@hawkeye10,
I have the feeling that Robert wants to give us a pleasant experience with A2K.
It is possible for him to read our posted opinions
and to take them into consideration, if he wishes to do so.
Will u
answer the question that I addressed to u, Hawkeye ?
David
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:I have the feeling that Robert wants to give us a pleasant experience with A2K.
based upon what?
Quote:
It is possible for him to read our posted opinions
and to take them into consideration, if he wishes to do so
he could take our views into consideration, but i have never seen it happen. his conversations with the people that he cares about do not happen here.
Quote:Will u answer the question that I addressed to u, Hawkeye
my restaurant has been very busy and my wife decided to drag me out for dinner and drinks after my 11 hour workday today...so would you kindly restate?
@msolga,
Quote:
The sooner we adjust to this reality the better.
you can leave, you dont need to adjust..... many people have done it. at some point the diminishing returns are not worth the effort.
are there other virtual meeting places that are better? IDK because I have not looked, but I have other hobbies and interests, I dont need to do this at all. It is probably time for me to read more anyways, as I have not done that much these last few years.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote: It is probably time for me to read more anyways, as I have not done that much these last few years.
I think that's a splendid idea, then you might post something worth reading.
@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:I have the feeling that Robert wants to give us a pleasant experience with A2K.
hawkeye10 wrote:based upon what?
Based upon the general totality of his interaction with us.
DAVID wrote:It is possible for him to read our posted opinions
and to take them into consideration, if he wishes to do so
hawkeye10 wrote:he could take our views into consideration,
but i have never seen it happen. his conversations with the people
that he cares about do not happen here.
Is that
SIGNIFICANT??
This is his property; in the privacy of his mind
(or private conferences)
he can consider whatever he wants to consider.
It is possible that a participant of A2K will
offer an idea that he finds to be of interest that will affect his choices.
Quote:Will u answer the question that I addressed to u, Hawkeye
hawkeye10 wrote:my restaurant has been very busy and my wife decided to drag me out for dinner and drinks
after my 11 hour workday today...so would you kindly restate?
OK:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:you have no "rights" to see what I post.
hawkeye10 wrote:i am not arguing that you dont have the right to choose who you share your thoughts and product with, I am arguing that a place which has instituted such a drastic culture of exclusion is unsuitable for use by those who claim to be free and democratic peoples, that this place would be such a violation of our values that it must be abandoned if this degrade goes into place and is used.
Hawkeye,
WHICH "values" woud be violated??
Can u be more specific??
It seems to me that if the change in Ignore goes into effect,
then it will be more like a lot of A2Kers opt to send their friends
in this forum
many Private Messages. Do u allege that your rights r violated
by Private Messages that u don't know about??
David
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:U make it sound like an important PRINCIPLE of virtue.
it's actually more of an OCD thing, i hate the look of the collapsed threads and posts, it makes the board look untidy
i tolerate it when i report spam, but it still bugs me
i also have a bit of a twisted sense of reality, i like the more abhorrent/ridiculous postings all most as much, if not more so, then the regular ones
I remember an incident years ago,
wherein I saw a participant in A2K insolently abuse someone else
so badly, so cruelly that I silently put him on Ignore.
( This was not any historian.)
I had not been party to that exchange, only a witness.
If the new blocking goes into effect,
the same kind of thing might happen
that even tho people against whom
we direct comments do not put us on Ignore,
unbeknownst to us, others GO NUCLEAR and banish us from their cognition.
Even the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the opportunity to revive,
but not A2Kers; unforgiving.
We will ALL need to be very nice, very nice to EVERYONE; or ELSE!
"An armed society is a POLITE society"
(meaning armed with the new Ignore Button).
In the REAL world, we do not go around committing homicide
qua petty or brief annoyances because we know about the police & prison system,
but there will be no such deterrent to getting rid of anyone by the SUPER-Ignore button.
It is possible that factions may develop based on philosophical agreement,
such that, over time, people of different philosophies will be excluded with a quick push of a button.
If that happens, then we will only be talking to those people who agree
with our own opinions, and differing points of vu
will no longer be visible.
Dare we be ROBUST in setting forth our arguments of political philosophy??
or of ANY philosophy, e.g., child rearing or any other category of interest ?
I dunno.
There is also the possibility of factual misunderstanding; (especially if joking is involved).
On seldom occasions, I have meant one thing, but a reader incorrectly believed
that I meant something else and he got mad at me.
Robert 's idea makes a lot of good sense when applied to egregious,
horrible, long-term annoyances who refuse to take a hint
that u don't want to converse with them (as he described),
but users who are more innocent might be rendered more vulnerable
to ostracism on a final basis, worse than Hiroshima, by the new Ignore concept.
Is it POSSIBLE to offer them any protection?? I dunno.
Will this new idea, if implimented, bring about an environment of fear in A2K ?
David
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:I like eradicating better than sequestering.
just sayin'...
you are not a truth speaker nor a truth seeker, so go figure.
That's one of the goofiest, most hollow, pseudoenlighted bull-shite retort I've ever seen here at a2k.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:This is nothing more than one of his typical Chicken Little whines about how his freedom of speech is being taken away
so robert claims but he is an obvious liar. this has nothing to do with my speech but everything to do with the dictator encouraging the exclusion of the undesirables. He well may be doing it to appease some vocal minority of whiners who cant or wont choose who they listen to or who they talk too and thus demand that he make a technical tool so that they dont have to, but that does not lessen his mistake.
I think that we should tell Robert to go **** himself, and refuse to use it on principle.
Hahahahahahaha! Says the dictator of the collective.
@hawkeye10,
Dude, it's a private site. If you don't like it then leave.
@msolga,
A user of Facebook can block anyone they choose at any time. When done, they no longer see posts from that person on their news feed. They no longer see the comments by that person on other people's news feeds.
@OmSigDAVID,
The values that the new a2k does not suppoprt are inclusion and the desire to live in a free and just society.
I am not claiming that my rights are violated..I have only the rights here that our dictator allows. My claim is that robert is making yet another strong move to ruin the place. It is sad but it is clear that he will never wise up, so it is getting to be time to abondon ship. It was a good run, and I am greatful to have had a place to explore truth with smart and diverse people while I had it.
The new a2k might allow the existance of a subcommunity of truth seekers but I will take a wait and see on that. It will not however be close to the quality of place that it once was.
Just when you think Whackeye's paranoid fantasies could not get any more bizarre . . .
@Butrflynet,
But you have to be logged in to FB to see anything. I'm trying to envision how blocking someone from seeing your posts would work in a situation where most of the new folks find this site and read posts before ever logging in. The only things they don't see are the posts that have been voted below some threshold. Unless there's a major change to how posts are read by someone who isn't logged in then I don't see how blocking someone will prevent them from seeing your posts.
I don’t believe the new feature will have any negative impact at all. Most may not even use it, I will use it for just a few members here, one’s that I don’t care to see anything they post or have them post after me.
I’ve only been here for a year and a half but in that time I’ve seen some good potential member stop posting. Can you imagine a new person sticking around after reading Hawkeye’s imbecile comments!
@JPB,
Quote:I'm trying to envision how blocking someone from seeing your posts would work in a situation where most of the new folks find this site and read posts before ever logging in.
which is why Robert will auto block ( than is auto censor) all those who reach a threshold of blocks. we will have to opt out of the censored experience to see stuff that has been put onto the server but is not seen. There is no way for robert to get the conformity and peace that he craves without doing this.
which brings up a new fun game we might play.....imagine if you will a handful of undesirables on the darknet of A2K continually mocking A2K and its scaredy cat members in rebuttals which are almost never seen. It could be like how John Stewart goes on massive riffs against Rebubs, knowing full well before he starts that his target will rarely see and will never respond to his assault.
If Robert was a smarter fella he would give some serious thought to the political law of unintended consequences....his last big revision certainly did not turn out as he expected.
@hawkeye10,
Point of information, Hawkeye:
If some of your customers raised their voices
loud enuf
to be heard thru out your restaurant and began making offensive
remarks about U, disparaging your intelligence, how woud u handle that ??
