Okay, so here it is.

[SG-Rocks]

And to be honest if one doesn't wish to engage in discussion about the topics on this, or any, forum then why even bother becoming a member and posting opinions? It's ridiculous to assume that one can do this and then be "protected" from having their opinion challenged.

Just a reminder SHAPE that absolutely no one has so far signed up to become a member here yet and others elsewhere are requesting their identities here deleted.

 

[Illiterati]

Just a reminder SHAPE that absolutely no one has so far signed up to become a member here yet and others elsewhere are requesting their identities here deleted.

That number appears to be a fairly low one, SG-Rocks.

 

[Lilith]

No, I'm describing SGU.S. I'm not a member at GW and never was. My comment had nothing to do with GW.



Please provide evidence of me "bashing" anyone. I attempted to discuss things logically with Yoshi in one thread. The fact that I referred to him as an idiot within the context of that discussion (he also referred to me as "retarded") is hardly bashing. But no matter because every discussion I have had that you consider an incident of "bashing" has been couched in a well thought out argument in regards to the thread topic. The only other person I can recall name calling with was "fruieater" who did turn out to be a troll and who attacked several members of SGU.S for no reason at all (unprovoked, he told OM1 to fuck off). So, clearly, you are accusing me of things that exist only in your mind.



My my my Lilith, defensive much? I never claimed to be the arbiter of what is considered "bashing", in fact I mentioned it so we could define what it is means on this forum. I'm not looking to swear at someone for no reason, which would be bashing. I am looking to engage in communal debate and discussion with people who can intellectually defend and define their opinions, which isn't bashing although you desperately want to define it as such because it suits your agenda, whatever that is.

As for who defines "intellectual cowardice", yes, you're damn right I can define it. I know it when I see it and the fact that that term bothers you so much pretty much justifies my definition of it. If a person isn't an intellectual coward then they will defend their stated opinions and beliefs on this forum (and no, they don't have to be an intellectual giant in order to be treated with respect). It's very easy to understand. Please stop recoiling from terms you don't like simply because you don't want to be labeled by them. A thing is what it is; entities have defining natures and a person who makes statements on a discussion forum but then runs to a mod and cries that they are being bashed when asked to defend those statements is an intellectual coward. You may care to define the term "intellectual coward" differently but that won't change the veracity of how I just defined it. A coward is a coward is a coward and calling that intellectual coward out for being an intellectual coward is not bashing.



No one is demanding that anyone "fight" here Lilith and that is the flaw in your reasoning. If you don't want to engage in discussion then don't respond to anyone who comments on your statements. It's called 'free will', Lilith, and everyone has it. There is nothing compelling a person, against their will, to respond to anything stated on this or any website. If you choose to engage in discussion by responding to anyone who comments on your opinion then that is your choice. The bottom line is that just because someone challenges your stated opinion and you don't like it that does not automatically make it "bashing".

And to be honest if one doesn't wish to engage in discussion about the topics on this, or any, forum then why even bother becoming a member and posting opinions? It's ridiculous to assume that one can do this and then be "protected" from having their opinion challenged.

Now, on a more personal level I have to say I don't know why you have a problem with me Lilith? I've hardly engaged you in conversation much and can only assume you consider me part of the "enemy camp" from the whole Rac80/Yoshikart drama. Clearly you have chosen to bring that drama here by angrily (yes, your post to me was angry) accusing me of "bashing" people on a different forum. Obviously you haven't noticed that this forum has a different tone and feel so please lose the anger and the attitude you have with me as I certainly don't deserve it. It short: Let it go, Lilith. It's a new day and a new place with a positive outlook. Please don't be the one who ruins it simply because you have some personal axe to grind.

Thanks.

Didn't know there was an enemy camp. So different forum aren't they running in tandum until they separate. Tell you what in a pleasant tone and manner it's done, what ever axe you have to grind is done also.

 

[shavedape]

To me, bashing is personal attack. A heated debate makes for a great read, but when it degenerates to name calling it becomes the "playground chronicles". If somebody just spouts opinions without discussing them, then I ignore their posts. I used to lurk at GW to read the ratings predictions thread (that was like watching Dumb and Dumber), but after a while I learned that KEK would never have anything of significance to add (not even in a funny way) so I'd just scroll right on by his/her posts. Does that make sense?

I hear what you're saying and it makes sense. My point was that one would think that the definition of "bashing" would be fairly obvious but clearly thats not the case as certain people here believe that any questioning of another person's opinion is "bashing". I can concede that profanity shouldn't (necessarily) be part of an intellectual debate and that can often make it appear that the conversation has devolved into "name calling". That said, there are people here who actually believe that challenging another person's opinion, irrespective of profanity, is not only "bashing" but "bullying". :roll:

My whole point (and this isn't directed at you Savatage) is that if this site considers questioning of opinions to be "bashing" then what's the point of having this site at all? It's a discussion forum. Yes, anyone can decide to engage in any discussion they want but if they do so they can't expect immunity from scrutiny of their opinion.

And in closing let's all get real here, everyone knows what "bashing" is and what it isn't. Out of context, ad hominem name calling is "bashing", pure and simple. Challenging a squee drone or a fellow forum member to explain what they mean is not.

 

[shavedape]

Didn't know there was an enemy camp. So different forum aren't they running in tandum until they separate. Tell you what in a pleasant tone and manner it's done, what ever axe you have to grind is done also.

I never had an axe to grind, but I do accept your apology.

 

[shavedape]

Just a reminder SHAPE that absolutely no one has so far signed up to become a member here yet and others elsewhere are requesting their identities here deleted.

Oh SG-Rocks, haven't you calmed down yet? There really isn't some giant schism here, no internecine war going on, so please stop with the histrionics. I'm sure once everything shakes out and settles down you'll be able to find plenty of squee drones to take your aggressions out on. Yes SGU sucks donkey balls. Yes anyone who defends it should have their head examined -- but this site is no longer soley focused on our collective hatred for SGU, it's now a STARGATE focused site in toto. Therefore, the focus is less on the negative (SGU) and more on the positive aspects of the whole franchise (and sci-fi in general).

This doesn't mean you have to stop "raping and pillaging" my good man; all we ask is that you no longer leave the severed limbs and spilled entrails of your victims lying out in the open for everyone to see. It's bringing the property value down and the HOA frowns on it now.

 

[Savatage]

I hear what you're saying and it makes sense. My point was that one would think that the definition of "bashing" would be fairly obvious but clearly thats not the case as certain people here believe that any questioning of another person's opinion is "bashing". I can concede that profanity shouldn't (necessarily) be part of an intellectual debate and that can often make it appear that the conversation has devolved into "name calling". That said, there are people here who actually believe that challenging another person's opinion, irrespective of profanity, is not only "bashing" but "bullying". :roll:

My whole point (and this isn't directed at you Savatage) is that if this site considers questioning of opinions to be "bashing" then what's the point of having this site at all? It's a discussion forum. Yes, anyone can decide to engage in any discussion they want but if they do so they can't expect immunity from scrutiny of their opinion.

And in closing let's all get real here, everyone knows what "bashing" is and what it isn't. Out of context, ad hominem name calling is "bashing", pure and simple. Challenging a squee drone or a fellow forum member to explain what they mean is not.

You're right, you can't have a discussion forum without people challenging other opinions - that's what debate is. For me, a debate is in danger of being derailed when the phase "That's a dumbass idea" becomes "You're a dumbass". It's a subtle difference but one is directed at the faulty argument, the other is directed at the individual. One asks the other person to defend their argument, the other asks the person to defend themselves personally. So my point is if we really want to have a debate/discussion, just aim the insults at the idea instead of the person making them.

 

[shavedape]

You're right, you can't have a discussion forum without people challenging other opinions - that's what debate is. For me, a debate is in danger of being derailed when the phase "That's a dumbass idea" becomes "You're a dumbass". It's a subtle difference but one is directed at the faulty argument, the other is directed at the individual. One asks the other person to defend their argument, the other asks the person to defend themselves personally. So my point is if we really want to have a debate/discussion, just aim the insults at the idea instead of the person making them.

You're kind of splitting hairs but I won't argue the point too much. Basically, in this scenario, deriding the idea is the same as deriding the person positing it, isn't it? They are one in the same, no?

 

[Gatefan1976]

You're kind of splitting hairs but I won't argue the point too much. Basically, in this scenario, deriding the idea is the same as deriding the person positing it, isn't it? They are one in the same, no?

Not splitting hairs at all. One is the essense of debate "that is a foolish notion and here's why", and one is the essense of bullying "you're a fool to belive that, and here's why"

 

[Overmind One]

I also hate Stargate Universe!

Well then I guess that's your prerogative. But I joined sgusucks.com to send a message to the promoters and to see the show put off the air. I didn't expect that I would have 1200 posts of mine jacked for use in padding a different domain that can't differentiate between the original Stargate and it's sequel with a mess of a show that doesn't even really have a Stargate in it.

I hate SGU as much as you do! But the fact is that it DOES have a little used, hardly seen Stargate in it and its named Stargate. Its perfectly okay to still bash the show itself here. Its just not INSTITUTIONALIZED here like it is over there. All you have to do is go in and hate SGU in its forum which is now part of the regular Stargate Discussions sections. There will be no censorship here with regard to hating Universe.

I'm not jumping on board a site that is nothing more than the Darren Summers show in Vbulletin. Placating the likes of Tanith and Yoshifart over at SGUºS did nothing but mess the whole board up and drive some people away.

We arent placating anyone here...are we? Tanith isnt here and neither is Yoshi. This place is not and never will be Gateworld. But its not gonna be like SGU°S either.

I really don't care if I'm banned here for saying so (this is Gateworld ^2 now) but I'd request you delete all my previous posts and graphics I've submitted over the years if you want to take such action.

And in case we've already forgotten, Universe is not Stargate.

I agree with you! But the fact is that discussion for the show STILL belongs in the Stargate Discussions section of this forum and not in a separate section. Rag on it and hate it all you want. I will most likely join you! But we dont want to institutionalize its separate leper status by creating a special forum just for that show.

Are you sure you want your account deleted? You should see how this is going for a day or two first.

 

[Overmind One]

Well put.

This site isn't SGUS, and isn't/wasn't intended to be...

While there are many of us here, including myself, who didn't like SGU one iota, there are many out there that did. I can respect that and be cool about discussions regarding it.

GateFans is considered to be a gateway for discussions of all shows, past and present. We're not here to pigeonhole ourselves into JUST being a Stargate site. So that means we're going to include discussions about Sanctuary, Eureka, the shows with Stargate in the title, Dr Who, Primeval, Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, Mystery Science Theater 3000, the various and sundry Star Treks, etc., ad nauseum. If you don't like a particular show, you're welcome to discuss that fact, providing you follow the rules that have been set up for this site. Keep in mind that some forums/subforums on the site have slightly different rules, so be sure to read those rules before you post.

I'm looking forward to this site growing and attracting other fans of whatever shows who will contribute to what we have here and perhaps encourage others to come and hang out. We have a very good opportunity to create just that, and I applaud Overmind One for taking on this challenge.

Thanks, Fearless Leader.

The Team here unanimously decided that removing the institutionalized segregation of SGU from the rest of the fandom was counterproductive to the future of Stargate. I HATE STARGATE UNIVERSE! And I will continue to hate it, but here at GateFans, the place where you will find the forum to post how much it sucks will be in the Stargate Discussions section where it belongs, not in its own separate forum. Thats the only difference. And also, fans of SGU will not be subjected to personal attacks ON THAT FORUM...in Flame Hell, they are fair game. They would have to actually go to that forum to be bashed, and if they go there they will not be protected. Think of the Flame Hell as being the small part of SGUS we have brought over here.

 

[shavedape]

Not splitting hairs at all. One is the essense of debate "that is a foolish notion and here's why", and one is the essense of bullying "you're a fool to belive that, and here's why"

To call something a foolish notion is to say the person holding that notion is foolish also because obviously they believe that notion to begin with. Why would someone take less offense at having their notion called stupid verses having themselves called foolish? It's essentially the same thing.

I agree whole heartedly with how you added "...and here's why" to your examples. That aspect of the discussion is more important than worrying about calling someone foolish verses calling their idea foolish. Chances are if they can't defend their position they're going to take offense no matter what terminology you use.

 

[Savatage]

You're kind of splitting hairs but I won't argue the point too much. Basically, in this scenario, deriding the idea is the same as deriding the person positing it, isn't it? They are one in the same, no?

No, I don't think it's the same. That's my point: Deriding the idea is NOT the same as deriding the person. One invalidates a single opinion a person has while the other invalidates that's person's whole existance. If you respond to this post by saying, "That's one of the dubest opinions I've ever had the displeasure of reading because of the following...", I'm know I'm in for a debate. If you were to respond by saying "You are one of the dumbest people I've ever had the displeasure of encountering on a forum", then I'm going to want to push back at you and before you know it, the original debate is a thing of the past.

 

[stclare]

No, I don't think it's the same. That's my point: Deriding the idea is NOT the same as deriding the person. One invalidates a single opinion a person has while the other invalidates that's person's whole existance. If you respond to this post by saying, "That's one of the dubest opinions I've ever had the displeasure of reading", I'm know I'm in for a debate. If you were to respond by saying "You are one of the dumbest people I've ever had the displeasure of encountering on a forum", then I'm going to want to push back at you and before you know it, the original debate is a thing of the past.

Unfortunatley its realy easy to fall into doing that. Ive had many a good chat/debate going and not properly thought out how what i said could be interpreted and puff flame war.

 

[Overmind One]

I agree with this.

No, I don't think it's the same. That's my point: Deriding the idea is NOT the same as deriding the person. One invalidates a single opinion a person has while the other invalidates that's person's whole existance. If you respond to this post by saying, "That's one of the dubest opinions I've ever had the displeasure of reading", I'm know I'm in for a debate. If you were to respond by saying "You are one of the dumbest people I've ever had the displeasure of encountering on a forum", then I'm going to want to push back at you and before you know it, the original debate is a thing of the past.

Our CCPG specifically says that discussions of a subject and not any specific individual is okay. When anyone focuses on a member or a specific individual, it becomes a violation of the "harassment" section of the CCPG.

HOWEVER:

In the Flame Hell section, everything goes. The Team will not hear any complaints about "harassment" happening in there, unless there are other CCPG violations associated with it. No picnics in Flame Hell!

 

[Mr. A]

Not splitting hairs at all. One is the essense of debate "that is a foolish notion and here's why", and one is the essense of bullying "you're a fool to belive that, and here's why"

To call something a foolish notion is to say the person holding that notion is foolish also because obviously they believe that notion to begin with. Why would someone take less offense at having their notion called stupid verses having themselves called foolish? It's essentially the same thing.

I agree whole heartedly with how you added "...and here's why" to your examples. That aspect of the discussion is more important than worrying about calling someone foolish verses calling their idea foolish. Chances are if they can't defend their position they're going to take offense no matter what terminology you use.

Oh, believe me: the person making the comment and the one on the receiving end are aware and CAN tell the difference quite easily!

 

[shavedape]

No, I don't think it's the same. That's my point: Deriding the idea is NOT the same as deriding the person. One invalidates a single opinion a person has while the other invalidates that's person's whole existance. If you respond to this post by saying, "That's one of the dubest opinions I've ever had the displeasure of reading because of the following...", I'm know I'm in for a debate. If you were to respond by saying "You are one of the dumbest people I've ever had the displeasure of encountering on a forum", then I'm going to want to push back at you and before you know it, the original debate is a thing of the past.

Ah okay, that makes more sense now that you've fleshed it out a bit. I think if you just leave your latter example truncated without explanation as to why you think that person is "one of the dumbest people" ever encountered on a forum then yes, you've stepped into name calling and have derailed the discussion -- but if you add "because of the following" it would hold close to the legitimacy as your first example does. The only difference being that you were a bit less direct in insulting the other person -- and I mean a bit.

 

[Savatage]

Ah okay, that makes more sense now that you've fleshed it out a bit. I think if you just leave your latter example truncated without explanation as to why you think that person is "one of the dumbest people" ever encountered on a forum then yes, you've stepped into name calling and have derailed the discussion -- but if you add "because of the following" it would hold close to the legitimacy as your first example does. The only difference being that you were a bit less direct in insulting the other person -- and I mean a bit.

Yeah, I'm not the best wordsmith you'll ever come across.

 

[shavedape]

Oh, believe me: the person making the comment and the one on the receiving end are aware and CAN tell the difference quite easily!

Are you calling me foolish, or my ideas?

 

[shavedape]

Yeah, I'm not the best wordsmith you'll ever come across.

No worries, you did a fine job of stating your case. And as "King of the Run-on Sentence" I'm hardly one to judge how good of a wordsmith you are, trust me.