Relegating Posts...

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger:

When you were still a kid living at home, when your parents made sweet love to each other, did they leave the door open or did they close it?

Whichever choice they made, was it the correct one? What made it the correct (or incorrect) choice?

The relevance please...???

Hi Liz, you said, into which i'll respond in bold:

I guess I'm confused as to what you would like to see happen here. Are you saying that you would like the whole three tiered structure removed?

RM: Yes.

Also...No one is categorizing people. We're categorizing threads. There's a difference. It's like keeping a library of material in different files. It's a way of organizing information. Those who want to access certain information can look in different categories. There isn't any type of stigma meant to be attached.

RM: As you know library material can be accessed by authors as well. Authors are often sought out because of their works, and of course visa-versa. "...meant to be..." is no guarantee that there 'won't-be'; what ever situation is referred to...

The whole "Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial" concept is a humorous play on words that Shades came up with...an inside joke for Mormons. If you're Mormon, or have associated with the Mormon Church for any length of time, (50+ years) you get the joke. (An assumption.) RM: It might well be "a humorous play..." and/or a "joke". But that does not negate the fact of judgement of a persons thoughts simply by word selection that must conform to arbitrary, and preconceived edicts of taste...(Actually very Mormonish.) Just like the ranking system where you're a "God" when you reach 1000 posts. It's simply the nature of the board, and it's all in good fun.

RM: IF it's a "joke", then make it a good one: Throw questionable words into the "Celestial" Kingdom and we'll all ROTFL at the red faces and screams evoked. THAT, could be good-for-a-laugh. But i suspect THAT will never happen. Will it?

Liz, i didn't intend to confuse You. I am fully aware of Board Policy and Rules. They have never bothered me personally, as i think you will find checking back on my posts. I also understand the necessity of policing in situations where minors could become victims of preditors. I don't think those conditions exist
here. Maybe they do???

What does concern me, maybe i'm the only one, is the principle of "segregation" as i see it from the perspective of a retired teacher of "challenged" High School students. There are occasions when "segregation" does work: That is when 'integration' doesn't.

I happen to think, rightly or wrongly, that "integration" in adult group situations benefits all by allowing full expression. Generally the group socializes itself by personal exchanges and observation of the whole interactve dynamic--if that seems necessary. Usually that isn't a serious 'problem' as "intrgration" works its stuff and people develop their latent social skills replacing timidity etc to remedy their ineptness... Blah, Blah, Blah...

Personally, i think Vegas--who quite likely spured this discussion as he, in my opinion, rightly called Gaz to task-- plays a more valued role here than do many of us. It might be more worthwhile if He "presented" in "Celestialism"... Just as i see it. (A sidebar: do you think the folks in the "Celestial Forum" see themselves as brunt of a "joke"? Warm regards, Roger

[_Yoda]

Roger, I still don't see the categorizing of threads as a form of segregation. Most participants on the board post in all three forums. There are a few who don't, but that's their choice.

If I'm passionate about a thread I'm participating in, I'm going to participate. It doesn't matter what category the thread is in.

Also, if a thread does get moved, we always leave a shadow link. That way, if you only want to participate in that isolated thread, you can still click on the link from the old category, without having to even view all of the threads in the new category.

I think you're creating a mountain out of a molehill here.

A sidebar: do you think the folks in the "Celestial Forum" see themselves as brunt of a "joke"? Warm regards, Roger

No one who participates in ANY forum is meant to be the "brunt of a joke". The humor is in the structure of the board itself.

So no, I don't think they see themselves as the brunt of a joke, and I wouldn't want them to. Everyone who participates here is intelligent and knows how to read. They either like the board structure and policies, and enjoy participating, or they don't, and move on to another forum where they do feel comfortable.

[_Dr. Shades]

Roger, please read carefully harmony's words, reposted here:

Again, we, as posters, need to do a better job of staying within the guidelines of each forum. The guidelines are clearly posted at the top of each forum. Deliberately ignoring them will result in the thread being moved to a forum where it will be within the guidelines. We should police ourselves to preserve the integrity of this place. Shades and the mod squad shouldn't have to police us. We know better. We know what a heavy-handed mod squad feels like, and we should all do our best to make this place a place of integrity, so we can show that we are a self-moderating bunch here. We have all been welcomed here; we know we are able to say whatever we want here; we can make our points here without fearing the hammer from the mod squad. Our freedom here is precious, and we need to do a better job of guarding it. I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it here for as long as my fingers will type. Just say it in the appropriate forum.

C'mon, people. It's not a matter of censorship or playing favorites. It's a matter of coloring within the lines. If you can't remember to color within the lines, or if you just have to say something that is outside the lines, that's okay. It's not a problem when someone colors outside the lines; the moderating team will just move the lines. Moving the lines means they'll be moving the thread to another forum, where the distance between the lines is wider.

Them's some darn good words there. I wish I could put that entire post into my signature line.

Is there anything you disagree with there, Roger? If so, what is it?

What does concern me, maybe I'm the only one, is the principle of "segregation" as I see it from the perspective of a retired teacher of "challenged" High School students. There are occasions when "segregation" does work: That is when 'integration' doesn't.

I happen to think, rightly or wrongly, that "integration" in adult group situations benefits all by allowing full expression. Generally the group socializes itself by personal exchanges and observation of the whole interactve dynamic--if that seems necessary. Usually that isn't a serious 'problem' as "intrgration" works its stuff and people develop their latent social skills replacing timidity etc to remedy their ineptness...

This board was never designed to be a pie-in-the-sky experiment at utopian idealism.

We'll go ahead and remove the three-tiered system after everyone comes together in the unity of Aquarius off-board first. Deal?

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger, I still don't see the categorizing of threads as a form of segregation. Most participants on the board post in all three forums. There are a few who don't, but that's their choice.

If I'm passionate about a thread I'm participating in, I'm going to participate. It doesn't matter what category the thread is in.

Also, if a thread does get moved, we always leave a shadow link. That way, if you only want to participate in that isolated thread, you can still click on the link from the old category, without having to even view all of the threads in the new category.

I think you're creating a mountain out of a molehill here.

A sidebar: do you think the folks in the "Celestial Forum" see themselves as brunt of a "joke"? Warm regards, Roger

No one who participates in ANY forum is meant to be the "brunt of a joke". The humor is in the structure of the board itself.

So no, I don't think they see themselves as the brunt of a joke, and I wouldn't want them to. Everyone who participates here is intelligent and knows how to read. They either like the board structure and policies, and enjoy participating, or they don't, and move on to another forum where they do feel comfortable.

Hi Liz, you're repeating yourself yourself... "...mountain out of a molehill...?? Could well be... I know when i'm stone-walled... Not enough time :-)

Doc, OK, i'm nearly ready to concede. And yes, i've read Harmony's post. And yes, it's good in that it calls attention to personal, individual reponsibility. It also displays a tendency to be traditional, and possibly a bit authoritarian...definitely rule-oriented??? Not all bad... From her post:

C'mon, people... It's a matter of coloring within the lines. If you can't remember to color within the lines, or if you just have to say something that is outside the lines, that's okay. It's not a problem when someone colors outside the lines; the moderating team will just move the lines. Moving the lines means they'll be moving the thread to another forum, where the distance between the lines is wider.

Reminds me of the song by Harry Chapin Carpenter: "Flowers Are Red Young Man, Green Leaves Are Green! There's No Need To See Flowers Any Other Way, Than The Way They Have Always Been Seen." When sung by my 7 year-old at a Primary Function, a century ago, it raised some eye-brows... Conformity & all that rigid, frigid stuff, ya know??

This board was never designed to be a pie-in-the-sky experiment at utopian idealism.

We'll go ahead and remove the three-tiered system after everyone comes together in the unity of Aquarius off-board first. Deal?

My last--again--point: "...remove(ing) the three-tiered system..." (might be "utopian idealism"--is that bad?) IMSCO will precede, not follow, "Aquarious"... I'm not a Nationalist. Nor am i a "pie-in-the-sky" guy. Whatever corrections are to be made to any "system" are to be made 'here' in mortality, by mortals... Not by a 'Guy-in-the-sky'...

But hey Doc, "It's YOUR party, an' i'll cry when i want to..." (Luv those old songs :-) Ya got a deal--sort-of, eh?! Warm regards to all. Roger, over, & out :-)