Should we allow or disallow religious/political threads in General Talk?

Adam · 03-31-2009, 01:46 PM

We'd only be disallowing discussion of religious or political threads in General Talk should I choose to follow through with that decision. Photos of religious/political events, etc., would in no way be affected.

The goal here is to prevent inflammatory threads from popping up, rather than having to close all of them and end up with a handful of members exchanging rude comments.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

larrycook99 · 03-31-2009, 03:48 PM

While I understand the desire to limit what you and others may think of as ugly, contentious, unfriendly, rude, etc, etc,...., etc. posts, I think that you are setting a precedent that you may regret. Once you set a rule then you have to police that rule, which will take time and effort. The rule will offend some and then the policing or lack of policing will offend others. Then you will get reports of "so and so broke rule such and such and action should be taken against the transgressor(s)". Then you will be judged by how harshly or leniently you have resolved the matter. The point being that I am not certain that such a rule will actually relieve the moderators of any burden. In fact, I could see it making things more burdensome for them.

Personally, I believe that the forums should for the most part be self-policing with as few rules as possible. In general, I believe forum members are capable of governing themselves and will stop or contain themselves or others before things get truly out of hand. In the rare instance that does not occur, the moderator should step in. What I believe everyone wants is a forum where everyone feels free to express their opinions on the topics at hand. In order to do that we must feel free to express their opinions without fear of stepping over an arbitrary line and also be willing to accept the criticisms and challenges associated with those opinions. I do not believe that such a rule will positively help.

It is easy to ask others to do what we should be doing ourselves. Therefore, unless things get truly out of hand, and I see no evidence of that happening, I would leave things as they are.

I vote yes.

larrycook99 · 03-31-2009, 04:00 PM

...one more thought. I believe that it is the case that one of the major reasons that a significant number of members began to frequent this forum is because of censorship issues at another well known Pentax forum site. I do not believe that this forum needs to follow in those footsteps...

Adam · 03-31-2009, 04:10 PM

Things did get out of hand earlier last year, resulting in loss of several members due to the idiocy of a certain few others. I don't think disallowing a certain type of thread constitutes censorship.

I'll run this poll and thread for another week to gather additional opinions before making the decision. Thanks for all the posts thus far.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

**monochrome** · 03-31-2009, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Adam

Things did get out of hand earlier last year, resulting in loss of several members due to the idiocy of a certain few others. I don't think disallowing a certain type of thread constitutes censorship.

I'll run this poll and thread for another week to gather additional opinions before making the decision. Thanks for all the posts thus far.

Adam: In 1964 Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, in his opinion on what constitutes protected free speech and what constitutes unprotected obscene speech wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . ". I highly recommend you read this summary piece from Findlaw:

Movie Day at the Supreme Court or "I Know It When I See It": A History of the Definition of Obscenity

To this day the Supreme Court has not found an acceptable test to define protected free speech as distinguished from unprotected obscene speech, other than to vaguely allow speech (obscene movies) to be judged as prurient against some community standard, and allow that each community might apply its own standard.

Substitute "religious and political" for obscenity and you open yourself to the same, confounding problem faced by the Court - how to define that which you care to limit. What is the community standard of PentaxForums.com? Which community standard is to be applied in a Forum with global reach?

Unless it is possible to establish a fool-proof, rules-based standard against which to judge posts prior to posting, and measure them after they are posted, (something the Supreme Court has been unable to do for 45 years regarding pornography) a Moderator will always be forced to make a personal judgment.

Of course what you are contemplating is censorship, because the decision of what constitutes religious or political speech is subjectively determined by a person or committee - there is, and can be, no universally accepted definition of religious nor political.

I'm not judging censorship per se - although I choose to simply ignore threads that I find unpleasant or contentious, and voted to leave all postings open.

I'm simply saying it must be understood to in fact BE censorship, and must be accepted as censorship, and stated as a policy of the Forum to censor, in order to make an informed decision on this subject (and for the Forum members to arrive at an informed response).

larrycook99 · 03-31-2009, 05:16 PM

Webster defines "censor - to suppress or delete as objectionable." That is what is being contemplated here. Personally, I don't like it but I have had my say and can live with whatever is decided by he who owns the forum. That is the privilege of ownership.

Adam · 03-31-2009, 05:36 PM

If we could use Webster's to define everything around us, the world would be an entirely differently place! Anyway, that's for another discussion. I will continue to monitor this thread over the next 7 days. Once the time comes, I'll make the decision, with the ultimate goal of benefiting the forum to the fullest.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

woodworm · 04-01-2009, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Adam

This poll will remain open for another week. At the moment we are looking at a 60/40 split in opposition of religious and political threads.

That's disappointing

I would have thought there were more open minded people than this. I don't understand why people that don't want to read a thread feel as though they should have it banned.

Personally I quite enjoy reading a good discussion where both sides are represented passionately - even if it's something I don't care about like religion, and if it is something that I care about I can still enjoy it regardless if I agree with all the opinions.

Quote:

This is a relaxed forum for intelligent conversation and discussion of topics unrelated to photography.

Maybe it's time to just get rid of the 'General Talk' forum altogether as someone will always get upset by something and as others have said - this forum is about photography so go somewhere else to talk about x, y and z ..... When that happens this place will be poorer for it

m8o · 04-01-2009, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by woodworm

That's disappointing

I would have thought there were more open minded people than this. I don't understand why people that don't want to read a thread feel as though they should have it banned.

Not to pick you out but just using this post as it's exemplary of an opinion held by about 40%.

I'll reiterate what I'd said early in this thread and supported in a reply, that the issue isn't the good folks reading or ignoring such threads, but those that don't ignore and instead engage and are unyielding in their views and disrespectful of other's views and eager to escalate to reprehensible behavior.

The issue becomes moderators have to spend an inordinate amount of effort & time "keeping the peace" in such threads ... that they are on a topic that have nothing to do with the subject matter that brings them to this forum that they're willing to give-up their own personal time for adds insult to injury.

baltochef920 · 04-03-2009, 08:05 PM

In general, most people here at PF conduct themselves with dignity, respect, and use moderate, non-inflammatory language in their posts..There are a number of members, a minority to be sure, that do not, will not, and or cannot control their language..They continually use insulting language guaranteed to elicit a rabid response from other members with opposing opinions..Regardless of whether the topic is religious or political in nature..

I am going to go out on a limb and label these people as to what I think they are..I believe that these members are zealots..Yes, zealots..Their passionate zealotry for their political views allows for very little, if any at all, in the way of an opposing point of view..

Some time ago I started the thread, Hypocrisy of the United States Government in the General Talk forum..The original intent of my thread was to illustrate my feelings as to the hypocrisy being shown by the actions and words of various members of Congress and President Obama's administration in their very public denunciations of the AIG executives as regards to the bonuses that these men and women were receiving..These bonuses are the result of legal, binding contracts between the executives and AIG..Legal contracts form one of the bedrocks that allow our form of government here in the United States to exist..I was trying to point out that the members of Congress and the Treasury Department that ramrodded the Stimulus Bill through Congress were perfectly aware of the bonuses, and that no one did anything to prevent the bailout money from being used to pay bonuses to any company that was receiving Federal bailout money..And, that the bonuses could have been a total non-issue if the writer's of the bill had just done their jobs to prevent the bonuses from being paid out with Federal bailout monies..

This thread was not even 3 posts long before I was being criticized for watching Fox news..Mildly criticized, but criticized nonetheless..Within the first several pages the thread had veered so far off course of the points that I was trying to make that it was virtually unrecognizable..

As I write this my thread is now quickly approaching 300 posts in length..Less than 25% of the 294 posts address in any way the hypocrisy that I was attempting to illustrate..The thread has veered off course several times into subject matter that has had nothing to do with my OP..There are approximately 4-6 forum members posting on this thread that feel so strongly about their political views that they cannot stand to allow someone with a differing viewpoint to post without immediately posting a counterpoint of their own to refute, and contradict, those political views that they disagree with..Not always, but often with insulting, derogatory, or inflammatory language in their postings..

I believe that my thread is a perfect illustration of why we should just not allow political and religious discussions here at PF..Forum members select a few words, or a single sentence out of a post, and proceed to go on a rant because they are zealous about something that another forum member has written about..These rants, more often than not, are responsible for why so many OP's so quickly wander off point and become unrecognizable..Often, taking on a separate life of their own due to the inflammatory nature of the off-topic rants..And, often causing threads to go on and on, as mine has, long after the thread should have died a gentle death..

Even though I enjoy a spirited political discussion when I am communicating with others that use respectful language, I chose to vote NO in Adam's poll..The primary reason for my so voting is that the zealots will always ruin things in a political / religious discussion forum..

We can make the moderator's duties on this photography forum a whole lot easier by not discussing religion and politics here..

Bruce

graphicgr8s · 04-03-2009, 09:09 PM

Bruce, there are a lot of threads that have taken on a life of their own. I know, I know. I am one of the posters in these type of threads. In one thread me and another member misread each other. A mod closed it. After a couple of PMs between me, the mod and the other poster it was resolved and reopened and truthfully I now consider the other guy a friend. My htread on black cars took on a life as a discussion of why we are a republic and not a democracy. Big deal. I think we are adults and can pretty much, with a few PMs and deletes resolve almost anything between members on these types of threads. Had a member start in on me one time. I PM'd said this wasn't the time or place. All posts were deleted within minutes by both of us. Consider that person a friend also.

emr · 04-03-2009, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by baltochef920

...The original intent of my thread was to...Within the first several pages the thread had veered so far off course of the points that I was trying to make that it was virtually unrecognizable...

Bruce, that's the nature of the Internet. One can be 99.9% sure that any topic on any forum has wandered far from the topic covered by the original post when there are at least a couple of dozen messages.

Then again, isn't it the nature of most human communication? When we meet people at a cafe, the discussion goes all over the place. Formal moderated discussions are a different beast.

Rustyoldbug · 04-04-2009, 09:19 AM

I am a newbie here, and am mostly here to learn more about photography. Some people just want to argue about religion and politics. If something offends me I just don't read the thread. As long as it isn't creeping into the actual photography threads and isn't creating a bandwidth problem - probably not a big deal if the moderators don't mind dealing with it.

There is always the ignore user thing too. I used it within my first few days here.

It is a great tool to use when you see those people that want to argue about everything, put down people, or generalize people because of where they are from. You really don't miss much substance by shutting those people out soon as you notice them.

Blue · 04-04-2009, 11:27 AM

There are several members on this board that seem to have a problem even in photography discussions etc. What I am referring to is when people use condescending language, insults or even name calling. I think what we see in the Political and Religion discussion is an amplification of this.

The disappointing part of this is that a couple of them have a lot of photography and technical knowledge.

If you want to see and example of what I'm talking about, track these threads.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/55842-marketplace-discrimination.html

and a similar older thread.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/40320-continental-u-s-only.html

Rustyoldbug · 04-04-2009, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Blue

There are several members on this board that seem to have a problem even in photography discussions etc. What I am referring to is when people use condescending language, insults or even name calling. I think what we see in the Political and Religion discussion is an amplification of this.

The disappointing part of this is that a couple of them have a lot of photography and technical knowledge.

If you want to see and example of what I'm talking about, track these threads.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/55842-marketplace-discrimination.html

and a similar older thread.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/40320-continental-u-s-only.html

Yes, I saw the later thread and in that one someone linked to the older thread. That sort of condescending BS isn't as prevalent here as in some of the other forums I have looked at though, It is easy to ignore that stuff and read about film, lenses and technique with the coffee.

03-31-2009, 04:57 PM	#65
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	To censor or not to censor . . . Originally posted by Adam Things did get out of hand earlier last year, resulting in loss of several members due to the idiocy of a certain few others. I don't think disallowing a certain type of thread constitutes censorship. I'll run this poll and thread for another week to gather additional opinions before making the decision. Thanks for all the posts thus far. Adam: In 1964 Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, in his opinion on what constitutes protected free speech and what constitutes unprotected obscene speech wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . ". I highly recommend you read this summary piece from Findlaw: Movie Day at the Supreme Court or "I Know It When I See It": A History of the Definition of Obscenity To this day the Supreme Court has not found an acceptable test to define protected free speech as distinguished from unprotected obscene speech, other than to vaguely allow speech (obscene movies) to be judged as prurient against some community standard, and allow that each community might apply its own standard. Substitute "religious and political" for obscenity and you open yourself to the same, confounding problem faced by the Court - how to define that which you care to limit. What is the community standard of PentaxForums.com? Which community standard is to be applied in a Forum with global reach? Unless it is possible to establish a fool-proof, rules-based standard against which to judge posts prior to posting, and measure them after they are posted, (something the Supreme Court has been unable to do for 45 years regarding pornography) a Moderator will always be forced to make a personal judgment. Of course what you are contemplating is censorship, because the decision of what constitutes religious or political speech is subjectively determined by a person or committee - there is, and can be, no universally accepted definition of religious nor political. I'm not judging censorship per se - although I choose to simply ignore threads that I find unpleasant or contentious, and voted to leave all postings open. I'm simply saying it must be understood to in fact BE censorship, and must be accepted as censorship, and stated as a policy of the Forum to censor, in order to make an informed decision on this subject (and for the Forum members to arrive at an informed response).

04-01-2009, 08:30 AM	#69
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by woodworm That's disappointing I would have thought there were more open minded people than this. I don't understand why people that don't want to read a thread feel as though they should have it banned. Not to pick you out but just using this post as it's exemplary of an opinion held by about 40%. I'll reiterate what I'd said early in this thread and supported in a reply, that the issue isn't the good folks reading or ignoring such threads, but those that don't ignore and instead engage and are unyielding in their views and disrespectful of other's views and eager to escalate to reprehensible behavior. The issue becomes moderators have to spend an inordinate amount of effort & time "keeping the peace" in such threads ... that they are on a topic that have nothing to do with the subject matter that brings them to this forum that they're willing to give-up their own personal time for adds insult to injury. Last edited by m8o; 04-01-2009 at 08:36 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rules for Political/Religious Threads (outdated)	Adam	General Talk	1	07-26-2010 04:22 AM
Do you hate General Talk and don't want to read its threads?	Adam	General Talk	0	11-13-2009 12:22 PM
Suggestion Header tags for political, religious etc. threads?	emr	Site Suggestions and Help	1	10-22-2009 06:54 AM

View Poll Results: Should religious and political threads be allowed in General Talk?
Yes	The results are hidden	0%
No	The results are hidden	0%
Voters: 127. You may not vote on this poll

03-31-2009, 01:46 PM	#61
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595 Original Poster	We'd only be disallowing discussion of religious or political threads in General Talk should I choose to follow through with that decision. Photos of religious/political events, etc., would in no way be affected. The goal here is to prevent inflammatory threads from popping up, rather than having to close all of them and end up with a handful of members exchanging rude comments. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

03-31-2009, 03:48 PM	#62
larrycook99 New Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lexington, KY, USA Posts: 21	While I understand the desire to limit what you and others may think of as ugly, contentious, unfriendly, rude, etc, etc,...., etc. posts, I think that you are setting a precedent that you may regret. Once you set a rule then you have to police that rule, which will take time and effort. The rule will offend some and then the policing or lack of policing will offend others. Then you will get reports of "so and so broke rule such and such and action should be taken against the transgressor(s)". Then you will be judged by how harshly or leniently you have resolved the matter. The point being that I am not certain that such a rule will actually relieve the moderators of any burden. In fact, I could see it making things more burdensome for them. Personally, I believe that the forums should for the most part be self-policing with as few rules as possible. In general, I believe forum members are capable of governing themselves and will stop or contain themselves or others before things get truly out of hand. In the rare instance that does not occur, the moderator should step in. What I believe everyone wants is a forum where everyone feels free to express their opinions on the topics at hand. In order to do that we must feel free to express their opinions without fear of stepping over an arbitrary line and also be willing to accept the criticisms and challenges associated with those opinions. I do not believe that such a rule will positively help. It is easy to ask others to do what we should be doing ourselves. Therefore, unless things get truly out of hand, and I see no evidence of that happening, I would leave things as they are. I vote yes.

03-31-2009, 04:00 PM	#63
larrycook99 New Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lexington, KY, USA Posts: 21	...one more thought. I believe that it is the case that one of the major reasons that a significant number of members began to frequent this forum is because of censorship issues at another well known Pentax forum site. I do not believe that this forum needs to follow in those footsteps...

03-31-2009, 04:10 PM	#64
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595 Original Poster	Things did get out of hand earlier last year, resulting in loss of several members due to the idiocy of a certain few others. I don't think disallowing a certain type of thread constitutes censorship. I'll run this poll and thread for another week to gather additional opinions before making the decision. Thanks for all the posts thus far. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

03-31-2009, 05:16 PM	#66
larrycook99 New Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lexington, KY, USA Posts: 21	Webster defines "censor - to suppress or delete as objectionable." That is what is being contemplated here. Personally, I don't like it but I have had my say and can live with whatever is decided by he who owns the forum. That is the privilege of ownership.

03-31-2009, 05:36 PM	#67
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595 Original Poster	If we could use Webster's to define everything around us, the world would be an entirely differently place! Anyway, that's for another discussion. I will continue to monitor this thread over the next 7 days. Once the time comes, I'll make the decision, with the ultimate goal of benefiting the forum to the fullest. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

04-01-2009, 05:41 AM	#68
woodworm Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: North Wales Posts: 266	Originally posted by Adam This poll will remain open for another week. At the moment we are looking at a 60/40 split in opposition of religious and political threads. That's disappointing I would have thought there were more open minded people than this. I don't understand why people that don't want to read a thread feel as though they should have it banned. Personally I quite enjoy reading a good discussion where both sides are represented passionately - even if it's something I don't care about like religion, and if it is something that I care about I can still enjoy it regardless if I agree with all the opinions. Quote: This is a relaxed forum for intelligent conversation and discussion of topics unrelated to photography. Maybe it's time to just get rid of the 'General Talk' forum altogether as someone will always get upset by something and as others have said - this forum is about photography so go somewhere else to talk about x, y and z ..... When that happens this place will be poorer for it

04-03-2009, 08:05 PM	#70
baltochef920 Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Baltimore, Maryland USA Posts: 162	In general, most people here at PF conduct themselves with dignity, respect, and use moderate, non-inflammatory language in their posts..There are a number of members, a minority to be sure, that do not, will not, and or cannot control their language..They continually use insulting language guaranteed to elicit a rabid response from other members with opposing opinions..Regardless of whether the topic is religious or political in nature.. I am going to go out on a limb and label these people as to what I think they are..I believe that these members are zealots..Yes, zealots..Their passionate zealotry for their political views allows for very little, if any at all, in the way of an opposing point of view.. Some time ago I started the thread, Hypocrisy of the United States Government in the General Talk forum..The original intent of my thread was to illustrate my feelings as to the hypocrisy being shown by the actions and words of various members of Congress and President Obama's administration in their very public denunciations of the AIG executives as regards to the bonuses that these men and women were receiving..These bonuses are the result of legal, binding contracts between the executives and AIG..Legal contracts form one of the bedrocks that allow our form of government here in the United States to exist..I was trying to point out that the members of Congress and the Treasury Department that ramrodded the Stimulus Bill through Congress were perfectly aware of the bonuses, and that no one did anything to prevent the bailout money from being used to pay bonuses to any company that was receiving Federal bailout money..And, that the bonuses could have been a total non-issue if the writer's of the bill had just done their jobs to prevent the bonuses from being paid out with Federal bailout monies.. This thread was not even 3 posts long before I was being criticized for watching Fox news..Mildly criticized, but criticized nonetheless..Within the first several pages the thread had veered so far off course of the points that I was trying to make that it was virtually unrecognizable.. As I write this my thread is now quickly approaching 300 posts in length..Less than 25% of the 294 posts address in any way the hypocrisy that I was attempting to illustrate..The thread has veered off course several times into subject matter that has had nothing to do with my OP..There are approximately 4-6 forum members posting on this thread that feel so strongly about their political views that they cannot stand to allow someone with a differing viewpoint to post without immediately posting a counterpoint of their own to refute, and contradict, those political views that they disagree with..Not always, but often with insulting, derogatory, or inflammatory language in their postings.. I believe that my thread is a perfect illustration of why we should just not allow political and religious discussions here at PF..Forum members select a few words, or a single sentence out of a post, and proceed to go on a rant because they are zealous about something that another forum member has written about..These rants, more often than not, are responsible for why so many OP's so quickly wander off point and become unrecognizable..Often, taking on a separate life of their own due to the inflammatory nature of the off-topic rants..And, often causing threads to go on and on, as mine has, long after the thread should have died a gentle death.. Even though I enjoy a spirited political discussion when I am communicating with others that use respectful language, I chose to vote NO in Adam's poll..The primary reason for my so voting is that the zealots will always ruin things in a political / religious discussion forum.. We can make the moderator's duties on this photography forum a whole lot easier by not discussing religion and politics here.. Bruce

04-03-2009, 09:09 PM	#71
graphicgr8s Guest	Bruce, there are a lot of threads that have taken on a life of their own. I know, I know. I am one of the posters in these type of threads. In one thread me and another member misread each other. A mod closed it. After a couple of PMs between me, the mod and the other poster it was resolved and reopened and truthfully I now consider the other guy a friend. My htread on black cars took on a life as a discussion of why we are a republic and not a democracy. Big deal. I think we are adults and can pretty much, with a few PMs and deletes resolve almost anything between members on these types of threads. Had a member start in on me one time. I PM'd said this wasn't the time or place. All posts were deleted within minutes by both of us. Consider that person a friend also.

04-03-2009, 10:21 PM	#72
emr Guest	Originally posted by baltochef920 ...The original intent of my thread was to...Within the first several pages the thread had veered so far off course of the points that I was trying to make that it was virtually unrecognizable... Bruce, that's the nature of the Internet. One can be 99.9% sure that any topic on any forum has wandered far from the topic covered by the original post when there are at least a couple of dozen messages. Then again, isn't it the nature of most human communication? When we meet people at a cafe, the discussion goes all over the place. Formal moderated discussions are a different beast.

04-04-2009, 09:19 AM	#73
Rustyoldbug Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: North San Diego, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 137	I am a newbie here, and am mostly here to learn more about photography. Some people just want to argue about religion and politics. If something offends me I just don't read the thread. As long as it isn't creeping into the actual photography threads and isn't creating a bandwidth problem - probably not a big deal if the moderators don't mind dealing with it. There is always the ignore user thing too. I used it within my first few days here. It is a great tool to use when you see those people that want to argue about everything, put down people, or generalize people because of where they are from. You really don't miss much substance by shutting those people out soon as you notice them.

04-04-2009, 11:27 AM	#74
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	There are several members on this board that seem to have a problem even in photography discussions etc. What I am referring to is when people use condescending language, insults or even name calling. I think what we see in the Political and Religion discussion is an amplification of this. The disappointing part of this is that a couple of them have a lot of photography and technical knowledge. If you want to see and example of what I'm talking about, track these threads. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/55842-marketplace-discrimination.html and a similar older thread. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/40320-continental-u-s-only.html

04-04-2009, 04:56 PM	#75
Rustyoldbug Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: North San Diego, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 137	Originally posted by Blue There are several members on this board that seem to have a problem even in photography discussions etc. What I am referring to is when people use condescending language, insults or even name calling. I think what we see in the Political and Religion discussion is an amplification of this. The disappointing part of this is that a couple of them have a lot of photography and technical knowledge. If you want to see and example of what I'm talking about, track these threads. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/55842-marketplace-discrimination.html and a similar older thread. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/40320-continental-u-s-only.html Yes, I saw the later thread and in that one someone linked to the older thread. That sort of condescending BS isn't as prevalent here as in some of the other forums I have looked at though, It is easy to ignore that stuff and read about film, lenses and technique with the coffee.