|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 29, 2019 0:57:23 GMT
The forum view stats actually don't support that assertion. To what end? Every now and again a really good conversation. My goal with reefs is not to do battle, it's ultimately to deeply and unabashedly discuss and compare views. I've said this lots in the past and I'll keep saying it; the best spiritual conversations have divergent viewpoints as their basis. That said, when viewpoints are 'too' divergent, and there is no common ground, it leaves little to talk about. The best platform for good conversation has a degree of commonality but with a difference of some import...those are the convos that promise to offer up some 'meat.' Those are the ones I enjoy the most. Both Reefs and ZD right now, (Satchi too)fit that bill for potential good conversation very well; I share some basic and important commonalities but there are some major divergences in seeing. The makings of a damned good potential conversation with all of them. Satchi is the only one though who does not shy away from direct challenge of his views. Gotta say, I really do appreciate his willingness to go deep into these convos. Well, I wish you the best with that. (** tee hee **) So by forum stats you're going by visitor views? Thing is, that number goes up linearly with volume of posts. What happens when the food-fights get revv'd is that the ratio of views/posts actually starts going way down. In contrast, sometimes, there can be a spike in views when it's relatively quiet, and all that said, I was referring more to a qualitative measure of what people say they're interested in, and the opinions that get expressed as a result of and at the end of the dialogs.
Sure, our convos (Satchi and I) have not been without issue, but his approach is far more direct and definitely better than the defensive, pussy-ass crap I get from ZD and Reefs. They continue to address the points I make, just in a manner that suggests they'd do well to strap a pair of these on:   |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 1:00:58 GMT
Well, I wish you the best with that. (** tee hee **) So by forum stats you're going by visitor views? Thing is, that number goes up linearly with volume of posts. What happens when the food-fights get revv'd is that the ratio of views/posts actually starts going way down. In contrast, sometimes, there can be a spike in views when it's relatively quiet, and all that said, I was referring more to a qualitative measure of what people say they're interested in, and the opinions that get expressed as a result of and at the end of the dialogs.
No big surprise, but what folks say they are interested in and what they are actually interested in doesn't always match up in that sense. E touched on this earlier when he spoke about those who are supposedly interested in 'higher level' convos, somehow not being able to steer free of the petta-frog thread that was originally created as an area for those interested in supposedly 'lower end' conversation. A good example of this is those folks who somehow feel the need to enter into a conversation to let all participants know that it's a stupid waste of time..or TMT.....or make some other disparaging remark. I think onehandclapping it was that entered into the now closed thread and felt compelled to comment on how the conversations never change, etc, etc. True disinterest means no posting, no reading. Sometimes it is TMT though. There's some of that going on but I see it as more complicated than just that. For alot of the membership that does post, the megathreads do get to a point where they don't post. The question of whether or not they read is harder to quantify, but I stand by the declining view/post ratio stat observation, and E's reported having had to skip over dozens of pages at a time in the past because of volume. It's just as likely that people who're not part of the debate are going to lose interest as the debate gets heated, and more personalized, and as time goes on. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 1:02:36 GMT
What I meant by openness is that sometimes it seems to me you're not really interested in what the other guy is writing for any other reason than to support your position in a debate. This really stood out to me as an example of that at the time. We all do this to one degree or another, but sometimes it leads the dialog to a dead-end. Now, one of the questions I asked was, essentially, why do you think that they rarely respond back when you address that? Why do you think they're expressing that disinterest?
What is clear in that link is that Reefs is engaging in deflection and evasion. I say, They're not really disinterested at all. They're both scared shitless of direct challenge because they both find it very important to maintain the appearance of having it all sewn up. They both continue to make indirect counters. That's not disinterest. " Sewn up"? So you mean their realized self-images and what they think they know, in existential terms? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 29, 2019 1:22:40 GMT
What is clear in that link is that Reefs is engaging in deflection and evasion. I say, They're not really disinterested at all. They're both scared shitless of direct challenge because they both find it very important to maintain the appearance of having it all sewn up. They both continue to make indirect counters. That's not disinterest. " Sewn up"? So you mean their realized self-images and what they think they know, in existential terms? Yes. I see them both very invested in not just image, but invested in their own sense of knowing what is what, of having something to hang their hat on, to the point where even admitting that they'd changed how they see things somewhat, would be akin to admitting to some kind of crime. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 1:25:56 GMT
" Sewn up"? So you mean their realized self-images and what they think they know, in existential terms? Yes. I see them both very invested in not just image, but invested in their own sense of knowing what is what, of having something to hang their hat on, to the point where even admitting that they'd changed how they see things somewhat, would be akin to admitting to some kind of crime. And you feel that your challenges in the dialog have revealed this? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 29, 2019 1:28:22 GMT
No big surprise, but what folks say they are interested in and what they are actually interested in doesn't always match up in that sense. E touched on this earlier when he spoke about those who are supposedly interested in 'higher level' convos, somehow not being able to steer free of the petta-frog thread that was originally created as an area for those interested in supposedly 'lower end' conversation. A good example of this is those folks who somehow feel the need to enter into a conversation to let all participants know that it's a stupid waste of time..or TMT.....or make some other disparaging remark. I think onehandclapping it was that entered into the now closed thread and felt compelled to comment on how the conversations never change, etc, etc. True disinterest means no posting, no reading. Sometimes it is TMT though. There's some of that going on but I see it as more complicated than just that. For alot of the membership that does post, the megathreads do get to a point where they don't post. The question of whether or not they read is harder to quantify, but I stand by the declining view/post ratio stat observation, and E's reported having had to skip over dozens of pages at a time in the past because of volume. It's just as likely that people who're not part of the debate are going to lose interest as the debate gets heated, and more personalized, and as time goes on. Yeah, well....If the whole purpose of a forum is numbers driven, there will always be issues with that, as real conversation cannot be controlled in a way that will always conform to pleasing most. While I've been on both sides of the argument re: forum moderation, I now see that short of abject abuse, spamming or outright trolling, it's best just to let conversations flow as they will. I mean, what's REALLY at stake that is deemed to be so darned important that control needs to be applied? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 29, 2019 1:30:51 GMT
Yes. I see them both very invested in not just image, but invested in their own sense of knowing what is what, of having something to hang their hat on, to the point where even admitting that they'd changed how they see things somewhat, would be akin to admitting to some kind of crime. And you feel that your challenges in the dialog have revealed this? Not just my challenges, no. They respond similarly when others challenge them as well. They love being the authority...most of their posts are of that variety....and they have no problem jumping in to 'correct' someone, but as soon as valid challenge arises, they shy away, either through diversion or outright refusal to directly engage. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 1:36:58 GMT
Sometimes it is TMT though. There's some of that going on but I see it as more complicated than just that. For alot of the membership that does post, the megathreads do get to a point where they don't post. The question of whether or not they read is harder to quantify, but I stand by the declining view/post ratio stat observation, and E's reported having had to skip over dozens of pages at a time in the past because of volume. It's just as likely that people who're not part of the debate are going to lose interest as the debate gets heated, and more personalized, and as time goes on. Yeah, well....If the whole purpose of a forum is numbers driven, there will always be issues with that, as real conversation cannot be controlled in a way that will always conform to pleasing most. While I've been on both sides of the argument re: forum moderation, I now see that short of abject abuse, spamming or outright trolling, it's best just to let conversations flow as they will. I mean, what's REALLY at stake that is deemed to be so darned important that control needs to be applied? Sure, ultimately, speech cops generate order at the cost of resentment. The utopian ideal would be a dialog that doesn't need control but expresses the best of human nature, regardless of that. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 1:40:25 GMT
And you feel that your challenges in the dialog have revealed this? Not just my challenges, no. They respond similarly when others challenge them as well. They love being the authority...most of their posts are of that variety....and they have no problem jumping in to 'correct' someone, but as soon as valid challenge arises, they shy away, either through diversion or outright refusal to directly engage. ok, well, what if you're wrong about them being " scared sh!tless"? Aren't there other explanations as well, that are just as plausible? And doesn't this idea that these challenges -- some of which are generated by you -- are making them frightened and evasive .. doesn't that idea paint you in a certain light? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 1:42:01 GMT
As far as reefs and zd go, a dialog takes two sides, and in my opinion, you're not really quite as open as you say, although, of course, it's your mind, so I won't debate that. Now, factually speaking, it seems an objective point that neither reefs nor zd are all that interested in engaging in the dialogs you're offering. Is that true, if so, why do you think that is? I don't think that zd likes to stray too far from his comfort zone and reefs gets to a kind of breaking point when challenged and there is no greater fearless challenger than figgles, God bless her. 😀 |
|
