- Joined
- 8 March 2007
- Posts
- 2,935
- Reactions
- 4,064
I loved my father too
I loved my father tooO Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up- for you the flag is flung- for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths- for you the shores a-crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck,
You’ve fallen cold and dead.
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still,
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will,
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done,
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
Walt Whitman.
Just done that exact search: plenty of posts indeedType PDN in to Search and nothing else
I seem to get lots of posts including Yo,u ,Frinky etc etc etc
But I am Blocked from reading Yours and Frinkys' etc etc etc
What I am Saying here is One who Starts a Thread like an XYZ BHP PDN should not have a CRAB Mentality
Thanks Crikey ! He or It is on 2 lifetime Bans He will never see my Charts!Just done that exact search: plenty of posts indeed
-I can open your recent post related to PDN buy actionno problem,
- can open mine..had to check...
-i can confirm you are not in my ignore list.
Only idea i have left:
PDN thread was created by tech/a, check if you ignored tech/a?
If you did: un-ignore him and see if it changes the search result and behaviour?
It could also be that tech/a ignored you?
That might explain ..maybe
Otherwise at a loss for any explanation and asking Joe would be my next step
My thoughts and intent are simultaneously broader and more nuanced,If that subject is the energy debate, I can understand your attitude.
You have more than done your bit to educate and inform us about the realities of the situation and as we have so often said the debate is more political than technical and is unresolvable on this forum.
So thank you for your knowledgeable input to the matter. Facts and figures are still helpful and we may draw or own conclusions in a more educated way if we have them.
As for blocking, I have never done that, although I can recognise people whose posts usually have no interest to me and I ignore them.
@wayneL It would appear that the Mad Cap't must have a surplus of crew as he appears to be blocking all the old crew who disagrees/d with him previously.Well, it seems that Bligh has blocked me again after having been unblocked for some time... Apparently for the heinous sin of having liked someone else's post.
Logging out actually highlights others who have me blocked... Whom which I have actually had no conversations with whatsoever?
Perhaps he/she/they/zhe/zir/it find my perfectly reasonable opinions absolutely intolerable... Dunno.
2. Practically everything is seen through the lens of politics. Even something as unrelated as electronics or music can, depending on the detail, be a trap that's taken as a political statement.
Your third point in particular is the nub of the matter. Tribalism.My thoughts and intent are simultaneously broader and more nuanced,
Broader in that it's not limited to any particular thread or subject.
Nuanced in that it's about the nature of discussion rather than the subject per se.
Expanding on that, we're living in an era with a number of differences to even the relatively recent past.
Go back to the pre-internet era and the first and primary focus for anyone with a message was how to get it out there. In other words, how to get the newspapers to run the story and ideally TV news too. Because the hard part wasn't the argument itself but rather, it was being able to have the argument publicly in the first place. No matter what the issue, if you couldn't get it in mainstream newspapers or on TV then you were stuffed. And unless you had serious $$$ behind you for paid advertising, you needed to get them to do it as news reporting at no cost to you.
What social media's done is removed that barrier to an extent. It's given anyone who wants to say something the ability to not just say it but to do so immediately and without a gatekeeper. The latter point being a key - regardless of arguments for or against specific media organisations, traditionally they did at least seek some proof that the issue was real. They wouldn't run a news story without verifying that it's at least a real issue.
Skipping a few steps, we've now come to a point where much is posted online not to inform or argue a particular viewpoint but for far more nefarious reasons. At best it's an individual seeking narcissistic supply by surrounding themselves only with those who agree and who'll give them praise no matter how flawed their argument. At worst it's deliberate misinformation for commercial gain, political gain or even as an act of intentional sabotage against a business or country.
We now have a situation with the key attributes:
1. The vast majority of opinion and comment available to the general public on any subject is based on, at best, extremely superficial knowledge. Professionals and actually knowledgeable amateurs have either been drowned out or they've simply given up trying.
2. Practically everything is seen through the lens of politics. Even something as unrelated as electronics or music can, depending on the detail, be a trap that's taken as a political statement.
3. Tribalism. It's coming to the point that if you want to know someone's opinion on a contentious moral question but don't want to have that discussion then all you need do is identify which tribe supports or opposes it, then ask them about some less contentious issue and see what they say. Because we've come to a point where many have simply outsourced their thinking and now follow a tribal view - once you work out which tribe they're following, you know what they think on every subject. It'd make for some decent comedy if only it wasn't a real thing actually happening.
Now to ASF more specifically, my own intention is to avoid contributing to the above in any way. That doesn't mean a refusal to post on any particular topic, it's more about the detail and nature of the discussion.
Joe's view plausibly differs from mine but as I see it, ASF is first and foremost a stock forum. That's it's reason for being.
Now I don't see a huge problem with the existence of off-topic posts within reason, so long as it's intellectual discussion and so on, but I do see a problem with certain matters.
One is tribal politics and that's one I'm steering well clear of going forward unless it's directly investment or trading-related.
Another is that in my view General Chat is one thing but a far bigger problem is when serious "on topic" financial threads are disrupted in a manner that would make any new visitor to the site walk away shaking their head and looking for somewhere else. That's not doing ASF any favours at all.
For a specific example "The state of the economy at the street level" which is a reasonably on-topic thread on a stock market forum and is located within the Business, Investment and Economics part of the forum. Suffice to say if I were a moderator, I'd be deleting a number of recent posts - not because I disagree with the content, but because they're so far off topic as to have nothing to do with the thread subject.
I see that as moderation not censorship - it's not the view expressed that's the problem, just that it doesn't have even the most tenuous link to the subject at hand and it's on a "serious" thread.
They're a distraction from a supposedly serious discussion and, this is my key point, don't present a good impression of the forum to anyone new to it. That sort of thing, derailing on topic threads, is a bigger issue than outright off topic discussion in General Chat in my view. It's a far more intrusive thing when political, religious or similar comment having no relevance to the subject creeps into on-topic economic, business, investment etc threads.
Just my views, acknowledged that others will likely disagree.
Australia is so proud of mandatory voting... which makes it so easy to pretend for a politician to represent some majority.True.
However I think that most of us realise that all sides of politics are as bad as each other when it comes to flogging their own ideologies and
presenting propaganda rather than both sides of an argument.
So should we stop voting altogether as voting for one side or another only encourages the winners to believe that they have the support
of the people on 32% of the primary vote?
We still have to assess their policies on their merits (as difficult as that is with all the noise around) and vote for who we think is the "least bad" and cross fingers that somehow they will see the light of pragmatism over their ingrained ideology.
Nationalism and globalism too..Your third point in particular is the nub of the matter. Tribalism.
Humans are naturally drawn to this and social media enforces it. Nationalism relies on it.
No idea of a solution.
No idea of a solution.
Aye , Aye Skipper .Can I remind everyone The ASX is about to Start Trading! it is 9.55am atm
Your third point in particular is the nub of the matter. Tribalism.
Humans are naturally drawn to this and social media enforces it. Nationalism relies on it.
No idea of a solution.
Aye , Aye Skipper .
Too much talk .
We're here to turn a buck .
Get cracking , people !
@sir Rumpole I read this morning that Our Beleaguered Leader want a fixed 4 year term for Federal politicians.True.
However I think that most of us realise that all sides of politics are as bad as each other when it comes to flogging their own ideologies and
presenting propaganda rather than both sides of an argument.
So should we stop voting altogether as voting for one side or another only encourages the winners to believe that they have the support
of the people on 32% of the primary vote?
We still have to assess their policies on their merits (as difficult as that is with all the noise around) and vote for who we think is the "least bad" and cross fingers that somehow they will see the light of pragmatism over their ingrained ideology.
I agree with you there.@sir Rumpole I read this morning that Our Beleaguered Leader want a fixed 4 year term for Federal politicians.
This would of course cut out the b/s of the serving PM to call an election when the numbers were favourable to the relevant party.
H thinks that a supportive referendum would be necessary for this to happen.
I for one, would vote for it, also I feel that all the elections, Federal, State and Local Government should held on the same day.
Huge savings in cost alone. Might be a bit bulky at first but these things would sought themselves out eventually.
No doubt that the cash for comment journos would still be in there spruking their worst.I agree with you there.
Several States have fixed 4 year terms and that' the way it should be done. Terrible for the media though, how could they earn any money by speculation of the election date?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?