off-topic posts...

[bishop]

people here, especially the newcomers seem to have a really difficult time responding to threads/posts without taking them down some worthless tangent.. threads about the israeli/lebanese crisis somehow devolve into babbling tangents about the IRA and kennedy assassination.. shit's annoying to have to sift through - for someone interested in on-topic posts rather than wading through long, irrelevant tangents.

get it together people.. instead of posting tangents, start a new thread.

[CoffeeSaint]

You're going to love this, I'm sure, but I have to disagree with you, to some extent. I'm an English teacher, right? My life is tangents. There isn't a class period that goes by that my students and I don't talk about twenty different things that only relate tangentially to the topic at hand. And while I get complaints from students who get annoyed, just as you do, and feel it's a waste of time, just as you do, I think it's the most useful thing I can do. What I do is show my students how to associate things they read and hear and think to their own lives, in order to understand the new information. One of the pedagogical theories I was taught was the idea that people file all information they know into categories in their minds, called schema, and in order to accept new information and make it available for future use -- to learn, in other words -- one has to activate one's currently defined schema, and either figure out where the new information fits, or create a new schema that covers it because it doesn't fit into old schema. So to learn what Boo Radley symbolizes in To Kill a Mockingbird, one has to remember a movie that had a similar character. To learn how the history between Hezbollah and Israel affects the current situation, they have to remember some dumbass feud they had with their little brother. They're placing the new information in relation to their old knowledge, and they're figuring things out.

That means when somebody brings up some tangent with any remote relevance to the topic, they are learning. People babble on this forum when they don't already know what to say, which means they don't already have this info; if they already had the info, they would simply spit out a pat answer, on topic, directly related to the previous posts.
So: when you reduce your opponent to some form of incoherent babbling, you've taught him something -- and that means you've won, because in some way, you've changed his mind. And I personally think it's fun to watch that happen.

Except for Technosoul. Man, that guy can spew.

[Osborn F Enready]

LOL.....

I agree for the most part Coffee.

I find it hard to pass over relevant topics, as tangent as they may be, if indeed they are somewhat relevant to the debate or discussion.

Life is complex, and politics is made to confuse intelligent life. I don't think one can have good debate without the thread widening syndrome.

Sometimes we need to open our focus, to the bigger picture to see it all.

Sometimes we need to close it to see the little speck on the picture that is barely discernable.

But, that is my opinion.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint So to learn what Boo Radley symbolizes in To Kill a Mockingbird, one has to remember a movie that had a similar character.

Ack! I always hated being told what something was symbolic of in english class. It always seemed dumb that we were being forced to write expository or analytical essays about a teacher or department's decision on what something was in fact representing.

We were always "told" that we could find our own explanations for things and I tried that for a while and got marked down each time with dumb comments about the supporting facts that corroborated the opinion contrary to the teacher's.

Oh wait, this was a thread about going off topic and getting on a tangent, wasn't it?

[Nono]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I'm an English teacher, right?

Dunno. If you say so.
Sorry, I guess that's off-topic.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Ack! I always hated being told what something was symbolic of in english class. It always seemed dumb that we were being forced to write expository or analytical essays about a teacher or department's decision on what something was in fact representing. We were always "told" that we could find our own explanations for things and I tried that for a while and got marked down each time with dumb comments about the supporting facts that corroborated the opinion contrary to the teacher's. Oh wait, this was a thread about going off topic and getting on a tangent, wasn't it?

There's a difference between the ability to interpret a symbol, and the ability to write an expository essay proving your interpretation is valid. My class reads pretty straightforward, simple works, for the most part, and the symbolism is usually a bit heavy-handed. In "A Separate Peace," for instance, one character is obviously a Messianic symbol, but the simple descriptions of him being saintly in his patience and kindness, perfect in nearly all his pursuits, and caring for everyone around him no matter how opbnoxious or even evil, and then his sacrifice at the end at the hands of his best friend; no, these aren't enough. The author felt the need to include a scene in which the character is standing in a canoe on a river, and the sunlight makes it hard to see the canoe but it makes his head glow as if with a golden light. Now, it's possible toi see that character as a symbol of justice, for instance, or the search for truth, but the most obvious evidence points to him being a Christ figure. So writing an essay in which you describe how the character symbolizes the universe's tendency towards entropy means you will have to dig deep to find evidence, and that makes the essay harder to write.

The sad part here is that English teachers, like all high school teachers, reward mechanical facility, and not independent thought. But then, is it really our job to teach independent thought? How can we, in the environment we teach in?

[Scribbler1]

Topic drift is inevitable. I have yet to see any conversation here or elsewhere that ended the same way it began. It happens, but there are rules against it. The rules are not etched in stone and a little topic drift is fairly well tolerated but they are there to at least attempt to keep the conversation on track.
There is a reason these boards and the threads withing have titles, and that is to let you know what's going on without you needing to waste your time wading through a dozen posts which have no relationship to the topic.

Personally, and as an example, the reason I stay out of the religion board (which COULD be a rich source of interesting topics) is that almost every thread degenerates into the same old unprovable and unproductive God/No God arguments. I don't like them but most thread titles don't seem to indicate what I'll be getting in to so I usually avoid them altogether.
If EVERY thread on this forum veers too far from the title or breaks off into 24 unrelated conversations the place will die the same death many other forums have succumbed to. You've probably seen them. The forums where the last post was 6 months ago. Not at all worth the time to login.

This place works because you have those pain-in-the-ass moderators putting on the brakes everytime somebody wants to take 20 posts to enlighten us why the Super Bowl is like the Irael-Palestine conflict or why TV commercials are proof that God doesn't exist.

I agree with Bishop. A little drift is expected and often just the thing to liven up a dying thread, but a topic that wanders TOO far off-course needs a new home.

[bishop]

it's particularly annoying when the tangent is injected into the thread almost right at the outset.. makes for quite the sloppy debate - one that rarely ever goes back on topic since everyone else jumps all over the tangent themselves. reading all this recent junk about the IRA-britain problems in the middle of threads about the israeli-lebanese problem was what set me off here.. especially since it seems to have spanned across multiple threads, infecting each with the irrelevant tangent virus shiat.

tangents are fine for the longer-lasting threads, when the debate's reached maximum density.. but, that isn't what i have a beef with (people like pat are normally the ones to complain when older threads veer off-topic).

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint There's a difference between the ability to interpret a symbol, and the ability to write an expository essay proving your interpretation is valid. My class reads pretty straightforward, simple works, for the most part, and the symbolism is usually a bit heavy-handed. In "A Separate Peace," for instance, one character is obviously a Messianic symbol, but the simple descriptions of him being saintly in his patience and kindness, perfect in nearly all his pursuits, and caring for everyone around him no matter how opbnoxious or even evil, and then his sacrifice at the end at the hands of his best friend; no, these aren't enough. The author felt the need to include a scene in which the character is standing in a canoe on a river, and the sunlight makes it hard to see the canoe but it makes his head glow as if with a golden light. Now, it's possible toi see that character as a symbol of justice, for instance, or the search for truth, but the most obvious evidence points to him being a Christ figure. So writing an essay in which you describe how the character symbolizes the universe's tendency towards entropy means you will have to dig deep to find evidence, and that makes the essay harder to write.

The fact that you said a symoblic character is obviously one way or another just proves my point. In fact I would go as far as to say that Phineas (correct me if I'm talking about the wrong character. It's been almost 7 years since I last read A Separate Peace) is not a Messianic character at all from his frailty and inability to really accomplish anything. If anything he was more full of himself and pushy attempting to live vicariously through the main character by basically forcing him into physical training and their excercises etc.

Point is, with something like symoblism, if you can make a rational argument for something and you don't have the words of the author saying verbatim that A is a symbol of B it should be fine.

The sad part here is that English teachers, like all high school teachers, reward mechanical facility, and not independent thought. But then, is it really our job to teach independent thought? How can we, in the environment we teach in?

Most curriculum states what books should be read and what not but not specifically what the boat in The Old Man and the Sea is symoblic of or something else that is obscure. If you want to promote independent thought the best first step is to not punish students with poor grades for having one.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 The fact that you said a symoblic character is obviously one way or another just proves my point. In fact I would go as far as to say that Phineas (correct me if I'm talking about the wrong character. It's been almost 7 years since I last read A Separate Peace) is not a Messianic character at all from his frailty and inability to really accomplish anything. If anything he was more full of himself and pushy attempting to live vicariously through the main character by basically forcing him into physical training and their excercises etc. Point is, with something like symoblism, if you can make a rational argument for something and you don't have the words of the author saying verbatim that A is a symbol of B it should be fine.

No, you're right, I was talking about Phineas. And your interpretation is interesting; now prove it. :) How can a person be both full of himself and wishing to live vicariously through another? If he wants to live vicariously through Gene, doesn't that imply he is himself incapable, and thus has low self-esteem -- which also would be a result of the frailty and lack of ability you mention. Where do you see his frailty and lack of ability to accomplish anything? Because he breaks his leg when he gets knocked out of a tree? What does he try to accomplish but fail at?

As I said, the issue is not whether you are right; it's how well you can prove your case.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Most curriculum states what books should be read and what not but not specifically what the boat in The Old Man and the Sea is symoblic of or something else that is obscure. If you want to promote independent thought the best first step is to not punish students with poor grades for having one.

Poor grades are not a punishment, they are a reward. Students earn what they get; don't blame the teacher if your reward isn't what you wanted it to be (Unless you have a specific teacher in mind who screwed up your grade -- then blame away).
Now, there is a way in which you are entirely right about this: most teachers do present a specific interpretation on the theory that students need to have things explained to them, since that is what the teacher is for -- explaining. In that sort of situation, a student is being tested on his ability to recall the instruction, not his ability to interpret texts independently; those teachers would probably argue that the place for that kind of independent interpretation is college. And inasmuch as many students, maybe most students, are not interested at all in trying to come up with their own interpretation, those teachers may be right. I'm not one of those teachers, and believe me, it pisses my students off. I ask them, "What do you think this scene is about?" and they will say, "We don't know, why don't you tell us?" and then get frustrated when I won't. But that's just me.

[Jack]

Just curious, Chaossaber314 and Coffee Saint; are you discussing "off-topic" or providing evidence of same?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Isherwood Just curious, Chaossaber314 and Coffee Saint; are you discussing "off-topic" or providing evidence of same?

Thanks -- I was wondering how long it would take somebody to comment on that. Why am I not surprised that the member who noted the irony of the situation was you, Ish?

All I can say in my defense is, this is the only forum I go to; whenever I get a chance to talk literature, I'm going to jump on it and stick like a barnacle on Spanish Fly.

[Jack]

I have to admit that an example of "off topic" is appropriate to a thread about "off topic posts". Just razzin' ya'all.

Start a lit thread. I could go for that myself. Just don't get too obscure, please. College was many years ago, and what I read now is hardly classical lit.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint No, you're right, I was talking about Phineas. And your interpretation is interesting; now prove it. How can a person be both full of himself and wishing to live vicariously through another?

Because Gene injured him to the point that he was unable to act as he had earlier in the book.

If he wants to live vicariously through Gene, doesn't that imply he is himself incapable, and thus has low self-esteem

Just because someone is incapable of doing something doesn't mean they have low self-esteem. Even less so with attempting to live vicariously since that's a method of psychological displacement. They assume the person's identity by taking pleasure in their victories. For instance, people who watch professional sports don't (necessarily) have low self-esteem. They know they can't play to the same level even at their best but still they yell at the screen when a ref makes a bad calls, cheer when their team does well and even refer to their favorite team with personal pronouns like "Us" or "We" etc.

Where do you see his frailty and lack of ability to accomplish anything?

His frailty comes from his need to train Gene in the first place as far as actual plot and in terms of the ending, his dying after falling down some stairs (I think. I'm still really sketchy on the plot).

Because he breaks his leg when he gets knocked out of a tree?

That's part of it, but if he was Messianic archetype or figure he would come back from this as something better or stronger. He doesn't. Instead he dies. I think the whole point of frailty is emphasized by the use of the word "shattered" which appears in relation to his leg.

What does he try to accomplish but fail at?

I don't think he really tries to accomplish anything and fail at it because he never tries to accomplish anything beyond training Gene.

Poor grades are not a punishment, they are a reward. Students earn what they get; don't blame the teacher if your reward isn't what you wanted it to be (Unless you have a specific teacher in mind who screwed up your grade -- then blame away).

Of course I do. Lol.

It's part of my continued bitterness at the scare tactics of how hard college was suppose to be imposed by my high-school from many different departments. I struggled to maintain a 3.0 GPA. Then I go to college take many of the same classes at these revered higher levels, take 18 hours of courses a semester, and get a 4.0 my first semester.

Now, there is a way in which you are entirely right about this: most teachers do present a specific interpretation on the theory that students need to have things explained to them, since that is what the teacher is for -- explaining. In that sort of situation, a student is being tested on his ability to recall the instruction, not his ability to interpret texts independently; those teachers would probably argue that the place for that kind of independent interpretation is college.

Damn good point. I just wish there wasn't this masquerade about independent thought and "critical thinking" when the intention is anything but.

Quote by: Isherwood Just curious, Chaossaber314 and Coffee Saint; are you discussing "off-topic" or providing evidence of same?

A little from column A. A little from column B.

And if someone starts a lit thread, I'll jump in. I just hope I don't miss it because I can get a little overwhelmed with the number of posts I miss sometimes around here.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Because Gene injured him to the point that he was unable to act as he had earlier in the book. Just because someone is incapable of doing something doesn't mean they have low self-esteem. Even less so with attempting to live vicariously since that's a method of psychological displacement. They assume the person's identity by taking pleasure in their victories. For instance, people who watch professional sports don't (necessarily) have low self-esteem. They know they can't play to the same level even at their best but still they yell at the screen when a ref makes a bad calls, cheer when their team does well and even refer to their favorite team with personal pronouns like "Us" or "We" etc. His frailty comes from his need to train Gene in the first place as far as actual plot and in terms of the ending, his dying after falling down some stairs (I think. I'm still really sketchy on the plot). That's part of it, but if he was Messianic archetype or figure he would come back from this as something better or stronger. He doesn't. Instead he dies. I think the whole point of frailty is emphasized by the use of the word "shattered" which appears in relation to his leg. I don't think he really tries to accomplish anything and fail at it because he never tries to accomplish anything beyond training Gene.

Nice work. I'd definitely give this a B, B+, only because you're a little shaky on the details . . .
BTW, yes, he does fall down stairs and die. And you really do have some good points here. I might try arguing with this more -- his death, at the hands of his best friend (read: Judas) and the mockery of a trial from the "authorities," both fundamentally change Gene's personality, which can be seen as an allegory for how Christ was betrayed and destroyed by those who were jealous and didn't understand him, but changed the world nonetheless -- but I hate that fricking book. Always have.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 It's part of my continued bitterness at the scare tactics of how hard college was suppose to be imposed by my high-school from many different departments. I struggled to maintain a 3.0 GPA. Then I go to college take many of the same classes at these revered higher levels, take 18 hours of courses a semester, and get a 4.0 my first semester.

Yeah? I got somewhere around a 2.0, and then aced my way through 7 years of college (though my choice of school shelped inflate that GPA), so I'm right there with you. And I hated that with a passion: in elementary school they told us they were getting us ready for junior high; junior high was preparing us for high school; high school was preparing us for college. I went through the last 5 years or so of public school thinking, "When the hell do I start learning, instead of preparing for later?" Hated it.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Damn good point. I just wish there wasn't this masquerade about independent thought and "critical thinking" when the intention is anything but.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 for teachers; we have to teach everyone in the class, which means we often have to gear the class to the lowest common denominator. The worst thing that happened to public schools in the last thirty years was the decision to eliminate tracking, or placing students in different classes according to ability levels. There were problems with how tracking was done (minority kids mysteriously seemed to end up in the lowest tracks), but they should have tried to fix the system, instead of scrapping it. So kids that plan on getting out of school and going to work have to interpret Shakespeare, instead of learning business English, because everyone has to be in the college track, and kids that are capable of independent thought don't get to exercise it, because the teacher doesn't have the time (and some don't have the inclination) to make it work. And school sucks for everyone. Brilliant.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 A little from column A. A little from column B.

Tell me you're quoting Grampa Simpson, and you'll get your A.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 And if someone starts a lit thread, I'll jump in. I just hope I don't miss it because I can get a little overwhelmed with the number of posts I miss sometimes around here.

Oh, this is so on.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint BTW, yes, he does fall down stairs and die. And you really do have some good points here. I might try arguing with this more -- his death, at the hands of his best friend (read: Judas) and the mockery of a trial from the "authorities," both fundamentally change Gene's personality, which can be seen as an allegory for how Christ was betrayed and destroyed by those who were jealous and didn't understand him, but changed the world nonetheless -- but I hate that fricking book. Always have.

While I see the points in the Judas analogy, the difference here is that Phineas does not come out on top. He dies. The Judas of this book is the victor.

Yeah? I got somewhere around a 2.0, and then aced my way through 7 years of college (though my choice of school shelped inflate that GPA), so I'm right there with you. And I hated that with a passion: in elementary school they told us they were getting us ready for junior high; junior high was preparing us for high school; high school was preparing us for college. I went through the last 5 years or so of public school thinking, "When the hell do I start learning, instead of preparing for later?" Hated it.

Yeah, the worst part for me was that they tried to use it as an excuse not to help people claiming that we wouldn't get this same help in college, which is utter bullshit.

Tell me you're quoting Grampa Simpson, and you'll get your A.

My 7 box sets of the Simpsons nod along with me.