I love how a troll takes over SG.

Lefty · Post by **Lefty** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:14 pm

Been gone for years, troll a little and have the most replied to thread in years.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:28 pm

so how is she trolling ?

seems to me this forum could use some more debate, but it always seems to turn into a name calling fest.

CableDude · Post by **CableDude** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:55 pm

I remember coming here and you would have to go 2 page to read new posts....not anymore.

Xpunge · Post by **Xpunge** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:58 am

hey there mr. pot.

A persons thread only has the life respondents give it.

To bad you can't be the life of the forum.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:24 am

Lefty wrote:Be gone for years, troll a little and have the most replied to thread in years.

Hi lefty! When was SG turned over to you to determine who belongs here and who doesn't? I must have missed that, but congratulations on it.

In the past three years I've been lurking here on and off without comments, my Mother has died, I've lost a beloved pet, we've had illness in the family and I've been helping a friend on the internet establish a new site among other things.

What have I missed here. Catch me up.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:52 am

Lefty wrote:Be gone for years, troll a little and have the most replied to thread in years.

Maybe, Lefty, if you read this old thread I made.

https://www.speedguide.net/forums/ ... ht=Sarahnn

I kind of did a slow fade after my Mother died. I did come back in Dec of '08 to wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:53 am

Xpunge wrote:hey there mr. pot.

A persons thread only has the life respondents give it.

To bad you can't be the life of the forum.

tks

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:54 am

CableDude wrote:I remember coming here and you would have to go 2 page to read new posts....not anymore.

hey you...LTNS. tks

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:55 am

Mark wrote:so how is she trolling ?

seems to me this forum could use some more debate, but it always seems to turn into a name calling fest.

I wish I knew how we could get into some really heated politcal discussions without actually attacking each other personally. tks

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:17 am

Sarahnn wrote:I wish I knew how we could get into some really heated politcal discussions without actually attacking each other personally. tks

Engage yourself in other discussions. Most people don't jump back on the boards after a long period of time and immediately dive into hot bed topics unless they are looking to pick fights. For what it's worth most of the average members on here have a varied enough post history to where politics isn't their only or main source of discussion.

I think you will find a lot more success that way.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:43 am

Sarahnn wrote:I wish I knew how we could get into some really heated politcal discussions without actually attacking each other personally. tks

My advice on that...don't make uninformed, uneducated, or ignorant comments. Learn to analyze and research a subject before you open your mouth.

We used to have civil discourse on a myriad of subjects but that was prior to your arrival on the forums...I'm talking '01, '02...'03. The difference was that most folks knew what they were talking about when they made a statement. Now we just have folks who think they know what they are talking about.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:13 am

Xpunge wrote:
A persons thread only has the life respondents give it.

very true

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:14 am

Mark wrote:so how is she trolling ?

seems to me this forum could use some more debate, but it always seems to turn into a name calling fest.

Her thread is titled...

Hi guys, anyone have an itinerary on when obama will accomplish something?

Roody deftly gave her an answer.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Since the question had been in fact answered...the need for further discussion was rendered futile, hence, why Lefty is saying she's trolling. IMO, she's not interested in discussion but rather pushing an agenda. It was a veiled attempt that failed.

Roody shut her down with cold hard facts. Her question was answered. What else is there to say?

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:52 am

JawZ wrote:Her thread is titled...

Roody deftly gave her an answer.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Since the question had been in fact answered...the need for further discussion was rendered futile, hence, why Lefty is saying she's trolling. IMO, she's not interested in discussion but rather pushing an agenda. It was a veiled attempt that failed.

Roody shut her down with cold hard facts. Her question was answered. What else is there to say?

I don't think anyone shut anyone down. Is that what you're trying to do when you discuss things with people? Shut them down?

I made a point, albeit tongue-in-cheek, and I defended it pretty good. Roody used politifact to show all obama's accomplishments and I used his source, politifact to get a better picture of what those "accomplishments" amounted to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/.../promise-kept/

Roody, here is more information I needed time to break down about this politifact article on obama promises. This also came from politifact that makes my point.

Under each category, the promises obama has kept: I'm not including promises in the works because promises are broken.

Economy: 3 out of 20 promises.

Terrorism: 0 out of 7 promises.

Immigration: 0 out of 5 promises.

Military: 6 out of 33 promises.

Misc. Top promises according to Politifact: 2 out of 25 promises.

Obama's record is abysmal. I think it's because he is too obsessed with his demographically pocketed, leftist, elitist background and that just isn't what America is about.

I think you hear, read and believe whatever suits your frail ego, Jawz. Roody does better than that.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:09 am

Sarahnn wrote:I don't think anyone shut anyone down. Is that what you're trying to do when you discuss things with people? Shut them down?

I made a point, albeit tongue-in-cheek, and I defended it pretty good. Roody used politifact to show all obama's accomplishments and I used his source, politifact to get a better picture of what those "accomplishments" amounted to.

Obama's record is abysmal. I think it's because he is too obsessed with his demographically pocketed, leftist, elitist background and that just isn't what America is about.

I think you hear, read and believe whatever suits your frail ego, Jawz. Roody does better than that.

You asked if anyone had an itinerary on when Obama would accomplish anything. Roody gave you an answer and you wanted to argue about it.

We've gotten over the partisan politics while you were gone. People here would rather discuss good ideas...no matter their origin. That's why it's been peacefully quiet.

As for your most recent iteration of Obama's promises kept...it leads to a 404 error page. So the "facts" that you countered with Roody are outdated.

for example, you cite that on terrorism, Obama hasn't accomplished anything when the politifact Obameter shows that he compromised on 1 promise and that passed. Another example is that you cite the erroneous number of only 3 accomplishments on the subject of the economy when the real number is in fact 9.

Learn to research better. If you want to troll...get your act together.

Here is the Obameter by subject which shows your numbers to be wrong.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/

So yes Sara. Trolls get shut down...all too easily. Did Lefty hit the nail on the head by calling you out as a troll...

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:39 pm

JawZ wrote:You asked if anyone had an itinerary on when Obama would accomplish anything. Roody gave you an answer and you wanted to argue about it.

We've gotten over the partisan politics while you were gone. People here would rather discuss good ideas...no matter their origin. That's why it's been peacefully quiet.

As for your most recent iteration of Obama's promises kept...it leads to a 404 error page. So the "facts" that you countered with Roody are outdated.

for example, you cite that on terrorism, Obama hasn't accomplished anything when the politifact Obameter shows that he compromised on 1 promise and that passed. Another example is that you cite the erroneous number of only 3 accomplishments on the subject of the economy when the real number is in fact 9.

Learn to research better. If you want to troll...get your act together.

Here is the Obameter by subject which shows your numbers to be wrong.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/

So yes Sara. Trolls get shut down...all too easily. Did Lefty hit the nail on the head by calling you out as a troll...

Well, then, I apologize for my bad behavior.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:16 pm

Seems to be a favorite hobby
http://forum.bible-discussion.com/showt ... -Evolution
Found that in a minute via Google
Similar personality, same M.O...and similar thoughts to ours, by members over there.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:10 pm

Like Cabledude alluded to, one need not even refresh the main Gen Forum page for the lack of non-bumped posts these days.

I don't like the broad or her views, but her thread has sparked more life in the forum members than any of the stagnant mindlessness that's been trickling out of the SG spigot for many months.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:42 pm

24giovanni · Post by **24giovanni** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:47 pm

lol cat and burke.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:48 pm

Yea this board is dying a slow painful death... nothing interesting to see here much any more. Except links from yahoo stories or posts about news thats on the front page of every other website on earth.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:57 pm

what a "jump on the band wagon witch burning pathetic thread" this is,

and even some of the mods joined in this sad example.

the majority of posts here don't surprise me,

but actually Lefty,I thought you were better than this.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:00 pm

Dan wrote:what a "jump on the band wagon witch burning pathetic thread" this is,

and even some of the mods joined in this sad example.

the majority of posts here don't surprise me,

but actually Lefty,I thought you were better than this.

Dan, I answered a question Sarahnn had. How is me answering that question a bad thing? Since Sarahnn came back I have been more then civil with her. The times we disagreed if I said something inappropriate to her I apologized for it. In no way did I jump all over Sarahnn in this thread. I merely stated the concerns I am seeing and hearing from numerous members and because she asked I made a suggestion that getting involved in other topics might help her out.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:41 pm

Dan wrote:what a "jump on the band wagon witch burning pathetic thread" this is,

and even some of the mods joined in this sad example.

the majority of posts here don't surprise me,

but actually Lefty,I thought you were better than this.

Good thing you couldn't help yourself from posting in the same thread!!!!!!!! LOL

I mean look...here you are adding more fuel to the fire.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:14 am

Joe wrote:Yea this board is dying a slow painful death... nothing interesting to see here much any more. Except links from yahoo stories or posts about news thats on the front page of every other website on earth.

I've been seeing lots of old faces here again

And some new members. Hard to say who isn't here just to create tension but always good to assume positively until shown otherwise.

Miggs · Post by **Miggs** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:24 am

<removed by Cat>
Strike 1

Post by **Philip** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:30 am

Roody wrote:Dan, I answered a question Sarahnn had. How is me answering that question a bad thing?

I believe he meant YOSc's post in this thread.

Post by **Philip** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:46 am

Sarahnn's initial intentions are not important, and should not be the focus of discussion. As Burke suggests, it ended up sparking a lively civil political discussion(!!!), and that is not a bad thing.

This is a discussion board by definition and should facilitate expressing personal views, not drive people away. I see no reason to label people trolls that quick and "shut them down with facts" as Jawz suggests, or bring to life all this negativity that seems to outweigh any alleged "trolling".

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:34 am

Philip wrote:Sarahnn's initial intentions are not important, and should not be the focus of discussion. As Burke suggests, it ended up sparking a lively civil political discussion(!!!), and that is not a bad thing.

This is a discussion board by definition and should facilitate expressing personal views, not drive people away. I see no reason to label people trolls that quick and "shut them down with facts" as Jawz suggests, or bring to life all this negativity that seems to outweigh any alleged "trolling".

With regards to political threads, you don't have the tools in place to keep things civil. Here...since you refuse to take my advice and read how other tech sites handle political forums...let me show you Ars Technica's Soapbox rules.

3. Opening posts should articulate a proposition (a claim capable of being true or false), about something objective, and take a position on that proposition. Opening posts should also accurately state what you actually want to discuss. Your thread title, however witty, should be if not perfectly descriptive, at least not misleading.

4. Avoid name-calling and other ad-homs.

5. Also avoid the sort of behavior that leads to name-calling and other ad-homs. We've had a lot of drive-by posting lately, where someone says nothing more than "That's the stupidest thing I've ever read on Ars", and leaves. This is intolerable. Don't hide behind innuendo. Give reasons for your positions: this is the essence of content in the Soapbox. We will watch not only for posters who get ugly, but for the sorts of low-grade sneaking-past-the-rules provocation which causes people to lose their cool.

And yes, Sara was in fact shut down with facts by your own moderator (Roody). He gave her the facts, she distorted them to meet her own agenda and then even apologized for being incorrect when it finally was presented to her in a way where she could no longer evade the truth.

Did you even read the thread Philip? What is really upsetting...and I'm going to have to ask this in the form of a question...

Why aren't you giving backup to Roody? He was in the right. His rebuttal of Sara's BS was 100% spot on and irrefutable. Why are you throwing him under the bus in public?

It's the same old same old here Philip...let me quote Albert Einstein...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

As long as you refuse to give the political threads their own forum OR refuse to set different rules for the content of political threads...you will continue to get the same results.

Post by **Philip** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:59 pm

JawZ wrote:With regards to political threads, you don't have the tools in place to keep things civil. Here...since you refuse to take my advice and read how other tech sites handle political forums...let me show you Ars Technica's Soapbox rules.

The fact that our rules are more lax as to what constitutes a valid thread title or content of an opening post has nothing to do with the argument.

And yes, Sara was in fact shut down with facts by your own moderator (Roody). He gave her the facts, she distorted them to meet her own agenda and then even apologized for being incorrect when it finally was presented to her in a way where she could no longer evade the truth.

Did you even read the thread Philip? What is really upsetting...and I'm going to have to ask this in the form of a question...

Why aren't you giving backup to Roody? He was in the right. His rebuttal of Sara's BS was 100% spot on and irrefutable. Why are you throwing him under the bus in public?

I have absolutely no problem with Roody's replies, I don't see where I'm "throwing him under the bus in public". I was actually happy that they're able to have a civil discussion on a controversial political topic.

What I do have an issue with is your way of shutting her down with negativity, and Burke's "broad" label.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:07 pm

Philip wrote:The fact that our rules are more lax as to what constitutes a valid thread title or content of an opening post has nothing to do with the argument.

I have absolutely no problem with Roody's replies, I don't see where I'm "throwing him under the bus in public". I was actually happy that they're able to have a civil discussion on a controversial political topic.

What I do have an issue with is your way of shutting her down with negativity.

Show me where I shut her down with negativity. Please...by all means go for it!!! Not once did I give in to her ad homs and she threw plenty of them out there. If you actually read the entire thread, I tried multiple times to engage her in a more than gracious and civil manner with regards to her tangents. She didn't want to have a civil discussion on the issues because that's not what her agenda was. I could see that from thread number one. When Roody provided her with irrefutable facts she tossed out false information as her counter. I backed up Roody with the same exact facts and then she starts to toss out the ad homs that I have an ego problem that I'm low on self esteem which is pure ad hom. What does my ego or my self esteem have to do with the issues Philip? Lefty called her out as a troll...YoSC backed him up by showing the forum community her posting habits on other forums where she trolls for trouble. And all of a sudden...you blame ME for being negative?

Exactly what problem is it that you and others have when presented with facts? It's not my problem that people get mad when they are proven dead wrong. If you say the Earth is flat and we all show you that it's a sphere and round...what else is there to say Philip? When you say I have an ego problem because the Earth is round...how is that my fault? When you say the I have low self esteem because the Earth is round and not flat...how is that my fault? what does any of that have to do with the argument?

She created her own negativity by not accepting the facts until it was too late. She even tried to pit me against Roody while we were citing the SAME EXACT DATA!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, I question if you even bothered to read the threads from start to finish.

What exactly do you want to have happen here? Do you want us to accept folks that come in and say 2+2=5? It will NEVER happen. When we tell someone that 2+2=4...end of discussion. there is no other alternative answer.

As for the subject matter, Obama has accomplished something...96 times. It can't be refuted.

So when Sara asked the question...

Hi guys, anyone have an itinerary on when obama will accomplish something?

And then was given the answer...really Philip...who has the problem here? The person who gives the answer (Roody) or the person who won't accept the answer (Sara)?

Lastly...The fact that your rules are more lax as to what constitutes a valid thread title or content of an opening post has EVERYTHING to do with the argument. Sara had NONE!!!! there was no argument. She asked a question...

Sarahnn wrote:I'm waiting for obama to get something done. Any ideas out there when that will be?

Where is the argument Philip? Roody answered the question, Lefty called her out on her behavior.

It was a fishing expedition...nothing more, nothing less.

As an aside, the root problem for all of this is society at large. Past Presidents have exploited unitary executive theory to amass power. Congress and the Senate is responsible for legislation...they are the two bodies that handle that. But since the POTUS has amassed power, society ignorantly looks to the one man...the POTUS as the sole catalyst for change. So we have hundreds of people in Congress and the Senate and they are basically ignored by society as the true agents of change. Instead...we have two parties duking it out philosophically while one man legislates where he has no authority to. The POTUS is ONLY a legislative facilitator. He can sign legislation into law, veto it, or take no action. So with that, and that's straight out of the Constitution mind you, why does anyone look to any President to ENACT change? All the POTUS can do is influence the agents of change...that being Congress and the Senate.

So how can anyone in their right mind expect a POTUS...one man, to be the agent of change when he is Constitutionally barred from being so? If anybody wants change or wonder why change doesn't happen...GO ASK CONGRESS AND THE SENATE!!!!!!!!!!!! For crying out loud.

So when Sara asked...

Hi guys, anyone have an itinerary on when obama will accomplish something?
I'm waiting for obama to get something done. Any ideas out there when that will be?

It was based on a misunderstanding of government at large. the premise of her question was flawed form the beginning. But that doesn't matter...because it was a fishing trip.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:34 pm

I've asked the question posed by Sara on Ars...let's see how it plays out lol.

Post by **Philip** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:47 pm

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to address all that right now, just a coulpe of points:

I have no issue with Trent's replies, as I already stated.

Sarahnn may have been on a fishing trip, but it sparked a good (for the most part) discussion. I have no issues with self-regulation of topics as long as they remain civi.

Here are some examples of negative/authoritative/ad hominem remarks towards the end that aim at shutting her down I was refering to:

There is no further discussion needed. You asked a question. It was answered definitively.

it's very childish to bring up feedback as well as matters held in private discussions...just an FYI.

Don't you have enough adult self control to refrain from posting on SG?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:55 pm

Philip wrote:Unfortunately, I don't have the time to address all that right now, just a coulpe of points:

I have no issue with Trent's replies, as I already stated.

Sarahnn may have been on a fishing trip, but it sparked a good (for the most part) discussion. I have no issues with self-regulation of topics as long as they remain civi.

Here are some examples of negative/authoritative/ad hominem remarks towards the end that aim at shutting her down I was refering to:

All true and ALL RESPONSES to her own remarks which were truly made in an ad hom manner. I didn't go out of my way to INITIATE anything with her. We answered her. She didn't like it. She got defensive as most people do when they are proven wrong.

Here we are on the same road...it's not about the truth, it's about the discussion between adults. Would you feel the same if people started their own interpretations of the RFC's? Would you sit idly by and allow misinformation to continue?

This is why you really need to adopt new rules for political threads. the rules act as the filter. they filter people from posting nonsense. When people have to defend a position, they either do it, or they discover that their opinion really isn't defensible and just don't post. It works wonders.

blebs · Post by **blebs** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:55 pm

* Drive By-Lurking*

Post by **Philip** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:29 pm

JawZ wrote:All true and ALL RESPONSES to her own remarks which were truly made in an ad hom manner. I didn't go out of my way to INITIATE anything with her. We answered her. She didn't like it. She got defensive as most people do when they are proven wrong.

Here we are on the same road...it's not about the truth, it's about the discussion between adults. Would you feel the same if people started their own interpretations of the RFC's? Would you sit idly by and allow misinformation to continue?

This is why you really need to adopt new rules for political threads. the rules act as the filter. they filter people from posting nonsense. When people have to defend a position, they either do it, or they discover that their opinion really isn't defensible and just don't post. It works wonders.

The one difference I see being that RFCs are mostly technical specs, leaving little room for interpretation, as opposed to politics, where everyone (even the "news") is expressing opinions rather than sharing cold facts and disecting the smallest moves, bending them through their own views, weighing their importance using their own scale... Making it close to impossible to come to a consensus if you're starting with a different set of "facts". Not to mention that many perceive facts as "something believed to be true or real", not necessarily objective reality determined by empirical evidence.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:47 pm

Just to give you all an update, I posted Sara's question over on Ars Technica and with 3 posts, I was given the "facts" and on post #4, I was told that I was trolling.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/for ... 8001173041

On the 16th post, it was deemed by the moderators that the post was a content free troll post.

So if normal and reasonable people from a completely different site see Sara's post as being a troll post...why is it bad for SG members to see it the same exact way?

I think I've proven without a shadow of doubt that Sara was trolling while trying to push an agenda because complete and total strangers saw it the same way many of us did.

So.......what now Philip? How in the heck do you expect the intelligent people on SG to act differently than the highly intelligent folks on Ars Technica?

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:29 am

JawZ wrote:Just to give you all an update, I posted Sara's question over on Ars Technica and with 3 posts, I was given the "facts" and on post #4, I was told that I was trolling.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/for ... 8001173041

On the 16th post, it was deemed by the moderators that the post was a content free troll post.

So if normal and reasonable people from a completely different site see Sara's post as being a troll post...why is it bad for SG members to see it the same exact way?

I think I've proven without a shadow of doubt that Sara was trolling while trying to push an agenda because complete and total strangers saw it the same way many of us did.

So.......what now Philip? How in the heck do you expect the intelligent people on SG to act differently than the highly intelligent folks on Ars Technica?

Well before we put Philip on the spot here, let's look at your thread from a few months ago.... "Can someone teach the GOP teabaggers the Pledge of Allegiance...please? " Was that a sincere question or were you just trolling? Check with ARS if you don't know the answer.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:47 am

I went over to the ARS forum. Thank you for plagarizing my title. I saw that over a dozen posters there discussed my subject and stayed on topic.

Are you saying if they wish to comment on obama's performance they can but you object to SG members discussing the same topic?

And finally, one reply to you did stand out and catch my eye.

Bammer
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
et Subscriptor

Registered: July 18, 2005
Posts: 4505 Posted March 14, 2010 23:36

You trolled the soapbox to show another forum how not to troll?
I'm thinking this other forum is a better fit for you.

All you've done is make a joke of SG with your misinformation. Is that how you support your friends here?

I think I have you all figured out. You best stay away from me when I post here.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:46 am

Sarahnn wrote:I went over to the ARS forum. Thank you for plagarizing my title. I saw that over a dozen posters there discussed my subject and stayed on topic.

Are you saying if they wish to comment on obama's performance they can but you object to SG members discussing the same topic?

And finally, one reply to you did stand out and catch my eye.

Bammer
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
et Subscriptor

Registered: July 18, 2005
Posts: 4505 Posted March 14, 2010 23:36

You trolled the soapbox to show another forum how not to troll?
I'm thinking this other forum is a better fit for you.

All you've done is make a joke of SG with your misinformation. Is that how you support your friends here?

I think I have you all figured out. You best stay away from me when I post here.

LOL...the topic is now closed Sara. The moderators deemed your post...YOUR post to be a troll post. The point has been made. People don't take kindly to trolls. So why should normal, logical, and reasonable people...react differently to you since you are in fact, trolling the forums here on SG?