SGW - Was it worth it?

[_jskains]

OK.. so instead of criticizing, why not go and create the board so it fits your purpose! How does that sound?

~td~

No better than supporting companies that are involved in child labor simply because in the U.S., they do comply with Federal law and you don't have to see it? :)

JMS

[_Kishkumen]

Pathetic Guy wasn't a member of this board at the time of the recent debacle. So who would you say should have been banned?

Pathetic guy should have been considered unwelcome as soon as he arrived. It is called self-protection. It is like having a Molotov cocktail thrown at your house from the street and then inviting the person to sit on the couch to chat when he walks through your front door. Obviously, we do not have any policies or practices in place that would have addressed the problem this way, so I am not saying that he should have been banned as soon as he arrived, but I would certainly be in favor of that in the future.

As I said, I view this as a practical measure for the protection of the board.

Neither am I. Right now, though, without a huge overhaul of the rules and/or getting a new host, it's the quickest route to no further shut downs. The problem is, as I see it, isn't the pictures... the problem is that now we exist with a cloud hovering over us, which very likely will muzzle candid and open discussions.

Yes. I understand why this was done in the short term. But Stak and I were talking about long term policy, since the idea was floated that the ability to link to images should be deactivated permanently.

Could you expand on the idea of a cloud hanging over us? I don't want to address that until I know we're on the same page there.

Don't act like you were the lone target of my comments.

Oh really? Try slowing down and choosing your words more carefully, then. You quote me and then you write:

Well, you just made the point that 15,000 posts were full of useless words. Thanks. It's nice to know words are so undervalued here.

Stak said we were going to bleed to death if we didn't have pictures; you agreed with him. I pointed out that some of us never use pictures, yet have contributed thousands of posts, some of which may have actually been worthwhile. I was snarky; you chose to get snippy. Own it; it is what it is.

Own what? Your misreading? No, thanks. Look at this:

I tend to agree with Stak about turning off the ability to link to images.

Since I know my meaning better than you do, I will translate. When I say "tend to agree," I am not saying that I agree 100%. I am saying I am in agreement to the extent and in the ways that I stipulate. Hypothetically, this is what my post would look like if I agreed with Stak 100% in the way that you seem to have read him:

Man, yeah, we're dead in the water if we can't link images. Stak is 100% right. Turn that function back on immediately.

See the difference?

And I never called you names. Even when you deserve it.

LOL. Wow, you're so generous. Even when I deserved it? Well, at least I now know that I deserved it more than once, and yet in your magnanimity, you refrained from calling me names. Ha!

OK, I am really sorry for calling you the name I would have called my brother for poking at me. I know how devastating that is.

So should I be upset that you were laughing at me?

I'm not helping you there. I think ideally the wise person is not ruffled by any barbs. You figure it out.

Venom? Kish, does this really qualifies as venom in your world? Are you somehow exempt from ever taking flak about something you say? Gee... I'm so sorry. I'll try to perfect my egg-shell walking.

OK, kitty hissing. Yeah, that's it.

Where's the constructive discussion? Oh yeah... no family pictures.

Yeah, it's called, "let's consider more limited measures instead of running around like the sky is falling and suggesting we turn off image linking permanently." I would call a measured suggestion in lieu of panic very constructive.

It may not make add to my popularity here to point this out, but the pathetic guy shut down this board.

I see you lived through it, although you are obviously shaken. As much as I have enjoyed being here, and hope to enjoy it more, I can't really get worked up to the degree I sense you being. Hey, but maybe I am wrong.

[_Milesius]

I tend to agree with Stak about turning off the ability to link to images. It is not that I think the board would fold over night, but 1) a lot of the key people on this board love using pictures; 2) most images linked here are harmless; 3) a picture really is worth a thousand words sometimes.

I think you underestimate the benefit of linking images.

Well, you just made the point that 15,000 posts were full of useless words. Thanks. It's nice to know words are so undervalued here.

See, now, this is a perfect example of where an image (i.e., of an eye roll) would be extremely effective.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Oh my god.

Someone is posting Mormonads with the Devilish Rogue meme. Definitely not me, by the way. Hilarious.

[LINK TO SITE CONTAINING OBSCENE CONTENT DELETED]

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Chap]

Hello,

Oh my god.

Someone is posting Mormonads with the Devilish Rogue meme. Definitely not me, by the way. Hilarious.

[LINK TO SITE CONTAINING OBSCENE CONTENT DELETED]

V/R
Dr. Cameron

Call Neighborhood Watch NOW!

At least they can't say the ads are lewd. And it's not me either, by the way.