Ever consider exploring what options are available when you join a new board? You might find all sorts of interesting features all by yourself. That particular option is not that hard to find. Another possibility is to ask a question, e.g. “Other boards I’m on show me what threads I’ve posted to without e-mailing me. Is there a way to do that here?”
I am not sure if I have been registered long enough or made enough posts for my opinion to be counted in such a discussion, but here goes…
As a long-time lurker and a recent (but prolific!) poster I have to disagree. Sure there is some overlap, but I can see (if not adequately explain) a great difference in their purpose and the need for both.
Maybe, but not really. And I for one would be irritated to see the name dropped or changed. I remember when “Mundane and Pointless Stuff I Must Share” was coined (on usenet) and see its meaning, intent and even necessity as a forum name. 
For those who know the history of the title, it would be sad to see it go and it would be hard to place MPSIMS posts into other categories so a lot of those discussions would end up being dropped altogether. And the world be a lesser place. 
I agree that it is idiotic, but I am 100% sure it has nothing to do with mods/admins hating change. I think it is more likely that they found the system (and forum categories) that work, so why mess with it?
Well it really means ‘worldly’, as I discovered when I was trying to look up the word for ‘worldly’ in Spanish and it’s mundano, same as the word for mundane, and clearly derived from the world mundo, world. If I want to do a bit of amateur etymology, I would guess that it acquired its current connotation of ‘unimportant’ from phrases like ‘worldly concerns’, suggesting that things that are of this world are unimportant in the face of things that are heavenly and holy.
With that said, I’ve posted about some things in MPSIMS that are neither M nor P, and I think it’s a general consensus here on the Dope that the board’s name is to be taken with a grain of salt.
It’s a linguistic fallacy to say that a word’s “real” meaning is encoded in its etymology.
I’ve never tasted colon myself. Just doesn’t seem like anything that would amuse my palate. To each his/her own, I guess.
I agree, but can we also agree that a word’s “real” meaning is the dictionary-definition?
From dictionary.com:
I have never seen any use of “mundane” to mean “important.”
As for the row of question marks, I was speaking to the disgusting obsequiousness of posters who reassure the refs they are right when they are dead wrong.
I am sorry that you haven’t seen “mundane” used as it is (sometimes) here. Perhaps you shouldn’t argue the meanings of words when you are merely unfamiliar with them.
Since your incomprehensible post was directed at me…and really it made no sense at all, I was understandably confused.
Perhaps your ire would be better directed at those who would reassure refs (or anybody else) when they are wrong, rather than those of us who will speak up when something that is being done well and correctly is unfairly criticized.
Find me one example where the word is used that way without a religious/spiritual contrast of “the earthly” and “the celestial” and would make perfect sense aligned with “pointless” to refer to the lost of thousands of lies.
I have a solution. Every time you see MPSIMS, use your imagination to pretend that the name is something that’s in accord with the stuff that’s in the forum.
Problem solved.
I am sorry, I don’t understand what you are asking. Do you want me (or someone else here) to cite usage of the word that meets one of its meanings, but only in the specific way that you want?
I’m not playing that game. You have the definitions, and might be a little hurt in the pride that you were wrong, and that’s okay…happens to all of us I am sure. But I believe that this is akin to asking me (us) to do your homework.
I am saying that your dictionary definition, whichever dictionary it is, has to be taken grossly out of context to have this meaning you claim it has, that it is merely a synonym for “geological” and might be used to refer to “world events” in a secular or even journalistic or scientific context. It is not my homework to find such an example, because I do not take the position that anyone ever, ever uses it in that context.
So this is what the thread has devolved into?
A discussion over the “real” meaning of “mundane.” I guess I can put discussion in quotes, too.
Questions about evolution go in Great Debates.
I didn’t realize a dictionary could be taken out of context, as its context is a list of words and their meanings.
I did not claim the word has any meaning at all. I cited a dictionary entry claiming its meaning. Maybe you’d be better off arguing with the writers/compilers of the dictionary about what you perceive as proper/improper use.
I never took any position on it other than the dictionary definition of the word, it is not my responsibility to convince you that the dictionary is correct or incorrect.
And none of this has anything to do with whether a new category should be created, so my apologies for my part in this tangent.
Finn wins the thread.
cricetus said:
Amusingly, Gfactor started his thread with “not moderating” to clearly indicate that he was posting as a regular poster. So you didn’t get a warning or anything, he was just making the observation that your bitch is that the forums don’t seem to have a category you want, but you can’t seem to use the categories there are in the way they are intended, so making a new category wouldn’t help that. Now maybe it was a simple error on your part, but certainly an amusing one.
cricetus said:
So instead we can create an “In the News” forum, and you can post about 100,000 deaths between a discussion of the proposed health care plan and the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt ongoing fiasco?
By the way, MPSIMS was also where there was a lengthy post about the death of one of our members (WallyM7), and getting information from his family. So discussing deaths in Haiti would be in good company.
Silverstreak Wonder said:
But this board has changed over time. Suggestions for improvement have been taken.
[cranky old man]Back when I started posting here, there was just one forum - Cecil’s Columns. Then at some point someone wanted to talk about something besides Cecil’s columns, so they made a second forum - NOT Cecil’s Columns. It’s been downhill ever since.[/cranky old man]
Seriously, the forums we currently have are the result of changes over time. Game Room and IMHO and Cafe Society all used to be part of MPSIMS.
cerberus said:
That structure certainly would work for a board. But there’s no reason why every board has to be structured the same way. This board has a structure that has been in place for a long time and seems to work. There’s no need for a massive overhaul just to satisfy the fact that the “general interest” forum packs a name that some people find unsatisfying.
Silverstreak Wonder said:
Actually, that’s a lousy idea that doesn’t make sense. You are creating a bunch of work for the moderators for little gain. Now someone has to patrol that board and move every thread at some point to a different forum. And that also makes it harder to find a thread, because you post in “Breaking News” and then miss a day (doing work, life, whatever), and then come back to look for it and have to check 2 forums?
Justin_Bailey said:
Actually, at one time they were one forum. IIRC IMHO was pulled out of MPSIMS largely to reduce the bulk of MPSIMS. It was envisioned as kind of a GD light - not so much Great Debates as mini debates or debates about the trivial. Chocolate vs Vanilla, crunchy or smooth, etc.
It’s not that it’s not up for discussion, it’s that you have to provide a good rationale and refute the reason the split was originally made. If you don’t think they should be separate, the first step is asking “why are they separate”, not cursing out the mods because they won’t listen to your idea.
MitzeKatze said:
Everybody’s opinion can be counted, if they take the effort to be informed.
I don’t believe anyone is suggesting the content go away, just that the name for the forum is misleading.
cricetus said:
Someone has a different opinion than you and that makes them a butt-kisser? You must be fun at parties.
MitzeKatze said:
You are the one making the assertion, the onus is on you. The dictionary cite is not convincing. The question appears to be over how that definition applies. Does it really mean that “mundane” is another word for “geological”? I don’t believe it does.
MitzeKatze said:
It’s not the book (electronic database, whatever) that is being taken out of context, it is the definition entry.
I don’t believe the dictionary entry is actually saying that the word “mundane” is a synonym (in one of its meanings) for “geological”. It is not the dictionary writers at fault.
Here’s a forum I’d like to see: By Invitation Only. I was going to propose this a while back as an experiment. A poster can start a debate, but only have it open to specific posters. I think this would be good for a lot of debates where the OP has a minority opinion. It’s often very difficult to field questions by 10 or 15 posters at a time. also, there are some debates, say those around a Creator God, where certain posters always come in and degrade the debate by posting old tired argument, e.g., Flying Spaghetti Monster. There may not be anything with bringing up FSMs in general, but most often its a way to just shut down the debate. So the OP can choose to either invite those posters who are known to bring something like that into the debate or not.
To explain a little further, I cold start a thread on God, but not invite those posters (I can’t remember who they are right now, other then Der Trihs) who I feel degrade the debate. And the OP would signal the serious of debate he wants to have by who he invites. If you just choose people who agree with you, well that won;t be much of a debate and the invitees probably wouldn’t want to participate. And once a debate began, someone could ask to be able to participate.
Also, and I probably should have stated this earlier. The OP could set the terms of debate. For instance, “no mention of FSMs, etc.”
I think these threads could elevate the level of debate. and they could also act as an example for good, fair, sensible debate that could positively affect other fora.