Fine Art America - Art - Prints - Canvas Prints - Framed Prints - Metal Prints - Acrylic Prints

Every purchase includes a money-back guarantee.








Fine Art Discussions

Keyword Search  | Main Menu

Search Discussions



Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 8:52 AM

Debate is a very important tool. A way of learning differing views and ways of life from our own. Without debate we cannot grow as well and so it is necessary to us all.

Important issues of the day, religious faiths, political views and just whether to recycle a paper bag (sorry Gershwin) are all matters for debate at some time in our lives and using a forum like this is a great way to learn peoples ideas and views from around the world, whereas only a few years a go we only got this from neighbours and friends.

However, with debate come unspoken and spoken rules of engagement.

One of the spoken rules are the rules of the place you are in. In this case here, the Forum Rules. But most places have their own rules and you should always refresh your knowledge of these before entering into the fray.

Now I will go into some of the unspoken rules.

Think before you speak. You are talking to people from around the world who may not 'get' what you are saying or who may see it as an insult. Therefore think about how oyu have said something. Reword if necessary to make sure that people understand what you are trying to say.

Quoting an source does not make it fact. It is one side of things and it may be wrong. Even experts have been known to be wrong, quite often in fact. So, quote by all means but know that this is an opinion and one way of looking at something, it may not actually be fully correct. If you realise this it comes across in how you say it and you appear more open.

Do not debate if you have a closed mind. By all means enter, speak you case and leave but it is not worth debating ever if you are not open to the other sides take on things. Debate is learning and teaching, on both sides.

Avoid emotion ....words that are likely to produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words have no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself. pasted from another source as it says it perfectly.

More arguments and hurt feelings are caused by the above being ignored than by most other things. What was a good debate turns into a slanderous attack that stops the debate and hurts both aggressor and victim.

A (Short) List of emotionally charged words and phrases:

* Liberal!
* Tax and spend!
* Conservative!
* Politically correct!
* (The opponent) is spouting! his (whatever)!
* All pejorative names for races, sexual preference, ethnic groups, or religions
* Baby killer!
* Socialist!
* Pathetic!
* Hippy!
* Fascist!
* Saying that your opponent "trots out" his argument

I am sure we all here recognise a few of these.

Innuendo is another form of above but without actually saying it outright. Innuendo is just as bad if not worse as it it is harder to defend against but says a lot about the person who uses it as a shield.

Always be sure of your facts. For instance, one paper says one thng, another says another, so research is needed to defend a position. Always check with more than one source before bringing to the table. Even when quoting wanring emails it has been found several times that the email was a hoax, and if you are in a debate then this immediately weakens your argument.

Remember always that your opponent/s are just as sure they are right as you are. It is up to you if you enter a debate to show they are wrong with thoughtful, well researched facts. They will also be trying to do the same thing.

Finally, when researching this article about debating, I found a piece that made me giggle and I will enter it here. It is in the part of a debate no-no's ridiculing your opponent.

Another example is to say that nudists "prance around" in the nude. Of course it's inaccurate, but it ridicules and denigrates as well and shouldn't be allowed in a rational debate.

Thank you for reading.


Oldest Reply

Posted by: Ben Van Rooyen on 10/06/2010 - 9:09 AM

Where is the like button?
I'm guilty of a few...ooops...walking silently away.:)


Posted by: Tony Murray on 10/06/2010 - 9:54 AM

Thanks Beth for taking the time for this. I thought of something whlie I was reading it. On another entirely different website i belong to (Not art related) they have an entire portion of "Discussions" Called "Thunderdome". . It is for people who want to argue and debate but it relegates those types of things to that section. In othere words if a topic can get out of place it is sent to the "Thunderdome" (taken from Mad Max 2 men enter one man leaves). Sometimes it is helpful to see this because it reveals a lot about the participants and eventually makes their motives known to all. It is a way of dropping it from Discussions without actually closing it. Just a thought.


Posted by: Angelina Vick on 10/06/2010 - 9:57 AM

LOL "Thunderdome"

2 men enter one man leaves?


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 10:00 AM

Tony that is a great idea and perhaps something to have a think about :) That means that people can have a go in the way that pleases them but keeps the forum nice for the rest.

I will have a thunk ;)


Posted by: Tony Murray on 10/06/2010 - 10:04 AM

Well it is also good for pointing out folks that just want to rile people instead of actually learning something. Then those types tend to be avoided and lose their "Bite" so to speak. There are personalities that thrive on displacement and the topic is really secondary to their motives.


Posted by: Peter Piatt on 10/06/2010 - 10:23 AM

Two women walk in, ten men walk out.


Posted by: Laurette Escobar on 10/06/2010 - 10:26 AM




Posted by: Peter Piatt on 10/06/2010 - 10:28 AM

I took for levels of speech classes in college and the further I got into public speaking the harder it was for me to stand up and talk, the last class was Argumentation and Debate, I stood up to talk and froze. So no more debating in a public sense for me. Besides, I'm a passive person.


Posted by: Vincent Von Frese on 10/06/2010 - 10:30 AM

A man cannot win a debate with his wife or probably any woman when I think of it..............that would be a fool's errand to attempt.


Posted by: Kevin Callahan on 10/06/2010 - 10:31 AM

I never "prance."

Good thoughts Beth.


Posted by: Angelina Vick on 10/06/2010 - 10:34 AM

I am a passive person too but all these talks about politics and god and who is a real artist just get me annoyed...*sigh*

I would love it if they would just enter the Thunderdome. Maybe it could have politics and god assigned to it permanently.

btw that was funny Peter! 2 women enter and 2 men leave...


Posted by: Phylicia Wolf on 10/06/2010 - 10:37 AM


I detest the name calling & belittling and agree that it shows defeat in debate by resorting to that tactic. People just talking at each other and not to each other and not giving open minded consideration to what the other has to say is annoying too. I vote for Tony's suggestion for a separate area for push button topics and rants. It would still have to be monitored though and kept to forum rules and rules of proper debate or it will quickly get out of hand and anger and resentment will spill over everywhere and onto everyone else.


Posted by: Cristophers Dream Artistry on 10/06/2010 - 10:52 AM

are these guidlines aimed for small groups or "mass debates" ? :D


Posted by: Angelina Vick on 10/06/2010 - 10:54 AM

They seemed at people who love to make threads on topics made for debating. As in, "want to make a debate?" "go to thunderdome..."


Posted by: Phylicia Wolf on 10/06/2010 - 10:54 AM

They may just set you off in a corner all to yourself, Cristopher. lol : D


Posted by: Marlene Burns on 10/06/2010 - 11:45 AM

until such a time that people learn HOW to debate, wherever these topics are placed, is a moot issue.
talking AT and over others and having no respect for someone else's opinion ( which is JUST AS VALID AS YOURS) is what i label a private agenda.
it is clearly not a debate when people of this posture get together in one you can put it anywhere you like and it won't matter.
i can think of one very apt place to stick these out of control rants.....


Posted by: Charles Peck on 10/06/2010 - 11:46 AM

First let me say ... out loud, MEA CULPA since I have been guilty of returning a thrust with a thrust way more often than I should. Which is counterproductive since fighting fire with fire is not the method professional fire fighters use except in extreme situations...and even then they still rely mostly on water.

Beth, this was very well presented, thanks. Timely as well.

The "Thunderdome" idea relayed by Tony sounds great to me - gets the rough and tumble off the main forum and as Tony so well states, it exposes those who revel in it.


Posted by: Rose Hill on 10/06/2010 - 11:52 AM

Thunderdome might work:)

Communicating well is an art and you do it well, Miss Beth.


Posted by: Karon Melillo DeVega on 10/06/2010 - 12:22 PM

well written Beth, good work!
p.s. love the thunderdome idea, that's brilliant lol


Posted by: Marlene Burns on 10/06/2010 - 12:35 PM

just imagine all the negative energy in that thunderdome......hell, it could blow itself right outta the world!


Posted by: Gene Gregory on 10/06/2010 - 12:49 PM

Thanks Beth...... Good info. ......
However, I don't think "liberal' or 'conservative' are nasty words, - the are accepted labels in the USA. : )

Sometimes we get into a childish game of "who said what first." I agree with most folks here that NO ONE should get personal. Not even about the President you are for or against. Debating the issues are enough, and I think can be interesting and stimulating. When someone feels that they are loosing the arguement, they sometimes resort to mud-slinging and insulting.

Like Peter said, It always made me nervous as heck when I was in school to stand up in front of a crowd and say anything. But later in life, as a union leader, I had to stand up before about 500 angry men and try to convience them we were doing all we could do.

Whatever we do, we really should remember to be ladies and gentlemen. Always fight fair! : )


Posted by: Marlene Burns on 10/06/2010 - 12:53 PM

along those lines, how about if we have to curtsy and bow before each barbed lessen the blow and promote the lady and gentleman theory?


Posted by: Greg Coffelt on 10/06/2010 - 1:11 PM

Making a confession here......I am at times a "pot stirrer" usually when I see "some people" ganging up on others.
I have noticed when things get heated that it enhances my vocabulary and makes me think more before I post.
I also have to admit that I like it........I am sorry for that!

Beth, you are crazy this will never work here!......................just kiddingI!!! LOL.


Posted by: Viet Tran on 10/06/2010 - 1:14 PM

From real story that has happened in an office somewhere in Victoria, BC, Canada:

Communication Part I: MESSAGE - LISTENING

- “Please help! Should I call police to arrest him for public mischief?”, the stressful newly-hired secretary stormed into her boss’ office.
- “OK. Take it easy! What is going on?”
- “An angry threatening drunkard at the front desk was insulted me and is about assault me”.

A man was shouting insults, when the boss went to reception area.
-“Hi! What can I do for you”.

The man kept shouting and didn’t reply. The boss kept silent and listened to the man‘s complaint about one minute. Then he raised his voice to interrupt.
-“I am in charge here! What can I do you for you?”

-“I want to see the manager now”, the man kept shouting
-“ OK. I am the manager here!”, the boss raised his voice louder to confirm his authority.

-“ What shitty office is this? You guys treat people like shit here?”. The man kept complaining.
- “OK, What can I do for you?”

- “Your receptionist is bitch and an asshole. She insulted me”
- “What did she do to insult you?”

-“F**k her! She called me a drunkard and threatened to call police “

If you were the boss of that office, what do you think the problems were? what would you do in this case?


Posted by: Judy Westergard on 10/06/2010 - 1:23 PM

I've been a member of several artists' associations/groups in which "art critique rules of engagement" needed to be taught and retaught before folks finally understood how to give thoughtful, helpful feedback regarding a piece of work. If artists can learn to do that, certainly we can learn to abide by Beth's very thoughtful, very effective "rules of engagement" for debate.


Posted by: Macsfield Images on 10/06/2010 - 1:26 PM

@V ...... I'd fire the secretary - shoot the drunk - plead temporary insanity - get drunk and file for bankruptcy!! ............. There is only so much a man can take in one day - LOL


Posted by: Patricia Cleasby on 10/06/2010 - 1:29 PM

Fire the secretary? Why?


Posted by: Gene Gregory on 10/06/2010 - 1:36 PM

I will probably be watching baseball play-offs for the next 10 hours ( 3 games )

Have fun : )


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 1:36 PM

I would not fire the secretary nor shoot the drunk. Is the man drunk or just upset? Also you should have faith in your staff. If you sack someone just because someone shouts about them then you have no respect for your staff and they have no respect for you. None of the actual facts have been placed here, only what one person said about another.


Posted by: Marlene Burns on 10/06/2010 - 1:47 PM

if i were the male thing for sure, i would not have sex with my sec'y even though the visitor said to F* her.......
everyone knows that office romances are risky.


Posted by: Viet Tran on 10/06/2010 - 1:57 PM

I think:

It is nothing right or wrong here as different people certainly would handle conflict in communication in many different ways. We handle things based on our life style, comfort zone, cultural/social/educational backgrounds, and our emotional at the time those conflict occur. It is very natural that 1000 people will handle things in a 1000 different ways. So it is impossible to expect that others will agree with us what we are thinking and doing?

I think that the core issue is how to keep our thinking and our life within our comfort zone while respecting other people ways of life and their comfort zone.

Again the above is just my own thought. I am not asking for any agreement.

Macsfield! I was laughing as I took your comment as a joke. And to me your great joke did lighten my day. Thanks my brother


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 2:02 PM

Exactly Viet, which is why there has to be rules of engagement.


Posted by: Marlene Burns on 10/06/2010 - 2:14 PM

beth, according to dr. laura, rules of engagement include:
at least two years of dating
a ring
a date

are they a clue to our inability to engage properly?
we have no commitment in time, money or future plans with one another on the internet.


Posted by: Viet Tran on 10/06/2010 - 2:16 PM

I'll share with you what that boss thought the problems were and how he handled the situation in Communication Part II.

In the mean time, I just want to raise a hypothetical issue for you to think as FAA artists. Is there any possibility that the same man did one painting/one photo/one collage/one work, opened an FAA account, and claimed himself as an artist? If there is that such a remote possibility in real life, how do you feel that he would handle a debate with you online?

Again, it was just my small thought!


Posted by: Viet Tran on 10/06/2010 - 2:22 PM

Marlene. I am laughing at your joke.

PS: My wife will send all of her air mile points to you for your advise about office romance (lol)


Posted by: Marlene Burns on 10/06/2010 - 2:31 PM

can't take's a spin off from a classic joke.....
a couple is sitting in church and the preacher is making a plea for donations. people are calling out their monetary donations one by one. the wife confers with her husband and yells out " i'll have sex with you!"
totally shocked, the preacher demands an explanation...she was my husband's idea....he told me,
" f* him...don't give him a penny!"


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 2:35 PM

In the mean time, I just want to raise a hypothetical issue for you to think as FAA artists. Is there any possibility that the same man did one painting/one photo/one collage/one work, opened an FAA account, and claimed himself as an artist? If there is that such a remote possibility in real life, how do you feel that he would handle a debate with you online?

Yes a man could be a good artist and raise a debate here. A one off painter, a garbage man, a policeman, a beggarman, or a collector and raise a debate here and deserve the same treatment as any other person. He may be a good conversationalist or a bad one.

My post is how to hold a debate not who should be allowed to partake of one.


Posted by: Tony Murray on 10/06/2010 - 2:42 PM

Just be aware here that some people are master-debaters ! (can't believe i said that)


Posted by: Viet Tran on 10/06/2010 - 2:44 PM

Sister Beth, don't be so alarmed!

I am glad that you've got my point exactly 100%. We do not know with whom we are talking online! So be aware of the differences in communication.


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 3:13 PM


Posted by: Cristophers Dream Artistry on 10/06/2010 - 3:34 PM

de baiting only fools de fishes,'z knot nyse


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 3:39 PM


Posted by: Mark E Smith on 10/06/2010 - 3:52 PM

Having skimmed through or read most of the so-called debates I’ve seen I can make one comment and one suggestion. I make a habit to never discuss politics or religion in public, a bar or the internet. Reason being, in public someone will hear a piece and misconstrue the whole conversation, in a bar drunks are opinionated and think they are always right and on the internet the only difference is people read instead of talk and aren’t drunk usually but find it easier to express their opinion due to written message and anonymity.
Being a boater and a sports fisherman one forum I use to frequent for fishing news and reports had an area called the bilge which was nothing but a group who gripped and argued politics, it was an extra area that required an extra sign in to get to. If you didn’t want to see it you stayed out. Let’s face it, Democrats and Republicans will never see eye to eye, that is why they are different parties.
Just my 2-cents


Posted by: Diana Nigon on 10/06/2010 - 4:31 PM

Good guidelines, Beth!!!

Re: Viet's situation with newly hired secretary above.
1) No one who knows anything about staffing and the difficulty in finding good staff would fire the girl.
2) If I were the poor girl,I wouldn't hesitate to call security, and let the chips fall where they may, but I have a very low tolerance for insults and noise ( a boss who would fire me for that I don't need)
3) The "drunk" may have a problem other than being "drunk" but he is, or could be dangerous just as easily.

RE: moving the flame wars somewhere else...go for it!!


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 6:36 PM

Ok I have mentioned the idea of a special 'tag' for certain post or posts to Sean. It is being thought over.


Posted by: Marlene Burns on 10/06/2010 - 7:24 PM

is it too soon to print up some "enter at your own risk" door signs?

i think the BIGGEST rule would have to be....don't run to beth crying after the fact!


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 7:35 PM


Posted by: Enver Larney on 10/06/2010 - 9:24 PM

Mea Culpa

I have been truly shocked at the meteoric rise of conservatism at FAA.

Attacking the agenda of neocons as I (and others) have tried to do (recently) leads to an emergency session at FAA where the rules of engagement is re-evalued and if you look at this unfortunate thread, it has already degraded to jokes about fucking one's secretary - though the point of this was that of miscommunication which generally occurs here frequently. So much for useful discussion. For many third world people in circumstances luckily unimaginable to many here, the web is a tool for learning as books were less than a generation ago, but I have traveled among the poorest and most unfortunate on earth and can tell you that the disparity between America and THE REAL world out there is as vast as the distance between the moon and the earth.

The Obama bashing which has become so commonplace here further supports my claim that FAA is in danger of becoming another self serving tool for American Conservatism and the danger that this poses not only to themselves but the general world at large. America is placed where Germany was in 1937 and there is a great danger to this that is being ignored in the whole complexion of FAA at present. At least we have a chance to make a difference and this seems to be overlooked. Would you (Americans) want another President that is going to cast fire and brimstone across the face of the Earth?...then be my guest, but I will challenge you wherever you may be found.

I am posting this in order for you to understand where I am coming from. Most neocons here bar none, regard me as a threat to their hidden agenda and this makes my contributions to FAA discussions very difficult. I know that I have been called arrogant on many occasions but if you really knew me, this is very far from the truth. The Happiness Machines (Lawrence Supino) thread was AVOIDED by all (except Charles Peck and one or two others) because it reflects the apathy about social duty that seem to prevail there. The cut and paste habit is a double edged sword because on the one hand it can illustrate and support a certain position and provide useful information necessary for learning but also used as self serving inaccurate propaganda as have been proven here on many occasions.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to prevail in an environment of such discredit to reality as has become apparent at FAA. Let's rather talk about my poodle, the best salon in town and what a scumbag the President is. Tedious at best and fearfully dangerous at worse. I thought that I would share this with you given that you are really all peacemakers at heart I am sure - and that is why I have the greatest respect for you all. It is true that the pursuit of PEACE requires discipline but in your dealings here with a global audience, always remember that fate has placed you in a position more fortunate than most in the world. This is where real responsibility lay, to those who have been dealt the short end of the stick. It reflects one of the more noble reasons why you have been afforded your vast talents.



Posted by: Glenn McCarthy Art and Photography on 10/06/2010 - 9:58 PM


It's so easy to lose our way! Abiding by the rules creates an inward twister that just has to get out. But as I recollect... there are huge egos and challenges in the smallest of art clubs. With 42,000 entries from all over the world... maybe a new site just for artists who have the answers to all the ills that surround us. $30.00 per year for articles that can be purchased by political outlets!

PS... I don't agree at all that FAA has become a conservative bastion... It seems to be very well balanced from all sides...


Posted by: Viet Tran on 10/06/2010 - 10:17 PM

A true story

(continued from PART I: MESSAGE – LISTENING)


When everything went wrong.

-“Please go to my office then we can talk” the boss (A) offered
-“What’s about your secretary? She insulted me and you don’t say anything about it?” the man (B) demanded.

A: -“What do you want me to do?”
B: -“You guys treated badly. You have to fire the bitch!”

A: -“Can we talk in my office?”
B: -“She called me a drunkard. Aren’t you going to fire her?”

A: -“Not now! Please talk in my office.”
B: -“She called me an asshole. She has to be fired”

To this point, A had lost his patience and raised his voice louder:
A: -“OK! OK! OK! I got your message. You want to fire her. YOU want ME to fire HER? Correct!”
B: Yes, fire that bitch
A: Do you want to talk my office or not? ”

Finally A could take B to his office. In the office

B was in a loud voice -“She called me a drunkard”,
A: -“Aren’t you?”
B became more irritated: -“Are you saying that I am drunkard? I sue all this office!”
A: -“No. I am saying that I can smell alcohol from you?”
B’s voice become more aggressive -“I am not drunk. You said I am a drunkard?”
A: - “No I did not say it. Your breath has strong smell of alcohol.”
B: “I am not drunk. I drank one or two beers about three hours ago. I am not drunk. I can drink a case without getting drunk. Don’t say I am drunk?

A had lost his temper and strike back –“OK. What do YOU WANT?”
B: -“You guys call me a drunkard and asshole.”
A: “OK. What do YOU WANT?”
B: “You call me a drunkard and asshole.”
A totally lost his temper “Yes you are. Get out or here or I call police.”
B: F**K you guy! Call police…F**K you!

A reached for his phone, But B hurriedly ran away and swore on his way out.

A Conflict resolution expert was hired to analyze the situation and concluded that A made critical errors in handling this case. What do you think? Do you think that you would handle the situation differently?


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 10:18 PM

Glenn, that is such a good idea maybe someone will take you up on it :)


Posted by: Vincent Von Frese on 10/06/2010 - 10:51 PM

Some may handle this situation this way;

shout to the drunk "Shut the F up you stupid mfkr!" Then if the guy says anything within 6 seconds physically attack him by either punching him out and or throw him out onto the street while thinking and consider blowing him away with a round from a 357 magnum.

The right way if it is in the city ids to call the cops. If it is in the outback country the first option is the best.


Posted by: Mario Donk on 10/06/2010 - 11:01 PM

I don't understand how the thunderdome is going to work.

Ok me and someone are discussing on a thread and misunderstanding happens (as always) and things may get out of hand. Are you suggesting I say to the offending party, Come, Come lets finish this in the thunderdome ???

Thats not going to work as Viet's example shows, they did not want to go to the office.

And will the thunderdome be considered a place to start a fight? thats not right, and whos going to go there for a discussion if its considered a negative space, because no one in a discussion or argument will ever see themselves as negative.


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 11:08 PM

The one thread I put up was an experiment. Let's see how that plays out before anyone decides what to do with anything else. For now its a bit of fun and a good thread for people to know they wont get hassled by the ban button unless they break an actual law..


Posted by: Mario Donk on 10/06/2010 - 11:12 PM

OK we will see how it goes but I don't see any difference with the law (the 3 laws) Are they not the same rules of conduct with a fancy name called thunderdome, whats the difference?


Posted by: Tony Murray on 10/06/2010 - 11:21 PM

My main objective in the suggestion was to provide something other than "Closing" a discussion which seems expedient but has roots in censorship at times. Even a thunderdome discussion would have to be closed at times.


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 11:25 PM

Ok so it was a stupid idea to a few. I have a lot of them in here. One of which is that we can come here and discuss things without causing grief all the time. One of them is that we can behave like civil human beings whilst putting our points of view over. However, it appears on a lot of threads we can't so I made a special thread (as was suggested) as an experiment for people to go in and let rip like they want to, it appears, elsewhere.

Then if it worked, (which it obviously isnt as I thought it wouldnt, because people would rather do it centre stage in normal threads), if it had worked... if a thread got majorly heated it would be sent to the special section so people could battel it out and others would know to stay out..

I have had more thank you's for the idea so far for starting it up, Tony, than people against it so I still like it.


Posted by: Charles Peck on 10/06/2010 - 11:28 PM

Hmmm, so that means our Miss Beth will one of the constants in the thunderdome...hell, that is as bad as having a job as a guard in a prison, those guards are in prison just like the inmates except they get to go home and get hollered at there.


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 11:29 PM

I have NO interest in being in there AT all. The only reasojn I am now is because people arfe asking questions and I am answering them.

I want to stay OUT of there, thats the point.


Posted by: Vivian ANDERSON on 10/06/2010 - 11:29 PM

Well, Tony, you made a fine observation at the Thunderdome, and frankly, what you said is so sensible, I can't see you getting an argument from anyone. You might get a reply from the poster (I forgot who: senior moment), but otherwise, heck, you're why's it in Thunderdome? I dont know.


Posted by: Tony Murray on 10/06/2010 - 11:39 PM

I don't mind controversy Vivian because there was a time in my life that I would shy away from every hint of conflict hoping that my lack of participation would make it go away. But having realized that It would be selfish of me not to at least address certain things from My thoroughly biased point of view I tread forward. I like the idea of Thunderdome because it works very well on the other site I frequent. The talk stays on subject (Here it would be art) and when it strays or becomes nasty it is sent to a type of "Pergatory" called "Thunderdome' where it has a chance to fester and then die from lack of any real nutrition. I think people in general are very wound up like springs these days and it does help to verbalize their feelings. Better to dislike someone than to take that anger out in the real world. Many of the people today who explode seem to be the ones everyone refers to as: "The Quiet Type".


Posted by: Mario Donk on 10/06/2010 - 11:42 PM

not having a go at you, and it may work, I was just wondering how. It kind of suggests that the thunderdome is a a rough place to be and no discussion means to start off that way. Would it not make sense to rename a discussing if it started to get rough and label it a thunderdome to warn others, rather then expect people to voluntarily go to the thunderdome , clearly if clear thinking was used all around no discussion would get out of hand, once it does, many do not think clearly anymore and are unlikely to move so just relabel the thread, if it gets too bad, close it.


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/06/2010 - 11:45 PM

Yes and in the future thats what would happen perhaps, if it worked out, and if we decided to do it, ... I just wanted to have an experiment.


Posted by: Tony Murray on 10/06/2010 - 11:46 PM

Thunder dome as it works on the other site would be a series of discussions with a variety of topics. It would have its own group subheading.


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/07/2010 - 12:05 AM

or posts could be moved there


Posted by: Paul Anderson on 10/07/2010 - 12:08 AM

Beth, this is a good topic and you had done well to approach it. Any attempt and encouragement to maintain a civil atmosphere is commendable. But as Enver has said, it quickly takes its own path because each participant has their own contribution which they find and believe is valuable. Whether it is a joke or a back handed slam, forums are places where it is most difficult to maintain "rules". The result is that some,like myself simply remove themselves from participation because it becomes uninteresting for any number of reasons. I have not participated for several months because I find very little on these forums that I can learn from. I really do not like to hear the same ol arguments repeated over and over and rarely see any conclusion that benefits me. I would like to find a place, a forum that I can learn from the experience and wisdom of other on the primary subject FAA exists for, Art and Marketing of Art (this of course is my opinion). I would like to ask question about art and the process of creating and selling art. One place I have found this is within the various subject specific groups on LinkedIN. Somehow the discussion are by a very large part made up of positive contributions intended to help and speak to the discussion. The are also carefully monitored by the group owner(s)

I hate and despise (is that redundant on my part?) the discussion on FAA of politics, religion et. al. However, I would never ever suggest that these discussion be silenced. I am a steadfast believer in personal liberty and freedoms and do not want this forum to dictate what I or others can do any more than I want my government to tell me what I can think, say or believe. By the way, by definition, it is only a government that can truly censor speech. In free enterprise such as this, it is the right of the business owner to moderate to the level they wish. There is no given freedom of speech except that which is permitted by the owner(s). Believe me, I learned this very keenly within the confines of my own employer from my attorney.

In my opinion, this forum is the way it is because the participants want it that way. Those that participate and those that simply lurk while the discussions heat up do so of their own choice. Those that do not are not here or if here, participate very sparingly. If someone has hurt feelings because of a bore has insulted them, they can simply avoid the situation and in the very extreme circumstances, the moderator and/or the owner of this free forum can remove crass offending participants.

To my friend Enver who has taught me a great deal about art and art history, I suggest that I as a level headed moderate (self acclaimed) who holds beliefs and positions that are both liberal and conservative, I see a decent balance between Obama bashing and Beck/FOX bashing on this forum and both turn my stomach. Bashing is characterized by the words chosen and the arrangement of those words in sentences. Those that have issue with our President in the USA could, if they wished voice their differences with out bashing language. Likewise those that do not hold to the ideas and ideals of Glenn Beck could also voice the differences without making it personal. At the same time, disagreement with either is not in itself bashing. To me bashing comes in when the persons are negatively characterized because of the disagreement with the side of the issue they take. Both targets are popular people with their followers and neither are completely and totally wrong. Now, a prediction. The Beck haters will brand me a Beck lover and the Obama haters will brand me an Obama lover. The truth is I am neither. The way I see it and believe is that no human in politics is worthy of such devotion or derision when it is their ideas that are actually what is in question.


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 10/07/2010 - 12:18 AM

Thank you Paul.

I have had a LOT of emails asking for religion and politics to be banned from the forums and to just talk about art. However I am like you, I think that all things should be talked about but I am fed up to the back teeth of the hatred that appears to come over in the posts. It has to end. SImple as that.


Posted by: Vivian ANDERSON on 10/07/2010 - 12:32 AM

You named this thread Debating: and it works, because the meaning is understood.
Now about behaviour on any thread: in my year's experience here, at least I can see the trouble coming just by virtue of knowing those people who usually are natural stirrers ... their history here says so because their threads get closed: evidence enough, I'd say. Sooo, haveing all those rules is not bad but the odd thing is, mostly all abide by those rules without ever knowing/reading them.
And then there are the ones who want it their way...and not in the privacy or sinbin of a thunderdome, they WANT to be out there getting attention, being admonished publicly...what is sad is that by now most members know which stirrers to avoid, that is the choice. A thunderdome won't necessarily stop a usually continuous/serial offender. Why? Because they don't see the error of their ways in society or here.....and faa can't change that. I learned the hard way: do not enter....that's the only way to NOT be a part of it all; and accept the slings and arrows if you do. The offenders don't care about the rules.

EDIT: The biggest lesson for me was the loss of respect for anyone on here who has the audacity to bring it down and thereby bring FAA down: they lose their soapbox, but worse still, we are smeared in the process, and that is bad for business, too....and, I don't want to be associated with that sort in life, or here.

Respect FAA.


Posted by: Greg Coffelt on 10/07/2010 - 12:36 AM

I think you dumb people, that includes all of you, should spend more time doing your artwork and
less time in the discussion room debating!


Posted by: Enver Larney on 10/07/2010 - 12:56 AM

Thank you Paul,

That was very noble of you and I very much appreciate your views. I do remember your previous contributions here at FAA, but that was probably before many of the present members (including Beth) were not part of this community. We seem to fight clean and laugh afterwards. Of course our community here was less than 5,000 Artists contributing to an amicable environment. The internet has impacted upon our world in unimaginable ways - providing a means to exercise cruelty upon faceless victims many continents away via the pressure of our fingers on a keyboard. The critical rate of rising suicides among Americas junior high school youth because of cyber bullying and our very own reluctance to address useful subject material with earnest civility here, testifies to this.

I empathize with your views regarding censorship and my earlier position regarding this is on public record for all to see. As we have grown, the need for moderation has become useful and even warranted. I admire Beth as I have told her in private, but she cannot have eyes 24/7 and in 360 degrees. In this regard we are destined to monitor ourselves and search for greater meaning of our own lives and the responsibility we have to the readership of these forums which constitute members globally. Because most subject material is centered around the US, foreign contributors are reluctant to participate with ample reason. FAA affords me respite from a very busy political, cinematic and Artistic life that spans many continents and I love to be amongst Artists who constitute my chosen family. As I have said before and will reiterate. We owe it to ourselves and also the greater world that the emphasis of our endeavors reaches out to others rather than "I am therefore I am" so I can do here whatever I want. History is constantly recording every letter produced in cyberspace, every nuance of thought and every attempt to either love one another or cast scorn. The tenets of democracy calls for all sides of a debate and we have yet to achieve a remote semblance in order for our time spent here to have any relevance as you have so eloquently stated.

Mad Max 4 is being shot in the Australian desert even as we speak. Pre - production will be well into early next year. Thunderdrome is the last vestige of civility but perhaps useful here as many have indicated. A refuge for those unable to conduct themselves appropriately in an atmosphere of exchange and sharing. Art is a non violent sport, the internet has changed all this.


Posted by: Christine Till on 10/07/2010 - 1:04 AM

Bravo Paul!

And (I'm almost blushing) Bravo, Marlene.


This discussion is closed.