Think someone is just mad that their political beliefs aren't making the front page.
Don't like someone's thread? Don't read it.
Could we get a mechanism to unflag, or black flag a thread?, page 5
privacy
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 07:26 AM by HappilyEverAfter
reply to post by TheCounselor
Use your power of choice to determine what YOU want to read, the obvious wacky posts fall off the board anyway, once the multi starring goes away, its an unfortunate nusiance to have to put up with, but when there is the ability to truly have and enjoy freedom of speech then THIS nusiance is going to have to be incurred, ANY form of regulation other than gross nut job porn babble would be A CONTROL, wouldnt it? And arent the participants and members here drawn to this sharing experience with one of the common bonds being "FREEDOM, and SELF CONTROL?, choice? non censorship? expression? sharing of important information? The abuse to limit access to, content of, and life of the posts on any given board would be a tool to censor simply packaged as a needed solution toa problem, "The problem is? (someone thinks the post shouldnt exisit?)(another post is more important?)
The solution is(Choose not to read it or dont S&F)(Have someone make that choice for you)
Does giving up the right to make a choice for yourself sound good? Is it too difficult to make the choice? Its better to let others decide for you, right?
We should then limit topics, and whole boards, and anything that implies opposition to a point of view, and then limit length of comments, then just allow it to be "read only" and turn it into everything it should never be.
I dont like Kool Aid, I dont use fluoride, and I chew my own food.
I'll incur the nusiance rather than give up a choice.
[edit on 5-10-2009 by HappilyEverAfter]
Use your power of choice to determine what YOU want to read, the obvious wacky posts fall off the board anyway, once the multi starring goes away, its an unfortunate nusiance to have to put up with, but when there is the ability to truly have and enjoy freedom of speech then THIS nusiance is going to have to be incurred, ANY form of regulation other than gross nut job porn babble would be A CONTROL, wouldnt it? And arent the participants and members here drawn to this sharing experience with one of the common bonds being "FREEDOM, and SELF CONTROL?, choice? non censorship? expression? sharing of important information? The abuse to limit access to, content of, and life of the posts on any given board would be a tool to censor simply packaged as a needed solution toa problem, "The problem is? (someone thinks the post shouldnt exisit?)(another post is more important?)
The solution is(Choose not to read it or dont S&F)(Have someone make that choice for you)
Does giving up the right to make a choice for yourself sound good? Is it too difficult to make the choice? Its better to let others decide for you, right?
We should then limit topics, and whole boards, and anything that implies opposition to a point of view, and then limit length of comments, then just allow it to be "read only" and turn it into everything it should never be.
I dont like Kool Aid, I dont use fluoride, and I chew my own food.
I'll incur the nusiance rather than give up a choice.
[edit on 5-10-2009 by HappilyEverAfter]
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 08:22 AM by poet1b
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
Except nobody suggested any of the things you claim are being suggested. No one is trying to censor anyone. All that is being asked it that we be given a right give a thumbs down to posts that we think are nothing but political tripe designed to get a reaction.
How dare we ask the right to voice our opinions!
Isn't that what you are saying.
We can't be allowed to give a thumbs down on threads that we don't like.
You are the one who wants to censor our right to free speech, and that goes for all the posters who makes these posts about their rights while their intent is to trample all over the rights of others.
Limit the ability of people to only give three thumbs up or down a day, total, which means people would have to be selective about where they hand these opinions out, and chances are that the flag system would be more effective.
That is my opinion, that is all. I want to increase the ability of people to express themselves.
Except nobody suggested any of the things you claim are being suggested. No one is trying to censor anyone. All that is being asked it that we be given a right give a thumbs down to posts that we think are nothing but political tripe designed to get a reaction.
How dare we ask the right to voice our opinions!
Isn't that what you are saying.
We can't be allowed to give a thumbs down on threads that we don't like.
You are the one who wants to censor our right to free speech, and that goes for all the posters who makes these posts about their rights while their intent is to trample all over the rights of others.
Limit the ability of people to only give three thumbs up or down a day, total, which means people would have to be selective about where they hand these opinions out, and chances are that the flag system would be more effective.
That is my opinion, that is all. I want to increase the ability of people to express themselves.
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 08:46 AM by HappilyEverAfter
reply to post by poet1b
Spin!
The option already exisits.
You suggest limits, I suggest none.
You suggest censorship.
I suggest none.
Point.
This thread isnt at the top of the list is it.
So the system works.
Put up with the nusiance, or dont read it.
I look forward to reading any informational or enlightening posts you may have in the future,
something thats educational or interesting would be great.
And then "I" will determine whether or not "I" like it and continue to read it, S&F it, or just not read it,
MAYBE it will be important (in your opinion)
MAYBE it will be important (in my opinion)
MAYBE it will be propaganda, disinfo, or just the ramblings of a soul in search of the mother ship who likes carrot cake and thick wool socks on the beach that wants eveyone to like that too.
In that case, I'll probably laugh alittle and not pay too much attention.
But I'll wish I would have once the ship comes through the clouds and and the world starts to split in two and they tell me I can get on board "only" if I have carrot cake and thick wool socks.
My how I made a mistake,
But then that was MY CHOICE, to NOT read what you posted.
ANYONE asking for limits and censoring is going to be looked as suspect by me.
Once the door cracks open it never closes.
Thats my opinion.
Spin!
The option already exisits.
You suggest limits, I suggest none.
You suggest censorship.
I suggest none.
Point.
This thread isnt at the top of the list is it.
So the system works.
Put up with the nusiance, or dont read it.
I look forward to reading any informational or enlightening posts you may have in the future,
something thats educational or interesting would be great.
And then "I" will determine whether or not "I" like it and continue to read it, S&F it, or just not read it,
MAYBE it will be important (in your opinion)
MAYBE it will be important (in my opinion)
MAYBE it will be propaganda, disinfo, or just the ramblings of a soul in search of the mother ship who likes carrot cake and thick wool socks on the beach that wants eveyone to like that too.
In that case, I'll probably laugh alittle and not pay too much attention.
But I'll wish I would have once the ship comes through the clouds and and the world starts to split in two and they tell me I can get on board "only" if I have carrot cake and thick wool socks.
My how I made a mistake,
But then that was MY CHOICE, to NOT read what you posted.
ANYONE asking for limits and censoring is going to be looked as suspect by me.
Once the door cracks open it never closes.
Thats my opinion.
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 09:04 AM by poet1b
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
No
You suggest limits,
I suggest none.
You suggest censorship.
I suggest none.
I want people to have more ability to express their opinion, while you want to restrict the ability of people to to express themselves.
It isn't about you or me, it is about everyone having the ability to express their opinion, whether it is positive or negative.
No
You suggest limits,
I suggest none.
You suggest censorship.
I suggest none.
I want people to have more ability to express their opinion, while you want to restrict the ability of people to to express themselves.
It isn't about you or me, it is about everyone having the ability to express their opinion, whether it is positive or negative.
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 09:41 AM by HappilyEverAfter
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
No
You suggest limits,
I suggest none.
You suggest censorship.
I suggest none.
I want people to have more ability to express their opinion, while you want to restrict the ability of people to to express themselves.
It isn't about you or me, it is about everyone having the ability to express their opinion, whether it is positive or negative.
Please answer the questions I've asked you.
WHAT vicious posts?
Youre SPINNING this because its not going your way.
READ your words, you wrote them,
CITE the instances and political attacks youre referring to.
PLEASE provide some substance to your case for censorship and control PLEASE show the infractions and violations,
Stay on point with this.
Make your case.
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 10:23 AM by poet1b
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
It is very clean cut and dry
I am saying give people the option to say they they don't think a thread is important, to go along with the flag system. I am asking that people be given more of an opportunity to voice their option.
You are saying people should not have the right to vote against a thread, you are therefore the one trying to keep the ability of others to express their opinion restricted. You are the one trying to restrict the free speech of others.
It is very clean cut and dry
I am saying give people the option to say they they don't think a thread is important, to go along with the flag system. I am asking that people be given more of an opportunity to voice their option.
You are saying people should not have the right to vote against a thread, you are therefore the one trying to keep the ability of others to express their opinion restricted. You are the one trying to restrict the free speech of others.
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 10:26 AM by poet1b
reply to post by Violet Sky
Actually, I don't care about the stars, I would just like to see the TOP board improved by giving people the ability to say they don't think a thread is important, and therefore does not belong on the TOP board. That is done with the flags, not the stars. Threads that draw a lot of participation will continue to be on the HOT board.
I think the star system is fine.
Actually, I don't care about the stars, I would just like to see the TOP board improved by giving people the ability to say they don't think a thread is important, and therefore does not belong on the TOP board. That is done with the flags, not the stars. Threads that draw a lot of participation will continue to be on the HOT board.
I think the star system is fine.
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 10:38 AM by HappilyEverAfter
reply to post by poet1b
I'm done with this.
You refuse to cite and provide proof.
You have become your own example of nonsense posting.
I'm choosing to walk away, see!!!!
Choice - exercised.
I'm done with this.
You refuse to cite and provide proof.
You have become your own example of nonsense posting.
I'm choosing to walk away, see!!!!
Choice - exercised.
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 10:41 AM by intrepid
reply to post by poet1b
I don't understand your concern. As I've previously stated, what you think is unimportant others may think it is. Secondly, "hot topics" generally get replaced in 24 hours. So what's the beef?
I don't understand your concern. As I've previously stated, what you think is unimportant others may think it is. Secondly, "hot topics" generally get replaced in 24 hours. So what's the beef?
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 11:08 AM by ecoparity
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
It is very clean cut and dry
I am saying give people the option to say they they don't think a thread is important, to go along with the flag system. I am asking that people be given more of an opportunity to voice their option.
You are saying people should not have the right to vote against a thread, you are therefore the one trying to keep the ability of others to express their opinion restricted. You are the one trying to restrict the free speech of others.
CENSORSHIP IS NOT EXPRESSION
You have no "right to censor others". Your right is to ignore it or participate.
Your equal right of expression is to be able to make your own threads about the subject you choose without them being censored.
You really just don't get it.
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 12:45 PM by 3DPrisoner
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
No
You suggest limits,
I suggest none.
You suggest censorship.
I suggest none.
I want people to have more ability to express their opinion, while you want to restrict the ability of people to to express themselves.
It isn't about you or me, it is about everyone having the ability to express their opinion, whether it is positive or negative.
You do too suggest limits and are deliberately being coy. Drumming a thread out of the Most Active or Hot boards is a means to subvert political opinions or topics that you do not agree with.
Sorry, but the members here can see right through your little charade. I sure as hell can anyway.
You are trying to cleverly advocate CENSORSHIP here. The internet, which is our last bastion of FREEDOM OF SPEECH that we have left is doing just fine without antics that your suggesting that are truly..... Disgusting.
reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 01:27 PM by HappilyEverAfter
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
Thank you Thank you Thank you,!
it makes for a better day when some one else "gets it" as well.
Thank you Thank you Thank you,!
it makes for a better day when some one else "gets it" as well.
