Squelching

[evmori]

What is everyone's opinion of this option?

 

Someone please pass this along to those who have squelched me.

 

I don't like it. There are some poster I would squelch but if I did, there are parts of threads I would miss. And responding to a thread when you can't see all the replies is like driving without mirrors.

 

I think it is a feature that should be removed. If you don't like a particular poster, don't read their posts.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[mk9750]

Ed, I'm with you. I'd have a tough time following threads with pieces missing.

 

On the other hand, you have to understand why Bob might want to squelch FOG. Bob has been the brunt of some really rude commentary at times. I know you agree with Bob about as often as FOG does, but the point remains that even in disagreement a certain level of decorum should remain, and it hasn't always.

 

I'm not saying that Bob (or anyone) should or should not squelch another poster. But in this case, I understand it.

 

Mark

[OldGreyEagle]

I beleive the BSA won a lawsuit in which one of the main principles was the ability to associate with whom you choose. I beleieve using the squelch feature is just another example of associating or not associating with whom people choose.

 

I can see how it may be hard to follow threads, but then thats not anyone's problem but the squelcher.

[Twocubdad]

I agree with you guys. I've not squelched anyone (although I've thought about it) because I think it would make following the threads difficult.

 

I'm a big boy and can read, assess and, if necessary, ignore posts as I see fit.

 

Actually, I've thought it may be better if we could squelch whole threads that are of not of interest so that they just don't show up at all on the current threads list. That's more of a matter of customizing the forums you want follow rather than squelching on particular person.

[Bob White]

You are absolutely right OGE, it is a matter of free association. Quite honestly except for missing out on the abhorrent behavior of couple of posters, it is very easy to understand the entire meaning and topic of the thread while using the squelch feature. Isn't that the purpose of squelch, to be able to concentrate on the scouting topics without the distraction of posts that too often attack people rather than subjects?

 

I would would hope that we can use any forum feature that is made available to us. Ed complained when the squelch was first instituted because he was angry that I chose not to read his abusive messages. He wrote me that using the squelch feature was "ignorant and un-scout-like". It was just that sort of rubbish and personal attacks that caused Terry to create the squelch feature.

 

If Ed doesn't want it to exist, then perhaps he and the other perpetrator of such behavior should have shown better judgment to begin with.

[Twocubdad]

I don't hear anyone lobbying to eliminate the squelching. It seems quite obvious that anyone can choose to use it or not.

[Eamonn]

Have to admit that I have used the Squelch.

The person I squelched no longer posts in this forum.

Could be that he got on his bike and went back to visit a wise old Abbot.

There are of course people that I tend to agree with more then others. Needless to say these people are more right then those who disagree with me. Who of course are less right. Me being a real cool Dude of course makes me always right - Even though at times I have found that I may have been wrong. That would of course put me in the group that thinks I am less right. If I were to squelch them I could end up squelching myself. Then I would never know if I was right or not.

Eamonn

[Zahnada]

Ed,

 

I agree that squelching does make conversation difficult. I personally don't have anyone squelched, and I don't really intend to. However, I wouldn't argue against someone's right to squelch posts if they wanted to. What's the difference between making the conscious decision to ignore a poster everytime they post or simply allowing a computer to do it for you?

 

Many of the "dialogues" on this forum are really just people talking without listening anyway (and although I used the word "many" I still consider it a small proportion). I personally become very annoyed when I'm either arguing or reading an argument and the sides refuse to listen to each other. Both sides just keep shouting out the same points and arguments and then attack the other side based on semantics but not the overall content of the posts. If squelching allows some people to avoid those conversations, then I have no problem with it.

[evmori]

Zahanda,

If people want to use the squelch then that is their right. I have no problem with that.

 

Bob,

I kinda thought using the "Send Private Message" meant it was between the sender & the sendee! Guess not in your case. I consider you mentioning this as un-Scoutlike and uncalled for. I have never nor will I ever reveal the contents of a PM. I will not stoop to your level.

 

Someone please tell Bob this is here. I don't want to PM him again!

 

The purpose of squelch is to not see the posts of a particular poster regardless of the content.

 

mk9750,

Yeah I can understand why Bob would squelch Fat Old Guy. But then again, both are adults & should have better discernment.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

 

[hops_scout]

I believe that people should be able to squelch whoever they want for whatever reason... I have to admit I've used it too, but those people dont seem to be posting here anymore either:)

 

mk9750, Yeah I can understand why Bob would squelch Fat Old Guy. But then again, both are adults & should have better discernment.

[packsaddle]

I supppose that when I get tired or bored, I turn off the boob tube. Or I use the paper to start a fire in the fireplace. Or I just head out on the water or the trail. So I guess I'm guilty of squelching of a sort.

Normally, I support freedom of expression regardless of how much I disagree. I make some exceptions regarding the boys. But although I sometimes disagree with many of the respondents in these forums, I also sometimes agree, even enjoy the responses. So I continue to support open expression in the forums. But...as stated earlier, we do have the ability to squelch. And inasmuch as we have that ability, I also support the choice. I just won't do it myself.

[red feather]

Seems to me a case of Free Speech and Free Choice

 

yis

[andrewcanoe]

As one who has been the butt of a nasty post I can understand that some people would want to squelch certain posters but I have not and furthermore I enjoy the off beat humor that is often part of the robust elder statesman's posts.(This message has been edited by andrewcanoe)

[Fat Old Guy]

"On the other hand, you have to understand why Bob might want to squelch FOG"

 

Shouldn't you say that you understand why Bobo claims to have squelched me?

[evmori]

My bad, Fat Old Guy. You have been squelched by Bob as have I. It is within his right to do so.

But to post "Isn't that the purpose of squelch, to be able to concentrate on the scouting topics without the distraction of posts that too often attack people rather than subjects?" isn't true.

When you squelch a poster you squelch ALL posts, not just the ones you don't like. And that is judging the poster by saying "All his/her posts are useless." Heck, even Wheeler had some good posts!

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10