Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Goodbye to All That Green (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=1533)

JIM3CH 12-14-2007 05:00 AM

POE (Purity of Essence)
 
However it arose, the NIE at least puts a damper on those paranoid elements in the administration who suspect the Iranians are contaminating our precious bodily fluids.

We must remember, however, that Iran remains one of two nuclear know-how countries (Brazil is the other, DPRK is a special case) who do not allow the IAEA sufficient access to check for parallel programs. It is not paranoia to keep the pressure on Iran to provide that access.

bjkeefe 12-14-2007 06:57 AM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
ohc:

Quote:

So, how does one use one of those stupid emoticons?
Advisedly, and very rarely, it is to be hoped. ;^)

In all honesty, I always thought the ASCII ones were clever, and the substitution of graphical icons indicative of a point-and-drool culture. But then, I still prefer a command-line interface. And that you kids stay the hell off my lawn.

But if you insist: For details, click on the "smilies" link in the small box labeled "Posting Rules" in the lower left corner of the screen.

thprop 12-14-2007 10:35 AM

Re: <--- Emoticon appears here
 
Baby steps first - not sure how many people know about embedding keyboard characters. For those who want to make use of all the installed features, go to FAQ (in the top bar) and proceed from there. Smileys are under Reading and Posting Messages.

In this installation of vBulletin, the Smileys show up at the bottom - only if you have selected the right message editor interface. Enhanced works for sure, basic does not - not sure about standard.

To switch your "Message Editor Interface", go to User CP, select Edit Options, and go to the bottom of the page Miscellaneous Options. You can switch between Editor Interfaces there.

Bloggin' Noggin 12-14-2007 10:35 AM

False consciousness of falsity
 
Count me as another one of those people suffering from false consciousness who finds Edwards offputtingly fake. Seems like maybe I should find Hillary equally fake, but her technocratic wonky persona is something she can carry off better than Edwards carries off his persona.
Obama is the best at performing himself -- and that, along with his eloquence, is a huge part of why I like him best.

kj 12-14-2007 11:04 AM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Damn, even you Bloggin Noggin. I guess I should give up on him as these are sure signs that the media will destroy him as they did Gore in 2000. I'm always amazed at how much the Presidential election is like running for Prom Queen.

DenvilleSteve 12-14-2007 11:05 AM

Re: False consciousness of falsity
 
Quote:

Count me as another one of those people suffering from false consciousness who finds Edwards offputtingly fake. Seems like maybe I should find Hillary equally fake, but her technocratic wonky persona is something she can carry off better than Edwards carries off his persona.
Obama is the best at performing himself -- and that, along with his eloquence, is a huge part of why I like him best.
the problem I see for democrat voters is, the more of a true believer the candidate is, the more that candidate will be a psycho and probably kind of stupid. Whereas the more Edwards like they are, where they are clearly crafting their positions to what the voters want to hear, the more intelligent and realistic they might be.

This is because democrat ideology makes no sense. Democrats in Congress ( John Conyers, chairman of judiciary ) are currently pushing for foreclosed homeowners to be protected from losing their mortgaged homes when they file bankruptcy. Which is a change that would make mortgages more expensive for everyone.

If the democrat candidate is a true believer, like Kucinich, they will believe people should get relieved from their mortgage when they go bankrupt. The more intelligent candidate will realize that is nuts and look to deceive the democrat voters into thinking they support this position.

-Steve

kj 12-14-2007 11:07 AM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Agreed. And that's exactly the rhetoric that should be employed to make the point that pressure should be exerted. Talking about 10 hidden nukes is counter productive to say the least. Although I will state quite openly that we can not allow a mind-shaft gap!

garbagecowboy 12-14-2007 11:37 AM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
The new redesign is fine.

The new comments board sucks.

Glad to see you in a good mood for a change, though.

Tim_G 12-14-2007 11:49 AM

Like the new design
 
That's all. :)

Bloggin' Noggin 12-14-2007 01:11 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
But I really don't think it's the media portrayal of him -- it's how he comes across when he speaks. I don't give a damn about the price of his haircuts -- seems to me he should spend a lot on looking good, even for the sake of the campaign. He just personally comes across as kind of smarmy and fake to me, quite apart from anything the media say about him.
I don't see one's sense of trust in a candidate as quite so irrelevant as your prom king remark suggests. Policy positions are certainly relevant, but they aren't everything and the differences don't seem huge on the Dem side -- how far you feel you can trust the candidate seems relevant to whether you vote for him.
You could be right that such judgments are pretty unreliable, but without further evidence that my sense is wrong in this case, I guess it's not unreasonable to go with that sense -- which, again, is pretty directly based on how he comes across when he speaks, not on media spin about haircuts or whatever.

DenvilleSteve 12-14-2007 01:46 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin (Post 66489)
But I really don't think it's the media portrayal of him -- it's how he comes across when he speaks. I don't give a damn about the price of his haircuts -- seems to me he should spend a lot on looking good, even for the sake of the campaign. He just personally comes across as kind of smarmy and fake to me, quite apart from anything the media say about him.

I think what is most important to any voter is the confidence the candidate will implement policies in office that square with their campaign positions. Edwards wants power, prestige and wealth. The democrat voters want those they elect to take from the rich and striving and give to the poor and slacking. Hillary might turn out to be too much of a patriot and centrist to totally sock it to the productive. Obama, too inexperienced. Edwards could be perfect for the job. He knows what he wants, and he has the ability to implement the policies the democrat voters want.

uncle ebeneezer 12-14-2007 02:02 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Glad to see that the disorientation of the new site didn't hinder your ability to whine :-(

Ok that's the first/last time I will use an emoticon.

What don't you like about the new comment board? My only beef would be that there needs to be less white to make it a little easier on the eyes.

So let's talk baseball. What did you think of the mitchell report list? What (if anything) do you think will change? What's the story on the Santana trade? Though I know none of it is THAT important, I'd love to see BH do an episode on the Mitchell report. Don't know who they would get to do it though.

bjkeefe 12-14-2007 02:21 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
uncle eb:

I'd nominate King Kaufman of Salon for one of the diavloggers on. (cf: http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kauf...day/index.html the Mitchell report)

I am very interested in what's going to happen as a result, but the cynical side of me would bet: Not much. There'll be some photo ops, and god help us, maybe even more Congressional hearings, but in the end, the best we can hope for is better testing in the future.

jmcnulty 12-14-2007 02:42 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Kj's comment said:

Can you get any more paranoid? 10 nukes hidden in American cities. Iran is about 100 years away from that capability. The U.S. probably isn't capable of hiding a single nuke in Iran but you think Iran can hide 10 nukes in the U.S. when they can't even enrich weapons grade uranium. The problem with your paranoia is that it is always way in this fanciful future. You simply don't know what Iran is going to do so stop pissing your pants worrying about what they might be capable of in a few decades. Iran is as rational an actor as any other nation. If conservatives could figure that out, we could have a rational debate on how to deal with Iran, but until then, I picture you guys cowering under your bed, peeing your pants, and wondering if its safe to go to the mall tomorrow. Do yourself a favor, rent Dr. Strangelove and try to figure out what Kubrick was doing with that film.

Why is Iran 100 years away from that capability? Where did they get their nuclear help? A. Q. Kahn's nuclear Pakistani Islamic supermarket? Could Pakistan, or Islamic insurgents who take over Pakistan, do it?

Osama bin Laden has obtained a fatwa from religious authorities allowing him to kill up to 10 million American civilians. Why? Is he in the habit of meaningless bluster? Is the current lull in terrorism plots a reflection of our ability to stop them or his ability, as shown on September 11, to be patient until a really damaging blow can be struck?

If you have read Bin Laden or his number 2, the real "brains" behind the operation, Ayman Al Zawahiri, you know that they are acting under religious impulses, so no "compromise" or political deal is possible. They are willing to be patient because they believe that Allah will eventually give them the victory, so planes and tanks of the "inflidel" armies mean nothing. Nobody is hiding under the bed or peeing in his pants. All that I am trying to do is put myself in their shoes.

September 11, in which enemies stuck at downtown New York City, something the Nazis never came close to accomplishing, was, like Pearl Harbor, a tactical victory, but a strategic defeat. All he did was to momentarily, as it turned out, awaken us to the danger, when he would have been better off in biding his time until a REALLY BIG plot could be hatched. This plot should be strategic and effect our ability and willingness to resist future plots. At what point do we decide to leave Israel to its fate, pick up our marbles in Iraq (on the basis that the government has become Islamic, not democratic and pluralistic, and unfair to women) and Afghanistan (where all we have done is make the country a bigger drug producer) and retreat into a sullen isolation? Ron Paul, call your office.

Would we defend South Korea when their are voices who say that South Korea is rich enought to defend itself without American lives being spent?

I do not mean to argue the particulars of any given case. I am only saying that the trend -- especially among Democrats -- is to retreat aound the world and concentrate on the loss of jobs to foreigners and universal health care. In short, the way to "fix" our military is to never use it unless Islamic hordes invade North Dakota. We will sit by and watch Europe go Islamic (or, more immediately, neutral), and be surrounded by a Chavista Latin America (which wants to destroy us unless it can cross the border and get a job) and a multicultural Canada. Do we expect a graying Japan to defend us? What about China? Maybe Russia will come to our aid.?

If someone fears a cliff up ahead, it is not paranoid to point this out to the driver, even if he does not want to hear it at that moment. Come back in 30 years and see what our position is in the world.

We would never try to "hide" nukes in Iran. First of all, it is not our style (why hide nukes when you have stealth bombers to drop them?), and secondly, we apparently do not even have a living intelligence agent inside Iran. How could we expect to "hide" nukes when we can't even get an intelligence source operating on the ground? Besides, if we did this, the news of the bombs' locations would be leaked to The New York Times.

They are enriching unanium and have a "cascade" of 3,000 centrifuges (and are planning more), even though this is unnecessary for electricity generation. With the new centrifuges, it is estimated that they can produce a bomb within months. The smart thing would be to have the bomb, but deny it pubicly, although we would know that they have it (they could let us tap a phone line, as in the NIE), but be unable to convince others except Israel. That way they could give one to Hezbollah and then deny any involvement when the bomb goes off. Hezbollah has already threatened suicide bombings within the United States. Why shouldn't they be nuclear?

By the way, I like "Dr. Strangelove," but I recognize that it was meant not as a serious foreign policy guide, but merely a manic comedy on the impossibility of "winning" a nuclear war. I love it when the teutonic "Dr. Strrangelove" keeps saying "Mien Fuhrer" when he means "Mr. President." Stanley Kubrick, as you know, is quite dead (which you will believe if you sat through "Eyes Wide Shut").

Has Bin Laden been told? Does he know that a nuclear war cannot be won ? Maybe we should try to get a DVD of "Dr. Strangelove" to him in his cave.

jmcnulty 12-14-2007 02:59 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Regarding McCain, ask him whether he "broke." The point, which he will acknowledge, is that everyone, sooner or later, "broke." The point was to come back the next time and make them "break" you again and to try to give them only meaningless information. They were trying to force him to make propaganda, and he DID sign a "confession." After a while, your knowledge about military matters would be outdated anyway. But the point is that everyone "broke." Remember, this was physical torture. I am not advocating that. By the time he was tortured, the North Vietnamese were not trying to force military information out of him. A good example was the POW who signed a "confession," but injured himself before he could be paraded before foreign media, because the North Vietnamese did not want to exhibit an obviously bleeding man, Read Solzhenitsyn on the difference between being tortured by the Gestapo and the Russian NKVD. I would agree with you that torture is not trustworthy in finding out information, because a tortured man will say anything to make the pain stop. Torture, however, is often used not to get information, but to FORCE a person to do something that he would not otherwise do. In that sense, torture works. Not that I favor it, since I think it is corrosive of the demoncratic order.

garbagecowboy 12-14-2007 05:35 PM

Enough whining... let's talk Santana
 
BS needs to do the Ellsbury/Lowrie/Masterson package.

The haggling seems to be the 4th player. I'm hoping it's Bowden. If this is greek to you check out http://www.soxprospects.com.

I have heard that the Mets are trying to offer 5 to 6 prospects which in theory sounds good (since the Twins aren't going to be competing in 2008, or at least shouldn't be attempting to against the Indians as currently constituted and the post-Cabrera trade Tigers) but the Mets first of all traded their most interesting piece (Milledge) for peanuts (which was very distressing to me as a Mets fan) and the rest of the pieces that they would offer (Fernando Martinez, Carlos Gomez, Pelfrey, Humber) are not particularly high ceiling prospects with the exception of Martinez. Frankly I think the Mets are only "in it" because not being in it would be a PR disaster. I don't think Bill Smith is dumb enough to make a trade with the Mets for the crap they're offering. That is.... unless they cave on Reyes, in which case the Twins should jump on that.

However all the signs from the Mets camp have been that Reyes is totally off limits. However after the Delmon Young trade the Twins priorities need to be finding infielders who can hit. I don't mind Adam Everett as their SS for the next few years in principle but if the 2B is a platoon of Casilla/Harris and the 3B is Punto then the Twins will have a historically bad hitting infield.

With the holes they currently have (CF, 3B, SS, 2B) the Red Sox trade seems to be intriguing. If they could get Bowden thrown in as the 4th player in the trade then they would have a high projecting hitting 3B/2B in Lowrie (whose horrible hands would be tolerable if Everett is the everyday SS) a stud CF who will be locked up for 5-6 years (Ellsbury, even if his agent is now Boras) a stud reliever who could be plugged in immediately and would allow the Twins to deal Nathan for another infielder or OF (Neshek becomes the closer and Masterson becomes the set-up man) and a high-projecting starter thrown into the mix of their solid but non-star-studded pitching prospect core (Bowden).

This trade makes so much sense for both teams and I think that Theo realizes that giving up value for value makes sense (to whit: the Hanley Ramirez for Beckett and Lowell trade). If they can close this deal then the Twins would be set up to be a threat when they start playing in their new stadium in 2010 and the Red Sox would be poised to win 120 games with a rotation of Santana, Beckett, Dice-K, Buchholz, Schilling with Wakefield and Lester as long-relief/spot-starters with a dominant bullpen.

If the Twins can't get Bowden I still want them to make this deal (Ryan Kalish as the 4th player would also set them up for when Cuddyer declines/leaves) because every other trade that appears plausible sucks. Especially now that Ned Coletti has said that he doesn't intend to trade Matt Kemp (which I don't really understand since they now have 4 outfielders and their best move if they dont' trade Kemp would be to sit Juan Pierre despite owing him nearly $40 million).

uncle ebeneezer 12-14-2007 08:08 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
I hear your words, and they make sense. But in my heart (as a Sox fan) I have a tough time letting go of Ellsbury. If ever a dude lived up to the billing by being clutch when he was called up, Ellsbury is the guy. His ability to step into the biggest stage in the game and not only "hang" with the big boys, but actually LEAD them with clutch hitting and speed and aggressive play, is that intangiable quality that can't be taught and you only find once in a blue moon. The pitching scenario you mention is a Sox fan's wet dream (almost as great as having Clemens and Pettite nabbed for roids) but still I believe in loyalty and chemistry and am weary of letting a young talented and spirited guy like Ellsbury go. Unfortunately I feel the same about Lester too.

Exeus99 12-14-2007 08:24 PM

Mooseturbation II: Electric Moosealoo
 
The return of Wright's wagging moose: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/740...2&out=01:05:15. This time it's to insult Kaus' moose by comparison, but isn't the rule that if you have to brag your moose probably isn't that impressive? In any event I fully support the euphimistic use of "moose," as in "I'll be right back, I gotta go shake the moose."

bjkeefe 12-14-2007 08:36 PM

Re: Mooseturbation II: Electric Moosealoo
 
Exeus:

And we might add:

o Gotta go see a man about a moose
o Gotta go water my moose
o Shake your moose more than twice, you're ...

Oh, never mind.

Exeus99 12-14-2007 08:43 PM

Re: Mooseturbation II: Electric Moosealoo
 
You have it exactly. Also, Mr. Wright says he "noticed something about [Mickey's] moose." I don't spend too much time in locker rooms anymore, but I'm pretty sure you're still not supposed to look--the rules haven't changed that much, have they? Maybe Wright's just a little too comfortable with his moose loose, and should be told "Hey pal, keep it in the forest!"

Exeus99 12-14-2007 08:46 PM

Also Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
And another one: "Baby, I'm not overly gregarious, I've just got a loose moose."

Exeus99 12-14-2007 08:50 PM

Kaus and The Monkey's Paw
 
Be careful for what you wish: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7408?in=25&out=32 ... and granted: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/740...8:50&out=59:20

bjkeefe 12-14-2007 08:58 PM

Re: Kaus and The Monkey's Paw
 
Exeus:

LOL! Very nicely done.

You've got my vote for dingalink(s) of the week. Maybe we need a separate category when one dingalink is the set-up for another.

jmcnulty 12-14-2007 10:04 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Kj commented:

"Iran is as rational an actor as any other nation."

That's right. They would never do anything crazy like, say, invading a foreign embassy, which has been recognized by international law as inviolate, sovreign foreign territory for 300 years. They also wouldn't widen the streets of Tehran to accommodate the return of the "12th Imam." Or rebuild and modernize the well from which he is supposed to return. Or call for another nation's destruction before the United Nations, of which that other nation is a fellow-member. Why, exactly, do you assume that the normal rules of deterrance would apply witrh a regime that is explicitly Islamist and apocalyptic? Did you know that the founder of the regime, the Ayatollah Khomeini, said that patriotism was a form of paganism and that he would gladly see half the Iranian nation destroyed if Islam triumphed?

garbagecowboy 12-15-2007 02:45 AM

Ellsbury/Santana/Lester
 
Do you miss Hanley Ramirez? I think that winning a World Series would ease that blow.

Similarly, if Theo pulled the trigger on Ellsbury+ for Santana he would be setting up the Sox for a period of prolonged dominance in the AL. They would be the favorite to win the AL pennant and the World Series for the next 5 years.

Ellsbury is a great player and I want him on the Twins, but he is not going to put up a .509 SLG for the rest of his career. Yes, he had a great post-season, but I think that his value in the minds of Sox fans is overinflated because of that.

It is pretty well known that Ellsbury and Lester are both on the block as the center-pieces of a deal, and I think Bill Smith is making the right choice in leaning towards Ellsbury as the right centerpiece.

It really makes so much sense for both teams I'm actually kind of surprised that the deal hasn't happened yet, but I anticipate it will happen within the next month. I think that Theo and Bill Smith are proving their worth by doing this deal the right way: deliberately, with all due care.

Ellsbury is a great player and I think he will be a well above average OBP and OPS player for some time to come, plus he's a great base runner and a great fielder. But the Red Sox have a fine solution in the field in CF (Crisp) who will probably regress towards his mean and have a better season at the plate next year. Also the Sox can afford to have a defensive specialist in CF and as much of a sparkplug as Ellsbury is in the leadoff spot, the Sox also have the luxury of having a different young sparkplug who I'd say is more valuable than Ellsbury in Pedroia (just b/c of the position he pays) who they can plug into that spot.

The Sox also have the luxury of having a ton of cash and a great farm system; they will not be crippled by an Ellsbury/Lowrie/Masterson/(Bowden or Kalish) deal. In fact just the opposite; they woud be trading from one of their many strengths to assemble the greatest rotation since the early Smoltz/Glavine/Maddux years in Atlanta. And they would have that with a dominant lineup full of guys who can rake.

I would not be broken hearted to see Santana stay a Twin (assuming someone takes the jaws of life to Pohlad's pursestrings and they can resign him) but I think that really this is just like the Young/Garza trade; two teams who have very different needs match up very well in terms of what they can give each other; the Twins don't really need a prolific ace in the short or even medium term, but they do need a cache of young stud position prospects. The Red Sox don't really... need anything, but if they can get Santana they would be able to make the Yankees their plaything in the AL East and if it came to it in the ALCS for the foreseeable future.

I hope that Bill Smith and Theo are just being patient and not trying to force something and just dotting their i's and crossing their t's, but you have to admit that while it will be sad to see a guy who came out of nowhere to be such a sparkplug in a championship run go, that both the Twins and the Red Sox plans for where they're going with their teams will be enhanced when and if they get a deal done that centers around Ellsbury.

I don't like the Crisp/Lester deal simply because I don't see Lester as a dominant #1, and if we're not getting Hughes or Buchholz, I'd much rather see the Twins fill their holes in their lineup for years to come than to get a starter. Yes, Lester would plug-in to the Twins rotation next year as probably the #2 or #3 starter (or even the #1 if Liriano is not really better) but I don't think a 26 year old above average starter is what the Twins really need to get in return for Santana.

At any rate, I think the Ellsbury centered deal is going to happen (and I certainly hope it does) and I think that when and if it does both teams will be winners, which is why Theo and Bill Smith are such good GMs.

dougfretty 12-15-2007 03:47 PM

CIA Tapes--False Assumption!
 
Mickey's argument--that not destroying the CIA tapes would have inflamed the Muslim world--assumes that the tapes automatically would have leaked. False assumption! Our government is perfectly capable of ensconcing sensitive files. The evidence against Gitmo detainees, for example, will probably never see the light of day--even if they are eventually presented at a tribunal. Mickey invokes Abu Graib for his argument, but in truth the Army possesses actual video of the Abu Graib abuses, which the public will in all likelihood never see. So Bob's argument--that the CIA tapes should have been preserved out of respect for rule of law--works because the CIA is capable of keeping the tapes on hand to use at tribunal, while hiding them from public view. The tapes seem to have passed through so few hands that preventing a leak was quite feasible.

M. Simon 12-15-2007 08:09 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Your audio - bouncing stereo - is terrible.

You need to bleed a little of the right into the left and vice versa.

About 10 to 20 db down should do it.

garbagecowboy 12-15-2007 09:05 PM

Threading not understood
 
I would argue that people are clearly not understanding how to use the threaded view of the new forum (impossible in the old forum, or at least if you didn't understand it you would reply to the top post, not to some random 4th level nested response) since two consecutive unrelated posts were "replies" to my speculation about the Johan Santana trade.

DaveW 12-16-2007 07:51 AM

Re: Threading not understood
 
Um...

Did I just watch about a half hour of a liberal democrat arguing that it is impossible for Bush to manipulate a NIE?

Yes, Mickey's ideas about a deal with Iran are nuts. Also true is that Bob cannot hold both that 1) Bush lied about and manipulated intelligence on WMD in Iraq, and 2) that it would be impossible for Bush to manipulate this NIE.

You can argue one or the other, but not both.

TwinSwords 12-16-2007 05:07 PM

Re: Threading not understood
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by garbagecowboy (Post 66589)
I would argue that people are clearly not understanding how to use the threaded view of the new forum (impossible in the old forum, or at least if you didn't understand it you would reply to the top post, not to some random 4th level nested response) since two consecutive unrelated posts were "replies" to my speculation about the Johan Santana trade.

It's not that threading is "not understood." It's that it is "not being used" by most people.

The problem is that some people are using the threaded view while others are using the linear view. Each group will cause problems for the other.

Users of the linear view will just click any "reply" button in the thread to activate the Reply window. If you're using the linear view, you won't even notice where your post is showing up in the threaded view, because in the linear view, all new replies appear at the end.

I can't imagine the agony you are creating for yourself by scanning that threaded window, trying to pick out the new comments. What a headache. And it's a headache that a certain sub-population is going to INSIST on using. Because it's "better." So much better, in fact, that they are miserable using it. Hilarious.

Since most people will probably use the linear view, it's a safe bet that this is yet another frustration you will have by insisting on using the more difficult threaded view.

garbagecowboy 12-16-2007 10:06 PM

Re: Threading not understood
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 66653)
It's not that threading is "not understood." It's that it is "not being used" by most people.

The problem is that some people are using the threaded view while others are using the linear view. Each group will cause problems for the other.

Users of the linear view will just click any "reply" button in the thread to activate the Reply window. If you're using the linear view, you won't even notice where your post is showing up in the threaded view, because in the linear view, all new replies appear at the end.

I can't imagine the agony you are creating for yourself by scanning that threaded window, trying to pick out the new comments. What a headache. And it's a headache that a certain sub-population is going to INSIST on using. Because it's "better." So much better, in fact, that they are miserable using it. Hilarious.

Since most people will probably use the linear view, it's a safe bet that this is yet another frustration you will have by insisting on using the more difficult threaded view.

The threading of the old forum and that is available by choice in the new forum serves an important purpose: the diavlogs by their very nature typically cover several different topics. People go off on tangents, discuss different elements of the diavlog, and do so in an organized fashion.

For the more popular diavlogs, there will be literally more than a dozen different "conversations" going on involving a couple or more commentors, and hundreds of responses. That this kind of conversation can be maintained without threading is impossible. The comments will degenerate into what you see in places where it would be totally unthreaded, like LGF, where you can type "Hey ____" to respond to a specific post, but multiple ongoing conversations on multiple topics are impossible.

If wanting users to be able to have multiple, intricate conversations that go beyond the depth of simply posting a single general comment and then maybe catching a reply to it, that can develop over multiple days in a way that is impossible without the threaded view is being insistent on using a "more difficult" mode, then so be it.

But if the majority of people are going to be using the non-threaded view and just reply to the unrelated post at the bottom then the quality of the comments section will be much worse than it was with the old software, to no apparent purpose.

Apparently I am not the only person using the threaded view; it looks like the old-time commenters are using either the threaded view or the hybrid view. You're right that there will be two groups of commenters, one using the threaded view and one not; why this is a good thing I don't understand.

Why you apparently have some personal animosity towards me and take pleasure in the fact that I dislike what I see as serious flaws that I have specifically articulated in the new forum software I have no clue. Some guy you don't know thinks the new forum software is bad! He's miserable! Hilarious!

Good for you though, chief. Cool stuff.

M. Simon 12-17-2007 10:57 AM

Re: Threading not understood
 
How about this scenario.

Bush reaches agreement with Iran.

Asks Iran to provide some help by having Generals talk on a known compromised communications channel. The CIA picks it up and reports it. Bush then says the evidence is credible.

A good book to read about how this sort of thing was done in WW2 is "Bodyguard of Lies" by AC Brown.

garbagecowboy 12-17-2007 11:03 AM

Re: Threading not understood
 
This is like a "Who's on First" bit that stopped being funny a long time ago for those of us using threaded mode.

bjkeefe 12-17-2007 01:07 PM

Re: Threading not understood
 
GC:

I think part of the problem is that if you click the "post a comment" link from the video page, your comment gets attached as a reply to most recently posted comment, no matter how deeply in the tree it might reside.

I've written to BH.tv support about this, and asked them to make clicking that link cause the new comment to be attached as a reply to the thread's opening comment, under the thinking that most people who click the link from the video page want to comment on the diavlog, and not respond to the last comment. Haven't heard back from them yet.

garbagecowboy 12-17-2007 01:13 PM

Re: Threading not understood
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 66722)
GC:

I think part of the problem is that if you click the "post a comment" link from the video page, your comment gets attached as a reply to most recently posted comment, no matter how deeply in the tree it might reside.

I've written to BH.tv support about this, and asked them to make clicking that link cause the new comment to be attached as a reply to the thread's opening comment, under the thinking that most people who click the link from the video page want to comment on the diavlog, and not respond to the last comment. Haven't heard back from them yet.

Yes, this clearly needs to be fixed. I will keep my eyes peeled to see if this gets fixed. Let us know if you get a reply.

bjkeefe 12-17-2007 01:40 PM

Re: Threading not understood
 
GC:

Just heard back from Support. Brenda agrees with my claim that this is a problem, and says they are looking into it, to change things as I asked.

A shout-out to Support for their rapid response to email, especially considering we're not paying anything for using this site.

kj 12-17-2007 02:14 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Two things.

Your understanding of Strangelove seems fairly pedestrian to me. The film, on one level, was about the self-fulfilling nature of making your enemy out to be scarier than they are. We have a plot where the U.S., because of its paranoia over a sneak attack, develops Plan R which allows a single general to launch a nuclear attack. This happens while a paranoid Soviet Union develops a doomsday device because they are paranoid of a U.S. sneak attack. I could go on but I'll keep it basic. Perhaps you see the parallels.

And as for the 100 years point, you said something about Iran planting 10 secret nuclear bombs in U.S. city. That is impossible for us, let alone Iran. A basic understanding of nuclear weapon technology tells you this. Even if Iran develops a nuclear weapon within 10 years and becomes sudden partners with bin Laden (both have an order of probability of about 1%), they still would be no threat to the U.S. because their weapons would be crude. And if you ignore all this, you'd have to also ignore that the Iranian regime would have to be suicidal of which the order of probability approaches .000001%.

Of course Conservatives aren't all this dumb so I'm pretty sure most of you support this fear-mongering because you see a political advantage in it. Good for you.

kj 12-17-2007 02:16 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Agreed. But that's why I don't see any point to torture. What good is it to force our prisoners to do something? Torture is not worth a few propaganda victories. You confuse me as I thought you were defending our use of torture. Perhaps I misread you.

kj 12-17-2007 02:30 PM

Re: Goodbye to All That Green
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin (Post 66489)
But I really don't think it's the media portrayal of him -- it's how he comes across when he speaks. I don't give a damn about the price of his haircuts -- seems to me he should spend a lot on looking good, even for the sake of the campaign. He just personally comes across as kind of smarmy and fake to me, quite apart from anything the media say about him.
I don't see one's sense of trust in a candidate as quite so irrelevant as your prom king remark suggests. Policy positions are certainly relevant, but they aren't everything and the differences don't seem huge on the Dem side -- how far you feel you can trust the candidate seems relevant to whether you vote for him.
You could be right that such judgments are pretty unreliable, but without further evidence that my sense is wrong in this case, I guess it's not unreasonable to go with that sense -- which, again, is pretty directly based on how he comes across when he speaks, not on media spin about haircuts or whatever.

I don't trust my sense of trust with politicians. I think it is created for us by media narratives even if we are aware of them and attempt to censor them out. But I can't deny that that sense is very important to winning an election. I trust Edwards the most as he seems the most sincere to me, so maybe I'm actually trusting that sense and creating an elaborate argument against trusting one's sense of trust in order to convince you to abandon your own sense of trust and go with mine. Got that? If you do, you probably don't trust me now.

kj 12-17-2007 02:43 PM

Discussion Side Story
 
I'm with you GarbageCowboy. I'm a threader (or a Jet). Been a threader since I could type and will always be a threader. The Linears (the Sharks) are disorganized loons and should head back to the part of the internet they came from. But perhaps there is a Maria out there among the Linears who has the hope required for us to live together peacefully. Something's Coming, I can feel it.

I just hope you don't have to get shot at the end to make this work GarbageCowboy. But I might be willing to pay that price for a functioning forum.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.