Showing Disapproval - Beating The Dead Horse

[bci21984]

I am sort of a and a , im glad we have a website about with people that are proud to be , i dont think ive ever used the smiley. i much prefer the one, i hope my post doesnt start a .

[OldSchool]

Faster Moderators could help eliminate the NEW threads based on the same old questions that provoke the beating of a dead horse.

Just consolidate or lock threads that are repetitive. You could always do like the Enos board and post a link with the search demonstrating 32 other topics of the same nature.

Such as: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Atexaschlfor ... +office%22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alternately you could get one of these keyboards for your computer: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20029684-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It does not have a "dead horse" key though.





[this message and the information contained herein should be taken in jest]

You had me for a moment there!!

[WildBill]

And here is the kicker: There have been a few threads that have continued well past the point that some found to be never-ending that we eventually found common ground and discovered the primary points of contention. And it has been these threads (at some points contentious but courteous), much more so than the standard threads, that have helped shape my changing opinions over the past several months.

So from my perspective, such actions - while aimed to reduce perceived unresolvable conflict - actually only prolong the conflict.

I would probably have to say "very few threads" meet this criteria, but good points. If members were only allowed to post threads on strictly "new topics", it would surely die. Since I am not a moderator and can't say "Get Back On Topic or This Thread With Be Locked", I consider the "dead horse" as my best option.

[OldSchool]

My vote is for not discouraging posting new threads on an old topic. Yes, it can be considered rude to not perform a search on that topic before posting. However, I have (probably often) posted on a topic after a failed search, just to find out that there was indeed a previous thread on that topic (search may be your friend, but proves to often be a fair-weather friend).

A simple link to a previous thread is sufficient.
But, be ready to expand on it when that previous thread doesn't answer the question!

[Oldgringo]

As with all written communication, sometimes it is difficult to determine whether or not certain statements should be taken seriously, as a joke, as sarcasm or as tongue-in-cheek. In other words, things should be taken in context. So using the icons for beating a dead horse or rolling ones eyes are not neccesarily rude. I have tried not to be rude, but I have used these and other icons to express my feelings about certain subjects.

Terryg had some excellent points in his post. Nothing gets my goat so much as a child [teenager] as rolling their eyeballs. Especially, if it is concurrant with them saying, "Whatever!". But consider these two posts:

As usual, Abraham is asking another of his thought-provoking questions.

At the local gunshop I heard the owner tell a customer, "If you shoot him outside, drag him into the house.

I agree that the first use of the is rude. The second example may be rude, but I think that is an appropriate response for such an asinine statement.

Getting back to the dead horse, I think that using it when a junior member asks the questions "What Do You Think about a CHL Badge" or "What Do You Think about Carrying Blanks" is rude and not appropriate.

On the other hand I have used it for threads that go on ad naseum, and offer no new information or original thoughts.
Yes, I could ignore the thread and move on, but a icon might stimulate some members to get the thread back on track and post something that is constructive.

Where is that soapbox icon when I need it?

Very well said and FWIW, I particularly agree with your observation about threads that go on ad nauseum. Those threads make me want to .

[Abraham]

Oldgringo,

"I particularly agree with your observation about threads that go on ad nauseum. Those threads make me want to ."
I restate: Why continue to read a thread that makes you nauseous? There's no obligation to read something that you judge undeserving and renders you discontented is there?

WildBill,

"Since I am not a moderator and can't say "Get Back On Topic or This Thread With Be Locked", I consider the "dead horse" as my best option"

Here may be part of the reason for the heart burn: "Since I am not a moderator...

Right, just another poster like the rest of us - no power, but the one of persuasion.

[KaiserB]

KaiserB,

terryg posted some very cogent reasons for re-visiting a topic.

For me, this is one of the more compelling: "...information and consensus about a given subject is very fluid and a dated posting can hold little relevance."

I think, at times, there may be a knee-jerk reaction to a topic as being redundant, producing sighs in those who wish the subject would simply go away, and for reasons beyond my ken, they can't simply move on, but feel a need to chastise - when in fact the interested parties wish to discuss it.

What's the harm in letting people discuss a previously discussed topic even if an extremely small minority get bug-eyed at the prospect?

P.S. Their vision malady is self-induced, as they could just as well skip the thread entirely with no harm and no foul for anyone.

P.P.S. For those who can't stand topics discussed more than a few times, I have some tri-cornered hats they may be interested in...

Please see the note at the very bottom of my original post:

SNIPPED ....

[this message and the information contained herein should be taken in jest]

[Abraham]

KaiserB ,

I read that tacked on the end of your post - but, like the old commercial in which the elderly lady demands to know: Where's the beef?

So, I re-read your post and asked myself - Where's the humor?

(I confess, I didn't visit the links, is it there?)

[WildBill]

WildBill,

"Since I am not a moderator and can't say "Get Back On Topic or This Thread With Be Locked", I consider the "dead horse" as my best option"

Here may be part of the reason for the heart burn: "Since I am not a moderator...

Right, just another poster like the rest of us - no power, but the one of persuasion.

I have no heartburn that I am not a moderator. I believe that my power of persuasion is just as powerful as clicking a box that says "locked". My "power" on the forum comes from me - my words, my thoughts and my reasoning. That is all more the reason for me to use all of the tools that I have at my disposal.

[terryg]

I believe that the power of persuasion can just as powerful. That is all more the reason for me to use all of the tools that I have at my disposal.

Respectfully WildBill, in this instance, that power is wielded by some in much the same way that a school yard bully keeps 'order' on the playground. Please know that I am not referring to you specifically. But I find it ironic that some who use this 'power' regularly are the same ones who seek civility in other post.

Perhaps what is more ironic is that I generally respect and appreciate the wisdom these individuals express in many threads - yet on this particular issue, they seem to possess little.

Again, this is not directed at you personally - but I do take issue with the thought of the use of ridicule as an appropriate tool of persuasion. You may not be using the horse to ridicule - but others are.

[WildBill]

Respectfully WildBill, in this instance, that power is wielded by some in much the same way that a school yard bully keeps 'order' on the playground. Please know that I am not referring to you specifically. But I find it ironic that some who use this 'power' regularly are the same ones who seek civility in other post.

Again, this is not directed at you personally - but I do take issue with the thought of the use of ridicule as an appropriate tool of persuasion. You may not be using the horse to ridicule - but others are.

Maybe I took your comments personally, but I can not be responsible for the actions of others. That said, the moderators are generally more patient than I would be. They have let threads go on much longer than I would.

Over the years I have disagreed with forum members on many topics, I don't believe that I have ever attempted to bully any member. I try to use my power of persuasion for the greater good of the forum.

[Barbi Q]

Very well said and FWIW, I particularly agree with your observation about threads that go on ad nauseum. Those threads make me want to .

I was at a party last night. When I walked over to one group, they were talking about the football game next weekend. I wasn't interested so I moved on, and joined a different conversation instead.

I could have been rude and tried to pressure them to stop talking football, but I have better manners than that.

[WildBill]

Very well said and FWIW, I particularly agree with your observation about threads that go on ad nauseum. Those threads make me want to .

I was at a party last night. When I walked over to one group, they were talking about the football game next weekend. I wasn't interested so I moved on, and joined a different conversation instead.

I could have been rude and tried to pressure them to stop talking football, but I have better manners than that.

Barbi Q - Thanks for your story. I knew that I should have ignored this thread.

[KaiserB]

A few more responses and we will be:









[this message and the information contained herein should be taken in jest] :)

[Abraham]

KaiserB,

"[this message and the information contained herein should be taken in jest] :)"

Is this exempting message supposed work like: "I am not a lawyer" after posting advice?