Poetic Justice has arrived....
- Thread starter The Giver
- Start date
James
0
Welcome. Of course, the rest of us managed to get by with putting our arrival announcements in a communal thread, but you, of course, had to start a whole new thread. 
James
0
Actually, I see now that several people not only started a new thread for their arrival, but some did so in the Computers forum! So it could have been much worse.
The JoJo
0
Welcome!
jtr1962
0
Welcome aboard! No forum is complete without The Giver!
Say.. where are the rules for this forum? Those of you who know The Giver must know that he likes to follow the rules. But he'll be darned if he can find them! Do you fellows have rules? Not written yet? Would you like The Giver to write some? Hee.. hee.. No really, where are they?
By the way, many thanks for letting The Giver register. He was not sure he would be allowed to sign up. You guys have a good thing here - well done!
By the way, many thanks for letting The Giver register. He was not sure he would be allowed to sign up. You guys have a good thing here - well done!
Tea
0
Well gentlemen, I'll just remind you of the faculty rules:
Rule one: no pooftahs!
Rule two: no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way whatsoever (if there's anybody watching).
Rule three: no pooftahs!
Rule four: I don't want to catch anyone not drinking.
Rule five: no pooftahs!
Rule six: errhh, rule six Bruce? Ah yes, right. There is no rule six.
Rule seven: no pooftahs!
Rule one: no pooftahs!
Rule two: no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way whatsoever (if there's anybody watching).
Rule three: no pooftahs!
Rule four: I don't want to catch anyone not drinking.
Rule five: no pooftahs!
Rule six: errhh, rule six Bruce? Ah yes, right. There is no rule six.
Rule seven: no pooftahs!
Tannin
0
Well, now that Tea has had her fun, I'll try to give you a sensible answer, good sir.
The admin team is still discussing the final wording for the forum rules at present. However, the overall intention is very clear. We aim to have civilised, respectful discussion.
(In the meantime, we have appointed Tsar Handruin: until more formal rules and procedures are in place, Doug has unilateral rights to run the place in whatever way he thinks best.)
What exactly constitutes civilised, respectful discussion on the one hand; straight-laced, stilted, politically correct humbug on another; and chaotic, abusive trolling on yet a third?
In the end, no formal description, no matter how detailed and prescriptive, can set these things down beyond dispute. In the final analysis, the distinction between behaviour that crosses the line and becomes offensive, and mere robust, spirited debate must always be a matter for individual judgement. When does a joke become personal abuse? When does an affectation (such as The Giver's third-person prose, or my multiple personalities) stop being funny or cute and start being a right pain in the arse? When does an expression (such as the one I just used to close that last sentence) stop being plain, robust language and become mere profanity?
We are trying to develop a set of rules that give some guidance on these matters, but eventually borderline cases will always, must always, come down to one or several people making a judgement as best they can, and implementing it.
Now it's the admin team that has the final say on these things, which may not be entirely fair and democratic, but is nevertheless just the way things are. But it is the team's intention (a) to encourage turnover of ordinary members into the admin team from time to time, and (b) to try to find a set of rules and conventions that are as fair to all as can be managed.
Now it seems to me (and I'm sure to the other admin team guys too) that suggestions and criticisms from all Storage Forum members can only benefit this process. The Giver is, in fact, perhaps particularly well-qualified to play his part in this: not only has he something of a track record in bending rules (at least in the eyes of some SR members!), but he has also demonstrated an ability to think and write very clearly on such matters. (Was it a gun control debate I remember? A lot of discussion of the US Constitution, anyway.)
So, in short, yes! Write us some rules! Or at least devote some time and virtual ink here in this forum to pondering what might and might not be appropriate. I can't promise that they will be adopted - indeed, even were I to do so I am only one voice among twelve - but I can promise that we, the admin team, will take them into consideration.
One last thought: it is my feeling that it matters less what the actual rules are than it matters who judges when they have or have not been infringed.
The admin team is still discussing the final wording for the forum rules at present. However, the overall intention is very clear. We aim to have civilised, respectful discussion.
(In the meantime, we have appointed Tsar Handruin: until more formal rules and procedures are in place, Doug has unilateral rights to run the place in whatever way he thinks best.)
What exactly constitutes civilised, respectful discussion on the one hand; straight-laced, stilted, politically correct humbug on another; and chaotic, abusive trolling on yet a third?
In the end, no formal description, no matter how detailed and prescriptive, can set these things down beyond dispute. In the final analysis, the distinction between behaviour that crosses the line and becomes offensive, and mere robust, spirited debate must always be a matter for individual judgement. When does a joke become personal abuse? When does an affectation (such as The Giver's third-person prose, or my multiple personalities) stop being funny or cute and start being a right pain in the arse? When does an expression (such as the one I just used to close that last sentence) stop being plain, robust language and become mere profanity?
We are trying to develop a set of rules that give some guidance on these matters, but eventually borderline cases will always, must always, come down to one or several people making a judgement as best they can, and implementing it.
Now it's the admin team that has the final say on these things, which may not be entirely fair and democratic, but is nevertheless just the way things are. But it is the team's intention (a) to encourage turnover of ordinary members into the admin team from time to time, and (b) to try to find a set of rules and conventions that are as fair to all as can be managed.
Now it seems to me (and I'm sure to the other admin team guys too) that suggestions and criticisms from all Storage Forum members can only benefit this process. The Giver is, in fact, perhaps particularly well-qualified to play his part in this: not only has he something of a track record in bending rules (at least in the eyes of some SR members!), but he has also demonstrated an ability to think and write very clearly on such matters. (Was it a gun control debate I remember? A lot of discussion of the US Constitution, anyway.)
So, in short, yes! Write us some rules! Or at least devote some time and virtual ink here in this forum to pondering what might and might not be appropriate. I can't promise that they will be adopted - indeed, even were I to do so I am only one voice among twelve - but I can promise that we, the admin team, will take them into consideration.
One last thought: it is my feeling that it matters less what the actual rules are than it matters who judges when they have or have not been infringed.
Cliptin
0
Just in case it has slipped the admin team's collective mind: The more clearly the rules are written; the less the fluctuation in application when admin turnover occurs.
One man's Troll is another man's Giver.
Here is the problem as The Giver sees it with your suggested "rules". They seem to seek to control more than just behavior. They are destined to control one's thoughts and beliefs through fear of banishment. Certainly they go beyond that which can be judged through the careful weighing of facts. They appear designed (not intentionally mind you) such that you are going to end up eventually with only members who agree with the majority. For example, The Giver finds many aspects of modern liberalism "offensive". And many no doubt find many aspects of The Giver's conservatism "offensive". Hence "conservatism" will eventually be eliminated from this site through banishment. That may sound simplistic at first glance but consider the following;
How can one discuss subjects such as gun control or abortion without offending someone? The only way it can be done is by discussing it only with those who agree with your position on subjects such as these.
Now when time after time an individual with a particular view point "offends", he is going to collect those who wish he was gone. And eventually he will be gone.
Exactly and this is precisely the problem as The Giver sees it. As The Giver said, you are going to end up with a membership who are substantially in agreement when it comes to any controversial subject matter. If that is what you want, fine. But if you're looking to build a site where you can learn something, well...
You may scoff at this, believing you are all mature enough not fall into this trap. But what you cannot out grow is the fact that you are all human. And your nature as human beings will win out in the end. So let it be written...
Oh and... it's certainly not The Giver's place to write suggested rules of conduct. He was merely kidding when he inquired about doing so, hence the "hee.. hee.." after making the statement. The Giver can issue edicts, commandments and the like, but rules? Nope, no can do. :mrgrn:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Some interesting points, The Giver.
There is a fierce deadlock on how to handle forum scofflaws and how to properly phrase our rules at the moment, among the admins. Yes, one issue at stake in our debates is precisely who gets to decide what material is inappropriate for StorageForum.
However, I think the overarching spirit of our rules is all that really need be remembered: *Treat other forum members with respect*
No one is trying to control what you think, nor to keep you from posting controversial opinions.
There is a fierce deadlock on how to handle forum scofflaws and how to properly phrase our rules at the moment, among the admins. Yes, one issue at stake in our debates is precisely who gets to decide what material is inappropriate for StorageForum.
However, I think the overarching spirit of our rules is all that really need be remembered: *Treat other forum members with respect*
No one is trying to control what you think, nor to keep you from posting controversial opinions.
James
0
What is wrong with that being the only rule in this forum - "Treat other forum members with respect"?
It is succinct, unequivocal, and doesn't prejudice discussion in one way or another. It is, at the end of the day, all that we want from this forum, right?
Spamming, Vambatting and itsfubaring (says he, slaughtering the language for the sake of a point) clearly are actions inconsistent with treating other forum members with respect.
So is, dare I suggest it, saying "there's no point in discussing this subject with people who hold a view opposite to mine, because they never listen."
The recent dice with Ritteri&Bubbles at SR shows that for the most part forum self-regulation works well. Some might argue that Rit was presenting an alternate view to that widely held by SR members and was cut down for it; my response is that if you are unable and unwilling to hold a reasonable debate which includes verifiable facts instead of rhetoric, then you should not be disappointed when you are not taken seriously and shunned.
It is succinct, unequivocal, and doesn't prejudice discussion in one way or another. It is, at the end of the day, all that we want from this forum, right?
Spamming, Vambatting and itsfubaring (says he, slaughtering the language for the sake of a point) clearly are actions inconsistent with treating other forum members with respect.
So is, dare I suggest it, saying "there's no point in discussing this subject with people who hold a view opposite to mine, because they never listen."
The recent dice with Ritteri&Bubbles at SR shows that for the most part forum self-regulation works well. Some might argue that Rit was presenting an alternate view to that widely held by SR members and was cut down for it; my response is that if you are unable and unwilling to hold a reasonable debate which includes verifiable facts instead of rhetoric, then you should not be disappointed when you are not taken seriously and shunned.
James
0
Sorry about that last sentence, it was very poorly constructed. I hope you get the gist of it, though.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
If the Golden Rule could be the only law in the world, would the world still be a good place to live? There's a question for philosophers and theologians.
Truth is, there are breakdowns. It don't think it's disrepectful of anyone here that I provide a link to direct download of the full version of Windows XP, but if there isn't a rule about that, someone will probably come along and do just that, justified in thinking that there are no consequences for doing so.
Truth is, there are breakdowns. It don't think it's disrepectful of anyone here that I provide a link to direct download of the full version of Windows XP, but if there isn't a rule about that, someone will probably come along and do just that, justified in thinking that there are no consequences for doing so.
James
0
Technically, since you're only hosting the link, you're not responsible for content.
If you extend the rule to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" then since people wouldn't want others to steal from them, the MS example you give above is covered.
I would much rather try and distill everything down to one simple, straightforward sentence than go through and think of hundreds of things that people might do and try to legislate against it.
The shorter it is, the less chance of misinterpretation. Plus, the greater chance people will actually read it vs a page of 8 point type that everyone skips reading and just clicks "Accept" below.
If you extend the rule to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" then since people wouldn't want others to steal from them, the MS example you give above is covered.
I would much rather try and distill everything down to one simple, straightforward sentence than go through and think of hundreds of things that people might do and try to legislate against it.
The shorter it is, the less chance of misinterpretation. Plus, the greater chance people will actually read it vs a page of 8 point type that everyone skips reading and just clicks "Accept" below.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
You'd be placing an awful lot of faith in the practices of our (hopefully) round-robin moderators.
Of course, given that the group is Handruin, Tannin, Clocker, P5_133XL, Groltz, CougTek, Time, (energy), Pradeep, and Flagreen (did I forget anyone?) at the moment, maybe there's good reason for faith.
Of course, given that the group is Handruin, Tannin, Clocker, P5_133XL, Groltz, CougTek, Time, (energy), Pradeep, and Flagreen (did I forget anyone?) at the moment, maybe there's good reason for faith.
timwhit
0
The SR forums did not really have any rules to speak of. Other than to be civilized, and not to spam.
Trolling was not that common, spamming was not that common and a spammers posts can be easily deleted...
So I do not really see a reason to have very many rules.
OTOH if this forum grows to be very large, say several thousand members, then it might turn into a problem. But I really don't see that happening all that fast. So I wouldn't worry about this just yet.
-Tim
Trolling was not that common, spamming was not that common and a spammers posts can be easily deleted...
So I do not really see a reason to have very many rules.
OTOH if this forum grows to be very large, say several thousand members, then it might turn into a problem. But I really don't see that happening all that fast. So I wouldn't worry about this just yet.
-Tim
Tannin
0
Please note: the folowing is my own interpretation of the situation as it stands, and should not be taken as a formal or even accurate statement of Storage Forum policy. (I am but one voice amongst twelve, remember.) I think it makes sense though.
Debate as to the formal framing of the rules continues apace.
Debate as to the actual content of the rules is a non-issue, decided long since. In reality, there is only one rule: don't piss people off. Or, if you prefer a more noble-bred phrasing for it: post with respect at all times.
Now, were this a true democracy, I would be very concerned at such a simple, all-embracing rule. If we were to abolish the US Constitution (or the equivalent documents in Australia, the UK, Canada, wherever) in favour of a nice, simple, "don't piss people off" rule, then the results would be, to say the least, interesting! Essentially, it would remove the protection of our specific and explicit legal rights - rights that we, as citizens of our various democracies, are accustomed to regard as ours without any question of our not having them. On the other hand, it would remove the protection that these rights extend to a wide variety of anti-social practices which most of us would be far better off without - there are a host of activities that are technically legal but quite clearly against the social interest that depend for their continued existence on the inflexibility of law.
We, the peoples of the "civilised" world, accept that anti-social people will shelter behind strict legalism, and (if we stop to think about the way we live and settle problems, which far too few of us do) we realise that this abuse of the rule of law is the inevitable price of our inviolable citizens' rights.
Formal rules, in other words, are always a trade-off. In return for some measure of fairness and protection against the vaguries of individual difference (we must act within the rules of law, not within the likes and dislikes of any particular judge), we sacrifice some measure of justice (I'm sure the reader will be able to think of his own examples - how often do you hear of a situation where a particular person has clearly done something quite wrong but the law cannot touch him? Other times, you hear of situations where someone has acted completely legitimately but is hammered by the law nevertheless.)
But, as it happens, Storage Forum is not a democracy. SF doesn't need to protect the rights of its members with formal rules, because SF members have no rights in the first place. SF members are, in the strictly legal sense, guests of Storage Forum, and hold posting and visiting privileges for just so long as the SF management feels inclined to extend them.
In reality, what does this mean?
It means SF members are expected to behave with decent respect toward SF itself and other SF members. It means that anti-social activity is unwelcome and will be dealt with. Some examples of anti-social activity are spamming, trolling, personal abuse, posting links to warez, and posting off-topic in the wrong forum. Any person of good sense will be a pretty fair judge of what constitutes those things, and of what other things are likely to be similarly disrespectful.
This places people who are unable to excercise good judgement at a disadvantage. This may well be unfair. (Tannin ponders for a moment, shrugs.) Perhaps it is. So be it.
You want fair, you go to Yahoo Forums. You want quality discussion with intelligent, literate people who know their stuff, come right back here to Storage Forum.
-----------------------------------------------
Hmmmm... On reading this over, I can imagine that it might seem like a veiled attack on The Giver. It isn't! The Giver has raised a number of interesting and vital questions, and (I might add) raised them in a lively and civilised way. I welcome his thoughts on this topic, and will read them with interest.
Debate as to the formal framing of the rules continues apace.
Debate as to the actual content of the rules is a non-issue, decided long since. In reality, there is only one rule: don't piss people off. Or, if you prefer a more noble-bred phrasing for it: post with respect at all times.
Now, were this a true democracy, I would be very concerned at such a simple, all-embracing rule. If we were to abolish the US Constitution (or the equivalent documents in Australia, the UK, Canada, wherever) in favour of a nice, simple, "don't piss people off" rule, then the results would be, to say the least, interesting! Essentially, it would remove the protection of our specific and explicit legal rights - rights that we, as citizens of our various democracies, are accustomed to regard as ours without any question of our not having them. On the other hand, it would remove the protection that these rights extend to a wide variety of anti-social practices which most of us would be far better off without - there are a host of activities that are technically legal but quite clearly against the social interest that depend for their continued existence on the inflexibility of law.
We, the peoples of the "civilised" world, accept that anti-social people will shelter behind strict legalism, and (if we stop to think about the way we live and settle problems, which far too few of us do) we realise that this abuse of the rule of law is the inevitable price of our inviolable citizens' rights.
Formal rules, in other words, are always a trade-off. In return for some measure of fairness and protection against the vaguries of individual difference (we must act within the rules of law, not within the likes and dislikes of any particular judge), we sacrifice some measure of justice (I'm sure the reader will be able to think of his own examples - how often do you hear of a situation where a particular person has clearly done something quite wrong but the law cannot touch him? Other times, you hear of situations where someone has acted completely legitimately but is hammered by the law nevertheless.)
But, as it happens, Storage Forum is not a democracy. SF doesn't need to protect the rights of its members with formal rules, because SF members have no rights in the first place. SF members are, in the strictly legal sense, guests of Storage Forum, and hold posting and visiting privileges for just so long as the SF management feels inclined to extend them.
In reality, what does this mean?
It means SF members are expected to behave with decent respect toward SF itself and other SF members. It means that anti-social activity is unwelcome and will be dealt with. Some examples of anti-social activity are spamming, trolling, personal abuse, posting links to warez, and posting off-topic in the wrong forum. Any person of good sense will be a pretty fair judge of what constitutes those things, and of what other things are likely to be similarly disrespectful.
This places people who are unable to excercise good judgement at a disadvantage. This may well be unfair. (Tannin ponders for a moment, shrugs.) Perhaps it is. So be it.
You want fair, you go to Yahoo Forums. You want quality discussion with intelligent, literate people who know their stuff, come right back here to Storage Forum.
-----------------------------------------------
Hmmmm... On reading this over, I can imagine that it might seem like a veiled attack on The Giver. It isn't! The Giver has raised a number of interesting and vital questions, and (I might add) raised them in a lively and civilised way. I welcome his thoughts on this topic, and will read them with interest.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are turning over in their graves.Tannin said:
You just pissed The Giver off. So much for rule number one. Do the rules apply to all? Or just us anti-social uncivilised types?
That you feel guilty and are going out of your way to justify what is about to come?
The Giver is never disrespectful, save to those who show him no respect. These types show no respect themselves, and deserve none in return. "Anti-social" means what exactly? Disagreeing with you? or with the majority?
Oh God, grant Thy Mighty Giver patience!
Oh noooooo.... never once did The Giver think you were referring to him..... nahhhhhh!
You know, if The Giver were granted one wish it would be that just for this one time you could see yourself as he sees you. You wouldn't like yourself very much if you could.
Why not just hang a "Whites Only" sign out front. Of course you may have to amend that to include "No Jews Allowed". Oh wait a minute... those nasty conservatives piss you liberals off too don't they? Better exclude them too. Yeah that's it -
Whites Only! No Jews! No Conservatives! Nor other undesirables Allowed!
Well that's a bit long for one sign isn't it? But perhaps it's the only way you can have your "quality discussion with intelligent and literate people who know their stuff".
Tannin said
The Giver is going to have to give some thought as whether or not he really even wants belong to your "Country Club" or not. At the moment he's not sure your worth it.
Whites Only! No Jews! No Conservatives! Nor other undesirables Allowed!
Well that's a bit long for one sign isn't it? But perhaps it's the only way you can have your "quality discussion with intelligent and literate people who know their stuff".
Tannin said
Thinking of this sort has led to the most despicable of discrimination against minorities throughout the ages. It's sad to see it still exists in some quarters. The last time The Giver heard such rhetoric was when Alabama and Mississippi didn't want to upset their social order.
The Giver is going to have to give some thought as whether or not he really even wants belong to your "Country Club" or not. At the moment he's not sure your worth it.
Cliptin
0
Giver,
The secret is: when you see the crap flying, sidestep. It is just not worth letting it land then throwing it back.
While you are not unabrasive, I do appreciate the balance you bring to the commentary.
The secret is: when you see the crap flying, sidestep. It is just not worth letting it land then throwing it back.
While you are not unabrasive, I do appreciate the balance you bring to the commentary.
Tannin
0
I wasn't throwing any crap, Cliptin, just giving The Giver the courtesy of an honest and straightforward answer to his question. Despite his weird, abusive, and nonsensical response to it, the questions he began with remain valid ones, and ones that are worthy of discussion.
Straightforward mate?Tannin said:
Webster says;
Main Entry: 1straight·for·ward
Pronunciation: "strAt-'for-w&rd, 'strAt-"
Function: adjective
Date: 1806
1 a : free from evasiveness or obscurity : EXACT, CANDID <a straightforward account> b : CLEAR-CUT, PRECISE
2 : proceeding in a straight course or manner : DIRECT, UNDEVIATING
Very few of your posts would qualify as straightforward. In particular your response to The Giver above was devoid altogether of this most worthy of virtues. Here is some free advice for you mate (advice which would cost those whom The Giver does not consider a mate, a tidy sum indeed), when you wish to be straightforward, simply get right to the point. For example if you should think someone obnoxious, don't spend all day dancing around the issue with niceties and platitudes. Just come right out and say it. A discussion about the forum rules really does not need to stray off into references about the constitutions of the US, Canada or Australia. Nor are side trips into people living in a civilization really required. And there are many more examples in which you delve off into obscure references to this or that in the post in question. All of which lead the reader to conclude you are either attempting to obfuscate your true feelings, or have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Not to mention the fact that it is condescending to the reader when you attempt to make every single point by speaking to them as if they could not possibly grasp the concept of that which you saying unless you spoon feed it to them. So here is a rule for you to ponder "Say what you mean, and mean what you say". But then The Giver supposes you just can't help doing otherwise. Apparently you were born with a Thesaurus in your mouth.
Tannin
0
"If you should think someone obnoxious, don't spend all day dancing around the issue with niceties and platitudes."
At the time I wrote that, I did not think anyone here obnoxious. No doubt people will laugh at me for admitting this, but I genuinely thought that you had morphed into an interesting, intelligent, and possibly even valuable member. There were a number of posts you made both here and SR that led me to think that. Some of them I applauaded at the time. Rest assured, if it had been my intention to offend, I would have done so far more explicitly.
On the other hand, I find your last three posts persuasive.
At the time I wrote that, I did not think anyone here obnoxious. No doubt people will laugh at me for admitting this, but I genuinely thought that you had morphed into an interesting, intelligent, and possibly even valuable member. There were a number of posts you made both here and SR that led me to think that. Some of them I applauaded at the time. Rest assured, if it had been my intention to offend, I would have done so far more explicitly.
On the other hand, I find your last three posts persuasive.
Santilli
0
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,451
Cool it....
Tannin has written out a rather percise discription of what he desires in a forum. Since it's a private forum, that's the perogative of the owner.
Unless being leaned on with federal funding, the Bill of Rights limits the states, and the federal government, not private group membership. If we stop people from free association, we loose that right, in the Bill of Rights.
Yes, you can be a black panther, or a KKK member, or whatever
group you desire in this country. You can even have a wise old group of men forum, that don't want to put up with snot nose little kids, whining all the time, or calling them jerks, or whatever.
That said, I think The Giver is over reacting here, and his presence, and comments here, would be a valuable addition to the forum.
Tannin has certainly quantified what I would like in a forum, and I think, pretty much what storage review USED to be.
The downfall of that forum, in my view, was when the forum leaders sanctioned, and joined in personal attacks, and I was the target of that attack.
How can the forum leaders object to personal attacks, when in fact they are the ones that started that kind of stuff, and allowed others to continue???
I've always felt the storage review was a great idea, and the owners sort of beneficiaries of something they had little to do with, and less control over.
I thought Eugene had, in the past, done an efficent job of elimenating true trolls, with little fanfare, and kept an even hand on the reigns, combined with the self-correcting nature of the people that posted there.
I guess serious computer guys, who have to buy drives for their clients, need the tests offered by Eugene, and Davin.
Perhaps any good drive testing site is going to be frequented by those people. However, the forum is what
kept the group, and forum, a wonderful place to visit.
Let's through the guantlet the other way, and ask The Giver what he desires in a forum, and how he would limit, or confine, or not, control, or not control, these strange animals known as forums?
gs
Tannin has written out a rather percise discription of what he desires in a forum. Since it's a private forum, that's the perogative of the owner.
Unless being leaned on with federal funding, the Bill of Rights limits the states, and the federal government, not private group membership. If we stop people from free association, we loose that right, in the Bill of Rights.
Yes, you can be a black panther, or a KKK member, or whatever
group you desire in this country. You can even have a wise old group of men forum, that don't want to put up with snot nose little kids, whining all the time, or calling them jerks, or whatever.
That said, I think The Giver is over reacting here, and his presence, and comments here, would be a valuable addition to the forum.
Tannin has certainly quantified what I would like in a forum, and I think, pretty much what storage review USED to be.
The downfall of that forum, in my view, was when the forum leaders sanctioned, and joined in personal attacks, and I was the target of that attack.
How can the forum leaders object to personal attacks, when in fact they are the ones that started that kind of stuff, and allowed others to continue???
I've always felt the storage review was a great idea, and the owners sort of beneficiaries of something they had little to do with, and less control over.
I thought Eugene had, in the past, done an efficent job of elimenating true trolls, with little fanfare, and kept an even hand on the reigns, combined with the self-correcting nature of the people that posted there.
I guess serious computer guys, who have to buy drives for their clients, need the tests offered by Eugene, and Davin.
Perhaps any good drive testing site is going to be frequented by those people. However, the forum is what
kept the group, and forum, a wonderful place to visit.
Let's through the guantlet the other way, and ask The Giver what he desires in a forum, and how he would limit, or confine, or not, control, or not control, these strange animals known as forums?
gs
time
0
Top post, Greg!
Can we rely on you in future to pour oil on troubled waters?
I guess The Giver would view it more as a boiling maelstrom, but I see it as a storm in a Tea cup ...
Can we rely on you in future to pour oil on troubled waters?
I guess The Giver would view it more as a boiling maelstrom, but I see it as a storm in a Tea cup ...
Santilli
0
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,451
ROFL Great use of the english language, Time.
I'm sorry, but that simply won't do
At least some sort of constructionist view of the first amendment should be put forth, supporting your literal interpretation of the first amendment.
Your concept, that no restriction is the best restriction on membership, freedom of association, and free speech, is certainly not new or novel.
Many have found no restriction preferable to any restriction.
I think some of these people wrote something called the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, and,
they also tried to break away from the English concept of judge and King made law. Oh, what sort of system for free speech does England have, and, how about Australia?
Do they have anything resembling a first amendment?
Anyway, I think the point I am trying to make is, that depending upon your perspective, regulation has very different degrees of success.
I, also tend to be of the Hugo Black, literal view of the first amendment, that, 'no' limitiatons on free speech means, 'no' limitations on free speech, but, what do I know???
I guess the point is, regulation, by other then peer pressure does create problems of enforcement, and consistency.
I participate in a couple other forums, that have severe peer pressure, and, I delight in that pressure. It's great when some idiot jumps on you for no reason to have one of your mates stick up for you, and go to bat for you, or, in the case of these forums, take the shot for you 8) .
We used to have that in storage review, and I'm really glad that we have that here.
I think, or hope, that that pressure is enough.
However, there is always a person that stretches the envelope, and really does deserve to be banned.
Still, the pressure usually drives them away...
gs