The Relationship of Substance of Discussion to Volume

[_truth dancer]

Hey Don,

I'm thinking the "ignore" button would help?

(Hint, hint to Dr. Shades).

;-)

~dancer~

[_Doctor Steuss]

I assume I am the exception to the rule as I’ve never had a thread that sparked a lot of discussion… ;)

Ultimately I think it is due to time constraints and overall poster dynamics (I think those who dig the “substantive” scholarly discussions tend to be drawn to commenting on blogs in lieu of message boards). Also, I think we are naturally drawn to that which can be refuted, or commented upon in less than a few lines. Whether it’s due to a tendency towards laziness, or a natural inclination towards being succinct, we tend to be pulled into that which leaves little room for being made to look the fool.

Substantive posts require substantive replies. And with a substantive reply comes the potential to be misunderstood. The more you type, the more ammo you give to someone who wants to disagree with you, and the greater the potentiality to be drawn into something that you initially only wanted to parenthetically comment upon.

(Already I’m uncomfortable with the length of this post).

<--- Idiotic poster.

[_The Nehor]

I think people come here more for entertainment or venting purposes than intellectual stimulation. I admit I read a lot of the more intellectual threads but tend to stay out of them unless I actually have something to say. On inane threads I tend to aggravate the situation.

[_Blixa]

I think people come here more for entertainment or venting purposes than intellectual stimulation. I admit I read a lot of the more intellectual threads but tend to stay out of them unless I actually have something to say. On inane threads I tend to aggravate the situation.

I don't see this as a real venting forum, though it is often entertaining. I'm here for the advertised discussion, myself. And it happens, but not as frequently as I would like. Of course, I'm as guilty as anyone of getting caught up in acrimonious back and forths with posters who truly do not want a discussion but are only, as they themselves have described it, looking to score points.

I've thought about starting some more substansive posts in the celestial realms, but I've been busy with work on my sabbatical and the more I get into my project the less I want to discuss it---I'm worried about "giving away" some of the best parts too early. Lol.

[Guest]

I think it's human nature to be attracted to the low-brow. Just look at the television line-up each season. Usually it's the more substantial programs that fail quickly, if they ever even make it to production, while fluff and silliness prevail. And it's not just a recent development; I mean remember Gilligan's Island, Beverly Hillbillies and My Mother The Car?

Then look at radio, and compare the ratings of Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern to NPR. Volume seems to always rule the day (in a different way than you used the word "volume").

[_Scottie]

Proposition:

Idiotic posts and posters tend to spark more discussion (though of an inferior kind) than do substantive posts and thoughtful posters.

What think ye? Is this (generally) the case? Is it some kind of law of message-board discussion? What, if anything, can be done to counteract it, and make the greatest amount of participation occur in the most fruitful discussions, while stupid posts and posters find themselves alone and ignored (at least until they raise their level of discourse)?

Don't everyone respond at once! ;-)

Don

Well, often times I read a great post, and have nothing more to add. I guess I could post something that says, "Great post! I agree!"

I often wonder if I should be proud or ashamed that so many of my posts get completely ignored.

[_krose]

I assume I am the exception to the rule as I’ve never had a thread that sparked a lot of discussion… ;)

Your latest about marital relations has serious potential.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

I was thinking about starting a discussion about Korihor's accusation of Alma for making money from the people, "glutting himself." Alma responds by saying he's never received so much as a senine for his labors, except for his work as a judge. But the wages for a judge was a senine...

The thing is, starting a thread about the subject would probably go the way of a post I made about the descendants of Mulek giving authority to someone from the House of Joseph.

I really enjoy talking about the book as literature; it is interesting to me from the standpoint of redaction criticism, but online discussions about redaction criticism of the Book of Mormon are hard to come by.

I'll probably stick around for the entertainment.

[_The Nehor]

I doubt that, Nehor. You at least admit to your anti-Christ status in your username. ;-) And I don't see you a poster with an especially low ratio of substance to noise.

Don

It's a nickname I picked up while on the Mission. I keep it around to remind myself how quickly and easily I can fall.

[_malkie]

Proposition:

Idiotic posts and posters tend to spark more discussion (though of an inferior kind) than do substantive posts and thoughtful posters.

What think ye? Is this (generally) the case? Is it some kind of law of message-board discussion? What, if anything, can be done to counteract it, and make the greatest amount of participation occur in the most fruitful discussions, while stupid posts and posters find themselves alone and ignored (at least until they raise their level of discourse)?

Don't everyone respond at once! ;-)

Don

Well, often times I read a great post, and have nothing more to add. I guess I could post something that says, "Great post! I agree!"

I often wonder if I should be proud or ashamed that so many of my posts get completely ignored.

As a Scot, I have to be kind to Scottie, and make sure that, once in a while, one of his posts is not ignored.

For this week, this post is it! ;)