Forum Rules: Welcome to the Party

Does signatures count as breaking the rules?

Seriously?

until someone starts a whiney thread about sigs.

then NO they're ok … even mine

G. P. Snorklewacker wrote: Can we rename it to a less catchy Lesley Gore tune? Maybe Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows?

BTW, RIP Lesley (2/16/15)

Marjorie Suddard wrote: And as such, I am returning this forum to party rules. Because frankly, I'm tired of listening to some of your yaps. It's not fun, it's not cool, it does nothing for anyone but the few people who keep arguing their own points for their own amusement. So here's the deal: You are at a party. A nice cocktail party with a mix of people--some friends, some strangers. Therefore you will observe basic rules of etiquette: You will refrain from politics, religion, or droning on long after the rest of the party has walked away from a conversation. Not because these topics are delicious forbidden fruit that you can't have because the world has nambified and now sucks, but because it's rude, and has been since the days when a "real man" would just deck you for talking that way in front of a mixed crowd. Besides, although you can't see it, you look like an shiny happy person standing there in the middle of the room spouting and arguing with yourself. And shiny happy people are not fun. You will try to raise your standards, since this particular party has some pretty smart people present and, once again, you don't want to look like an idiot standing in the middle of the room. You will not expect democracy or "free speech." You are in my house, and if you offend me, I'm sure as E36 M3 gonna kick you out. Double that if you make me look bad to the neighbors (i.e. my present and prospective customers). Don't take my house for granted, and clean up after yourself. Welcome newcomers to the party. You were new once. No party is more dead than the one with the cliquish group over in the corner staring suspiciously at the dip. So open your ears, close your mouth, and make sure you mingle. Your new best friend may have just arrived. Thanks. And if the "party" metaphor doesn't work, let me lay this out: This here forum is for my business (wowza, what a concept). Tim and I have spent 30+ years building that business, especially the tone and flavor of that business, and you are crazy if you feel entitled to dictate that it be any different from what we, and the people we work with, have chosen and worked to promulgate. So again, shut your yap about how it's "supposed" to be. Thanks. Have fun. Mingle. Margie

http://truecenterpublishing.com/psycyber/disinhibit.html

This makes for some interesting reading. It also makes for some interesting internetz trolling, especially if you know how to do it properly.

Bump: Please refer to the updated rules at the beginning of this thread. Flounders (and not-a-flounders) will be disappeared, as will the posters who demonstrate an inability to exhibit mutual respect.

Margie

Margie for President 2016!!!

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Bump: Please refer to the updated rules at the beginning of this thread. Flounders (and not-a-flounders) will be disappeared, as will the posters who demonstrate an inability to exhibit mutual respect. Margie

Margie, please pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by " flounders and not-a-flounders will be disappeared." That is foreign language to this geezer. Sorry, but I just want to be absolutely clear on the rules of engagement.

From our Wikipedia page (under "Memes"): Flounder: a person or post that pushes a political ideology, but doesn't necessarily add to the thread or topic - a type of political rhetoric spam. Based loosely on the National Lampoon's Animal House character.

The "not-a-flounder" refers to floundering topics with "not a flounder" in the title, or floundering posts containing that wording. You can say a thing is not a thing all day long, but if it walks like a flounder and quacks like a flounder, it probably is. When in doubt, all ties go to the house.

Also, if you're coming at this under "rules of engagement"--i.e. adversarially--you might want to reconsider. It's supposed to be fun for all involved.

Margie

I'm responsible for "Flounder" with the following logic/quote....

"Why Flounder?"

"Why not?"

Good job Margie.

Thank you.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: From our Wikipedia page (under "Memes"): Flounder: a person or post that pushes a political ideology, but doesn't necessarily add to the thread or topic - a type of political rhetoric spam. Based loosely on the National Lampoon's Animal House character. The "not-a-flounder" refers to floundering topics with "not a flounder" in the title, or floundering posts containing that wording. You can say a thing is not a thing all day long, but if it walks like a flounder and quacks like a flounder, it probably is. When in doubt, all ties go to the house. Also, if you're coming at this under "rules of engagement"--i.e. adversarially--you might want to reconsider. It's supposed to be fun for all involved. Margie

Thanks for the clarification Margie. And I would not think to come at this from an adversarial standpoint. That didn't even cross my mind. In fact, here is what I believe to be a good usage of the term which is very appropriate here:

"The 'rules of engagement' were simple to follow, but if you broke one of the rules, you would have to pay the consequences."

In reply to Gary:

Cool. And glad to help :)

Good job team for keeping the board civil.

Honestly, people. Is it SO hard to follow the rules?

But the rules don't apply to them! They are special snowflakes.

Margie

Marjorie Suddard wrote: But the rules don't apply to them! They are special snowflakes. Margie

They're special something all right.

In reply to Tom_Spangler:

I think it's more an issue of people failing to take a moment to pull their head out of their own arse before posting. It doesn't matter which side of the argument they're on, as it plagues them both.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to Tom_Spangler: I think it's more an issue of people failing to take a moment to pull their head out of their own arse before posting. It doesn't matter which side of the argument they're on, as it plagues them both.

I get all bent out of shape when people go for the racial slurs straight off.... but.. I realized all this farting about on the interwebs aint worth my time.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to Tom_Spangler: I think it's more an issue of people failing to take a moment to pull their head out of their own arse before posting. It doesn't matter which side of the argument they're on, as it plagues them both.

Absolutely agreed. But I'm talking about resisting the temptation to go political on a forum where we've been warned time and time again not to, and in a THREAD where we were warned several times, and had a couple of locks already.

I mean, jeez. Get the hint!

the political crap most seem to have a problem with is because no one seems to be able to resist acting like children in the sandbox ... a position stated without the BS, could be tolerated ... as I said most don't seem to be able to leave it at that ...

plus there are several (y'all know who you are) that always seem to have to make some snarky comment about how we're not supposed to be talking about these things ... even when there haven't been anything posted that is out of bounds ... those comments really aren't helpful

I and the other mods aren't adverse to deleting any or all posts as needed ...

Margie can and will step in when we fail at our job ... apologies to Margie ... I should actually look into more for the threads than I do ... I'm not interested in some of the topics and fail to monitor them

In reply to Tom_Spangler:

Aside from the kick in the xxxx comments from select individuals, it was fairly tame.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to Tom_Spangler: Aside from the kick in the xxxx comments from select individuals, it was fairly tame.

This.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to Tom_Spangler: Aside from the kick in the xxxx comments from select individuals, it was fairly tame.

And I apologized for that. I wasn't directing it toward anyone on the forum, for sure. I said it out of frustration and sadness.

Again, I promise, it was NOT directed at anyone on the forum, and please accept my apologies if you took it to be.

Joey