Attn: Addressing some issues that has been going on. - Page 2

souggy · 10-12-2009, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

I'm with you, Jolie_77, I don't particular in those threads anymore where people can't have a civil debates without all the provoking. Politics/Deaf education debates usually aren't very pretty which it has frequently turns ugly.

Words of advice, if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all.

That can only be true if people are not intentionally trying to bait someone by making cheap-shot comments or type them with snide intentions.

Yeah... I will go over here with my humble violin (with hearing aids, I might add.) :\

Cowpuppy · 10-12-2009, 09:26 AM

It's been said to be civil.....being civil includes being honest, truthful, and speaking with integrity. Spinmiesters are for political campaigning.....it serves no purpose here in AD but to create division.
I don't care if one wants to post about something...but keep it honest, truthful and USE INTEGRITY....don't put a slant on it. Noone denies someone thier choice....but spinmiestering is just filling AD with lies.
Also....as stated...the prez campaign is over...live with it for a while...at least until next election cycle starts...damn......the last one started WAY too early....and next one prolly even sooner....take a damn break......just sour grapes.
I wasn't around here all year.....it just sounds like a continuation of the election campaign.
p.s. I wanted Hillary....was not a fan of who we got......or Bush....but stand behind a president when campaigns are out of season. Give it a rest. The campaign and election are over. And will be back soon enough.
And yes....this rolls over into other subjects the person remarks on.
Opted for ignore button.

rockin'robin · 10-12-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

That is actually a great idea! Mods, what do you think?

I've not been on your case. I have only commented on your threads once prior to this. As for your question about Pinky's post - good question. I wasn't even aware of her thread. Why? Because I haven't been here much. I only visit every few days now because of the very point we're discussing here. And the unfortunate thing about that is that with me not wanting to come here much now, other members here lose out on whatever valuable input I might want to state, especially in the HA/CI sections. I've been deaf all my life and I've contributed a lot to those sections.

(And, FYI, I don't even read the threads you start. Just seeing the titles is enough. And, I am not asking you to leave here, I have never said such.)

Other members lose out on whatever valuable input you might want to state, especially in the HA/CI sections?......Who or what is stopping you from posting in those sections?....I've never worn a HA and I'm not eligible for a CI, but I've been totally deaf since age 14. So I can't give much input to those sections, you can! What is stopping you to post there? Surely, not me!

So you're gonna blame rockin'robin because of my posts, and not wanting to come here often?....Get real!....You don't see or read of me insulting someone about their post or thread....only if I feel they have insulted me. And a few times, I was mistaken about the "insult" and I apolized. But never, ever have I "singled" out 1 poster for being the "reason" I didn't want to come here!

My being dillusioned and somewhat depressed at AD were NOT because of a poster....basically it was the economy and the jobless, the homeless, etc. And some politics that I did not agree with, but I don't jump in and tell the poster I don't like their post.....BUT, those post were knowledgeble and reality!....We all get depressed and down at times. Even need a break...but to point the finger at "one person" and blaming them for the way "you feel" is wrong.

I'm willing to let it all go. And if you've a problem with me again in the future, pls. PM the mods.

Hear Again · 10-12-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

I rarely post anymore because the nitpicking is tiresome to see. I admit I used to contribute to the madness simply because I didn't like certain people, but not anymore. I've got enough drama in my every day life to keep me occupied that I really don't need or want to partipate in it on here. I'm tired of endless arguments that really go nowhere.

Please folks... If you just can't get along with someone, ignore them.

I completely agree with Ocean on all counts. I've read some of the threads and because of so many being closed, I don't post on AD much. I've been guily of doing the things Jolie mentioned, so I try to limit my time on AD because if I don't, it's too easy for me to nitpick, etc.

AlleyCat · 10-12-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin'robin

Other members lose out on whatever valuable input you might want to state, especially in the HA/CI sections?......Who or what is stopping you from posting in those sections?....I've never worn a HA and I'm not eligible for a CI, but I've been totally deaf since age 14. So I can't give much input to those sections, you can! What is stopping you to post there? Surely, not me!

So you're gonna blame rockin'robin because of my posts, and not wanting to come here often?....Get real!....You don't see or read of me insulting someone about their post or thread....only if I feel they have insulted me. And a few times, I was mistaken about the "insult" and I apolized. But never, ever have I "singled" out 1 poster for being the "reason" I didn't want to come here!

My being dillusioned and somewhat depressed at AD were NOT because of a poster....basically it was the economy and the jobless, the homeless, etc. And some politics that I did not agree with, but I don't jump in and tell the poster I don't like their post.....BUT, those post were knowledgeble and reality!....We all get depressed and down at times. Even need a break...but to point the finger at "one person" and blaming them for the way "you feel" is wrong.

I'm willing to let it all go. And if you've a problem with me again in the future, pls. PM the mods.

Not trying to change the subject here, but I'm going to for a second - I'm just curious as to how come you're not a candidate for a CI? I'm not endorsing or "nay'ing" it, just curious. You can answer that elsewhere if you prefer.

Back on track. Listen, I haven't tried to single you out. What I've been trying to say is that there is a good number of us who don't like seeing threads that have disturbing titles, whether it be about animals, child abuse, whatnot. And when any of us click on the "New Posts" or "Today's Posts", there's no way to avoid seeing them. What we have to do instead is go straight to the section (like the HA/CI section, for example) so we can bypass seeing the thread titles that disturb us. Then we miss out on anything new that was posted in other sections that we might've wanted to see and post to. It's clear from other posts that I'm not alone here; there are a number of us who talk outside of AD and we've discussed this issue - there are some posters who have actually left. Some have not posted in months because they won't come here and see these titles that disturb them. This may be a matter of personal opinion among us. It just saddens me that some of us feel limited at what we feel we can look at because we're concerned about what we might not want to see. We can go to CNN and see these titles if we so choose. That's all some of us have been trying to say. I apologize for any personal offense you have taken - it wasn't about you specifically, but the subject nature that's been posted. Ok?

***Jolie77*** · 10-12-2009, 08:06 PM

Thanks for your responses - for those who have posted in this thread until now.

Evidently, I can see that there are no easy way to get around this. There's some sensitive issues that has been opened out here which is understandable. Moderators and I, for one, would like to see all of us to work together as an community to come forward to share these concerning issues. After all, Many of us have been on this forum for several years. We've got to know each other over through time. I would hate to see it all crumble. This is why I created this thread so that way we all could share our feedback/ideas, or whatsoever it is.

These issues are;

1) Threads that are disturbing and/or triggering.

Many of you have agreed that it is upsetting to see such threads of news/stories which contains of abuse, sex assault, rape, animal bestiality, so and on. I can understand that as some of it does bother me as well. But, as far as reality goes - we see those in the news or elsewhere every day. A member has brought up an excellent idea which I think we could put to use. We cannot avoid it but what we can do is to flag up a warning sign on these threads that may be disturbing/upsetting in order for other members to to know when to avoid these threads.

So, from now and on - If one of you are to post a thread that contains news/stories which may be triggering/disturbing; Please put some kind of "caution" message on the title of the thread. If these caution message are not incorporated in the thread title, You may ask a moderator to edit the thread title for you. We will give this a trial run to see how this works out.

2) Misinformation;

As you know, there are tons and tons of various sources out there that may seemingly too good to be true. What we can do is to try to clear out the misinformation by providing facts to tag up with it. The thing is, over time to time, we have been told to provide sources along with it as per forum rule. At least, Let's not bring the information in without having something to affirm it. What we need to do is to ensure that the information is correct. Now, if a member came in to post the information that seems to be incorrect; It is each and every one of our duty to bring the attention to this member that the information is incorrect by showing them the correct information.

It is just like when we go to a town hall event or watching a debate; Politician A and Politician B will bring up different information that may be so believable. We as the listeners will have to decide it for ourselves to see if it is true or if it is just all bs.

3) Audism

This forum shouldn't have to abhor to audism; but, however - we have a lot of hearing members on this forum. Most of them start with no knowledge or no foundation of how we deaf people are; the way we live; the way we view at things, so and on. I'm not saying that I'm for audism. No matter how much we try to educate them; it may seem that nothing has been going through to get them to understand it; but what we could do is at least, try not to let anything turn ugly with integrity. The point is; this forum is basically for everyone to come in to learn about what retains with the deafness, culture, and the likes of that.

4) Trolling/Bandwagon -

This will not be tolerated at all. Granted, it may be easy to captivate yourself and jump on the bandwagon to gang up on one person but that should not be an excuse to do so.

For the integrity of this forum, We need to see that we all can at least to cooperate with one and another. If not, you guys are aware of what to do. I'm not going to give you a lecture on this. We still can be able to get in on with a debate. Sure, some of the time it can really get so heated and you get yourself lost in the track of the thoughts of these issues. We've all done it one way or another. Just remember, STOP and THINK before you go with it.

Again, Thank You! I appreciate these responses.

rockin'robin · 10-12-2009, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

Not trying to change the subject here, but I'm going to for a second - I'm just curious as to how come you're not a candidate for a CI? I'm not endorsing or "nay'ing" it, just curious. You can answer that elsewhere if you prefer.

Back on track. Listen, I haven't tried to single you out. What I've been trying to say is that there is a good number of us who don't like seeing threads that have disturbing titles, whether it be about animals, child abuse, whatnot. And when any of us click on the "New Posts" or "Today's Posts", there's no way to avoid seeing them. What we have to do instead is go straight to the section (like the HA/CI section, for example) so we can bypass seeing the thread titles that disturb us. Then we miss out on anything new that was posted in other sections that we might've wanted to see and post to. It's clear from other posts that I'm not alone here; there are a number of us who talk outside of AD and we've discussed this issue - there are some posters who have actually left. Some have not posted in months because they won't come here and see these titles that disturb them. This may be a matter of personal opinion among us. It just saddens me that some of us feel limited at what we feel we can look at because we're concerned about what we might not want to see. We can go to CNN and see these titles if we so choose. That's all some of us have been trying to say. I apologize for any personal offense you have taken - it wasn't about you specifically, but the subject nature that's been posted. Ok?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

Not trying to change the subject here, but I'm going to for a second - I'm just curious as to how come you're not a candidate for a CI? I'm not endorsing or "nay'ing" it, just curious. You can answer that elsewhere if you prefer.

Curiosity killed the cat....I'm done!

jillio · 10-12-2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolie77

Thanks for your responses - for those who have posted in this thread until now.

Evidently, I can see that there are no easy way to get around this. There's some sensitive issues that has been opened out here which is understandable. Moderators and I, for one, would like to see all of us to work together as an community to come forward to share these concerning issues. After all, Many of us have been on this forum for several years. We've got to know each other over through time. I would hate to see it all crumble. This is why I created this thread so that way we all could share our feedback/ideas, or whatsoever it is.

These issues are;

1) Threads that are disturbing and/or triggering.

Many of you have agreed that it is upsetting to see such threads of news/stories which contains of abuse, sex assault, rape, animal bestiality, so and on. I can understand that as some of it does bother me as well. But, as far as reality goes - we see those in the news or elsewhere every day. A member has brought up an excellent idea which I think we could put to use. We cannot avoid it but what we can do is to flag up a warning sign on these threads that may be disturbing/upsetting in order for other members to to know when to avoid these threads.

So, from now and on - If one of you are to post a thread that contains news/stories which may be triggering/disturbing; Please put some kind of "caution" message on the title of the thread. If these caution message are not incorporated in the thread title, You may ask a moderator to edit the thread title for you. We will give this a trial run to see how this works out.

2) Misinformation;

As you know, there are tons and tons of various sources out there that may seemingly too good to be true. What we can do is to try to clear out the misinformation by providing facts to tag up with it. The thing is, over time to time, we have been told to provide sources along with it as per forum rule. At least, Let's not bring the information in without having something to affirm it. What we need to do is to ensure that the information is correct. Now, if a member came in to post the information that seems to be incorrect; It is each and every one of our duty to bring the attention to this member that the information is incorrect by showing them the correct information.

It is just like when we go to a town hall event or watching a debate; Politician A and Politician B will bring up different information that may be so believable. We as the listeners will have to decide it for ourselves to see if it is true or if it is just all bs.

3) Audism

This forum shouldn't have to abhor to audism; but, however - we have a lot of hearing members on this forum. Most of them start with no knowledge or no foundation of how we deaf people are; the way we live; the way we view at things, so and on. I'm not saying that I'm for audism. No matter how much we try to educate them; it may seem that nothing has been going through to get them to understand it; but what we could do is at least, try not to let anything turn ugly with integrity. The point is; this forum is basically for everyone to come in to learn about what retains with the deafness, culture, and the likes of that.

4) Trolling/Bandwagon -

This will not be tolerated at all. Granted, it may be easy to captivate yourself and jump on the bandwagon to gang up on one person but that should not be an excuse to do so.

For the integrity of this forum, We need to see that we all can at least to cooperate with one and another. If not, you guys are aware of what to do. I'm not going to give you a lecture on this. We still can be able to get in on with a debate. Sure, some of the time it can really get so heated and you get yourself lost in the track of the thoughts of these issues. We've all done it one way or another. Just remember, STOP and THINK before you go with it.

Again, Thank You! I appreciate these responses.

Ihave a question, Jolie, if you don't mind. What about the situation where a poster asks for supporting evidence, and is supplied with the documents and books that offer that support, yet they continue to demand that they be provided with a link? All information cannot be obtained through an internet link to a website. Sometimes, oftentimes, the supporting evidence is contained in actual documents and books. Once the citation for those have been provided, wouldn't you say that the post has been supported?

shel90 · 10-13-2009, 06:56 AM

Mrs. Bucket got it hands down. My feelings are mutual. However, *mod's edit: removed name* isn't the only one who has audist views. There are other members who constantly impose their audist views on many of us who cherish and value our Deaf-world. It shows lack of respecct for the community here on AD. We already deal with it out in real life so IMO, I don't think we should have to tolerate it here on AD.

sallylou · 10-13-2009, 08:26 AM

I've applied the ignore feature liberally (for several members). It's not a perfect solution but it's within my power to control what I see.

Thanks to the AD community for considering warnings and thanks in advance for members' cooperation. There is a lot of disturbing news out there. With warnings, I can relax at AD. I enjoy the social aspects of AD.

CJB · 10-13-2009, 03:32 PM

I enjoy having political discussions. I wish we could have religious discussions. I just wish we could do so in the art of debate rather than getting personal.

Loghead · 10-13-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

I enjoy having political discussions. I wish we could have religious discussions. I just wish we could do so in the art of debate rather than getting personal.

I think that a lot of users would have trouble not making it personal, so I really don't know if we would be able to have religious discussions.

deafskeptic · 10-13-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

I enjoy having political discussions. I wish we could have religious discussions. I just wish we could do so in the art of debate rather than getting personal.

We used to have those but the threads ended up in flames.

***Jolie77*** · 10-13-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Ihave a question, Jolie, if you don't mind. What about the situation where a poster asks for supporting evidence, and is supplied with the documents and books that offer that support, yet they continue to demand that they be provided with a link? All information cannot be obtained through an internet link to a website. Sometimes, oftentimes, the supporting evidence is contained in actual documents and books. Once the citation for those have been provided, wouldn't you say that the post has been supported?

That is a good question to ask, Jillio and no, I don't mind at all. Once the citation for these sources/supporting evidences are provided, then that is what we get for an answer to have the foundation to it. So, to answer your question, Yes, that would make it given that the post has been supported.

As you know, supporting evidence/sources oftentimes does not come from the internet link. It comes from books, magazines, documents, or an actual person that had the experience him/herself. As long as there's footnotes provided in the post to support the evidence/sources, that will probably help to clear some air out.

I hope this answers your question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

I enjoy having political discussions. I wish we could have religious discussions. I just wish we could do so in the art of debate rather than getting personal.

There's one thing we both agree - that we could have a healthy debate rather than getting personal which ends up in to a flame war, or whatanot.

Anyway, About the religion discussion - The religion forum on this site was shut down TWICE.

It was out of control because a lot of members took it far more personal with their religion than they do for their political stance. It ended up being ugly. It was an ongoing progress that happened daily. Threads were locked left and right almost every day. There were members that ended up being warned or banned, so and on.

When it was once opened, The admin was willing to give it another chance because other members were requesting for it to be open. It kept retracting back to the way where it was before. That is when it was enough and twice, shut down.

jillio · 10-13-2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolie77

That is a good question to ask, Jillio and no, I don't mind at all. Once the citation for these sources/supporting evidences are provided, then that is what we get for an answer to have the foundation to it. So, to answer your question, Yes, that would make it given that the post has been supported.

As you know, supporting evidence/sources oftentimes does not come from the internet link. It comes from books, magazines, documents, or an actual person that had the experience him/herself. As long as there's footnotes provided in the post to support the evidence/sources, that will probably help to clear some air out.

I hope this answers your question.

There's one thing we both agree - that we could have a healthy debate rather than getting personal which ends up in to a flame war, or whatanot.

Anyway, About the religion discussion - The religion forum on this site was shut down TWICE.

It was out of control because a lot of members took it far more personal with their religion than they do for their political stance. It ended up being ugly. It was an ongoing progress that happened daily. Threads were locked left and right almost every day. There were members that ended up being warned or banned, so and on.

When it was once opened, The admin was willing to give it another chance because other members were requesting for it to be open. It kept retracting back to the way where it was before. That is when it was enough and twice, shut down.

It answers my question very well. Thank you, Jolie.

CJB · 10-13-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

We used to have those but the threads ended up in flames.

I figured as much. I was just saying that I wish we could have both types of discussions without getting personal in either case. But from what I see we can't.

I don't understand is we have enough sense not to have religious discussion because people get personal. But people get personal with politics and yet we still have those debates. Political debates often get locked too. I feel like either they should both be allowed or both not be allowed.

souggy · 10-13-2009, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

I figured as much. I was just saying that I wish we could have both types of discussions without getting personal in either case. But from what I see we can't.

I don't understand is we have enough sense not to have religious discussion because people get personal. But people get personal with politics and yet we still have those debates. Political debates often get locked too. I feel like either they should both be allowed or both not be allowed.

They only get locked because two people won't concede... and a few other people take indirect insults personally. There's a pattern to all the locked political threads.

CJB · 10-13-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

They only get locked because two people won't concede... and a few other people take indirect insults personally. There's a pattern to all the locked political threads.

I would tend to agree. I'm going to PM you if you don't mind.

Cowpuppy · 10-13-2009, 10:56 PM

Disagree about either allow both political and religious debate or disallow both.
Actually politics infused with plenty of religion. Both parties......although GOP tends to be overly conservative and inflexible in thier views. There is no use of intelligence...well some, but religious tradition tends to be the driving force.....and it tends to be forced onto those who prefer to use intelligence as primary evaluation tool.
I think we get enough religion infused into political debates....ones religious views tend to be set in stone and let's face it, there is no actual proof. Some people don't bother with religion much...but politics is apart of everyones daily lives. And debating one's vote is an important aspect, along with many daily aspects of out lives....health care...schools....foriegn policy.....war.......legislations...etc etc. There's no getting away from it.
Myself.....I think when there is a religion forum....then the overzealous go there....and if I don't want to hear it I can stay out. But when it gets pushed onto us in general forums it is forced onto others. Religion not something I care to argue....it is too open to interpretation. Religion is each individuals view of it...a personal spiritual thing that they can keep. Why muck it up.
Leave well enough alone...there are other places for religion debate or conversation....I think best place is amongst thier own. That's one purpose of churches and church groups. Or one's own spiritual center. Arguing it isn't really serving the purpose of spirituallity. Calmness is part of spirituallity. Peaceful thoughts. Not arguing.
Yes I know it's difficult to find deaf church services at many places. I tend to not go cuz can't hear services. Find spirituallity within self.

CJB · 10-14-2009, 04:48 AM

I agree arguing religion often if not always futile, but I'm just saying it seems like a bit of a double-standard. People get just as worked up and irrational about politics as they do religion, especially because the two are wrapped up in each other (as you said). And the numerous recent threads on various political topics have shown us how most people feel personally attacked when their political beliefs are questioned.

rockin'robin · 10-14-2009, 09:45 AM

I think most members here at AD are pretty open-minded. Isn't this a feedback forum....so much knowledge can be gleamed here! Friendships to be made...whenever finding those who are basically within ur same mode of thinking, and those who can give a broader or even a diverse version of the subject at hand.

People with all different beliefs, different religions, etc. Whenever you join together Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, Aethists, etc.,there's gonna be flames, regardless. Same as for Repubs, Demos, etc. This world is very debatable, and it brings knowledge.

I have no qualms about bringing the Religious forum back. I'm neutral. To each his own, I say.....

Mrs Bucket · 10-14-2009, 10:51 AM

I have to agree with you, RR.

To try to control others' religious POVs is trying to control others' lifestyles. It's pointless.

KarissaMann05 · 10-14-2009, 11:27 AM

Yep. I agree with you, RR. If they discuss peacefully and maturely, then I would have more enjoy and fun to learn something. I'm very into religions and all history stuff since I like to discuss about them. It's now kinda of bored since the religions section is closed.

Oh, well...

CJB · 10-14-2009, 12:52 PM

I would love to discuss religion with other members of AD, so long as we do it peacefully and maturely, like Karissa said.

darkdog · 10-14-2009, 01:04 PM

I have some questions. Here's a situation I've come across several times before.

A: The document says blah blah blah.
B: I looked and looked and couldn't find that anywhere. Can you point me to a page or paragraph number?
A: No, it's in there. Do your own research. :smug:

If I do a good faith search for the information and that search yields nothing, is it reasonable to ask for a more specific location? When the other person refuses to provide it, is it then appropriate to call that person out for dishonesty?

Here's another similar situation I've come across.

A: This piece of information is out there on the internet.
B: No, I don't think so.
A: Yes it is.
B: Then can you provide a link?
A: Google it. I'm not doing your research for you.

Seeing how big the internet is, proving something exists is far easier than proving it does not exist and as such, the burden of proof should be on the person claiming it does exist. What would be appropriate at that point?

Cowpuppy · 10-14-2009, 01:17 PM

if you must know.......
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
Rep. Susan Collin...Republican/Maine
no...I don't know how to drag, copy links etc...so I type them out....not a favorite pasttime....which goes to show....insisting on links is descriminating to unsavvy computer dinosaurs lol.
it's general news.....top of yahoo page......
should I provide a link if I say the sun was shining here today...silly stuff.
really....this provide a link thing is taken too far. I am not here to satisfy certain peoples powertripping. They are not my college professors. I don't need to kiss any azz cuz they tell me to. I think the rule applies to if asked or if already deep into a debate. Not general conversation....do we interupt people when chatting on the street...'provide me a link or stop talking'????? no I think NOT.
You ever stop and think maybe some people stay out of debate cuz they don't want to go thru the link charade? leaving people out to stroke one's ego.
who's to say a link is actually true correct, not slanted? It's not always definite. I see a particular person providing biased links on a regular basis. Doesn't prove squat.
yes....it is a pissing contest.......bombast away.....bombast doesn't make anything correct either.......just more ego stroking. I ain't kissing no ego strokers azz. You can save it.
The fact that this post reffering to how to get along just shows that the egostrokers have mucked it up insisting thier ego be stroked. Powertrips trying to tell people what to do. I haven't signed up for these people's game.

jillio · 10-14-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

I have some questions. Here's a situation I've come across several times before.

A: The document says blah blah blah.
B: I looked and looked and couldn't find that anywhere. Can you point me to a page or paragraph number?
A: No, it's in there. Do your own research. :smug:

If I do a good faith search for the information and that search yields nothing, is it reasonable to ask for a more specific location? When the other person refuses to provide it, is it then appropriate to call that person out for dishonesty?

Here's another similar situation I've come across.

A: This piece of information is out there on the internet.
B: No, I don't think so.
A: Yes it is.
B: Then can you provide a link?
A: Google it. I'm not doing your research for you.

Seeing how big the internet is, proving something exists is far easier than proving it does not exist and as such, the burden of proof should be on the person claiming it does exist. What would be appropriate at that point?

Why should another poster be responsible for someone's inability to locate a specific piece of information within a document? Why should another poster be responsible for providing a direct link to that which can be located doing a general search? If one has been directed to where one can find the information, it is the responsibility of the one seeking the information to locate it for themselves.

faire_jour · 10-14-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Why should another poster be responsible for someone's inability to locate a specific piece of information within a document? Why should another poster be responsible for providing a direct link to that which can be located doing a general search? If one has been directed to where one can find the information, it is the responsibility of the one seeking the information to locate it for themselves.

I agree with darkdog. I think the example situations he mentioned happen a LOT, especially with a few posters. They use those exact phrases (excuses) over and over, and then say that they have provide the information in the past, and that the questioner should look it up themselves.

I think that if the person says they will provide the sitation, then provide it. Don't tell someone to look it up themselves. Either you have it or you don't, just be truthful.

khar59 · 10-14-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

I think it goes beyond unpopular belief though. There are other posters on this site with similar beliefs that haven't been ganged up on like this particular poster. This particular poster intentionally starts numerous new threads with provoking titles, which is much of the reason why this poster is targeted so much more than the other members of AD with similar views.

And if this were an Oppostional Defiant child the parent/teacher would do wise to encourage and reward the other children in the home or the classroom for IGNORING the instigator!

If the children continue to encourage the misbehavior then they also should be punished by having privileges removed!

I am new here and I've also been on other contentious sites (correction, freudian slip there) where the mods were expected to keep coming in and policing and removing information while all hell was let loose by the main players. It gets old really and who needs a nanny state for everything?

Maybe the ones who profess to be the experts in human frailties should also be the ones held most accountable for NOT defusing a situation as well?

I don't know, just my 2 cents worth.

Cowpuppy · 10-14-2009, 03:30 PM

There's a lot of truth to that.
That's what I apply to Rush Limbaugh. I'd rather pretend he does not exist. People give him the power he has by responding. Same goes for the instigator here.
These people hate to be ignored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khar59

And if this were an Oppostional Defiant child the parent/teacher would do wise to encourage and reward the other children in the home or the classroom for IGNORING the instigator!

If the children continue to encourage the misbehavior then they also should be punished by having privileges removed!

I am new here and I've also been on other contentious sites (correction, freudian slip there) where the mods were expected to keep coming in and policing and removing information while all hell was let loose by the main players. It gets old really and who needs a nanny state for everything?

Maybe the ones who profess to be the experts in human frailties should also be the ones held most accountable for NOT defusing a situation as well?

I don't know, just my 2 cents worth.

10-12-2009, 08:06 PM	#36 (permalink)
*Jolie77* Love all, trust a few. Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Kentucky, USA (The Bluegrass State) Posts: 8,017 Blog Entries: 1	Thanks for your responses - for those who have posted in this thread until now. Evidently, I can see that there are no easy way to get around this. There's some sensitive issues that has been opened out here which is understandable. Moderators and I, for one, would like to see all of us to work together as an community to come forward to share these concerning issues. After all, Many of us have been on this forum for several years. We've got to know each other over through time. I would hate to see it all crumble. This is why I created this thread so that way we all could share our feedback/ideas, or whatsoever it is. These issues are; 1) Threads that are disturbing and/or triggering. Many of you have agreed that it is upsetting to see such threads of news/stories which contains of abuse, sex assault, rape, animal bestiality, so and on. I can understand that as some of it does bother me as well. But, as far as reality goes - we see those in the news or elsewhere every day. A member has brought up an excellent idea which I think we could put to use. We cannot avoid it but what we can do is to flag up a warning sign on these threads that may be disturbing/upsetting in order for other members to to know when to avoid these threads. So, from now and on - If one of you are to post a thread that contains news/stories which may be triggering/disturbing; Please put some kind of "caution" message on the title of the thread. If these caution message are not incorporated in the thread title, You may ask a moderator to edit the thread title for you. We will give this a trial run to see how this works out. 2) Misinformation; As you know, there are tons and tons of various sources out there that may seemingly too good to be true. What we can do is to try to clear out the misinformation by providing facts to tag up with it. The thing is, over time to time, we have been told to provide sources along with it as per forum rule. At least, Let's not bring the information in without having something to affirm it. What we need to do is to ensure that the information is correct. Now, if a member came in to post the information that seems to be incorrect; It is each and every one of our duty to bring the attention to this member that the information is incorrect by showing them the correct information. It is just like when we go to a town hall event or watching a debate; Politician A and Politician B will bring up different information that may be so believable. We as the listeners will have to decide it for ourselves to see if it is true or if it is just all bs. 3) Audism This forum shouldn't have to abhor to audism; but, however - we have a lot of hearing members on this forum. Most of them start with no knowledge or no foundation of how we deaf people are; the way we live; the way we view at things, so and on. I'm not saying that I'm for audism. No matter how much we try to educate them; it may seem that nothing has been going through to get them to understand it; but what we could do is at least, try not to let anything turn ugly with integrity. The point is; this forum is basically for everyone to come in to learn about what retains with the deafness, culture, and the likes of that. 4) Trolling/Bandwagon - This will not be tolerated at all. Granted, it may be easy to captivate yourself and jump on the bandwagon to gang up on one person but that should not be an excuse to do so. For the integrity of this forum, We need to see that we all can at least to cooperate with one and another. If not, you guys are aware of what to do. I'm not going to give you a lecture on this. We still can be able to get in on with a debate. Sure, some of the time it can really get so heated and you get yourself lost in the track of the thoughts of these issues. We've all done it one way or another. Just remember, STOP and THINK before you go with it. Again, Thank You! I appreciate these responses. __________________ “Tough girls come from New York. Sweet girls, they're from Georgia. But us Kentucky girls, we have fire and ice in our blood. We can ride horses, be a debutante, throw left hooks, and drink with the boys, all the while making sweet tea, darlin'. And if we have an opinion, you know you're gonna hear it.” - Ashley Judd

10-13-2009, 06:56 AM	#39 (permalink)
shel90 In a pink and black world Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: In the land of the free Posts: 24,067 Blog Entries: 3	Mrs. Bucket got it hands down. My feelings are mutual. However, mod's edit: removed name isn't the only one who has audist views. There are other members who constantly impose their audist views on many of us who cherish and value our Deaf-world. It shows lack of respecct for the community here on AD. We already deal with it out in real life so IMO, I don't think we should have to tolerate it here on AD. __________________ Shel~ "A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana Last edited by Calvin; 10-13-2009 at 08:29 AM.

10-13-2009, 08:26 AM	#40 (permalink)
sallylou Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 2,098	I've applied the ignore feature liberally (for several members). It's not a perfect solution but it's within my power to control what I see. Thanks to the AD community for considering warnings and thanks in advance for members' cooperation. There is a lot of disturbing news out there. With warnings, I can relax at AD. I enjoy the social aspects of AD. __________________ Happy holidays!

10-14-2009, 10:51 AM	#52 (permalink)
Mrs Bucket has retired from AllDeaf. Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 2,348	I have to agree with you, RR. To try to control others' religious POVs is trying to control others' lifestyles. It's pointless. __________________ My new nieces/nephews are arriving soon!

10-14-2009, 01:04 PM	#55 (permalink)
darkdog aka dorkdog Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 668	I have some questions. Here's a situation I've come across several times before. A: The document says blah blah blah. B: I looked and looked and couldn't find that anywhere. Can you point me to a page or paragraph number? A: No, it's in there. Do your own research. :smug: If I do a good faith search for the information and that search yields nothing, is it reasonable to ask for a more specific location? When the other person refuses to provide it, is it then appropriate to call that person out for dishonesty? Here's another similar situation I've come across. A: This piece of information is out there on the internet. B: No, I don't think so. A: Yes it is. B: Then can you provide a link? A: Google it. I'm not doing your research for you. Seeing how big the internet is, proving something exists is far easier than proving it does not exist and as such, the burden of proof should be on the person claiming it does exist. What would be appropriate at that point? __________________ Playing guitar is my 2nd amendment right.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

10-12-2009, 09:26 AM	#32 (permalink)
Cowpuppy Registered User Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: On The Road Again Posts: 618	It's been said to be civil.....being civil includes being honest, truthful, and speaking with integrity. Spinmiesters are for political campaigning.....it serves no purpose here in AD but to create division. I don't care if one wants to post about something...but keep it honest, truthful and USE INTEGRITY....don't put a slant on it. Noone denies someone thier choice....but spinmiestering is just filling AD with lies. Also....as stated...the prez campaign is over...live with it for a while...at least until next election cycle starts...damn......the last one started WAY too early....and next one prolly even sooner....take a damn break......just sour grapes. I wasn't around here all year.....it just sounds like a continuation of the election campaign. p.s. I wanted Hillary....was not a fan of who we got......or Bush....but stand behind a president when campaigns are out of season. Give it a rest. The campaign and election are over. And will be back soon enough. And yes....this rolls over into other subjects the person remarks on. Opted for ignore button.

10-13-2009, 03:32 PM	#41 (permalink)
CJB deafblind writer Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: U.S. Posts: 1,425	I enjoy having political discussions. I wish we could have religious discussions. I just wish we could do so in the art of debate rather than getting personal.

10-13-2009, 10:56 PM	#49 (permalink)
Cowpuppy Registered User Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: On The Road Again Posts: 618	Disagree about either allow both political and religious debate or disallow both. Actually politics infused with plenty of religion. Both parties......although GOP tends to be overly conservative and inflexible in thier views. There is no use of intelligence...well some, but religious tradition tends to be the driving force.....and it tends to be forced onto those who prefer to use intelligence as primary evaluation tool. I think we get enough religion infused into political debates....ones religious views tend to be set in stone and let's face it, there is no actual proof. Some people don't bother with religion much...but politics is apart of everyones daily lives. And debating one's vote is an important aspect, along with many daily aspects of out lives....health care...schools....foriegn policy.....war.......legislations...etc etc. There's no getting away from it. Myself.....I think when there is a religion forum....then the overzealous go there....and if I don't want to hear it I can stay out. But when it gets pushed onto us in general forums it is forced onto others. Religion not something I care to argue....it is too open to interpretation. Religion is each individuals view of it...a personal spiritual thing that they can keep. Why muck it up. Leave well enough alone...there are other places for religion debate or conversation....I think best place is amongst thier own. That's one purpose of churches and church groups. Or one's own spiritual center. Arguing it isn't really serving the purpose of spirituallity. Calmness is part of spirituallity. Peaceful thoughts. Not arguing. Yes I know it's difficult to find deaf church services at many places. I tend to not go cuz can't hear services. Find spirituallity within self.

10-14-2009, 04:48 AM	#50 (permalink)
CJB deafblind writer Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: U.S. Posts: 1,425	I agree arguing religion often if not always futile, but I'm just saying it seems like a bit of a double-standard. People get just as worked up and irrational about politics as they do religion, especially because the two are wrapped up in each other (as you said). And the numerous recent threads on various political topics have shown us how most people feel personally attacked when their political beliefs are questioned.

10-14-2009, 09:45 AM	#51 (permalink)
rockin'robin Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 2,787	I think most members here at AD are pretty open-minded. Isn't this a feedback forum....so much knowledge can be gleamed here! Friendships to be made...whenever finding those who are basically within ur same mode of thinking, and those who can give a broader or even a diverse version of the subject at hand. People with all different beliefs, different religions, etc. Whenever you join together Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, Aethists, etc.,there's gonna be flames, regardless. Same as for Repubs, Demos, etc. This world is very debatable, and it brings knowledge. I have no qualms about bringing the Religious forum back. I'm neutral. To each his own, I say.....

10-14-2009, 11:27 AM	#53 (permalink)
KarissaMann05 The Deaf Cougar Join Date: May 2007 Location: Salem, Oregon Posts: 4,463 Blog Entries: 13	Yep. I agree with you, RR. If they discuss peacefully and maturely, then I would have more enjoy and fun to learn something. I'm very into religions and all history stuff since I like to discuss about them. It's now kinda of bored since the religions section is closed. Oh, well...

10-14-2009, 12:52 PM	#54 (permalink)
CJB deafblind writer Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: U.S. Posts: 1,425	I would love to discuss religion with other members of AD, so long as we do it peacefully and maturely, like Karissa said.

10-14-2009, 01:17 PM	#56 (permalink)
Cowpuppy Registered User Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: On The Road Again Posts: 618	if you must know....... news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul Rep. Susan Collin...Republican/Maine no...I don't know how to drag, copy links etc...so I type them out....not a favorite pasttime....which goes to show....insisting on links is descriminating to unsavvy computer dinosaurs lol. it's general news.....top of yahoo page...... should I provide a link if I say the sun was shining here today...silly stuff. really....this provide a link thing is taken too far. I am not here to satisfy certain peoples powertripping. They are not my college professors. I don't need to kiss any azz cuz they tell me to. I think the rule applies to if asked or if already deep into a debate. Not general conversation....do we interupt people when chatting on the street...'provide me a link or stop talking'????? no I think NOT. You ever stop and think maybe some people stay out of debate cuz they don't want to go thru the link charade? leaving people out to stroke one's ego. who's to say a link is actually true correct, not slanted? It's not always definite. I see a particular person providing biased links on a regular basis. Doesn't prove squat. yes....it is a pissing contest.......bombast away.....bombast doesn't make anything correct either.......just more ego stroking. I ain't kissing no ego strokers azz. You can save it. The fact that this post reffering to how to get along just shows that the egostrokers have mucked it up insisting thier ego be stroked. Powertrips trying to tell people what to do. I haven't signed up for these people's game.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode