Open letter to Chuck Oberst

MadArchitect · Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:14 pm

You've made a neat little band of enemies here, but before we collectively dismiss you as a total crank, I want to make sure that there's no confusion over why so many BookTalk regulars are up in arms over your posts.

BookTalk has always functioned as a discussion forum. The key word being discussion. A BBS system like the one upon which BookTalk functions allows all sorts of communication, but the people who come to, and stick with, BookTalk are looking for a particular kind of communication. That kind of communication has certain hallmarks, identifying characteristics, the most salient of which is a back-and-forth that results in more than just the exchange of static information, as though it were a kind of concrete commodity.

You've made it pretty clear that what you've come here to do is familiarize us with information you already possess. You presume, it would seem, that we have any particular want or need of that information. Even if the theories you've been posting were of any particular interest to us, we don't particularly feel inclined to take it at face value from some anonymous source on the web. Which means that we'll always assess it the same way we would assess any other statement made on this site. Discussion is the primary way in which we address such statements, and if you're unwilling to engage in discussion, then you'll find that the contributors to this site will quickly and readily lose interest in you. So long as we feel that we're being respected, 99% of us will conduct conversation on a very civil level. The easiest way to lose our respect is to disrespect us, and that's precisely what you've done by treating us as though we were undergrads in your intro. level course.

If you want to stick around (and I doubt it) you'd do well to try and respond to some of the comments the generous among us have made in response to your mini-lectures. Make a dialogue of it. If you can justify it no other way, go read some Plato and figure out why Socrates felt that dialogue was the basis of all philosophy. If you can't manage even that modicum of civility -- ie. assuming that the other person's response is worth considering -- then you have no place here.

Assuming, of course, that this letter hasn't come to late, and you haven't already lost your place here.

Either way, good luck.

Niall001 · Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:41 pm

I can't believe I managed to miss this minor drama. I suppose when you throw out your nets, there's always the possibility that you'll catch the odd wellington boot.

Constance963 · Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:00 pm


	Niall001 wrote: I can't believe I managed to miss this minor drama. I suppose when you throw out your nets, there's always the possibility that you'll catch the odd wellington boot.

LOL, I missed this whole thing too. You go away for a few days and all the drama happens...

coberst · Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:37 am

MadArchitect

I desire to discuss the topic that is manifested in my OP. Seldom do responders respond to that topic but when they do, so long as it is not merely an ad hominem, I will try to reply as best I can.

irishrosem · Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:04 am

WTF!? Why is coberst still able to post here? He's broken the forum rules numerous times. He's littered the Belief, Religion & Philosophy forum, arguably one of our most important, with dozens of senseless threads. He's done so despite multiple admonishments from forum members and finally from the Administrator himself. He's shown no intention at recognition or reform. Do the forum rules have any real value at all, or are they like the parent in line in front of you at the grocery store who tells the child no multiple times before finally relenting in the end

MadArchitect · Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:22 pm


	coberst wrote: I desire to discuss the topic that is manifested in my OP. Seldom do responders respond to that topic but when they do, so long as it is not merely an ad hominem, I will try to reply as best I can.

Based on your past conduct on this forum, I'm not convinced. Chris has pointed out that a great many of not only your initial posts, but your replies to people's comments, are reprints from posts you've made elsewhere on the internet. Anyone can cut & paste from an essay they've already written -- what we're looking for are replies that show that you're considering whatever we've brought to the table, and that you have enough regard for us as individuals to respond in kind. If you're still allowed on the forums, what I would suggest you do to prove your intention of actually engagine discussion is to join in a couple of threads that other people have started, and reply with original material -- not cut & pastes from things you've posted elsewhere, not quotations from someone else's writing. That, at least, would be a healthy start towards using this forum as it was intended, not to mention respecting us as independent thinkers and worthy conversants.

Chris OConnor · Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:21 pm

I'm a human being folks. I cannot read every single post and ban someone the moment they break rules, no matter how much they may deserve being banned. Reading and banning take actual time.He is being banned now.

Chris OConnor · Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:36 pm

He is now banned by name, email and IP address.

irishrosem · Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:40 am

Thanks Chris. I know you hate banning people, but I think you gave coberst ample opportunity to readjust his method to address the goals of the forum. He, obviously, had no such intention.

Open letter to Chuck Oberst Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Casual Chats