Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I won't go there with you, except to say that most of the Nobel Prize winners of the last century have been Jews.It's a conspiracy, you see. Jews give prizes to Jews to make Jews look better and then claim that they're great because they gave themselves prizes. They also control the world's finances and poison wells.
Why doesn't Farage at least consult with some legal experts before announcing new policies that he can't deliver?Because he's not the part of the filthy "people who know what they're doing" Westminster clique.
I do, I just don't care for the pomposity.Okay. Well, we're trying to merge the two groups back into one, and make sure that everyone enjoys things more as a result. I agree that everything else is mostly word salad, but I don't think it's really harmful in any way.
Are you referring to Daniel himself?Well, I can't speak for them, but my understanding is that he's in charge there, yes.
Good Lord, all this talk of 'reunification,' 'zetetic councillors,' 'constitutions,' 'elections' seems to overlook one serious point.Some of us care about this society. You are more than welcome not to.
We're a website with about 20 regular members. This isn't reunifying East and West Berlin, it's reuniting the Window and Door sides of my bedroom when my brother and I had an argument when we were kids. (For the record, Window was always willing to look at merging our communities, but it was Door's insistence of keeping control of immigration matters which stalled the process)
I don't know about the rest of you but I'll just post where there happens to be interesting conversation.
Waiting for the merger seems like a really good way to never get anything done ever again.This is true.
I've informed the other society that we're doing this and nobody seemed to care.But this is irrelevant. You need to remember that Daniel's society is managed differently than ours, and that any reunification will be subject to acceptance from both sides.
Why should you dumping a bucket of ice water on you head influence me to give money to charity?It doesn't matter why it works. It matters that it works. As for the why, I can only speculate. You might be a fan of mine, the entertainment from seeing me dump a bucket of water on my head put you in your sweet spot, and then I got all charismatic and asked you to fork over some of your money to a charity, and so you did. It might not work on you, personally, but it works on a lot of people.
Did you really play a part or did you just pass the buck (so to speak) to get others to donate for you?I don't think that strictly matters, either. To me, what matters is that through my actions money has been donated.
I think that this is a case where celebrity status can make a big difference. If Lebron James or Oprah do a publicity stunt like this for awareness, that's one thing. Somehow or other, I doubt that some random idiot pouring a bucket of ice water on their head is going to influence much of anybody to shell out any money.Well, yes and no. I dunno about outside of the UK, but here people frequently do things like shave their heads or play a racing video game for 32 hours straight for charity. Those two examples are things my friend has done, the first one being a "S(h)ave the fuzz?" vote, where through charity donations you got to decide whether or not he'd keep his scalp fuzzy or not. Whichever side donates more wins, and, well, he did have to shave his head. The latter was him and a few friends playing a game and streaming it. At some point one of them danced. In each case, he secured a reasonable amount of money (i think it was in the hundreds on both occasions) for some charity. Sure, it's not as big as it would be if a celebrity did it, but it still works.
In fact, it'll probably just encourage people to dump ice water on their heads just to show how trendy they are.That will probably happen too, sure.
If anything, I think that it's being done backwards. Instead, you should do it as a fund raiser. Say that for for a given amount of money pledged, then you'll dump the water on you head. This way you can say that you actually did something besides waste a bucket of ice water.I think that both methods have their pros and cons. Perhaps one would turn out to be objectively better than the other, I honestly don't know. However, I feel that my point still stands. Even if I can't tell whether or not this is the best way to do things, I can say with confidence that it's a way that works to some extent and is clearly not useless.
My guess is the most of the donations were given by the people who were smart enough to stay dry.Okay, but if I influence you to donate money to charity, money ends up being donated to charity. Yes, I could have donated myself - that doesn't change anything here, because I still played a part in something actually happening. For a big YouTuber, a single act of entertainment like this could easily influence hundreds of people to contribute. Sure, it doesn't feel as noble as doing something directly (and honestly probably isn't), but it's not slacktivism.
Gulliver, you are pretending to have some superior knowledge to belittle me?That's his general modus operandi, yes.
Where are all the womenThe kitchen
and/or people of color?Ferguson, MO
I'm sorry, Thork, but it's you versus world, and quite literally so. We have to act in the interest of the community, and not your vision of it.In the end, my suggestion was met with overwhelming supportNo it wasn't.
I really don't want to see reunification but somehow you seem to have made yourself in charge of our destiny and are now telling us what you have decided to do. Don't we even get a vote?You do, as stated here:
If large factions of this site end up not happy with the terms and conditions, we simply won't go back.That is our position as well. We will not implement a solution that is not popular with a vast majority of the userbase. The way I see it, this general idea has gathered a lot of support and not that much dissent, so it could potentially work out. Once we have a more concrete policy sketched, we'll open it for comments, and if we reach a point where it doesn't seem like much more needs changing, we'll put it to a vote. That should hopefully address most concerns and stop any such large factions from forming.
So in the interest of transparency, are we going to get to see the PM? It effects everyone, right? Its not like you'd secretly negotiate without informing everyone what you are saying, would you?[...]
After that's done, and we've hammered out the general terms of reunification based on the consultation we've had before, we will open it for comments, amend as necessary, and put it to a vote. Please see my previous response to you here:
Please don't do this again, Thork. We're working pretty hard to make good things happen, and your attempts at spreading dissent are just tactless. You've had your say during consultation, and you'll have your say before and during the final vote. If at any point a subject that's not a personal or petty technical issue, people will also be consulted.
I still haven't been given a reason why merging the sites would be good for users.You have, you simply don't like those reasons. And that's fine, we'll take it into account during the democratic vote.
So something a bit more positive. If the site merges (and we all know I am not keen on that), but if it merges Daniel owns the domain name. Frankly, I think we should own the forum database. We are the ones that put all the content in there in the first place. All those millions of posts were written by the society, and should belong to the society.Can you clarify what you mean by "own the database"?
I still don't see any valid reason why Daniel would make a bad Queen of England.I feel that this isn't representative of the agreement we've come up with in this thread. By what we agreed upon, Daniel wouldn't really be the Queen of England - rather, he would be deputised when absent. See below for my response to markjo.
I'm know that Parsifal and PizzaPlanet have been discussing the technical aspects of the merger with Daniel, but I have seen little discussion of the leadership of the merged society. Perhaps the ZC should be discussing any potential leadership changes with Daniel and the other FES members before they get too far into the new constitution.We did discuss it to some extent in this very thread. Here's my understanding of things, please correct me if anyone feels I misunderstood or misrepresented: Parsifal opened this thread by saying: "To summarise, please consider whether you would like to see a reunion where Daniel heads the Society and myself and pizaaplanet head the online community (forum and wiki). If no, but you would be open to a reunion under different broad terms, please say so. [...]" There was some contention regarding Daniel's leadership, of which I think the key turning point was Tom Bishop's proposal and my counter-proposal based on Tom's concerns. In the end, my suggestion was met with overwhelming support, so unless a new popular suggestion arises or any major difficulties come up, we'll be going with that.
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that with Parsifal and PP on the job, the process should take significantly less than 2 years. My WAG (wild ass guess) would be closer to 2-3 months.That sounds like a decent guess, but I wouldn't want to put a timeline on it just yet.
So. still no answer. I expected as much.Indeed. Until you make your questions coherent, they cannot be answered from a pragmatic standpoint. That you expected this and did nothing to prevent it is a testament to your intellectual dishonesty, and not something to be proud about.
Oh, and here: <quote follows>Right. Well, I encourage you to read my response.
So far all you've been doing is furthering the issue; and you continue doing so by adding more disjoint things into the mix. You cocked it up even more by talking about "objective science and truth".