Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Idiot(s)

posidous 🚫

I enjoy writing to the authors. I try not to send destructive criticisms. If I ever do or did it was not meant that way. Most of are about historical mistakes. But it seems there are persons who just want to destroy someone. Therefore may I suggest that there can no longer be the e-mail sent or received without the e-mail address. Remove the ability of anonymous senders to harass the authors. If you can not say who you are then you are not worth being read. Then authorize the webmasters to ban naysayers. I know I hate censors as do most of you, but rather keep the authors than have the freedom of Idiots.

Replies: LonelyDad samuelmichaels

LonelyDad 🚫

@posidous

I tend to agree with you. Think of the '1-2-3-bombers' as a slow motion DDOS attack, kind of like water dripping on a forehead torture. Take away their ability to remain anonymous, and most of them would disappear. Give the authors the ability to report the remaining few to the mods, and if they are repeat offenders, kill file their email address. I know it is easy to get another one, but do it enough times and it doesn't become fun to them anymore. One could make them provide a real name and physical address to be able to respond to an author, even if they don't have a membership. That info wouldn't be passed to the author, just used by the mods to keep anyone from email hopping.

Replies: BlinkReader

BlinkReader 🚫

@LonelyDad

Take away their ability to remain anonymous, and most of them would disappear.

Strongly agree with this.
Even if I don't agree with something, I write about it with my name (and proper e-mail adress) in front of posting.

samuelmichaels 🚫

@posidous

Therefore may I suggest that there can no longer be the e-mail sent or received without the e-mail address.

The authors have the ability to disable anonymous feedback. I, for one, allow anonymous input since some of it is very useful. But I like the fact that I can turn it off if I want.

(The authors can also disable feedback altogether).

Replies: Vincent Berg

Vincent Berg 🚫

@samuelmichaels

The authors have the ability to disable anonymous feedback. I, for one, allow anonymous input since some of it is very useful. But I like the fact that I can turn it off if I want.

I've never gotten much substantial anonymous feedback. More often, someone will send anonymous questions, expecting an answer and growing angry when I don't respond. :(

richardshagrin 🚫

There has been some discussion elsewhere on the site. There is a good chance the idiots you are referring to are only morons. Although no-longer approved by current therapists, once upon a time idiots had IQs between 26 and 50, while morons had IQs between 51 and 70, and were able to function in society, at a low level. At the bottom were imbeciles. I suspect imbeciles and idiots would have trouble sending an email with statements in English.

Replies: Ernest Bywater Vincent Berg

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@richardshagrin

At the bottom were imbeciles.

Most are employed by being elected to positions.

Replies: richardshagrin Dominions Son

richardshagrin 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Most are employed by being elected to positions.

You may be lucky in your country, here both candidates are barely functional.

Replies: REP Vincent Berg

REP 🚫

@richardshagrin

both candidates are barely functional

I disagree. They are both highly functional, but in a negative way. :)

Replies: Ernest Bywater

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@REP

I disagree. They are both highly functional, but in a negative way. :)

The Peter Principle ensures people or promoted to the level above their competency. Sadly, most senior politicians today are put in positions ten or more levels above what they'd reach in a normal Peter Principle situation.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Sadly, most senior politicians today are put in positions ten or more levels above what they'd reach in a normal Peter Principle situation.

Actually, politicians are very competent, at getting elected.

The problem is that generally the ones most competent at getting elected are the least competent at doing the job they were elected to do.

Replies: REP REP sejintenej

REP 🚫

@Dominions Son

I agree with you and EB, and that is a sad commentary on our political environment.

REP 🚫

@Dominions Son

I agree with you and EB, and that is a sad commentary on our political environment.

sejintenej 🚫

@Dominions Son

The problem is that generally the ones most competent at getting elected are the least competent at doing the job they were elected to do.

Overall competence is unknown given that they spend 24 hours per day, 365 days a year ensuring that they will get elected next time and don't have the time to do their intended work. Even so they mess up their chances of being re-elected with downright stupidity and acting against the wishes of their voters

Replies: richardshagrin sejintenej

richardshagrin 🚫

@sejintenej

Overall competence is unknown given that they spend 24 hours per day, 365 days a year ensuring that they will get elected next time and don't have the time to do their intended work.

I hope I am not being too critical to observe that approximately every four years the year has 366 days and they spend the extra day working for their re-election.

I too have been reading rlfj's story about Carl Buckman and his experiences in politics where rlfj first explained that politicians' jobs are to get re-elected (or to prepare them financially for when that stops happening which he showed more by demonstration than direct observation--show not tell) and if by some strange chance they have a few moments left over, any effort is made to govern the country is purely accidental. I would try to improve that sentence but I can't figure out how. Anyhow, you are not the first to observe one reason politicians do the relatively low level of what they are elected to do is that they need to collect approximately $500 a day in campaign contributions every day (and that was about 1980 in rlfj's story) and if they fail, they have to go home an find some legal way to make a living.

sejintenej 🚫

@sejintenej

Even so they mess up their chances of being re-elected with downright stupidity and acting against the wishes of their voters

I forgot to mention that a few months ago our local MP was visiting houses canvassing votes. My wife, who is a voter in his constituency, crossed the road to speak to him so he turned his back and walked away. Seems he reckoned she wouldn't bribe him enough

Vincent Berg 🚫

@richardshagrin

You may be lucky in your country, here both candidates are barely functional.

I object to that. Both are highly functional idiots. Their ratio of idiotic comments are off the chart!

Dominions Son 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Most are employed by being elected to positions.

Such as Hillary and Donald, currently competing to be imbecile in chief.

Vincent Berg 🚫

@richardshagrin

I suspect imbeciles and idiots would have trouble sending an email with statements in English.

Quit showing off (that you can complete sentences)!

Reply to topic

Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Idiot(s)

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...