Well...perhaps my place of residence leaves me out of much of this news. I live on a large island NE of Vancouver, BC, Canada. I don't watch much TV.
-Crandell
Not familiar with the Don Imus incident? Selector, you need to get out more.
CBS Radio's Imus accused of being politically incorrect
.....It must be that I missed a happening on here along the line...Maybe Selector can update me a bit. What has changed with the way this forum is now being moderated....?
Quentin
edbenton wrote:... Also just look at what happened to Don Imus.
You have me at a loss here, Ed....what is this about...or do we need to flesh it out?
Maybe it will suffice if you accept that the new user mods will try hard to respond to your timely reports of abuse/complaints in a timely manner. My pledge, on their behalfs, is that as soon as one of us logs on and sees the complaint in the forum that only the admin types can see (to which your observations go), we will read them and deal with them as expeditiously as possible. Note that in some really unusual or sticky instances, we may have to wait for Bergie to see it and tell us what he wants done. Normally we will address your complaint quickly....one way or the other.
At its worst, political correctness is as intolerant as the very intolerance it strives to constrain.
Ooohh....the irony is delicious.....don't you think?
eolafan wrote: "What I really dislike is any excessive (or what I consider excessive) political correctness or anybody (and that means anybody) becoming intransigent because of a political or professional association of any kind."...and that I still hold to that opinion. There is a real difference in how you interpreted what I said, and what I REALLY said.Thanks.
"What I really dislike is any excessive (or what I consider excessive) political correctness or anybody (and that means anybody) becoming intransigent because of a political or professional association of any kind."...and that I still hold to that opinion.
There is a real difference in how you interpreted what I said, and what I REALLY said.
Thanks.
Speaking generally, reading for meaning here before going off on someone is a problem.
Sign me up, Jim. I can't stand political correctness at its apogee.
Bucyrus wrote: Political correctness is a collective demand that all persons accept certain beliefs about a certain specific issues. By definition, one person being intransigent is not political correctness. However, the intolerance of one person's intransigence is a perfect example of political correctness. This is because political correctness has also come to include intolerance of having strong opinions, regardless of what they are about. Having strong opinions is seen as a mark of judgmentalism, anther P.C. taboo. It is also very P.C. to believe that if an argument is occurring, the problem is the argument itself rather than the substance of the argument and the merit of the positions that comprise it. Therefore political correctness punishes all participants of an argument equally, regardless of their positions, by forcing an end to the argument.
Political correctness is a collective demand that all persons accept certain beliefs about a certain specific issues. By definition, one person being intransigent is not political correctness. However, the intolerance of one person's intransigence is a perfect example of political correctness.
This is because political correctness has also come to include intolerance of having strong opinions, regardless of what they are about. Having strong opinions is seen as a mark of judgmentalism, anther P.C. taboo. It is also very P.C. to believe that if an argument is occurring, the problem is the argument itself rather than the substance of the argument and the merit of the positions that comprise it. Therefore political correctness punishes all participants of an argument equally, regardless of their positions, by forcing an end to the argument.
Great points, Bucyrus. And now I'll add my thoughts, why I'm against political correctness.
In its most simple form, Political Correctness (PC) is a new generation's way of trashing the values of the previous (their parents) generation. It is an attempt that began in the 1980s to ban certain thoughts, ideals and words used by the generation that fought WW II -- to the point where people even spoke about making them crimininally illegal. People who were accused of not being PC were publicly and brutally ostracized by the social mob of the day.
PC is nothing more than an attempt to rein in freedom of choice and freedom of speech. The stated purpose of PC is to prevent people -- all people -- from being offended by ANYTHING. People who "aren't PC" are beaten into submission by the same social mob by being threatened with being labeled racist, sexist, unconventional, plus losing their jobs, their reputations, their status in the community, etc. By demanding every person become PC, the social mob is demanding all of us should please everyone all the time and behave like so many unopinionated fools. PC is a form of unnecessary control and restraint.
The more "PC" overall society becomes, special interest groups with personal agendas are forced to use higher-power microscopes to find things that they can claim offend them. Many predict the next arena to suffer the effects of PC is the clothing industry, an attempt to deny all choice in using garment styles as a form of self-expression. Intense social pressure will demand we all be dress exactly the same, a so that no one is offended, like they did in Orwellian times -- or in certain foreign countries.
PC also denies clear thinking. Those who demand PC at any cost seek to deny freedom of expression by foisting their selfishness and unrestrained morality on the rest of us. You think this generation's political correctness is restrictive, just wait until the next generation.
selector wrote: It's a valid point you raise, Dale, but I think we are trying to get this all behind us now. You see the same contradiction that I do. It's just that I'd like to take this elsewhere...with your help and permission, eolafan's, and everyone else's.Bucyrus, you are of course correct....there's little point in any exchanges if we can't address pointedly what one person has said. Normally we quote, or use the person's name so that he/she understands the reply is directed to them. That's fine. I should have been more careful in my terms. I should have used the term "attacks"...as in personal and directed attacks.
It's a valid point you raise, Dale, but I think we are trying to get this all behind us now. You see the same contradiction that I do. It's just that I'd like to take this elsewhere...with your help and permission, eolafan's, and everyone else's.
Bucyrus, you are of course correct....there's little point in any exchanges if we can't address pointedly what one person has said. Normally we quote, or use the person's name so that he/she understands the reply is directed to them. That's fine. I should have been more careful in my terms. I should have used the term "attacks"...as in personal and directed attacks.
And I appreciate how you have handled things. In that thread, an individual, who has an irresistable desire to post on threads that I post on, began posting with short, personally directed comments. He didn't get the response he wanted to the first one, so in the second one he completely fabricated an accusation that I referred to people that disagree with me as "morons." Completely false, but that's how he operates; if the truth doesn't work, make somethiing up. And he made that up.
When there was no response to that, he upped the ante, disagreeing with me on scientific grounds regarding stomach cancer. In the event that it was not clear as to his motive, he then went to the internet, gathered some fairly erroneous information, and then posted that, even though it was diametrically opposed to his first contention. And while you attempted, in your typical gentle fashion, to portray it as a concession, it was no such thing -- it was clearly a personalized attack for which he exhibited his usual carelessness, saying basically anything, whether it was factual or not, just to create a disagreement with me about ... something. He just happened, in that instance, to catch himself at his own factually false posting and it happened to be in public -- what else could he say?
He then began misusing data in what I consider a dishonest fashion -- selectively presenting one set of facts, while leaving out the important, indeed crucial, mitigating factors. And I readily concede, nothing gets me going more than outright dishonesty with facts and statistics. And particularly when he then conceded his whole purpose was not to examine the facts as available, but rather to use selected facts as necesssary to "prove" that the BN was "not at fault" even as he then tried to argue that he was not making any judgments about "fault" -- which was just an odd statement in any view.
While there may be an interesting spectacle in someone without any training or experience in any of the subject areas involved in the news item -- law, medicine, toxic waste, oncology, statistics -- deciding to undertake that he is going "prove" something conclusive about it, the reputation of the gentleman has been such that I could instantly see where the thread was going, and asked that it be locked. His final two posts before you locked pretty well confirmed where he was headed.
I put in some time on my comments on that thread, but I simply have no brook for people that choose to waste it for me. It was an interesting thread for a variety of reasons, and as I have said, I respect honest opinions; it's the dishonest ones that get me going -- and his came fully loaded with an announced agenda, cooking the facts as fast as he could to support it.
Solzrules, you had an interesting comment, but it was almost too big to get a handle on. Had the thread survived, I think we would have had an interesting discussion on it. On the other hand, I think you unfairly, and personally, attacked ATSF. While I doubt anyone that has never operated a train would try to tell a locomotive engineer how operating a train works, I think he was making the point that an awful lot of people sure try to offer their opinion on how the law works -- with about as much experience as they have operating a train, and offering their opinion on that. And I assure you, the law is more complicated than operating a train.
As I have mentioned off list, it has been, for four or five years now, the same four or five people that feel compelled to jump onto various threads typically without any particular expertise to offer, or even interest in the thread itself, but only because they didn't like the poster, and they run through these threads like a little bully pack. Futuremodal was a magnet for them; moths to a flame. Most of you know exactly who I am referring to.
I think the new approach is probably a better one; even if it suffers from the legacy of unrestrained cyberstalking that seemed to often characterize Trains forums. I frequently advocated that the poster, not the thread, needs to be moderated -- as it is often the good conversation that gets penalized, not the stalker, who then often achieves his purpose in shutting down a discussion he disagrees with, but cannot muster the reasonable argument to refute.
Anyway, it was an interesting discussion, and thanks to all those who participated in a constructive manner. I have no doubt that, at the ATSF merger, BN looked carefully at the history of this plant and saw the problem, and made the appropriate financial adjustments. They knew this was coming years ago: they knew it had to be coming. BN is far too experienced in these matters to be caught by surprise on something like this and I can speak personally to the prodigous efforts that BN makes to identification and remediation in toxic waste situations. It is unfortunate that predecessor companies did not always exert the same efforts; but unfortunately, first of all, for the victims.
Santa Fe is a little more problematic. I don't know anything about the company or how they did things. I have to say I am extremely surprised by the sworn testimony of the railroad officials involved -- virtual concessions to the complaint allegations regarding negligence, and that is what convinced me -- the testimony of the company officers -- that the complaint filed is far from frivolous. However, the thread was also an object lesson in knee jerk reactions when railroads get sued by people and surely, if there is one, yet another lesson often learned that there are usually two sides to every story.
Bucyrus wrote: This is because political correctness has also come to include intolerance of having strong opinions, regardless of what they are about. Having strong opinions is seen as a mark of judgmentalism, anther P.C. taboo. It is also very P.C. to believe that if an argument is occurring, the problem is the argument itself rather than the substance of the argument and the merit of the positions that comprise it. Therefore political correctness punishes all participants of an argument equally, regardless of their positions, by forcing an end to the argument.
selector wrote: But when a thread is rife with invective on two or more sides, and not showing positive signs of improvement.....what would you do if you were in my position of obligation to Kalmbach Publishing?Crandell
But when a thread is rife with invective on two or more sides, and not showing positive signs of improvement.....what would you do if you were in my position of obligation to Kalmbach Publishing?
Crandell
Well I am not sure what that obligation is since it seems to revolve around matters of tone and causing offense, which are quite subjective. The actual printed forum rules seem fairly objective, and the one that comes closest to being violated in the creosote thread is this one:
No personal attacks or name-calling. Please keep conversations cordial. We understand that there will be differences of opinion. Please don't let those differences turn ugly. Accept that others might not have your same point of view, don't sink to personal attacks. Nothing is gained by doing so.
But even at that, the little personal tit-for-tat in the creosote thread pales compared to page after page of personal venom directed at morons who get killed while violating grade crossings. Why is that okay? Is it not counted as an ad hominem attack if the person being attacked is dead?
One more thing, and I'll go away for a while....it's getting embarrassing all my posting here.
Leave the messy work to us....okay? If you would like to take some ownership of the forum, to provide it with some tightness and decorum from now on, maybe get a better sense of safety in it, use the "report abuse" links at the lower right of posts that you think need addressing for any number of reasons. Let us do our job. We'll take a look and act if it seems right, and we'll acknowledge your part in helping to keep the place clean and tidy.
You help to police this place by helping us, and we'll do the actual clean-up. Is that a deal?
I am also sensitive to the requirement to let a theme and subject get developed, to evolve naturally, and to yield a rich product for all who participate. Yet, there is little richness, or little of value, when the replies become acerbic or disrespectful because it makes the rest of us uneasy, and more likely to leave. So, what can we hope to gain in the way of richness when a thread's life is threatened by uninformed or abusive terms because onlookers are leaving in disgust and will decline to contribute what they can? Yelling at someone to get a life, or calling them "princess" as one newer member did in a thread not long ago, or telling someone to "butch up a bit" and other Grade 6 put-downs lend nothing of a redeemable nature to what the vast majority of readers here seek.
As for the political correctness and intransigence that you mention, it is not that a person has an intransigent approach or a strong opinion to which I object. It is that it is repeated ad nauseum, and that the tone in its repetition becomes abusive to the extent that when I privately ask the person to desist from using abusive terms, the person remains intransigent and ignores my off-line coaching. I cannot lock accounts; I haven't the authority. Eventually deleting posts becomes a lost cause....so I might as well stop the offensive behaviour by precluding it...I lock the thread, my final tactic, and the one I least favour.
If in a thread only one person is becoming loud and abusive, it is easy to send the person a no-nonsense warning off-line and to begin to delete or edit his posts. I can handle that. But when a thread is rife with invective on two or more sides, and not showing positive signs of improvement.....what would you do if you were in my position of obligation to Kalmbach Publishing?
It's lonely over in this corner, you know?
eolafan wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Eolafan mentioned that a person is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion. Not only do people have a right to have opinions, but they also have a right to be intransigent. Bucyrus, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, please let's get it right... I did not say (see above quote from you) that a person "is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion."...rather what I said was:"What I really dislike is any excessive (or what I consider excessive) political correctness or anybody (and that means anybody) becoming intransigent because of a political or professional association of any kind."...and that I still hold to that opinion. There is a real difference in how you interpreted what I said, and what I REALLY said.Thanks.
Bucyrus wrote: Eolafan mentioned that a person is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion. Not only do people have a right to have opinions, but they also have a right to be intransigent.
Eolafan mentioned that a person is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion. Not only do people have a right to have opinions, but they also have a right to be intransigent.
Bucyrus, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, please let's get it right... I did not say (see above quote from you) that a person "is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion."...rather what I said was:
I see that I did misunderstand and mis-characterize what you said, and I'm sorry for that. I now see that you did not actually link P.C. with intrasigence, but rather, objected to both of them independently. When say you object to P.C., I would like to know what, if anything, in the creosote thread you considered to be P.C.
nanaimo73 wrote: eolafan wrote: the thread got out of hand had nothing to do with you...or me for that matter. You're innocent ? eolafan wrote:GET "REAL" FELLOW and GET A LIFE!
eolafan wrote: the thread got out of hand had nothing to do with you...or me for that matter.
You're innocent ?
eolafan wrote:GET "REAL" FELLOW and GET A LIFE!
Yes, I believe I am and I also believe you would agree if you knew all the facts. Please don't ask as I don't feel it would be at all ethical to be specific so let's let it drop right here, shall we?
I must admit the red quote shown is accurately attributed to me and it was posted in a moment of frustration and anger...so for it I apologize, but for the rest of what I said I do not.
I think a lot of the back and forth has a lot to do with relative ages and stages of growth. The NY Times covered a meeting of "older folks" in Oklahoma. In it, moderates- middle of the roaders- complained that "we live in a country where people can no longer work together towards solving a problem- rather, the emphasis in problem solution seemed to be on 'getting the other guy'".
That's a perfect description of some of the threads I see, not only on this forum, but pretty much every other Net site I look at on a regular basis.
(The Times article jumped to the immediate conclusion that the Oklahoma folks were getting ready to form a third party, which is probably a WRONG assumption.)
Currently, we have 45,000 plus people who took the time to register as members. They are from different ages, backgrounds, cultures and countries. The only commonality we all share is that we are fascintated by large objects requiring a set of steel rails to travel. If we can accept that commonality, we will also accept that there will be differences of opinion, with more than a dash of pride thrown in.
There is value in passionate debate, but little value in scoring personal points. Some people are not going to be convinced by reason or fact. That's why we have folks out there posting stuff about shackle cars, GE vs. EMD, or bringing back steam locomotives. Nothing will derail a passionate debate on trying to solve a problem than what I call the "Jane, you ignorant slot" offense. If you have watched Saturday Night Live forever, there was a weekly Point/Counterpoint parody that was run between Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtain. During one of these debates, Ackroyd made the infamous statement I quoted above to lead off his argument. The result was nothing more than focus on how Jane Curtain reacted- rather than the subject being debated.
The same thing applies here. That's why we have moderators- to recognize when the conversation has gone beyond Patriots vs. Chargers and devolved into a bar brawl. The moderators job is to break up the fight.
How I deal with this is a bit of personal honesty- accepting that someone out there might just have fact and reason behind their argument, rather than personal feeling. Then it's a matter of just stepping back, or, better, acknowledging that they may be right.
Crandell,
In the creosote post, you said, "But the personal and directed comments have no place here, for the record, and I won't let them pass."
Sometimes comments become personal and directed because one needs to respond to something that one specific person has said. Even if it is done with a little pointed sarcasm, I don't see that kind of personal response as a personal or ad hominem attack.
I agree that debates can sometimes shift from being fueled by the object of the debate to be motivated by the desire to keep the debate going. It then becomes a contest to achieve the longest running debate. But these things are self-correcting, so they run their course and the conversation changes. I don't understand the worry that somehow a thread will spin out of control and become a self-perpetuating macabre spectacle.
If the worry is that a thread is likely to turn into a macabre spectacle, why not give the thread the benefit of the doubt, by waiting to see if it does turn into a macabre spectacle before locking it? I sure did not see anything macabre about the creosote thread as far as it went.
Eolafan mentioned that a person is being politically correct by being intransigent about their opinion. Not only do people have a right to have opinions, but they also have a right to be intransigent. Political correctness is a collective demand that all persons accept certain beliefs about a certain specific issues. By definition, one person being intransigent is not political correctness. However, the intolerance of one person's intransigence is a perfect example of political correctness.
Thanks for the post. I'm not ready call for the axe to fall on the diner. It was more a matter of curiosity in the matter. You mentioned in your previous post in this thread that the litigation thread had been frozen because of a waste of bandwidth.
I know that the diner type threads are social gathering areas and that they can be an integral part of the forum (as I said, I like to frequent the Trackside Lounge where the goal is general discussion without the interruption of imaginary meals and such). I guess I'm just at a loss why, despite past requests from Bergie, the whole "cyber kitchen" as it were continues to use as much, if not more bandwidth than the argumentative threads.
As I mentioned in my initial response to Jim, there are threads I generally avoid. The diner thread happens to be one of those threads; so it's existence, or even the evening menu of cyber-pizza doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is the disregard of Bergie's requests to keep the chat a little more grounded in reality, especially if the issue of bandwidth use is brought up as it was for the litigation thread.
It's just my take on the matter. Thanks again for your thoughts above and a little inside knowledge of your thought process as regards the fora, the members and the threads.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
CopCarSS wrote: ...I'm sure that I've just earned myself a one-way trip to unpopularity with some of the diner denizens, but I think it a fair question if we're going to see greater use of the lock button especially in regards to bandwidth usage.
...I'm sure that I've just earned myself a one-way trip to unpopularity with some of the diner denizens, but I think it a fair question if we're going to see greater use of the lock button especially in regards to bandwidth usage.
Not at all, Chris. For one thing, the question was carefully articulated, but first carefully considered. That means you have offered to show me, and others looking in, a measure of respect. I don't know that I am due it for any particular reason (let's leave my power as a mod out of it...it's an artifact for the purposes of our discussion here), but I hope onlookers appreciate the tone and the gentle and reasonable words. I try to do the same when I communicate with anyone, whether in my private life or here.
Therefore, you need fear no recriminations, either from my role as a user-mod or due to my sensibilities being offended by your thinking and their utterance. Truly. And I thank you for doing it as you have done.
To address your question, the diner threads, as long as what transpires within their confines doesn't spill out into other threads, or into Reports of Abuse (it does happen, and not just on this particular forum...trust me), I think Bergie is tolerant. If nothing else, that thread serves as a clubhouse of sorts where the guys can fart and tell silly jokes. ( I use that characterization as an illustration, not as a deprecation to the content or its contributors...it's just to paint a picture comparing the content to what is likely to appear in other threads).
We can all pass that thread by easily because it is self-contained. Its proliferation is confined, in other words. None of us has to deal with it except to skip our eyes over it when we come to it.
Also, you seem to suggest that perhaps one of us should axe the thread since it rarely has much to do with trains...or much less often has much to do with trains. We inherited this thread which had been left in place by Bergie. So, as much as we are now the guys with the badges, so to speak, we don't want, nor are we asked, to impose ourselves unduly. We are meant to blend in as fellow users, and to act only when our judgment says it's right to do.
Let's look at this another way: we are a new feature. So, there is a certain saliency attached to our new presence here. Old timers will perhaps be a bit miffed that some of their own unknowns are suddenly riding down main street and flashing badges. That is understandable...if it had been up to me, I would have announced the change/introduction with an....uh...introduction posted in each forum..a heads-up about new deputies. For whatever reason, that didn't happen. No matter, we are here, and we are beginning to assert ourselves in an effort to change the culture, even if slightly. So, we stand out, and we knew to expect, eventually, some inquiries and tests. We get that. We also know that it isn't about us....it's about you. We need to establish some harmony between what the members would like from this forum and what Kalmbach requires on the basis of rules and policy.
It is an iterative process, and it will take time. We hope that the user-mods and the membership can co-exist in mutual respect and positive regard. We should all be friends...first. But, that isn't always be the case, and Bergie can't always be here to sort out the inevitable tensions....so he has asked a few volunteers who pestered him over the past summer to take us on board because the model railroader forum had become a trolls' fishing barrell. So, if the idea finally had a currency, why limit the service to just the one forum? Use the service for all of them! And here we are.
I welcome inquiries, personal contact, and challenges to my decisions or other overt behaviour, including my tone and choice of words since you should also be able to police us in a way since we are human. Just, please, use measured words and tone in your message to me of the nature that this gentleman modelled when he asked me the question. Be respectful to me, and to each other, and we'll all get along. You can count on me to do the same because it is my upbringing, my nature, my learning, and my intent.
Thanks for the question.
squeeze wrote:I happen to be the one that started the locked thread. In my opinion it got way out of hand. Had I known it would have gone that far, I would have never started it. I will be very discriminatory in my future posts, as I am here to learn more about my interests, than see individuals banter back and forth. That is the first posting I have ever had locked on me, and I will do all I can to make that the last. Thanks for a GREAT FORUM. Jim
Jim, don't beat yourself up about this. Your original post was on a valid subject and the reason the thread got out of hand had nothing to do with you...or me for that matter. It had everything to do with "issues" totally not related to either the post subject or to either one of us...as I have recently found out...and that is all I can and will say about that subject.
Well, I wasnt going to say anything but if we agree to disagree then I dont have trouble with it.
I am hard headed, stubborn and hard to budge sometimes. Dont let that bother you too much. Old dogs like me can and do sometimes learn new tricks or something new everyday.
Take Kadee couplers as an example. If Someone was to say: "My plastic couplers break" I would lean on the thread and allow Kadee thier moment of glory. If a third person tells me that horn and hooks are good enough... wal... we dont know where the thread will end up.
I'll quiet down now. Ive said enough.
Yes and you are all onto something.
selector wrote: Once I am aware of a problem thread, I tend to work it to see if it can be repaired. When my efforts fall short, and the objectionable prose and logic/illogic continue, the thread is a waste of bandwidth. In that case, the thread gets locked.
As long as we're on the subjects of bandwidth wasting and axe-grinding, I would like to know why some threads get the lock button fairly quickly (as in the case of the thread referenced above which may have been degenerating into a shouting mach but which I thought was still providing some good discussion) and others are allowed to survive.
In particular, I'd like to refer to the Diner thread. In a rather infamous thread (that deserved the lock button a lot sooner than on the 23rd page, IMHO), the diner thread was brought into the mix and Bergie voiced his opinion on the matter:
Bergie wrote:That's the reasoning for my call for all parties, both diner and non-diner participants, to come closer to the middle. For diner members, continue on with your personal discussions that allow all of us to become friends, but lighten up on the off-topic (if not off the wall) discussions about what's for breakfast. In the same vein, I'd ask all non-diner participants to stop caring if others choose to use the diner as a way to get to know one another. Again, if both sides come closer to the middle, we'll all be better off.
I think the non-diner crowd has complied very well with Bergie's request but we still see three posts a day featuring breakfast, lunch and dinner "menus" and countless other posts about how good the cybermeals of the day were.
I completely understand the need for an thread with a lighter side to it - I in fact participate in the Trackside Lounge thread quite a bit. Still, if bandwidth is an issue and the lock button is going to be pushed, I don't understand why we are still seeing posts about the "spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam" for breakfast despite Bergie's sensible compromise. It just seems like a little bit of a double standard to me.
I'm sure that I've just earned myself a one-way trip to unpopularity with some of the diner denizens, but I think it a fair question if we're going to see greater use of the lock button especially in regards to bandwidth usage.
For me though I am a member of mutiple boards and here at least the Mods all of them will pull the trigger and lock it faster. Some of them I am a member of people will take what you say change it and then make it look like you said something else and then ridacule you on that and the mods do nothing at all. Also here I have gotten PMs and told back it down or my acct will be locked for a week then banned. However when one person refuses to even look at another persons point of view and attacks any person that has data that shows that their view is wrong then then that thread needs to be locked down ASAP. Furtemodal was great about that and would come hard and long if you opposed Open Access with real Data that showed it would not work here in the US he would then attack you personally any way he could and drove off quite a few people.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, opinons are like elbows.....everyone has a couple. That being said, nothing aggravates me more that the forum participant can't have a reasonable discussion. I moderate/administer a photo site, and we are constantly on patrol against those who try to hi-jack threads to forward their agenda, whatever it is.
It is also about "picking one's battles" as well. I can't tell you how many times I went to reply to a thread, only to erase my reply, because I thought better of getting involved. I asked my self that age old question: "is this the hill I want to die on?"
I like intelligent, and informative discourse, but, one a thread degenerates into name calling, or other such bashing..... I don't bother with it.
Just remember the old saying....Sticks and Stones
Russell
n012944 wrote: Jim, you are on to something.
Jim, you are on to something.
No, he isn't; it's just him.
Nudge, nudge; wink, wink.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.