Interesting discovery about social groups

[Guest inoubliable]

 

 

No, the thread is about the fact that someone can quote you in a separate and private conversation. I just happened to find out via that post and that quote. One can discuss how non-believers deal with things v. how believers deal with it without discussing specific people. In the real world, we refer to it as gossip. And since we all know people do gossip in real life, it is safe to assume people gossip online as well. I just didn't realize that the forum software made it easier to do and easier to discover. It's kind of like walking in on a gossipy conversation unexpectedly. It's shocking even though you know people do it, and it certainly doesn't encourage open discussion.

 

You didn't see the entire post. Just what was quoted. No one was gossiping about you. The quoted portion didn't even mention that it was about your marriage, to be quite frank about it, and the post wasn't about marriage, either. It was simply an example.

I agree that if you're talking about *people* then it's gossip. Discussing ideology isn't. Even when what someone else said (simply because it was a fairly well-worded example of the idea being discussed) is quoted. We quote Dawkins in there, too. We aren't gossiping about him, either. You're in good company.

[nmoira]

(As an aside I wonder why "free thinking" is only the perview of atheists and agnostics)

 

Freethought is more a philosophical designation, and one with a long history. Essentially it means to aspire to form opinions based on empiricism and observable fact, without regard to authority and dogma. Some in the (loose) community identify as freethinkers, some as skeptics (like me). Most, but not all, freethinkers and skeptics identify as atheist or agnostic. It's my sense that there are a number of freethinkers who chose the designation at least partially because they are now free from religion, and they very strongly identify as atheist.

[NotSoObvious]

 

 

 

No, the thread is about the fact that someone can quote you in a separate and private conversation. I just happened to find out via that post and that quote. One can discuss how non-believers deal with things v. how believers deal with it without discussing specific people. In the real world, we refer to it as gossip. And since we all know people do gossip in real life, it is safe to assume people gossip online as well. I just didn't realize that the forum software made it easier to do and easier to discover. It's kind of like walking in on a gossipy conversation unexpectedly. It's shocking even though you know people do it, and it certainly doesn't encourage open discussion.

 

Oh. Then I guess this is just a "talking about the board" thread.

[Parrothead]

Atheists and agnostics are not the same thing. Free Thinking doesn't necessarily mean atheist either.

 

There are lots of ways people define themselves. :)

 

Yes, I know what an atheist is.

Yes, I know what an agnostic is

 

What I mean is that there are all sorts of free thinking people. About many many subjects. Individuals who are free thinkers are those who do not accept ideas as truth without recourse to knowledge or reason. That doesn't have much to do with religion.

 

I just don't see how free thinking has become a perview of atheists and agnostics. I can be Catholic and free thinking. If not I couldn't very well be a homeschooler. Our own dear KK can be atheist and free thinking.

 

Whoever started the group (sorry I don't pay that much attention to things) lumped atheists, agnostics and free thinkers together. I'm just not sure why.

 

 

And I guess I'm confused. What does religion have to do with your orginial statement?

 

What is confusing? You lost me. (No snark. Asking.)

 

Yes, you brought up free thinking in a religious manner when you first responded to me.

 

 

 

"Free Thinking" in religion with regards to parenting means that you aren't telling your child what to believe, etc. It can also mean that you pull from lots of faiths/spiritual traditions and aren't bound by any one set of beliefs. It usually means you are open to change and influence, with regards to faith/religion/spirituality.

IMO, obviously.

 

I responded that athiesm isn't a religion. So what does religion have to do with it? Again, why lump the atheist and agnostics with free thinking. It isn't something to my mind that goes hand in hand in hand.

[NotSoObvious]

 

 

Freethought is more a philosophical designation, and one with a long history. Essentially it means to aspire to form opinions based on empiricism and observable fact, without regard to authority and dogma. Some in the (loose) community identify as freethinkers, some as skeptics (like me). Most, but not all, freethinkers and skeptics identify as atheist or agnostic. It's my sense that there are a number of freethinkers who chose the designation at least partially because they are now free from religion, and they very strongly identify as atheist.

 

Chucki, this is a better answer for you. Thanks nmoira!

[NotSoObvious]

 

 

Individuals who are free thinkers are those who do not accept ideas as truth without recourse to knowledge or reason. That doesn't have much to do with religion.

 

 

Oh, but see, we disagree about this. To me, this has everything to do with religion.

[Parrothead]

Freethought is more a philosophical designation, and one with a long history. Essentially it means to aspire to form opinions based on empiricism and observable fact, without regard to authority and dogma. Some in the (loose) community identify as freethinkers, some as skeptics (like me). Most, but not all, freethinkers and skeptics identify as atheist or agnostic. It's my sense that there are a number of freethinkers who chose the designation at least partially because they are now free from religion, and they very strongly identify as atheist.

 

Okay. I had no idea the term was co-opted by a group. Or the term "skeptic" for that matter. Thank you for explaining.

[nmoira]

 

 

Okay. I had no idea the term was co-opted by a group. Or the term "skeptic" for that matter. Thank you for explaining.

 

Not co-opted, as the meaning isn't changed. It's just my impression that some freethinkers identify as such rather than skeptic because of the "free" part and their own personal histories.

[Parrothead]

 

You didn't see the entire post. Just what was quoted. No one was gossiping about you. The quoted portion didn't even mention that it was about your marriage, to be quite frank about it, and the post wasn't about marriage, either. It was simply an example.

I agree that if you're talking about *people* then it's gossip. Discussing ideology isn't. Even when what someone else said (simply because it was a fairly well-worded example of the idea being discussed) is quoted. We quote Dawkins in there, too. We aren't gossiping about him, either. You're in good company.

 

Actually, those of us your group quoted did not see what was quoted. We were only alerted that there was a quote and when following the link to the quote we were led to your social group. We do not know what was quoted, if it was taken out of context, used as a joke, or otherwise used as a bad representation. There was no way to defend any gossip or clarify questions.

[Parrothead]

Not co-opted, as the meaning isn't changed. It's just my impression that some freethinkers identify as such rather than skeptic because of the "free" part and their own personal histories.

 

Apparently I'm just thick today. Because I truly don't get it. Is "freethinker" a religious term in and of itself? Can a person be a freethinker about things other than religion or a lack thereof?

[delaney]

Well to answer your original question I would have to say who cares. So what if they quote you. So what if they quote me. Life is too short.

[Guest inoubliable]

 

Actually, those of us your group quoted did not see what was quoted. We were only alerted that there was a quote and when following the link to the quote we were led to your social group. We do not know what was quoted, if it was taken out of context, used as a joke, or otherwise used as a bad representation. There was no way to defend any gossip or clarify questions.

 

I thought she knew what she was quoted on... What she said in post #35 seemed to say that she knew the exact quote. I have no idea how that works, to be honest. I only just found out how to switch that feature on and I haven't checked my email to see what it looks like when you get that notification. Do you see WHO quoted you? FTR, I am the person who started that Social Group and I have no problem with anyone PMing me to ask about something being quoted. I still maintain that there was no gossip about Joann. Not about her marriage, and not about her personal faith. It was simply quoted as an example because it was well-written. That's it.

[Guest inoubliable]

Well to answer your original question I would have to say who cares. So what if they quote you. So what if they quote me. Life is too short.

 

That was my thought, honestly.

If you're being quoted in a group of people you don't like or agree with anyway, why would you even care? Anyone here can be quoted anywhere on the internet by anyone, really. It's an open forum. If anyone is that unnerved by being quoted, they probably shouldn't be posting.

[*Lulu*]

I think the problem is not with the quoting itself, (because, as it has already been mentioned, anyone can cut and paste something from here to discuss elsewhere), but in the notification of the quotation. It is like walking into a room where others are talking quietly and hearing your name and nothing else of the conversation. They may not be saying anything unkind, or even really talking about you at all, (someone may have just said, "oh I see so and so is here today"), but the feeling it leaves you with is a little disconcerting.

[joannqn]

Oh. Then I guess this is just a "talking about the board" thread.

 

 

I was just pointing out a feature I only just discovered because it may change the what myself and others are willing to share. I didn't know about it, and I'm assuming there are others who don't know about it either.

 

 

Actually, those of us your group quoted did not see what was quoted. We were only alerted that there was a quote and when following the link to the quote we were led to your social group. We do not know what was quoted, if it was taken out of context, used as a joke, or otherwise used as a bad representation. There was no way to defend any gossip or clarify questions.

 

 

What Parrothead is staying is true. We can see which post was quoted, but cannot see if the post was quoted in full, in part, changed, etc. We cannot see what is said either.

 

I thought she knew what she was quoted on... What she said in post #35 seemed to say that she knew the exact quote. I have no idea how that works, to be honest. I only just found out how to switch that feature on and I haven't checked my email to see what it looks like when you get that notification. Do you see WHO quoted you? FTR, I am the person who started that Social Group and I have no problem with anyone PMing me to ask about something being quoted. I still maintain that there was no gossip about Joann. Not about her marriage, and not about her personal faith. It was simply quoted as an example because it was well-written. That's it.

 

 

The notification says, "username quoted a post you made." The username indicates which user and is a clickable link to their profile. The word quoted is a link to the location it is quoted. This link takes me to the social group page and indicates that I don't have permission to view or join the group. The "post you made" is a link to my post, telling me which post was quoted in some way.

 

I appreciate knowing you think my post was well-written. In potentially controversial threads, I make an effort to carefully word my posts so not to offend, and if I feel like I can't do that I don't post.

[*Lulu*]

By the way, where are y'all finding this notification? I had no clue such a thing even existed!

[nmoira]

Apparently I'm just thick today. Because I truly don't get it. Is "freethinker" a religious term in and of itself? Can a person be a freethinker about things other than religion or a lack thereof?

 

 

One could certainly profess to free thought without being a freethinker as in Freethought. But it helps to keep in mind that we're not talking about the same think. Freethinker is not meant any other sense than is existentialist or absurdist or humanist is... It's not (for most) a put down.

[Serenade]

 

I clicked on new content and nothing showed up under social groups. Is there something I need to do? And will only the social groups I belong to show up? Gah! I'm such a dunce.

 

 

 

I'm not sure. I don't see as many social group postings as I did when they first got started on the new forums. Maybe that was before most people used the privacy settings? Although, that doesn't make sense either, because if it was private, and I got the message that I couldn't open the thread, why then could I hover and read? If I ever find one like this again, I'll try to post it.

[Parrothead]

 

That was my thought, honestly.

If you're being quoted in a group of people you don't like or agree with anyway, why would you even care? Anyone here can be quoted anywhere on the internet by anyone, really. It's an open forum. If anyone is that unnerved by being quoted, they probably shouldn't be posting.

 

 

1. Because it is very easy to change someone's words. Quotes on this site are editable. I added bolding after I quoted you.

2. People can be ugly. I would love to be able to say "not anyone here". Sadly I can't.

 

And yes, it is true of anywhere on the internet. It is more of a "I can't care if I don't know, but I do care if I've been notified that someone may have twisted what I said to suit a personal agenda."

 

No, I'm not giving your group or its members that much power. But I can see how others may think it.

[Guest inoubliable]

I was just pointing out a feature I only just discovered because it may change the what myself and others are willing to share. I didn't know about it, and I'm assuming there are others who don't know about it either.

 

 

 

What Parrothead is staying is true. We can see which post was quoted, but cannot see if the post was quoted in full, in part, changed, etc. We cannot see what is said either.

 

 

 

The notification says, "username quoted a post you made." The username indicates which user and is a clickable link to their profile. The word quoted is a link to the location it is quoted. This link takes me to the social group page and indicates that I don't have permission to view or join the group. The "post you made" is a link to my post, telling me which post was quoted in some way.

 

I appreciate knowing you think my post was well-written. In potentially controversial threads, I make an effort to carefully word my posts so not to offend, and if I feel like I can't do that I don't post.

 

 

Ah. Okay. Well, then. Perhaps we can all move on then? :)

[Parrothead]

I thought she knew what she was quoted on... What she said in post #35 seemed to say that she knew the exact quote. I have no idea how that works, to be honest. I only just found out how to switch that feature on and I haven't checked my email to see what it looks like when you get that notification. Do you see WHO quoted you? FTR, I am the person who started that Social Group and I have no problem with anyone PMing me to ask about something being quoted. I still maintain that there was no gossip about Joann. Not about her marriage, and not about her personal faith. It was simply quoted as an example because it was well-written. That's it.

 

 

 

Yes, I'll PM you. I don't want to out anyone.

[Parrothead]

One could certainly profess to free thought without being a freethinker as in Freethought. But it helps to keep in mind that we're not talking about the same think. Freethinker is not meant any other sense than is existentialist or absurdist or humanist is... It's not (for most) a put down.

 

 

And this is the heart of the matter. Freethinker is different than free thinking. I didn't know that when I asked originally.

[Guest inoubliable]

1. Because it is very easy to change someone's words. Quotes on this site are editable. I added bolding after I quoted you.

2. People can be ugly. I would love to be able to say "not anyone here". Sadly I can't.

 

And yes, it is true of anywhere on the internet. It is more of a "I can't care if I don't know, but I do care if I've been notified that someone may have twisted what I said to suit a personal agenda."

 

No, I'm not giving your group or its members that much power. But I can see how others may think it.

 

 

Okay, I can understand how some people would be really bothered by that. I do. Unfortunately, there are only so many ways to prevent those feelings specifically with regard to *these* forums (understanding that cutting/editing/pasting could still take place elsewhere on the internet).

1 - turn off your notifications

2 - don't post things you'd rather not have quoted anywhere

3 - shut down the Social Groups

or

4 - insist that SGs are moderated, meaning that the purpose of some of them in being private groups is lost

 

I'd hate to see the SGs go back to being a non-feature in this community. I think it's probably best for everyone to take this as a lesson in knowing your comfort limits with what you post on the internet.

[Parrothead]

It's so true that what with homeschooling three children and part time work, that in my spare time I - as a non-religious forum member - like to relax by 'being ugly and twisting what other people say to suit my own agenda.'

 

'Cos that's how we roll, we atheists. Lol. Not.

 

 

Seriously?

[Parrothead]

 

Okay, I can understand how some people would be really bothered by that. I do. Unfortunately, there are only so many ways to prevent those feelings specifically with regard to *these* forums (understanding that cutting/editing/pasting could still take place elsewhere on the internet).

1 - turn off your notifications

2 - don't post things you'd rather not have quoted anywhere

3 - shut down the Social Groups

or

4 - insist that SGs are moderated, meaning that the purpose of some of them in being private groups is lost

 

I'd hate to see the SGs go back to being a non-feature in this community. I think it's probably best for everyone to take this as a lesson in knowing your comfort limits with what you post on the internet.

 

 

Yes, I agree with you. Personally I thought it a bit odd, but didn't think much of it until the OP posted.

 

Keep in mind that the social groups can be moderated by the forum mods. They normally don't get too involved with the groups, but if someone complains they will take a look. One or the other would pop in every once in a while on the old boards.

[HRAAB]

 

 

I'm not sure. I don't see as many social group postings as I did when they first got started on the new forums. Maybe that was before most people used the privacy settings? Although, that doesn't make sense either, because if it was private, and I got the message that I couldn't open the thread, why then could I hover and read? If I ever find one like this again, I'll try to post it.

 

I'm confused, but that isn't unusual. Thanks.

[Parrothead]

Your words, your insinuation.

 

If the problem is merely with being notified, treat it as a technical issue and take it to the appropriate person.

 

Was I even talking about you? Did I mention you? Why are you taking it so personally? It had nothing to do with you. Did you even read my entire post? I did tell KK that I wasn't referring to anyone in her group. If you are part of her group then I wasn't talking about you.

[Serenade]

 

I'm confused, but that isn't unusual. Thanks.

 

Oh, I'm confused, too. I wish I could offer clarification, but I'm not sure what I'm talking about, either! It's confusing.

[unsinkable]

"Posts in social groups which attack or mock other social groups or members will be deleted."

 

That's been in the community guidelines since the last board, when most social groups weren't private.

 

That rule seems to have changed when there weren't social groups, but social threads, a few months ago. IIRC, posters were told don't go read another social group and then complain about it.

 

I actually like the original community guidelines better.

 

[HRAAB]

Apparently I'm just thick today. Because I truly don't get it. Is "freethinker" a religious term in and of itself? Can a person be a freethinker about things other than religion or a lack thereof?

 

When I personally use the term freethinker, I am referring to religion as in the shedding of dogma, or the shedding of traditionally accepted cultural norms.

 

This is my definition of a freethinker.

[Guest inoubliable]

Yes, I agree with you. Personally I thought it a bit odd, but didn't think much of it until the OP posted.

 

Keep in mind that the social groups can be moderated by the forum mods. They normally don't get too involved with the groups, but if someone complains they will take a look. One or the other would pop in every once in a while on the old boards.

 

 

Oh aye. That is so.

[Parrothead]

When I personally use the term freethinker, I am referring to religion as in the shedding of dogma, or the shedding of traditionally accepted cultural norms.

 

This is my definition of a freethinker.

 

 

As I said up thread. I was unaware that the term was co-opted by a group of people. I thought it was a general shedding of traditionally accepted cultural norms not specifically religious norms.

[Parrothead]

"Posts in social groups which attack or mock other social groups or members will be deleted."

 

 

 

Okay then. So when someone it quoted in a closed social group, one only has to notify a mod and ask him/her to take a look to see of one is being attacked or mocked.

 

There

 

Problem solved.

[Parrothead]

 

Oh, dear me. "I" as a representative member of groups who quote in private. I do believe this thread is about a particular group who quoted in private. Wonder if all the hoo-haa has anything to do with which group ?

 

LOL. Personally, I don't give a hoot. I just think it's funny, all this - emotional energy - being expended on what everyone insists is a technical issue of notification.

 

 

I'm not sure I get what you mean about a technical issue.

 

I don't think it started out as a thread about a particular group. But it did turn that way when it was discovered that of late one group's members quoted outsiders.

 

Since I wasn't referring to the group of which you are a representative member I did not feel the snark in your post was appropriate.

 

My response about nefarious posting applies to any closed group which sees fit to quote outsiders without knowing what was said. I wouldn't allow mocking and offensive posting in my group. I'm sure KK wouldn't either. Others? Who knows. Maybe the runners want to bash the fat and lazy. Perhaps the CM group wants to talk ugly about an unschooler.

[unsinkable]

Hey, you 52 Weeks to an Organized House-ers!

 

Me and my girls in the Sit on Our Bums While the Crap Piles Up are coming after you...we know you're talking smack.

[Parrothead]

Oh, but see, we disagree about this. To me, this has everything to do with religion.

 

 

I don't even think it is an actual disagreement. Just a different use of term. Like multiple entries in a dictionary. You automatically think entry one when you hear/read free thinker. I automatically think entry two, and did not know there was an entry one.

 

Thanks for trying to explain. Sorry for being so dense and taking so long to figure out the problem.

[Parrothead]

Hey, you 52 Weeks to an Organized House-ers!

 

Me and my girls in the Sit on Our Bums While the Crap Piles Up are coming after you...we know you're talking smack.

 

 

Since the Sit on Our Bums While the Crap Piles Up group is closed, may I get an invitation? :lol: :lol:

[Guest inoubliable]

Hey, you 52 Weeks to an Organized House-ers!

 

Me and my girls in the Sit on Our Bums While the Crap Piles Up are coming after you...we know you're talking smack.

 

 

Quite like those pro-hard pretzel folk. I *know* they're smack talking about us anti-hard pretzel people.

[swellmomma]

How did you turn on notifications for when you are quoted? That sounds great!

 

I'm not a huge fan of the closed groups sending out notifications to people not in the group. I hate clicking on New Content and then seeing an interesting thread that I'm not allowed to read. It feels weird, even though I know it isn't personal.

 

I had that happen recently, I got all excited about Pamela's post about her new foster kids, clicked it and saw it was a social group for foster parents and could not read the post.

 

As for the other issue, I wouldn't like it. Yes it could be copied and pasted anyway but then you wouldn't know about it and in the case of people talking behind your back I would rather be ignorant about it. I think getting notifications that someone took your public post and posted it in a private group to talk behind your back is childish and cowardly. If you want to talk about me do it in the open for all to see or bring it on in a pm, but don't go running to your locked group to spout off, having the notification come to tell you it is happening is just adding fuel to the fire, because then you know it is happening and you are powerless to defend yourself about it. Seems passive aggressively hostile and does not make it welcoming to post in the public area.

[Guest inoubliable]

Okay then. So when someone it quoted in a closed social group, one only has to notify a mod and ask him/her to take a look to see of one is being attacked or mocked.

 

There

 

Problem solved.

 

While that's certainly an option, I don't know what good it would really do. Only because I think it's unlikely that a Mod would check it out, and then come back to tell you anything. And then what's the point? The Mod has now been dragged into checking out conversations that are private to the person complaining anyway?

I'm just trying to think this through.

Wouldn't it really just be easier to be more careful with what we post online? And if you ARE quoted, go ask the member who quoted you what it was about? If anyone here gets quoted in my Social Group and wants to know but doesn't feel comfortable asking the person who quoted them, they can ask me. Honestly, I don't bite. Hard.

[Plink]

So, for the clueless like me, this is how you change your settings if you DO want to be notified when you are quoted:

 

Go to your username at the top of the page (right hand side, gray bar)

Click on My Settings

Look on the left and choose Notification Preferences - this is where you can make dozens of changes.

 

Now I know, but I'm no longer sure if I really want to be notified.

[*Lulu*]

 

 

Quite like those pro-hard pretzel folk. I *know* they're smack talking about us anti-hard pretzel people.

 

I know the group is private, but they are calling y'all "soft".

 

It is scandalous, really!

[Guest inoubliable]

I know the group is private, but they are calling y'all "soft".

 

It is scandalous, really!

 

Well I never!

*flounce*

[Parrothead]

 

While that's certainly an option, I don't know what good it would really do. Only because I think it's unlikely that a Mod would check it out, and then come back to tell you anything. And then what's the point? The Mod has now been dragged into checking out conversations that are private to the person complaining anyway?

I'm just trying to think this through.

Wouldn't it really just be easier to be more careful with what we post online? And if you ARE quoted, go ask the member who quoted you what it was about? If anyone here gets quoted in my Social Group and wants to know but doesn't feel comfortable asking the person who quoted them, they can ask me. Honestly, I don't bite. Hard.

 

Yes, they would check. We were once told to play nicely. :blushing: There was an ugly dispute between the traddies and the modernists.

 

The social groups are not private from the mods. They may not check them regularly, but if something is brought up to they they will take a look.

 

As for being more careful what we post online, well, how would that look? Just as an example and to continue on the same subject. if someone from your group said something innocuous about the religious, just in passing without any thought anyone would be annoyed, a religious person could quote that, turn it around and make it ugly in their private group. Hopefully the group owner would have the cajones to take it down. But the point is at what point is it okay to have a normal conversation? If we are watching every single word we type what is the point of the forums?

[joannqn]

I like being notified of when I'm quoted because it allows me to know when someone has started or continued a conversation I'm involved in. Without them, I have difficulty keeping track of all of the threads I'm involved in and might not see that someone has quoted me and asked a question. I think that is the intent of having the notifications in the first place.

[Guest inoubliable]

Yes, they would check. We were once told to play nicely. :blushing: There was an ugly dispute between the traddies and the modernists.

 

The social groups are not private from the mods. They may not check them regularly, but if something is brought up to they they will take a look.

 

As for being more careful what we post online, well, how would that look? Just as an example and to continue on the same subject. if someone from your group said something innocuous about the religious, just in passing without any thought anyone would be annoyed, a religious person could quote that, turn it around and make it ugly in their private group. Hopefully the group owner would have the cajones to take it down. But the point is at what point is it okay to have a normal conversation? If we are watching every single word we type what is the point of the forums?

 

 

I understand.

 

I still think that we should be more careful about what we post, and maybe less convinced that someone from the "other team" is using your (not you personally) words to attack you behind your back. I don't think we need to watch every single thing we type. You're right - what would be the point of the forums when we use it to vent or get advice on personal and private situations? Maybe, as a group, we need to work on being less suspicious and less offended?

[momma2three]

As I said up thread. I was unaware that the term was co-opted by a group of people. I thought it was a general shedding of traditionally accepted cultural norms not specifically religious norms.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that through most of its history, it's been used mostly about rethinking specifically religious norms. I know that's only how it's used now, but Wikipedia is telling me that goes back to the beginning, several hundred years ago.

[Parrothead]

Notifications are a technical issue. That isn't confusing in the least.

Have you seen my other posts today? I should change my name to dazed and confused.

 

It's disengenuous to pretend that this thread hasn't had a subtext of 'those nasty atheists/agnostics/freethinkers are gossiping behind our righteous, non-gossipy Christian backs'.

Nope, not me. I'm more of a live and let live kind of girl. Anything else I could say will have to go to PM. I'd be happy to meet yo there if you desire.

 

However, if I have misinterpreted your comments, I apologise. At least you were quoted in public :)

No need to apologize. Tone or the lack there of makes things difficult.

 

[albeto]

But the point is at what point is it okay to have a normal conversation? If we are watching every single word we type what is the point of the forums?

 

 

I personally appreciate having a private group where I can post on topics that would inadvertently upset some people otherwise, or cause an unnecessary kerfuffle. I imagine you can appreciate this yourself, knowing you can talk freely among like-minded people without feeling "heckled" by others.

 

Anyway, quoting is something I've done as a matter of habit. When I mention something, I reference it. Anyone can follow the link easily to see the quote in context. So if a topic is brought up in one subject and I am interested in taking into a little bunny trail that would only be interesting to a private group of people, I quote the original, and share my thoughts there. I hope this makes sense. It never would have dawned on me that people would assume nefarious intent. I won't do this any more.

[unsinkable]

 

 

I personally appreciate having a private group where I can post on topics that would inadvertently upset some people otherwise, or cause an unnecessary kerfuffle. I imagine you can appreciate this yourself, knowing you can talk freely among like-minded people without feeling "heckled" by others.

 

Anyway, quoting is something I've done as a matter of habit. When I mention something, I reference it. Anyone can follow the link easily to see the quote in context. So if a topic is brought up in one subject and I am interested in taking into a little bunny trail that would only be interesting to a private group of people, I quote the original, and share my thoughts there. I hope this makes sense. It never would have dawned on me that people would assume nefarious intent. I won't do this any more.

 

 

Oh, there you are!

 

That prayer works thread was...intense. I read your 2nd set of posts before they were deleted but didn't read your original posts.

 

You wanted to continue the discussion among like minded people? Is that right?