― g000blar (g00blar), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:12 (seventeen years ago) link
And people have joined in the conversation/atmosphere who don't understand the principles of why those certain things are banned
This is in fairness a retroactive application of (a quite interesting) principle - the only reason given until now was "Kate Said No".
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:12 (seventeen years ago) link
erm did you miss the whole googlebait episode then?
― lexpretend (lexpretend), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:13 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:14 (seventeen years ago) link
― masonic boom (kate), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:14 (seventeen years ago) link
― jw (ex machina), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:14 (seventeen years ago) link
No, because for every Louis Jagger who makes a stand and fights on through all the bullshit and stays, there must be loads who read that sort of stuff and don't ever post at all. I mean, sometimes 60% of traffic is from googlers, and they aint all stayin.
This is not said with nastiness or elitism or anything else, but in the original ILX spirit of DO NOT READ IF YOU HATE US. Is that really so hard?DO NOT HATE IF THEY READ YOU, though!
― stet (stet), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:15 (seventeen years ago) link
― resumo impetus (blueski), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:15 (seventeen years ago) link
― BounceBounceBounceBounceBounceBounceBounce (bounce), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:15 (seventeen years ago) link
― masonic boom (kate), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:16 (seventeen years ago) link
Because the coders and mods aren't man enough to fight off spammers and locked unreg users.
― jw (ex machina), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:16 (seventeen years ago) link
x-post to Stet.
― KeefW (KeefW), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:16 (seventeen years ago) link
Better hair and tits, but more pudge.
― BounceBounceBounceBounceBounceBounceBounce (bounce), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:17 (seventeen years ago) link
― stet (stet), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:17 (seventeen years ago) link
― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:17 (seventeen years ago) link
oh, was it? when did any of those three people say this?
― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:18 (seventeen years ago) link
xp
― kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:19 (seventeen years ago) link
oh does ILX still get spam? i haven't seen any in months and months. and months. funny.
― resumo impetus (blueski), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:19 (seventeen years ago) link
― masonic boom (kate), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:19 (seventeen years ago) link
Next time, try actually reading my whole post.
― John Justen, surrounded by frail, wispy people. (John Justen), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:19 (seventeen years ago) link
― jw (ex machina), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:20 (seventeen years ago) link
There's a difference between laughing at the occasional well-timed zing (most people do this) and wanting to be in a place where it's like that more often than not. Pretending that no intelligent or valued posters have ever been put off by a consistent bad atmosphere in parts of the boards is ridiculous.
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:21 (seventeen years ago) link
we shouldn't have that argument again tho
― resumo impetus (blueski), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:21 (seventeen years ago) link
But what you have got to get clear, Kate, is the difference between someone mentioning something verboten **in passing** and 'turning the thread into a thread about that topic'.
― Dr.C (Dr.C), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:22 (seventeen years ago) link
(checks to see which thread we are on. OK am in clear)
― M Grout (Mark Grout), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:24 (seventeen years ago) link
This is me, then every now and then I get lured in by a thread like this and have next to no idea what everyone's on about.
― Teh HoBBx (HoBB), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:25 (seventeen years ago) link
This has been true from day one. Whether the reason is "I can't post here, you're all too intellectual" or "I can't post here, you're all too mean" or "I can't post here, you all know each other", the end result is the same; most random Googlers don't post here. Unless you've been canvassing Googlers as to why they dip into ILX and don't stick around, this is a wholly specious and misleading argument.
― Jesus Dan (dan perry), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:26 (seventeen years ago) link
― Nu-Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:26 (seventeen years ago) link
― resumo impetus (blueski), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:28 (seventeen years ago) link
― stet (stet), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:29 (seventeen years ago) link
― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:29 (seventeen years ago) link
This may sound elitist, but I'd rather have the googlers who can deal with the intellectualism or inside jokes than those who can deal with the meanness.
(x-post)
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:30 (seventeen years ago) link
― acrobat (acrobat), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:31 (seventeen years ago) link
― Nu-Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:31 (seventeen years ago) link
This thread is a plea to people to not act like bullies when they're not bullies. Very different.
― It's Teatime in Buttercup Land (Maaarghk C), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:33 (seventeen years ago) link
― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:34 (seventeen years ago) link
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:34 (seventeen years ago) link
There is an inherent presumption here that people who can deal with environment X will behave like Y when introduced into it that I don't agree with. I also think it's incredibly disingenuous to expect that any community, whether it is online or in real life, will retain the same feel as time goes on unless said community features some level of brainwashing in its induction process.
― Jesus Dan (dan perry), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:36 (seventeen years ago) link
Robin C quit posting so much b/c there was a couple of regulars who were argumentative towards him in a way he didn't like. This isn't supposition, he told me this in an email. This was also a long, long time ago. I do miss Robin participating, I must admit.
― Norman Phay (Pashmina), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:36 (seventeen years ago) link
xposts
― John Justen, surrounded by frail, wispy people. (John Justen), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:37 (seventeen years ago) link
― Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:38 (seventeen years ago) link
this is totally right and nothing else really needs to be said.
― horseshoe (horseshoe), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:38 (seventeen years ago) link
― It's Teatime in Buttercup Land (Maaarghk C), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:41 (seventeen years ago) link
― After two days in hospital I took a turn for the nurse. (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rain, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:41 (seventeen years ago) link
xpost: Define "implode".
― Jesus Dan (dan perry), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:41 (seventeen years ago) link
Who's asking for that? There seems to be a feeling that the place we've arrived at currently is overly vicious, and this thread was started to ask people not to be like that. It has nothing (in my mind, at least) to do with ye glory Greenspun days in the slightest.
― stet (stet), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:41 (seventeen years ago) link
Collapse. Whether it's everyone leaving, or most people leaving and a core remaining.
― It's Teatime in Buttercup Land (Maaarghk C), Wednesday, 14 February 2007 17:43 (seventeen years ago) link