Please just use the IGNORE button/ don't go, don't fight

I promise to be me...nothing fake..only the real..ask me and I will tell you..me..I will support the ones that need it..hug the ones that care...and be curtious to the ones that don't..I will give you my opinion when you ask..and possibly even when you don't.. but I will never belittle and discourage anyone from coming in here and giving their own opinion and seeking support for anything. Not that you all cared to hear that..but I am saying it anyways!

Look on the left side of the posts where you see the persons name.

Click on that persons name

Scroll down and you will see three options

Click on - ignore this user

To stop ignoring posts by that person just do the process again and you will see that ignonor this user now says - stop ignoring this user. Click on that.

When you have that person on ignore you will not see any content of the post they made and you will not be able to recieve any om's by that person.

What if the Ignore button is ticking me off? It just sits there, laughing at me. "C'mon, click on me, I dare ya!" It's taunting me!!!!! Grrrrr!!!!

It just sits there, laughing at me.

Perhaps a call to your T is in order?

I hear ya!!!!!!!

gggrrrrrrr at it all!!!

Mine is mean and rude too

and.... I looked again..... it is getting fuzzy!!

A fuzzy furry ignore button? hhmmmmmmm

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Petunia said:
Perhaps a call to your T is in order?


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Now, why would you say that? ;D

heh. I crack up every time I see that title

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Jax2923 said:
I promise to be more thoughtful with what I write and I'll try not to be insensitive, judgemental or flaming.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

On the word FLAMING:

Can someone please explain to me and give an example or two of what you personally see as flaming.... for I think every one is on different sides of the fence on this word.

Thanks....
Rhapsody -

wow..... this is a hot topic! (((((((((((( Rhapsody ))))))))))))

Flaming, to me, can include dismissing a person's views by calling them an idiot or stupid; I don't consider it flaming if you say someone outside of the forum is an idiot, but calling another member an idiot can be.

But more, flaming is something said with the intent to incite a strong and negative reaction. It also tends to lead to what I'll call "wasted space": One person posts, "You're an idiot, you know that?" and the next says, "I'm not an idiot, you BLEEP BLEEP!" and the first person replies, "You wouldn't know a reliable source from a hole in your head!" and it goes back and forth like that. That's not only off-topic, but it just wastes space, instead of having a productive conversation.

I was once on a mailing list where they let you say anything you wanted, including flaming. There were a lot of immature people who just broke down cussing back and forth, and it was boring and stupid, and I quit that list shortly after joining.

Yes, sometimes I want to call people names, but it's more mature and intelligent to argue (if you're arguing or debating) with information and resources than just swear and insult each other back and forth. It's also more interesting.

That's what I feel flaming is.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board on the Internet. Such messages are called flames, and are sometimes posted in response to flamebait. Flaming is said by some to be one of a class of economic problems known as The Tragedy of the Commons, when a group holds a resource (in this case, communal attention), but each of the individual members has an incentive to overuse it. Flamers usually call their flames justified attacks.

Although the trading of insults is as old as human speech, flaming on the Internet, like many other online 'actions', started in the Usenet hierarchies (although it was known to occur in the WWIVnet and FidoNet computer networks as well). A flame may have elements of a normal message, but is distinguished by its intent. A flame is typically not intended to be constructive, to further clarify a discussion, or to persuade other people. The motive for flaming is often not dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Sometimes, flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority. Occasionally, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls. Most often however, flames are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject. Finally, some consider flaming to be a great way to let off steam, though the receiving party may be less than pleased.

Similarly, a normal, non-flame message may have elements of a flame -- it may be hostile, for example -- but it is not a flame if it is seriously intended to advance the discussion.

The word flaming is also sometimes used for long, intensive and heated discussions, even though insults do not occur.


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> from www.en.wikipedia.org

OK - Based on what I see here on the word FLAMING (per Maven & Sky)...... then posting a new topic that was intended for other members for they had personally asked for the help, but was perceived wrong by a third party who came into the conversation and then posted their upset against the topic.... this is NOT considered FLAMING? - am I right or wrong here?

OR - is it only considered flaming "IF" - when I personally reply back to the third parties comment? - is that the start of a flame verses no flame if I had left it alone and contacted a Mod / Admin instead?



Thanks.... (for the help in understanding)
LoVe,
Rhapsody -

I didn't understand it at first either, Rhap. I take it to mean to be intentionally insulting to anyone in a post. Whether it be a generalized statement or to somebody specifically.
I don't know the technical definition but that's how I understand it.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Jax2923 said:
I didn't understand it at first either, Rhap. I take it to mean to be intentionally insulting to anyone in a post. Whether it be a generalized statement or to somebody specifically.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I see........... so FLAMING would occur if one was to insult back after being attacked or insulted, hence the "intentionally insulting" - no matter if it was done after being attacked it was still meant to insult through means of retaliation. - Thx!

I am a better person today....... for today I have learned some thing new.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

I like what Maven wrote, as usual...

And in my 3+ years here, I've found that when I'm being attacked, the best response is a short "I'll take that under consideration" and leave it at that. Anything else is perceived as defensive and makes me looks WORSE than if I were to just let it go.

I think that people are less likely to continue attacking if they feel that their opinions have been heard.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
LMo said:
I like what Maven wrote, as usual...

And in my 3+ years here, I've found that when I'm being attacked, the best response is a short "I'll take that under consideration" and leave it at that. Anything else is perceived as defensive and makes me looks WORSE than if I were to just let it go.

I think that people are less likely to continue attacking if they feel that their opinions have been heard.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I like that response and the reasoning behind it.........I will try to practice that also........thanks!

While that might help keep the drama out of the membership eye, it is also reinforcing the attacking behavior... IF the mods would PM the person who attacked and nudge them about it, this would be best for all around imo... however, the Mods often think, "Oh, no offense taken, none made" and leave it... only to find it raise it's head again and again until it explodes??? just my thinking.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
While that might help keep the drama out of the membership eye, it is also reinforcing the attacking behavior... IF the mods would PM the person who attacked and nudge them about it, this would be best for all around imo... however, the Mods often think, "Oh, no offense taken, none made" and leave it... only to find it raise it's head again and again until it explodes??? just my thinking.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I think the problem is that everyone's definition of what an "attack" is .........is different. JMHO

That's true, imo... which is why the mods and admin should be the deciders... but if it's something that many ppl here notice as non supportive...then it probably meets that definition I think?

I agree with Sky 100%.

I also think if they have to nudge the same posters over and over that the offending poster be removed for a few weeks.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
While that might help keep the drama out of the membership eye, it is also reinforcing the attacking behavior... IF the mods would PM the person who attacked and nudge them about it, this would be best for all around imo... however, the Mods often think, "Oh, no offense taken, none made" and leave it... only to find it raise it's head again and again until it explodes??? just my thinking.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
That's true, imo... which is why the mods and admin should be the deciders... but if it's something that many ppl here notice as non supportive...then it probably meets that definition I think?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Sometimes, I get the impression from reading some of the threads, that most of the "many ppl" that notice something as non-supportive, thus thought of as an "attack" on someone, do this among themselves in PMs. Then they bring their very personal (among themselves) view to the thread.

I realize that there are many people who have been here along time and have quite a history with eachother, but in my opinion each thread should stand on its own merits. Not necessarily in the context of that history (ie with the initial poster or someone who has posted in that thread) .......if you get what I mean.

Edited to add.........IMHO

Hmmm I think that borders on feelings of paranoia? I have often come on site and read a thread and found something all on my own, with no PMs (which I pick up first.) I have been notified of a thread in a PM, sure... but even that doesn't automatically evoke a response. I think there are just as many PMs that say, will you look at that thread, am I reading them right? Am I overreacting???

I don't know, what else do you want members to use the PM capability for? If they want an offsite friendship, they can email. hmmmmmm

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
IF the mods would PM the person who attacked and nudge them about it, this would be best for all around imo... however, the Mods often think, "Oh, no offense taken, none made" and leave it... only to find it raise it's head again and again until it explodes??? just my thinking.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

... actually, we do that 99% of the time when we're aware of it, but since we do it via PM, you (as the general membership) wouldn't know about it, which is the point.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
Hmmm I think that borders on feelings of paranoia? I have often come on site and read a thread and found something all on my own, with no PMs (which I pick up first.) I have been notified of a thread in a PM, sure... but even that doesn't automatically evoke a response. I think there are just as many PMs that say, will you look at that thread, am I reading them right? Am I overreacting???

I don't know, what else do you want members to use the PM capability for? If they want an offsite friendship, they can email. hmmmmmm

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I am not quite sure what in my post you feel "borders on feelings of paranoia"? But anyway........

To me, PMs seem to be as much trouble as they are worth at times. When someone PMs you to "look at a thread" even though it may not be a subject that you would initially be interested in, and asks for your reaction to a response they received, generally you bring both of your "historys" to that interpretation. Sometimes, because of that history (good and bad), either with the poster or responder it influences your interpretation.......human nature I guess.

I just wish each thread and a specific posters response to that "specific thread" could stand on it's own merits.

But, I do think LMo's response would be best:
"And in my 3+ years here, I've found that when I'm being attacked, the best response is a short "I'll take that under consideration" and leave it at that. Anything else is perceived as defensive and makes me looks WORSE than if I were to just let it go.

I think that people are less likely to continue attacking if they feel that their opinions have been heard. "

It will be hard to put into practice 100% of the time, but I am going to try! Maybe everyone could try too??

Again JMHO