Let me just say that I agree with Kevin Crawford.
He does seem to be a bit excitable lately…
Gary, time to check your meds.
Let me say that I agree with that.
Gary didn’t exactly squeal–it was more of a grunt.
And he didn’t exactly run–is was more of a trot, in the manner of satyrs. Or a scurry. In the manner of gollums.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
I concur with the above.
MakrB
Outta here!
…Change of topic…
Okay I was thinking of thread Hijacks lately and wondering.
One of the moderators may lock the thread if the hijack becomes so out of poor taste that they feel that it is no longar useful to the forum.
Inevitably, some one will cry censorship. My question is, can thread hijacking itself a form of censorship?
I am thinking back to jsluder and dubhlin’s attempts to side track some political threads.
It was all in good fun and harmless. However…
At times it seems like some one going to well planned rally and when the speaker of the day starts talking someone with a blow horn starts yelling and disrupting the rally. Some threads become so inter laced with insults being tossed back and forth that the original topic gets lost in the noise. This to me seems like a way of censoring topics.
Been thinking about this for a while, just my thoughts
Sorry what was the topic?
I much prefer Pepper Jack, but will settle for Kojac, if the tootsie pop is chocolate.
According to his profile he hasn’t posted since Dec. 22, 2002.
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1815
OMG! Multiple acconts!
No, I don’t think so. I have once or twice seen someone try to prevent a very ugly situation by making a humorous or moderating comment that could seem off topic. But that is not like locking a thread. Anyone can return to the original topic if they want to. The posts are all there. If people are interested they do return to the same topic.
I actually think that if a topic gets derailed it is because a sufficient number of people are not interested in it. I can see how this could be annoying to someone wanting some real answers. I don’t think people derail a thread on purpose. At least when I become involved in a hijacking it is not to sabotage the thread, it is just that funny or interesting things start happening and then one thinks of a response and it just sort of evolves. I have never felt a sense of purpose among the participants other than to have conversation, either a funny one or one on a different topic. Quite often it seems to me that hijacking happens after the question in the thread has been answered or the subject exhausted.
I must say that part of the greatest interest of the forums to me is to see where threads end up. I know many people would not feel that way though.
I think that someone who wants some answers and whose thread has gotten hijacked should start a new thread and just say that the old thread went astray and that the new thread should stay on topic because the intent is serious. I think people would respect that. Perhaps that is asking too much of the person who started the thread, but it seems that things could become rather repressive and difficult if there was extreme pressure to stay on topic. Sometimes things are related to the topic and people might feel worried about bringing them up.
Another thing one could do is simply interrupt the hijacking and say “Look, I want people to address my question if you don’t mind, so could we get back on topic?” I think people would respect that as well.
Just my thoughts.
These discussions flow just like conversation in a way. Sub-topics come up and are explored, and it adds to the main topic sometimes… and sometimes not. But if people want to add to the main topic after a diversion there’s nothing to stop them. Sometimes the sub-topics evolve into new threads, sometimes their lifespan is limited and they rise and fall within the main thread. It’s no big deal really.
Many of the threads I’ve started have ended on a completely different subject, and that’s cool. What I don’t like are the contributions that are deliberate attempts to derail the topic. If people don’t like the topic they should just bow out instead of dropping land mines. It’s really not necessary and doesn’t accomplish anything positive.
I would tend to think that especially in the examples you used here, theirs were not an attempt to side track, but to lighten up what tends to be very heated topics. Sure, they could stay out of the discussions, but personally (and I would tend to think I’m not alone in this) I find their scattered bits of humor to be refreshing in the midst of too much drama. Kind of like comic relief in the middle of a very intense scene of Shakespeare.
I started the Smokin’ in SF topic and deliberately didn’t state any opinions in first post and it got fun for a while before going Teutonic and well…you know how that worked out.
Soooo, I think its fun to let 'em drift for the most part. But I may support a moratorium on a certain European dictator whose name starts with H and his followers N for all of our sake. It will be difficult, it will be hard but certainly we’re all up for a challenge.
Ah, sometimes its on purpose…
Sure seemed like a joint effort to head off the direction of the tone of the thread! …and done very well. 
Ya’d think that the kids could think up something else to say besides naming things they read about in history class, don’t ya?
Sometimes Mr. H is relevant. If you can’t handle it when his name comes up it might say more about you than it does about him. It so happened that Hitler had a similar policy towards smoking in public. This was very on-topic for your “smoking” thread. For you to make it taboo mentioning Hitler would be a form of passive aggressive censorship.
A certain European dictator with a name that starts with H was into censorship as well you know.
hmmmm
Jaysus, Gilder… I am suggesting it because people go so ballistic. Your post on that didn’t bother me a bit but you saw where it went…You and I both know the colloquialism of “anti-smoking Nazis” from living around here. The anal-retentive social scrubbers certainly beg for comparison.
It so happens that I do find the Nazi regime a strange combo of socialism and nationalism, which resonates in some ways to this day. But you saw what happened on that thread. Whenever Hitler or Nazis are mentioned, the fur flies.
Go back and read it. People don’t want to hear about it, but it ain’t me. They even dug up some Internet Nazi invoking law. In truth, I have, from time to time, brought it up and some folk have long memories. And also in truth, I was misrepresenting ol’ Schicklgruber a bit, apparently.
:adminno: