But… but… Coldy… “Legions of Duh”… how could you not love that?
Look, if MB Anthropology belongs in another forum, just get Lynn or Alpha or John C. to move us, OK? 
Seriously, Coldie, I can’t see what the problem is. If using the term ‘troll’ isn’t counterproductive, then coming up with a more precise vocabulary for other MB miscreants shouldn’t be a problem either.
Naming things is one of the qualities that makes us human. Greater precision in one’s vocabulary is good. Applying names to increasingly complex quantities allows us to arrange thoughts of still greater complexity more easily.
It’s all part of fighting ignorance.
In looking at the demographics of who seemed to “get” my OP and those who did not think much of the idea, Drain Bead brought up that the people who didn’t like the idea were not frequent posters to the Great Debates forum, where most of these Pod People / Hydras reside and come to prominence.
This being The Straight Dope, I knew that I needed some hard numbers to back this idea. And this is what I came up with for all of the posters on page two of this thread:
POSTER Threads GD Threads Percentage
Kimstu 425 324 76.24%
Snickers 27 15 55.56%
RTFirefly 1219 367 30.11%
SPOOFE Bo Diddly 1826 419 22.95%
Protesilaus 72 15 20.83%
Satan 3540 625 17.66%
Yue Han 461 49 10.63%
Rocket88 266 26 9.77%
sk8rixtx 470 8 1.70%
Coldfire 3437 51 1.48%
Diane 1056 15 1.42%
Silo 1225 16 1.31%
Bboy 4 0 0.00%
I left out Lauralee and Smeghead because their posts didn’t seem to have an opinion either way on the OP.
Sorted by the greatest percentage of total threads posted in Great Debates in relation to all threads posted in, as you can see, the bottom four people are the ones who had problems with this OP.
Whereas the people who had a positive reaction to the OP - or seemed to “get it” at any rate - are all people who have spent considerably more time in Great Debates than the others.
So, I sumbit that the people who have the biggest problem with this OP are the ones who are the least familiar with the subject matter at hand.
While this does leave open the possibility that they read every single post ever made in Great Debates and just didn’t feel motivated to post that much, I would sumbit that the overwhelming numbers makes that unlikely.
Even if we gave them the benefit of the doubt on that, the people actually participating in discussions with these Pod People, Hydras or whatever we want to call them, are the ones who see the merit in this thread.
Oh, you can count me in favor of the OP. I’m always up for mocking jackasses. Of course, I hardly ever post in GD, so if that screws up your demos, feel free to keep leaving me out.
Actually, out of the 1,330 threads you participated in, 74 of them were in Great Debates, Smeghead. This comes out to 5.56% for those keeping score at home. To put that in perspective, you posted to GD only 8 times less overall than the four people at the bottom of the list COMBINED, and you did so in about as many total posts as Silo himself.
So not only did you not screw up my demos, you increased their validity. On top of that, you did so while saying that you “hardly ever post in GD,” yet you do so over three times as often as the nay-sayers!
So, thanks so much for your input! Even though I don’t think “jackasses” is in the running at this point… 
Maybe I’m getting this all misconstrued.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, will ya Satan, ol’ buddy?
Your chart puts me at the bottom of the heap, but I don’t have any problems with your OP.
I even offered up L.O.S.E.R. in support of it.
The only thing I addressed was your M.O. in the ensuing argument.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Bboy *
**
Very observant of you.
Thank you Coldie for being someone else who actually gets it.
Satan, unless you can show the amount of threads we actually READ in any forum, unless you can show any significance to those amounts and our agreement to Coldie’s post above, and unless you obtain the opinions of each participant in those forums, your numbers mean exactly squat shit.
You’re so mean to me! Nah, I figure there’s at least one or two out there that think I’m one of those things you’re trying to name, so I’m staying outta this…
For goodness sake, Lauralee, I can’t imagine Anyone thinking that of you.
We all like you.
LOL! Heh, this is not where I go to find the legions of Lauralee fans! (For that I go chase down UncleBeer or Mully!)
Yeah, I can’t admit I go into GD much.
[sub]Wooo, Diane’s on top on me. ;D[/sub]
First of all, Diane, we can’t get those numbers. Second, I’d say that while the number of posts to GD, by itself and as a fraction of the whole, is a more relevant measure of GD-v.-other-fora participation, Brian would have to open up about 2000 threads, and count our posts, to measure that. Maybe handy has that much time on his hands, but I doubt anyone else does.
Speaking as a credentialed numbers junkie, Brian’s chart is a reasonably good measure of who spends how much time in GD, as opposed to other fora. Someone who spends a lot of time in MPSIMS is likely to both post a lot there, and open a lot of threads there without posting; same for the other fora. Sure, it’s not exact; it certainly underestimates the fraction of my time I spend in GD, for instance. (I frequently post just once or twice to a MPSIMS or IMHO thread, but once I post in a GD thread, I’m likely to be there for the life of the debate.) But it’s close enough for the use Brian’s putting it to.
For instance, Diane, if one out of every 70 threads you post to is in GD, it’s probably safe to say that the GD threads you open, as a fraction of the whole, is well under one out of seven. (If there were a way to independently verify this, I’d cheerfully bet $50 on the proposition. I know a good bet when I construct it. :))
There may be a better way to slice and dice these numbers, but I think that any way you do it, it’ll bear out Brian’s point: the GDers in this thread are much more likely than non-GDers to think that having a better handle on the nature of the miscreants who muck up our forum is, on balance, helpful rather than harmful.
Gosh, I’m so sorry that people have been calling each other names and sniping at one another in this post on name-calling, a process that at its essence is childish and humorous and a very effective way to get a handle on something.
Granted, I haven’t posted much in Great Debates or anywhere else–I hope this doesn’t disqualify me from your “data,” or from voting on a name, Satan–but I 've read some of the GDs including the infamous “most inherently cruel race,” and I think that a poster who fits the description won’t get a sense of validation from a term like CLoD. Since the type of people Satan’s talking about are Clueless, CLoD should go completely over their heads, and it’ll be a good way for those frustrated with the Clueless to vent.
If it’s not too late to post a vote, then I vote for CLoDs. It’s wonderful because it is broad enough. Let’s face it we’ve all been CLoDs about something sometime in our lives, even if it was for a few minutes, because we don’t know everything. Unfortunately, it takes others a little longer to accept their ignorance and learn from it, and sometimes they never escape the Legions of Duh.
RTFirefly:
DNFTPP
Lauralee:
Hey, I included you all SPECIAL and shit! Not in the chart, but in a very select group! You should be pleased by this (almost) singling out! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
chuckle
Uh-huh. I buy that. Just like I should be happy that my husband only missed my birthday by one day. Sure… :rolleyes:
My point exactly.
Unless you have no life, capability to see every thread that every person opens, have determined every poster’s feelings on creating yet another derogatory title, and a few weeks to sort out all of the data, the findings are useless in determining that most posters who read GD post replies in the thread and that those posters are more likely than others to be in favor of creating this new term.
You betcha. I would much rather throw an ass-kickin’ party as opposed to attending one that is lame. If you read this entire thread you will see I am not alone in thinking your party will be over by 7:00 p.m.
</coventry>
Some people don’t know how to read, but you should expect as much from people who are just trolling to agitate:
So, it seems that Diane’s oh-so eloquent “it doesn’t mean shit” was already addressed before she even made the (for lack of a better word even though it makes it sound like she actually had one) point.
To repeat it since she obviously missed it the first time: Even IF you read every thread in Great Debates, it’s quite another thing to interact. Clearly, you (and the others) have not interacted. That is a fact as sure as the nose on her spiteful face.
No wonder you don’t post much in Great Debates, Diane. You’re clearly out of your league.
I’d suggest you continue to eschew the forum, toots, but it seems from the evidence that you already are keenly aware of your limitations. Stick to The Pit where gratuitous insults and trolling for attention are par for the course.
We in Great Debates continue to appreciate you leaving the intellectual pursuits to those who actually possess a modicum of intellect.
<coventry>
You wouldn’t be calling me a troll now, would you? Mods correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that a no-no?
Oh my fucking hell! HA HA!!!
This is the first time this week that I snorked snot out of my nose from an unexpected, gut-busting laugh! You have really got to be kidding, right? “We” in Great Debates? You say that as if you are part of some intellectual club. HA HA HA!!! You’re a dumbass, Brian, and you are too stupid to realize it.
First of all, there is no “we” in Great Debates. It is an open forum that all registered posters have a right to participate. Secondly, a large percentage of a person’s posts being in GD is not a sign of intelligence as you so aptly demonstrate, look around, there are intelligent people (Tom, Phil, and others never fails to impress me) but there are also many who are quite stupid and are always good for a laugh. And third, being involved in a GD thread usually means that you need to spend more time online than you normally would in other forums. In other words, those of us with a life outside the SDMB don’t have a lot of time to sit in front of the computers for hours on end researching cites. Some of us have jobs, family, IRL friends, responsibilities, interests outside a keyboard. If there is a topic that particularly draws my interest and I have the desire and the time to get involved, I will. However, it has to be important enough to me that I am willing to sacrifice a lot of my IRL time, 99.9% of the time I am not willing to give that up. Comprehende’? It has nothing to do with whether or not I can “hold my own”. You have already proven that it isn’t required to “hold your own” in GD.
It’s simple. I thought your OP sucked and I told you. It sucked. I can’t help it if you are a fuckin crybaby and can’t deal with an opposing view. Don’t post if you can’t handle each and every response you get, m’kay? You put down some numbers that prove nothing. You get your pretty pink panties in a twist and resort to calling me a “twat”, although I am a little disappointed that you didn’t use your favorite pet name “cunt”. You have yet to convince those of us in this thread who disagree with your OP that your OP is a great idea. You have yet to answer my valid comments with anything other than insults. You obviously don’t know the meaning of coventry.
And you have the balls to assume that you are some great asset to GD???
As I said. . . . HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Robert Anson Heinlein