Define

[chill]

no reason to be sorry Cord.  Personally I think you give Hoss a run for his money.  You challenge him, that can't be a bad thing.  I also know that what you do say is said in a good manner to prove your point.  It's comical to me because you have valid points in what ever you are disagreeing about.  Even yesterdays thread was funny to me.  Not funny in the way you were annoyed or fed up with, but funny because of the way you think, Hense the weather report.  You usually when debating, don't just throw out crap. You have something to back what you say.  Sorry Hoss but he does.  But on the other hand, Hoss has a right to discuss what he wants.  Do I get into the discussion when it's political?  No, I usually won't read a lot of it, just some replies from some people.  This board is great, people should be able to discuss what they want.  And if it's political so be it.  I just won't read it very often or reply, in the exception of I did vote for Carter and I am a democrat. lol
I do find namecalling a deal breaker as I age.  Midget isn't a nice term, in my book, and is offensive.

As MT saying this thread is "troll" activity.  That's just bullshit.  Plain and simple.  If you truly knew me, or what I am about.  You would know that Yes, I did see something, that sparked something else, and did wonder how people would define it.  I wouldn't have had to "spell" it out if it wasn't asked directly.  And I meant no harm from it.

I truly enjoy Cord and his replies.  Hoss is Hoss.......sorry lol......I love you too. (most of the time)

This thread isn't about stiring shit as it is defining a sig. line.  Why this sig. line.....because I just noticed it If I saw another sig line that sparked an interest in me and I had questions I would do the same thing.

Now If I wanted to start something I would have replied on that thread calling out.  I didn't.

So all of you that have nothing better to do then to assume that this thread is a stirring shit pot.  Get a life.  Or see a counsilor.

Cord you are appreciated.  And I am not so interested in the troll def. in full, just certain words within the def and how people would truly define it.
but then again, some people have small brains and try to read into what I am asking.
Sluggo didn't, he answered my question at face value.  I appreciate that!
And my main point was........people can define things different ways, it's all perception.  And I would still be interested in what people thought of the original question.  But then again, some decided to make this something it isn't.

[H0$$]

I don't pull punches and I don't make apologies. You see, coord called me a troll. MT called me a dumbass. This all took place prior to me calling either a name. I took that as open season. If you're going to throw it out there I'll play along. I do think you're being a bit hypocritical coord, given the number of political threads that you and I have argued in the past. How was I to know that you suddenly didn't want to play anymore? However I suspect had the elections had a different outcome you would have been more willing to comment. It's not me that  acted like a spoiled kid but you. I didn't start the name calling so you can forget that little buddy. And if you're truly through ever discussing politics, why don't you say it "out loud" instead of expecting people to read your mind? Remember, I don't pull no punches. I'll smack you right upside the head.

[m_t]

As MT saying this thread is "troll" activity.  That's just bullshit.  Plain and simple.  If you truly knew me, or what I am about.  You would know that Yes, I did see something, that sparked something else, and did wonder how people would define it.  I wouldn't have had to "spell" it out if it wasn't asked directly.  And I meant no harm from it.

That is NOT at all what I said. You asked, in your initial post, to define "controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, " - which is what I did. Yes, I consider this thread all of those. And no, I don't think you meant no harm from it. But again, that is MY opinion.

Actually, I read so few of Hoss' posts that I only now saw his sig line. Talk about immature.

[H0$$]

What can I say, I'm a big kid. This is somehow supposed to bother me? Or is it that you are also "the mature" police?  You crack me up about as much as a couple of these other fuckers here.

[m_t]

Oh, btw... I am having a senior moment and can't find where I called you a dumbass. Mind linking? Thanks, sweetheart.

[H0$$]

Oh, I would be more than happy to but the thread happened to disappear. It was the one started by Phoenix and it was the one referring to slander and BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. But no big deal...it didn't bother me in the least. I was only using it as an example of those that struck the first blow but it's not important. Carry on.

[m_t]

Oh, I would be more than happy to but the thread happened to disappear. It was the one started by Phoenix and it was the one referring to slander and BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. But no big deal...it didn't bother me in the least. I was only using it as an example of those that struck the first blow but it's not important. Carry on.

Well, then it was Phoenix that must have deleted it.

As for your keeping score? You give as good as you get and strike the first blow quite often yourself. Don't be disingenuous and try for the pity vote. It doesn't wear well on you.

[H0$$]

No pity on my part. Like I said, I don't give a shit what you call me....the disingenuous must be coming from the side that slings the same mud. At least I can own up to my part in anything unlike a couple of you that have a fucking excuse for everything. Someone here can give someone some stern or  straight advice and get hammered for it but then someone else can do the same thing and hide under the cloak of "I don't pull no punches". I guess after all of this time you still don't see the difference in treatment of people here. The same difference that so many others saw that left.

[m_t]

I knew you were going to go back to that. It's a dead topic, and will remain so. If you don't like how the board runs, you are free to leave. Again.

[H0$$]

Like I said...when you run out of a legitimate argument, it's the same old thing. Here, let me quote you. " "

[chill]

Personally? I define it by starting threads like this one. Seems everyone (myself included) missed the post referenced. Until it was brought front & center. IMO, to start stirring. <shrug>

That is NOT at all what I said. You asked, in your initial post, to define "controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, " - which is what I did. Yes, I consider this thread all of those. And no, I don't think you meant no harm from it. But again, that is MY opinion.
[/quote]

Ok, guess I missed something, or misread what you wrote.  Which is case point as to defining controversial, inflammatory and irrelevant.  Things mean different things to one another.  But we do agree I meant no harm.

[m_t]

But we do agree I meant no harm.

No, we actually don't.

[chill]

you are a very confusing woman. You say one thing, then another, then another.  But it doesn't really matter what you think, seriously.  It only matters to me what I meant.  You take it any way you want.  Which is usually in my opinion way off base.

[slugbait]

But we do agree I meant no harm.

No, we actually don't.

And no, I don't think you meant no harm from it.

M_T, I think perhaps there might be some confusion over semantics, here.  Sorry if I'm continuing to beat a horse that should have died already.

Sluggo

[Bofemus]

It really boils down to what's admissable on the board and what isn't, how that's defined, and how those definitions are enforced.  Which, as I understand it, is a large part of what Hoss takes umbrage with.

Personally, I wish there were never a single thread that touched on politics on this board.  I get the whole concept behind freedom of speech as it applies to this board... the benefit of which I understand to be something along the lines of: Having every single thread be about divorce can become burdensome and dysfunctionally single-minded, and so people should be given a venue to explore other topics, so that the board isn't just supportive about divorce topics, but also somewhere that people can build a sense of community, and encourage and support diversity.

However...  This *is* a divorce support board.  As such, I would NOT see its primary function to be somewhere "oldies" (a relative term that I would define as "anyone very familiar with the board that has more or less moved on beyond the worst of the crud") can gather and bicker about politics, but somewhere that's primarily focused on the "business" (as it were) of being support to those in the crud, whether said crud is during or post divorce.  I know this has been discussed ad-nauseum, but it really seems to be that something like politics almost deserves a separate area.  Because there is simply no conflict-free, non-oppositional way (by definition) to discuss opposing political views.

There are many that come here that are sick to DEATH of being called out for every little thing, of being opposed and called down for every view of theirs that opposed a controlling and emotionally abusive partner.  To come to a place of solace and support and just see more of the same, I believe (and have also heard from quite a few folks), is off-putting and unpleasant.  And it seems to happen most often when politics are center of dicussion, or when politics are injected into an otherwise non-political thread.  If it were at least given a separate venue...  If two people just start beating the ever-loving shit out of each other in the middle of a public place, that's simply not acceptable.  If they do it inside of a chain-link cage with people paying money to see it, it's perfectly acceptable.  Context is important.  To me -- and this is just my opinion -- a divorce support board is simply not the place to openly bicker about politics.

If there were a sub-board or sub-section that supported things "off-topic", that might roll a little better.  This whole thing about "if you don't like it, don't read it" is all well and good.  But without a sense of separation of topics, that's like saying "If you don't like seeing poverty, don't look at the bum that's in your face."  We all click on just about every topic.  And when you see one that's upsetting without having known what was going to be there, your heart is racing before you know it... you can't "unsee" it.

There are *SO* many other places on the 'net that support arguing politics... why not just go there?  Because if you removed politics entirely from the whole of this board... would the substrate of what has lead to this thread (and the things behind it) even be there?

Maybe it would.  Maybe I'm oversimplifying and missing the point.  The questions of what is controversial, inflammatory, and irrelevant (especially that last one) are inherently subjective.  Someone that is easily upset would have radically different definitions of those than someone who is a "water off a duck's back" type of person.  And, I would hazard to guess, someone comfortably well beyond divorce and "on the other side" would be far less easily unsettled that someone hip-deep in divorce crap and at the end of their rope.  So when trying to gauge "what's best for the board", whose needs do we lean towards?  Those desperate and lost folk that are here for what this board is meant to do, or those that want to exercise a right to free speech at anyones expense?

We each have a personal choice to make... that choice being answering the question, with each post that we make: "What am I here on this board to do, and what is the overall meaning and motivation behind my posts?"

Posts that are supportive of each other, even if that support comes in the form of "not pulling punches" (as long as it's not done to intentionally hurt or undermine someone, and with a purity of intent that is focused on helping someone) are all good.

Posts that help us be silly are good.  We've been lacking in that lately, as compared to times in the past.  I'm definitely guilty to not contributing to that sort of thing, but given that I used to be quite comfortable with it... that's a bit of a reflection of "where I'm at".  I want to be sillier in general... maybe we could all work on that, because laughter is undeniably the best medicine (as long as it's not laughter motivated by cruelty or pulling someone else down.)

Discussing sports tends to be "all in good fun".  There used to be threads talking about cooking shows, American Idol, what have you.  etc. etc....  To try to break down each and every thread type would be ridiculous and self-defeating.  It really boils down to *intent*.  If you're "just trying to have a little fun", but know full well it's at someone else's expense... maybe we could either make a separate place for that sort of thing, or maybe people could just take that shit somewhere else like Fark, where it's well known that sarcasm is the rule of the day and it's open season on everyone.  I would hope and prefer that this not be that sort of place.

My two cents...