So what is the Fedora Lounge all about?

[KittyT]

Actually, KittyT, just to clarify a bit, almost nothing around here is done arbitrarily. Nearly everything a bartender does is by consensus and consultation with other bartenders.

I have still noticed a fair amount of discrepancy in what gets edited and what doesn't, but I think that's already been covered by a lot of other people in another thread here.

It is true that the Lounge has its own high standards in an effort to keep this place the civil place we all enjoy.

Yes, but they are unnatural, artificial and forced for many people on this forum. As stated previously, it's very uncomfortable constantly engaging in discussion with a group of your peers when having to adhere to standards I would reserve for my grandmother.

 

[scotrace]

Breasts

The official Fedora Lounge term is "humhums."

 

[Atticus Finch]

The official Fedora Lounge term is "humhums."

Scott, is there a glossary of other official FL terms? If not, can I set about creating one?

Atticus

 

[ShortClara]

I don't think that was the point. Only to BALANCE miscellaneous opinions with things that pertain more directly to what this forum is supposed to be about.

Perhaps, but I feel some of the opinions expressed here veered closely to what I was talking about, that is to say it seemed like some wanted to be able to judge the value of peoples' contributions and deem them worth or unworthy. My example was extreme, but I wanted to put it out there.

 

[Twitch]

MOST boards generally have participants that feel reviving old threads is unimaginative. I've seen threads on boards run years into well past 100 pages. If a topic is great it will perpetuate on its own. I see the dredging up of old topics good only if it demonstrably answers a question that was brought up before. But I see it as some sort of reactionary mechanism because current users can have different and new points of view that may bring up new concepts of a topic. Perhaps today the people on line will have a completely different dialogue about vintage, historical buildings being restored than they did 2 years ago so why taint it with comments from the last go around?

New members are vital to the existance of any organizational entity either in real life or cyberspace. I'm disgusted with the undercurrent that is anti-newbie. I've seen sites where the new person is run off and they are sad indeed. A few crochety characters hanging around with nothing to say like the alley behind Hank Hill's house- "Yep, " "uh-huh, " "yeah," "OK." Maybe part of what is wrong is the very thing that brought many of us here- the wish to live in the past vicariously in some way. New members are "those danged kids and their loud music!" to some no doubt.

And I keep hearing that Loungers' politeness is phoney. I don't believe that. This place has become a sanctuary from political drivel, personal attacks, cleaver put downs and veiled agression. I will say that the only real moderator here is Scott. Why? Because he operates the way the most experienced mods do on the net. He mostly edits absurd or snotty retorts, warns the participants and lets a topic continue. Everyone else simply locks the topic, even if it had gone for a year and many pages.

Finally I get the sense that some folks here would rather have arguements than discussions on any subject. The penchant for indominability on the web is the fault. I like to discuss a topic with an open mind even if I don't particular agree. Here's an example from I site I visit concern paleoanthrapology. Guy states in topic "did humans and dinosaurs coexist?" OK many people tell him what a dumbazz he is and waggle their superior knowledge in his face. He responds citing old pottery in Mexico with ancient non-imdigenous animals including dinosaurs. I tell the guy I simply don't agree with his point of view but respect the idea that the question of how those image came to be should be pursued.

On many specialty sites you can't even find a haven with people to ponder the same aspects of questions with because there's always some a-hole web troll making fun of you, questioning your sanity or generally being malevolent. And most importantly, moderators don't act in the best interest of the site. But there are many site where you can argue and use 4 letter words nd tout your big-shot political candidate's attributes by verbally degrading others to your heart's content. If that's deep down what you'd rather be doing please leave the Lounge, please.

I don't want to argue with people on the Lounge. I find it abhorrent that the participants in these gripes/examination threads have to continually render their feelings an opinions when every couple weeks somebody is compelled to stir them up.

 

[LaMedicine]

Yes, but they are unnatural, artificial and forced for many people on this forum. As stated previously, it's very uncomfortable constantly engaging in discussion with a group of your peers when having to adhere to standards I would reserve for my grandmother.

The fact is, there are probably a lot of people on here who arre old enough to be your grandmother.
There was a poll asking our age bracket, and if I remember correctly, about one quarter replied that they belong in the above 45 age group and another quarter in the 36-45 age group. The oldest member I remember is over 70.
So, there are going to be a lot of members who don't feel as uncomfortable as you.

Also, this place has visitors from all over the world, who may not be familiar with terms that are perfectly normal daily vocabulary for a, say, American college/grad school student. They (including me) may make use of vocabulary with more constraint as well, because they aren't sure what's acceptable, and what's not, and becase they are also aware that what is acceptable in one society/culture may not be quite so in another.

As far as I see--and even though my post number is low compared to the time I've been here, I have seen a lot of the stuff that has been hinted at by older members--the Bartenders are doing their best to keep a good balance, and keep a friendly (though maybe sometimes stuffy for some) atmosphere for those who choose to participate.

 

[Art Fawcett]

Yes, but they are unnatural, artificial and forced for many people on this forum. As stated previously, it's very uncomfortable constantly engaging in discussion with a group of your peers when having to adhere to standards I would reserve for my grandmother

Kitty, have you considered that you are NOT among your peers? I'll explain.
I haven't followed many of your posts except when they are linked to issues other Bartenders are dealing with ( coincidental association or otherwise) so I really don't know you. I DO know that you are young and from Boston, and about the same age as my eldest grandson. Although we have a common interest in the past, or styles, etc. I really don't believe we can be called "peers" . Our life experiences most likely are very different, yet we belong to the same group. We also have very young members ( I think Ray was 15 or 16 when he joined) and is a very nice your man, but he is not my peer. We have a range from what I consider to be very young to very old, all with different life experiences, all valuable, all in the group, but NOT peers. I think that's where things can get hung up here. The guidelines that have developed here have been for the overall group, not just the young ones, not just the old ones.

 

[KittyT]

Kitty, have you considered that you are NOT among your peers? I'll explain.
I haven't followed many of your posts except when they are linked to issues other Bartenders are dealing with ( coincidental association or otherwise) so I really don't know you. I DO know that you are young and from Boston, and about the same age as my eldest grandson. Although we have a common interest in the past, or styles, etc. I really don't believe we can be called "peers" . Our life experiences most likely are very different, yet we belong to the same group. We also have very young members ( I think Ray was 15 or 16 when he joined) and is a very nice your man, but he is not my peer. We have a range from what I consider to be very young to very old, all with different life experiences, all valuable, all in the group, but NOT peers. I think that's where things can get hung up here. The guidelines that have developed here have been for the overall group, not just the young ones, not just the old ones.

Your argument is fair, but I don't completely agree. Perhaps I have a much broader idea of what I consider my "peers". The dictionary definition defines peers as "a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status." I define "peers" as members of the same social group, and "social group" can have a broad definition. For example, in my social group here in Boston, I am the youngest of my circle of friends, which includes mostly folks from a working class background, while mine is middle class, mostly folks aged 35 and older, some in their 50s who are married with children. We are not peers in the strictest sense of the word, but we ARE peers in my world as I know it, because we are all treated as equals, regardless of ethnicity, economic status, age or life experience.

It's the same way different people define "family" differently. To me, family is blood relatives, to my boyfriend, who is long estranged from his family, it includes any number of longterm friends who he has known for 10, 20, maybe 25 years. While that doesn't fit the strictest definition of the term "family", I am still able to recognize that these words are largely conceptual and are defined differently by different people.

The guidelines that have developed here have been for the overall group, not just the young ones, not just the old ones.

Again, I wholeheartedly disagree. They are much more catered to keeping the older crowd sheltered from the youthful element's "indecencies".

 

["Doc" Devereux]

Your argument is fair, but I don't completely agree. Perhaps I have a much broader idea of what I consider my "peers". The dictionary definition defines peers as "a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status." I define "peers" as members of the same social group, and "social group" can have a broad definition.

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you there, since people can belong to social groups that contain different peer groups within them. I, for example, belong to both the Royal Aero Club and the Shuttleworth Veteran Aeroplane Society. So does Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff. We have spoken in a perfectly pleasant manner on a couple of occasions, but there is no way that I consider myself to be his peer. Maybe in a few years, when I've got a few hundred more hours under my belt and I've been around that section of the aviation community long enough to be invited to the table, I will have the opportunity to revise that opinion - but for the moment I'll continue calling him "Sir."

 

[Story]

They are much more catered to keeping the older crowd sheltered from the youthful element's "indecencies".

worthlesswithoutpics

 

[KittyT]

[QUOTE="Doc" Devereux]I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you there, since people can belong to social groups that contain different peer groups within them. I, for example, belong to both the Royal Aero Club and the Shuttleworth Veteran Aeroplane Society. So does Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff. We have spoken in a perfectly pleasant manner on a couple of occasions, but there is no way that I consider myself to be his peer. Maybe in a few years, when I've got a few hundred more hours under my belt and I've been around that section of the aviation community long enough to be invited to the table, I will have the opportunity to revise that opinion - but for the moment I'll continue calling him "Sir."[/QUOTE]

Yes, but see...you are talking about a social group that seems to have some hierarchy built into it based on experience. This example is quite different from even the way most people relate to each other here on the Lounge.

 

[Feraud]

Yes, but see...you are talking about a social group that seems to have some hierarchy built into it based on experience. This example is quite different from even the way most people relate to each other here on the Lounge.

I am not sure how different Lounge interactions are from Doc's example.
Isn't there a hierarchy here built on experience? Shouldn't the information gained from research and experience count for something as we strive for knowledge?
Isn't this exactly what Baron Kurtz is referring to when he talks about discussion based on experience/knowledge versus opinion?
Baron Kurtz wrote-

There has grown a core of members who seemingly cannot accept that they don't know much, and that an opinion is not treated as an equal to an educated opinion. A member with primary sources and years of research at their back is shooting fish in a barrel. It is very difficult not to sound patronising in this situation as essentially everything said by the educated member will be perceived as patronisation by the member who thinks they know what they're talking about.

Should a member in his 40s who has been wearing and collecting vintage for 20 some odd years have his words derided by a bratty 20 year old with zero vintage knowledge?

If opinion outweighs knowledge what exactly are we doing here?

 

["Doc" Devereux]

Yes, but see...you are talking about a social group that seems to have some hierarchy built into it based on experience. This example is quite different from even the way most people relate to each other here on the Lounge.

All groups have hierarchies. What you are talking about is an informal collection of friends. While everyone here tries, on the whole, to be polite to one one another, it does not automatically follow that we are all friends. I have a few friends here, and a number of acquaintances with whom I enjoy talking. The rest of the Lounge's membership are effectively strangers to me, and how I behave around strangers is therefore the level at which I set my behaviour. I would sooner avoid upsetting a stranger and sending them away before they had a chance to know me than relax into full salty talk and think to hell with what others consider appropriate.

Most of the Lounge is, after all, a publicly-accessible resource. We are thus speaking openly in public. Less refined language is something I save for PMs.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Should a member in his 40s who has been wearing and collecting vintage for 20 some odd years have his words derided by a bratty 20 year old with zero vintage knowledge?

If opinion outweighs knowledge what exactly are we doing here?

To be fair, this is not an age issue. There are plenty of "older" members who are of the same tendencies as the "bratty 20 year old" you mention.

Just a piece of Devil's advocacy . . .

bk

 

[surely]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyT
They are much more catered to keeping the older crowd sheltered from the youthful element's "indecencies".

worthlesswithoutpics

lol lol lol lol lol

 

[ShortClara]

Should a member in his 40s who has been wearing and collecting vintage for 20 some odd years have his words derided by a bratty 20 year old with zero vintage knowledge?

If opinion outweighs knowledge what exactly are we doing here?

All sentiments should be expressed in a polite way; I don't think anyone here would say any differently. But unless you're going to not allow some to post because they are "less experienced", etc., in someone's judgement, than what you are really going to "do" about them? Any why should a 40 year old adult care what some ill-informed person has to say anyhow? When someone who's an idiot derides me, I consider the source and value it not at all and go find something better to do. Put out your correct and well researched facts and then let it be. It's a chat board. Who said it - loosen up? I applaud you! (I do believe that was a very sensible lady who said that)

 

[Feraud]

To be fair, this is not an age issue. There are plenty of "older" members who are of the same tendencies as the "bratty 20 year old" you mention.

Just a piece of Devil's advocacy . . .

bk

You are correct. I fell prey to what I was advocating against earlier!

 

[surely]

A Parable

Version 1: A group of muscians are working out some intricate arrangement when a friend walks in and says: how did you do that?" They explain, he says thanks, and they resume playing.

Version 2: Same except the friend says: "ya mean like this?" and proceeds to wow them, after which they all play together.

Please, whoever, ponder those meanings.

If the hat fits, wear it. MJ

 

[Art Fawcett]

To be fair, this is not an age issue. There are plenty of "older" members who are of the same tendencies as the "bratty 20 year old" you mention

Here Here BK, I wholeheartedly agree.

Boy, we are really getting deep here Kitty. OK, we all evaluate others words ( or should) based on what we know of them and their life experiences that we are aware of. For example, if my 20 yr old corner gas station attendant tells me that we are heading for a recession, I look at his position, evaluate his experience , and form an opinion as to how much value to place on his words. If Alan Greenspan says the same words I would follow the same procedure, but who's opinion do you think I would put the most faith in?

If we all were in the same station at the same time, would I consider them peers? Absolutely not. One is below my level of life experiences, one is above, regardless of age.

You may create the definition of the word "peer" any way you choose, but that doesn't make it a reality to anyone except yourself. A few posts back I said something to the effect that a little humility goes a long way in keeping peace and I mean that as a group dynamic. We all tend to have different realities, as it should be, and the guidelines are formed based on the group, however you percieve them.

 

[surely]

Boy, we are really getting deep here Kitty

Deep is good, superficial maybe not.