anonemouse

To be honest, I just don't understand the logic that newbies might be turned off from LBT because of RnR. If it were me, and I came across a thread that was unappealing, I would (and have) just said to myself, "Well, I don't want to read that one, I'll find another one." I don't get the hypersensitivity to off-topis threads.

I apologize. To be honest, I wasn't really getting bent out of shape until that last post of yours. I hate this habit of mine, but if I can't understand someone's reasoning behind something, I tend to kind of be a bulldog about getting it out of them. I tend to press and press, and it isn't that I'm getting bent out of shape (although, it probably looks like it), it's just that I am trying to get an explanation that makes logical sense to me. So, again, I apologize for losing my temper.

Grow up, please. If you didn't want discussion, you should have sent your suggestion to Alexandra privately. As a member here, I have just as much right as you to make myself heard. I am not the only person that opposes this childish idea. There are lots of us that like things how they are. Last time I looked at your nice, shiny poll, there's a pretty hefy percentage that wants it left alone. And, IMO, this isn't benefitting anything. Should we just make changes because it would be more convenient to you? The fact is, we are ALL adults here, last I checked. If we don't want to read something, WE DON'T FREAKING READ IT.

Unless it's completely removed from the new posts section, like several of you advocate.

It isn't wrong to help others, but this isn't helping them. If you guys don't want to look at the posts in RnR, why can't you go to the forums that you want to read a thread in? Why should I or anyone else who's happy with the status quo have to go out of our way to read new posts?

If they tried to fill all requests that any member made, they'd be constantly making changes and no one would be happy. The fact is, no one is going to be 100% happy at any support site. There are always going to be people that think it should be run in a different way, offer different opportunities, have a different format, etc., etc. etc. And there really isn't a "love it or leave it" mentality. There is, however, a "take responsibility for your own actions" mentality. If someone chooses to read or respond to a certain thread, that's what they choose. They weren't tricked or forced.

Yep. That's about it.

No one forces them to join in as it is.

My whole position is that it is a newbie's responsibility to familiarize themselves with the site. If they fail to read the names and descriptions of the different forums before reading posts, why should that be the concern of everyone else? And while you may think that your suggestion would make it "better" for you, that doesn't mean it will be "better" for everyone else. Why should we change something that works just fine the way it is? And it does work fine. The forum that a new post is in is identified on the "new posts" page, right next to the post. The fact that some people click on something before they know which forum it's in shouldn't restrict the viewing ability of everyone else. No one is holding a gun to someone else's head and demanding that they read posts. I ignore threads that I don't want to read every day.

You beat me to it, Alexandra! I personally don't think "Rants and Raves" translates to "Pretty Kittens and Puppies" or anything like that. Maybe there should be an authorization release that people should have to acknowledge "I have read this release" when they join that explains all the forums. That way, they wouldn't be able to say that they weren't informed about what that forum is all about and they could avoid it if they wanted.

I just don't think this is a big deal. Like I said in the other thread, no one forces anyone to read a thread that they don't want to read. It took me forever to realize that the "top 5" was on the main page again, just because it was in a relatively inconvenient location that I hardly ever look at, down at the bottom of the page. These threads aren't thrust upon the unwary. You really do have to look for them, in most cases. Are new users likely to start out with the "top 5" or "new posts"? I wouldn't think so. I know I went from forum to forum when I first joined, reading all the threads. Unless someone is familiar with the layout of the site, the "new posts" link isn't one that most people would think, "Wow, that looks like a great place to start." I think a possible compromise to all this would be to divide up the "new posts" page, so that people that didn't want to read a post wouldn't even have to read the name of it if they didn't want to. For example, have the new posts divided by forum, in the same order that they are in on the front page. Maybe have expansion thingies (like you have in your control center) where you can expand the sections, so people don't have to look at the stuff they don't want to. I definitely don't think the right action would be to remove the posts entirely from the "new posts" section. And I know that some people are going to complain about being able to view the page at work without embarassment, but should they be viewing it at work in the first place? Wouldn't most people get in just as much trouble if their bosses found out that they were playing around on the internet, regardless if there was a link to a thread debating "boy-love" on the screen?

You're the best, Mark.:heh:

The point I was making is that it won't be best for EVERYONE (which is what I believe you posted earlier).

You're probably right. I personally think that no politician is a "great guy." There's too much wheeling and dealing that they've had to do to get to the point they're at. The vast majority don't really care about the average person, they just care about what gets them funding to get reelected. Cynical, but probably true.

That's the whole point I am trying to make. You see offense. I don't. Changing the way the entire board works, just to make a few people happy doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

People can read it if they want to or not. That's the whole point. And the shoe HAS been on the other foot, or are you forgetting the "Homosexual Liberal Atheists" thread? The fact is, no one is ever forced to start a thread or to read or respond to a thread. That's what makes the internet a great place. That would be perfectly fine with me. I just don't think that those threads should be segregated from the rest of the threads for everyone, just because a few people don't like them.

I'm kind of thinking as I type, so I'll try to say this in a semi-legible manner (and hopefully not offend anyone). I think that as long as someone helps vote a certain party in, they are partially responsible for whatever bill or law or "party line" that is passed by that group. So like it or not, you get painted with the same brush as the rest of the members of your party. If, for example, Democrats manage to get a bill passed and signed into law (yeah, right) that states a woman can have an abortion up until the time she goes into labor, most Democrats are going to be painted as "baby killers" by most Republicans. It's just how things work. So, like it or not, if you vote for a certain party, you take partial responsibility for whatever they do, even if it isn't something that you personally agree with. Once it's done, there isn't any "conservative" or "moderate" or "liberal." There is just "is" ir "isn't."

I just don't see any harm with the way it is right now. Again, no one is forced to read any of the threads. There are several threads that I just skip past whenever I see them. It doesn't offend me that they're there, but I have no interest in reading them, so I don't. If someone doesn't want to read an abortion thread, they don't have to. If someone doesn't want to read a Christian Bandsters thread, they don't have to. The only person making the choice of whether or not to click on those threads is the reader.

The thing is, though, someone can only be Republican, Democrat, or Independent (for voting purposes). Someone may be a "liberal Republican" or a "conservative Democrat", but as long as they vote Republican or vote Democrat, that's what they are. Democrats think most Republicans are ultra-conservative and Republicans think Democrats are ultra-liberal. It just depends on the party line. Most people are going to vote their party.

The thing is, not EVERYONE thinks it would be an improvement. I think that all Lisah25 was saying is that if you really like a place, you take the bad with the good. You weigh the pros and cons of what you like or dislike. If the pros are stronger, stay. If the cons are stronger, leave.

There are definitely moderates here. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of the board is comprised of moderates. There are actually very few "true blue" liberals here. I happen to be one of them.

Make sure you have someone good do it. They can look really wacky if you don't. And if you have sensitive skin, make sure that the wax isn't too hot. I got burned pretty badly once when I got my eyebrows waxed and wound up with some extremely painful blisters. I actually like the no-heat gels like Nad's that you can get at a drugstore. I definitely wouldn't try it on your own at first, though. I would maybe get a good wax once and then maintain it with the no-heat stuff afterwards.

The thing is, though, no one is forcing anyone to read or respond to threads. If there is a certain thread that someone doesn't want to read, they don't have to read it. It would be different, IMO, if everyone was forced to read a certain thread every time it was updated. I wouldn't object if, as part of the new posts thing, the forum that a thread is in was identified. I don't think it is necessary to censor the new posts page, though. People are adults, and they can choose to read or not read a thread on their own.

My ex-roommate and her boyfriend (later husband, later still ex-husband) used to have discussions while I was trying to watch TV. That pissed me off so much. I would just keep turning up the volume until they got the hint. My mom makes snarky comments during TV shows. I don't want to KNOW whether something is realistic or not, I just want to be entertained, damn it!

I think that the fathers should have a vote, but I think the final say should rightly lie with the mother. I don't want anyone forcing me to give birth to a child that I don't want. If there was a way to transfer a fetus to the father or another woman or an artificial womb, I'd be all for it, but as long as the mother is required to carry the child until it is born, she should have the final word on whether or not to have an abortion. I also think that if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, he should be required to offer her a surrogacy contract, so that he would be legally tied to the child and so that the mother would be fairly compensated for her time, effort, and pain.