Ahhh... well then.. he should PM Jefferson.Mr. 5020 said:
Ask Knight (Archived)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
hitek357
New member
Knight, I think that if I start a thread then I should have the power to exclude another particular TOLer from my thread. An example: I start a thread, and several other TOLers jump in and make it a very good thread, then someone like Snortley Kretch tries to ruin the whole thing by either derailing the topic or by posting three times as much as anyone else has time for. If I started the thread, then I should be able to go to the offender's first post, click on his name, and pull up this list:
View Public Profile
Challenge Snortley in the Arcade
Send a private message to Snortley
Send email to Snortley
Visit Snortley's homepage
Find all posts by Snortley
Add Snortley to Your Buddy List
Ban Snortley From This Thread <-- new action
Does the vBulletin package lack this function, or do you have it turned off?
View Public Profile
Challenge Snortley in the Arcade
Send a private message to Snortley
Send email to Snortley
Visit Snortley's homepage
Find all posts by Snortley
Add Snortley to Your Buddy List
Ban Snortley From This Thread <-- new action
Does the vBulletin package lack this function, or do you have it turned off?
Here is the problem with that idea....hitek357 said:
Work works in your advantage can work to your disadvantage.
Implementing that idea would give allsmiles or skeptic or some wacky homo the ability to start a thread and exclude all those that could and would debunk their asinine assertions. Essentially that would turn TOL into a soapbox derby.
Real Sorceror
New member
You could always use the "Ignore" feature. I've got Letsargue, Squeaky, and all them on there. Its not a complete solution but it works pretty well.hitek357 said:
The Berean
Well-known member
Knight,
Can you share some amusing anecdotes about pastor Bob Enyart. :think:
Post #3600!!!!!!
Can you share some amusing anecdotes about pastor Bob Enyart. :think:
Post #3600!!!!!!
hitek357
New member
Thanks. There's gotta be a way.... :think:Knight said:Here is the problem with that idea....
Work works in your advantage can work to your disadvantage.
Implementing that idea would give allsmiles or skeptic or some wacky homo the ability to start a thread and exclude all those that could and would debunk their asinine assertions. Essentially that would turn TOL into a soapbox derby.
Real Sorceror
New member
Depends. Most people ignore Letsargue, so the thread reads smoothly with him on Ignore. It just skips the posts of the Ignored person so you don't have to see their drivel. However, if its someone persistant that people respond to, then the thread can still be hijacked.hitek357 said:
Personally I don't use the ignore feature (as an admin I kinda need to see all I can see).
However, when I am debating I simply "passover" posters that I do not feel warrant my attention.
However, when I am debating I simply "passover" posters that I do not feel warrant my attention.
jonpantomime
New member
Originally Posted by jonpantomime
can threads in page 4 or 5 be resurrected by a new post by person?
what is your stand on it?
how about page 2 or 3?
just want to be clear on it
i mean if the last post of a thread is for example, july 2006.
and now the date is october 16th.
just asking if it is morally ok to resurrect a thread that was dead since july.
can threads in page 4 or 5 be resurrected by a new post by person?
what is your stand on it?
how about page 2 or 3?
just want to be clear on it
Knight said:What do you mean?
i mean if the last post of a thread is for example, july 2006.
and now the date is october 16th.
just asking if it is morally ok to resurrect a thread that was dead since july.
Ecumenicist
New member
What happened to the "Homosexuality: Does the Church have it right?" thread?
I really did not want break the running intellecual theme of this thread. I thought the last definiation of "Pickle" was funny, true but for the moment funny . . . I have a question . . .
No never mind, I was going to ask if with the above definition of "Pickle" if it would be good for embalming fluid.
It really would not -
1) Embalming of a human body is arterial, well right off the bat that tells you it not a good solution.
2) The body would have to placed in a non-leaking casket, filled with vinegar brine, sort of like sloushing around in a pickle barrel.
3) It would be too heavy, as it would require 40-50 gallons of vinegar.
I may have another question later I guess I'll :grave: for now :crackup:
Knight said:
No never mind, I was going to ask if with the above definition of "Pickle" if it would be good for embalming fluid.
It really would not -
1) Embalming of a human body is arterial, well right off the bat that tells you it not a good solution.
2) The body would have to placed in a non-leaking casket, filled with vinegar brine, sort of like sloushing around in a pickle barrel.
3) It would be too heavy, as it would require 40-50 gallons of vinegar.
I may have another question later
I guess I'll :grave: for now :crackup:seekinganswers
New member
Knight (or whichever moderator is involved),
May I ask where the thread entitled "Homosexuality: Does the Church have anything to stand on" in the Religion section went? It disappeared as I was trying to submit a response to one of the posts. Was there something inappropriate discussed on the thread, and if there was why did you not simply remove the offending post instead of removing the entire thread?
I have searched for it on other parts of the site (thinking that maybe it was simply deemed inappropriate for the "Religion" section) but I have been unable to find it again.
I understand that there were some topics that were discussed that may not have been pleasant for some to hear (although I myself have not at all gone into detail on those topics), but just because something is not pleasant to discuss does not mean we ought to avoid discussing it. If you would have required a warning on the post I would understand, but I must point out that much more graphic descriptions of homosexual acts are clearly stated on Clete's thread. No where did I state that I was in agreement with such activity. I simply was trying to broach on the subject with those who either agreed or disagreed with me in a way that would allow for dialogue (because one can disagree with grace, instead of simply silencing the other out of disagreement; to use one's influence to silence the other unillaterially is not a logical approach to an argument, it simply illustrates an imbalance of power).
Clearly I was not the one who offended others seeing how I am still given the privilege to post on TOL, but I'm curious as to what happened. Please, will someone respond.
Peace,
Michael
May I ask where the thread entitled "Homosexuality: Does the Church have anything to stand on" in the Religion section went? It disappeared as I was trying to submit a response to one of the posts. Was there something inappropriate discussed on the thread, and if there was why did you not simply remove the offending post instead of removing the entire thread?
I have searched for it on other parts of the site (thinking that maybe it was simply deemed inappropriate for the "Religion" section) but I have been unable to find it again.
I understand that there were some topics that were discussed that may not have been pleasant for some to hear (although I myself have not at all gone into detail on those topics), but just because something is not pleasant to discuss does not mean we ought to avoid discussing it. If you would have required a warning on the post I would understand, but I must point out that much more graphic descriptions of homosexual acts are clearly stated on Clete's thread. No where did I state that I was in agreement with such activity. I simply was trying to broach on the subject with those who either agreed or disagreed with me in a way that would allow for dialogue (because one can disagree with grace, instead of simply silencing the other out of disagreement; to use one's influence to silence the other unillaterially is not a logical approach to an argument, it simply illustrates an imbalance of power).
Clearly I was not the one who offended others seeing how I am still given the privilege to post on TOL, but I'm curious as to what happened. Please, will someone respond.
Peace,
Michael
- Status