Block users from posting on your post. in Site Feature Requests http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20111185 en Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:23:24 EDT Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:23:24 EDT Re: Block users from posting on your post. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20425104 fatness : We're done here.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20425104 Sat, 03 May 2008 08:56:46 EDT Re: Block users from posting on your post. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20424813 anwaypasible :
said by nwrickert See Profile
I won't explain it all again. You can go through my previous post if you wish. But I will comment on just one point.


you know what this means?

it means that
A. you have nothing justified and truthful to say
B. you're too lazy to help somebody understand your point of view

BOTH of those reasons are good reasons for ANYBODY to stay off a forum.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20424813 Sat, 03 May 2008 04:53:52 EDT Re: Block users from posting on your post. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20424805 anwaypasible :
said by nwrickert See Profile :

LOL. You are the one making mistakes.
that means if you're posting in a thread which the user has you on ignore, you arent doing anything positive and constructive because the person isnt reading your post.
That's quite wrong.
i'm sure you'd love to argue your chance at proper perception.. especially since we arent in school with a teacher to split us up.
you cant talk to a person that has you on ignore.. if you ever managed to talk to that person it would mean one of two things:
1. the ignore feature on the forum is broke and your post got through
2. you hacked the forum and took yourself off ignore so your post would get through.

i'm sure there are people who have nothing better to do except confuse the matter by pointing out the facts and simply saying they are wrong.
there are lots of people reading this thread and you are potentially confusing every last one of them until the matter is settled.
you're wasting my time and good nature while i'm trying to prove a point.
(especially if you know what the point is and are pretending NOT to know what the point is)

said by nwrickert See Profile :

Take this particular post replying to you. There are thousands of people who read this forum. I am posting the reply for all of them, or all of those who choose to read it. If you choose to not read my post, that's a decision for you to make. It has nothing to do with why I post. It simply isn't important.
first of all.. the first thing you said was 'replying to you'
you're supposed to be replying to the original poster.
if that original poster has you on ignore you have no business talking to that person.
being in trouble and being placed on ignore denies your right to post to 'all of them'
you'll have to start your own thread if you want to discuss the same topic.
IF you chose to post in the thread you are hijacking the thread.
and its totally unfair that you get yourself in trouble and then start talking to 'all of them' and then 'all of them' start talking back to you.. but the original poster doesnt know what ya'll are talking about because you hijacked the thread and your hijacking post was left unread.

you and i are on topic.. but we are not talking directly to the original poster.. that makes us both hijackers!
two people are not allowed to talk to eachother in another persons thread.. that is RUDE and not proper forum ethics.
its the same as cutting a person off in the middle of the conversation and then not letting the person get a word in.

this forum is PUBLIC you are correct but, the only justified approach to 'public' is a public response to the start of a thread.
if you happen to be banned from speaking to somebody in public, you are simply banned from talking to that person in public (private messages too)

a private situation would be the start of a topic and only 'selected' users can reply.
just because one member of the forum is on ignore, that doesnt make the every single OTHER member 'selected'
the pool of possible posters stays public.. except one person who is on ignore.

AGAIN.. public means i could be a non-registered user and read a post then register simply to reply to what i read.
(and technically that is not a 100% accurate description of public.. anonymous posting is 100% public)
some registered forums are open to the public and others are only available by invite. (not a big deal once you're in)

another example:
you arent entitled to trespass on property that specifically tells you to stay off of the land.

i already said it once above.. many of you think that a public forum allows you to continually hijack the thread away from the original poster.. and thats not true.
a private forum doesnt allow people to hijack the thread away from the original poster either.

this directly relates to your social morals and ethics.
if the world had plenty of both they would be able to explain the unexplainable a lot easier.
we wouldnt have dr phil talking about troubles communicating.
we wouldnt have domestic violence.

the number one problem in the world today is trouble communicating.. not the running low on gas and oil.

i'm starting to realize why it was so important that i was one of the only few to get straight A's in school.
the rest of the classroom argues about everything!!
(the rest being about 80%)

although i was lucky enough to be raised in a town where about 40% of students did exceptionally well during elementary school
(we aren't idiots aroun' here)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20424805 Sat, 03 May 2008 04:40:58 EDT Re: Block users from posting on your post. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20424587 nwrickert :
your elementary mistakes are highlighted in bold.
LOL. You are the one making mistakes.

I won't explain it all again. You can go through my previous post if you wish. But I will comment on just one point.
that means if you're posting in a thread which the user has you on ignore, you arent doing anything positive and constructive because the person isnt reading your post.
That's quite wrong.

Take this particular post replying to you. There are thousands of people who read this forum. I am posting the reply for all of them, or all of those who choose to read it. If you choose to not read my post, that's a decision for you to make. It has nothing to do with why I post. It simply isn't important.

Now if we were communicating by private email, that would be a very different situation. In that case, a reply to your email would be intended for you to read. But this is a public forum. My reply is intended for anybody who reads this forum, and it does not matter to me whether you are among those who read it.

That's the difference between public forums and private email.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.14]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20424587 Sat, 03 May 2008 02:06:34 EDT Re: Block users from posting on your post. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20424501 anwaypasible :
said by nwrickert See Profile :

Putting somebody on ignore is something that you do to yourself for yourself. It isn't something you do to another user.
This isn't private email, it's a public forum. When somebody replies to your post, they are not replying to you. They are (or should be) replying to the thread, and commenting on the topic of the thread.
It is a restraining "order" on you, not on the person you ignore.
your elementary mistakes are highlighted in bold.

mistake number 1: putting the person on ignore, not putting yourself on ignore. (your own name will not show up on your own ignore list)

mistake number 2: when i start a thread all posts are to be on topic unless posted in a 'free for all' area.
that means if you're posting in a thread which the user has you on ignore, you arent doing anything positive and constructive because the person isnt reading your post.
you arent to reply to an original poster with the intent to disobey your ban from speaking to the original poster.
the original poster is the number one concern. if the advice can help other people "TOO BAD!"
you are completely correct that this is a public forum, but you seem to be forgetting that things CAN get personal in public!!
once the stress becomes personal it is time to question if that stress is justified.. if it is not, block it.
this thread is clearly showing how everyone wants to tear down that block.
my thread is steered by me.. anybody who thinks they can steer somebody elses thread is confused and driving threads off topic (also known as hijacking a thread)

mistake number 3:
it is a restraining "order" FOR you, not for the person you ignore.
being stressed/harrassed/teased/personally attacked is DISORDER TO HARMONY & EMOTIONAL BLISS
(that is why a judge slams the hammer and yells 'order.. order in the court!')

if somebody is teasing/harrassing/mocking/flaming/pretending/or simply unwanted
this group will continue to allow that to happen.
that is unjust and improper parenting/moderating!
the original poster has rights when starting a thread:
you will not speak off topic unless in a 'free for all' section
you will not hijack somebodys thread
you will not post counter productive arguements
you will not post the exact opposite to the facts
you will not post only to say what you think of the person
you should only post positive constructive thoughts

you people only have one arguement to abide by:
if the facts hurt, the person has no right to ignore the person telling the facts.
that is the only situation that is justified as 'improperly ignoring a forum poster'

i hope d.c.f.s. has a case opened for all you posters who have children, because clearly you cant raise yourselves correctly (let-alone your children)

restraining orders online are a needed thing just like they are needed in real life.
and once you start a thread.. that is the original posters little conversation piece owned and entitled to the original poster.
that is exactly why the owner of the forum has created and maintained a forum.. to allow people to communicate, not to allow people to argue.

constructive communication is the reply with something that 'adds to the conversation'

arguing is when one person does not see the facts correctly

flaming is done in many ways:
posting the facts exactly opposite
replying to a post with ANYTHING other than positive constructive communication (if it aint positive constructive communication you're dragging somebody down)
replying to a post with an opinion of ANYTHING (if you have something nice to say, do it via private message)
these are the three most solid and often used methods of flaming
i cant think of any other methods more prevalent.

now, realizing there are only three methods, i am disgusted at the lack of understanding the three methods.

the FCC should copy and paste this post and share it with all admins and moderators alike because you wont find a better guide anywhere on the planet.

i think some of you are trying to bend the rules when we speak about who has a right to talk and who doesnt.
the forum owner runs a service and those who take part in the service have the right to start a conversation that they own.
nobody is allowed to take away that original post unless it violates the forum rules.
every post thereafter has guidelines that are to be followed as mentioned above.
it is an organized system that is being kicked around and manipulated for the sake of freedom.
the thread started owns the land.. if the original poster tells you to get off his/her land, you arent entitled to argue.
you have no right to argue, and this is clearly stated in properly written forum guidelines.

now after reading this post, dont say you didnt know!
and stop trying to get away with harassment!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20424501 Sat, 03 May 2008 01:24:00 EDT