I get that a lot around here for some reason. . .
quote]roger
Campion, I love you and want you to have my babies.
[/quote]
You misspelled half.
Campion, this would come to no good – a mixture of Scottish peerage and newbie, you know…
See, in this way you demonstrate that my point flew right over your head. (Perhaps you should consult your method for assertaining the author’s intentions.) I was attempting to point out the utter irrelevance of your little recital of that model of communication. With this message, you continue to blabber on about things no one cares about because you’re under the misapprehension that it makes you look smart.
Needless to say, I’m familiar with postmodernism, being an occasional student of literature and being constantly exposed (albeit unwillingly) to the postmodernist bullshit that infests the social sciences through my main course of study. I just didn’t bother to carefully read what you wrote once I figured out that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I must say, I find it fascinating that you’ve given up even trying to demonstrate the veracity of your assertion that we’re “newist” here. Have you (saints be praised!) grasped the fact that it is an untenable position?
I for one find myself mistrustful of anyone who presents an opinion as if it were unassailable truth. You say in your OP
- in other words, you don’t bother to stop and demonstrate your claim. You just make a bare assertion, with the expectation (I suppose) that by snowing folks under with references to philosophers, we’ll assume you must be right about it.
One thing I do when I’m presented with a claim is assess whether the claimant has bothered to argue at all to support their case, or whether they’re just presenting an opinion as if it were revealed truth. Your opinion is that we exhibit constant “newism” (couldn’t you have coined a better term than that?) but you didn’t stop to try to demonstrate that it’s true. I don’t trust people who don’t try to argue their point. In fact, it’s almost a guiding principle of mine - if someone can’t even justify a claim through an argument, putting forth a logical set of reasons to believe them, then chances are very slim that they have anything to say at all.
Once again, this heuristic has been successful.
Not so much with the Scottish peers – now if you were to say that he’s a mutant, I’d be interested. 
See, I fixed your coding. All this love I feel inside of me just needs an outlet, ya see.
But I’m only a sort of newbie according to my latest Number One Fan.
Oh, I can help you out! See that set of little holes in the wall over there? Yes, with that plastic cover around them. Now, if you’ll stick your wiener in one of the holes… 
Then we probably have far more in common than we have not in common.
Sacre bleu! Last time someone tried that one on me - my wife, as I recall - I refused to talk to her for the rest of the evening, and went and read my old school reports which said I was a good writer.
Steady on there. You’ve cited Liberal! How can I compete with Don Henley and David Brent.
Bloody hell! That’s the last straw - I’m getting our domestic helper to fax my school reports over. I spent nearly half an hour thinking of the best neologism for what I wanted to describe, checked it with my wife, who told me it was “brilliant, Roger, absolutely brilliant!” (her exact words - can’t get more empirical than that, matey), and even polled a few of the people in the office whose English is half decent. That’s what I call a qualitative research programme.
Q.E.D.
The name stays.
Sad thing is, these days it would probably fit in any of the three of them…
Hey Roger since your back and all, mind showing me a single instance where guinnog was put down simply for being new? My bet is you will wax faux philisophic as usual and ignore this simple and repeated request.
You need to even ask? Did you see his reply to my last post?
Ol’ rog can see that he’s making untenable claims. He won’t admit it, but he’s sure stopped trying to argue.
Not to mention that, while guinnog was trying to demonstrate his genius, he said something about being amazed at what was crawling out of the woodwork. Dangerously close to an admission of trolling, that.
He also said he’d been lurking here for a long time and felt he had the culture of the boards nailed.
I feel sorry for people who don’t catch on to the culture, get nailed for it, figure out what they did wrong and move on. Sometimes we ARE harder on them than we should be.
I feel no regret over the other two kinds, the ones who when someone says “you are new here, you may not know…” come back with “I’ve been lurking a long time!” and the type that when informed about our ways don’t choose to acknowledge a hundred posters saying “hey, you did bad” with “well, maybe I was the one out of line.” guinnog did both.
There are two different things which people seem to be confusing: a) the posting rules/guidelines for each forum here at SDMB, and b) the “culture of the SDMB”.
This thread is aimed at showing how ungracious, narrow-minded and pernicious the latter notion is. That people can believe that a board with, over the years, more than 50,000 members from a multitude of places and cultures can have one monolithic, homogeneous culture is very disappointing. This place works best as a place for the sharp clash of deeply held ideas. Regarding the oft-feted community aspect of the board, it is a by-product of the dynamic of people coming together to share opinions on matters of interest to them. As soon as you attempt to obtain friends through a board like this, its potency (both for generating friendships as well as for the exchange of opinions) will falter. I think constant cognizance should be taken of this.
As for a), I have no problem with this at all. Like all social institutions, this place needs rules and rulers (plus plenty of checks and balances so we can keep the rulers in check). Generally, the Admin and Mods do a very good job. Only when they let their personal dislike of another person affect their judgement do they run severe risks of not living up to their job duties. Fortunately, this doesn’t happen very often.
Congratulations on your utter failure.
I don’t agree.
He didn’t fail to show us what a helpless, hopeless, sad little brain - bodswood - pardon me, ahem - : Roger Thornhill has.
roger, one thing you figure out when you turn into an adult is this: not everyone believes the same things you do, and not everyone sees the world in the same way. Now, you seem to believe it is axiomatic that we are unfriendly to new people, but all the evidence that I’ve seen points to the contrary. No one else here seems to agree with you either.
You need to either put forth an argument to prove the point you’re trying to make, or admit that your point is groundless. I’m not sure why you’re confused here - do you understand that you’re arguing from premises that most people here don’t share? I can only come up with two rational explanations for your continual refusal to actually provide some evidence for your assertions - either you’re one of those misunderstood genius types, like lekatt or the Timecube guy, and you think you deserve our wholehearted agreement simply because you are always right, or else you’ve realized that your argument is unreasonable but you’re stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge it. What’s the answer, roger? Why do you expect everyone to agree with you when you won’t even provide any argument to support your point?
Do you intend to show us at some point, then?
Honestly, I don’t understand your unwillingness to offer an argument. Are you so arrogant that you feel yourself to be above arguments to support your point? If not, then what?
Originally posted by Excalibre
Attention whoring?