Local Discussion. Read by thousands every month! Idaho Falls, Ammon, and East Idaho
Changes are afoot everywhere this summer.
I am also open to fresh ideas about how to improve IdahoFallz.com, so I open this discussion thread here to anyone with improvement suggestions.
Feel free to discuss policies, visuals, where information is located, and especially new features you would like to see.
Besides giving fresh ideas on what to change, what are some things you enjoy about IdahoFallz.com, and would like to see continued?
Popularity: 20%
Related posts:
Previous post: June 1, 2007 State of the City Blog
Next post: Illegal Immigration: Helpful Solutions and Harmful Pursuits
It WAS all he had to say about it!
:@:)
Loading ...Thursday, Mar 11
Mostly Cloudy
Currently: 36˚F
Feels Like: 28˚ F
Hi: N/A˚, Lo: 22˚
Wind: 13, Gust: N/A MPH
Wind Direction: SW (220) 
Friday, Mar 12
Hi: 44˚, Lo: 28˚
Wind: 4, Gust: N/A MPH
Wind Direction: S (181) 
Local News
{ 116 comments… read them below or add one }
I want to see a way for us to share photos and videos. Most people have broadband connections. Give us a way to share files like this.
More cowbell.
Word.
Not just more cowbell, more ‘Don’t Fear the Reaper’ and more ‘Honky Tonk Women’
First of all, I don’t understand the comments you have received on this topic so far. . .no big deal. . .just that they don’t sound helpful. . .
I think you need a new layout. It took me awhile to realize where the articles are located on the page, because they are buried under the real-time chat box.
There are too many columns of stuff on the main page, that could be on a secondary page, with just the links here. (I get the impression from the layout, that you are trying not to offend anyone, by making everything “front page news.”)
Pictures are good, but how about only one pic at a time, and place them on a system that rotates or slides them.
Instead of 2 small columns on left, I’d put one on each side of large column. Picture and Links to other pages on left side (people read left to right)and live chat below the links on the right – or vice versa. Main info people are looking for should be front and center.
All pertinent info should be represented or linked to on the top portion that is visible when the page is opened.
I could say more, but want to leave room for others to comment.
I think that the censorship of religious discussion is a big problem. Personally, I know of several people that no longer visit this site because of the zealotry involved keeping out religious discussions. I am sure other people have the same experience(s). This is a major part of life in this area and around the country. To limit discussion of such an important topic is misguided. What’s next? If people start talking about abortion or emryonic cloning will that be taken off the list as well?
Open up the flood gates of discussion. Hate speech can always be edited out later or simply not responded to by the Idahofallz community. I think we are all smart enough to hold discussions that are meaningful and while heated, with a purpose of self-enlightenment and learning.
Otherwise, I think the site is organized well. Hat’s off to Joe on the rest.
I appreciate any and all suggestions, and please know EVERY suggestion is seriously considered for upcoming changes.
Keep them coming.
Do you agree or disagree with previous suggestions? What else would you like to see introduced or eliminated?
I agree with previous poster who said you should just let people say what they want to say. There is no right in this country to not be offended. I don’t get offended when people tell me I’m a heathen who is going to burn in hell because of my non belief. And I’ve got no sympathy for whiny people who get offended when I suggest (quoting Jesse Ventura) that “Religion is a crutch for weak minded people.” If your personal mood is so dependent on what some stranger on the internet says then you probably shouldn’t be here in the first place.
In my mind the only things that should be kept out are the things that should be kept away from children, i.e. porn, and the things that are illegal.
If someone gets too out of line with personal attacks or senseless trolling like a few have done in the chatbox lately then deal with that person. Don’t take the grade school approach of punishing the whole class for what only one or two people did.
As to the site layout, I’d like to see an easier way to find old articles. As is you either have to search for them via a search engine or tediously wade through all the newer ones.
I’m kind of thinking of more of a typical message board format if possible. Break things down into catgegories, .i.e politics, sports, local news, etc, and then have the ability to see the most recent 20 articles on page 1, the next 20 on page two, or something like that.
Joe,
This site went downhill as soon as you started limiting what we could discuss. The First Amendment took a real drubbing the day you decided to eliminate any talk about religion.
Mike’s right…Sure, maybe things got a little raucous when the debates were wide open in the religion thread, but damn it, it was stimulating and healthy for all participants.
Unless you have a financial stake (Mormon advertising dollars) in keeping religion off limits, then I say open it back up. Breathe some life back into this stodgy web site.
I’d have to agree with the last few posts. Limiting speech has definately hurt this site whether you want to believe it or not. There may be more traffic, but there’s definately been less quality discussion in my opinion.
I certainly cannot argue with that.
When contemplating banning religious discussions, I knew both paths held the potential to decrease discussions. I had some sound theories that I think are still relevant, but it’s obvious the one path has a chilling effect that was not anticipated.
So we have the chilling effect with one decision and a raucous offensive effect of turning some people away entirely with the other decision.
If you want to say more on the religion discussion aspect, feel free, but I feel I’ve heard it loud and clear (especially with last month’s numbers).
Any other changes you would like to see? I especially appreciate hearing how you want to find and access the available information, and/or what new kinds of information you want to see.
I was disappointed when the certain topics were banned from discussion here as well. Check out your number 1 article of all time. Religious discussion. This is a huge issue in Idaho Falls — and we can’t hide from that and hope it goes away. How many other topics of discussion are hindered by not allowing any mention of God or religeon? Topics on abortion, seperation of church and state issues, raising children, not to mention all of the local issues and concerns some might have in the work place, children at school, the local boy scouts etc. etc. etc. The list just goes on. It really turned me off on this site when I found that the word “God” was treated on this site exactly like the word “S***” and some others that I won’t even elude to. I am sorry to put it that way — but hey, thats the way it is.
Hey, the question about religion being banned here could probably be posted in another article….Do you think IdahoFallz.com is Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative? Seems to me that banning religion discussion is tantamount to political correctness that we see from Liberal Left Wingers? I definitely think that this policy needs to be changed to allow this site to stay relevant.
I don’t understand this last post at all. I know a lot of liberal left-wingers and they don’t support censorship. Sounds like the opinion of a judgmental stereotyping conservative right-winger to me.
Give me a break! “I know a lot of liberal left-wingers and they don’t support censorship. Sounds like the opinion of a judgmental stereotyping conservative right-winger to me.”
Two points:
1) Not every liberal, nor every conservative is against censorship. However, political correctness takes on the form of censorship when ideas are talked about that are supported by the typical ideology at work…on college campuses, the media, and other locales this happens to be liberals that censor open debate. For example, at Columbia University, Left Wingers refused to let the minuteman representative give a speech. They stormed the stage and forced the cancellation of the speech. The New York Times buries the JFK plot on page 37 (this is it’s own kind of censorship by omitting it’s importance).
2) Your explanation of what you think you know about me and what my opinion ‘represents’ is a perfect example of the lack of civilized debate. You just had to resort to name calling instead of challenging an assumption. This is what people do when their point is weak…they attack the messenger. I wasn’t calling anyone names. I simply made an observation that you did not like. Instead of stating facts or examples, you resort to name calling. For example, it took Geraldo Rivera 29 seconds into a debate to call Glenn Beck racist because he wants to build a fence and enforce our immigration laws! 29 seconds to name call. That is political correctness at work. Don’t debate your opponent….demonize them!
The overall point of this thread is that there are many subjects to talk about on here. They should not be censored in any way unless it violates existing law, is malicious, or confrontational in the sense of outraging social norms, i.e. hate speech with no other purpose than to inflame. My point was two fold. I felt that religion should be allowed back on here. My other point was that one could make an argument that on this narrow ground, the site leans left due to censoring religion from discussion, i.e. this is what the ACLU a primarily left leaning organization fights for on seperation of church and state. This is common knowledge for everyone to see. Unless of course, it is an “inconvenient truth” that liberals are not always as open and accepting as they like to portray themselves to be.
I’ll share one thought track I had when considering the ban.
I figured some folks would get upset and quit chattering and/or visiting. Inevitable that I cannot please everyone.
I had an idea that more religiously-oriented folks, more conservatively-oriented majority might embrace the change, might start participating more, that discussions could become more mainstream here.
And the evidence is showing that they are not. Even after I invited, heck even dared them to try participating here they do not.
So now what am I to think?
I’ll admit I’ve thought about reversing the ban the last few days. I’ve got numbers evidence against my decision, hard to argue against that.
So what just lift all restrictions and post notices to email me if you want something libelous removed? Tell everyone I know the site will be wilder than the west from now on, not likely to get too many vibrant discussions anymore because the trolls will sink it every time?
Hey the site finally pays for itself now, and I have other projects I want to pursue, so just unleash it to whatever? The site would always be the go-to source for uncensored speech in Idaho Falls and nobody would be able to compete with that allure.
How long can that last?
And what about the window into Idaho Falls that this site opens to the world? What view do we want to present to the world about IF?
I’m really disappointed the participation dropped off.
I’m really disappointed the area majority huffed and puffed so much before the ban, then dropped the ball when it was tossed their way.
sorry this is really a boring site, I don’t know if adding religion bashing will help it.
Oh please lord don’t bring back the religious discussions here. They were too full of people hating and bashing and soapboxing to no end, not to mention the lecturing and preaching. I’m so glad the separate link was created.
I find this site to be quite informative and I just emailed it to a large number of fellow citizens who I don’t believe know about it.
If you let it go, it will turn into trash like topix.net or worse.
You are exactly right, the image you want to present of Idaho Falls is a fair and balanced one, one that invites people to the city and reflects a decent citizen base.
And no everyone, I don’t attend church, am not religious and still don’t care to read the crap people posted about it before it was pulled.
Let’s talk about real issues affecting the city, as they happen. Let’s debate politics in the city, the direction our leaders are taking us, and who has the worst burgers in town if need be. New developments, problems in the press, and great events coming up. Enough said.
I’m not real sure if I even want to respond to THE MAN. So, I will respond to Joe’s post in #18.
It isn’t IdahoFallz.com’s job to promote Idaho Falls. And assuming that you think that it is then religion is a part of this community whether you want it to be or not. This would be like saying if we ran SanFransiscoz.com that we couldn’t talk about homosexuality!
People want to express themselves. They are being strangled due to a real or perceived hostility towards religion. Yes, it is heated. However, abortion can get heated too. Do we limit talking about that next when people start throwing mud? And seriously, short of libel or slander…is anyone going to really lose sleep over getting criticized on here? If they do, they should get professional psychological help. I have been pummeled on here for my view supporting drug laws….the pummeling went on for days. I stuck to my guns and had it out. I am not losing sleep because I was called names. I just moved to another topic and I continue to learn more on this site.
I can identify with the earlier poster who talked about being edited on the short-term chat. Joe removed my comments before when we got in a disagreement about Pres. Bush and Iraq. I didn’t go crying off into a corner. I stuck it out. If people can’t hack taking a ribbing about religion or whatever, then they shouldn’t be on this site or any site expressing a wide variety of opinions. Most Americans & Idahoans want open debate. I think it would improve the site. Let’s not be predisposed to shutting down certain topics because people get offended. If they don’t like it they can take a walk—just like what Joe told some guy complaining tonight….if you don’t like it go somewhere else. I for one want to stay here….but I also want a wide variety of opinions to be present. I may not agree, but then again, I just might be converted! This opportunity to examine one’s beliefs is stymied when censorship is imposed.
Thanks for your work Joe. I hope you keep rethinking this issue and open things up.
Wow, some pretty tough comments in recent posts.
I have to disagree with you Joe, in one assumption you’ve made. I don’t think the decrease in quality chats has totally been due to restricting certain subjects.
Having changed my password somewhere midstream of the problems with whatever, I can’t log on during times when only site members are allowed.
Additionally, this is a very busy time of year and for many, they are moving to new phases of their lives with graduations, maybe new jobs etc.
All are free to judge the site based on their experience. But, I cannot remain quiet when some want to make Joe be the “bad guy.” He worked for 18 months to try to make a congenial site to discuss issues. The topic proved too much for this site (and I’m seeing an identical response on a national site that is also not going to allow further discussions about religion).
If you want to discuss those subjects, I hope you have visited the alternative site Joe has created for you. Personally, I don’t want to be involved.
Joe asked US as USERS for our input about what we wanted as revisions for the site. It was a group vote – at least for those who participated in that discussion. While he is the site host and administrator, he didn’t make this decision without feedback from many.
I know people who have returned to the site since religion has been moved to the other site. Some have been happy, based on who is around and the topics of conversation. Others report that every time they check in, so many comments seem aimed at Joe for changing the site and removing religion to the other site.
Not everyone wants to argue on a website, or during a casual chat. I believe feelings about religion are as mixed as we’ve seen – no doubt in my mind.
I still fail to understand how any one person has persuaded another to see things as s/he does, or if any one person has healed some from the experiences they’ve had and now are finally talking to others about it.
And if I were looking for detailed information about religions or aspects of churches etc., I wouldn’t go to a general city chat site to find that information.
Joe, maybe you need to ask why some people aren’t visiting as frequently now? I know one who has a totally different work schedule. I know another who decided more time needed to be spent with that person’s family currently. I know about 3-5 who get tired of people calling each other names and rehashing old issues.
Then there is the situation of whatever happened with the ability to post one’s own articles. I think that slightly discourages as active participation as some use to have.
I cannot agree with earlier comments that this site does no good. There are days I don’t log on or leave as rapidly as I can, given arguing in the chatbox about nothing substantial. I use to be very proud to give this site to all I knew and encourage them to visit. Now, I have to be more cautious given who may be hosting one more round of how Joe is censoring people.
It is a private site. Joe has the right to limit the content to what he wants. If he decides, for whatever reason, the best direction for Idaho Fallz.Com is to focus on really good educational books and computer supplimental guides, that is his call.
Rather than blaming Joe for making a responsible decision, how about creating your own sites, or using the other site more to talk about those subjects meant for the other site? Then when visiting this site, you are doing so knowing that Joe doesn’t want to conquer the world with Idaho Fallz.Com. He only wanted to create a spot where all could post their thoughts about a subject.
But nowhere did Joe promise every subject would be discussed in this community forum.
We know the media and other residents of cities in Idaho and elsewhere monitor this site for various reasons. In the past week Joe received a wonderful compliment by some visitor who said this site is the quality of something one would expect to find in Seattle. Have we forgotten how lucky we are just to have a place to go and write our views about most subjects?
I’ve made some great friends at Idaho Fallz.Com. I never would have met these people in my daily life as our paths wouldn’t have crossed.
I choose to look at the positives I’ve gotten from the site over 18+ months. I hope you will think about the good you’ve gotten from this site as well, and perhaps you will be grateful we had a place to discuss Kimball Mason, we’ve had a place to address our media concerns (with the media monitoring), we’ve had a place to raise issues important to us.
This site has given many of us many opportunities to address concerns we may have never done in any other format. But, nowhere does it say every subject is appropriate or beneficial to the total user community to continue on Idaho Fallz.Com.
Nice work Joe. You’ve built a great site – and as I mentioned briefly in the chatbox a few days back, this site is now listed in Idaho Falls Magazine as a “Local Forum Site,” along with others.
Thank you, Joe, for the opportunities you have given us. How you have handled all the complaints about your own private site that others are using as your guests, is beyond me. I wouldn’t blame you if you someday said, “Enough, I’m not putting the time and energy into it anymore.”
Joe, It’s your call and those of us who visit as guests can either adhere to house rules or find other sites that focus on other subjects we might want to discuss.
Hey OK – I’m with you. I think the main thing people need to remember is that this is JOE’s website. He created and maintains it. As far as I can tell that means he can do as he likes. It’s not like he said people can never discuss religion, he just asked that it be done on a seperate webpage that he also created. What in the world is the problem? I really don’t get it.
THE MAN: If you are so unhappy, you have my encouragement to leave. For you to say stop blocking new people from the chat tips me off that you’re the person who keeps clowning around and I have to keep banning. Being a seven year veteran, I’m secure in my American values and do not feel put down by your words. Again, if you’re so unhappy, please leave. There’s millions of other websites out there you will like better.
Mike: opposed to the previous “MAN”’s blubbering, Mike demonstrates how to disagree intelligently. You make good points, and with no official supports and hardly any official acknowledgments of IFz, why do I feel an obligation in how our city is presented to the world? I deleted all the chatbox comments that one night cuz I felt I’d been a jerk and I didn’t want to poison the following conversations (wow what do you know i even delete my own things if they’re jerky), it wasn’t meant to be just your comments. It was meant to censor my own.
Maybe it would have been better to just ban religious talk from the beginning, then it would have grown in that way without other expectations.
On the other hand, it seems only one or two people that won’t stop complaining about the change. Some people mention they aren’t happy with it but move onto other topics. One or two seem fixated and it’s the only thing they can talk about, eventually even they will tire of their tantrums right?
I’m not sure what to do, but I know I’ll think for at least several more days before making any decisions.
Any other changes you’d like to see in layout or content or features?
Posts #21-24 – and a few others – have any of you considered anger management or moving on to a different forum that let’s you spew out all that venom you have? Why the need to do it here? You have obviously been taking things so personal it clouds anything you say. As a reader of this site I don’t think what you write is worthwhile or productive to any intellligent conversation. It’s a bunch of useless chatter. If you all want to discuss religion so badly, form a group and meet once a week at the local bar. Or form your own chat group in yahoo.
It appears you expect Joe or anyone else to do all the work on this site, run it as you say, and edit the garbage you write when needed (does he really have time to be a babysitter to grown men, I doubt it) Perhaps you should call CNN, Fox, KPVI and tell them how they should run their site. Give me a break.
Create your own website if you don’t like how it’s managed here. Bet you won’t, ’cause it’s easier to complain, isn’t it?
Joe,
The numbers ought to tell you something about what people tune in to this site to see, religion being at the top of the list (until recently) and a poll that showed nearly two thirds of those responding wanting it discussed openly or with some restrictions.
Limiting free speech in an open society should not be an option even for a site like this one. Had you been one of the founding fathers would you be putting those same restrictions on the First Amendment?
The Post Register front page featured a story this morning that showed a billboard listing a web site for former Mormons. In five years that site went from 50 hits a day to 120,000. This is a topic that people are going to discuss, whether on your site or someone else’s.
Religion should be a viable topic of conversation in a community such as ours where a predominent church holds so much sway over everyones lives. You should maintain a thread to discuss it. If it becomes an annoyance to the more timid of your readers they should simply not log on to that thread (similar to not viewing a tv channel that one finds distasteful), and if it should creep into other discussions from time to time, don’t panic, those folks can simply switch to another thread…you know, the one about Reed’s ice cream.
I’m considering a solution to possibly appease both camps.
I’m looking at a checkbox with the comment submissions to self-flag “probably offensive” comments, then those comments appear outline in red, possibly even pre-collapsed. If one does not want to read it, they see the blatant red outline and can keep on scrolling to “normal” comments. If pre-collapsed, they have to click the plus sign to open up and read the comment.
I agree with some of Meso’s points here. You have limited so much of what we can and can’t talk about on here, its no wonder nobody wants to post on this site anymore.
I liken each post to say a radio station. If you don’t like what you read on one post, than change the channel/go to another post! Its pretty elementary! If people don’t want to join in on a particular posting, then so be it, I’m sure they’ll find another one that suits them. You’ve tried so hard to please everybody, you’ve turned this site into a dud. Literally. There’s no more heated yet healthy conversations anymore. You don’t allow sarcasim or friendly ribbing and I, like others, have noticed you wiping the chatbox clean ALOT more than you used to.
I agree the religion debate seemed to go round and round in circles at times, but it was a healthy thriving topic that everyone enjoyed discussing and reading about. Even if you didn’t agree with what was being said, every one of us couldn’t wait to see what was posted next. And like others have said,(in not so many words) if what something being said on an internet chat board is going to bother you THAT much, you’ve got much deeper issues to worry about.
Lighten up a little Joe and watch the traffic start flowing again.
We’ve got an election coming up, and religion seems to be coming to the forefront as an important issue. We’ve got men campaigning to lead this country who don’t believe in evolution, strictly based on religious teachings. We’ve got hundreds of churches being investigated by the IRS because their leaders are jeopardizing the tax-free status of the church by supporting/denegrating candidates based on their faith. We’ve got a top tier candidate who’s Mormon faith has got some evangelicals in a tizzy.
How can you not allow religious discussion?
Go to the religion site Joe created. duh!
Its not about talking about just “religion”. It’s the fact that you can’t mention anything doing with religion in any of the posts here. Even if it may pertain to a particular topic.
What you don’t understand is, if we all agreed on everything in life, our world would be a pretty boring place. (ie: this site lately)
I think many are still missing a key of why #s may have changed. I don’t agree it is just about the subjects posted. Many of the discussions occurred due to the people who wrote them.
Perhaps some haven’t noticed who all is missing. Then again, maybe you have.
It has been my experience that certain people “drive” or create interesting discussions/chats. Dynamic personalities create a lot of chat about subjects across the board.
Perhaps some effort should be spent on figuring out who isn’t visiting much or at all anymore and why.
#1 suggestion for improvement = KEEP DISCUSSION ON THE TOPIC.
It isn’t fun to travel down all the rabbit trails, then discover no one remembers the question in the first place.
Great suggestion Pinehurst. Such is the nature of human discussions though.
Maybe it should be a guideline. I think the comment rules should change to “guidelines”.
Add a link for Common Tech Questions. Perhaps those with experience with various OS, computers or other applications could list tips they’ve learned.
And, others could ask questions of those with expertise.
This could be a favorite section – a mini “CNET” talking about some of the better software, and alerts to others of software that causes problems etc.
Also, if this section were developed and consistantly users asked questions or others posted observations, while not totally scientific, it is one measure for someone to use with a company like CompUSA of why a store is needed locally.
I thought Ok4Now made an interesting comment in another thread, saying they felt the “Need Idaho Falls Daycare Information” thread was one of the top five most useful threads on IFz.
What do you think are the most useful discussion threads on IFz?
Someone wrote a piece about IdahoFallz.com at the Planet Jackson Hole website, that they would like to see something like this in their community.
http://www.planetjh.com/politics/Article.aspx?ArticleID=102724
I don’t know if anyone else is having this problem, but ever since Joe changed the new format, I haven’t been able to participate in the Chat Box. I tried to leave a comment last night on my pc at home and it said I was a “spammer” and blocked my IP address. Then this morning it did the same thing on my work pc.
Maybe Joe could explain why he felt the need to change something that wasn’t broken? Perhaps he was just bored with the old site? At least it was functional. I think there’s way too much blue. The white letters with the blue background was easier to read in my opinion. Also….when clicking on the number when new comments come up, does not take you to the actual new comments. Instead, it takes you the first comment of that particular post, then you have to scroll down and find the last comment posted.
Anyways, I hope these issue are resolved quickly and my IP address’s are restored, as there was no reason whatsoever I should have been labeled a “spammer”.
Thanks
one more thing…..
when posting a comment in a particular post, after hitting the new “Say It” button, it takes you back to the beginning of the post, instead of to the last comment. (like it used to)
Thanks again!
Blue on bule is very hard on the eyes, it causes my eye strain. I will stop reading until a diff color scheme is developed. Otherwise I enjoy the site. I do prefer the old format, but then I guess it’s because I’m so use to it, I feel more comfortable with it.
My IP address is still banned! I get banned for asking a simple question and then we get comments like this in the chatbox that go through…..
Drinkerge : is hill. it a on from keep no,” his “though some field to around on But and the the may corn and planted be is high. side a after farms your you to be a green Hal, What mean time that gardens is of warm begins enough.” your so to grow, over, yellow ground hoed called the corn in of here I the “However planted, is corn from That done blowing for corn very will in tall, that made. the West are sometimes so was eat it meal for weather ten twelve to such feet be we may or fully
Tell me THAT makes sense! Great job with the upgrade Joe! Ban me for asking a legitimate question but let idiotic comments like this through. Niiiice!
I agree….it is very hard on the eyes. I liked the site the way it was before. Joe, were you bored one day and just decided to change things up?
I’m sorry some are experiencing difficulties, it’s just the price of progress. I spent most of my weekend fixing the problems you don’t see anymore, but of course I still have to work some more.
I checked the two IP addresses you emailed me and they are not in our spammer database. One update was to a newer script for the chatbox, and an improvement was it no longer allows anonymous chatters to use the same name as someone who is registered. It happened to me also, when I typed a chat message without being logged in, it left a message saying “SPAMMER: you are using a registered user’s name” which appeared to me and nobody else. I just had to log in and it was fine, if you don’t want to login use a guest name.
That spambot you mentioned is using a script attack to get it’s message on board, I keep banning it and attacking back so hopefully it stops. There’s another trick I can use which creates a small burden on everyone so I’m trying to avoid it.
If that fixes the block you had please let me know, and if not of course please let me know so I can look into it more. This site lives and breathes by discussions so I absolutely want to clear the impediments you experience.
The comment jumping thing I’ll work on, and I’m thinking of making the comments/article text a straight white instead of light blue, to increase that readability.
Other than that, please do let me know what problems or issues you experience, and I’ll get my one-man shop on it 8^) I’m thinking this will be a permanent theme change unless something drastic happens to change my mind. All of these issues are fixable and temporary 8^)
Sounds like somebody’s had too much caffeine. Please take a deep breath and relax.
It’s fixed….thanks Joe!
I guess you mean it’s fixed when you log in? If so, yay!
Now to fix the problem for folks not logged in…
Thanks Joe……still not a huge fan of the blue, sorry…..I like everything else!
I think if he went back to a white background, the blue font wouldn’t be so harsh on the eyes. And the site itself would just look “cleaner”. imo
What I’m looking at is keeping the dark/light blue candy striped top and sidebar and dark blue footer, but changing to white background and dark blue text all of the area where articles, comments, and the two right side sidebars appear. I hear ya’ll loud and clear and I agree, it will just take a day or two to get it done. Hang in there 8^)
That sounds good!
I agree, I find this coloring difficult to read. I look forward to the adjustment, it may make all the difference.
I also was disconcerted, reading from the beginning of the set of comments at first until I figured out that it didn’t take me to the new comments…
I do like the increased comment box size, and the features are not too difficult to find.
I’m sure I’ll get used to it after awhile, anyway.
Okeydokey, the new design seems better settled lately.
Unfortunately, we are going to have some live chatbox struggles for awhile. The deal was when I upgraded the theme I also upgraded many plugin scripts, such as the chatbox. The new script caused problems by being too secure and telling regular visitors they were spammers, etc. Not the pleasant interaction we are looking for!
I reverted to the older script in order to ease the pain, then got bit by that decision. A hacker used a vulnerability in the older script to slip some spam links in the footer and tried posting spam articles. So my entire weekend was spent securing the website and fixing vandalism and learning more about secure code. Fun, ehh?
The only way to operate now is with that updated chatbox code that acts mean to some people. Please bear with me and I will fix it as we go along. If the chatbox says you are a spammer or something mean please use the contact form to let me know what you said, what username you used, the message it gave you, etc. Doing so helps me fix it to help you.
Thanks for your patience. I’m nearing the end of this upgrade to where I have some special treats coming as soon as I take care of these uglies.
I like pictures with an article. The Tautphaus Park article, for example, is a delight to view. I realize it isn’t feasible to do this with many articles, but when possible, it would be nice.
*As an area native, I use the pronounciation Jim Bennett gave
I would adopt a more useful and interactive format such that with each posted comment a reader would be provided with the following:
1. an option to rate the post positively with one click
2. an option to report the post with one click
3. an option to add to posters (positive) reputation and comment on why
4. the join date of the poster and their status ie new, junior, senior, as well as their reputation (a number accumulated as in 3 above)
5. the number of posts by poster and number of times read
I would also like know that the system would reject users attempting to alter their username in their comments, and see their actual username in the chatbox. I imagine this could be automated, so people would be prevented from adopting more than one persona to bolster their side of any debate, to harass, annoy, etc.
Overall, I think the above format would make it easier for whomever is moderating as well as for the users to maintain some sense of order. It would instill a greater sense of democracy and I think improve the site vastly.
Here is an example of a site with these features:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/idaho/323232-areva-selects-idaho-falls-their-2-a.html
Note that with the format on that site you can also direct message users so private conversations can go “off-thread” instead of being in the chatbox or in comments, which helps to keep threads focussed.
Oh, and moderators are identified which I would like to see here as well.
Oh, and here is a link to the above referenced sites 23 page discussion on Religion in Idaho:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/idaho/87001-official-discussion-mormon-lds-influence-idaho.html
I’d also love to see the links presently found at the bottom of this page cleaned up and organized. The volume and layout of the links makes them overwhelming and cumbersome to navigate, maybe break them down into more categories with duplicates as needed, and several of them no longer link to intended page.
I think the options that Crystal mentioned would be very nice.
I like the specificity options (you can’t comment as multiple peoples, and your chat is always you, even when you’re not logged in) and the voting options will maybe help some folks to understand the impact their comment actually has…
The options to identify users based upon time here, and numbers of comments made, also help others when looking at a comment and wondering about the person’s history with the site.
And, I agree that moderators should be known.
The one thing I don’t like is the forum design of that site (city-data). It feels off to me, (after being on this one so long) but it’s fairly common, I see that forum design in many places.
If we could incorporate the features without changing the design it would be great.
sorry, Nemesis, I have to disagree with you on this…this is an ONLINE forum; if we abide by Crystal’s suggestions, it would cheapen and weaken the discussions here…
after Crystal’s outbursts and name-calling (and worse, in the chatbox), I’m a bit surprised that she would be making suggestions as such….she’s made her views pretty clear about how she dislikes this site and the “regulars” who post here….
There are plenty of online “forums” for those who don’t like IFLZ to visit…..
If we make all the changes 1-5 proposed in #54, we may as well change the name of this site to “city data forum”, which it is not. I have used this site for 2 years and do not think it is worth my personal time to rate and rank users. I do not consider ifz a judging contest. We communicate, talk, argue, agree, disagree, and laugh. It is not a place where I want to rank anonymous people. What good does it really serve? Aren’t we here to communicate by words?
Careful Crystal, although I appreciate reading your comments, what you are doing is EXACTLY why Californians get a lot of grief when they move here. So many want everything to change immediately. Instead, sit back, watch, keep commenting, and suggest change at a more reasonable pace. Too much too soon and too strong.
Excellent comments Babs & Reader.
I would like to see more open and frank conversations particularly concerning religion. Religion should be treated no differently than any other invention of man, i.e., economics, government, geography, mathematics, biology, etc., etc.
If the children and young adults in the FLDS compound in Texas had been able to have open and frank discussions of their religion, would they have been so easily duped into that lifestyle and would they have followed their leaders so blindly?
If those folks in the Jones compound in Guina had had the opportunity to openly discuss and debate the merits of their religion, would they have so willingly drunk the punch coctail?
We should have every right and certainly every reason to debate the merits or liabilities of spiritual beliefs. We should do it as freely as we would debate any given political position. In a community like our own where the predominant religion holds so much sway over the lives of so many of our citizens, (whether they be believers or nonbelievers) we should exercise our right to rectify any inequities that system may impose. That can best be done with open and free discussions on a site like this one. If frank talk about religion upsets you then don’t participate, go to another thread.
If I were a betting man I would put money on Joe #1’s reason for discontinuing the religion thread was that he was threatened financially by the brethren in this community or in Salt Lake. The church in question has threatened copy right suits before when there material was posted but has caved in when their bluff was called.
Open this site back up.
Mr. Eagle, tear down this wall!
If those debating religion could follow the rules posted above, I would agree. But, history of this site shows they were incapable of being factual and polite, and they were some of the rudest, stupidest, unbelievable comments I had the joy to read. Maybe you could talk someone, or yourself maybe, into being the religion thread moderator?
If it goes, I’d like to see a separate link on the face page for “religious discussions”. Then, those who don’t care to read most of those posts (like me) can have the freedom to can skip over it altogether. Dominant religion here or not (and I’m not), I don’t think this is the place to rectify inequities you perceive. Discuss, yes, solve and change, more of a stretch.
I agree we should allow some religion comments,but I dont agree with the site changes mentioned,babs crystal abby and others get used to it or quit posting which always has a tidbit of baiting.
(due to an overwhelming response in the chatbox I have edited this comment due to the baiting and personal attack towards another poster. Lets remember to keep our comments on topic and not put down other posters for their views and/or beliefs)
(comments edited by site moderator, due to the baiting of another poster.)
Religion is a no win situation here because some people are so hypersensitive to the slightest comment about their religion. Back before the ban on religion when I posted under a moniker I once made a comment about the BEHAVIOR of a few people (not posters on this board) in a religion that is a bit dominant around here. At least two posters took that as an attack on their religion in general rather than seeing it for what it was which was a criticism of specific behavior by an individual that was not necessarily reflective of the religions belief. Religion only came up because this behavior tends to occur too frequently with some in that religion (if you must know I was talking about Boy Scouts and how non mormon Scouts can be ostracized). Is that a condemnation of the whole religion or a condemnation of the behavior of certain Scout leaders in the religion? Some see it one way and some see it another. But the outrage and “offense taken” by some was huge.
Oh, so maybe some of the nastiness I experience here has to do with having identified myself as a Californian? I’ve been paying taxes in Idaho for years, and am leaving California to be safe from one of your own Idahoans, it goes both ways, except he doesn’t pay taxes anywhere. That said, you know nothing about me and maybe haven’t known a place as diverse as California, and how resultingly meaningless the term “Californian” is.
I do not dislike this site, I dislike seeing this site smothered by people who act like they own the place and who gang up on other posters and make others unwelcome, stifling the free exchange of ideas. I learn alot here, doing searches relative to threads, etc, and have seen some marvelous and constructive exchanges. This is a community, but you don’t have to sit and watch long to notice it’s dysfunction.
I think that the positive feedback feature I reference above works really well to encourage people to be more civil. The reporting negative posts feature would be a great timesaver for users and moderators.
Why was #65 edited out when #64 clearly is baiting?
For those of you who didn’t see the rolling chat this a.m., this is goodbye.
I cannot believe IFLZ is engaging in censorship.
When people like Crystal can rant and rave and call us all obscene names and then demand that censorship occur, and IFLZ falls prey to that, as it did with Meso’s comment today, then it is time for me to leave.
I will miss you all very much and hope to bump into some of you on other, more free-thinking sites. Taking offense at perceived slights and the concurrent institution of moderators who delete entire posts wholesale–while leaving truly personal attacks against other poster–these are things I have no tolerance for. Meso is a very rationale, polite poster who always makes a good point. Agreeing with Meso is not a condition to healthy debate, nor should it be. Agreeing or disagreeing with anyone should be welcomed and encouraged on an “opinion forum”.
Censorship has destroyed lesser institutions than IFLZ. I hope Joe takes a good, hard look at the policies and procedures in place here and acts accordingly.
Goodbye everyone. I wish you all the best.
Buh-bye, babs. Sorry to see you go.
I have nothing to do with the edit in #65 and was also baited in #64, I have not requested any censorship, see #67, and really wish you would please stop singling me out.
Children, children . . .
To reiterate, Crystal has nothing to do with Meso’ Mod Cut
One point for critics of city-data, I’ll wager there are posters here who are 86′d there!
Otherwise, I don’t see any cheapened or weakened threads there, just none of the jerry springer like mudslinging that goes on here, which if you ask me is weak AND cheap.
Here is a link to the religion thread and a page therein where censorship is addressed, and I include it here because it exemplifies active moderating, where neither censorship nor abuse towards other users is tolerated:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/idaho/87001-official-discussion-mormon-lds-influence-idaho-6.html
Is this horse dead yet?
I left this site for several months after being deleted for speaking out against the boy scouts (and by implication the LDS Church). The Post Register article about the pedophiles inherent in that organization brought out many responses on this board but mine were deemed unsatisfactory to the discussion at hand. This was due in large part to my less than genteel depiction of that religion and their role in the scandal.
I jumped back in recently to “test the waters” but find them as cold and uninviting as before. Mr. Eagle, I, Like Babs will not be back, at least not in my case, until there is good, honest, no holds barred, passionate debate on those topics that heighten my interest. As long as religion is excluded from debate here then I will consider myself excluded also.
Kumbiyaaaaa…..kumbiyaaaaaa…
What I find funny is when one poster baits another and a few hours later decides to leave because the site is “cold and uninviting”. Now THATs good comedy folks!
Re #75, were your comments deleted due to some vulgarity or attacking other posters or just because you expressed your position?
And are you referring to a post register article about pedophiles in the LDS church or the boyscouts?
Please don’t go just yet, if I am on a site where site admin is squelching information about pedophiles in either organization I would like some better clarification about that.
And why was 65 cut when 64 was also baiting? So much for transparency…
Here goes, two links about the Post-Register piece about pedophiles in the Boy Scouts, lets see if they get deleted!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000973214
http://www.postregister.com/scouts_honor/index.php
Good lord will you drop it already? He’s talking about something that happened over a year ago. Get over it and move on!
So, how ’bout them Maple Leafs?
Yikes!
It’s nice to know it’s some old timers who are finally getting it for baiting and harrassing. I thought it was just the unwanted newbies that were always accused of that. Equality,I like that.
In comment #68 by babs, the “censorship” was merely a moderator editing of a violation of comment guideline #4: Baiting other guests, made by Meso in Comment #65. Nothing more. The editing was well within the established guidelines of the site. If you have a problem with it you should ask Joe to review it.
There was no foundation for accusations against Crystal for the request to review. I am the one who submitted it for review via the chatbox. I have nothing whatsoever personal against Meso. I am looking forward to his thoughts on topics of discussion. I also hope babs will reconsider and continue to contribute.
Where can I find the discussion referenced in #75?
They were taken down over a year ago and moved to the site Joe Vandal set up specifically for religious discussion. If you look at rule # 7, there’s a link to the site.
yep, but who decides what “baiting” is? and now both comments are missing? why aren’t ALL the “baiting” comments gone?
maybe crystal willl cut and pste a definistion of censorship for us….even if she didn’t ask for 65 to be cut she certainly yells an dscreams about how this site needs to be “changed” and certain posts need to be “removed”….and that is exactly what happene here….
moderetors censors same difference
Thanks, CR67.
BAIT
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse beita; akin to Old English bæ?tan to bait, b?tan to bite — more at bite
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1 a: to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks b: tease
2 a: to harass (as a chained animal) with dogs usually for sport b: to attack by biting and tearing
synonyms bait, badger, heckle, hector, chivy, hound mean to harass by efforts to break down. bait implies wanton cruelty or delight in persecuting a helpless victim . badger implies pestering so as to drive a person to confusion or frenzy . heckle implies persistent annoying or belligerent interruptions of a speaker . hector carries an implication of bullying and domineering . chivy suggests persecution by teasing or nagging . hound implies unrelenting pursuit and harassing .
Censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing \?sen(t)-s?-ri?, ?sen(t)s-ri?\
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ;
also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
Babs – I’m surprised! If a judge throws a few wrenches in your case, you don’t walk away from the courtroom, do you? Come on lady, where’s your spunk? Hope to see you back sometime.
I envision the new Joe wincing, wondering what kind of daycare he took over, while the old Joe laughs to himself in the background. Only joking (slightly) everyone! Let’s all mellow out and keep going. For effective change to take place, feeling uncomfortable and experiencing conflict is necessary. So here we go……
I have posted on and off at this site for several years now. I don’t always post under my standard moniker because sometimes I want to put forth ideas without my previous posts getting in the way. I have to say that this site is going downhill fast, especially since it was sold.There seems to be way too much editing lately. Many of you need to toughen up a little or get thicker skin. I have yet to see any attacks on several complainers here that warrant all the crying. I always liked this site because you sometimes get called on the carpet, even I have been put in my place at times. It makes you humble and makes you a better poster (for awhile anyway). Sure, there are some here who love jumping down other’s throats but most of us who come here know who those posters are by reputation and take them with a grain of salt. So stop with the calls for a love fest and get on with the discussions. That’s why I thought we were here. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen, if you post ignorantly you’ll get burned. ‘nough said?
Post 91, So if you can’t bait or harrass and the monitors do there job, that makes the site go downhill? I fail to see that. It’s only been “crying” when its a regular baiting a newcomer and the newcomer is fed up and when that same newcomer fights back, then he/she is nasty. Only when the old timers beat up the newbies is it “get a thicker skin” to the newbies. And if the tables are turned, it’s always justified and warranted that the some of the old timers harrass and attack. The old timers will call each other on the carpet for attacking others, only visa versa. We aren’t here for a love fest anymore than you are, just some fairness and the ability to contribute to a conversation without getting harrassed and beat up because we aren’t part of your circle or Lord forbid, we unwittingly made a comment or asked a question that somehow offended you. I don’t think that’s asking too much. If you want a site that is limited to the old timers, create one and ask for passwords to log in and only allow hardened people to join the crowd.
If you want discussion, allow others to offer insight without YOU getting offended, let the monitors do their job, or in your words toughen up, when someone you like gets called on the carpet by a monitor. It works both ways.
It is not about new verses old. It is about being able to stand your ground, or whine like my kids. Never have I seen more trivial complaints and more editing of comments than now. I have been called on the carpet, and I didn’t whine about it. I made my case. If I failed to convince people of my point, oh well.
You know sometimes the world is not going to agree with you. Sometimes the world will treat you harshly. The world is not always a positive and happy place. I have been through an awful lot of posts the past few days and see nothing so horrendous that we need to start trying to PC this site up. So, I say again, there is too much complaining about too trivial a matter.
If you care to direct my attention to some out of control mob mentally where someone was rode hard on and totally eaten up and spit out, then please do so. Otherwise this is waste of time, and this site will become anemic in it’s value. True discussion involves hard rhetoric sometimes.
That I agree with. But hard discussion and some of the stuff that goes on here are not one in the same. What I see right now is the old timers whining about newcomers who stand their ground and fight back when they’re attacked because their poor friend is getting called on the carpet for unruly behavior. I don’t say everything perfect here nor does anyone. Some of the oldtimers are the worst offenders here but can only see offenses in others. I’ve seen enough to welcome the changes being made. And if some of those old timers want to as you say, whine and leave, then let them. Moderating an unruly post is not a bad thing unless you blow it out of proportion. But as you said, if ya can’t handle the heat…
….but Hmmm, you sidestepped the issue: can you point to some examples of the “ganging up” you make reference to?
It seems Babs and Meso (and possibly Mike?) left because of the censorship issue, not just because of the whiners………
First, I never said ganging up as you quoted, I believe Crystal said that. Please reread the posts. But…as a couple of people have already pointed out, look around. If you want to search feel free otherwise, I’m not here to do that for you. There was no censorship, there was a moderator doing his/her function as a moderator. I think this discussion has run into the ground. Contribute or don’t your choice.
It’s probably just my imagination but it seems to me there was a particular poster (whom I won’t mention) who for the past 2-3 weeks has been constantly whining and complaining about this site and how everyone is out to get them and how this site needs to be changed to be like other sites. I say stop the madness. It’s just like the tv or radio….if you don’t like whats on the channel then change it. But don’t expect to change the format of the show when it’s been going just fine long for years now. (and before someones feelings get hurt, I’m not singling anyone out, just making a generalization)
Another thing, I don’t see all this so called “censorship” happening. This site has always been monitored since day one. Nothing is new and nothing has changed. The mod that removed the comments was well within his/her rights in doing so as pointed out in the rules. I think everyone should stop the whining already and get back to what this site is so good at. Great debates! People with thin skin need to toughen up a little and the people with thick skin need to ease up a little…..a little compromise will go along way, so whaddya say folks?
I think comments 90 said it all….
We’re all adults here so lets drop the 3 ring circus act and move on.
What good are rules if their not going to be enforced. The way I see it, Eagle is enforcing them the exact same way Vandal did. Vandal usually left certain comments that may have bordered on offensive, baiting, name-calling, etc….and let the posters decide if they should be edited. If he received enough concerned comments from posters, then the comment in question was then edited. The same has been going on with Eagle. Some here are making it seem that EVERYTHING controversial is being edited and that just isn’t the case. I’ve only seen a few edits since Eagle took over the site and everyone of them were warranted imo. A few edits over a few months is certainly nothing to complain about or even leave the site over. But that’s just my opinion fwiw.
I’ll admit I can’t visit this site 24/7 and see comments before they are edited, but there is definitely more editing than usual happening. It might be because the moderator is more heavy handed with the rules, or there are more rules violations going on then before, or there are more whiners than in the past. But there is more editing no question. I trust that the editing is consistent with past policies, but worry that discussion is being censored more for PC’s sake than allowing a little heat into a real discussion which can actually be productive at times.
Old timers (myself included) should value new members posting here and keeping this site alive and growing. New posters need to realize there are some “seniority” perks that come with having been here for years. It’s like Mark and Mel’s show on the radio or any other local talk radio program. You have your terminal nut jobs who call every day, and you know where they stand and what they are going to say even before they open their mouths. Sometimes they actually say something meaningful, and other times they just spout off and ramble. Every now and then you will then get a new caller who will add something new, or validate what one of the old grumps has to say. Sometimes the newbie will get some geezer really PO’d and it’s funny to watch the reaction. This site really is no different. We have our Fern’s and our Tom’s and so on. Those of you who listen to local a.m. radio will know what/who I am talking about.
LOL Good analysis Just! I think most of us just wish they didn’t act like we were all intruders on their private property so they better chase us off with shotguns.
GuestHouse, The cool part about the poster you did NOT mention, is that she had the ability to admit her mistakes. I haven’t seen anyone else do that nor have I seen anyone apologize for blasting into her. I think on one thread alone there were 6 posters (or maybe one with disguises?) telling her to stop already, telling others to ignore her and belittling her. None of THEM were ignoring her. So it flames the fire and caused her to be more upset. Duh! If you really want a conversation to go away, redirect it, don’t direct it right back at her. Or ignore it completely. Nobody is forcing anyone to respond.
Guest 007, I agree with everything you wrote.
Some of them can get real snooty and come off sounding like high school snobs when they disagree with a newcomer but when they disagree with another oldtimer, they always begin with “Well, I have to disagree with you on that…” Be as polite to all. And yeah, compromise! What a concept!
Nemesis is probably one of the more diplomatic and civil posters I’ve seen here. I think when she strongly disagrees, she must sit back, take a deep breath and say hey, this is a human being I’m responding to not a handle on a blog.
Nemesis rocks.
I personally can only recall 2 incidences of censored comments at this late hour, and not even sure I saw one of them. Sorry, just really tired.
The first is above, 64&65, but didn’t the other have to do with someone “outing” a posters identity? That seems a reasonable MOD CUT to me, if I am recalling it correctly. What thread(s) are the recent mod cuts in?
I like it better when the Mod doesn’t cut but FLAGS, so we see the admonishment and the comment.
Re #100, so you agree we should have a system which prevents an ip address from having multiple identities?
Regarding multiple identities from one IP address:
If there are multiple people at that one IP address who do not inhabit the same body, and who do not wish to share the same posting name, and who do not share the same views; what do you propose for them?
I can see where some have an occasional guest stop by and post under the host’s name and identified themself as such, but it was not on a regular basis.
Would those who post from library computers or campus computers be able to continue as multiple identities?
Re: Comments #273 and #274 in the Concealed Weapons/Media Reform Discussion thread:
If someone wants to post as multiple identities but does so in such a way that others suspect they are one and the same, let them. I’m sure not here to say they can’t; is there some law against it? I would rather respond to what they say, not to what their name is.
However, when what they say violates the community comment guidelines that are clearly posted, then their comments should be submitted for review by anyone who feels they are inappropriate. The personal attacks, name calls, put-downs, baiting, et al., contributes nothing to the discussion of the topic.
What I’m impressed with is the fact that Joe Eagle hasn’t come on the site and tried to “smooth things over”, but instead has sat back and let us work out these issues on our own. I mean seriously, there’s no reason for him to come on the site and explain the rules to everyone every couple weeks or what have you. We’re all adults here and are capable of working through our problems so as to come to a mutual understanding of what needs to be done to keep everyone happy and posting.
Some posters are saying they see more “editing going on than ever before” and personally I haven’t seen that myself. What is strange to me is the posters that ARE saying these things are from “screen names” I’ve never seen before. So either these are regulars posting under a different name to conceal their true identity, or people that usually visit the site but never post comments. I usually peruse the site on and off most of day looking for new comments, topics etc. and I haven’t seen anything change in the way of “editing” than what Vandal used to do. As a matter of fact I think Vandal did more editing than Eagle does. I think the fact that Vandal was always online and Eagle isn’t is what bothers some people. Vandal was the main moderator for the past year or so and what I THINK has offended some people, is the fact that there are users that are now moderating the site instead of the site owner him/herself. These users aren’t singling anyone out from what I can see and I think it’s a real shame that some of our regulars, who have always had such strong opinions in the past, felt the need to leave because of something so petty in my opinion.
Like Nemesis has pointed out, I’ve been a part of numerous blogs and chat sites over the years and the same exact things that people are complaining about here, happen at every one of those sites as well. And often times much much worse than here. So what it boils down to is we can either learn to get along with each other, or we can pack our proverbial bags and head out. Personally, I’m gonna stick around. And sure, I’m not the cats pajamas by any stretch of the imagination, and I’ve got my fair share of folks that completely disagree with alot of what I say, but what do I care? I have my opinions and my views and nobody can take those away from me. This is life folks. Not everyone is going to get along. So you can either take your ball and go home, or you can suck it up and step up to the plate and keep playing.
I say lets play ball!
CR67, I have agreed with you about 1/2 and disagreed the other. I’d say that’s pretty fair. Most of the time, I like your style even when I don’t agree. And I appreciate post 105 and agree with it.
Using me best Elvis impersonation…..Thank you…thank you very muuuch!
I just hate to see anyone leave. Even though I don’t agree with everyone on the site regarding every single topic, I try to keep an open mind and I can certainly appreciate others views and opinions. I’m always up for a good debate, no matter how heated things may get and I hope as things cool down and we get back to business as usual, we can persuade those posters to come back. Until that time….they’ll be sorely missed!
CR67, you are a classy guy.
and hmm, you told it like it is in #92. Thank you.
I’m still waiting to see those hips move.
Thank you Crystal. I just can’t move my hips that good or I’d do the Elvis thing too
Classy? lol….i wouldnt go that far, but thx.
As for my hips moving….lets just say that’s not a pretty sight. (dancing is not my forte’) Those salsa lessons I took years ago scared everyone in my class. They refunded my money back and told me to never come back. Yikes!
LOL!
It’s been almost 10 days since I said I wouldn’t be back again unless the administration of this site were to relax the restrictions on free speech. I have yet to hear from the new owner as to his intentions regarding this matter. I even made an apology to one contributor who complained to Joe that I was a bit too nasty in my response to one of his posts.
What’s it going to be, Joe. Can we expect more censorship or are you going to moderate the moderators?
You seemed to be leaning towards a more open, free for all format with fewer restrictions but there has been nothing definitive from you yet. What’s up?
I haven’t seen any further mod cuts, maybe he is letting us all work it out ourselves?
r there mods ?