Greetings

#11
(Jun 25, 2016 07:03 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: BTW, CC, what were the Eagles referring to with "spirit"?  The spirit band, perhaps?


Welcome back, Secular Sanity. Smile

At least now the accusations from literalists can be set aside that Don Henley confused fermentation (wine) with distillation (spirits). But perhaps there's still a mystery in his metaphor as to why he felt the spirit of "social activism" neatly ended in 1969 (or why he would pick that year specifically). He himself might grant that a shift back to vacuous dance music didn't fully happen till toward the mid '70s.

Personally, I was a tad surprised that there really was a lot of intentional symbolism in the lyrics of the song. As another example, I recollect John Phillips (of The Mamas & The Papas) saying during an old interview that even he didn't know what "Monday, Monday" meant when he wrote it. Despite legions of theories being advanced over the decades by others.

OTOH, even Dylan once (if not often) pretentiously denied his songs had any figurative significance, to a school or college student in the audience who mentioned that's what his work had a reputation for. When she got the opportunity to address him as he was interviewed by reporters or by a talk show host (whatever venue it was -- can't entirely remember). Don McLean likewise tried to wave away precise interpretations of "American Pie", though Buddy Holly's death in February (of '59) was a boulder in the stream that he couldn't kayak around. [Mentions of "Jack Flash sat on a candlestick", "Satan's spell", etc always seemed like obvious references to certain Stones songs and maybe an infamous concert. But who knows....]
Reply
#12
(Jun 25, 2016 10:10 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jun 25, 2016 07:03 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: BTW, CC, what were the Eagles referring to with "spirit"?  The spirit band, perhaps?


Welcome back, Secular Sanity. Smile

At least now the accusations from literalists can be set aside that Don Henley confused fermentation (wine) with distillation (spirits). But perhaps there's still a mystery in his metaphor as to why he felt the spirit of "social activism" neatly ended in 1969 (or why he would pick that year specifically). He himself might grant that a shift back to vacuous dance music didn't fully happen till toward the mid '70s.

Personally, I was a tad surprised that there really was a lot of intentional symbolism in the lyrics of the song. As another example, I recollect John Phillips (of The Mamas & The Papas) saying during an old interview that even he didn't know what "Monday, Monday" meant when he wrote it. Despite legions of theories being advanced over the decades by others.

OTOH, even Dylan once (if not often) pretentiously denied his songs had any figurative significance, to a school or college student in the audience who mentioned that's what his work had a reputation for. When she got the opportunity to address him as he was interviewed by reporters or by a talk show host (whatever venue it was -- can't entirely remember). Don McLean likewise tried to wave away precise interpretations of "American Pie", though Buddy Holly's death in February (of '59) was a boulder in the stream that he couldn't kayak around. [Mentions of "Jack Flash sat on a candlestick", "Satan's spell", etc always seemed like obvious references to certain Stones songs and maybe an infamous concert. But who knows....]

He may have been alluding to the spirit of Woodstock in 1969 or the Spirit band, who was invited to open for Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock, but their manager turned it down because they were busy promoting their new album. 

Sweet Home Alabama is another one.  

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

I’ll try to stick around for a little while.  When I have more time, I would like to ask you a few questions about autonomy and identity.

Thanks, CC.
Reply
#13
Quote:Basically there are only 5 people keeping the place alive on any kind of regular or semi-regular basis (including Stryder the owner). By "alive" I mean just preventing it from having the abandoned look of those forums where the most recent post was several weeks to a half year ago +. 

I’ve been hiding out in a forum that I used to frequent about 5 years ago.  The owner banned me, but he eventually let me back in.  Probably because it was his fault.  You know what learned, though?  To keep it alive, they have socks and create conversations between them.  They even read all of your PMs.  Something that I should have assumed, I guess.  I much prefer CC’s and Stryder’s method.

Something strange happened to me at Sciforums, though.  I discovered Tiassa’s creation of several sockpuppets, but that’s beside the point.  Anyhow, I was getting bored with Tiassa’s and Bells’ shenanigans. So, I wasn’t participating as much.  GeoffP sends me a PM saying that Bells is losing it and attacking him.  In a thread about atheism, derailed by abortion, I made a facetious comment about favoring abortion after meeting Tiassa and his crony.  Bells then says that I’m the type to wish her dead and cheer on her rapist.  I didn’t even know she was raped.  I looked through all of her posts and couldn’t locate any mention of it.  I asked GeoffP about it thinking I may have missed it somewhere.  GeoffP then tells me the whole story before she even posted the information.  I asked him how he knew thinking maybe through a PM or another forum.  He said she mentioned it on Sciforums and shrugged me off.  She hadn’t.  I don’t know.  There may be some other explanation for it, but it was odd.


http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-reque...6/page-104
Reply
#14
(Jun 27, 2016 06:41 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Something strange happened to me at Sciforums, though.  I discovered Tiassa’s creation of several sockpuppets, but that’s beside the point.  Anyhow, I was getting bored with Tiassa’s and Bells’ shenanigans. So, I wasn’t participating as much.  GeoffP sends me a PM saying that Bells is losing it and attacking him.  In a thread about atheism, derailed by abortion, I made a facetious comment about favoring abortion after meeting Tiassa and his crony.  Bells then says that I’m the type to wish her dead and cheer on her rapist.  I didn’t even know she was raped.  I looked through all of her posts and couldn’t locate any mention of it.  I asked GeoffP about it thinking I may have missed it somewhere.  GeoffP then tells me the whole story before she even posted the information.  I asked him how he knew thinking maybe through a PM or another forum.  He said she mentioned it on Sciforums and shrugged me off.  She hadn’t.  I don’t know.  There may be some other explanation for it, but it was odd.


Due to only sampling a fraction of the drama and personal developments unfolding over there in the last five years, I'd definitely have a failing test score on any classroom examination about the SciForum community. Many times I'd just skim over a heated thread enough to get a crude measurement of how much blood was on the battlefield or how heavy a blanket of histrionic smoke was obscuring the view.

It nostalgically reminds me sometimes of an atheist & agnostic club on a pioneering TV-internet service years ago (now defunct), which was firewalled from the rest of the online world. There were all sorts of colorful spectacles, gladiator events and shifting, tentative alliances forming in there -- like even one between an atheist and a theist who had formerly been bitter enemies (they wound up being united by their shared political views). For some reason it was easier for me to keep track of and stay up to date on what was brewing there -- maybe due to the lack of multiple categories or a difference in the way the topics were displayed.

In fact, it was a crazy or wild Moon debate transpiring in A&A about the latter's orbital relationship with the Earth that originally made a few of us aware of Sciforums. That melée spilled over into other clubs and groups on alt-discuss (the hidden usenet hierarchy they were actually created in) and eventually tumbled out of the whole firewalled internet-TV service into the rest of the web and landed in Sciforums.
Reply
#15
(Jun 27, 2016 06:41 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Quote:Basically there are only 5 people keeping the place alive on any kind of regular or semi-regular basis (including Stryder the owner). By "alive" I mean just preventing it from having the abandoned look of those forums where the most recent post was several weeks to a half year ago +. 

I’ve been hiding out in a forum that I used to frequent about 5 years ago.  The owner banned me, but he eventually let me back in.  Probably because it was his fault.  You know what learned, though?  To keep it alive, they have socks and create conversations between them.  They even read all of your PMs.  Something that I should have assumed, I guess.  I much prefer CC’s and Stryder’s method.

Something strange happened to me at Sciforums, though.  I discovered Tiassa’s creation of several sockpuppets, but that’s beside the point.  Anyhow, I was getting bored with Tiassa’s and Bells’ shenanigans. So, I wasn’t participating as much.  GeoffP sends me a PM saying that Bells is losing it and attacking him.  In a thread about atheism, derailed by abortion, I made a facetious comment about favoring abortion after meeting Tiassa and his crony.  Bells then says that I’m the type to wish her dead and cheer on her rapist.  I didn’t even know she was raped.  I looked through all of her posts and couldn’t locate any mention of it.  I asked GeoffP about it thinking I may have missed it somewhere.  GeoffP then tells me the whole story before she even posted the information.  I asked him how he knew thinking maybe through a PM or another forum.  He said she mentioned it on Sciforums and shrugged me off.  She hadn’t.  I don’t know.  There may be some other explanation for it, but it was odd.


http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-reque...6/page-104

Data Integrity (Respect) on this site:
Currently as a sole operator (Admin, Webmaster, Complaints Department, Man of many Hats) I would think it poor etiquette to read private messages (PM's/emails), it's not that it's impossible for me to do, it's just something that I would never do without a good valid reason. (If there was evidence suggesting a member was plotting an attack, or involved in disseminate paedophilia via this site etc)

There are steps that I could use to further the integrity (Setting the site into using SSL [which incidentally is something planned if we gain more numbers], Using Cryptology in storage of such messages, purchasing and running my own assets at a data centre rather than leasing one etc) but even with those it would never completely rule out someone snooping something when the information is sent between you and the server.

If/when the site progresses to having Moderators, that Integrity shouldn't change any, however there would likely need to be articles and training in how to handle some things to maintain that Integrity as a company/cooperative (non-profit or otherwise).  It would probably make sense to keep private messages as their name sake, for private messaging between members, not members to moderators/staff.  (This would require having a "dropbox" method for generally contacting staff.  Perhaps a random rotational method so no staff member is personally conflicted with what needs handling etc)

Moderator acts should be conducted via public announcements, but even then those announcements should be over-viewed by a Manager (and/or oligarchy voted in by members) to make sure that it's polite, that the team is unified and the decision was fair.  There should of course then be a way to appeal a decision within a set time frame, as to whether that would be public or private would be down to whatever caused the decision to be made originally.  (Some things might cause smear persons character and electronically haunt them forever if not dealt with clemency.)

As you can guess I've considered these points and more should this humble site we have here grow exponentially in size.

Currently though it's small and it's growth isn't spirally out of control (for the time being...) so it doesn't need that level of complexity (yet).  When we reach (There is nothing like a positive spin Wink ) hundreds/thousands of active members on a day to day basis, I can assure you that we will need to look at this in-depth and publicly.  (I'd need people on board aiding with drafting it, we'd likely need blogs, mailing lists, the twitter account doing more than sitting static, lawyers, logotypes, letterheads, twenty-one days a year holiday, healthcare etc.)

So for now, it's simple and we'll keep it that way for as long as we can.
Reply
#16
(Jun 27, 2016 06:41 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Quote:Basically there are only 5 people keeping the place alive on any kind of regular or semi-regular basis (including Stryder the owner). By "alive" I mean just preventing it from having the abandoned look of those forums where the most recent post was several weeks to a half year ago +. 

I’ve been hiding out in a forum that I used to frequent about 5 years ago.  The owner banned me, but he eventually let me back in.  Probably because it was his fault.  You know what learned, though?  To keep it alive, they have socks and create conversations between them.  They even read all of your PMs.  Something that I should have assumed, I guess.  I much prefer CC’s and Stryder’s method.

Something strange happened to me at Sciforums, though.  I discovered Tiassa’s creation of several sockpuppets, but that’s beside the point.  Anyhow, I was getting bored with Tiassa’s and Bells’ shenanigans. So, I wasn’t participating as much.  GeoffP sends me a PM saying that Bells is losing it and attacking him.  In a thread about atheism, derailed by abortion, I made a facetious comment about favoring abortion after meeting Tiassa and his crony.  Bells then says that I’m the type to wish her dead and cheer on her rapist.  I didn’t even know she was raped.  I looked through all of her posts and couldn’t locate any mention of it.  I asked GeoffP about it thinking I may have missed it somewhere.  GeoffP then tells me the whole story before she even posted the information.  I asked him how he knew thinking maybe through a PM or another forum.  He said she mentioned it on Sciforums and shrugged me off.  She hadn’t.  I don’t know.  There may be some other explanation for it, but it was odd.


http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-reque...6/page-104
I liked GeoffP... he should wander over here too.

Bells did bring it up publicly, but I don't remember where. Some thread somewhere a year or two ago. She basically tried to use it as weight to an argument that no one else's opinion should count because she was a survivor. Gendanken ripped her to shreds over it (I think it was Gendanken). Actually, it might have been me... long time ago.

Which were Tiassa's puppets? That's interesting...
Reply
#17
Stryder Wrote:I would think it poor etiquette to read private messages (PM's/emails), it's not that it's impossible for me to do, it's just something that I would never do without a good valid reason.

Even if you did read them, I hope you wouldn’t be dumb enough to tell us.  Wink

(Jun 28, 2016 09:41 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: Bells did bring it up publicly, but I don't remember where. Some thread somewhere a year or two ago. She basically tried to use it as weight to an argument that no one else's opinion should count because she was a survivor. Gendanken ripped her to shreds over it (I think it was Gendanken). Actually, it might have been me... long time ago.

Which were Tiassa's puppets? That's interesting...

It wasn't Gendanken, that’s for sure.  Her last post was made on Nov 30, 2013. Bells made it public knowledge on May 31, 2014.  According to her comment, the incident happened 2 weeks prior to that.  It wasn't brought up before this at Sciforums.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-reque...st-3195659

I saved Tiassa’s socks in a document somewhere.  I just can’t remember a key word to search for it.  It’ll come to me, though.  Oddly enough, they weren't used to support his position.  They were antagonistic.  That's why I was suspicious when GeoffP PMed me egging me on.  I still can’t figure out how he knew the whole story prior to Bells posting it publicly.  

I watched "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" the other night.  It was pretty good.  A guy was talking about war and how you can get addicted to the adrenaline rush.  CC is right.  Drama is the draw, the addiction, even when it’s choreographed.
Reply
#18
(Jun 27, 2016 06:41 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Quote:Basically there are only 5 people keeping the place alive on any kind of regular or semi-regular basis (including Stryder the owner). By "alive" I mean just preventing it from having the abandoned look of those forums where the most recent post was several weeks to a half year ago +. 

I’ve been hiding out in a forum that I used to frequent about 5 years ago.  The owner banned me, but he eventually let me back in.  Probably because it was his fault.  You know what learned, though?  To keep it alive, they have socks and create conversations between them.  They even read all of your PMs.  Something that I should have assumed, I guess.  I much prefer CC’s and Stryder’s method.

Something strange happened to me at Sciforums, though.  I discovered Tiassa’s creation of several sockpuppets, but that’s beside the point.  Anyhow, I was getting bored with Tiassa’s and Bells’ shenanigans. So, I wasn’t participating as much.  GeoffP sends me a PM saying that Bells is losing it and attacking him.  In a thread about atheism, derailed by abortion, I made a facetious comment about favoring abortion after meeting Tiassa and his crony.  Bells then says that I’m the type to wish her dead and cheer on her rapist.  I didn’t even know she was raped.  I looked through all of her posts and couldn’t locate any mention of it.  I asked GeoffP about it thinking I may have missed it somewhere.  GeoffP then tells me the whole story before she even posted the information.  I asked him how he knew thinking maybe through a PM or another forum.  He said she mentioned it on Sciforums and shrugged me off.  She hadn’t.  I don’t know.  There may be some other explanation for it, but it was odd.


http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-reque...6/page-104
bells is simply deranged from her emotional scares that leads to her thought process being disabled. Overall, that site is a complete cesspool, they are destroying themselves--so let bygones be bygones and forget about that place. no need to rant and rave about that site here.

(Jun 27, 2016 11:26 PM)C C Wrote: Many times I'd just skim over a heated thread enough to get a crude measurement of how much blood was on the battlefield or how heavy a blanket of histrionic smoke was obscuring the view.

" If looks could kill, they probably will
In games without frontiers-war without tears "
--PETER GABRIEL

" 'Games Without Frontiers' is a song written and recorded by the English rock musician Peter Gabriel. [...] The song's lyrics are interpreted as a commentary on war and international diplomacy being like children's games "
Reply
#19
(Jun 28, 2016 05:04 PM)krash661 Wrote: bells is simply deranged from her emotional scares that leads to her thought process being disabled. Overall, that site is a complete cesspool, they are destroying themselves--so let bygones be bygones and forget about that place. no need to rant and rave about that site here.

I’d hardly call that a rant, Mr. Krash.  I was merely pointing out an anomaly.  There could be a reasonable explanation for it, but sometimes, the devil is in the details.
Reply
#20
in big business there are employee empowerment programs. if one can influence others of the their "empowerment" of this site, it may bring traffic and cause this site to be active. one thing though, one would have to advertise this site through subliminal post showing the empowerment of the posters here. simply stress how one can discuss whatever here and not be bombarded by argumentative-ers and ridiculous bans.(<~~~ this is just one example) again, show them their empowerment here.

be advised though--- when i advertised stryder's site on sciforums, i was banned for 3 days for advertising. I clearly showed stryder's site and clearly stated for everyone to go here. my post was removed and i was banned for 3 days.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)