Stonewall's Techie/Help Chatter

[ParkerLongbaugh]

This forum very clearly has a left-leaning membership, with a few exceptions. Booting or silencing anyone (right or left) would be a loss for everyone- I'm a free speecher as some of the others on here claim too.

Adding basic courtesy requirements (like almost every other forum I participate on already has) would be a gain, IMHO. Offenders get short-term posting bans, account locks or other penalties for violations.

If we simply drive away or boot folks, this forum would be as bad as DU- where dissent is simply not tolerated. It's hard to think of that philosophy as being anything worth supporting, and I believe that sort of thing contributes to our wider societal problems today.

[Sam]

Good for you Parker......like your style. It appears that for some its free speech with some exceptions.

[Amy Probenski]

Tolerance is admirable. I must admire those who still have it. I don't.
Personally, I'd cheer Stonewall banning Crux for life.
Good riddance to a rude egomaniac.
"Left" and "Right" have nothing to do with it.

[Sam]

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

"Once you permit those who are convinced of their own superior rightness to censor and silence and suppress those who hold contrary opinions, just at that moment the citadel has been surrendered." -- Archibald Macleish - (1892-1982) Poet, playwright, Librarian of Congress, & Assistant Secretary of State under Franklin Roosevelt Source: Saturday Review, 12 May 1979

You folks talk the walk but sure don't walk the talk.

[fangz1956]

Sam wrote: Hey Pal, you just don't get it. What a shame. You could be writing about yourself.

Sam, why are you deliberately spoiling for a fight on a question that most clearly invites the input of all? When you write things like this, it makes me wonder if you and a certain other character are not the same person.

Sam wrote: Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive

Sam, I think if you take your blinders off, you will find that a certain member of this forum is as guilty as sin of this....and I'm not talking about WO here. Yet, you align yourself and yield blind allegiance to this kind of character. Looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Sam]

I don't wear blinders and I have to ask this. Why if Crux bothers you all so much don't you all just ignore him. Yet time after time I find many of you go after him or take the bait he offers and get involved. Just plain ignore him if you don't like what he writes. Personally I like a lot of what he writes. And we are not the same person. You can get Stonewall to verify that. I don't know Crux any more than I know you all.

No not spoiling for a fight. Just wanted to give my impute like the rest. Can I say I will stick my finger down my throat. I think that is acceptable here.
Anyway just call me blackie or old black joe.

[fangz1956]

Sam wrote: Why if Crux bothers you all so much don't you all just ignore him.

I have tried that and it doesn't work.......especially when you have to wade through a mountain of his nonsensical rantings in order to try to get to the root of a topic and learn a bit in the process. I don't have that kind of spare time in my personal life. He/she/it refuses to reign himself/herself/itself in or monitor his/her/its own heaps of nastiness.....so it's up to the community to set some standards to solve the problem.

I personally like the idea of being able block certain posters from personal view.........kind of like flipping off the TV or changing the channel when Bill O'Reilly is blowing hot air.

[ParkerLongbaugh]

I personally like the idea of being able block certain posters from personal view.........kind of like flipping off the TV or changing the channel when Bill O'Reilly is blowing hot air.

A LOT of forums do that, and it can be a useful tool I suppose. I have never used it, and here's why:

It's really not like flipping off the TV when a program or personality you don't like is on- it's more like having one person's microphone muted but still watching or even participating in a debate. It is intentional censorship of a selected participant in an action, not a boycott of the action itself.

I admit I've been tempted in other forums to do just that, but it just seems to be a bit of a copout and closedminded to me. I don't mean that to be offensive or mean-spirited- I just think folks should realize what sort of censorship that type of tool really represents.

Your mileage may vary...

[Sam]

But, I say, you don't have to read what he posts. WHY??????? if it bothers you so much. I just don't understand. Maybe I am too old to get it. But when someone annoys me I don't bother with them if at all possible. You are like moths drawn to the flame. You can't resist reading what he writes then complain because you don't like it. Think about it Gal, you can just pass over his postings and only read those you like. It seems so simple to this old man.

[fangz1956]

Parker wrote: I admit I've been tempted in other forums to do just that, but it just seems to be a bit of a copout and closedminded to me. I don't mean that to be offensive or mean-spirited- I just think folks should realize what sort of censorship that type of tool really represents.

Following this line of reasoning, I should also read every shred of junk mail delivered by the USPS AND every bit of SPAM dropping into my inbox everyday. If I throw it away or delete without reading it, doesn't that fall into your category of close-minded, cop-out censorship? I also find that this line of reasoning takes away something quite valuable........PERSONAL CHOICE and PERSONAL FREEDOM.

Just as folks are entitled to say or write or advertise what they wish, the rest of us have a right to not being subjected to reading it or hearing it.

I have used the blocking filters before and find they work quite nicely. They are particularly useful when passions are heated and you find your buttons being pushed in all of the wrong ways. Blocking the offending poster, at least temporarily, allows intelligent folks time to cool their jets until rational thinking can be re-established. It is really no different than walking away from a fight or a heated argument....which is generally the best option when emotion over-rides clear thinking and consideration.

[stonewall]

Dear Rockbridge Forum Participants,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful replies to my plea for help regarding Forum tone. I'm so glad I asked because your answers helped me to find a compromise I could not have found on my own.

The following comments are notable:

• Crux, for reminding us that a minority view sometimes has value that transcends pointed and coarse language
• Sam, for reminding us that indelicate wording in postings is not confined to a single person, and that one always can ignore postings
• Fangz and Parker Longbaugh for suggesting helpful standards, as from another forums
• Fangz and Wise One for suggesting a participant filter, and to Parker Longbaugh for commenting that a filter can be a kind of censorship
• Wise One and Parker Longbaugh for stressing the importance of open speech as a value to be preserved.

Your advice has led me to implement the best compromise I can find between openness and a user experience controlled to be reasonably pleasant:

• No change in the hospitality that the Forum will continue to afford to all who desire to participate
• A very minor clarification of ground rules in Administrator's Welcome.
• An optional user filter allowing you to select user(s) whose postings you wish to make invisible. It is wholly voluntary and applies only to your own view of the Forum. It is not censorship in the usual meaning of that term, one party's restricting the flow of information to another party.

Instructions on using the user filter to render users' postings invisible:

• Click the Manage Foes tab
• Enter the exact user name(s) you want to block in the "Add new foes" box
• Click "Submit"

[ParkerLongbaugh]

Parker wrote: I admit I've been tempted in other forums to do just that, but it just seems to be a bit of a copout and closedminded to me. I don't mean that to be offensive or mean-spirited- I just think folks should realize what sort of censorship that type of tool really represents.

Following this line of reasoning, I should also read every shred of junk mail delivered by the USPS AND every bit of SPAM dropping into my inbox everyday. If I throw it away or delete without reading it, doesn't that fall into your category of close-minded, cop-out censorship? I also find that this line of reasoning takes away something quite valuable........PERSONAL CHOICE and PERSONAL FREEDOM.

Just as folks are entitled to say or write or advertise what they wish, the rest of us have a right to not being subjected to reading it or hearing it.

I have used the blocking filters before and find they work quite nicely. They are particularly useful when passions are heated and you find your buttons being pushed in all of the wrong ways. Blocking the offending poster, at least temporarily, allows intelligent folks time to cool their jets until rational thinking can be re-established. It is really no different than walking away from a fight or a heated argument....which is generally the best option when emotion over-rides clear thinking and consideration.

Your interpretation of my views surprises me. I'm a serious fan of personal freedom, and have put my butt on the line for it for myself and others in the past. Most who know me would describe me as a small-l libertarian more than anything...

The comparisons you gave aren't really the same as using a blocking filter, though. You can (and should probably!) throw away unsolicited mail and spam as you mentioned. But putting a blocking filter on certain folks is not like that at all, and no line of reasoning makes it so- certainly not the ones I've discussed here. It is not like walking away from a fight or argument- instead you remain in place to speak your side while denying that counterpoint ability to your Foe. It is like particpating in a telephone conversation with several people, one of whom you decide should have to use a broken mouthpiece. If you simply hung up and dropped out too, then it would indeed be like the spam comparison- but technologically forcing it to be one-way is much more about censorship than about simply exercising personal choice.

I hope that distinction makes sense. If you, or others, decide to use the new tool I suggest you do indeed use it in just the manner you mentioned- temporarily only, as a cooling off period and such.

And you are, of course, perfectly free to do whatever you choose with my support of you doing so.

ETA: I should ask- is there a way to find out who's Foe'd me?

[crux]

I am all for one censoring what THAT one chooses to listen to, or to consider, or to view, or to say... Feel Free. Be glad.

Rejoice...

Just for clarification Fangz, in your proposed CSA would TEABAGGER and TEABAGGING be qualifying under:

2. Personal attacks, sexual references, racial putdowns are NOT allowed. You agree that you will be courteous to others, even when disagreeing. You may express your opinion about a person's ideas, NOT about them personally.

3. xxx.com cannot allow any of the following:

* sexually explicit language, description, or images.
* language, description, or images that encourage crime or violence.
* profanity, obscenity, swearing, or inappropriate language of any kind.

[fangz1956]

Given the actual definition of 'teabagging", I think some folks might find that offensive....or even sexually explicit to some degree or another. Personally, I do not not find it to be so even though I don't use the tag publicly.

Given the bent of this forum, I think that is something that would be decided by the Administrator or put up to a group discussion and vote.

Certainly, tags such as this should be considered as inappropriate if the Administrator receives a litany of complaints from a number of participants of the forum.

[crux]

Given the actual definition of 'teabagging", I think some folks might find that offensive....or even sexually explicit...

Certainly, tags such as this should be considered as inappropriate if the Administrator receives a litany of complaints from a number of participants of the forum.

Thank you and NOTE: I, for one, have never complained to the administrator... To the contrary in fact. CERTAINLY, there HAS been a litany of complaints though.

...group discussion or a vote... THAT"S RICH.

[Neck-aint-red]

Thanks for your work on this Stonewall. You are a very good Solomon, coming to what looks like a pretty fair and workable compromise. Now on this:

An optional user filter allowing you to select user(s) whose postings you wish to make invisible. It is wholly voluntary and applies only to your own view of the Forum. It is not censorship in the usual meaning of that term, one party's restricting the flow of information to another party.

It's a great idea and I'd like to use it myself on Crux. My problem is that I'm one of those awful guys who cannot resist rubbernecking horrific road accidents, the only explanation I can think of why I haven't axed Crux yet.

[Amy Probenski]

It is not like walking away from a fight or argument- instead you remain in place to speak your side while denying that counterpoint ability to your Foe. It is like participating in a telephone conversation with several people, one of whom you decide should have to use a broken mouthpiece. If you simply hung up and dropped out too, then it would indeed be like the spam comparison- but technologically forcing it to be one-way is much more about censorship than about simply exercising personal choice.

That is very interesting but I look at it like this.

I find my telephone to be useful and so I do not want to opt out of telephone service altogether – I really enjoy talking with many people. To me telemarketers are obnoxious so I have registered on a national telemarketing "do not call" list. Nevertheless, I probably communicate from time to time with some companies that are required to observe that list – on my own terms and schedule rather than under unfiltered assault.

It seems pretty fair to me.

(Yes, Crux is now on my "foe filter." Unlike Neck, I have no compulsion to rubberneck mayhem and carnage.)

[crux]

I have been a foe of yours since day one...

But I love to read what you say and answer. Is it a Caddie? Seriously... Has the evil right wing denied you the opportunity to thrive and buy a luxury car or SUV? Why so coy? MB? 5 series? What color, Silver or GOLD?

[Amy Probenski]

Dear Stonewall,

Thank you, thank you! Today I caught up on reading several threads here and it is absolutely amazing!

Suddenly, thanks to the new filter and my entering just a single name, all the crude and offensive graffiti is gone. Clean and nicely cozy again, it is a near miracle!

It is amazing how one's mood brightens on again seeing stimulating conversation from nice people, unblemished by intrusive and hurtful rantings.

Thank you, thank you!

[Sam]

So my good old friend, do you know something about this Amy gal we don't know? Just curious. Any way she won't have to worry herself about you thanks to the blocking stuff. Think you have Wise Guys pants in a twist. Glad you stayed. This forum ain't been so lively in a long time and it seems to me more people are posting than I have seen in awhile. Lively stuff....could we say spirited and lively . This old man needs to howl at the moon its been a long time. I am getting to old to kick up my heels guess I will have to settle for my old recliner. It ain't bad.

Its time for that jack Daniels. Come on down. We can return to normal....whatever normal means.