feeling of empowerment". All it will do is ignite their "get out of my face, buddy!" aggressive counter-reaction. I'm surprised you haven't picked up on this already, given your intelligence.

...So the two types of people you mention are one and the same in my view.

No, I don't think so. Your logic is being driven by your own internal feelings of anger and aren't very objective. There really are two (or more) kinds of fallacifiers in this world. There are those who actually don't know what a fallacy is. And yes, even educated people fall pray to this. I've seen it happen all the time. They just use the same fallacies that their daddy used, or their preacher, or their favorite teacher, and it never occurs to them to question their (lack of) logic.

 

By the way, I did some reading on Spinoza, and his philosophy in your absence, and he advocated that "free will" was an illusion. Wow, my 3rd favorite philosopher agrees with Krim. Who'da thunkit?

 

However, in the fine details, Spinoza offered an "out". There is free will, after all. But it is accessible by only the few. (Such as Spinoza himself)

[Kriminal99]

I took several days before deciding whether or not to answer your post. It appears to be full of anger and hurt. That anger IMHO appears to be predicated on certain assumptions you make. First, the quote above. It appears to reflect your belief that you are able to interpret the intentions behind people's spoken words. My decades of experience tell me that this is a dangerous thing to believe.

There ARE people who are actually proud of their willfull and arrogant ignorance. But such folks are rare in the circles I run around in, that is, folks with college degrees. I run into them when I have to visit my home town or other rural areas. Such folks are best just left alone. There is NOTHING to be gained by crossing swords with them.

 

Actually, my point on free will was that very few people actually have the power to exercise it. Yahoos like you describe, typically CANNOT exercise free will. They are as determined as you suggest. Another reason that there is NOTHING to gain by arguing with them. I certainly make no attempt to "punish" them. Except on Raaaaaare occassions. :hihi:

Sure. It's easy to get angry, especially if you think they are willfully obtuse, willfully obdurant, willfully insulting. But generally, they aren't. I could be that you are just rubbing elbows with the wrong crowd. Try hanging out with a more intellectual crowd at an upscale coffee house.

More indication of your anger and hurt.

More indication of your anger and rage even. And by the way, STCOOS (physically or metaphorically) just doesn't work. Haven't you discovered that yet? It does not nor will it ever "take away their feeling of empowerment". All it will do is ignite their "get out of my face, buddy!" aggressive counter-reaction. I'm surprised you haven't picked up on this already, given your intelligence.

No, I don't think so. Your logic is being driven by your own internal feelings of anger and aren't very objective. There really are two (or more) kinds of fallacifiers in this world. There are those who actually don't know what a fallacy is. And yes, even educated people fall pray to this. I've seen it happen all the time. They just use the same fallacies that their daddy used, or their preacher, or their favorite teacher, and it never occurs to them to question their (lack of) logic.

 

By the way, I did some reading on Spinoza, and his philosophy in your absence, and he advocated that "free will" was an illusion. Wow, my 3rd favorite philosopher agrees with Krim. Who'da thunkit?

 

However, in the fine details, Spinoza offered an "out". There is free will, after all. But it is accessible by only the few. (Such as Spinoza himself)

 

The people who "think they do know" are the ones who act aggressively against others based on their perceived "understanding" of the situations. The fact that they are acting aggressively shows that they think they know what is going on and are therefore somehow empowered to act in such a manner. I am including in this for instance people who think that intellectualism or knowledge bring nothing but confusion and thus yell at anyone who analyzes a situation. They still think they know that their ideas regarding intellectualism are right.

 

Although I am specifically talking about people who act in aggressive ways so as to limit their opponents ability to respond. Just disagreeing doesn't count... Avoiding the conversation when they obviously have an opinion on the subject, yelling over you, using unconnected metaphors, sarcasm, appealing to the common opinion and others for support etc are.

 

The fact that they refuse to consider alternatives necessarily means they believe for certain that they are correct.

 

It only doesn't work as well on the internet where weak people feel empowered by their anonymity. People who are full of it know they are full of it. When a confrontation occurs you have on one hand a person who is just trying to win a silly little game with a slew of lies and deception and on the other hand someone who will fight to the death for truth and justice (it isn't just a threat or bluff). Sure they will talk big when you aren't around but when it's a face to face confrontation they will back down every time.

 

Strong people know better than to try and lie or manipulate an argument or deceive others at someone else's expense just to look cool temporarily. That is weak and cowardly behavior. It isn't worth it for people to die over a difference in opinion and strong people know this - battles between strong people only take place in the mind. Maybe at a young age you have a couple of them beat on each other a bit because they are both absolutely certain the other is incorrect, and after that they learn the futility of it.

 

But in various situations you have something I like to call the "empowered coward" where someone who does not know this feels so temporarily protected from retribution that they are willing to attack others even though they have avoided it before and have no sense of honor. I feel the internet is one of those situations.

 

If there really was a difference between the frequency with which people react dishonestly to me and how often they react to you in this manner I think it is most likely due to the number of topics I would be willing to apply logic to and debate their behavior. My actions are motivated differently than most people and everyone having an accurate perception of the situation is more important to me than superficial politeness... I wouldn't stop at one single point of disagreement if the person graciously accepts that he could be wrong about that one thing.

 

I also have applied logic to and gained an understanding of many things that I would oppose other's opinions if the subject comes up. Meaning maybe the average person can remain fair and honest in debate if someone makes a valid challenge to one thing they believe... But if I break down several ideas they claim in a row, or a major pillar of their general belief set, or many of their behaviors (even without trying to "rub it in" and make them look stupid) then they suddenly become really immature about it.

 

I don't think this is something I should take into consideration, but rather something they should be taught to accept from an early age. Do we want a race of people who are blissfully ignorant and reject anyone who has significant disagreements with the group, or do we want a race of people who s beliefs directly model reality and are always able to accomplish their goals in the real world because all of their beliefs match it?

 

Also as I said before people who feel temporarily empowered and protected are more likely to act in an immature manner. I might notice that my boss's boss is totally wrong about something and mention it, and you might not. It isn't arrogant - if anything it would be arrogant for my bosses boss to think his ego is more important than the success of the company. Often times the boss's boss in this situation attempts to incur some sort of punishment for purely selfish reasons. But he isn't right to do it in any way shape or form. He is just doing it because he thinks he can get away with it, and most people wouldn't do what I do because they are afraid the boss's boss could get away with it. The whole system is wrong, thus i reject it. Many companies have an open door policy to prevent this type of behavior, but since few people understand why it doesn't always work like it should.

 

It is just like how in if you live in a bad neighborhood and someone says it is your fault if your stuff gets stolen because you should have safeguarded it more carefully. I could have avoided the situation if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean it was right for them to do what they did.

[Pyrotex]

Krim, I'm curious why you didn't show any curiosity on the "out" that Spinoza supplied for his philosophy of determinism.

[Kriminal99]

Alright then what is it?

 

It isn't that I was certain that it couldn't be, just that I felt it probably wasn't something I haven't heard of and had a response to and you didn't present the argument so...

 

I think you expected me to say "look a well known philosopher understood determinism and still thought there was free will". I have seen a few arguments people have tried to use to preserve some kind of free will...

[Turtle]

It strikes me that Coberst, Krim, et al are cheesed off that the internet is ruining the good old days when you could choke the living crap out of someone you could identify that disagreed with you. Say goodbye to might makes right boys. :)

[Buffy]

It strikes me that Coberst, Krim, et al are cheesed off that the internet is ruining the good old days when you could choke the living crap out of someone you could identify that disagreed with you...

...and be able to say that you're completely blameless because Determinism predestined you to do it...

 

Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence; not conforming to standards of thought, speech and action derived by the conformants from study of themselves; at odds with the majority; in short, unusual, :)

Buffy

[Kriminal99]

Now hold on neither of us wants to choke someone just for disagreeing...

 

Might makes right naturally fails with semi intelligent beings because intelligent beings have potentially infinite might and therefore must respect other's opinions. The golden rule takes over most of the time...

 

But this situation breaks down sometimes when people feel like they are somehow protected from the wrath of others. And sometimes that situation occurs due to things that are supposed to have the opposite effect like a law prohibiting violence. If a person can just say anything or bs their way through any argument without any fear of punishment, or fire someone from a company for ego related reasons etc.. then might makes right DOES take over because o f what that person did. Discussions no longer become about truth but who can win using any means necessary and that does not result in consequences that are worse than the prize is valuable...

 

 

Laws and control structures must be created to minimize the possibility of such corruption occurring.

[Pyrotex]

...Laws and control structures must be created to minimize the possibility of such corruption occurring.

There are many reasons these "laws" do not exist:

they would be unenforceable

the issue of exactly what violates such a law would be undefinable

these laws would require us to videotape every conversation we have

we don't need these laws...

 

...we already have conventions that actually serve us better. Such things as ethics, politeness, social skills, manners (especially manners), maturity, karma, balance, reciprocity, good will, tolerance, playing well with others.

 

For all your complaining about how hostile and aggressive and unreasonable people are to you (or at least, around you), I look around me and just don't see the same thing. I see people with strong opinions and I see people who are arrogant, sure, but they rarely if EVER express hostility or aggression to ME, nor to anyone around me. :confused: :confused: :confused: The last time anyone behave toward me the way you describe your environment, was YEARS ago. And that person knows to avoid me in the future. I didn't have to threaten him or verbally abuse him or anything. I just engaged him in his own conversation, from his own viewpoint, taking as given his own assumptions, parried, thrusted (gently), and he was tripping over his own tongue and flopping around like a catfish in the bottom of a rowboat. I smiled knowingly at him. He harrumphed and shut up. Never another bit of trouble from him in six years.

 

Ask yourself: just what is the PAYOFF you are getting from having so many hostile, arrogant, aggressive, unfair, mean people around you, when it is not that hard to evade, avoid, ignore or out-maneuver them? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Kriminal99]

There are many reasons these "laws" do not exist:

they would be unenforceable

the issue of exactly what violates such a law would be undefinable

these laws would require us to videotape every conversation we have

we don't need these laws...

 

...we already have conventions that actually serve us better. Such things as ethics, politeness, social skills, manners (especially manners), maturity, karma, balance, reciprocity, good will, tolerance, playing well with others.

 

For all your complaining about how hostile and aggressive and unreasonable people are to you (or at least, around you), I look around me and just don't see the same thing. I see people with strong opinions and I see people who are arrogant, sure, but they rarely if EVER express hostility or aggression to ME, nor to anyone around me. :confused: :confused: :confused: The last time anyone behave toward me the way you describe your environment, was YEARS ago. And that person knows to avoid me in the future. I didn't have to threaten him or verbally abuse him or anything. I just engaged him in his own conversation, from his own viewpoint, taking as given his own assumptions, parried, thrusted (gently), and he was tripping over his own tongue and flopping around like a catfish in the bottom of a rowboat. I smiled knowingly at him. He harrumphed and shut up. Never another bit of trouble from him in six years.

 

Ask yourself: just what is the PAYOFF you are getting from having so many hostile, arrogant, aggressive, unfair, mean people around you, when it is not that hard to evade, avoid, ignore or out-maneuver them? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

 

Some just laws already in place and working

 

You are being too limiting in your interpretation of what these laws would be. Some cleverness is required to create effective laws of this nature.

 

One such law exists in the state where I live, Georgia. If you mouth off to someone with smirky or sarcastic comments, and they attack you, you cannot claim self defense because you provoked them. Thus both parties can be prosecuted, or agree not to press charges against each other...

 

From what I know case law regarding this has turned out exactly the way it should - if you fly off the handle at the slightest comment of disagreement then a person you attack is still able to claim self defense. But if someone is actively trying to provoke you, they cannot claim self defense.

 

The threat of this happening is often times enough for a person who knows they provoked a fight to not risk pressing charges.

 

The conventions of the naive

 

Most of the conventions or qualities you mention are just naive misinterpretations of how people should behave. For example politeness... politeness is basically willingness to tell "white lies" to spare someone's immediate feelings (and thus prevent any recourse against you) or enable their denial of a real world problem. It also involves depriving them of information that they could use to simply overcome the underlying real world problem. It is something valued by people who do not have excessive experience with real world problems.

 

Politeness is also most often forsaken when the subject has limited ability to retaliate to hurtful comments should they choose to do so. For instance you might be polite to your boss, but not a student in a class you teach. You won't say anything about your mother in law's behavior in her presence, but when she leaves the room you suddenly have plenty to say.

 

Also people who try to defend naive politeness often try to find fake recourses when someone is not naively polite to them. For instance if I date an attractive girl who has an overweight friend, and she is bitter and says something about my lack of interest in her and I (without malice) mention something about her weight and how it determines how attractive someone is, she might try to interfere in the relationship between me and her friend usually to little avail...

 

The real argument there is that you shouldn't say something with the intention of causing emotional harm, but there is nothing wrong with speaking the truth...

 

There is absolutely no way to defend "politeness" it is just the intuitive and naive interpretation of how to behave when conscious thought on the subject is forsaken...

 

Most of the qualities in that list can be broken down in a similar manner.

 

Conflict between hyper rationals and avg people

 

Your experiences are irrelevant if you are not the hyper-rational type I have been outlining. You do not fit the model I have created if for example you do not apply logic and reason (rather than relying on instinct) to human behavior and interaction enough to overcome intuitions about how people should behave such as superficial politeness...

 

The conflict involves is between people who behave according to reason instead of instinct, and people who behave only according to instinct.

 

On BS

 

An argument does not end unless your opponent allows it to. Even if you have the best arguments and it is clear that the other person is wrong, there are plenty of people who will continue to BS their way along to avoid looking foolish. If you behave in that manner, other average people may very well just avoid arguing with you. They may even not reject what you say as they may not be aware of the fallacies and bs tactics you used to make it sound like you were correct. There are other people however who know better.

 

It is unlikely that someone trying to paint a picture of having "won" an argument was arguing in an honest fashion. If you value winning an argument so much, then what is to stop you from using any means necessary to do so? Also, even if for some reason you did argue honestly but had that attitude you'd be encouraging people to become defensive and just start BSing their way through the argument themselves. Since only the person whose ideas proved incorrect can end an argument (and thus verify that there is no longer any threat to your ideas), having an attitude of having beaten them is counter productive.

 

An honest argument consists of two people who are aware that someone disagrees with their point of view and may have a good reason for doing so. Both parties are acutely aware that there are always things that they could have missed and are attempting to help each other reach a better understanding. If one side's ideas happen to win out, they don't look at it like they won a competition... the other person may very well have a valuable idea to contribute the next time.

 

You have attempted on numerous occasions to use all kinds of debate fallacies and confusion tactics with me without success, so I can only surmise that you must have done the same thing with this person (I wasn't there) and he was not prepared for such behavior and just figured it was better not to try and talk to you about things...

 

Payoff

 

The payoff that hyper - rationals get from their behavior is for example not dying in a car wreck because it was not polite to criticize the driver's driving or refuse to ride with him. It is not having a company lose millions of dollars because it failed to adapt to a change in the market. It is the ability to see the world for what it really is and simply lose weight if it is preventing them from meeting members of the opposite sex rather than living in denial of it being a significant factor.

 

Hyper rational people are simply people who are more experienced with real adversity and overcoming it, and do not see naive notions like politeness as a reason to remain at risk.

[Pyrotex]

You are being too limiting in your interpretation of what these laws would be. Some cleverness is required to create effective laws of this nature....

I am cleverer by far than you can possibly imagine. :confused:

 

You want LAWS??? Then...

define "mouth off"

define "smirky"

define "sarcastic"

define "fly off at the handle"

define "slightest comment"

define "attack"

define "provoke"

 

On second thought, forget it. Your attempt to define "politeness" was a total bust, and yet far easier than any of the above. It would appear that you simply do not understand politeness or its role in human interactions. Anything I say, however well intentioned, just seems to trigger one of your hostile and aggressive "attacks".

 

Peace be unto you (if that is indeed possible under your circumstances).

[Kriminal99]

I am cleverer by far than you can possibly imagine. :confused:

 

You want LAWS??? Then...

define "mouth off"

define "smirky"

define "sarcastic"

define "fly off at the handle"

define "slightest comment"

define "attack"

define "provoke"

 

On second thought, forget it. Your attempt to define "politeness" was a total bust, and yet far easier than any of the above. It would appear that you simply do not understand politeness or its role in human interactions. Anything I say, however well intentioned, just seems to trigger one of your hostile and aggressive "attacks".

 

Peace be unto you (if that is indeed possible under your circumstances).

 

I can see that there is nothing to gain (for either of us) for me to respond to your future posts on this thread. Bye bye.

 

These concepts were addressed by the bit on case law. I guess you are not familiar with how the law (In the U.S. at least) deals with issues of ambiguity.

 

When a law is created it is inevitably open to interpretation. The first time a judge addresses a case brought up by the law, both parties make arguments for how the law should be interpreted in that specific case. The judge makes a final decision. Once that first decision is made, future cases are decided in the same manner. Thus prior decisions are referred to as case law in that they determine how the law should be interpreted if it was not completely clear already.

 

The system is very good since a situation that is not made clear by the law and case law can only occur once.

 

When I brought up the case law, I was pointing out that ambiguity had not been an issue.

 

It is fallacious to state that for example an explanation of politeness is incorrect without giving any reason why it would be or a counter explanation of politeness. In practice you are just trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong about something by suggesting that such another type of politeness exists when it in fact does not.

 

These are not attacks. This is the difference between a hyper rational person and others. You are trying to place your ego above truth. You would have me not break down a concept of politeness so that we could have a more jovial conversation.

 

And tomorrow perhaps the united states will be nuclear bombed by terrorists who hate our "say one thing and do another" approach to dealing with others that relates to a concept of politeness.

 

The funny thing is, if you put 2 hyper-rationals in a room, no one's feelings get hurt. I am not insulted when someone honestly breaks down something I said that is incorrect, that is a necessary part of debate. This should simply be a step in adapting to life as an adult, just as kids learn to not be selfish and take things that do not belong to them.

[Pyrotex]

Krim, me lad,

I have seen you lose your cool, lose your temper, and go into hostile, acrimonious, screaming rage-fits here at Hypography more times than I can count. You're as super-sensitive as a bottle of warm nitroglycerin. YOU can't handle disagreement at all. And that is why you have been banned from this site a number of times.

 

Peace be unto you.

[Kriminal99]

Krim, me lad,

I have seen you lose your cool, lose your temper, and go into hostile, acrimonious, screaming rage-fits here at Hypography more times than I can count. You're as super-sensitive as a bottle of warm nitroglycerin. YOU can't handle disagreement at all. And that is why you have been banned from this site a number of times.

 

Peace be unto you.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. Here is what it seems to me is really happening.

 

You say something. You expect your words to be heralded as if it were true gospel from a god. I attempt to break down your claims. You and your ilk say "OMG HE'S FOAMING AT THE MOUTH". And then attempt to give me infractions without even bothering to cite any rules or anything else obviously just doing it according to tribal morality...

 

How do you even scream on the internet? For you to claim such a thing would pretty much show that you are trying to paint a false picture of my behavior.

 

People just have to realize that no one is always expected to always be right. It isn't a personal attack or a fit of anger for someone to debate your claims.

 

Your argument about me being banned is circular reasoning. I am constantly receiving infractions because of the misinterpretation of my behavior so you cannot use that to support the misinterpretation of my behavior...

 

It just seems like you and the other mods use the mod system as a way to avoid ever having to admit you are wrong. Most of the infractions I get have little or poor explanation.

 

There is no internet authority to prevent this type of thing at the current moment, though illegitimate sites may be blocked by isp's eventually though I am not particularly fond of that idea.

[Turtle]

...What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative. ...

 

What about activity on this forum that isn't combative? Define 'lots of'? :hyper: You see Coberst, this forum is self-similar because Hypography is a science forum and the part of the scientific method involving rigorous testing must needs be, well, rigorously applied. Since you make note of a theme in specific regard to threads you start, and in light of such awareness continue your style of thread starting, I can only conclude you like the heat of the kitchen. Let's cook! :hyper: ;)