If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
CAT LADY WANTED
On Jul 13, 2:41*am, wrote:
Wayne Mitchell wrote: * *"Jofirey" wrote: * I'd like to see this thread die a natural death, * ...whereas I find it one of the more interesting off-topic threads I've * encountered here. *Different strokes. Thank you for saying this. There are a lot of people who read and contribute to this newsgroup, and not everything is going to interest everyone. I kill a lot of threads myself, not because I have deep negative feelings about them, but just because I'm not that interested, and I spend a lot of time on the computer as it is. One question that nobody ever answers is, "Why do you (whomever I may happen to be asking) believe that you must read every article posted here?" That seems to be the underlying belief behind some people's apparent need to control what is posted here (or on any open-ended online community. If people post things that offend me, my response is to offer an argument against it, or to let the poster know why I feel offended. But it's not my usual style to ask the person to stop talking about it. If people aren't interested in my point of view and continue saying things that I find offensive, I kill the thread. If a subject simply doesn't interest me, I kill it right away. I spend too much time on the computer as it is. One of the benefits of online conversation is that unlike in a live conversation, you can completely ignore parts of it without being rude. Why not take advantage of that and ignore the stuff you don't feel like reading, instead of telling people who are interested to stop talking about it? I'm serious. I would really like to hear serious answers to that question. -- Joyce * ^..^ I don't read every single post, either; and many times I drop a thread if I'm not particuarly interested. Like someone else said recently, no one is the Moderator/Grand Poopaw of any newsgroup. No one has the right to ask anyone to stop talking about a particular topic. Some have a newsreader with the ability to killfile. There's nothing wrong with expressing your displeasure with a thread when you drop out either, IMO. (We all know Evelyn's signature PLONK! :-) I don't think that's what Jo was implying, though, when she said she wished the thread would die a natural death. I've silently wished that too about other threads, because I *don't* have the ability to killfile a whole thread, and sometimes lack the willpower not to look at a train wreck of a thread. shrug This one I thought was interesting though. We already have established taboo subjects, but that form of censorship is okay with me. That part isn't any different from a conversation in-real-life where you tactfully avoid certain topics that you already know will end in an argument. I can't see why this thread would offend anyone's sensibilities. Everyone seems to be in agreement on the basic level, and the original poster is probably long gone anyway. I do't remember any poster ever being asked to drop a subject. Maybe once, it seems I remember one about politics, but am not quite sure. Have they? Sherry |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
CAT LADY WANTED
"Sherry" wrote in message ... On Jul 13, 2:41 am, wrote: Wayne Mitchell wrote: "Jofirey" wrote: I'd like to see this thread die a natural death, ...whereas I find it one of the more interesting off-topic threads I've encountered here. Different strokes. Thank you for saying this. There are a lot of people who read and contribute to this newsgroup, and not everything is going to interest everyone. I kill a lot of threads myself, not because I have deep negative feelings about them, but just because I'm not that interested, and I spend a lot of time on the computer as it is. One question that nobody ever answers is, "Why do you (whomever I may happen to be asking) believe that you must read every article posted here?" That seems to be the underlying belief behind some people's apparent need to control what is posted here (or on any open-ended online community. If people post things that offend me, my response is to offer an argument against it, or to let the poster know why I feel offended. But it's not my usual style to ask the person to stop talking about it. If people aren't interested in my point of view and continue saying things that I find offensive, I kill the thread. If a subject simply doesn't interest me, I kill it right away. I spend too much time on the computer as it is. One of the benefits of online conversation is that unlike in a live conversation, you can completely ignore parts of it without being rude. Why not take advantage of that and ignore the stuff you don't feel like reading, instead of telling people who are interested to stop talking about it? I'm serious. I would really like to hear serious answers to that question. -- Joyce ^..^ I don't read every single post, either; and many times I drop a thread if I'm not particuarly interested. Like someone else said recently, no one is the Moderator/Grand Poopaw of any newsgroup. No one has the right to ask anyone to stop talking about a particular topic. Some have a newsreader with the ability to killfile. There's nothing wrong with expressing your displeasure with a thread when you drop out either, IMO. (We all know Evelyn's signature PLONK! :-) I don't think that's what Jo was implying, though, when she said she wished the thread would die a natural death. I've silently wished that too about other threads, because I *don't* have the ability to killfile a whole thread, and sometimes lack the willpower not to look at a train wreck of a thread. shrug This one I thought was interesting though. We already have established taboo subjects, but that form of censorship is okay with me. That part isn't any different from a conversation in-real-life where you tactfully avoid certain topics that you already know will end in an argument. I can't see why this thread would offend anyone's sensibilities. Everyone seems to be in agreement on the basic level, and the original poster is probably long gone anyway. I do't remember any poster ever being asked to drop a subject. Maybe once, it seems I remember one about politics, but am not quite sure. Have they? Sherry *********************** I wasn't intending to tell everyone they must drop the subject. I find it tiresome but, so what? If it were attracting nut cases from outside the group it might be different. Of if it were causing squabbling. So if we are still on the subject, anyone else here enjoy "Wire in the Blood" on BBC as much as I do? Jo |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
CAT LADY WANTED
Sherry wrote: I don't read every single post, either; and many times I drop a thread if I'm not particuarly interested. Like someone else said recently, no one is the Moderator/Grand Poopaw of any newsgroup. No one has the right to ask anyone to stop talking about a particular topic. Some have a newsreader with the ability to killfile. There's nothing wrong with expressing your displeasure with a thread when you drop out either, IMO. (We all know Evelyn's signature PLONK! :-) I don't think that's what Jo was implying, though, when she said she wished the thread would die a natural death. I've silently wished that too about other threads, because I *don't* have the ability to killfile a whole thread, and sometimes lack the willpower not to look at a train wreck of a thread. shrug This one I thought was interesting though. We already have established taboo subjects, but that form of censorship is okay with me. That part isn't any different from a conversation in-real-life where you tactfully avoid certain topics that you already know will end in an argument. I can't see why this thread would offend anyone's sensibilities. Everyone seems to be in agreement on the basic level, and the original poster is probably long gone anyway. I don't remember any poster ever being asked to drop a subject. Maybe once, it seems I remember one about politics, but am not quite sure. Have they? Sherry I think the prevailing tendency has been to simply begin posting recipes, which was the standard treatment for trolls, when I first started posting here. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
CAT LADY WANTED
Sherry wrote:
We already have established taboo subjects, but that form of censorship is okay with me. That part isn't any different from a conversation in-real-life where you tactfully avoid certain topics that you already know will end in an argument. Other than specific cat-related taboos (such as advocating cruelty or engaging in indoor vs. outdoor arguments), I'm not aware of any other explicit taboos. "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote: I think the prevailing tendency has been to simply begin posting recipes, which was the standard treatment for trolls, when I first started posting here. For trolls, yes. But for a regular poster who is posting on a subject that doesn't interest you? -- Joyce ^..^ (To email me, remove the X's from my user name.) |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
CAT LADY WANTED
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Update on old lady cat | ~Echo~ | Cat health & behaviour | 2 | April 8th 06 03:49 AM |
cat lady | Bridget | Cat anecdotes | 16 | February 20th 06 04:13 PM |
Cat Lady | [email protected] | Cat anecdotes | 4 | June 12th 05 03:57 PM |
Such a little lady | O J | Cat anecdotes | 102 | October 13th 04 03:04 AM |
The Bag Lady | O J | Cat anecdotes | 9 | September 17th 04 12:39 PM |