I've got a better idea, Soulster. We should all carefully review what we are ABOUT to post before hitting "reply"
Printable View
I've got a better idea, Soulster. We should all carefully review what we are ABOUT to post before hitting "reply"
That's ideal. Ralph, but no one is perfect. Sometimes people do post something in the heat of the moment, and seems good at the time, and pat themselves on the back about how they got their digs in, but think about it while they run to the fridge for a cold one, or use the bathroom, regret what they wrote, then come back with a clearer head and edit or delete what they wrote, hopefully within the window of opportunity. But, some people like to leave the bad stuff up for a day or two until they are sure their target sees it, then remove it. Some people are that diabolical. That's been my experience on other websites.
I enjoy reading every single post on this forum, especially those which have some substance to them, something positive, some point.
Everyone has a different style in their communication. Some are naturally elegant, some are perhaps a little crude, even perhaps somewhat vulgar. Some make their point forcefully, some almost apologetically.
But they all have posted a comment, and given time and thought. To me, that's sincere, even if I don't always agree with what is said, or how it is said.
But.....when someone disagrees with another, yet without adding anything new to what was said to take it further, and then putting it in negative terms, that's just plain,flat-out attention seeking for themselves, with nothing to offer the reader. That, and seeing one member vilified by a number of others [[sometimes for very spurious reasons) are the only things that I don't want to see on this forum.
But.....that's just my own opinion :)
I see where you're coming from but I honestly don't think that would help matters very much. The idea is to increase the peace, not find reasons to ban people, right? If someone says something stupid, and then wants to take it back later - strictly on the basis that Ralph hasn't already stepped in with a swift and well-deserved kick in the pants - then I personally think it's better they be allowed to do so, in the interests of all-round greater civility, rather than the board keeping an insulting post up there just so they can be "caught" and dealt with.
I guess we want to get to a point where people stay cool-headed and don't post insults at all [[or, indeed, casually sexist, racist or homophobic remarks). On that score, the new rule and the threat of enforcement does seem to have had a positive effect. Good work all round.
Before clicking SUBMIT, everyone should just be thinking "if someone - whether a total stranger, or my mom - was visiting SDF for the first time, what would they think of the place, based solely on what I'm about to post?"
Totally agree. But, I submit that these people don't care what newcomers and strangers think. They are looking for brownie points from their like-minded friends. If they were standing in front of that person and thought they might get clocked, they wouldn't be that way. It's the internet, and people can hide behind a screen name, and no one knows where they live. They could probably be someone sitting in their mommy's basement eating Hot Pockets and getting off on free porn videos for all we know.
There's also a much simpler method and that is "by offering a sincere apology" to The Forum and to an intended target, if there is one [[again by "private messaging" would also be sincere and not prone to grandstand). We all sometimes get caught off guard, but, a heartfelt apology can also go the distance.
However in the past day or two I do see a couple of attempts to get around the new rules and feeling around here. Bokiluis writing Mary Wilson as "marywilson" while other Supremes are accorded the respect of having their names written as names [[i.e., Diana Ross, Cindy Birdsong). And this new thread in which a humor article throws shade at Cindy Birdsong and her kidnapping in a pretty disrespectful matter is another example.
All the Supremes should be treated and accorded with respect here. It's fair to critique performances/songs/albums that don't measure up in your opinion...their work is fair game. But treat the ladies with respect at all times. That's what I get from the new rules and so far peace has been maintained. Don't resort to passive aggressive measures to get digs in [[like lowercase or pasting articles). All that will result is people wanting to retaliate with similar measures and it will eventually escalate to direct attacks once again.
So if you can't bring yourself to type a name in a respectful way, then don't use their name and discuss them at all. And if you can't treat someone with respect, then just avoid them all together. That way peace will be maintained.
Smark,
I don't think this can be construed as disrespect to Mary, but your point is made. At times in the past, the littlest things could foment problems for me.. Perhaps Bokiluis, you could put caps on the names as a preventative measure.
I don't think he meant it that way either but who knows. I know there are plenty here who call Diana Ross "Diane" but that debate has been beaten to death as we know. I appreciate the civility lately and YouTube seems to be the only place where the trolls continue to come out.
So I think we have said enough about this. Just try and be respectful to the person you are referring to on any forum topic. It will make my life so much easier.