Questions to Improve Forumula1.com

[darwin dali]

I hate brussels sprouts.

A Belgium-hater then, eh?

A conundrum, I like their beer... what should I do?

I was about to make a joke about you likening beer made of Brussel Sprouts. When I found out they are actually called Brussels Sprouts. Wtf!!?

In German we call them Rosenkohl (rose cabbage) - much lovelier

[What's Burning?]

I hate brussels sprouts.

A Belgium-hater then, eh?

A conundrum, I like their beer... what should I do?

I was about to make a joke about you likening beer made of Brussel Sprouts. When I found out they are actually called Brussels Sprouts. Wtf!!?

What can I say? Some of us just happen to live a charmed life.

[darwin dali]

I have arrived a bit late for the discussion about improving the forum, as I tend to overlook non F1 threads (a habit I am working to eradicate)

But my own 2 pence worth on that topic. Wrong facts, childish opinions etc are all a fabric of the net. However its normal to challenge anything wrong, as we would in real life, in real life generally we are striving towards truth, enlightment and fullfillment - these require the collaboration of others

Now if a few members here have no such instinct to move towards better understanding or enlightenment etc then its not a deal breaker, as long as they are big enough to accept getting corrected, just as we correct people in real life who act in ways that prevents others evolving and growing etc.

If people would just understand the the forum is for discussions and opinions based on something - in this case F1 reality, events and factual info, then it would work better if, when corrected they simply accept it and not take it as a personal affront that has to be avenged, with F1 taking a back seat to the various methods for doing this. Surely these people are not here to get their egos massaged or to find soul mates or to 'get on'

The trouble always follows the same pattern, someone is corrected, or someones opinion is corrected (in keeping with evolutionary interests of elevating the human spirit and main purpose and function), that person has spent ages drumming up the courage to actually externalise an opinion (highly commendable, no matter what the opinion is) and that person is reluctant to update it. So they turn to the fallacies, wrongly confusing winning an argument to delivering a thesis that is useful to others IN THE FUTURE.

And then they harbour a grudge and start to forget about F1 in a desperate attempt to 'win' some imaginary rematch with someone who has long forgotten the correction that alas was all important to others. And ofcourse the fact that they needed to be corrected in the first place will almost always go hand in had with an inability to 'win' any imaginary 'rematch' and so fallacies replace any meaningful debate. And when the correcter is too polite to ignore even those rabid with incoherence - again because of the evolutionary instinct to help everyone evolve - we have a one sided schooling usually concluded with 'appeal to authorities' or 'poor me' or the 'flouncing off into the sunset, to return when all is forgotten'

Best thing would be for all members to respect the right of all others to post whatever half baked opinion they are able to articulate, and then to respect the rights of all others to object, correct or pooh pooh that opinion. at that point social and peer group systems should kick in and conclude the episode. To then feel the need to object, correct or pooh pooh the opinion (wrongly or randomly) of others AS PART OF THE FALLACY of ego centered yet logic bypassing and emotionally unrestrained 'payback' that will always fail
Now in some business areas this pattern is a time honoured mechanism for converting financial losses from the shallow into financial profits for the pragmatic and objective. And very soon I will be in a position to offer everyone on here who got to this part of the post, an exceptional training product for free for anyone who gets what Im saying, watch the websites section

But hey, it takes all kinds to make a world

Tolerance, my friend, tolerance is the keyword.

[What's Burning?]

I have arrived a bit late for the discussion about improving the forum, as I tend to overlook non F1 threads (a habit I am working to eradicate)

But my own 2 pence worth on that topic. Wrong facts, childish opinions etc are all a fabric of the net. However its normal to challenge anything wrong, as we would in real life, in real life generally we are striving towards truth, enlightment and fullfillment - these require the collaboration of others

Now if a few members here have no such instinct to move towards better understanding or enlightenment etc then its not a deal breaker, as long as they are big enough to accept getting corrected, just as we correct people in real life who act in ways that prevents others evolving and growing etc.

If people would just understand the the forum is for discussions and opinions based on something - in this case F1 reality, events and factual info, then it would work better if, when corrected they simply accept it and not take it as a personal affront that has to be avenged, with F1 taking a back seat to the various methods for doing this. Surely these people are not here to get their egos massaged or to find soul mates or to 'get on'

The trouble always follows the same pattern, someone is corrected, or someones opinion is corrected (in keeping with evolutionary interests of elevating the human spirit and main purpose and function), that person has spent ages drumming up the courage to actually externalise an opinion (highly commendable, no matter what the opinion is) and that person is reluctant to update it. So they turn to the fallacies, wrongly confusing winning an argument to delivering a thesis that is useful to others IN THE FUTURE.

And then they harbour a grudge and start to forget about F1 in a desperate attempt to 'win' some imaginary rematch with someone who has long forgotten the correction that alas was all important to others. And ofcourse the fact that they needed to be corrected in the first place will almost always go hand in had with an inability to 'win' any imaginary 'rematch' and so fallacies replace any meaningful debate. And when the correcter is too polite to ignore even those rabid with incoherence - again because of the evolutionary instinct to help everyone evolve - we have a one sided schooling usually concluded with 'appeal to authorities' or 'poor me' or the 'flouncing off into the sunset, to return when all is forgotten'

Best thing would be for all members to respect the right of all others to post whatever half baked opinion they are able to articulate, and then to respect the rights of all others to object, correct or pooh pooh that opinion. at that point social and peer group systems should kick in and conclude the episode. To then feel the need to object, correct or pooh pooh the opinion (wrongly or randomly) of others AS PART OF THE FALLACY of ego centered yet logic bypassing and emotionally unrestrained 'payback' that will always fail
Now in some business areas this pattern is a time honoured mechanism for converting financial losses from the shallow into financial profits for the pragmatic and objective. And very soon I will be in a position to offer everyone on here who got to this part of the post, an exceptional training product for free for anyone who gets what Im saying, watch the websites section

But hey, it takes all kinds to make a world

It's funny you should write a post with lots of words.

Anyway, I always thought about the scenario of it being a lecture or symposium of some sort and there's a Q&A session at the end. Imagine the reaction from the people attending such an event to a really outlandish, ignorant or otherwise looney question. Then ask yourself... why would you expect it to be any different here? Simply because you can remain anonymous?

[What's Burning?]

But it's not tolerance that's being requested my royal highness, it's equal acceptance! Do we allow intelligent design to be taught in schools simply because some people insist on their opinion being given equal treatment?

[What's Burning?]

In German we call them Rosenkohl (rose cabbage) - much lovelier

always fascinated by the entimology of words. In Spanish col = kohl.

[CookinFlat6]

Tolerance, my friend, tolerance is the keyword.

Yes tolerance, which is exactly what I have outlined in accepting that people will post for the sake of posting - and thats not bad - thats life - its when they get corrected that they do not display any tolerance. Tolerance - everyone has a right to post their opinion on anything, everyone has a right to object or correct

Tolerance is not when the butthurt then object or try to putdown fallaciously - anything I post etc is along the lines of F1 reality, so if someone objects or questionsthem based not on the evolutionary quest for truth, but on emotional butthurt - thats not tolerance

But I hear you, it takes all sorts, would be much better for the DAF to be tolerant of other opinions unless they KNOW them to be based on wrong info - then Im all ears, unfortunately all we get is a procession of turkeys attracted by the christmas lights

[myownalias]

Tolerance, my friend, tolerance is the keyword.

Yes tolerance, which is exactly what I have outlined in accepting that people will post for the sake of posting - and thats not bad - thats life - its when they get corrected that they do not display any tolerance. Tolerance - everyone has a right to post their opinion on anything, everyone has a right to object or correct

Tolerance is not when the butthurt then object or try to putdown fallaciously - anything I post etc is along the lines of F1 reality, so if someone objects or questionsthem based not on the evolutionary quest for truth, but on emotional butthurt - thats not tolerance

But I hear you, it takes all sorts, would be much better for the DAF to be tolerant of other opinions unless they KNOW them to be based on wrong info - then Im all ears, unfortunately all we get is a procession of turkeys attracted by the christmas lights

The issue is not challenging or questioning people's opinions, it's the way you do it, it is possible to challenge other views without being abrasive and condescending as you frequently can be. I have my moments of "what the f*** are they on about?" but I generally walk away instead of replying to someone where their opinion is clearly not going to be changed, beating a dead horse solves nothing and generally ends up with moderator action, be it a warning, ban or locked thread. You can call it tolerance, you can call it accepting someone else's view of the world, you can call it respect, not everyone has to agree and views do not have to be changed.

[CookinFlat6]

Tolerance, my friend, tolerance is the keyword.

Yes tolerance, which is exactly what I have outlined in accepting that people will post for the sake of posting - and thats not bad - thats life - its when they get corrected that they do not display any tolerance. Tolerance - everyone has a right to post their opinion on anything, everyone has a right to object or correct

Tolerance is not when the butthurt then object or try to putdown fallaciously - anything I post etc is along the lines of F1 reality, so if someone objects or questionsthem based not on the evolutionary quest for truth, but on emotional butthurt - thats not tolerance

But I hear you, it takes all sorts, would be much better for the DAF to be tolerant of other opinions unless they KNOW them to be based on wrong info - then Im all ears, unfortunately all we get is a procession of turkeys attracted by the christmas lights

The issue is not challenging or questioning people's opinions, it's the way you do it, it is possible to challenge other views without being abrasive and condescending as you frequently can be. I have my moments of "what the f*** are they on about?" but I generally walk away instead of replying to someone where their opinion is clearly not going to be changed, beating a dead horse solves nothing and generally ends up with moderator action, be it a warning, ban or locked thread. You can call it tolerance, you can call it accepting someone else's view of the world, you can call it respect, not everyone has to agree and views do not have to be changed.

Ok, MOA we now have a chance to demonstrate through actions and not rhetoric. I have said something - my opinion, I have provided evidence that its not based on any alterior motive but on what I think to the best of my ability is the truth.
You have read it, and you dont agree with it. So its you challenging my views. We have mentioned respect and accepting that not everyone has to agree and that views do not have to be changed.
So at this point I appreciate your manner in raising an objection to my complete opinion, however i feel that I am right and that the 'being abrasive and condescending' NEVER comes from when I challenge the views of others but only after those that challenge my views persist without any fact based foundation (aka a reason beyond fallacy). So I have responded that I dont agree with your objections and stated why.

The next step would be up to you, do you accept my right to stick to my opinion in the absence of a valid reason from you not to? do you leave it there and tolerance has been exercised and alls good?

or do you now persist, by changing focus and shifting goalposts in an effort to salve something? Because thats when we move from debate or discussion to fallacy vs abrasive and condescending - a pointless dialogue that brings out a pointless response

So in this case I know we can leave it there, and if others could put such tolerance above irrational fallacy then alls good and remains good. I never object to someones view with anything other than a solid foundation for the objection - so no abrasion etc there

[myownalias]

Cookin, I respect your right to an opinion, and I see your point, but flogging a dead horse using abrasive and condescending language does not improve the situation. Heard the expression "never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience"?, I live my life by that mantra.

[CookinFlat6]

I hear you, thats why I try not to argue and instead become condescending - as I was brought up to regard idiots as people who are just a bit slow and thick.
This is a problem we have in society in general, everyone is too nice and polite and PC. It doesnt help the idiots if you allow them to correct a good with a wrong, and other border line idiots observing this might think that the acceptance of an idiots views makes the idiots right leading to the situation we have today with idiots voting for other idiots who normal people are too polite to pull their pants down till they do something hugely idiotic that then affects everyone.

Probably the same as jimmy savile, all those who were too polite to call him out for his 'wrongness' are just as guilty in my book

On a seperate note, the issue of abrasive or conflict is much misunderstood IMHO. Conflict can be healthy when it happens under carefully preplanned rules. Arguments are not bad unless rules of conduct are broken. Conflict does not have to be terminal or fatal, it can be tempered and beneficial. Adult life is about dealing with conflicts and obstacles and tests. Its only a problem when the rules are broken typically by someone resorting to the logical fallacies - cheating, lying, etc etc - this is what leads to stupid wars.
Conflicts cannot be eliminated from life, they can be regulated and clear rules applied that indicate the end or conclusion etc.

Maybe there are 2 schools of thought here, 1 that thinks a best friend is someone you have never fought with and 1 that thinks you cannot have a best friend unless you have fought and tested and therefore discovered who they really are. Lets face it, if you have 2 people in a discussion and they both agree completely then by definition the discussion was a waste of time. If 2 of us agree on how to do something then one of us is a waste of space (not in a bad way)

Yes its not nice for mods etc to have to clean up after, but they only have to do that when 1 side decends into the fallacies. A body builder goes to the gym to pump up muscle, without tearing the existing one by conflict he aint gonna grow bigger ones

Anyways i ve rambled on enough, hope this helps our forum in some way

[What's Burning?]

Cookin, I respect your right to an opinion, and I see your point, but flogging a dead horse using abrasive and condescending language does not improve the situation. Heard the expression "never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience"?, I live my life by that mantra.

poor thing, wouldn't it be simpler to just not surround yourself with idiots?

[myownalias]

Cookin, I respect your right to an opinion, and I see your point, but flogging a dead horse using abrasive and condescending language does not improve the situation. Heard the expression "never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience"?, I live my life by that mantra.

poor thing, wouldn't it be simpler to just not surround yourself with idiots?

I can't... I live in Kansas... where the Republicans rule the roost... finding a non-idiot is a near impossible task!

[What's Burning?]

I guess Cookin' the point is that a lot of people feel that your way is abrasive or off putting but are willing to look the "other" side. I don't see Sagi here arguing her point because there's nothing to argue, it's pretty plain sight what she does and how she does it. But for some odd reason it's you that's singled out as abrasive or condescending. It's never her even though 4/5th of the posts here are in breach of:

* Posts intended to flame and/or provoke users for a reaction, regardless of subtlety.

But perhaps that's more difficult to qualify since how do you measure the level of subtlety and the intent, as you'd have to look at the body of work. I agree with your statement that it is not you raising to the point what you're being accused of first. It's a long drawn out process that certain (sagi53, overboostb, Roth) people are simply never going to admit to being wrong and of having commented on something that they've got no clue and no business commenting on. Certainly in the case of Sagi 53 have even professed to never submitting, and then deny or don't read a response counter to their arguments, they simply continue their assertion that YOU must be wrong. I used the example of a religious zealot yesterday. It's the same realm of thought, because admitting they are wrong then debunks their entire existence not just a post or a comment.

So I as the community as a whole, why are we addressing this as if it's the fault of only the guy that's sane in this situation? It's a bit comical if you ask me and perhaps the right approach should be to curtail people from endlessly repeating garbage they can't justify simply to not admit that they're wrong or too ignorant to understand that they're wrong in the first place.

I contend that as long as someone is allowed to repeatedly spit out senseless drivel and we as a community are not willing to police/control that, then someone that chooses to eddress the repeatedly spit out senseless drivel has to also be tolerated. I may be in the minority on this pov, but I certainly am not wrong in having said pov.

Thank you very much, and I'm sorry for using too many words again.

[What's Burning?]

Cookin, I respect your right to an opinion, and I see your point, but flogging a dead horse using abrasive and condescending language does not improve the situation. Heard the expression "never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience"?, I live my life by that mantra.

poor thing, wouldn't it be simpler to just not surround yourself with idiots?

I can't... I live in Kansas... where the Republicans rule the roost... finding a non-idiot is a near impossible task!

I've been telling you to get the hell out of there for as long as I've known you!