The duality of the juxtaposing elements of this dichotomy really impact the pedagogy of my praxis.

Just added a few words for fun. Not sure what I said exactly, if it's swears I'm sorry. 

I'm sure the pompous airbags don't either.

I honestly cannot stand his style nor can I stand anyone who bases their position on a subject because of Joe. It's lazy fake intellectualism for laymen. This goes for many others on both sides of the fence (ie. from JP to Bill Maher). It boils down to the appeal to authority fallacy instead of actually forming an intelligent and informed position on a subject.

Rogan CONSTANTLY assumes he is right regardless of what others say. Even when the 'others' are experts in their field. Look at interviews Rogan has had with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

You can also see a funny smackdown from Bill Burr regarding Rogan's assumptions about COVID.

LINK

Are you just talking about the nonsense that Joe spouts or his guests? Some of them do tend to be well informed. I think its meant to be more digestible so that it appeals to a wider demographic... Plus they have to dumb it down so that Joe can understand whats going on.

X, his act is not humble interviewer, it's aggressive contrarian. I don't see any value in such position and I don't find, what I've heard/read, from him particularly interesting.

Chad, I think the one with Phil Plait is what sealed the deal.  Dude was duped into talking about fake moon landing when he expected to actually have an intelligent discussion.  Joe is just a mediocre comedian with a platform and an army of easily influenced fans who don't know any better.  I thought NDT cleaned the floor with him tho.  Dude is a beast.

You should see what another comedian, Bill Burr had to say to Rogan. I believe Burr told Rogan to "shut the fuck up." Burr went on to tell Rogan that he has no idea what he's talking about and people shouldn't be going to him for advice about COVID. Instead they should listen to doctors and the CDC, not a "meat head with no neck"

I've seen Burr's interview. Tis good stuff. Fun to see Joe struggle when someone across the table is both smarter and more aggressive than he is.

I'd say to those Joe Rogen idolizers, "Go find a room and suck his ________. We don't want to see it or hear about your experience. Bye."

X, I have. My opinion is based on well-rounded observations. Joe is a hack, a popular one, but a hack nonetheless. I see no value in the positions he takes even if it may be just an act.

loads of assumptions in there X. none of them are correct tho, but that's no surprise.

X, I've watched enough to have a solid position on the matter. Unlike you, I'm not easily influenced by nonsense. Must just be because I'm actually able to read/understand more than one pov while you prefer to spend your time cleaning your guns. Face it, we're all better than you and the sooner you accept it, the faster you can crawl back under your rock.

You've missed the entire point of this short discussion.

N.S., you had your opinion before you even bothered to watch any of it so you took the first moment Joe Rogen said something you disagreed with and stopped watching. That's the essence of the definition of prejudging or prejudice. I'm not particularly a fan of Mr. Rogen's shows.

Ricky, incorrect, but don't let that stop you from going off on another ill-informed rant.

key.... exercise due dilligence (which means you may have to suffer through and do what is uncomfortable) observation of the show before making a judgment against the show. I have not commented on the show. I've seen other shows by Joe Rogen and it is not one of those shows I'd watch and would prefer to watch other shows.

N.S., be honest. Don't lie to me. Don't withhold anything for anything withheld makes what you say a lie. If you didn't watch any of Joe Rogan's show but only a clip of the whole show, then how did you arrive at your conclusion? Is it your opinion or that of someone else? Do you make informed decisions by listening to someone else's opinion? What qualified them and their opinion? You can't make a judgment about someone on your own if you don't do the due diligence work that it takes. 

A person's opinion is worth as much as a fart. You claim x-jla made a bunch of assumptions but would you not doing the same about Joe Rogan if you base your opinion on your assumptions based on the assumptions of another? 

It is not about whether or not your assumption is right or wrong. There are two outcomes to assumptions. Either you are right or you are wrong. Now you said, "X, I've watched enough to have a solid position on the matter.". The link by Chad is 8 minutes 28 seconds long video by a third-party coverage that only has a very small clip segment but not the entirety of the episode before and after. It's a clip. I don't know but I would reason the original show itself was at least a half hour and very possibly longer, but I may reason that x-jla could be correct that it's 4 hours long. Possible. Whether precise or not, is irrelevant. 

Consider this, if Bill Burr is so anti-Joe Rogan and differing in view, would Bill even go on to Joe's show again? If I took your position on Joe at face value, why would they even incline to an interview with each other? How much of Joe Rogan's shows did you watch in its entirety for observation of his views and his writings to make an informed decision? Did you watch the whole show, not a third-party edit that inserts clips? Did you obtain the full context so as to have the entirety to make an informed observation or did you just watch the youtube clip linked by Chad produced by a third party inserting their opinions? 

I'm questioning your process of arriving at a conclusion. I suspect you are in fact influenced by the opinions of others who you idolize or otherwise assumed are "you" in every meaningful way. You are a clique-type person. You side with what is the popular view. Popular doesn't mean it's right. To be truly an independent mind and independent thinker, you must not arrive at your conclusion on the opinions of others. You must be painfully slow to judge. Even the easiest things must take you a long time magnitudes of an order longer than it takes the populist cult norms. 

I can tell you my opinion from a decade of observation that you have a populist cult-type lean because you have a pattern of being quick to judge. 

 Personally, I have not been too much into watching Rogan's shows. However, I have not been attracted to his show but I reserve personal judgment. I may judge any cultist follower to get a room and polish their god-idol's salami or marinade their nether rod in their idol's squish mitten but no one wants to know or hear about it. Does not require me to have an opinion of their idol. It just means I don't give a foxtrot uniform charlie kilo, enough to care. So that's where my personal position regarding Joe Rogan. 

My criticism or point is how did you arrive at some opinion about him. The populist cult type is impatient and rushes to judge. They don't want to wait. They are like over-eager children who can't wait and go through the journey. They like and get the kicks out of tar and feathering. It's a game to them.

Those can be the things that are cringe-worthy.

Ricky, I've watched some of his shows, particularly the earlier ones. I don't need to watch all of them in order to know it's not something I find worth my time/effort. My initial comment, although directed at Joe's cult followers, extends to all other pop-cultural "icons" that give out pseudo intelligent Timbits. You, like X earlier, missed the point and choose to focus on something else. 

Go back to the root of the question in the tread: "phrases that make you cringe".  To me, using Joe as the crux of one's view is like wearing a magnet bracelet.  It's just not worth the time to see where that conversation will lead to.  Ditto for JP. 

N.S., silly. I don't mean you watch all of his episodes of his shows. I'm talking entirety of some episodes. A fair due diligence amount.

For clarity's sake, have you done so? If you have done that, then I can argue that you have done that fair due diligence to arrive at your opinion. 

On the principle of the point, I do agree with you about not take a pseudo-intelligent opinion of some pop cultural icon's too seriously. Just because "Joe" said this doesn't mean to go do it. Like that stupid advice by Trump in pump draino into your veins. I saw it and it was irresponsible whether or not he was serious or joking. There are people who would do it because he said so. Don't follow the lead dodo. 

*head turns and eyes now looking to x-jla* 

This same challenge and standard I challenged Non Sequitur with, also applies to you x-jla in your comments here on this forum.

I say just ban 'em permanently. 

• They've had plenty of chances to change their behavior but won't. 
• They've had plenty of warning from the mods but they won't listen.
• They've been temporarily banned.
• They've been forced to change their usernames because of their reputation.
• They've had a slew of posts deleted by the mods. 

 At some point we just have to say enough and they just need to go.

I am thinking that any comment that gets a certain number of dislikes gets automatically deleted.

Could be. I know that the mods have deleted entire posts from the people we're talking about that had no dislikes. The mods have also deleted every comment they've made in threads when nothing had been disliked.

They are trolls. They live for the dislikes and everyone knows it. If there were consequences it would be different.

Permanently banning them would be a consequence.  

The trolls have actually caused Archinect to receive harsh comments from well known and respected architects.  I understand this is a form, trolls will happen, and it's all free speech.  Ultimately it's about what image Archinect wants to have.  I personally think the trolls are damaging Architect's reputation and making the site a joke.  

I'm not a fan of permanent bans except for very unusual/dangerous situations, and there is a value to hearing opposing opinions--they make you think, and either clarify why you hold the opinion you do, or change your opinion if the argument is strong enough. But when those differing opinions take over entire threads, repeatedly, to the point that many who contribute and make the forum a vibrant place stop coming here, their disruptive actions are a problem.

I agree with you WG. I'm not a fan of banning. It shouldn't be done because someone has a different opinion. I draw the line at trolling though.

If twitter has not banned Jawknee yet, then what hope is there for here with our regular perpetual dumpster fires?

We're not run by "The Musk" so there is hope.

You state an opinion that you pass off as fact. People disagree with you and ask for supporting evidence. That's not ad hominem. You then get upset when the facts don't align with your view.  You then devolve into insulting people and finally say that you were just trolling and you're the only one who isn't a sheep. 

If you don't like getting called out for posting BS lies and half truths  then maybe don't post such things? 

What have I lied about?

I've been wrong about things - and I admit to it.  You on the other hand . . . . Ever wonder why nearly everyone here doesn't trust anything you have to say? 

Try harder little troll.  

Do you expect anyone to care about someone so manulipative that they intentionally post ad nauseum inflammatory and dunderheaded comments and then have the temerity to play the victim?

So knock off the martyr act.

"But when those differing opinions take over entire threads, repeatedly, to the point that many who contribute and make the forum a vibrant place stop coming here, their disruptive actions are a problem." -Me, above

You didn't "have to defend what [you] wrote, dozens of times." You chose to reiterate your opinions through dozens of short posts. I am more active on other forums than I am here, and on all of them I resist the urge to dominate the conversation. I am often providing differing views from the mainstream but realize that I'm not going to convince everyone at once that my way is the right way.

Chad perfectly summarized nearly every thread that Xjla comments on. X, I know you don't see it, but this is EXACTLY how it reads. "You state an opinion that you pass off as fact. People disagree with you and ask for supporting evidence. That's not ad hominem. You then get upset when the facts don't align with your view.  You then devolve into insulting people and finally say that you were just trolling and you're the only one who isn't a sheep." You have a pattern, and that is the pattern. 

Forums in general are on the decline. I have been on a lot of forums in the last 25 years and this is among the most tolerant I have seen.

Because it is not and they just telling us to "just fucking leave" and don't come back. You and I are not welcome here. It doesn't matter if you or I am right or wrong. It doesn't matter. This forum is not open-minded to differing views. It's an echo chamber of the same mindset. This place is more like a church than an actual forum that debates opposing views.

You are both welcome here, clearly, if you would just play by the rules. Whose rules? Those set by the owner of the forum, and those agreed upon by the users. All have asked you both repeatedly to conform to the conventions the rest of us follow here. I know the word "convention" makes you both cringe, which is the problem. I'm not going to further derail this thread with more off-topic discussion. I recommend you follow suit.

Your differing views aren't the reason I would love to see your backs as you walk out the door; your inability to let other people have the last word is. You don't need to torch every thread in which someone disagrees with you.

Contrary to some of the usual gripe from those that shall not be named, the forum is rather open and filled with a variety of POV but it should also be noted that not all opinions deserve equal attention. Some opinions are objectively wrong. Those get nuked.

SneakyPete and Wood Guy, you are both right and we should strive to change our behavior. Do note: The rules of a forum should be established by the site owner, not the users. The authority and right to set the rules belong to the Archinect organization, not individual users. Therefore, I'll work on following the rules, and to within reason conform to the convention that everyone follows but that should be better defined somewhere (not here in this thread but somewhere). I don't see a singular convention but a multitude so which one? I can follow rules because I can look at them much like complying with the building codes. It's codified. Trying to please everybody is an impossible task for any person. I'll close my response to say, I agree with you two.

You two can follow with a last word.

Damn, where's x-jla's agreement to follow the rules? That should have stayed.

X-jla deletes a lot of his own posts when he realizes they show his dishonesty, ignorance, fallibility, and hypocrisy.

I think it was purged because it was there long enough that his option to delete would have expired. Besides, a user can only edit a post not delete it. How's he even deleting his own posts? 

An edit would still require a letter, number, or other characters  used in order to submit change.

I agree, we need to remove words (make new words to replace those words), that use "igger" of any kind. I apologize for the cringe but said to support replacing words with that syllable form because of the closeness and rhyming nature to that of a very offensive word. However, it needs to be taught and supplant the old word by culture and certain words become archaic. We just can't regulate English like French is.

Sometimes it be like that

I see what you did there. ;)

"I just need a permit set"

"Let's discuss your fees"

"Are you really an architect? You don't have AIA after your name."

"It's a simple project, your fee should be lower"

"let me speak to your manager"

"This is my feng shui advisor. She needs to sign off on everything you do."

"We want to use design build because it's faster, cheaper, and delivers a better building" - Something an owner's rep actually said.

Feng Shui advisor signing off on everything an architect does.... what the f---? I would have said, "goodbye". No, don't need the headache.

You want to feng a shui!? I dunno if my insurance covers that . .

So ganging up on a person with ad hominem and then demands of certain things without the demander following his/her own demands are words and statements that make me cringe and well, piss me off to some degree because it is hypocritical.

So similar circumstances are likewise to do so.

duh

Not really . . . just wait until a client asks you to do the FF&E for a project that they said they would do themselves.

Don’t forget move-in coordination.

@chad That's not as bad since I can just send them an add service and do it if they want. I like when they ask us to do things that are not only out of contract, but also legally outside of our ability to do :)

setting healthy boundaries is healthy.

natematt - clients don't have to agree to and add service though. If you've already done the work and they don't want to pay you have to sue to get paid. Not good. Hence why we won't do any work until the add service is approved. ;)

Chad, actually they do unless you are ambigious enough in your scope of work of what is or is not. If it is not, they have to enter into a new agreement. This can be a contractual agreement to add something to the scope of work and compensation, accordingly. However, I do agree with you if you already did the work, the client is not obligated to pay you, and any hope of getting paid, you have to sue BUT you'll likely lose because you did something that was not included in the scope of work and completed it without establishing an agreement with the client with a go ahead and that they will understand that it will be charged additionally.... even if you had inferred already that such services would be charged as additional... you need to have a clear record that such additional service is agreed to. Have it in writing and signed just as you do with the original contract. Failure to do that, and you could end up having to not getting paid. So it is important to have it clearly agreed at the time they want something additional and they sign it with it noting that this is an additional service charged additionally and even then, the scope of work of the additional service should be outlined and effectively define what is not. Don't be too open-ended and vague about the scope of work. Don't do one thing that is additional until the contract for additional services is signed or it may be unbillable.

Actually they do not UNLESS you have a clearly defined scope. Even then if a client decides not to pay the only way to get them to pay is via a lawsuit. Same as if a client refuses to pay your fees for work within you scope.

"BY OTHERS"

who TF is others?

^not me, that's who.

Maybe Chad, we might actually agree if we are reading from a different angle. Well, first of all, if you perform work within scope, they are legally obligated to pay. If you don't have a good contract, that leads to problems. They do have to pay work you did and agreed to per the terms of the contract. Failure to do so is breach of contract. We agree, if you do something not defined clearly of work that is outside the scope but not clearly defined as outside of scope, or even if it was, but you did it before a written and signed contract to do that additional work, you will likely be out of luck, client doesn't have to pay for it. So, yeah, we probably actually agreeing.

"AS REQUIRED"

"MATCH EXISTING"

"REF SPEC" 

What's your problem with REF SPEC? Is it just that it's redundant since that should be assumed as part of the documents that the contractor would look at it?

Correct. Also it's an archaic note from when specs had precedent over the drawings.

I always assumed that using language like "REF SPEC" was to make sure that you're not repeating the same information in multiple places (and potentially mis-labeling that repeated info). It's just a way to always have info listed in really just one place. Is that outdated thinking?

You got this!

Would it make you feel better if you didn't get anything?  ;)

haha, that's how I want to be but it's too late for me. now, I want to remember to forget whatever I got. ;)