Requiring true identity to post on WaccoBB.net?

[MsTerry]

He/she is laughing his ass off,

I wish!
I could stand to lose some pounds!

[MsTerry]

heck...if enough people flag a particular post and choosing the same community guideline that was not respected, then u have what's called: consensus.

If wacco has 9500 members, how many would it take to call it consensus?

There is an energetic "flow" that comes with "community" versus a 1 man show. If this is truly a community, then it would make sense for members in the community to feel they could speak their mind and have their opinion heard respectfully.

If this truly is a community, don't you think they come in all sizes and shapes?
Do you stop smelling the roses caus they have thorns?

[Vet-To-Pet]

I've been logging on to WaccoBB since I first moved to Sonoma County, July '06. It seemed, at that time, to be a good way to get some recommendations for places to shop, dentists, restaurants, etc, things a new person in the community would like to know about. I also found out about a women's group that was starting up & met a few people that way, so all was well. After awhile (months? a year or more?) I started to notice that people were posting lengthy opinions about whatever topic struck their fancy (we're talking MANY paragraphs long, scrolling down & down to get to the end), which didn't seem to make any sense to me (not the topics, but why they'd use this forum for posting those kinds of things...wasn't this a "Community Bulletin Board"? Who'd post something like that on a public cork bulletin board? No one, I suspect.

I also found myself getting sucked into "threads" that would somehow contort, change their slant, or lose the topic completely as it's transformed into something unrecognizable. Why would that occur? To what end? The original topic was not meant to be distorted, yet it often would be.

Sometimes I added my opinion about something I either felt strongly about or felt I had more experience with/knowledge about than some other people posting misinformation (usually about animal-related topics; I'm a veterinarian so I have more than the average experience/knowledge about many animal-related topics), only to be blasted by someone who was STILL angry with me for something I'd posted about an entirely different topic several weeks/months earlier---they were holding a grudge about something I'd said that offended them and weren't going to let me forget it! :fire: How mature....

The point is, I'm leaving Sonoma County within the next few weeks, moving across the country, so it no longer matters what kind of response I get if I've offended anybody in THIS posting (somehow, I don't know how or why, SOMEone will be pissed off), so I'm just going to add my 2 cents' worth about the bulletin board in general. I think you should go back to the basics, make it a helpful venue for announcing events, places to live, jobs available, people in need, all of those things that make a place a community. I think too many people (you know who you are) believe that their postings are more worthy than other people's postings, for some reason or other---probably due to the fact that they've been more "visible" at WaccoBB events, or have helped Barry with maintaining the bulletin board, or maybe they just have a god complex, I don't know. But I don't think ANYone's posting is more important than anyone else's, and I don't think people should be allowed to ramble on & on about topics that no one gives a hoot about. As far as trolls go, identify them (by their screen names), ignore tham, & hopefully they'll go away. :tantrum:

Support the people who advertise, since they keep the bills paid. Be kind to each other, or turn the other cheek (I know, I should take my own advice). But don't turn into a bunch of savages, or like the "alliances" on "Survivor" (the TV show, for those of you who are so proud to not own TVs and use every oppotunity to point that out). Just go back to the simpler times, when you didn't have to be "known" as "the person who always says this", or "that guy who thinks he's so cute", or "the woman who riding on Barry's coat tails (I don't mean Mrs Wacco)", etc. just be yourselves, try not to take offense when you're corrected, don't hold resentments (they're poisonous), and try not to be mean-spirited.
Smiles,
Vet-To-Pet/Paula

It would be instructive to know if a poster is a doctor, cop, artist, someone with an advanced degree, someone from another country, etc. However, there is an advantage in being able to converse without the background. Maybe the poster has what may be considered a humble job, but is well-read and brilliant with sparkling prose and wisdom to impart. He may have depths of knowledge of say, chemistry or physiology and would not get as much respect if he had to list his "lowly" occupation.
Most regular posters tend to share details of their lives, and a fuller picture does eventually emerge.
I like the idea of "mind to mind" interaction without the distractions of background and the resulting assumptions that would be made.

[hales]

I hope you enjoy your new home..

happy travels.

Scott.

I've been logging on to WaccoBB since I first moved to Sonoma County, July '06. It seemed, at that time, to be a good way to get some recommendations for places to shop, dentists, restaurants, etc, things a new person in the community would like to know about. ..snip..
The point is, I'm leaving Sonoma County within the next few weeks, moving across the country, so it no longer matters what kind of response I get if I've offended anybody in THIS posting (somehow, I don't know how or why, SOMEone will be pissed off)

[MsTerry]

Paula, what a great post!
Yes, a lot of people hold on to their past and grudge. You had to move away to state the truth.

Just go back to the simpler times, when you didn't have to be "known" as "the person who always says this", or "that guy who thinks he's so cute", or "the woman who riding on Barry's coat tails (I don't mean Mrs Wacco)", etc. just be yourselves, try not to take offense when you're corrected, don't hold resentments (they're poisonous), and try not to be mean-spirited.
Smiles,
Vet-To-Pet/Paula

[Sara S]

Our Troll is a Psychopath!

from delancyplace.com:

In today's excerpt - Jonah Lehrer proposes that
morality is a form of decision-making, and is based
on emotions, not logic:

"Psychopaths shed light on a crucial subset of
decision-making that's referred to as morality. Morality
can be a squishy, vague concept, and yet, at its
simplest level, it's nothing but a series of choices
about how we treat other people. When you act in a
moral manner - when you recoil from violence, treat
others fairly, and help strangers in need - you are
making decisions that take people besides yourself
into account. You are thinking about the feelings of
others, sympathizing with their states of mind.




"This is what psychopaths can't do. ... They are
missing the primal emotional cues that the rest of us
use as guides when making moral decisions. The
psychopath's brain is bored by expressions of terror.
The main problem seems to be a broken amygdala, a
brain area responsible for propagating aversive
emotions such as fear and anxiety. As a result,
psychopaths never feel bad when they make other
people feel bad. ... Hurting someone else is just
another way of getting what he wants, a perfectly
reasonable way to satisfy desires. The absence of
emotion makes the most basic moral concepts
incomprehensible. G. K. Chesterton was right: 'The
madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The
madman is the man who has lost everything except
his reason.'



"At first glance, the connection between morality and
the emotions might be a little unnerving. Moral
decisions are supposed to rest on a firm logical and
legal foundation. Doing the right thing means carefully
weighing competing claims, like a dispassionate
judge. These aspirations have a long history. The
luminaries of the Enlightenment, such as Leibniz and
Descartes, tried to construct a moral system entirely
free of feelings. Immanuel Kant argued that doing the
right thing was merely a consequence of acting
rationally. Immorality, he said, was a result of illogic. ...
The modern legal system still subscribes to this
antiquated set of assumptions and pardons anybody
who demonstrates a 'defect in rationality' - these
people are declared legally insane, since the rational
brain is supposedly responsible for distinguishing
between right and wrong. If you can't reason, then you
shouldn't be punished.



"But all of these old conceptions of morality are based
on a fundamental mistake. Neuroscience can now
see the substrate of moral decisions, and there's
nothing rational about it. 'Moral judgment is like
aesthetic judgment,' writes Jonathan Haidt, a
psychologist at the University of Virginia. 'When you
see a painting, you usually know instantly and
automatically whether you like it. If someone asks you
to explain your judgment, you confabulate ... Moral
arguments are much the same: Two people feel
strongly about an issue, their feelings come first, and
their reasons are invented on the fly, to throw at each
other.'



"Kant and his followers thought the rational brain
acted like a scientist: we used reason to arrive at an
accurate view of the world. This meant that morality
was based on objective values; moral judgments
described moral facts. But the mind doesn't work this
way. When you are confronted with an ethical
dilemma, the unconscious automatically generates
an emotional reaction. (This is what psychopaths can't
do.) Within a few milliseconds, the brain has made up
its mind; you know what is right and what is wrong.
These moral instincts aren't rational. ...



"It's only after the emotions have already made the
moral decision that those rational circuits in the
prefrontal cortex are activated. People come up with
persuasive reasons to justify their moral intuition.
When it comes to making ethical decisions, human
rationality isn't a scientist, it's a lawyer. This inner
attorney gathers bits of evidence, post hoc
justifications, and pithy rhetoric in order to make the
automatic reaction seem reasonable. But this
reasonableness is just a facade, an elaborate self-
delusion. Benjamin Franklin said it best in his
autobiography: 'So convenient a thing it is to be a
reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or
make a reason for everything one has a mind to
do.'



"In other words, our standard view of morality - the
philosophical consensus for thousands of years - has
been exactly backward. We've assumed that our moral
decisions are the byproducts of rational thought, that
humanity's moral rules are founded in such things as
the Ten Commandments and Kant's categorical
imperative. Philosophers and theologians have
spilled lots of ink arguing about the precise logic of
certain ethical dilemmas. But these arguments miss
the central reality of moral decisions, which is that
logic and legality have little to do with
anything."



Jonah Lehrer, How We Decide, Houghton,
Mifflin, Harcourt, Copyright 2009 by Jonah Lehrer,
Kindle Loc. 1922-79.

If wacco has 9500 members, how many would it take to call it consensus?

If this truly is a community, don't you think they come in all sizes and shapes?
Do you stop smelling the roses caus they have thorns?

[MsTerry]

Sara, it is not very kind of you to expose Edward and Miles in public, it is consistent though.

Our Troll is a Psychopath!

'The
madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The
madman is the man who has lost everything except
his reason.'.

[capttankona]

As I read about requiring true identies to post on WaccoBB.net, I can not help but think of Thomas Paine and his most famous piece of literature, Common Sense. Of course, it took some time to attribute the piece to him, since it was written anonymously. I suppose that was due to the fact that his opinion would not have been popular under the government at the time. And, any citizen loyal to the tyrannt, King George, would have gladly apprehended him or killed him just for his freedom of expression on the subject.

Of course, without those writings, we would not be free to express as we do today. An interesting juxtaposition, wouldn't you say?

[hales]

As I read about requiring true identities to post on WaccoBB.net, I can not help but think of Thomas Paine and his most famous piece of literature, Common Sense. Of course, it took some time to attribute the piece to him, since it was written anonymously. I suppose that was due to the fact that his opinion would not have been popular under the government at the time. And, any citizen loyal to the tyrannt, King George, would have gladly apprehended him or killed him just for his freedom of expression on the subject.

Of course, without those writings, we would not be free to express as we do today. An interesting juxtaposition, wouldn't you say?

Yes, it is interesting. I also think it's interesting to notice that even with "Freedom of Speech" being a commonly held value, and to some extent an assumed right, it is easily eroded and compromised from many different directions.. for instance, even under the guise of protecting others' rights, we sometimes can not fully express ourselves.. since what is true and valid for one person may not be politically correct, or acceptable, for another.

I keep coming back to the idea that community is based on mutual agreements, even if the agreement is to have no boundaries.. and that when people (or monkeys!) interact, there is a kind of natural boundary that arises when someone simply will not allow you to do or say what you want.. perhaps because it impinges on their own space or freedom, or perhaps because the "other" might be more dominant in the social hierarchy. The idea of "your freedom ends at the end of my nose"

The topics of power, hierarchy, dominance/submission and freedom are on my mind a lot lately. I have a sort of non-dominant personality, but I really don't like being pushed or led around, and obviously, I sometimes like to express myself. I'm generally looking for a kind of balance with others. Some people just aren't that into balance, I find..

What seems to be working the best for me personally, is to listen better and to communicate more clearly with those I want to be in relationship with. There is so much more opportunity for agreement, or even for agreeing to disagree, that way. It's kind of a fun game to try to improve the clarity of discourse, IMO.

I'm kind of wondering what the point of a community that doesn't serve the needs of the many is.. since I think that generally, the purpose of community is to share the requirements of survival and hopefully, even beyond that, to enhance the lives of it's members. This goes for couple relationships, too, I suppose. Sometimes people stay in a relationship, or accept non-optimal arrangements, because they are afraid of change, because they are getting the good end of a bad deal, or, maybe one or both is/are too lazy to do the work of better communication?

Throughout history people have explored many different ways to be in community or relationship. The very interesting thing, to me, is that on-line communities are predominately optional and voluntary. I think it's a cool lab for experimenting with new ways of interacting and sharing interests, with relatively few negative consequences, although as more an more business is transacted on-line, I suppose there are more and more opportunities for predatory activities that have real-world consequences.

I find it kind of fun to be in a slightly wild and experimental environment, but then again, I do not enjoy seeing people treating each other badly. As a parent, I came to appreciate that idea of maximum fun and freedom, with minimal risk of actual injury. Once people start getting hurt, (or angry), then it's time to reevaluate, for sure.

I guess that's why it's hard to totally embrace the idea of more rules, and such.. unless, of course, the majority of people agree to those standards, for the good of the whole group.

Scott.

[tezor]

A great truth I told my son when he was 14 is, "You can do anything you want, however, you are 100% responsible for anything you do." With or without your name. Just my .

[ICPP]

That's a nice sentiment, but if it were true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Obviously, many people do what they want in this world without being responsible for it, and that's the truth too. Otherwise, we wouldn't need lawyers, police departments or collection agencies among other things.

A great truth I told my son when he was 14 is, "You can do anything you want, however, you are 100% responsible for anything you do." With or without your name. Just my .

[tomcat]

I like the idea of open and free here on this BB. Revealing your identity will hopefully continue to be your own choice.

I would not want this to become a place where everyone agrees and and is polite and kind all the time... because that wouldn't be 'real life'.

Sonoma County is NOT all 'progressive lefties' and what a boring BB this would be if it were sanitized to anyone's particular version of "reality".

I don't post on here much and I certainly don't agree with some of what is said, but I do sometimes enjoy reading the different opinions and points of view.

Thanks to you folks who are willing to speak your minds... NO MATTER WHAT!
... and to a BB that allows it.

...back to lurking

[hales]

Hi, Texor,
I believe in karma/cause and effect, but it's also true that many people don't choose to take responsibility for their actions. I salute you for instilling this value in your son, though. I tried to do the same with my son, who is now 20 years old and came out pretty well, I think. He has high integrity and values.

Anonymity does tend to bring out the worse in certain types of folks, unfortunately, since they believe that there will be no consequences to what they say or do.

Scott.

A great truth I told my son when he was 14 is, "You can do anything you want, however, you are 100% responsible for anything you do." With or without your name. Just my .

[Barry]

...
I would not want this to become a place where everyone agrees and and is polite and kind all the time... because that wouldn't be 'real life'.

Sonoma County is NOT all 'progressive lefties' and what a boring BB this would be if it were sanitized to anyone's particular version of "reality".

I don't post on here much and I certainly don't agree with some of what is said, but I do sometimes enjoy reading the different opinions and points of view.

Thanks to you folks who are willing to speak your minds... NO MATTER WHAT!
... and to a BB that allows it.

...back to lurking

This is NOT an open bulletin board for all to use. This board is for the Conscious/Progressive community.

The Press Democrat runs public forums which appear to welcome "all points of view". In fact there is a discussion thread about Okili's deportation (the same subject that triggered this discussion). Check it out at Santa Rosa drummer faces deportation - Topic Powered by Eve For Enterprise

That's what "free speech" will get you. I created WaccoBB.net to host a public forum for a select community. It's not for everybody, because many people aren't interested in associating with us left-wing "wackos"; I let a select few people who are clearly not progressive and/or conscious know that they are not welcome here.

On the other hand, I have welcomed folks who wished to participate that are clearly not progressive if they are respectful. I keep a close eye on their conversations. When they create too much animosity and emotion rather than exploration, thoughtfulness and consideration I ask them to leave. Most are thankful for the opportunity and understand that it's time to go.

Absolute "freedom of speech" with no space holding leads to a dominance of very aggressive "speech" since the rudeness and violence of it drives away many other potential participants, as illustrated in the PD "discussion". Does this really support "freedom of speech"?

In my view, you can only have "freedom of speech" when people feel safe to speak. Maintaining that safety is of paramount importance for nurturing public dialog.

There are still plenty "versions of reality" (some of which are quite out there ) within the progressive community. There is plenty of "disagreement" and differing opinions to go around. What I insist on, though, is that we treat each other with respect. Kindness is encouraged and meanness will not be tolerated.

Transgressions are difficult to work with, both because the standard ("respect") and the transgression are not absolute. It's not like the guideline is "42" and someone posts "37" and has thus broken the guideline. It all happens in millions of shades of gray. Some are clearer than others.

I often first engage people privately who I feel are outside the limits. Often this is sufficient, at least for a while. If I feel the need to take more drastic action (asked to leave/banning) I consult with many other people either privately or publicly. I don't take the move lightly, and in the 4years I've been running this service I may have banned less than a dozen people (besides the spammers and flat-out right wing nutjobs).

My tendency has been to "interfere" as little as possible. I have been asked many times to remove a poster or a post and I have demurred. I have preferred to use the bully pulpit instead and I should probably use it more.

As several have posted, WaccoBB.net has gotten a reputation as being a rough and unsafe place and many choose not to join or post here. This pains me and detracts from the many benefits that this community creates. I will endeavor to re-establish safety here, while not quashing free flowing dialog or the expression of opinion.

It is not a mere coincidence that most aggressive posters do so anonymously. And it's also true that there are some valid reasons for posting anonymously, as have been expressed in this thread. One key difference is that anonymity used to provide protection while revealing sensitive information about yourself is appropriate, whereas hiding behind anonymity while attacking others is not.

I have decided to maintain the current policy of requesting real names but not insisting on them. I am encouraged that most people do provide their real names and I think this greatly enhances the "personalness" of this forum. Validating real names sounds like a large hassle and there are valid situations where exceptions would need to be made.

I will be posting soon about other steps I will be taking to maintain the safety of these pages.

Barry

[lynn]

I vote for anonymity myself...It's a kind of privacy...And I like that for myself...And I'm fine with 'getting to know' who people are with their 'sign on' names...whether 'real' or not...

And the moderator/s seem to be doing just fine...

I've been on boards where they do have that 'ignore' button if things get too heated for someone...

[MsTerry]

Barry,
I appreciate your thoughtful and well-balanced approach, except you're leaving out a few little details.
And guess who has the nerve to bring them up.
LOL
You're running a business, Wacco is a business.
Besides avocados, you sell numbers, and numbers is what pulls in MONEY.
You can sell how many members you have, how many posts, how many visitors, how many views.
In short, traffic is what makes the difference for a business.
Now if you look at the threads and look at the ones that have something important to offer, like the the ones from Zeno, you'll find that they have a low traffic volume.
This thread on the other hand, after only one week has almost 900 views and several opinions.
There is a villain, a victim, some philosophers, an angry mob and a benevolent dictator. (It's almost like the crowd chanting to Pontius' crucify, crucify, crucify)
The ones who are above it all get to say so in public, cheered on by gratitude and applause.
The villain gets kicked around and everybody is happy.
People LOVE drama, people thrive on controversy, good cop/bad cop and it creates a lot of traffic.
It's the kind of stuff that sells newspapers and TV shows.
And it works for Wacco too.
That's why Barry likes to keep me around.

This is NOT an open bulletin board for all to use. This board is for the Conscious/Progressive community.

The Press Democrat runs public forums which appear to welcome "all points of view". In fact there is a discussion thread about Okili's deportation (the same subject that triggered this discussion). Check it out at Santa Rosa drummer faces deportation - Topic Powered by Eve For Enterprise

That's what "free speech" will get you. I created WaccoBB.net to host a public forum for a select community. It's not for everybody, both because many people aren't interested in associating with us left-wing "wackos" and I let a select few people who are clearly not progressive and/or conscious know that they are not welcome here.

On the other hand, I have welcomed folks that wished to participate that are clearly not progressive if they are respectful. I keep a close eye on their conversations. When they create too much animosity and emotion rather that exploration, thoughtfulness and consideration I ask them to leave. Most are thankful for the opportunity and understand that it's time to go.

Absolute "freedom of speech" with no space holding leads to a dominance of very aggressive "speech" since the rudeness and violence of it drives away many other potential participants, as illustrated in the PD "discussion". Does this really support "freedom of speech"?

In my view, you can only have "freedom of speech" when people feel safe to speak. Maintaining that safety is of paramount importance for nurturing public dialog.

There are still plenty "versions of reality" (some of which are quite out there ) within the progressive community. There is plenty of "disagreement" and differing opinions to go around. What I insist on, though, is that we treat each other with respect. Kindness is encouraged and meanness will not be tolerated.

Transgressions are difficult to work with, both because the standard ("respect") and the transgression are not absolute. It's not like the guideline is "42" and someone posts "37" and has thus broken the guideline. It all happens in millions of shades of gray. Some are clearer than others.

I often first engage people privately who I feel are outside the limits. Often this is sufficient, at least for a while. If I feel the need to take more drastic action (asked to leave/banning) I consult with many other people either privately or publicly. I don't take the move lightly, and in the 4years I've been running this service I may have banned less than a dozen people (besides the spammers and flat-out right wing nutjobs).

My tendency has been to "interfere" as little as possible. I have been asked many times to remove a poster or a post and I have demurred. I have preferred to use the bully pulpit instead and I should probably use it more.

As several have posted, WaccoBB.net has gotten a reputation as being a rough and unsafe place and many choose not to join or post here. This pains me and detracts from the many benefits that this community creates. I will endeavor to re-establish safety here, while not quashing free flowing dialog or the expression of opinion.

It is not a mere coincidence that most aggressive posters do so anonymously. And it's also true that there are some valid reasons for posting anonymously, as have been expressed in this thread. One key difference is that anonymity used to provide protection while revealing sensitive information about yourself is appropriate, whereas hiding behind anonymity while attacking others is not.

I have decided to maintain the current policy of requesting real names but not insisting on them. I am encouraged that most people do provide their real names and I think this greatly enhances the "personalness" of this forum. Validating real names sound like a large hassle and there are valid situations where exceptions would need to be made.

I will be posting soon about other steps I will be taking to maintain the safety of these pages.

Barry

[ICPP]

A quick look at a few other thread's numbers might put your narcissism in check, but I doubt it. The more replies a thread has, the more often people who are following it will come back and view it.

This thread, at the moment, has 75 replies and 883 views.

'Too Much Junk Art in Sebastopol' has 26 replies and 471 views.

'Free Market Capitalism Replaced By?' has 10 replies and 171 views.

You do the math. Far more people are following the other threads than this one.

Barry...
You're running a business, Wacco is a business.
Besides avocados, you sell numbers, and numbers is what pulls in MONEY.
You can sell how many members you have, how many posts, how many visitors, how many views...
That's why Barry likes to keep me around.

[MsTerry]

OK, so you didn't read what I wrote.
Barry sells numbers!

883-75= 808
compared to
471-26= 445

You see the difference? It's 363 !
It doesn't take into account the people who'll read the digest, and the fact that once you have posted, you can follow the thread via email.
Click on this link and Barry will explain it to you himself!

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...ccobb-net.html

And as a matter of fact you proved my point, both subjects you used are controversial, hence the traffic to that thread.

A quick look at a few other thread's numbers might put your narcissism in check, but I doubt it. The more replies a thread has, the more often people who are following it will come back and view it.

This thread, at the moment, has 75 replies and 883 views.

'Too Much Junk Art in Sebastopol' has 26 replies and 471 views.

'Free Market Capitalism Replaced By?' has 10 replies and 171 views.

You do the math. Far more people are following the other threads than this one.

[Sara S]

I don't think that anyone is objecting to reading "different opinions" here; my objection is to people who don't mind being unkind in an effort to display their own cleverness.

The "real world" isn't kind, true enough, but I can see/read all I want to about that in the newspaper; the definition of WACCO is that it's for kind, progressive people.

All of the various "versions of reality" make for interesting and thought-provoking reading; it seems to be impossible for some posters, though, to express themselves intelligently without taking a swing at another person.

I would bet that many people have discontinued reading and posting here because of the meanness so often displayed.

I like the idea of open and free here on this BB. Revealing your identity will hopefully continue to be your own choice.

I would not want this to become a place where everyone agrees and and is polite and kind all the time... because that wouldn't be 'real life'.

Sonoma County is NOT all 'progressive lefties' and what a boring BB this would be if it were sanitized to anyone's particular version of "reality".

I don't post on here much and I certainly don't agree with some of what is said, but I do sometimes enjoy reading the different opinions and points of view.

Thanks to you folks who are willing to speak your minds... NO MATTER WHAT!
... and to a BB that allows it.

...back to lurking

[MsTerry]

I am sure we all have done that, right Sara? (is my punctuation OK?)

I don't think that anyone is objecting to reading "different opinions" here; my objection is to people who don't mind being unkind in an effort to display their own cleverness.
.

[ICPP]

Okay, so you don't understand basic arithmetic. There's roughly twice as many people following the other two threads as this one, in terms of direct views.

OK, so you didn't read what I wrote.
Barry sells numbers!

883-75= 808
compared to
471-26= 445

You see the difference? It's 363 !

[RexCasteel]

Nice one! Let me know what form you'd like "some community support" to take.

Thanks, as always.

- Rex

Hi Everybody,

There have been several requests lately that we require people to validate their true identity

I'll probably need some community support to help implement this system.

[MsTerry]

Sorry, but I majored in math.
Your supposition is mere speculation since you don;t have any data to show how people are following their posts or the thread, via email, via the digest or the website..

My point was that controversy creates traffic for a website, and with your little survey you proved me right!

Okay, so you don't understand basic arithmetic. There's roughly twice as many people following the other two threads as this one, in terms of direct views.

[ICPP]

Ummmm.... now you're really embarrassing yourself. I made no supposition or speculation, YOU did.

Sorry, but I majored in math.
Your supposition is mere speculation since you don;t have any data to show how people are following their posts or the thread, via email, via the digest or the website..

The ONLY data we have is that which shows more than twice as many people are following the other threads in terms of direct views.

Perhaps you know a grade school student who might be willing to explain what this means to you. Be sure to show her your cute little formula, here's a link for your convenience;
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...html#post89854

[MsTerry]

Ummmm.... now you're really embarrassing yourself. I made no supposition or speculation, YOU did.

This is really dumb ICCP.
I stated that controversy creates traffic, your data confirmed this idea. Traffic means how many views a thread or site gets.

you stated; There's roughly twice as many people following the other two threads as this one, in terms of direct views.
and
The more replies a thread has, the more often people who are following it will come back and view it.
You don't have anything to support your supposition..
Can you back up your claim that Far more people are following the other threads than this one.?

[Esra]

Hi everyone,

I haven't read all the posts here but most of them so I hope I'm not being redundant.

I value privacy. Politics is a sticky subject sometimes. Few other subjects can unknowingly whip people into bad behaviors that are not typical of their true personality and social contributions.

If we were all easily identified, I'm worried about the possibility of being red-bated at work or other civil organizations because of the political positions we declare here and not our occasional personal gaff.

In short time, we all know who the trolls and antagonizers are. I think the best way for me/us to repel the troll is to ignore them 100% and they simply go away withing days. They are like poison oak. Don't scratch it and it disappears much, much sooner.

Barry, thanks for this awsome forum. I'm not a progressive (I can't fully identify myself except to say, I am everything, so I can't put a label on me other than that) but I was born into the progressive culture and spent my early years on one early Marin commune. The progressive community is all I know, it is my home, too, even though I no longer self-identify as progressive.

We, as a family within a family, lived a hard but often happy, subsistance life since the beginning. My parents have passed before I reached an age of awareness so I have no answers for the life they brought me into. I cleave to my progressive community because its the only family I know. It's in my DNA.

Currently, I study and support only the politics of our founding fathers. I figure it is a safe place to start my road to the answers I didn't get from my parents. They had a low level contemption for traditional Americanism and I want to know why they distrusted capitalism and the West in general. So I went to the source of their distrust (in an effort to compare and contrast) and actually liked what I saw. It makes more real-world sence to me. The Right is less destructive. Now I've returned home, to this forum, to seek the answers I've wanted my entire adult life. That is, why my parents were progressives.

I've read our moderator's warning about those outside the progressive community and appreciate his guarded tolerance (though I'd rather be celebrated than tolerated) and have to ask that I myself am not considered "_" (fill in the blank) enough to contribute to this community. I am of color and suffered discrimination on the streets throughout my life and I hope progressives, of all people, don't actually turn into what they hate most.

Getting back on topic, let's keep privacy at a premium, encourage openness and bring down the heavy hammer of shun to the obvious trolls.

Thank you, I love you all!

[Skook]

He's right, you simply average the number of direct views per reply. The unknown views apply to all threads, and have nothing to do with your irrelevant equation or supposition.

The point is, people are bored with your trolling and are following the two other threads at more than double the rate of this one, in terms of direct views.

And don't bother sending me emails, I'll delete them unread just like the last one.

You don't have anything to support your supposition..
Can you back up your claim that Far more people are following the other threads than this one.?

[Sara S]

I don't know whethe this applies here, but it's interesting:

from delancyplace.com:

In today's excerpt - the 80/20 rule, the
expression commonly used to state that a
small percentage of the total of any set
accounts for a large percentage of the output
or effect of that set:



"Have you ever heard of the 80/20 rule? It is
the common signature of a
power
law - actually it is how it all started, when
Vilfredo Pareto made
the observation that 80 percent of the land
in Italy was owned by 20 percent of the
people. Some use the rule to imply that 80
percent of the work
is done by 20 percent of the people. Or that
80 percent worth of effort
contributes to only 20 percent of results,
and vice versa.



"As far as axioms go, this one wasn't phrased
to impress you the most:
it could easily be called the 50/01 rule,
that is, 50 percent of the work
comes from 1 percent of the workers. This
formulation makes the world
took even more unfair, yet the two formulae
are exactly the same. How?
Well, if there is inequality, then those who
constitute the 20 percent in the
80/20 rule also contribute unequally - only a
few of them deliver the lion's
share of the results. This trickles down to
about one in a hundred contributing a little
more than half the total.



"The 80/20 rule is only metaphorical; it is
not a rule, even less a rigid
law. In the U.S. book business, the
proportions are more like 97/20 (i.e.,
97 percent of book sales are made by 20
percent of the authors); it's even
worse if you focus on literary nonfiction
(twenty books of close to eight
thousand represent half the sales).



"Note here that it is not all uncertainty. In
some situations you may
have a concentration, of the 80/20 type, with
very predictable and tractable
properties, which enables clear decision
making, because you can identify
beforehand where the meaningful 20
percent are. These situations are very
easy to control. For instance, Malcolm
Gladwell wrote in an article in The
New Yorker that most abuse of prisoners
is attributable to a very small
number of vicious guards. Filter those guards
out and your rate of prisoner abuse drops
dramatically. (In publishing, on the other
hand, you do
not know beforehand which book will bring
home the bacon. The same
with wars, as you do not know beforehand
which conflict will kill a
portion of the planet's residents.)"



Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan,
Random House, Copyright 2007 by Nassim
Nicholas Taleb, pp. 235-236.

Okay, so you don't understand basic arithmetic. There's roughly twice as many people following the other two threads as this one, in terms of direct views.