Karl`s PC Help Forums

It's very quiet in here
LSemmens - 14-3-2009 at 10:27

Where is everyone hiding? I went to bed and slept all night, got up, and worked all day and am now back here nearly 24Hrs later and there have been only 8 posts in that time! Come back Scholar, all is forgiven! We need you! Oh Giron, please come home, Scholar misses you! Charles, hasn't Manchuria Untied done anything "notable" of late? John, please give Charles something to argue about. DW, we miss you! Mary, Janet, Waffler and RW have, at least looked in and said hello!

Maybe I should get up to mischeif, that might bring some of you out!


waffler - 14-3-2009 at 12:06

BOO:mgun)


Quaver - 14-3-2009 at 12:40

Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
Maybe I should get up to mischeif, that might bring some of you out!

Start awaywaveysmiley


Katzy - 14-3-2009 at 16:40

Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmensCharles, hasn't Manchuria Untied done anything "notable" of late?


lips_sealedlips_sealedlips_sealedlips_sealedlips_sealedlips_sealedlips_sealed


waffler - 15-3-2009 at 01:59

Still quiet


scholar - 15-3-2009 at 02:24

My 166 MHz machine with a 33.6 Kbps modem is being greatly taxed to do much of anything. Some files that I try to download stop partway through the process because the source cuts me off for taking too long.

I'll try to put in some posts, but I won't be back at regular speed, until I have a machine that can send at my usual blazing 56 Kbps.rolls_eyes


janet - 15-3-2009 at 08:24

Thing is, it's all much of a muchness.

All discussions come back to the same three or four topics, no matter how they start out.


Theravad - 15-3-2009 at 09:55

Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
Where is everyone hiding? !


Just been sooooooooooooooooooo busy. Chasing work to try and make a living, travelling and the proverbial hit the fan at school with a budget cut so trying to sort that out whilst planning a potential move from 2-form to 3-form entry.

Not enough hours in the day :(

T


scholar - 15-3-2009 at 11:46

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
All discussions come back to the same three or four topics, no matter how they start out.
Unless you define a topic VERY BROADLY (such as, "human activity"), I think a review of the last one hundred threads would quickly show a lot more than three or four topics, by at least an order of magnitude.:)


LSemmens - 15-3-2009 at 13:42

I know where Janet is coming from Scholar and, often threads do diminish to the same few "old chestnuts", but that shouldn't stop us from trying, though! So far, this thread hasn't "deteriorated".


dux001 - 15-3-2009 at 17:58

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Thing is, it's all much of a muchness.

All discussions come back to the same three or four topics, no matter how they start out.

You would say that, since you've set up your own forum. kewl_glasses


janet - 15-3-2009 at 18:27

Quote:
Originally posted by dux001
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Thing is, it's all much of a muchness.

All discussions come back to the same three or four topics, no matter how they start out.

You would say that, since you've set up your own forum. kewl_glasses


Actually, that's unfair.

I was saying it for months before that happened - in fact, the fact that I'd been saying it and doing what I could to change it, to little or no avail, is one of the reasons the other arose.

I put my time in before the mast here. I won't rehearse it all - but to suggest that I got bored and went off and did my own thing is really not fair. It happened because I got too discouraged, as well as other factors. However, I've not mentioned it here and won't - it wasn't set up as a rival.


victor - 15-3-2009 at 18:31

That's it Janet you tell em all guns blazing. ;):D

Better still. skidaddle


janet - 15-3-2009 at 18:33

No guns blazing at all.

Disagreeing with someone is NOT shooting them down.

It's part of what *discussion* is all about.

Which is another thing I've been saying here for months, to little avail. I've realised that discussion is not welcome here, dissention is not welcome, saying, "I disagree with you" is considered somehow wrong.

Ergo - I post little.


marymary100 - 15-3-2009 at 19:10

We all post on other sites from time to time. Other sites wax and wane as well so I don't think that it's a major catastrophy if we're quiet for a while. The truth is that we all come back when something interests us.

Other sites have different styles- some are mostly chatty, others are fluffy, some are advice sites, some flame other posters, some are fantasy scenarios and others are deadly serious where every post needs to be Harvard referenced, almost.

KF retains a loyal band of followers who are usually delighted when someone new joins in to bring a fresh perspective.


scholar - 15-3-2009 at 21:00

Certainly, in human discourse, themes of interest to those in conversations will come up again and again. KF would not be the forum that it is if those involved would decide--"We've already had hundreds of posts about computer problems. Enough!" Or, "We've had plenty of sports posts already!" Or, if posts of more local interest to UK or to the States would be eliminated, as if those living in one could have no interest in the other.

I find that discussions in person have common themes--the weather, eating (restaurants and/or recipes), health problems (more so as one's circle gets older), entertainment, recent experiences. But I've never dropped any friends because they return to similar themes.

And, at KF, if you don't have an interest in a post, we each have the freedom to skip what doesn't interest us, and instead to start a thread in which we have more interest.

Serious discussions are welcome, and are of great interest to me. I do prefer that such discussions deal with the topic and propositions about the topic, rather than peripheral or personal comments.;)


janet - 15-3-2009 at 21:15

My point stands - as is evidenced by this thread and more than I wish to count.

Discussion is not really welcome.

Fluffy posts, links - these, yes.

Serious discussion, which involves debate, disagreement, etc., is not welcome - that's been made remarkably plain.


scholar - 15-3-2009 at 21:36

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
My point stands - as is evidenced by this thread and more than I wish to count.

Discussion is not really welcome.

Serious discussion, which involves debate, disagreement, etc., is not welcome - that's been made remarkably plain.
I do welcome serious discussion. Your contrary assertion does not stand--elementary logic.

Why would you say that such a false statement is "remarkably plain"?


janet - 15-3-2009 at 21:53

You are not modstaff, nor are you the only poster here. I did not say that scholar does not welcome these things. I said they are not welcome here. Unless there has been a change, you are not KF.


marymary100 - 15-3-2009 at 22:03

KF isn't any one poster. Nor is it the modstaff.

It is the sum of all who post here and what they choose to do with the posting opportunity provided by the site.


janet - 15-3-2009 at 22:07

But when modstaff make it clear that robust discussion is not welcome, it has more effect than any one poster, surely.

It's neither good nor bad - but it is an explanation.


marymary100 - 15-3-2009 at 22:20

It depends on the interpretation of robust I should imagine. If the post complies with forum rules then there shouldn't be a problem.

I've been on some sites where discussion seems to mean being deliberately rude to the other posters. I avoid those sorts of places, as you know. Life is too short.

A genuine discussion where people lay out their stalls while not really expecting others to change their long held opinions is what I for one would hope for.

I disagree because...

Moreover...

The corollary of this is...

Surely we are up to that.


janet - 15-3-2009 at 22:22

I would have thought so but experience tells me otherwise.


Nimuae - 16-3-2009 at 01:20

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
It depends on the interpretation of robust I should imagine. If the post complies with forum rules then there shouldn't be a problem.

I've been on some sites where discussion seems to mean being deliberately rude to the other posters. I avoid those sorts of places, as you know. Life is too short.

A genuine discussion where people lay out their stalls while not really expecting others to change their long held opinions is what I for one would hope for.

I disagree because...

Moreover...

The corollary of this is...

Surely we are up to that.



One of the things I like best about KF is that it is - and always has been - abuse free. I dislike fora where every other word is an expletive.


Redwolf5150 - 16-3-2009 at 03:08

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
But when modstaff make it clear that robust discussion is not welcome, it has more effect than any one poster, surely.

It's neither good nor bad - but it is an explanation.


I disagree.

There have been times when the discussion got quite robust, to the point where I'd have liked to have seen it reined in.

The mods, in their infinte wisdom, let it run its course, however.

That's what keeps me coming back. That and the sense of family we have here. We share the highs and lows of each other's lives.

Only one other board I've found on the internet where it's been like that. And that one flamed out a couple years ago.

kewl_glasses


scholar - 16-3-2009 at 04:26

I am of the opinion that to say "serious discussion is not welcome here" as a truthful assertion would require that serious discussion is not welcomed by anyone here. (Like, "No crows are allowed in the house" is false if even one crow is allowed in the house.)

I actually think MOST of KF likes serious discussions, even if many do not participate in some of them.

I like serious discussion of a topic. Such discussions can further mutual understanding. They invite exchange of information. They challenge me to refine the expression of my position, or even to change my position, on the topics of discussion.


LSemmens - 16-3-2009 at 06:39

I tend to be more guilty of gently pulling the reigns on some discussions than some of the other mods. My reasoning is this. I'd rather be accused of stifling discussion than see other members become offended because of cooments made. I've never had cause to close a thread, that has been Dot's call every time that I know of. I have said, "take it easy" on more than one occasion. Those who feel that I am abusing my power are more than welcome to complain to the management.

I stay here, and have attached my name (as staff) to this forum because I like the ethos. I may not agree with every topic of discussion, nor may I like every topic, but I still participate because we have all, I hope, learned to respect one another, and treat one another with due consideration.


janet - 16-3-2009 at 09:08

The fact remains that people have voted with their feet.

I no longer enter discussions that will become robust or in which I will disagree with anyone for precisely the reason seen in this thread - I disagreed with someone, politely, and the suggestion was made that it was too much. Mods have quashed perfectly acceptable discussions for the same reason. The admin has said that she doesn't understand the difference between playing the ball and playing the player.

It's quiet because people are bored. This has been pointed out by many others, not just me. They're bored because of the paucity of subjects. I'm bored because I will no longer enter a thread (in general) where I might disagree with someone.

Intellectual debate *requires* different view points. Saying, "I disagree with you" is not saying "You are evil", "I don't respect you" etc. It's entirely possible to do this without resorting to personal attack, but here, it is not welcomed.

I stand by that statement - when the admin makes it clear as she has, I think that's enough to say "it is not welcome here".


LSemmens - 16-3-2009 at 11:28

You are welcome to your opinions, Janet, as is anyone else here. I will disagree with your attacks upon our admin. She, and Karl have both allowed robust discussion and that, within certain limits.I have also had to rescind some of my decisions early in the piece owing to a different interpretation between me and Karl. That was his decision, and I respected that, I still did not agree.

[/Leigh Mode]I am speaking as Leigh now, not as a mod, so please understand that the following is my opinion only. I would much rather say this to your face than on public forum, but that is impractical. "I have noticed, Janet, that it appears that whenever another person does voice an opinion differing to your own, you bring out the old chestnut as you have in your last post." I agree, some people have left, that is their choice, some have returned, and they are always welcomed. I have modified my viewpoint on many topics as a result of your input, Janet, and I am thankful for that. F'rinstance, I had a very limited understanding of Catholicism until you took the time to point me to valuable resources. It has given me a more rounded understanding of why Catholics worship as they do. [/Leigh Mode]


janet - 16-3-2009 at 11:38

See?

Where, where, WHERE did I attack the admin?

I did nothing of the kind.

Yet, in stating something *which is fact*, I'm merely repeating something she said herself, I'm accused of an attack.

I think my case rests.


LSemmens - 16-3-2009 at 12:52

I am not aware that Dot has ever publicly expressed that view. (I am prepared to stand corrected on that point.) Regardless of whether Dot has expressed that view, or not, the other mods do know the difference and, in all cases that I've been involved with, the discussion has not been quashed, how many threads have been closed, not many at all, and those that have, have been for very good reasons, and only after due consideration by the mod staff. If someone comments that it is getting a little too heated, or personal, do you interpret that as being over zealous?


janet - 16-3-2009 at 12:55

The point remains, Leigh. I said "Dot has said X" and you accuse me of attacking her.

I did not do so.

Actually, I've just gone back and reread that exchange. I'd forgotten Dot's parting comment to me, I should have remembered it. I came back at someone's request, to help with a specific thing. I'll try to do better this time.


Mary2 - 16-3-2009 at 13:16

I think that the forum has grown over time and those who were here in the early days might perhaps miss the way it used to be. I hesitate to use the word "evolved" but that is precisely what happened.

People left and started up their own forums where they could have the dubious pleasure/responsibility of being in charge of the ball to be played, some joined other forums that they preferred while some joined other forums but continued to post here. It's horses for courses. Some did vote with their feet but that is fair enough. Those who are left need to post on the topics that interest them enough to try and engage others in conversation.

It's interesting to me that some are not quite so eager to go in assuming the worst on other sites and are a bit more prepared to give some leeway, being a bit more jocular in their approach elsewhere.

Discussion? Great! Bring it on. The more topics the better. Really!

We can do fluffy, we can do links, we can do chat but it would be nice if we could be grown up and interesting enough to discuss adult topics - even the contentious ones - without it descending into evident anger and personal attacks. (btw this is a general comment not aimed at anyone in particular)


Quaver - 16-3-2009 at 13:45

This thread was successful:D

Discussions should work so long as everyone respects other people's views. No need to agree/correct them, it's only a forum.

I know some are more 'educated' and have more experience and qualifications etc, but this is a forum for all. Let's be civil:D


scholar - 16-3-2009 at 16:44

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
The point remains, Leigh. I said "Dot has said X" and you accuse me of attacking her.

I did not do so.

Actually, I've just gone back and reread that exchange. I'd forgotten Dot's parting comment to me, I should have remembered it. I came back at someone's request, to help with a specific thing. I'll try to do better this time.
It is unfortunate that, having found that exchange, you did not share it, so that others could review it and make up their own minds.

My recollection is that, in a discussion in which Janet was not playing the ball, but rather the player, I was the player, and Dreamweaver spoke protectively of me, asking Janet to play the ball. Janet complained that she had not done anything wrong; she felt that she had followed the letter of the rules, and criticized Dreamweaver for not being able to prove otherwise.

I again thank DW for coming to my defense doffs_cap (I remember how Karl used to make posts of caution from time to time, when members would get too personal.) DW's gentleness to Janet on that occasion is commendable.

I recall that Dreamweaver said something to the effect that, if Janet was unhappy, she didn't have to continue posting (but, the context was THAT thread, THAT topic--NOT that Janet should no longer post in KF AT ALL, as she seems to be falsely taking it).

Janet, I wish you would engage in serious discussions here, and accept any cautionary comments with humility. Our Scriptures say, "Do not let the sun go down on your anger"--you don't have to carry a grudge against Dreamweaver for correcting you weeks ago.:)


marymary100 - 16-3-2009 at 17:07

Personally I think it's a mistake to say what another poster means.


I will be moving this to discussion for obvious reasons. ;)


delanti - 16-3-2009 at 18:49

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Personally I think it's a mistake to say what another poster means.


I agree 100%. I would not be so presumptuous as to attempt to interpret what someone else wrote. It is their thoughts and their words, let it stand as such.

As for discussion of interesting things, If I want to discuss religion, I can engage Scholar, Leigh or one of the various John's. If I want to discuss something in the construction line, I would bypass Scholar but engage Leigh or one of the other such inclined posters. Were I a soccer fan I would be challenging Charles, the fan of fans. If I get a virus, I am going to be looking for Pancake or one of the other virus experts.

If I had the education and knowledge to discuss Quantum Theory I would probably not attempt such a discussion here. Not that some one here might not have some knowledge on the subject but I would look for a forum where I could debate with those on the highest level of knowledge who might challenge me and my thoughts.

I try to refrain from going to the homeless shelter and engaging the residents there in a discussion on Politics and Government just to massage my ego

I debated splitting my post into 2 parts so MM100 does not think I am directing my comments at her which I am not. I decided to leave it as it is and just note that my comments are about the posting in general and hope the general don't get mad at me. waveysmiley


marymary100 - 16-3-2009 at 19:05

As far as I'm concerned sticking to the issues is the "general" idea. Discuss the topic, or not, in the dedicated thread.

If only a few, or even just the OP wants to discuss a particular topic then so be it. You (pl) choose.

Alternatively if everyone wants to have chatty threads then that is what will happen on here and the decision is yours. The forum will rise or fall on the strength of the membership and end up as the type of forum you make it.
:)


scholar - 16-3-2009 at 19:09

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Personally I think it's a mistake to say what another poster means.
Dreamweaver, if I am mistaken in what I think to be your meaning, I am certainly willing to be corrected.doffs_cap

That would model what I hold to be the greater principle--the humility and willingness to be corrected, and then to continue to contribute posts to KF generously.


Daz - 16-3-2009 at 20:23

FWIW, and it's IMHO only, Janet did not play the player at all, I and made this clear at the time, to all relevant parties both publicly and privately. But it seems some people are all too keen to dish things out, but not take it in return.

Answering a question when it's raised in any debate, is an essential way for it to proceed in a proper manner, without that facet to the subject, it's a pointless exercise. Again, IMHO only.

I am also extremely grateful for Janet for making the return to KF, as it was my fault she got suckered back in again. Whilst I'm very grateful for the help, support and advice she gave me, again both publicly and privately, I do now feel somewhat guilty that this whole sorry subject has raised it's ugly head yet again.

All parties have (yet again, IMHO) made mistakes, but that is indeed part of being human,

**it happens, but I can completely understand why Janet feels a little aggrieved, although perhaps because of past events, she may have become a little over sensitive in some instances. But I for one, hope she sticks two fingers up, and continues to post anyway. KF is much poorer for her absence, yes, again IMHO.

____

This post, is entirely IMHO, in case you hadn't sussed that...! ;)

smokin:


marymary100 - 16-3-2009 at 20:31

You must try harder to form an opinion Daz. ;)


Daz - 16-3-2009 at 20:32

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
You must try harder to form an opinion Daz. ;)


Indeed. ;)


Swish Checkley - 16-3-2009 at 20:44

I feel I ought to be contributing to this thread somehow but I have mixed feelings on the matter. My own reasons for not posting much lately are mainly that I have been struggling with Stuff (TM) and that grief and stress have been getting on top of me leaving me little inclination for either fluff or serious discussion (though I've never been terribly inclined towards the latter). However, I do also have a sense that the same old arguments are being played out here and that is rather wearing. :( on the flip side to that I shall never forget or cease to be grateful for the support I had from Karls forums during one of the more difficult times of my life, from members who are no longer with us and members who are still here. So I'm still here. waveysmiley


scholar - 17-3-2009 at 03:23

Quote:
Originally posted by Daz
Answering a question when it's raised in any debate, is an essential way for it to proceed in a proper manner, without that facet to the subject, it's a pointless exercise. Again, IMHO only.
My response to this is a tangeant, but I thought it might be worth a few words. My remarks are general, as I do not have whichever posts to which Daz refers before me.

In discussions in which I am advocating a particular position, I attempt to paint a picture of my position in positive terms--perhaps with elements of knowledge, examples which support my position, points of logic, arguments from experience, etc. It falls to others to picture an alternative. I may point out weaknesses in theirs, as they may do in mine.
If questioned, I may respond to make my position clearer, or to refine it, or to better defend it. If I question others, it is up to them to decide whether to respond or not--I don't control their side of the discussion to direct them to answer, nor do they have control of mine.

I do well NOT to entertain distractions, questions which are irrelevant to the truth of the proposition, or questions which adopt a false premise. For example, if I am proposing that "A" is true, whether I am an authority on "A" is irrelevant (since the truth or falseness of the proposition does not depend on my authority); whether "A" is stated in peer-reviewed journals is irrelevant (if "A" is indeed true, then any journals which agree are right, and any which disagree are in error); whether I can cite books or articles is irrelevant (since the verity of the books or articles depends on whether they agree with what is true--the fact that someone has made assertions on a subject says nothing of whether their writings are right in their assertions); whether most scientists presently agree with me is irrelevant (since the prevailing opinion of scientists changes from century to century and decade to decade--what is thought to be true now may be discarded when another model is adopted).

I invite those who champion a different position to make as good a case as they can. But, I am not especially happy when, if they cannot make a good case for an alternative, they try to "win" by demanding to control my side of the discussion in addition to theirs by setting the agenda and requirements for the discussion.
Quote:
I am also extremely grateful for Janet for making the return to KF
. . . .
But I for one, hope she {sticks two fingers up} [I don't know what that signifies confused2], and continues to post anyway. KF is much poorer for her absence,.
I definitely agree with the part I understand.;)


LSemmens - 17-3-2009 at 12:24

Thank you for moving it Mary, I'd forgotten where I'd posted it originally, such was my interest in the discussion.


delanti - 17-3-2009 at 14:35

Discretion is the better part of valor they say. Browsing the posts, I noticed Leigh posted about the young man that killed 12 in Germany.

Reading the article, I at first felt that I wanted to make a reply to the post. However, knowing Leighs stance on firearms ownership, I felt that if I replied we would have again another hash, rehash of his views against my views. But why? We both know where the other stands and I know I will never change his view to which he is entitled, so I passed on posting a reply.

Whats so hard about that? confused2


LSemmens - 18-3-2009 at 13:16

Nothing at all, Delanti! I respect your position.
For what it's worth, I am not totally against firearm ownership, or firearms in their own right. I have been known to pop off a round or six in my time. What I am against is carte blanche firearm ownership as illustrated in the 'states and in the article I posted. If you are interested in more info, I'll post more detail of my thoughts in that thread.


delanti - 18-3-2009 at 21:01

I am quite sure I understand your stance Leigh from all the past postings. While the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms it has not stopped the States from putting some prohibitions on that.

In regard to hand guns, in NY State in order to buy and own a hand gun you must first take and pass a test on handgun use and safety. then make an application with fingerprints taken at the Sheriffs Office and passport type photo. The application must be accompanied by 3 references who will be mailed queries as to your reputation, background and if they would recommend you receive a permit. Once that is processed and you receive a permit to purchase, you buy a handgun then take that to the Sheriffs Department and register the serial number and get the number on your permit and you are good to go. But even after all that, I can not carry it in New York City as they issue their own separate permits for the City it self. In contrast, here in NC all you need do is get a permit to purchase from the Sheriff , buy the gun and you are done but that is just to own, not to carry it concealed. When I moved here, I just brought my guns from NY down but then took the concealed gun course and obtained a Concealed carry permit that is recognized in 33 states.

When you purchase a long gun or ammunition you have to show identification anyway. So long guns are automatically registered with the Government. Every firearm dealer is supposed to have a Federal Firearms License to sell firearms and every sale is supposed to documented so "legal" sales to criminals and idiots are supposed to be restricted. Unfortunately, people always find ways around the rules, that's why we have laws and Police to enforce them.

As far as long guns, laws that Congress has tried to pass to restrict or license have been idiotic to say the least. Instead of setting down with the NRA and drawing up some restrictions that everyone could live with, they write laws that are so broad that they include guns that many people use for hunting. For example they tried to pass a law that said if you have a semi automatic rifle that holds more than 8 rounds, it is illegal. I have a 22 rim fire simi automatic rifle that holds 16 rounds in a tubular magazine. Should that be classified the same as a AK47?

If the members of Congress really wanted to, they could, working with the NRA come up with some laws that could help limit the now broad ownership of guns. The problem is they are more interested in using gun control as a source of funding and votes for re-election than in making a difference. They promise the anti gunners the moon and then submit some stupid legislation that has no chance of passing then throw up their are arms and say "that darned NRA is too powerful". Until the next election.

So, you see there are some limitations on gun ownership, it is not still the old wild west where everyone can just go out and buy a gun no questions asked even though the media sometimes like to make it look like that. If I had a son who was unstable, I would temporarily remove all firearms until the situation was such that it would be safe to have them back. waveysmiley Just my 2 cents.


LSemmens - 19-3-2009 at 11:41

Thanks for that explanation, Delanti.