Not a bad list Bozo, but I thought we could run it a bit closer. I felt we could discuss those things provided the following:
Don't make comments more inflammatory than necessary
Don't question the honesty of others without citing facts
If a discussion is getting too heated, just sit it out
Don't try to convince others of your opinion, just make a reasoned case and move on
We used to be a lot better at this.
Yes, but you could add to the list that one could usually find and opposing dissenting opinion about just about any topic, just like the highlighted text above. I can 'cite' actual facts that I can claim to represent -kind of like the global warming debate? Or the one about the end of Ford, with Coug's unfortunately 'insensitive' to say the least, commentary about the "land of the rising sun"...which not a single OM (original member) even uttered a word of objection to???- facts supporting the contrary. Just in reading some of the older threads, I'd say I could counter ddrueding's argument with any number of comments that would support otherwise, such a 'factual' (opinion?) statement as 'we used to be
a lot better at this'.
If you use Bozo's list, then you eliminate a lot, and might as well not have a Cafe/Bar & Grill etc, or lobotomize it like Eugene has done with SR (well except we still have a moderator like BBH making racist comments in the computing forum, not unlike Coug doing here). Umm, so then we're left with talking about Paris crying about having to go back to jail for another 19days, lol! You'll have heated debates about that too---well on some forums you will
, just hope that you'll not get too emotionally attached to it like the global warming debate.
Tannin says where all ignorant, I disagree (though Sdude could have been a bit more tactful in commentary likewise). The argument is easily made that Tannin's weather conditions in Oz are not conclusive over such a very short geological time frame he sites, less than a century. A century is far, far too short, a blink of an eye in geological time frames, to say conclusively with what temperature/weather extremes (which are not factually proven to be so far beyond the norms over centuries, because we don't have that conclusive evidence via accurate weather measuring instruments...though we do have the glacial records in the ice of CO2 concentrations as well as other gases which can be used to argue about those concentrations...but then you have to say there is not conclusive, despite what Al Gore would like to state as 'facts'...remember he's a politician trying to convince you of his argument...evidence that changes in atmospheric or oceanic concentrations of certain gases have
that great an effect on as yet very, very complex weather systems that even supercomputer modeling cannot conclusively forecast, much like we can't, even though it's a apples and oranges argument that we can't predict when and where earthquakes will strike. BTW, factually warmer temperatures as compared to the few centuries before where we have decent records, there was a report on the news yesterday about how usually heavy snowfall was counteracting the increasing melting rate of a Argentinian glacier, causing it to enlarge or get thicker. So lets just say for arguments sake over our lifetime (not likely) we could drastically change the earth's weather system some how. Who will be alive in another century to see the farther reaching effects of what is done in this century. Will such minor temperature changes that we might be able to induce 'artificially' by the end of this century, throw the balance too far in one direction such that there is a 10,000 year ice age, that kills off far more of the planet over thousands of years, as compared to a global warming that may kill a certain amount, but then reverse in another century or two? It's a game of Russian roulette I'd prefer not to play. Just do as little harm to the environment as possible, that's something the humans are doing a poor job of at present, no debate about that, that would could do much better, even if it costs more in the short term. Humans are very good at satisfying their short term desires without considering what they do to others or longer term damages to the planet.
One could add to the list to not make assumptions, which we're all guilty of in one degree or another. How do you conclude, as a matter of pure conjecture, that Tannin is gone because of, or that he got PO'd, about the global warming debate (maybe it was the gun control thread, or something else here on SF); when it could very well be that Tea, like those Clocker has been depressingly posting here on this thread, suffering from cancer or some other aliment. Unless Tannin specifically stated leaving (well you know Tannin's last visit was 5/17 while Gilbo's been gone since 4/20) for such a reason?
There is not doubt mans capacity for destruction is great, but it's sort of like smoking cigarette's, for years the tobbaco lobby brought out study after study by scientists that countered a larger body of evidence that strongly suggests (but still cannot make a direct link to lung cancer, as people who have never smoked still get & die from lung cancer...Steve Reeves wife as an example) a linkage to cancer from cigarette smoking. That's a huge and heated emotional debate to, in some circles. Illegal immigrant debate another hot topic (even if not so acrimonious with those current members here, just get a larger demographic population represented on SF, and I'm sure you get strong emotional reactions).
I'd rather not have any nuclear power, even France has them everywhere. Risk/versus benefit, I'd prefer more effort be put into generating power from solar/wind/geothermal/ocean currents, etc that don't have any harmful potential side-effects. Once again, the main problem with man, is simply growing populates out-stripping resources or technological advances that would allow for a more sustainable custodianship of this planet. Meanwhile, people are starving and dying, and wars are being fought by silly humans. Humans are flawed, nothing new about that. Deal with it as best you can, or have a nervous breakdown or become as bitter as Merc about how life sucks. Choice is yours.
People have differences of opinion and you'll just have to respect that or take yourself out of the discussion, though you don't have to leave SF or every single thread (umm, why aren't you all using Mac OSX, Windows has a "horrible" (sorry to pick on WR, but it's fun
) UI, just like the Canon TX1 hybrid has a "horrible" UI, too each his own.
How do you know that Tannin, or maybe Gilbo; hasn't just gotten bored with wasting time ranting on SF, much as happened to 'honold' over on SR and other 'tech' forums? We know FS is happy as a clam, ranting and raving talking down to those like he's of such superior knowledge, all should not question his facts over on anandtech...same old, same old arguments as what, why, etc. one member or another does or doesn't do what they do.
Nice conjecture, now carry on