Chile Forum

would all you little girls quit pulling each others hair, and get back to writing about Chile.

You see, now you can be united in being ticked at me.

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:NO. No, and no and no. This is not what this is about. It's about beating a freaking dead horse to death under a thread....hijacking it

I still believe,

1. If someone doesn't want a comment replied to, they shouldn't make the comment in the first place. Decorum is a two-way street. If the comment doesn't deserve to be hashed out, it didn't add anything to the thread, and the thread wouldn't suffer without it.

2. Beating a dead horse, hijacking, etc., are often defined by "group think" (or, "the community," depending on your standing within "the community" ). Take this thread for example. It spun off into pettiness and un-relatednesses. If that had been me, I suspect we would have seen wild and derogatory assertions again.

We each have a responsibility to encourage expected decorum. I'd say name-calling is worse than exploring ideas advanced within a thread. I'd say, if it doesn't have any place in the thread, the person making the comment which may elicit replies should consider the effect his/her comment may have on the thread. I don't believe a person can make a comment like, "and, as we all know, the US government perpetrated 9/11" and be blameless. In normal social settings, that would be considered boorish unless the social setting is expected to discuss such things. Living behind screen names doesn't change that (IMO).

I do agree that a way to split threads out would be useful. For example, the "mini-tour." It wasn't clear when the topic of crime began how far it would go. It's always easy to be a back-seat driver and complain when it goes too far. But, I don't think we want to encourage people to start new threads at every possible juncture. That would stifle discussion.

I also agree with the participant who suggested we isolate the US-centric politics. My concern is that the board's "collective" behavior is US centric, and with a "leaning" (as eeuu put it) that is unrepresentative of most US citizens, or non-US people. I don't think that can be justified just because "most US ex-pats lean this way." The board should strive for inclusiveness. The US expats who relocated due to job requirements. Non-US expats. The best way to do that is to use common sense and edit ourselves, with an eye to decorum.

Mark

JHyre wrote:It strikes me as common courtesy to post the diatribes in the Lobby, where they belong....of course, common courtesy is anything but common, hence the periodic need for rules.

I don't think that's what's being discussed here. There's been no infractions of off-reservation politics. The complaint is that, even in the lobby, if someone makes a political comment within a thread unrelated to politics, it shouldn't be replied to because the thread isn't about politics. Or, the Mac thread. If someone makes a comment about windows, that shouldn't be replied to.

My position is that the person making the unrelated comment has as much responsibility for the quality or non-specificity of the discussion as the person replying.

Mark

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote: RWS, Vicki and other community members represent people different from my political background but isn't it strange how we all seem to get along despite the accusations we are so bad and not inclusive.

Not really complaining or accusing. Just pointing out the natural tendency of *any* internet forum to develop a "community" (or "group think," depending on one's placement). And, pointing out how that may explain why even this thread (in response to drifting topics by one person) drifted by the "community" in a way that, if it had been the one person, would have resulted in another outburst from you.

Just an observation. Trying to explain, at least partly, what is happening.

Mark

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:So every post I make that is not to your standards is an outburst.

No. But, responding to posts that don't meet yours with "yap," "azzwipe" and "MARKF ADMIN" looks like an outburst to me.

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:And if any tide goes against you it is groupthink.

I was just offering one potential explanation, backed by an example. As I said, it's a common 'net community phenomenon. I'm sure I've engaged in it too.

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:Lets go back to ignoring each other except I have a feeling that you will continue to try to engage whenever vs. JHyre who was gentleman enough to go along with that agreement.

You're free to ignore me if you wish (and have said about two dozen times). That doesn't mean I will ignore you. If you don't want to talk to me, that's fine. If you have a tiff with me, that's fine. I don't have any control over that. But, I'm not a co-dependent. What you choose to do does not mean I'm participating in your behavior, or dictated by it..

Mark