h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Right. Number's 300 posts making my own backlog of 84 seem trivial notwithstanding, can we please try and keep to the point and not go over old ground . Most of the last 84 posts were totally redundant, and the few that weren't seem to be gettting lost.

PLEASE READ THIS BIT WELL:

Can I make a request: when replying to someone in this thread, please include an easily identifiable quote (using >>>, or ", or < smiley &gt AND attribute the quote to the author. I'm reading from a timezone that is 12 hours out of synch with the UK, so often by the time I read I can't remember who the quote refers to (even where I can remember the quote at all).

ALot of the last 84 posts were very hard to follow because the quotes weren't named. Also the quotes where often inadequately separated from the reply text. A single ' usually isn't enough especially where the closing one is left off.

~~~

Hoo, whatever Jordan's problem is please let it drop. It's not helping this thread at all to be repsonding to him. I'd say the interchange between the two of you is very similar to the D wars. It's certainly as annoying.

~~~

Jordan, I'm pretty near the end of my patience with you in this thread. You made several posts earlier on about how much of your precious time was being spent keeping up with this thread. I don't appreciate you then using up so much of *my* precious time on long winded posts that are going round in circles or over old ground or engaging in pointless argument with Hoo.

I agree with others who have suggested you take some time out. Your posts are often not making that much sense, and you appear as if you are posting reactively. Your occasional useful points are getting lost in the mess.

>>
Frankly, I think the D-Bomb *is* simply an excuse for not being able to come up with a decent rebuttal. A decent rebuttal being one that provides counter arguments and further information, without resorting to personal insults and all that cr*p.

The D-Bomb seems like a cop-out to me.
<<


>>I've already offered my solution - to simply post intelligently and succinctly. Makes sense to me<<

(both az).

az, the post that Della made to me yesterday about how she hadn't done the things she was being accused of therefore she didn't need to change her behaviour and how there was not list of demands of how she should change - I thought for awhile about posting a list of behaviours (with examples) with a list of suggestions for change. But really what would be the point? Della's not going to respond in any useful way to such a post from me. Most other people here already know what I would be posting. And those that don't, like Debra, well if I had the energy I probably would do such a post just out of interest, but I don't.

So it's not a matter of me not having a decent rebuttal or intelligent reply. It's a matter of me thinking a reply is an almost total waste of my time.

Plus the fact that I still believe that alot of what Della does is to merely provoke a response when she has no intention of engaging in any meaningful way if I respond to her (see her latest post that names me and Hoo, to which I will comment on shortly, and a message she left on my PS a few days ago). While I don't think like this all the time, at the moment I am tending to see her as a nasty little troll (and yes it was me who called her behaviour trolling earlier). I prefer not to feed her. I'm not sure yet whether, for myself, use of a D bomb will feed her.

>>
From my perception the issue seems to have died down. Recently I've not come across any more threads where a group of researchers are giving another researcher a hard time over a, possibly inflammatory or otherwise dumb posting or opinion. Long may that continue.
<< (BureauGris )

Grey Desk, I agree that the war has settled way down especially since the death threat issue was 'resolved'. However there have been recent spats, and the genesis of this thread was an uninvolved researcher saying how much it affected her. In the backlog of this thread, there have been a surprising number of researchers saying that the war discourages them from participating in conversations.

It's possible that everyone now has a heightened sensitivity to the issue, and at the first sign of the war people are avoiding the thread where it arises. I think this is still a real issue for concern.

>>> Is "Dumb Bomb" the best terminology? Perhaps we should say "Dumb Bomb Alert" instead?
<<<

>>>
>> It doesn't say this list is exhaustive, but I think it would take some stretch to say that 'D-Bombs' are to be used in RESPONSE to insulting replies. If so, I'd like to see this made explicit, because it's not at all clear.<<

Me too. Blathers, Hoo - have I got this right? Using the words "Dumb Bomb" (actually I prefer "Dim Bomb" myself), is intended to indicate that the post you are referring to is a conversation bomb, is probably intended to derail the debate, that it may be bigoted, that it is almost certainly stupid, and that it makes a point that has probably been replied to already?
<<<

(both Ben).

I'd like some clarification on this too. I'm fine with the name dumb bomb (although I like dim bomb too and would be happy with that as a second option). What might be causing some confusion though is that say Hoo posts "dumb bomb", it looks like Hoo dropped a bomb, whereas he was pointing out the presence of a dumb bomb/conversation bomb dropped by someone else. I'm not sure yet if in real usage this confusion will be an issue.

So are dumb bomb and conversation bomb synonymous (apart from connotation and pejorative intent)?

>>
<>

As a Warner Brothers' character saysto Daffy, "au contraire, ducko"... Kea and Hoo have shown me exactly how much notice anyone takes of what I say. So, really, why should I bother trying? I am amused watching the 'Dirty s' having both sides of an argument amongst themselves. Some people have invented a character called 'Della' and they say things their character might say, and the others refute that.


Very amusing!<< (Apple)


Apple, can you please explain to me how I have shown you exactly how much notice anyone takes of what you say, including some links to specific posts from me? I'm asking this not because I don't necessarily believe you, but because I don't actually understand what you are referring to.

~~~

My apologies for the 5 posts in a row

Suggested alteration to usage, then:

Instead of simply posting "Dumb Bomb - Axxxxxxx", I suggest the following wording:

"Posting xxx was a Dumb Bomb. See Axxxxxxx".

And *nothing* further. No explanations why - it should be obvious. Explanations somewhat defeat the point. Just observe that a Dumb Bomb has been dropped, and move on.

H.

I say let each person use it as they see fit. Sometimes I want to use it without explaining the behavior behind it, sometimes I do. It's just a tool, which can be employed in lots of ways, limited only by the imagination. Like duct tape. Some of you may use it to seal the cracks in this community, while others might use it to tape together the butt cheeks of selected members, then peel vigorously.

Ok, one evening away and a backlog of 80 posts

I'm going to attempt to answer one post, give one more opinion and leave you guys to fight it out about what you want to do... As Az has said, if you want to use a Dumb Bomb, there's nothing I can do about it anyway...


First, going back to Post 440 and Blatherskite's response to one of my points...

Me
"by using the term 'dumb bomb' (or any other glib term) to counter any statement the message you could be seen to be giving is that 'I think your posting is idiotic/a lie but I can't be bothered or can't find proof to the contrary'...
The problem being the second part of that phrase."

Blatherskite's response...

"Dumb bomb. "Can't find proof to the contrary" is neither stated nor implied. You made this up."

My response to that...

Well, you've just shown me exactly how the phrase dumb bomb can be misused and how much you actually care about debate!
Of course I made it up!!! It's my opinion (Read the word "COULD" in the middle of it!). You think I should copy my opinions off of the back of a cornflakes box or something???
This is supposed to be an opportunity for people to put across their opinions on an issue - if you're that ruddy dumb you can't realise that and are that pig-headed that you can't accept that other people might have other issues and other opinions then I really do pity you...

Right folks, considering I'm backspacing out a heck of a lot of swear words whilst typing this post I'll keep this short.

It appears to me that this thread is mis-titled... It's nothing to do with whether the 'Della Wars' are an issue to the community, it's actually about whether Della is an issue to about half a dozen individuals who use this site... What they do is up to them, but do me a favour and don't start conversations asking the opinion of 'the community' if you don't give a flying f**k what other people think.

You guys can play your word games for as long as you want and spend as much time as you like thinking of ways of getting one up on other people, inflating your egos and arguing to your hearts content...

As my opinion doesn't seem to be worth a damn thing to you I'll quite happily retire back from whence I came, apply my personal descriptive labels to all those involved in the 'Della Wars' and leave you to it.

"What they do is up to them, but do me a favour and don't start conversations asking the opinion of 'the community' if you don't give a flying f**k what other people think."

Dumb Bomb. The entire thread and what has come out of it is evidence that we DO care what people think. If we really didn't care what people thought, absolutely nothing would have happened as a result of this thread.

There is ONE person who really doesn't care what other people think, and that is Della. Everyone else - EVERYONE - who has been involved in the "Wars" has agreed to modify their behaviour. How is this being indifferent to what other people think?

H.

I'm not sure this dumb bomb thing is going to work given the number of times they have been deployed in this thread. In Hoo's post, the statement of a 'dumb bomb' in response to Whisky seems to be unnecessary - where have you had this disagreement and gone through these specific arguments many times before? How was Whisky trolling?

What Hoo seems to be using it for above is to say I don't agree and you are wrong to think the way you do - in this instance he has then gone on to explain why. If we are still at the point of talking about things then there is no need to say 'dumb bomb' and the accusation that Whisky is posting conversation bombs wasn't fair.

If they are to be used that indiscriminately then they don't have any real meaning.

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us

<>

Disagree thye have been used pretty well in this thread and it shows the circular nature of this thread.


<>

Agree. Not technically a dumb bomb but I was pretty stunned by what Whisky said and I agree with what Hoo says that the whole thread shows how people care about h2g2 and are willing to modify their behaviour. And Hoo did sort of give a link back to 'the whole thread'!

<>

I agree. I have nearly used a dumb bomb elsewhere then I realised it was not so I just posted the link to something to explain the point.

Whisky: <>

=========

Very well then, it is your opinion. However, I stand by my previous claim that "I can't be bothered" is neither stated nor implied, and therefore any use in the way you suggest would be abuse of the tool.

I could make the same argument against forks, because they *could* be jammed into an eye socket. But I can't be bothered.

==========

Kelly and Alfster:

I think Hoo used the dumb bomb quite appropriately in his response to Whisky, under the category of "Posting as fact something easily proven to be untrue." And then Hoo took the time to prove it untrue. Of course, Whisky'll probably come back stating that it was only his opinion.

The bit Hoo d-bombed also fits under "Idiotic generalisations."

There are also some instances of "'Poor baby' victim behaviour." The whole post was a dumb bomb. I think Hoo showed remarkable (and dare I say, uncharacteristic? ) restraint by dumb bombing only that single point.

Post 508 Whisky,

Well that has massivly furthered the convo...

Maybe the convo is dead... In which case "ding dong ..." let's rejoice! It was getting very, very repetitive anyway.

Apple: You posted on my PS yesterday in response to a posting by Ferrettbadger:
<<
<>

Sorry, not interested. I don't have time, I am sick up to the back teeth with the whole thing, play if you want to, I have better things to do.
>>

Glad to see that still applies.

***

Re Mol's post 489: <>

You're probably quite right and I've suddently decided I just can't be bothered. I'm probably not alone.

So thanks for the links, Blatherskite & Ferrettbadger, sorry to have wasted your time.

I think I'll just go back to a half-hour lurk every lunchtime.

Deb

Since you are back Della could you tell me what your little name changing game was that you mentioned in post 6 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F67272?thread=567760&post=6454363#p6454363 I only saw it via the ghost link today and it seems apt as you seem not to want to 'play' here. Though this thread seems to be a serious attempt at solving general problems rather than playing (Dumb bomb self but hey!)

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!

Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.


Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.

Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,

Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.

Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.

Let them know

The Wicked Witch is dead!