It strikes me, as I thumb through the notes at the end of Michael Moore's Dude, Where's My Country? that this author, called "odious" by one nationwide journal that covers politics, is looking at a lot of the same material that we debate here at Sciforums. Some of his ideas will seem familiar to us (e.g. how to talk to Republicans).

But the some of the same web pages we debate here occur in his notes. Now, for the paranoid, I'm not suggesting that Mr. Moore is taking his notes form us here at Sciforums, but rather I wish to point out that this motley crew at Sciforums, when it puts its minds to it, really isn't that far removed from the great American debates.

Especially for those who have been around long enough to wonder why they keep coming back--heck, I've been around for four years almost--it seems somehow encouraging to find that we're not crazy.

Some occasions, certainly, see us pushing points taken from books; even I have raised points taken from Molly Ivins' Shrub. But on other occasions we react to news stories that seem to duck the national radar--e.g. cable news, talk radio, major print coverage--and later find the very article or transcript we reacted to buried in the footnotes of history.

I'll save the long-form of citing enough examples to be properly thematic, and confess as well that these thoughts struck me during the daily litany of Liberty's Kids, a trumped-up, uber-patriotic cartoon about three kids hopping from event to event during the American Revolution.

We are witnessing history, both in experiential and the evangelical form. We see, we perceive, we react, we proclaim. We do in essence take part in history. (Long babbling about the role of media technology goes here.)

So take a look around at books you might read on subjects you discuss that have come out recently; you might be surprised to find how attuned you actually are, despite all of our bellicose howling about how removed from reality we all are.

It's actually kind of cool to see. What degree of validation of our words spent we might derive from such an exercise is certainly debatable, and I make no assertion thereto. But still ... have a look. It's worth it.

I'm not suggesting that Mr. Moore is taking his notes form us here at Sciforums, but rather I wish to point out that this motley crew at Sciforums, when it puts its minds to it, really isn't that far removed from the great American debates.

I think the point is not that we're at Moore's level, but more so that he's at ours. Moore is nothin special, at all. He is common, ordinary, regular. Not particularly smart or interesting or original. I'm still blown away by his popularity. I think it's basically because people like to hear someone else say what they already believe.

I selected 'Other' because you didn't give an option for 'All of the above'.

Except for a few peculiarities due to its form I don't find the interactions here to be intrinsically any different than human social interactions anywhere. Like any corner bar various topics are discussed whether they be the news item of the day or eternal arguments with varying levels of skill, knowledge, and emotion.

On the down-side it lacks the physical aspect that is important to tribal creatures such as ourselves but on the up-side our attention span is longer and we're generally better informed (if only because of the easy references a mouse-click away). The outstanding advantages, IMO, are the variety of available discussions that one may join in and the diverse range of participants. But we still have our jokers and bullies, wise-men, fools, regulars, and vagrants.

If there is a particular aspect that makes us different from the local barroom discussion and carries us into being socially and historically relevant it is that we share this common interest in actively discussing issues that range beyond the stats of the local sports team (although sometimes we discuss that too).

~Raithere

I agree with Raithere, all the above would be my answer if it were here.