Mulberry makes a good point about news overload:
Iran and Syria
Katrina + Wilma
BushCo + PNAC
As regards board partitioning. I like it. I like structure and order. I like for things to be compartmentalized. I just think people who used to post
on ATS a lot have stopped or slowed because of the ‘feel’ of the board. More about that later.
Sourcing: I’m going to disagree with the idea that sourcing is a problem. I agree with Valhall and wecomeinpeace that you never know when a good
story might come out of a ‘less-than-credible’ source. There are tons of sources, not just on the Internet. Some are good, some less dependable.
Some, it’s just a matter of opinion. Look at cnn. It’s becoming less and less credible in my opinion.
We’re all out here with good, discerning minds. We can each decide if a source is valid or not. I would strongly disagree with any attempt to
regulate the sources used on the board. I would much prefer the more seasoned members simple say, “I’m not sure I trust that source” or
something like that as opposed to “That source sucks and only a stupid person would use it. We all know better.”
But, I can’t regulate the way people talk to each other, either. And I support the freedom to speak our minds within the confines of the board
rules. So, seeing as how we all learned somehow which sources are credible, I think each person should have the experience of having their sources
questioned. I would prefer it be in a respectful way, but some of us just can’t seem to manage that. Having one’s sources questioned is a really
good way to learn to look for a second source and also to learn which sources are more credible than others.
As regards arguing: Arguing is not the same as disagreement or debate. I think disagreement and debate are healthy and something I love to do, in
fact. The one thing lacking in argument is respect.
Arguing involves name-calling and other personal attacks of peripheral details, like the opposition’s political party, their sex, where they live,
their race or something personal about the person one is disagreeing with, in an attempt to discredit their opinion because of an unrelated idea or
fact. And I don’t like to see it on ATS. There’s room for that on BTS and PTS and I think it’s even allowed, but ATS (in my p-nut brain) should
be reserved for intellectual, factual, respectful debate and discussion.
I’m all for disagreement and debate, but I’m frankly sick of knowing what some of the regular ATS arguers are going to say before even opening the
thread. If I see a new twist on something or see a thread or post by someone I’ve come to respect, I open it, but lately it seems that all too
quickly, the regulars come in to put their acerbic slant on the thread and it spirals downhill for the next 20 pages with 4 people posting and gnawing
at each other. I just don’t find that I want to be involved in that.
What’s to be done about it? Unfortunately, I’m not sure. But at the risk of being perceived as complaining about the board, I do offer a
suggestion of a solution.
I remember how glad I was when this came out. And for a while it seemed to work, but then, like children who ‘test’ their parents constantly, the
antics came back and are now (seemingly) being all but ignored again. There are several threads on ATS I’ve been tempted to participate in, but when
I go in and see the overall ‘feel’ of the thread, I decide against it, for my post, which pertains to the original post, seems off-topic and will
likely be totally ignored as someone who’s not involved in the ‘fight’.
I think I’ll make an effort to participate more in ATS for a while and not let others’ opinions and arguing effect me quite so much. I’ll let
you know how that goes.