Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I'm not sure you get my idea exactly.
All I am saying is, that if you are the one to start a thread - and ONLY when this is the case, you get to say who is not allowed to post in it.
That's what I thought you said... and that's what I thought I was repeating.
Lacewing wrote:I like your suggestion about a thread author being able to veto certain people from one's own thread
Hobbes' Choice wrote:They would be perfectly free to start their own threads - even ones designed to re-rail yours, and they could ban you from that.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:So I do not see where any "honour system" would need apply.
Well, how do you make them honor what you say? You can say they are not allowed to post... but how is that enforced? That's why I said they'd have to honor it, and they might not be honorable.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:This capability would allow self moderation, without any actual censorship.
it would encourage good thread writing and politeness on the part of the thread owner (to keep people in), and on the part of the contributor (to stay on a thread they like).
If the owner banned capriciously then they would end up with an empty thread. So the mechanism would be self balancing.
In ones selfishness, it's common indeed to want to shut up another, a very common human ego centric maneuver. To exclude while insinuating that one is superior to another in doing so.
Do you realize we're talking about attaining a BALANCE here? You do like balance, right? We're talking about things being OUT OF BALANCE. And surely you can't accuse me of not making a valiant effort to engage with Bob over and over, seeking the value whether through seriousness or humor. I may continue to engage with Bob in the future... but how is it helpful or fair to allow any posters to continually derail threads with personal agendas? When people are not accustomed to seeking and offering balance, is it not helpful to offer some suggestions for reminding them of its value? It seems like you're shutting down the idea of this as if it is extreme? Yet, you support other extreme and excessive behavior? Are you disagreeing just to disagree?
Lacewing, I have absolutely nothing against you at all. Seriously! Up till now, what you have written I've believed was pretty damn good. That you're pretty even keeled in you responses! Pretty damn fair! And Bob really can get on my nerves, GOD, you don't know how long I've had to put up with him. Look at both my and his forum join date to get a clue. Shit at one point in time he actually followed me around, continually spouting some religious dogma about my tribulations, just to derail. I had him on ignore for quite some time, actually he has the record for being on my ignore list. BUT I've been on the Internet since it's inception, long enough to actually remember the Blue Ribbon Campaign. Which was all about the freedom of ones speech. One of it's creators, a very respected man in that time, said that:
'one doesn't truly believe in freedom of speech, until they stand up and fight for their worst enemy's right to speak freely'
And that means that one can't shut up another because they rub them the wrong way, that it is in fact a slippery slope you've placed yourself on, when you attempt to shut one another, as guess who's next, yes, You Are! It's either all or nothing as to free speech, and who the hell wants nothing? So all it is, anything else is surely selfish and not Balanced! Let the fools speak so by contrast you appear smarter. Learn a lesson from them, thats what every bit of information is for, every bit can inform us either to the positive or the negative. Best to keep you friends close, and your enemy's even closer. I could go on and on and on. But the truth is, the world needs everyone to be ALL INCLUSIVE, as then there shall be no wars of any real significance!
Either ignore him as I once did, or deal with him. I don't see a real problem except for ones selfishness! Let others be the selfish ones while you be the shinning example of acceptance, so as to be that forse that would attempt to change the world for the better!!!!!
xoxoxoxoxoxo <-- those are kisses and hugs for you, my adversary on this particular note, on the cheeks of course.
Because I truly believe that lacewing deserves it. Let others be the haters, a victim of their particular form of ignorance.
Surely people that have no real understanding of another, excludes them. They are oblivious of human psychology, and that of determinism, which is in fact the reason for our differences, environment. Such that people like Bob are probably not really responsible for their insanity, crap he may have been locked in a closet as a child, which is why he's so nuts. Believing he was a prophet, the only thing that kept him sane for all we know! And yet you would also be as was his captor with his exclusion.
You a nurturing female, really? Is that what you really aspire to be? What if your child was born mentally handicapped?
HC, secretly inside, might despise his brother, for all the tiptoeing around him that he had to do, so as to cope during his childhood. Not that it's a fact, how could I know that it's necessarily true in his case, but psychology shows us that this has indeed been the case in some families. Which could be why he can't handle Me, Bob or Hex. He's had enough challenges in his life. Sorry for him that he's thrown in the towel and given up on others. But in truth, if that be his case, I'd understand him having problems with me.
Isn't that the trick with wisdom? To understand instead of excluding that which you don't understand? Sounds like a life of running and hiding to me!