I'm surprised you didn't include something about abortion, gay marriage, and voting R in that agenda.
what's your agenda?
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
I'm surprised you didn't include something about abortion, gay marriage, and voting R in that agenda.
I just looked at the threads you start
very few in the religion forum
looks like you don't spend much time there
and
you are not aware of how much time I do
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Well, my saying why be boxed in by one agenda vs. a daily agenda has nothing to do with commitment - unless you have an ulterior agenda.
I used to spend more time in there.
I don't doubt it. When I said I was surprised you didn't put any political items in your agenda I didn't mean in replacement of the religious topics. I just meant that it seems like you care strongly about some political topics too.
That's funny. I never watched anyone work harder to get a meaningless number than you did, chrys.
For my part, I like what numbers can tell you if you know where to look. Sometimes they tell you when people are gaming a system or that the system itself has been corrupted. Sometimes they tell you how much interest a poster draws or what topics encourage the most response. I was encouraged once to find the posters who traded on anger and low insult tended to draw little to their own threads, lived mostly parasitical lives here absent a push button thread or two.
Numbers? You don't need to be a statistician to have yours.
Motives and Agendas. Who among us ?
it is hard to get numbers with a thread that has no meaning or purpose
but
then again maybe it is just because I don't lock them
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
just wanted to let you know that I don't approve of you
didn't think that would bother you
still don't understand why a mad person would call someone a hypocrite
it doesn't matter what you do
if
you are no longer under the law
Are you not the same guy who use to whine about neg reppers? THAT is what makes you a hypocrite.
So you're saying that doesn't apply to us, because you do all right and so I do I in terms of eyes on and comments. Not sure what the aim of that one was.
I've only locked a thread to resolve a trolling issue. Haven't had to much. But Quixote's had a banner month when I was almost the only one posting in it. It had a really good month when others were chiming in. People tend to stop by to read the Gazette, so I lock it for a half day to make it easier to find then open it. Sometimes I open it anyway, as with the one before last when a few friends here wanted to run a routine for the weekend and I couldn't have been happier.
Locking a thread, unless you're doing it to dodge engagement, is just a feature here, like rep. Use it, don't use it. I've never been shy about engaging anyone who has something honest to say. There are a couple of people here who I mostly won't because they've proven, repeatedly, that the appearance of substantive difference will quickly run to a goofy slew of personal insults, that they can't sustain the effort and likely never intend to. It's part of the shtick.
I remember the first time I locked a thread
and
it may have been the only time
you had a fit
so
I do smile every time I see your thread locked
and
that is often
Sorry, but without a link that's a bit thin and self serving insulation. If you locked it to end discourse I can see it. Needs context.
And this is a good bit of your methodology, misleading half truths. Slight but important distortions free of the distinctions, context that would alter what you're after. I don't think honest people need to do that, but I do think people who are willing to sell that particular to advance an emotional agenda will.
To me that's been your steady downfall.
so why do you?
Why did you cut off the rest of his post?
Here is his actual post:
Town Heretic said: