|
Author
|
Topic: Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
Re: Acknowledge?
At the bottom of the offending post, click where it says "Aware Wolf has not yet responded".
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by Aware Wolf, posted 09-28-2011 4:27 PM | | Aware Wolf has acknowledged this reply |
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
|
Message 207 of 311 (635882)
10-02-2011 4:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 205 by RAZD
10-02-2011 12:51 PM
|
|
Re: Chat forum?
| Put it in Side Orders with minimal moderation. |
There should be ZERO moderation in chat. Second, a chat would be private (save for Percy being able to view the logs) without the community being able to intrude on the conversation.
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 205 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 12:51 PM | | RAZD has responded |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 211 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 11:09 PM | | hooah212002 has responded |
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
|
|
Message 212 of 311 (635957)
10-03-2011 9:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 211 by RAZD
10-02-2011 11:09 PM
|
|
Re: Chat forum?
Kinda goes against the whole purpose of "chat" then.... Plus, IMO, it would clutter up the forum as a whole. People would start "chat" threads needlessly. Do I see a need for it? Not personally, but apparently there is a want for it from other members. The only use I could see for it is because it is difficult/obscure to see the (1)message blinking.| I don't need privacy, I wouldn't post anything that would need privacy. |
Perhaps others would, though.
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 11:09 PM | | RAZD has responded |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 213 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 6:57 PM | | hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply |
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
|
|
Message 219 of 311 (636065)
10-03-2011 8:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 217 by RAZD
10-03-2011 8:31 PM
|
|
Re: Re: Re: new ideas
Email clients no longer even do this (not even the atrocious Outlook ffs).... no more endless "FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: Funny cat lol" I couldn't think of a worse idea for a forum.
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 217 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 8:31 PM | | RAZD has acknowledged this reply |
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
|
|
Message 221 of 311 (644306)
12-17-2011 2:39 AM
|
|
|
Polemic
Can someone help me to understand the meaning of polemic? I have looked up the definition but I appear unable to grasp it.... For example: if someone were to accuse me of being polemic, that would mean ____? This is hypothetical, of course.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 222 by jar, posted 12-17-2011 9:51 AM | | hooah212002 has responded |
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
|
|
Message 223 of 311 (644366)
12-17-2011 9:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
12-17-2011 9:51 AM
|
|
Re: Polemic
Hmm. Ok. I guess I had trouble understanding because from the phonology of the word, it seems to carry a negative connotation. The main reason I asked is because I have been listening to a lot of the Non-Prophets and Atheist Experience podcasts and Matt Dillahunty claims that people "accuse" him of being overly polemic, so I took it to mean something more negative and that preconception didn't jive with the definition.
Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 222 by jar, posted 12-17-2011 9:51 AM | | jar has responded |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 224 by jar, posted 12-17-2011 10:02 AM | | hooah212002 has responded |
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
|
|
Message 225 of 311 (644370)
12-17-2011 10:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 224 by jar
12-17-2011 10:02 AM
|
|
Re: Polemic
Ok, then I am again confused. How could the act of simply arguing ones point be construed as negative?
Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 224 by jar, posted 12-17-2011 10:02 AM | | jar has responded |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 226 by jar, posted 12-17-2011 10:11 AM | | hooah212002 has responded |
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
|
|
Message 227 of 311 (644375)
12-17-2011 10:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 226 by jar
12-17-2011 10:11 AM
|
|
Re: Polemic
Ahh, ok. I get it now. I found a different definition that helps at Wiktionary| 1. A person who writes in support of one opinion, doctrine, or system, in opposition to another; one skilled in polemics; a controversialist; a disputant. 2. An argument or controversy. 3.A strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.
|
So it is not merely a reference for someone defending themselves, but someone who is in opposition to a particular "thing". Thanks jar.
Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 226 by jar, posted 12-17-2011 10:11 AM | | jar has not yet responded |
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
|
|
Message 237 of 311 (645869)
12-30-2011 6:25 PM
|
|
|
Since we are talking about the rating system...
Much to his chagrin, I'm sure, Artemis actually made a valid point in Message 106 that I hadn't previously thought of and hasn't been mentioned about the current rating system allowing lurkers to participate. Good point, fuck stick. Edited by hooah212002, : I'm only kidding. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
Mythology is what we call someone elses religion. Joseph Campbell
|
hooah212002
Member Posts: 2927 Joined: 08-12-2009 Member Rating: 9.7
|
|
|
Message 263 of 311 (648314)
01-14-2012 12:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 262 by NoNukes
01-14-2012 12:30 PM
|
|
Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
I think it says more about this board in particular. Yes, we need creationist members. However, the nature of EvC is that of "back up your claim with tangible evidence or GTFO" and that tends to favor the science side because let's face it: creationists simply lack ANY evidence. I think we would see more "equal" ratings if we just allowed creationist members free range to post whatever BS they wanted.For example: the one creationist poster who did the whale evolution thread (I think). Didn't he have a 10 for some time? He didn't stick around, but what he did post was honest, to the point and had evidence. It wasn't just a bunch of PRATTs. He seemed like he wanted to learn. We could use more like that.
Mythology is what we call someone elses religion. Joseph Campbell
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 262 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2012 12:30 PM | | NoNukes has acknowledged this reply |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 264 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2012 3:20 PM | | hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply |
|
™ Version 4.0 Beta
