Wolf Zorrito
(K=78768) - Comment Date 6/3/2009
|
What just popped up in my mind, many many popular photo-sites and blog sites have ip recording and ip blocking. By simply recording the ip number where the comment came from, the offensive critique pc can be blocked and abuse can traced to the originator. I know Chris has this in use. He uses Visual Basic so I assume its a matter of politely asking, copy and paste.
It might get very quiet at UF when implimented 
|
|
|
|
神 風
(K=10665) - Comment Date 6/4/2009
|
I absolutely do not believe the outright accusations that have been launched by a certain few members of this 'Major Clique' against the Site Administration in the last month or so and now this one!
Do you really think this place will get some peace and quiet starting a new Forum Thread such as this? Not at all and now I speak quite loudly for once:
TAKE YOUR MEDS ON A REGULAR BASIS AND LEAVE THESE VERY FORGIVING AND EXTREMELY TOLERANT 'VOLUNTEERS' ALONE!
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
(K=78768) - Comment Date 6/4/2009
|
I want to ask you to read my postings again. It is only a constuctive question and suggestion.
Harry
|
|
|
|
神 風
(K=10665) - Comment Date 6/4/2009
|
"Birds of a feather flock together, but their 'Bond' is made from mud!" You are flying down the same road as Rashed ...
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
(K=78768) - Comment Date 6/4/2009
|
Marhaba Doug
I fully stand for the integrity of my "brother" (in its meaning as used in islamic culture ) Rashed.
Harry
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
(K=127263) - Comment Date 7/21/2009
|
Sunset man, you do nothing more than supporting the impression that certain *many* members already have about you. Misinterpreting questions and statements of people and re-formulating what they said according to your needs to "win" against others neither betters your "reputation" nor adds any value to the forum. Alone the fact of your immediate harsh response to Harry's message is already revealing too many things.
Harry, though there are (at least "almost" secure) techniques for blocking IPs and the like, the problem is much more than purely technical. The question is... if you start blocking somebody then who is to say *who* and *why*? This is a major problem of all s-e-n-s-o-r-s-h-i-p when it comes to preventing somebody from saying something. What are the criteria? Who decides about them? Who defines what is "allowed" and what is "not allowed"? You know, when you prevent a single statement from being stated there is no reason to extend this to some second statement too. And then a third, a fourth, a fofth one and so on. This can be done in places like (for example) websites of newspapers and similar things, but a forum is defined (also) as a place where no limitation of statements can be hold. So, as you can see, it is indeed related to the very weakness of democracy itself. The very defnition of democracy would be endangered if for example some extreme political wings would be "vorbidden". It is a weakness that we all have to accept and the best way to face it is *awareness* and logical argumentation against such extremes. Better we allow everybody to say what they have to say and we are always *aware* of its consequences, and use logical thinking to contradict them in public. It is the more tedious task to do but it results into democratic culture out of personal convinction of all of us.
A democratic culture out of "compulsory limitations" is of lower value than democratic culture iut of convinction, just as it is of lower value to not kill somebody because of fear from the law than to not kill somebody because of solid inner convinction that this would be not the right thing to do. Or perhaps I get too idealistic here, ey? ;-)
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
