Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Not what you say, but how you say it..."

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Not what you say, but how you say it..."

    The guidelines for this forum appear generally clear and fair imo. Of course I begin that way because I wonder about the excision of some posts that may contain elements of one "sin" but not transgress on the general precept of not "what is said" but "how it is said" as stated in the forum guidelines.

    Religion is tricky of course to type about and discuss, even in the most reasonable, dispassionate style without generating arguments and tirades. Politics, too, as a general rule. I see the wisdom of containing the debates to a minimum and to a limit of non-insult and name-calling, bigotry or racism basis.

    But if a post demonstrates no attempt at insults, name-calling, bigotry, sexism, or racism but present a well-developed rational thesis and supporting verifiable points (clearly not a rant or flame-job), what's wrong with that?

    Yes, there are forums that are "more appropriate for that sort of thing," but it is imo restrictive, naive, and totalitarian to have an enforcer come down subjectively (which of course it is) and judge any posts with any reference to concepts that are prevalent in any and all areas of discussion in this world today. Politics is in everything.

    I'm trying to say I think it would be more fair and balanced if the monitoring of this forum "Things Not T&F" if you would stick by the spirit of your law --"How a thing is said not what is said"--more dilligently than your omniscient law-enforcer comes down and passes judgement at ground level on any and all references he sees fit as being "inappropriate."

    "Inappropriate" is what the judge doesn't like.

    respectfully

    jaime

  • #2
    Actually it iswhat you say. If I called a particular candidate a li'ya, I'd be gone. I wouldn't have to do it in a vulgar manner.

    Comment


    • #3
      We are all weak and frail and flawed, just accept others weaknesses with 1/2 the ease that we accept our own and all will be well.
      ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

      Comment


      • #4
        The rule is simple. "They" own the site, "they" make the rules. No logic or rationale required. It's their home and they allow us in. If you come to my house......you play by my rules.

        Now if I owned the site, I would have political and religious sections and let everyone beat up on each other. It's gonna be a long winter and we will need the release.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
          The rule is simple. "They" own the site, "they" make the rules. No logic or rationale required. It's their home and they allow us in. If you come to my house......you play by my rules.

          Now if I owned the site, I would have political and religious sections and let everyone beat up on each other. It's gonna be a long winter and we will need the release.
          Of course, you are right. And I of course have been aware of that all along, here and on other sites.

          When I go into someone else's house, on thier boat, in their plane I understand that there are house rules--and I abide by them.

          It seemed to me that it was at least worth mentioning the "how you say it, not what you say" element in the guidelines just for drill and to express an opinion--in their house. As I said I think the guidelines here are fair and balanced. I like the "How you say it" principle and wanted to say so and suggest that that covers the other parts for me anyway.


          When I go into someone else's house etc, I try always to abide by their rules, but I don't check my brain at the door or forget some larger considerations, rights and freedoms.

          That last part about "rights and freedoms" and/vs Local rules and guidelines can get kind of hairy for some "private clubs," organizations, (and, yes cults.) Sure, I can just grab my straw hat and cane and dance on my merry way, no harm no foul, no hard feelings. But I like to think it's more useful to me and possibly to someone else who may have had some similar thoughts to state the opinion.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jamese1045
            When I go into someone else's house etc, I try always to abide by their rules, but I don't check my brain at the door or forget some larger considerations, rights and freedoms.

            That last part about "rights and freedoms" and/vs Local rules and guidelines can get kind of hairy for some "private clubs," organizations, (and, yes cults.) Sure, I can just grab my straw hat and cane and dance on my merry way, no harm no foul, no hard feelings. But I like to think it's more useful to me and possibly to someone else who may have had some similar thoughts to state the opinion.
            James1045, this message board is a private board run (and run over) by a small clique. We are their guests. If they don't like what we say they can ban us - and they will. If you want any proof, look no further than the dozens of political threads started the most egregious political thread starter here, Garry Hill. Just as soon as anyone posts a position that is contrary to Hill's, he threatens to ban them for "politicizing a political thread" I know it's sounds like Orwellian doublespeak (it is), but free speech only applies to what the government can restrict. Free speech doesn't apply to a private website, even if the door is open to visitors.

            Some of you think that what you have to say on a message board is the most important thing in the world -- it's not. Live with it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: "Not what you say, but how you say it..."

              Originally posted by jamese1045
              But if a post demonstrates no attempt at insults, name-calling, bigotry, sexism, or racism but present a well-developed rational thesis and supporting verifiable points (clearly not a rant or flame-job), what's wrong with that?
              What is wrong with that is: what one person considers "well-develped rational thesis and supporting verifiable points", someone else considers bull crap..

              In my observation, what you say is more destructive than how nicely you dress it up.

              Comment


              • #8
                It's been my observation that both what you say and how you say it can get you in trouble. "Well-develped rational thesis and supporting verifiable points" may be unacceptable if they are posted in support of a political candidate. Similarly, ad hominem attacks on a poster are out of bounds, even if the post dealt only with track and field and had no political or religious implications at all.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tandfman
                  Similarly, ad hominem attacks on a poster are out of bounds.
                  Wrong. They're permitted here all of the time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by malmo
                    Originally posted by tandfman
                    Similarly, ad hominem attacks on a poster are out of bounds.
                    Wrong. They're permitted here all of the time.

                    One should learn and accept that if you have certain views that are not shared by those that matter, you should not share them openly. If adversary views to yours are shared on the board with more than a shot of venom, do not respond (and certainly not in kind). Bite your lip and focus on track. I have only begun to learn this.

                    It is a small price to pay to be able to have a forum this rich with track fan genius.

                    paultheconservativefan
                    ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by malmo
                      Originally posted by jamese1045
                      When I go into someone else's house etc, I try always to abide by their rules, but I don't check my brain at the door or forget some larger considerations, rights and freedoms.

                      That last part about "rights and freedoms" and/vs Local rules and guidelines can get kind of hairy for some "private clubs," organizations, (and, yes cults.) Sure, I can just grab my straw hat and cane and dance on my merry way, no harm no foul, no hard feelings. But I like to think it's more useful to me and possibly to someone else who may have had some similar thoughts to state the opinion.
                      James1045, this message board is a private board run (and run over) by a small clique. We are their guests. If they don't like what we say they can ban us - and they will. If you want any proof, look no further than the dozens of political threads started the most egregious political thread starter here, Garry Hill. Just as soon as anyone posts a position that is contrary to Hill's, he threatens to ban them for "politicizing a political thread" I know it's sounds like Orwellian doublespeak (it is), but free speech only applies to what the government can restrict. Free speech doesn't apply to a private website, even if the door is open to visitors.

                      Some of you think that what you have to say on a message board is the most important thing in the world -- it's not. Live with it.
                      I've been clear in saying that I understand the point you make--about the private board, "their house," their rules, and that the house monitor has free reign to invoke those rules, even if he breaks them, and so on....and I addressed the matter of knowing and playing by the rules. You might have missed those points in my previous posts.

                      But I only brought up the matter in the first place because I have the OPINION that, in spite of all those "hand we are dealt," "rules of the house", "Private proppity" , and this little niche is "not a democracy" kinds of response, I
                      will say my piece about a wider, American view about freedom of speech and the right to opinions. Take that or leave it, it doesn't matter to me; I will even understand if that opinion is deleted in this . . . milieu.

                      But I also said I think the guidelines here are pretty fair and balanced, especially if they mean it when they state that part about "It's not what you say but how you say it." To me, again, that obviates the need to have the omniscient judge, the arbiter of taste and appropriateness to excise posts that he doesn't like. I think you are saying that you agree with that idea, that the "judge" does not follow his own adjudications..

                      It's like Schroedinger's cat to me in the long run, neither here nor there and of no great consequence.

                      Sorry if I offend or tire anyone by stating in less-than-compelling language an opinion that is so obvious, but in my short experience in this tight-knit board, so unchallenged.

                      Play the cards they deal you, that's ok; I'm looking for another game and deal.

                      My great respect to the awesome T&F people here.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        in defense of the moderators, if they let alot of marginal stuff go unchecked this forum could become overwhelmed with folks that have very little interest in the facts and figures of track and field. they may have biases that pinch some of us more than others but Im sure their intentions are good.
                        ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tandfman
                          It's been my observation that both what you say and how you say it can get you in trouble. "Well-develped rational thesis and supporting verifiable points" may be unacceptable if they are posted in support of a political candidate. Similarly, ad hominem attacks on a poster are out of bounds, even if the post dealt only with track and field and had no political or religious implications at all.
                          My point, exactly, I should not have attempted to rank the relative importance of content vs. presentation.
                          Enough partisan posts have sneaked through or been permitted to stand that it is obvious posters here are divided and passionate about their political beliefs. If we/they were allowed to post partisan opinions unfettered, otherwise congenial track and field fans would be at each others throats. Infinitely more so than about relatively innocuous spats over syntax and opinion of the relative merit of athletes.
                          I believe some "relationships" have already been unnecessarily negatively affected.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lonewolf
                            I believe some "relationships" have already been unnecessarily negatively affected.
                            You ain't kidding.
                            "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                            by Thomas Henry Huxley

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X