"Spam" is usually something which comes in your email. It refers to sending the same message to many different locales. Spam on forums would be a case of sending the same message to many different forums. That's why it's classed with advertising. Repeating the same thing over and over again on the same forum (pushing one's pet theory) is not "spam".

"Spam" is usually something which comes in your email. It refers to sending the same message to many different locales. Spam on forums would be a case of sending the same message to many different forums. That's why it's classed with advertising. Repeating the same thing over and over again on the same forum (pushing one's pet theory) is not "spam". — Metaphysician Undercover

Why would you do that? Obviously I'm using the term in a looser sense than that.

Agreeing with several others, I also don’t think that espousing pet theories is spamming, necessarily. Overly repetitive or off-topic perhaps, but not spam as commonly thought of. We all have pet theories. But if we keep them from barking too loudly and clean up after them when out for a walk, then everything is in relative order.

(I posted the following in the Shoutbox, but since it is located in the suburbs of Siberia, I’ll repeat it for whatever it’s worth... ) Sometimes I wonder if it would help to have each discussion split into two parallel columns: the main discussion, and then the side commentary, jokes, and personal asides. In other words, the discussion on one side, and the doodles in the margins on the other. Off-topic comments (which are often interesting to some, perhaps distracting to others) would be sidelined rather than stumbled over or deleted. Probably not feasible with the forum software, just a marginal idea.

Let's not fail to see the wood for the trees. You can call what I'm talking about, "Gertrude", for all I care. The point is that it's a problem. It's not the only problem, but why are philosophy-types so annoying as to nitpick? Bringing up different problems doesn't make this specific problem any less of a problem, and being pedantic over the term I used in reference to it doesn't make it any less of a problem, either.

How many more times do we need to see the same point, with the same wording, as though we are encountering a bot that has been programmed to repeat the same actions, instead of a fellow human being with a brain instead of circuitry? It gives the impression of either some sort of mental disorder, or evangelism.

Off-topic comments (which are often interesting to some, perhaps distracting to others) would be sidelined rather than stumbled over or deleted. Probably not feasible with the forum software, just a marginal idea. — 0 thru 9

Any contributor who considers a particular fellow poster to be uninteresting, annoying, or irrelevant...has the option of disregarding that poster and his/her comments. Most adult participants do that in those situations.

But to play the scold (while pretending to be above that kind of thing)...and dispense officious warnings and repremands...is what jerks do instead.

My purpose with this thread was to determine if S was the site owner; a moderator issuing a warning; or a goddam jerk inappropriately shooting off his/her mouth.

I now know the answer to my question...so...everything has worked out fine.

I love how you imply that you act like more of an adult than me, yet resort to childish name calling, in the same breath.

You certainly haven't practised what you preach thus far. Indirectly calling me insults isn't really "being the adult" nor is it really ignoring me.

"Grow some balls!", "Fuck off!", and, "You're a goddamn jerk!", don't sound very adult-like to me.

You also have that very childish habit of using ALL-CAPS. Seriously, look at YouTube, for example. It comes across like an overly aggressive teenager.

I will even help you out some more:

Adding Emphasis Without Shouting (And Embarrassing Yourself)

Why would you do that? Obviously I'm using the term in a looser sense than that. — S

I did that just to say that you're not talking about spam, you're talking about something else, and calling it spam. If you can't handle someone pushing their pet theory, I think a philosophy forum is not the place for you to be.

It's not the only problem, but why are philosophy-types so annoying as to nitpick? — S

If the philosophy-types annoy you then what's with the self-punishment of hanging around The Philosophy Forum?

I did that just to say that you're not talking about spam, you're talking about something else, and calling it spam. If you can't handle someone pushing their pet theory, I think a philosophy forum is not the place for you to be. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fine, I'm talking about Gertrude, then. And that's a really lame response to a complaint about something considered detrimental to the quality of the forum. You could come back with that on just about anything. The problem is the problem, not that "I can't handle it". That's just silly. I'm handling it right now through the Feedback forum.

And trying to misrepresent the problem is a shallow and underhanded tactic. The problem is intolerably pushing that pet theory. Pushing it and pushing it and pushing it, shoving it down people's throats uninvited, littering the forum with it. The problem is that it is too repetitive, too stubborn, too oblivious. It is excessive.

I think you know that that's a problem somewhere deep down, but because it's me that's raising it, you very predictably turn up, just like the others, to express your disagreement with whatever I say, and to try to spin your own little narrative.

You're all so predictable.

If the philosophy-types annoy you then what's with the self-punishment of hanging around The Philosophy Forum? — Metaphysician Undercover

Why did Diogenes wander around with a lantern in broad daylight?

The problem is intolerably pushing that pet theory. Pushing it and pushing it and pushing it, shoving it down people's throats uninvited, littering the forum with it. The problem is that it is too repetitive, too stubborn, too oblivious. It is excessive. — S

I agree that's a recurring issue on philosophy fora (is that the correct plural?). I'm not sure what the solution is though. Outright banning it seems like an improper impediment to free speech.

The only thing I can see as a viable tactic is to gently point out the repetitive behavior, and when that fails, move on and ignore the offenders.

I will admit that it's beyond frustrating, and hard to keep cool when you've been lured into a conversation with someone who turns out to be just repeating themselves over and over... which in turn leads you to being forced to repeat yourself....OR end the conversation.

The only thing I can see as a viable tactic is to gently point out the repetitive behavior, and when that fails, move on and ignore the offenders. — NKBJ

If you believe someone is behaving badly, you can PM a mod and we'll look into it.

Thank you! :heart:

fdrake
1.9k

The only thing I can see as a viable tactic is to gently point out the repetitive behavior, and when that fails, move on and ignore the offenders. — NKBJ


If you believe someone is behaving badly, you can PM a mod and we'll look into it. — fdrake

Some of the people doing the complaining about repetitive messages are the same people who themselves post repetitive thoughts.

The majority of issues being discussed here set that up.

"Is there a GOD (are there goes)?"

"Are there no gods?"

"Is the universe finite or infinite?"

There are really only so many answers possible...and ALL of them tend to be repeated...as are the rationals and rationalizations.

a) There are people who insist "YES" is the answer to one or more of these questions.

b) There are people who insist "NO" is the answer to one or more of these questions.

c) There are people who point out the difficulties of a "YES" or "NO" answer to any of these question...and who quietly, courteously, and helpfully suggest an "I do not know" response as being more logical and ethical.

ALL of these people give reasons for their answers.

Some of the complainers just do not like the (c) answer...or the reasons given. They tend to dismiss that answer...and complain the reasons given are repetitions...

...OFTEN while repeating their own "YES" or "NO" with repeated reasons.

Just sayin'!

There are a list of topics that draw people to philosophy, god/atheism, ethical problems like the trolley problem, solipsism. Even if you're personally bored of the discussions, this is still a space for people to play them out. Content's never an excuse to be rude, flame, etc. though everyone gets heated sometimes.

Pushing it and pushing it and pushing it, shoving it down people's throats uninvited, littering the forum with it. The problem is that it is too repetitive, too stubborn, too oblivious. It is excessive. — S

Are you talking about the professors of dogma? That you hate this activity and believe it to be "detrimental to the quality of the forum" is your own personal opinion. But the world is full of such professors, so having them here in the forum is a fair representation of the reality which we face throughout our lives

I think you know that that's a problem somewhere deep down, but because it's me that's raising it, you very predictably turn up, just like the others, to express your disagreement with whatever I say, and to try to spin your own little narrative. — S

If you do not believe in the pet theories which are being shoved down your throat (dogmata), then identify the weaknesses, and attack those weaknesses, over and over again if necessary. You cannot expect dogma to be changed just by pointing out to the professor of that dogma that you do not like it. Otherwise you are free to ignore such professors, and read something else. Where's the problem?

This spam is really getting on my nerves:
Is he trying to brain wash us or what? Stop trying to push your pet theory all of the time. Some of us are getting sick to death of it. I know as a matter of certainty that I am just one of several who feel this way about this content.
Can we add "thought/belief" to the spam filter, please? — S

Many posts have no substantive content. The post just above this is such a one. I'd like the mods to have authority to delete any post lacking substantive content - maybe they have it already - and exercise it. — tim wood

Are you referring to my comment or what I quoted? If the former,then where is your explanation? If the former, I think that's just a indication of bias against me. It's almost inevitable in any Feedback discussion that I participate in, that someone with a grudge against me - and there are plenty of those - will try to make it about me. My comment is an example of what we've been talking about, followed by a complaint. That's the substance. Your own comment does the same thing: example, followed by complaint. — S

My explanation of your post having no substantive content is as follows:
Ex. 1) "This spam is really getting on my nerves:
Ex. 2) "Is he trying to brain wash us or what?
Ex. 3) "Stop trying to push your pet theory all of the time.
Ex. 4) "Some of us are getting sick to death of it.
Ex. 5) "I know as a matter of certainty that I am just one of several who feel this way about this content.
Ex. 6) "Can we add "thought/belief" to the spam filter, please?"

I find no substantive content or anything useful or positive in any of this. And were your post unusual, I'd give it no attention. But it is your standard fare of invective. You seem to have no real interest in philosophy; I have surveyed your comments and found no evidence of any. You appear to be interested in mocking and insulting other posters at the expense of civil discourse and to the extent of evading, seemingly at all costs, any real engagement with substance. You do not answer questions; you avoid any consideration of ideas. I accuse you of being abusive beyond the usual and ordinary range of invective as I have encountered it on this and the previous forum. As near as I can tell you have no business on this forum. If yours is an act, then in my opinion you need to clean it up or pick up a new script - or move on.

*In an unusual turn of events*

Sapentia isn't a bad guy. He just likes being in the center of attention, quite desperately so...

The impression I had of Sapientia (AKA "S") was that he was a prodigious producer of proper and prudent prose. So... what happened?

I just asked Wallows if S. is Sapienta. I thought they were - are - two different folks. If the same, I echo your question.

Same person. Hope he is fine.

But the substance, as I explained, and which you're now making me repeat (ironically) is that I gave an example of what I somewhat loosely referred to as spam, and we all by now should know what I mean by that, if it wasn't wasn't perfectly clear from the start (which it probably was), in a discussion which only came about because I had the "nerve" to express a complaint about it, and the guy got pissed.

You actually ignored the substance, and I suspect deliberately so, in order to very predictably attack me, because you have a grudge against me, largely because I speak my mind with little restraint, and that winds you up. There are quite a few people who have a grudge against me, and a few of them have predictably turned up to look for just about anything to disagree with me over, or to change the subject of any Feedback discussion to, "This is why I have a grudge against S".

What's not useful about asking whether we can add "thought/belief" to the spam filter? It was an example of spam (or "Gertrude" for those who only want a semantic quibble)?

Why would you look for something "positive" in a complaint? It is a complaint, not a compliment.

This isn't about feedback or site policy any more, I'm closing it.