Friggin hip-hop

[Rens]

What's with all the 10 million different threads about the same subject? People are flaming eachother in the Live 2003 sections of someone asks for the second time about some weird bug, and here you make new threads about hip-hop all the time...

[:digerati:]

This forum like all is a small representation of society. I mean, just look at the mass of posters, like people in real life:
-They can't read
-They can't write
-Most of them aren't coherent (and I'm talking native-English speakers here) and are ignorant of differing viewpoints
-They ignore everything people have said, or focus on one part
-They hate honesty
-They place personal entertainment over serious issues (i.e. making six threads about hip hop, or five threads about alley-oops in a video game while ignoring something about their own personal safety)

Is it wrong? No, it's not wrong. But it's just making a very poor society. I mean...compare Eminem to Elvis...

[DR. P]

This forum like all is a small representation of society. I mean, just look at the mass of posters, like people in real life:
-They can't read
-They can't write
-Most of them aren't coherent (and I'm talking native-English speakers here) and are ignorant of differing viewpoints
-They ignore everything people have said, or focus on one part
-They hate honesty
-They place personal entertainment over serious issues (i.e. making six threads about hip hop, or five threads about alley-oops in a video game while ignoring something about their own personal safety)

Is it wrong? No, it's not wrong. But it's just making a very poor society. I mean...compare Eminem to Elvis...

This forum isn't a represenation of society anymore than the E-bay, Cnn, or any other website is. The individuals that are here have chosen to be here [self-selected], which by default suggests that what they value in life may indeed be different than what others value. Similarly, many of the posters here are from a very discrete age group [adolescents to young adults] which by definition doesn't represent the society at large.

Moreover, how can you come to the conclusion that people here can't read or write when you don't know any of them personally, aside to maybe 1 or 2 of them at most. And most of that is probably through IM or ICQ. I mean are you judging their grammar and spelling in posts or something? If so, that wouldn't seem like a valid measure, no would it?

These comments are absolutely ridiculous, unfounded, and laden with rather common and mundane social stereotypes. I really hope no one's buying into it, and maybe the lack of responses to this post is an indication of that very fact. I mean, what formal analysis are you basing your judgments on? I doubt any, but if there is any analysis its most certainly of the qualitative/descriptive variety. I mean did you base your view of what society values by merely counting threads in this forum? If so, what conclusion would you expect to find given the nature of this website? Did you really expect to find interest in a homeland security in a forum which provides a viable [and yet temporary] escape from such issues, in the form of a basketball discussion? Don't individuals here hear enough about those issues on TV, in the paper everyday, and in school/college, to be able to take a welcomed diversion to this site every now and then? Plus, if your boy Dubya was on-top of his job, as you seem to think he is, then we shouldn't have to worry security given that He and Ridge are on the job. But obviously that's not the case.

Its just amazing how smug you are in this post, making it seem as if you've met everyone in the world when you haven't even met a millionth of 1 percent of them in your lifetime thus far [which undoubtedly is no more than 30 years at most]. Really, society isn't "poor" its individuals who make comments like the quote above that detracts from it, although they'd want you to believe its the other way around. Even refusing to let go of unsubstantiated views and stereotypes, often in the face of conflicting evidence. And its really funny that you're starting to sound more and more like the guy in your Avatar [who I assume is a personal hero of sorts]. A man who has some fly-by-night show, that won't last particularly long, claiming he's neither conservative or liberal, and misleading people to believe that he's the critical "factor" on the TV air-ways. I hope people don't fall for this kind of rhetoric and form their own informed opinions from quantitative experiences as opposed to qualitative one's [like that presented in the quote above] that they allow to cloud their better judgment.

Best,

P

[:digerati:]

This forum isn't a represenation of society anymore than the E-bay, Cnn, or any other website is. The individuals that are here have chosen to be here [self-selected], which by default suggests that what they value in life may indeed be different than what others value. Similarly, many of the posters here are from a very discrete age group [adolescents to young adults] which by definition doesn't represent the society at large.

All forums are small representations of society. They display differences in opinions, etc. that society holds. This age group will be society in not too long.

Moreover, how can you come to the conclusion that people here can't read or write when you don't know any of them personally, aside to maybe 1 or 2 of them at most.

Read the posts, P. They post the same thing fifty thousand times, seem to ignore standard spelling and grammar (and not even spelling everything right because errors are made but please, a person can only take so much internet shorthand dyslexic ebonics) and more than often lack common sense and logic.

And most of that is probably through IM or ICQ. I mean are you judging their grammar and spelling in posts or something? If so, that wouldn't seem like a valid measure, no would it?

Yes, it would. If they can't adequately present their idea that way I have to think poorly of their ability to communicate. And if I don't judge them from their posts, how should I judge them? Appereance? Chosen user name?

These comments are absolutely ridiculous, unfounded, and laden with rather common and mundane social stereotypes.

Perhaps if people didn't follow those social stereotypes they wouldn't be common.

I really hope no one's buying into it, and maybe the lack of responses to this post is an indication of that very fact.

No, it's the long posts. It's the subject matter. Doesn't effect their "hip hop" one way or another, so why bother?

I mean, what formal analysis are you basing your judgments on?

Like every judgment made on this forum, it's from myself. My opinions in this thread are just as valid as your claims that "Biggie" is the best rapper or what-ever.

I mean did you base your view of what society values by merely counting threads in this forum?

No. I base my views of what society values by observing what society does value. Here on this forum. On other fourms. In everyday life. Through the media and through common people I see everyday.

If so, what conclusion would you expect to find given the nature of this website? Did you really expect to find interest in a homeland security in a forum which provides a viable [and yet temporary] escape from such issues, in the form of a basketball discussion? Don't individuals here hear enough about those issues on TV, in the paper everyday, and in school/college, to be able to take a welcomed diversion to this site every now and then?

This is general talk, on a basketball forum, I can create any topic I wish. I just thought perhaps, these people would care. It's not that they're trying to escape. I bet they don't listen to any of this because they think it doesn't concern them. That's what I think. I think that perhaps, rather than making multiple threads on hip hop, they should continue the existing three, read about problems, and then perhaps doing something about it, requesting more information, etc. I was trying to get a "feel" for this forum to see if it truely didn't accept or was able to handle opinions, looks like I got my "feel".

Plus, if your boy Dubya was on-top of his job, as you seem to think he is, then we shouldn't have to worry security given that He and Ridge are on the job.

Homeland Security didn't exist until this week. Bush isn't on top of his job on this issue and I never said he was, perhaps on other issues, but not this one. Just that he was better at making this the great free country it was than Clinton/Gore, George Bush, Jimmy Carter, etc. I even felt he's better than Reagan, but I'm not too informed on everything Reagan did like I am post-Reagan.

Its just amazing how smug you are in this post, making it seem as if you've met everyone in the world when you haven't even met a millionth of 1 percent of them in your lifetime thus far [which undoubtedly is no more than 30 years at most].

Bah, everything boils down to selfishness. That's what all people are by heart and thus there can't be much differences between them.

Really, society isn't "poor" its individuals who make comments like the quote above that detracts from it, although they'd want you to believe its the other way around.

No, society is poor. You know why I think that, because I think society should accept opinions (mine, yours and everyone else) and society should like freedom. Since that would be a very nice society and it's what we all claim to want. But you know what P? Society isn't doing that, and thus I find it to be poor.

Even refusing to let go of unsubstantiated views and stereotypes, often in the face of conflicting evidence.

Where are these? Are you saying, P, that, because I see something different from you because of my personal expierences that, I'm wrong? Hmmm. I thought you accepted others opinions. And again, if no one followed the stereotypes, they wouldn't exist any longer.

And its really funny that you're starting to sound more and more like the guy in your Avatar [who I assume is a personal hero of sorts]. A man who has some fly-by-night show, that won't last particularly long, claiming he's neither conservative or liberal, and misleading people to believe that he's the critical "factor" on the TV air-ways.

I'd hardly say the show is fly-by-night and won't last long. It has tons of viewers, it's already been on for around 5 years. A hero? Perhaps. I don't agree with him 3/4ths of the time. But I do respect him for his honesty and lack of sugarcoating it. He says what he thinks and doesn't care what people think. He's using his free speech. He also gets things done. I don't see many other talk show hosts doing that. Donahue, Chris Matthews, Geraldo, etc. Poor examples, yes, but I see O'Reilly getting things done agree with him or not, and THAT is why I like him.

I hope people don't fall for this kind of rhetoric and form their own informed opinions from quantitative experiences as opposed to qualitative one's [like that presented in the quote above] that they allow to cloud their better judgment.

P, P, P, P. Read your post. You did the same thing you accuse me of doing. You're basically saying I'm wrong because you said so, so people shouldn't listen to me and form a different opinion. That's how that will come off to the four people that will read it. People don't have to agree with me, infact, I hope they don't, because they I won't be able to complain. Another thing you're saying is that quanity is more important than quality. I'd have to disagree. How about an NBA example? Would you rather have the Blazers with their mass of good players. Or the Spurs with one great player in Tim Duncan?

P, I didn't say your point of view was wrong. But here you are attacking my opinion and saying it's wrong. After what you said to Smooth. I expected more. You can reply to this however you wish. But I'm not gonna reply. No point. The posts are long so no one will read it. I wanted to get people to try to actually post something worthwhile on this forum. If I have to criticize them to do it, I will. And it's not just national security, P. I've tried to have threads about all sorts of thing. They go ignored for "Yo, chek out dis phat joint on da nas joint yo niggaz", that's certaintly not helping the intelligence level of this forum, and you know it. Reply if you wish I'm not going to, I'm not gonna change your set in stone new-liberal opinion, you're not gonna change my cynical stance on society and it's constant obvious failings, so I see no point in you continuing your crusade on my opinions and criticisms as being wrong and telling people to NOT make up their own mind.

[DR. P]

Listen ¤, I'm not attacking your opinions, nor saying that your not entitled to them. In "fact", if you check my post in many threads I actually welcome people's opinions with open arms. However, I also reserve the rights, as do you, to challenge their opinions and to establish where these opinions reside. I also try to make a distinction between "fact" and opinion, something that I tried to do here. Its perfectly fine for your to hold your views, I clearly don't agree with their validity [as you may not believe mine are any more or less valid either] which is fine, but at least present them as such, as opinions. Your initial post said things like:

This forum like all is a small representation of society. I mean, just look at the mass of posters, like people in real life:
They can't read
-They can't write
-Most of them aren't coherent (and I'm talking native-English speakers here) and are ignorant of differing viewpoints
-They ignore everything people have said.....
-They hate honesty
-They place personal entertainment over serious issues
(note emphasis added)

Please notice in bold the use of words like "is" implying that this is the actual way things are statements like "they can't" in reference to this forum specifically, but society more generally. Clearly, this is not merely the presentation of opinion but by the tone and direction of your posts it seems more like your claiming that this stuff is "fact" indeed. And that, whether you want to admit it or not, is not fact at all, but rather opinion. Yes, your indeed intitled to it, but please don't try to cast it off as anything more than that. That's precisely why I noted in my rebuttal:

I hope people don't fall for this kind of rhetoric and form their own informed opinions from quantitative experiences as opposed to qualitative one's [like that presented in the quote above]

So how this was denying you your opinion, please let me know. I was merely telling posters to form their own views based upon their own experiences and not to let either of us is in this case cloud their judgment.

As for a few other things of note:

You mentioned:

"All forums are small representations of society. They display differences in opinions, etc. that society holds. This age group will be society in not too long."

Again, to reiterate, forums are indeed not a small representation of society at large. People who use the internet are in "fact" more likely to be male, more likely to be from high incomes households, more likely to be European American, more likely to be in the age range of 13-26, yada, yada, yada. That is indeed not a representation of society. Now maybe in 10 years or so, the demographics on the web will approach those in our society, but at this point it has not, and your claim here is clearly speculation and not fact. Yes, the age group will be a part of society in "not too lont", but that hasn't happened yet. Therefore, this claim is indeed false, if we look at it "factually".

Also, you note:

"Read the posts, P. They post the same thing fifty thousand times, seem to ignore standard spelling and grammar (and not even spelling everything right because errors are made but please, a person can only take so much internet shorthand dyslexic ebonics) and more than often lack common sense and logic."

This is precisely what I thought. You are indeed basing your judgments on the posts in the forum, one of the most non-quantitative analyses you can make. If you are making this kind of assessment, then please let others know that this is what you are basing your judgments on. And whereas you seem to have an issue with "internet shorthand" and "dyslexic ebonics", as you refer to them, many people believe their fine and have no problem with them. In fact, on the web they can be extremely functional, and I'm sure you've seen people use acronyms like IMHO or LOL, with no problem in detection. I mean it saves some people time, especially to get to the school work [that you imply their not likely to be doing, or doing well]. I have no problems with it, since most people don't want to type volume like me or maybe don't care to write that much on a net message board. That's more an issue of preference, than it is of lack of knowledge, although your free to disagree.

If they can't adequately present their idea that way I have to think poorly of their ability to communicate. And if I don't judge them from their posts, how should I judge them? Appereance? Chosen user name?

That's fine, but remember its YOUR opinion. I personally don't let the way people type, post, or IM influence my evaluation of them. I leave my concrete judgments of people for when I meet them in person. I'm not quick to make snap judgments about people, because I'm well aware of the external factors that can influence a person in a given situation [e.g., anger, bordem, being tired, etc.]. Therefore, only continued contact [though admittedly not as feasible in web contacts], is the only way that I see to be able to make the "hard choice" about people and get past just relying on social stereotypes or invalid measures of their ability.

Perhaps if people didn't follow those social stereotypes they wouldn't be common.

Perhaps if people wouldn't base their judgments on "erroneous social beliefs" [the actual definition of stereotypes], and rather upon their encounters with individuals over a prolonged period of time, then there wouldn't be a need for social stereotypes all together. But that's more difficult to do, and people are more willing to take shortcuts [i.e., like evaluating posts on a basketball message board] so these stereotypes continue to persist.

No, it's the long posts. It's the subject matter. Doesn't effect their "hip hop" one way or another, so why bother?

It really doesn't matter if its hip hop or not, its what people are motivated to write about at a given period of time. What, are you implying that an affinity for hip hop in some way makes people unintelligent? I like hip-hop music, but I can assure you that I'm as well versed as the next person in any field that you want to throw out there. So why should you assume anything different for other posters? Because they don't bother to pick up on a thread dealing with homeland security? To me this isn't a valid assessment because if you wanted more interest in that domain you should go to a message board geared toward those issues. But still, that wouldn't make those individuals any brighter or more informed than people here, only more motivated and interested in that particular issue. And that's what you fail to see here, and instead attribute to some deficiency of the posters here. And that, in IMHO is biased in and of itself.

Like every judgment made on this forum, it's from myself. My opinions in this thread are just as valid as your claims that "Biggie" is the best rapper or what-ever.

Exactly, so your judgments are subjective. Then treat them as such. And if you actually look more closely at my Biggie thread, I made it rather clear that I believed Biggie was the greatest, but I also noted that Shady and Canibus were on an even playing field with him in the freestyle realm. And I also, made it clear that it depended on the criterion that was being used to determine who the best was, but ultimately stated that it was indeed an opinion question. So I find it ironic that the same person who complained that:

They ignore everything people have said, or focus on one part

Aren't you indeed focusing on "one part" of my biggie post and neglecting the rest. Hmmmm. Interesting. Its o.k. for me to ignore part of someone else's post but, when people do it to me, they're unintelligent and uninformed just like how I "perceive" society.

This is general talk, on a basketball forum, I can create any topic I wish. I just thought perhaps, these people would care. It's not that they're trying to escape. I bet they don't listen to any of this because they think it doesn't concern them. That's what I think. I think that perhaps, rather than making multiple threads on hip hop, they should continue the existing three, read about problems, and then perhaps doing something about it, requesting more information, etc. I was trying to get a "feel" for this forum to see if it truely didn't accept or was able to handle opinions, looks like I got my "feel".

True, you can create any topic you wish. But also true that people can ignore whatever topics they want as well. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the reason people didn't respond to your post not because of a lack of interest, or because they're "less intelligent", but instead because they don't like you specifically or the type of stereotypes that were laden in your earlier post? I'm obviously more tolerable, because I really don't take the forums seriously, since to me there a welcomed diversion. Yes, the occasional topic will come up and I'll be a bit more motivated to respond, but for the most part I'm just here to see the comings and goings in the NBA. But again, I assure you that says absolutely nothing about my intellectual level. But again, your free to believe what you want.

Homeland Security didn't exist until this week. Bush isn't on top of his job on this issue and I never said he was, perhaps on other issues, but not this one. Just that he was better at making this the great free country it was than Clinton/Gore, George Bush, Jimmy Carter, etc. I even felt he's better than Reagan, but I'm not too informed on everything Reagan did like I am post-Reagan.

First, Homeland Security may not have been in "formal" existence until last week, but don't get it twisted, Ridge [of Pennsylvania] was appointed shortly after 9/11, early on in Bush's candidacy. Do you discount that? And its also interesting that the same guy who feels Bush is "better than Reagan", admits that he's not too informed about Regan. Is this the same type of logic that your applying to your judgments of posters on this site in your comparison of them to society at large? I sure hope not, but that would explain it. We'll I know about Regan and his "Reganomics" policies [and candidacy], and let me tell you this, Regan as a president was no walk in the park.

Bah, everything boils down to selfishness. That's what all people are by heart and thus there can't be much differences between them.

I guess I should have known. Well if you perceive people are roughly the same, then really there's no need for further discussion. This you know is absolutely untrue [biologically, philosophically, cognitively, and any other -ly that you can think of] and yet you continue to hold on to this clear stereotypical view. And I thought you were open to others opinions? How could you be, if you don't see any differences between them?

Hmmm. I thought you accepted others opinions. And again, if no one followed the stereotypes, they wouldn't exist any longer.

I am "open" to others opinions, but I'd hardly call it "accepting", especially when they are trying to spoon-feed me opinions as opposed to facts. Yes, I'm open to listen to others opinions, but I make the determination of how much weight I give them by the merits of their arguments. If they are arguing out of opinion, then clearly those values, beliefs, etc., clearly aren't given as much weight as individuals arguing from fact. There is a distinction here.

I'd hardly say the show is fly-by-night and won't last long. It has tons of viewers, it's already been on for around 5 years.

Hell, talk-based shows have had extremely long half-lives with little substance [e.g., Donahue, Geraldo, Oprah, Maury Povich, etc.], so a shows time span says little about its quality or substance. It says more about appeal, its communicator, time-slot, than it does about content. So, don't be duped here. If you like O'Reily, no problem. But please don't start sounding like a "mini-me" version of O'Reily. Trust me, one is more than enough. And I really don't see what O'Reily is "getting done" any more than any other talk show host, who's opinionated and long winded.

You're basically saying I'm wrong because you said so, so people shouldn't listen to me and form a different opinion. That's how that will come off to the four people that will read it. People don't have to agree with me, infact, I hope they don't, because they I won't be able to complain. Another thing you're saying is that quanity is more important than quality. I'd have to disagree.

No, I said "I hope people don't fall for this kind of rhetoric and form their own informed opinions from quantitative experiences as opposed to qualitative one's". That says nothing about the veracity of your statements directly does it? It only says that I would hope people would form their own opinions based on "valid" quantitative experiences as opposed to qualitative one that you've said in the prior 2 posts and passed off as even remotely as fact. A different opinion is one thing, that I'm cool with all day/every day. However, trying to pass off stereotypes and personal opinion as fact is another story. And if your entitled to your opinion, please be ready for others to challenge them as I did in my prior post. That doesn't say "your wrong" as much as it says "well the evidence doesn't match your claims". Two different things.

P, I didn't say your point of view was wrong. But here you are attacking my opinion and saying it's wrong. After what you said to Smooth. I expected more. You can reply to this however you wish. But I'm not gonna reply. No point.... They go ignored for "Yo, chek out dis phat joint on da nas joint yo niggaz", that's certaintly not helping the intelligence level of this forum, and you know it. Reply if you wish, I'm not gonna change your set in stone opinion, you're not gonna change my cynical stance on society and it's constant failings...

And finally, I never said you point of view was wrong, only that I disagreed with it and hope others form their own opinion. And I'm not attacking your opinion any more than your "attacking" mine. I'm challenging them, something I heard you mention in several threads and even encourage in other threads. Now, your shying away from it and not able to deal with constructive criticism in a thread that you responded to? I guess "I expected more" as well.

Moreover, your job is not to "help the intelligence level of this forum", since this is not school, its a basketball forum and should be treated as such and that's "what I know". You make threads, some are picked up, others aren't. Its a matter of taste, no more, no less. Plus, you "helping the intelligence of this forum" takes the default stance/assumption that you're already brighter than everyone here, thus your going to extend a hand back and uplift the masses to bring them to your level. And you suggest I have a "cynical stance", huh? C'mon.

You want others to think like you and then when they don't you attribute it to unintelligence, an inability to be open to different opinions, etc. I'd hardly say I'm the one with the views set in stone here, but of course you're entitled to your own opinion. And you don't have to respond if you don't want to, but won't that make you somewhat of a hypocrite since you suggested that people don't want to continue discussion in anything but rap, and yet you're unwilling to continue a discussion here? Hmmmm. Interesting.


Best,

P

[BIG GREEN]

my god..there should be an award for longest posts.

[Jack Farmer]

We'll I know about Regan and his "Reganomics" policies [and candidacy], and let me tell you this, Regan as a president was no walk in the park.

If i could attest, as a son of Spanish/Basque descendents, plagued by lower class life for 2 generations upon their arrival to America, I can attest that Reaganomics, which you so denigrate, moved my family out of a shitty hole in the wall on 26th and California in Green-controlled tax hungry Santa MoniWatts to a nicer house in Industri-rural periphery of Los Angeles. Our family, myself included, though I was only a toddler at the time, are eternally grateful. Reaganomics worked for our family, our neighbours, and friends. And while we still are considered lower class, Reaganomics at least got us a house in an area of Los Angeles where crime is not so rampant and unbounded, though it still be not pretty. And if that was 'no walk in the park'...i'll consider it a light jog... and a success..

[Rens]

I was just saying people talk about hip hop too much here and make too many threads about it

But you guys both have some good points, though I agree with ¤ that Dr. P tried to reject his opinion and told others not to listen to it.

I hope people don't fall for this kind of rhetoric

With rhetoric he meant ¤'s opinion.

[DR. P]

Actually Dan,

by rhetoric I meant casting off opinion as fact via skillful speaking. I just wanted to clarify there. But I'm indeed happy that you looked at the merit of our arguments [or at least some of them] and formed your own view irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with me. That is indeed a step in the right direction and really the more important thing here.

And Jack,

Although I'm happy to see that Reganomics was of some benefit to you and your family, as a non-Spanish descendents in the southeastern portion of America, I can attest that Reaganomics did nothing for me or my family. In fact, more members of my extende family and friends suffered through high turnover and unemployment during that time frame than almost any other in recent memory. And this was not due to lack of education or experience I can assure you, since many are extremely well educated. Moreover, it wasn't just my experience, but the experience of many people that I had come into contact with during that time frame. So although things worked out in your case, that really was more of the exception than the rule, at least in this portion of the US. So, I'd hardly say it was a "light jog" and instead characterize it as more of a "slow crawl" or "limp" at best.

How was that Thug? I don't want to be the sole reason for a word limit in these forums, so I'll cut it back a bit in the future.

Best,

P

[Wall St. Peon]

I don't think that forums are a representation of society, I think they show where society is going.

I'm 20 and in college. My brother is 22, and I have several friend who are almost 30. All are educated, and through observation of my friends, my brother and his friends, and my friends' friends I've noticed that the majority of them are apathetic and uninformed when it comes to social issues. If you bring up 9/11, or border patrols, or the economy, or whatever, not too many of them have opinions on the topics because they simply don't know about them. Why is this? They choose not to because watching the news and reading the news, while healthy, is depressing. Who wants to have a great day and then see on the 6 o'clock news that we're going to war, or that many people died, or that a meth lab caught fire and killed a baby, or...

A lot of the people I know are detracting themselves from reality because it isn't pretty. They don't care, and they'd much rather watch reality shows that show disfunctional families that are funny, problems that are real but not serious, real but fiction. They'd rather watch a person claim they're a thug or dance like a whore on MTV than hear about Homeland Security. They'd rather watch sports or play video games, or search the internet for music and movies and read cynical cartoons about society being apathetic towards news....

I've been a member of the NLSC forum since Live 98. I've seen the intelligence of the average member decrease over the years, and this is about everything. With the decrease in intelligence is an increase in apathy towards 'real' posts (such as Ben's homeland security), an increase in flame wars, and a decrease in the acceptance of people's opinions. This forum truly used to be a fun and intellectual place to visit, and when someone came to spoil it by being an asshole that started flame wars, I frustrated them enough to leave the board (tee-hee).

That being said, I feel the intelligence of the board is evident in posting styles. I despise internet slang and shorthand because, well, it's annoying and pointless. What's the point of typing 'u' instead of 'you?' It makes the person look like an illiterate...and I don't take them seriously from the beginning. Why should I care what they ahve to say if they don't take the time to express their ideas in proper English? This is a discussion board, and an integral part of discussion is using rhetorical strategies - whether the person knows it or not - to get one's point across. Using short hand and incomplete sentences and confusing verb and noun use and so on aren't a way to do that.

Granted, the populace of this board may not have had an education, or aren't very old, or are from another country; but still, there is a HUGE intollerance for opinion different from mainstream, and this is more than evident in the types of threads: gobs of hip hop threads (the pop music of today), 'the best' threads, MJ threads, slamming others, taling about dunks in NBA live and fighting about it, and so on. I mean, honestly, don't we have anything better to talk about?

Yes, we do. We have great discussions occasionally - occasionally. They are few and far between, and there are so many spammers on the board I can't even read every thread like I used to. I try to find posts based on titles, and they're usually something so asinine and annoying that I leave the NLSC because I have nothing worthwhile to respond to. However, the posts that have the most potential for great discussion are ignored. Why? Because people don't want to put the effort or brain power and they don't want to look stupid. Why would they look stupid? Because they don't know about the issue at hand. Look at how many uninformed posts there are in NBA talk...people think they are right and know what they're talking about, but their opinions are uninformed and make no sense. But if people don't know what they're talking about, or think they don't, then they don't post for fear of looking stupid. And that is why I think people avoid Ben's 'smart' posts...

I lost track of what I was trying to say...got too long. I hope that was somewhat coherence on what I was trying to say...

See yas, time to shower and kill brain cells (BEER!!!)

Shane