RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Uncommon Descent Addendum Blog, Where do the lost comments go?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
jxs



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,00:22   

Not long ago, I posted a comment at Uncommon Descent that was entirely reasonable, well-referenced, and (not to be immodest) on a topic of well-credentialed personal expertise. It seems to have been "lost" in the ether, however. I find most of my comments there are lost in their ether.

Maybe they have a bad Internet connection? Maybe their disks are full? Maybe they are running the site on a processor from the fifties?

First, I suggest we hold a fund raiser for UD: let's buy them a year at hosting company from this century!

Second, if that isn't enough, I propose to provide a helpful addendum blog. Copyright prevents us from duplicating every post and comment, but we could track changes to the site, and add helpful references (and peer-reviewed summaries regarding the content) for each post and comment.

Most importantly, we should encourage UD participants to submit their additions to both UD and the UDA -- just in case the data gets lost on its way to UD.

I'm sure the community can manage to bankroll the necessary CPU and bandwidth costs for UD/UDA. With your help, we can help end the plague of arbitrary comment loss.

My B-school people tell me this might cost as much $30 a year, but I am committed to science and I'm prepared to offer a significant portion of my vast fortune and pre-pay *multiple* years of service -- simply because the discussion on UD/UDA is worth more than any tiny pile of small dollar bills could be.

Will you join in my quest to see the full realization of the UD community?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,00:29   

Quote
Maybe they are running the site on a processor from the fifties?


a little hint...

It's not the computer that's from the fifties.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
jxs



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,00:59   

Please...

Why would a site so reknowned, and lead by so many brilliants thinkers and theorists, end up losing so many comments with out noticing?

Clearly their IT staff must be criminally incompetent. Money solves many problems. You know they aren't getting anything like the slavish NSF funding they dole out to "in the box" thinkers -- their "out of the box" theoretical work (probably something to do with conspiracies... ####, big pharma blocks my cancer cures several times a week, so I know where they're coming from...) gets in the way of major "mainstream" funding.

But I know some people that can plug ethernet cables together, so maybe we can help them lose fewer comments. Maybe?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,01:09   

Quote
Why would a site so reknowned, and lead by so many brilliants thinkers and theorists, end up losing so many comments with out noticing?


LOL.

well, you hit the nail on the head there.

they DO notice; they just don't tell (SHHHH!).

the rest of your statement is a nice bit of parody.

there's only one way to get them to "lose" fewer comments, and without them, it wouldn't be nearly as humorous a blog as it is, even if the humor is unintended.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
jxs



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,01:23   

Dropping the parody for the moment: I've been denied three utterly factual comments at UD today. Maybe it would be a good thing to document the "lost" comments?

Maybe UD has no sway beyond true believers, but I think it would be nice if the second google link was to the UD Addendum: "Comments that got lost and for whatever reason were briefly or never visible there, though posted"

And, of course, I would like to see an unbiased summary of the real UD posts: There is nothing as effective as a fanatic to scare the moderates away.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,01:31   

Quote
Maybe it would be a good thing to document the "lost" comments?


you are officially encouraged to use the uncommonly dense thread to post a copy of whatever you attempted to post on UD.

all comments on UD are moderated, and they only appear if the commenter is freed manually from moderation, or if the moderators get around to approving your particular comment for the board.

so don't feel bad your comment didn't post, it might post tommorrow, or it might never post.

that's the crapshoot of UD!

again, the only way to fix that would be to remove the moderators and replace them with folks that had at least half-sense, but then all the idiocy they exhibit on a daily basis would also have to go, and that would make a lot of people HERE very sad, I think.

that said, occassionally comments here don't show up either, but that has nothing to do with moderation, rather it has to do with some threads getting too large and posts occassionally piling up.

they're there, sometimes they just don't show up unless you manually advance the cue.

see the board mechanics thread for details if you need to.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
jxs



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,04:01   

I posted an extraordinarily instructive counter earlier, but it too seems to have been lost. It seems possible that a non-trivial component of this whole mess is my fault.

Though to be fair, I am at roughly a dozen pending UD posts today without a single acknowledgment. Three of those were, admittedly, rational but critical summaries of ole Dave. The other nine were merely corrections to fundamental factual errors in the original article (of which five managed to not be even remotely trolling or insulting).

It would seem I'm not the diplomat for Science Land. But it does really piss me off that my calculations suggest 1-5 lackey morons get accepted at UD when, on average, 20 actual scientists are banned per post. I'm rather curious as to what the banned scientists had to say.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,04:34   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 01 2007,01:31)
you are officially encouraged to use the uncommonly dense thread to post a copy of whatever you attempted to post on UD.

Icky,

There are some problems with posting "disappeared" comments on the Uncommonly Dense thread.  That thread is generally for tard-mockery or for eliciting mouth-agape astonishment at the goings-on at UD.  Run-of-the-mill serious responses to posts at UD don't really fit in.  Also, it would be nice to have smaller threads dealing with one subject, rather than the motley carnival of tardity that's collected on the Uncommonly Dense thread.

jxs,

Here's an idea I've been toying with that I'd like to float with Wes and Steve, the moderators:

Every time a new blog entry is posted at UD, we could create a thread here at AtBC which links to it.  Anyone who has been banned at UD or expects their comments to disappear could post them on the AtBC thread instead of at UD.  After a while, word would get around that all of the interesting stuff was happening on the AtBC threads.  Commenters at UD would start responding to comments made on the AtBC threads, and after a while they might even post directly to the AtBC threads.

This would be great, because a) it would create a place for genuine discussion of the posts at UD, where qualified, intelligent people could have their say, and b) it would put pressure on the moderators at UD to loosen up.  They've got noone to blame but themselves.  If they allowed dissent, people would post there instead of here.

If we created a new thread for each UD blog entry, then old threads would naturally scroll off the thread list as interest in them waned.

Question for Wes and Steve:  Would you guys go along with this plan?  And does the AtBC software have any limit on the number of new threads that could be created for this purpose?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
jxs



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,04:40   

Well this is unfortunate:

It seems I tuned in just as the creationists were abiding their elementary school era curfews.. .

I'm sure I'll have pleasant dreams verbally eviscerating stupid speakers, but there is nothing like a living, breathing creationist to mumble truly fascinating idiocies. I like to think I'm a little eccentric, but there is nothing like minor schizophrenia to really put you in your place:

"Hi, as best as I can tell, you have major bleeding wounds in four visible locations -- but my meds make me just sane enough to know that's probably not true -- are you seriously wounded? No, okay. Anyway the weather is nice today."

The more extreme cases want to apply bandages to my head before we have lunch. I don't mind terribly -- maybe I am losing pints of blood from the gash on my forehead that I am unaware of.

(Not really, that's just what I say to my really "interesting" friends... best not to terribly conflict their understanding of reality)

btw, hello creationists. The previous conversation had nothing to do with you whatsoever.

  
jxs



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,04:57   

keiths:

That is exactly what I want. The only difference we have is that I think it might be better to do that at a new site specifically dedicated to UD mockery.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,17:17   

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 01 2007,04:34)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 01 2007,01:31)
you are officially encouraged to use the uncommonly dense thread to post a copy of whatever you attempted to post on UD.

Icky,

There are some problems with posting "disappeared" comments on the Uncommonly Dense thread.  That thread is generally for tard-mockery or for eliciting mouth-agape astonishment at the goings-on at UD.  Run-of-the-mill serious responses to posts at UD don't really fit in.  Also, it would be nice to have smaller threads dealing with one subject, rather than the motley carnival of tardity that's collected on the Uncommonly Dense thread.

jxs,

Here's an idea I've been toying with that I'd like to float with Wes and Steve, the moderators:

Every time a new blog entry is posted at UD, we could create a thread here at AtBC which links to it.  Anyone who has been banned at UD or expects their comments to disappear could post them on the AtBC thread instead of at UD.  After a while, word would get around that all of the interesting stuff was happening on the AtBC threads.  Commenters at UD would start responding to comments made on the AtBC threads, and after a while they might even post directly to the AtBC threads.

This would be great, because a) it would create a place for genuine discussion of the posts at UD, where qualified, intelligent people could have their say, and b) it would put pressure on the moderators at UD to loosen up.  They've got noone to blame but themselves.  If they allowed dissent, people would post there instead of here.

If we created a new thread for each UD blog entry, then old threads would naturally scroll off the thread list as interest in them waned.

Question for Wes and Steve:  Would you guys go along with this plan?  And does the AtBC software have any limit on the number of new threads that could be created for this purpose?

"That thread is generally for tard-mockery or for eliciting mouth-agape astonishment at the goings-on at UD."

generally, yes, but other UD posters have used the thread to copy things that never made it there before.

In fact, it has often allowed us to locate the particular bit of ridiculousness that the "dissappeared" posts were intended to refer to.

that said, you have a point, and I suppose it would be just as well to simply have frustrated UD users post in a new thread.

"Every time a new blog entry is posted at UD, we could create a thread here at AtBC which links to it."

we used to have that exact thing, but there was some issue where MasterTard believed that Wes' maintenance of that was interfering with their google listing, and UD "hired" a lawyer to send Wes a cease-and-desist order.

now, it was shown later that the copied threads had nothing to do with why UD was delisted from google, but the cease and desist order remained, and Wes thought it simply not worthwhile to challenge it (makes perfect sense).

so, I'm not sure how you would go about "automirroring" UD without running into the same potnetial legal issue that Wes did.

IOW, yes, you might argue "fair use", but would you be willing to risk that argument in an actual court?  Is it worth it?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,18:55   

Quote
Not long ago, I posted a comment at Uncommon Descent that was entirely reasonable, well-referenced, and (not to be immodest) on a topic of well-credentialed personal expertise. It seems to have been "lost" in the ether, however. I find most of my comments there are lost in their ether.


I know you Darwinists are in denial, but why can't you just recognize that "poof" happens, and that intelligent design can intervene in natural processes to subtly alter the course of biological and cultural evolution?

They're working mightily to show what materialists always deny, that things happen without evidence and besides, anti-entropic forces step in during the intelligence process to cause unpredictable and anti-materialistic happenings.  Thus, there is a telos operating on UD that is denied to the unimaginative atheistic evolutionists, and whether or not it is the Designer or the divine DaveScot effecting anti-entropic manifestations is nearly immaterial (or indeed, it is apparently entirely immaterial, save for the movements subsequent to his high-IQ magically producing dead-stupid comments (see, it is magic, as you'd never predict such stupidity from his holy intelligence)).

So yes, it may actually be done by agents at UD, the thing is that you'll never know since we don't know what the Designer intends.  Perhaps the Designer does intend that your evil anti-Designer comments be stricken into nothingness (SLOT doesn't rule the process even in known agents, so how could you check?).  Since you can't disprove that the Designer is the one doing it all, you certainly have no excuse to suggest that "natural agents" at UD are responsible, let alone that their intelligence can be reduced to physical processes (again, neither DaveTard's IQ nor his stupid output are comprehensible through physical processes, especially since they're incompatible causally).  

Nevertheless, even if it is the so-called "natural agents" destroying your worthless input, you can't demonstrate conclusively that natural processes were working at every step, hence the fact that they may be working for the Designer as faithfully as you Darwinists work against him cannot be refuted.

IOW, accept the designed judgments against your evil deeds, and recognize the justice in the destruction of energy and entropy as your posts dissolve into nothingness.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,18:59   

now THAT belongs over in the Uncommonly Dense thread.
:p

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,20:50   

Ichthyic wrote:
Quote
so, I'm not sure how you would go about "automirroring" UD without running into the same potnetial legal issue that Wes did.

IOW, yes, you might argue "fair use", but would you be willing to risk that argument in an actual court?  Is it worth it?

The difference is that BUUD actually mirrored entries and comments from UD.  I'm talking about something that would only link to entries at UD, and would not mirror comments that were made at UD.  It would only contain comments that were made at AtBC.

In practice, this is how it would work:

1. A new blog entry appears at UD.

2. Someone opens a corresponding thread at AtBC and links to the UD entry.  No copying takes place.

3. Folks open the thread, click through to the UD entry, read it and the comments, then return to the AtBC thread to make their comments.

As word gets around that the interesting discussions are happening on the AtBC threads, people will tend to post comments there, but they'll still be reading the posts on the UD site.

I can't see how that could possibly amount to a violation of fair use, as nothing is being mirrored.  We're simply linking to UD, just as we do now when we find a juicy tidbit.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,21:43   

Quote
I can't see how that could possibly amount to a violation of fair use, as nothing is being mirrored.


Niether can I, but it starts to sound like something that adds unnecessary worth to the original posts on UD, you know, the ones we make fun of 'cause they're so stupid.

really, I think the Uncommonly Dense thread is about as much tard as my poor head can take.

far be it from me to curtail the will of the majority if most think this would be a good idea, though.

I rather suggest it would be better for an entirely different forum, like BUUD was, but no longer actually reproducing content.

Wes can create a new forum for it if you can convince him of the merit of it.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,22:17   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 01 2007,21:43)
Wes can create a new forum for it if you can convince him of the merit of it.

That's a good idea.  The new forum could be dedicated solely to UD comment threads, with nothing else mixed in.

Readers who chose to stick to AtBC would not be distracted by a steady stream of new UD-related threads.

Wes, Steve -- what do you guys think?

A new forum, with one thread per UD post.  No mirroring or copying of either posts or comments, so no legal issues.  Just a safe haven for people to comment on UD posts without fear of banning or of "lost" comments.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2007,22:33   

you should discuss it with Wes directly; send him a PM or an email.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
  16 replies since Mar. 01 2007,00:22 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]