PDA

View Full Version : Subrscription Forums



The Weasel
12-12-2006, 15:21
It is a bit of an understatement, but there have been a number of suggestions in WB lately that if someone is unhappy with the tone of a thread in the "Subscription Forums", all that one has to do is "unsubscribe" from it.

In the two largest forums - Politics and World - there have long been topics that I find of interest and productive, particularly those relating to the environment and backpacker-related items. Others are a bit more inflammatory and, perhaps, ones I would be happier not having forwardded to me.

Is there a way to accomplish that? I'm not talking about "ignoring" anyone; while there are some here who irk me, I know of no one who does not also post useful information.

Or is it "subscribe to that forum, get it all"?

The Weasel

Alligator
12-12-2006, 15:36
Admin can unsubscibe you to any specific subforum. As far as specific threads, no.

Do you have some sort of RSS feed set up?

If your personal preferences are set to subscribe, thread subscriptions, new thread material may end up in your in box. This happens after you post to a thread. This is different though than being subscribed to a forum.

The Weasel
12-12-2006, 15:44
Then it is as I thought it was, and it is essentially "all or nothing".

Thanks for the information.

The Weasel

ed bell
12-12-2006, 15:45
There are three groups one can subscribe to and unfortunately two of them can include material that people wish to avoid and some really good thought provoking threads. I think the thick-skinned group is what the moderators use to cull out material from the rest of the non-subscription areas when they believe the subject should be available, but only by those who are prepared for quite a bit of controversy. Trouble is that the Sensetive Trail Subjects Group is not used for Politics or World Abroad Threads that start to "get out there". I'm sure that the last thing the Administrators want to do is keep adding layers of Forums to shelve all this stuff, but maybe the Sensetive Forum should be a bit more broad. My .02.

Alligator
12-12-2006, 15:52
Not exactly The Weasel. You might be able to set up an RSS feed to grab what you feel is acceptable to you. ATTroll feeds in to WB news articles of interest. These are found by search terms. I'm guessing you might be able to zero in on a particular forum and get only what you want. Since I don't have a need for this, I can't help you. Maybe someone else will:-? .

The Weasel
12-12-2006, 16:17
Not exactly The Weasel. You might be able to set up an RSS feed to grab what you feel is acceptable to you. ATTroll feeds in to WB news articles of interest. These are found by search terms. I'm guessing you might be able to zero in on a particular forum and get only what you want. Since I don't have a need for this, I can't help you. Maybe someone else will:-? .

Alligator, I think you and I here have established by this exchange that it's really a huge amount of work to exclude something once it gets to the point where it's objectionable to someone. It's not like the Hokey Pokey; either you're in, or you're out. So if someone is invited to "unsubscribe," essentially they're being asked to abandon the entire forum, not just one thread.

I have hopes that, in light of the recent posts by ATTRoll and DixiCritter, choices like that will not be as necessarily confronted as they may have been in the past.

Thanks for your information.

The Weasel

Alligator
12-12-2006, 16:34
Alligator, I think you and I here have established by this exchange that it's really a huge amount of work to exclude something once it gets to the point where it's objectionable to someone. It's not like the Hokey Pokey; either you're in, or you're out. So if someone is invited to "unsubscribe," essentially they're being asked to abandon the entire forum, not just one thread.

I have hopes that, in light of the recent posts by ATTRoll and DixiCritter, choices like that will not be as necessarily confronted as they may have been in the past.

Thanks for your information.

The WeaselI'm sorry The Weasel, but that's not what we established. We established that neither you nor I know the specifics to address your need for a personal "objectionable filter".

The low tech solution is to allow admin to decide whether the thread is objectionable, then to not click on it if you disagree with them:D .

Sly
12-12-2006, 16:45
In the two largest forums - Politics and World - there have long been topics that I find of interest and productive, particularly those relating to the environment and backpacker-related items. Others are a bit more inflammatory and, perhaps, ones I would be happier not having forwarded to me.

Backpacking and environmental issues are generally posted under: Trail Concerns, Issues & History

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23

The non-AT forums are just that, with an emphasis on politics and seldom have anything to do with backpacking or the environment.

The Weasel
12-12-2006, 19:33
I'm sorry The Weasel, but that's not what we established. We established that neither you nor I know the specifics to address your need for a personal "objectionable filter".

The low tech solution is to allow admin to decide whether the thread is objectionable, then to not click on it if you disagree with them:D .

Well, I think we both know what I'm asking, and what you're telling, and you've helped me understand the situation well.

But I don't know that any of the threads are deemd "objectionable". I know that some seem controversial, but that's not the same thing. And I know that many of the controversial ones I just don't care about. But there's no real way to winnow between them automatically. That's what I was looking for.

Thanks for your insight.

The Weasel

dixicritter
12-12-2006, 19:39
Sly, there's no need to call The Weasel a troll here. I do not believe that his post here was intended to be inflamatory, only seeking information as to how to unsubscribe from specific forums.

Things have started to settle down, let's allow them to remain calm please. I am editing out your last comments in your post.

bfitz
12-12-2006, 21:41
The new firefox browser has the rss feed set up on the address bar.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/external.php?type=RSS2&forumids=362

Alligator
12-12-2006, 23:03
The new firefox browser has the rss feed set up on the address bar.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/external.php?type=RSS2&forumids=362Been meaning to learn how to pick these up. Thanks.

However, the fact that the Non-AT forums are subscription based seems to be interfering. The icon appears, but attempting to add the feed draws a blank page.

bfitz
12-12-2006, 23:08
Hmmmm, yeah, and unless you actually were able to check all the threads how would you know which ones you wanted in your feeds anyhow?

Alligator
12-12-2006, 23:21
Tunneling down to the answer now.
1. Use a smart feed. This works with search terms.
2. The RSS aggregator needs to be able to supply credentials--username,password.

SGT Rock
12-13-2006, 06:05
I am going to add this comment here again..

I have been contemplating for a while moving the politics over to the thin-skinned forum. I don't think Troll or Dixie even really care since I am probably the only administrator that even goes there on a regular basis. I think this would help as there are some people in that politic forum that seem to only want to pick fights anyway - yet there are people that want access to some of the other off topic forum stuff without reading about all the bickering or all that less than accurate "information"

Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-13-2006, 08:49
I feel what SgtRock has suggested is an excellent idea.

TJ aka Teej
12-13-2006, 14:26
I have been contemplating for a while moving the politics over to the thin-skinned forum. I don't think Troll or Dixie even really care since I am probably the only administrator that even goes there on a regular basis. I think this would help as there are some people in that politic forum that seem to only want to pick fights anyway - yet there are people that want access to some of the other off topic forum stuff without reading about all the bickering or all that less than accurate "information"

Sounds pretty smart to me, Rock.

bfitz
12-13-2006, 19:58
Whoever goes whining and complaining when they get their egos clipped out to be ashamed of themselves.

I said it before, but maybe we could start a "minnesota smith update" style mega-thread that was only for bickering. Something gets someone annoyed and they go there to vent. It could be the WB gripe thread. If people started getting on eachother participants in a thread could tell em to take it "outside". Then it could go on forever, and mabye even provide loads of entertainment for WBers. Our rivalries are kind of, well, enjoyable. I don't think there's any sides taking it out on each other on other threads. Imagine how boring WB would be if everything was all toned down and folks like LW and JT, and others filtered all the "character" out of their posts. That's really a depressing thought IMO. What's next? The Anti-rancor-niks demanding FD stop making photoshop mockeries of WB memebers? Bluejay to stop claiming I'm insane with bloodlust? (I swear, I'll really miss that!) Where will it end? Aw shucks, maybe the glory daze are just over.:(

The Weasel
12-13-2006, 22:04
Whoever goes whining and complaining when they get their egos clipped out to be ashamed of themselves.

I said it before, but maybe we could start a "minnesota smith update" style mega-thread that was only for bickering. Something gets someone annoyed and they go there to vent. It could be the WB gripe thread. If people started getting on eachother participants in a thread could tell em to take it "outside". Then it could go on forever, and mabye even provide loads of entertainment for WBers. Our rivalries are kind of, well, enjoyable. I don't think there's any sides taking it out on each other on other threads. Imagine how boring WB would be if everything was all toned down and folks like LW and JT, and others filtered all the "character" out of their posts. That's really a depressing thought IMO. What's next? The Anti-rancor-niks demanding FD stop making photoshop mockeries of WB memebers? Bluejay to stop claiming I'm insane with bloodlust? (I swear, I'll really miss that!) Where will it end? Aw shucks, maybe the glory daze are just over.:(

Bfitz:

I say this not in a spirit of bickering, but to ask you - and perhaps others - to consider how what you consider "enjoyable" may not be as much fun for others. Set aside your preconceptions of me for a few minutes - perhaps others will, as well - and try to reflect on what I say, with as much candor as I can; I'm sorry this is so long, and hope you'll tolerate it.

Some weeks ago, I read a post of a thru hiker who had been confronted in Erwin by the police. He didn't know how it could happen and, frankly, it upset me how he was treated, and I thought that maybe if he'd known a little reliable law, things would have been better for him and might be for other hikers. I spent an hour going through WB, current and as much as I could, past, and didn't find much that told backpackers what might be considered "first aid for hikers", about topics I thought would be useful. I suspected there would be a lot more topics that others would come up with, and I also had hopes that some of the other lawyers here (and there are several), as well as law enforcement types and others with knowledge of particular topics would post, as well. I was also concerned about two things: First, a lot of laypeople "know" what the law is, but they really don't, and their well-intentioned errors can get people in trouble. A small example is the thread about "Canadian Customs" (i.e. immigration into the US), where there were several incorrect posts about passport requirements and lengths of time that a Canadian can be in the US without a visa). Second, I didn't want a "let's debate good and bad laws" thing; I wanted to try to find out what topics mattered to backpackers, and get as much input back-and-forth on that so that I could consolidate everything at some point for an article to be submitted and, I hoped, accepted.

I put these points in the very first post, and asked - not demanded, or required, or ordered, but asked if people would refrain from providing "legal opinions" in the sense of "this is the law" as well as debates, unless they had qualifications to do so. Part of that was because WB is essentially an anonymous group of people, usually without names, or any way to know if the speaker had any basis for saying "what the law is."

I probably put 30-40 hours of time into the early messages and posts, and it was, I thought, well received. Other lawyers made contributions, as did several law enforcement types, and even a doctor and, I think, an RN, as to some medico-legal issues. Suddenly several posters started posting "this is what the law says" types of messags, or wanting to argue about "the law means this or that" types of debates, and in some cases raised points or topics that were pretty clearly off-topic. To try to keep the thread from veering off, as many threads do, into a variety of "this is my opinion, dammit" subthreads, I asked, a number of times, for people to try to honor my request. I also noted, over and over, that if they didn't agree with my request, it was incredibly easy to start their own thread. No one did.

Instead, the thread increasingly became a debate thread, with more and more "who do you think you are" types of posts. As much as I would ask, "are there more questions here," I got what I viewed as attacks, sarcasm, and hostility. Several others in that thread saw the same things, and asked posters to stop doing so; among those was Sgt Rock. But after that, things became even more intemperate. And understand this: This wasn't a "debate" thread, and it wasn't even in the "normal" part of the Forum: It was put, by Rock, into "Straight Forward" to try to stop the debating and bickering. So this is where you and I differ a little - when you say that it doesn't look like this bickering happens other than in the Non-AT threads. It does. A lot.

Some of what happened in the "Law" thread appears to be that some people here despise lawyers, or don't like being told that their knowledge of something such as law is less than mine. There may be other reasons. But, uniquely of all the jobs that WB members hold, mine suddenly became one that was fair game for almost any insult. There then came a suggestion from Brrrb to create two threads, with some very specific "rules" (as Brrrb put it). I took his suggestion and loosened it up a bit, and created the two threads. One was "Lawyer Praise and Peeves". I hardly realized that it would become a thread for "how bad can we hurt Russ."

On the heels of this, I began posting in "World". I took a position that disagreed - strongly - with some very, very strong words about George Bush, which called him a "slime bag" and more. Those are harsh words, yet no one minded their harshness, it seemed, while going very intense against me for describing them as beyond the limit of fair debate. It became apparent that other opinions were allowable; mine were not. This culminated in a gloating - it seemed to me - post that equated George Bush with Hitler. Frankly, I disagree with our President about much; but, for many reason stated in that forum, I think such words are too much. Instead of disagreeing with my message, though, I got beat up pretty hard. More, I think, than WB ever was intended to permit.

So the upshot was that I had two senses of what was occurring on WB: The first was a stark application of "The Boy Scout Corrollary to Murphy's Law: No good deed will go unpunished." My effort to try to create a crib sheet for backpackers about the law was trashed. The second was, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others," in the sense that some people could state what I considered outrageous opinions, but if I challenged those statements, I was subject to attack. And, yes, I was pretty sore (not angry...sore) and, frankly, very hurt about the law thread.

I have no doubt that you enjoy WB, and perhaps you enjoy the Trail aspect of it too; it's a beautiful thing, and I'm sure it's what drew you (and most others) here at the outset. But I really mean it when I say that I think this slash-and-burn mentality to so many threads that are in the "AT" part of the forum - and the legal thread was in the "Straight Forward" segment (i.e. "straight forward question-and-answer") - that it is seriously damaging WB to the many people who don't come here for politics and all such things.

Yes, I know it's boring reading about trekking poles over and over; as a Scoutmaster for 20 years, I learned that it's not total fun teaching how to make upside down cake every year; my wife, an elementary teacher, knows even better what "repetitive teaching" means. But there is a huge value here for people with experience teaching those without it, particularly about a wonderful trail. But people ARE being scared away, both from this Forum and from the Trail by what appears to be a highly confrontational "trail mentality." Telling people that's not the case gets dubious responses. Honest.

I don't want to fight, but I have to say this: I do honorable work, as honorably and competently as I can. I'm not better in doing that than a janitor, a Senator, a teacher, or a mechanic. I view all work honestly done as worthy of admiration. And as such, when my profession - with thousands of good and dedicated lawyers who try to help others - is attacked, and I am attacked as part of it, yes, I respond. When my character - the part of me I am most proud of - is attacked, yes, I respond. I would rather not. But I can't let those things sit there; others will (and have) said, "He didn't respond...he knows it's true."

So I guess I feel very disappointed, and very sad here: I tried to do something useful, and I know it was. I saw it, from my perspective, trashed. I found myself attacked, over and over, despite the request that it stop from the one member of this forum I respect the most...and the one that I tried so hard to become the leader here...Sgt Rock.

And no one seems to mind.

So I'm sorry if you feel that I'm "against" you or others; I'm not. But there is a time to dispute, and a time not to; and there are ways to dispute, and there are ways that, well, are dangerous. I haven't seen many people say that publicly - although I have had a number who said so to me privately, along with admissions that they don't want to say so publicly because the don't want to get beat up, too. That made me feel very bad; I mean it. It means that people who I'm sure are good people - you included - are doing some damage that maybe you don't realize, and don't intend...but damage, all the same.

I've learned some lessons in the last couple of weeks. The biggest one is not to stick my head up and start a thread about "how to do" things that I know about...the law. And I've learned not to disagree with a number of people, no matter what. So WB is now a place only to take from, not give to, at least for me. To go back to reading, and not sharing.

This is long, and I'm sorry, but I'll probably have little to say in the future, although I have hopes - one last time - that someone may look at this and say to themselves, "Well, maybe we all got a little carried away." Then again, I can see them coming already...the snarky responses and more. Well, they have before, and that will tell me much, as I read and reflect, too.

But I appreciate, Bfitz, what you say, and understand, and I'm glad you posted as you did. It was honest, and that's good.

Best wishes,

The Weasel

Lone Wolf
12-13-2006, 22:13
I'll admit I got/get carried away. I will try my darndest to not get personal with you in the future. sorry if any of my ramblings hurt your feelings. I can be a dick at times. I'll make an effort to stop.

rickb
12-13-2006, 22:19
When posting here on White Blaze, Perhaps we should all consider something that was once said by Thoreau:


A manís ignorance sometimes is not only useful, but beautiful, while his knowledge, so called, is oftentimes worse than useless beside being ugly. Which is the best man to deal with, he who knows nothing about a subject, and what is extremely rare, knows that he knows nothing, ó or he who really knows something about it, but thinks that he knows all?

The Weasel
12-13-2006, 22:24
When posting here on White Blaze, Perhaps we should all consider something that was once said by Thoreau:

Yes, Rick, I take your point very clearly. As I said near the end of my way-too-long ramble, I shan't soon try to share what I know. Thank you for the pithy quote about the uselessness of knowledge; I will add that to my portfolio.

Regards,

The Weasel

rickb
12-13-2006, 22:30
With all due respect all means you, and me and everyone else who participates in a thread.

Regards,

Rick B

The Weasel
12-13-2006, 22:38
With all due respect all means you, and me and everyone else who participates in a thread.

Regards,

Rick B

Particularly the "Law for Backpackers - Q & A" thread, which, I see, has been closed. So my knowledge of the law - as a lawyer for 34 years - and yours, from whatever source, will not find a place here. Thoreau may or may not be right, but he has had the last effective word.

Thank you for your comment, Rick.

The Weasel

bfitz
12-13-2006, 22:52
I have no doubt that you enjoy WB, and perhaps you enjoy the Trail aspect of it too; it's a beautiful thing, and I'm sure it's what drew you (and most others) here at the outset. But I really mean it when I say that I think this slash-and-burn mentality to so many threads that are in the "AT" part of the forum - and the legal thread was in the "Straight Forward" segment (i.e. "straight forward question-and-answer") - that it is seriously damaging WB to the many people who don't come here for politics and all such things.
I agree.

The only threads I really argue in are ones where the topic is itself an argument, or when one is already going on and I have a point to add or a point I can't stand to see go unchallenged. I'm pretty sure I wasn't disrespectful to you on your legal thread (it was very interesting, like most criminals, I consider myself an armchair lawyer and love to explore the intricacies of "the law" mostly with the intent of finding a way to squirm out from under charges) That thread was for a while one of the better informative threads on the site. I think what happened though is that some folks felt condescended to by the way you put things when challenged. This led to a bit of mockery that wasn't too well handled by you, and that opened the door for a feeding frenzy. And I must say you can feed a frenzy, I really thought you were doing it intentionally (you're a lawyer after all, I thought you were manipulating the audience, and I don't mean that in a bad way).

I like your arguments. When you are actually refuting a point you hold your end of the argument up quite well (better than a lot of your critics, that's for sure) but when you catch a little personal ribbing, you respond to it in a way that just invites more...I don't know exactly how to describe it, it just does. I've been exchanging vicious barbs with various "members" here for years and have championed some incredibly unpopular viewpoints, but it's never really gotten out of hand like that with me, and I can't tell you exactly what makes the difference, except that I think taking everything with a bit of tongue in cheek type humor is probably key. I expect, even intentionally provoke, a certain amount of excoriation for some of things I say (one way to make a point is to have some idiot go apoplectic and display the irrationality of their own point of view, if ya know what I mean...) and have a laugh about it in the next post. If tha Wookie and Jack and Sly and I and all the others can hang around the fire and joke after the things we say on whiteblaze about each others' opinions then we all can. There can be peace in the middle east, too. It's obvious you like a good debate, I really think if you hung around for a while and participated you'd learn to enjoy our little politcal forum, and with all the attention it's getting thanks to this and other threads, I expect a lot more folks will be subscribing and checking it out!!:D

So cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!!!!!!

Blue Jay
12-13-2006, 23:05
I think what happened though is that some folks felt condescended to by the way you put things when challenged. This led to a bit of mockery that wasn't too well handled by you, and that opened the door for a feeding frenzy. And I must say you can feed a frenzy, I really thought you were doing it intentionally (you're a lawyer after all, I thought you were manipulating the audience, and I don't mean that in a bad way).
....when you catch a little personal ribbing, you respond to it in a way that just invites more...I don't know exactly how to describe it, it just does. I

I cannot believe I'm agreeing with you, however you nailed this one. Just because a weasel is a weasel, this does not mean he's a good at being a weasel. He was not doing it intentionally, he had no clue. Weasels usually respond well to other weasels because they respect each other. He clearly has nothing but contempt for us. Well the feeling is mutual.

Skidsteer
12-13-2006, 23:14
Blue Jay and Bfitz agree.
Right.

I think I better go dig out my Y2K emergency supplies.

bfitz
12-13-2006, 23:19
Naw, he may agree with me, but I don't agree that weasel has nothing but contempt for us. He has more than just contempt, I'm sure.:D

The Weasel
12-13-2006, 23:24
I cannot believe I'm agreeing with you, however you nailed this one. Just because a weasel is a weasel, this does not mean he's a good at being a weasel. He was not doing it intentionally, he had no clue. Weasels usually respond well to other weasels because they respect each other. He clearly has nothing but contempt for us. Well the feeling is mutual.

Jay, it is my sadness - not yours, obviously - that tells me that you have contempt for me without knowing me. If I had contempt for all of you ("He clearly has nothing but contempt for us") I would neither have started, nor continued, the three "Law" threads I began. If I was condescending - I respond to Bfitz - it was when I responded to those who told me I had no idea what I was talking about, or who spoke, frankly, as you do above. But my goal was to help; the goal of so many others, apparently including you, is to hurt and injury with words, and to feel that it can be done with impunity. It can't. Sometimes things that can hurt, hurt.

You are the one, as I recall, who spoke, in the "World" thread about the Iraq War, of President Bush as a "slime bag." No one else seems to have a problem with that, other than me. I have learned a valuable lesson about all of that, and you may continue to call him that, in this Forum, all you wish, it appears.

My best wishes,

The Weasel
GA-->VA '00
The rest one day...
...and for those who have condemned me for not being further, I agree. I wish I was further.

The Weasel
12-13-2006, 23:26
Naw, he may agree with me, but I don't agree that weasel has nothing but contempt for us. He has more than just contempt, I'm sure.:D

Contempt for none, Bfitz. Sadness for a few, you not among them. And regard for most.

I wish you all well,

The Weasel

Heater
12-13-2006, 23:48
Particularly the "Law for Backpackers - Q & A" thread, which, I see, has been closed. So my knowledge of the law - as a lawyer for 34 years - and yours, from whatever source, will not find a place here. Thoreau may or may not be right, but he has had the last effective word.

Thank you for your comment, Rick.

The Weasel

Geeeze! Without even realizing it, (although I have my doubts) you are being demeaning to Rick and all the other regular posters on this site with that post!

If by some incredibly uncharacteristic mistake by someone with such an "advanced intelligence" (a claim which you seem to enjoy conveying to the members of this site, ad nauseum) Rick's quote went "over your head"...

--

"A manís ignorance sometimes is not only useful, but beautiful, while his knowledge, so called, is oftentimes worse than useless beside being ugly. Which is the best man to deal with, he who knows nothing about a subject, and what is extremely rare, knows that he knows nothing, ó or he who really knows something about it, but thinks that he knows all"?

--

...perhaps you shoud read it again, over and over, until you get it!

Regarding your post earlier in the thread. Nice troll! :rolleyes:

It should get lotsa controversial responses. I especially liked the part where you said you would be expecting all the "snarky" responses after submitting the snarkiness infused, longwinded, tear jerker above.

Noice!

I just hope certain people realize that is just what it was.

:banana

P.S. Will you apologize for bringing frivolouse lawsuits into this forum anytime soon?

bfitz
12-14-2006, 00:02
Bluejay has said far worse about me. Take a little time to get to know his style and beliefs and you'll realize it's a compliment which I take to mean he's listening to what I say. (If you believed what he does you'd call GWB a slimeball, too and damn what anyone thinks...which you'd perhaps realize if you lurked for a while in the pol forum before reacting by saying his statement is an insult to those who serve, of which he is a one BTW)

The Weasel
12-14-2006, 00:24
Bluejay has said far worse about me. Take a little time to get to know his style and beliefs and you'll realize it's a compliment which I take to mean he's listening to what I say. (If you believed what he does you'd call GWB a slimeball, too and damn what anyone thinks...which you'd perhaps realize if you lurked for a while in the pol forum before reacting by saying his statement is an insult to those who serve, of which he is a one BTW)

Bfitz:

Perhaps if people read what I wrote, instead of reading who wrote it, they would have realized by now that I have never said I didn't agree with people's most harsh criticisms of what our country has done; perhaps I do, and perhaps I don't. Please understand that I've never said which, nor, in WhiteBlaze, will I. Others may state their politics here, and if that is permitted, they can do so; I simply choose not to.

But whether it is George Bush, or Bill Clinton; Lyndon Johnson or (gulp!) Richard Nixon; Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter...it doesn't matter. In a forum of any kind, administered by a member of our military on active duty in a war zone, I do not think it proper to refer to the President of the United States as Jay does. I don't care if the fight is in Vietnam or on the Mayaguez, in Panama or the sands of Iran, in Kosovo or Kuwait or Iraq. I think that's wrong.

I have paid my dues in politics far more than most, and, of the list above, met and spoken with all but one, and worked for two, and despised at least one. But here, in this forum - in WhiteBlaze - I won't call a forum administrator's ultimate boss a "slime ball" or equate him with Hitler. If I ever do that, it will be in another forum.

Nor does it matter to me whether Ernest would say the same here or not. I value him - incredibly, to me - as a friend. But my feeling about Blue Jay's words are because in addition to that, I respect the uniform he wears.

Others may differ. But let me ask you this: If you were invited into the home of a member of the military, would you look at her and say, "Your commander-in-chief is a slime bag, a slime ball, and the same as Hitler."?
I'm not asking if it's wrong to feel that way. But would you say that?

I hope I'm not offending anyone by making this point in this thread.

The Weasel

bfitz
12-14-2006, 00:33
If I was invited into a german soldier's house for dinner during WW2 I would say exactly those things and more to him, in the hopes of convincing him to turn away from evil and turn towards good.

The Weasel
12-14-2006, 00:35
Well, Aus, as Sigmund Freud actually said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

I thanked Rick, and, as I said to him, I meant it. For my long post, many will read it as it was intended: As criticism for none, but a last hope that some would see how I'd hoped to help others. And, as I said in the post to Rick that I referred to, the last "Law" thread has been closed. I do not need a long explanation from our Administrators to be understand that, since it closed, my information is not considered useful.

I knew there would be some, like Rick and Bfitz (although I hardly had any way to know it would be them) who would respond thoughtfully, and they did. I also knew there would be some, like you, who find it more satisfying to be snarky. I have no interest in the controversy any longer. But I was here at the birth of WhiteBlaze; I wish it well, as I think daily of the AT that means so much to me. And I hope that WhiteBlaze will survive despite ugliness such as your comment; it will not prosper because of it.

And I even wish you well, Aus. Perhaps one day you'll understand why.

The Weasel

bfitz
12-14-2006, 00:39
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19613

The Weasel
12-14-2006, 00:40
If I was invited into a german soldier's house for dinner during WW2 I would say exactly those things and more to him, in the hopes of convincing him to turn away from evil and turn towards good.

Bfitz: But this forum is not a German's house, and Rock is not a German soldier who is engaging in evil. (You did not mean to imply that, I know.) But that is my point: This is an American forum, and there are other things to say which are far less offensive.

B, I think you probably agree with my point, frankly. It may be trite to say that there are no good reasons for bad manners, but it's true. I think most here know that BlueJay and FD were out of line to say what they said, even though they are certainly entitled to say such things in other places. I'm not trying to rekindle it, though, and let's both of us end this (you may have the last word, if you wish) with an understanding that most of all, I'm deeply saddened that my opinions are ones that should not be uttered, while Jay's and FD's may freely be spoken. But enough. Say what you wish; you may close and I'll, for once, bide my peace.

The Weasel

The Weasel

The Old Fhart
12-14-2006, 00:47
Skidsteer-"Blue Jay and Bfitz agree.
Right.

I think I better go dig out my Y2K emergency supplies."Wait, it gets even worse, I also agree with them. If you're a religious man, start praying!:D

Heater
12-14-2006, 00:49
Well, Aus, as Sigmund Freud actually said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

I thanked Rick, and, as I said to him, I meant it. For my long post, many will read it as it was intended: As criticism for none, but a last hope that some would see how I'd hoped to help others. And, as I said in the post to Rick that I referred to, the last "Law" thread has been closed. I do not need a long explanation from our Administrators to be understand that, since it closed, my information is not considered useful.

I knew there would be some, like Rick and Bfitz (although I hardly had any way to know it would be them) who would respond thoughtfully, and they did. I also knew there would be some, like you, who find it more satisfying to be snarky. I have no interest in the controversy any longer. But I was here at the birth of WhiteBlaze; I wish it well, as I think daily of the AT that means so much to me. And I hope that WhiteBlaze will survive despite ugliness such as your comment; it will not prosper because of it.

And I even wish you well, Aus. Perhaps one day you'll understand why.

The Weasel

This is exactly the response I expected.

Unfortunately, weasie, you will probably never understand why. :(

The Weasel
12-14-2006, 00:53
Oh, I know why. That's why I said I was sad.

The Weasel

bfitz
12-14-2006, 00:56
Gripe thread now open.

(_!_)

That moon's for you old Fhart!

Heater
12-14-2006, 01:05
Oh, I know why. That's why I said I was sad.

The Weasel

You know what's "sad"?

In the last two weeks you have done more damage to the well being and harmony that has existed on this site for years than all of the trolls that have posted here since I signed up as a member.

...and because of past history, it is being ignored. THAT's sad.

Heater
12-14-2006, 01:15
You know what's "sad"?

In the last two weeks you have done more damage to the well being and harmony that has existed on this site for years than all of the trolls that have posted here since I signed up as a member.

And ya know what, Weasy? I estimate 90 percent of my fellow posters to Whiteblaze will agree with what is quoted above. 90 percent.

You should probably step back and ask yourself.... why?

Bravo
12-14-2006, 01:17
And ya know what, Weasy? I estimate 90 percent of my fellow posters to Whiteblaze will agree with what is quoted above. 90 percent.

You should probably step back and ask yourself.... why?

Do I feel a new poll coming on???

Heater
12-14-2006, 01:19
Do I feel a new poll coming on???

Let's not do that....

The Old Fhart
12-14-2006, 01:20
Bfitz-"That moon's for you old Fhart."Laughing my (_!_) off!:D

The Weasel
12-14-2006, 01:20
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19614

Bravo
12-14-2006, 01:24
Let's not do that....

I know. Just kidding. That's not cool.

TJ aka Teej
12-14-2006, 10:11
...the goal of so many others, apparently including you, is to hurt and injury with words, and to feel that it can be done with impunity. It can't. Sometimes things that can hurt, hurt.

It's often interesting to read how someone else sees things.
Especially when one has seen the very same thing.
Allow me to offer this for everyone's consideration:

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

http://www.jainworld.com/education/juniors/junles19.htm

TJ aka Teej
12-14-2006, 10:16
----------------------------

weary
12-14-2006, 10:37
"In the last two weeks you (The Weasel, I think) have done more damage to the well being and harmony that has existed on this site for years than all of the trolls that have posted here since I signed up as a member."
And ya know what, Weasy? I estimate 90 percent of my fellow posters to Whiteblaze will agree with what is quoted above. 90 percent.
I don't know how many agree with you, but the claim that The Weasel damaged the site is absurd. A professional tried to give us some legal advice, all of which struck me as excellent.

A few turned it into a bickering thread, instead. I wish The Weasel had simply ignored the comments and continued. But it wasn't he who did the damage. It was those who rejected both the message (good) and the messenger (wise, knowledgeable, but a bit thin-skinned.)

Weary

Heater
12-14-2006, 10:42
It's often interesting to read how someone else sees things.
Especially when one has seen the very same thing.
Allow me to offer this for everyone's consideration:

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

http://www.jainworld.com/education/juniors/junles19.htm

...and all this time I thought it was like a kielbasa?!! :rolleyes:

Rain Man
12-14-2006, 11:22
And ya know what, Weasy? I estimate 90 percent of my fellow posters to Whiteblaze will agree with what is quoted above. 90 percent.

Ninety percent of WhiteBlazers don't agree on any issue, much less such a controversial one. That claim is ludicrous hyperbole.


You should probably step back and ask yourself.... why?

Might be good advice. You should take it.

And all of you should stop stoking the flames. You're looking bad to 90% of us WhiteBlazers! LOL

Rain:sunMan

.

Heater
12-14-2006, 11:34
Ninety percent of WhiteBlazers don't agree on any issue, much less such a controversial one. That claim is ludicrous hyperbole.

Might be good advice. You should take it.

And all of you should stop stoking the flames. You're looking bad to 90% of us WhiteBlazers! LOL


OK. Mahnamanha...

Ewker
12-14-2006, 11:34
the ignore button works quite well also.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-14-2006, 12:23
I don't know how many agree with you, but the claim that The Weasel damaged the site is absurd. A professional tried to give us some legal advice, all of which struck me as excellent.

A few turned it into a bickering thread, instead. I wish The Weasel had simply ignored the comments and continued. But it wasn't he who did the damage. It was those who rejected both the message (good) and the messenger (wise, knowledgeable, but a bit thin-skinned.)

WearyWeary, I didn't participate in what went on in the legal thread and still got slammed over and over by this fellow in the political area because he disagreed with my take on GWB. I have no idea what he says now because I have him on ignore and don't peek. I'm not slamming him here - just pointing out that saying his behavior was provoked by what went on in the the legal thread is not entirely true.

Edited to add: judging from the supportive PM's I got - I'd say the 90% mentioned by Austex is in the right range

The Old Fhart
12-14-2006, 12:33
Austexs-"I estimate 90 percent of my fellow posters to Whiteblaze will agree with what is quoted above. 90 percent.The only quibble I have with that statement is that you may be too conservative.;)

bfitz
12-14-2006, 15:17
It's often interesting to read how someone else sees things.
Especially when one has seen the very same thing.
Allow me to offer this for everyone's consideration:

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

http://www.jainworld.com/education/juniors/junles19.htm
Isn't there a funnier version of that story....:banana ?