Jump to content

Recent Topics Recent Topics

Photo
- - - - -

New Rules regarding Personal attacks in signatures


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
119 replies to this topic

#1 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,651 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:56 AM

Personal attacks on pcom have been against the rules for as long as PCOM has been operating.

Certainly there is some judgement involved whether a particular statement qualifies and sometimes, in a tit-for-tat argument, we've not enforced the rule as strictly as we could.

The idea, of course, is we are adults and as such, we are responsible for what we say. Hence there is a certain degree of latitude as there is the nature of free speech.

The problem comes when people abandon their responsibility to maintain a generally positive decorum in the community and fights break out that ultimately convince people that it is better not to talk and share. It is a fine line and there is evidence that there have been and continue to be members on the site, either acting alone or in conjunction with others, who conspire to intimidate and silence other members.

Some, indeed many, have been silenced and for that, I apologize to them for not maintaining a more orderly community. If I have a fault, it is that I lean toward tolerance and freedom of expression.

That said, I've noted among some individuals, and this goes back some time, the abuse of others in their signatures. While the comments made in the signature may not be a direct attack, sometimes the reference to others in one's signatures is consciously designed as a subtle attack.

The pernicious nature of signatures is that if the person has made 1,000 posts, that personal attack has been theoretically delivered 1000 times. Heretofore we have counted that as one infraction. Now each violation could be considered the number of posts that the person has.

The mods have been given the discretion and may award a warning ... or as many bullets as they choose for a violation of decorum in the persons signature.

This ruling will be put in place and active beginning immediately with the notation that warnings are the rule for existing violations until Sept. 1st. New violations are another matter.

Have a nice day.

pubby

#2 SOLO

SOLO

    I Have Flying monkeys and Will Use Them

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,780 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:22 PM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Posted Image
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

Daily Thought: SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS


Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it or play with it Just pee on it and walk away.

s.l.u.t
Stressed-out Ladies Unwinding Together

"People are born so that they can learn how to live a good life like loving everybody all the time and being nice.....dogs already know how to do that, so they don't have to stay as long

#3 rednekkhikkchikk

rednekkhikkchikk

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,425 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 01:08 PM

Turning off signatures is the single most positive change I've made yet...


"There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion". - Sir Francis Bacon

"The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop". -P. J. O'Rourke

"The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." ~Frank Zappa

"All persons ought to endeavor to follow what is right, and not what is established." -Aristotle

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." -Thomas Jefferson

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority." -Noah Webster

"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking". - AA Milne

#4 FreeBird

FreeBird

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,003 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 01:09 PM

somewhere in my profile settings I disabled even seeing signatures in posts - so I don't even know nor care if I am being attacked.
  • rednekkhikkchikk likes this
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.''

-Sir Winston Churchill

#5 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,651 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 01:43 PM

I'll simply note that all three posters to this topic (so far) have interesting signatures that could not be construed as personal attacks ... period.

In a side-channel discussion it has been asserted that certain anonymous individuals whose identities may have been discovered are in reality fictitious individuals. I simply point out that libel law ignores that if the defamation accrues to an individual.

Since the purpose of personal attacks is to cause the target of the attack to feel distress, I was perusing the cite called "Chilling Effects" ... and its legal glossary. The introduction to cyberstalking, which is considered a federal crime, was introduced this way:

Question: What is cyberstalking?

Answer: It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and gathering information for harassment purposes. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.


Now I'm not making any accusations toward anyone but I will note that the laws seem to be catching up on some of the shenanigans that we've observed here, there and yonder over the years.

The main point I would make is while perfection eludes us all, people should strive to be more responsible in their utterances because one day someone will call them on their conduct and there may be enough teeth in the law to make them sorry.

pubby

#6 really gone from here

really gone from here

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,372 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 03:16 PM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

No kidding !!!!!! :good:
*Signature Edited for Content not in Accordance with the PCOM Rules

edited by Deputy Rafe Hollister

#7 All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah

All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah

    Don't make me stamp you!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,192 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:16 PM

Holy crap, someone complained about a signature enough to warrant this thread? WOWSA...

Tip of the day: If a silly signature on a message board from someone who has zero relevance in your life, bugs you enough to make an issue of it. You really need to evaluate your priorities in life... :rofl:
  • Rookie, Lucky64, jenja1 and 4 others like this

#8 really gone from here

really gone from here

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,372 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:22 PM

Holy crap, someone complained about a signature enough to warrant this thread? WOWSA...

Tip of the day: If a silly signature on a message board from someone who has zero relevance in your life, bugs you enough to make an issue of it. You really need to evaluate your priorities in life... :rofl:

Great point. :good: Who started this thread??
*Signature Edited for Content not in Accordance with the PCOM Rules

edited by Deputy Rafe Hollister

#9 All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah

All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah

    Don't make me stamp you!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,192 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:28 PM

I'll simply note that all three posters to this topic (so far) have interesting signatures that could not be construed as personal attacks ... period.

In a side-channel discussion it has been asserted that certain anonymous individuals whose identities may have been discovered are in reality fictitious individuals. I simply point out that libel law ignores that if the defamation accrues to an individual.

Since the purpose of personal attacks is to cause the target of the attack to feel distress, I was perusing the cite called "Chilling Effects" ... and its legal glossary. The introduction to cyberstalking, which is considered a federal crime, was introduced this way:



Now I'm not making any accusations toward anyone but I will note that the laws seem to be catching up on some of the shenanigans that we've observed here, there and yonder over the years.

The main point I would make is while perfection eludes us all, people should strive to be more responsible in their utterances because one day someone will call them on their conduct and there may be enough teeth in the law to make them sorry.

pubby


So in the whole quote you had up there about "cyberstalking" does the whole identity mess from a few weeks ago fall into that category? Or was it all made up about the identity borrowing occurring? :blink:

#10 NinaBritt

NinaBritt

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,704 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:34 PM

Holy crap, someone complained about a signature enough to warrant this thread? WOWSA...

Tip of the day: If a silly signature on a message board from someone who has zero relevance in your life, bugs you enough to make an issue of it. You really need to evaluate your priorities in life... :rofl:

The funny thing is no regular member made an issue of it, at least not that I saw.
"Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway."

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#11 Glassdogs

Glassdogs

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,843 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:39 PM

In a side-channel discussion it has been asserted that certain anonymous individuals whose identities may have been discovered are in reality fictitious individuals. I simply point out that libel law ignores that if the defamation accrues to an individual.


pubby


HUH? How can an individual be anonymous and fictitious at the same time? So you are admitting that certain "former members" are fictitious individuals, yet you know who they are?

Oh, what a web we weave.....

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

 

 

I guess you haven't been to Detroit recently?  Or, Newark or East St.Louis or Gary, IN, or Stockton, CA?

 

You know, those bastions of liberal Democrat government that have been so successful in attracting wealthy, educated leaders and businesspeople.  Progressive people,  who have uplifted the poorer of their brethren, so their city can be that bright example of how well Socialism works.


#12 crossroads

crossroads

    Icon

  • +Unstoppable Woman
  • 4,742 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:53 PM

Just checking to see if my signature offends anyone.
  • ChocoMare likes this

Commercialization supporters are not informed. See Stop paulding County Airport of Face Book for the real news.

 

From Rockysmom intended for me.

"That insult was towards a person that I know for a fact to do things like drive bys at people's house's that they they have disagreed with.

To me hat is bat cheese crazy. Sorry if you don't see my point".


#13 really gone from here

really gone from here

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,372 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:19 PM

Just checking to see if my signature offends anyone.

Not I. !!!
*Signature Edited for Content not in Accordance with the PCOM Rules

edited by Deputy Rafe Hollister

#14 NinaBritt

NinaBritt

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,704 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:22 PM

Just checking to see if my signature offends anyone.

Nope.
"Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway."

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#15 NewsJunky

NewsJunky

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,457 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:31 PM

Just checking to see if my signature offends anyone.


Nope. But if messages go out to post a signature just to bully another poster I would say it is wrong and harmful. Have no clue if that happened.
 
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” ~~George Orwell
 
There is no elevator to success. You have to take the stairs.........
 
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."~~ Edward R. Murrow   
 

#16 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,651 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:46 PM

Nope. But if messages go out to post a signature just to bully another poster I would say it is wrong and harmful. Have no clue if that happened.


I don't know about that either and frankly I had not even thought of that. However collusion does seem strangely porcine. I'm looking to see if the mods have gotten the message :)

Of course I'd much prefer the users to modify their own signatures to avoid the issue. Hint, hint...

pubby

#17 NewsJunky

NewsJunky

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,457 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:49 PM

HUH? How can an individual be anonymous and fictitious at the same time? So you are admitting that certain "former members" are fictitious individuals, yet you know who they are?

Oh, what a web we weave.....


Your signature is one I really like!:)
 
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” ~~George Orwell
 
There is no elevator to success. You have to take the stairs.........
 
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."~~ Edward R. Murrow   
 

#18 crossroads

crossroads

    Icon

  • +Unstoppable Woman
  • 4,742 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:02 PM

The original Bacon brothers........YUMMMMY

the original bacon brothers.jpg
  • InLA likes this

Commercialization supporters are not informed. See Stop paulding County Airport of Face Book for the real news.

 

From Rockysmom intended for me.

"That insult was towards a person that I know for a fact to do things like drive bys at people's house's that they they have disagreed with.

To me hat is bat cheese crazy. Sorry if you don't see my point".


#19 feelip

feelip

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,620 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:17 PM

The original Bacon brothers........YUMMMMY

the original bacon brothers.jpg


Dang, that boy can look in the mirror and pick his nose without leaning his head back. While I'm sure that is a handy attribute, I'm not so sure it qualifies as "yummy." :huh:
Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!

#20 markdavd

markdavd

    Sawdust Creator

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,868 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:22 PM

Where in the P.com rules is the guarantee of anonymity? I want to invoke it!
I read recently that "most of today's reporters and journalists are no better than used car salesmen. When they're working, you just know they're lying to you." My first thought is that's an insult to used car salesmen!

#21 crossroads

crossroads

    Icon

  • +Unstoppable Woman
  • 4,742 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:23 PM

Dang, that boy can look in the mirror and pick his nose without leaning his head back. While I'm sure that is a handy attribute, I'm not so sure it qualifies as "yummy." :huh:


All Bacon and B.A.C.O.N is good. IMHO.:wub:

Commercialization supporters are not informed. See Stop paulding County Airport of Face Book for the real news.

 

From Rockysmom intended for me.

"That insult was towards a person that I know for a fact to do things like drive bys at people's house's that they they have disagreed with.

To me hat is bat cheese crazy. Sorry if you don't see my point".


#22 really gone from here

really gone from here

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,372 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:49 PM

The original Bacon brothers........YUMMMMY

the original bacon brothers.jpg

Those eyes... WOW!!!
*Signature Edited for Content not in Accordance with the PCOM Rules

edited by Deputy Rafe Hollister

#23 Rocky's Mom

Rocky's Mom

    Rockysmom

  • +Member plus pink
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,598 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:52 PM

Those eyes... WOW!!!

I think you mean those contacts.....WOW!!!
"There comes a time in your life, when you walk away from all the drama and people who create it. You surround yourself with people who make you laugh. Forget the bad, and focus on the good. Love the people who treat you right, pray for the ones who don't. Life is too short to be anything but happy. Falling down is a part of life, getting back up is living."

#24 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,651 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:03 PM

Where in the P.com rules is the guarantee of anonymity? I want to invoke it!

There is no guarantee of anonymity. All member identities are related to a person. There are rules regarding decorum that explicitly says that attacking an individual person is a violation.

We have internal rules that prohibit the disclosure of identities by the management of the site. Persons who may through their meeting other members, through their postings or via other means - exchanging emails (the site does not automatically disclose your email address without your express permission when PM'ing other members) or often friending on facebook may expose their identities.

Anonymity aside, a personal attack need not be direct to be a personal attack. For instance the latest round of porcine references have been incessant and directed at The Postman and so, by association, these comments are at present considered personal attacks against an individual. I know there was an effort to create an illusion otherwise but that effort failed as a reasonable person having read the site would immediately recognize the target of the slam.

The cooperation and removal of offending commentary by those members who happened to have placed personal attacks in their signatures is humbly requested. The moderators will begin making changes to the offending signatures beginning on the 15th of August. They will issuing warnings at that time.

Given that the offending signatures exist in perhaps thousands of posts and each post is considered a separate violation under the new rule, the outcome of a confrontation should be clear. Even those who may have a sizable store of mayberries would see those accolades disappear instantly.

I appreciate and encourage your cooperation. This, I believe, constitutes a fair warning that this kind of snarky behavior will not be tolerated.

pubby

PS: The Baconfmly03 ... you need not worry as I understand your username is not associated with the current nastiness. Your user ID is as much a victim as anyone.

#25 Glassdogs

Glassdogs

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,843 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:11 PM

There is no guarantee of anonymity. All member identities are related to a person. There are rules regarding decorum that explicitly says that attacking an individual person is a violation.

We have internal rules that prohibit the disclosure of identities by the management of the site. Persons who may through their meeting other members, through their postings or via other means - exchanging emails (the site does not automatically disclose your email address without your express permission when PM'ing other members) or often friending on facebook may expose their identities.

Anonymity aside, a personal attack need not be direct to be a personal attack. For instance the latest round of porcine references have been incessant and directed at The Postman and so, by association, these comments are at present considered personal attacks against an individual. I know there was an effort to create an illusion otherwise but that effort failed as a reasonable person having read the site would immediately recognize the target of the slam.

The cooperation and removal of offending commentary by those members who happened to have placed personal attacks in their signatures is humbly requested. The moderators will begin making changes to the offending signatures beginning on the 15th of August. They will issuing warnings at that time.

Given that the offending signatures exist in perhaps thousands of posts and each post is considered a separate violation under the new rule, the outcome of a confrontation should be clear. Even those who may have a sizable store of mayberries would see those accolades disappear instantly.

I appreciate and encourage your cooperation. This, I believe, constitutes a fair warning that this kind of snarky behavior will not be tolerated.

pubby

PS: The Baconfmly03 ... you need not worry as I understand your username is not associated with the current nastiness. Your user ID is as much a victim as anyone.


So, how about posting a few of the offending siggys so we have some idea what you are talking about? Or is this going to be another situation where some mod gets pissed at a member and uses their "authority"?

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

 

 

I guess you haven't been to Detroit recently?  Or, Newark or East St.Louis or Gary, IN, or Stockton, CA?

 

You know, those bastions of liberal Democrat government that have been so successful in attracting wealthy, educated leaders and businesspeople.  Progressive people,  who have uplifted the poorer of their brethren, so their city can be that bright example of how well Socialism works.


#26 BACONFMLY03

BACONFMLY03

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:13 PM

There is no guarantee of anonymity. All member identities are related to a person. There are rules regarding decorum that explicitly says that attacking an individual person is a violation.

We have internal rules that prohibit the disclosure of identities by the management of the site. Persons who may through their meeting other members, through their postings or via other means - exchanging emails (the site does not automatically disclose your email address without your express permission when PM'ing other members) or often friending on facebook may expose their identities.

Anonymity aside, a personal attack need not be direct to be a personal attack. For instance the latest round of porcine references have been incessant and directed at The Postman and so, by association, these comments are at present considered personal attacks against an individual. I know there was an effort to create an illusion otherwise but that effort failed as a reasonable person having read the site would immediately recognize the target of the slam.

The cooperation and removal of offending commentary by those members who happened to have placed personal attacks in their signatures is humbly requested. The moderators will begin making changes to the offending signatures beginning on the 15th of August. They will issuing warnings at that time.

Given that the offending signatures exist in perhaps thousands of posts and each post is considered a separate violation under the new rule, the outcome of a confrontation should be clear. Even those who may have a sizable store of mayberries would see those accolades disappear instantly.

I appreciate and encourage your cooperation. This, I believe, constitutes a fair warning that this kind of snarky behavior will not be tolerated.

pubby

PS: The Baconfmly03 ... you need not worry as I understand your username is not associated with the current nastiness. Your user ID is as much a victim as anyone.



LOL I am glad that I am ok I wasn't even aware that it could be taken any other way.

#27 All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah

All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah

    Don't make me stamp you!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,192 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:18 PM

1376356426[/url]' post='3829371']
LOL I am glad that I am ok I wasn't even aware that it could be taken any other way.


So you're not feeling "victimized"? Posted Image



Whew! Posted Image

Edited by All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah, 12 August 2013 - 08:19 PM.


#28 BACONFMLY03

BACONFMLY03

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:22 PM

So you're not feeling "victimized"? Posted Image



Whew! Posted Image



No I don't think so. I haven't had anyone do anything to me so I am good!

#29 All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah

All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah

    Don't make me stamp you!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,192 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:25 PM

1376356967[/url]' post='3829377']
No I don't think so. I haven't had anyone do anything to me so I am good!


You should be good, everybody loves Bacon! Posted Image
  • BACONFMLY03 and NinaBritt like this

#30 markdavd

markdavd

    Sawdust Creator

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,868 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:40 PM

There is no guarantee of anonymity. All member identities are related to a person. There are rules regarding decorum that explicitly says that attacking an individual person is a violation.

We have internal rules that prohibit the disclosure of identities by the management of the site. Persons who may through their meeting other members, through their postings or via other means - exchanging emails (the site does not automatically disclose your email address without your express permission when PM'ing other members) or often friending on facebook may expose their identities.

Anonymity aside, a personal attack need not be direct to be a personal attack. For instance the latest round of porcine references have been incessant and directed at The Postman and so, by association, these comments are at present considered personal attacks against an individual. I know there was an effort to create an illusion otherwise but that effort failed as a reasonable person having read the site would immediately recognize the target of the slam.

The cooperation and removal of offending commentary by those members who happened to have placed personal attacks in their signatures is humbly requested. The moderators will begin making changes to the offending signatures beginning on the 15th of August. They will issuing warnings at that time.

Given that the offending signatures exist in perhaps thousands of posts and each post is considered a separate violation under the new rule, the outcome of a confrontation should be clear. Even those who may have a sizable store of mayberries would see those accolades disappear instantly.

I appreciate and encourage your cooperation. This, I believe, constitutes a fair warning that this kind of snarky behavior will not be tolerated.

pubby

PS: The Baconfmly03 ... you need not worry as I understand your username is not associated with the current nastiness. Your user ID is as much a victim as anyone.

If a member were to disclose their identity on another site, say Facebook, would you continue to work to keep their identity secret here?
  • mojo413 likes this
I read recently that "most of today's reporters and journalists are no better than used car salesmen. When they're working, you just know they're lying to you." My first thought is that's an insult to used car salesmen!

#31 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,651 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:41 PM

So, how about posting a few of the offending siggys so we have some idea what you are talking about? Or is this going to be another situation where some mod gets pissed at a member and uses their "authority"?


I feel if I had to do that, Glassdogs, I would be insulting your intelligence.

People have always been able to appeal a mod decision. IT is rare but I have overturned some. I will say that given the implications, though, putting anything that might be construed as a PERSONAL attack in a signature should be avoided like the plague.

pubby

#32 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,651 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:54 PM

If a member were to disclose their identity on another site, say Facebook, would you continue to work to keep their identity secret here?


I don't and won't disclose the identity of a members name here as a matter of policy. I will neither confirm or deny the association unless it is under one of the conditions offered in my privacy statement. I.e. if you're trying to use the site as part of a criminal conspiracy, I reserve the right to rat your ass out as I do not choose to be a part of or an accessory to a crime. Another incident might be as the result of a court order as in a subpoena although I reserve the right to fight the disclosure.

What a person discloses on facebook is up to the person and it really doesn't impact my policy.

Of course what facebook may do is collect your data, merge it with the credit card companies data, data from other sources and build a dossier on you including the data collected from other sources with the intention of invading your privacy is due to your willingness to provide them your information. Paulding.com does not participate in any formal data sharing or mining operation that uses personally identifiable data. As I didn't provide the database or access to private records here any data they are using is without my consent or assistance.

pubby

#33 Lucky64

Lucky64

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus pink
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,745 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:55 PM

I have the signatures turned off, so I don't care what they say. And personally, I think all this is ridiculous, I feel he/she brought all this on him/her self. Sometimes I feel he/she eggs on people just to get a reaction out of people. And when he/she does, they cry wolf.

Yes, we have the option to skip his/her threads, which I do, but when the board is spammed with them, it still annoys the heck out of you. Then it slows down and all is good again. But, by that time, I am gone from here, because I get tired of seeing the same posts on the main page from him/her.

At one time or another, we all get a talk from the Pubster or a mod, it's all good. They give you a warning, which they don't have too. We can listen to them, or we can fight with them. I rather listen to what they have to say. Another way to look at the situation. Or, discuss it with them if need be. We don't know what they say to the other party. Maybe, he/she will settle down for a while, who is to say!!

Some people love when he/she posts, some just seeth, but skip over it, some complain, but yet are drawn to the post and have to complain and get something started within the thread, and then have the nerve to ask, what have they done, or ask, why am I getting called out and not them. Well, you are the one that entered their post, because you haven't figured out how to skip his/her post yet. LMBO!!!:good: :good:
  • The Postman, ApolloBeachRetiree, kmhmom and 7 others like this

#34 wenfen

wenfen

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,316 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:22 AM

Oh Lordy lord lord. The IGNORE button does work, everyone! I use it on the general few that I am not interested in reading the posts from them. Every so often I do hit the button " Read anyway" and that just reminds me to be thankful for the "ignore" button...
  • kmhmom and gog8tors like this

#35 mei lan

mei lan

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,387 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:29 AM

I have the signatures turned off, so I don't care what they say. And personally, I think all this is ridiculous, I feel he/she brought all this on him/her self. Sometimes I feel he/she eggs on people just to get a reaction out of people. And when he/she does, they cry wolf.


I didn't even know you could turn signatures off. Cool. And I agree with you completely - the poster in question DOES bring crap down on his own head. Like you, I just avoid anything with his name on it unless I absolutely can't help myself. I have enough crap in my life without gathering more of it in.

But I do back Pubby's decision. It's his web site, and I personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near being held liable for libel. (See what I did there? :D )

Besides, I'm of the opinion that if you disagree with someone, for whatever reason, you get a lot farther by dismantling their arguments with logic and calmness rather than with ad hominem attacks. Or if you don't want to do that, ignoring them allows them to make a horse's rear out of themselves all on their own.

Oh, this reminds me - slight hijack here...the other night, I had a dream that I was traveling across South America with stradial and Pubby. I have no idea what we were doing, but we were driving, and it seemed like a Top Gear kind of relationship between us. :D :D :D

/end hijack
  • NewsJunky, Lucky64 and Paulding Patti like this

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

William Shakespeare, Sonnet 116


#36 ApolloBeachRetiree

ApolloBeachRetiree

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,632 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 04:43 AM

I have the signatures turned off, so I don't care what they say. And personally, I think all this is ridiculous, I feel he/she brought all this on him/her self. Sometimes I feel he/she eggs on people just to get a reaction out of people. And when he/she does, they cry wolf.

Yes, we have the option to skip his/her threads, which I do, but when the board is spammed with them, it still annoys the heck out of you. Then it slows down and all is good again. But, by that time, I am gone from here, because I get tired of seeing the same posts on the main page from him/her.

At one time or another, we all get a talk from the Pubster or a mod, it's all good. They give you a warning, which they don't have too. We can listen to them, or we can fight with them. I rather listen to what they have to say. Another way to look at the situation. Or, discuss it with them if need be. We don't know what they say to the other party. Maybe, he/she will settle down for a while, who is to say!!

Some people love when he/she posts, some just seeth, but skip over it, some complain, but yet are drawn to the post and have to complain and get something started within the thread, and then have the nerve to ask, what have they done, or ask, why am I getting called out and not them. Well, you are the one that entered their post, because you haven't figured out how to skip his/her post yet. LMBO!!!:good: :good:


^^this! Posted Image

Hillary was a terrible candidate. Plain and simple.

 

The Hildabeast IS a despicable CESSPOOL of CORRUPTION.


#37 Tahoe

Tahoe

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 07:54 AM

Does my signature offend anyone???? :pardon:
"Obama is not a Leader, he is a Ruler." Neal Bortz

Every trial we face is a trial of our Faith.
God will close your walls in to make you look to Him
.



"Non-Liberal" because not everyone can be on welfare...edited at the request of p.com police


If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand. óMilton Friedman

#38 ApolloBeachRetiree

ApolloBeachRetiree

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,632 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 07:57 AM

Does my signature offend anyone???? :pardon:


Not at all. The part by Boortz is right on the money. However, note the spelling of Boortz.

Hillary was a terrible candidate. Plain and simple.

 

The Hildabeast IS a despicable CESSPOOL of CORRUPTION.


#39 crossroads

crossroads

    Icon

  • +Unstoppable Woman
  • 4,742 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 08:10 AM

Does my signature offend anyone???? :pardon:


All good to me. :good:

Commercialization supporters are not informed. See Stop paulding County Airport of Face Book for the real news.

 

From Rockysmom intended for me.

"That insult was towards a person that I know for a fact to do things like drive bys at people's house's that they they have disagreed with.

To me hat is bat cheese crazy. Sorry if you don't see my point".


#40 DallasRED

DallasRED

    GO NAVY!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,885 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 08:29 AM

Does my signature offend anyone???? :pardon:


Not offended but I think the Non-Liberal one is STUPID..I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans that are on Welfare. I rarely vote Republican and believe me I've never collected a day of Welfare in my life and neither did my Parents..Pretty sure my Grandparents didn't either.
  • The Postman, jenilyn and CitizenCain like this
Posted Image

"Why are some people such assholes for no reason but then are the first to bitch to the mods when the tables are turned" GO BLUE

"You judge me and think you know me, and I'm quite sure we've never met. You know nothing." MADEA

"NOT ONE DAMN ONE OF YOU HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN NOT FEEL THE WAY I DO." SOLO




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Recent Topics Recent Topics