BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Posting Differently To How One Posts

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:02 / 05.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Tom Coates in the 'Fictive Body' thread:
I've been getting increasingly aware that the board has been reverting to the 'at rest' form of most bulletin boards - that there are positions that can be argued off against each other, but little interest in playing with the opposing viewpoint, taking it through to its logical implications, and then trying to fix what you see the problems of that theory to be. We should be attempting not only to clarify and present our own opinions, but to go to the next stage - to see if we can find alternative positions which work equally well for us - to breed hypotheses as if they were bacterial strains and then pit them up against each other until only a couple survive. And then breed from them ... perhaps not ad infinitum, but until we reach a point where we have DISCOVERED something rather than STATED something.

Although I've disagreed with Tom in the context in which this appeared, I think this is a really good point. And it does seem to be something that happens less at the moment, for whatever reason.

Without wishing to get either nostalgic or superior, I can definitely remember a time when posts here caused me to rethink my own ideas on a more-or-less regular basis. Whilst it could be that I've just stagnated myself and am now resistant to all contradictions, other people saying similar things suggests this is not the case. Barbelith does seem increasingly to divide into pre-established factions on certain issues fairly readily, who then proceed to hit each other on the head with the big sticks of their argument until one or both parties bails out, usually with something along the lines of "and if you can't see that, then I just give up, you STUPID STUPID IDIOT."

So, what to do? I think Tom's suggestion is a pretty good idea. Hence the title of this thread. It's not as simple as the idea of "oppositional prep" (thank you West Wing), where you run through the key arguments of the "opposite" side of an issue in order to establish exactly why you're right (although that's probably something we could all do with doing a bit more as well). It's something more akin to being counter-intuitive... to pausing before you rattle off a fierce summary of your instinctive reaction to a post, and wondering why you're reacting that way.

Do people think this is a good idea? As something to cosider taking on board generally? Or am I not making much sense?
 
 
moriarty
14:50 / 05.09.01
One of the reasons I took a smallish sabbatical a while back, and also the reason I don't venture into the Head Shop all that much, is because most of the arguments here bring me back to my late High School/early College days. I used to have "discussions" with my newly enlightened friends that inevitably ended with them "winning" because they had shouted me down, saying that because I hadn't taken Feminist studies (or whatever the subject of discussion), I couldn't even begin to argue with them. Not that I disagree with that, believing that it is best to have as much of an informed opinion as possible on any given subject, but we couldn't work it out because they had been indoctrinated into an incredibly ferocious rhetorical stance. I just wanted to learn from them, but their method of learning was very Darwinian.

Even today, I believe in speaking passionately about what you believe in, but not to a point where you aren't even half-listening to what the other person says. I don't pretend to be right at any time, but rather I'd like to learn from the ideas and opinions of those around me, and hope that they, too, will at least give some kind of consideration to my words, even if they bitterly disagree with me.

I'm sorry, but that rarely happens here. Or anywhere else it seems.

Well, back to the Comics section!
 
 
Dee Vapr
15:07 / 05.09.01
I don't know. I'm a bit wary of being prescriptive about how people should be formulating their own opinions. This is a message board, and as such, is not a philosophy seminar. The question is - do we want it to be?

You're right though, I think kneejerk reactions are not helpful at all, and an anathema to the this particular board's remit. If there is one.

Does the board need a remit? It would help to structure discourse, but might provide an easy tool to promote dismissiveness, something I'm detecting creeping in to the board at the mo, and is seeded in the way we argue at the moment, maybe?
 
 
autopilot disengaged
16:53 / 05.09.01
as a newbie of less than a week, i'd feel presumptious adding too much to this debate. however, for the record:

i, for one, am completely into the idea of having my viewpoints questioned. the reason i started to post here in the first place was that it was full of smart, sassy people who held often marginal opinion with real passion (even better, when served up with a twist of humour).

i don't think guidelines would work. but then, i can't really coceive of what they would be. i'm open to suggestions, so long as they're not so limiting as to constrict self-expression and/or freedom of thought.

but i've only been here 5minutes, so what do i know...

hm: before i go - i have no idea what barbelith was like before - but there was no point-scoring? no occasionally petty l'il personal grievances?

i've noticed this kind of weariness in a few of the - uh, let's say 'elders'. i have to admit, it made me feel a little uncomfortable - like arriving just as everyone at the party's getting ready to go to bed.

but take a look around the board: ok, i can't compare & contrast with the golden age barbelith of times past, but are you sure you haven't just allowed yrself to become desensitized to what a great little corner of the web this is?

this is the one and only board i've evr seen with the kind of people i feel like i would happily belong with. ok: maybe it is going thru a lull: not for me to say.

but this is still, for me, a good place to be.

(wipes eye, shuffles offstage).
 
 
moriarty
17:07 / 05.09.01
Has anyone atually suggested guidelines? I thought what Tom and Flyboy were trying to put across was for individuals who had found themselves caught in some sort of rut to try a new way of posting. But maybe I missed the point.

I hope I didn't come across as not wanting to be challenged. Many of my best memories are of hours long heated discussions. But I think there's a big difference between acknowledging the other person's point of view and disregarding them entirely without even once trying to see where they're coming from.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
17:33 / 05.09.01
oh yeah...

i've probably just highlighted my own worst habit right there - dashing off a post before i've digested what i've just read.

sorry 'bout that.

*shame*

[ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: autopilot disengaged ]
 
 
Persephone
17:59 / 05.09.01
I've been reading Barbelith for a year or so and for about that long I resisted registering & writing on this board, because now & again I did see instances of the sort of argumentation that I avoid like the plague. But then I decided to go ahead, because the truth for me is, Barbelith could be perfect because it is almost literally a utopia of ideas. Not only no place, but no bodies. Because in real life, there are personal relations under consideration. But on Barbelith my ideas are free from that... and this sounds horrible but I figured that if things ever got hairy or disappointing, I could just vaporize & be no worse for the experience.

"Utopia" also suggests something else to me, and that is the inherent facism that I always fear is lurking in every utopia-slash-paradise. And I see this, a little bit, in certain posts that seem to be trying to control the rules of debate. I say "facism" very mildly, only to denote a tendency to want things to conform and be orderly after a time.

I don't love heated arguments, actually. My feeling is, the source of that warmth is more the heat of victory than anything else. Instead I would suggest experimentally abandoning one's own viewpoint and throwing caution to the winds running away with someone else's POV & see where that takes you. Is that not revolutionary? I mean, obviously not if the other person is espousing virulent anti-Semitism and you happen to be against that. Or maybe even.
 
 
YNH
01:36 / 06.09.01
It's really a strange request, but I gave it a go in the fictive context. How does one post differently from how one posts? How do we encourage everyone to engage stuff in this manner? (This thread aside.)

I'll keep this epithet until I figure it out.
 
 
deletia
07:27 / 06.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Persephone:
utopia-slash-paradise.

Oh dear. Now somebody's brought slash into it, we're just going to have Rosa and Nick knocking lumps out of each other.

Actually, I was talking about this with Flyboy last night while thinking about Habermas, and how he thinks communication functions. As my (limited) understanding goes, actual communication involves the sharing and examination of oropositions and statements which are both susceptible to criticism (ie can be unpacked) and able to respond to criticism (ie does not fold at the first objection). Then, because not everything can be dialoguic, or we would al l starve, "relief systems" take the strain by creating the context for basically self-contained statements or structures. So, capitalism as relief system allows me to accumulate money (relief system), and use in exchange for goods or services at a prearranged rate of exchange (relief system).

How does this fit in? Well, that I haven't quite worked out yet. I think my point was that the Head Shop in particular is founded on the principles of communication in a Habermas sense, and breaks down when relief systems promoting the irreducibility of certain standpoints. In a sense, the "how evil is kinkiness" thread was quite useful in that, as ideas on sexuality were revealed to be in many cases either/or/both not susceptible to or unable to endure criticism, with the result that the thread became a mass of nonsense and non sequitur. The Body Fictive might be interesting to look at in trhe same way, looking at the posts first as units of communication, then as instantiations of a relief system - processes whereby communiction can be forestalled, aborted or elided.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
07:27 / 06.09.01
But have you or others ever deliberately taken up a standpoint different from your actual opinions. There's a really interesting question at the heart of this, I think, which is that my response to people's opinions as expressed on this board more and more often have to do with who they are and what i expect from them: I am far more inclined to be nice, gentle, forgiving etc to a friend IRL than to a total stranger whose suit I don;t recognise, or to someone of whom I have already formed an unfavourable opinion.

I had a fictionsuit a while back which I used to express my more flippant/fascist opinions. And it was interesting to see how the people on the board who knew me as Whisky responded to my fictionsuit's opinions: they'd slap the suit down whereas I might have only received a mild reproof/joky pisstake. And even more interesting, actually, was how they conceived of this character IRL. Veery entertaining.
 
 
mondo a-go-go
12:08 / 06.09.01
quote:Originally posted by autopilot disengaged:
i've noticed this kind of weariness in a few of the - uh, let's say 'elders'. i have to admit, it made me feel a little uncomfortable - like arriving just as everyone at the party's getting ready to go to bed.

y'know something? i for one think this is a fantastic thing. we need more vitality and fresh viewpoints in this place. half the time it feels like a pissing contest between the more longterm members, all trying to outdo themselves with semantics. because a fair number of these people have off-board (if not offline) interaction, it often feels like a members club or a high school playground around here.

i'm one of the longer-term members, having been here for 2yrs, and if it's obvious and annoying for me, it must be at least doublely offputting for more recent joiners....

so get posting newbies! long live the new flesh!
 
 
deletia
12:11 / 06.09.01
Is there some kind of contest this week to use the word "semantics" with the curliest lip in the world?
 
 
mondo a-go-go
12:29 / 06.09.01
only in your head, dear heart
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:13 / 06.09.01
"Semantics": hmmm.

Whilst I'll concede that linguistic hairsplitting can sometimes derail arguments that might otherwise head in more interesting directions, I'd maintain there's often much to be said for discussing Words and What They Mean. Language is a very important, powerful thing. Too often people throw around terms which they haven't thought out very clearly - I am more guilty of this than most - and I think it's pefectly valid and in fact healthy for other people to pick them up on this now and again. Being challenged to define your terms more clearly is one way in which you can learn to express yourself more clearly.

And since when did trying to outdo oneself become a bad thing?
 
 
Dee Vapr
13:34 / 06.09.01
You're absolutely, absolutely right, Flyboy. However, I think this "derailing" does occur more often than it should - and maybe should be confined to separate threads. I just worry that trying to score grammatical or semantic brownie points can sometimes discourage posters from following the line of argument and making valuable, and welcome points. It probably feels a touch personal, like you're being castigated by your favourite teacher.
 
 
ShadowRain
13:46 / 06.09.01
kooky has go-go power wrote
quote: ... it often feels like a members club or a high school playground around here.

As a relative newbie who's been lurking more than posting, I have to agree to the sentiment expressed by Kooky. I have followed a lot of the discussions in Magick, Head Shop, Switchboard et al ... while making for interesting reading, it tends to make me feel like a child eavesdropping on the adults' conversation. While fascinated by the discussion, every time I think of posting something, a little voice in the back of my head says 'You're just repeating something someone else already posted' or 'They've probably heard this question millions of times before'. This being my own stupidity, but a very convincing voice none-the-less.

Because there has been a long standing relationship between a lot of the more active members on the board, very often posts rely on information shared in the past, in person or off board with the main players in the discussion. These posts very often rely on this background information which new members are not privy to.

I then feel like going blink , there's something I'm missing here, so don't go putting both feet in your mouth and appear stupid.

So yes, in effect it feels like a members only club.

Most of this being my problem to sort out, but thought I'd put my two cents in, for what it's worth
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:57 / 06.09.01
Dee Vapr: furry nuff. I think that's a valid point. I just got the impression that kooky (and correct me if I'm wrong, go-girl) was using 'semantics' as something of a catch-all for certain types of discussions, especially ones in the Head Shop/Switchboard. I get irationally defensive about those forums (I had to restrain myself from telling moriarty that if just wants to talk about the size of Wolvie's claws, that's just fine )... sanctimonious pissant, etc.
 
 
ephemerat
13:57 / 06.09.01
Though one cannot escape the feeling that we sometimes sacrifice the thrust and energy of an argument and the communication and interaction of ideas in favour of an aggressive demand for definition. Swiftly, the target of this brutally surgical reduction finds themselves in a sinking morass of desperate attempts to define terms and then define the terms used in the definition, followed by the terms used in the qualified definition of the definition. Until we see arguments so hamstrung by qualifications, escape routes and mollifications that they are rendered neutered, impotent and hopelessly unwieldy.

It is an unfortunate fact that all of our language and conjecture is built upon a layer of assumption (who was it who said that 'at the base of any well-founded belief, lies a belief that is not well-founded'? Wittgenstein?). Definition of terms is of terms is (of course) necessary and I'd love to see some more work done on the Barbe-lexicon.

But, if I could make one simple plea or request it would be that if you spot someone employing a misused or poorly defined term, do not simply tear their argument to shreds on the basis of their ignorance of the terminology. Guide them to links that explain the terms. Allow them a moment to reassess and redefine. Patience and understanding would also improve the quality of discussion on Barbelith.
 
 
moriarty
14:12 / 06.09.01
quote:Originally posted by The Flyboy:
(I had to restrain myself from telling moriarty that if just wants to talk about the size of Wolvie's claws, that's just fine )

TEAAAM!

The one thing I forgot to add, and something which ShadowRain brought up in the last sentence of hir post, was that this is something I've accepted as the way these threads run. I don't consider it bad, necessarily. It's just not for me, therefore making it my problem, obviously.

All I'm trying to convey is, it seems like a largish number of people on the board won't participate in these discussions for a variety of reasons. This means less voices being added to the discussion. Which seems, to me, to be a shame. If no one else has a problem with that, then that's OK.

All in all, though, if it seems I'm pulling a Tom and throwing up my hands in despair, let it be said that this is one of only two sites I actually visit regularly, the other being my email, so that doesn't count. I've learned more here, even by lurking, then I probably would have in any university.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:26 / 06.09.01
It's interesting, because the question of accessibility is a really tricky one. You can't start from square one every single time you start a thread without somebody getting frustrated, but then neither would we want, say, having read Foucault to be a basic requirement of posting in the Head Shop...

(Cos I for one haven't...)

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: The Flyboy ]
 
 
moriarty
14:42 / 06.09.01
I'm not concerned with the eclectic readings needed to understand half of the discussions. If anything they spur me on to further discoveries of writers I would never seek out on my own. And, no, I don't feel that everything has to start back at square one for the new reader. But it never hurts, when you're knee-deep in a heated debate, to reiterate the positions that started the whole thing.

This all relates back to your original post in this thread. Many of these discussions, within 10 posts or so, become a game of "Are too/Am not" with only two people continually hammering at each other without the benefit of listening not only to individuals on the outside of this duel, but also to one another. And really, what's the point of that?

To be honest, I was afraid of reading the new Fanfic thread, but I found it to be possibly one of the most reasoned and varied discussions I've seen in quite awhile. And I've also noticed that recently people have been getting a bit more open-minded. I can honestly say that in the year I've been here, this is the best I've seen it.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: moriarty ]
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
16:35 / 06.09.01
quote:Originally posted by The Flyboy:
...but then neither would we want, say, having read Foucault to be a basic requirement of posting in the Head Shop...Cos I for one haven't...

I have. He's shit.

I've been thinking about using a fictionsuit recently to trawl some of the threads around here. I agree with Whisky... sometimes it seems like, because I've been here for a while under one name, and have now met a few of you in person, my opinions and more vacuous posts are met with remarks like "Much as I like Jack, I think...", whereas before, it would have been "Why, you whey-faced cruddumpling! I'll piss in your eye and use you as a mug tree if you...". Or something.

Tell you what, Fly! Go to my Marillion thread and pretend you really really like them...
 
 
Ganesh
19:26 / 06.09.01
I agree with Tom that things feel 'entrenched' here - and, having little experience of other bulletin boards, I'm not sure whether or not this represents a natural evolutionary stage. I've commented before (oddly enough) on my own sense of deja vu: the feeling, every time I post a serious opinion or viewpoint (as opposed to flippant fluff) that I've said it all before, at least once, and said it more articulately, more passionately. I hate to sound world-weary because, really, I'm not; it's just hard to shake the 'Groundhog Day' conviction that I'm boring myself rigid, let alone others.

I'm not sure whether other 'elders' feel the same.

It's occasionally been proposed that the place has become 'dumbed down' in comparison with the Golden Age Of The Nexus. I don't think this is true: what I've noticed is more akin to a polarisation. There's more fluff, sure, but there's also an increased tendency toward prompt and savage attack, going for the intellectual jugular in the early stages of threads - often on semantic (wa-hay!), facetious or hair-splitting grounds, so the thread becomes side-tracked, bogged down or personalised.

Nothing necessarily wrong with that - it's a perfectly valid debating style - but it's intimidate the hell out of me if I'd just chanced upon the Underground and was considering starting a post. Perhaps that reflects my oversensitivity to such things, but I do wonder whether cutting people dead quite as immediately doesn't (in the long term) stunt new growth.

Aaaanyway...
 
 
Seth
07:43 / 07.09.01
ephemerat and Ganesh: absolutely.

ShadowRain said:

quote: I have followed a lot of the discussions in Magick, Head Shop, Switchboard et al ... while making for interesting reading, it tends to make me feel like a child eavesdropping on the adults' conversation. While fascinated by the discussion, every time I think of posting something, a little voice in the back of my head says 'You're just repeating something someone else already posted' or 'They've probably heard this question millions of times before'. This being my own stupidity, but a very convincing voice none-the-less.

I feel like that a lot. I’m not nearly as well read as half the people on this site. However, there’s much to be said for the maxim “Those who look for an expert are sometimes lucky enough to find a novice.” How many times have you known your parents were in the wrong, and wanted to challenge them? As far as repetition goes, I wish more people would post in agreement with things already said (individuals have often voiced support offsite, when it’s onsite that I felt stranded without backup). If anything, a diversity of voices making the same point helps to flesh it out, making it more persuasive.

I quite often have a gut reaction to a post or a topic. Under those circumstances, I never reply instantly. I question the post, question myself, and find a way to reply thoughtfully and constructively after dealing with whatever makes me bitchy. That probably explains why all my posts are dry and dull: they don’t call me expressionless for nothing.

Oh, and that doesn't mean I edit out my "real" personality for the site. I'm a dull, slow conversationalist in person, too.


[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: expressionless ]
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:31 / 07.09.01
As a matter of interest, if I posted a thread which acknowledged right up front that in order to understand what was going on, you'd have to read some background material on theories of social action and revolution, how many people would actually be prepared to do it?
 
 
Whisky Priestess
10:29 / 07.09.01
S'only the same as calliing a thread Illuminati and expecting people to have read RAW. Although wild horses would probably not drag me to read social theory.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
12:35 / 07.09.01
quote:Originally posted by ShadowRain:
kooky has go-go power wrote


As a relative newbie who's been lurking more than posting, I have to agree to the sentiment expressed by Kooky. I have followed a lot of the discussions in Magick, Head Shop, Switchboard et al ... while making for interesting reading, it tends to make me feel like a child eavesdropping on the adults' conversation. While fascinated by the discussion, every time I think of posting something, a little voice in the back of my head says 'You're just repeating something someone else already posted' or 'They've probably heard this question millions of times before'. This being my own stupidity, but a very convincing voice none-the-less.



I definitely understand that feeling as I lurked for almost a year before my first post, not knowing whether anything I said would come out right or whatever.

I agree with Expressionless' points about fleshing out the conversation and also add that sometimes a new voice who brings their personal perspective to an existing point might help break the standard 'entrenchments' that people find themselves falling into.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
12:38 / 07.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
As a matter of interest, if I posted a thread which acknowledged right up front that in order to understand what was going on, you'd have to read some background material on theories of social action and revolution, how many people would actually be prepared to do it?

If I wasn't prepared to read the material, at least I wouldn't just jump on in and make an ass out of myself. On the other hypothetical hand, at what point is there a cut off on 'prerequisite' reading and education for people who want to participate in the more, 'Head Shoppy' discussions?
 
 
Cherry Bomb
13:07 / 07.09.01
I guess, in terms of reading background material, it would depend on how interested in the topic I was and how ambitious I was feeling.

In terms of understanding semantics, one likes to think that the average poster has a higher comprehension ability than is necessary to read, say, "USA TODAY." But I don't want to be too exclusive here, either. However part of the fun of reading and posting here is using one's brain and considering thoughts another poster has offered.

I suppose I've been a rather lazy poster as of late, and for that I apologize. (Note to self: no posting after consumption of bottles of wine!). Saying "just fuck off!" rather than posting a well-thought argument is lazy.

I'm not a fan of arguing simply to argue (though it can be illuminating) or arguing to "win." The win comes from what you learn. I'm always open to being convinced.

Perhaps ideas/concepts/discussions that have all ready been discussed to get reintroduced from time to time, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Barbelith really is an organic thing, so even the same topics will not be discussed in the same way. Plus like a good book, if you read it again, you hopefully will find bits of perspective that you'd previously not noticed.
 
 
Not Here Still
13:31 / 07.09.01
Originally posted by Nick:

As a matter of interest, if I posted a thread which acknowledged right up front that in order to understand what was going on, you'd have to read some background material on theories of social action and revolution, how many people would actually be prepared to do it?

Well, that depends. If you were to do it, and then place a reading list at the bottom and suggest I go to my nearest library or Waterstones, then I probably, in all honesty, wouldn't bother.

But one of the beauties of this place is that you can provide links to what you are talking about as you are talking.
(Provided, of course, that you can link to them; and if not, then give me the books and I'll consider it.)

There does seem to be a tendency towards bemoaning the stagnation of the board among the 'elders.' (what is this? some sort of nomadic tribe?)

But often it seems that the people most likely to be pulling others up and stagnating the threads are the Elders themselves; perhaps they feel more 'at home' on the board, and are therefore more willing to shout other people down.

I have given up on at least one Switchboard thread where I was trying to post an opinion which did not seem to be the 'accepted' opinion for a Barbelith poster and was attacked for it.

The odd thing was, when I got shouted down, people didn't attack what I had actually said. The discussion had polarised into two opposing opinions, and my post was neither of them. However, it seemed to be percieved that, because I did not totally agree with a certain viewpoint, then I must oppose everything to do with it. Which was not the case.

Often, the problem with people not listening to other people's opinions and the thread stagnating is when, as many people have noted, a binary good/bad; right/wrong; us/them opposition is all which is tolerated.

To do that is completely wrong; and anyone who disagrees with me can go to Hell, as far as I am concerned.


[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: JB again ]
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:55 / 07.09.01
Anyone up for a Calvin and Hobbes inspired "Opposite Week" where everyone who posts tries to argue the exact opposite of their personal opinion? Stepping into the enemy's shoes for awhile might be instructive and boundary destroying. It'd be a great ego-destroying device fer shure.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: todd ]
 
 
nul
17:13 / 07.09.01
[Devil's Advocate] Hah. Like this crowd could even begin to argue their opponent's beliefs. [/Devil's Advocate]
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:53 / 07.09.01
quote:Originally posted by JB again:
There does seem to be a tendency towards bemoaning the stagnation of the board among the 'elders.' (what is this? some sort of nomadic tribe?)

I can see how people are arriving at this conclusion, but really it's no worse now than it ever has been in the past. There's always somebody claiming that the site isn't as interesting/provoking/brave as it used to be (usually when they posted and visited more regularly). Utter bollocks. The site is what people make it. The old argument rings true - if you're finding Barbelith boring then it's up to you to change it. Either that or pull a Grimly.

quote:But often it seems that the people most likely to be pulling others up and stagnating the threads are the Elders themselves; perhaps they feel more 'at home' on the board, and are therefore more willing to shout other people down.

I suspect that this is partly true. There's another, linked problem here - a number of issues crop up regularly. A relatively new poster can start a thread about a subject completely oblivious to the fact that it's been debated to death on previous incarnations of the board. With the history of the site being one of frequent wipes and reboots, there's little that can be done about it.
 
 
Ronald Thomas Clontle
18:58 / 07.09.01
I've been around regularly here since May, and I still have a hard time figuring out what the 'hierarchy' is here, and I think the fact that I can't figure it out is part of why I like it. there's so many people here that it gets blurry, and since everyone doesn't post in the same forums all of the time, that makes a bit easier to be more or less unaware of someone's existance...kinda like how I go to school and if I don't have any classes with someone, it's that much easier to not know they are there.
 
 
Ganesh
19:01 / 07.09.01
Mm. Certainly, the crashing and rebuilding doesn't help - I'm less inclined to contribute anything too 'deep' if I reckon it could all disappear into the ether shortly afterwards. It's probably also rather 'unhealthy' to visit on a daily basis - any theme's gonna seem stale after a few repetitions.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply