|
Post by joew on Oct 18, 2006 23:46:25 GMT -5
dand —I've been told that tea with rum is good for it. I don't know about that, but maybe it's worth a try. If it were my cold, I'd also want honey and lemon in my tea.
|
|
mbray
Bashful Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by mbray on Oct 19, 2006 1:54:43 GMT -5
//Is it ever right to send a reporter to jail for not revealing his sources? I don't think I've ever seen a pursuasive case for it. Perhaps clearly demonstrated issues involving national security.//
Regarding the "Moderators" thread, I will point out that the above quote was the first posting for the thread "Reporter's rights."
BL then chose to address the Barry Bonds saga, which was fine with me and others, it seems.
joew later posted (among other things): //I dream of a day when reporters will consider themselves to be subject to the law as much as they consider the President to be subject to it.//
ptc later posted: //The major investigative stories of the past year all involve the exposure of classified information: secret prisons; warrantless wiretaps of Americans (both shore-to-shore and internal); bank record surveillance; and torture policies. If the sources for these stories had obeyed the law, none of these stories would have made it to the front pages.//
Thus, I assumed the baseball thread had progressed to the point we were discussing journalists and secret sources in general. Seemed like a logical assumption at the time.
I then wrote my opinion about journalists I have known over the years and what motivated them to get into the business in the first place and why their reporting "secret" proceedings and decision-making was in our best interests, banned by the government or otherwise.
In response, joew killed the thread by noting that I deviated from the athlete-drug thread. Say what? If we weren't discussing reporters' crossing the legal line in general, then I must have been reading another thread.
My point, before I deviate from the "Moderators" question, is it seems our conversations do, indeed, need moderating. So I nominate Joe as the No.1 moderator. Of course, that means we won't be able to deviate from a topic unless he does so first. But, hey, someone has to be king.
Hail to the chief and goodbye to all. It's been fun, up to a point. Mike
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 19, 2006 3:11:12 GMT -5
And, I agree with mbray Joe is a great guy, level headed, intelligent, thoughtful, courteous, etc... he's the kind of guy that I'd like to sit on the porch and drink a beer with. Now, if we could just find a porch...
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Oct 19, 2006 4:21:15 GMT -5
Dudes with 'Tudes
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Oct 19, 2006 4:27:39 GMT -5
Mbray......MBRAY! Come back!...... 'Bye, MikeBray
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Oct 19, 2006 5:03:29 GMT -5
//Is it ever right to send a reporter to jail for not revealing his sources? I don't think I've ever seen a pursuasive case for it. Perhaps clearly demonstrated issues involving national security.// Regarding the "Moderators" thread, I will point out that the above quote was the first posting for the thread "Reporter's rights." BL then chose to address the Barry Bonds saga, which was fine with me and others, it seems. joew later posted (among other things): //I dream of a day when reporters will consider themselves to be subject to the law as much as they consider the President to be subject to it.// ptc later posted: //The major investigative stories of the past year all involve the exposure of classified information: secret prisons; warrantless wiretaps of Americans (both shore-to-shore and internal); bank record surveillance; and torture policies. If the sources for these stories had obeyed the law, none of these stories would have made it to the front pages.// Thus, I assumed the baseball thread had progressed to the point we were discussing journalists and secret sources in general. Seemed like a logical assumption at the time. I then wrote my opinion about journalists I have known over the years and what motivated them to get into the business in the first place and why their reporting "secret" proceedings and decision-making was in our best interests, banned by the government or otherwise. In response, joew killed the thread by noting that I deviated from the athlete-drug thread. Say what? If we weren't discussing reporters' crossing the legal line in general, then I must have been reading another thread. My point, before I deviate from the "Moderators" question, is it seems our conversations do, indeed, need moderating. So I nominate Joe as the No.1 moderator. Of course, that means we won't be able to deviate from a topic unless he does so first. But, hey, someone has to be king. Hail to the chief and goodbye to all. It's been fun, up to a point. Mike Well, now, Mike, I don't know if you're gone now and won't be reading this, but I started the "reporter's rights" thread because of the possible prosecution of the reporters who wrote Game of Shadows, the book about steroids in baseball and track and field. Yes, it was largely about Barry Bonds, but my thread wasn't intended to be a baseball thread. I'd have been talking about the Red Sox if it was the baseball thread. So the people who debated "reporter's rights" were right on target. And your comments were completely on topic. (I don't consider the thread dead, by the way. I'd like to get back there one of these days when I've had time to think about some of the responses and talk about it some more. And of course I haven't heard what's happened to the reporters in question. But THAT brings up another good issue that needs to be decided, which is what to do with old threads. I know on other forums they get deleted. I hope that won't happen here. Keep 'em, and allow people to revive them if they want. I've been very busy this week and not even able to do much reading at this place let alone moderating, whatever the job description. I really appreciate this hashing out of the job duties. It's a good discussion and one that will prove worthwhile, I think.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 19, 2006 5:24:53 GMT -5
Dudes with 'Tudes I got a 'tudes, for you, bebe And, if you'd like I'd share them, with you'd's Bebe! Play ball! Tillie... bebe, how you been?
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 19, 2006 5:34:41 GMT -5
I got a cat on my lap Nut'n wrong with dat! The batter is up Please just stick with that
There's plenty of time To tear each other a part Why not save it, For the baseball park
We gathered here to be together Let's give it a chance Like good brothers and sisters Oh yeah.... bebe!
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 19, 2006 5:41:39 GMT -5
And... For those that don't know Parting shots Are passe Joining shots Are what's in!
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Oct 19, 2006 8:52:02 GMT -5
And... For those that don't know Parting shots Are passe Joining shots Are what's in! 'Yes, yes, You had to be a bigshot, didn't you."
|
|
|
Post by dwarnold on Oct 19, 2006 8:56:16 GMT -5
Well, thanks folks for the response on the question I posted on the MY FRIEND thread. I think reading this thread up to this point in time points out both the problem and a possible answer. Some folks are just seeing this as a casual conversation between a bunch of good friends sitting around the table. It is like having dinner (or tea or the evening meal) with several good bottles of wine (or mineral water or sweet ice tea) and folks are loose and say whatever happens to be on their mind. People break out in songs and share poetry and then have a random thought, then say hello as someone else comes by the table. I think there is certainly no problem having threads where that is the norm. On the other hand (in my humble opinion) I see moderators as having an opportunity to help steer the room. I thought that SLB raised some interesting job duties that I certainly did not see as "her" responsibility. I mean how can she be the content police? That is something that we all should see as our own duty as responsible adults. The moderators are limited by the nature of this posting system as to how much they can keep people's tempers in check. Obviously the various types of instant chat rooms that exist provide moderators with "hammers" or other tools that allow them to "ban" or "kick out" members or troublemakers as a form of instant peace making. I don't think we have any of those in this group (but perhaps I do not know everyone as well). So wrapping up this monologue, I guess what I would suggest that would be helpful and accomodating is that we should have the option to request that a thread be kept "on-target" in some instances and that unless that special request is made, people can enjoy the dinner conversation and go where they see fit. Just remember to have a designated driver if you are going to keep pouring from the wine bottle during the conversation. Moderators then can bring harmony to the universe as they see fit, and will only have to smite folks who are specifically not acting with respect and cooperation towards others. We all have to learn to get along in the sand box, right?
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Oct 19, 2006 8:57:58 GMT -5
I have been on forums where there were paid moderators (don't go getting any ideas here, guys!) who were generally genial folks with powerful keyboards. As long as you didn't cross them or stir up trouble or flagrantly violate the rules of the forum (harassment, obscenity, etc.), they remained primarily behind the scenes with only an occasional comment here and there. Of course, when you did cross them, they edited and deleted posts, issued warnings, and banned posters for varying lengths of time. I viewed them as somewhat uninvolved parents who seemed to cut a bit more slack to the "older kids with better vocabularies" who occasionally pushed the limits with double entendres and euphemisms. I would certainly hope that the moderators on this forum would not follow that model.
I like to think of this place, if I may, as being similar to the student lounge in my college dorm. In my mind, it's a place where everyone is welcome to hang out between all of life's other responsibilities. There is generally someone with an interesting topic to discuss, and, if not, we are free to introduce topics of our own. We are all fairly mature and fairly intelligent, so the conversation is lively and clever and stimulating. We are under no obligation to strike up a conversation, however, but can merely listen, if that is more to our liking. There are no stupid opinions, only, perhaps, opinions with which we do not agree. We can come and go as we please, but, in general, we are happy to see pretty much everyone here and can find some common ground with most of them. We are gentle with one another, polite, considerate, and have one heck of a good time. And because we are such a kind and considerate bunch, we do not need to do a great deal of policing of one another, but simply have a few individuals upon whom we might call if we need a hand or have a question.
Hopefully at least some of this makes sense. I have no time to proofread. I just looked at the time and I have about three minutes to get to an appointment that is at least 10 minutes away. Not much different from when I was in college and late for class. Some things never change.
|
|
|
Post by dwarnold on Oct 19, 2006 9:02:56 GMT -5
I viewed them as somewhat uninvolved parents who seemed to cut a bit more slack to the "older kids with better vocabularies" who occasionally pushed the limits with double entendres and euphemisms. I would certainly hope that the moderators on this forum would not follow that model. I agree!!! But does that make Trusty the Dad and SLB the Mom?
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Oct 19, 2006 9:28:23 GMT -5
Dwarnold, dear. If trusty wants to be the Pop, he's welcome. But I decline the title. I love my kids, but being a mom is not always a job that I relish. So I'm not going to be mom here. ;D I was born to be a rebelious, defiant child and I'll stick to my natural instincts, thankyouverymuch.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 19, 2006 10:07:43 GMT -5
mbray — if you're still looking in, what I posted —"First — The thread started with an account of a couple of reporters who were facing jail time for refusing to reveal sources of leaked grand jury testimony about alleged drug-using athletes. Nothing to do with threats to our liberty." followed by some thoughts about politicians — was not intended to kill the thread, or to say that the talk about reporters in general was off limits, just to say that I didn't think that sports writers telling all about drug investigations were in the same league as those who expose government corruption and deception, and therefore, however valid the points raised might be with respect to the latter, they did not, in my mind, justify the actions booklady had mentioned at the outset. Obviously, the way I put it didn't make my meaning clear. I impled it, rather than stating it directly. But when I post something, I am hoping for a response. That is how misunderstandings can get cleared up and meanings can be clarified
Actually, I have never been one to insist that a thread keep to the original topic, and have cheerfully joined in tangential discussions, and probably myself sent a number of threads off the rails in my time. Even on the "Reporters' Rights" thread I believe I had responded to the more general discussion. But surely it is permissible to ask, as I was trying to do in my elliptical way, "How does this apply to the sports writer?" and suggest that it doesn't. An attempt to relate the current discussion to the beginning is not the same as deligitimizing it.
And, mbray, I'm sorry you decided to leave rather than discuss the matter with us first. I hope you will see this and decide to come back.
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Oct 19, 2006 10:27:48 GMT -5
dand, Honey, lemon juice, and whiskey. Use your own judgement as to the proportions and frequency.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 19, 2006 10:42:14 GMT -5
And... For those that don't know Parting shots Are passe Joining shots Are what's in! Hey, Mike — joining that with your invitation for a beer on the porch and lirio's suggestion to dand, I think we've got the makings of a pretty good gathering — you and me and lirio at dand's (he's got the cold and has to stay home) for a beer and a shot of whiskey. Can you bring some Suntory? It's a long time since I've seen any in the stores around here.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Oct 19, 2006 11:34:59 GMT -5
I have a whole bunch of "powers" or responsibilities that I could give the Moderators (from moving or deleting posts to banning members). The default setting is "NO", and I haven't had time to change anything to "YES" yet. So, right now the only "power" the Moderators have is to help anyone in need on an open forum. All the powers rest with the Administrator, and I'm so much of a believer in individual rights that someone is going to have to do something REALLY bad to get "policed" here. So, because I'm going out of town real soon for a week, it's time to take advantage of ----------- no, please don't. It's time to PARTY? ---- oh, yeah. Y'all be good, OK? Now, regarding the Moderators being paid, everybody listen to the show this weekend; it will be pre-emptied by the first prairieCHATTER semi-annual Moderator's Pledge Drive. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Oct 19, 2006 11:44:44 GMT -5
By the way, I just clicked the "Tar and Feather" option to "YES".
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Oct 19, 2006 12:02:10 GMT -5
Free to be me and you. Isn't that special
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Oct 19, 2006 13:34:07 GMT -5
I seem to keep posting though I was going to lay off awhile and focus. Keep coming back to exalt folks for fun and end up responding to things I see. Seems you are all a permanent part of my focus. Just so you don't start to see us as work, Falco!
|
|
|
Post by sisterbeer on Oct 19, 2006 14:32:33 GMT -5
I like the title ' The Heat' for our moderators/facilitators. Next time I annoy Missy Twoshoes, she can sic The Heat on me. Or The Heat can come down on me proactively. If someone is trying to tempt me with provocative propositions, I can say "Thanks, but better not because The Heat is watching me."
I think it would be fun to have to be (or pretend to be) wary of The Heat.
|
|
|
Post by dwarnold on Oct 20, 2006 5:28:26 GMT -5
well I guess no one thought my suggestion was worthy of an actual response, although we have plenty of discussion about having parties... thanks for the info Trusty on the powers that could be.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Oct 20, 2006 6:48:51 GMT -5
Well, thanks folks for the response on the question I posted on the MY FRIEND thread. I think reading this thread up to this point in time points out both the problem and a possible answer. Some folks are just seeing this as a casual conversation between a bunch of good friends sitting around the table. It is like having dinner (or tea or the evening meal) with several good bottles of wine (or mineral water or sweet ice tea) and folks are loose and say whatever happens to be on their mind. People break out in songs and share poetry and then have a random thought, then say hello as someone else comes by the table. I think there is certainly no problem having threads where that is the norm. On the other hand (in my humble opinion) I see moderators as having an opportunity to help steer the room. I thought that SLB raised some interesting job duties that I certainly did not see as "her" responsibility. I mean how can she be the content police? That is something that we all should see as our own duty as responsible adults. The moderators are limited by the nature of this posting system as to how much they can keep people's tempers in check. Obviously the various types of instant chat rooms that exist provide moderators with "hammers" or other tools that allow them to "ban" or "kick out" members or troublemakers as a form of instant peace making. I don't think we have any of those in this group (but perhaps I do not know everyone as well). So wrapping up this monologue, I guess what I would suggest that would be helpful and accomodating is that we should have the option to request that a thread be kept "on-target" in some instances and that unless that special request is made, people can enjoy the dinner conversation and go where they see fit. Just remember to have a designated driver if you are going to keep pouring from the wine bottle during the conversation. Moderators then can bring harmony to the universe as they see fit, and will only have to smite folks who are specifically not acting with respect and cooperation towards others. We all have to learn to get along in the sand box, right? Usually, people remember the last one or two points made in a post, and I think most would agree with the last couple of points you made. If there anything from the middle of your post that you want to emphasize, please do so it can be discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Oct 20, 2006 7:19:03 GMT -5
May I ask, should we "discuss" on the forum or should we communicate directly with you or another moderator in certain matters of concern or questions.
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Oct 20, 2006 7:45:10 GMT -5
I guess what I would suggest that would be helpful and accomodating is that we should have the option to request that a thread be kept "on-target" in some instances and that unless that special request is made, people can enjoy the dinner conversation and go where they see fit. In my opinion, this suggestion seems reasonable, dwarnold. In addition, just as at an actual dinner table, I believe any poster ought to feel free to redirect the conversation with something along the lines of, "Well now, as I was saying...," and move us back to the original topic, should they have more to say on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Oct 20, 2006 9:38:52 GMT -5
Tillie wondered about discussing matters of concern on the forum or privately. I prefer on the forum. It's my opinion, but I figure if ONE person has a question, so do others who might be too shy, busy, unaware, or otherwise engaged to ask it.
I never think I'm the only fish swimming backwards, it just feels that way sometimes. So, swim with me as we discover the sea! bookie, I wish I had you panache to insert clever pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Oct 20, 2006 12:35:41 GMT -5
May I ask, should we "discuss" on the forum or should we communicate directly with you or another moderator in certain matters of concern or questions. Your call, Miss Tillie. If you think your question or message is personal, send a PM; if you think your question or message would benefit the community, please post it.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 31, 2006 21:42:21 GMT -5
I'm just sitting here getting a charge out of thinking of some of us as regular posters and others as forum-supes - Enjoying it, you know? Like, it's a community, which it is, and we have stewards, which we do, and there's this jovial respect, which there is, and isn't it good and helpful to have a number of steady posters being the shepherds all together, which it is. Love y'all - C
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Dec 28, 2006 23:33:02 GMT -5
Looks like there's a moderator's meeting going on right now. ;D (not really.......I hope)
|
|