Hair-trigger?

[jGilder]

I notice that there is no "Dale is not deleting threads too quickly" choice in your lists that corresponds to the quite simple "Dale is deleting threads too quickly" choice.

I find that often your polls have this biased slant to them.

Actually, "Dale is very careful about which threads he deletes" sounds very much like, "Dale is not deleting threads too quickly."

I find that often your responses to my polls have this biased slant to them.

They don't sound alike to me...you can be of the opinion that Dale is being very careful and still is deleting too quickly. If you intended there to be neutral mutually exclusive choices, why not put them? Like I said..bias.

I find that often your responses to my resopnses never really seem to address the substance of what I've said.

"Dale is very careful (as in -- not too hasty) about which threads he deletes" = "Dale is not deleting threads too quickly."

Hello?

[jGilder]

This thread is one example. If Dale thought I was insinuating that he's incompetent or something like that -- he would have deleted it.

Not necessarily.

Agreed. I should have said -- if he thought it was disruptive. Having said that, I'm glad I'm not the one making these decisions.

[Dale]

If Dale thought I was insinuating that he's incompetent or something like that -- he would have deleted it.

Not so. In fact, more experienced readers of Chiff & Fipple will be able to vouch for the fact that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, questions my competence more than I do. Or more competently.

[anniemcu]

I notice that there is no "Dale is not deleting threads too quickly" choice in your lists that corresponds to the quite simple "Dale is deleting threads too quickly" choice.

I find that often your polls have this biased slant to them.

Actually, "Dale is very careful about which threads he deletes" sounds very much like, "Dale is not deleting threads too quickly."

I find that often your responses to my polls have this biased slant to them.

They don't sound alike to me...you can be of the opinion that Dale is being very careful and still is deleting too quickly. If you intended there to be neutral mutually exclusive choices, why not put them? Like I said..bias.

I find that often your responses to my resopnses never really seem to address the substance of what I've said.

It was clear to me that the second choice was a thumbs up for Dale and the way he's dealing with deletions - so equivelent to "not deleting too quickly". It seems like you may be looking for bias to the point of inserting it where it isn't.

[jGilder]

If Dale thought I was insinuating that he's incompetent or something like that -- he would have deleted it.

Not so. In fact, more experienced readers of Chiff & Fipple will be able to vouch for the fact that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, questions my competence more than I do. Or more competently.

Right, like I said to Jerry... you seem to weigh whether the post is disruptive or not. I was just saying that about this thread.

I understand your motives, and I agree, but in the case of the thread about the right-wing Christian who made those ridiculous claims, it didn't seem like the thread was disruptive to me. There were a couple of people that reacted strongly and stormed out of the thread, but most people seemed to understand what the gist was. If you can get a thread deleted by simply reacting dramatically and storming out -- it will be easy to do for anyone that doesn't like a particular thread or the person posting it. Personally, I thought it was a good thread and I'm sorry it didn't carry through. I'm not directing this at you, Dale, but rather, I would just like to see a little more tolerance from everyone on some of these threads. Sometimes I think people are posting emotionally and not giving enough thought and consideration to their response.

Ok... dog pile on Jack time.

[anniemcu]

... in the case of the thread about the right-wing Christian who made those ridiculous claims, it didn't seem like the thread was disruptive to me. There were a couple of people that reacted strongly and stormed out of the thread, but most people seemed to understand what the gist was. If you can get a thread deleted by simply reacting dramatically and storming out -- it will be easy to do for anyone that doesn't like a particular thread or the person posting it. Personally, I thought it was a good thread and I'm sorry it didn't carry through. I'm not directing this at you, Dale, but rather, I would just like to see a little more tolerance from everyone on some of these threads. Sometimes I think people are posting emotionally and not giving enough thought and consideration to their response.

Ok... dog pile on Jack time.

I didn't think the initial post was particularly disruptive, just informative of a disruption 'in the force', so to speak... but some of the responses were!
I will continue to think about what was posted for info, though the way the thread was going, I won't miss it.

[Dale]

If Dale thought I was insinuating that he's incompetent or something like that -- he would have deleted it.

Not so. In fact, more experienced readers of Chiff & Fipple will be able to vouch for the fact that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, questions my competence more than I do. Or more competently.

Right, like I said to Jerry... you seem to weigh whether the post is disruptive or not. I was just saying that about this thread.

I understand your motives, and I agree, but in the case of the thread about the right-wing Christian who made those ridiculous claims, it didn't seem like the thread was disruptive to me. There were a couple of people that reacted strongly and stormed out of the thread, but most people seemed to understand what the gist was. If you can get a thread deleted by simply reacting dramatically and storming out -- it will be easy to do for anyone that doesn't like a particular thread or the person posting it. Personally, I thought it was a good thread and I'm sorry it didn't carry through. I'm not directing this at you, Dale, but rather, I would just like to see a little more tolerance from everyone on some of these threads. Sometimes I think people are posting emotionally and not giving enough thought and consideration to their response.

Ok... dog pile on Jack time.

What I'd like to see, quite honestly, is less political posting on the pub. Now, I am quick to add I know that I've been a major participant over the years in political posts. When people have expressed problems with all the political posting, I've resisted doing anything about it. I always figured the creation of the pub made for a situation where political posting could be read or not read and so, you know, what's the problem. But, I have come to understand how a substantial number of people find all the political threads bothersome. I don't think I'm ready to do what a lot of forums do, ban political (and often religious) threads. But, I just wish everyone would try to use more restraint toward the goal of reducing the mix of politics on the forums. I'm trying myself.

[avanutria]

What if the fans of political threads started another forum in Yahoo Groups or something? I've run a Yahoo Group before, it's free and it's not hard to set up or moderate.

http://groups.yahoo.com/start

[Jerry Freeman]

What I'd like to see, quite honestly, is less political posting on the pub.

Hear, hear!

I'll try to limit my participation in political threads from here on out.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Jack]

What if the fans of political threads started another forum in Yahoo Groups or something? I've run a Yahoo Group before, it's free and it's not hard to set up or moderate.

http://groups.yahoo.com/start

I like the idea, but I don't think it would ever happen. If it did happen, I doubt that many people would keep up with it.

[Blackwood]

What if the fans of political threads started another forum in Yahoo Groups or something? I've run a Yahoo Group before, it's free and it's not hard to set up or moderate.

I don't know what threads you are a fan off, but I don't feel the need to tell you to start your threads somewhere else. If you are not interested in political threads don't read them. Why do you feel the need to tell a bunch of people who are interested in political discussions to, in essence, take a hike?

[TomB]

What if the fans of political threads started another forum in Yahoo Groups or something? I've run a Yahoo Group before, it's free and it's not hard to set up or moderate.

I don't know what threads you are a fan off, but I don't feel the need to tell you to start your threads somewhere else. If you are not interested in political threads don't read them. Why do you feel the need to tell a bunch of people who are interested in political discussions to, in essence, take a hike?

A bit harsh, no? Ava was making a suggestion in response to Dale's comment that he would like to see less political threads in the Pub. Given Dale said that, it would seem like Ava was giving what she thought was a helpful suggestion that would keep fans of the political threads happy.

If you don't like her suggestion, fine, but personally, I don't think your response was warranted- and yeah, I know I have no business telling you that.

Thanks, and all the Best, Tom

[Joseph E. Smith]

What if the fans of political threads started another forum in Yahoo Groups or something? I've run a Yahoo Group before, it's free and it's not hard to set up or moderate.

I don't know what threads you are a fan off, but I don't feel the need to tell you to start your threads somewhere else. If you are not interested in political threads don't read them. Why do you feel the need to tell a bunch of people who are interested in political discussions to, in essence, take a hike?

I think thou readest too much into avanutria's statement.

[GaryKelly]

Tom has it exactly right.

[Blackwood]

But, I have come to understand how a substantial number of people find all the political threads bothersome

Dale, I'm at an intellectual loss here. It is so simple: If they are bothered by them why do they read them? Nobody forces anyone to read a single political post or thread. Anyone is free to start threads of their interest.

There are threads all the time I find not really interesting, so guess what? I'm not reading them, it doesn't bother me, I don't force anyone to take them down, live and let live. So what is the motivation of people who claim to be bothered? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I suspect there is something else going on. Since these threads are obviously producing an emotional utility I would have to deduct that the people claiming to be bothered are obviously reading the political threads, which means they DO have an interest in them. I suspect they don't like what they read, meaning they don't agree with what is said politically. For whatever reason they either don't want to or can't argue the core of the discussion premise, but since they disagree they want to shut the discussion down, either by attacks, or claiming to be bothered by the discussion itself (which again raises my original point).

I may be wrong here, but right now this seems to be the most logical explanation to me, if there are others I'd like to hear them.

The thread you deleted yesterday was a very good example. I posted a link to a publicly available article that was in direct context to current political events and I was crucified for just posting the article and some people basically told me i had no right to post the thread, that I was heartless, and God knows what else. One poster couldn't even explain to herself why she was angry. During all this assault none of these people talked about the content of the article or the subject that was raised. But they wanted to silence it, wanted to silence me.

What is the motivation?