 
     |
| "2000 Mules" (Page 6/22) |
|
olejoedad
|
MAY 08, 09:14 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
 |
|
Ones character is the only thing in life that one can control.
How will those you leave behind remember you?
Were you a person that others will look up to, or down on?
The measure of a man is his character.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
MAY 08, 09:19 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
After reading the full transcript that you linked to, I must ask you what you find problematic about what was said? |
|
rinse, you must have missed this post.
I'm sure you would enjoy addressing this question.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 08, 10:00 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
After reading the full transcript that you linked to, I must ask you what you find problematic about what was said? |
|
Ask you must. But I can't go into it right now. Later, or tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow? Maybe.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
MAY 08, 11:04 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Ask you must. But I can't go into it right now. Later, or tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow? Maybe. |
|
I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
MAY 08, 11:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
MAY 09, 07:09 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Sorry to register that. Slightly sorry. It's not a "show stopper" for me, but it's not welcome news.
Is it contagious? The systematic not reading of "that other guy's" posts.
Makes me think again of an idea I've been turning over in my mind, from time to time. Of whether to try to suggest to the one person who could make it happen that a screen name selectable post blocker would be another step forward for the Pennock's forum. I don't know, about trying to make that suggestion. I don't think I would want to have any other forum member's automatically and systematically blocked from my view, unless I could turn it Off and On myself. So I'm not of a mind (yet) to try to make that suggestion.
It kind of "hit me" some weeks ago that the "Blacklist" feature that Cliff Pennock implemented some time ago could be like a foundation or first step towards implementing a version of this "post blocker" function that I just described. So if there is already an exclusionary relationship in the forum software that prevents "Joe Blow" from posting in any thread that's been started by "Rick Dick" (and vice versa), perhaps that could be extended to provide a functionality for Joe Blow to have the content of all posts from Rick Dick automatically and systematically excluded from Joe Blow's view (and vice versa). If it could be turned Off and On by Joe Blow (and vice versa).
For anyone and everyone's interest, except for Jake_Dragon, who obviously won't be reading this.
|
|
After some consideration of your idea, perhaps it would be a good feature for the Forum owner to implement.
I doubt that he will, however, because once it is implemented, I think his Forum traffic would decrease dramatically, which would affect what income he realizes from this Forum.
Why would traffic decrease?
Any thoughts on that?
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
MAY 09, 11:19 AM
|
|
so did the rump win by 7,000,000
or by just got the magic numbers to win with less overall votes like in 2016
or does no number matter as the rump is dogmatically correct
so clearly any other result was from Satan ?
what is the result you feel entitled to ?
does it have a relationship to the counted votes ?
if some demo's cheated
do you think any of the Gop did cheat also ?
did the Gop cheat in 2010 or 2000 or 2016
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAY 09, 12:28 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
After some consideration of your idea, perhaps it would be a good feature for the Forum owner to implement.
I doubt that he will, however, because once it is implemented, I think his Forum traffic would decrease dramatically, which would affect what income he realizes from this Forum.
Why would traffic decrease?
Any thoughts on that? |
|
Some would block everyone with whom they disagree, and without an antagonist would no longer have anything to say. For better or worse, it would significantly reduce traffic.
If you go to a buffet (I'm sure rinselberg would never indulge in such a pedestrian activity), do you demand that the establishment remove from your sight all distasteful comestibles?
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 09, 12:59 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
Some would block everyone with whom they disagree, and without an antagonist would no longer have anything to say. For better or worse, it would significantly reduce traffic.
If you go to a buffet (I'm sure rinselberg would never indulge in such a pedestrian activity), do you demand that the establishment remove from your sight all distasteful comestibles? |
|
What if it is tied to the "Blacklist" feature that is Cliff Pennock's most recent addition to the software functionality? The system that Cliff has set up so that "A" cannot post into any thread started by "B", and vice-versa? It could just be an enlargement of this feature. Cliff himself controls that directly. So it wouldn't be a generalized option that all of us would see or be able to use. If that is how it were implemented.
I personally don't put any stock in this idea that a selective blocking functionality of this kind would have any predictable effect on the amount of activity that the forum generates, or cause any change in the revenues that accord to Cliff Pennock from the ad sponsors. I just can't get my head around that thought. (Truthfully, I have no experience, as I have never hosted a website or an online messaging forum or anything else of that kind.)[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-09-2022).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAY 09, 01:03 PM
|
|
|
Just as some watch the races just for the crashes, I'm sure that some come here for a similar thrill.
|
|
|
|