bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 03:51:26 PM
The court of inquiry into the sub accident is to begin on Monday.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/04/japan.sub.02/index.html
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on March 4, 2001 04:05:39 PM
I'm just wondering, do you want comment on the stories you link to? You keep asking that your threads be closed, so I'm not sure I understand your point.
That isn't to say I don't appreciate you posting the links.
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 04:24:56 PM
Lotsafuzz
Thank you for your inquiry!
As you may know since you are a AW veteran there are many reasons a person -not necessarily me- requests locking threads.
1) Once the thread is locked a poster can't go in and "edit" their messages.
2) When the intent of beginning of the thread is no longer there.
3) When posters are destructive and when the topic is way off.
4) Whatever else, it is the "privilege" of the originator to request the locking.
Sometimes the decision is not up to the originator but AW moderators.
Feel free to post in my threads. If any of my threads are locked it -no biggie.
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on March 4, 2001 04:37:38 PM
Ok, but what I don't get is this: Given the 'tone' of recent political discussions around here (hell, around just about anywhere including the water cooler) you have to know that there will 1) Be very different oppinions about *any* given topic, and 2) People who *want* to give their opinions.
Given that and the fact that in these discussions it seems likely that posters will address each other while addressing the topic (i.e, "You are wrong Mr. XYZ and this is why" ) I'm not sure what you are expecting to happen in these threads that you post.
Certainly I agree that a poster has every right to request thier thread be locked (although I've seen cases lately where the moderator did *not* lock the thread just because it wasn't going the way the poster wanted).
I've got no problem if someone wants to just 'put something out there' withOUT discussion. If nothing else, if I choose to read the post, then I've learned something new. However, it seems to me that you are requesting locks simply because people don't agree with you or question your statements. To me that seems a lot like saying, "If I can't be the quarterback, then not only am I not going to play, but I'm going to take my ball and go home."
As for me being an AW 'veteran'....could be. I've sure seen a lot. Maybe I'm jaded but I haven't seen anything posted to you (please note: I don't read every thread or even every post in a thread) that is all that unreasonable.
If you are going to 'play' with the big dogs (and you've got to know you are with the subjects you start) you need to be ready to get down and dirty (that doesn't mean nasty, that means know you will be questioned).
Anyway, that was probably way off topic. I do appreciate your answer even though I don't think it answered my question: I know you *can*, I'm wondering why you *do*.
Edited to get rid of that stinking smile!
[ edited by lotsafuzz on Mar 4, 2001 04:39 PM ]
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 4, 2001 04:41:25 PM
And there is always that handy dandy "ignore button! 
KatyD
|
krs
|
posted on March 4, 2001 04:44:58 PM
Wow!
Within the originating link in this thread, even more exciting and newsworthy information exists!
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/04/train.derailment/index.html
It says that:
OMAHA, Texas (CNN) -- A Union Pacific train derailed Sunday, spilling 10
cars -- including at least one that contained hazardous materials -- into the Sulphur River.
Uhh,.thoughts? Does anyone know if the hazardous spill material would react with the sulfur in the Sulfur River?
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 04:47:20 PM
Lotsafuzz
Why are you asking?
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 4, 2001 04:53:59 PM
A derailment? That IS news. Probably had to evacuate everybody and lock the spill site up quick! To keep out the looky loos, you know.
KatyD
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on March 4, 2001 04:54:19 PM
I'm asking only because it takes me time and brain power to get a post together about a topic in hopes of a discussion. If you are only posting the stories in hopes of 'putting it out there' and you don't want a discussion to follow then I won't bother trying to reply.
I also find it frustrating to get 'involved' in a discussion and come back (wanting to see what points other people have made) and find the topic locked.
Really, you can do what you want, I was just wondering what your point was.
|
xardon
|
posted on March 4, 2001 04:56:08 PM
Good thing the court of inquiry is in Honolulu. If it were on the East coast it would probably have to begin on Wednesday or even as late as Thursday.
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:01:16 PM
The majority of the threads I have locked has been done since January.
I welcome diverse opinions as long as it is constructive but I don't lock threads because people disagree with me. Also, I don't close threads because one is disagreeing with me.
Case in point:
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=66374
among many-many other threads....
[ edited by bobbysoxer on Mar 4, 2001 05:09 PM ]
|
Muriel
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:02:43 PM
Xardon, how is it looking out there? Are you IN the storm?? 
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:07:37 PM
xardon
lotsafuzz
Was a particular thread?
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:09:19 PM
So then, you *do* want discussion. That is all I needed to know!
Now, at the risk of being off the topic, I wanted to say hello to KatyD....didn't know they'd sprung ya' already!
|
xardon
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:13:32 PM
No I'm not Muriel. I'm standing at the window looking out at freezing rain. The snow has stopped for the moment and the roads appear passable. Philadelphia may be spared the full brunt of the storm.
Heavy snow remains in the forecast but I'm hoping against it.
.....so how about that court of inquiry?
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:19:35 PM
lotsafuzz
Apparently then there wasn't a particular thread?
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:20:42 PM
They did, lotsa but I'm watching my "p's" and "q's" so I don't end up in the slammer again.
KatyD
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:37:25 PM
There are a couple of different reasons why I start a thread simply giving a link to a site without saying anything.
1)Sometimes it is simply to provide information
2)Sometimes I don't have an opinion (or neutral) and am interested in hearing & listening to others's thoughts regardless they are similar to mine or not.
3)Sometimes it is a subject I think is interesting and maybe someone will have a dialogue with me.
4)Sometimes I think it is interesting but don't care to dialogue.
5)And sometimes I do have an opinion but don't care to express it just sharing the link.
So lotsafuzz do whatever your little heart desires.
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:42:31 PM
Bobbysoxer: NEVER give Fuzzy that kind of carte blanche for anything! Her little heart can desire some pretty weird things!
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 05:45:12 PM
oops!
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on March 4, 2001 08:17:45 PM
No, no specific thread.....just a general question brought on because as I scrolled the RT I saw that two of the three locked threads were yours (yep, I read the locked threads first) and were closed because you asked for them to be closed.....then I popped over to the Clinton thread and saw where you were considering closing that one as well.
|
gravid
|
posted on March 4, 2001 08:38:45 PM
Kinda like throwing a chunk of meat in the cage to see how the critters react but with a string on it in case it is not interesting....
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on March 4, 2001 08:40:19 PM
Her little heart can desire some pretty weird things!
You have no idea.
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 08:54:46 PM
lotsafuzz and gravid
re: Clinton thread
You are invited to my BBQ!
lotsafuzz
In the last few months I have only locked around 5 to 7 (and only a couple more -if that- prior to that stemming back to August 2000).
Four were because I had posted in the moderator's corner and krs & antquary posted -in my opinion- rude comments in the mc thread (the reason for my mc threads were because of them).
In both seperate incidents I began the threads they posted in, I had requested the threads to be locked and krs & antquary kept posting therefore I opened another thread (the moderator wasn't closing them allowing the two to keep posting) requesting closure on my first thread and my second thread (both in mc forum).
So right there, there were 4 threads I had closed in the moderators corner because of rude posts. Of all the threads I have started around 5 or 7 were closed by me. The ratio is very little. In my opinion some are embellishing the number of times I have locked threads.
|
krs
|
posted on March 4, 2001 08:58:27 PM
"The majority of the threads I have locked has been done since January".
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on March 4, 2001 09:03:30 PM
To be honest, I don't really care what your problems are with any other poster. All I wanted to know was if you wanted discussion about the subjects that you post.
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 09:05:18 PM
That right 5 to 7 locks out of 10 is a majority.
Ignore button re-activated
BTW krs none of my threads have been de-railed at all today! Out standing in your field again?
LOL!!!
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 09:07:30 PM
Then come over for the BBQ lotsafuzz and have some fun!
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on March 4, 2001 09:09:02 PM
Thanks for the invite. Think I'll pass. Smarmy always leaves me with gas.
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on March 4, 2001 10:34:12 PM
Just as well lotsafuzz you wouldn't have fit in anyways!
|
