Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:17 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Write the ticket and get on with your life so I can get on with mine. Don't keep standing there demanding that I apologize to you. I have *no problem* with paying the fine. But just write the ticket and stop demanding my attention. Being booted off of Fairfield Life is the fine; indulging your or other people's desire to be apologized to isn't. Flawed analogy, Barry. It isn't so much what you say when a cop stops you, as what you seemed to have learned from the experience--you know, speeding can endanger your own life and that of others as well.Bet you anything if you gave the most beautiful apology in the world, but then promised to go right on speeding, you'd not only get a ticket, but probably arrested as well. You seem to feel that any concession whatsoever, even ones that make a lot of sense *as well as* making your own life easier (and safer), are somehow suspect and not worthy of a moment's reflection. I know other people who also flip off people as easily as you seem to, always imagining they're being taken advantage of, that someone else is purposely wasting their time, etc. The idea that whatever the person said was possibly warranted and not just idle blather seems never to occur to them--and they've had very unfulfilling lives as a result. BTW, I didn't see any demand for an apology. Sal
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:17 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK Write the ticket and get on with your life so I can get on with mine. Don't keep standing there demanding that I apologize to you. I have *no problem* with paying the fine. But just write the ticket and stop demanding my attention. Being booted off of Fairfield Life is the fine; indulging your or other people's desire to be apologized to isn't. I have no desire to boot you or anyone off, nor do I need you to feel remorseful or anything else. If you (or anyone) were to say to hell with the rule, I’m going to keep flaming, and then you did so, I’d boot you off. But you’re not continuing to flame, so on with the party. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1048 - Release Date: 10/3/2007 8:22 PM
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK You seem to be suggesting now that it's OK to flame as long as you don't prolong it and don't explicitly proclaim your intention to defy the rules. Is that what you mean to convey? No. Flaming is not so clear-cut as overposting, but if a person is obviously just flaming occasionally, in the hope that he can get away with it, (like driving 7 or 8 or 9 MPH over the speed limit), then it makes my job a lot harder. Out of consideration for me, if nothing else, and out of appreciation for what FFL can be at its best, I would appreciate it if Barry and everyone else did their best to completely refrain from flaming. If one person does it, others feel justified in doing it. So the effect goes far beyond what that one person is doing. Chronic violations should have consequences. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1048 - Release Date: 10/3/2007 8:22 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:00 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: You know what Off, that sounds pretty good. I'm not much of a beer dr inker-too bitter, but I'll find something. Can you recommend a good single malt. BTW, right next to my place of business a Scottish restaurant/bar just opened-operated by a true Scottsman. As opposed to, say, a false Scotsman? Uh, oh, Lurk, is that another...flame? I have lunch there frequently, although I have not been able to bring myself to sample the true Scottish dishes like Haggis. Good people, these Scots.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK --- In HYPERLINK mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Almost everyone flames occasionally, because almost everyone has buttons that get pushed occasionally. And almost everyone who flames occasionally doesn't think that they're doing it, or thinks that they're fully justified in doing it. However, that isn't the issue. The issue is that there was a consensus here *not to flame*, no matter how justified the flame was perceived to be. But a few people have decided they shouldn't have to honor that consensus. Have to agree with Judy on this one. Not flaming was as much a collective agreement as not overposting. To be diligent about one and intentionally violate the other is inconsistent and even hypocritical. Perhaps it takes more strength to abstain from flaming than from overposting, but it’s still the same muscle. Exercise it. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.37/1042 - Release Date: 10/1/2007 6:59 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Have to agree with Judy on this one. Not flaming was as much a collective agreement as not overposting. To be diligent about one and intentionally violate the other is inconsistent and even hypocritical. Perhaps it takes more strength to abstain from flaming than from overposting, but it’s still the same muscle. Exercise it. But flaming is often in the eyes of the beholder, Rick, and with the post limit, IMO, is too much--hence you have people self-appointing themselves as cop and taking it upon themselves to go after the offenders. Whether there was a collective agreement, or not, it's just devolved into silliness and more immature behavior on the part of the cops than the flamers--IMO, of course. I do remember your party analogy quite well, just didn't realize that represented any kind of consensus. I don't know, maybe it's time to take another vote. I say that too many rules are almost worse than none. You've gone from one end of the spectrum to the other--now how about stopping in the middle. Pick one or the other--either play content cop, or just count posts. I'd say the latter is much easier. Sal
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sal Sunshine Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:04 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Have to agree with Judy on this one. Not flaming was as much a collective agreement as not overposting. To be diligent about one and intentionally violate the other is inconsistent and even hypocritical. Perhaps it takes more strength to abstain from flaming than from overposting, but it’s still the same muscle. Exercise it. But flaming is often in the eyes of the beholder, Rick, Which is why I was pretty comfortable with instituting the posting limit, but reluctant to institute a flaming ban – too subjective. and with the post limit, IMO, is too much--hence you have people self-appointing themselves as cop and taking it upon themselves to go after the offenders. Whether there was a collective agreement, or not, it's just devolved into silliness and more immature behavior on the part of the cops than the flamers--IMO, of course. I do remember your party analogy quite well, just didn't realize that represented any kind of consensus. Probably didn’t. Just something I came up with to try to make it simple for people. The distance and anonymity of the Internet makes people behave more badly than if they were face-to-face. So I tried to put it in a face-to-face context. I don't know, maybe it's time to take another vote. I say that too many rules are almost worse than none. We can always take another vote. You've gone from one end of the spectrum to the other--now how about stopping in the middle. Where’s the middle? Pick one or the other--either play content cop, or just count posts. I'd say the latter is much easier. I don’t think it has to be either/or. There can be two regulations. The content one is just harder to judge and enforce. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.37/1042 - Release Date: 10/1/2007 6:59 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:40 PM, authfriend wrote: But flaming is often in the eyes of the beholder, Rick, and with the post limit, IMO, is too much--hence you have people self- appointing themselves as cop and taking it upon themselves to go after the offenders. Heck, that was happening with the posting limit too--you were one of the self-appointed, as I recall. Yep. But that's pretty cut and dry, and doesn't involve lectures from me on how to behave. And people were free to ignore it, and sometimes did. Or they would pull a Jim Flanegan--don't go over the limit until late on Friday. The big problem with the no-flaming agreement, as I see it, is that it'll only work if it's *enforced*. Rick hasn't been enforcing it. Rick hasn't been available apparently. I am curious, now that he's more or less back, as to how he *will* handle it. You're going to get all kinds of resentment if most people are observing the agreement while a few simply brazenly defy it, with no action taken to bring them in line. It's understandable that Rick doesn't want to play cop, but there's no point in having rules if there's no one enforcing them. If he would really watch closely for a while and actually ban a few offenders for a week to show he's serious, things would settle down pretty quickly, I'll bet, and he wouldn't *have* to do much more than that. If things began to get out of line again, and folks alerted him by email rather than on the forum, he could start monitoring again. He could do lots of things. Time to sit back and watch what he actually does, hopefully without flaming, myself, although the tendency is greater with the rules, IMO. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
Sal Sunshine wrote: On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Have to agree with Judy on this one. Not flaming was as much a collective agreement as not overposting. To be diligent about one and intentionally violate the other is inconsistent and even hypocritical. Perhaps it takes more strength to abstain from flaming than from overposting, but it’s still the same muscle. Exercise it. But flaming is often in the eyes of the beholder, Rick, and with the post limit, IMO, is too much--hence you have people self-appointing themselves as cop and taking it upon themselves to go after the offenders. Whether there was a collective agreement, or not, it's just devolved into silliness and more immature behavior on the part of the cops than the flamers--IMO, of course. I do remember your party analogy quite well, just didn't realize that represented any kind of consensus. I don't know, maybe it's time to take another vote. I say that too many rules are almost worse than none. You've gone from one end of the spectrum to the other--now how about stopping in the middle. Pick one or the other--either play content cop, or just count posts. I'd say the latter is much easier. Sal I agree. This group which used to be fun when it was like Rick's Bar and Grill is pretty boring catering to a bunch of bliss ninnies and quickly becoming Rick's Victorian Tea House. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Bhairitu wrote: I agree. This group which used to be fun when it was like Rick's Bar and Grill is pretty boring catering to a bunch of bliss ninnies and quickly becoming Rick's Victorian Tea House. Couldn't have put it better. Sal
