Forum: Site Announcements

I tested by sending a message to myself and that worked. :-)

Question is, did you then reply to yourself, questioning the grammar used and correcting the spelling?

Or were you just messagebating?

Enquiring minds need to know... :)

as it allows us to take our heated discourses off-line rather than airing our dirty laundry in public on the open forum for everyone to see.

What's the fun of that? I really enjoy reading the heated discussions, rantings and good natured "abuses", whether I participate or not. As long as they stay reasonably civil I have no problem with those discussions.

I just conducted the successful test of sending a DM to a poster in a thread I'd not yet been involved with

So basically you've just invented Spam(DM) congratulations!! :)

Thus if I have something to say on a matter direct to the person I don't have to jump into the thread to do it.

Whilst I was joking, now that you've responded it does seem like bad manners to message someone about a thread you are not even participating in, unless of course private comments were invited for whatever reason.

The feature will undoubtedly prove useful to many, it can also be abused, so maybe setting a precedent isn't such a great idea, start as you mean to go on, etc.

Good manners cost nothing, good site etiquette should discourage messaging anyone about a thread you are not even contributing too. Don't you think?

Good manners cost nothing, good site etiquette should discourage messaging anyone about a thread you are not even contributing too. Don't you think?

It's a messaging system between members of the site.
Whether or not it's about a particular thread just depends on what the sender is posting about.

They could be bring their attention to something in a thread that may interest the other person. Or it could be about something completely different.
Netiquette is maintained in both cases.

However, I try to avoid the issues with the troublemakers I know.

It's often quoted on other forums: "Don't feed the trolls". I know, it's easier said then done and often a humorous little bite in the butt does sideline them.

Its why I have almost stopped posting myself. I know I am uneducated since my schooling stopped at the end of my 9th grade when I was admitted to that goddamned hell hole hospital, where I lost all rights for over 4 years. Since that time all my knowledge has been self-taught which means there has to have been a ton of mistakes. I don't even try to hide the lack of education. I still post from time to time if I think its important enough.

Ernest, its funny I believe I have learned just enough to see how little I actually know on any given subject. That might also be why I still consider myself uneducated.

I see no point in joining the thread when one of the most active on it is just seeking an opportunity to abuse someone and they've previously declared they'll abuse me at every opportunity, yet i still want to tell another person in the thread something. Thus it's better etiquette to contact direct, which I now can do.

Personally I would hope our webmaster would block or ban anyone reported for such acts of abuse.

"If you can't be civil, be quiet" seems appropriate.

Not that I'm suggesting we all sit around blowing smoke up each others arses.
(It's not now considered healthy and there was a movement against it)

But abuse on this forum is best left to self, is it not?

Oh, and should anyone suggest a block or ban for being abusive is censorship, they get 100 hours at an abuse centre listening to victims of all ages and both sexes. If that isn't enough, another 100 hours.

What this forum really needs is a method whereby one can selectively disable a poster's statements. While I enjoy reading the forums and the various opinions expressed there is one poster that I would never miss if he disappeared.

It may be as simple as having a button to ignore any further posts from this poster. I don't know what all it would entail as I am not a programmer but it would be nice to have something like that.

And the killfile gets reinvented again...

And the killfile gets reinvented again...

What is so wrong with having a killfile?

Are you suggesting a spam filter is a bad thing?

Free speech requires a tolerant society, one that demands each member has a right to voice their opinions, it does NOT mean anyone has to listen. The online equivalent of not listening is not reading, the online equivalent of ignoring is a killfile. Blocking that person from your little piece of the interweb.

A great many people have fought for the rights to speak freely.

Can you name one who fought for 'enforced listening' ?

Does mandatory 'diversity awareness' training count?

I actually attended one of those once, it wasn't pretty, I enjoyed myself, the lecturer (I'm being polite) ran out of illogical answers to innocent questions, (yes, I can do innocent, at least for a while) and left early. Very early.

Can you name one who fought for 'enforced listening' ?

I can think of some attempts to do that with the FCC that IIRC ultimately were killed by SCotUS back in the 1980's. It's part of how certain talk-radio personalities are still on the air in the US despite decades of concerted efforts trying to get them taken off.

Of course, that didn't enforce listening, that just enforced equal air time. Which proved problematic when you either didn't have an "interesting/entertaining enough" host for "the other side" or simply lacked the market demographics to make that "other side" economically viable for your station. Which basically meant it was a very potent dis-incentive for political commentary programs with a hard slant one direction or the other.

Of course, that didn't enforce listening

No name then?

Are you talking about the period in the U.S. where there was the "equal time" rule for broadcasters. As I recall, the theory was that the federal government owned the airwaves and then gave, for free, licenses to those who had stations. (I think they since started bidding for those licenses). I think it was the two major political parties who objected to the rule because it allowed the smaller parties to get as much time on the air as the major parties did. And, of course, the broadcasters didn't like the government interfering in any way with their use of their own airwaves. That was, I think, the beginning of what we today call "Talk Radio" and there were many more who self-proclaimed to be conservative and Republican-leaning than moderate or Democratic-leaning. I suspect that may have had something to do with the fact that their big-corporation commercial buyers and sponsors also saw themselves as conservative and Republican-leaning. Money talks.

If you think there is freedom to speak anywhere about anything, try disparaging your employer while at work. If you think there is no such thing as "enforced listening," try to skip your employer-sponsored session on sex abuse.

If we had freedom to speak, we should also have common sense, you don't crap on your own doorstep.

try to skip your employer-sponsored session on sex abuse.

Scroll up.

If you think there is freedom to speak anywhere about anything, try disparaging your employer while at work. If you think there is no such thing as "enforced listening," try to skip your employer-sponsored session on sex abuse.

There is a difference between freedom of speech and employment requirements. I am free to speak at work, but if that violates my employment requirements I probably will not be working there soon. The question of whether or not I have violated those requirements can be resolved by arbitration or legal redress if needed.

That is why this whole kneeling by pro football players is not about freedom of speech, but about owner greed. The owners would be within their rights to place a clause in any new or renewed contract to ban that practice, but haven't because they don't want to take a chance that if they fire a player for that reason they don't get compensated if another owner who doesn't have that requirement hires the player.

Note: I am trying to not be political here. I have my own beliefs on the issue, but what I have stated is my understanding of the reality of the situation, not a political position.