Kinsey, sexual ethics, and evolution

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I don't think the forum rules say anything about how topics and threads must be organized. Sometimes we do branch off new threads, to promote clarity of discussion, but I don't see that as a requirement. Keeping all of Collectivist's views on various topics confined to a single thread also has some merit as an organizing principle: really, it keeps the topic focussed on Collectivist himself.

Lately, I've been combining many of Loren's posts into threads according to their topic.

I'm open to discussing whether we need new forum rules about the organization of threads and topics; but recommend that we continue any such discussion somewhere in the "Site Notices & Policies" forum, either under a new thread or under the "Forum rules..." thread? Just a suggestion, not a requirement: if we keep it here, Collectivist is more likely to contribute his opinion.
OK, I should have stated behavior according to generally accepted web forum etiquette, aka good Culture. Your consolidating of Loren's posts along topic lines seems in the same general interest, albeit moving data in the opposite direction. But maybe we should only have one thread for the forum? Imagine the number of page views we'd be getting then.

How about another vote?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
In general, forking a new thread for an entirely new topic is good etiquette. Conversely, if there's an existing thread, it's also good form to put relevant new posts in the old thread.

In this case, the topic does seem to have drifted a bit from Collectivist's intention. But I can't find any reasonable place to create a fork, everything is connected to everything else.

After downloading McCarthy's novel, and skipping straight to the end, I think he's got his bets covered. If it turns out that Sarah Hartwell and his many other detractors are correct, and humans aren't descended from pigs, then he can always claim it was indeed an April Fool's Day joke. Or a gambit to promote sales of his novel.

Roman Catholics believe that they are eating a literal part of Jesus's human flesh (transubstantiation) along with drinking his blood. If so, what part of his body are they eating?
Sheesh, do you always have to go pointing out the obvious? Oh, I suppose you do, I myself can be pretty thick at times.

But isn't it a bit (Joe) McCarthyite to have a litmus test of principles that all Postflavians must agree to, or risk being Heretics? Can't it just go without saying that of course Collectivist doesn't endorse Catholic pedophile priests, not to mention ritual vampirism and cannibalism? Anyway he always does this: drops his dung and then leaves us to pass it around.
 
Top