Dinobot
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- May 19, 2015
- Messages
- 4,449
- Location
- Broadcasting from the moon...
I'm being judicious.
Of course Stu is...Thou art a merciful and compassionate Mod.
I'm being judicious.
Of course Stu is...Thou art a merciful and compassionate Mod.
Only at weekends.Of course Stu is...
Both regularly make the mag, which is the guide we follow in this kind of thing (though obvs we have no connection with the mag these days at all in any way whatsoever. No no no).I may be embarking on dangerous territory, but I can't see anything Fortean about 'Weird Sex' or 'odd and ill advised rectal insertions'. sexuality.
I may be embarking on dangerous territory, but I can't see anything Fortean about 'Weird Sex' or 'odd and ill advised rectal insertions'. Such things may be off the grid but I don't see the connection to Forteana, which should be (as I understand it) about events that are incompatible with mainstream science. There is nothing about the outer regions of human sexuality that is Fortean, however much it may be outside our individual understanding of sexuality.
You took the words out of my mouth (well, fingers), Stu, and managed to use fewer of them than I would have. Another example is Fortean Headlines, which are often not about Fortean things, but are more akin to FT's EXTRA! EXTRA! section: headlines that are odd on their own.Both regularly make the mag, which is the guide we follow in this kind of thing (though obvs we have no connection with the mag these days at all in any way whatsoever. No no no).
There's nothing much to do around here either.Personally, I would miss Weird Sex and Rectal Insertions if they were gone.
There's nothing much to do around here either.
You took the words out of my mouth (well, fingers), Stu, and managed to use fewer of them than I would have. Another example is Fortean Headlines, which are often not about Fortean things, but are more akin to FT's EXTRA! EXTRA! section: headlines that are odd on their own.
I can accept that. I tend to be a bit rigid in categorising. Comes of my career.You took the words out of my mouth (well, fingers), Stu, and managed to use fewer of them than I would have. Another example is Fortean Headlines, which are often not about Fortean things, but are more akin to FT's EXTRA! EXTRA! section: headlines that are odd on their own.
I think that both FT and this forum embrace the idea that "Fortean" - or at least "things of interest to those who call themselves Forteans" - includes not just the paranormal or supernatural, but pretty much anything odd, out of place, or unusual. We probably all agree that cryptozoology is Fortean, but I have seen it argued that zoology and cryptozoology are the same thing - cryptozoologists just concentrate their efforts on the legendary, the disputed, and the odd.
Personally, I would miss Weird Sex and Rectal Insertions if they were gone.
It's not that mods haven't got a sense of humour here. They have. Sometimes .. but the constant Cromer bombs are slowing the forum down lolX .. I'm actually on their side on this one, it's getting older than your Gran's pubes everyone. Because there's new jokes we can all be rocking instead.Unless you count a wet weekend in Cromer?
... I can't see anything Fortean about 'Weird Sex' or 'odd and ill advised rectal insertions'. Such things may be off the grid but I don't see the connection to Forteana, which should be (as I understand it) about events that are incompatible with mainstream science. ...
I think that both FT and this forum embrace the idea that "Fortean" - or at least "things of interest to those who call themselves Forteans" - includes not just the paranormal or supernatural, but pretty much anything odd, out of place, or unusual. ...
It just appeared one day, and the original Notes & Queries vanished. None of the (then) three mods - me included - were consulted particularly, and IIRC it mirrored one of the occasional style-changes in the mag. Even then there was confusion about its precise purpose.My own personal objection is that our Human Condition forum is of inconsistent content and filled with threads that should either reside in General Forteana or Mainstream/News Chat. Its creation was before my tenure; if its size were not so daunting, I'd consider seeking consensus for dismantling it.
Hear, hear, if you're on about people who believe in Yetis v. Hollow Earthers v. ghost hunters etc.I can accept that. I tend to be a bit rigid in categorising. Comes of my career.
but if we are going to be accepting of the weird then we have to be accepting of some of the persons who have turned up here from time to time who are definitely coming from a 'different', point of view.
I tend to agree - witness the occasional zealot that washes up on our shores, wails that we aren't Fortean (they of course absolutely are, obvs) and flounces in a puff of righteous indignation. If this were doctrine we are rather more St Francis than Cardinal Ximenez.As heretical as it may sound, I suspect that a fundamentalist adherence to a rigidly Fortean aspect would take the life right out of the place...
Equally those that are "different" should expect and accept a balanced different viewpoint from forum members. There have been a handful of instances where the "different" have bombarded a thread with posts and absolutely dismissed any other viewpoint. That is not Fortean either.I can accept that. I tend to be a bit rigid in categorising. Comes of my career.
but if we are going to be accepting of the weird then we have to be accepting of some of the persons who have turned up here from time to time who are definitely coming from a 'different', point of view.
We do our best to work with them, but you're right, some have a mindset that isn't going to change no matter how demonstrably ambiguous or inconsistent it may be. Others have constructed an entire logical, self-verfiying loop in which they operate and in such cases you can't gainsay or challenge them as another part of their loop will validate their own opinion. This is kind of analogous with the mindset of conspiracy theorists and the devoutly religious: it's a zero-sum game which always favours their belief.There have been a handful of instances where the "different" have bombarded a thread with posts and absolutely dismissed any other viewpoint.
That's easy to deal with if other posters decline to engage with a thread. It'll then die a quiet and dignified death.We do our best to work with them, but you're right, some have a mindset that isn't going to change no matter how demonstrably ambiguous or inconsistent it may be. Others have constructed an entire logical, self-verfiying loop in which they operate and in such cases you can't gainsay or challenge them as another part of their loop will validate their own opinion. This is kind of analogous with the mindset of conspiracy theorists and the devoutly religious: it's a zero-sum game which always favours their belief.
Having spent much of my early Internet years arguing with science deniers of various shades, I can testify that this forum doesn't have nearly so big a problem with this than many. Which is one of the reasons I like it. I lack the patience for it these days, not to mention the interest in trying to change an unchangeable opinion.We do our best to work with them, but you're right, some have a mindset that isn't going to change no matter how demonstrably ambiguous or inconsistent it may be. Others have constructed an entire logical, self-verfiying loop in which they operate and in such cases you can't gainsay or challenge them as another part of their loop will validate their own opinion. This is kind of analogous with the mindset of conspiracy theorists and the devoutly religious: it's a zero-sum game which always favours their belief.
All excellent points, well put.Having spent much of my early Internet years arguing with science deniers of various shades, I can testify that this forum doesn't have nearly so big a problem with this than many. Which is one of the reasons I like it. I lack the patience for it these days, not to mention the interest in trying to change an unchangeable opinion.
I have certainly wondered if the 'like' button should be disabled for that thread- (I have been guilty of using it myself on there in the past to be honest though). But it serves no purpose. The accused knows what they've done wrong and it doesn't require more people to show that they agree with the mod's decision. It's like kicking a person when they're already down. It's just not cricket old chap.Following on from Chat being made private, I wonder whether mods would consider making the warning and ban posts private to the "offender", perhaps with a generic "post deleted" insertion. We are all adults here and I can't see it serves any useful purpose to publicly out a forum member. Persistent offenders take no notice anyway. Pretty please.
For yourself and any poster who do not like likes and want to remove the notifications, you can do so like this:-Drop ‘likes’ and just get talking. We’re big enough to do away with likes, yes?
I hated the system of reactions to begin with. I remember when you couldn't even 'like' a post on an Internet forum, let alone laugh, frown or whatever. I've come to appreciate the ability to react to posts without having to create another post. These little elements of social media are useful.For yourself and any poster who do not like likes and want to remove the notifications, you can do so like this:-
Click on your name at the top of the page
Click on Preferences
Uncheck the "alert" box for "reacts to your profile post"
You can now remain happily oblivious to whether anyone likes you or not.
Yes, I see how that could be useful, but I'd rather know why you disagree instead of just giving me an 'angry face'.I hated the system of reactions to begin with. I remember when you couldn't even 'like' a post on an Internet forum, let alone laugh, frown or whatever. I've come to appreciate the ability to react to posts without having to create another post. These little elements of social media are useful.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever used the angry face to react to something someone has said that I disagree with. I'd generally respond with a post myself or, more often, just back away. I think I've only used the angry face when, for example, someone's posted a news story link about someone doing something horrific.Yes, I see how that could be useful, but I'd rather know why you disagree instead of just giving me an 'angry face'.
Yes, good point- it's handy for that. I would still just use the 'like' (which I admit may seem odd to a lot of people!)I think I've only used the angry face when, for example, someone's posted a news story link about someone doing something horrific.
The mods removed the angry face on this forum to avoid any misunderstandings that might arise from it!Yes, I see how that could be useful, but I'd rather know why you disagree instead of just giving me an 'angry face'.