SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
N
Posts: 2808
Joined: May 9th, 2003, 8:26 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 4:08 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3Yes, that's yea, assuming we hold the same poll for all threads with stupid racist remarks.I agree, I think we are sorely lacking some mechanism where if x percent (or some other means) of people would like to see a thread deleted, then it should be deleted or least moved to a “trashcan” similar to the good folks over at n.p.Yes. And let's break out the 'blender' too.
 
User avatar
dibble
Posts: 727
Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 5:19 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 4:29 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zetaNobody cares for everyhting they read, we all have our own opinions, but is forum 'natural selection' just censorship? Maybe I'm just concerned b/c I'd probably be the first off the islandI get these posts using rss and if we had a "DUMP" thread as Dan succinctly put's it, to which I could choose not to subscribe, then I would not get threads that server no purpose but to satisfy some childish craving in their posters. My posts included.So rather than censorship, it is like the closet that you put everything in, when your parents told you to clean your room. The room looks a lot cleaner but if you want to find your trash you know where it is.
 
User avatar
zeta
Posts: 1952
Joined: September 27th, 2005, 3:25 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 4:42 pm

fair enough dibble, good point
 
User avatar
flairplay
Posts: 130
Joined: September 26th, 2006, 1:34 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 5:42 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleIn the spirit of Citadel, can we kill off one thread a week. I nominate this oneI think one should drop people who post questionable and inflammatory material instead.If Garnder replies to bigoted posts with an attempt at reason, then why should he see his posts go the bin? I dont see the logic.Either keep it free for all - if PPAUPER wants to say that all Muslims say Muslims must kill dogs and infidels let him say it. But then do let others like Gardner reply if he so wishes.Some of the posts on this thread are neither racist nor objectionable - they are attempts to talk some sense into some bizarre bigotry. People have attemped to debate rationally with PPAUPER and BrightDay etc.However, I reckon PPAUPER is not capable of being reasonanble or fair - he just cant help it. Some of the threads by him are truly amazing - he seems to trawl the net all day long and post 100's of weird stories in a matter of hours. Clearly what the man lives for.Let him have his say I say, and let others respond if they so wish.
Last edited by flairplay on October 10th, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
dibble
Posts: 727
Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 5:19 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 6:02 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayQuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleIn the spirit of Citadel, can we kill off one thread a week. I nominate this oneI think one should drop people who post questionable and inflammatory material instead.If Garnder replies to bigoted posts with an attempt at reason, then why should he see his posts go the bin? I dont see the logic.Either keep it free for all - if PPAUPER wants to say that all Muslims say Muslims must kill dogs and infidels let him say it. But then do let others like Gardner reply if he so wishes.Some of the posts on this thread are neither racist nor objectionable - they are attempts to talk some sense into some bizarre bigotry. People have attemped to debate rationally with PPAUPER and BrightDay etc.However, I reckon PPAUPER is not capable of being reasonanble or fair - he just cant help it. Some of the threads by him are truly amazing - he seems to trawl the net all day long and post 100's of weird stories in a matter of hours. Clearly what the man lives for.Let him have his say I say, and let others respond if they so wish.Unfortunately it becomes a "he said, she said" confrontation. So if they want to fight it out, let them do it in the "DUMP". If pauper, myself or anyone else posts something that is deemed "bigotry", "truly amazing" or simply inflammatory, then an appropriate way to fight it is by voting it to the "DUMP". This takes less energy, devotes the amount of time to the tread that it deserves and at the same time lets the poster knows that the majority of people think that the post is "TRASH"After that, if people want to roll around in the “TRASH”, then so be it.Regardless, your "Nay" is as valid as my “Yea”
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 10:57 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3Yes, that's yea, assuming we hold the same poll for all threads with stupid racist remarks.I agree, I think we are sorely lacking some mechanism where if x percent (or some other means) of people would like to see a thread deleted, then it should be deleted or least moved to a “trashcan” similar to the good folks over at n.p.fascist.
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 11:02 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3Yes, that's yea, assuming we hold the same poll for all threads with stupid racist remarks.I agree, I think we are sorely lacking some mechanism where if x percent (or some other means) of people would like to see a thread deleted, then it should be deleted or least moved to a “trashcan” similar to the good folks over at n.p.Dibble,Let's be original and call it the 'DUMP'Can we put people (like cucha) in there as well ? I like this thread. I think truhful and honest discussion is what is needed. It's very courageous of gardener and it's what everyone thinks anyway. Nice to see it in words, out in the open and a dialogue instead of a monologue. Well done gardener3. You guys are scary little hitlers - which is why, i guess, you mostly hang out on these forums anyways .
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 11:04 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: NQuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3Yes, that's yea, assuming we hold the same poll for all threads with stupid racist remarks.I agree, I think we are sorely lacking some mechanism where if x percent (or some other means) of people would like to see a thread deleted, then it should be deleted or least moved to a “trashcan” similar to the good folks over at n.p.Yes. And let's break out the 'blender' too.It's been the ruin of many a poor boy - just ask farmer .
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 11:07 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleQuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayQuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleIn the spirit of Citadel, can we kill off one thread a week. I nominate this oneI think one should drop people who post questionable and inflammatory material instead.If Garnder replies to bigoted posts with an attempt at reason, then why should he see his posts go the bin? I dont see the logic.Either keep it free for all - if PPAUPER wants to say that all Muslims say Muslims must kill dogs and infidels let him say it. But then do let others like Gardner reply if he so wishes.Some of the posts on this thread are neither racist nor objectionable - they are attempts to talk some sense into some bizarre bigotry. People have attemped to debate rationally with PPAUPER and BrightDay etc.However, I reckon PPAUPER is not capable of being reasonanble or fair - he just cant help it. Some of the threads by him are truly amazing - he seems to trawl the net all day long and post 100's of weird stories in a matter of hours. Clearly what the man lives for.Let him have his say I say, and let others respond if they so wish.Unfortunately it becomes a "he said, she said" confrontation. So if they want to fight it out, let them do it in the "DUMP". If pauper, myself or anyone else posts something that is deemed "bigotry", "truly amazing" or simply inflammatory, then an appropriate way to fight it is by voting it to the "DUMP". This takes less energy, devotes the amount of time to the tread that it deserves and at the same time lets the poster knows that the majority of people think that the post is "TRASH"After that, if people want to roll around in the “TRASH”, then so be it.Regardless, your "Nay" is as valid as my “Yea”We could form a new forum especially for you dibble - call it the doreilly forum. In fact, why don't you start your own website www.dibble.com?
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 11th, 2006, 11:08 pm

Why don't you whiners censor yourselves? and while no one is listening, ban yourselves from this forum ? We could create a dump just for you to wallow in ??
 
User avatar
dibble
Posts: 727
Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 5:19 pm

UK going to the dogs

October 12th, 2006, 2:16 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeWhy don't you whiners censor yourselves? and while no one is listening, ban yourselves from this forum ? We could create a dump just for you to wallow in ??I am a little surprised that nobody but Dan and myself think this idea has merit, but the majority has spoken, or not, in this case. I will unsubscribe from off topic and save my rapier wit for the private messages.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 60518
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

UK going to the dogs

October 12th, 2006, 5:44 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeWhy don't you whiners censor yourselves? and while no one is listening, ban yourselves from this forum ? We could create a dump just for you to wallow in ??Wow!You have a point of view? and I thought that you were a software bot from a news weekly.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl

Approach your problem from the right end and begin with the answers. Then one day, perhaps you will find the final question..
R. van Gulik
 
User avatar
migalley
Topic Author
Posts: 3696
Joined: June 13th, 2005, 10:54 am

UK going to the dogs

October 12th, 2006, 7:12 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleQuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayQuoteOriginally posted by: dibbleIn the spirit of Citadel, can we kill off one thread a week. I nominate this oneI think one should drop people who post questionable and inflammatory material instead.If Garnder replies to bigoted posts with an attempt at reason, then why should he see his posts go the bin? I dont see the logic.Either keep it free for all - if PPAUPER wants to say that all Muslims say Muslims must kill dogs and infidels let him say it. But then do let others like Gardner reply if he so wishes.Some of the posts on this thread are neither racist nor objectionable - they are attempts to talk some sense into some bizarre bigotry. People have attemped to debate rationally with PPAUPER and BrightDay etc.However, I reckon PPAUPER is not capable of being reasonanble or fair - he just cant help it. Some of the threads by him are truly amazing - he seems to trawl the net all day long and post 100's of weird stories in a matter of hours. Clearly what the man lives for.Let him have his say I say, and let others respond if they so wish.Unfortunately it becomes a "he said, she said" confrontation. So if they want to fight it out, let them do it in the "DUMP". If pauper, myself or anyone else posts something that is deemed "bigotry", "truly amazing" or simply inflammatory, then an appropriate way to fight it is by voting it to the "DUMP". This takes less energy, devotes the amount of time to the tread that it deserves and at the same time lets the poster knows that the majority of people think that the post is "TRASH"After that, if people want to roll around in the “TRASH”, then so be it.Regardless, your "Nay" is as valid as my “Yea”We could form a new forum especially for you dibble - call it the doreilly forum. In fact, why don't you start your own website www.dibble.com?It already exists http://www.dibble.com
 
User avatar
Anthis
Posts: 4313
Joined: October 22nd, 2001, 10:06 am

UK going to the dogs

October 12th, 2006, 9:30 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3How to debate like ppauper in three easy steps:1) take an event and generalize and condem a group of people or religion.for instance:Christian maronite militia men slaughtered over 2,000 muslims, mostly women and children, in the Saabra Shatilla refugee camp in 1982. Clearly this massacre proves beyond any doubt that Christinanity is rooted in evil and is an evil religion.2) take random passages and give your own interpretation:Corinthians 11:3 * But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. Corinthians 11:7 - 9* For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. Colossians 3:18 * Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Clearly, these passages prove beyond any doubt that christianity is sexist, and does not repsect women or their rights.3) If someone points out why arguments like in 1) and 2) are just idiotic. Ignore the criticism and post more random stuff found on the internet.Just like Cuch i think this thread has gone beyond the edge of sanity. Bigotry at its maximum. Quoting passages from Bible a text written 2000 years ago and comparing it with nowdays standards and perception sounds really stupid.I am orthodox myself but if i had a priest, no matter how secular he is, "riding my neck" and telling me what to do, i wouldnt be a free man. I have my own judgement and my own perceptions. I know whats wrong and whats right. I know when something is just "too much" and when i must say no.Quoting historic events like the Saabra and Shatilla camps slaughter as a war of religions is again stupid. At a first glance it may look like a christians against muslims case but it should be underscored who ordered them to invade in those camps and under what circumstances. In the former Yugoslavia some years ago, orthodox, catholics, and muslims had a sort of competition who would slay the rest the best. It would be to simplistic again to state that this war was a religious one. It was not. Moreover nobody knows how many muslims have been killed recently from, mostly christian, american and brit troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Again this is not a clash or religions. Its something else no matter if some people would like to present it just like this for their own reasons...
Last edited by Anthis on October 11th, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
migalley
Topic Author
Posts: 3696
Joined: June 13th, 2005, 10:54 am

UK going to the dogs

October 12th, 2006, 9:35 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: AnthisMoreover nobody knows how many muslims have been killed recently from, mostly christian, american and brit troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.Some people might say "Not enough."
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On