Damn straight. of course, I shouldn't talk

I agree though. this is definitely one of the best communities I've belonged to. It's definitely the largest of the good ones. Maybe Klipsch, but I haven't been there for a long while and it was going downhill when I left, but it seems better now.

Anyway, the only other really good communities I belong to are ones with less than 10 people, and 2 of those are with friends from "real life"

No, I'm serious, they're meaningless. I think all those things do is increase someone's tendency to post more just to beef up their post count so they get a cooler title. I think they have an adverse effect on the quality of discussion, in general.

I used to run a dialup BBS which had the same problem, so I junked the whole system (and went so far as to make it impossible for users to even see how many posts someone else had) and I saw much less noise and much more signal. People's contributions should be measured by something other than how much "hot air" they dispense.

And don't get me started on these karma/rating systems. No surer way to destroy a good online community than implementing one of those.

I was making a pun. I agree that they are meaningless.

It's just that you said "Bah" when your rank is Pooh-Bah. I thought you were trying to be funny, I was just rolling with the pun run.

I suppose your right, I'm not going to lose sleep over it or anything. I have more important stuff to lose sleep over , but regardless I totally agree that this is a great BBS.

Oh, no, I got the pun, I just chose to let it bounce off and further explain my aversion to these BBSes with goofy user rating systems. To acknowledge your pun would have been to encourage you, and would have knocked me off of my soap box.

The "bah" was probably a Freudian pun or something.

People's contributions should be measured by something other than how much "hot air" they dispense.

/Jim thinking "Oh, [censored]. If that's the case, I'm doomed!"

So, Tony, what's the next step after Pooh-Bah??

I dunno, I never look at the ranking information.

It's OK. I was just trying to tease yn0t_/Tony. If there was an Uber-Pooh step, we could ask him "So, how many more posts to go?" every week!

FWIW, I agree with him, though.

(PostCount++!)

And don't get me started on these karma/rating systems. No surer way to destroy a good online community than implementing one of those.

Agreed.

Incidentally, there's an upgrade to UBBThreads available, and PaulH discussed the upgrade with a few of us.

The Infopop people, since aquiring the WWWThreads people, have been slowly infecting the UBBThreads code with their icky-ness, and one of the icky features they just added is one of those ratings systems. There was no obvious way to disable the ratings so that the BBS worked as it does now. This was one of the criteria for the decision to NOT upgrade the software.

So, Tony, what's the next step after Pooh-Bah??

I hear it's FAQ Master, but I also read somewhere there's a "bad puns per week" clause...

Actually there is none, and I think that's just fine. Actually I hate this nick and I was going to create another account and retire this soon.

Edit: I stand corrected, I guess carpal tunnel comes next. Pretty lame title if you ask me.

I did I think it's "Carpal Tunel", which Tony must have by now

I agree with you [other] Tony, the ranks are definitely meaningless. But I don't know, I kinda like having them.

However, I completely agree with you on the rating systems. Nobody should put those on their boards. I always wonder why people do. It's a large reason why I stopped asking for help from people on Arstechnica. Those people are ruthless.

However, I completely agree with you on the rating systems. Nobody should put those on their boards. I always wonder why people do.

It's an attempt to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio in an online discussion. It's supposed to be akin to having a moderator, but without the need for an actual moderator. It's one of those things that SOUNDS good on paper, but doesn't work well in implementation.

I was discussing this with some friends who were asking themselves the very question of how to handle an online group discussion without introducing too much noise. And one of them was championing the ratings system.

I think what makes this BBS so great, and what gives it such a low S/N, is that the topic is focused enough, and the number of active users is small enough.

Then again, one of the persons in the discussion I mentioned above says that this particular BBS has way too much noise, and he complains vehemently about that fact. So I guess there's no pleasing some people.

Oh yes, I understand the theory, but I've yet to see it work. It just hurts members.

I agree with your thoughts about the board though. I think it's quite a low level of noise. If anyone thinks otherwise, time to visit some other message boards out there that are so overpopulated populated with childish morons it's a wonder anyone enjoys belonging to them.

Frankly, Tony, I think we have quite a large population here. I suppose you have to assume more noise with more people, but it's the amount you pick up when that happens that means something, and we have quite a good number of users and still maintain a great community. I love it.

lopan, I don't try to piss anyone off. I just present my opinion. And because it is in the minority, some people, like yourself, get mad. I don't see why you should though. I don't personally attack anyone, or target anyone to piss off. You just get angry because you don't agree with my view. If you can't handle a different viewpoint then I'd say the problem is with you, not me.

Plus, I can tend to just outright say some things, instead of using an appropiate euthanism like some people would.

And I don't give a damn about a rating. They're just good fun with statistics. If anyone is seriously concerned with their rating, I would recommend that they get a hobby.

In reply to:

---

lopan, I don't try to piss anyone off.

---

I think a lot of us might disagree with that.... but keep telling yourself that

In reply to:

---

I just present my opinion. And because it is in the minority, some people, like yourself, get mad.

---

Never said I got mad at you personally, by that you imply that I actually give a crap about your opinions... make no mistake, I don't... What agitates me, is your inability to speak with consideration of the other members of the bbs, but that quality is along the same lines as your opinions, mostly childish and rude so like most of the other people here I've learned to ignore it.

In reply to:

---

If you can't handle a different viewpoint then I'd say the problem is with you, not me.

---

I can handle all kinds of viewpoints just not ones that tend to be backwards...

In reply to:

---

And I don't give a damn about a rating

---

Cookies for you! I don't really either... I mean it's fun and all, but I was really commenting on the fact that you've achieved this level by offending just about everyone here!

Ok, then. I challenge you to point out one instance where I have been inconsiderate and disrespectful to anyone. The only instance I can recall is once a while back with acurasquirrel, but it was in retaliation and he was asking for it.

Challenge me? Why the hell would I waste my time messing around with you? This post is pretty much gonna wrap it up for me. I'm not dredging through months of frickin posts just to give you something to argue about... anyone can look at just about any one of your posts and see where someone has called you an idiot or a prick, or just generally rubbed someone the wrong way.

Now now fellas. If you guys really wanna duke it out, private messages will provide a nice place. Frankly, I haven't had many problems with the guy, except for that web page thing, so I'm not too hostile about it. Then again, I don't read the other forums much anymore.

Needless to say I think this thread has definitely run its course...

I hope you meant "euphemism" -

ha. Yeah that's what I meant. Thanks

Ok, Lopan. All I have to say is if you're gonna make accusations you should be prepared to back them up.

shocked that the US Pledge of Allegiance has been declared unconstitutional

The UK has an established religion: Christianity. That wouldn't be my choice, but in practice it is never, ever actually a problem. It always amuses me that the US are so proud of their separation of Church and State, and yet US politics is riddled with religion in a way which UK politics simply is not. If you bluntly ask Tony Blair or the Queen whether they believe in God, both will say yes; but neither will go out of their way to mention religion in speeches aimed at the general population.

Responding to specific points: the reference in the US constitution to "an establishment of religion" probably meant a specific technical meaning of "establishment", that of a state-sponsored church -- in the sense that the Anglican church is the "established religion" in the UK. And I read somewhere that "Congress shall make no law..." was a formula meaning "We'll leave it to the individual states to decide", not "There shall be no such law anywhere".

Religious schools: it's never been quite clear to me what "humanist" means, but I'm all for it if it means that that which de-humanises is evil. That certainly includes religious schools. I wouldn't mind them if they offered a more broad-based education: Christianity one year, Hinduism the next, Islam, Judaism, and so on. That way such schools might function as an inoculation, and prevent children contracting full-blown religion if they were exposed to contagion later in life. But I suspect none actually function like that, instead just acting as recruitment and indoctrination camps. Supporters of political parties or football teams don't get to send their kids to indoctrination camps in order that they grow up with their parents' arbitrary biases and blinkerednesses, and I don't see why supporters of religions should either.

Peter

In reference to whether or not the Constitution is prohibiting intermingling of government and religion, or only Federal government and religion is somewhat unclear. As per usual, our best bet for determining it, at least in my mind, is to look at Thomas Jefferson's opinions. Unfortunately, he seems to waffle a little on this point. First, he would claim, in a letter to Samuel Miller (Jan 23, 1808) that:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority.

So it would seem that you would be right. But, at the same time, he was the principle author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which states:

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness

So it would seem that while he believed that the Constiution delegated such authority to the states, that the states shouldn't have that power either, especially considering the fairly vehement language he uses in the statute.

So, to sum up -- maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong. Who knows?

"Supporters of political parties or football teams don't get to send their kids to indoctrination camps in order that they grow up with their parents' arbitrary biases and blinkerednesses, and I don't see why supporters of religions should either. "

Actually I don't see why they couldn't do exactly that. If someone wanted to found a school deticated to following a sports team, am I wrong in thinking this would be perfectly legal in the U.S.? I think probably most parents aren't so dedicated that they'd want to do this, and even if they were they would have to find enought others with their dedication that they would want to fill up such a school.

There are many religious schools in the U.S. and I think they make perfect sense. Aside from math and grammer, religious beliefs color every aspect of a childs education and it is not incoceviable to think that having a child learn the same beliefs as his/ her parents beliefs is consistent with our freedom to practise our own beliefs.

Aside from math and grammer, religious beliefs color every aspect of a childs education...

That's if you are a religious person. I think you're assuming that all children will automatically follow their parents' beliefs and be as much or more involved in that religion as they are, which is an incorrect assumption. That depends on the religious fervor of the parent.

Actually I meant that religious beliefs as well as non-beliefs will color aspects of a childs education. The current public education system necessarily follow current popular (though not necessarily correct) beliefs/non-beliefs. You are correct that a child has the choice what to believe, but if the childs education is to be influenced by either popular opinion or the parent's, I think the better choice is the parent.

So it would seem that while he believed that the Constiution delegated such authority to the states, that the states shouldn't have that power either, especially considering the fairly vehement language he uses in the statute.

Perhaps this could be squared by the theory that he personally would vote in Virginia against any state-established church, but that as a writer of the constitution, he allowed for the possibility that if there were a state full of voters who thought otherwise, he wouldn't deny them the chance. It looks as if the framers of the constitution were pretty careful about keeping their personal opinions out of federal matters, but felt it was only right to express them at a state level.

Peter

I think you're assuming that all children will automatically follow their parents' beliefs and be as much or more involved in that religion as they are, which is an incorrect assumption. That depends on the religious fervor of the parent.

And sometimes, it depends inversely: the more fervent the parent, the more the child spots that it's a bad idea. Not always, though.

Perhaps it's worth it for atheist parents to pretend to be very religious when their children are young, so that when the children automatically rebel against them, they'll end up doing the right thing...

Peter