FunnyDuddies

lauren has posted a way that you can place an entire section on ignore basically. lauren, would you care to post that again? It has been lost in all the pages here i fear.

here are my hellions. this is with wendy and peter pan at disney on this last mother's day.

I am not comparing the two, i am simply pointing out the source of my information. no comparison was made. that would be This site is this way, and that other site is the other way. Also, I belong to 4 different lapband sites, and I have heard this from members on the other 3 sites. not just one site.

Its common sense in business. if your business is neutral, accepting all customers from all markets, your bottom line is larger. when you begin to focus in on certain things with actions, you eliminate specific market groups. since there is not censoring of the actual sections, you really won't be losing those who are interested in hot topic debates or off topic threads. but you open the door to more members you grow your membership ranks.

For this issue, which I have dealt with on other boards, Alex must tell his mods that all sections of the site must be monitored, and threads must be moved to the correct forum. this is simply a business management issue.

again, i understnad your point, but you are not answering my question. in business things are different. and this site is becoming a business now that it is taking in money. In the business of web advertising, the goal is to attract as many people as possible to the site in order to raise the membership totals so that you can charge more for advertisements. To attract more you must be aware of the things that might drive away some of your membership base, be it current or future members, and correct those issues. this has nothing to do with dumbing things down or insulting anyone's intelligence. those are personal issues that people may have as a result of these possible actions, but from a business point of view (bottom line dollars) making a site more neutral to all will bring in more members and will in turn bring in more advertising dollars. how is that flawed?

it is not restricting anyone from participating in the discussions. it is mearly allowing those who do not wish to look at thread titles, or accidentally stumble into a discussion they do not want to read, that have no bearing on the main reason most people are here.

so now life is no longer counted by viability, but if it is wanted or not?

i understand your point alexandra. I think neal said it best though. If it even offends a few, why not make it to where it would offend NO ONE? Can you say, that in a business sense, this is flawed thinking?

i understand this is a right to life site, but they have quoted the most updated list of laws for the states that cover a baby's death, in utero, as murder. State Unborn Victim Laws looks like 35 states have laws on the books pertaining to this.

Thank you. From that article, "Although many states now have fetal homicide laws, there are a wide variety of differences about when a fetus is considered living. In Missouri and 17 other states, the laws recognize a fetus as living at the time of conception. " So if the law in these states along recognize it being a living being why isn't abortion outlawed in those states?

my chilred are like that as well. we rarely get anywhere past the timeout part of the discipline. we had to spank andy the last time because he pushed our shopping cart into someone when throwing a temper tantrum. it was very uncharacteristic of him, but he tested us on wanting a toy in the store. when we told him he needed to apologize to the person he did so, but then turned to me and stuck his tongue out. rob knelt down, explained why he was about to get a spanking, and gave him three good swats to the butt. we apologized to the person he hit with the cart, and asked if they were ok. they said they were fine, and that it was refreshing to see someone take charge of their kid's outburst. it really was weird for him to do it, but he never really went through the terrible twos or the testing phase, so we chalked it up to that. he also lost his mohawk that night. he was very upset over that, and apologized to us later in the evening without request. he asked if we could let it grow back, and we said yes. he has been in line since.

Everyone in office is there because of our voting rights. some are appointed, but they are appointed by individuals that we all put into office. If we vote for the right people, all of our needs will be taken care of. it actually does not come down to individual rights as much as you might believe. if we voted in specific people, and those people appointed others into office that go along the same ideals and lines, then their decisions are based on the majority's views. its trickles down. or up....depending on the way you look at it.

again, currently it is not viable for the people who are not registered, which actually makes up a majority of the people looking at the site on a regular basis. if they are not signed in, or have not registered, they see it all.

i am truly interested in this law, because i was under the impression it was a federal statute that if a pregnant woman is killed, no matter what the gestation age is, the person is liable for double murder. the same goes for if the woman is beaten, and does not die, but loses the pregnancy, the culprit can be charged with murder. If you can point me to actual law i would be greatly appreciative.

when a thread from the rant and raves section has a title that is offensive to most, and it shows in the new post section or the top 5, it offends people who do not wish to see it. and this obviously happens or people would not be posting that is does or leaving the site. wouldn't it be best, to make the site welcome to all, to make it so those sections that regularly have off topic and possibly offensive post titles not permiate the rest of the site?

that is my sticking point as well. i do not think it should be one way for one instance and another way for another instance just because of who is doing it.

but that is for a short period of time as well. kill the doctor and the patient dies as well. a baby, or fetus, is not always going to be a baby. it is a temporary state for a living thing to go through.

i swear i have not started drinking yet tonight! lol

LOL you cannot be angry because people are trying to help you out of your anger. it just puts you in a vicious cycle, and you close off even more.

i am a member of a board where they take donations from members, and in turn those donations give them access to the off topic areas. the rest who do not donate just see the main topic of the board.

lauren, what about anyone who is put under for surgery. they need to rely on machines while in surgery to live. does this mean that during this time they are not alive? with your reasoning it does. any time anyone is not breathing or being able to sustain their own life and relying on anyone else is at that point just being viral.

Ah, I was mistaken in the question you were asking. I apologize. Ok, what makes me think i have a right to decide? Because I am a registered voter, and if enough of my ilk get together and vote a specific way, or vote people into office that we agree with the decisions they will make, then we have the ability to change the law. That is just pure democracy. I am not a dictator, and cannot make decisions or laws by myself, but i can talk to a lot of people, try to have them see my point of view, and then as a group we can vote into power the people we believe will make the right decisions in our stead. That is all anyone can do. Laws are laws, and sadly, to me, abortion is legal. But i hope to continue to work towards changing that some day.

WBB I think you are missing a lot of my posts somewhere. you seem to be focusing on just a few. No, it would be no skin off my nose, but if he brings in advertisers for the issues that are here because of the issues in RnR i bet you a cool mil that he loses a lot of his members. because that is not what a majority of them are here for. it might be waht you are here for, but you have to look at the MAJORITY when in business. The screw you statement is in regards to people who do not have the choice to block certain things. if you keep reading you see that lauren and i have discussed this issue to a possible comprimise, and now leave it in Alex's hands. I keep bringing up the forums staying issue with you because you keep claiming that you like them being there. GREAT! I like them too. The discussion we are having is in regards to the titles being shown around the site outside of that particular forum page. Your point that you keep making has nothing to do with that issue, so i have to keep stating that your point has nothing to do with the discussion. I do not wish to change my new post view for the RnR and off topic lounge. Because I do not use those. I go directly to the page for those forum sections. Or is it that you would prefer that I do not participate in those dicussions being posted in those sections?

That is why i stated venting is good. And i think that telling you to look at it from another point of view is people's way of trying to help you. they are not patronizing you. patting you on the back and telling you that you are the victim is not helpful to you. but if that is what you are looking for then you should put a disclaimer with your venting. I have done that before. there is no shame in it. But to vent, and then get angry at everyone's opinions on how you should handle the situation is not doing anything to help yourself. If you want to just be angry, then be angry, but you cannot then add anger because you have anger. if you want to do that, get a diary and write to yourself. If you want to vent, and hear constructive ideas on how to handle it you should accept that the people who are posting back to you, for the majority, are really trying to help.