reply to post by chissler
There are negatives and unsubstantiated threads. But if the positives didn't outweigh the negatives, we wouldn't be as successful as we are.
You make strong and valid points, and I agree with the general premise of your post.
However, I can't help but ponder: did not the greatness of the U.S. once outweigh the negatives before slow yet constant negative energy was
systemically allowed to settle in
(and all with very good reasons given by those now derailing this great society) until now the
whole thing is just in bad need of an enema. I love my country, and my planet, but right now is not the best time I can remember, if I'm honest about
it.
ATS is awesome. I would like for it to remain that way. I think that ATS became awesome because of the quality of intellectual posters who made this a
home on the Net, as well as we curiosity seekers who were able to show up and consequently converse with professionals who -- without such a forum --
may never have done so.
And since SO recently announced the million-visitors milestone, that tells me that more of what we both
A want and
B don't want will be showing up. Problem is, the quality contributors who keep this site above the rest are likely not
going to put up with escalating trollism (for what?), while the trolls -- having found fresh prey -- are likely going nowhere without a good reason
to.
There's a fine line involved with fixing it, I admit, but some kind of quality-control has got to be implemented, or else the example set by the
declining-in-popularity Government may set in (as above, so below), and then what? Will there remain a million+ unique visits, if the fresh, quality
material that made ATS what it is becomes uncommon-place, or worse, extinct?
Everyone has the right to the free expression of their position, I deeply believe. And there is a way to do it on a world-class, structured forum, and
there are ways which simply do
not reflect values already established and respected. I've never been to a Harvard U debate; yet, my first
thought regarding one is that arguments are vehemently made
without conjecture and unsubstantiated name-calling... conjecture and name-calling
are simply not the purpose of a debate.