Farewell to certain folks

[FlashDangerpants]

Or ban those who insist on 'signing off' their comments on the grounds that they are being deliberately annoying.

K: I wonder who he is talking about?

Kropotkin

You could just look at the post ahead of that one and note that it's by impenitent, who always signs his posts "-imp" on the way out. People don't spend much time thinking about Kropotkin on average tbh.

[Age]

What do you mean by, 'Is "he" not, in "his" own way, 'philosophizing'?'

He's thinking about things (which seems to me to be the root of philosophy).

Okay, thank you clarifying. It is very rare, so it is very refreshing when it occurs.

[henry quirk]

What do you mean by, 'Is "he" not, in "his" own way, 'philosophizing'?'

He's thinking about things (which seems to me to be the root of philosophy).

Okay, thank you clarifying. It is very rare, so it is very refreshing when it occurs.

[Age]

Instruction not understood.

Define "define philosophy".

It can mean for 'you', a human being, to put 'your view' forward of how 'you' 'see' what 'that word' means, or is referring to.

And, if you are using the 'define' word, after the 'define' word, but you do not have 'a view' on what the word 'define' means, or is referring to, then do you even have a clue on what 'it' is that you are asking, or saying, here?

if yes, then okay.

But, if no, then are you 'sure'?

OK do it then.

Whatever it is you expect me to DO when you say "define philosophy' - demonstrate the activity.

1 I do not expect you to do any thing, and I never did and never will.

2. Did I even ever say, 'define philosophy'?

3. I have already defined 'philosophy', after "henry quirk" asked someone else. And, I have already defined 'define philosophy'' when you, previously, wrote to do so.

I am now wondering if all the words that I write come through to posters here, considering what you just said here "skepdick", or whether only some of my words get read before some people reply back?

[Age]

What do you mean by, 'Is "he" not, in "his" own way, 'philosophizing'?'

He's thinking about things (which seems to me to be the root of philosophy).

Yes, and thinking conceptually, in a way that focuses on an issue or subject, rather than the petty character-assassinating of his interlocutors. So he's really doing what we came here to do.

If we wanted a site for the opposite, it should be called, "Uncharitable-and-Unthinking Now."

Why when you were, specifically, asked to define 'philosophy' by someone you completely and utterly ignored that request, but as soon as that one defined that word, then you added onto it, but only by more or less just re-repeatung what you had previously said, and expected from others, but which you do not "yourself" anyway, by the way?

Also, considering where the word 'philosophy' originated from, the word 'philosophy' did not once mean how you are defining it here, 'now'. So, how you define that word, 'now', is not in 'a way' that everyone could define 'philosophy' inside-and outside of a forum setting?

[Age]

Or ban those who insist on 'signing off' their comments on the grounds that they are being deliberately annoying.

K: I wonder who he is talking about?

Kropotkin

Did you ever think to just ask them, directly?

[Flannel Jesus]

Or ban those who insist on 'signing off' their comments on the grounds that they are being deliberately annoying.

K: I wonder who he is talking about?

Kropotkin

Did you ever think to just ask them, directly?

And you will note the humorous fact that people, back when this was written, would ask others if they asked them directly.

[Atla]

Hi guys

I've noticed some pretty disturbing threads here recently - full of crass four letter words, hate-filled imagery and vitriolic personal attacks that have no place on a philosophy forum. I've wondered again about simply closing the whole place down and saving the money that Philosophy Now spends on it, or else on changing the set-up so that use of the forum becomes restricted to logged-in Philosophy Now subscribers. I believe that many here would welcome that change.

The mods and I are going to be deleting some threads over the next few days, and a few well known local characters will also be disappearing either temporarily or permanently for overstepping the mark a few times too often.

Best wishes,
Rick

What's the point of banning a few people now who are using this forum for socio-political crap and are going crazy, when others who have been using the forum as an online mental asylum for many years, and keep destroying any chance for actual philosophical debates, are always welcome?

[puto]

Using the magazine for information and the boards for enlightenment by searching for denotation; I could minus the negative speech. In classical philosophy they were rude; then in enlightenment philosophy they just banned them from countries, for civil debates. In a paraphrase of the Republic (359a,) being unjust without getting punished and the worst to suffer injustice to live harmoniously. According, to the Buddha everything is produced by the mind. I have watched this board since its inception, finding it by buying the magazine; then going to school and finding out you were right in the Analytic versus Continental philosophies. Being, Pragmatic I understand why you would want to close the message board down. I have found rudeness on this board because they do not know how to express themselves and take it out on others or just plain do not know what they are writing about. I like viewing the boards and use it; as I do not know everything learn from the mistakes of others by reading it in books. By closing this board, I would miss the according to Boss that is Experience: Goes beyond the five senses we receive information about the world from others by reading or hearing because without experience there can be no thought. According to Spinoza, paraphrased, of course, Men are conscious of there actions, but unconscious of where those actions are determined, so maybe I am a rationalist, too. If you charge for access; the negative will pay as there is always some in the crowd. I buy individual issues, in the negative not affirmative, the articles. You can ban them, but that will not silence the negative; they will say what they want and how they want. Most are just children who are angry and because of a I read, maybe we are determined. I agree with free will and liberty. I do learn from the boards, as they make me look-up the written explanations of others. Remember that is my opinion I could be wrong. Thanks, if this is the last I write; I want to leave you with good words. Thanks, I will continue with the magazine issues; current and keep the website up for past issues.

[accelafine]

Hi guys

I've noticed some pretty disturbing threads here recently - full of crass four letter words, hate-filled imagery and vitriolic personal attacks that have no place on a philosophy forum. I've wondered again about simply closing the whole place down and saving the money that Philosophy Now spends on it, or else on changing the set-up so that use of the forum becomes restricted to logged-in Philosophy Now subscribers. I believe that many here would welcome that change.

The mods and I are going to be deleting some threads over the next few days, and a few well known local characters will also be disappearing either temporarily or permanently for overstepping the mark a few times too often.

Best wishes,
Rick

What's the point of banning a few people now who are using this forum for socio-political crap and are going crazy, when others who have been using the forum as an online mental asylum for many years, and keep destroying any chance for actual philosophical debates, are always welcome?

And which group do you fit into?

[Atla]

Hi guys

I've noticed some pretty disturbing threads here recently - full of crass four letter words, hate-filled imagery and vitriolic personal attacks that have no place on a philosophy forum. I've wondered again about simply closing the whole place down and saving the money that Philosophy Now spends on it, or else on changing the set-up so that use of the forum becomes restricted to logged-in Philosophy Now subscribers. I believe that many here would welcome that change.

The mods and I are going to be deleting some threads over the next few days, and a few well known local characters will also be disappearing either temporarily or permanently for overstepping the mark a few times too often.

Best wishes,
Rick

What's the point of banning a few people now who are using this forum for socio-political crap and are going crazy, when others who have been using the forum as an online mental asylum for many years, and keep destroying any chance for actual philosophical debates, are always welcome?

And which group do you fit into?

Neither, unlike you.

[Flannel Jesus]

Can I just say that I'll happily be lumped into the unwanted crowd if I take Age along with me? I'll take one for the team.

[FlashDangerpants]

Can I just say that I'll happily be lumped into the unwanted crowd if I take Age along with me? I'll take one for the team.

Sacririficing Flannel Jesus to rid the world of Age is almost a good deal, but it needs a sweetener. Can we get Kropotkin thrown in (or out)?

[promethean75]

Yo Ricky, are we allowed to change our moniker here, or do we have to create a new account?

I want to change mine to Bodacious (derived from Primus's Ballad Of Bodacious), but I need to drive fifteen miles, pay for parking, go to the sheriff station, submit to a retina scan, and physically write my online identifier on a piece of paper (rather than just call the scum) before I can.

I'll let u know when I get around to it. Thanks big guy.

[bahman]

Ohh, please no. People here are mature enough to tolerate others.