Members who have left.

[karlhenning]

Thanks Q; fortunately, I stopped reading that thread after posting early, so missed all of the 'action' - Dave

Well, contrary to the OP's intentions, it became a mud-wrestling match illustrating the OP's point.

[Catison]

Well, contrary to the OP's intentions, it became a mud-wrestling match illustrating the OP's point.

Palin mud-wrestling?  Interesting.

But seriously, this forum is a great place for discussing ideas about music.  Probably more than anything, it has helped me clarify what my thoughts are on music and other subjects.  We shouldn't be here with the intention to convert anyone else to our ideology (a young mistake I made a long time ago).  It is far better to write about what we think and leave it at that.  Those that are willing will be persuaded on their own.

I credit this forum in helping me with my conversion to Catholicism, not because a certain poster convinced me, but because as I was discussing it, I came to understand myself.

[karlhenning]

But seriously, this forum is a great place for discussing ideas about music.  Probably more than anything, it has helped me clarify what my thoughts are on music and other subjects.  We shouldn't be here with the intention to convert anyone else to our ideology (a young mistake I made a long time ago).  It is far better to write about what we think and leave it at that.  Those that are willing will be persuaded on their own.

Entirely agree.  It took me a while to develop the right filter.

[Philoctetes]

Entirely agree.  It took me a while to develop the right filter.

I have something similar. I tend not to trust anyone taller than I am.

[Harry]

Lets not jokingly, forget, that yet again good members suffered by known hands, and left the forum.
I think however normal it may seem that people leave a forum, this is a sad sad day.

[mn dave]

It was selfish of them to abandon the rest of us.

[scarpia]

Lets not jokingly, forget, that yet again good members suffered by known hands, and left the forum.
I think however normal it may seem that people leave a forum, this is a sad sad day.

I can't help think that to say people are "suffering" because someone was mean to them on a web site is ludicrous.

[Wanderer]

We are all secretly listening to Michael Jackson.

And Madonna.

[ezodisy]

I can't help think that to say people are "suffering" because someone was mean to them on a web site is ludicrous.

A good chunk left because of Harry so it's even more ironic to hear it from him.*

*saying this is a matter of fact and in no way manifests any loathing on my part for the user who just happens to share the surname of a film character whose first name is "Dirty".

[Que]

Interestingly, it seems some here have the habit to gloat over each incident between other members whenever they occur, and like to kick around the leftovers.

I really can't understand this, but I guess "Schadenfreude" is an aquired taste....

All the bickering reflects poorly on the standing of this forum, and that's a real pity.

Q

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

the user who just happens to share the surname of a film character whose first name is "Dirty".

Things change. Centuries earler Shakespeare was much more positive when he wrote "Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'"

[Lethevich]

Interestingly, it seems some here have the habit to gloat over each incident between other members whenever they occur, and like to kick around the leftovers.

I really can't understand this, but I guess "Schadenfreude" is an aquired taste....

All the bickering reflects poorly on the standing of this forum, and that's a real pity.

It is a strange irony that a thread about supposedly preventing arguments will inevitably devolve into one. I say ban threads like this

Edit: actually, silly me, I had forgotten that the original thread this argument was in had been closed by the OP. Its continuance here was so seamless that it was easy to forget -_-

[ezodisy]

Things change. Centuries earler Shakespeare was much more positive when he wrote "Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'"

Okay. But who's more popular, Dirty Harry or Shakespeare?

I rest my case.

Edit: actually, silly me, I had forgotten that the original thread this argument was in had been closed by the OP. Its continuance here was so seamless that it was easy to forget -_-

Locked, and then its twin, a much more accurate depiction of proceedings, was removed by a moderator. I think George will be back soon enough. Even if 3 people have left recently, it's a small number compared to those who left earlier this year.

[Dundonnell]

Okay. But who's more popular, Dirty Harry or Shakespeare?

I rest my case.



Locked, and then its twin, a much more accurate depiction of proceedings, was removed by a moderator. I think George will be back soon enough. Even if 3 people have left recently, it's a small number compared to those who left earlier this year.

Shakespeare was a much better writer

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Okay. But who's more popular, Dirty Harry or Shakespeare?

I rest my case.

Let's rouse your case and say Shakespeare has been popular for 4 centuries already, a feat I don't think 'Dirty Harry' will perform.

[lukeottevanger]

I take it you've never seen Dirty Harry Part II, then, Johan.

[karlhenning]

Let's rouse your case and say Shakespeare has been popular for 4 centuries already, a feat I don't think 'Dirty Harry' will perform.

Well, it's a little known piece of literary trivia, that the main character was going to be called Clint, in a working draught (foul paper) of Hamlet.

[Lethevich]

Locked, and then its twin, a much more accurate depiction of proceedings, was removed by a moderator. I think George will be back soon enough. Even if 3 people have left recently, it's a small number compared to those who left earlier this year.

I missed the second thread all together A problem that deleting posts and threads causes is that it doesn't allow members who were not there at the time to make their own judgements about what has been said - the nannys make the choice for them For example, a lot of the comments that M mentions as happening I never saw as I was not there at the time the posts were made

The (perfectly reasonable) justifications for deleting on the grounds of them "offending" people can be fulfilled without allowing other members to become misinformed by deletions: make a child board in the Diner, or a seperate section, entitled "Arguments". In this the threads deemed too hostile/derailed can be moved. This would allow people to see what is going on, but also keeps the arguments away from people who wish to avoid them.

If a further reason for not doing this is put forward - that it may intimidate new people (although why would they be browsing a section titled "Arguments" if they were such sensitive souls?), the section could be made private if that is possible with this software (it has been possible on various kinds of boards since pre 2000), with access granted to regular users, or something like that. The criteria could be anything.

This sounds like a lot of fuss over nothing, but I would quite like to know the "real story" behind everything. A lot of us must - classical listeners are often above averagely inquisitive people. IOW: *whines*

[karlhenning]

Though yet of Clint our dear brother's lynching
The memory be green, and that it us befitted
To bear our hearts in grief and our whole corral
To be contracted in one brow of woe . . . .

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Though yet of Clint our dear brother's lynching
The memory be green, and that it us befitted
To bear our hearts in grief and our whole corral
To be contracted in one brow of woe . . . .

Very good, Claudius.