Infractions for reporting posts that DO NOT NEED REPORTING.

[Nang]

Well, no, it wasn't. This is what I said was general but if you're so set on being contrary let's look at it:

Yeah, lets.

Here is what you posted and what I specifically answered to:

"You know what might actually help that work? If when A puts B on ignore B can no longer see A's posts either."

That was a subjective suggestion you made, based upon your subjective complaints against Res, with which all of TOL is too familiar, so there is no way you can claim an innocent objectivity apart from your renown subjective complaints.

Now, you are attempting to perform a (subjective) "lawyer's dodge" to avoid my simple disagreement to your (subjective) suggestion.

Duh . . .

 

[resurrected]

Yeah, lets.

Here is what you posted and what I specifically answered to:

"You know what might actually help that work? If when A puts B on ignore B can no longer see A's posts either."

That was a subjective suggestion you made, based upon your subjective complaints against Res, with which all of TOL is too familiar, so there is no way you can claim an innocent objectivity apart from your renown subjective complaints.

Now, you are attempting to perform a (subjective) "lawyer's dodge" to avoid my simple disagreement to your (subjective) suggestion.

Duh . . .

and i still say it's a retarded suggestion, akin to a child saying to his mother "fine, i'll put her on ignore, but you have to make her ignore me too!"

 

[Nang]

and i still say it's a retarded suggestion, akin to a child saying to his mother "fine, i'll put her on ignore, but you have to make her ignore me too!"

Well, at best, it was not properly, thoroughly, or objectively thought out, so I cannot recommend or go along with it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yeah, lets.

Super. But you don't. The "general" comment was literally aimed at the comment I quoted. You left that and went back to this:

That was a subjective suggestion you made,

Sorry, but to stop you right there, that's a meaningless thing to say. It's a suggestion. Subjective in what way? You're using the word in a way I don't think you can without more specificity, which was why I asked for that.

based upon your subjective complaints against Res,

It as aptly applies to Eeset's "peeking" as it does to my experience with being stalked, which is less than subjective since the fellow was waved off for that in Observations.

with which all of TOL is too familiar,

Who cares? It doesn't impact the suggestion, which I think is a good one. Tam at least made an argument. One I understand and can speak to, which I will in a minute.

so there is no way you can claim an innocent objectivity apart from your renown subjective complaints.

You did it again. Innocent objectivity? What, there's a guilty objectivity? It wasn't about me, though the idea was born of that experience and seeing others drawn back in, like Eeset, out of curiosity.

In point of fact what I proposed would impact me in the way Tam speaks to, as I continued to counter arguments of people who put me on ignore, being more interested in the argument than who issued it. But I also happen to believe it would be worth losing the opportunity. If you don't that's fine. You don't have to personalize it to take exception...or maybe you do, eh Nang. lain:

Now, you are attempting to perform a (subjective) "lawyer's dodge" to avoid my simple disagreement to your (subjective) suggestion.

I don't have a problem with you not liking the idea or even having particular reasons why. But rhetorical bombast without legs, like flinging tyranny at it, doesn't convince me of anything other than you have a bone to pick with the messenger.

That's why I asked for particulars. Particulars you never did get around to supplying in your rush to issue the witty, objectively dazzling:

Duh . . .

 

[Sherman]

You know Knight you could just hand out a block of cheese to these people that love to report non-issues, it will go nicely with their wHine...:chuckle:

:rotfl: This new policy solves the issue of the glut of frivolous reports.

 

[Christian Liberty]

@Resurrected- Can you explain why you don't think Town is your brother in Christ? Can you show me where he has professed any heresy which the Bible declares all who hold to such to be anathema?

 

[Eeset]

Super. But you don't. The "general" comment was literally aimed at the comment I quoted. You left that and went back to this: Sorry, but to stop you right there, that's a meaningless thing to say. It's a suggestion. Subjective in what way? You're using the word in a way I don't think you can without more specificity, which was why I asked for that. It as aptly applies to Eeset's "peeking" as it does to my experience with being stalked, which is less than subjective since the fellow was waved off for that in Observations. Who cares? It doesn't impact the suggestion, which I think is a good one. Tam at least made an argument. One I understand and can speak to, which I will in a minute. You did it again. Innocent objectivity? What, there's a guilty objectivity? It wasn't about me, though the idea was born of that experience and seeing others drawn back in, like Eeset, out of curiosity. In point of fact what I proposed would impact me in the way Tam speaks to, as I continued to counter arguments of people who put me on ignore, being more interested in the argument than who issued it. But I also happen to believe it would be worth losing the opportunity. If you don't that's fine. You don't have to personalize it to take exception...or maybe you do, eh Nang. lain: I don't have a problem with you not liking the idea or even having particular reasons why. But rhetorical bombast without legs, like flinging tyranny at it, doesn't convince me of anything other than you have a bone to pick with the messenger. That's why I asked for particulars. Particulars you never did get around to supplying in your rush to issue the witty, objectively dazzling:

OK why do you keep using my name in your replies? Am I your favorite expert witness? I'll send you a bill.

 

[Town Heretic]

OK why do you keep using my name in your replies?

I don't, but in this one it's because your well known admission about peeking was part of what gave me the idea. I was thinking of how I'd go for a while with those "user on ignore" labels cropping up and then eventually see a mirrored bit and wade back in, then I thought about your peeking and the solution to that impulse (which isn't limited to either of us I suspect) seemed obvious.

First, it would mean dialogue could only proceed between posters who were in a civil enough frame of mind that both were open to the exchange. Secondly, it would be hard for anyone set on trying to drive interest from the person who had them on ignore to do that, since they mostly wouldn't know and then couldn't comment on what the other person was saying.

Now Tam raises a point that she'd miss and I'd miss and you and anyone else so situated would miss the opportunity to comment and argue, but my point would be you aren't really arguing if the other party isn't answering or reading. And if there's an issue worth talking about that person won't be the only one speaking to it...and anyone who can't make their own argument on a point without being able to read and answer someone they're embroiled with really isn't talking about the argument to begin with as much as they are the messenger.

So I can live without responding to X. If there's a good topic I can present my own opinion. It should be an argument against X's, prima facie, if X is presenting a contrary idea.

 

[Eeset]

I don't, but in this one it's because your well known admission about peeking was part of what gave me the idea. I was thinking of how I'd go for a while with those "user on ignore" labels cropping up and then eventually see a mirrored bit and wade back in, then I thought about your peeking and the solution to that impulse (which isn't limited to either of us I suspect) seemed obvious.

First, it would mean dialogue could only proceed between posters who were in a civil enough frame of mind that both were open to the exchange. Secondly, it would be hard for anyone set on trying to drive interest from the person who had them on ignore to do that, since they mostly wouldn't know and then couldn't comment on what the other person was saying.

Now Tam raises a point that she'd miss and I'd miss and you and anyone else so situated would miss the opportunity to comment and argue, but my point would be you aren't really arguing if the other party isn't answering or reading. And if there's an issue worth talking about that person won't be the only one speaking to it...and anyone who can't make their own argument on a point without being able to read and answer someone they're embroiled with really isn't talking about the argument to begin with as much as they are the messenger.

So I can live without responding to X. If there's a good topic I can present my own opinion. It should be an argument against X's, prima facie, if X is presenting a contrary idea.

Well I see some merit to your concept but then why have a forum?

 

[Town Heretic]

Well I see some merit to your concept but then why have a forum?

For discourse, for entertainment, for reasoned and civil argument between willing parties. Nothing in my proposal would interfere with any of that, but it would mandate a certain level of civility to accomplish it and I suspect it would be a boon in support of the intent of the rules of conduct.

 

[Eeset]

For discourse, for entertainment, for reasoned and civil argument between willing parties. Nothing in my proposal would interfere with any of that, but it would mandate a certain level of civility to accomplish it and I suspect it would be a boon in support of the intent of the rules of conduct.

The mechanics sound rather absurd. I place you on ignore so automatically you reciprocate and we are then both ignoring each other. But if I then take you off ignore it doesn't work because you have me on ignore so the system automatically makes us each ignore each other again.

 

[Town Heretic]

The mechanics sound rather absurd.

Not really. But it needs fleshing out and I'm about to.

I place you on ignore so automatically you reciprocate and we are then both ignoring each other.

Rather, the act of either one of us placing the other on ignore causes a reciprocal action on the other end, practically speaking. If you don't place me on ignore when you lift your end it lifts for both of us, though I'd have the option of placing you on ignore as well, to continue it.

So the only way we can carry on a conversation is if we meet a sufficiently civil standard of conduct that we both feel the exchange is worth our time.

But if I then take you off ignore it doesn't work because you have me on ignore so the system automatically makes us each ignore each other again.

Answered above.

Now I was given to understand you made an apology for slights a bit ago.

I have an idea. Start a thread mimicking a newspaper. Then you can copy/paste everyone's posts into it and make pithy deprecating comments exhibiting your sardonic wit.

You made this charge in Quixote's a while back and fled when I began examining the actual posts to demonstrate your had it wrong. Repeating that and encouraging this sort of thing is part of the reason why you're seen as you are and why your apologies are frequently mocked.

And there's lots of other things you can do with it like lock

The way you and the person you're encouraging have done. lain:

it or even report others who might post in it after you tell them not to.

I've never done that. I have reported people who trolled a thread of mine. I've also given pos rep to the same people for contributing in the spirit of it.

Now you just have to come up with a compelling title for it.

Thanks for reminding me who and more importantly what you are.

 

[Eeset]

Not really. But it needs fleshing out and I'm about to.


Rather, the act of either one of us placing the other on ignore causes a reciprocal action on the other end, practically speaking. If you don't place me on ignore when you lift your end it lifts for both of us, though I'd have the option of placing you on ignore as well, to continue it.
So the only way we can carry on a conversation is if we meet a sufficiently civil standard of conduct that we both feel the exchange is worth our time.
Answered above.

Needs a lot of fleshing out. You place me on ignore so all of a sudden I can't see your posts. Do I see that you made one and can I peek at it? If not do I become aware that I am on ignore when you are quoted by another member and I figure out that I couldn't see your original post because I am on ignore?

 

[Town Heretic]

I think it goes like this: bliss.

 

[resurrected]

@Resurrected- Can you explain why you don't think Town is your brother in Christ? Can you show me where he has professed any heresy which the Bible declares all who hold to such to be anathema?

no, not without rehashing a great deal of old business that i'd rather not dig up right now

just bear in mind that i've been posting on this forum for ten or eleven years, long before town showed up

i've observed his behavior since day one - he's all about town, rarely about God

 

[Iwannaknow]

As long as we're all complaining here, I have a rant/gripe myself.

I was just banned for "provoking" a certain lying, trouble making, agitator who thought she had a license to run around this forum beating up on people and she did!!! She should have been banned for provoking loooooooong before anyone else was, but no...she gets sympathy and a free pass to keep up her evil agenda and others get infractions and banned for giving her back just a fraction of what she was dishing out.

I've done some research too while I was away on my lil vacation and some of us are not so far off from the truth in what we suspect either.

Good luck on the TOLathon... Who's dumb enough to pay to be abused like this.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

As long as we're all complaining here, I have a rant/gripe myself.

I was just banned for "provoking" a certain lying, trouble making, agitator who thought she had a license to run around this forum beating up on people and she did!!! She should have been banned for provoking loooooooong before anyone else was, but no...she gets sympathy and a free pass to keep up her evil agenda and others get infractions and banned for giving her back just a fraction of what she was dishing out.

I've done some research too while I was away on my lil vacation and some of us are not so far off from the truth in what we suspect either.

Good luck on the TOLathon... Who's dumb enough to pay to be abused like this.

You're so nice!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You know what might actually help that work? If when A puts B on ignore B can no longer see A's posts either.

Maybe Knight could Grandfather you in on this new policy. Just think what your life would be like without frivolous complaining.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe Knight could Grandfather you in on this new policy. Just think what your life would be like without frivolous complaining.

I'm not a fan of Town's positions, but at least he can discuss them without attacking me personally.

Take the plank out of your own eye.

 

[Town Heretic]

Maybe Knight could Grandfather you in on this new policy. Just think what your life would be like without frivolous complaining.

I don't launch frivolous complaints and usually cite to the rule or rules in play...I also haven't reported that much in months. But given what you think passes for discourse I can understand your confusion...understanding the confusion you call argument is another matter. lain: