Time and the Other

Post #66,101 by tseliot 12/2/02 12:13:30 PM Reply	Time and the Other If you want it to decay, that's fine with me. I don't want that, because IF I ever filter, it's gonna be for life. So... a decaying filter with the option to set the lifecycle to infinity would be great. What I would be really sad about is the system (bowing to _your_ concept of what is Good) dictating to me that it can't be for life. Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #66,110 by folkert 12/2/02 12:33:57 PM Reply	I don't like it anymore Than you do Bob. BUT (Not big and RED this time) I have seen more than one person come to thier senses around here... OKAY me NOT being one of them... I'll agree. So, ignoring them for ever, would be a greater evil than you not being able to ignore them for ever. So, would you have twit'd Pythagoras(sp?) for ever? Just because you didn;t agree with him? Or what about Albert Einstein? Or Tesla? They all were creatures of discomfort in thier age. Eventually you DO have to give someone anohter chance here... admit it... I've given YOU a few... well maybe 1 too many ;) `[link\|mailto:curley95@attbi.com\|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!] Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds: Use your computer, we'll sample your DNA and imprint your eyes. SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR WHERE ego < 1048575; 0 rows found`
Post #66,121 by tseliot 12/2/02 12:54:15 PM Reply	Yes, yes I would have. Life is just too short to have to spend my time reevaluating EVERYONE continually. For me, there are enough other factors reminding me to reevaluate that I don't need a computer doing it for me. I'm talking about social factors, like everyone else suddenly saying nice things about that person. If the specific instance comes along where you think I should reevaluate a particular filter, just drop me a note and I probably will. As I said, for you to force(!) me to reevaluate someone would be restricting my freedom in just as significant a way as a system-wide ban by an admin. Legislation of morality is a slippery slope. Give me the tools and let me use them, or don't give me the tools. So, ignoring them for ever, would be a greater evil than you not being able to ignore them for ever. Not to invoke the great Khasim-who-must-not-be-named, but I guess we'll just have to disagree here. My concept of evil is obviously different than yours. If I filter someone and they "truly change" (whatever that means), then one of the following three scenarios will occur: 1) I've been waiting for their return to sanity, in which case I will be actively monitoring them, and will probably have used a lifecycle tool like you propose, 2) I have found some value in their sane conversation, and will use social influence to reestablish communication with them when I see it. e.g. Ben might say, "you know, Twit X was just saying something useful the other day..." in which case, I would reevaluate the situation. 3) I couldn't care less about them. Ignoring forever would probably be best for all concerned. Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #66,145 by CRConrad 12/2/02 2:01:00 PM Reply	<SIGH> ... That old nonsense concept again. :-( our lower-case poet proclaims: Legislation of morality is a slippery slope. This particular "slippery slope" is a red herring: ALL legislation is _by nature_ 'legislation of morality'. Christian R. Conrad Mechanisation As our souls are slowly stolen The wheels of progress keep steamrolling Mechanisation melts our minds To drive the furnace that drives us blind. -- [link\|http://www.vergenet.net/~conrad/poetry/mechanisation.html\|© Conrad Parker, 1993]
Post #66,157 by tseliot 12/2/02 2:27:10 PM Reply	Hey, that's my point! :D Hence, not a herring of any color. I'm arguing to not legislate. My sentence carries exactly the same meaning (from my point of view) as if I had said, "Legislation is a slippery slope." Sorry if the added words set you off. Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #66,164 by Ashton 12/2/02 2:53:39 PM Reply	Fine - so you get a sliding lever: "From Now --> Eternity" Why not? IF.. that little feature doesn't take Scott a day of Zope-a-Dope to do.. and maybe more meticulous daily management (??) C'mon - much of the requests seem [honestly enough..] about "Help me stop me before I reply again.." I have no quarrel with any of the customized wishes, and I'm not competent to guesstimate the possible instability [??] these might create in maintenance of the site / or the trouble each means for Scott. My 'vote' then is - that Scott's time is the major criterion, and I trust that he won't be nibbled to death by ducks, over some variant of SHUN-Tables du jour. Ashton trying not to be cranky, but this CPA- auto-micro-management of personal impulses is wearing a bit thin; somehow seems akin to - what Ashcroft + the SS have in mind for: ALL our personal data. Sorta.. Just because we Can.. Ought We?
Post #66,170 by tseliot 12/2/02 3:04:29 PM Reply	Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted. Fine - so you get a sliding lever: "From Now --> Eternity" [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=66101\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=66101] Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #66,123 by tuberculosis 12/2/02 1:07:31 PM Reply	that's why I want him shown locked rather than hidden. I can continue to check up on him and if he's becoming cool, I'll unlock him. Otherwise, it'll keep me from hitting the reply button too fast. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.

Welcome to IWETHEY!