Drive-By Postings

[dhalltoyo]

Does it really matter whether someone has posted once, twice, three times or up to the magical number of five to include content thay "may" be deemed as a negative post regarding any particular issue?

If that is the rule would it not seem logical that a person will post five times in order to reach the magical number and then post what "may" be considered as...well, you know.

Any posting that does not list an attribute citing its source is merely opinion or editorial by nature.

This website is not the Associated Press, i.e. an actual news source with credentialed staff.

Ya'll need to chill out, cuz it is all merely opinion and/or editorial anywho. And before the little clique begins hitting the keyboard, I mean all except those posts that carry the attribute. So, nanny, nanny, boo, boo.

But...when when you can't find a seemingly valid reason as to what would lead someone to a vehement response when a "drive-by" posting appears...when it nothing elses makes sense just think to yourself..."It's a Green Lead".

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I see your point...just because say someone has 3,000 posts doesn't make it any less of an offense....

So if I posted hey this so and so carrier is crap...My post should be removed as well....especially if it is off the wall and no valid evidence to support the claim....

A first timer comes in and posts...this carrier cheated me the owner is crap yadayada and so forth...and disappears...what does that post/thread accomplish? What value from a discussion point of view....nothing.

 

[davekc]

I'm not exactly sure of the purpose?
As for someone posting a certain amount of times PRIOR to posting something negative, it gives a new person a little cooling off period. More often than not, when someone blows on here with a rant and has posted nothing else, there is little credibility. I personally am in favor of that waiting period.
History has clearly shown us that it works.

 

[dhalltoyo]

Because it is all opinion anyway...who cares?

I say...let it ride.

Let each individual reader decide what they want to gather from the posting.

Let them eat the meat and throw away the bones according to their own personal choice.

Take what you want and leave the rest.

 

[piper1]

I think the 5 post limit is a good one. If it is someones attempt to slander a carrier because they are mad at them, and they decide to just go online wherever they can and gripe...chances are they will not take the time to know about the 5 post requirement.

If they take the time to put in 5 meaningless posts and then use number 6 to bash the carrier, well....at least you know they are good and mad.

Also, if someone with some history suddenly posts a tirade against their carrier it gives you a different perspective. If someone like say..Team C came on here blasting FXCC I would certainly take that differently than someone new to the biz or new to FXCC.

My 2 cents....

 

[pelicn]

Yes, we all have opinions but, when you sign up on this site, there is a set of rules that you agree to abide by correct? If you don't like the rules, then don't sign up. Obviously, a drive by poster hasn't read the rules.

 

[dhalltoyo]

Good point Piper.

Based upon your "opinion" regarding Drive-By 5 rule...a long time member with many posts who then posts something that seems "out-of-character", so to speak, might actually have a valid "opinion".

I'll make it a point to carefully consider such information in the future instead of simply disregarding it immediately as someone who is simply angry.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Lawrence]

Does it really matter whether someone has posted once, twice, three times or up to the magical number of five to include content thay "may" be deemed as a negative post regarding any particular issue?

If that is the rule would it not seem logical that a person will post five times in order to reach the magical number and then post what "may" be considered as...well, you know.

Any posting that does not list an attribute citing its source is merely opinion or editorial by nature.

This website is not the Associated Press, i.e. an actual news source with credentialed staff.

Ya'll need to chill out, cuz it is all merely opinion and/or editorial anywho. And before the little clique begins hitting the keyboard, I mean all except those posts that carry the attribute. So, nanny, nanny, boo, boo.

But...when when you can't find a seemingly valid reason as to what would lead someone to a vehement response when a "drive-by" posting appears...when it nothing elses makes sense just think to yourself..."It's a Green Lead".

David,

The reason is simple.

Our community has over 10 years of experience working with people. And, it is magical and works very well.

Next............

 

[RLENT]

Does it really matter whether someone has posted once, twice, three times or up to the magical number of five to include content thay "may" be deemed as a negative post regarding any particular issue?

No, it really doesn't (at least to me) - surprisingly this is one place where you and I agree. But it ain't my sandbox, and I don't make the rules - I'm just a guest and try to keep that in mind when using the forums here.

However, I would say that if one is to post publicly - particularly things of a derogatory nature - about a specific person, or group, one certainly ought to be prepared to back them up - with actual specific, factual data ...... rather than beat around the bushes with all manner of sly rumors and innuendo, suppositions, and unsubstantiated charges.

In order to maintain some semblance of fairness and being an honest broker, one should disclose not just only those specific individual datums which happen to agree with a particular agenda one might be pushing - but also those that are exculpatory in nature, along with some statement of what one is uncertain of, and doesn't actually know to be fact (as opposed to making proclamations about matters as though the conclusions one has drawn were empirical fact)

IOW: full disclosure.

A person could state a certain thing which, in isolation by itself, might well be "true" .... but then if that person fails to disclose other material facts which he is aware of (or should be - if he has exercised any sort of reasonable due diligence), could he then be considered "honest" ?

It's funny - truth is a very, very specific thing - when one starts dropping out various details when trying to talk about some incident or circumstance, one departs quite rapidly from the "truth" .....

And before the little clique begins hitting the keyboard, I mean all except those posts that carry the attribute. So, nanny, nanny, boo, boo.

Well, I'm not really sure what it is you are trying to say here .... since the above isn't really cogent and complete thought ... only part of one ....

I have seen you refer to this "clique" before though .... is there anywhere one can go to find out who it is composed of ? Do you have a list of it's members ?

But...when when you can't find a seemingly valid reason as to what would lead someone to a vehement response when a "drive-by" posting appears...when it nothing elses makes sense just think to yourself..."It's a Green Lead".

The above assumes that the party is actually interested in knowing a valid reason ....

There are many in this world who have no interest in knowing anything which does not already neatly fit into their own preconceived notions and worldview ....

Such an attitude and mindset doesn't exactly lead to a furtherance of knowledge generally .... or the "truth" .....

A rather uncurious lot they are indeed ....