Subforum history

[dneal]

So let's have the uncomfortable discussion. My view:

This part of this forum was created around 2014. It never was really busy (but that's the case for the forum as a whole), but it was polite. It's what prompted me to stop lurking and join. A place to go to escape FPN's weird moderation, and a place that appeared to be free of the typical FaceBook/Twitter "gotcha" political rhetoric. It had interesting topics too.

Even the "contentious" topics were cordial. See Scotland's Independence (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/8712-Scotland-s-Independence-Referendum-18-September-2014). See Musings of Late (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/14116-Musings-of-late). See The Great Obscenities (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/6594-The-Great-Obscenities-in-the-US-today).

We even had a 2nd Amendment debate (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/13414-The-US-2nd-Amendment) and a Definition of Christian (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/15545-Definition-of-Christian) discussion with some contentiousness but little rudeness.

Over time, you begin to develop a feel for some posters. EoC has a tendency to steer topics in certain directions, sometimes interesting and novel but usually just pedantic. If it's a thread on religion, inevitably he will try to make it a proof of God's existence debate. TSherbs has been around from the start, and tends to diplomatically offering his opinion and announcing his departure if it is contested. Ethernautrix has also been around from the beginning as well, and makes me think about things I hadn't considered or asks insightful questions (I've changed my view of the surveillance state recently, prompted by some of her posts and further investigation and reflection).

That changed with Trump. See How far can it go (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/16940-How-far-can-it-go-presidential-race-Who-knows-Until-then-how-about-some-fiction) or Great Political Commercials (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/17040-Great-political-commercials-of-the-season). Vitriol was introduced to the forum, but not too bad. It got worse with the Choices (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/18213-Choices) thread, but still not too bad.

Things died down to the typical questions SIR would ask. Some baffled me, to be honest; but they were definitely novel.

When COVID arose, I made the mistake of posing the question of economic risk in response to COVID (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/30840-Combatting-the-virus-and-economic-risk). Man, did that ever turn out to be a shit-show. I apparently wanted people to die for even considering it, and away we went...

I wondered aloud why otherwise intelligent people weren't able to have a rational discussion over contentious topics. Turned out, many can, as evidenced in Post your contentious virus posts here (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/31087-Post-your-Contentious-Virus-Posts-Here). The usual suspects attempted to derail it (ultimately successfully). An aside for TSherbs - note post #4 in that thread. Also note your posts in the "definition of Christian" thread.

At that point, the roller coaster had crested the hill. Corniche's I can't fathom this election (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/32672-I-Cannot-Fathom-This-Election) thread is where it went off the rails. The rhetoric and vitriol began with the second post, and it hasn't let up since.

The thoughtful posters (e.g.: MHosea, Dreck, RayVigo, VertOlive, etc...) have long gone. I don't blame them. I've considered vacating this section as well, but I'm usually not inclined to give up without a fight. The environment has changed from the "Definition of Christian" days.

ethernautrix recently said:


"If you want to "fight," then there is no problem. That's what you're getting. If you don't want to fight, don't fight.

Has anyone noticed that demanding that others change their tone and manners has, like, zero effect, anyway?

I don't want to fight, but won't run away from one. I've said many times if you won't be an asshole, I won't either. I'll manage to adapt and entertain myself with however any want these threads to play out, as it suits me in a particular instance. I find the variety of human behavior fascinating, and sometimes some of you are just lab rats I poke to see how you'll react. In some cases it becomes so predictable it loses my interest.

I also don't demand others change their tone. I do wish this section were more "Definition of Christian" and less "Choices", but post how you like. Every one of us determines the tenor of this section, and I continue to offer each of you the option. I have a long memory, but don't hold grudges. You can't hurt my feelings, and couldn't care less about group pressure (which should be obvious by now).


An aside, for Lloyd, is that I don't have a "short fuse". I don't get angry at any of this really. At this point I just don't bother taking the long road to the inevitable.

[Chuck Naill]

I can recall most everyone who frequents this section and regularly participates to have shown their worst sides more than a few times. This means everyone lives in a glass house. Whether some hold grudges, I can't say, but I have noticed others reminding members of what they had posted in the past. Just saying.

The reason I found the "drunk post" so funny is because I admit to having done it a few times. When I read what I posted I am wondering who is posting under my name...LOL!!

Also, being able to blow off steam is important when serious events overwhelm. While I am coming here less and trying to walk it like I talk it, I reserve to mess up occasionally. Thanks to all who regularly engage in the topic posted.

[dneal]

Chuck - thanks for having the fortitude to address the topic directly. Many do indeed show their worst sides at times. Many also take a passive-aggressive approach and then pretend innocence. I have no problem pointing out that hypocrisy, using previous posts; and I do find it amusing that they refuse to admit to it, even when it's blatantly obvious. I appreciate that you are also honest in that regard - that you will own your words and actions. It seems to be a rare thing.

[Chuck Naill]

I am a member of a forum that has become pretty much unused, but on that forum, we discussed lots of topic and it was unmoderated. I'd like to see it return. Join me if interested.

https://wharfinexile.proboards.com/

[TSherbs]

I'll add to this two other dynamic shifters in the history of the forum since I have been here: the weird spate of disgusting name-tags that someone used to troll several members and pollute several threads, and the effect of the pandemic overall.

I came to this site when FPN had one of its shut-downs in 2013. In those days, for me, the best thing about the site was Dan Smith's production on the web-page side and his reviews and his collaboration with Stephen Brown. That was all very helpful to me.

Then Mr. Orosco shut that down.

On these threads I found Chrissy's Diamine reviews most helpful. I read nearly every one and looked forward to new inks and new information (I am also a fan of the steady reliability of Diamine inks).

There were many times that I professed my preference for the regulated dynamic of FPN over FPG, and there were months at a time when I would not visit here. But eventually I would return, to see if some new reviews were here and to check in on a few familiar members.

Then Trump happened, then the pandemic happened, and, I think, that one-two punch caused (was the result of?) a lot of stress in society. Some of that was vented here on these back pages.

I am not positive, but I think that FPG just gets much less traffic than before, especially outside of its sales threads, which have picked up a bit since FPN shut down theirs. There is just a few of us habitual users left who circulate through here. We're aging, inflexible, and pompous. That's doesn't tend to invite new/young participation or growth.

Reminds me, I need to take my geritol.

[Chuck Naill]

Mark Shields died this past weekend. David Brooks remarked that he taught him not just to think with his head. Humor was a part of Mark’s appeal, which is no as easy to communicate on a forum.

I’ve recently mentioned the Dolly Llama and “drunk posts “ once two many. I mean no disrespect, but to me, a religious icon is just that, a religious icon whether it’s Billy Graham or Mohammed. They are just people like the rest of us.

Disagreement, passion, and dedication is important and not just what someone in a robe or uniform exemplifies.

[TSherbs]

Chuck, why is this post in this thread on the history of the forum?

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, why is this post in this thread on the history of the forum?

Mr Shields and Brooks sparred for 20 years. This thread appears to be a historical recollection of truth or “misremembering”.

That two people with different views disagreed, yet remained friends, as I trust we will, is significant

[dneal]

Did those two friends impugn each other? Mock professions simply because they disagreed on an issue? Respond to each other with “lol’s” and emoticons in lieu of discourse? Resort to ad hominem when they couldn’t respond with a reasoned point?

[Chuck Naill]

Did those two friends impugn each other? Mock professions simply because they disagreed on an issue? Respond to each other with “lol’s” and emoticons in lieu of discourse? Resort to ad hominem when they couldn’t respond with a reasoned point?

I can’t review 20 years. You’ll have to do the work of scholarship @dneal. Might be a novel concept for you.

How one responds is dictated by how the other initiates or responds. You’ve not provided anything exemplary as a senior member. You’ve posted untruths and right out lies. I’ve not followed the the Biblical proverb of not answering a fool accordingly to their folly and suffered much nonsense as a result.

[dneal]

Chuck, I’ve tried to reason with you and played this game with you. I’ve raised the ante on insults, mocked you, mimicked you, pointed out the hypocrisy, pointed out the irrationality - even to the point of listing them by name. Ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, appeal to emotion, red herring, etc…. I’ve rolled around in the mud with you and sat on the fence and prodded you as you circled the sty.

You’re the lab rat I mentioned. A curiosity. I can pull your strings and get a predictable response. One only has to look at the latest round of your responses to kazoolaw.

I finally realized I missed the obvious. You’re an old school troll. You thrive on the attention. It’s why you made your crazy outbursts in the Ukraine thread - you weren’t getting enough attention.

You’ve done the predictable again in this thread. Ignored the topic, hurled some snide and erroneous remarks after making some bizarre statement on some irrelevant point and no one can figure out why. If we continue this banter, it’ll devolve to an indecipherable jumble of words, punctuation, and emoticons. Maybe you're suffering from dementia, maybe you’re a drunk, maybe you’ve had one too many Covid shots or have some Covid fog from when you were infected despite your precautions.

At this point, I don’t really care. You’re just a metaphorical toddler kicking the back of the seat, screeching “nananananananananananana” for attention. It’s sad that you seem to prefer that to intelligent discourse on current or interesting topics, but it is what it is.

You’ll grow tired of it at some point and leave, perhaps; but more likely your plague of locusts approach will make this one more forum I suspect you’ve left barren. That’s a shame, and a shame the behavior you continuously exhibit is tolerated here - which wouldn’t be tolerated elsewhere.

It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[Chuck Naill]

Laughing 😂 lol 😂 just

[dneal]

Laughing 😂 lol 😂 just

I thought you would get a somewhat decipherable post or two in first.

[TSherbs]

How about you two stop trading shit with each other? It's dozens and dozens of posts doing the same thing.

[Chuck Naill]

Ted,I’ve read your posts. Why didn’t you refrain?

[TSherbs]

But then I know how to stop responding to people for the sake of the thread, especially if a thread is actually on topic. You two guys constantly, endlessly trade in these petty little barbs that suck the energy away from the topic. I have had my blowups, but then I move on and I stop exchanging with people, for weeks and months sometimes. You two can barely go three hours.

Just cut the shit already. Do it for others (not for me, for others).

[Chuck Naill]

Your had some significant blowups

[dneal]

TSherbs - I've ignored Chuck's stuff a great deal recently. This is the thread for hashing this out, regardless of how it goes. I stated my position, bluntly and honestly (and probably too harshly, but I think Chuck can handle it).

I truly do wish we could go back to the pre-Trump / pre-Covid nonsense. The country is hyper-polarized, and this place now is just a reflection of it.

[Lloyd]

Once someone launches one character assault at another, it becomes a repetitive tennis match of similar attacks. Members should be criticizing each other's posts, not each other's characters.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Okay, @deneal was wrong about his support of trump and his misinformation regarding Covid-19

[Chuck Naill]

He is now trying to distance himself from Trump by calling his orange .

[Lloyd]

Okay, @deneal was wrong about his support of trump and his misinformation regarding Covid-19
Wrong? Perhaps he was just trying to state the opposing view even if he didn't agree with it. That's the way one discusses a topic, not by just stating one side's opinion. Roughly half the country opposed your view. Without trying to see their perspective, how can you analyze the conflict? Do you think everyone who thought differently is just "mentally challenged"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Okay, @deneal was wrong about his support of trump and his misinformation regarding Covid-19
Wrong? Perhaps he was just trying to state the opposing view even if he didn't agree with it. That's the way one discusses a topic, not by just stating one side's opinion. Roughly half the country opposed your view. Without trying to see their perspective, how can you analyze the conflict? Do you think everyone who thought differently is just "mentally challenged"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

A better way might me to say that I feel @dneal is wrong and here is why. Drawing from my post of Mark Sheilds, this is how he might have countered Brooks. I think once he said David hasn't been right about any of this today. Would you consider this reply to be satisfactory?