Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 6:19 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Porkncheese, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,658 Year: 3,695/19,786 Month: 690/1,087 Week: 59/221 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Effective Posting Styles (And Suggested Improvements)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 89 (649289)
01-22-2012 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
01-21-2012 8:36 PM


Re: Effective Posting Style
Zen Deist writes:

The topic is effective posting styles, and in my mind one of the MOST effective elements of a good posting style is staying on topic, and not letting yourself get drawn off into side issues.

I like that word, "effective" in the thread title. Long, lively and red hot threads should be an indication of some effective posting styles, should it not?

Creationists who draw interest are often the ones who get criticized by members and admins the most.

An effective posting style may not mean that the message is factual or even articulated well. It still may be effective enough to arouse debate.

What's considered factual is often relative to one's paradigm. It may not be considered scientific to the satisfaction of the mainstream's science methodology. That, of course has to do with the nature of scientific evidence[ which I've been thinking long and hard on.

The nature of the various sciences are manifold. I hope to get to a thread on it when I can get a handle on how to open the topic effectively.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2012 8:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2012 9:06 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2012 9:07 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2012 2:12 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 01-22-2012 3:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 89 (649295)
01-22-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
01-22-2012 8:34 AM


Re: Effective Posting Style
Long, lively and red hot threads should be an indication of some effective posting styles, should it not?

Are you here to produce heat, or light?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 8:34 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 9:16 AM crashfrog has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 78 of 89 (649296)
01-22-2012 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
01-22-2012 8:34 AM


Re: Effective Posting Style
quote:

I like that word, "effective" in the thread title. Long, lively and red hot threads should be an indication of some effective posting styles, should it not?

Trollish posts - or successful trolls would be "effective" by that measure. Effective argumentation can't be measured in that way. Numbers are rarely a good measure of quality.

quote:

Creationists who draw interest are often the ones who get criticized by members and admins the most.

Probably because they tend to produce trollish posts. Which doubtless appeal to other creationists but do nothing to persuade anybody on the other side.

quote:

What's considered factual is often relative to one's paradigm

I would like you to elaborate on this. Perhaps you can explain why ideas that you have simply made up, without any real knowledge or understanding should be considered "facts" in your paradigm.

quote:

It may not be considered scientific to the satisfaction of the mainstream's science methodology. That, of course has to do with the nature of scientific evidence[ which I've been thinking long and hard on.

Do please tell us why it is unfair to exclude falsehoods as valid evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 8:34 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 89 (649297)
01-22-2012 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
01-22-2012 9:06 AM


Re: Effective Posting Style
crashfrog writes:

Are you here to produce heat, or light?

To spark up some interest, move the thread topic forward and to enlighten.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2012 9:06 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2012 9:35 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 89 (649298)
01-22-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
01-22-2012 9:16 AM


Re: Effective Posting Style
And I'd genuinely like to see you accomplish all of those things. But I think an interesting and enlightening post has to be more than just an admonition to read a bunch of unspecified other posts, don't you?

I know you think you've presented killer evidence in the past, and that now your sole task is to get us to admit it. But I think you'd be more effective at meeting your goals:

To spark up some interest, move the thread topic forward and to enlighten

if you adopted, or from your perspective returned to, a posting style where you presented and defended evidence that supports your views. (And for god's sake, there's nothing wrong with your authentic voice. There's no reason for you to insist on ineptly dressing up your language with ten-dollar words. Don't pretend to be a professor, just talk to us like we're all regular people.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 9:16 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 12:27 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 89 (649314)
01-22-2012 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
01-22-2012 9:35 AM


Re: Effective Posting Style
crashfrog writes:

And I'd genuinely like to see you accomplish all of those things. But I think an interesting and enlightening post has to be more than just an admonition to read a bunch of unspecified other posts, don't you?

Give me an example of my alleged propensity to post a bunch of unspecified other posts.

crashfrog writes:

I know you think you've presented killer evidence in the past, and that now your sole task is to get us to admit it. But I think you'd be more effective at meeting your goals:

See Crashfrog? This is what you do. I do not claim to have presented killer/empirical evidence. It's usually the evolutionists who make these claims about illogical conclusions they/you come to. Look over my posts. I usually apply the word, supportive, relative to my evidence.

crashfrog writes:

if you adopted, or from your perspective returned to, a posting style where you presented and defended evidence that supports your views. (And for god's sake, there's nothing wrong with your authentic voice. There's no reason for you to insist on ineptly dressing up your language with ten-dollar words. Don't pretend to be a professor, just talk to us like we're all regular people.)

But you're not all regular people. For the most part, you are members here because the majority of you are scientifically astute.

I'm a man with a high school degree. I work to expand my vocabulary. We can all click on Google, type in problematic words which other forum members use, click on an online dictionary and learn what the word means. If you have no desire to expand your vocabulary, that's your prerogative.

I sometimes embellish posts with alliteration. I remember about that from high school. A late great English preacher, Leonard Ravenhill, once held some services at out little small town, Wyoming church. He was a very inspirational preacher who sometimes applied alliteration to his messages. It's fun to do, so why not apply it now and then?

I'm a peon layman having no higher education debating the Biblical creationist paradigm here on a science cite rife with highly articulate educated scholars. I learn a lot from all of you except the cite's coddled trolls . Over the past 8 plus years you all have helped me to expand my knowledge and expand my vocabulary.

Due to my lack of higher education it becomes needful for me to cite links supportive to my arguments, more so than members who've been formally educated, some of them having their doctorates, etc.

Search engines, coupled with gleanings from scientific elitist members make it possible for me to debate the best of you, including Percy, Coyote, Dr. Adequate, Lyx2no (I hope he's still with us), Cavediver, Son Goku and Eta Carina, a former highly astute physicist, et al.

I think of little David with his smooth little sling stone who felled the giant, Goliath. David became deadly with the sling & stone as a Shepherd in the wilderness and trusted in his skill and Jehovah enough to dare to confront the giant.

Having the smooth stone of Biblical truth and help of the majestic ruler and intelligent designer of the Universe, I am able to hold my own with the best of you. Aside from these, I could do nothing.

I do not go beyond what topics I can handle. There are science threads which I know I am incapable of debating, aside form, perhaps a post or two.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2012 9:35 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2012 3:30 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2012 4:35 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2012 12:42 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


(2)
Message 82 of 89 (649328)
01-22-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
01-22-2012 8:34 AM


Re: Effective Posting Style
Hi Buzsaw,

An effective posting style may not mean that the message is factual or even articulated well. It still may be effective enough to arouse debate.

Sounds like the child throwing a tantrum on the basis that any attention is better than none.

I like that word, "effective" in the thread title. Long, lively and red hot threads should be an indication of some effective posting styles, should it not?

A post that elucidates a point so well that no response can be made other than applause would be effective.

A post that displays nonsense for what it is, and takes that out of further contention would be effective.

A post where people say "I wish I had said that" would be effective.

A post that gets a "post of the month" nomination followed by a chorus of likes and seconds would be effective.

An effective posting style may not mean that the message is factual or even articulated well. It still may be effective enough to arouse debate.

A post that keeps articulating failed concepts without any justification would be ineffective.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 8:34 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 83 of 89 (649341)
01-22-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
01-22-2012 12:27 PM


Re: Effective Posting Style
Buz, I dont think that all this empty bragging is either productive or effective.

quote:

I do not go beyond what topics I can handle. There are science threads which I know I am incapable of debating, aside form, perhaps a post or two.

The evidence says otherwise. For instance your dismal performance in this thread: Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 12:27 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 84 of 89 (649342)
01-22-2012 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
01-22-2012 8:34 AM


Re: Effective Posting Style
Buz writes:

I like that word, "effective" in the thread title.

I'll take that as a sign of effective thread titling....

Buz writes:

Long, lively and red hot threads should be an indication of some effective posting styles, should it not?

Not really. I think you are mistaking the sort of attention that can be garnered by being obviously wrong with the sort of attention that a well supported and well made argument should (ideally in theory) result in.

The fact is that if someone comes here and is willing to stubbornly argue that cats and dogs are the same species they will probably find both an audience and a raft of people willing to demonstrate why they are wrong no matter how immune they are to such refutation.

Contentiousness is not a sign of quality.

Buz writes:

Creationists who draw interest are often the ones who get criticized by members and admins the most.

Hmmm. See above.

Buz writes:

An effective posting style may not mean that the message is factual or even articulated well. It still may be effective enough to arouse debate.

Why do you think arousing debate is a sign of effectiveness?

Look Buz - I like you. I find many of your social and political views close to abhorrant. I think your grasp of science is so far off the mark that the average budgerigar could do a better job of applying the scientific method. I think your personal theories of cosmology are both blatantly and demonstrably wrong in terms of adhering to the laws of physics and simply insane in terms of thinking that you have somehow defeated science. And I think your version of theology gives Christianity a bad name to even an extent that I, an ardent critic of Christianity, think is unjustified.

But as damning as all that sounds I kinda respect your personal stubbornness as some sort of integrity (others might say willful ignorance - and there is a thin, if even present, dividing line). I think you are fundamentally a well meaning, honest and ultimately decent guy despite all of the above.

More to the point I would prefer EvC to have people like you around no matter how frustrating I find you. Because it does spark debate and it does make the whole thing more interesting in my opinion. If nothing else you provide a foil for the likes of myself to put into words what we think we know already. And explaining to others what you think you know is one of the best ways of self-testing just how well you really know something.

But I really don't think that the amount of attention garnered can be viewed as a sign of either effective posting or quality of position.

In many cases quite the opposite....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 8:34 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 89 (649345)
01-22-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
01-22-2012 12:27 PM


Re: Effective Posting Style
Give me an example of my alleged propensity to post a bunch of unspecified other posts.

I don't understand. Are you saying you don't ever do this? Limiting the scope to messages that are about a "debate" topic, as opposed to you defending yourself against attacks, it seems like about 50% of your messages these days are where you claim you already had this debate, and that interested parties should just go back and look at the evidence you've already posted. Although you frequently don't link to any specific post which is why I referred to the posts as "unspecified."

I do not claim to have presented killer/empirical evidence.

Try not to get too hung up on the language, here, but it's not uncommon for you to claim that you've posted something that, to a "reasonable" or "objective" person, would settle the debate. For instance, in Message 59 you said

quote:
Objective people, having read and assembled all of the evidence Buz has cited for the Biblical record would know why they support Buz.

I would characterize this as both a reference to unspecified posts and a claim of having presented debate-ending evidence. I understand that you might object to both characterizations, but that's how it looks to the rest of us. If that's not the impression you wish to give, then I invite you to work on your communication skills.

But you're not all regular people. For the most part, you are members here because the majority of you are scientifically astute.

Yeah, but our pants go on one leg at a time just like yours. Having scientific knowledge doesn't somehow remove us from the human race, Buz. We're just folks, just like you, only there's something we know that you don't, just like there's stuff that you know that we don't.

We're parents, children, teachers, students, workers, retirees. We're not some alien species, Buz, we're just regular people who know some science, who have a passion and a thirst to be informed about the natural world. Some of us have jobs in these areas. Some of us are purely amateurs. None of us have undergone any sort of brainwashing procedure, or something, that would as dramatically shift our perspective as you seem to think happened. (I'm referring again to Message 59 where you claim that we've had our "minds programmed.")

He was a very inspirational preacher who sometimes applied alliteration to his messages. It's fun to do, so why not apply it now and then?

I invite you to have as much fun as you please, but you stated that you had, as goals:

quote:
To spark up some interest, move the thread topic forward and to enlighten.

which I think are great goals to have. I'm simply making an effort to explain how, in my opinion, you have habits that are obstacles to these goals. Don't feel that you have to change a thing just to please me. I'm just calling it like I see it, and you're as free as always to take it or leave it, as you see fit. (It's not going to hurt my feelings either way.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 12:27 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 86 of 89 (649374)
01-23-2012 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
01-22-2012 12:27 PM


Re: Effective Posting Style
Having the smooth stone of Biblical truth and help of the majestic ruler and intelligent designer of the Universe, I am able to hold my own with the best of you.

So the same guy who's jointly responsible for Buz's posts also designed the universe.

THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2012 12:27 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Pressie, posted 01-23-2012 4:31 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 87 of 89 (649378)
01-23-2012 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
01-23-2012 12:42 AM


Re: Effective Posting Style
Buz must be soooo special!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2012 12:42 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1786 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 88 of 89 (649380)
01-23-2012 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-16-2010 10:20 AM


I can tell you what isn't an effective posting style, yet we see it all too often here.

Most debates centre round a difference of opinion, neither one or the other is correct, for example the debate for and against foxhunting in the UK or abortion or healthcare. The object of the exercise is to make the most persuasive argument to influence an audience. That's why politicians who can debate well, do well.

This board is unique in that often we are dealing with fact eg mechanisms of mutation, atomic theory. Yes, the body of knowledge may be tweaked as new information comes to light, but in essence the fundamentals are established. In circumstances such as these, it doesn't matter how persuasive an argument is made, it doesn't change the facts.

The most ineffective style, imho, is one which employs the tactic we see all to often in the political world - rhetoric. Soundbites work in the political arena but they are just empty noise in the science arena. For example

I think of little David with his smooth little sling stone who felled the giant, Goliath. David became deadly with the sling & stone as a Shepherd in the wilderness and trusted in his skill and Jehovah enough to dare to confront the giant.

and

Having the smooth stone of Biblical truth and help of the majestic ruler and intelligent designer of the Universe, I am able to hold my own with the best of you.

Neither of these statements contains any factual information, rebuttal of contrary arguments, but contain what we all call "spin". In this environment that is about as ineffective as you can get

So I suppose that an effective posting style addresses the topic with facts and evidence, avoids spin and rhetoric and deals with what has actually been posted by opponents. It can include reducto ad absurdum and infact this is one of the most effective ways of countering an opposing argument.

But by far and away, the best posting style involves humour, an admission of error if you're wrong and total honesty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 10:20 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 89 of 89 (649860)
01-26-2012 12:59 AM


I didn't get to go through them all but I saw a lot of good replies so far. I have found that being as brief as you can and saving what I call "your big guns" for later, when one of your comments is challenged, is usually the best approach. As another poster said, nobody wants to read a book, and I usually skip them when they go on too long as well. Avoid big block paragraphs. Also being a little controversial without being vulgar helps to hold readers attention. It's just human nature to be drawn to a good "duke em out" discussion, so don't be afraid to piss people off a little bit with some good comical sarcasm. That spice turns an otherwise dull hum drum discussion into a fun read.
    
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019