# Playing Nicely Together



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

"Kittens are made of rainbows and glitter." Good one, new Mo! Or should I say, Daniella?

I have a problem with the word "name-calling." What's wrong with name-calling? Don't we all wish to be called by our names? If I call you by your name, Daniella, am I not then name-calling?

I think the word we are after is insults. Cry-baby, whiner, victim, curmudgeon, and arsehole are all nouns, fir instance, but not really names, so to use these epithets to describe someone is not really name-calling. If we stay away from insults, on the other hand, we might all get along a little better.

What suggestions do you have, ehMacians, for how we can all play nicely together?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I have no problems with various nicknames being attached to any political leader or party, but then back in the Nixon-Reagan-Bush eras I learned the hard way that hypocrite is far too mild a label to attach to any politician. Since then I, and I alone decide where I stand on any given issue, and under no conditions do I allow a political machine to do my thinking for me.

So since my own identity is in no way affiliated with any politician or political party, there is no way my nose is going to get out of joint is some other ehMacer should choose to insult some politician or another.


----------



## johnp (Aug 7, 2011)

"What suggestions do you have, ehMacians, for how we can all play nicely together?"
.. biting one's tongue, and sucking in one's thoughts at times, could/might help?


----------



## partsguy (Jul 24, 2012)

Learning the difference between the 'close window' and 'post' buttons is also very helpful, as is using the former more than the latter.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

This question has been asked and answered before, fairly recently, I think.

One issue I keep seeing over and over is that many people (not singling out anyone) tend to look at the ways in which other people should behave, and don't look at their own behaviour. That's not the case for everyone, since there are perfectly nice and reasonable people who have completely valid complaints about others. But the only person you can control is yourself.

When threads get heated, the best policy is to ask yourself if you are contributing to this or not, and if you are, to do something about it.... telling another poster to do something about it gets you no where. Unfortunately, not everyone is good at being able to own their own behaviour (especially in the heat of the moment) and not everyone minds a heated thread... so you get people who blow things up (or are a part of things blowing up) and are fine with that or who blame others for it without taking responsibility for themselves, and it gets ugly fast.

So ultimately, the answer is moderation. But we just don't have that here, at least, not in any consistent way.

Still, my tips would be:
1) Let things go.
2) Give people the benefit of the doubt.
3) Don't take things personally.
4) Don't make things needlessly personal.
5) If someone is baiting you, don't take the bait.
6) Remember that everyone here has the ability to go back and see exactly what happened and what was said--if they care enough to do so. Don't get into a war with someone in some attempt to defend your honour or reputation. Anyone who cares about your reputation can go look for themselves and make up their own mind... and chances are, no one cares as much as you think they do.
7) When upset, step away from the computer.
8) Don't badger people for answers. Just because you asked a question, doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to answer it, and their choice not to answer doesn't mean that you get to interpret that decision for them.
9) A little apology goes a long way.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I believe these are all great suggestions for co-existence so far. I agree that one needs to consider whether the point one is trying to make is worth insulting another member over.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I saw this in the globe and mail. I think I'll borrow it:



> With apologies to Samuel Johnson, rules are the last refuge of a scoundrel.


This is why the lack of good tight moderation never works well. We've seen over the last while the steady loss of good members. The name calling now, which seems almost allowed, personal attacks on people, not only is it a drag for the person attacked, but as Sonal said, nobody really cares, and more to that, no one wants to see it either.

While there's a few places to go, I've been here 10 years, and it's sad to see where things have ended up going.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

Victim. Again. And I have been here for over 12 years watching it progress.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Well that's very well, GT and SINC, but the question was and still is, "What suggestions do you have, ehMacians, for how we can all play nicely together?" I think you can both try and come up with something good.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well mine is tighter moderation. I think a few people can want to play nicely as much as they want, but as my little saying says, that doesn't ensure everyone one will. The last while should be a true indicator of this. I agree with Sonal, I've tried to bite on bait, but when you're followed around you eventually crack. Sorry.

And sorry I certainly didn't intend on ^^ this sort of thing happening. My point was around tighter moderation. That's just my opinion.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Well mine is tighter moderation. I think a few people can want to play nicely as much as they want, but as my little saying says, that doesn't ensure everyone one will. The last while should be a true indicator of this. I agree with Sonal, I've tried to bite on bait, but when you're followed around you eventually crack. Sorry.
> 
> And sorry I certainly didn't intend on ^^ this sort of thing happening. My point was around tighter moderation. That's just my opinion.


Fair enough, GT, but if listen to the subtext of much of what you rite here, it seems like you really want ehMac to fail, and the damn thing just won't die. I'm fine with the lack of moderation myself because I believe grownups can police themselves. If they want to. I think Sonal had a lot of good suggestions that can work in well in just about any context, if we're willing to put aside our differences and make the discussion more important than the personality differences. Any one can get along if they really want to, and it's fine for two websites to co-exist, provided one is not actively trying to poach members from the other.

Like Jack Nicholson said in Mars Attacks:




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Fair enough, GT, but if listen to the subtext of much of what you rite here, it seems like you really want ehMac to fail, and the damn thing just won't die. I'm fine with the lack of moderation myself because I believe grownups can police themselves. If they want to. I think Sonal had a lot of good suggestions that can work in well in just about any context, if we're willing to put aside our differences and make the discussion more important than the personality differences. Any one can get along if they really want to, and it's fine for two websites to co-exist, provided one is not actively trying to poach members from the other.
> 
> Like Jack Nicholson said in Mars Attacks:
> 
> ...


How did you get that I want ehMac to fail? Not at all. I think ehMac would benefit from my suggestion. That's my opinion.

I'm simply taking the last while where there are no mods, and saying it isn't working. Clearly. I'm simply saying, there's always going to be a few, who know there aren't mods so they can dig anyone they want to. You just saw an example of it here.

This isn't playing nice, nor will it contribute to the 'playing nice' vibe others may try to put forth. EhMac failing doesn't help anyone. Not me, other forums, no one really.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Fair enough, GT, but if listen to the subtext of much of what you rite here, it seems like you really want ehMac to fail, and the damn thing just won't die. I'm fine with the lack of moderation myself because I believe grownups can police themselves. If they want to. I think Sonal had a lot of good suggestions that can work in well in just about any context, *if we're willing to put aside our differences and make the discussion more important than the personality differences.* Any one can get along if they really want to, and it's fine for two websites to co-exist, provided one is not actively trying to poach members from the other.


There's the key. 

What's that thing Dr. Phil says? Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy? Lots of people pick right over happy (or more accurately in this context, harmony.)

fjn, I appreciate what you are trying to do here. But the difficult thing is that generally, people who are open to some suggestions about how to behave better are the ones who don't need them. The rest either don't care, or believe that they are behaving themselves and other people are the problem.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> But the difficult thing is that generally, people who are open to some suggestions about how to behave better are the ones who don't need them. The rest either don't care, or believe that they are behaving themselves and other people are the problem.


A valid point to consider, Sonal. Personally, I just don't have the time to go at it with ehMacLanders on a personal level. I say what I feel about the issues being discussed, and respect the right of others to express their views, even if we don't agree. There are thread that I stay clear of since there is just the constant back and forth of "I'm correct" or "You're wrong". Folks are free to feel this way, but I just don't have the time to partake in this sort of give and take.

I liked your list of points. Still, it shall most likely come down to "live and let live". Either that, or we all go down the drain together. 

Paix, mon amie.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> There's the key.
> 
> What's that thing Dr. Phil says? Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy? Lots of people pick right over happy (or more accurately in this context, harmony.)
> 
> fjn, I appreciate what you are trying to do here. But the difficult thing is that generally, people who are open to some suggestions about how to behave better are the ones who don't need them. The rest either don't care, or believe that they are behaving themselves and other people are the problem.


I don't disagree with you at all. I certainly wouldn't say I'm innocent at all, though I don't chase people down harassing them with hisses of 'liar', etc. That's a whole other class.

Here's my point though. What would you do, if you were continually harassed? I'm certainly not the only one, several people have left who were harassed as well in the past. Often from the same ones.

I'm trying my best to ignore it. But despite keeping debates on topic, there's always the few, that go personal. That's why I think mods are needed. I'd like to think they're not, but obviously, they are. (as shown in this thread)


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> A valid point to consider, Sonal. Personally, I just don't have the time to go at it with ehMacLanders on a personal level. I say what I feel about the issues being discussed, and respect the right of others to express their views, even if we don't agree. There are thread that I stay clear of since there is just the constant back and forth of "I'm correct" or "You're wrong". Folks are free to feel this way, but I just don't have the time to partake in this sort of give and take.
> 
> I liked your list of points. Still, it shall most likely come down to "live and let live". Either that, or we all go down the drain together.
> 
> Paix, mon amie.


I wish more people would take your approach, Dr.G.



groovetube said:


> I don't disagree with you at all. I certainly wouldn't say I'm innocent at all, though I don't chase people down harassing them with hisses of 'liar', etc. That's a whole other class.
> 
> Here's my point though. What would you do, if you were continually harassed? I'm certainly not the only one, several people have left who were harassed as well in the past. Often from the same ones.
> 
> I'm trying my best to ignore it. But despite keeping debates on topic, there's always the few, that go personal. That's why I think mods are needed. I'd like to think they're not, but obviously, they are. (as shown in this thread)


For all the time I spend on the internet, I actually deal with a lot more continual harassment in real life. beejacon (Some tenants have a lot of time on their hands; I once got a 10 page letter about a lightbulb.)

I used to always respond, address every point, point out every falsehood, misinterpretation, hypocrisy, etc. I'd build a case and fight back.

And the result was... more harassment. Every single time. More letters, more faxes, more calls, more emails. It was driving me crazy. And what's worse is that it would get more personal each time--I've been called rude names, accused of crazy things, treated like I was on some personal vendetta to destroy someone, had other people dragged into the fight by the same person.... none of this was true. 

I started ignoring things. Sure, if there was something I absolutely had to address, I would do so, but in the most minimal way possible, and would ignore everything else. This wasn't so much a strategy to calm things down as it was sheer mental exhaustion.

And yes, the harassment continued. For a while. But first, I learned that I actually didn't need to address all the stuff I felt like I had to address. I could do a lot less. And over time, all the other stuff just bothered me less. And over more time, in most cases, a lot of the harassment slowed way down. 

I'm not quite where Dr.G. is in all of this, but I very much like his approach of "I don't have time for this." 

Online, I don't think that some of the bad behaviour stops without moderation. But again, that is an issue about how other people behave.... it's not in anyone's control but the person doing it. All moderation does is set a boundary--behave or leave. 

But my goal in ignoring is not to make the harassment stop. Frankly, I can't. Not within my control. Getting a moderator in this joint to enforce good behaviour--it's also not without my control. But what I can do is simply find a way to operate here such that the behaviour doesn't bother me, and so that I don't waste energy on it. If it happens to slow down or stop as a result, so much the better.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> How did you get that I want ehMac to fail? Not at all. I think ehMac would benefit from my suggestion. That's my opinion.
> 
> I'm simply taking the last while where there are no mods, and saying it isn't working. Clearly. I'm simply saying, there's always going to be a few, who know there aren't mods so they can dig anyone they want to. You just saw an example of it here.
> 
> This isn't playing nice, nor will it contribute to the 'playing nice' vibe others may try to put forth. EhMac failing doesn't help anyone. Not me, other forums, no one really.


Sorry, no offense. I'm glad that you're OK with both forums succeeding. Truth is, I don't think things are nearly as bad here as you seem to think they are. That's also OK; we all have our own world views and our own perspectives. As long as we observe the basics of conversation, we can have a discussion with people who have very different views from our own. That's why I can discuss religion with both Macguiver and Bryanc, and often we have to just agree to disagree. Not my fault if the other guy's gonna burn in hell (kidding!!). We really do need a sarcasm font. A moderator as referee can help, I suppose, when people are having some difficulty playing nicely with others. I don't think I need one. Most of the time.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sonal said:


> There's the key.
> 
> What's that thing Dr. Phil says? Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy? Lots of people pick right over happy (or more accurately in this context, harmony.)
> 
> fjn, I appreciate what you are trying to do here. But the difficult thing is that generally, people who are open to some suggestions about how to behave better are the ones who don't need them. The rest either don't care, or believe that they are behaving themselves and other people are the problem.


I understand, Sonal. I'm hoping to appeal to the better nature we all know we possess.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I wish more people would take your approach, Dr.G.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for that. 

It is true, you can't control anyone. The truth is, there are people here, who don't need any moderation. But, there are are a few, who ruin it for others by needing it.

I have no control over what happens, whether rules get defined, or a mod appointed, and I guess at this point I'm caring less and less. I know I'm not alone there. 

Your suggestions are good ones. And these days, I'm getting to be where G is more and more. I just don't have time anymore for this nonsense. Because, who really cares?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Sorry, no offense. I'm glad that you're OK with both forums succeeding. Truth is, I don't think things are nearly as bad here as you seem to think they are. That's also OK; we all have our own world views and our own perspectives. As long as we observe the basics of conversation, we can have a discussion with people who have very different views from our own. That's why I can discuss religion with both Macguiver and Bryanc, and often we have to just agree to disagree. Not my fault if the other guy's gonna burn in hell (kidding!!). We really do need a sarcasm font. A moderator as referee can help, I suppose, when people are having some difficulty playing nicely with others. I don't think I need one. Most of the time.


I've actually had zero problems re: religion with you, or MacGuiver. I am very opposed to MacGiver's opinions, but one thing I can say for MacGuiver, I've rarely (if ever?) seen him, or you get personal at all, and can back down, even if things got really heated. Certainly not to where I've seen a few others go.

You both have my respect there.

And absolutely, I've never -wanted- ehMac to go down. Not before, and certainly not now.

That whole be careful what you wish for thing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> I'm fine with the lack of moderation myself because I believe grownups can police themselves.


Amen to that. Things have been much better here over the last few months with simple peer pressure as the active moderating force..


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Amen to that. Things have been much better here over the last few months with simple peer pressure as the active moderating force..


Lord of the Flies moments notwithstanding, I think we've done alright.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> Amen to that. Things have been much better here over the last few months with simple peer pressure as the active moderating force..


I have to agree. Things are much more civil now than they were when I used to post here way back when. I've seen peer-pressure moderation work very well on other forums too -- only to have the hostility level reappear once tight moderation was reintroduced.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> I wish more people would take your approach, Dr.G.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An excellent concluding paragraph, Sonal. In your real-life job, you can't ignore all these comments/requests/demands/insults/etc. However, I choose to come to ehMacLand and gravitate to certain threads out of interest. I might check out certain threads that seem to have an interesting discussion/debate taking place, and join in if I have something positive to add to this discussion. Still, there are other threads that if I don't look at for a month or two, I can go to the last few postings and see the same back and forth argument taking place. I don't choose to ignore any one person, since all have the right to express their views. Still, I find that I just ignore certain threads if the point was made in the first dozen posts or so, but then continues on and on and on getting further and further off topic, breaking down to personal insults. So, this is how I choose to approach an unmoderated thread. I am adult enough to choose where I want to go and in which threads I want to participate. I try to play nicely and follow a "live and let live" philosophy. 

Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> I understand, Sonal. I'm hoping to appeal to the better nature we all know we possess.


An excellent goal for which to strive, fjn. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> The rest either don't care, or believe that they are behaving themselves and other people are the problem.


This is the problem. Basic human nature.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Lord of the Flies moments notwithstanding, I think we've done alright.


Well, it's ok for the ones who enjoy posting childish sandbox name calling that is 

For the rest of the adults here who don't engage in name calling and can conduct themselves accordingly, having a nanny wouldn't matter.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the essence of why some people want heavy moderation is that they feel the need to remove the speck in someone else's eye, but cannot see the log in their own.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> This is the problem. Basic human nature.


ha ha. Yes. Probably why a bunch of us have the same few on ignore.

Probably should add one more name, and it should be fine. Despite having someone on ignore for some time, if I see their posts in quotes, I noticed that despite me not responding or having anything to do with them at all for some time, they still, continue with their grudge. Not something I can control, certainly not my problem


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I think the essence of why some people want heavy moderation is that they feel the need to remove the speck in someone else's eye, but cannot see the log in their own.


Bingo.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Bingo.


Really? Ha ha my post seems rather timely now 

The truth is, moderation will remove specks, and logs all the same. Though not everyone is good with that, and prefers the playground they want.

Which is a drag for others I guess.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Really? Ha ha my post seems rather timely now
> 
> The truth is, moderation will remove specks, and logs all the same. Though not everyone is good with that, and prefers the playground they want.
> 
> Which is a drag for others I guess.


The problem that I think many of have groove is that you seem to want us to forget your past here (and at times the present) it is nice to see that you consider yourself to be reformed, but it really rubs a bit the wrong way that you are preaching about tolerance and the like when you were at one point one of the worst offenders. 

Talking about having people follow you around. Early on when I joined here any time I posted anything at all in the political sections you jumped on me because for some reason you seemed to take offence to the fact that I work on Parliament Hill and quite frankly you partook in plenty of name calling. 

Not to mention the name calling that you did ion the "Flash" thread where you jumped on anyone who dared to disagree with you.

So while you may *now* wish for things to be better, it is a bit rich all of your preaching... kind of like there is nothing worse than a reformed smoker.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

-I-, was one of the worst offenders? I certainly as I said don't think I was innocent in the past, but lets not forget, you e had more than your share of jumping down people's backs and have quite the reputation for it. If you aren't willing to forget some heated returns from me in the last, how do you expect others to do so with yours? We can go on forever pointing out each other's past sins, but if anyone has any hopes of things getting better, everyone is going to have to bury the hatchets. 

A lot of people here have reputations, I'm quite willing to accept you changing, as I would anyone here. It's a question of whether one has the ability to bury the hatchet and move on. I will say I can do so and drop any grudges. But indications are not everyone is quite so willing.

All I have control over now, as sonal wisely pointed out, is how I conduct myself now


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I think the essence of why some people want heavy moderation is that they feel the need to remove the speck in someone else's eye, but cannot see the log in their own.


Hey buddy! This quote belongs in the religious thread! jk


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

"You don't behave!"
"No, YOU don't behave!"
"What are you talking about, I only misbehave because YOU can't behave!"
"Only because you misbehaved first!"
"I wish we had a moderator around here so that you would see that YOU misbehave!"
"Ha! You, King of the Misbehavers, want a moderator?"
"It's the only way to make people like you stop."
"Right, run around playing victim, right after you've gone treating me exactly the way you falsely claim I did to you."

etc.

I like 'mom-rules'. "You're both grounded. I don't care who started it, I'm finishing it."
:lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> -I-, was one of the worst offenders? I certainly as I said don't think I was innocent in the past, but lets not forget, you e had more than your share of jumping down people's backs and have quite the reputation for it. If you aren't willing to forget some heated returns from me in the last, how do you expect others to do so with yours? We can go on forever pointing out each other's past sins, but if anyone has any holes of things getting better, everyone is going to have to bury the hatchets.
> 
> A lot of people here have reputations, I'm quite willing to accept you changing, as I would anyone here. It's a question of whether one has the ability to bury the hatchet and move on. I will say I can do so and drop any grudges. But indications are not everyone is quite so willing.


Hey, I know I am strong drink and when I have stepped over the line and I realize it, I apologize.

I have no problem burying the hatchet but you clearly haven't with some others here as you continually feel the need to make reference to them. If you really want to bury the hatchet and forget the past I would suggest that you stop doing that.

Sorry but with your posts of late you come across as being preachy, like I said, nice that you are reformed and all now, but as the saying goes, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." and of your own admission you are not without sin.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> "You don't behave!"
> "No, YOU don't behave!"
> "What are you talking about, I only misbehave because YOU can't behave!"
> "Only because you misbehaved first!"
> ...



Not really what I was talking about but your point is taken. I'm no saint and I don't pretend to be, I just have trouble with other sinners reformed or not preaching about their newly found religion.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I don't think it really matters if other people are willing to let go of grudges or not. That's their problem. I only need to let go of mine. Forgiving someone is not for others; it is for myself. I don't even have to let them know I've forgiven them. I simply let them go. Like "unfriending" someone on Facebook. They don't even have to know--I just stop receiving news about them and they about me. I key them go. Whatever was the big deal just doesn't matter anymore. Life goes on. Not forgiving someone is like letting them live rent free inside your head.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> *I don't think it really matters if other people are willing to let go of grudges or not. That's there problem. I only need to let go of mine.* Forgiving someone is not for others; it is for myself. I don't even have to let them know I've forgiven them. I simply let them go. Like "unfriending" someone on Facebook. They don't even have to know--I just stop receiving news about them and they about me. I key them go. Whatever was the big deal just doesn't matter anymore. Life goes on. Not forgiving someone is like letting them live rent free inside your head.


Yes, exactly and well-said.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> I don't think it really matters if other people are willing to let go of grudges or not. That's there problem. I only need to let go of mine. Forgiving someone is not for others; it is for myself. I don't even have to let them know I've forgiven them. I simply let them go. Like "unfriending" someone on Facebook. They don't even have to know--I just stop receiving news about them and they about me. I key them go. Whatever was the big deal just doesn't matter anymore. Life goes on. Not forgiving someone is like letting them live rent free inside your head.


Almost exactly my viewpoint. I don't even need to forgive them--forgetting them is even better.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Hey, I know I am strong drink and when I have stepped over the line and I realize it, I apologize.
> 
> I have no problem burying the hatchet but you clearly haven't with some others here as you continually feel the need to make reference to them. If you really want to bury the hatchet and forget the past I would suggest that you stop doing that.
> 
> Sorry but with your posts of late you come across as being preachy, like I said, nice that you are reformed and all now, but as the saying goes, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." and of your own admission you are not without sin.


Kinda difficult when they're following me around calling me a liar etc. Look at the first page in this thread! It just never stops. I've reached the point where I'll just have to accept their obsessive nature on this and just ignore it. It isn't worth it anymore.

I apologize too for past stuff, I've tried to stay away from any name calling crap from the past, and just have to ignore it when it occurs at me. And I'll continue to do so.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> *I don't think it really matters if other people are willing to let go of grudges or not. That's their problem.* I only need to let go of mine. Forgiving someone is not for others; it is for myself. I don't even have to let them know I've forgiven them. I simply let them go. Like "unfriending" someone on Facebook. They don't even have to know--I just stop receiving news about them and they about me. I key them go. Whatever was the big deal just doesn't matter anymore. Life goes on. Not forgiving someone is like letting them live rent free inside your head.


I agree as well. I've realized that they likely won't stop, and since there's no moderation, I can do as others have done, simply stop participating, or ignore it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I don't think it really matters if other people are willing to let go of grudges or not. That's there problem. I only need to let go of mine. Forgiving someone is not for others; it is for myself. I don't even have to let them know I've forgiven them. I simply let them go. Like "unfriending" someone on Facebook. They don't even have to know--I just stop receiving news about them and they about me. I key them go. Whatever was the big deal just doesn't matter anymore. Life goes on. Not forgiving someone is like letting them live rent free inside your head.


Yes all good points fjnmusic and what I used to fundamentally live my life by when I was younger.

I am sorry to say I have become crotchety as I have gotten older in my online dealings. 

Working on it but still have a ways to go.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I like 'mom-rules'. "You're both grounded. I don't care who started it, I'm finishing it."
> :lmao:


This rule works well--for Moms! I'm perfectly fine with letting things hash out, even if it takes up some non-valuable screen real estate. It's not like anyone's going to get physically harmed during the brouhaha. If I don't find it worthwhile, I just skip, skip, skip posts until I find something I like.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I agree with the notion that first and foremost to make a ehMac a better place we need to police ourselves first. 

To that end I think it is actually helpful that when we encounter people with whom "we just can't help ourselves" and post in a negative manner and they with us on an ongoing basis we should avail ourselves of the Ignore function. For example this would solve the problem that groove says he is encountering with some others. 

As for strong moderation, I don't think that works. We used to have that with ehMax and many a number of extended brouhaha's broke out over decisions that he made. At times he even banned people and at times I think some of those decisions were questionable and people didn't like it. The traffic and the number of participants were on the decline here at ehMac even before ehMax sold the place.

So I really don't think it is a matter of having strong moderation as being some sort of panacea to all that is wrong with ehMac.

I think that threads like this are a good starting point in making ehMac better because it helps to "air the dirty laundry" and let the bad air out. However, it is only a first step that must be followed through on with actual change in behaviour (if necessary).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would also add that the passive aggressive behaviour of posting insults aimed at EhMac members on another discussion board while preaching moderation here is openly hypocritical at best. Simply bawling, "but that board has no rules," doesn't reduce the responsibility for what is being done.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

You guys are all nice to me. Why can't you be nice to each other?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This rule works well--for Moms! I'm perfectly fine with letting things hash out, even if it takes up some non-valuable screen real estate. It's not like anyone's going to get physically harmed during the brouhaha. If I don't find it worthwhile, I just skip, skip, skip posts until I find something I like.


I prefer having less to skip.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

winwintoo said:


> You guys are all nice to me. Why can't you be nice to each other?


Cause you are just so soft and cuddly winwintoo, whereas some other guys are all bristly and not at all cuddly.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> I agree with the notion that first and foremost to make a ehMac a better place we need to police ourselves first.
> 
> To that end I think it is actually helpful that when we encounter people with whom "we just can't help ourselves" and post in a negative manner and they with us on an ongoing basis we should avail ourselves of the Ignore function. For example this would solve the problem that groove says he is encountering with some others.
> 
> ...


my ignore list is 3, and now is 4. Hopefully that'll resolve things for me anyway. But it doesn't seem to stop them, but I'll just let their crap stand on it's own.

As for strong moderation, ehMac has never had it. Whatever moderation existed was inconsistent, and the only truly effective moderation in my experience is a fair person (not sure who that'd be... or if they'd want that...) who is right in the thread to nip things in the bud -before- things need to get to the banning stage.

We've never had that. But if people think the policing oneself will work, I suppose the proof is in the pudding. I have the few on ignore, and we'll see how this works out.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I prefer having less to skip.


yep.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> I agree with the notion that first and foremost to make a ehMac a better place we need to police ourselves first.
> 
> To that end I think it is actually helpful that when we encounter people with whom "we just can't help ourselves" and post in a negative manner and they with us on an ongoing basis we should avail ourselves of the Ignore function. For example this would solve the problem that groove says he is encountering with some others.
> 
> ...


The difficulty with ehMax's moderation is that it was inconsistent. 

Moderation isn't a cure all. What it does is create boundaries. If someone has difficulty playing nice, they face a clear consequence.... that either forces them to smarten up and place nice, or they leave.

But the decline in traffic here is probably more of an overall decline in webforums.... seen it in a lot of places.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

macfury said:


> i would also add that the passive aggressive behaviour of posting insults aimed at ehmac members on another discussion board while preaching moderation here is openly hypocritical at best. Simply bawling, "but that board has no rules," doesn't reduce the responsibility for what is being done.


+ 1.000


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I would also add that the passive aggressive behaviour of posting insults aimed at EhMac members on another discussion board while preaching moderation here is openly hypocritical at best. Simply bawling, "but that board has no rules," doesn't reduce the responsibility for what is being done.


This doesn't bother me at all. If someone wants to go somewhere to blow off steam, that's fine. The only issue I have with it is when they (or someone else) drags that over here.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Simply bawling


Language like this doesn't help.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> "You don't behave!"
> "No, YOU don't behave!"
> "What are you talking about, I only misbehave because YOU can't behave!"
> "Only because you misbehaved first!"
> ...


Sonal, that "mom rule" works well both at home and in school. Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

winwintoo said:


> You guys are all nice to me. Why can't you be nice to each other?


An excellent point, Margaret. Thus speaks the voice of wisdom, moderation and sensibility. Paix, mon amie.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> The difficulty with ehMax's moderation is that it was inconsistent.
> 
> Moderation isn't a cure all. What it does is create boundaries. If someone has difficulty playing nice, they face a clear consequence.... that either forces them to smarten up and place nice, or they leave.
> 
> *But the decline in traffic here is probably more of an overall decline in webforums*.... seen it in a lot of places.


I absolutely agree with that and had mentioned it in another thread. 

Twitter and Facebook have brought on a not so slow decline of the webforum.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> This doesn't bother me at all. If someone wants to go somewhere to blow off steam, that's fine. The only issue I have with it is when they (or someone else) drags that over here.


Particularly when this occurs somewhere else, and there is equal opportunity to reply back in kind. Rules (or lack thereof) are quite clear there. 

But dragging another mac forums dirty laundry over here, is a no no, and should be separated. Have the courage to address it where it happens.



mrjimmy said:


> Language like this doesn't help.


My opinion is, the only most opposed to moderation are likely ones that -don't- want to play nicely. Because ones that do, probably couldn't really care if there's a mod or not if you think about this.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> *The difficulty with ehMax's moderation is that it was inconsistent. *
> 
> Moderation isn't a cure all. What it does is create boundaries. If someone has difficulty playing nice, they face a clear consequence.... that either forces them to smarten up and place nice, or they leave.
> 
> But the decline in traffic here is probably more of an overall decline in webforums.... seen it in a lot of places.


Yes it was, but it is still a matter that any mod is judge, jury and executioner. This is not a problem when it is simply a cut and dry situation, like calling someone a f**ker for example.

But cut and dry situations are not necessarily the norm and resolution of disputes often means making a judgement call and that leaves the mod open to seeming to be inconsistent or unfair. 

It can only be over time and many judgements that a mods "fairness" can be judged. So it is far from a perfect system and personally I don't like a single mod to be judge, jury and executioner... too much power concentrated all in one person's discretion for my liking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> This doesn't bother me at all. If someone wants to go somewhere to blow off steam, that's fine. The only issue I have with it is when they (or someone else) drags that over here.


It isn't a matter of whether it bothers you. It's a matter of being disingenuous.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Particularly when this occurs somewhere else, and there is equal opportunity to reply back in kind. Rules (or lack thereof) are quite clear there.
> 
> But dragging another mac forums dirty laundry over here, is a no no, and should be separated. Have the courage to address it where it happens.
> 
> ...


Well that maybe your opinion but it doesn't mean that there aren't problems with moderation as I just pointed out. 

Things are not so simple and cut and dry as you wish to portray them. And BTW by saying that, it is pretty passive aggressive toward those who may not see the need for moderation. You have basically insinuated that there is no good reason to question the need for mods and the only possible reason could be, to be able to "not play nice".


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

winwintoo said:


> You guys are all nice to me. Why can't you be nice to each other?


That's because you're a girl.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Language like this doesn't help.


There you go. It's not name-calling, but it is insulting. Hey Bob, I'm going to call you Delilah from now on---now that's name-calling.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It isn't a matter of whether it bothers you. It's a matter of being disingenuous.


I don't find it disingenuous, since I take it as simply venting. 

If I'm bothering the heck out of someone, and they go elsewhere to talk smack about me, get the worst of it out of their system, and then come back to me and attempt to deal with things more calmly.... I think that's a good way to handle it. Certainly, it's preferable to take all the anger and upset and throw it in my face.

Though again, I compare to events in real life. I'm a lot happier when the tenants complain to each other and the neighbours and the super about what a terrible and evil person I am, and then say directly to me that we should all try to handle things in a more business-like way, than when they send me a barrage of emails where they are calling me names. 

I mean, it's not like it's a surprise to me that they don't like me very much....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> There you go. It's not name-calling, but it is insulting. Hey Bob, I'm going to call you Delilah from now on---now that's name-calling.


Sure. There are countless ways to be insulting that isn't name calling. 

Being, factious, condescending, arrogant, passive aggressive, dismissive, holier-than thou... the list goes on and on. The trick is that when you get really good at it the other guy doesn't even realize he has been insulted, at least not until later. beejacon


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Yes it was, but it is still a matter that any mod is judge, jury and executioner. This is not a problem when it is simply a cut and dry situation, like calling someone a f**ker for example.
> 
> But cut and dry situations are not necessarily the norm and resolution of disputes often means making a judgement call and that leaves the mod open to seeming to be inconsistent or unfair.
> 
> It can only be over time and many judgements that a mods "fairness" can be judged. So it is far from a perfect system and personally I don't like a single mod to be judge, jury and executioner... too much power concentrated all in one person's discretion for my liking.


True, I've been on a board where the moderator was on a power trip, and both her mod persona and her posting persona had it in for me. (And not just me, other people.) Was rather upsetting when that happened. Still have no clue why. 

So I visit there rarely, and the board is as the moderator likes it. But that's fine. On a moderated board, either you're happy with the moderators and keep posting, or you aren't happy with them and stop. 

But it's six of one, half dozen of the other.... either you get tiresome brouhahas between posters, which will drive some people away, or you are subject to the decisions of the moderator, which will drive some people away.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Well that maybe your opinion but it doesn't mean that there aren't problems with moderation as I just pointed out.
> 
> Things are not so simple and cut and dry as you wish to portray them. And BTW by saying that, it is pretty passive aggressive toward those who may not see the need for moderation. You have basically insinuated that there is no good reason to question the need for mods and the only possible reason could be, to be able to "not play nice".


don't put words in my mouth. I'm simply saying, that if you were to 'play nice' here, moderation wouldn't be an issue either way.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I don't find it disingenuous, since I take it as simply venting.
> 
> If I'm bothering the heck out of someone, and they go elsewhere to talk smack about me, get the worst of it out of their system, and then come back to me and attempt to deal with things more calmly.... I think that's a good way to handle it. Certainly, it's preferable to take all the anger and upset and throw it in my face.


There's a big difference. The people you are describing are complaining about you privately, not on a public forum. 

A better analogy: someone vents their spleen against another person in the _Toronto Star_ and is called out on it. Next, they go to the _Globe & Mail_ and do the same thing--only this time they say they're just venting so that the next time _The Star_ interviews them, they can be much nicer.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I like the moderation and posting guidelines on Ars Technica; posting rules are quite lenient in terms of language, and if you post something dumb, you're likely to get called out on it by people who know better, but mods will step in if someone is clearly trolling, harassing another member, chronically posting false information, or otherwise significantly reducing the S/N ratio. They also have a "Battlefront" forum, where people who just like to argue can take their endless arguments and not interfere with people who are trying to have an intelligent discussion.

This, in combination with the ignore feature, keeps a large population of even more fractious and argumentative geeks from turning the forum into either a cesspool of inane hostility, or a vapid play-school where no one can say anything of interest for fear of offending someone.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

When my two boys were young, they wrestled and fought like kids do. The younger one came to me one day and asked what to do.

In a rare moment of inspiration, I told him, "the next time your brother tries to hold you down, give him a great big slobbery kiss."

Shortly thereafter I heard, "oh yuck, stop that."

Peace ensued.

In another inspired parenting opportunity, the boys complained that a kid from down the street always interfered with their road hockey games. I asked why they didn't just invite him to play. He didn't have a stick. I couldn't even count the number of sticks taking up space in our mud room so I suggested they sell him one. The next day, the bothersome kid had a stick, problem solved.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> There's a big difference. The people you are describing are complaining about you privately, not on a public forum.
> 
> A better analogy: someone vents their spleen against another person in the _Toronto Star_ and is called out on it. Next, they go to the _Globe & Mail_ and do the same thing--only this time they say they're just venting so that the next time _The Star_ interviews them, they can be much nicer.


A public forum with what, a dozen users? I didn't think things were getting _that_ bad for newspapers. :lmao:

I don't think your analogy quite works.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I like the moderation and posting guidelines on Ars Technica; posting rules are quite lenient in terms of language, and if you post something dumb, you're likely to get called out on it by people who know better, but mods will step in if someone is clearly trolling, harassing another member, chronically posting false information, or otherwise significantly reducing the S/N ratio. They also have a "Battlefront" forum, where people who just like to argue can take their endless arguments and not interfere with people who are trying to have an intelligent discussion.
> 
> This, in combination with the ignore feature, keeps a large population of even more fractious and argumentative geeks from turning the forum into either a cesspool of inane hostility, or a vapid play-school where no one can say anything of interest for fear of offending someone.


Even within that framework, what if the poster "chronically posts false information" and the other members continue to demand a retraction? Would that be considered harassment of the member, or just the application of community standards?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> True, I've been on a board where the moderator was on a power trip, and both her mod persona and her posting persona had it in for me. (And not just me, other people.) Was rather upsetting when that happened. Still have no clue why.
> 
> So I visit there rarely, and the board is as the moderator likes it. But that's fine. On a moderated board, either you're happy with the moderators and keep posting, or you aren't happy with them and stop.
> 
> *But it's six of one, half dozen of the other.... either you get tiresome brouhahas between posters, which will drive some people away, or you are subject to the decisions of the moderator, which will drive some people away*.


And that is my point, forums get messy one way or the other. Personally I would prefer it not to have one person to run the show.

With self policing and community policing I think things can be every bit as good or as bad as any moderated forum. It all depends on the people involved either way.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> don't put words in my mouth. I'm simply saying, that if you were to 'play nice' here, moderation wouldn't be an issue either way.


I didn't put words in your mouth I simply told you how it came across. If that wasn't what you were saying then fine but it sure seemed that way to me.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I like the moderation and posting guidelines on Ars Technica; *posting rules are quite lenient in terms of language, and if you post something dumb, you're likely to get called out on it by people who know better, but mods will step in if someone is clearly trolling, harassing another member, chronically posting false information, or otherwise significantly reducing the S/N ratio. They also have a "Battlefront" forum, where people who just like to argue can take their endless arguments and not interfere with people who are trying to have an intelligent discussion.*
> 
> This, in combination with the ignore feature, keeps a large population of even more fractious and argumentative geeks from turning the forum into either a cesspool of inane hostility, or a vapid play-school where no one can say anything of interest for fear of offending someone.


While I'm not in favour of moderation in general for the reasons I have already stated. This sounds like a good compromise if there is to be moderation.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> And that is my point, forums get messy one way or the other. Personally I would prefer it not to have one person to run the show.
> 
> With self policing and community policing I think things can be every bit as good or as bad as any moderated forum. It all depends on the people involves either way.


Depends. If you like how the moderator(s) run things, then a moderated forum will almost always work better for you. If you don't, it won't. (And in an ideal situation, there would be multiple moderators providing a check and balance to each other.)

Self-policing, IMO, doesn't work well in that people tend to be very good at finding fault in others even when they are exhibiting those same faults themselves. And also, people have different standards.... what one person considers a huge insult, another person is perfectly fine with. And then people start to bicker over what was and wasn't an insult.

Community policing? Depends on the community. In my experience, many of the people who are generally pleasant to deal with don't want to bother policing others and get sick of the arguing over who is and isn't disrespectful and simple expending time on those threads. And to me, that is a shame, since those are the people I would generally like to hear more from.... otherwise, you get the same half-dozen people making the same points and it all boils down to the same fingerpointing.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Even within that framework, what if the poster "chronically posts false information" and the other members continue to demand a retraction? Would that be considered harassment of the member, or just the application of community standards?


I've only seen it happen once, and that was not really a case of 'false' information, so much as inadequately authoritative source (blogs vs. peer-reviewed science). The mods stepped in and clarified that "blogs are not authoritative and are not acceptable references" which settled the argument.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Depends. If you like how the moderator(s) run things, then a moderated forum will almost always work better for you. If you don't, it won't. (And in an ideal situation, there would be multiple moderators providing a check and balance to each other.)


It sounds like the ultimate ideal situation might be to inject implants into the heads of members so they become incapable of "unmutual" posting styles.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Depends. If you like how the moderator(s) run things, then a moderated forum will almost always work better for you. If you don't, it won't. (And in an ideal situation, there would be multiple moderators providing a check and balance to each other.)
> 
> *Self-policing, IMO, doesn't work well in that people tend to be very good at finding fault in others even when they are exhibiting those same faults themselves. And also, people have different standards.... what one person considers a huge insult, another person is perfectly fine with. And then people start to bicker over what was and wasn't an insult.*
> 
> Community policing? Depends on the community. In my experience, many of the people who are generally pleasant to deal with don't want to bother policing others and get sick of the arguing over who is and isn't disrespectful and simple expending time on those threads. And to me, that is a shame, since those are the people I would generally like to hear more from.... otherwise, you get the same half-dozen people making the same points and it all boils down to the same fingerpointing.


exactly my thoughts on that.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Depends. If you like how the moderator(s) run things, then a moderated forum will almost always work better for you. If you don't, it won't. (And in an ideal situation, there would be multiple moderators providing a check and balance to each other.)
> 
> *Self-policing, IMO, doesn't work well in that people tend to be very good at finding fault in others even when they are exhibiting those same faults themselves. And also, people have different standards.... what one person considers a huge insult, another person is perfectly fine with. And then people start to bicker over what was and wasn't an insult.*
> 
> Community policing? Depends on the community. In my experience, many of the people who are generally pleasant to deal with don't want to bother policing others and get sick of the arguing over who is and isn't disrespectful and simple expending time on those threads. And to me, that is a shame, since those are the people I would generally like to hear more from.... otherwise, you get the same half-dozen people making the same points and it all boils down to the same fingerpointing.


And that is going to happen with or without a mod. The only difference is that with a mod they have all the power to decide who is right and who is wrong and dole out chastisement, punishment or banishment . I would just rather no one had that power to decide as even then it is just the mods opinion.

Otherwise I think we are pretty close to being in agreement in that no forum is going to be perfect for everyone. 

Personally I favour, self and community policing in conjunction with active use of the Ignore list as opposed to rule by basically a dictator (i.e. what they say goes) mod.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> And that is going to happen with or without a mod. The only difference is that with a mod they have all the power to decide who is right and who is wrong and dole out chastisement, punishment or banishment . I would just rather no one had that power to decide as even then it is just the mods opinion.
> 
> Otherwise I think we are pretty close to being in agreement in that no forum is going to be perfect for everyone.
> 
> Personally I favour, self and community policing in conjunction with active use of the Ignore list as opposed to rule by basically a dictator (i.e. what they say goes) mod.


I think it's great that people can go to forums where they can submit to heavy moderation and control. If one is a submissive at heart, this is the place for you!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> And that is going to happen with or without a mod. The only difference is that with a mod they have all the power to decide who is right and who is wrong and dole out chastisement, punishment or banishment . I would just rather no one had that power to decide as even then it is just the mods opinion.
> 
> Otherwise I think we are pretty close to being in agreement in that no forum is going to be perfect for everyone.
> 
> Personally I favour, self and community policing in conjunction with active use of the Ignore list as opposed to rule by basically a dictator (i.e. what they say goes) mod.


That's why there needs to be clear rules defined, not ones that can be interpreted.

As in, say, no derogatory remarks to any member. None.

But then maybe you say who defines what is, and isn't derogatory. Well then perhaps the community can agree on a consensus on a standard list.

I some time ago called someone delusional. I was infracted for it, and rightly so. I shouldn't have done it. I just didn't yell about it or slammed on the front doors that I was being persecuted is all 

Took my lumps, and decided to try and not do that again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No rules can be so well defined that there is no interpretation possible. This represents an idealized concept of an authoritarian system masking as fair and democratic. Most people supporting such a concept simply want someone to wield the banhammer on their behalf to right some perceived wrong.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No rules can be so well defined that there is no interpretation possible. This represents an idealized concept of an authoritarian system masking as fair and democratic. Most people supporting such a concept simply want someone to wield the banhammer on their behalf to right some perceived wrong.


Masking as fair and democratic? Not at all. Dictatorship, hopefully benevolent. Which really is the case for every forum, moderated or not, since we all are permitted to post here at the will of the ownership--whether that ownership choses to make and enforce rules or not is entirely up to them, but no web forum is a democracy. None us have a vote unless we own the place.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Masking as fair and democratic? Not at all. Dictatorship, hopefully benevolent. Which really is the case for every forum, moderated or not, since we all are permitted to post here at the will of the ownership--whether that ownership choses to make and enforce rules or not is entirely up to them, but no web forum is a democracy. None us have a vote unless we own the place.


:clap:

The illusion of a democracy here


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

More to the point, community policing means that it gets police by a self-selecting group of people who have both time and inclination to bicker with people and shout people down. That's not reflective of the community as a whole. So instead of a dictatorship, you end up with an oligarchy.... really not so different.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Not at all. Dictatorship, hopefully benevolent.


Thanks for being honest.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Sure. There are countless ways to be insulting that isn't name calling.
> 
> Being, factious, condescending, arrogant, passive aggressive, dismissive, holier-than thou... the list goes on and on. The trick is that when you get really good at it the other guy doesn't even realize he has been insulted, at least not until later. beejacon


Exactly. Wait.....what?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Technically this whole site is moderated, but the moderators rarely if ever get involved since the mayor left.
Which got me thinking...

What if there are no moderators, but people believe there are? Do they do the right and mutually beneficial thing because it is how we get along with others, or because of a fear of being reprimanded by the "people in charge"? I suppose there are corollaries to one's religious views as well... do I act out of fear of consequences down the road, whether it be karma or the heaven and hell variety, or do I be gracious because it's just a better way to be? Do I refrain from insulting someone because I fear a three day holiday, or do I simply try to avoid being an @ssh0le because no one like @ssh0les that much?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Technically this whole site is moderated, but the moderators rarely if ever get involved since the mayor left.
> Which got me thinking...
> 
> What if there are no moderators, but people believe there are? Do they do the right and mutually beneficial thing because it is how we get along with others, or because of a fear of being reprimanded by the "people in charge"? I suppose there are corollaries to one's religious views as well... do I act out of fear of consequences down the road, whether it be karma or the heaven and hell variety, or do I be gracious because it's just a better way to be? Do I refrain from insulting someone because I fear a three day holiday, or do I simply try to avoid being an @ssh0le because no one like @ssh0les that much?


Most people, I think, do the right thing because that's just how we get along with others. 

Then a few people maybe act up a bit, perhaps because it's just a bad day or something, and then nothing happens.... and so it becomes clear that there are no external consequences. Then it snowballs.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. Wait.....what?


:lmao: :clap:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Most people, I think, do the right thing because that's just how we get along with others.
> 
> Then a few people maybe act up a bit, perhaps because it's just a bad day or something, and then nothing happens.... and so it becomes clear that there are no external consequences. Then it snowballs.


The concept of external consequences strikes me as a very maternal/paternal kind of world view. Rather than focus on confronting the offensive person either publicly on the forum (grandstanding) or privately (via PM), both parties redirect their anger at the invisible mods (expecting them to play favorites). But both members are customers to the mod first and foremost, so it would be much easier for the mod if they stayed out of it and people resolved things for themselves. Not everyone is capable of this, I suppose, but it does give people more credit for maturity if they can work out their own problems. Most often I find grandstanding to the be the bigger problem, when problems could probably have been resolved more amicably via PM. Then again, some people just like to argue.

I am not a mod, but I am sort of serving a mod function here by setting up this thread for people to discuss problem-solving strategies. Around a hundred replies later, it seems to be working for the most part because people are talking about the issue rather than the person. For the most part.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> More to the point, community policing means that it gets police by a *self-selecting group* of people who have both time and inclination to bicker with people and shout people down. *That's not reflective of the community as a whole. So instead of a dictatorship, you end up with an oligarchy.... really not so different.*


Self-selecting and people with the time...? Isn't that essentially democracy? Look at the percentage of people who vote if you need any more evidence.

How is it any more reflective of the group as a whole to have *one* person decide?

Sure it's different, that's why the different words exist. At least with an oligarchy there is more than one person in charge...

Quite frankly I am little surprised by your "benevolent dictator" comment (perhaps that stems from your new found powers elsewhere and being co-opted) but a site that is owned by someone else and allows for free will to reign is not the same as a moderated site as you previously suggested, not in the least.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> The concept of external consequences strikes me as a very maternal/paternal kind of world view. Rather than focus on confronting the offensive person either publicly on the forum (grandstanding) or privately (via PM), both parties redirect their anger at the invisible mods (expecting them to play favorites). But both members are customers to the mod first and foremost, so it would be much easier for the mod if they stayed out of it and people resolved things for themselves. Not everyone is capable of this, I suppose, but it does give people more credit for maturity if they can work out their own problems. Most often I find grandstanding to the be the bigger problem, when problems could probably have been resolved more amicably via PM. Then again, some people just like to argue.
> 
> I am not a mod, but I am sort of serving a mod function here by setting up this thread for people to discuss problem-solving strategies. Around a hundred replies later, it seems to be working for the most part because people are talking about the issue rather than the person. For the most part.


Outside of politics or religion, people generally do stay on topic (or amicably off-topic.)

But those two (oh, and GHG) seem to bring out a lot of ugly in people, tempers get heated, people refuse to back down, other people start getting into it.... it would be great if things could be resolved between the few people who are having the issue, but that doesn't generally happen.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Self-selecting and people with the time...? Isn't that essentially democracy? Look at the percentage of people who vote if you need any more evidence.
> 
> How is it any more reflective of the group as a whole to have *one* person decide?
> 
> ...


In the interests of experimenting with fjnmusic's idea of confronting things to work them out maturely, I respectfully request that you do not make assumptions about my motives or use terms like 'co-opted' which suggests some sort of a competition which I have clearly stated does not exist as far as I am concerned, and which I have demonstrated through my actions of continued participation here.

And in any case, I've referred to being a landlord as being a benevolent dictatorship for years now.

I'm not saying it's more reflective of the group to have one person decide. I am saying that it's equally authoritarian if one is not the dictator nor an oligarch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Outside of politics or religion, people generally do stay on topic (or amicably off-topic.)
> 
> But those two (oh, and GHG) seem to bring out a lot of ugly in people, tempers get heated, people refuse to back down, other people start getting into it.... it would be great if things could be resolved between the few people who are having the issue, but that doesn't generally happen.


The fact that these topics will NOT be resolved over the short run is what makes them alluring to many of us. I don't believe I've ever been offended by someone who gets angry. It's an indication to me that they're very engaged in the intellectual exercise--nothing more.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The fact that these topics will NOT be resolved over the short run is what makes them alluring to many of us. I don't believe I've ever been offended by someone who gets angry. It's an indication to me that they're very engaged in the intellectual exercise--nothing more.


I'm not offended by someone who gets angry. I am offended by someone who gets personal... that is no indication of exercising their intellect.

I also don't expect such things to get resolved. How can they? Why should they?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Generally speaking if someone gets mad at me and starts calling me names; I take that as a very good indicator that they know their side of the issue cannot be justified or defended. I therefore regard the personal attacks as total surrender.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Generally speaking if someone gets mad at me and starts calling me names; I take that as a very good indicator that they know their side of the issue cannot be justified or defended. I therefore regard the personal attacks as total surrender.


I just think, Im rubber and you're glue; whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks back on you. beejacon


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> I just think, Im rubber and you're glue; whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks back on you. beejacon


Usually, I pretend like they didn't say anything at all. But in my head I'm all "Oh F*** off!"


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ohhh. Now we know!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Usually, I pretend like they didn't say anything at all. But in my head I'm all "Oh F*** off!"


To be honest, I am the same way sometimes with certain people. I will only have it out in a lengthy discussion with certain people, like Macfury. He and I don't agree on many things, but at least we can have our disagreements in public in a rational manner. I don't call him names and he does not call me names, and so, we can have a rational disagreement over various topics. At some point in our discussion I normally say, "OK, let's agree to disagree" and he accepts this stalemate. Such is Life.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Ohhh. Now we know!


It's the quiet people you need to watch out for. 

Not the mouthy simpletons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> To be honest, I am the same way sometimes with certain people. I will only have it out in a lengthy discussion with certain people, like Macfury. He and I don't agree on many things, but at least we can have our disagreements in public in a rational manner. I don't call him names and he does not call me names, and so, we can have a rational disagreement over various topics. At some point in our discussion I normally say, "OK, let's agree to disagree" and he accepts this stalemate. Such is Life.


The way it is with you, Dr. G., is that I know when you and I have tired of a subject, you simply won't say "Let's agree to disagree," then continue on when I leave. It is always a gentleman's agreement.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> To be honest, I am the same way sometimes with certain people. I will only have it out in a lengthy discussion with certain people, like Macfury. He and I don't agree on many things, but at least we can have our disagreements in public in a rational manner. I don't call him names and he does not call me names, and so, we can have a rational disagreement over various topics. At some point in our discussion I normally say, "OK, let's agree to disagree" and he accepts this stalemate. Such is Life.


Likewise, MacFury doesn't call me names, nor do I call him names. And at some point, it all descends into humour and leaves off.

It's only sometimes he calls other people who believe similar things to me names, and as such I am merely a splattered bystander.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The way it is with you, Dr. G., is that I know when you and I have tired of a subject, you simply won't say "Let's agree to disagree," then continue on when I leave. It is always a gentleman's agreement.


True. As I said, while we don't agree on many things, at least you are a gentleman about our disagreement. Too bad we can't do this in person over a beer or two. Someday ............ somewhere. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Generally speaking if someone gets mad at me and starts calling me names; I take that as a very good indicator that they know their side of the issue cannot be justified or defended. I therefore regard the personal attacks as total surrender.


The flack is always heaviest over the target...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If you go back and look at the so-called 'flame-outs' (or getting personal) in various threads here on ehMac, you will find one member is always involved. Makes one wonder about why that member is always in the mix with various other members. Mind you, that is just my opinion, but I believe it is not far from the truth.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

SINC said:


> If you go back and look at the so-called 'flame-outs' (or getting personal) in various threads here on ehMac, you will find one member is always involved. Makes one wonder about why that member is always in the mix with various other members. Mind you, that is just my opinion, but I believe it is not far from the truth.


That's what I've been seeing as well. Usually followed by some bizarre "but I'm the victim" bovine scatology.

I saw a woman on Dr. Phil once who had been divorced three times, and was well on her way to making it four. The conversation went something like this:

Phil asked; "Do you understood what the common factor in all of those breakdowns was?"

She stammered on about the men being abusive and such.

"No", Phil interrupted, "The common factor was YOU".


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Bovine scatology. I think I'll use that.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

heavyall said:


> That's what I've been seeing as well. Usually followed by some bizarre "but I'm the victim" bovine scatology.
> 
> I saw a woman on Dr. Phil once who had been divorced three times, and was well on her way to making it four. The conversation went something like this:
> 
> ...


That she is a big part of the problem doesn't necessarily mean that her husbands must therefore be innocent angels.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Usually, I pretend like they didn't say anything at all. But in my head I'm all "Oh F*** off!"


don't take this the wrong way; but I think I'd like to get into your head


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> If you go back and look at the so-called 'flame-outs' (or getting personal) in various threads here on ehMac, you will find one member is always involved. Makes one wonder about why that member is always in the mix


Perhaps you shouldn't draw attention to yourself.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> That she is a big part of the problem doesn't necessarily mean that her husbands must therefore be innocent angels.


Of course not, but it does not alter the observations of some of the noted actions on this forum.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Perhaps you shouldn't draw attention to yourself.


I suppose someone so anti everything about society that it is hard to fathom a self portrait, but there you go. Ever seen me involved with FeXL, or McFury or Screature for example? OTOH I see another member involved when I am not.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Of course not, but it does not alter the observations of some of the noted actions on this forum.


No, given that I do tend to look over most of what gets posted here, nothing anyone says who is the victim, who is the bully and who is or isn't doing anything wrong changes my own opinion based on my own examination of the evidence.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> No, given that I do tend to look over most of what gets posted here, nothing anyone says who is the victim, who is the bully and who is or isn't doing anything wrong changes my own opinion based on my own examination of the evidence.


Again, the victim claim is continuous, tiresome and lends nothing to the quality of the discussion.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Again, the victim claim is continuous, tiresome and lends nothing to the quality of the discussion.


I agree, and likewise, I find the continual pointing out of that someone is playing the victim is continuous, tiresome and lends nothing to the quality of the discussion.

Goes back to one of the first points I made... people are often very good at pointing out what other people are doing, and not very good at noticing that they are creating many of the same problems.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> don't take this the wrong way; but I think I'd like to get into your head


Well, there's a lot of swearing in there....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Likewise, MacFury doesn't call me names, nor do I call him names. And at some point, it all descends into humour and leaves off.
> 
> It's only sometimes he calls other people who believe similar things to me names, and as such I am merely a splattered bystander.


What's the worst thing you remember me calling someone who believes things that are similar to your beliefs, Sonal?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What's the worst thing you remember me calling someone who believes things that are similar to your beliefs, Sonal?


My memory for such things is very short. 

But along the lines of being submissive.... no, not name-calling exactly, but a mischaracterization.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ...someone who believes things that are similar to your beliefs, Sonal?


Just what is it you think Sonal believes? She has been quite circumspect about committing to specific positions around her, despite contributing substantively to discussions of many different topics; I would be very hesitant to try to pin her down on any given issue.

In contrast; you and I have made our [frequently diametrically opposed] positions quite clear. That makes both of us easier targets and forced us to be more active combatants. But I've always found diplomacy boring; I'd rather loose an argument than avoid one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Just what is it you think Sonal believes? She has been quite circumspect about committing to specific positions around her, despite contributing substantively to discussions of many different topics; I would be very hesitant to try to pin her down on any given issue.
> 
> In contrast; you and I have made our [frequently diametrically opposed] positions quite clear. That makes both of us easier targets and forced us to be more active combatants. But I've always found diplomacy boring; I'd rather loose an argument than avoid one.


"Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war." Sometimes it is better to lose an argument than to avoid one, bryanc. On this I agree .......... in part. Other times, it is far better to just avoid getting into an argument that goes round and round and round. The trick is to know the difference and to pick and chose your arguments with care.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> What's the worst thing you remember me calling someone who believes things that are similar to your beliefs, Sonal?


I think you called me a "neo New Dealer" once, Macfury. I took it as a compliment.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Just what is it you think Sonal believes? She has been quite circumspect about committing to specific positions around her, despite contributing substantively to discussions of many different topics; I would be very hesitant to try to pin her down on any given issue.
> 
> In contrast; you and I have made our [frequently diametrically opposed] positions quite clear. That makes both of us easier targets and forced us to be more active combatants. But I've always found diplomacy boring; I'd rather loose an argument than avoid one.


This could be an interesting exercise (well, for me, anyway)... everyone start arguing about what they think I think. (It's right up there with watching multiple people argue over the correct pronunciation of my name.) 

It's not so much diplomacy on my part... more that I'm usually fairly aware of the flaws in the position I choose, which makes it difficult for me to be too gung ho about it. Also I dislike being lumped into groups.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Goes back to one of the first points I made... people are often very good at pointing out what other people are doing, and not very good at noticing that they are creating many of the same problems.


Bingo is called.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> I suppose someone so anti everything about society that it is hard to fathom a self portrait, but there you go. Ever seen me involved with FeXL, or McFury or Screature for example? OTOH I see another member involved when I am not.


Now now, Don. This is supposed to be about how to place nicely together, not how to not so covertly ostracize another member, even if they remain nameless. Especially if they remain nameless. We all pay the same admission cost to be here. Well, that is, except for those who got lifetime memberships.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Just what is it you think Sonal believes? She has been quite circumspect about committing to specific positions around her, despite contributing substantively to discussions of many different topics; I would be very hesitant to try to pin her down on any given issue.
> 
> In contrast; you and I have made our [frequently diametrically opposed] positions quite clear. That makes both of us easier targets and forced us to be more active combatants. But I've always found diplomacy boring; I'd rather loose an argument than avoid one.


That's "lose," buddy. Yowza!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> In the interests of experimenting with fjnmusic's idea of confronting things to work them out maturely*, I respectfully request that you do not make assumptions about my motives or use terms like co-opted which suggests some sort of a competition which I have clearly stated does not exist as far as I am concerned, and which I have demonstrated through my actions of continued participation here.*
> 
> And in any case, I've referred to being a landlord as being a benevolent dictatorship for years now.
> 
> I'm not saying it's more reflective of the group to have one person decide. I am saying that it's equally authoritarian if one is not the dictator nor an oligarch.


I respectfully suggest we always make assumptions about people's motives on an ongoing basis and that is in fact what society is built upon... trust or distrust.

I also respectfully suggest that you look at what it means to be co-opted and not use some personal interpretation of the word:

co-opt |kōˈäpt; ˈkōˌäpt|
verb [ trans. ] (often be co-opted)
appoint to membership of a committee or other body by invitation of the existing members.

I don't really see how you can honestly say you were not co-opted to be a mod in another place based on the definition of the word. I chose the use of the word quite carefully.

At any rate you favor "benevolent" dictators on public forums. I do not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Just what is it you think Sonal believes? She has been quite circumspect about committing to specific positions around her, despite contributing substantively to discussions of many different topics; I would be very hesitant to try to pin her down on any given issue.


I was just framing the question so that I could tease out the nature of any insults she might recall. You're right, however, that I would not have a clear idea whether I supported her position or not at times. 




Sonal said:


> It's not so much diplomacy on my part... more that I'm usually fairly aware of the flaws in the position I choose, which makes it difficult for me to be too gung ho about it.\





bryanc said:


> In contrast; you and I have made our [frequently diametrically opposed] positions quite clear. That makes both of us easier targets and forced us to be more active combatants. But I've always found diplomacy boring; I'd rather loose an argument than avoid one.


I want to be so clear in my position that I risk being called a hypocrite for failing to act on my own ideals.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> I agree, and likewise, I find the continual pointing out of that someone is playing the victim is continuous, tiresome and lends nothing to the quality of the discussion.
> 
> *Goes back to one of the first points I made... people are often very good at pointing out what other people are doing, and not very good at noticing that they are creating many of the same problems.*


Agreed. And of this I have been guilty.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Well, there's a lot of swearing in there....


:lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> This could be an interesting exercise (well, for me, anyway)... everyone start arguing about what they think I think. (It's right up there with watching multiple people argue over the correct pronunciation of my name.)
> 
> It's not so much diplomacy on my part... more that I'm usually fairly aware of the flaws in the position I choose, which makes it difficult for me to be too gung ho about it. *Also I dislike being lumped into groups.*


Hmm... well maybe then you can understand why I'm not so fond of your... well shall we say, willingness to lump 20 or so police officers into being exemplary of an entire police force.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war." Sometimes it is better to lose an argument than to avoid one, bryanc. On this I agree .......... in part. Other times, it is far better to just avoid getting into an argument that goes round and round and round. The trick is to know the difference and to pick and chose your arguments with care.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


wise advice. One I should take.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Hmm... well maybe then you can understand why I'm not so fond of your... well shall we say, willingness to lump 20 or so police officers into being exemplary of an entire police force.


I understood. In that particular context, I did not entirely agree. 



screature said:


> I don't really see how you can honestly say you were not co-opted to be a mod in another place based on the definition of the word. I chose the use of the word quite carefully.
> 
> At any rate you favor "benevolent" dictators on public forums. I do not.


Let me rephrase my request. Somehow, you appear to make a number of assumptions about my character because I do not agree with you. Keep such assumptions to yourself. 

I ask that you discuss the issue and not why you think I believe what I believe, because once you bring motive into it you are making the discussion personal, and this can be very offensive.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ironically (but not entirely unexpected), this thread is quickly becoming the stuff of most other threads here.

Vive la similaire!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Ironically (but not entirely unexpected), this thread is quickly becoming the stuff of most other threads here.


As you aren't even actively participating in this thread, why share such a negative pronouncement? I believe most of the people actually contributing to the thread are finding it interesting and insightful.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> wise advice. One I should take.


Some do ............. some don't. All I can do is to follow my own advice and get on with my life as best I can. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I understood. In that particular context, I did not entirely agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well put. Self-moderation is not about seeing what one can get away with; it is about doing unto others as we would like to have done to us. Unless one is a masochist that is.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Well put. Self-moderation is not about seeing what one can get away with; it is about doing unto others as we would like to have done to us. Unless one is a masochist that is.


well said.

While spending so much time asserting who is, or isn't at fault, focusing on the squabbles here, there, and down the road, this video kind of puts things into perspective, as to just how insignificant any of it can be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Space.... the final frontier....

Cool video, GT.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there's quite the frontier in that video!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Space.... the final frontier....


I never bought the argument that a picture of outer space makes matters at hand insignificant!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I never bought the argument that a picture of outer space makes matters at hand insignificant!


Maybe not… but it does make me realize that there is a whole bigger world out there that obsessing over my own problems prevents me from being able to experience. What do they say? Don't sweat the small stuff. Also, it's all small stuff.


----------



## partsguy (Jul 24, 2012)

groovetube said:


> well said.
> 
> While spending so much time asserting who is, or isn't at fault, focusing on the squabbles here, there, and down the road, this video kind of puts things into perspective, as to just how insignificant any of it can be.


I think this one might be more appropriate for the discussion ...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Maybe not… but it does make me realize that there is a whole bigger world out there that obsessing over my own problems prevents me from being able to experience. What do they say? Don't sweat the small stuff. Also, it's all small stuff.


That was indeed the point. I knew you'd get it 



partsguy said:


> I think this one might be more appropriate for the discussion ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great video!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Maybe not… but it does make me realize that there is a whole bigger world out there that obsessing over my own problems prevents me from being able to experience. What do they say? Don't sweat the small stuff. Also, it's all small stuff.


I guess some people forget about outer space from time to time, Spock.

This sort of pop psych never did much for me, but whatever floats your Enterprise.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I guess some people forget about outer space from time to time, Spock.
> 
> This sort of pop psych never did much for me, but whatever floats your Enterprise.


Indeed. Fascinating.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


>


Well that would dry up the conversation here pretty fast.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

screature said:


> Well that would dry up the conversation here pretty fast.


Love it. It's going on my wall!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I recorded a slightly different version of this old Christmas classic that Elvis Presley did so well. Please take a listen and I hope you enjoy. "Criss" is a Jamaican term like irie, as in "Relax, mon; evryting will be irie." I call it "Blue Crissmass." 

Merry Christmas to you all!

Frank

https://soundcloud.com/fearless-frank/blue-crissmass-remix


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's pretty cool Frank, nicely done! Or do they call you Felvis now? 

Merry Christmas!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

They could! Thanks, Don. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, I enjoyed that! Thanks.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> I recorded a slightly different version of this old Christmas classic that Elvis Presley did so well. Please take a listen and I hope you enjoy. "Criss" is a Jamaican term like irie, as in "Relax, mon; evryting will be irie." I call it "Blue Crissmass."
> 
> Merry Christmas to you all!
> 
> ...


Like


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Thanks, MF and KC4! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Good job Frank I had no idea you could play the steel drums!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Good job Frank I had no idea you could play the steel drums!


Heehee, thanks Screature. There's a great many instruments one can play if one has the right patches. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Nice steel drum break!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Thanks Groove. Oddly, the steel drums disappear completely on my iPhone speaker, but I can hear them quite clearly on the computer or the TV. Maybe it's a frequency or a phase thing, who knows. They are fun to play however. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

