BEWARE Snake Oil Salesmen!

Bertha deBlues wrote:

Marillion wrote: I agree with PR. The link would still be viewable for those that want to see it but it would reduce promotion for these kinds of scams. Although my understanding is even visiting the site promotes it. Which is why I won't even go to that site, if someone has already spoken about it.

I also agree with palerider. That site would benefit by having users of this site link directly to it. It is not censorship to simply make it not be a clickable link. Anyone who wants to go there can copy/paste and remove spaces or whatever to visit the site.

Sorry to disagree but -- unless the owner of the post makes the change himslef, ANY change to somebody's post by a moderator IS "censorship" ...

cen·sor·ship:
noun.

The definition of censorship is the practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought. Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen. If you've ever heard the sound of bleeping when someone is speaking on television, that's censorship ... likewise, hiding or disconnecting links to save others from themselves (or their ignorance) is censorship.

DreamStalker wrote:

Bertha deBlues wrote:

Marillion wrote: I agree with PR. The link would still be viewable for those that want to see it but it would reduce promotion for these kinds of scams. Although my understanding is even visiting the site promotes it. Which is why I won't even go to that site, if someone has already spoken about it.

I also agree with palerider. That site would benefit by having users of this site link directly to it. Simply make it not be a clickable link. Anyone who wants to go there can copy/paste and remove spaces or whatever to visit the site.

Sorry to disagree but -- unless the owner of the post makes the change himslef, ANY change to somebody's post by a moderator IS "censorship" ...

cen·sor·ship:
noun.

The definition of censorship is the practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought. Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen. If you've ever heard the sound of bleeping when someone is speaking on television, that's censorship ... likewise, hiding or disconnecting links to save others from themselves (or their ignorance) is censorship.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Marillion wrote: Although my understanding is even visiting the site promotes it. Which is why I won't even go to that site, if someone has already spoken about it.

Hi Marillion ~~~ I've never addressed you before but confess to admiring your leggings *MANY* times

I wonder if you can remember how, when, where you learned not to click on these types of links and more importantly how you learned to discern the uselessness of the site if you happened to go there?

I've read stories about people who believed the computer and actually drove off cliffs because gps told them it was the right way? I tend to doubt those stories though as it is too much like the "lemming" legend.

It seems the highest and best to teach others to think/ fish for themselves instead of doing the thinking/fishing for them?

UNLESS we are speaking of fashion!
In which case I would love to see 2018 convince all men to wear leggings and cute vests.

Bertha deBlues wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:

Bertha deBlues wrote:

Marillion wrote: I agree with PR. The link would still be viewable for those that want to see it but it would reduce promotion for these kinds of scams. Although my understanding is even visiting the site promotes it. Which is why I won't even go to that site, if someone has already spoken about it.

I also agree with palerider. That site would benefit by having users of this site link directly to it. It is not censorship to simply make it not be a clickable link. Anyone who wants to go there can copy/paste and remove spaces or whatever to visit the site.

Sorry to disagree but -- unless the owner of the post makes the change himslef, ANY change to somebody's post by a moderator IS "censorship" ...

cen·sor·ship:
noun.

The definition of censorship is the practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought. Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen. If you've ever heard the sound of bleeping when someone is speaking on television, that's censorship ... likewise, hiding or disconnecting links to save others from themselves (or their ignorance) is censorship.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Or we can agree that you do not understand the definition or meaning of censorship.

For example (Not that Pugsy would ever do such a thing):

If I make a post agreeing to disagree with your definition/understanding of censorship and I back up my position with a link like the one below ...
censorship

And then because the moderator or the group as a whole disagrees with my position and the moderator then decides modify my post to make the link not clickable in an attempt to make it more difficult for others to see my referenced link and protect your safe space ... you would not call that censorship?

"In 399 BC, Greek philosopher, Socrates, defied attempts by the Greek state to censor his philosophical teachings and was sentenced to death by drinking a poison, hemlock." -- kicked off the bus so to speak.

Pugs,

You have good judgment, I think your discretion will be just fine. My only advice would be that namecalling not be allowed. I don't even care if one of my opinions is labeled idiotic, but I would like there to be no option for name calling. Personal insults are a bit iffier, but I have seen little to make me believe that's an issue here. But whatever you Do, I will support. Thanks for taking on this difficult task. Also, as things get back to routine and "normal" I suspect all the worry and chatter about having a moderator will just shrivel u and die.

But I do have the question is there a mechanism to keep a certain insane poster who shall not be named from resurrecting with a new name?

.

DreamStalker wrote:

Bertha deBlues wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:

Bertha deBlues wrote:

Marillion wrote: I agree with PR. The link would still be viewable for those that want to see it but it would reduce promotion for these kinds of scams. Although my understanding is even visiting the site promotes it. Which is why I won't even go to that site, if someone has already spoken about it.

I also agree with palerider. That site would benefit by having users of this site link directly to it. Simply make it not be a clickable link. Anyone who wants to go there can copy/paste and remove spaces or whatever to visit the site.

Sorry to disagree but -- unless the owner of the post makes the change himslef, ANY change to somebody's post by a moderator IS "censorship" ...

cen·sor·ship:
noun.

The definition of censorship is the practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought. Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen. If you've ever heard the sound of bleeping when someone is speaking on television, that's censorship ... likewise, hiding or disconnecting links to save others from themselves (or their ignorance) is censorship.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Or we can agree that you do not understand the definition or meaning of censorship.

For example (Not that Pugsy would ever do such a thing):

If I make a post agreeing to disagree with your definition/understanding of censorship and I back up my position with a link like the one below ...
censorship

And then because the moderator or the group as a whole disagrees with my position and the moderator then decides modify my post to make the link not clickable in an attempt to make it more difficult for others to see my referenced link and protect your safe space ... you would not call that censorship?

"In 399 BC, Greek philosopher, Socrates, defied attempts by the Greek state to censor his philosophical teachings and was sentenced to death by drinking a poison, hemlock." -- kicked off the bus so to speak.

I am entitled to my opinion. All I did was state it, which is allowed. I will not engage in an argument with you. Over and out.

DreamStalker wrote:And then because the moderator or the group as a whole disagrees with my position and the moderator then decides modify my post to make the link not clickable in an attempt to make it more difficult for others to see my referenced link and protect your safe space ... you would not call that censorship?

Yes, I see your point and agree that IS censorship. BUT... how far do you want to take this before it ends up being yet another argument. I'm very much enjoying the calm. You?

Bertha deBlues wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:

Bertha deBlues wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:

Bertha deBlues wrote: I also agree with palerider. That site would benefit by having users of this site link directly to it. It is not censorship to simply make it not be a clickable link. Anyone who wants to go there can copy/paste and remove spaces or whatever to visit the site.

Sorry to disagree but -- unless the owner of the post makes the change himslef, ANY change to somebody's post by a moderator IS "censorship" ...

cen·sor·ship:
noun.

The definition of censorship is the practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought. Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen. If you've ever heard the sound of bleeping when someone is speaking on television, that's censorship ... likewise, hiding or disconnecting links to save others from themselves (or their ignorance) is censorship.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Or we can agree that you do not understand the definition or meaning of censorship.

For example (Not that Pugsy would ever do such a thing):

If I make a post agreeing to disagree with your definition/understanding of censorship and I back up my position with a link like the one below ...
censorship

And then because the moderator or the group as a whole disagrees with my position and the moderator then decides modify my post to make the link not clickable in an attempt to make it more difficult for others to see my referenced link and protect your safe space ... you would not call that censorship?

"In 399 BC, Greek philosopher, Socrates, defied attempts by the Greek state to censor his philosophical teachings and was sentenced to death by drinking a poison, hemlock." -- kicked off the bus so to speak.

I am entitled to my opinion. All I did was state it, which is allowed. I will not engage in an argument with you. Over and out.

Indeed you are entitled to your "opinion" ... just as a definition of fact is entirely different from your "opinion".

You too have a great day and wonderful tomorrow.

Lucyhere wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:And then because the moderator or the group as a whole disagrees with my position and the moderator then decides modify my post to make the link not clickable in an attempt to make it more difficult for others to see my referenced link and protect your safe space ... you would not call that censorship?

Yes, I see your point and agree that IS censorship. BUT... how far do you want to take this before it ends up being yet another argument. I'm very much enjoying the calm. You?

I enjoy life and liberty ... including calm debate.

And I'm also passionate about the perils of censorship.

TASmart wrote: But I do have the question is there a mechanism to keep a certain insane poster who shall not be named from resurrecting with a new name?

No, not with 100% accuracy that I am aware of. Carolyn and I have already discussed the limitations of the forum filtering.
There are some road blocks though ...it takes a bit of work and I won't go into that publicly but anyone with half a brain will know how to circumvent the system...but this has happened before and people sneak back in but their personality and writing style is usually something they can't hide for long and they are eventually spotted and dealt with.

There have been some others banned (but not publicly like this recent one) in the past who did sneak back in but were rather quickly found out because they just can't keep their mouths shut.

Pugsy wrote:

TASmart wrote: But I do have the question is there a mechanism to keep a certain insane poster who shall not be named from resurrecting with a new name?

No, not with 100% accuracy that I am aware of. Carolyn and I have already discussed the limitations of the forum filtering.
There are some road blocks though ...it takes a bit of work and I won't go into that publicly but anyone with half a brain will know how to circumvent the system...but this has happened before and people sneak back in but their personality and writing style is usually something they can't hide for long and they are eventually spotted and dealt with.

There have been some others banned (but not publicly like this recent one) in the past who did sneak back in but were rather quickly found out because they just can't keep their mouths shut.

That's news to me.

I thought xxyz was the first ever to be banned.

Just goes to show how little I pay attention to other people's posts.

Hmmm ... I do recall one guy a while back who cursed like a sailor (no offense to sailors intended) in each and everyone of his posts and then suddenly disappeared.

DreamStalker wrote:That's news to me.

I thought xxyz was the first ever to be banned.

Just goes to show how little I pay attention to other people's posts.

Hmmm ... I do recall one guy a while back who cursed like a sailor (no offense to sailors intended) in each and everyone of his posts and then suddenly disappeared.

The last one publicly banned was Calist if my memory serves me but I am pretty sure that there have been others since then who were quietly removed because of the offensive nature of their posts.
One was the use of way too much profanity and one was because of really saying something really bad to a person (threatening if I remember right)...hard to remember the specifics. I wasn't totally included in the entire loop when that happened...just got bits and pieces here and there and put 2 and 2 together.
Either that or they got their hands slapped so many times that they finally decided to up and leave...except I remember one user name who was quite a nasty person and his member name doesn't show up when I looked for it... I don't remember all of them but I do remember one.
Not been very many though...a handful maybe.

I don't know about what happened before my time here and the Calist banning happened when I was away from the computer for a while so I didn't really get to "enjoy" his little disruptions....I just got in on the tail end of things.

Banning is absolutely the last resort...the person getting the axe would have had multiple warnings about their inappropriate behavior. It never comes totally out of the blue with no inkling it was coming.
Calist got the axe because he violated a very important part of the user agreement....misrepresentation of himself. He publicly lied and got caught in the lie and it was a pretty big lie. Johnny will tolerate a lot of stuff but not that.

Pugsy wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:That's news to me.

I thought xxyz was the first ever to be banned.

Just goes to show how little I pay attention to other people's posts.

Hmmm ... I do recall one guy a while back who cursed like a sailor (no offense to sailors intended) in each and everyone of his posts and then suddenly disappeared.

The last one publicly banned was Calist if my memory serves me but I am pretty sure that there have been others since then who were quietly removed because of the offensive nature of their posts.
One was the use of way too much profanity and one was because of really saying something really bad to a person (threatening if I remember right)...hard to remember the specifics. I wasn't totally included in the entire loop when that happened...just got bits and pieces here and there and put 2 and 2 together.
Either that or they got their hands slapped so many times that they finally decided to up and leave...except I remember one user name who was quite a nasty person and his member name doesn't show up when I looked for it... I don't remember all of them but I do remember one.
Not been very many though...a handful maybe.

I don't know about what happened before my time here and the Calist banning happened when I was away from the computer for a while so I didn't really get to "enjoy" his little disruptions....I just got in on the tail end of things.

Banning is absolutely the last resort...the person getting the axe would have had multiple warnings about their inappropriate behavior. It never comes totally out of the blue with no inkling it was coming.
Calist got the axe because he violated a very important part of the user agreement....misrepresentation of himself. He publicly lied and got caught in the lie and it was a pretty big lie. Johnny will tolerate a lot of stuff but not that.

Although I've been around the forum for a while, I've taken a few hiatuses from time to time and may have missed some of the fireworks and previous expulsions ... which is why I was surprised with this most recent one being the first known to me.

jnk... wrote:End of my comments. . . . I will henceforth do my utmost to maintain strict neutrality in all future political discussions concerning board maintenance.

OK. I lied.

My opinion on banning, which ain't even worth 1/8th of a Starbucks grande, is that I personally don't care if a previously banned "person" comes back with a new identity, IF that person has the ability to modify his or her behavior to the extent that he or she is unrecognizable. Basically, I consider it to be the behavior that is banned, not the human behind the online identity.

Then again, it ain't my forum, which is actually something I really like about this place: I'd much rather attend a good party thrown by someone else rather than having to put all the effort into throwing one myself, lazy me.

Which reminds me, who made the dip? And who ate all the shrimp again? Just stay away from the snake oil--it tastes nasty.