I’m sure I speak for the rest of the world when I say that I’m kind of sick of the petite guerre being waged by John Mace against BrainGlutton, as exemplified by this thread. I wish you guys would have it out here, rather than on the hallowed grounds of GD.
And for what it’s worth, I’m more or less in agreement with John Mace’s basic point, which is that BrainGlutton should offer more of his own argument in an OP, rather than the standard cut-paste-and-whaddayathink? But just sniping at him in GD isn’t working, and it’s begun to be a bit of a drag.
So, John Mace, step up to the plate and explain yourself. Much obliged.
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
I’m sure I speak for the rest of the world when I say that I’m kind of sick of the petite guerre being waged by John Mace against BrainGlutton, as exemplified by this thread. I wish you guys would have it out here, rather than on the hallowed grounds of GD.
[/QUOTE]
That was a snipe? I mean, you may be right that **John **has a little war going on with BG, I don’t know, but that ain’t much of an example.
tomndebb addressed this in one of Brainglutton’s recent threads. Link
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I have two observations:
1. Unlike a former poster who was eventually banned for submitting a horrendous number of post-and-run threads that amounted to little more than a link and a question mark, following which the poster would not even return to the thread, BrainGlutton submits a very large number of threads that amount to little more than a link and a question in the form of a complete sentence. However, he does return to those threads and participates in them.
That level of participation definitely sets his actions apart from those of the previous poster.
2. OTOH, it is generally more polite to initiate a thread with an actual assessment of the linked site and the staking of an actual position in the OP. This is not a hard and fast rule and we have no desire to make it one, but there is certainly something to be said for seeking a bit of quality over quantity. If one in six threads on the Great Debates page are random variations on “Bush Sucks” or “Ooo, Lookit this!” from a single poster, it does get a bit monotonous wandering through them, particularly considering the significant overlap in the comments that appear in them.
I am not going to set any rules, here.
It would be nice if BrainGlutton would spend a few more minutes formulating an actual discussion in his OPs (and cutting down on the torrent of threads that he submits).
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, I agree with John Mace and tomndebb. When someone doesn’t put forth their own opinion in their OP on a consistent basis, it leaves the door open for others to say that you’re waiting to see what the consensus is so you can agree with it. We all know this isn’t the case with Brainglutton, which is why I think he should flesh out his OPs more.
Well, now, just a second here. What’s wrong with positing a debate without a stated opinon? Isn’t that, in fact, how formal debates are done? “Resolved: Carrrot Top is more vile than Gilbert Gottfried”, for instance. Must one refrain from positing a debate on an issue that one has not resolved to one’s own satisfaction? (I’ve been arguing with myself over Affirmative Action for thirty years, and I still don’t have the answer.)
So where is it written that one must not, or should not, pose a debatable question unless one has already defined one’s stance?
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
.. it leaves the door open for others to say that you’re waiting to see what the consensus is so you can agree with it. We all know this isn’t the case with Brainglutton…
[/QUOTE]
PS:
Since we all know, why should any of us worry about it? Anybody who thinks this about my dog BG, that he trims his sails to the prevailing winds of opinion, doesn’t have brains enough to make their own oatmeal.
Let’s see: BG acts as though there’s a quota of eight threads to start every day, and John Mace takes a potshot about that fact about once every two weeks.
So no, the OP isn’t speaking for me when he refers to the rest of the world being sick of the petite guerre. At least the snipes have an actual point, unlike most of the OPs.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Well, now, just a second here. What’s wrong with positing a debate without a stated opinon?
[/QUOTE]
Because, at a minimum, it stops John Mace from popping in and saying, “What do you think?”
And also, it seems a little bit more customary: “This is my opinion, here is some relevant reading matter, and what do the rest of you think?” Call it a form of politeness, even. And it’s not like BrainGlutton doesn’t have an opinion – he does. Let him produce it in the OP and cut to the chase.
Bah! Tempest in a teapot. While I lean, politically, much more towards BG’s side and sometimes John’s seeming eternal fence-sitting gets on my nerves, I still consider him one of the most level-headed posters on the SDMB.
FWIW, best leave them two at it – and whatever input/refereeing Tom might add.
Two good guys on their own right not worthy of a Pit thread, IMHO.
Now, if you’d like to muster a bit of additional outrage, why not start one on one of The Usual Suspects*? Now there’s some beef I could get into to.
*As the term was originally coined and not as blatantly plagiarized by one of same currently.
I don’t really think there’s anything wrong per se with posting basically just an article and soliciting opinions as an OP, as long as the article makes it fairly clear what the discussion is about. The problem with BG’s cut and paste jobs are that they’re basically all about the same two things, Iraq and the Bush administration, and thus lead to endless iterations of the same debate over and over again. If the OP suggested some more specific issues or opinions regarding the articles he pastes, it might give the threads some more unique directions to go in.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Well, now, just a second here. What’s wrong with positing a debate without a stated opinon? Isn’t that, in fact, how formal debates are done? “Resolved: Carrrot Top is more vile than Gilbert Gottfried”, for instance. Must one refrain from positing a debate on an issue that one has not resolved to one’s own satisfaction? (I’ve been arguing with myself over Affirmative Action for thirty years, and I still don’t have the answer.)
So where is it written that one must not, or should not, pose a debatable question unless one has already defined one’s stance?
[/QUOTE]
It isn’t written anywhere, and i don’t think it’s necessary to have a firm stance before posting the thread. In fact, one might post a thread specifically to start a debate that might help one arrive at a conclusion.
The thing is, i guess, that i expect more from a Great Debates OP than a cut-and-paste job and a question along the lines of “Do you think this guy is right or not?” Even if the OP hasn’t taken a firm stand on the issue, the least he or she can do is offer some ideas or proposals that might get the debate rolling, or offer an opinion on one particular part of the issue. I can’t speak for anyone else, but on the occasions that i’ve started a GD thread, i have done so with at least a few thoughts in mind about how the thread might proceed, and have attempted to incorporate them into the OP.
Sure, BrainGlutton returns to his threads and actively participates in them, but on more than one occasion recently i’ve found myself wishing he could add a bit more substance at the beginning rather than just a link and a rather simplistic question. Just MHO.
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
I’m sure I speak for the rest of the world when I say that I’m kind of sick of the petite guerre being waged by John Mace against BrainGlutton, as exemplified by this thread. I wish you guys would have it out here, rather than on the hallowed grounds of GD.
And for what it’s worth, I’m more or less in agreement with John Mace’s basic point, which is that BrainGlutton should offer more of his own argument in an OP, rather than the standard cut-paste-and-whaddayathink? But just sniping at him in GD isn’t working, and it’s begun to be a bit of a drag.
So, John Mace, step up to the plate and explain yourself. Much obliged.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if he’s been explicitly pitted for that before, but it’s come up in a number of pit threads either about him or about that subject. I don’t see any reason to rehash it. So, no, I won’t be doing that. Thanks for asking, though.
As for my requests about what he thinks, I don’t see anything wrong with it. You don’t want to find out what he thinks about his own debate topics?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
As for my requests about what he thinks, I don’t see anything wrong with it. You don’t want to find out what he thinks about his own debate topics?
[/QUOTE]
I do indeed, but I’d like to see it come of his own volition. I hope we don’t need to see you in every thread of his going, “But what do you think?”
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
I do indeed, but I’d like to see it come of his own volition. I hope we don’t need to see you in every thread of his going, “But what do you think?”
[/QUOTE]
Can’t promise you anything, Sal. If you really think that’s worth Pitting me about, be my guest (although I guess you’ve already done that). I strongly suspect that **BG **won’t change any of his behavior unless he is threatened with losing his posting privileges. I’ve seen how he works.
If he does somehow change because of this thread or me asking him what he thinks 20 times in a row, why is that any worse than me opening a Pit thread?
I find the posts on John’s part complained of here no more than mildly annoying. Sometimes I just ignore them. And John is equally free to completely ignore my threads.
Maybe I’ve been snoring but I thought these were just good-hearted tete-a-tetes yiz were engaged in. I may be incorrect in my analysis however.
FWIW I think both **John Mace **and **BrainGlutton **are both very solid posters generally speaking, providing alot of food for thought and the like. hugs all around
I have no problem at all with BG posts. He scours the web looking for the latest atrocities. And these are atrocities! They’re no blow jobs and “I did not have sex with that woman.” These involve thousands of American lives, and 100’s of thousands of Iraqi lives, and the administration wiping their ass with the constitution.
I haven’t seen the GD snipes, but if John Mace has a problem with BG’s posts, maybe John should like change the Pub party. Or offer a factual rebuttal. Or open his fucking eyes. Instead of spouting that days talking points. You know, put up or shut up.
This crap isn’t working and the Dems and the vast majority of the people see that.
hugs all around