View Full Version : OT: Thanks B B

Murray P
10-12-2003, 12:03 PM
Thanks Bruce.

A timely padlock. I'd just hit the post button and.... "Sorry, this thread is closed. Your reply cannot be posted." saved from ignominy by a few seconds. You weren't reading over my shoulder were you?

One of my more inflammatory missives to date but sans BAD language. I did copy but will not paste :D

Cheers Murray P

10-12-2003, 12:23 PM
Again thanks Bruce. As the instigator of that thread I watched in alarm as started to go sour but was unsure on how to kill it. Apologies to those offended.

10-12-2003, 02:28 PM
Actually I too missed out on a salient post. Perhaps this is my chance. Anyway agreed with Billy.

I was watching the television 6:00 news with my 10, 8, and 6 year old children when the report of this tragic event was aired. Fortunately the two older ones seemed not to notice but the 6 year old was deeply puzzled. I explained it was about a sick man and she didn't need to worry about it happening.

I despair. Should some news be with-held to later in the evening?

Chris Randal
10-12-2003, 03:25 PM
By doing that you open up a can of (censorship) worms, but there is a rule about what can be broadcast before 2030 - perhaps a complaint to the BSA?????

10-12-2003, 03:38 PM
once again a thread that shows the need for moderators....

where are we with that plane to rope in godfather and others ?

10-12-2003, 03:59 PM
Got to work out some technicalities.

Murray P
10-12-2003, 04:17 PM
> Got to work out some technicalities.

Hmm. Could just imagine IDG emailing an order to their friendly supplier for a truck load of batteries for a certain Kodak CX4230 digital camera :D

Cheers Murray ;P

Jim B
10-12-2003, 05:03 PM
I don't believe that thread needed a moderator at all, least of all by someone who is a regular poster on Press f1. who may have their own prejudice against a topic or person.
It was only vaguely referring to something that was in the newspapers and on all the TV news and although off topic was no more so than many others.

Anyone who is reading this forum has the ability to access far worse and the present attitude in the community to protect children from personal harm by wrapping them in cotton wool and stopping them from doing anything at all incase they break a bone or bruise themselves is starting to be reflected in this forum.

It was only the over reaction from Billy T from an innocent comment by Thomas which turned the thread sour.

I suggest everyone stop being so precious and take it on the chin if it comes your way in this forum, after all life is not all roses and hugs and kisses and I would like this forum to continue to reflect the real world.

Murray P
10-12-2003, 05:36 PM
:_| AAWWwwll Jim! Do you mean I've been missing out on roses :_|. This is serious, I'm calling a family conference.

Sniff sniff Murray ;P

PS. Jim, I do agree with you regards not allowing our kids to live life and take some knocks but some things don't need to be encouraged any more than they need to be locked away. It's always a fine line and that's life too.

10-12-2003, 05:49 PM
Ooooooeerrrrrr! Now Jim has scared me. We wimps are very sensitive.

But seriously folks. I accept that for my own part, I may have over-reacted. It was probably the discomforting memory of explaining to a six year old.

I agree with Jim that we over-protect our children but I cannot persuade my wife of that. There are a lot of dangers in the world, mostly physical (cars), but sometimes people.

The phrase "age appropriate" makes me reach for a bucket but I acknowledge that there is behaviour and knowledge which should not be openly available to every agegroup. I do not like censorship but it has it's place.

Jim B
10-12-2003, 06:13 PM
What I was getting at was that any minor who has access to this forum also has access to any website on the internet.

What is the point in getting all concerned about about topics that are in local news and TV. obviously there are some topics which even I would object to on this forum but in my time here I have not seen any that deserve censorship or any cause for concern.

I am not in favour of anyone other then the current moderators having the ability to close or delete a post as anyone else would be subjecting us all to their own particular moral standards which may be vastly different to the majority here.

Murray P
10-12-2003, 06:29 PM
Point taken Jim. BUT, you don't expect to see strippers during a church service do you? I said, do you! ;) If someone wants to go in search for something these days its very difficult to restrict access to that something but delivering it on a plate should be left to those that deal in it and those that want to take the trouble to access it.

Blimmin heck, now look what you've done. I'm starting to sound like my dear old dad :o ?:|

As for user mods, who's to say the moral standards and integrity of the admin's are any better. They do have the right of ownership though which, really quashes any argument.

Cheers Murray P

Jim B
10-12-2003, 10:20 PM
> As for user mods, who's to say the moral standards
> and integrity of the admin's are any better. They do
> have the right of ownership though which, really
> quashes any argument.

Good point Murray as you say they are the owners and I think Bruce and the others have the balance about right at the moment and at least they are consistant.

There are members here who think they are also owners and moderators and to give them any authority to make changes would mean consistancy would be gone and would create more friction then ever in the posts here.

There has been a big over reaction to a couple of posts resulting in calling for extra moderators which are not necessary.

Chris Randal
11-12-2003, 08:18 AM
"It was probably the discomforting memory of explaining to a six year old.

I don't think that you overreacted at all - one shouldn't have to explain that sort of thing to a six year old.

Graham L
11-12-2003, 02:10 PM
Surely six-year olds understand being hungry. :D

I think the suggestion came from the idea that regulars might be able (with a fast response) to stop the vicious, totally inappropriate, slanging which bursts out every so often. It seems to be that someone overreacts to something better ignored, then a mob joins in. It spoils the mood of the place.

I don't think the idea has ever been for extra_mods to "censor" subjects, just try to maintain a thin veneer of civilised discussion.

Murray P
11-12-2003, 03:08 PM
Hmm! I happen to know something of the twit that suggested the "User Mod's" and quite frankly I don't think he's had a cogent or lucid thought in ages. They must be applauded , however, for being able to use a keyboard, a commendable achievement given the circumstances.

But, given that it was raised, the idea of user mod's is best left as a measure to enable quick response to serious abuse (as per GL's comments) and to give the admin's a break from what must be a distraction, at times, from their usual day to day commitments at PC World and a drain on their free time.

It's obvious, to me, that, not everyone has the same standards, nor ability or desire to either ignore or respond reasonably to what on the face of it are harmless if sometimes, thoughtless posts. And we know that written expression is often much harder to convey than spoken, expressive, communication, hence some small witticism turns into a raging flame war in a short space of time and blood is spilled with the admin's left mop it up. Not nice for any concerned. So I support the twit who suggested user mod's but with a strict limit to what they can do. If it happens Solomon (aka B B)will have to come up with one of his better ones to choose the people and the protocols by which they operate.

Cheers Murray P

Gasp! Another rant, something wrong, habit or addict?