|
|
Post by ahinton on Jun 12, 2015 6:44:28 GMT -5
I note that the forum has long had but 13 members and that, in more than two months, only two posts, each of which have been made by the same member? Would anyone like to comment upon what future the forum might have?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Jun 22, 2015 3:22:28 GMT -5
Pauciloquent. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertie R's rich little friend, already told us - before the War it was - that learning and teaching are like that. What one acquires here is not a technique; one learns correct judgements. There are also rules, but they do not form a system, and only experienced people can apply them in the right way. Rules of this kind are unlike calculation rules asserted little by little asserted little Ludwig. So . . . to/with what kind of rules do/does our membership to this day adhere/conform?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 11:45:05 GMT -5
The future is very much up to you, ahinton. As for rules, Gerard, I suspect that we have to create our own rules?
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jun 24, 2015 0:18:20 GMT -5
The future is very much up to you, ahinton. Why so? As for rules, Gerard, I suspect that we have to create our own rules? I do not perceive a direct relationship between, on the one hand, the setter or nature of such rules or the extent or otherwise of members' adherence thereto (and there are, as I mentioned, very few members anyway) and, on the other, "the future of this forum", since said future does not appear to be in question, let alone jeopardy, as a consequence of anything to do with its rules; my question about said future arose purely from consideration of the length of time that it's been up and running, the comparatively small number of members / posts that it has attracted since its launch and, in particular, the near silence that has pertained over recent weeks here, the second of which seems, incidentally, to be woefully disproportionate to the number nd variety of general topic headings under which one assumes members are purportedly being encouraged (albeit largely with scant success) to contribute something. In short, I cannot recall ever having encountered so inactive an internet forum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 1:52:43 GMT -5
Well! we note that over almost two years this forum's most notable sluggard has been able only once to bring himself to begin a thread! When if ever will he again would any one venture a prediction? What as suitable suggested subject about Welsh genii and their reputation at the arrogantly unpretentious "Independent Forum for Radio Three Listeners"?
Here - scientifically compiled - by whom the threads most recently begun were begun:
Member c:
Jun 23, 2015 at 6:41pm
Member S:
Mar 23, 2015 at 11:41am
Member G:
Mar 7, 2015 at 6:22am
Member H (prior to the present one):
Jul 13, 2013 at 6:52pm ! ! ! ! ! !
Does Physics have a value?
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jun 25, 2015 3:27:02 GMT -5
Well! we note that over almost two years this forum's most notable sluggard has been able only once to bring himself to begin a thread! Who's that, then? - and, given the paucity of members and posts, by what particular statistical parameters is such alleged extremity of sluggardliness measured and judged? (and, for that matter, does it matter?)... When if ever will he again would any one venture a prediction? What as suitable suggested subject about Welsh genii and their reputation at the arrogantly unpretentious "Independent Forum for Radio Three Listeners"? You've lost me there! I trust that at least one other member might get some idea of what it is that you refer to here... Anyway, my point (although I didn't actually express it as such in so many words) is that contributions to and membership numbers of, for example, the Art-Music Forum are each very many times what they are here; in noting this fact, I do not seek to imply that quantity is everything, but do you have any particular thoughts on that topic? I might add that the sheer number of subject headings in which threads may be initiated (50+) here seems somehow to emphasise an impression of disproportionality, given the comparatively tiny numbers of members and posts. I also note that, on some occasions when visiting, the McAfee WebAdvisor message "We tested this page and blocked content that comes from potentially dangerous or suspicious sites. Allow this content only if you’re sure it comes from safe sites" appears at the top of the page and I presume that this would occur to anyone else who uses McAfee security products. |
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Aug 16, 2015 12:26:59 GMT -5
I note that the forum membership statistics have remained static since last I drew attention thereto. What is therefore to be said about the future of a forum in which not even everyone among the mere baker's dozen that constitutes this forum's membership actually contribute posts to it on a regular basis? That there are far more categories in which to begin threads than there are members to being them and/or post to them is surely of some significance? What do others think about this.
Specifically, I would venture to comment that, in a forum with thousands of members and tens or hundreds of thousands of posts, a thread most unworthily dedicated to the vicious deprecation of women and their pubolic conduct such as that which has recently been initiated by member Gerard might not even be noticed, whereas in one with so few threads, posts and members as has this one, one might reasonably assume such a thread to be more likely to attract appropriate consternation and dismay although, even here, it seems to have prompted very little comment so far.
|
|
