> > I know, we can use filters and the delete key, and some of us do. > > Too many others have simply voted with their feet by leaving. > > > > We all cherish free speech, and nobody wants to be accused of > > stifling thoughtful contributions in any way, but at the same time we really need > > something to defend the forum from people who get their jollies by abusing it. > > > > Suggestions? > > We don't need to "defend the forum"; it's doing OK all by itself. > You and I don't get to decide what is "thoughtful" and > what isn't for anyone but ourselves.
Thoughtfulness is ancillary to the primary complaint, which is volume. Taken together, high volume + senseless garbage = a 'junk storm'. I think it's disruptive and counter-productive to go around and around in circles because a couple of morons have endless amounts of time to devote to making that happen. While some such posts are funny/provocative, when they become the majority input the effect is very different. List quality is your call, Ed. I've always been - and continue to be - thankful for all you've done. I will say that I find it odd for your criticism to be directed at me for making an effort to improve quality without acknowledging any merit to the complaint itself. > If you deem someone to not be worthy of > your time, you are perfectly free to twit them out. But it > seems that you are unwilling to do this simple task and solve your concerns. > It also seems that you are unwilling to ignore those who you find > thoughtless. Yet you want others to impose your personal filter > choices on everyone else. That's not the case. What I'm thinking is that the list really needs some mechanic that can be invoked when it comes under attack. I define 'attack' as high volume streams of belligerent, mean-spirited, ignorant junk. > How many times in the last month > alone have you replied to something 'thoughtless'? None. But again, it's not the effect on me personally that I'm arguing, it's the effect on the list. I can't be the only one to see a correlation between increased junk, primarily from these two, and decreased attendance and diversity. > If you don't like a TV show, don't watch it. It isn't > up to the TV station to reflect your preferences, and it isn't up to the > government to impose your TV preferences on anyone else. But it's not that simple. Unlike a broadcasting system, this is a multi-way conversation, like a bunch of people sitting at a table. I know from real-life examples that, given the opportunity, there are people who will get on the soapbox and stay there. Sometimes such people are well-intentioned, but sometimes they are not. It's my opinion that Madigan is an example of the latter. In the grand scheme of things, in a world with 6 billion people, it's totally arguable that any tiny group doesn't have a chance to make any difference whatsoever. While on the one hand I have to accept this as "fact", the other hand argues that tiny groups are all we have, because the Big Groups have sold us out. The question I'm asking is how do tiny groups protect themselves against infiltration by those intent on disrupting and destroying. > If you don't like someone's contributions here, filter > them out. It isn't up to the list to reflect your preferences, and it isn't up to > me to impose your reading preferences on anyone else. I specifically said "Ed has done so much for us that we can't reasonably ask him to do another thing." What I asked for was ideas. I also mentioned how I believe Jack Welch would handle the situation because it was his thinking that came to mind in this case. This is just a footnote because it applies only to me: I've had a problem with Outlook's filters (a while back I discovered that occasionally mail was disappearing), so I removed all filters, which seemed to have solved that problem, but doing so left me having to use the delete key instead. I have been doing this with the 'T' case, and now I'll do it with the 'M' case. I do not believe this will help the list because too often they sway conversation and elicit responses which are impossible to delete in advance. Bill > -- Ed Leafe _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
