Goodbye Perhaps?

[SalixIncendium]

I literally told you the opposite.


Strawman. You’re arguing against something I didn’t say. That’s disappointing.

*shrugs*. I wasn't arguing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I feel like I've stumbled into PlayLand where someone opened a "Slides Galore Park" and some visitors are perturbed because many seem to focus on the swings.

 

[anna.]

*shrugs*. I wasn't arguing.

Thank you, this has been very enlightening.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some are worried that if we delete those fora the membership will drop far too drastically and we'll lose revenue. I'd be fine with that if it helped fix the poo-flinging issues and staff-work issues. It would give us far more time to work on what people actually want staff to do.

Thank God there's no "poo-slinging" in religion debates!

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't understand where this comes from?

@anna. made a point that she values having visibility to threads that she did not intend to participate in. I and the OP don't value having visibility to threads we have no interest in. I was asking her why what she values should weigh more than what I or the OP value.

 

[Rival]

I feel like I've stumbled into PlayLand where someone opened a "Slides Galore Park" and some visitors are perturbed because many seem to focus on the swings.

Some people would like a place on the web where US politics isn't shoving its way in.

Just one place.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Thank you, this has been very enlightening.

For me as well.

I hope you have a better day.

 

[Rival]

Thank God there's no "poo-slinging" in religion debates!

There is, but we could deal with that faster without the politics, which is not the main part of this forum, being taken up with it.

Staff would benefit from not having to deal with US elections every four years. Especially non-American staff.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I and the OP don't value having visibility to threads I have no interest in.

Wow!

 

[anna.]

@anna. made a point that she values having visibility to threads that she did not intend to participate in. I and the OP don't value having visibility to threads I have no interest in. I was asking her why what she values should weigh more than what I or the OP value.

You are mischaracterizing me and putting words in my mouth I did not say.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Wow!

How about you just knock it off with the passive-aggressive interjections and if you have something to say, say it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You are mischaracterizing me and putting words in my mouth I did not say.

Not intentionally, and if I am doing so, I apologize. But in fairness, I asked you a question and rather than answer, you said you literally said the opposite and did not elaborate. You chose to become aggressive with me, when that wasn't my intent toward you.

The OP and others here clearly find it preferable to not have visibility to certain threads. It appears to me that you are saying that those preferences aren't optimal. Am I wrong?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@rocala :

I hope you manage to find a place that works for you, and that you might come to again view RF as an option.

 

[anna.]

For me as well.

I hope you have a better day.

It wasn’t enlightening in a good way. I’m actually feeling quite sad at the moment. I don’t feel welcome here, but at least it’s clear to me why. I can move on from that now that I know. Wishing you all the best. Everyone who thanked all the posts with your general message, all the best to you too.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It wasn’t enlightening in a good way.

I did pick up on your sarcasm and reciprocated in kind.

I’m actually feeling quite sad at the moment. I don’t feel welcome here, but at least it’s clear to me why. I can move on from that now that I know. Wishing you all the best. Everyone who thanked all the posts with your general message, all the best to you too.

What was said here that would make you feel unwelcome?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@rocala - good luck with whatever you decide and I hope you feel better. Just stop reading the threads that bore or deplete you.

It's called Religious Forums, the main element is the Religion.

And there's a restaurant chain called Waffle House, but you can find other items apart from waffles on the menu.

There are many, many fora dedicated to politics for people who want that. This isn't one of them.

Nor is it dedicated to religion. This isn't a specialty shop. It's a mall or department store or supermarket.

Was RF originally only about religious topics? Maybe. The name suggests that. But if so, it's been expanded. Maybe the site should be renamed if those other nonreligious categories aren't going to be deleted.

 

[Rival]

@rocala - good luck with whatever you decide and I hope you feel better. Just stop reading the threads that bore or deplete you.

And there's a restaurant chain called Waffle House, but you can find other items apart from waffles on the menu.

Nor is it dedicated to religion. This isn't a specialty shop. It's a mall or department store or supermarket.

Was RF originally only about religious topics? Maybe. The name suggests that. But if so, it's been expanded. Maybe the site should be renamed if those other nonreligious categories aren't going to be deleted.

Many of us do want to delete them, but there are issues with that mostly regarding membership and loss of revenue. Personally I think the damage wouldn't be that great.

Also those other fora aren't causing huge problems and generating tens of reports.

Much of the membership have said they dislike all the politicking and that ought be taken into account.

If that waffle house has a flavour 70% of people don't buy, it will stop selling it.

 

[anna.]

I did pick up on your sarcasm and reciprocated in kind.

You know, I wasn't being sarcastic. It was a light bulb moment for me, but not in a good way. In a sad way.

But good to know you reciprocated with your understanding that I was being sarcastic.

 

[anna.]

Not intentionally, and if I am doing so, I apologize.

Thank you. However unintentionally, yes, you did.

But in fairness, I asked you a question and rather than answer, you said you literally said the opposite and did not elaborate. You chose to become aggressive with me, when that wasn't my intent toward you.

The OP and others here clearly find it preferable to not have visibility to certain threads. It appears to me that you are saying that those preferences aren't optimal. Am I wrong?

This is a 2 page thread, and you couldn't go back and see if you'd misread my post?

NOWHERE did I say my "values should weigh more than what [you] or the OP value." Those are your words, that you put in my mouth.

Here's what I said:

If there was a similar opt-in/opt-out for all categories, that seems a good way for anyone to be able to block out what they don't want to see, including other religions, other viewpoints, or any other topic they might consider to be a pile of ****. Then everyone can be in their own silos, and never have to look at what's important to other people, only what's important to themselves. I can see the downside to that.

I literally said that a subject block would be a good way to go for all categories, while also saying why I thought that would have a downside.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Much of the membership have said they dislike all the politicking and that ought be taken into account.

That's interesting.

If that waffle house has a flavour 70% of people don't buy, it will stop selling it.

I would hope that most people who have eaten at the Waffle House would not use it as a model.