I PUT HIM ON IGNORE AGAIN

The problem with being on an Ignore list of someone without knowing it,
is that if u comment on his posts expecting a response,
and he never saw your post to him because he has u on Ignore,
then u will be waiting a long time.

Re: spendius (Post 3565662)
spendius wrote:

That's putting a brave face on waving the white flag.

No.
That 's not waving a white flag.
Putting someone on Ignore is like putting out the garbage.
I don 't know who the farmer put on Ignore.

It coud be me, for all I know,
but I agree with doing it, if u decide that someone is not fit company.
Everyone has an absolute right to exclude someone else from friendship.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't know if I am on anybody's ignore list--I figure I am--and I don't care.

The problem with being on an Ignore list of someone without knowing it,
is that if u comment on his posts expecting a response,
and he never saw your post to him because he has u on Ignore,
then u will be waiting a long time.

Oh there are enough here who won't talk to me at all that I don't expect responses from the numbnuts, idiots, nutcases, or highly partisan bigots any more, and that is speaking of people on both sides of the spectrum. Most A2Kers, on both sides of the spectrum, aren't like that though and I get along pretty well with most. I love those who affirm my point of view and I love those who respectfully disagree with it. As Edgar may have been expressing, the rest I would just as soon they did ignore me.

DAvid and foxy, I dont put people on ignore lightly. Even the one (and only ) person with whom Ive exercised that feature, has been given all opportunities to act in a non rude fashion. I released him from my ignore with the hope that we could have lively debates on the subjects that interest me(after all this medium is rather self serving). Alas, he only uses every opportunity to be childish and rude and rarely is even on the subject, Then I find that Im spending all my time on that thread being similarly rude and childish. SO , I guess I grew up first and put a stop to all the petty crap. Hes on my ignore and , no matter what he is harping about, it falls on deaf ears. He he he.

I can get cantankerous and disagree loudly (I will print in caps) and still have fun with those that I disagree with. However, where the responses are totally predictable , thats no fun at all. Its like banging my head on the wall and expecting different outcomes after each hit.

It has occurred to me tho,
that we 'd be better off if we knew on whose Ignore lists we are
so that we not post to those people expecting responses

Quote:

The problem with being on an Ignore list of someone without knowing it,
is that if u comment on his posts expecting a response,
and he never saw your post to him because he has u on Ignore,
then u will be waiting a long time.

because Craven took public space and used technology to attempt make it into potential private space....we can manipulate the experience as we wish, which he thinks is a good thing. It is not. A2k is bastardized, neither public nor private now. It neither promotes the common experience as public space does nor is a meeting place suitable for being made private.

David, how are you?
We haven't seen each other in a while and I really miss you and your shouting.

he only uses every opportunity to be childish and rude and rarely is even on the subject,

Quote:

It has occurred to me tho,
that we 'd be better off if we knew on whose Ignore lists we are
so that we not post to those people expecting responses

Surely. I have several times let the individual know that hes on mine and Isee that as a logical condition of the ignore feature. Its sort of like the Doomsday device in Dr Strangelove, if we dont inform anyone of its existence, its value as a derterment was totally lost.
I usually say that "I have put you on ignore" . Now with the individual Ive put on ignore, he continues to post at me, and several others quote him so I cant fully isolate myself from his rambling posts.

The Ignore button reminds me of Capt. Kirk's faser ray gun.
When he shot someone with it, the target vanished; no messy clean-up.

I don't see how you can say that after the post you quoted and when the subject is as important as the education of 50 million kids.

I have " been given all opportunities to act in a non rude fashion". His definition of "non-rude". Rude must be anything short of kissing his arse and pandering to his ego.

Quote:

he only uses every opportunity to be childish and rude and rarely is even on the subject,

Again. His definitions. I'm just not on the subject in the manner he wants me to be. He is in denial of the positive emotional effects of religious experiences and their value in promoting socially acceptable behaviour and we are all expected to follow his lead in those very important matters. If we don't we are being childish and rude and off topic which are things anybody can easily say about anything. And you're buying into that. You're making a mistake. As Hawk rightly says.

It has nothing to do with asserting something is "petty crap". It has everything to do with being unable to answer the questions asked of him. He's saying those questions shouldn't be asked and anybody who does ask is childish and rude, off topic and peddling petty crap. If I wasn't reading it I wouldn't believe it.

Quote:

The Ignore button reminds me of Capt. Kirk's faser ray gun.
When he shot someone with it, the target vanished; no messy clean-up.

going with that: You fire and the subject vanishes...for you and you only. You have made Star Trek into a virtual reality experience, as if you were playing a computer simulation. Is that what you come to a2k to do? Not I. I want to meet real people and to have a completely fair debate with real people about real things. Making a2k virtual reality diminishes its value, cheapens it.

effemm seeks a claque of Yes-men and gets all petulant when he doesn't get it. You might as well make him President at the next election if you go with that. Or Secretary of Education.

Let's see if he can put Congress on Ignore, and State Govenors. Look what he's said about Mr Jindal. An elected man.

I'm sorry, but there are people on A2K that I would not put up with for two seconds in real life. I choose not to associate with hateful, mean spirited, cruel people who hide behind their anonymity or distance to be as unkind to others as possible. I don't see any reason why such people must be accepted or tolerated here either whether their toxic comments are directed at me or others. They've run off entirely too many really neat folks with their comments.

They have every right to be however or whomever they want to be. And I have every right to ignore them and I try hard to do so. Not so much with the ignore button but I just skim over their post and refuse to read or address them.

(David...that does NOT include you if I happen to not have responded to one of your posts addressed to me. )

Sometimes we do inadvertently miss a post and don't answer and that should not be interpreted that we have somebody on ignore unless it happens a lot. It can happen on fast moving threads especially if there are lapses between the times we check back on a thread.

But as FM said, the one I put I ignore permanently, I advised that I was putting him on ignore and I said why. A few others I do so very temporarily just until they get over their hissy fit or a particularly obnoxious phase, and those I don't announce. It is purely for my own peace.

You're missing the point Dave. The debate concerned is a public matter. If effemm thinks that with all his claque having me on Ignore so I will lose interest he can bring atheism into schools by default he's having himself on.

You have no right to avoid social contact in a debate about a public matter affection millions of people. Mr Obama was accused of ignoring certain questions and putting some journalists on Ignore.

Your points are okay in private matters.
You are confusing two radically different things.