Replies

Truly, the Smokey Backroom issue should not have gotten out of the Smokey Backroom.

I may also ask where this troll label on posts 58 and 59 of this thread came from. There was no background associated with them. Why should anyone accept the labels thrown out by others with no substantiation?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the OBVIOUS Flamebaiting in post 56?

Hmm, seemed fairly obvious to me and many others.

ALS was once again baiting for a flamewar, so I posted a warning, just as the agreement states I can.

If he had chosen to make his statement in a less inflaming way, I would have left it alone, but the boy has no finesse, and had to attack, so I gave the warning, just as I should have, then PH followed it up with a more succinct and explanatory post.

Pretty obvious to me where those 2 posts came from, or do you think that saying.....

To: StolarStorm

Just because evolution is an extinct dinosaur doesn't make dinosaurs the exclusive domain of extinct evoloonies.

Free speech is a problem for you. You should start your own discussion club in your closet where it's relatively safe.

56 posted on 08/14/2003 3:32 PM PDT by ALS

Responding to this, by a NONsignatory, and someone that had no idea the agreement even existed..

To: PatrickHenry

It would be nice if the creationists would simply stop trying to 'witness' on the science threads. Discussions regarding a purely scientific topic do not require any input from those who have no belief (or understanding) of the scientific method. They should feel free to discuss creationism all they want on threads dedicated to that topic.

51 posted on 08/14/2003 1:19 PM PDT by StolarStorm

Was NOT indeed an invitation to start a flamewar?

I believe it was safe to say that ALS was baiting a flamewar, just as he always has.

As I said, pretty obvious to me. Then again, I saw it coming and was waiting for him to do just what he did.

There was considerable discussion leading up to 58. It started with post #5:

Dinosaurs were just big lizards and very likely lived with human beings. Some may even be alive today.

This is equivalent to saying the resurection didn't happen. Perhaps it can be discussed, but to toss it out as a fact without giving an argument is just inciting.

The particular path that led to 58 and 59 is not clear or direct. Perhaps it shouldn't have happened.

Thank you for your post!

Why should anyone accept the labels thrown out by others with no substantiation?

I don't see how anything can be done to make a person "accept" a label - especially perhaps the one being labeled. The troll-calling provision is roughly the equivalent of posting a "sharks in the water" sign on the beach. Not everyone will pay attention and the sharks probably don't appreciate it - but in the end, if someone doesn't get injured then it was worth the effort.

If you believe the original infringement ought be cited on a "do not feed the trolls" post, then you ought to bring it up in the review - or better yet, post it to the current Agreement thread so the mediator will be sure to remember the suggestion.

I will probably argue against your view though because I would rather not bring out all the dirty laundry every time we need to advise other posters that engaging a particular poster might lead to a flame war. A compromise solution might be a Freep mail to the newbies on the thread, but again it troubles me to speak behind someone's back.

Bottom line: the agreement is still quite young and subject to change and suggestions are much appreciated.