Not at all - if it sounded like I was blaming the internet for anything then I didn't word it correctly. The internet is an amazing tool - just like anything that makes lives easier and can inform and educate. It requires responsibility on our part to keep it from turning into the partisan ignorant cess pool we know today. The internet will always be the internet...how we approach it has to change.

To address your statement about the early days of the internet. I saw them, too. I can remember a time with no internet. I value being a part of the generation that saw its rise. My thoughts on your statement, though, are that back then only fairly tech-savvy people really got into the internet. As it has been placed more easily in the hands of your average joe shmoe...that's when we've seen the rise of trolls, fake news, yadda yadda. As with anything that changes the way we perceive the world (and the internet has no doubt done that), there are growing pains associated with it. We are still in the connected world's infancy and we have to relearn different types of social etiquette.

I know.. That's not what I asked though. I don't know much about Anteater's views, so I was just curious.

Edit: Thanks Duga.

Mods, can this be made official? :tramp:

I don't think Ant is some evil business purpose. I just don't agree him on a number of issues.

In summation: I won't call it an experiment if I don't like its outcomes. Because that is the only point I've seen you make.

Do you need to get your head checked? Literally nothing you're saying has any indication of you understanding the point I'm trying to make. But oh wait, it's Frownland, so obviously I can't have a point. Surprise.

Can you clarify then? Because that's all I'm reading from your posts as well.

When an experiment is harmful it's not an experiment anymore?

I don't understand your point. Please make it clearer for me so that I can. Or you can just get mad that I'm trying to have a discussion with you on a discussion forum.

Unsurprisingly, I have to explain my point since it evidently doesn't seem to mesh well with people that want to argue more than actually read the posts.

I'm not making the argument that if I don't agree with something, it no longer counts as an experiment. My entire point is based on the fact that an experiment stops being an experiment when said experiment succeeds in doing what it was meant to achieve. More specifically, the experiment in question is how long will it take until Trump really does something so ridiculous that the country can no longer fight for what they believe in. If Trump succeeds in doing what he wants, it no longer counts as an experiment since the main goal of the experiment is to see if Trump succeeds. I don't really see how you can pull out of that point that if I don't like it, it stops being an experiment. Each time I've made this point, I've not made any indication to that.

So stop being stupid and actually read the posts before you make assumptions that make no sense.

The experiment is not "how long will it take until Trump really does something so ridiculous that the country can no longer fight for what they believe in?"...that is just a question. The experiment is electing him president to find that out. And I don't think we've quite gotten to the point where we've answered that question or we can't fight for what we believe in...unanimously upheld stay on "travel ban" as an example.

You should always explain your point for the sake of clarity. It's nothing to get mad over, you haven't said prior to this post that you thought the experiment was over because it reached a conclusion..

Not long ago Chula and I disagreed about something because the way he was using the word empower and the way I thought about it were different. Once the word was defined we continued on. Don't get upset or aggressive over it.