Suggestion Slowing thread with semantics.

[Troglodyti 4.0]

Just recently two individuals of supposedly high standing in the dive community were in contention. When I read the initial post and ensuing responses, two words immediately came to mind: Hypocrisy and contradiction. How difficult can it be to post random comments in a responsible manner without the need to bicker and target the person in question using innuendo and ridicule? This unruly behaviour defeats the purpose of a community forum and inhibits genuine contributors from participating without dissimulation. My suggestion would be to make your point conclusively within three posts without slowing the thread with semantics—before moderators are permitted to censor contributors from posting. I understand it may be frustrating for some when their voice is not heard. I also empathize with some of you sensitive types (GUE) who don’t relish hearing a divers’ perspectives and critique, where opinions should count regardless of their level of expertise and agency affiliation. What matters is that we all look forward to reading and interacting toward a viable solution. Why else would you post in a public forum where you have readers and participants alike? Which leads me to believe the forum is unable to cope with divers from various backgrounds and beliefs. Although, I really enjoy the entertainment value of the ScubaBoard forum, I strongly urge staff to rejuvenate your reasoning before acting decisively.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

What happened to dive and let dive?

 

[lexvil]

Punctuation is our friend.

 

[VikingDives]

What happened to dive and let dive?

Most of my ideas about what should happen here aren't accepted, because most people here are wrong?

Also, you and I are both wrong.

 

[VikingDives]

Punctuation is our friend.

Unless, it isn't...

 

[lexvil]

Unless, it isn't...

It can be replaced with brevity

 

[Failed captcha]

I'm on the fence on this one. Maybe Semantics slows the thread and maybe it doesn't. I remain unconvinced either way.

 

[lowwall]

I'm on the fence on this one. Maybe Semantics slows the thread and maybe it doesn't. I remain unconvinced either way.

Let's discuss it some more and see where it leads.

We can start with a definition of semantics:

"the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning."

That clears it right up.

 

[ams511]

I'm on the fence on this one. Maybe Semantics slows the thread and maybe it doesn't. I remain unconvinced either way.

I am not, it definitely slows down a thread and adds nothing. So a poster spelled something wrong or auto-correct took over. Do we really need multiple posts on this? The other thing is the know-it-all who corrects someone because they used an improper term for something when the rest of the thread knows what is being talked about.

 

[Joneill]

That's not an argument! It's just a contradiction!

 

[Failed captcha]

I am not, it definitely slows down a thread and adds nothing. So a poster spelled something wrong or auto-correct took over. Do we really need multiple posts on this? The other thing is the know-it-all who corrects someone because they used an improper term for something when the rest of the thread knows what is being talked about.

I disagree, this is one of the fastest growing threads on the site currently, but I'm still on the fence as to whether that means it's not "slow" per se. Furthermore, I can't be entirely certain that semantic arguments are at the heart of the rate of growth.