I am out of here

by Aussie Oz 83 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  paul from cleveland

  To me, the original thread was simply about communication styles and whether or not they're effective at communicating our thoughts. It's something I think about because I want to be heard myself.

  I skip many posts after reading the first sentence or two because of the style. Either they're to religious or too vulgar but usually because they're not succinct.

  The only issue with the thread in question is that it singled out one particular person's style. I'd be interested in exploring that subject again but in a more general way.
• 

  Nebeska Nada

  PAUL, it's me! Titus! How are you?
• 

  Terry

  The interesting and logical test of any RULE is to apply that rule to ITSELF.

  Apply the following rule to the rule itself and think about it:

  Saying someone shouldn't post in a certain style or using certain words is a personal attack. And those are not allowed here.

  Would it not logically follow that creating such a rule automatically creates a personal attack?

  Food for thought. Does a moderator who applies the rule not automatically violate it at the same time??

  Rules which are self-refuting are bound to be unenforceable without repercussion.

  Just a passing thought.....

  One way or another there is going to be a line you don't cross with somebody.

  In a forum which allows TOTAL FREEDOM for public discourse, sooner or later, somebody is going to verbally

  BURN THE KORAN (so to speak). We all know what happens when you cross that line.

  So, it is up to each of us to NOT do that.

  If we each SELF-regulate that is the honor system.

  We demonstrate how honorable we are by not crossing the line.

  The choice becomes: Self-regulation or Chaos and "Koran burning".

  Scary choice, huh?
• 

  bohm

  I think the dangerous thing is that the rules are consistently being broken by many posters, how many here have not been off-topic? used provoking language? and for instance Alice has made multiple accounts.

  So when the rules are enforced and some thread is deleted, should a moderator choose to make an argument why this behaviour was punished it is not proper just to refer to the posting guidelines, rather an argument should be made why the posting guidelines was enforced in this particular instance.

  this is, ofcourse, assuming the moderators should offer rational arguments why a give thread is deleted and be subject to enquiry. i dont really have a particular view on that subject.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Temper Tantrums are alive and well on JWN..LOL!!

  

  Beat the Drum ..I`m Leaving!.. Beat the Drum ..I`m Leaving Too!..

  Next morning..Everyone is still here..LOL!!..

  Jesus H Christ on a Cracker..Getting a Thread or a post pulled is not a big deal..

  It`s happened to me more than once..LOL!!..

  If a post or thread is considered unacceptable,it gets pulled..

  Some of the stuff I write sometimes goes over the top..

  The mods have a job to do..It`s nothing personal..

  Now I`m going to enjoy my Tea..

  And..

  You can`t have any!..

  ...................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  Nickolas

  I'd like to read the offending thread and post, myself. One of the consequences of not spending most of one's time on this board, as some do, is that you miss so much. However, I'm not sure what is missed is worth the dedication. Sometimes I'd like to advise some of you folks to get out and expand your horizons a bit, but to each his/her own.

  The ironic thing about this thread is it laments an apparent stifling of freedom of speech, but from what I understand the tempest is over objections to an individual poster's (Shelby's) writing style which is itself a subset of freedom of speech. The serpent eats its tail.

  I would never want to be a moderator in here. The old saw about herding cats comes to mind.
• 

  OUTLAW

  The ironic thing about this thread is it laments an apparent stifling of freedom of speech, but from what I understand

  the tempest is over objections to an individual poster's (Shelby's) writing style which is itself a subset of freedom of speech. The serpent eats its tail.

  I would never want to be a moderator in here. The old saw about herding cats comes to mind......Nickolas

  You and me both..The Mods are pretty Easy Going..

  The Crap they sometimes have to Put Up With,would Piss me Right Off..LOL!!

  ...................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  caliber

  Saying someone shouldn't post in a certain style or using certain words is a personal attack. And those are not allowed here. See Guideline #2

  There aren't a lot of people who post here using the particular style he was complaining about. In fact I can only think onf 1 but then I don't read the entire website.

  Attack ideas not people. Discuss ideas, not people. And if it really irks you how a person posts then doin't read it.

  What about the personal responsibility of the person attacking? They want someone else to change how they post (not what they post but how) so their sensibilities are not disruptive. What about their own responsibility to pass over it so they are offended (.. Lady Lee)

  I think these guidelines from Wikipedia helps clarify Lady Lee's point...

  There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: (Wikipedia )

  Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor

  Definition of EPITHET (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disparage

  a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase
  His charitable works have earned him the epithet “Mr. Philanthropy

  a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase

  disparaging defined...

  1.
  to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle: Do not disparage good manners.
  2.
  to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of:
• 

  Simon

  Wow, way to not 'overreact'.

  You're topic was locked. Big deal. It wasn't really discussing much other than saying how certain people annoy you and became an excuse for people to pile on.

  They you make another topic demanding your 'right' to have the last word. Sorry, you don't have that right, it's not your forum.

  Have a nice day.
• 

  Simon

  The ironic thing about this thread is it laments an apparent stifling of freedom of speech, but from what I understand the tempest is over objections to an individual poster's (Shelby's) writing style which is itself a subset of freedom of speech. The serpent eats its tail.

  LOL, I didn't pick up on that but you're spot on.

  Apparently, some people are all for their own absolute rights and freedom of speech but other people's? No so much ...