that's what i always thought those threads were for, todd. a place for you to be you. frankly, i always thought they should just be named "todd's rantings".

Ahhh, but deb, I often find more truth in Todd's rantings than in other peoples logic!
I bet the coven would be willing to make him a bitch before me ever making it to that status! I'm sure Todd being a lesbian and all won't hurt his chances either!

oh, i agree, larry. i mostly enjoy todd's posts...when i understand them. he has definite bitch potential, unlike you.

i have one last thing to say
JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED.


goodbye

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mongo71:


goodbye<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot to say " You are the weakest link" before you said "goodbye"!

is that anything like not answering in the form of a question???

hey! the most controversial thing about most of controversial topics is that some folks seem to take perverse pleasure in filling up a thread faster than a bathroom fills up during Alice's!!!!!!
Some folks gotta remember that this is a board, and not a chat... someone mentioned that the language allowed in BLAT is restricted as compared to these threads... is that true? or are we just policing ourselves due to the nature of Blat...?

Kim, you always say good stuff... but I'll also say, that if folks want a "controversial" thread to do some of their silly, childish, 'controversial' stuff, well, who are we to say no? I liked the idea of the Stern Stuff thread, and what about Rather Rude Poetry?? Yeah, you may argue it should be on Blunderboard, or Topical... or not on a board at all, but there's more than one form of controversial... isn't there? or am I missing something (i usually am, so forgive me as usual)
and I personally take pride in trying to keep up a place for todd to call his own, and feel comfortable and to stick around... this place is always a little diminished when he's not here!

Personally, I think you're all a great bunch of people, and there's NOTHING controversial about that! (even that mongo17 dude!)

there was a reference made to their being a problem with a limited number of people posting on a thread or on any thread. i looked up the number of users and thier posts and found the following.
921 registered users and of them
9- 1000+posts

2- 800-900posts

1- 700-800posts

2- 500-600posts

1- 400-500posts

7- 300-400posts

14- 200-300posts

7- 100-200posts

877 0-100posts

who here does not see the development of a clique???????

of the people posting on this thread and what they have said the one person who developed the web page pays for the bandwith and maintains the site (i know he has help)
has said nothing about the posts or the topic of them. he set a general guidline for rules and then lets the sit fall where it may..
in the names of the rest of the high volume posters there are several i have not seen post in my time here. so i propose this.
instead of a few elitist trying to claim ownership and govern something that is not governable. if you don't like what is being said do what most of the people reading your rant do. don't get involved.
if you feel offended than say that.
if you are emotionaly hurt say that.
but do not attempt to inhibit someones speach because you don't like it. you defiy the basic fumdamentals of your belif system when you judge someone by your standards. who the fuck are you.

if people need to vent then let them.; to say someone is fixated just because of one daysposts is narrow minded and ignorant. you obviosly dont like what they had to say.
say that.

to paronize someone by posting about something they have just said and then to "i'll cut you a little slack on this and not let it regester on my bitch scale" is a greater cry for help than anything else i have seen in a while. if you are insecure and need attention than ask for it. but don't patronize and insinuate that you and you scale have some power oversomeone else.
if their is a long standing problem than address it.

don't hide from it.

of all the people that read this thread and visit this web site. why do you think they don't post. do you realy think it is because of the one thread or is it more because some people need a clique to validate them and a new person with different ideas on life challenges those belifs??????????????

i don't know why other people don't post, but i know why i didn't, at first - i was scared.

i "hung out" for a month or two of evenings in blat, but never posted here - on these boards - because i could not seem to come up with "rules". one of the minor wizards (one of the people who i was intimidated by) at the time went out of their way to meet me in blat and chat via email, and we talked, and i started to post.

the discomfort i felt had nothing to do with cliques - as soon as i felt comfortable enough to take the initiative, i was welcomed.

i remember happening what people are saying about todd's threads here - and, having been asked more than once to chat with him on these threads (remember that run to hit your first 1000, todd? LOL!), i have lately felt more comfortable being stupid/goofy on the controversial threads started for this purpose, than elsewhere. but, like i said before, stuff changes, and if the agreement is that this should change, life goes on...

i also agree with kim about the "naughty" words, but i think that's mostly a matter of taste and upbringing. to me, it's more fun to be suggestive without being specific. it's more funny to me to read, "you might not be pointing your finger, but you are trying to point something..." than "ok, well if you're not pointing your finger, you must be pointing your penis..." i'm not offended by the more blatant words - i just find the other more enjoyable and challenging.

by the same token, with a few exceptions, i don't like it when a legitimate debate turns from "your idea" is (bad, stupid, in need of work) to "you" are (bad, stupid, in need of work). exceptions - to me - here are the obvious and accepted (fun!) "bitch" references and stuff like that. i've gotten some of those "you are ..." responses - i generally take them ultimately as a white flag - the person can't figure out a legitimate response, so they lower themselves to "so's your old man." although, my first reactions to these types of posts are more reactionary and rude - just usually not posted. (sparkydon suffered what i first wanted to say to quinn for quite some time. but, to post it here would have been childless, thoughtless, and only added to what was ticking me off.)

ok, this started out as a comment on the "clique" reference, and i'm late for work, so i'm just gonna say... i don't think a clique is (or cliques are) the problem. i think the boards are big and intimidating. some people join in, others don't.

what's that i hear??? the monotonous drone of pragmatism?? i hate when that happens!

if i wanted that,,,hell, i could have a conversation with pat.

actually, mongo...the webmaster didn't create the site, make some rules and let it fall where it may. the reason you don't always hear from him is that he simply does not have the time to read each and every board. it's why he has minor wizards and moderators to help him out. sometimes, they just say what they think needs to be said, based on their understanding of how he envisions the site. other times, they may actually discuss an issue with him before responding. since most of the people with high numbers on the posting scale are some of these same people, i can only guess that those are the people that you think are in a "clique". mostly, it's due to the fact that those same people have been around since the beginning of arlonet...it's only natural that they would have more posts. i know my post count is high, but anyone paying attention could see there are sometimes days that go by where i don't post at all.

back to the "let the site fall where it may" thing. those of us that have been here for eons know some history about what happens when some people decide that the boards are a free for all without regard to how dave sees the site. it wasn't pretty...dave was "hitler" or "satan", and those of us that stuck up for him (because we happened to agree with his rights regarding HIS site) were his "jackbooted minions". some people left, some people stayed.

in any case, what i'm trying to say is the history is there that causes reactions to certain things. people around here learned a lesson...if you let things get too far from the vision of the site, it becomes very hard to rein it back in without causing major problems. sometimes, it just makes more sense to go on the offensive and cut it off early.

as far as why everyone that's registered doesn't post, my guess is there are probably lots of reasons and i don't presume to know what they all are. as far as i know and have seen over the years, anytime someone new posts they are welcomed. if they stray over lines that dave doesn't really want strayed over, it is brought to their attention. if they understand that and continue to want to be part of the community here, they stay and all is well. if they don't, they leave. sometimes, they leave quietly...sometimes, they leave with great fanfare. either way, i guess they go looking for a community that is more in touch with their idea of how it should be. that's their choice...just as it's everyone's choice about posting or not...or wanting to follow the few rules that govern this "semi-moderated" site.

i guess this long winded post basically says...this is dave's site...he owns it. he can do whatever he wants with it, and make up whatever rules he wants. people can accept that, or not...but if they don't accept that basic premise, they're probably going to get some shit along the way, either from him or his "jackbooted minions".

who's passing out the speeders to these tweakers??

I never really read most of the posts that are causing this controversy. Or if I did I don't remember them. Should that stop me from jumping into this? Have to give that some thought...

For more generalized type stuff...all community sites have something along the lines of cliques - just groups of people who've gotten to know each other over time. And there are groups within groups, too, of people who are closer to each other than..well, and so on. Doesn't make it exclusionary...we like new blood..it's yummy.

sorry, todd...it just wouldn't be ethical to give out the name of my contact...at least, in public...

Those figures provided by Mongo are overwhelming. I agree with Star---mainly, there's an intimidation factor involved in wondering whether to post or not. I was reading this stuff for a few months before I decided to register & join in.

There was no intimidation as far as fear of the people here----It was more that it was unknown territory. The idea of computers in homes is still relatively new. I didn't know anything about posting or its etiquette---maybe I still don't---but I approached it like I was writing postcards to freinds, & figured that others would be into it or they wouldn't. It was kind of like having sex----one can't be sure he is doing it right, because he doesn't get to watch someone else do it first.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by joe bloggs on Oct 18, 2001 ---</FONT></center>

Actually, the standard advice on Usenet, the grandfather of all messageboards, was to read for a while before posting on any new board. So, there's nothing wrong with lurking. Then there are people who simply prefer not to post. We've met quite a few people at gigs who read the boards all the time but just don't do posting. They're not scared. They come up and introduce themselves and we're much scarier in person. They just don't want to put their thoughts out on the web, or they can't think of stuff to say. A lot of people register just to ask a specific question and never had any intention of making it a habit. To have a number of regulars, with some turnover and some growth, together with some people just passing through and lots of people who are mainly lurkers is about normal, I'd think.