Insensible postings.

i think another instance of an 'insensible posting' is when a member, new or not, will dig up old threads and create their own, in order to attract attention.
i know more than one person has done it in the time that i have seriously begun to frequent the forum. i probably have done it as well.
 
Oldhand said:
You can edit your post if you were to do it immediately after you post.
It wouldn't be practical to allow editing after replies have been posted.
Click to expand...

chris@ccc said:
:D:D:D Oldhand ... Many times, replies are made within the 15 minutes, before our posts are edited.
Click to expand...
Well, that's another reason why we should check and recheck the content we're about to post before we hit the Submit button ;)

Permitting late edits poses several problems.
For instance, it would radically alter the conversation thread.

Here's an illustration:

Post#1
Arnold: I love yellow

Post#2
William: Another Coldplay fan.

Post#3
Arnold: No, I mean the colour. I hate Coldplay.

Post#4
Steve: My wife wants to grow Goldenrods.

Post#5
Brad: Arnold, so you love indigo too?

Post#6
Arnold: Why so?

Post#7
Brad: Duh! Because its complement is indigo.

Post#8
Derek: That's nonsense. They don't fit Hunt's requirement. It must be possible to reproduce the tristimulus values of a specified achromatic stimulus by an additive mixture of these two stimuli. Only then will they be complementary colours.

Post#9
Ray: Whoa, who's the twerp from Harvard?

Post#1 (edited by Arnold)
Arnold: I love green.
 
Last edited:
Oldhand said:
Well, that's another reason why we should check and recheck the content we're about to post before we hit the Submit button ;)

Permitting late edits poses several problems.
For instance, it would radically alter the conversation thread.

Here's an illustration:

Post#1
Arnold: I love yellow

Post#2
William: Another Coldplay fan.

Post#3
Arnold: No, I mean the colour. I hate Coldplay.

Post#4
Steve: My wife wants to grow Goldenrods.

Post#5
Brad: Arnold, so you love indigo too?

Post#6
Arnold: Why so?

Post#7
Brad: Duh! Because its complement is indigo.

Post#8
Derek: That's nonsense. They don't fit Hunt's requirement. It must be possible to reproduce the tristimulus values of a specified achromatic stimulus by an additive mixture of these two stimuli. Only then will they be complementary colours.

Post#9
Ray: Whoa, who's the twerp from Harvard?

Post#1 (edited by Arnold)
Arnold: I love green.
Click to expand...

LOL!
actually, i believe this illustrates Oldhands point very well. I understand that people may be looking at threads, and then wonder why one post says something, and the rest of the posts after say something else entirely unrelated. it probaably would reduce orderliness as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In fact, just imagine if the original post in this thread were to be edited now to include some other bewilderingly altered content :p
 
It is best for us to check how many times we use the words "I" and "YOU" when we post

chris@ccc said:
IMHO, an 'Insensible Posting' is a post intended to attack another member personally, instead of talking about the issue.

...... it is best for us to check how many times we use the words "I" and "YOU" when we post.
Click to expand...
jymbalaya said:
actually, i believe this illustrates Oldhands point very well. I understand that people may be looking at threads, and then wonder why one post says something, and the rest of the posts after say something else entirely unrelated. it probably would reduce orderliness as well.
Click to expand...
.
Just look at another post, an example of I, YOU, MINE, YOURS, etc... when used. :D
.
Pemuda said:
Who is all worked up? Well, who is the one going about dishing out em' sorry excuses like LCW got no extra rest day etc etc.

'Confused boy'??? Ahhh ... resorting to your usual petty insults. I wonder who is all worked up now, eh?? ;)

I guess I am done. Dont want you to throw a bunch of petty insults at me ...
Click to expand...
 
Oldhand said:
As a pronoun, 'me' is the objective case of I :p
Click to expand...

"Methinks" is an archaic verb, not a pronoun. :p

As in, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet).

And actually, "me" is the accusative/dative case of the first-person singular personal pronoun (see grammatical cases). You would be correct to call it an "objective pronoun", but not an "objective case".

...I only mention this because we're being pedantic. :D
 
Last edited:
It is meant for us to use the 'I' and/or 'YOU' less, but not never at all

Oldhand said:
Ahem, it would be quite a feat to get one's opinion across without using 'I' ;)
Click to expand...
.
It is meant for us to use the words 'I' and 'YOU' less, but not never at all.
This post is done without using the 'I's' and/or the 'YOU's'. :):p;)
Dreamzz said:
methinks that's quite easily done.
Click to expand...
:D Dreamzz could have posted it, simply as "that's quite easily done". :p

But seriously talking about this matter, sometimes when posters are challenging each other's opinions, their personal attacks can become more pronounced, while the topic of discussion is lost.
.
 
Gollum said:
"Methinks" is an archaic verb, not a pronoun. :p

As in, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet).
Click to expand...
Ah, there you go again ;)
Did I say 'methinks' is a pronoun'?

You do need to read carefully.
Oldhand said:
As a pronoun, 'me' is the objective case of I :p
Click to expand...
Gollum said:
And actually, "me" is the accusative/dative case of the first-person singular personal pronoun (see grammatical cases). You would be correct to call it an "objective pronoun", but not an "objective case".

...I only mention this because we're being pedantic. :D
Click to expand...
This webpage should be enlightening, methinks :D
Please see the first entry.

Me
- pronoun
1. the objective case of I, used as a direct or indirect object.
 
Oldhand said:
Ah, there you go again ;)
Did I say 'methinks' is a pronoun'?

You do need to read carefully.
Click to expand...

Rather than trading web pages (not all are equal) and smug remarks, let's just admit that we don't like each other. It will save time in the long run. ;)

See, I managed to avoid using "I" or "you" in this post, thereby removing any element of a personal attack (apparently).

...oh. Nuts, it's harder than it looks, isn't it. You should be as ashamed as I am for failing to live up to your own peace-making guidelines. I am sorry for being such a cantankerous smart-arse, and hope I will do better next time. :(
 
This is a perfect example of kwun was talking about. This discussion became an argument, and strayed off topic. I read earlier someone mentioned that topics should be kept on track and perhaps allow 1 or 2 posts that go off topic for the sake of fun. While that sounds reasonable in theory, in practice it will never work. Everyone wants the last say, and if the last permitted post was an attack one someone, they would want to post back to defend themselves, and eventually the the 2-3 straying limit would be ignored. Its quite ironic that it were to happen in this thread.
Also a lot of people also seem to complain about when people post new threads about questions that were asked earlier. While i don't post new threads myself knowing the answer is probably already out there somewhere, i am often reluctant to read 20 pages of posts about who thinks they speak better english, or play a better game of badminton, before i figure out where i can find a good instructor, or what stores to stear clear of etc.
baisically, everyone needs to refrain from boosting their ego, or defending their online reputation by not getting into personal arguments in a thread about not getting into perosnal arguments, or rackets, or strings etc.
 
Why our discussions can become an argument and strayed off topic?

Plutarch said:
This is a perfect example of kwun was talking about. This discussion became an argument, and strayed off topic......

...... they would want to post back to defend themselves ...

basically, everyone needs to refrain from boosting their ego, or defending their online reputation by not getting into personal arguments in a thread about not getting into personal arguments, or rackets, or strings etc.
Click to expand...
.
This is correct. :):):)

When BCers are attacking other BCers, they are trying to boost their own ego, and, when BCers are defending themselves, they feel that their ego has been attacked.

IMHO, in a forum, is best for us to just ask/answer to the topic on hand. We are given the opportunity to state/share our opinions/ideas.

Perhaps the best example is when we witness a newspaper/radio/television interview. In an interview, the interviewer asks the questions, and the the interviewee answers them. An interviewer is only interested to know what the interviewee thinks. The interviewee only answers the question on hand. And an argument is seldom encountered at an interview.

In our BC forum, it is quite different. It can become rowdy/noisy. This is because many BCers forget to read the 'Thread Title', which is what our thread opener wished to discuss. Many BCers just read the last few posts and talk about them. Therefore, very often we have found that we have strayed off topic.

:):):)
.
 
As long as we don't have our topic of discussion getting strayed off

Raymond Wong said:
you can add a voting poll like:

Who thinks this is important:

Who thinks this is random:
Click to expand...
.
Good one. :):):)

As long as we don't have our topic of discussion (title of thread) getting strayed off and we don't have any of our BCers getting belittled, our posts should be fine.
.
 
I came to this thread from a link in a random thread. It sums up exactly what has been happening in a thread I am in.
An original post was on topic, but was misread and the whole thread shifted to opinions on the misread situation, 'Insensible' based on the thread title but a friendly discussion on the situation. The most 'Insensible' posts were posts by people saying 'get back on topic' but having no input to the thread topic either.
 
Insensible' based on the thread title but a friendly discussion on the situation

Andy05 said:
I came to this thread from a link in a random thread. It sums up exactly what has been happening in a thread I am in.

An original post was on topic, but was misread and the whole thread shifted to opinions on the misread situation, 'Insensible' based on the thread title but a friendly discussion on the situation. The most 'Insensible' posts were posts by people saying 'get back on topic' but having no input to the thread topic either.
Click to expand...
.
No, that is not an insensible post at all (saying 'get back on topic'), IMHO.

It's just to remind BCers not to just read the last posts in a thread without paying attention to its thread title.

An example is the Lee Chong Wei's thread. Many Lin Dan's fans in that thread talked more about Lin Dan than about Lee Chong Wei. :(:(:(
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top