[color=#008000]MODERATOR’S NOTE: PLEASE BE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL TO OTHER POSTERS. DO NOT “GANG UP” ON PEOPLE AND ATTACK THEM PERSONALLY. YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. PLEASE CHILL OUT A BIT, AND LET’S GET BACK TO THE ISSUES, NOT CRITICISMS OF OTHER POSTERS.
HOWEVER, IN A DISCUSSION OF THIS NATURE, MAKING LENGTHY AND DETAILED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PEOPLE AND POLITICAL PARTIES WITHOUT PROVIDING SOURCES WILL BE CONSIDERED A FORM OF TROLLING AND SUCH POSTS MAY BE TEMPED, FLAMED OR EDITED. [/color]
[quote=“BigJohn”][color=#008000]MODERATOR’S NOTE: PLEASE BE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL TO OTHER POSTERS. DO NOT “GANG UP” ON PEOPLE AND ATTACK THEM PERSONALLY. YOU KNOW WHAT I am TALKING ABOUT. PLEASE CHILL OUT A BIT, AND LET’S GET BACK TO THE ISSUES, NOT CRITICISMS OF OTHER POSTERS.
HOWEVER, IN A DISCUSSION OF THIS NATURE, MAKING LENGTHY AND DETAILED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PEOPLE AND POLITICAL PARTIES WITHOUT PROVIDING SOURCES WILL BE CONSIDERED A FORM OF TROLLING AND SUCH POSTS MAY BE TEMPED, FLAMED OR EDITED. [/color][/quote]
Well, there goes most of the discussions. Not providing sources? Ha.
[quote=“Poagao”][quote=“BigJohn”][color=#008000]MODERATOR’S NOTE: PLEASE BE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL TO OTHER POSTERS. DO NOT “GANG UP” ON PEOPLE AND ATTACK THEM PERSONALLY. YOU KNOW WHAT I am TALKING ABOUT. PLEASE CHILL OUT A BIT, AND LET’S GET BACK TO THE ISSUES, NOT CRITICISMS OF OTHER POSTERS.
HOWEVER, IN A DISCUSSION OF THIS NATURE, MAKING LENGTHY AND DETAILED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PEOPLE AND POLITICAL PARTIES WITHOUT PROVIDING SOURCES WILL BE CONSIDERED A FORM OF TROLLING AND SUCH POSTS MAY BE TEMPED, FLAMED OR EDITED. [/color][/quote]
Well, there goes most of the discussions. Not providing sources? Ha.[/quote]
Well, not providing sources to extremely detailed analysis of events from a supposed insider’s perspective that flaunts conventional knowledge, causing many different posters to question the validity of the material.
[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Poagao”][quote=“BigJohn”][color=#008000]MODERATOR’S NOTE: PLEASE BE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL TO OTHER POSTERS. DO NOT “GANG UP” ON PEOPLE AND ATTACK THEM PERSONALLY. YOU KNOW WHAT I am TALKING ABOUT. PLEASE CHILL OUT A BIT, AND LET’S GET BACK TO THE ISSUES, NOT CRITICISMS OF OTHER POSTERS.
HOWEVER, IN A DISCUSSION OF THIS NATURE, MAKING LENGTHY AND DETAILED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PEOPLE AND POLITICAL PARTIES WITHOUT PROVIDING SOURCES WILL BE CONSIDERED A FORM OF TROLLING AND SUCH POSTS MAY BE TEMPED, FLAMED OR EDITED. [/color][/quote]
Well, there goes most of the discussions. Not providing sources? Ha.[/quote]
Well, not providing sources to extremely detailed analysis of events from a supposed insider’s perspective that flaunts conventional knowledge, causing many different posters to question the validity of the material.[/quote]
If by “flaunting conventional knowledge” you mean anything outside the particular viewpoint of these posters, which doesn’t require objective sources because they see it as “conventional knowledge”, yeah.
While the posting links to sources for comments is all well and good, IMO, it should not be the only criterion for comment. Most posts that I’ve seen on this thread appear to be based on subjective opinion fostered by a personal view point of Taiwan history. Any linked sources would merely be confirmation, however subjective, of this POV.
Thus, a bit redundant and self-serving. This not only voids the ‘objectivity’ of the post, it brings in personalities to the discussion. Which, can be either a good thing or a negative depending on the person(s) involved as demonstrated.
Now, the question is - Is this personal and subjective opinion approach conducive to a discussion of this matter?
Again, IMO, yes - If it is realized and understood to be the SOP for the discussion. But it must be understood that there is a subjective view being put forth.
Does this limit discussion? Maybe - maybe not. It does certainly limit the scope of what is allowable before “verbal anarchy” enters the mix.
Another point:
It has been mentioned that much material mentioned is posted on Chinese language websites?
This is mentioned as a reason for not linking to source. While this may be a major factor for most here on Forumosa - it is apparently not a problem for some o this thread. So, what is the problem with linking to this source? Is it the credibility of the linked source?
Politics, and political discussion, is not a game for the weak or feint of heart. Like it or not, it riles the emotions and stirs the blood.
No matter how clean the parlor is, when politics is the topic one should remove the good china from the table.
Personally, I prefer to use linked sourcing for discussion. Unless comment is clearly indicated to be “Personal Opinion.”
YMMV…
(aside: it would appear that the modulators use of green text is highly appropo for this thread)
[quote=“Poagao”][quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Poagao”][quote=“BigJohn”][color=#008000]MODERATOR’S NOTE: PLEASE BE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL TO OTHER POSTERS. DO NOT “GANG UP” ON PEOPLE AND ATTACK THEM PERSONALLY. YOU KNOW WHAT I am TALKING ABOUT. PLEASE CHILL OUT A BIT, AND LET’S GET BACK TO THE ISSUES, NOT CRITICISMS OF OTHER POSTERS.
HOWEVER, IN A DISCUSSION OF THIS NATURE, MAKING LENGTHY AND DETAILED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PEOPLE AND POLITICAL PARTIES WITHOUT PROVIDING SOURCES WILL BE CONSIDERED A FORM OF TROLLING AND SUCH POSTS MAY BE TEMPED, FLAMED OR EDITED. [/color][/quote]
Well, there goes most of the discussions. Not providing sources? Ha.[/quote]
Well, not providing sources to extremely detailed analysis of events from a supposed insider’s perspective that flaunts conventional knowledge, causing many different posters to question the validity of the material.[/quote]
If by “flaunting conventional knowledge” you mean anything outside the particular viewpoint of these posters, which doesn’t require objective sources because they see it as “conventional knowledge”, yeah.[/quote]
You seriously don’t think betelnut was trolling? What was it about the mutliple posts a page long telling us what he would like to tell but couldn’t/wouldn’t’; the language and tone of conspiracy; the refusal to post links on the bogus claim others couldn’t read Chinese; and the pretense of neutrality when he was clearly pushing the blue line that you didn’t get?
It’s all well and good to pretend the other side gets banned for their politics but the fact is the people accused of being blue trolls have been just that and have usually been banned for also trolling outside the political threads. I don’t know of any “green” posters who’ve been banned for trolling.
Fact is both sides cheat at elections here, they buy votes, they use dirty tricks. THIS IS NOT NEWS nor much of a subject for debate as it will go around endlessly in recrimination. You will never know the full story because it is all clouded in rumour and hopeless subjectivity and a good deal of farce.
Trying to make Tsai Ing-Wen look corrupt backfired big-time though, if that’s all the KMT can dig up she really is clean as a whistle, pity about the rest of the politicians (on both sides).
But I’m not going to waste any more time on the subject; I just couldn’t help myself when I saw the BIG GREEN TEXT. And I’ve also got meetings set up with all of the presidential candidates and their advisers so we can talk about you all behind your backs.
[color=#008040]
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Nobody has said that all posts need to be backed up by links. But repeatedly posting large, detailed posts that make allegations that are outside of conventional knowledge without satisfying legitimate requests for sources distorts the thread. It takes it off topic, creates animosity with other posters (who nevertheless should avoid getting personal) and is, in the end, a form of spamming.
Sources aren’t always necessary or even useful. Sometimes people will ask for sources for the most non-controversial statements (“PROVE that the Japanese lost WWII!”) so it can be used both ways.
But almost a full page of nothing but rambling speculation, and repeated multiple times is spamming.
Guy in Taiwan often makes very long posts but they are always tailored to the discussion, address points others made, and never repeat exactly the same thoughts. You also understand that you are talking to a real person. That’s why no one calls him a troll though occasionally people ask him not to post such lengthy replies as they don’t want to read through it.
Your point about creating animosity is a good one.
Betelnut, you remind me a lot of our old friend cctang. You have the same remarkable proficiency in English as a second language, the same thorough mastery of your subjects, the same style of relentless, articulate, clever and guileful argumentation, and the same doughty devotion to your and China’s cause.
I always appreciated cctang’s input to our discussions, and was sorry when he ceased posting. Likewise, I appreciate seeing your side of things posted here, no matter whether there’s much in them I subscribe to myself. I hope you will not be moderated off these forums or otherwise driven away from this site.
I think it would be rather nice if ac dropout came back to frequent this site again. Does anyone else think so, too?
No. One of the reasons ac was banned was for repeatedly bringing up the topic of suicides during the Chen years. As this was an extremely upsetting subject for me I appealed to him to stop.
He repeatedly laughed at my request and continued to throw this at me. I then appealed to maoman who said that it was the last straw and gave him all the justification he needed to permanently ban ac from this site forever.
Do you really want someone back who lacks even a modicum of human decency?
[quote=“Omniloquacious”]Betelnut, you remind me a lot of our old friend cctang. You have the same remarkable proficiency in English as a second language, the same thorough mastery of your subjects, the same style of relentless, articulate, clever and guileful argumentation, and the same doughty devotion to your and China’s cause.
I always appreciated cctang’s input to our discussions, and was sorry when he ceased posting. Likewise, I appreciate seeing your side of things posted here, no matter whether there’s much in them I subscribe to myself. I hope you will not be moderated off these forums or otherwise driven away from this site.
I think it would be rather nice if ac dropout came back to frequent this site again. Does anyone else think so, too?[/quote]
Omni -
Quite agree.
Diversity of thought and opinion should be the mark of Forumosa.com… :bravo:
I really don’t like to see anyone banned, though I can think of circumstances in which it would be necessary (if, for example, some nutcase came on here to do nothing but spam threads with random jibes and foul mouthedness).
I have been more dismayed by the ganging up and aggression against people like dear old Tommy than by any persona or viewpoint displayed here by any individual poster.
I think there’s even a place here for the Winston Wu’s of this world. Though I, like most others, find him deeply repulsive, I don’t think I’m harmed in any way by his posting on this site. If I want to, I can respond by decrying or ridiculing what he says, does and represents; otherwise, I can simply disregard him and go on using and enjoying the site as if he weren’t there.
I can think of only two posters to whom I’ve ever taken a strong dislike, because of their hurling gratuitous insults at me, but even then I wouldn’t have wanted them to be banned, and in both cases (two ladies, coincidentally), my antipathy toward them evaporated after a while, though I would never again have felt quite comfortable engaging with them in any thread or in the real world.
I think that the ignore function is perfectly adequate for use with someone who winds one up to an intolerable extent, though I’ve never used it or even considered using it myself.
