Rule clarification

[UtahDan]

To comprehend something by its parts is the game of lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I answered your question directly. It was abstract but not tangential, especially in context to the discussion as started by LA. Others in the thread chose to fully comprehend my response. You chose not to respond because my answer did not suit your criteria for discourse.

I participate but not fully -- like the silent majority of this site.

Comprehending something by its parts is not a game I was taught because I don't know what that means. I'm not going to rehash our exchange, I'll just stand on what I've already said there.

Your last comment is bothersome, however, because it appears that something is preventing you from participating fully. Is it something besides the exercise of your own free will? Have you been threatened secretly? What prevents you from participating fully?

Also, what do you mean when you say "participate fully?" Does that simply mean say everything that crosses your mind without any filtering, or does it mean something else. I can buy the idea that some people choose not to say everything they otherwise might, but I am still struggling to know how anyone is being prevented. As you know, prevented means that some third party through the exercise of their free will is in fact keeping you from taking some action you could were they not doing so.

Last, why is the majority silent, in your opinion?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I participate but not fully -- like the silent majority of this site.

Also, what do you mean when you say "participate fully?" Does that simply mean say everything that crosses your mind without any filtering, or does it mean something else.

I hope I am not raining on the discussion between tooblue and UD. Using the definition UD stated above, I do not participate fully on CUF. There are often comments, sarcasm, kidding, etc. that I would post or say around certain people. However because I respect others in the group that would find it offensive, or not find humor in it, I sometimes choose not to.

Does that make me a part of the silent majority?

[Solon]

Nebulous "whatever the mods want goes" party, it is, then.



I did explain my multiple dupe accounts, quite clearly, both here and in my communications to the EC while I was suspended. Did you read those?


In your opinion, as a site administrator. Of course you're not going to say the suspension was anything but clean and fair. It's like expecting El Jefe to say that.

Lingo, your penalty was fair, in my opinion. Yes, I read all the explanations, and the points and counterpoints, and everything else. But if the way this site works, as imperfect as it is, is what you have to complain about, then I'd guess you lead a pretty cherry life.

[UtahDan]

I hope I am not raining on the discussion between tooblue and UD. Using the definition UD stated above, I do not participate fully on CUF. There are often comments, sarcasm, kidding, etc. that I would post or say around certain people. However because I respect others in the group that would find it offensive, or not find humor in it, I sometimes choose not to.

Does that make me a part of the silent majority?

I am part of the silent majority too if that is in fact what is meant by "participate fully.'' I suspect it is not, but I will let tooblue tell me.

[JohnnyLingo]

Lingo, your penalty was fair, in my opinion. Yes, I read all the explanations, and the points and counterpoints, and everything else. But if the way this site works, as imperfect as it is, is what you have to complain about, then I'd guess you lead a pretty cherry life.

Obviously things aren't terrible here, or I'd be gone.

I just see certain trends that, if they continue, will lead to the quality of the board declining.

That's all.

[tooblue]

I am part of the silent majority too if that is in fact what is meant by "participate fully.'' I suspect it is not, but I will let tooblue tell me.

And here I thought we were having a discussion. Obviously you feel I'm telling you things and you likely feel it would be best for all if I just conformed and bent my will to match the groups will.

[tooblue]

I hope I am not raining on the discussion between tooblue and UD. Using the definition UD stated above, I do not participate fully on CUF. There are often comments, sarcasm, kidding, etc. that I would post or say around certain people. However because I respect others in the group that would find it offensive, or not find humor in it, I sometimes choose not to.

Does that make me a part of the silent majority?

It makes you a conformist. Your willingness to hold back however demonstrates propriety. The propriety has nothing to do with the group but it speaks well of you as an individual.

[tooblue]

I'm going to go watch my son's football game. If they win today they go straight to the semi-finals.

[UtahDan]

And here I thought we were having a discussion. Obviously you feel I'm telling you things and you likely feel it would be best for all if I just conformed and bent my will to match the groups will.

We are. All I said to him was that I suspect you have a different definition than I do but that I will wait to see what you say. It is tough to keep you focused!

But do you agree with my definition or do you say that it is something else? I'm just trying to get at what the words you are using mean because I truly don't know. I suspect I know, but I don't want to make an unfair conclusion.

[JohnnyLingo]

Holy smokes, and people thought this thread was boring yesterday.

[UtahDan]

Holy smokes, and people thought this thread was boring yesterday.

I got a much better nights sleep last night. I have a pretty significant capacity for tedium when I am well rested.

[tooblue]

I got a much better nights sleep last night. I have a pretty significant capacity for tedium when I am well rested.

There may be a variety of reasons many people don’t participate fully -- lack of interest, life responsibilities etc. I don’t want to waste my time spelling them all out. However, we know that some people specifically choose not to participate in the religion forum. Principally because not all perspectives or opinions are equally respected in said forum and in fact more often than not the more controversial and inflammatory opinions are esteemed while balance is eschewed.
Many posters here simply can’t participate fully because they have not been granted access to the invite-only Speakeasy. In contrast much of the discussion on this board happens inside that forum -- or at least some of the more intimate and meaty discussions happen in that forum.
I could go on and it could be argued that it’s simply the way message board’s function. But in my personal experience a select few of the committee and hierarchy here perpetuate said atmosphere to their utmost advantage. As a result what we currently have happening on the board is, in the words of a member of the committee who shall remain anonymous;

“that the group pressures individuals to adopt the forum's point-of-view instead of just letting people have their own opinions … I'm pretty frustrated with this place right now … more and more it seems like the board harps on just one or two topics, with only the usual suspects chiming in with their usual responses.”

I apologize in advance to the person for sharing info from a private message.

[TripletDaddy]

There may be a variety of reasons many people don’t participate fully -- lack of interest, life responsibilities etc. I don’t want to waste my time spelling them all out. However, we know that some people specifically choose not to participate in the religion forum. Principally because not all perspectives or opinions are equally respected in said forum and in fact more often than not the more controversial and inflammatory opinions are esteemed while balance is eschewed.
Many posters here simply can’t participate fully because they have not been granted access to the invite-only Speakeasy. In contrast much of the discussion on this board happens inside that forum -- or at least some of the more intimate and meaty discussions happen in that forum.
I could go on and it could be argued that it’s simply the way message board’s function. But in my personal experience a select few of the committee and hierarchy here perpetuate said atmosphere to their utmost advantage. As a result what we currently have happening on the board is, in the words of a member of the committee who shall remain anonymous;

“that the group pressures individuals to adopt the forum's point-of-view instead of just letting people have their own opinions … I'm pretty frustrated with this place right now … more and more it seems like the board harps on just one or two topics, with only the usual suspects chiming in with their usual responses.”

I apologize in advance to the person for sharing info from a private message.

memo to self: do not share info with tooblue in a PM!

[SoCalCoug]

If you want to start anew, do what nature does......cleanse with fire and start over.

Yeah, he tried that, like 8 times.

[SoCalCoug]

You don't have to believe it, and I am sure that you wont, but you and Hallelujah are the two most protected posters on the board.

And the two most in need of protection. Most of the rest are self-regulating.