With regards to shanedk and MasterGhostKnight

[CosmicSpork]

Hmm, did you miss this image? It's pretty much my favorite image on the internet: http://www.rocketjones.com/images/rick_loud_noises.jpg (yes I know I could embed it, but I feel that would be taking up unnecessary page-space, in light of the fact that I already posted it once)

No I didn't miss the image, and I thought it was amusing, but it was also a prime example of an unconstructive post and simply by posting this again you're derailing the thread.

There is a place for that kind of thing in the General Discussion forum.

 

[Drfoolishit]

Shanedk

I love your videos and mostly agree with what you say but... man, anything you type makes you sound like an asshole. You make good points and your arguments are well put together but still, you sound like a 16 year old bitching about being grounded for the weekend. Maybe its your use of CAPS or your diction or just that your being very.. very blunt. I think you need to work on this in the future. Or it could just be me.

Also I would like to comment on a few of the issues you brought up.

first, free use of the LoR logo an any video made by anyone is a bad idea because it associates the views and opinions expressed in the video with the general views of LoR's contributes. A person viewing a video that did not represent the opinions of the LoR and had the logo on it would leave the person with a misrepresentation of what the league stands for. However, since the LoR has limited resources so simply trying to stop people from using the logo is not entirely feasible, a good solution would be give some sort of more official logo to users who represent the opinions of the leagues contributes.

Second, This bored is lacking in the moderation department. many topics, especially those in the politics/law section have degraded into nothing more then personal attacks that do nothing to carry the conversation forward. This, unfortunately, occurs whenever you do not ban everybody who so much uses a curs word. Anyway, treads that start to get out of hand need to be locked and restarted and some people do need to be banned of have there accounts temperately frozen.

 

[DRMProd]

Regarding the LoR logo appearing on videos, maybe we can set up a way to vote if the video is... let's say worthy of the logo. Democracy is the best way to go most of the time in my opinion. This way, it'll be the LoR as a whole who will decide if a video should have the logo embedded. At it would be an "official" video, if you like.

On a side note, and regarding the discussion about quotation marks, don't you have an institution or something that decides this kind of stuff, or you all agree on the usage of the language? I'm curios, because in Spanish we have the Real Academia Espaà±ola, and it regulates the correct usage of the Spanish language.

 

[DrunkCat]

There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.

 

[shanedk]

There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.

Tell that to Alma Mahler-Werfel.

 

[nasher168]

I have to say, this whole issue seems rather petty. Who cares, really, if someone criticises you? Prove them wrong and leave it at that.

Surely it is a bit extreme of you, shanedk, to make a full-blown video response to something so trivial. Do you do this every time you are criticised in such a manner? If you really must make a video response, at least keep it in the realms of reasoned debate. Sure, take the mick all you like, but to actually insult people seems quite a lot over the top. Losing your temper is the best way to lose.

That said, maybe it would be worth making two more little LoR logo that says "Member of" and "Official video by" at the top? That way, you could distinguish between a video published by LoR and one made by just some member.

 

[shanedk]

The video response, as anyone who actually WATCHES the video can see, was an opportunity to talk about chlorins and how plants get the color they have. And also to speculate about plants around other kinds of stars.

Pretty much all of my viewers have seen that; they've said so in the comments. Apparently, no one here can.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

In regards to the logo I intend to make the situation absolutly clear about them being advertisement, and anotations on the current videos have been added.

In regards to the shanedk last comment, this topic is only a discussion about the blog entries.
If you want to have a discussion about chlorins, or how you moved the goal post or how the most inteligent thing you ever said in your video was actually stollen from me (and you never given me any credit: shame on you), I would be happy to do so in so other thread. If you want I will be here arround 11GMT, we can have a debate in the LoR chat or on BlogTv. But not on this topic.

 

[Gnug215]

The video response, as anyone who actually WATCHES the video can see, was an opportunity to talk about chlorins and how plants get the color they have. And also to speculate about plants around other kinds of stars.

Pretty much all of my viewers have seen that; they've said so in the comments. Apparently, no one here can.

Hi shanedk

I'm a member of LoR, and a long-time subscriber of yours.
I did not know about the history (short as it may be) you've had with LoR until I saw your video about Aliens and Chlorins.

I loved the video, and I think it was indeed a great opportunity to talk about a subject that I had never thought about, but it was apparent that you misunderstood some things about LoR.
Most of the misunderstandings seem to have been addressed in this huge topic, although they have been drowned by a rather hostile atmosphere.

However, it's a shame if you think the people who have been most aggressive and vocal are a complete and fair representation of everyone here.
If no one else has been in here defending you, then that is also a shame, but I for one am pretty selective with the topics I get involved in. In fact, I really only keep to one or two of the boards on this whole site. I'd venture that a majority of posters are like that, and then there are a few more hard-core posters who jump around on all the boards.

To be honest, while I'm a member (most active on the chat, actually), I don't consider the LoR as a group of any sort. It's just a forum, as I see it, with a chat attached to it, and a blog with a few select contributors.
The rest are just forum-posters and chatters. There is no obligation in the name (LoR) for those members, since any theist can come here and post, too.

As it has been said just recently in this thread, there aren't that many forum moderators, so things are fairly, well, un-moderated, obviously.

That said, I won't get into the specifics of the debate, but I'll share one of the observations I've made, and that is that things have become very emotional, and it is clear that once people have antagonized each other, reaching an understanding and consensus becomes incredibly difficult.

I hope that clears some things up.

 

[monitoradiation]

I'm going to use your little trick back onto you. Where did I specifically deny that it has "ANYTHING to do with" fighting vote-bots? I said that fighting false DMCA and votebots is CONSISTENT with what LoR is about,

ABSOLUTELY NOT, you LIAR! YOU said, "We're not a support group for those who're fighting false DMCA's."

Secondly, It isn't "part-and-parcel".

Yes, it is, according to AW's video.

I'm only going to say this one more time. And, as per your stylistic likings I'm going to do it in capital letters since you seem unable to grasp the concept, while going around calling me liar, implying that somehow I have the intent to mislead you and that it isn't you who's misunderstood, even though I've LITERALLY spelled it out for you 5 times over.

We are NOT a support group for those fighting false DMCAs or votebot attacks. We CAN be mobilized in that way because members can be YouTube members who share that information with fellow LoR members, and we, in turn, can help you out IF WE SO CHOOSE. It was stated VERY CLEARLY in the video that the votebot attacks and censorships, in conjunction with the lack of customization options in YouTube, led to the creation of LoR. This was made to be a place of rational discussions and a place where members can gain support. Again. I went and copy&pasted the quote that I made for the video YOU YOURSELF wanted me to watch but has not talked about again since.

However YouTube's Group feature has not seen any development since then, and remains somewhat unfriendly... So I've set up one of my own. Consider this the problems with creation version 2... I'm hoping if you join... We can create a strong community of YouTube's Freethinkers It will also provide a means of communication amongst active users so we can spread the word and defend each other from censorship of our channels. I also feel it would be nice to have a discussion forums for topics we focus on, as well as general chat.

I DID NOT INCLUDE EVERY SINGLE WORD BECAUSE I DON'T TYPE AS QUICKLY AS AW SPEAKS. HOWEVER I'VE WENT BACK A FEW TIMES AND MADE SURE THAT I GOT EVERYTHING I FIND RELEVANT TO WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU THINK I'VE OMITTED ANYTHING IMPORTANT, QUOTE IT YOURSELF. DON'T SIMPLY ASK WHAT I ELECTED NOT TO INCLUDE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT AW SAID IN THE BEGINNING OF THAT VIDEO.

READ THE QUOTE.

It does NOT say that LoR is a place for fighting votebots or false DMCA's. This is a place where, if you wanted to, you can probably rally some to your cause, given how convincing you are about your issue. We are NOT a support group for those who're fighting false DMCA's. There is no binding claus signed by every member that we MUST HELP EACH OTHER FIGHT FALSE DMCA AND VOTEBOTS. However, fighting false DMCAs and votebots is CONSISTENT with our central intent of maintaining a large freethinking community and free speech. I've stated this numerous times. I CANNOT MAKE IT ANY CLEARER.

So before you go around calling people liars and implying somehow that I'm misleading you purposefully, you should assume that it may be you who have misunderstood my point. You used the word LIAR as an actual argument because you didn't understand what I'm talking about. Quoting someone and then calling them a liar is NOT an argument.

At any rate, you assholes have NO call to REFUSE to help me when I need it, and then try to guilt me afterward by LYING and saying you supported me when you FUCKING DIDN'T!!!

That event has happened without my knowledge and I'm not the least bit concerned about your ordeal, since you're being a jerk about your disappointment to LoR's response, though I might have been, had the issue been made aware to me and that your videos were good (they probably are, I don't know because I didn't see them)

I didn't "refuse" to help you. I didn't see your video. You CANNOT assume we have ANY obligation to help you. There is no binding clause that states that every LoR member MUST HAVE A YOUTUBE ACCOUNT SO WE CAN FIGHT VOTEBOTS. It just so happens that most of us have one. It's not a requirement for membership.

You're acting like a starving child swearing at UNICEF for not giving him food. While you might have a point that yes, we should probably have helped you, but ANY help we choose to give you is just that. HELP. You don't swear at people for not helping, when you're the one asking for help. Especially not when the group isn't strictly for that purpose.

I've spelled this out quite clearly and will be my last post to this thread.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

No, seriously, that's not English. Please don't spread this piece of misinformation. Thank you...

Eh, you should learn hacker usages of the english language, it all has an extra element of rationality about it (as opposed to deference to historical usage) (and coincidentally, very much the way I use things, especially quotation marks). More importantly, you're engaging in prescriptive linguistics, which has a variety of problems.

Is it your claim that Atomicnumber86 was using "hacker usages of the English language?"

Despite the problems with linguistic prescription, it's necessary. We must have common meaning and usage to convey information. Furthermore, not only was Atomicnumber86 alleged use of quotes as emphasis not standard, it is counter-culture. You cannot expect people to understand you if you use things that the popular culture considers incorrect. Might well as saying a language different you.

EDIT: and I found after I posted this response that while emphasis may not be accepted, using quotes to signal unusual usage is accepted (as well as to generally mark other things (so it seems that emphasizing someone else's usage of a word is ok, but it is not ok if you do it to emphasize your own usage of the word)). Also quotation marks can be used in place of italics to note that you're talking about the word itself rather than the object the word relates to (like talking about a pointer instead of the address the pointer points to).

Emphasis is mine.

This is not correct and I'm curious to know how you interpreted this from your quoted sources. You can use quotes to distinguish someone else's usage from your own but I wouldn't call this emphasis...

Considering how "intelligent" you are, I'd think you'd already know all this...

 

[borrofburi]

Is it your claim that Atomicnumber86 was using "hacker usages of the English language?"

I don't remember... and it turns out I don't actually care enough to read the posts in question and figure it out.

Despite the problems with linguistic prescription, it's necessary. We must have common meaning and usage to convey information.

Language morphs on its own and works because it has to. I suppose you could argue that prescription allows for wider usage of the language; that prescription keeps the texans from having at truly different language from new-jersey and allows them to remain communicating with each other. However, I would argue that even if this is true, prescription can't (and probably shouldn't) be used to stop the natural ways in which language evolves (and at most can be used to keep language consistent across regions (but not across time)). Regardless, linguistics really isn't my expertise, so I'm going to just drop this.

This is not correct and I'm curious to know how you interpreted this from your quoted sources. You can use quotes to distinguish someone else's usage from your own but I wouldn't call this emphasis...

I meant the latter, and I would say that in distinguishing their usage as odd you are emphasizing that it is a non-standard usage or a usage you don't agree with.

Considering how "intelligent" you are, I'd think you'd already know all this...

No need to be mean. Also I am compelled to note that intelligence has little to do with knowledge.

 

[Womble]

Is this hand bag slapping fest still going on? I mean really!

I read this in full during the week so not all the details are fresh in my mind as i type and to be honest i'm not going to trawl back to find the specifics. But anyway....

Shane, you've come over awesfully agressive in this throwing what apprears to not only be arguements and insults about but possibly even toys from your pram, thats the metaphorical kind of pram incase any one is wondering. You may well have a genuine grievance in all of this, i've not been involved in any of your previous LoR postings being as i've only been active in the last couple of months and then mostly in chat, but coming in guns blazing and being rude to people won't help you. And before you say you've not been insulting i'm talking about calling us the league of unreason and refering to us collectively in derogatory terms as well as the specifics of calling a couple of members "butt buddies" or what ever the actual words you used. If you want to come to a place like this and state that we arn't acting in a reasonable way then you need to be the epitome of reason. Now i'm not excusing any unreasonable behaviours of others in this thread, i'm just highlighting a few things. And yes i've addressed it to you as i'm part of the loose collective that is the members of this forum.

I'd also like to pick up on the slur i saw someone post against someone else (i can't remember exactly who these people were although i've got a vague notion) about their reading ability. I think that person was being grossly rude as to insult someone in such a way. The reason being that they had no way of knowing if that person did have issues relating to their reading, and if they did well then the insulter just committed disability based discrimination. Well done you, have a reward for being a git. I'm mentioning this in my post as i happen to know full well what it's like having issues relating to reading etc as i am dyslexic, and if such a thing was ever levelled at me then i think i'd be inclined to tear them a new one so to speak, or at the very least belittle them and their ignorant opinions.

But meh, thats my thoughts on this. Now will you all just post in an adult fasion???