|
i realize that i misread the first post in some aspects and i was rather insulted by what you wrote so i started extrapolating on bad cases that could happen because of it. I am sorry for that, and i realize that a lot of the scenarios i outlined are worse case ones, but that doesn't mean they are simply without warrant, though i know the probablility of such is very low. I'm fine with that. Yes, i misunderstood what you meant as trash posts, and hence a lot of what i said in the previous post was based on wrong ideas.
quote:
Originally posted by jusunlee
youre putting this to an extreme. how am i, in any way, trying to create an 'intellectual apartheid' as you so keenly chose to call it? by requiring thoughtful replies to quality posts? i admit that my original definition of a 'quality post' was somewhat unfounded, and maybe even my approach to preserve quality posts may not have been the best, as tm11 pointed out, but for you to go as far as to say that im trying to create some sort of an elitism is rediculous. from where, may i ask, did you come up with this brilliant conclusion?
actually that phrase is from tm11's post, and ok, wow it's an extreme, good job. "Clearly," this must be be so unfounded. For me to go as far as to extrapolate and say you are trying to create an elitism? No no, you are effectually creating an elitism by deducting and deterring other members off. From where did i come up with the brilliant conclusion? Hmm, well if one thinks about it for awhile it is probable one can come up with a conclusion like this. It's not as if it's absurd that this intellectual apartheid could happen haha, it's foolish in my eyes to deny it by simply brushing it aside with regards to me somehow missing your intent. Intent doesn't even matter. That won't stop it from happening, or any mitigated version of it to. Yes, of course you could say it's foolish to think it could but it's not as if i'm fully advocating it and you of all people realize that i misread your course of actions so now i'm just clarifying what i meant and not advocating. I'm outlining possiblities, apparently i'm not the only one who thinks so. You somehow agree with TM11 when i borrowed the very wording he used (and he points it out so lightly? Sure, i agree with some of that. I don't see why you credit me with this idea so fully. I wasn't the first person to talk about it and people did afterwards.). But, yes i realize this is a worse case scenario.
quote:
i ask again, where are you coming up with such brilliant assertions of my intentions? if you redisect what i said earlier:
may i so politely ask where in that statement did i ever mention about "eliminating bureaucracy"? or did you think i was not intellegent enough to realize that democracy was in itself a bureaucracy? dont insult my intellegence, i am fully capable enough to realize that myself without you having to point that out for me. with that said, your whole aurgument about 'animal farm' would be invalid then wouldnt it? i merely wanted a change in how things were run in these forums, thats all. and how is my approach biased? wow, you must be on a roll today with these baseless assumptions, because i plainly do not see how it can be. enlighten me if you will.
yes you didn't say that, i apologize for misreading.
but, you miss the point again, it's not about my predictions of your intentions, it's about my predicitons of the effects of them. Regardless of intent, that's all i'm talking about. yes, good job, you didn't even say eliminate beurocracy, i simply perceived when you talked about a "the topic of the beaurocracy" i figured you meant it in a negative way which i implicated to mean that you wanted to eliminate it. I'm sorry, you are clearly intelligent enough to realize this and that a democracy is in itself a beaurocracy...let's think about that for a minute...of course i thought you didn't realize it... that's why i said it...seriously, there was no insulting that was meant by me (yes, intent isn't everything as i've been saying, i know, now if i didn't put this parenthetical note in here you might have pointed that out in a reply to this, but i woulnd't think you were insulting my intelligence by pointing it out like you have stated several times, it's rather impossible to read and know what someone knows. The insulting was effectual and not meant, i apologize. You should know i wasn't trying to insult you, it's not as if i know you in real life and you rarely posted before this...exactly how was i supposed to know this? hah, i don't think anyone could have known either way)
Anyway, How is your approach biased? Because you deem what is quality posts and what is not. Just stating the obvious. Oh yes, and my whole argument about the animal farm goes away in an aspect, sure. I was under a misunderstanding. It wasn't that great anyway, it was a heat of the moment thing haha 
quote:
here you go again, showing your disgust for things i never said. let me help you and redisect together what i said earlier concerning quality posts:
about the "no garbage" policy:
how in the world did you conclude that i was going to require 200 words for every post from what i said? i merely asked that people make more useful posts more often, and that people response sincerely if they were to respond to quality posts. there is no connection between the two, something you seem to mistaken for. i even went as far to clarify this in my response to crazydeb8ter, as he was also quick to judge without thoroughly reading everything:
which again brings us to a point that your auguments are baseless, as much as they are correct. had ive been trying to advocate for 200+ for all posts, then i would have been obviously at fault. but by assuming such a thing would be insulting my intellegence. i am more capable as an administrator than to make such irrational decisions.
no no, that was never the point. I was just exploiting an absurdity i saw in your post. Of course i realize you weren't going to require 200 words per post. The number 200 was continually cited only because it was the one that you used. It is being used in the context as any post being "long enough" for it to be considered "quality." I was showing my disgust for any sort of penalty for having "garbage posts" as in no posts should penalize a person. That is what the disgust is for, did you not say that? I'm sorry, it must be baseless. Seriously, that's what it is. I'm negating the entire idea of "quality posts," you did bring that up. Despite the specifics in the post that you interpret so literally (200 words requirement, it was exploitation of the idea of how length can dictate quality, yes i realize you've answered this), the entirety of it is about how quality post deeming is not in the best interest i think, but you are the admin. You, who agrees with the TM11's post, choose to ignore that entire facet of the post in order to make me, and crazydeb8ter, the scapegoats for the 200 word misunderstanding? Thank you.
I didn't conclude you were going to require 200 words, i coudl very well say here "don't insult my intelligence," and in a way i just did, but i don't want that. If i came off condescending my post i apologize, i think i came off more mad that condescending but just in case. I would think that is why you are replying in what comes off to me right now as a condescending tone because of reciprocity? i'd think that, or maybe you just feel like acting like that, but whatever i don't want to waste time disecting behavior.
quote:
once again, it wont affect any other threads but ones that are started with quality posts. the rest of the forums will still continually run like before and be unaffected by the new policy.
ok.
__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.
"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell
Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 01-28-2003 at 10:19 PM
|
01-28-2003 12:20 AM
power to the posters!
