Comments on: Common Courtesy… http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:04:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Jessica Thompson http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-459 Jessica Thompson Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:23:05 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-459 Noz, I feel like I am beating my head off my desk with you. As I have previously stated, "Just follow the logical flow of the discussion and don’t make constant attacks about individuals in the thread of an article that they have not written." I don't think that is too much to ask. And as I also previously stated, "My belief is that you are certainly following the rules if you are trying to make some point that directly relates to the topic under which you are commenting." Therefore, as long as you are following the general flow of discussion, you are fine. Also, my last comment is not off-topic, as it references the original post. Let's do this... If you get off-topic, I'll let you know... Noz,

I feel like I am beating my head off my desk with you. As I have previously stated, “Just follow the logical flow of the discussion and don’t make constant attacks about individuals in the thread of an article that they have not written.” I don’t think that is too much to ask. And as I also previously stated, “My belief is that you are certainly following the rules if you are trying to make some point that directly relates to the topic under which you are commenting.” Therefore, as long as you are following the general flow of discussion, you are fine. Also, my last comment is not off-topic, as it references the original post.

Let’s do this… If you get off-topic, I’ll let you know…

]]> By: John http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-458 John Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:19:14 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-458 <i>oh and unless i’m right on how rule #2 should be applied, i think your last comment is off topic.</i> Perhaps, but this is her post, and so presumabley any topic changes coming from her cannot be off topic, by definition. The author sets the topic. We just get to comment on it. oh and unless i’m right on how rule #2 should be applied, i think your last comment is off topic.

Perhaps, but this is her post, and so presumabley any topic changes coming from her cannot be off topic, by definition. The author sets the topic. We just get to comment on it.

]]> By: upyernoz http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-457 upyernoz Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:16:42 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-457 we're not being polite? i'm just asking for clarification. oh and unless i'm right on how rule #2 should be applied, i think your last comment is off topic. with utmost politeness, upyernoz we’re not being polite? i’m just asking for clarification.

oh and unless i’m right on how rule #2 should be applied, i think your last comment is off topic.

with utmost politeness,

upyernoz

]]> By: Jessica Thompson http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-433 Jessica Thompson Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:08:32 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-433 My goodness... You two obviously have nothing better to do than come on this site and make arguments out of nothing. Previously, I commented on the fact that John made a random statement in the thread about keeping on topic. Also, it was followed by the letters "LOL." If you are not familiar, the letters "lol," when used together, stand for "laughing out loud." The fact that the letters were capitalized means that the individual who was laughing out loud (i.e. ME) was doing it more loudly than usual. Once again gentlemen: This post was written for the sole-purpose of making sure people stay on track. Who cares what John says about a misuse of an apostrophe by Noz? All I'm asking is that you stay on track. And once again, you are making something out of nothing. Just follow the logical flow of the discussion and don't make constant attacks about individuals in the thread of an article that they have not written. Wow... I never thought asking people to be polite and to stay on task would be so difficult... My goodness… You two obviously have nothing better to do than come on this site and make arguments out of nothing. Previously, I commented on the fact that John made a random statement in the thread about keeping on topic. Also, it was followed by the letters “LOL.” If you are not familiar, the letters “lol,” when used together, stand for “laughing out loud.” The fact that the letters were capitalized means that the individual who was laughing out loud (i.e. ME) was doing it more loudly than usual.

Once again gentlemen: This post was written for the sole-purpose of making sure people stay on track. Who cares what John says about a misuse of an apostrophe by Noz? All I’m asking is that you stay on track. And once again, you are making something out of nothing. Just follow the logical flow of the discussion and don’t make constant attacks about individuals in the thread of an article that they have not written.

Wow… I never thought asking people to be polite and to stay on task would be so difficult…

]]> By: John http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-431 John Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:53:34 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-431 I also vote not a rule #2 violator. But this raises another question: Is the boundary of acceptable topic now all meta related discussion, or is it limited to the narrow discussion of what is on topic? I also vote not a rule #2 violator. But this raises another question: Is the boundary of acceptable topic now all meta related discussion, or is it limited to the narrow discussion of what is on topic?

]]> By: upyernoz http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-430 upyernoz Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:40:56 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-430 john's right. pointing out a grammatical error in my comment actually illustrates my point pretty well. his comment was on-topic with regards to my comment, and my comment (i think) was on-topic with regard to the original post. but did john violate rule #2? he's in the chain of on-topicness that runs from the original post to my comment to his comment. but if he posted that comment before mine, it wouldn't be on topic because it wouldn't have related to anything above it. so what's the answer? is john a #2 violator or not? i think the answer should be not. or is this all a load of #2? john’s right. pointing out a grammatical error in my comment actually illustrates my point pretty well. his comment was on-topic with regards to my comment, and my comment (i think) was on-topic with regard to the original post. but did john violate rule #2? he’s in the chain of on-topicness that runs from the original post to my comment to his comment. but if he posted that comment before mine, it wouldn’t be on topic because it wouldn’t have related to anything above it.

so what’s the answer? is john a #2 violator or not? i think the answer should be not.

or is this all a load of #2?

]]> By: John http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-428 John Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:32:11 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-428 It wasn't random, it was related to the preceeding comment, which as established herein, is acceptable. And this site hasn't had many new topics recently, so we're making do with meta. It wasn’t random, it was related to the preceeding comment, which as established herein, is acceptable. And this site hasn’t had many new topics recently, so we’re making do with meta.

]]> By: Jessica Thompson http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-426 Jessica Thompson Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:59:22 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-426 Oh, John... How am I not surprised that you are the first person to make a random comment on the thread about staying on topic... LOL You and Noz may think that I don't have a sense of humor, but I'm really just trying to make sure that this site is run efficiently and respectfully. Oh, John… How am I not surprised that you are the first person to make a random comment on the thread about staying on topic… LOL

You and Noz may think that I don’t have a sense of humor, but I’m really just trying to make sure that this site is run efficiently and respectfully.

]]> By: John http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-425 John Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:18:06 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-425 <i>...would participan<b>t’s</b> in my hypothetical...</i> Sorry for the incivility, but Noz just failed. :-) …would participant’s in my hypothetical…

Sorry for the incivility, but Noz just failed. :-)

]]> By: upyernoz http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/2008/09/common-courtesy/#comment-423 upyernoz Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:21:25 +0000 http://pacollegerepublicans.com/blog/?p=83#comment-423 <i>And I don’t understand exactly what you mean by this statement: “[My] sense is that a comment is still “on topic” as long as it is responding to the point in a comment above it. is that right? and if not, doesn’t that reward off-topic comments because the commenters who are trying to follow the rules can’t publish a response?” My belief is that you are certainly following the rules if you are trying to make some point that directly relates to the topic under which you are commenting. However, I’m not quite sure what you mean by saying that we are rewarding “off-topic” comments by “…commenters who are trying to follow the rules” cannot respond?</i> i'm sorry if my question wasn't clear. it's kind of hard to explain in the abstract. but i'll try again. what i'm saying is that sometimes if a longish discussion gets going the discussion drifts a bit off the original topic of the post. so if the post is about lebanon and someone leaves a comment relating the poster's point to recent developments in israeli-lebanese relations. and then someone else leaves a comment pointing out that israel's stance with regard to lebanon is being driven by their domestic politics because they're heading into an election. the next thing you know, we're all discussing the israeli election, and not lebanon. it seems to me that if there is a good discussion, often it's because the topic relates to a lot of related interesting issues. and so the "drift" i was describing in my example is only natural. but if we relate that back to your rule #2, would participant's in my hypothetical comment thread be writing off topic? my sense is that the answer should be "no." if one comment is on-topic, and the next comment is on the topic of that comment, and comment #3 is on-topic of comment #2, comment #3 is still permitted even if had drifted away from the original topic of the post. but that's just how i think it should be. i don't make the rules here, which is why i am trying to clarify this. And I don’t understand exactly what you mean by this statement: “[My] sense is that a comment is still “on topic” as long as it is responding to the point in a comment above it. is that right? and if not, doesn’t that reward off-topic comments because the commenters who are trying to follow the rules can’t publish a response?” My belief is that you are certainly following the rules if you are trying to make some point that directly relates to the topic under which you are commenting. However, I’m not quite sure what you mean by saying that we are rewarding “off-topic” comments by “…commenters who are trying to follow the rules” cannot respond?

i’m sorry if my question wasn’t clear. it’s kind of hard to explain in the abstract. but i’ll try again.

what i’m saying is that sometimes if a longish discussion gets going the discussion drifts a bit off the original topic of the post. so if the post is about lebanon and someone leaves a comment relating the poster’s point to recent developments in israeli-lebanese relations. and then someone else leaves a comment pointing out that israel’s stance with regard to lebanon is being driven by their domestic politics because they’re heading into an election. the next thing you know, we’re all discussing the israeli election, and not lebanon.

it seems to me that if there is a good discussion, often it’s because the topic relates to a lot of related interesting issues. and so the “drift” i was describing in my example is only natural.

but if we relate that back to your rule #2, would participant’s in my hypothetical comment thread be writing off topic? my sense is that the answer should be “no.” if one comment is on-topic, and the next comment is on the topic of that comment, and comment #3 is on-topic of comment #2, comment #3 is still permitted even if had drifted away from the original topic of the post.

but that’s just how i think it should be. i don’t make the rules here, which is why i am trying to clarify this.

]]>