Thinking of Leaving

[Dale Seago]

. . .when I returned home on Friday after spending the day in Joplin and seeing what I described to you in a PM, reading the bickering in this thread suddenly seemed silly.

That sounds like, if anything, an understatement.

[Jock Scot]

Is it not the whole point of a website like this to escape from the realities of life and as we all have seen, those realities are, I am afraid, often rather mundane and on occasion, grim.

It is quite right to be well aware of what is going on in this undoubtedly harsh world we live in and I think we all just need to put kilts, kilt attire, websites, et al into perspective.Yes this website is supposed to inform, educate, share experiences, make us smile, laugh and yes, sometimes cry. However we look at this, it is a means to escape the hum drum world for a wee while------ and------- it is supposed to be fun! I don't come to this website for an argument, or to get upset, and I don't think that any of us do and inevitably opinions will differ-----OF COURSE THEY WILL--------but for heavens sake let us all get real.

KILTS ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

[biblemonkey]

Bingo, cousin. You've summarized what I was just about to write. Good thinking runs in the family, don't you think?

By the way, I'm glad we have Mods who do investigate things. My complaint is with whomever reports unimportant things, which takes away from the Moderators' time to post their own thoughts, pictures and opinions. I enjoy every Mod's posts, and wish they were free of the unnecessary burden of chasing down petty reports of rule-breaking. If they were, I'd imagine that they could then go after important, gross violations and enjoy their "job" here much more.

***

I am glad that this has turned into such a hearty and mature discussion. Some have taken it the wrong way but the vast majority have been helpfull in some way. It has made me glad for the forum and (most of) the people here. Bless you guys. You've helped me feel a bit better and proven that the majority are wonderful people and the thinned skinned may need to look to themselves for the problem. There are rules and reasons for the rules but the abuse of same for personal vendetta is never appropriate. Thanks for bolstering the positive. Maybe I'll stick around for a bit and see how things go. Maybe the easily offended see the light now and I won't have to worry about an attack because of a poorly chosen word or two.

Thank you,
Hugh

[Tobus]

Yes, I agree... Although the last 3 pages or so contributed very little in the way of constructive discussion. When threads like this degenerate into idle drivel, it may not be a bad idea to lock them and move on.

Why? If it's interesting enough to a couple of people that they continue to post in it, it's obviously not "drivel" to them. If you don't want to read it, then don't. But there's no need to lock a thread to force people to "move on" if they're still enjoying themselves and doing no harm.

[CDNSushi]

Why? If it's interesting enough to a couple of people that they continue to post in it, it's obviously not "drivel" to them. If you don't want to read it, then don't. But there's no need to lock a thread to force people to "move on" if they're still enjoying themselves and doing no harm.

If something becomes interesting to but a few people then wouldn't you agree it might be something better expressed by PM or in a social group? Otherwise, to the rest, it's merely chaff that detracts from the point of the thread. Maybe I'm weird that way, but if I start talking about computers I don't want to finish talking about sandwiches... ith: I've been around enough online forums to know that threadjacks seldom please the OP, especially when they have a specific objective in mind...

[AFS1970]

I don't think anything here has reached the level of a threadjack, changes to this discussion have been more organic and subtle. As for when something leaves the minds of the majority, just about any thread here could be said to only appeal to some members. We all have our areas of refined interest within kilts and XMTS. For me when I look at new posts, I read the ones that the titles seem interesting. Of those I only post in a small number of them. I doubt that I use any method that is not used by many other members here also.

Based on his last post, Biblemonkey seems to have no problem with the path this thread has taken, and he is the OP. So I say let this go on and it, like all other forum threads, will one day fade away into the mists all by itself.

[Tobus]

If something becomes interesting to but a few people then wouldn't you agree it might be something better expressed by PM or in a social group?

No, I wouldn't agree. This is the nature of public discussion forums. Not everyone is going to be interested in every conversation. When I see a thread where people are talking about stuff that doesn't interest me, I close it and move on. I don't tell them to take it to PM, and quite frankly I think it's pretty odd to think that there should be some sort of minimum participation level for a thread to remain open to the public.

Otherwise, to the rest, it's merely chaff that detracts from the point of the thread. Maybe I'm weird that way, but if I start talking about computers I don't want to finish talking about sandwiches... ith: I've been around enough online forums to know that threadjacks seldom please the OP, especially when they have a specific objective in mind...

With all due respect, I don't think the OP should "own" the thread. Once a person puts out a public discussion and welcome others into it, it's pretty arrogant to tell them that the conversation MUST follow a certain path. The nature of human conversation is such that it seldom follows straight lines. Only in formal debates should anyone have to worry about such petty rules. On a casual forum like this one, people should be free to let their discussions wander, so long as it's not being obviously hijacked for nefarious purposes.

If the OP has asked a specific question or is trying to keep a seriously focused conversation going on an important topic, there's always the option to request that other non-pertinent replies be split off into a separate thread. But there's certainly no reason that the original thread should be closed, locked, or subject to any other draconian tactics when people are just having friendly conversation.

This dives to the heart of the subject that spawned this thread. Aside from the mysterious "post reporters", I see a lot of threads closed down on this forum due to "request by the OP". I think that does all of us a disservice by allowing one person to control a conversation. Once he puts it out there in the public domain, as it were, it should be free for all members to join in. And here's where I would turn the tables on your reply: if you only want a select few to be involved, why don't you take it to PM or a social group? Why invite the general membership to talk with you if you want to limit the replies?

I don't want to come across as angry or rude, so forgive me if I'm being too direct here. But this is one of the things that I think a lot of people are having issues with. They sign up for this forum under the impression that as long as they don't violate the pre-defined rules, they will be free to talk amongst friends. Sadly, though, they find that their conversations are often cut short due to nameless, faceless meddlers.

"Chaff", as you call it, is part of human interactions. We're not automatons. It's a bit severe to disallow friendly banter. In fact, it's that friendly banter which gives a forum character and personality.

[Chirs]

It seems to me that the point of this thread is the balance between majority rules and individual rights. The OP asks whether or not it's acceptable for a "thin-skinned" minority to rule over the forum and have some posts locked because of (possible) transgressions. Steve Ashton has said that, if the majority of the members would offer their comments on sequestered threads, the moderators would be able to take a wider view. In essence, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" so, unless the majority speaks up, the minority will have their say (understanding that there are rules to be followed, that the moderators are not simple-minded servants who do as they're told, that there is deliberation of any complaints, et cetera).

The issues of this thread (of this forum?) are the issues of nations. At what point do we go from protecting the individual from the oppression of the majority (most societies today have some form of individual rights which are there specifically to limit the ability of the majority to control the minority) and how far do we go to ensure the collective sensibilities in the face of the one who would like to see things changed according to their own vision? Even the vision of the majority is not the single, cohesive picture that many would like to believe so, even if we did decide to follow the 'vision of the majority', what exactly would that look like? The best we could do, I would suspect, is agree upon vague generalities that would look much like a constitution (or a list of rules), leaving the finer points to be worked out as part of the process of life. This should all seem very familiar because it is the way the majority of us (it would seem to me) live our lives - it is a foundation piece of any democracy.

I would say that this thread is still very much alive. This is a topic that has been going on for at least five hundred years in our corner of the world, and shall continue well into the foreseeable future. This conversation is vital to any community and, although we must all live our lives beyond what is said here, the conversation is something that we can never say is over.

At least, that's how I see it at this moment.

[Chirs]

No, I wouldn't agree. This is the nature of public discussion forums. Not everyone is going to be interested in every conversation. When I see a thread where people are talking about stuff that doesn't interest me, I close it and move on. I don't tell them to take it to PM, and quite frankly I think it's pretty odd to think that there should be some sort of minimum participation level for a thread to remain open to the public.


With all due respect, I don't think the OP should "own" the thread. Once a person puts out a public discussion and welcome others into it, it's pretty arrogant to tell them that the conversation MUST follow a certain path. The nature of human conversation is such that it seldom follows straight lines. Only in formal debates should anyone have to worry about such petty rules. On a casual forum like this one, people should be free to let their discussions wander, so long as it's not being obviously hijacked for nefarious purposes.

If the OP has asked a specific question or is trying to keep a seriously focused conversation going on an important topic, there's always the option to request that other non-pertinent replies be split off into a separate thread. But there's certainly no reason that the original thread should be closed, locked, or subject to any other draconian tactics when people are just having friendly conversation.

This dives to the heart of the subject that spawned this thread. Aside from the mysterious "post reporters", I see a lot of threads closed down on this forum due to "request by the OP". I think that does all of us a disservice by allowing one person to control a conversation. Once he puts it out there in the public domain, as it were, it should be free for all members to join in. And here's where I would turn the tables on your reply: if you only want a select few to be involved, why don't you take it to PM or a social group? Why invite the general membership to talk with you if you want to limit the replies?

I don't want to come across as angry or rude, so forgive me if I'm being too direct here. But this is one of the things that I think a lot of people are having issues with. They sign up for this forum under the impression that as long as they don't violate the pre-defined rules, they will be free to talk amongst friends. Sadly, though, they find that their conversations are often cut short due to nameless, faceless meddlers.

"Chaff", as you call it, is part of human interactions. We're not automatons. It's a bit severe to disallow friendly banter. In fact, it's that friendly banter which gives a forum character and personality.

[Cowher]

+2