is there anyone here that does not know my sig is a JOKE?

[lady cop]

i refuse to rise to the bait at a very stupid thread here. but i would like to poll the regular FG posters...does anyone here find me to be a 'small dictator'? or on a power trip? i get enough real "power" on my real job. the only threads i have ever deleted are spammers, which i am supposed to do, and also i deleted a very nasty pro-pedophile who actually made threats to me on the board. i will leave the board if anyone finds me dictatorial or offensive. please don't be shy about your opinions...i am only a mod and can't ban anyone, nor would i.....and obvious to all but the most obtuse, my sig: "i have pms and a gun" is clearly humorous in intent. and subject to change frequently.

[Peg]

WTF? Don't you dare leave! Don't make me grab your handcuffs and use them on you!

[abbey]

lady cop wrote: i refuse to rise to the bait at a very stupid thread here. but i would like to poll the regular FG posters...does anyone here find me to be a small dictator? or on a power trip? i get enough real "power" on my real job. the only threads i have ever deleted are spammers, which i am supposed to do, and also i deleted a very nasty pro-pedophile who actually made threats to me on the board. i will leave the board if anyone finds me dictatorial or offensive. please don't be shy about your opinions...i am only a mod and can't ban anyone, nor would i.
LC, only a person who does'nt know you would say such things, i've always found you to be a very sweet lady, fair & square and a bloody good laugh.

Pay no mind to what this poster says about you, you've done well to stay away, i have to admit to not liking the way the threads going but choose to stay away in the hope that it will just die a death.

Chin up matey we love ya just the way you are. xxxxx

[Bill Sikes]

lady cop wrote: i refuse to rise to the bait at a very stupid thread here.


Erm... do I hear a "Gulp!" here? There's no real need to ask about the below, but since you do ask:



lady cop wrote: but i would like to poll the regular FG posters...does anyone here find me to be a small dictator? or on a power trip?


Not me....

[Saintsman]

lady cop wrote: i refuse to rise to the bait at a very stupid thread here. but i would like to poll the regular FG posters...does anyone here find me to be a small dictator? or on a power trip? i get enough real "power" on my real job. the only threads i have ever deleted are spammers, which i am supposed to do, and also i deleted a very nasty pro-pedophile who actually made threats to me on the board. i will leave the board if anyone finds me dictatorial or offensive. please don't be shy about your opinions...i am only a mod and can't ban anyone, nor would i.

Wonderful! You will engage!

First, am I to conclude that my original forum titled “Censorshit … I mean ‘ship’” is, indeed, "stupid" or is that your opinion? I would say that the number or recorded readers and responders show otherwise.

Second, you may not be able to ban anyone, but as a moderator you can delete threads based on your opinion and judgment and you are willing to do so: In your own words and I quote:

"well i'm not the moderator in this area, or i would delete your post."

This signifies judgment and irrefutable use of authority to me. Am I mistaken? This affects every person who posts while you moderate your area. Am I mistaken?

I am not concerned with your past track record of deleting other posts as much as I am with your validity and coherent rationalization of why you would or would not delete threads.

Third, please directly answer my question about Capt. Buzzard's picture of the elderly lady giving “the finger” to every viewer as being FG appropriate and suitable. Is his picture disrespectful or if deleted, a process of censorship? Again, I quote you inregards to my thread:

“it simply isn't funny, it's lame. there are other boards that might enjoy this type of "humor".

How about the picture mentioned and about a dozen other examples I have come across on this forum? I will provide the other examples should you be interested.

Finally, if I apply the English language in its proper use, how am I realistically suppose to understand your signature line that says:

"I have PMS and a gun?"

Is it a joke? If so, your joke as a moderator is okay, but my joke over the misuse of language is not okay and you would delete it?

Is it possible for such a signature line to impose and disrespect my level of intelligence and infringe upon my autonomy? Could I not say that your signature line is not a joke and say:

“it simply isn't funny, it's lame. there are other boards that might enjoy this type of "humor".

But yet, I am not allowed to delete or moderate your postings. Please explain and/or justify all the above so I have a better understanding for the truth here as well as this particular forum, which I enjoy very much.

I invite all other opinions on this matter to sound-off, especially that of Capt. Buzzard who maintains the most responses in this forum and who is a $$ contributor while Lady Cop and myself are not. (Please correct me if I am mistaken about Capt. Buzzard being a financial supporter to the site.)

[Erinna1112]

I haven't been around as long as some of the other people here but I've always perceived you to be polite, articulate, and intelligent. I've never seen you flame anyone, and I always got a chuckle out of your tagline. You and I haven't had a lot of direct interaction but in the one thread where we did, you were clear and firm in your statements, but absolutely not offensive.

I hope you don't go. You'd be missed.

[Erinna1112]

It's a common mistake to think that boards like this don't experience censorship. Sure they do. And it's perfectly proper. A place like this is roughly equivalent to being a guest in someone's home...they have every right to set standards of behavior, expect them to be followed, and remove people who do not comply.

The people who enforce these rules are known, trusted entities. Some newbie coming along with an attitude doesn't get to be a moderator, no. Financial support doesn't have a thing to do with it. You get to be a moderator by being around a while, showing that you can keep hold of your temper, and apply the rules evenhandedly. Shooting your mouth off doesn't qualify.

A sense of humor helps, though.

[lady cop]

Peg wrote: WTF? Don't you dare leave! Don't make me grab your handcuffs and use them on you!
darn! now i am scared! thanks everyone. xoxoxox

[koan]

Saintsman

you are showing low class and pseudointellectualism. I suggest that you refrain from stalking/harassing a police officer.

Lady cop earned her place as a moderator.

[polycarp]

Ladycop, you're doing a great job and you're a real cool lady. You're a blessing to the Garden. Don't even think about leaving or else I'll catch the next plane to the States and ensure that you're cuffed as Peg opined. Keep up the good job you're doing.

[valerie]

Peg wrote: WTF? Don't you dare leave! Don't make me grab your handcuffs and use them on you!


I'm with Peg. I've been known to be a pretty good tackle in my day, so

I'll get ya around about oh, say the knees and bring you down prior to

application of the handcuffs!!

Please oh please PLEASE LC, don't leave. No! That would make me so

very very sad! :-1

:yh_cry

[Saintsman]

Erinna1112 wrote: It's a common mistake to think that boards like this don't experience censorship. Sure they do. And it's perfectly proper. A place like this is roughly equivalent to being a guest in someone's home...they have every right to set standards of behavior, expect them to be followed, and remove people who do not comply.

The people who enforce these rules are known, trusted entities. Some newbie coming along with an attitude doesn't get to be a moderator, no. Financial support doesn't have a thing to do with it. You get to be a moderator by being around a while, showing that you can keep hold of your temper, and apply the rules evenhandedly. Shooting your mouth off doesn't qualify.

A sense of humor helps, though.


Okay, I grant your above interpertation, but still wonder about the controdiction in applying the "rules". Following your theory, it must be based on a superior's judgment and not an established code of conduct. Never the less, you say "some newbie" doesn't have the "right" to shoot off their mouth. Lets see, you are able to post your thoughts and you joined about one month ago. Lady Cop is a moderator and she joined two months before you. Therefore, when I have a total of three months in as a member, will I have proven my trust and thus be able to set standards, enforce them and boot people who do not comply? Is three months ample time to decide on me being a moderator or not? Are you a newbie or an "oldie?" If you are a newbie, how can I trust your assestment as you have just disqualified mine on the basis of being a newbie? If you are an "oldie", then heck, I only have a few weeks to go before I am a veteran of the forum with some power I hope.

Finally, I would also say that a person who "jokes" about possessing a gun during emotional periods of physical conditions is not using the reputatioin and responsibility of ALL those professionals who served and gave their lives in the same line of work prior to Lady Cop. I would go as far as to say a person who implies that they have a gun and will use it due to PMS is not a joke or an example of "showing you can keep hold of your temper" when your "joking" clearly controdicts your oath, control and makes amusement of irrationally employing a gun for illogical reasons.

Are there other cops that have been involved in fire-fights while in the line of duty who may have lost partners that finds this funny? I know quite a few cops that would say it is the very reason why police officers reputation is where it currently is.

Thank you for your response!

[Der Wulf]

koan wrote: Saintsman



you are showing low class and pseudointellectualism. I suggest that you refrain from stalking/harassing a police officer.



Lady cop earned her place as a moderator.
YEAH, WHAT SHE SAID.



Hey LC, ignore him, tis just a juvenile mind busy impressing himself. Me thinks he got a new thesarus for christmas when he really should have gotten a book by Ms. Manners.

:( :-5

[Saintsman]

"Hey LC, ignore him"

Ut oh, red flag showing!

I see a lot of posts expressing emotional connection to Lady Cop and I am very happy to see it! I encourage it! It was never my intent to attack her person, but instead her process of theory and action.

I am still interested in non-emotional intelligent answers to my posed queries. This is what the forum promotes. Yes, please continue your support, friendship and allegiance to Lady Cop, but will someone please directly address my questions in a fashion I can follow? Otherwise, please tell me this forum is mainly about friendships and people who willing set aside conversation that doesn’t appeal to them or invoke the seeking of truth and I will appease myself and others by joining another forum that incorporates both.

Ah, “ignore him”. Now there is a fine and intelligent response to a forum that says in its title, “discussion and debate”. Am I missing something here?

Is having a conversation that is based on expressions that may **** others off a bad thing when my only intent is to realize your position on a certain topic?

Maybe ignorance is bliss and thought stagnant. Hmmm, not for me … no thank you.

Sincerely,

Saintsman

[lady cop]

Der Wulf wrote: YEAH, WHAT SHE SAID.



Hey LC, ignore him, tis just a juvenile mind busy impressing himself. Me thinks he got a new thesarus for christmas when he really should have gotten a book by Ms. Manners.

:( :-5
thanks sweetie...i have purposely ignored the many mispellings. i am not the spelling police! the rest of it is bollocks. this is so small in comparison to what i deal with daily. one of my brothers was murdered two days ago. this is nothing compared to that. (see thread i started "manhunt" in crime forum.)

[Bill Sikes]

Hey, Saints - you juvenile old thesaurus-possessing ill-mannered low class stalker and pseudointellectual harasser of police officers, you - are you related to one "Paula", of this forum? Hopefully, when the smoke has died down a bit, perceptions will improve.

[Bill Sikes]

Saintsman wrote: [will someone please directly address my questions in a fashion I can follow?


Please will you reiterate those questions concisely? I've lost the gist.

[Saintsman]

lady cop wrote: thanks sweetie...i have purposely ignored the many mispellings. i am not the spelling police! the rest of it is bollocks. this is so small in comparison to what i deal with daily.


Ah, but up to this point ... you have ABSOLUTELY refused and ignored my question concerning Capt. Buzzard along with several others. Is that how you operate? Ignore the issue and hope it goes away? Why are you part of this forum then? And a cop too? Sure, you can continue to ignore my questions, but everyone else that belongs to this forum or who is visiting it may be wondering why you refuse to answer a simple question? Here it is again in the case you forgot it ... or are purposely ignoring it:

Third, please directly answer my question about Capt. Buzzard's picture of the elderly lady giving “the finger” to every viewer as being FG appropriate and suitable. Is his picture disrespectful or if deleted, a process of censorship? Again, I quote you inregards to my thread:

“it simply isn't funny, it's lame. there are other boards that might enjoy this type of "humor".

As far as spelling errors I made have typed prior, please bear with me as I am thinking faster than I can type, but am trying to adhere to all grammar rules. Please don't call the kettle black when you are guilty of the same or cast the first stone when you are not without the same fault. I will try harder to avoid spelling errors or missing words when I type. Is this acceptable?

I would rather address the meat of the subject instead of bringing up a spelling error here or there that most all posting people have committed in an unintentional way.

[Saintsman]

Bill Sikes wrote: Hey, Saints - you juvenile old thesaurus-possessing ill-mannered low class stalker and pseudointellectual harasser of police officers, you - are you related to one "Paula", of this forum? Hopefully, when the smoke has died down a bit, perceptions will improve.


Damn it all to HELL, Bill, did not I TELL you that you were not allowed to respond anymore unless I say so! You are of a very belligerent sort and very likely in need of being deleted. And what the Hell, re-read the stinkin' posts to get the gist. DO NOT impose on me!

Now, where was I in my logical rhetoric?

Ah yes, I was about to ask where the heck JIVES is when I need him!!!!!!!! :-5

And where in God's green Irish earth is Capt. Buzzard. I am inpatient and busy! Put your two cents (sense) in please.

[koan]

Saintsman wrote: Damn it all to HELL, Bill, did not I TELL you that you were not allowed to respond anymore unless I say so! You are of a very belligerent sort and very likely in need of being deleted. And what the Hell, re-read the stinkin' posts to get the gist. DO NOT impose on me!

Now, where was I in my logical rhetoric?

Ah yes, I was about to ask where the heck JIVES is when I need him!!!!!!!! :-5

And where in God's green Irish earth is Capt. Buzzard. I am inpatient and busy! Put your two cents (sense) in please.


You want intelligent answers to unintelligent questions. I reiterate. Low class. Pseudointellectual. Who do you think you are telling someone they may or may not respond? It is you who impose. You impose your idiocy on the rest of the members demanding respect I doubt you will ever earn. I am putting you on my ignore list and I suggest anyone else fed up with this pompous @ss do the same.

Farewell.

[Saintsman]

Bill Sikes wrote: Hey, Saints - you juvenile old thesaurus-possessing ill-mannered low class stalker and pseudointellectual harasser of police officers, you - are you related to one "Paula", of this forum? Hopefully, when the smoke has died down a bit, perceptions will improve.

Bill, even though I told you to no longer resond, can I steal your word as my new screen name on this forum: pseudointellectual ... or was that from that Canadian who accused me of that? Either way, I like it! It is so fitting, especially when I can not seem to get an intelligent response.

"All of life was emotions, until man discovered rational thought."

[Saintsman]

koan wrote: You want intelligent answers to unintelligent questions. I reiterate. Low class. Pseudointellectual. Who do you think you are telling someone they may or may not respond? It is you who impose. You impose your idiocy on the rest of the members demanding respect I doubt you will ever earn. I am putting you on my ignore list and I suggest anyone else fed up with this pompous @ss do the same.

Farewell.


FINALLY, I HAVE FOUND THE LOGIC ABOVE TO A FORUM THAT CLAIMS DEBATE AND DISCUSSION. Well, I will only apply her reaction to her and not the whole. Is her solution intelligent and suitable. I see it as avoidance and ignorant.

Meanwhile, I truly would be interested in a legitimate response to my questions posed to Lady Cop or at least the "tipping over of her king" to end this thread. I posed my questions in a respectful and coherent manner.

[Saintsman]

"I suggest that you refrain from stalking/harassing a police officer."

This is a very interesting quote, especially in my profession. What grounds has the accusser legitimately established to make such a claim? You can name-call all day, but what our U.S.A. societey tolerates apparently doesn't apply to your Canadian interpertation. Know the law before you speak. I assure you, I DO.

[lady cop]

i need to be gone for a while...all the people who have pm-ed me...thanks. i suggest only one thing. you can put anyone you want to on "ignore". i have. ...wow! thanks Florrie and Tmbsgrl! xoxoxox

[Saintsman]

tmbsgrl wrote: You know i was going to post an ignorant comment on you immature and IGNORANT you are acting but You are simply not worth it.. You are not worth the Arguement. Good-bye


My goodness! For me being a "newbie", look at the effect I am having! How is this possible. These responders are starting to drop like flies on this post. "Farwell" and "Good-bye" without answering the actual question! Does logic and explanation hold such power to have those who are unable to reply in a suitable or long-held intelligent practice of debate simply conceed and quit?

I guess I am guilty of inciting biased people to show their colors (or colours depending where you are from, aye!)

[Der Wulf]

Dear Head Gardner,

Would you please remove the flamer "saintsman" from the garden, the stench is becoming nauseating. In the interest of democratic form, any other votes for his removal? :-5

[Jives]

(Jives reads thread) Lady Cop is a MOD?!! Oh...Yeah...haha... I knew that.

Well I mod my own boards so I understand the concept of a forum, people will bandy about all kinds of ideas and all kinds of humor. Thin -skinned people should probably not attend.

As for your sigs, Lc, I find them hilarious as well as some of your posts. Personally, you have to be a TAD meglomanical to even be a police officer (or teacher for that matter.)

After all, you will be completely in charge of people, groups even, and you have to be the leader which implies self-confidence.

I also sympathize with the underlying theory here, that police officers and teachers aren't human. They are altruistic machines that never make mistakes. Once I had to go to the bathroom while I was teaching a third grade class. when I explained I had to leave for a minute, one child asked, "You mean teachers go the the bathroom too?" (They also thought I lived at the school.)

I'm sure that the same applies to police officers. If someone sees them going 2 miles over the speed limit, it's "How dare they!" even though they, themselves, are going 10 MPH over the limit at the time.

[koan]

I vote for his removal. I have already "ignored" him and the air smells much sweeter.

[lady cop]

Der Wulf wrote: Dear Head Gardner,

Would you please remove the flamer "saintsman" from the garden, the stench is becoming nauseating. In the interest of democratic form, any other votes for his removal? :-5
thankyou Der Wulf...and others as well....i have no more say here than you do, so i implore admin to dump this jerk. this place is usually quite placid and calm and does not need this garbage.

[lady cop]

and Jives...you are so right! you can't be a cop if you are shy or reticent. you need some cojones to do what cops do. and let me tell you, being a female cop is even more so! men that i arrest get very angry and defensive about a woman cop nailing hem.

[Saintsman]

lady cop wrote: i need to be gone for a while...all the people who have pm-ed me...thanks. i suggest only one thing. you can put anyone you want to on "ignore". i have. ...wow! thanks Florrie and Tmbsgrl! xoxoxox

There you have it. It is now official. The king has been tipped by Lady Cop and I quoute:



"you can put anyone you want to on "ignore". i have."

The debate has ended without Lady Cop EVER addressing or answering my direct and reasonable questions. She quit and I still am unsure, as most should be, on her stance. She, instead, employed the act of ignoring and running instead of standing her ground. It is my opinion that I would not want any so-called officer of the law in my city covering any beat.

Please, and this is a respectful and humbling plea, can ANYONE tell me Lady Cop took this thread and its pertinent questions seriously and responded in a logical, intelligent and supporting way to back her statement about censoring threads?

It never happened. I accept the tipping of the King and am happy to see this one die off. My position does not change. It was never challenged in a manner suitable for discussion and debate. I respenct the opinions posted by all, but have not found the justification outside of opinion.

Now, I must return to the real debate that my life operates around with a much different audience, participants and real consequences that follow an orderly manner of established rules and Protocol ... and not that of emotions reigning superior. Indeed, the first way is the best for any aspect of experiencing a fulfilling life.

Cheers!

PS. For tmbsgrl, Lady Cop and Koan, does this mean we can't do lunch anytime in the near future?

[minks]

lady cop wrote: and Jives...you are so right! you can't be a cop if you are shy or reticent. you need some cojones to do what cops do. you get it man!


I vote we keep him around and poke him with sticks a wee bit longer.

Hey Saints maybe you could try restating your questions and concerns and add in an example or 2 and allow us all to understand what the burr under your saddle really is. I just signed on and am confused as to what your upset about, it appears to be some kind of double standard thing. Go on direct me to where this all fell apart for you and lets take a boo. You know it is really bad forum netiquitte to come in here as a newbie and spout off your displeasure right away.

We here like to believe we are a fair and tolerant forum that enjoys a good debate but please don't start things with weapons drawn. It gets everyones hackles up and you will end up the looser.

[Raven]

:-2 did I miss something?

[lady cop]

"quote" is spelled q-u-o-t-e. and if i had time i would address all the other words you have mispelled. but that is of no consequence. the only thing of any consequence here is your comment about my job and my duty and my capability...i am a law enforcement officer in excellent standing and you are a jackass. on your best day you couldn't do what i do. i will not dignify your stupidity and ignorance any further.

[Saintsman]

[QUOTE=minks]I vote we keep him around and poke him with sticks a wee bit longer.

Thank you for an intelligent response! I have no burr under my saddle or displeasure I suffer from on this forum. I simply posed several questions concerning a blatant contradiction that Lady Cop made, but she has chosen not to address it by instead ignoring it.

My point is that in any issue or debate, (and I am sorry, I would only hope you would consider re-reading this thread and the one titled "Censorshit" instead of me repeating it all for the sake of all readers) anyhow, on any issue or debate, ignoring an intelligent question and incorporating emotions is not the best result. It produces ill-ends. That is what happen here. I have apparently attacked the camaraderie of certain members because I had the audacity to question moderator Lady Cop who clearly said she would delete my thread because she feels it is unacceptable. When I debated this issue, she refused to answer and had me simply subjected to her power and authority on this forum, which would not work in my profession for sure! Anyhow, a "forum" is for discussion, debate, friendship, stories and even questions.

Look how many people stated that I should be removed because I dare question Lady Cop while she refused to answer. They hurled insults my way and drastic opinions of an ill nature, but never addressed the issue as our forum promotes. Is this the way this forum you mention in your above post operates? It is refreshing to see you say that such action is not appropriate. HOORAY! No dictatorship or removal due to blatant biases.

If I had to reiterate any one question to you, it would boil down to this:

If I don't subscribe or appeal to the prejudices and philosophy of existing members (who have clearly stated their position for my removal), does this forum feel ethically justified in my removal. I assure you ... and please re-read my posts, I do so in an intelligent and respectful way when questioning anyone ... except for Bill and Jives at times, because we understand the humor involved in certain comments and do not take offense. My questions to Lady Cop in either thread have been serious, straight-forward and non-joking.

Thank you for the breath of fresh air. :-6

[Lon]

lady cop wrote: i refuse to rise to the bait at a very stupid thread here. but i would like to poll the regular FG posters...does anyone here find me to be a 'small dictator'? or on a power trip? i get enough real "power" on my real job. the only threads i have ever deleted are spammers, which i am supposed to do, and also i deleted a very nasty pro-pedophile who actually made threats to me on the board. i will leave the board if anyone finds me dictatorial or offensive. please don't be shy about your opinions...i am only a mod and can't ban anyone, nor would i.
You do a fine job LC. Only wimps & whiners would think you are dictatorial.

[lady cop]

oh just go away.

[Saintsman]

lady cop wrote: "quote" is spelled q-u-o-t-e. and if i had time i would address all the other words you have mispelled. but that is of no consequence. the only thing of any consequence here is your comment about my job and my duty and my capability...i am a law enforcement officer in excellent standing and you are a jackass. on your best day you couldn't do what i do. i will not dignify your stupidity and ignorance any further.


I now appeal to you Godiva Girl and Minks in expressing my point. Is the above quote one based on emotion and irrational expressions of communication or is it one of intelligent debate in a non-prejudice and neutral ground. My questions have been of an intelligent and non-prejudice base and not that of emotion. I never called Lady Cop a "Jackass" and ironically, she is using foul language, the very reason she said she would delete my original post. Instead, I have made it clear that Lady Cop is a infinitely worthy soul as we all are, but as finite humans, we tend to error and learn to advance our knowledge. I was asking her to explain her stance to enlighten my understanding so my view not be a dead dogma, but instead you can see by reading the above quote what I got in return. This is the response from a moderator and cop no less!

[Saintsman]

Congratulations to this thread and the one of mine earlier. It has successfully generated over 500 views and multiple responses from a variety of opinions in just a couple of hours on the page!

I assert that the very nature and reason for a forum to exist has just taken place.

Kuddos to all! I am very pleased with our ability to openly express ideas for others to see and respond to.

[lady cop]

to all FG people...i am asking you all to put saintsman' on "ignore" and let his idiocy die out. i thank you in advance. further, not to bump this thread anymore and give it a forum.

[sohcahtoa]

[QUOTE=minks]I vote we keep him around and poke him with sticks a wee bit longer.

I agree. There needs to be a thread called "community behaviour" or something similar where meta-issues can be discussed.

("Meta issues" being things such as "is an internet forum more of a conversation or is it more like publishing?" "who has the right to the content of the forum" "does every poster have an equal voice?, why or why not?" ...issues pertaining to the culture of the forumgarden itself. Where are we? where would we like to go with this forum? what would we like it to be?)

I don't even lurk enough to know Lady Cop or Saintsman well enough to have an opinion on either's personal character as they choose to present it on the internet I cannot participate knowledgeably in a discussion about "is Saintsman being mean to Lady Cop? is Lady Cop being unreasonable?" I haven't got a clue.

I see everyone who posts in a not pay-to-play forum as having the right to be there, as long as they obey the terms of service to the best of their ability. We are not all going to like each other.

I would prefer not to take sides in this kerfluffle that doesn't involve me. If you ban Saintsman for merely being obnoxious, you've made up my mind for me by choosing the other side whether or not I wanted to, or whether or not I agree, or even whether or not I have a dog in this fight at all.

However, the issue of "who has more of a say in any internet forum" *is* of intellectual interest to me. It is a larger issue that is lurking beneath this discussion.

If the point of the forum is to establish friendships of a sort, a "place" of chatting between acquaintances, then it will follow that one establishes one's right to belong in the group. If it is more like publishing, then everyone's point of view is more or less equal in value although not in popularity. There must be subltelties in between.

I'm not likely going to use to bozo filter on anyone. I'm glad it exists for those who want it: it serves their purpose (avoiding contact with people/posts that **** them off). Banning to me is an extreme measure, useful only when a poster is interfering with the operation of the forum (ie hacking into it) or revealing real-life info about other posters against their will. Compromising the integrity of either the software or the pseuds we use. Otherwise, bozo filter away, everyone, to suit yourself.

Please don't choose for me who my fellow posters are by banning them unless they present immediate and real danger, because the *content* of the forum is what's important! If the quality of the content is high, naturally it attracts more quality posts/more quality posters. Those who exist merely to trouble the quality, serious posters, tend to fall away quietly in a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest way. And more trolls (or just plain people with little to contribute) will happen by.

It happens often that I run across posters on the 'net who offend me, tick me off, even make me feel very angry or sick. But I'm not going to give that irriating poster a universal value of 0. It's possible that my view of them is entirely subjective. I'm willing to say that it is CERTAIN that my view is subjective. A consensus is not a universal truth, folks. I'm not necessarily right because people agree with me and I'm not necessarily wrong because they don't. Same as anyone else. The irritating poster's presence does not diminish mine. No need to leave out of irritation.

I beg all to *ignore* those who bother you: either just inwardly or with the actual bozo filter, so that others may make up their own minds vis a vis the supposedly irritating person.

Otherwise, a forum can become so polarised by disallowing potential offense that they don't even allow sad truths to be spoken aloud and it's all one big circle of self-congratulatory BS. I've seen it happen elsewhere:any dissenting voice silenced by supposed TOS violations. Be aware that if you ban people entirely, you run the risk of developing nothing but a very boring little clique of people who already think exactly the same way and who dare not speak something that could be taken as insult, simply because it is probably unpleasant to hear.

I have faith in my fellow human beings that we can all handle being somewhere that there are people whom we dislike and who dislike us, and still be content to speak in the same circles, allowing the other to have their say, even if we ourselves choose not to listen to that person.

That's just my 97 cents. Carry on.

[Saintsman]

lady cop wrote: to all FG people...i am asking you all to put saintsman' on "ignore" and let his idiocy die out. i thank you in advance. further, not to bump this thread anymore and give it a forum.


Again, I ask, is this the intelligent way for our viewers and visitors who have been following this thread to act? Imagine this happening in any court of law in any free nation. How would that play out? Why urge individuals who can read and think for themselves to follow a request of "ignoring" an issue. I give them more credit and respect than that. I suggest they do as they see fit, whether it be continuing the thread that you started or putting my screen name on ignore.