Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

[Drudgewire]

Please, that's as lame as Brittany Spears saying that people who don't like her trash just don't understand her depth of message.

"Oops I Did It Again" was a serious commentary about the flat tax and people were too busy dancing to notice.

 

[RLJ]

I'm cool with that. Just keep in mind that not everyone who doesn't appreciate it is doing so from misunderstanding.

And besides, it's not Teh Funnay I've even got a problem with in this case. It's the notion that it is relevant to this forum. Perhaps the humor subforum is a more appropriate location, because I can see no positive contribution to this forum with this thread here.

Like I said before, it's not for everyone. I never claimed that ED is for everyone. The Christian Science Monitor isn't for everyone either. So that's the end of that.

As for it not belonging here, that's something for the OP to comment on. I think it is relevant as it shows that a virtual roast of 9/11 "truth" people is taking place. Regardless of the content of the article, it is relevant to a forum that, to my understanding, is about confronting absurd and dangerous ideas.

And like I said if you're offended that's fine. You're entitled to be offended. We're entitled to write what we write on ED. If you are squeamish, do not look at what the tide has washed in, as Sappho said.

 

[Good Lt]

I think it is relevant as it shows that a virtual roast of 9/11 "truth" people is taking place. Regardless of the content of the article, it is relevant to a forum that, to my understanding, is about confronting absurd and dangerous ideas.

EPIC WIN

I would definitely agree with this, which is why the thread could go under both humor and conspiracy theories.

 

[Minadin]

I was browsing the old LCF due to the thread about the film students' viewing guides, and I think that the tendency of 9/11 conspiracy theorists to use terms like "pretty gay" to describe something they don't like has finally come back to bite them:

And I thought the McCain ads were funny.

 

[RLJ]

I was browsing the old LCF due to the thread about the film students' viewing guides, and I think that the tendency of 9/11 conspiracy theorists to use terms like "pretty gay" to describe something they don't like has finally come back to bite them:

And I thought the McCain ads were funny.

lol at the pic (deleted from quote since I havn't done 15 posts yet and am not able to post links)

 

[GreNME]

Like I said before, it's not for everyone. I never claimed that ED is for everyone. The Christian Science Monitor isn't for everyone either. So that's the end of that.

And completely and utterly irrelevant to whether this thread is at all positive to this forum, which is what I've been talking about. Stop taking it so personally for a minute so you can get over that.

As for it not belonging here, that's something for the OP to comment on. I think it is relevant as it shows that a virtual roast of 9/11 "truth" people is taking place. Regardless of the content of the article, it is relevant to a forum that, to my understanding, is about confronting absurd and dangerous ideas.

Right, and Jerry Springer is gripping social commentary on the status of the lower- and lower-middle-class American outlook on topical current events. Game shows really are a platform through which we display America's smartest and brightest. Reality television picks stable, well-adjusted people to be on its shows and replays events exactly like they really happen. Oh, and rasslin' on the TeeVee is totally not fake at all.

"Fag fag homofag poop fag" is not confronting anything, it's looking for a target to attack-- which, as I take it, is pretty much anyone according to ED. Now, the fact that you are actually trying to sell us on the claim that the "fag fag homo fag" page is about confronting anything but an excuse to call a bunch of people "fag," that's humor.

And like I said if you're offended that's fine. You're entitled to be offended. We're entitled to write what we write on ED. If you are squeamish, do not look at what the tide has washed in, as Sappho said.

I don't know if you missed it or not, but I'm not talking about being offended. Heck, to be honest, as far as offensive goes that page is pretty weak. Also, to be frank, it's not even necessarily about how stupid or petty or intentionally belligerent it is. It's about not being appropriate for this forum, not adding in any positive way to any of the discussions or topics of this forum, and the only reasonable motive for posting it that I can see is to be openly antagonistic-- which neither strengthens an argument nor honestly challenges an opposing view with anything meaningful or useful.

 

[Myriad]

GreNME, I understand and sympathize with your objections to to ED's penchant for obnoxious terminology, and to other aspects of the subculture it purports to speak for. I've already said my own piece on that side of the issue, so I won't repeat it.

But, I can also understand why the OP is justified in thinking that ED's attitude toward the Truth Movement is indeed a relevant topic here, without any intent to antagonize. We've received and discussed reports of the attitudes of all kinds of segments of the population toward the Truth Movement, from U.S. soldiers to antiwar protesters to neo-nazis to various extreme factions of the Truth Movement itself. The OP calling our attention to the ED article doesn't seem out of place to me in that context, independent of our individual opinions about how ED contributors choose to express themselves.

If you feel the link in the OP is truly inappropriate to be posted on the forum, report it to the mods. You might be right. (Thank God I don't have to make those decisions.) If it's discussion of ED that's inappropriate, then let's stop discussing it. I'm not sure there's anywhere to go from here anyhow. RLJ's and your positions on the matter are both fairly clear at this point.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RLJ]

And completely and utterly irrelevant to whether this thread is at all positive to this forum, which is what I've been talking about. Stop taking it so personally for a minute so you can get over that.

Right, and Jerry Springer is gripping social commentary on the status of the lower- and lower-middle-class American outlook on topical current events. Game shows really are a platform through which we display America's smartest and brightest. Reality television picks stable, well-adjusted people to be on its shows and replays events exactly like they really happen. Oh, and rasslin' on the TeeVee is totally not fake at all.

"Fag fag homofag poop fag" is not confronting anything, it's looking for a target to attack-- which, as I take it, is pretty much anyone according to ED. Now, the fact that you are actually trying to sell us on the claim that the "fag fag homo fag" page is about confronting anything but an excuse to call a bunch of people "fag," that's humor.

I don't know if you missed it or not, but I'm not talking about being offended. Heck, to be honest, as far as offensive goes that page is pretty weak. Also, to be frank, it's not even necessarily about how stupid or petty or intentionally belligerent it is. It's about not being appropriate for this forum, not adding in any positive way to any of the discussions or topics of this forum, and the only reasonable motive for posting it that I can see is to be openly antagonistic-- which neither strengthens an argument nor honestly challenges an opposing view with anything meaningful or useful.

I haven't even racked up fifteen posts on this forum so I certainly am not competent to determine what is appropriate to the forum and what is not. As another poster said, take it to the mods if you're concerned about it and if it isn't valuable material they will delete the thread or take some other action.

And maybe you find it hard to believe, but a lot of people at ED believe in what we're doing. You've made it clear you don't like it. That's fine. We're not in a popularity contest. We're trying to collect all of the drama and lulz on the internet in one place. And yes, we insult a lot of it. And it's usually deserved. You may not like our methods. But we don't answer to you any more than you answer to us. So it really doesn't matter what you think. You should start your own website, if you havn't already, and do things your way. I promise we won't come along critique you on how to run your site.

You're entitled to your opinion. You could even start a site flaming ED if you want. It's certainly been done before. But if you are allowed to do those things and criticize us, using whatever language you want, we're certainly allowed to attack the "truth" movement. And if we choose to do so in our peculiar manner, so be it. Like I said, it's not for everybody. I think I must have said that like four or five times now.

 

[RLJ]

GreNME, I understand and sympathize with your objections to to ED's penchant for obnoxious terminology, and to other aspects of the subculture it purports to speak for. I've already said my own piece on that side of the issue, so I won't repeat it.

But, I can also understand why the OP is justified in thinking that ED's attitude toward the Truth Movement is indeed a relevant topic here, without any intent to antagonize. We've received and discussed reports of the attitudes of all kinds of segments of the population toward the Truth Movement, from U.S. soldiers to antiwar protesters to neo-nazis to various extreme factions of the Truth Movement itself. The OP calling our attention to the ED article doesn't seem out of place to me in that context, independent of our individual opinions about how ED contributors choose to express themselves.

If you feel the link in the OP is truly inappropriate to be posted on the forum, report it to the mods. You might be right. (Thank God I don't have to make those decisions.) If it's discussion of ED that's inappropriate, then let's stop discussing it. I'm not sure there's anywhere to go from here anyhow. RLJ's and your positions on the matter are both fairly clear at this point.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I think that put things pretty well. It's just information and you can do whatever you want with it including criticize it or claim it doesn't belong here. Which is fine. Maybe a discussion of this issue itself has some value in terms of how this forum runs and what information is acceptable and what isn't.

 

[LashL]

I think that put things pretty well. It's just information and you can do whatever you want with it including criticize it or claim it doesn't belong here. Which is fine. Maybe a discussion of this issue itself has some value in terms of how this forum runs and what information is acceptable and what isn't.

Fortunately, nobody died and made GreNME the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable for this forum.

You've done an excellent job of defending yourself from your detractors here, RLJ. Far better than many would have done in this sort of "trial by fire" entry to the forum. Welcome aboard.

 

[RLJ]

Fortunately, nobody died and made GreNME the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable for this forum.

You've done an excellent job of defending yourself from your detractors here, RLJ. Far better than many would have done in this sort of "trial by fire" entry to the forum. Welcome aboard.

Thanks, I was just trying to explain that among people who relate to the site, this is not a big issue and that people who disapprove don't have to browse the site or read this thread, any more than they have to read the Christian Science Monitor. And people are entitled to think ED is stupid, juvenile, whatever. I think a lot of things are stupid also. But that doesn't mean I have to justify the website's right to exist in the form it does to everybody who comes along with a negative attitude towards its content. They are not the intended audience of the site, and it isn't necessary to justify ED to them.

 

[Good Lt]

Some of ED is tedious and indecipherable.

Some is outright hilarious and borderline genius.

Some of it is immature, offensive and tasteless.

It's a wild and wooly operation. It generates endless amounts of lulz. But the importnat thing here is that they know Trooferism is what it is.

kthxbai

 

[RLJ]

Some of ED is tedious and indecipherable.

Some is outright hilarious and borderline genius.

Some of it is immature, offensive and tasteless.

It's a wild and wooly operation. It generates endless amounts of lulz. But the importnat thing here is that they know Trooferism is what it is.

kthxbai

If I can be so bold, I think it was sort of insightful when I wrote "Truth**** don't really care about 9/11. They're just socialist ******* who want an excuse to hate the government."

 

[GreNME]

GreNME, I understand and sympathize with your objections to to ED's penchant for obnoxious terminology, and to other aspects of the subculture it purports to speak for. I've already said my own piece on that side of the issue, so I won't repeat it.

But, I can also understand why the OP is justified in thinking that ED's attitude toward the Truth Movement is indeed a relevant topic here, without any intent to antagonize. We've received and discussed reports of the attitudes of all kinds of segments of the population toward the Truth Movement, from U.S. soldiers to antiwar protesters to neo-nazis to various extreme factions of the Truth Movement itself. The OP calling our attention to the ED article doesn't seem out of place to me in that context, independent of our individual opinions about how ED contributors choose to express themselves.

If you feel the link in the OP is truly inappropriate to be posted on the forum, report it to the mods. You might be right. (Thank God I don't have to make those decisions.) If it's discussion of ED that's inappropriate, then let's stop discussing it. I'm not sure there's anywhere to go from here anyhow. RLJ's and your positions on the matter are both fairly clear at this point.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Tell me something: you know the rules of conduct here on this forum (as a whole, not just the subforum); you know that personal attacking is supposed to be a bad thing (it's in the registration agreement); considering the previous two things I'm almost positive you know, do you honestly believe that the page in question-- not ED as a website, just the page linked from the OP-- is anything but a troll by proxy? Is it seriously okay to post the most flamboyantly eggregious and inciting content, as long as it's actually typed on a page that is located elsewhere and then linked here? Is it seriously okay to troll by proxy on this forum?

I ask because, if this is so, then I've been far too critical of a few truthers who basically do it as well.

Fortunately, nobody died and made GreNME the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable for this forum.

Equally fortunate that I already pointed out that I wasn't anyone's daddy many posts ago.

But hey, who's counting?

 

[GreNME]

And maybe you find it hard to believe, but a lot of people at ED believe in what we're doing. You've made it clear you don't like it. That's fine. We're not in a popularity contest. We're trying to collect all of the drama and lulz on the internet in one place. And yes, we insult a lot of it. And it's usually deserved. You may not like our methods. But we don't answer to you any more than you answer to us. So it really doesn't matter what you think. You should start your own website, if you havn't already, and do things your way. I promise we won't come along critique you on how to run your site.

Once again, I'm not sure you are understanding here. You keep personalizing this as either an attack on you or an attack on ED. I'm not attacking either. In fact, I find a few pages on ED to be hillarious. The truther one is definitely not one of them, and as far as the ED content goes its creativity and use of humor is actually pretty far below the average for even ED. Still, that isn't even my point and hasn't been my point from the start. While I can understand why you feel treating this as an attack on ED is a useful argument-- after all, then you can play the part of the underdog who is being unfairly judged or censored or some BS-- but this isn't about ED and it's not about you personally. It's about the appropriateness of having what looks to be an attack considered relevant and acceptable to the forum.

You're entitled to your opinion. You could even start a site flaming ED if you want. It's certainly been done before. But if you are allowed to do those things and criticize us, using whatever language you want, we're certainly allowed to attack the "truth" movement. And if we choose to do so in our peculiar manner, so be it. Like I said, it's not for everybody. I think I must have said that like four or five times now.

I already know you've said that five times now, but I still don't think you've bothered reading through any of my posts once yet. If you get nothing else from my posts please take the following down for the record: This isn't about whether ED (as a whole) is funny or not funny, this isn't whether ED (as a whole) is offensive or not offensive, this is about whether that one page (from the OP) in particular is appropriate subject matter for the Conspiracy Theory subforum. Yes, you certainly are allowed to attak truthers, and you're allowed to do so in whatever manner you want-- on ED, not the JREF forums.

But, just for you, if you truly and honestly believe that you are being unfairly criticized:

If you think that such content is appropriate subject matter here, RLJ, then go ahead and just post it cut-n-paste style into a whole new thread (if you're the author, then there's no copyright infringement, n'est ce pas?). If you completely, totally, and honestly believe that your entry on the ED page is appropriate subject matter for the JREF forums, then feel free to repost it here to prove it. If you don't feel confident enough to do so, then offer permission to 1337m4n to do so, since he felt it warranted its own thread in the first place.

If you honestly feel the content is being unfairly criticized by me, then prove your honesty and post it into its own thread showing me the error of my ways. If, however, it really is just an exercise in dogging some group you want to laugh at for the purpose of giggles (or lulz), then once again I submit that such a topic might be more appropriate for the humor section. While you may protest otherwise and claim there is some kind of valid and meaningful message that contributes positively to the examination and critique of conspiracy theories located somewhere within that page linked in the OP, I still submit that it's an attempt at getting cheap laughs and honestly stands to contribute more negatively to the Conspiracy Theories subforum than anything else.

Thanks, I was just trying to explain that among people who relate to the site, this is not a big issue and that people who disapprove don't have to browse the site or read this thread, any more than they have to read the Christian Science Monitor. And people are entitled to think ED is stupid, juvenile, whatever. I think a lot of things are stupid also. But that doesn't mean I have to justify the website's right to exist in the form it does to everybody who comes along with a negative attitude towards its content. They are not the intended audience of the site, and it isn't necessary to justify ED to them.

No one is arguing ED's right to exist. You should probably look up the "fail" entry on ED, because as far as understanding the arguments that I'm making you're pretty much epitomizing it at this point ("Chic. Chic-chicachicaaah.").

Maybe you'll understand it if I put it into some simpler terms.

"ED link in OP" =! "Appropriate content for the CT subforum on JREF"

 

[Minadin]

But, just for you, if you truly and honestly believe that you are being unfairly criticized:

If you think that such content is appropriate subject matter here, RLJ, then go ahead and just post it cut-n-paste style into a whole new thread (if you're the author, then there's no copyright infringement, n'est ce pas?).

This could still be viewed as a Rule 4 violation per my understanding. I wouldn't advocate it.


ETA:
Posting a link to the article in question may or may not be appropriate for this sub-forum (as opposed to say, humor) but it's certainly more appropriate than posting the entire thing. I don't see why you're going after the author of the article, though. It certainly doesn't seem that it's out-of-bounds for the location he posted it.

 

[GreNME]

This could still be viewed as a Rule 4 violation per my understanding. I wouldn't advocate it.


ETA:
Posting a link to the article in question may or may not be appropriate for this sub-forum (as opposed to say, humor) but it's certainly more appropriate than posting the entire thing. I don't see why you're going after the author of the article, though. It certainly doesn't seem that it's out-of-bounds for the location he posted it.

That's precisely my point, though: for that location it may not be inappropriate, but my contention is with bringing it here in the first place. Additionally, while I know it's pretty obvious there would be rule violations in posting it here, that sort of underscores my questioning its acceptibility here just because it's been posted by proxy. Like I said a couple of posts up, I don't see how trolling by proxy would be acceptable behavior. Otherwise, all anyone has to do is create inflammatory content at another location and make their flame posts by linking to the outside location. I highly doubt such behavior would be viewed as acceptable when truthers do it, so I see no reason why it should be acceptable at other times.

I'm looking at this from the position of maintaining intellectual honesty. It is totally true that certain figures in the truther movement do indeed engage in attacks, ad hominem justifications, tautology, and intellectual dishonesty in their methods; I just see no good reason to engage in any of the same in response.

ETA: And yes, I think that if this could be considered moving anywhere, humor would be the most likely candidate since it's at least an attempt at humor.

 

[RLJ]

Tell me something: you know the rules of conduct here on this forum (as a whole, not just the subforum); you know that personal attacking is supposed to be a bad thing (it's in the registration agreement); considering the previous two things I'm almost positive you know, do you honestly believe that the page in question-- not ED as a website, just the page linked from the OP-- is anything but a troll by proxy? Is it seriously okay to post the most flamboyantly eggregious and inciting content, as long as it's actually typed on a page that is located elsewhere and then linked here? Is it seriously okay to troll by proxy on this forum?

I ask because, if this is so, then I've been far too critical of a few truthers who basically do it as well.



Equally fortunate that I already pointed out that I wasn't anyone's daddy many posts ago.

But hey, who's counting?

It's not for me to decide what is acceptable conduct on the forum or not, it's for the moderators. However I believe the article was posted here not with the intent to annoy or be abusive and merely to provide information and because the OP found the article funny.

That isn't trolling. Trolling requires posting with the intent to harass. Merely posting something you think is funny, even if it turns out to offend some other people, who then call it trolling, isn't trolling.

So yes, trolling is one thing, but merely posting something you found funny, without the intent to offend anybody, isn't trolling, even if after the fact someone is in fact offended. Yes it's subjective but you have to judge it on a case by case basis, and reasonable minds can disagree. As is obviously occurring in this thread.

 

[RLJ]

Once again, I'm not sure you are understanding here. You keep personalizing this as either an attack on you or an attack on ED. I'm not attacking either. In fact, I find a few pages on ED to be hillarious. The truther one is definitely not one of them, and as far as the ED content goes its creativity and use of humor is actually pretty far below the average for even ED. Still, that isn't even my point and hasn't been my point from the start. While I can understand why you feel treating this as an attack on ED is a useful argument-- after all, then you can play the part of the underdog who is being unfairly judged or censored or some BS-- but this isn't about ED and it's not about you personally. It's about the appropriateness of having what looks to be an attack considered relevant and acceptable to the forum.



I already know you've said that five times now, but I still don't think you've bothered reading through any of my posts once yet. If you get nothing else from my posts please take the following down for the record: This isn't about whether ED (as a whole) is funny or not funny, this isn't whether ED (as a whole) is offensive or not offensive, this is about whether that one page (from the OP) in particular is appropriate subject matter for the Conspiracy Theory subforum. Yes, you certainly are allowed to attak truthers, and you're allowed to do so in whatever manner you want-- on ED, not the JREF forums.

But, just for you, if you truly and honestly believe that you are being unfairly criticized:

If you think that such content is appropriate subject matter here, RLJ, then go ahead and just post it cut-n-paste style into a whole new thread (if you're the author, then there's no copyright infringement, n'est ce pas?). If you completely, totally, and honestly believe that your entry on the ED page is appropriate subject matter for the JREF forums, then feel free to repost it here to prove it. If you don't feel confident enough to do so, then offer permission to 1337m4n to do so, since he felt it warranted its own thread in the first place.

If you honestly feel the content is being unfairly criticized by me, then prove your honesty and post it into its own thread showing me the error of my ways. If, however, it really is just an exercise in dogging some group you want to laugh at for the purpose of giggles (or lulz), then once again I submit that such a topic might be more appropriate for the humor section. While you may protest otherwise and claim there is some kind of valid and meaningful message that contributes positively to the examination and critique of conspiracy theories located somewhere within that page linked in the OP, I still submit that it's an attempt at getting cheap laughs and honestly stands to contribute more negatively to the Conspiracy Theories subforum than anything else.



No one is arguing ED's right to exist. You should probably look up the "fail" entry on ED, because as far as understanding the arguments that I'm making you're pretty much epitomizing it at this point ("Chic. Chic-chicachicaaah.").

Maybe you'll understand it if I put it into some simpler terms.

"ED link in OP" =! "Appropriate content for the CT subforum on JREF"

You're the one not reading my posts. I never said the article was either appropriate or inappropriate, and referred the question to a moderator to look into. I havn't even hit 15 posts here and don't know the forum well enough to know what is acceptable here or not.

And also several comments were made that ED is juvenile, etc. I'm entitled to respond to those by saying that people disagree, and if someone thinks its juvenile they can start their own website and run it their way. I don't have to shoulder opinionated criticism from posters who aren't in the site's intended audience and then get attacked by a claim that "that's not the issue" and accused of not reading posts when it clearly is one of the issues.

So lets recap.

1)I don't know if the page "belongs" here. Ask a moderator about it. Reposting the article in its entirety would in my opinion be inappropriate in terms of format for a discussion forum. Links work much better, and there already is a link to the article in this thread. So thanks, I'll pass. I don't need to justify the article to you by reposting it here, creating an obvious spam problem, and prolonging and undoubtedly greatly expanding the scale of this pointless argument. Ask a moderator to delete this thread or at least the links, or the OP even, if you're so concerned about this issue.

2)Some people like ED, and some don't. That doesn't mean the site doesn't have value to some people and their opinion is as valid as the critics.

3)Personal issue - I think people who are this hypersensitive about the word "***" in a fake encyclopedia article on a comedy website really have issues. And that's my opinion and it's as good as anybody's

There, can we agree on those things (well, at least 1 and 2)? Good.

 

[RLJ]

That's precisely my point, though: for that location it may not be inappropriate, but my contention is with bringing it here in the first place. Additionally, while I know it's pretty obvious there would be rule violations in posting it here, that sort of underscores my questioning its acceptibility here just because it's been posted by proxy. Like I said a couple of posts up, I don't see how trolling by proxy would be acceptable behavior. Otherwise, all anyone has to do is create inflammatory content at another location and make their flame posts by linking to the outside location. I highly doubt such behavior would be viewed as acceptable when truthers do it, so I see no reason why it should be acceptable at other times.

I'm looking at this from the position of maintaining intellectual honesty. It is totally true that certain figures in the truther movement do indeed engage in attacks, ad hominem justifications, tautology, and intellectual dishonesty in their methods; I just see no good reason to engage in any of the same in response.

ETA: And yes, I think that if this could be considered moving anywhere, humor would be the most likely candidate since it's at least an attempt at humor.

I'd like to point out two more things:

1)Look at the OP's post. He posted it as NSFW. Therefore it was flagged as potentially offensive. Anyone who clicked the link and was offended therefore had only themselves to blame, not the OP, not ED, not anybody. Just themselves. Whether it's appropriate to post nsfw links with warning here is again one for the mods.

2)Since we're using ED memes now (such as the "fail" article) let me add that bawwwing over someone posting an ED article that contained a word you don't like in a web forum more than a week after the fact now is the epitome of the type of behavior that my use of the epithet that is so complained about was intended to communicate. You don't want it here? Fine. Why are you talking to me about it? Get a mod. I take it you're not a mod, since you havn't erased the link/thread/whatever. Nobody likes fake mods on forums who throw rules around. They're probably worse than wikilawyers.