Vibr8gKiwi

Unfortunately that appears demonstrably untrue.

Thank you for your support though Celsus. But it's just too much like walking into that Monty Python "argument" sketch around here. Even if you don't really have an argument, they will try to put one in your mouth or drag one out of you. It's quite off-putting when you're actually trying to do something different and productive.

[edited to add]

Thanks again, I see the tone here is shifting somewhat and I should chill. No hard feelings, it's just not my thing around here. I'm sure someone else will carry on the topic if there is interest.

I'll probably try back sometime later when I'm looking more to discuss than to track an idea. The argue-bots win because I just don't care enough to fight their bent notions about what I'm doing. There's a completely irrational hatred of anything "bright" around here that is so foaming-at-the-mouth rabid that it blocks out anything else.

Celsus

It quite clearly isn't.
Why are you trying?
Clearly, I was not speaking literally about your personal stress levels.
I have. And that's all I have to say until this thread de-escalates.

Joel

viscousmemories

Nah. He doesn't have an agenda. Just playin' a little game is all. It's of no consquence to him if the data shows the Bright 'meme' is a raging success or an utter failure. He's just havin' fun. Damn the scrooges here who won't let a bloke have his good time.

I also read the BP&C thread where he stormed out of IIDB last time because he wasn't allowed to fling insults at people. I'm sorry, but I have no patience for people who have to resort to namecalling to defend their stupid ideas instead of holding on to a shred of dignity and admitting when they've failed or made a mistake.

I ate mud in front of Vibr8gKiwi yesterday because I thought I had jumped on him without cause. That is what mature people with dignity and self-respect do when they realize the error of their ways. They don't start pointing fingers and calling names and storm out of the house slamming the door behind them. I don't have a shred of shame for a word I've said. I am not ranting and raving. I am being as rational as a person who is furious with having been lied to and publicly humilated can possibly be. I couldn't be any more relaxed at the moment if I stuffed a needle full of horse tranquilizers in my jugular.

vm

tribalbeeyatch

It would be a shame if this little experiment was abandoned already. I am curious to see how it all pans out. And for whatever it's worth, I find the accusations of ulterior motives and "fudged data" to be in poor form. This is a descriptive experiment, and I hardly see how its outcome, one way or the other, should be threatening to anyone on either side of The Brights issue. The data are what they are regardless of what anybody may feel about them, and to object to their even being collected is a bit reactionary. Criticize the methodology or the interpretation -- of the papers that I've reviewed, I have yet to find one whose methodology or interpretation is immune to criticism -- but calling the data "fudged" is only appropriate in cases where the data were made up or altered. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

viscousmemories

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt as much as anyone else does, and I think I demonstrated that effectively yesterday when Vibr8gKiwi originally said he was doing this all in fun. At some point, however, I think you have to make a judgement call based on the whole body of someone's posts rather than taking their word for it that they are not promoting a particular viewpoint.

While Vibr8gKiwi appears to have abandoned this thread, ex-xian has started another one to pursue this experiment more scientifically, and I too am interested in the outcome.

I never objected to the collection of the data. I objected to what I perceived as the misrepresentation of the results engineered to promote a particular viewpoint by someone who seems to me to have a substantial investment in a particular result.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have said the data was fudged. Again, I just think the experiment was deliberately constructed to produce and promote a desired result, and I was deeply offended that Vibr8gKiwi would act like he is a completely neutral party on this matter when every single post of his in the two weeks he's been back at IIDB has been in support of the Brights movement.

For what it's worth, I apologize to anyone who might have been offended by what some have apparently perceived as an overreaction on my part. I'm sorry this thread devolved as it did, and I'm sorry if in my anger I used imprecise wording to categorize the actions of anyone here. Nevertheless, I deny the accusation that I in any way 'hijacked' this thread. My responses were all directly relevant to the content of the OP. I also believe my judgement on Vibr8gKiwi's motive in starting this thread is accurate, and I don't feel the need to retract any of the accusations I made to that effect.

vm

dangin

It seems clear that any data generated is at worst useless, at best open to strong criticism If the data collection does not remove every piece of data that is not directly related to "bright" (secular) issues. Also the data set must be examined for repeats and other inconsequential hits.

And still the data doesn't represent anything meaningful.

For example if one searches for taxidermy, and collects and orgnaizes all the information on pages related to taxidermy, it really doesn't tell us anything about taxidermy except how many web pages mention it. Even over time it won't explain the waning or waxing of taxidermic popularity because this is only the internet. Not a comprehensive demographic no matter what word you are seaching on.

ex-xian

But this isn't a demographic search of how many people identify themselves as Brights, only an attempt at tracking the success of the meme.