Red vs. Blue State - fencing comparisions

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Peter! We're talking about completely useless information in a social setting. There is no agenda, no objective, and no purpose.

That, I thought, was the purpose of "water cooler". I have always operated under the assumption that the agenda is whatever the first poster writes, and the objective/purpose is to compile the members information and thoughts in a meaningful way, so that the final result is that all members have more info, and better understanding, than they had before.

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Threadjacking is what people do in clubs and organization meetings. It's human nature to pop something off the top of your head, relive stress with an anecdote, tell a joke at a quiet mement. It's what we do when we're at play.

I could agree with you, if they words "organization meetings" were cut out. If they are included, that is not how it is done in the meetings that I attend (and I have have attended quite a few&diverse ones). If that behavior would be done in the organizational meetings that I have attended it would not be accepted - the meeting chairman would immediately have told off the offender, and no one would have come to his defense.

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Even when not at play, conversations are lightened. When was the last time you went to a speaker's lecture where he didnt open up with a joke, and if he noticed the audience turning null and drowsy, try to revive it with another one?

We obviously live in very different places. In the vast majority of cases when I have gone to speaker´s lectures, there has been no joke in the beginning, and the speaker has sure as hell not tried to revive an audience with a second one. Never. And that is exactly how I want it, FWIIW. Furthermore, the comparision is a bit off - threadjacking is more like someone, whose turn at speech is not up, telling an off-topic joke and therefore being disruptive.

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Don't be angry. You never know what might be contributed during a threadjack. It might even be something fun and useful!

So, if someone has something fun and useful to say, why not start a new thread where it by definition will not constitute a threadjack? I have done just that on more than one occasion.


Peter Gustafsson

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

I have waited now. And I am still p*ssed off like Hell.

Whooa... I do hope you've let off some steam by now Peter!

Anyway, I'll admit to not having paid too much attention to this thread but can understand your anger for getting thredjacked. (After all most of your postings are very well thought-through, unlike mine... )

However, threadjacking is sometimes not intentional. I think it's what will happen spontaneously when a lot of people - all with different opinions and thoughts - starts discussing things.

You may want to think about it as a bit like the "Assiciation Game".
Oh wait, that's in the Water Cooler...

I think in order to keep a (ie. your) discussion 'on the track' you may need to keep a close eye on it. Remember, us fencers aren't always obedient!

[Bayou Bum]

I wasn't aware that there was ownership to a thread. Maybe we should set up some rules like congress, where a poster has to get permission to post from the owner of the thread. My problem was that I wasn't even aware that any one individula "owned" a thread. Of course, is this subject of threadjacking a threadjack and shouldn't it be posted in a new thread

Causing trouble whenever possible,
Bum

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


I did a web search and came up with this:

The number of USFA members, listed by division, can be found in:

http://www.usfencing.org/Misc/MembershipReport.asp

In many cases, the division borders do not coincide with state borders. There are also a few national members. Many members do not have voting rights. You can obviously see more simplifications and predictive problems with theraw data yourself, if you look at them a bit. That said, I thought the raw data might be a reasonable indication on how the USFA member voting segment voted.

By using:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I found a list of states and how they went in the latest election. I then grouped the divisions according to how their states voted. I came up with 7858 members within the red states, and 12480 member within the blue states.

This would indicate that 38,6% of all USFA memberships are linked to the Bush states. A similar percentage voted Bush in the states of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Nonwithstanding the predictive problems, I think that it is safe to say that if the USFA members decided the presidential election, then Karl Rove would have an Herculean task ahead.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Have At You]

Not much of a surprise, really.

So yeah, what did happen to Sheep in the Big City?

[Larrison]

Hmm.. now if you take those fencers per state, and corrected for population per state -- I wonder how that would come out? That is, more highly populated states (presumably with larger, blue, urban populations), woudl have more fencers than red, more rural (and smaller population) states?

Or am I demanding deterministic democratic demographic demonology late on a Sunday night?

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

and for anyone to continue that "water-coolerish" topic outside that thread,

This is the water cooler. The politics folder is a sub-folder of the water cooler. (And it might be time to re-name it, now that the 2004 elections are well behind us.)

I am astonished by your reaction. How long have you been on this forum? This is pretty much how things go. It's all friendly; I sincerely doubt anyone threadjacks out of mean-spiritedness. Conversations flow, they don't have "agendas." A point raised in a response generates further discussion -- that's not a rude non sequitur, but rather a natural progression of conversation.

I would respectfully suggest that you get used to it. You appear to be the only one bothered by the way things happen around here. Any implication of that fact, I leave to you.

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

This would indicate that 38,6% of all USFA memberships are linked to the Bush states.
Peter Gustafsson

Good point, but as you know, in the US, you don't need a majority to win. I also mentioned this percentage to a few people and their response was ... but the best fencers are in the red states!

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

The Ranting Swede was NOT from Animaniacs. He was on Sheep in the Big City.

So whatever happened to that show? What killed it? This is IMPORTANT!!

Coulda' sworn I saw it on Animaniacs. Maybe they "borrowed" it... or maybe, most likely, I'm getting my sews mixed again

[Aestro]

On a more direct note, more taxes = more money for schools = more money for MY club. Being a University school we get $1500 a year, so we can afford to keep dues low and not have to fundraise beyond tournaments. Huzzah for taxes!

On a side note, at my club in Red-leaning Tennessee I can count 15-20 blues, 1-2 reds, and 1 grey. Of course, it IS a University club, so do what you will with that.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

Good point, but as you know, in the US, you don't need a majority to win. I also mentioned this percentage to a few people and their response was ... but the best fencers are in the red states!

Those topping the Senior points standings as of 2005-03-25 are:
ME: Seth Kelsey (WA/NY)
MF: Dan Kellner (NJ)
MS: Ivan Lee (NY)
WE: Kelley Hurley (TX)
WF: Iris Zimmermann (NY)
WS: Sada Jacobson (GA)

States that the fencers are linked to were googled by me. Anyway, since the blue states got 4 out of 6 of these arguably very good fencers, I think it is a bit exaggerated to say that all the best fencers are in the red states.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


First of all, thanks for keeping a civil tone despite our differences.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

This is the water cooler. The politics folder is a sub-folder of the water cooler. (And it might be time to re-name it, now that the 2004 elections are well behind us.)

I have done a thread on the appropriate naming of this sub-folder earlier, it did not seem to produce a clear opinion.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

I am astonished by your reaction.

Given the usual nature of my posts, I understand your reaction.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

How long have you been on this forum?

As is noted on every post of mine, sine November 2002, I had posted some 692 posts until that post.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

This is pretty much how things go.

I have noticed that, much to my dismay. I have bit my tounge about interesting threads turning into trainwrecks many a time, but there comes a point.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

It's all friendly; I sincerely doubt anyone threadjacks out of mean-spiritedness.

On the "mean-spiritedness", allow me to differ. I strongly suspect that that is just what is done by a select few.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Conversations flow, they don't have "agendas." A point raised in a response generates further discussion -- that's not a rude non sequitur, but rather a natural progression of conversation.

I guess that there is a lot that I consider rambling that you consider conversation, and that something similar applies to agenda-driven statements/conversation.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

I would respectfully suggest that you get used to it.

It appears necessary.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

You appear to be the only one bothered by the way things happen around here. Any implication of that fact, I leave to you.

Considering the responses to a suggestion I posted sometime ago, I seem indeed to be in the minority. I do not know how to respond to that. I briefly toyed with the idea of retaliatory threadjacking; but discarded it as being too childish and not worthy of me.

Pig Heaven is a place with unlimited access to mud and potatoes. Peter Heaven, OTOH, is a place full of people who never let their emotions affect their thinking or speaking, who always discuss a topic until it is finished (consensus found, or consensus found impossible, or scientific truth found, or simply dropped not to be reopened) before going to the next topic, among other desirable qualities.

I know full well that this is an true dystopia to many, probably most, people. I realize that I can not change all people, and even if I could it would be immoral. OTOH, I know what I prefer and can not change my preference in that respect. I have come to realization that there is no possible way in which I can have a mostly happy life, and I have come to terms with that, or at least I think so.

One has to realize that there are things that bother oneself but not others, and vice versa. The second case can also cause gaffes - I for instance - do not get particularly (compared to other people, that is) angry by people who to my face say that they suspect that I harbor nasty wishes. Before I had got it into my head (as a fairly small kid) that this really ticked others off, boy did I make problems for myself!


Peter Gustafsson

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Pig Heaven is a place with unlimited access to mud and potatoes. Peter Heaven, OTOH, is a place full of people who never let their emotions affect their thinking or speaking, who always discuss a topic until it is finished (consensus found, or consensus found impossible, or scientific truth found, or simply dropped not to be reopened) before going to the next topic, among other desirable qualities.

I know full well that this is an true dystopia to many, probably most, people. I realize that I can not change all people, and even if I could it would be immoral. OTOH, I know what I prefer and can not change my preference in that respect. I have come to realization that there is no possible way in which I can have a mostly happy life, and I have come to terms with that, or at least I think so.

One has to realize that there are things that bother oneself but not others, and vice versa. The second case can also cause gaffes - I for instance - do not get particularly (compared to other people, that is) angry by people who to my face say that they suspect that I harbor nasty wishes. Before I had got it into my head (as a fairly small kid) that this really ticked others off, boy did I make problems for myself!

You are able to focus very well and are frustrated by others inability or unwillingness to exhibit this trait. Very concrete/sequential. Take care that it doesn't evolve into OCD.

[Have At You]

I think that was a rhetorical question. You're not supposed to answer those, are you?


>>>Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapinpeg
How long have you been on this forum?



As is noted on every post of mine, sine November 2002, I had posted some 692 posts until that post.<<<