Bishonen indef-blocks FT2, Holy crap, he hasn't been desysopped by Jimbo Options

[Milton Roe]

Now, having partly defended these ghastly people, I will go shower and curse them to hell.

You're thinking clearly and logically, despite not really enjoying your conclusions. Still, a pleasure to read. In fact, drawing the conclusions you don't really like, adds something. We don't see that enough.

[Milton Roe]

But here's the thing. Go to a journalism school. What are basic skills, apart from "writing gripping prose"? Tricks like human interest in the first paragraph, look for a "hook", go for emotional impact... you've read those courses? I have (well, skimmed anyway some time or other), and dead right I'd get a D, because I've no interest in that kind of writing. Little to no interest in "selling myself" or "being a byline". Encyclopedia writing suits me fine, and the object there is to convey useful information in a helpful structured form that conveys information and balances and integrates views. Its aim is to be an accessibly written resource, not a persuader and that I'm good at. Dead right I'd be ashamed to get an "A" grade in manipulative demagogy, though.

Oh, journalism is more than just learning to write formalized 1500 word 25 paragraph newspaper articles. Though even doing that helped Twain, Kipling, Churchill, Hemingway,and many, many others a lot.

I could have as easily recommended a course in technical writing. Anything to help you be more modular and concise.

And as for me, I promise to use the spellchecker more. But that reminds me of the woman who insulted Churchill by saying he was disgustingly drunk, and his reply that perhaps so, but she was disgustingly fat, yet in the morning, he would be sober.

[dtobias]

Learning to be an ethical journalist is a serious requirement for any mass media producer.

Has our friend Don Murphy ever learned this?

[Giano]

You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you?

In the case of Wikipedia, I hadn't noticed.

What a ridiculous and silly coment - are you including your owm work in that statement? If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all.

Giano

[GlassBeadGame]

But here's the thing. Go to a journalism school. What are basic skills, apart from "writing gripping prose"? Tricks like human interest in the first paragraph, look for a "hook", go for emotional impact... you've read those courses? I have (well, skimmed anyway some time or other), and dead right I'd get a D, because I've no interest in that kind of writing. Little to no interest in "selling myself" or "being a byline". Encyclopedia writing suits me fine, and the object there is to convey useful information in a helpful structured form that conveys information and balances and integrates views. Its aim is to be an accessibly written resource, not a persuader and that I'm good at. Dead right I'd be ashamed to get an "A" grade in manipulative demagogy, though.

Oh, journalism is more than just learning to write formalized 1500 word 25 paragraph newspaper articles. Though even doing that helped Twain, Kipling, Churchill, Hemingway,and many, many others a lot.

I could have as easily recommended a course in technical writing. Anything to help you be more modular and concise.

And as for me, I promise to use the spellchecker more. But that reminds me of the woman who insulted Churchill by saying he was disgustingly drunk, and his reply that perhaps so, but she was disgustingly fat, yet in the morning, he would be sober.

Can FT2 possible be that oblivious to the limits of his ability to write in an effective manner? The only "skill" he has demonstrated in this thread is to repeatedly come back for more after failing to expressing himself a manner that "conveys useful information." I understand that being being the last one standing is useful in the drive-by environment of Wikipedia where matters are often settled by having the influence to get someone blocked or banned if they persist to oppose him but it does nothing for him here.

He also seems disoriented by his inability to command the needed influence to prevail here and appears to be searching desperately for a voice.

[Kato]

You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you?

In the case of Wikipedia, I hadn't noticed.

What a ridiculous and silly coment - are you including your owm work in that statement? If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all.

Giano

Wikipedia Ironic Quote No.3429

Giano

"If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all."

[Dzonatas]

You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you?

In the case of Wikipedia, I hadn't noticed.

What a ridiculous and silly coment - are you including your owm work in that statement? If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all.

Giano

In the case of Virgin Killer, your comment, Giano, is overruled by Damian's tact.

Wikipedia Ironic Quote No.3429

Giano

"If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all."

The 12 year old wikipedia admin just sent a tweet, "/facepalm"

[Bottled_Spider]

He also seems disoriented by his inability to command the needed influence to prevail here and appears to be searching desperately for a voice.

His search is over. The ever-more-desperate and rapidly declining Giana seems to be fulfilling that role nicely now that Wikiwhistle seems to have given up. Meh!

[Kelly Martin]

FT2 and Giano are doing a phenomenal job of demonstrating Wikipedia's finest virtues in this thread. Please, both of you, do continue.

[Random832]

What FT2 seems to be trying to say - rather ineptly - is that there exist people to whom the word "zoophilia" can be legitimately applied who have never, in fact, had sex with an animal.

I've said in twenty-three words what you've failed to say in several hundred. This is what people mean when they say you're too verbose.

[Kelly Martin]

I've said in twenty-three words what you've failed to say in several hundred. This is what people mean when they say you're too verbose.

Yes, but the difference, Random, is that now you are on record as saying that and will have a hard time disavowing it, whereas FT2's verbal effluvia is so convoluted and jumbled that he can effectively deny anything he might have said later on, on the double grounds that it's unlikely that anyone actually read it all the way through in the first place and anyone who did probably got such a headache that they'll refuse to admit having read it if asked.

FT2's purpose is not and has never been to communicate; his purpose is to baffle and misdirect. You should direct your attention to the man behind the curtain.

[Random832]

Uh uh -- no moving goalposts. Your original comment

Whose original comment? You seem to have confused "Moulton" with "Milton Roe".

[GlassBeadGame]

You should direct your attention to the man behind the curtain.

Well that's a horse of a different color.

[FT2]

I could have as easily recommended a course in technical writing. Anything to help you be more modular and concise.

And as for me, I promise to use the spellchecker more. But that reminds me of the woman who insulted Churchill by saying he was disgustingly drunk, and his reply that perhaps so, but she was disgustingly fat, yet in the morning, he would be sober.

A well known incident, often cited Trouble is that brevity often conflicts with informativeness. I don't have sufficient trust that soundbites are honest, or sufficient skill to know what's readily skipped, so I avoid using it. I know my limits, and summing up a complex matter plus evidence in 2 sentences or paragraphs isn't it. There's worse.

What FT2 seems to be trying to say - rather ineptly - is that there exist people to whom the word "zoophilia" can be legitimately applied who have never, in fact, had sex with an animal. I've said in twenty-three words what you've failed to say in several hundred. This is what people mean when they say you're too verbose.

What I'm saying is a bit harder to handle than that. I'm saying that a range of fairly authoritative sources seem to consider it uncontroversial in their field to state that even those who do such things, are not all abusive or to be classed as abusers.

That said... in your example, you haven't given any evidence whatsoever; which means its a mere assertion. Evidence it for a skeptical but openminded reasoning person, or explain how you got there so someone else can check your reasoning, and see how many words you need. That's why it gets wordy. I'd obviously be interested if there's a way to cover that and also keep it short.

Can FT2 possible be that oblivious to the limits of his ability to write in an effective manner? The only "skill" he has demonstrated in this thread is (blah...)

We're going to disagree Glass Bead. You don't want scholarly material shown to anyone under 16? 18?, regardless of harm its lack may cause. You seem to feel that providing scholarly information on difficult subjects is more harmful than clicking round whatever random links comes up... you're much more in the "hide it away, people shouldn't be able to know adult stuff" where conservatives hang out, regardless of need, value, or value of avoiding misinformation. We just don't have common ground on this.

FT2 and Giano are doing a phenomenal job of demonstrating Wikipedia's finest virtues in this thread. Please, both of you, do continue.

This would be a lot more compelling and the style less necessary if you and some others weren't egging it on for the year up till now, of course.

Popcorn still good, hun? Want a soda to go?

This post has been edited by FT2: Wed 21st January 2009, 2:41pm

[Random832]

Yes, but the difference, Random, is that now you are on record as saying that

I'm actually only on record as having attributed it to someone else, but I see your point. I prefer to think that he's completely incompetent at communicating rather than deliberately being dishonest (don't look at me like that, FT2 - it really is down to those two options at this point, and incompetence is in line with AGF)

That said... you haven't given any evidence whatsoever; which means its a mere assertion. Evidence it for a skeptical but openminded reasoning person, or explain how you got there so someone else can check your reasoning, and see how many words you need. That's why it gets wordy. But if you can see how to shortcut it, then yes I'd obviously be interested.

You could try answering simple questions with simple answers and then providing your evidence separately, rather than having it all in one unintelligible mass of words.

[GlassBeadGame]

Can FT2 possible be that oblivious to the limits of his ability to write in an effective manner? The only "skill" he has demonstrated in this thread is (blah...)

We're going to disagree Glass Bead. You don't want scholarly material shown to anyone under 16? 18?, regardless of harm its lack may cause. You seem to feel that providing scholarly information on difficult subjects is more harmful than clicking round whatever random links comes up... you're much more in the "hide it away, people shouldn't be able to know adult stuff" where conservatives hang out, regardless of need, value, or value of avoiding misinformation. We just don't have common ground on this.

I never sought to persuade you of anything. I will also add complete inability to discern irony if not signaled by an emoticon to your list of pervasive communication deficits. Did you really think that I ever used the word "scholarly" in relation to your work intending anything other than mockery? Also did you notice that your pandering to the kiddies to come in and shout me down as "ageist" has not panned out? That argument has been settled for sometime on this site.

[FT2]

I'm actually only on record as having attributed it to someone else, but I see your point. I prefer to think that he's completely incompetent at communicating rather than deliberately being dishonest (don't look at me like that, FT2 - it really is down to those two options at this point, and incompetence is in line with AGF)
(Snip)
You could try answering simple questions with simple answers and then providing your evidence separately, rather than having it all in one unintelligible mass of words.

No need for defensiveness. It's an accurate comment in certain areas and obviously intended for good cause. I asked because I know it's a skill I lack and can get in the way, and in some cases it will make me an incompetent communicator. Concur and not shied away from. Something I've asked others to advise on before, and will again.

Someone has once mentioned something like that before, a couple or so months back (maybe more?), for wiki use - post a short version, plus link to the detail on a backing page (usually userspace) for those who would want it. Seems somewhat similar - does that work?

[wikiwhistle]

He also seems disoriented by his inability to command the needed influence to prevail here and appears to be searching desperately for a voice.

His search is over. The ever-more-desperate and rapidly declining Giana seems to be fulfilling that role nicely now that Wikiwhistle seems to have given up. Meh!

FT has been giving me tips on how to get my house warm via correct use of the clingfilm (not in a sex way lol) double-glazing technique. If it gets warm enough for me to live here, I shall be very pleased. I think I'll draw the line at converting to Bestialism or anything though.

What I'm saying is a bit harder to handle than that. I'm saying that a range of fairly authoritative sources seem to consider it uncontroversial in their field to state that even those who do such things, are not all abusive or to be classed as abusers.

What about the probably thousands more sources that would say the opposite?

[Moulton]

One of the keys to good writing (and I have long struggled with this one) is finding the right metaphor. An entire picture can be conveyed in a well-chosen metaphor.

If a good metaphor doesn't come to mind, downgrade to an analogy.

If a good analogy doesn't come to mind, downgrade to evidence-based reasoning and analysis.

If all else fails (and it often does), downgrade to a joke, personal anecdote, or atrocious song parody.

But whatever you do, avoid preaching by means of Jesuistic Parables. That practice will get you crucified faster than you can sing, "We will, we will BLOCK YOU!"

[dogbiscuit]

What I'm saying is a bit harder to handle than that. I'm saying that a range of fairly authoritative sources seem to consider it uncontroversial in their field to state that even those who do such things, are not all abusive or to be classed as abusers.

That, I think is the point where you leave the real world and end up in Wikipedialand. To come to such a statement relies on several basic issues: what definition of zoophilia are those sources using (given that at its most literal it can be taken to be as simple as someone who likes animals in the most general sense), the "fairly authoritative", the context of the quote, the biases of the sources and so on, all sourcing 101. You can provide all the sourcing you like, but The Reasonable Person would struggle to agree with the statement that you seek to justify, cutting the FT2 crap, that says "Having sex with animals is not abnormal or abusive." You no doubt will say that is not in any way the statement you are making, but by the time you add in redirects, obfuscation and whatever, that is what the reasonable person will think you are saying. In typical Wikipedian fashion, you will then argue that it is the reader's fault for failing to understand what is written than the writer's fault for failing to communicate in a manner a reasonable person can understand.

That's the problem with Wikipedia - it reserves the right to switch off common sense on a whim and you end up with illogical stances where starting from a reasonable position of wanting to insulate yourself from editors bias you end up instead with another bias "verifiability not truth" where the verifiability is based on a flawed set of rules that allow Wikipedians to argue for incorrect information without batting an eyelid.

We're going to disagree Glass Bead. You don't want scholarly material shown to anyone under 16? 18?, regardless of harm its lack may cause. You seem to feel that providing scholarly information on difficult subjects is more harmful than clicking round whatever random links comes up... you're much more in the "hide it away, people shouldn't be able to know adult stuff" where conservatives hang out, regardless of need, value, or value of avoiding misinformation. We just don't have common ground on this.

Classic FT2 misdirection. You know full well that the consensus here is that Wikipedia articles do not pass the test of scholarly information, and that there are other criteria than academic standards that dictate what are appropriate subjects for children. If you really believe that total mis-statement of GBG's obvious and rational statement of what most reasonable people would think then I think you really have confirmed you are not a fit and proper person to have any influence at all in the development of a resource used by minors, scholarly or otherwise.

To be frank, of all your odd outbursts here, that one is the one that makes me think that either your are stupid or are so irrationally convinced of your own intellectual superiority that you cannot conceive how our tiny minds will see how you have abused GBG's comments (which would then pretty much confirm the first premise).