Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jomarac5

  1. Sorry Seneca, I'm not going to engage you in a conversation about semantics. If you'd like to start a thead of your own about semantics and name calling, go ahead, maybe I'll join you there. If you'd like to continue discussing the reason that the starter of a thread has the ability to close that thread for any reason whatsoever, I'd be happy to discuss it with you further. So far, no one has been able to offer a sensible reason for this. Perhaps you could? *****
  2. I've already answered that question Zuuk. Go back and read my earlier reply. *****
  3. quote: Xitron wrote:While you may not be directly blaming the admins it is clear to me that you are putting the blame on them. Clear as mud to you it seems. This discussion is not blaming any admin or any policy of the site. I'm only trying to understand the reasoning of the policy. I didn't say anywhere that I agreed or disagreed with it. And frankly, whatever GCs reasoning for making this a policy doesn't matter to me, i.e., I'm not about to start another thread to have it changed, or as you infer, just to b1tch about it. I'm simply trying to understand the reasoning behind it because it doesn't make sense to me. Read the words -- they are the message, not what you're reading between them. *****
  4. Corp of Discovery, ON topic? Didn't you write: "Well theres P*R*T*, N*V*C*CH*, ***** *******, ***** and of course **** ** * *****." Sounds off topic to me. btw: my specific question has not been answered. *****
  5. quote: CO Admin wrote: I freely admit that I said the above words attributed to me Thanks for clearing that up. I assume that since the words were changed by you that you'd prefer them not to be regarded as your opinion. No problem here. *****
  6. Corp of Discovery, no, I'm not having a bad night. Truth of the matter is, I very rarely do and can't remember the last time I had a bad day (or night). Thanks for asking though, your concern for my well being is appreciated. As for the rewording of the question -- sometimes a question needs to be rephrased because some people don't fully understand and grasp it's meaning -- worded a little differently, hopefully they will comprehend it better. Obviously, this is relevant in this case, as my question has still not been answered (even though you seem to think that it has been). If you can't answer my question, I hope that you will have the courtesy to not muddle up this thread with your off-topic diatribe and allow someone who can answer to do so. *****
  7. quote: Xitron wrote:Jomarac5, while it may seem to be immaturity to you I was only half joking. I am getting tired of all the complaints about the admins and how they do their jobs. The joking part was my stating how to close down this topic, you know me and if I wanted to close it down I could, its really rather easy. My point is simple alot of people, myself included, are tired of the complaining and whining going on. I am not saying you are the one causing this, there are alot of negative threads out there and it just getting boring hearing people Bi**h all the time. I like caching and have involved others in it. The thing is I will not recommand they visit the forum at this time because of all the negative posts going on. I am sure there are others with the same opinion, though I will not mention any names. Who's complaining about admins here? I'm not -- and I said so in the beginning of the thread. If you want the thread closed so badly, then have it closed. Or you could be mature about it and simply ignore it if you don't wish to offer anything constructive to it. I'm glad to hear that you're tired of the complaining - as am I. But why are you bringing this up here, I'm not complaining about anything -- I'm only trying to get a reasonable discussion going to determine a logical reason as to why a person who starts a thread, has the means of which to shut it down if they don't like the way the discusion is progressing. No complaining there -- only asking a question. Sorry you feel embarrased to tell people about the forums, but that's your choice entirely. Perhaps if you and others kept discussions on topic, the forums wouldn't be so negative. ***** edit: typo [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 07, 2003 at 07:04 PM.]
  8. quote:Seneca wrote: quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5:
  9. quote: Bloencustoms wrote:If I had started this thread, I'd be pretty happy I had the option to close it. You could simply stop posting to it. *****
  10. quote: Team AshandEs wrote:Why are you so desperate for someone to point out the logic behind it if you don't want it changed? It just seems like such a non-issue unless you are genuinely bothered by it. Call it intellectual curioustity. I'm just having a difficult time understanding the basic logic of being able to close a thread just because I don't like the direction that it's going. quote:ju66l3r wrote: He has also chosen not to accept logical descriptions handed to him Perhaps it's that your logic doesn't hold up when applied to my direct question? btw: I have read all the posts on this thead. quote: ju66l3r wrote:Since your premise is faulty, your question is nullified and the answer you strive for does not exist. It does exist. You are just using non-logical assumptions to avoid the question, which is, Why does the thread starter have the means to stop a discussion that he started if the forum conduct rules have not been violated? *****
  11. quote: Team AshandEs wrote:If you genuinely believe the current policy is wrong and you're not just making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of it, then why not make your case in the gc.com board forum? If those that run the board agree with you maybe they'll change it. I already said that it is not a matter of right or wrong. I'm trying to understand the logic behind the thread starter being able to close the thread. So far, I've received a number of replies that say that it is so, or that there are reasons for closing a thread, but no one has yet answered my specific question. I'm also not looking for GC to answer the question as I'm not requesting that the rule be changed. I'm asking for the thoughts of the community. I'm looking for some sound reasoning here. What's the logic of being able to close a thread that you started? So far the only one reason has been stated -- that the question or purpose of the thread was satisfied. But what about open-ended discussions? Why are they allowed to be stopped by the person who started them? Please, please, someone point out the logic behind this. *****
  12. quote: Jamie and Jason wrote:Remember the Do You Read the Forums thread? You started it to see how many people hit the forums on a given week. When the week had passed, it was closed, because a week's worth of polling was adequate for you. Perhaps others would have liked to continue the TPBM part, or perhaps others would have rather seen how many people visited in, say, 2 weeks. But since it satisfied the original post, there was no need to continue. If others wanted to, they could have opened another thread to address their issues. Of course I recall that thread. But the point is that I indicated a time limit -- that suited the purpose. If someone asks a specific question that requires a definitive answer, such as "How do I download gpx files to my GPS?", then I can see no need to continue the discussion once an answer has been given. But when a question is posed to the community that is asking for opinions or open-ended responses, then the discussion time limit should also be open-ended unless there is a violation of the forum rules. To give someone the means to close a thread just because the result of the topic goes against their own personal feelings about something, doesn't make sense. This is a public forum. Which means that you may not agree with the opinions of others. And they may not agree with what you think. Whether you started the discussion or not, a discussion was started and it should be allowed to develop beyond the point of "If you agree with me, I'll let you talk". *****
  13. quote: Bloencustoms wrote:What is wrong with a person having the ability to close a thread? Lots. But I think that hikemeister summed it best when he wrote: I don't like the idea of a person starting a thread and then closing it when there still is active discussion going on -- seems like a cheap way to get out of a discussion. If a person is being 'attacked' then the thread should be closed by a moderator and the reason stated. Generally, a discussion will only turn into an 'attack frenzy' if the person being targeted keeps coming back for more -- and if that's the case, then the moderator should intervene and either say something to calm things down or give a warning that if the attacking continues that the thread will be closed. Perhaps instead of telling me that there is nothing wrong with a person being able to close their thread, you could tell me why it is right? *****
  14. quote: hikemeister wrote: Are there some specific examples where that has occurred, or is this all hypothetical? Of course there are examples of this, but so that no one thinks that this question is pointed towards them, let's just consider this to be a hypothetical question to some not so hypothitical threads. *****
  15. quote: CO Admin wrote:BECASUE THEY CAN, there is no policy thats says they cant. WOW. That reply will sure open up an awful lot of interesting discussion in other places. Look, I'm not asking if it is or is not a policy. I'm not asking if it is right or wrong. I'm asking for someone to explain the logic to me. I'm having a difficult time coming up with a reason for the thread starter to be able to close a thead that makes any sort of reasonable sense. So far, no one has even made an attempt to explain the logic behind this. My question is yet unanswered. *****
  16. quote: hikemeister wrote:I don't like the idea of a person starting a thread and then closing it when there still is active discussion going on -- seems like a cheap way to get out of a discussion. Exactly my point! I'm just trying to understand the logic behind the person that starts a thead to be able to close it -- seems to me that if you ask the question, you should be prepared to accept the answer that is given -- not get in a snit and say "Well, I don't want to talk about it anymore, I'm shutting this topic down". There is no regard for those who might wish to continue with the discussion -- doesn't seem quite right to me considering that we're talking about public forums where the opinions of others are encouraged to be shared. I'm just trying to establish some viable reasoning as to why the person who began the topic can shut it off if they don't like or agree with what is being discussed. *****
  17. quote: CO Admin wrote:Ok last time Jomarac5 the logic is simple, the problem is you do not like the answer and you seem to think that if you keep asking the answer will change. Actually, it's not a matter of not liking the answer, I'm not getting an answer. *****
  18. quote: Zuuk wrote:Yawn Not the same thing Zuuk. Completely different topic -- this thread asks the reasoning and logic for the thread starter to be able to close it. *****
  19. quote: Bloencustoms wrote:The person who creates it can shut it down for any reason. ("Don't like it" is a reason.) But this doesn't explain the logic behind the ability for the thread starter to close it. *****
  20. Actually, Bloencustoms thread doesn't fall under the topic of is discussion -- that thread was not shut down by the person who started it, it was shut down by an admin (and this is not a discussion about admins closing threads). CO Admin, perhaps you could shed some light on the logic behind someone who starts a thread to be able to have it closed? *****
  21. OK Zuuk, you've mentioned that already and I replied that it wasn't the case. If you continue to acuse me of trolling, I'll have to assume that you are making an attempt to close *this* thread because you don't like the topic. If it bothers you that much, then don't reply to it. I welcome you to join in this discussion, but please keep your responses on topic. Thanks. *****
  22. quote: Zuuk wrote:Considering that the person who started this thread is trolling, of what more use is this discussion? Definitely not trolling. Just asking a legitimate question and seeing what the response is of the community. *****
  23. quote: CO Admin wrote:The logic is simple, the owner of the thread asked for it to be closed. I complied. Whats more logical thank that. If you request it I would be happy to close this one for you. Whoa!!! I'm not referring to any specific thread (although the thread you are referring to, does fall under the scope of this question). Thanks for the quick reply, but your response doesn't address the question that I asked: What is the logic behind the starter of a thread being able to have it closed? *****
  24. I was wondering why the person who starts a thread can have the thread shut down. As the starter of a thread, should I be allowed, after initiating the discussion, to be able to shut it down if I don't like the way that the discussion is heading? Seems to me that if something is worth discussing in a public forum, unless it's gone completely off topic, it should not be at the mercy of a person who may not be willing to let it run it's course. This is not an attempt to complain about the way this site is run, I'm just curious about the logic behind this policy. Why is the post that starts a thread different than any other post in that thread? ***** [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 07, 2003 at 11:26 PM.]
  25. Jomarac5


    I've spoken to him recently and his injuries are causing him a great deal of pain and discomfort -- apparently, it's even difficult for him to walk. He doesn't know if he will be able to continue caching. I'm going to stop by and visit with him in the next while. *****
  • Create New...