Darrell
Wot a great idea
glad to see you ahve woken up this morning with such enthusiasm for life
Keep up the good work
Will u start the thread or should i
Clive

Larry
I agree with you time to drop the subject
It does however have the most replys by a long way so obviously raised the cerabelum a notch.
Clive

oooh philip if only my gramar would allow me to be likened to a can opener
oh dear dear

[Deleted by Moderator.]

I DONT BELIEVE IT
Clive

Sen
I think that if a member continually usese bad language or insults another member the spanish inquisition should remove him to a place of public flogging and slap him severly with a moderated moderated moderated
until he cries out i promise to only say what the majority say and do what the majority do for the greater good of the majority.
Clive

[Deleted by Moderator.]

As far as eschewing obfuscation, if expressing myself at a level above 3rd grade insults and blather is obfuscation, then I proudly plead guilty.

Now go away, the adults are having a conversation.

Larry

..or perhaps, if the member acquired a total (cumulative) of say 5 posts edited by the moderator then the member will blocked automatically for a certain period.

Philip,
If you expect people to take you seriously, it’s helpful to comment on the content of what they said and either agree or disagree using logic.
Engaging in ad homeneim attacks (name calling) simply leads others to believe that you don’t have the verbal or mental capacity to respond to the facts or logic of their argument. This is something I would expect on a primary or elementary school playground, but not in here.
As I’ve said in another thread, if I want immature name calling, I’ll visit UseNet.

Larry

I’m with pmkb on this one, people generally put others down on a continual basis out of a mistaken sense of self-importance or out of a genuine sense of inferiority.

Which do you suppose is the case here?

Larry

Perhaps the PP can implement an "ignore list" like we have at the PMKB. Members can then block out posts from members that they don’t fancy.

Stacy
Participate in the Project Management Knowledge Base!

Moderators / Philip

Personally don’t fell da nead for a spell chequer.
By all means, make your own informed decisions on this "big issue". Perhaps a "name spell chequer" wood b more appropriate.

To me, some of your comments smack of steriotyping, which of course as an individual free person you can do, without anybodys permission. Suppose that is real democracy.

Each of us thinks we see ourselves as the world & others see us.
Each of us, also has a face or facade that we put on, or maintain for any give point in time or circumstance.

Deciding that perhaps "site people swear like troopers, because they have to get the job done" might be true of some "site people". The vast majority of "site people" that I deal with anyhow, swear very little to get the job done. Swearing gets no job done. Its work that gets a job done generally. And conversley some "office people" that I have had the pleasure of dealing with, would make you vomit violently, not only with their swearing (which doesnt bother me), but also with their diminituive (hope I spelt dat rite) attitude, towards the people around them, and the people actually doing some work "the sweary site people".


Also, the only time I really feel the need to swear generally, is when I am on planning planet, although their is no real f***ing point as the moderators tend to be on the ball. I am a site person, if only part time, but day to day don’t swear that much, but that is relative, because this is Ireland (see, more steriotyping).

The moderators I think are usually pretty fair, from what I have seen to date, but that is only my opinion, after all I think I have them in my pockt.

Regards,

Darrell

Hi edgar,
I think he over excited cause getting new PC machine... as u recommended

Folks,

Perhaps the plot was lost a long time ago.
Werent we discussing Democracy & Totalitaranism?

Just a note, for those interested.
Have been moderated upon (see below), and don’t even remember why.

Typical "Demontarianism" in action.
A democratic moderator exorcising totalitaranism control.
Probably not allowed to say that either?

A way 2 get round dis.
On sum radio shows in Ireland, DJs will often read out texts or mails that they have recieved throught the day.
Not unusually, in Ireland, people use swear words etc.
So to get round not getting the sack, DJs are allowed to paraphrase or quote others. Manys the time Ive had a near death experience, creased up with laughter in the car.
As they quote others messages about, all manner of subject matters, and topical events of the day.

Its [Deleted by Moderator] and harms nobody.

Best wishes,

Darrell

he’s risen from the dead....he’s immortal...but he is not Irish

feelings....nothing more than feelings...trying to forget my feelings of ....(do machines have it?)

What are you planning to do here?

Darrell read the posting rules
Oscar

Darrell
When we post we agree not to flame so what is flaming
Oscar

So Darrell what is flaming
Is it still ok if i dont understand the words when i agree to them
not english law here please
osacr

Oscar,

"Hell hat no furry"

Suppose my opinion wood be that, perhaps den dere is no difference between "Democracy & Totalitaranism"?
Because both impose sensorship & control.

All dependant upon the leadersip, to what extent this is extended.

Good pint doh.

Darrell

Philip/Larry

I think we are all agreeing here. The film analogy Philip used is a good one I feel because films are prone to active censorship.

They are also classified so that people can know what they are likely to be subjected to. This means that a commonly held notion of what is and is not appropriate is held. As Larry points out this can often be implicit as well as stated.

In the case of a forum like this the stated understanding would be the site rules that we agree to. The implicit is a mixture of common courtesy and the fact that as planners we are all vaguely like minded, plus I would imagine that this is an environment that is unlikely to attract much trolling.

Where moderation becomes too harsh it usually painfully apparant IMHO. If this were to happen here I am sure the moderator(s) would rapidly be made aware that all was not well. I really do not see it as much of a problem here.

Andy

Censorship and moderation are all in the eye of the beholder and the community.

A community agrees to a certain set of behavioral norms that will allow that community to function most effectively.

Sometimes these norms are spelled out explicitly (i.e. the Forum Rules) and other times, they are spelled out implicitly, (i.e. traditions, beliefs, corporate cultures)

To the extent that they are laid out explicitly, people who want to participate in that community should be aware of those rules, and the moderators should be allowed to take action as needed to see that all participants comply.

To the extent that the rules are inmplicit, and require time and experience to learn, the moderators should wait for the person to learn the rules and other members of the group should be so kind as to educate the newbies.

For example, I was in one forum where the term coworker was often misstyped as cow orker. I made the error of making a joke about orking cows. There was no explicit rule saying I couldn’t do that. However, one of the other members let me know that the cow orking joke had been done to death and wasn’t necessarily appreciated. That’s an example of an implicit rule that gets learned informally.

I find this whole discussion rather fascinating, in part because Totalitarianism and Democracy both enforce rules on the community. The difference is that in a Democracy, all members of the community have an opportunity to have some influence, however small, on the rules, and agree to live under those rules as a condition of belonging to the community. In a totalitarian society, only a small group of the community set the rules for everyone else and living under those rules is an enforce condition rather than a voluntary condition.

This is a democracy, in that if you don’t like what the moderators do, you are perfectly able to find a different forum. If, on the other hand, you were not allowed to join any other forums and had no input to this forum’s rules, then it would be totalitarianism.

Philosophically yours,

Larry

I am a former moderator on a Christian message board. Believe me some of the posting was very near the knuckle, and to disagree or criticise somebody often equated to a damnation of their very core beliefs, the most deeply held and personal feelings.

We had some posters who were atheist, some agnostic, some Catholic and some Protestant, from all corners of the globe. We had some who deliberately tried to disrupt the board, either because they felt it was God’s duty or they felt aggressive towards the Christian faith.

It was a nightmare to moderate, we had a moderation team of 5-10 volunteers who had guidelines to adhere to, which were publicly advertised. More often than not we simply asked whether someone was in breach of the rules they agreed to adhere to when they registered (much like here) or if they were damaging to the overall welfare of the site (much like here).

For me it is all a question of integrity, I agreed to certain conditions when I signed up to PP, if I fail to live up to them I would expect to be admonished.

PP needs moderators, but the best moderation is done when nobody realises that anything has been done. PM’s can be used to good effect I have found, if a mod PM’s you pointing out a problem you are most likely to do what you can to put it right.

Can we edit our existing posts? That might be a useful tool.

[edit] just realised we can :-)

Larry

Take your point.
But cannot concurr, that right and wrong are a societal construct. Breaking "the law" of "a societal construct" is not necesarilly right or wrong. If we say that to break the law of a society is wrong, then that is a societal construct. "The society" concerned have deemed that breaking "that law" is wrong. But breaking the law as far as right or wrong in itself is concerned, is a different issue.

For example Planning Planet may have "Laws or Rules", but is breaking those "Laws or Rules", right or wrong?
I might suggest that, if one did break these "Laws or Rules", it would have very little impact upon ones conscience (However that might be defined).

Killing someone or lets say, even executing or torture for that matter are looked on by some societies as just social norm. or a social construct?

I might suggest that, although the law might not persecute those participating in such acts, that perhaps their conscience may tell them something different. And I am not saying that doing the above is either right or wrong.

But that every Sentient being knows right from wrong.

But I suppose something like this is very difficult to get a grasp on, on a global scale?

Has this confused the issue?

All the best,

Darrell

PP Admin,

My view would be that, water can find its own level, given the "freedom" to do so. (Perhaps gravity to is a restriction). Societies are and can be self regulatory. Every sentient being knows the difference between right & wrong. But that of course is a level of utopia (whatever that means).

Politics / Religion / Superstition (Not that these are bad),
can tend to socially distort acceptance & toleration of something that does not feel right or correct to sentient beings.

Thus to me, is hard to distinguish the differences between Democracy & Totalitaranism. A clear or agreed definition of the two, to start with is difficult to establish. And which is better or worse may depend on application as much as intepretation.

Peace,

Darrell

ps. Also have to concurr with Stuart. Although some of my own mail may have been taken in a bad light. Have to admit though, some of this stuff is quite thought provoking & some is just pure shite. But it takes all sorts.

Hi PP Admin,

You are doing a good job as it is. We appreciate your perseverance in doing it.

Cheers

Give a try for one month see what will happen? They already enough to take care them self...only thing i’m afraid is abusing on religon and political...that want very dangerous.

In the Midwest, where I am, we say
"Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in the boat and drink beer."

Quote from Philip:
"...when it comes to fishing, you need experts, and never believe you know it all."

Philip, even children can fish successfuly. ;-)

And as for knowing it all, the quality of your numerous posts belies your shyness and modesty!!



Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

The forum guidelines don’t see unreasonable to me. Am I missing something? Which guideline is causing a problem with discussing planning and scheduling?

Stacy
Participate in the Project Management Knowledge Base!

Is it worse to be moderated or to self censor????

Clive,
Folks,

Planning Immortals, is just begenning to kick off.
(Under improving planning planet website).

All the best,

Darrell

Clive,

That’s a good idea; could this dictionary also include definitions for humour, humorous and po-faced as well?

Chris Oggham

Hello to all,

I appreciate the moderator quick actions.

This will ensure democracy will continue in PP.

Some PP becomes emotional and hinting on physical abuse towards their peers in PP.

It is the moderator sound judgement that the forum rules shalll be implemented.

LONG LIVE THE MODERATORS, the guardians of democracy in Planning Planet.

LONG LIVE, LONG LIVE THE MODERATORS.

without you democracy in PP will be curtailed.

LONG LIVE, LONG LIVE THE MODERATORS.

Cheers and Have a beautiful weekends,

From Charlie with all the blessings

Clive,

If the views of the majority were always expressed,
then what need do we have, for any form of debate or discussion?

And it is Feckan, as in feckan ejit.

All the best,

Darrell

Another interesting explanation here:

Cute hoor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Cute hoor is a Hiberno-English term used to describe someone who will do whatever it takes to achieve what they want. Usually a cute hoor will not break the law but it is seen as willing to bend and use the law, use people or use situations to come out on top, by pulling dishonest or misleading stunts en route.

In this context cute means cunning, and is a clipped form of acute. The word hoor (pronounced hoo-r) is based on the English word whore, but in the term cute hoor has no sexual connotations.

The term cute hoor is often used as a quasi-affectionate term, for someone whose utter unreliability and untrustworthyness is well known, seen through and treated almost as a joke. Then Irish Tánaiste Brian Lenihan was described as a cute hoor on a Late Late Show TV special about him in 1990 by some of his colleagues and friends, who recounted stories of his unreliability, including promising parents he’d get jobs for their children, then losing the piece of paper on which he’d recorded the details, or making ’spur of the moment’ promises to voters during elections that would be forgotten as quickly as they were thought of. In Lenihan’s case, his cute hoor image came back to haunt him when the question of his trustworthyness and reliability became a central issue in the 1990 presidential election, an election he sensationally lost to Mary Robinson.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cute_hoor"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4058648-102278,00.html
Haughey was the Juan Peron of Irish politics. Like the glamorous Argentinian dictator, he inspired a fanatical following with his peculiar blend of nationalist fervour, right-wing views and appeasement of powerful trade union leaders. He was master of the small political gesture - granting tax exemption to artists and free travel to retirees - and was hugely popular. He was also the supreme practitioner of the Irish political art of ’cute hoorism’ (’a clever whore’), slyly outmanoeuvring his opponents with backstage deals. He cultivated his image as the man of power, the man of decision, the very embodiment of the Irish nation.

Whats that???
Napoleon defeated by Nelson well yes but not at Waterloo
Napoleon good planner well maybe but failed to assess the effect on the critical path when it came to inclement weather
I would love to meet the head of planning for D Day or the invasion of Scicily that to me was real planning.
Get it wrong and you could forget about an EOT claim.

But freedom of speech Philip think your right out their and your comments always make me laugh, I mean laugh as they are so funny especially when you respond and get moderated. I for one would really like to know what you said cos it must have been really funny.

Perhaps in future use the word’s "thats bollocks" then you wont get edited

Keep up the griping its really good to read.

Philip,

Politics & histo-political reference were never a strong point of mine. Am aware of some of the main historiocal events, Irish, European & World. Am certainly no historian. Perhaps there are patterns developing, in developing nations that some are loathe to notice or will not acknowledge. All nations perhaps should be developing??

Might I suggest that their is no intrinsic difference between "Democracy" and "Totalitaranism". But their is a huge difference in the application and the leadershit of any of these types of societal structures. Therein lies the issue.

They have both worked and failed at different times historically. A sudo-type-democracy seems the flavour of the day in western society, with a slight para-noia-semi-police-type-arrangement.

And in school many years ago, we were doing "Ancient History", we read and were told that the Greeks invented democracy?????? Open to re-writing or correction of course.

Might I also say the, the word "Bollocks" in Ireland is seldom taken as an insult or swear word. This is a cultural ting though, so no offence intended.

Respect,
Darrell

Razi, you are so far off the subject topic Democracy vs Totalitaranism

what in heck does the pivot point Renaissance have to do with the subject?

Get back on the subject ok??

go back to page one and see what the heck Philip was discussing.
The objection was that he did not care for monitors editing his prose and thought we should have freedom of speach.period. He has a valid point, and there was lots of discourse on it but now you are getting wayyyyy out there
reel it back in
cheers bill