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!
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.
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.
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".
That's it Janet you tell em all guns blazing.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
The corollary of this is...
Surely we are up to that.
I would have thought so but experience tells me otherwise.
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.
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.
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".
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]
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.
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?
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.
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)
This thread was successful
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
Personally I think it's a mistake to say what another poster means.
I will be moving this to discussion for obvious reasons.
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.
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...!
You must try harder to form an opinion Daz.
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.
Thank you for moving it Mary, I'd forgotten where I'd posted it originally, such was my interest in the discussion.
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?
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.
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. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for that explanation, Delanti.