# Time for new rules on this forum?



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I for one, no longer know what subjects we can talk about/debate. What are the rules? Surely as a forum people will disagree and have differences of opinion. But who is to say who is right and who is wrong?*
*It's only fair that we should know what the boundaries are. *
*Thoughts... *


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

They are already clearly laid down. Methinks you are being norty......


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> They are already clearly laid down. Methinks you are being norty......


*Where does it say that if people disagree the thread will be closed? This thread is a GENUINE request.*


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I think everything should be up for discussion. I argued in the dog section that we should be able to discuss (not promote) shock collars as we never able to do that previously, one mention & the thread would be closed 

I do have a problem with people posting 'facts' without actually thinking them through or having any sort of proof to back up their claims, if they are posting their opinion then that is sdifferent but too many people seem to post all sorts of crap. The internet can be a fantastic tool to help research subjects ... but there is also alot of crap on it which seems to be used as 'proof' to back up the most riculous claims at times :Wtf


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I think everything should be up for discussion. I argued in the dog section that we should be able to discuss (not promote) shock collars as we never able to do that previously, one mention & the thread would be closed
> 
> I do have a problem with people posting 'facts' without actually thinking them through or having any sort of proof to back up their claims, if they are posting their opinion then that is sdifferent but too many people seem to post all sorts of crap. The internet can be a fantastic tool to help research subjects ... but there is also alot of crap on it which seems to be used as 'proof' to back up the most riculous claims at times :Wtf


*But is that a good enough reason do you think to report someone or have a have deleted? That sort of thing goes over my head.*


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Anything that people want to discuss. I think the majority of us are perfectly capable of knowing which topics would not be appropriate amongst our users.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *But is that a good enough reason do you think to report someone or have a have deleted? That sort of thing goes over my head.*


Maybe the OP asked for it gone or maybe it wasn't to do with the OP but the upsetting image used


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

I have decided to start using the ignore function which is something I thought I'd never do. I hope there's no limit because the conga's getting longa. Unfortunately one of the people I want to ignore cannot be.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Censorship does nothing but restrict our learning and understanding of the real world.

Of course it must be keenly observed that pejorative race hate remarks and comments are never to be tolerated because it's simply not educational and does nothing to further our knowledge.

If we continually hide information and disguise the truth the act will eventually render us ignorant and vulnerable.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> Maybe the OP asked for it gone or maybe it wasn't to do with the OP but the upsetting image used


*Can people request for a whole thread to be deleted? As for the image, surely not. It is all over the net and news.*


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *But is that a good enough reason do you think to report someone or have a have deleted? That sort of thing goes over my head.*


No, not really it is better to post an argument against .... well, that's what I would do. I have only ever reported a 4 posts - 2 used very offensive racist language & the other two were particularly bad taste comments directed to other PF members.

Some of the posts that have been deletd in certain thread I would definitley question whether it was the right thing to do ... I remember alot of posts about a PF member who was rehoming ALOT of dogs were removed which I really couldn't understand as surely people needed to be aware of how some people treat animals ....but then maybe something was going on that wasn't public knowledge


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Radical but.....lets just discuss PET issues on the PET forum....not politics, benefits, tories (boo hiss) migrants, sex, marriage, money, etc...


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> Radical but.....lets just discuss PET issues on the PET forum....not politics, benefits, tories (boo hiss) migrants, sex, marriage, money, etc...


*General chat is for anything not animal related.*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *General chat is for anything not animal related.*


should have a new section title....."Muck raking" then


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

gotten worse since the Labour party sponsored the site


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> Radical but.....lets just discuss PET issues on the PET forum....not politics, benefits, tories (boo hiss) migrants, sex, marriage, money, etc...






JANICE199 said:


> *General chat is for anything not animal related.*


Indeed it is Janice. In fact Pet Forums describes General Chat as follows;

'Chat to other forum members about anything you wish which is not related to pets.':Smug


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

What I don't think is fair is perfectly amicable threads like this being shut down due to a rule about discussing closed threads. If a group of people want to discuss something that's on the collective mind, particularly something that relates to current events, let them. We all need an outlet and a way to make sense of what is happening in the outside world.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> Radical but.....lets just discuss PET issues on the PET forum....not politics, benefits, tories (boo hiss) migrants, sex, marriage, money, etc...


Then don't go in general chat 

I avoided it for while as it was the same old, same old for a while .... but then there have been some great debates in there, usually started by @JANICE199 .

There was some fab ones ages ago, lots of differing opinions, things got heated, then calmed down, deviated, then back on topic ... was very entertinaing & informative. Alot of them did demonstrate that we can have disagreements but can manage to sort it out & respect others points of view .... mainly


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> gotten worse since the Labour party sponsored the site


Rubbish CB - there are plenty of us offering the alternative view if you bother to read the threads, I suspect and please correct me if I'm wrong that you read sound bites of threads and decide the whole thread is left wing whereas if you actually read it all you would find there has been very good debate from many points of view. Also you frequently post non pet related threads in general chat and not many in dog chat although as I don't have cats and don't go in cat chat perhaps you are to be found in there talking about your pussy


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *Where does it say that if people disagree the thread will be closed? This thread is a GENUINE request.*


The way I understood the rules (although I often can't find the bits I'm sure I read on the old format on this new one) was that threads would be closed if they degenerated into personal attacks and lack of respect for each other. What I don't understand is why the offending posts are not removed so that the thread can actually continue although I did think an OP was entitled to ask for a thread to be closed but not removed. I'm sure I read a poster ask mods to close their account and remove all their posts and the mod reply that according to the T&C when you open an account your posts remain the property of the forum or something like that.

I have reported a few posts, one for using the C word several times in an aggressive way at forum members in general, another when there was some clear bullying going on of a member who was quite vulnerable at the time and a couple when it was our friendly recurring troll in general chat.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> Then don't go in general chat
> 
> I avoided it for while as it was the same old, same old for a while .... but then there have been some great debates in there, usually started by @JANICE199 .
> 
> There was some fab ones ages ago, lots of differing opinions, things got heated, then calmed down, deviated, then back on topic ... was very entertinaing & informative. Alot of them did demonstrate that we can have disagreements but can manage to sort it out & respect others points of view .... mainly


*Thank you. I have had some really great debates on here, and i might add, some have resulted in me changing my view on certain things.*
*Perhaps we need a section for open debates a free for all. lol *


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> The way I understood the rules (although I often can't find the bits I'm sure I read on the old format on this new one) was that threads would be closed if they degenerated into personal attacks and lack of respect for each other. What I don't understand is why the offending posts are not removed so that the thread can actually continue although I did think an OP was entitled to ask for a thread to be closed but not removed. I'm sure I read a poster ask mods to close their account and remove all their posts and the mod reply that according to the T&C when you open an account your posts remain the property of the forum or something like that.
> 
> I have reported a few posts, one for using the C word several times in an aggressive way at forum members in general, another when there was some clear bullying going on of a member who was quite vulnerable at the time and a couple when it was our friendly recurring troll in general chat.


*I wonder if " personal attack" covers disagreeing too much with someone.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *I wonder if " personal attack" covers disagreeing too much with someone.*


Thing is its a very fine line, if someone posts a thread which has a quite provocative and controversial title and carries on making provocative and controversial statements within it then obviously a lot of people are going to disagree and offer their opinions and sometimes that can get heated. To the OP having a lot of people disagreeing with you probably does feel like a personal attack so I would argue if you are sensitive and can't deal with people not agreeing with you then don't post provocative threads because if you do expect heated debate.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

I am guessing your referring to the Nazi thread? In my opinion the opening post set the tone for the thread and I was surprised it stayed open for as long as it did....


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

stuaz said:


> I am guessing your referring to the Nazi thread? In my opinion the opening post set the tone for the thread and I was surprised it stayed open for as long as it did....


*To be fair, there are an awful lot of people on social network sites that strongly agree with the title of that particular thread. But this thread was to see if we can be told what boundaries are in place.*
*Personally i've always tried to use my own common sense. Manners are a good start.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I for one, no longer know what subjects we can talk about/debate. What are the rules? Surely as a forum people will disagree and have differences of opinion. But who is to say who is right and who is wrong?*
> *It's only fair that we should know what the boundaries are. *
> *Thoughts... *


The unwritten rules would seem to be that there are some topics that cannot be discussed and will be censored and removed even though these topics are not mentioned in the rules. How sad.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

stuaz said:


> I am guessing your referring to the Nazi thread? In my opinion the opening post set the tone for the thread and I was surprised it stayed open for as long as it did....


Yes, because heaven forbid that someone should be able to voice their opinion if some people don't agreee with that opinion.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

bearcub said:


> What I don't think is fair is perfectly amicable threads like this being shut down due to a rule about discussing closed threads. I*f a group of people want to discuss something that's on the collective mind, particularly something that relates to current events, let them*. We all need an outlet and a way to make sense of what is happening in the outside world.


As long as what's on their mind is not comparing what's happening in this country to what happened in Germany in the 1930's. That's not allowed.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Thank you. I have had some really great debates on here, and i might add, some have resulted in me changing my view on certain things.*
> *Perhaps we need a section for open debates a free for all. lol *


General chat should be just that, though. You should be able to air any opinion, and have people discuss it, both in agreement and in disagreement. The thing is, once you start censoring certain subjects, were will it end? Unless posters on a thread are actively attacking someone ( ie the attacking person, not their ideas and opinions) why should it matter that some people don't like the subject matter? Why should the opinions of those who don't like the subject matter and want the thread removing weigh more than the opinions of those who want to discuss the subject matter? If you only ever want to read things that agree with your opinions, why come on a debating thread in the first place?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> As long as what's on their mind is not comparing what's happening in this country to what happened in Germany in the 1930's. That's not allowed.


It was allowed and it was discussed. We had different points of view and those were aired. Calling anyone a Nazi is a pretty extreme insult though and was intended to be provocative. Like I said if you (in general) can't deal with a lot of people disagreeing with you then don't post extremely provocative thread titles. If I wander into dog chat now and start a thread saying all staffies should be neutered/muzzled and on lead in public or be seized then I would expect one heck of a lot of people if not everyone to disagree with me and quite forcefully at that. So what would be my point in posting that thread? to provoke a reaction or to genuinely listen to other peoples opinions. If everyone else was explaining to me why my statements were inaccurate and offensive then I would either apologise and back down or take it on the chin and keep on posting more provocative statements which I could not substantiate which the poster in the thread we are not allowed to discuss did.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> As long as what's on their mind is not comparing what's happening in this country to what happened in Germany in the 1930's. That's not allowed.


I didn't realise the thread was closed, why was that? It didn't seem (when I last read it) that things were getting out of hand.

My problem with the thread was that the information posted by the OP was done so as fact when there was no supporting evidence to this claim. It was blindly posted (as so many things are), without any thought to the claim or to the fact that may people would be offended by the comparison. It also showed ignorance of such a terrible event in history which IMO, is shameful considering that information we now are able to access.

Personally I don't think it should have been closed purely because of tha tthough, the OP was entitled to her opinion but then should not be surprised at any comments directed to her & any criticisms


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes, because heaven forbid that someone should be able to voice their opinion if some people don't agreee with that opinion.


It has absolutely nothing to do with not voicing an opinion but when you start of a thread basically saying someone is a nazi and that anyone who voted for them is one to... How can you expect intelligent debate after that?

The OP would have been better to start the thread about the benefits being taken and how this effects people etc etc and didn't need to stupidly compare it to Nazis. If that's how the thread had started then I am quite confident it would still be open now.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> As long as what's on their mind is not comparing what's happening in this country to what happened in Germany in the 1930's. That's not allowed.


Because it doesn't compare in any way.....


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Do we actually know why it was closed though? It might have been someone objected to the photo of the dead child which in fairness to the poster was deleted very quickly when she realised it had caused upset/offence but it had already been quoted so remained there. It might have been the OP that asked for the thread to be removed or the mods may just have felt it had got out of hand or was going round in circles. I think its a shame it was deleted as it did have some interesting and useful information in it as well. Why not just lock it?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Do we actually know why it was closed though? It might have been someone objected to the photo of the dead child which in fairness to the poster was deleted very quickly when she realised it had caused upset/offence but it had already been quoted so remained there. It might have been the OP that asked for the thread to be removed or the mods may just have felt it had got out of hand or was going round in circles. I think its a shame it was deleted as it did have some interesting and useful information in it as well. Why not just lock it?


Agree. I thin there was quite alot in that thread that was factual & made for intersting reading, a shame to just delete it. Personally I don;t think any threads should be deleted, maybe posts removed that are against forum rules but why delete a whole thread?


----------



## bogdog (Jan 1, 2014)

I came on here this morning to see what was happening on a very controversial thread and couldn't find it. When I last read it it still seemed very civil. Shame.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I asked the mods just to remove the image from a quoted post. I don't understand why the thread was closed as a result though, the issue of the image was dealt with within a few posts and we moved on to the original topic.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I know we have rules on what can and what cannot be posted (race hate etc). But it seems to me that threads tend to get closed here when enough people complain, whatever the subject.

And if that's the case, a group of people could eventually censor any opinion they do not agree with, just by power of numbers.
But I hope I got that wrong.

Edit: as to the image. I didn't want to see it either (and it was repeated in a quote even when the original was removed). But I hope that wasn't the reason for closing the whole thread.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

Huh... it wasn’t just closed, it has also been made invisible. Sometimes threads are just closed, but when they’re go totally “poof” that annoys me... (Unless it’s a totally stupid one like spam for porn sites.)

I agree that the opening post of the thread was not at all conducive to a genuine discussion, but despite that, many members did manage to have a very good, respectful discussion and the thread was full of some really well said posts. I hate they’re gone now. 

I’m not sure why it was closed, perhaps the OP asked for it to be. But closed and disappeared I don’t get at all. Some folks clearly put a lot of thought and effort in to their posts, and for what? 

I suppose this thread will now be closed as well as we are discussing a closed thread...

Okay, so to keep it on topic, no, I don’t think we need new rules on this forum, but I do think that people need to learn to grow a thicker skin. Especially if they’re going to post something contentious, or contribute to a contentious thread. You can’t expect it to be all roses and honey when you step in to that sort of arena.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Or it could be that someone clicked the wrong button and the thread went 'poof' rather than just being locked.
People are still struggling with the new format......perhaps......


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Guys, if memory serves you are allowed to PM a mod to ask why a thread has been closed/vanished. It may have been moved to remove stuff and will reappear. If not, then removal will have been debated, and/or enough people will have reported it to warrant it's removal. Given how there were plenty of posts that were upsetting/scaring people, it may have happened, and none of us know how things went after we loast read it. Things don't usually disappear without reason.

Incidentally, it is standard practice on most forums to move a thread to a forum only visible to mods when it requires further debate and potentially complicated pruning.

And please remember the mods are volunteers. Plus, we get allowed a lot more rein on here than on many forums. A lot I know of, the thread wouldn't have survived beyond the first page.

Anyway, no, I don't think we need more 'rules' on the forum. Generally there is very little off limits, and what IS off limits is stated in the stickys. After that, it's just a matter of taking each thread on it's merits/demerits. Works for me


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Do we actually know why it was closed though? It might have been someone objected to the photo of the dead child which in fairness to the poster was deleted very quickly when she realised it had caused upset/offence but it had already been quoted so remained there. It might have been the OP that asked for the thread to be removed or the mods may just have felt it had got out of hand or was going round in circles. I think its a shame it was deleted as it did have some interesting and useful information in it as well. Why not just lock it?


*A lot has been said about " that" picture, and i know some didn't like it being shown. Now for me, it was " that" picture that made the situation hit home to me. I didn't like what i saw no more than anyone else, but it made me see things differently. Which, imo can only be a good thing*
*Does anyone remember the famous picture of the napalm girl? Did the world want to see it, or need to see it? Again, just my opinion but i feel yes they did need to see it, and no they probably didn't want to..*


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

JANICE199 said:


> *A lot has been said about " that" picture, and i know some didn't like it being shown. Now for me, it was " that" picture that made the situation hit home to me. I didn't like what i saw no more than anyone else, but it made me see things differently. Which, imo can only be a good thing*
> *Does anyone remember the famous picture of the napalm girl? Did the world want to see it, or need to see it? Again, just my opinion but i feel yes they did need to see it, and no they probably didn't want to..*


I don't have a problem with responsible journalism using a picture to show the realities of a situation others may not understand without a visual reference. That is what good journalism is all about.

Sharing said picture in a gratuitous way, disrespecting the child and the family of the child, just so that person can make a cheap point on a pet forum, is frankly, disgusting.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I don't have a problem with responsible journalism using a picture to show the realities of a situation others may not understand without a visual reference. That is what good journalism is all about.
> 
> Sharing said picture in a gratuitous way, disrespecting the child and the family of the child, just so that person can make a cheap point on a pet forum, is frankly, disgusting.


'Liked' because basically those were my feelings over the picture too.
But I don't think it was used to make a cheap point: more to press home a point on something the poster felt very strongly about.
Either way, it was disrespectful and imo wrong.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I don't have a problem with responsible journalism using a picture to show the realities of a situation others may not understand without a visual reference. That is what good journalism is all about.
> 
> Sharing said picture in a gratuitous way, disrespecting the child and the family of the child, just so that person can make a cheap point on a pet forum, is frankly, disgusting.


*But that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but i don't share that opinion. Surely then, neither of us are right or wrong.*


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> Incidentally, it is standard practice on most forums to move a thread to a forum only visible to mods when it requires further debate and potentially complicated pruning.


Yup. From where it can be returned ...or not.

I think this is a very well moderated site. It's not an easy job. You are often damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Emotive/sensitive subjects can have a tendency to edge towards deletion before they implode. Or offend. Or simply go round in circles. Deletion of a thread can also be requested by the thread starter.

I don't think the rules need spelling out any further to be honest as I suspect that everyone knows when a thread is treading a thin line.

J


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

JANICE199 said:


> *But that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but i don't share that opinion. Surely then, neither of us are right or wrong.*


I never mentioned right or wrong. I didn't ask for the thread to be closed either


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I never mentioned right or wrong. I didn't ask for the thread to be closed either


 * You looking for a fight? lmao *


----------



## bogdog (Jan 1, 2014)

Have closed threads ever been opened again? Or disappeared ones made visible again?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Surely what you talk about and how you respond is down to tolerance.

My thoughts are do not keep posting images of drowned or otherwise dead children. It will not make me more humanitarian to see them. And I am sick to the back of my eye balls of Cameron's 'As a father' bollocks as if becoming a parent makes you grow a heart. If one didn't feel sadness and pain about the death of a child before they were a parent, maybe there is something lacking, I know how much pain any kind of child cruelty or tragedy causes me. My cousin also posted the picture of the little boy mentioning her own little boy. It is just ignorant and excluding.

I already support refugee charities. If you want to also help then do that if you don't already; if you want to shock others into positive action then please target them directly. That is, target the whinging few who feel their capitalist, privileged, 'all right Jack' lives might be in some way depleted if, as a country, we extend the hand of friendship. And target those politicians who stand in the way of respect, but please don't target me or the many others who are already stepping up to the mark to do our bit in any way we can.

I can't honestly see any point to half the 'issue' threads on here if the people who are contributing to them are just bashing their keyboard. Spit at the ones who can do something and massive kudos to those who actually do go off and do something


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

JANICE199 said:


> * You looking for a fight? lmao *


No, I'm really not. Obviously it doesn't alway come across that way in my posts, but I'm actually a very live and let live kind of person. If incathepup wants to think Tory voters are like Nazis, whatever. (I don't even know what a Tory is BTW - I get that it's a political party, I just don't do politics.)

What I do care about is human decency in a global sense - as in around the world. The internet is a great tool in many ways to get information out there, but that bombardment of information has also desensitized many of us to the real atrocities happening in the world. When folks can look at a picture of a dead child and think it would make a good meme, there is something seriously wrong IMHO.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *A lot has been said about " that" picture, and i know some didn't like it being shown. Now for me, it was " that" picture that made the situation hit home to me. I didn't like what i saw no more than anyone else, but it made me see things differently. Which, imo can only be a good thing*
> *Does anyone remember the famous picture of the napalm girl? Did the world want to see it, or need to see it? Again, just my opinion but i feel yes they did need to see it, and no they probably didn't want to..*


I think its one thing to watch a news bulletin or open a newspaper and see it but quite another to open a thread on a pet forum which was not even a thread about that subject and see it without any warning. But as I said earlier it was removed quickly and the poster apologised so it was dealt with apart from the one image that remained in a quoted post.

Sometimes threads get closed for checking through and then opened again with offending posts removed, it does seem a shame to totally remove it as there were some posts in there I didn't get chance to read properly (cos I was too busy debating with @Spellweaver and didn't get back to them). I would have liked the opportunity to go back and read them plus I intend to try and catch the radio 4 programme mentioned on catch up but now I don't even know what the programme was called.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

bogdog said:


> Have closed threads ever been opened again? Or disappeared ones made visible again?


Sometimes, yes, with an explanation from the mods as to why, and any caveats as to what will make it get closed/vanish for good.

A fair number still end up closed for good even after that, though.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I think its one thing to watch a news bulletin or open a newspaper and see it but quite another to open a thread on a pet forum which was not even a thread about that subject and see it without any warning. But as I said earlier it was removed quickly and the poster apologised so it was dealt with apart from the one image that remained in a quoted post.
> 
> Sometimes threads get closed for checking through and then opened again with offending posts removed, it does seem a shame to totally remove it as there were some posts in there I didn't get chance to read properly (cos I was too busy debating with @Spellweaver and didn't get back to them). I would have liked the opportunity to go back and read them plus I intend to try and catch the radio 4 programme mentioned on catch up but now I don't even know what the programme was called.


More or Less: Behind the stats


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MollySmith said:


> Surely what you talk about and how you respond is down to tolerance.
> 
> My thoughts are do not keep posting images of drowned or otherwise dead children. It will not make me more humanitarian to see them. And I am sick to the back of my eye balls of Cameron's 'As a father' bollocks as if becoming a parent makes you grow a heart. If one didn't feel sadness and pain about the death of a child before they were a parent, maybe there is something lacking, I know how much pain any kind of child cruelty or tragedy causes me. My cousin also posted the picture of the little boy mentioning her own little boy. It is just ignorant and excluding.
> 
> ...


I agree but also please (not you in general to clarify) please don't assume that because someone votes a certain way they are not also doing their bit.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

bearcub said:


> More or Less: Behind the stats


Thank you - have made a note of that now.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

I do know one rule in this forum. And that is, when a thread is closed, there is a rule against starting another thread complaining about it. LOL!


----------



## bogdog (Jan 1, 2014)

lorilu said:


> I do know one rule in this forum. And that is, when a thread is closed, no one is supposed to start another thread complaining about it. LOL!


And if a thread just disappeared? LOL. As we don't know if it disappeared by mistake. LOL.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> gotten worse since the Labour party sponsored the site


 Radical, but lets not discuss politics! Your idea I believe!


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

bogdog said:


> And if a thread just disappeared? LOL. As we don't know if it disappeared by mistake. LOL.


If a thread disappeared you can be sure it was because the moderators removed it, for whatever reason. If one wants to know where it is or why, contact a moderator. mods are people too. : )


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

lorilu said:


> I do know one rule in this forum. And that is, when a thread is closed, there is a rule against starting another thread complaining about it. LOL!


*I understand that, but this thread isn't about the other one.. Not saying you are implying it is.*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Can people request for a whole thread to be deleted? As for the image, surely not. It is all over the net and news.*


If it's your own thread you can get it deleted.
I hadn't seen the image and I had had no intention of seeing it, If a thread had been started about it, I would not have opened it


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> If you only ever want to read things that agree with your opinions, why come on a debating thread in the first place?


Because manipulating the world and the people in it to suit an ideal is the only way we can create a state of smug Utopia for ourselves.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I agree but also please (not you in general to clarify) please don't assume that because someone votes a certain way they are not also doing their bit.


Completely, I don't think anyone would have predicted the word coming from MP's mouths of all parties over the past few days and one was unsurprisingly much worse than any other and not the Tories


----------



## 3dogs2cats (Aug 15, 2012)

Most of the threads I have been reading that have suddenly gone in a poof of smoke are ones where the contributors have been debating exactly what is being debated in bars, hospitals, hairdressers, bus stops, anywhere that a group of people come together. 

Only this Thursday one of the lady LoFs volunteers at my local hospital was saying how she is afraid the assisted suicide bill if passed will be used to `do away with people the government think are a drain on society` now in this case the lady she was directly addressing agreed with her, other people no doubt thought she was talking rubbish, either way these sort of topics are being discussed. It seems logical that topics discussed in real life are going to get discussed online and just as in real life some topics are going to get heated.

I think unless general chat is taken down altogether it is pretty much impossible to decide what people will take offence at or not. Some will see a view as just that, a view not shared but agree that the person has every right to hold that opinion and indeed `voice` it, others will think the person is totally wrong to even think that way and their opinion is offensive to others and should not be aired.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

rona said:


> *If it's your own thread you can get it deleted.*
> I hadn't seen the image and I had had no intention of seeing it, If a thread had been started about it, I would not have opened it


Really? See I don't think that's right. As was pointed out earlier, some people will spend alot of time on their posts, adding information, links, references, etc so it seems wrong to just get a thread deleted because the OP decides they don't like what's being written (not that I'm inferring that's what happened in the Nazi thread), closed maybe but not deleted

I've posted before then re-read it & realised I have come across as a [email protected] but unfortunately that's the nature of forums ... it's there for everyone to see


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

_NOW_ what have I missed? Threads about Nazis?


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

3dogs2cats said:


> Most of the threads I have been reading that have suddenly gone in a poof of smoke are ones where the contributors have been debating exactly what is being debated in bars, hospitals, hairdressers, bus stops, anywhere that a group of people come together.


And perhaps we would do better to deal with these conversations the same way we do in real life. In real life there are no mods to go running to, there is no "rep" or points to be scored, you have to look at the person you're talking to, there is no time to go searching for memes and throw them in people's faces, and if it gets to be too much, you can get up and leave.

A recent incident that I wonder how they would have gone in forumlandia...
A co-worker mentioned that she believes the bible literally. I said "like as in there really was a talking snake and all those animals fit on the ark?" She said yes. I said "wow". Online I have time to formulate a reply, in person I just sat there gobsmacked eating my apple. (Poetic, I know.)


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

LinznMilly said:


> _NOW_ what have I missed? Threads about Nazis?


But no goats 



Cleo38 said:


> it's there for everyone to see


And that's what people really need to understand. The thread BTW is not gone, it's there on google cached for all to see. Only to page 4, but some creative searching can turn up the rest of the pages too. Just because a thread disappears, doesn't mean it's gone


----------



## bogdog (Jan 1, 2014)

3dogs2cats said:


> Most of the threads I have been reading that have suddenly gone in a poof of smoke *are ones where the contributors have been debating exactly what is being debated in bars, hospitals, hairdressers, bus stops, anywhere that a group of people come together. *
> 
> Only this Thursday one of the lady LoFs volunteers at my local hospital was saying how she is afraid the assisted suicide bill if passed will be used to `do away with people the government think are a drain on society` now in this case the lady she was directly addressing agreed with her, other people no doubt thought she was talking rubbish, either way these sort of topics are being discussed. It seems logical that topics discussed in real life are going to get discussed online and just as in real life some topics are going to get heated.
> 
> I think unless general chat is taken down altogether it is pretty much impossible to decide what people will take offence at or not. Some will see a view as just that, a view not shared but agree that the person has every right to hold that opinion and indeed `voice` it, others will think the person is totally wrong to even think that way and their opinion is offensive to others and should not be aired.


But they are not recorded for the whole world to see. LOL


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

bogdog said:


> But they are not recorded for the whole world to see. LOL


In these days of smart phones in everyone's pocket they are! And then posted on twitter or snapchat for all to see.


----------



## bogdog (Jan 1, 2014)

ouesi said:


> In these days of smart phones in everyone's pocket they are! And then posted on twitter or snapchat for all to see.


D*mn! Hadn't thought of that. Am I too naïve????


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> _NOW_ what have I missed? Threads about Nazis?


There was a thread ( not that we are discussing it mind you) that disappeared since last night that stated as FACT that the tories had killed more disabled people than the Nazis.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

bogdog said:


> D*mn! Hadn't thought of that. Am I too naïve????


*lol I've just had to look up snapchat.*


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

I think we need to be able to discuss, debate and disagree on almost anything we want on PF, as long as we don´t threaten anyone, remember that children read this and not post any hatred - messages against any minority or majority or promote criminal acts. Some one naturally can express them selves better, some get emotional pretty fast and some are more sensitive than others. But that´s normal and will happen anywhere, where people meet. At family gatherings, pubs, clubs, football games, work places etc. That is life. I also think that it is really good that we can also find out why some disagree with us, as otherwise we´ll soon end up believing that I alone am always right.

We just have to accept that on PF sometimes some discussions get heated and live with that. It is much more important to be able to discuss about anything we want than being afraid of offending someone.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I hope I am not contributing to dissent by posting on this thread, since technically we're not allowed to discuss closed threads. But I too would welcome some clearer guidance on acceptable topics, when the mods have time. I realise they are very busy with real life as well.



stuaz said:


> I am guessing your referring to the Nazi thread? In my opinion the opening post set the tone for the thread and I was surprised it stayed open for as long as it did....


I was as well. When it started I thought 'uh-oh, I can see where this is going'. But actually I was pleasantly surprised. The vast majority of posters on that particular thread were engaged in civilised, intelligent debate, even if I didn't agree with everything everyone said. Anyway I shan't say any more since we're not allowed to discuss closed threads.



Spellweaver said:


> General chat should be just that, though. You should be able to air any opinion, and have people discuss it, both in agreement and in disagreement. The thing is, once you start censoring certain subjects, were will it end? Unless posters on a thread are actively attacking someone ( ie the attacking person, not their ideas and opinions) why should it matter that some people don't like the subject matter? Why should the opinions of those who don't like the subject matter and want the thread removing weigh more than the opinions of those who want to discuss the subject matter? If you only ever want to read things that agree with your opinions, why come on a debating thread in the first place?


Part of me does think, 'why are we even discussing subjects like this? It's a pet forum!' But then, as has been mentioned already, the General Chat section is provided for non-pet chat. Virtually all forums I've ever looked at have a similar section. I guess it's natural for any community, real or virtual, to discuss current affairs when they get together.

However, I wouldn't support a motion to be allowed to discuss anything. There are plenty of subjects that warrant discussion in general, but I don't believe this is the place to do it. The forum can be and is accessed by children. This is not 4chan. For anyone who wants to discuss really heavy stuff, there are more appropriate outlets on the internet than PF.

Having said that, which subjects are suitable is subjective and will need some careful thought. But no, I don't think we should be allowed to discuss whatever we want on this particular forum.



stuaz said:


> It has absolutely nothing to do with not voicing an opinion but when you start of a thread basically saying someone is a nazi and that anyone who voted for them is one to... How can you expect intelligent debate after that?


I dunno, but actually intelligent debate did occur against all odds!


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> There was a thread ( not that we are discussing it mind you) that disappeared since last night that stated as FACT that the tories had killed more disabled people than the Nazis.


Ahh, I see.

Thanks. I actually did see the title of that thread, but decided not to open it.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Personally, I can disagree vehemently with a poster and often have, but in all honesty it rarely changes my opinion of them as a person and virtually never alters my treatment of them on here.

I can clash views with someone on one thread and engage in perfectly reasonable conversation with them on another. Forum debate is not personal for me. It's a shame it becomes so for some people because this is what makes things difficult and creates vendettas.

Not sure if anyone else shares this outlook: some of you probably hate my guts lol!


Edited due to heinous spelling error.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

LinznMilly said:


> Ahh, I see.
> 
> Thanks. I actually did see the title of that thread, but decided not to open it.


Probably the smartest one on here 

Sometimes it's best to just keep walking and pretend you didn't hear/see what you just heard/saw


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> Personally, I can disagree vehemently with a poster and often have, but in all honesty it rarely changes my opinion of them as a person and virtually never alerts my treatment of them on here.
> 
> I can clash views with someone on one thread and engage in perfectly reasonable conversation with them on another. Forum debate is not personal for me. It's a shame it becomes so for some people because this is what makes things difficult and creates vendettas.
> 
> Not sure if anyone else shares this outlook: some of you probably hate my guts lol!


I'd be surprised if anyone hated you, Shosh, you're lovely.

But I was a bit surprised to find you're not actually that gorgeous guy in the photo, quite a shock when I realised you were a woman!


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Catharinem said:


> I'd be surprised if anyone hated you, Shosh, you're lovely.
> 
> But I was a bit surprised to find you're not actually that gorgeous guy in the photo, quite a shock when I realised you were a woman!


I know, I'm gutted myself that I'm not him.  :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

ouesi said:


> And that's what people really need to understand. The thread BTW is not gone, it's there on google cached for all to see. Only to page 4, but some creative searching can turn up the rest of the pages too. Just because a thread disappears, doesn't mean it's gone


If you put the page number in you can see most of the posts by page.


----------



## bogdog (Jan 1, 2014)

What page number would that be?:Angelic


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> Personally, I can disagree vehemently with a poster and often have, but in all honesty it rarely changes my opinion of them as a person and virtually never alters my treatment of them on here.
> 
> I can clash views with someone on one thread and engage in perfectly reasonable conversation with them on another. Forum debate is not personal for me. It's a shame it becomes so for some people because this is what makes things difficult and creates vendettas.


Same here.
I enjoy forum debate. And we can always leave the thread if we are feeling offended, so I really don't understand the need for vendettas or for calls to close a thread just because you do not like it - just leave it.
But such it appears is the nature of forums


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

MrsZee said:


> I think we need to be able to discuss, debate and disagree on almost anything we want on PF, as long as we don´t threaten anyone, remember that children read this and not post any hatred - messages against any minority or majority or promote criminal acts. Some one naturally can express them selves better, some get emotional pretty fast and some are more sensitive than others. But that´s normal and will happen anywhere, where people meet. At family gatherings, pubs, clubs, football games, work places etc. That is life. I also think that it is really good that we can also find out why some disagree with us, as otherwise we´ll soon end up believing that I alone am always right.
> 
> We just have to accept that on PF sometimes some discussions get heated and live with that. It is much more important to be able to discuss about anything we want than being afraid of offending someone.


Whats missing is tolerance, of others views when they dont agree with your own, some posters dont accept that others might have a viewpoint, cetainly not a valid viewpoint, then there is the constant attack on the DULY ELECTED government, so much rhetoric/bile/mis-information....oi vey


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

bogdog said:


> What page number would that be?:Angelic


666


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> I know, I'm gutted myself that I'm not him.  :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


This is 2015. You can be both.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

ouesi said:


> The thread BTW is not gone, it's there on google cached for all to see. Only to page 4, but some creative searching can turn up the rest of the pages too. Just because a thread disappears, doesn't mean it's gone


Someones got wayyyy too much time on their hands 



> Forum debate is not personal for me. It's a shame it becomes so for some people because this is what makes things difficult and creates vendettas.


This is the ultimate aim of good debating. Getting passionate but knowing when to walk away/agree to disagree/go and have a cup of tea .

J


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Someones got wayyyy too much time on their hands


More like someone was paid to do research in another lifetime.  
But google cached is just the same number of clicks as any other google search....


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Seems that it all comes down to Godwins law

*Origin*
Mike Godwin coined his observation as a "natural law of Usenet" in 1990. For more information about Godwin's Law, check out the original FAQ page. According to the online slang dictionary Jargon File:

*Spread*
While Godwin's Law was originally conceived for the Usenet newsgroup discussions, the humorous rule remains just as applicable today in any threaded online discussion, such as message boards, chat rooms, comment threads and wiki talk pages. Since the dawn of online discussions, Godwin's Law has been used as an indicator of whether a thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging mud and who finally gets to "win" the discussion.

*Relation to Internet Memes*
In Mike Godwin's 1994 Wired article, Meme, Counter-meme he explains how he 'seeded' the Law as a trivialization/counter-point to the gratuitous Nazi comparisons found on Usenet groups. Know Your Meme researchers have found this to be one of the first uses of "meme" to refer to viral media & the general spread of ideas via Internet communications.

Theres even a graph to illustrate that the longer the length of an internet discussion the probability of a reference to Nazis increases.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Just for the record I've only just come online and seen this and did not request it to be deleted. My notifications say the post had been moved but when click on link I just get 'pet forums error'. I hadn't checked it for a day or so , so know nothing about a photo of a dead child??? (I'm assuming you mean the one in that was on the news) .. and I didn't post a photo of one either..my post was not about refugees so why would I post a photo of dead child? ..as I hadn't seen the post for a few days I can't see the connection between my OP and the one of the child? I was talking about the way disabled people are being treated by this Govt and had come to post a link showing the names of all people who had died after committing suicide from being found 'fit to work' despite severe medical conditions..unless you're talking about two separate threads? ..so the thread had obviously moved onto something else since I last checked.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

stuaz said:


> Because it doesn't compare in any way.....


I disagree - but if I say why (as I did on the other thread) then this thread will be closed and spirited away to never-never-land too. And I don't want that to happen.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

IncaThePup said:


> and I didn't post a photo of one either..my post was not about refugees so why would I post a photo of dead child?


No one has said you did.
I'm pretty sure we're all aware of who posted what


----------



## Amelia66 (Feb 15, 2011)

I dont see the point in discussing said thread. Its either gone or will come back when mods have time so there isn't much that can be dont there.

As far as im aware its down to mods and the amount of reported posts in a thread. Obviously if there are alot of posts being reported from one thread its going to get closed. Then most dont have time to sift through the many many posts on there to take out all the arguments/name calling/ bickering/ images whatever so they stay closed.

I am also surprised that after reading the title and first few pages that the thread was open as long as it was.



IncaThePup said:


> Just for the record I've only just come online and seen this and did not request it to be deleted. My notifications say the post had been moved but when click on link I just get 'pet forums error'. I hadn't checked it for a day or so , so know nothing about a photo of a dead child??? (I'm assuming you mean the one in that was on the news) .. and I didn't post a photo of one either..my post was not about refugees so why would I post a photo of dead child? ..as I hadn't seen the post for a few days I can't see the connection between my OP and the one of the child? I was talking about the way disabled people are being treated by this Govt and had come to post a link showing the names of all people who had died after committing suicide from being found 'fit to work' despite severe medical conditions..unless you're talking about two separate threads? ..so the thread had obviously moved onto something else since I last checked.


Most likely moved to the moderators forum so it can be edited and re-opened or deleted.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

New Rule Proposal

1. General Chat will be closed for refurbishment and reopen on Monday as The Red Lion.

2. Any disagreements will get one "keep the noise down" warning after which the dispute must be resolved by a game of darts.

3. Persons who are upset must press the new "TAXI !" button which will log them out immediately... unless it's a Saturday night in which case it could take up to an hour.

4. You must wash your hands after going to the toilet before taking a handful of nuts from the bar.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> It was allowed and it was discussed. We had different points of view and those were aired.


I agree - and despite you and I being at opposite poles of the discussion, all was conducted sensibly and amicably. But ultimately it wasn't allowed, because it's been sent into the ether.



Cleo38 said:


> I didn't realise the thread was closed, why was that? It didn't seem (when I last read it) that things were getting out of hand.


Me neither - unless something hit off after I went to bed



stuaz said:


> It has absolutely nothing to do with not voicing an opinion but when you start of a thread basically saying someone is a nazi and that anyone who voted for them is one to... How can you expect intelligent debate after that?
> .


There was a lot of intelligent debate from both sides of the argument.



Cleo38 said:


> Agree. I thin there was quite alot in that thread that was factual & made for intersting reading, a shame to just delete it. Personally I don;t think any threads should be deleted, maybe posts removed that are against forum rules but why delete a whole thread?


Totally agree.



bogdog said:


> I came on here this morning to see what was happening on a very controversial thread and couldn't find it. When I last read it it still seemed very civil. Shame.


Me too.



ouesi said:


> Huh... it wasn't just closed, it has also been made invisible. Sometimes threads are just closed, but when they're go totally "poof" that annoys me... (Unless it's a totally stupid one like spam for porn sites.)
> 
> I agree that the opening post of the thread was not at all conducive to a genuine discussion, but despite that, many members did manage to have a very good, respectful discussion and the thread was full of some really well said posts. I hate they're gone now.
> 
> ...


I'm sad too - there was some good stuff and well-though out arguments on there - on both sides.



LinznMilly said:


> Ahh, I see.
> Thanks. I actually did see the title of that thread, but decided not to open it.


Wish I could rep you for his! Have a virtual green blob!

See folks - that's all you have to do if you don't like the subject matter. Don't go on the thread and leave it to those who do want to debate it.



Shoshannah said:


> Personally, I can disagree vehemently with a poster and often have, but in all honesty it rarely changes my opinion of them as a person and virtually never alters my treatment of them on here.
> 
> I can clash views with someone on one thread and engage in perfectly reasonable conversation with them on another. Forum debate is not personal for me. It's a shame it becomes so for some people because this is what makes things difficult and creates vendettas.
> 
> ...


I thoroughly agree with you. On the disappeared thread I've been arguing from the opposite side of many posters whose views I respect and agree with in other matters. It doesn't mean that I think about them any differently because they don't agree with me - it means only that I disagree with them on this subject.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Has anyone actually asked a mod?


----------



## bogdog (Jan 1, 2014)

Ha ha, have most of the posts in my emails.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

stuaz said:


> Has anyone actually asked a mod?


*This thread is not about the closed thread. I just want to know what boundaries we have on here.*


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *This thread is not about the closed thread. I just want to know what boundaries we have on here.*


I know, but as the boundaries are ultimately set by the mods, have you asked them?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *This thread is not about the closed thread. I just want to know what boundaries we have on here.*


The same as usual - no name calling/personal attacks/mud slinging/flaming, nothing on any of the banned topic stickys, and after that apply common sense and use the Report button to call anything you think oversteps the mark to the attention of the mods.

Drawing specific boundaries about all allowed/banned topics is plainly impossible. For example, I think we can all agree we don't want to see graphic stuff about paedophilia. But if that then extends to paedophilia being a banned topic, then the whole Jimmy Saville/Rolf Harris saga etc. would have been off limits too.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

I haven't read all of this yet - just the first and last pages so far. 
The rules, as they stand, state that moderators have the final decision over whether a thread is closed and do not need to give a reason, though it is usually because of complaints via reports and often because debate descends into personal - and sometimes very nasty - slanging matches, so that no-one remembers what the original debate was about in the first place.
I don't think there are any topics 'off limits' but members are expected to be courteous to one another and not to express racist views.
I know there was a report on the recent thread which contained the very tragic photo from recent news but I haven't checked what has been done about it - I am guessing from some of the posts on here, that it has been removed and if so I will see if it can be returned after moderation.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

lymorelynn said:


> I haven't read all of this yet - just the first and last pages so far.
> The rules, as they stand, state that moderators have the final decision over whether a thread is closed and do not need to give a reason, though it is usually because of complaints via reports and often because debate descends into personal - and sometimes very nasty - slanging matches, so that no-one remembers what the original debate was about in the first place.
> I don't think there are any topics 'off limits' but members are expected to be courteous to one another and not to express racist views.
> I know there was a report on the recent thread which contained the very tragic photo from recent news but I haven't checked what has been done about it - I am guessing from some of the posts on here, that it has been removed and if so I will see if it can be returned after moderation.


*Perhaps the part i have high lighted is the problem. Surely people/members deserve at least the courtesy of a reason. Without one people are bound to ask questions.It is people that make up this forums members.*
*This is not aimed at the mods, but perhaps Mark should take a look at the situation. Just a thought. Just to add, what happens should/if a mod is bias?*


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

JANICE199 said:


> Surely people/members deserve at least the courtesy of a reason.


Meh... it depends. This is not a town square meeting. It's a pet forum privately owned offered to members for free.
If I invite people in to my home and they choose to come, then I also expect them to abide by rules. Even if they don't like those rules. And I don't always owe an explanation either. My house, my call. In the end this is the owner's site, their call. We are not obligated to be members or post here.

This sounds way harsher than I mean it to, I'm not trying to be dismissive of the real concerns about closed threads, I too think the thread was fine (or was when I went to bed last night, don't know if something happened from there). But at the end of the day, it's a pet forum, not a UN peace talks LOL


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Meh... it depends. This is not a town square meeting. It's a pet forum privately owned offered to members for free.
> If I invite people in to my home and they choose to come, then I also expect them to abide by rules. Even if they don't like those rules. And I don't always owe an explanation either. My house, my call. In the end this is the owner's site, their call. We are not obligated to be members or post here.
> 
> This sounds way harsher than I mean it to, I'm not trying to be dismissive of the real concerns about closed threads, I too think the thread was fine (or was when I went to bed last night, don't know if something happened from there). But at the end of the day, it's a pet forum, not a UN peace talks LOL


*I can see what you are saying but i don't agree. For a start we don't invite just anyone into our homes.*
*Now i have been here since 2008 and i think i've only been banned once. I only mention that because i think, 1). if i was an undesirable i should have been long gone,2).. i've played by the " rules".... But it seems times are/have changed and rules might need to change with the flow/times.*


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

The trouble with giving a reason is that someone is bound to disagree with it and mods will be accused of bias when there has been none intended.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Perhaps the part i have high lighted is the problem. Surely people/members deserve at least the courtesy of a reason. Without one people are bound to ask questions.It is people that make up this forums members.*
> *This is not aimed at the mods, but perhaps Mark should take a look at the situation. Just a thought. Just to add, what happens should/if a mod is bias?*


Threads that are just closed usually have a mod post as the last post giving a reason why anyway. In the rare event that a thread disappears completely, if you want a reason you can always PM the Mods and ask. There's no point in having a sticky thread about why threads were closed as people don't read stickys, and any individual advisory thread would have to be locked when created for obvious reasons, so would drop off the front page quickly never to be seen again. So as far as I can see, what we currently have is probably as good as it can get, and gives moor feedback than many forums would.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

lymorelynn said:


> The rules, as they stand, state that moderators have the final decision over whether a thread is closed and do not need to give a reason.


Bang on, if they dont like it the doors that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I feel the thread had run it's course. There was no more to be said really.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> *Whats missing is tolerance, of others* views when they dont agree with your own, some posters dont accept that others might have a viewpoint, cetainly not a valid viewpoint, then there is the constant attack on the DULY ELECTED government, so much rhetoric/bile/mis-information....oi vey


Then you really ought to go back and edit your posts on other threads that clearly illustrate your intolerance towards immigrants, refugees, homosexuals and women in general.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Till next time, guys! :Finger


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Sweety said:


> I feel the thread had run it's course. There was no more to be said really.


But no need to make it disappear.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Zaros said:


> Then you really ought to go back and edit your posts on other threads that clearly illustrate your intolerance towards immigrants, refugees, homosexuals and women in general.


Now whose intolerant?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> Now whose intolerant?


Who's the hypocrite? Next time you dress your brain up make sure it's somewhere to go.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

LOL... Some people really don’t see the nose on their own face...


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

ouesi said:


> LOL... Some people really don't see the nose on their own face...


and some cant see past it


----------



## Summersky (Aug 11, 2012)

And some walk away from the smell right under it. .....................................


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

silvi said:


> But no need to make it disappear.


I don't know who moved it but I haven't found the option to get it back


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Summersky said:


> And some walk away from the smell right under it. .....................................


or cut it off to spite themselves?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> No, I'm really not. Obviously it doesn't alway come across that way in my posts, but I'm actually a very live and let live kind of person. If incathepup wants to think Tory voters are like Nazis, whatever. (I don't even know what a Tory is BTW - I get that it's a political party, I just don't do politics.)
> 
> What I do care about is human decency in a global sense - as in around the world. The internet is a great tool in many ways to get information out there, but that bombardment of information has also desensitized many of us to the real atrocities happening in the world. When folks can look at a picture of a dead child and think it would make a good meme, there is something seriously wrong IMHO.


Could you be any more vile? Is this another dose of your compassion & understanding for all that you keep preaching to us about? Don't try to trivialise what I 'thought' & imply that I'm some kind of unfeeling monster, because I was broken hearted when I saw those photos. I didn't post thinking I'm 'making a point' either, I copied a quote to make people aware of the duplicity of the man responsible for the loss of goodness knows how many innocent lives, I should have removed the tagged on photos immediately, I can only apologise ,again, for for not doing so. I wonder if you feel as disgusted at your President for deliberately destabilising the Middle East, destroying countries like Syria & Libya. Or Obama's orders to cluster bomb in the Yemen killing innocent women & children. Obama & Cameron (like Bush & Blair before them) are warmongers. They should take FULL responsibility for the refugee crisis they created when they destabilised the whole of that region.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Noushka is a very kind, compassionate and caring person who I know in "real" life as opposed to virtual life - in fact I will go as far as to say she is probably *the* most kind, compassionate and caring person I know. She made a genuine error in posting the picture, and is as upset that she did so as anyone else on the forum. The minute she realised she had done it, she deleted it and apologised. Those who were active on the thread *know *that; despite the mutterings still going on about it.. Those who were not active on the thread need to know that _*because of*_ the mutterings still going on about it. She did not do it on purpose; she never meant to do it; she deleted it and apologised straight away, and has explained and apologised several times since.

Enough is enough. Can we stop trying to make out she is some kind of horrible person now, please?


----------



## bogdog (Jan 1, 2014)

How can there be peace and harmony in the world, when there can't be peace and harmony on this thread? How far is it from throwing insults to throwing stones?


----------



## Summersky (Aug 11, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Noushka is a very kind, compassionate and caring person who I know in "real" life as opposed to virtual life - in fact I will go as far as to say she is probably *the* most kind, compassionate and caring person I know. She made a genuine error in posting the picture, and is as upset that she did so as anyone else on the forum. The minute she realised she had done it, she deleted it and apologised. Those who were active on the thread *know *that; despite the mutterings still going on about it.. Those who were not active on the thread need to know that _*because of*_ the mutterings still going on about it. She did not do it on purpose; she never meant to do it; she deleted it and apologised straight away, and has explained and apologised several times since.
> 
> Enough is enough. Can we stop trying to make out she is some kind of horrible person now, please?


Thank you for that Spellweaver. I didn't read the original thread, but couldn't help but begin to pick up an impression of what was on it.

I think we will have to let it go.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Could you be any more vile? Is this another dose of your compassion & understanding for all that you keep preaching to us about? Don't try to trivialise what I 'thought' & imply that I'm some kind of unfeeling monster, because I was broken hearted when I saw those photos. I didn't post thinking I'm 'making a point' either, I copied a quote to make people aware of the duplicity of the man responsible for the loss of goodness knows how many innocent lives, I should have removed the tagged on photos immediately, I can only apologise ,again, for for not doing so. I wonder if you feel as disgusted at your President for deliberately destabilising the Middle East, destroying countries like Syria & Libya. Or Obama's orders to cluster bomb in the Yemen killing innocent women & children. Obama & Cameron (like Bush & Blair before them) are warmongers. They should take FULL responsibility for the refugee crisis they created when they destabilised the whole of that region.





Spellweaver said:


> Noushka is a very kind, compassionate and caring person who I know in "real" life as opposed to virtual life - in fact I will go as far as to say she is probably *the* most kind, compassionate and caring person I know. She made a genuine error in posting the picture, and is as upset that she did so as anyone else on the forum. The minute she realised she had done it, she deleted it and apologised. Those who were active on the thread *know *that; despite the mutterings still going on about it.. Those who were not active on the thread need to know that _*because of*_ the mutterings still going on about it. She did not do it on purpose; she never meant to do it; she deleted it and apologised straight away, and has explained and apologised several times since.
> 
> Enough is enough. Can we stop trying to make out she is some kind of horrible person now, please?


As I said earlier on in this thread, I didn't read the thread that this one "isn't about" but which apparently led to this one being posted.

Because of that, I saw nothing wrong or implied in what ouesi posted, but it seems from Spellweaver's post quoted above, that I'm only getting half the story. In fact, thinking that there was no implication to other members on this forum, I found myself agreeing with what ouesi said, which I find myself doing a lot. Ouesi has made a valid point in the greater scheme of things and without knowing the full picture, I don't see any sly "dig" at Noush. Maybe those who have taken part in both threads know differently. Maybe Noush is reading more into ouesi's posts than was intended. I genuinely don't know. I respect and admire both forum members and it's upsetting to see either of them upset or hurt.

The media and the internet _are _responsible for bombarding us with image after image that we _should _be horrified by, but because we see them on a virtually daily basis, we have become desensitised to them. Life is cheapened into news-worthiness by the media and the internet. It's wrong, but it's true. Just look at all the sick jokes and comments that emerge about a celeb soon after their untimely deaths.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> Maybe those who have taken part in both threads know differently. Maybe Noush is reading more into ouesi's posts than was intended


She didn't and she did


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> Noushka is a very kind, compassionate and caring person who I know in "real" life as opposed to virtual life - in fact I will go as far as to say she is probably *the* most kind, compassionate and caring person I know. She made a genuine error in posting the picture, and is as upset that she did so as anyone else on the forum. The minute she realised she had done it, she deleted it and apologised. Those who were active on the thread *know *that; despite the mutterings still going on about it.. Those who were not active on the thread need to know that _*because of*_ the mutterings still going on about it. She did not do it on purpose; she never meant to do it; she deleted it and apologised straight away, and has explained and apologised several times since.
> 
> Enough is enough. Can we stop trying to make out she is some kind of horrible person now, please?


Oh for crying out loud.... I commented on a POST, not the person. I responded to the contents of a POST, nothing personal.

No, no one here knows me in person (except for one person who is smarter than to get embroiled in all this), so you'll just have to use my posting record, which I think speaks for itself. That and the fact that Rona is defending me should speak volumes given than Rona and I are not exactly friends even at the best of times. I stand by what I said.

And thank you Noushka for apologizing and removing the picture. I did not know that had happened. Another problem with closed threads disappearing....


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> The media and the internet _are _responsible for bombarding us with image after image that we _should _be horrified by, but because we see them on a virtually daily basis, we have become desensitised to them. Life is cheapened into news-worthiness by the media and the internet. It's wrong, but it's true. Just look at all the sick jokes and comments that emerge about a celeb soon after their untimely deaths.


_(This is not directed AT you, even though i'm clearly responding to your post- i have no clue about your reading or viewing habits im just commenting on the topic you raised. I may use the word "you", but it's a general "you" not actually YOU):_

Theres an easy solution to that desensitization - turn the tv off or over when the lies, sorry i mean, the news, comes on. Dont spend money on liepapers, sorry, i mean, "news"papers. Seek information rather than being fed it.

I'm not even sure that it's over exposure, or if we are just conditioned to accept that in those formats theres gonna be horrible things. So for that reason i think theres actually a lot to be said for shocking people into actually thinking about whats going in areas of life where they might not have expected to see it.I've seen graffiti thats made me think about climate change more than any news report ever has, for example.. Cos when it's on the news it's easy to say "oh climate change again" and just switch part of your brain off, or look at your phone, or stroke your animals or whatever... But when you're not expecting it it can hit you like a truck. I also think it's good to talk about it, not just watch it or read it. Debating things makes people think on a different level to just watching or reading about them. Your position may well be questioned, you might even change your mind and you'll definately get much more wildly differing viewpoints than you will from the mainstream media which always just uses current affairs to further their agenda.

My girlfriend will often watch documentaries about things which leave her in tears of anger at the human race, and i've asked her, "why put yourself through it if you know it's going to be such a huge trigger for you?". Her answer was that she thinks it's important to see it- no matter how bad it makes her feel it's better than ignoring it, cos nothing will ever change if people do that.

I may have gone a bit off topic, sorry what was it again? oh yeah- censorship? screw that. for a game of soldiers. I would love there to be an adult general chat section to this forum - not adult chat (that would end up being porn), but adult general chat, somewhere we can have discussions without the over sensitive types being able to use the "kids come here" excuse as a reason to get anything which they find challenging closed.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

porps said:


> I would love there to be an adult general chat section to this forum - not adult chat (that would end up being porn),


Is it wrong that my mind went to "hrm.... I bet PF members could figure out a way to argue over porn."


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Is it wrong that my mind went to "hrm.... I bet PF members could figure out a way to argue over porn."


lol, it's not wrong, and you're probably bang on the money.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

porps said:


> I may have gone a bit off topic, sorry what was it again? oh yeah- censorship? screw that. for a game of soldiers. I would love there to be an adult general chat section to this forum - not adult chat (that would end up being porn), but adult general chat, somewhere we can have discussions without the over sensitive types being able to use the "kids come here" excuse as a reason to get anything which they find challenging closed


Not sure if I count as one of the oversensitive types because I did indeed mention further back on this thread that kids do use this forum. If so, I do need to say that I'm not. I'm up for discussing pretty much anything, no matter how upsetting the subject matter.

However, while censorship gets a bad press it is actually essential in certain situations.

You wouldn't put a documentary about sex trafficking on the CBBC channel, for example. Obviously this is partially because the audience is wrong, but nobody can deny it would be inappropriate to expose young children to some of this stuff. This is a form of censorship.

One can argue, with validity IMO, that threads about genocide or violent racism or sexual abuse of children are unnecessary on a forum about pets. I'm not personally worried about it, but I can completely understand those who make this argument. It's not as if PF is the only discussion forum on the internet and there are plenty of other outlets for such topics.

I'll repeat again so it's clear: I'm not against allowing these topics here. But I can appreciate the reasoning of those who are.

In short, I don't believe frightening or unpleasant topics should be censored on the internet. However, that's not the same thing as saying everything should be allowed everywhere. It's not like every shop in the High Street sells the same wares; every forum on the internet doesn't have to address the same topics. As long as there is a shop/forum relevant to your interests somewhere, that should be sufficient.

As @porps says, an 18+ forum on here may solve some of these problems. But it probably would feature porn and arguments about porn. Lol.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Will those who construct a straw man in order to associate their opponent with morally repugnant views be excluded from this Adult General Chat section ?


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Some definitions for the new Adult General Chat section:

1. Discussion:

One of us believes the world is round.
One of us believes the world is flat.

We present argument and counter-argument. Our nationalities, gender, sexual orientation and who we voted for, if known, are irrelevant.

We present facts and can backup those facts with references.

When presented with enough evidence one of us is allowed to change our belief !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good grief.. who knew that could happen ? ( just not to me  ).

Humour is allowed. Moderate sarcasm is allowed. Satire is allowed ( that one's just for me ).

We cannot agree to disagree. The world is either round or flat. And I think it's important that people know if they get to the edge they may fall off.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> Not sure if I count as one of the oversensitive types because I did indeed mention further back on this thread that kids do use this forum. If so, I do need to say that I'm not. I'm up for discussing pretty much anything, no matter how upsetting the subject matter.
> 
> However, while censorship gets a bad press it is actually essential in certain situations.
> 
> ...


No, i didnt count you among the oversensitive types, i've enjoyed many a good discussion with you and im pretty sure you have thick skin cos i havent managed to seriously offend you as yet as far as i know (dont worry i'll get to you in time). it was directed at noone.

I agree, a sex trafficiking show on cbbc would be a misguided choice, they possibly wouldnt be interested in or understand the issues contained in it. And theres no point in them watching something disturbing like that if it's gonna go over their heads and all they will get from it is being disturbed. I'm not entirely convinced that sheltering kids from the truth of the world is the best thing to do anyway. Who knows, maybe if we were more honest about reality, maybe iif they did see the world for what it was, less of them would grow up to perpetuate the cycle. I dont know, i;ve never lived anywhere where thats been attempted.

But that only just popped into my head, i havent really thought about that enough to want to get into a debate about it (yet), i will most likely lose. thats why i suggested a section for adults to have adult discussions (everyone here knows how adult i can be in a discussion, im famed for it!)



diefenbaker said:


> Will those who construct a straw man in order to associate their opponent with morally repugnant views be excluded from this Adult General Chat section ?


No, not unless they're under 18... Why exclude them when you can rip em a new one instead?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Just for those that don't know, we DID have a section for private chat on the old forum. It got abused and removed.*


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

JANICE199 said:


> *Just for those that don't know, we DID have a section for private chat on the old forum. It got abused and removed.*


Well, there you go... "This is why we can't have nice things."


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

porps said:


> I'm not entirely convinced that sheltering kids from the truth of the world is the best thing to do anyway.


Me neither, but obviously it is highly dependent on age and certain topics need to be introduced with care rather than just being thrust upon them at random: otherwise it may damage their ability to form opinions on it and have a negative influence on their ability to handle the 'truth' in the future.

Obviously I am speaking as neither a parent nor a psychologist, but it seems like common sense to me.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

oh and before i forget again...
This thing i keep hearing: "maybe a pet forum isnt the place for these discussions, there are other forums on the internet"

Yes there are, but in my experience they tend to be quite partisan.. is that the right word? Theres something actually really good about this forum, and thats that people come here for a reason completely unrelated to the discussions that may get posted in general chat. That means we have a really wide array of different views on here, so many that people rarely (if ever) get shouted down by a clique. It's very much the "man in the street", and yeah that means sometimes we can be misinformed and just talk from the gut, but to me at least it's way more fun than talking to a bunch of people who eat sleep and breathe politics, it's more fun than nodding along with a bunch of anarchists, or arguing with a bunch of conservatives. It's the diversity here that makes it so different, and thats why the debates get heated, and it's also why theyre enjoyable and worthwhile to have.

And yeah janice, i knew about the old private chat, i still think it could be different next time.

Shoshannah.. yeah it's common sense. you used quite an extreme example (for good reason) and i cant really argue that i want to see sex trafficking documentaries on cbbc, as much as i like to argue.

But if this is about a photo thats on the front of every newspaper which kids can see on the newsstands when they go into a shop, im not sure that the kids must be protected thing holds too much weight.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

porps said:


> I'm not entirely convinced that sheltering kids from the truth of the world is the best thing to do anyway. Who knows, maybe if we were more honest about reality, maybe iif they did see the world for what it was, less of them would grow up to perpetuate the cycle.


Oh that's a whole huge discussion right there! 
I'm a mom, and a pretty liberal mom as far as the information I share with my kids and what I want them to know about the world. Basically, I figure if they're interested enough to ask about something, I owe them an honest answer. 
Even so, of course you try to shelter your children from the worst of it. Not because you want them to go through life thinking everything is just peaches and cream, but because you want them to be able to properly digest the information. I don't want to harden them. I want to soften them to the harshness of the world so that they keep their compassion and grow up to be the kind of people who want to do something positive. 
Or as LR Knost says it better than me "it's not our job to toughen our children up to face a cruel and heartless world. It's our job to raise children who will make the world a little less cruel and heartless."


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Oh that's a whole huge discussion right there!


Guess who's been to cans-of-worms-R-us recently? 

i dont disagree with your post, was just thinking "out loud" when i typed that


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

So touched by your kind words Val xxx



ouesi said:


> Oh for crying out loud.... I commented on a POST, not the person. I responded to the contents of a POST, nothing personal.
> 
> No, no one here knows me in person (except for one person who is smarter than to get embroiled in all this), so you'll just have to use my posting record, which I think speaks for itself. That and the fact that Rona is defending me should speak volumes given than Rona and I are not exactly friends even at the best of times. I stand by what I said.
> 
> And thank you Noushka for apologizing and removing the picture. I did not know that had happened. Another problem with closed threads disappearing....


I didnt know how to respond to this because i really don't want to argue, but this is so disingenuous that i cant let it go. It was personal as well you know, as were your posts on the disappeared thread. Your reference to 'memes' (for which I'm notorious ) made sure i'd know exactly who it was meant for. Its not the first time i've seen you put someone down then act all innocent when you get called out. As for your relationship with Rona well its obvious its healed somewhat. On hunting threads you two are something of a tag team these days lol I know theres no love lost between you & I, I have had some of my biggest disagreements with you but i can let bygones be bygones if you can.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Oh for crying out loud.... I commented on a POST, not the person. I responded to the contents of a POST, nothing personal.
> 
> No, no one here knows me in person (except for one person who is smarter than to get embroiled in all this), so you'll just have to use my posting record, which I think speaks for itself. That and the fact that Rona is defending me should speak volumes given than Rona and I are not exactly friends even at the best of times. I stand by what I said.
> 
> And thank you Noushka for apologizing and removing the picture. I did not know that had happened. Another problem with closed threads disappearing....


I didnt know how to respond to this because i really don't want to argue, but this is so disingenuous that i cant let it go. It was personal as well you know, as were your posts on the disappeared thread. Your reference to 'memes' (for which I'm notorious ) made sure i'd know exactly who it was meant for. Its not the first time i've seen you put someone down then act all innocent when you get called out. (i can take a bit of a kicking but not the sticking the knife in as well lol) As for your relationship with Rona well its obvious its healed somewhat. On hunting threads you two are something of a tag team these days lol I know theres no love lost between you & I, I have had some of my biggest disagreements with you but i can let bygones be bygones.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> I didnt know how to respond to this because i really don't want to argue, but this is so disingenuous that i cant let it go. It was personal as well you know, as were your posts on the disappeared thread. Your reference to 'memes' (for which I'm notorious ) made sure i'd know exactly who it was meant for. Its not the first time i've seen you put someone down then act all innocent when you get called out. As for your relationship with Rona well its obvious its healed somewhat. On hunting threads you two are something of a tag team these days lol I know theres no love lost between you & I, I have had some of my biggest disagreements with you but i can let bygones be bygones if you can.


Yes, I commented on the memes because I dislike how they are used, and you are one of the people who uses them in ways I find unpleasant. That does not equate to me saying (or thinking) YOU are unpleasant. I can comment on what a person says or does and not make it personal. In the same way many members don't like how I use goat memes but don't have a personal issue with me.

Noushka, you on the other hand, have called me vile, and many other direct, personal insults. You have questioned my integrity, my intentions, accuse me of being pro-bloodpsorts, and you claim to know what I am thinking when I post and what my intentions are. And you are incorrect, every time. And you don't just do this to me, you have done it to many other members who have also asked you to stop. You know I have reached out to you and tried to make things right, and you rebuffed me.

I don't know what the point of me posting any of this is other than I'm just tired of the same old same old on every thread where you and I engage. More than anything it just saddens me because we are actually on the same side on so many environmental, animal, and humanitarian issues, but you just can't seem to see that and choose friction instead. So yeah... I'm just exhausted by it all....


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Yes, I commented on the memes because I dislike how they are used, and you are one of the people who uses them in ways I find unpleasant. That does not equate to me saying (or thinking) YOU are unpleasant. I can comment on what a person says or does and not make it personal. In the same way many members don't like how I use goat memes but don't have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Noushka, you on the other hand, have called me vile, and many other direct, personal insults. You have questioned my integrity, my intentions, accuse me of being pro-bloodpsorts, and you claim to know what I am thinking when I post and what my intentions are. And you are incorrect, every time. And you don't just do this to me, you have done it to many other members who have also asked you to stop. You know I have reached out to you and tried to make things right, and you rebuffed me.
> 
> I don't know what the point of me posting any of this is other than I'm just tired of the same old same old on every thread where you and I engage. More than anything it just saddens me because I am actually on your side on so many environmental, animal, and humanitarian issues, but you just can't seem to see that and choose friction instead. So yeah... I'm just exhausted by it all....


*The olive branch has been offered.. why not accept it?*


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

i know i know, pot, kettle, black


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

You'll have to forgive my ignorance but this is how I interpret a meme.

A meme is an image accompanied by text which is often humorous in its nature and commonly adopted by internet users.










Whereas by stark comparison this;










Is a depiction of the catastrophic horrors man inflicts upon his fellow man and his children.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Yes, I commented on the memes because I dislike how they are used, and you are one of the people who uses them in ways I find unpleasant. That does not equate to me saying (or thinking) YOU are unpleasant. I can comment on what a person says or does and not make it personal. In the same way many members don't like how I use goat memes but don't have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Noushka, you on the other hand, have called me vile, and many other direct, personal insults. You have questioned my integrity, my intentions, accuse me of being pro-bloodpsorts, and you claim to know what I am thinking when I post and what my intentions are. And you are incorrect, every time. And you don't just do this to me, you have done it to many other members who have also asked you to stop. You know I have reached out to you and tried to make things right, and you rebuffed me.
> 
> I don't know what the point of me posting any of this is other than I'm just tired of the same old same old on every thread where you and I engage. More than anything it just saddens me because we are actually on the same side on so many environmental, animal, and humanitarian issues, but you just can't seem to see that and choose friction instead. So yeah... I'm just exhausted by it all....


You implied that i used that tragic picture like some meme. What does that say about me? How horrible to think that i could be so callous. So thats why i asked could you be anymore vile- it was hurtful. I don't have time to answer all your points but there is a difference between saying someone is pro bloodsports & calling someone a hunt apologist. I don't choose friction, if i disagree with anyone i disagree, thats it. I'm ruining the dinner here lol, I'm going to have to leave it for now. But i still hope we can call a truce? We do have a lot of shared issues as you say .


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

porps said:


> Theres something actually really good about this forum, and thats that people come here for a reason completely unrelated to the discussions that may get posted in general chat. That means we have a really wide array of different views on here, so many that people rarely (if ever) get shouted down by a clique. It's very much the "man in the street", and yeah that means sometimes we can be misinformed and just talk from the gut, but to me at least it's way more fun than talking to a bunch of people who eat sleep and breathe politics,


Something has gone badly wrong here. We have a poster who some say is "the most kind and compassionate person" and others entirely the opposite ( okay.. it may not be entirely the opposite.. but it's certainly not aligned ). Might I suggest that the quoted part above is part of the reason... and that when moving between different environments a change in posting style is required ?

I realise I sound rather disconnected here. In the forums I find it difficult to offer sympathy to people and so more often than not don't. That is one of my many flaws.. and you are not going to get another.. and that is not a challenge for someone to make a list either.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Getting back to the forum rules...

I never took part in the private forum (probably before my time), but I'm not sure that's the answer anyway.
Private forums can seem very exclusive and sadly are sometimes open to abuse.

Why not have a section of the forum where people are warned that there will be strong views they may not agree with, but where adult, political, and sometimes controversial views will be discussed?
Of course, there would have to be a rule that certain subjects were off limits (and I belong to an adult webmasters forum so I know exactly what subjects are off limits even there, as most of us do anyway - but I won't list them here, as the forum will get a lot of the wrong type of internet searches).

The section could be open to members only, with possibly the proviso that over-eighteens only are allowed to post there. So it would be semi-private, but anyone posting there would know that other members are watching them, which should help to prevent some abuse.

It works well on a couple of other forums I belong to. discussions do get heated, but the majority know that by entering that part of the forum that is to be expected.

Just an idea anyway


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Or alternatively the rules could stay the same and people could use their common sense and not go onto threads which have asubject matter they know will offend them? I know the title is not always indicative of the content, but in the case of the closed thread we are not discussing on here (and which propmpted Janice to question if rules needed updating), it was blatantly obvious.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Or alternatively the rules could stay the same and people could use their common sense and not go onto threads which have asubject matter they know will offend them? I know the title is not always indicative of the content, but in the case of the closed thread we are not discussing on here (and which propmpted Janice to question if rules needed updating), it was blatantly obvious.


This doesn't work. Everyone's a rubbernecker. "If you don't like it don't read it". That one has always confused me. You can't know you don't like it until after you've read it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

@JANICE199 I really should have just posted this in answer to your original question. Because though it's about dog forums, it pretty much sums up what happens when the fit hits the shan if you know what I mean. Cracks me up every time I read it too. Eerily accurate. Even accounts for meme posting 

http://thedogsnobs.com/2015/06/27/anatomy-of-a-dog-forum-shit-show/


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

At every forum rules are usually the same: ni bashing, no calling names, be respectful, don't talk about politics, don't offend other people, don't spam. At least that's the case at the bodybuilding/fitness boards I'm a moderator at.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

ouesi said:


> @JANICE199 I really should have just posted this in answer to your original question. Because though it's about dog forums, it pretty much sums up what happens when the fit hits the shan if you know what I mean. Cracks me up every time I read it too. Eerily accurate. Even accounts for meme posting
> 
> http://thedogsnobs.com/2015/06/27/anatomy-of-a-dog-forum-shit-show/


Awesome 

Luckily I ignore all memes unless well designed. So far I've ignored them all.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Yes, I commented on the memes because I dislike how they are used, and you are one of the people who uses them in ways I find unpleasant. That does not equate to me saying (or thinking) YOU are unpleasant. I can comment on what a person says or does and not make it personal. In the same way many members don't like how I use goat memes but don't have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Noushka, you on the other hand, have called me vile, and many other direct, personal insults. You have questioned my integrity, my intentions, accuse me of being pro-bloodpsorts, and you claim to know what I am thinking when I post and what my intentions are. And you are incorrect, every time. And you don't just do this to me, you have done it to many other members who have also asked you to stop. You know I have reached out to you and tried to make things right, and you rebuffed me.
> 
> I don't know what the point of me posting any of this is other than I'm just tired of the same old same old on every thread where you and I engage. More than anything it just saddens me because we are actually on the same side on so many environmental, animal, and humanitarian issues, but you just can't seem to see that and choose friction instead. So yeah... I'm just exhausted by it all....


Ok now I've got a few minutes to spare ive read your post more thoroughly & picking up on this- _You know I have reached out to you and tried to make things right, and you rebuffed me_. I don't want to set the cat amongst the pigeons but I'm going to have to give my side I'm afraid. I can only think you're referring to the pm you sent me after I unfriended you over the 'huskies off lead' thread that got locked? My blood pressure was through the roof with some of the comments (not just yours) over that thread. I was angry with you because I believe what you were saying was dangerous & also because you were ridiculing & making snide comments that were not only aimed but me but at a lovely member I care about very much. So I unfriended you out of temper (childish I know), but I didn't even think you'd realise, certainly not within minutes of me doing it. So when you pm'd me & ask why I had done it, I told you pretty much what ive just said on here & said to you lets just leave it at that. 
And you might not quote me or name me to insult me but what you do is what you have done on this thread, you give out barbed digs. Sorry but I had to say my piece. :/


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Britt said:


> At every forum rules are usually the same: ni bashing, no calling names, be respectful, *don't talk about politics, don't offend other people*, don't spam. At least that's the case at the bodybuilding/fitness boards I'm a moderator at.


Well the first bit in bold would mean that many threads here would be automatically closed.
And the second bit - people get offended whether you intend them to or not, and sometimes they get offended just because they can.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Ok now I've got a few minutes to spare ive read your post more thoroughly & picking up on this- _You know I have reached out to you and tried to make things right, and you rebuffed me_. I don't want to set the cat amongst the pigeons but I'm going to have to give my side I'm afraid. I can only think you're referring to the pm you sent me after I unfriended you over the 'huskies off lead' thread that got locked? My blood pressure was through the roof with some of the comments (not just yours) over that thread. I was angry with you because I believe what you were saying was dangerous & also because you were ridiculing & making snide comments that were not only aimed but me but at a lovely member I care about very much. So I unfriended you out of temper (childish I know), but I didn't even think you'd realise, certainly not within minutes of me doing it. So when you pm'd me & ask why I had done it, I told you pretty much what ive just said on here & said to you lets just leave it at that.
> And you might not quote me or name me to insult me but what you do is what you have done on this thread, you give out barbed digs. Sorry but I had to say my piece. :/


Oh I'd forgotten about that! I guess we have even more of a history than I realized. 

No, I was referring to one of your many threads where you got heated and told me what I was thinking when I posted, what I was feeling, and I stepped back and tried to reach out to you only to be told I was a hunt apologist or something. It might not have been a hunt thread though, (I really do have an awful memory), but I know there were horses involved and @Elles was taking a beating about something. I was trying to support her because I know her to be kind and compassionate, and it just all went dog forum shit show as in the article I posted.

So... No. I don't have an issue with you as a person, I don't know you. My only "issue" and it's not even an issue really, just an annoyance, is that you very often claim to know what members feel, what they think, and what their intentions are and make accusations based on what you think another person is thinking. I have told you this several times, it's not a dig. It's a direct communication to you that you don't know what is in my heart and I stand by that.

We are on the same side of many issues but clearly our personalities on line are not exactly compatible. I'm okay with that. I can address the content of a post without getting personal about whoever posted it, and frankly with this new format, half the time I'm not even paying attention to who wrote a post.

This whole thing is just awkward to me. I'm not touchy feely online. You put me in a weird position by offering a truce - a truce to what? I didn't even know there was a conflict that required a truce. So now I have to either accept the "truce" and admit there was a conflict - which for me there was not, or not accept it and look like a jerk. And you know what? That's okay too. I'm not here to make friends. I don't mean that in a dismissive way, just a realistic way, it's not why I do forums. I do end up making connections, but it's not the main reason I'm here. I'm here to talk dogs and I venture in to general to hear opinions that I might not hear otherwise - open my borders if you will.

That took way too long to simply say, I'm done with whatever this is. I wish you well Noushka, I look forward to your posts on environmental topics, and other areas, I do not look forward to your memes or Russel Brand videos  and it's all good as far as I'm concerned


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

I've been on this site for at least six years now. I originally joined this one vs. others because of less rules and stuff. I mostly just ignore the drama and find threads that suite my tastes. I don't always care to discuss controversial subjects such as politics but the problem with limiting such discussions is that politics is intertwined with many others subjects including animal welfare and such.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Just to add (and belabor the point even more *groan*), the fact that I was truly befuddled by the unfriending - enough to ask about it - shows that there was no intended malice in my posts on that thread. I was being silly in some of my posts in an attempt to lighten the mood - I do that a lot, apparently it came off as ridicule. That’s not how it was intended. 

It’s just one of those things where I just can’t win for losing. I try to add in some levity (like with the goat memes) and I piss people off. I try to make impersonal statements meant in a general way and I’m making sly digs. I try to be clearer in my posts and I’m being condescending. I ask for clarification and I’m being accusatory. And it’s not just me. We all have a posting style that is just going to rub someone the wrong way. There are three posters in my head right now, all 3 constantly get accused of being rude. To me, none of them are. They’re just direct. I happen to like direct, obviously not everyone does. C’est la vie. There’s not much any of us can do about it. Unless we’re being deliberately trollish or abusive, it’s part and parcel of a very diverse community of fallible humans trying to share space on the web. 

A lot of problems could be avoided if we wouldn’t read in to things stuff that isn’t there (I’m speaking to myself here too). Of course we do this in real life too, but on-line it gets compounded. 

And dammit, I miss posting goats! I’ve been really good for months now!


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

@ouesi I know this is completely off topic but what is that in your avatar? Is it one of your Danes or a goat? I've been trying to work it out for months now.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Shoshannah said:


> @ouesi I know this is completely off topic but what is that in your avatar? Is it one of your Danes or a goat? I've been trying to work it out for months now.


It's the back of Breez's ear. I was trying to be all artsy fartsy with a photo.







[/url]

I think this may have to be my new avatar though:


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Shoshannah said:


> @ouesi I know this is completely off topic but what is that in your avatar? Is it one of your Danes or a goat? I've been trying to work it out for months now.


I thought ti was a goat too. HAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> This doesn't work. Everyone's a rubbernecker. "If you don't like it don't read it". That one has always confused me. You can't know you don't like it until after you've read it.


Sure you can, i manage to avoid all the soap opera threads, the big brother threads, the what are you reading threads.. theres loads of threads which i know wont interest me and which i can easily avoid by not going into them. So long as the title is clear it isnt difficult at all.



Britt said:


> *At every forum* rules are usually the same: ni bashing, no calling names, be respectful, don't talk about politics, don't offend other people, don't spam. *At least that's the case at the bodybuilding/fitness boards* I'm a moderator at.


Did you really not spot the huge contradiction here? Every type of crisp tastes of beef, at least thats the case with the beef crisps i tried.


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

porps said:


> Sure you can, i manage to avoid all the soap opera threads, the big brother threads, the what are you reading threads.. theres loads of threads which i know wont interest me and which i can easily avoid by not going into them. So long as the title is clear it isnt difficult at all.
> 
> Did you really not spot the huge contradiction here? Every type of crisp tastes of beef, at least thats the case with the beef crisps i tried.


What I meant was that I'm a mod at a few bodybuilding forums and a VIP at 20 different boards and these are the rules.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

ouesi said:


>


OMG I love this .....sums up my experience of message boards perfectly 

And is it not this peculiar passion for getting our message across that makes boards so darned addictive!

I am sorry that it gets personal for some ...that's the written word for you ....but I for one don't want to see any cast iron directives as to what subjects may be taboo. Dipping in to the odd controversial area makes for some great debating (which I enjoy reading ...some of you are really good!). And yes, Mods throughout time have always had to step in to some threads ...in an effort to keep the peace ...but remember, it's not the winning it's the taking part!

J


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Britt said:


> What I meant was that I'm a mod at a few bodybuilding forums and a VIP at 20 different boards and these are the rules.


So, you claim to be a 'cop'. A claim I firmly believe to be false. Well okay, not all that accurate. I think you've exaggerated your position in life and, from that accusation, I conclude the only things you police, if even the above claim is true, are a few body building forums.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Oh I'd forgotten about that! I guess we have even more of a history than I realized.
> 
> No, I was referring to one of your many threads where you got heated and told me what I was thinking when I posted, what I was feeling, and I stepped back and tried to reach out to you only to be told I was a hunt apologist or something. It might not have been a hunt thread though, (I really do have an awful memory), but I know there were horses involved and @Elles was taking a beating about something. I was trying to support her because I know her to be kind and compassionate, and it just all went dog forum shit show as in the article I posted.
> 
> ...


Well my memory isn't that good either because hand on heart I cant ever remember you reaching out to me on any thread lol. I know I'm uncompromising about bloodsports, I cant help it, I feel that strongly about them. So when people seek to defend or make excuses for those involved in them, I can get a bit (a lot) carried away I guess. Sometimes kindness & compassion doesn't stretch to all species of animal or groups of people for that matter- foxes & sabs for example - even seriously injured ones. And in my case people who hunt for fun, I admit it, I'm incapable of feeling anything but contempt for them. Much of that disagreement was about a seriously injured sab.

Oh no, don't worry I wasn't talking touchy feely, bezzy mates or anything like that lol I just meant more respectful towards each other maybe  And sorry but cant promise no more memes lol I can promise no more Russell Brand videos though(as hes quit doing them anyway! lol ) Thank you very much for the best wishes, I wish you well too. 



ouesi said:


> Just to add (and belabor the point even more *groan*), the fact that I was truly befuddled by the unfriending - enough to ask about it - shows that there was no intended malice in my posts on that thread. I was being silly in some of my posts in an attempt to lighten the mood - I do that a lot, apparently it came off as ridicule. That's not how it was intended.
> 
> It's just one of those things where I just can't win for losing. I try to add in some levity (like with the goat memes) and I piss people off. I try to make impersonal statements meant in a general way and I'm making sly digs. I try to be clearer in my posts and I'm being condescending. I ask for clarification and I'm being accusatory. And it's not just me. We all have a posting style that is just going to rub someone the wrong way. There are three posters in my head right now, all 3 constantly get accused of being rude. To me, none of them are. They're just direct. I happen to like direct, obviously not everyone does. C'est la vie. There's not much any of us can do about it. Unless we're being deliberately trollish or abusive, it's part and parcel of a very diverse community of fallible humans trying to share space on the web.
> 
> ...


Oh hey ho, I'll have to put my side now I've a feeling this thread could go on for a long long time:Hilarious

I wasn't the only one to interpret your posts that way Ouesi & there appeared to be a bit of pack mentality going on on that particular thread (from my point of view ) I have Siberian huskies, a couple of us on that thread have owned & been involved in the breed for many years. So try to imagine how you would feel if you felt people were giving out dangerous advice & felt they were being dismissive of what you were saying? - and then making silly posts if you like? I can tell you, it didn't feel like someone was trying to lighten the thread from where I was sitting, it did feel like we were being wound up & ridiculed. And the thread got closed, I think that says it all. But I guess it shows how things can be misinterpreted on a forum. I know a lot of my posts have been misconstrued, but that's mostly because I'm not very articulate so they can be a bit muddled up lol

I don't mind direct, some of the more direct members seem to be the ones I have the most in common with. In fact I get along with all but a handful of people on this forum. Funnily the few I tend to clash with are people I've crossed swords with on blood sports threads. 

So its over to you, I guess....lol


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> So its over to you, I guess....lol


Nope, I'm done.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> OMG I love this .....sums up my experience of message boards perfectly
> 
> And is it not this peculiar passion for getting our message across that makes boards so darned addictive!
> 
> ...


Did you read the link I posted earlier? I think you may enjoy it too 
http://thedogsnobs.com/2015/06/27/anatomy-of-a-dog-forum-shit-show/


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I was trying to support her because I know her to be kind and compassionate,


 Thank you.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> I think everything should be up for discussion. I argued in the dog section that we should be able to discuss (not promote) shock collars as we never able to do that previously, one mention & the thread would be closed
> 
> I do have a problem with people posting 'facts' without actually thinking them through or having any sort of proof to back up their claims, if they are posting their opinion then that is sdifferent but too many people seem to post all sorts of crap. The internet can be a fantastic tool to help research subjects ... but there is also alot of crap on it which seems to be used as 'proof' to back up the most riculous claims at times :Wtf


We changed that rule so you can discuss them, but not promote them. That was when we had that person who kept posting videos, one of which was of my dogs.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I personally like that balance of rules on this forum..... I've been wrong, I';ve been banned, other's have been wrong, they've face consequences too.

Always view forums as bars at closing time, nobody's afraid to say anything and one wrong move and it all kicks off lol


----------

