What do we call these fucking people?

The BBQ Pit
101

Satan, couple o’ points, OK?
[ul][li]Correlation does not equal Causality. Look the two terms up in a Statistics book of your preference. Your comparison, while showing some correlation, bears no established relation to the matter we’re discussing here. Therefore, it is insubstantial.[/li]Having said that: it’s quite possible that the “Pod People” you refer to mainly post in GD. It would have been BETTER in your case to include THOSE statistics as well (No, please don’t. They would underline your statictical hypothesis, but they would NOT improve your logical premise - which would still lack causality).
[li]For someone who accuses another poster of insults and Ad Hominem attacks, you sure curse at Diane a lot.[/li][li]Your “We in Great Debates” and “you’d be out of your league” comments are, well, pathetic. I’ve read them a few times, trying to see if there was something I was missing. Nope. You’re basically assuming someone’s intellectually inferior to you because:[/li][list][li]They disagree with your OP;[/li][li]They do not post in Great Debates a lot.[/ul]That is nothing short of ridiculous, Satan. If this is your command of logic, I’d just as easily submit that a logic-driven forum like GD (well, at times it is, anyway) might not be the right place for you. Of course, you wouldn’t catch me making such an unfounded allegation. So I won’t.[/list][/li][sub][sup]It’s a test. If he has adequate deductive capabilities, he’ll see this is not an allegation, nor an implication of one. It is is a logical appendix to his own faulty premises as laid out above.[/sup][/sub]

There’s many reasons why people don’t post to Great Debates. I, for one, see absolutely no use in debating topics that have no answer, or are based on intangiable matters. That pretty much rules out religion and politics, which makes up 95% of GD. I’ll chime in here and there where a topic sparks my interest, but as a rule, I check the GD topic list maybe once or twice a day. Quick Scan. Does that make me dumb? Unfit? A lower class poster? I should hope not.

Then there’s the argument that, since becoming a moderator, I post a lot in forums where I never posted before - or never to that extent, at least. Which reminds me: I’d better check out the stove in my kitchen, instead of pointing out the obvious in someone elses.

102

In the past coupla weeks, I’ve managed to hold the point against fairly determined opposition that (a) Reagan’s tax cuts increased Federal revenues negligibly at best, (b) that the Reagan-era Congress didn’t spend us into the deficits of that period, © that current Federal estate tax law doesn’t force the breakup of family farms and small businesses, and (d) the Federal estate tax is, by a set of standards whose reasonableness no one on either side has questioned, the tax that weighs most lightly of any on the American body politic, hence should be the last tax to be reduced.

So, Coldie, how exactly does your lack of desire to debate “topics that have no answer, or are based on intangiable matters” rule out politics?

There are many reasons for staying out of GD; you’re right that simple avoidance of GD doesn’t mean one isn’t up to it. And some people (including some who spend too much time in GD, the subject of a recent Pit thread of mine) genuinely don’t have what it takes for GD, because they can’t seem to differentiate valid arguments from invalid.

What Diane has effectively said in her recent post is that partial data are no better than none at all. Either the field of statistics is invalid, or she’s made a bad argument. You choose.

Maybe Satan’s “you’d be out of your league” comments are overreaching, with only this thread as their basis, but at least they’re based on something. And that’s sure as shootin’ enough backing for a Pit flame (and we are in the Pit right now, IIRC).

[quote]
You’re basically assuming someone’s intellectually inferior to you because:
[ul][li]They disagree with your OP;[/li][li]They do not post in Great Debates a lot.[/ul]That is nothing short of ridiculous, Satan. If this is your command of logic, I’d just as easily submit that a logic-driven forum like GD (well, at times it is, anyway) might not be the right place for you. Of course, you wouldn’t catch me making such an unfounded allegation. So I won’t.[/list][/li][/quote]

Well, you just did, as I noted above.

But the point Brian’s making (aside from slamming Diane) is that people who spend a lot of time in GD perhaps have a better understanding of what seems to be primarily a GD-based phenomenon. You’re confusing the two issues - this one, and Brian’s claim that Diane isn’t up to GD.

And, to reiterate, Brian’s assumption is based on Diane’s lousy argument.

[quote]
[ul][li]Correlation does not equal Causality. Look the two terms up in a Statistics book of your preference. Your comparison, while showing some correlation, bears no established relation to the matter we’re discussing here. Therefore, it is insubstantial. [/ul][/li][/quote]

Sorry, Coldie, wrong again. The argument goes like this:
[ul]
[li]The Pod People are principally a GD affliction.[/li][li]People who spend a lot of time in GD are more likely to grasp a GD problem better than those who spend little time there.[/li][li]The critics of naming the Pod People post far less to GD than the supporters of naming them.[/li][li]Therefore the supporters of naming are more likely to be on the right track than the opponents.[/ul][/li]Brian was using statistics in support of the third bullet point, and quite legitimately so. He was making no causation argument.

In the words of David B, thanks for playing.

103

“Us?” “Different?”
This discussion was amusing (okay, flat-out hilarious at times) when it was a routine rant against annoying board behavior. Nuthin’ against Dopers doin’ their outspoken, funny, self-cleaning riff. But it’s taken a fairly ugly, serious turn, IMO.

Who, pray tell, is “us”? Sheesh, as if there haven’t been enough accusations about ruling cliques, etc. Otherness and ::gasps:: differences! “defined” by totally asinine, indefensible quasi-statistics?! Participation in this discussion correlated to posting frequency in ONE forum is supposed to lend legitimacy to mob-approved labels? Hey, just for fun let’s toss in post counts again–BUT only if they’re within carefully, artifically defined limits! What FUN! Posting is all. Reading–and possibly, just possibly–basic comprehension are nil.
Mother 'o pearl, this whole ugly argument is an exercise in what it purports to disdain: relentless nitpicking based on vague or non-existent evidence! Don’t agree? You’re wrong; repressive, evil and WRONG.

Where in all the known and speculated universe have you people been? It’s somehow escaped your notice that Dopers are collectively able, if not positively blood-thirsty, to express their own responses to individual behavior? They can’t take people as individuals, interact and adapt? You couldn’t stifle this crew in sabotaged scuba gear.

Note: for the professionally paranoid, take a gander that this wasn’t posted as a moderator. Yeah, we’re allowed to do that. We’re posters who haul out empties, rescue the cat and chase dry-humping couples outta the can so other people can use the facilities. You’re making us facist assholes look bad, y’know?

Veb

104

Obviously, not you, Veb :smiley:

Jeez, can you people lighten the fuck up? You’re acting like we just butt-raped Cecil himself. This thread has addressed the extremely stubborn and often in-denial types that occasionally pass through GD. Coldy, I know you’re a Mod and all and you have to be wary of things that may stir up more controversy, but Jeezum Crow, there are things that, obviously, annoy a lot of people. This thread was inspired because of the influence of one poster (who already had a thriving Pit thread about him) and set out to figure out what the hell we should call this “kind” of poster. The OP listed several other examples of this “kind” of poster.

In short, we’re trying to come up with a new name because these types of posters are NOT TROLLS. As Diane kindly pointed out, accusing other people of being Trolls is not allowed, so we’re trying to follow the rules. Granted, some may argue that “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, but there’s more to this than simple semantics.

I know you want to dispute Satan’s numbers on the previous page… allow me to present you with a jumbo-sized “Whoosh!” The point, dear Coldy (and Diane), is that this sort of CLoD (tee-hee…) is one that has most recently been prominent in GD. Sure, GD may not be your cup of tea… I don’t care. I don’t think it should matter in a general sense. I find just as much genius (and stupidity) in GD as I do in GQ or MPSIMS. But, the fact remains, you haven’t had to deal with the aforementioned poster as much as some others. So I find it understandable that you don’t have the annoyance so fresh on your mind.

So, Coldy, Diane, I just want your opinion (I know you’ve posted it already, but a recap for the sake of posterity would be appreciated)… given that pseudo-cliques and “classifications” run rampant in any MB community, what is so horrible about figuring out a quick and easy term to refer to “painfully stubborn, dense, and circuler posters”?

(Note: Feel free to take this as an attack, even though it isn’t one. In my mind, simply throwing gibes back and forth is as “unconstructive” as coming up with new name classifications)

105

TVeblen: That seems a pretty gross distortion of what Satan was saying. He wasn’t saying that only people who post a certain number of times in GD can post here, he was merely trying to figure out if there was any correlation between people who agreed with his OP and how often they post in GD, in support of his original argument that this type of poster was common enough to get their own nickname. Since Satan is hypothesizing that this type of poster is most common in GD, it follows (to me, at least) that people who frequently participate in GD are more likely to recognize that such a nickname is needed. The fact that he can’t provide a number for often you read in GD is not that big a deal. There’s a difference between watching an argument and being in one (as I’m sure I’m about to find out.)

This whole thing seems pretty pointless to me in the first place. Seemed aparent that the OP was just an excuse to bitch about a certain type of especially thickheaded poster, a type so narrowly defined that any name dreamed up for them is almost certainly never going to be remembered outside of this thread. Some people, however, apparently felt it was necessary to force a controversy where one really wasn’t needed.

106

A-fucking-men.

107

You make it seem like I said: “All debates about politics are about intangiable matters, and (therefore?) have no answers”. A moderately skilled reader can see that I said no such thing. Nor did I wish to imply that. I will not be drawn into a game of word-twisting with you, RTFirefly. I gave an example of a reason not to like GD. Here’s another one: being Dutch, my knowledge on American politics is somewhat limited. I’m sure you’ll find a way to turn that statement against me as well?

Precisely - and that was the entire point.

In this case, “the field of statisitics” or, rather, the way it was applied here, is indeed invalid.

Yes, we are. I’m not gonna debate Satans substantiation of his allegation that Diane “would be out of her league” in GD, for the simple fact that I disagree with the statement itself, and the implication that one forum would somehow be “better” than the other. These statements are based on something? On what, exactly? Satans perception of Diane’s intelligence? The assumption that a GD-poster is somehow “smarter” than another poster (given a GD/Total ratio of, say, 30%)? I’m sorry, RTF, but this is plain nonsense. If you’re all hung up about evidence and substantiation, you’d be better off agreeing with me that statements as those above make no sense whatsoever.

[quote]

Which goes to show you’re not reading carefully. Unless I’m mistaken here, you’re saying I am suggesting GD is not the place for Satan. Read it again. I’m not.

No, not exactly. Here’s the deal:[ul][li]I recognize Satans attempt to substabtiate his argument by implementing a little statistics. However, I’m arguing that his use of statistics is poor, and in this case, proves very little.[/li][li]I wholeheartedly disagree with the mere implication that someone would “be out of their league” in GD, if such an implication is based on as little evidence as I have seen in this thread.[/ul] So tell me, where exactly am I confused?[/li]

You clearly demonstrate one major pitfall of using statistics here: you can use them to back up anything you want. Satan was indeed not making any causation argument. That’s the problem right there. The fact that you chose to ignore that problem by subsequently fitting a seemingly right logic around it does not make the initial point valid. His statistics are used incorrectly. I even hinted at how he could have improved his point statistically, although I immediately told him it would not have made his points any more valid, because correlation alone says, well, fuck all.
RTFirefly, I have no idea about your educational and/or professional background. I can only judge from my own perspective: I’m an academically schooled economist with a more than average grasp of statistics. Trust me on this one: my reasoning is sound here. Bear in mind that I am only referring to the statistics Brian used in this case. The rest, of course, is all opinion. And maybe an incentive to revise the rulebook a bit, who knows.

A bit premature, I’d say. I’m sure David wouldn’t want to see his words used this lightly.

108

Best line ever!

109

Then what part of “I, for one, see absolutely no use in debating topics that have no answer, or are based on intangiable matters. That pretty much rules out religion and politics, which makes up 95% of GD” doesn’t one of us understand?

Actually, I understood the part about ‘intangible matters’ to apply to religion. (Seemed logical at the time, and still does.)

Not that fast, pal. I was talking about her argument, which, regardless of the truth or falsity of Satan’s argument, did indeed say what I said it did. And since you’re familiar with statistics as a field, you are aware that it’s precisely about what can be determined from less than complete data.

Nope. I was referring to your willingness to make unfounded allegations, having given an example of same.

Let’s see - ‘seemingly’ right logie. The flaw?

If Brian’s statistics are used incorrectly, then either I’ve incorrectly explained what he was using them for, or I’ve explained correctly, but somehow his use of statistics is invalid anyway. I don’t see any support of either claim here.

Academically schooled mathematician, also with more than an average grasp of statistics.

Maybe this is the Pit, rather than GD, but I wouldn’t accept that answer there.

110

Aw, fuck it, I’m outta here.

RTFirefly will be with you shortly to claim victory of this “debate”, and Satan will be along with a new series of funny names for people-who-appear-normal-but-then-turn-out-to-be-trolls.

Have fun, kids. Obviously, some people like arguing for the sake of arguing, no matter what the topic at hand is. I’m not one of them, as you may have guessed.

111

:slight_smile: Coldy and Diane, sittin’ in a tree… :slight_smile:

112

Quick. Using statistics, please prove how much time I spend in GD. I am not asking you to show me how many posts I have made, but how much time I have spent there. You can’t, therefore your argument is also invalid.

It is simple.

(C&P from prior post)

I think the only thing you will accomplish by creating yet another title to be placed on some of the jackasses (OMG, I used a descriptive word!!) that post here, (1) is asking for the same problems we had with the word “troll”, (2) giving these people some sort of validation by the added attention, and (3) unnecessary.

That’s just my opinion, but Jeeeezus, in light of his response, you would have thought I had asked Brian to bend over or something.

Uhh, the field of statistics is invalid. I think that I and others have already explain why.

I’m not taking your post as an attack. I agree with you that throwing gibes is unconstructive, however, if Brian wants to attack me for giving my feelings on his OP, then I will swing back. It’s obvious that he has to resort to his bag of vulgarities that shows him to be nothing more than a hysterical CLoD (hey looky, I used THE word) instead of actually arguing his point, but that has come to be expected from him. Guess that comes from his GD experience. :rolleyes:

Funny response from someone who seems to be turning blue and really, really needs to take a breath.

I wish! :smiley:

113

Jack Dean Tyler : GD - 6 out of 21 = 29%. Pit - 6/21 = 29%. GQ 5/21 = 24%

BickByro: GD - 4 out of 26 = 15%. Pit - 5/26 = 19%. GQ - 6/26 = 23%. IMHO - 7 out of 26 = 27%.

Neither of them stand out as having particularly high GD ratios. BB in particular has 3 forums with higher values.

So what am I saying here? That these characters are not GD phenomenon? No - no arguments there.

My point is that the statistic that Satan has used is not particularly meaningful since it doesn’t even highlight the most egregious recent examples beyond the background noise.

To elaborate, the critical thing about this kind of poster is that they sink their teeth into one issue and post like crazy in one thread. If we were able to see these statistics in terms of posts rather than threads then they may have been of more use. But by their very nature they do not highlight a poster’s involvement with this type of one-trick pony.

And to finally get to the key point - affected posters are going to be those who posted to these one-trick threads. There is no reason to assume that these will be the same people who have a tendency to post to the run-of-the-mill economic/religious/political threads that is the meat and drink of everyday GD.

A simple numerical example will help.

This example is not, I feel, far-fetched. Indeed it seems to me to be typical of how these events genreally unravel. This is why JDT only has 29% GD and BB only has 15%. And the esoteric issues they choose are precisely those most likely to draw the non-GD regulars out of their GQ and Pit closets. I’m a GD regular (with a statistic of 47%, if anyone cares), but I was barely affected by the JDT and BB phenomenon, precisely because they weren’t discussing the usual GD fare and hence the subjects weren’t my usual fields of interest.

I’m an academically schooled statistician. And I use dodgy data every day in professional life, trying to statistically clean it up in order to make it meaningful. This particular statistic reeks.

pan

114

Jeepers.

What began as a thread discussing possible names for certain Single-subject Obsessives (SSOs – hey, there’s another possibility!) somehow morphs into 500-word rants in which posters bash each other over the head with spurious posting statistics. And somehow I find myself on the second list in less than a week.

People, if you can’t stay civil and on topic, take it to the Pit.

Oh, wait, this IS the Pit.

Never mind.

115

and to follow up the point made by kabbes, I did a little checking myself. Now, if you’d have asked me, I’d have thought my numbers would reflect that most of my time was spent in Great Debates. Certainly, if I’m likely to follow a thread it’ll be in there. but, I checked my numbers, and I’m at 16.17% (231 threads out of 1428 -but wait, now it’ll be 1429 arghhhhhh). which puts me just behind Satan’s percentage, so I don’t know if he’d count me as one of “us” in GD.

However.
ya know who has a 18.52%? (68 out of 367)
Wildest Bill

I think my point is made.

(ftr on the OP, I agreed with Diane & Coldfire, having a ‘name’ for them will serve to add credence to the oft repeated and denied ‘clique’ behavior, will spawn the inevitable “what does hydra mean” threads like the oft repeated ‘what’s with Hi Opal’, and is redundant, since we have such a wide variety of perfectly wonderful words to use should the need arise. Besides, if you’re talking about using the word to describe some one in Great Debates, that forum frowns on personal insults, n’est ce pas? OTOH, if this thread is merely intended for fun and games of 'gee isn’t it annoying to deal with folks who exhibit tendancies we dislike, well, fine carry on).

116

I don’t really understand this thread. I mean, I understand the words, and the sentences and paragraphs and posts and all, but I really don’t understand why everybody’s getting so excited. What exactly is the argument about? That people who obsessively post on a topic are annoying? Is there really even an argument or is it more that one person said something that hurt somebody else’s feelings, and so, instead of letting it go, the other person felt he or she NEEDED to respond, and it just degenerated into a bunch of ad homenims? If that’s the case, wouldn’t it just be better for everyone to say I’m sorry, before the thread has a heart attack from the collective stress and high blood pressure? But, like I said, I don’t really understand the thead, so I’m sure you’re all arguing about something really high-minded logically.

117

Well I think this thread is about satan’s rat pack mentality of “us” against “them”.

Ugly mindset.

Guess which group he’s going to label me into, like I would give a shit.

118

Wooohooooo!!!

My GD rating is 66%.

My name preference goes in this order:

[1] Hydra
[2] Clods
[3] Pod People

I suggest we weight the voting:)

119

To the OP …

Satan, I believe this describes and names them http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame67.html.

120

And I think it’s about Satan’s annoyance over stubborn posters who seem to run around with their fingers in their ears.

Based on the actions of some of the people referred to in the OP, I can’t fault him his annoyance.