Pozessed

Am I suppose to be ignoring the type of forum I have described or the type of insult that you provided as an example? As far as I'm concerned I did ignore your insult example, but I see no reason to ignore the type of forum being moderated.

In a forum such as the one I describe, why would jokes be welcome if the sole intent of the joke was to insult? If someone get's upset at a valid point and there was no slander in the process, what would they be insulted by? In a forum such as this I think serious discussions would need to take place. I would moderate in a way that people could speak freely, but I would encourage people to enter the discussions with the interest of thinking critically and not for entertainment.

Here you go sir. I am not a woman, nor have I had an abortion. I think you may find this article on Post Abortion Stress Syndrome a good read though. It takes into consideration how emotional distress related to an abortion can lead a woman into PTSD. Symptoms Guilt: Experiencing guilt does not imply that you made a mistake or “violated your own moral code,” as some pro-lifers would imply. However, feelings around having an abortion may be complex and have to take into account fear of what others might think. Anxiety: General anxiety is a common symptom of PTSD—in the case of PASS, there might be a particular anxiety over fertility issues and the ability to get pregnant again. Numbness, Depression: Again, common symptoms of PTSD. Flashbacks: Abortion is surgery, and in most cases, it’s surgery that happens while the patient is fully conscious. This can be a distressing experience. Suicidal thoughts: In extreme cases, the PTSD that results from a controversial abortion could lead to suicidal thoughts or tendencies and would require immediate treatment. It’s important to note that this is not a common or expected symptom of PASS, but as with any form of PTSD, it is possible. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/somatic-psychology/201010/post-abortion-stress-syndrome-pass-does-it-exist Oh, and yes, yes it should be legal.

If I were the moderator and it were an issue of political members denying the public simple criticism such as this I think I'd have a very modest approach. I'd point out that the OP is only asking if the official had had a "bad hair day" as that is the only suspicion being addressed. I'd also point out that the officials insecurity is being shown by asking that such material be withdrawn for no other meaningful purpose. If the official then proceeded to say that their insecurities in their personal appearence makes them depressed or suicidal, I'd point out that they probably shouldn't be an official due to an unsound mind.

I must ask. If the picture and comment in your link were posted on a government forum designed to help social progress, what would the public or officials be expected to gain or do in hopes of advancing social progress with a post like that? In my opinion the OP of this hypothetical thread would only be trying to induce humor, so I myself would find it unnecessarily offensive.

Discern and question everything that you may doubt about your faith. Once you have found a question that may conjure doubt in your faith, look for a truth that you trust as you find the answer to your question. Your faith may change, but it should become stronger in your personal belief or disbeleif.

You think English is easy? 1) The bandage was wound around the wound. 2) The farm was used to produce produce. 3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse. 4) We must polish the Polish furniture.. 5) He could lead if he would get the lead out. 6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.. 7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present. 8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum. 9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes. 10) I did not object to the object. 11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid. 12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row. 13) They were too close to the door to close it. 14) The buck does funny things when the does are present. 15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line. 16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow. 17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail. 18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.. 19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests. 20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend? Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France . Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell? How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on. English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.http://www.tickld.com/x/english-isnt-as-easy-as-you-think

To avoid censorship I suggest they could do these 2 things. If a thread is not unnecessarily offenssive but remains questionable a moderator could warn the patron and ask them to clean up their post to be less offenssive. If this person does not agree with the moderators decision they can choose to have their post moved to a section that is dedicated to questioning if people are being censored. This section should be completely viewable by the public and easily noticable. Also, once the moderator has given the warning and asked the OP to rewrite their post, it should be moved to the "questioning censorship" thread. If a post is completely removed I suggest moving it to a trash thread that is still viewable by the public. In the thread where the original post was made, that post will be replaced with a post containing the usersname of the OP, the offense committed, which moderator blocked the post, and a link to the post in its current position in the trash thread. I also think that a persons post in the first example should be replaced in much the same way as the second, only the link should be to the "questioning censorship" thread instead of the trash thread. As well, after a moderator finds a person has altered there post to be acceptable for easier communication and it's enetered into the original thread, a dropdown box should be available showing what they originally said so people understand what is acceptable. This dropdown box should be directly available from the persons newly altered post. Lastly I think people should be able to comment on the posts that were moved to both sections to ensure that they, the public, feels everyone is being censored/uncensored fairly. I definitely want to hear SFN mods opinions on this.

I shouldn't have generalized all CEOs and politicians the way that I had, but that still doesn't negate my point, does it? The fact that corruption has hold in many facets of our business and political methods would require a great many people to be involved or turn a blind eye to the misdoing, which neither promote trustworthy behavior in my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong for drawing that conclussion which seems obvious to me. Let me ask you this, with so many corrupt characteristics that life has the potential for, why add to the mayhem with stories like Santa if we want to resolve the corruption that exists? It seems like adding fuel to the fire to me.

Person A: What is a mouse that can talk? Person B: A talking mouse??? Person A: No mickey. Person A: What do you call a duck with 2 legs? Person B: Donald!! Person A: Nope, all ducks have 2 legs. duh. Say milk 3 times as fast as you can. What do cows drink?

Yea, that's what I was referring to when I made this thread. I saw the article on an NBC web page, but it was about the same story. I noticed it here as well and gave you a G+ 1 for it Swansont. If it could, no. If it would, yes. I still wouldn't enjoy it. I'm also not going to be able to produce anywhere near 300 litres though.

Some of my favorite quips to use when arguing with people. Insults show a lack of insight. Your response reveals your ignorance on the subject. Your logic disagrees with reality. There is no proof to your claims, if there is cite a source. Pretty much, I just like to point out a flaw in the persons debating style as soon as it's made. If they are hostile in their demeanor I will make them and the audience question why they are hostile, usually it's because they have no relevant information on the subject which is why my first quip usually defuses the hostile debate before it starts. That wont work if there was no insult thrown in though. One time on a forum, some guy tried telling me I said something that I knew I did not say. It was ridiculous because the discussion was in the same topic thread and all he had to do was scroll up. So I ponted out to him, "claiming I said something which I did not say is a lie and thus would make you a liar". His next post was apologizing to me for lying, lol.

I don't think 40 characters per point is suitable when it comes to having your opinion clearly expressed. Maybe facebook, but even FB is not as advantageous as an actual forum. Mainly because people on FB were introduced to it for useless information and thus they don't realize its potential. At least that's my opinion.

Now now, lets not presume I'm not someone who already does make sacraficies to society. I like to think I do more than many others when it comes to helping the progress of society.

Nothing is being inserted into the cows?

Let me know what you think.

If this were government run, I imagine a program could be made to identify potential repeat posts to make less work for the mods. I mean the government prints money so cost of this program isn't a factor lol. What do you think would be a suitable alternative?

Check out this colleges free math excercises. https://www.khanacademy.org/math I'm sure they will have something of interest. Hope you didn't click it before I edited. It is free, but you have to sign up with an email address.

Those points are very true. Sub forums and deletion of repeat posts would diminish those numbers dramatically though I would think. A forum for each state as well as the federal government, and a sub forum in each of those that relate to political issues. That should make it easy to navigate, and diminish on double posting by individuals. Examples of further sub forums: Agriculture, Arts and Humanities, Budget and Taxes, Civil Rights and Liberties, Climate Change, Consumer Protections, Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, Defense, Disabilities, etc I do want to conclude that I don't think this idea is impossible, impractical, or unnecessary. With the right kind of innovation I think it could be developed. I am always the optomist though.

My buddy and I were discussing this issue. He thinks that it is cruel to the cow and there should be less invasive methods. My response was; "If I were a cow and I could rid the world of some greenhouse gasses, and give fuel to people who need it, which would ultimately be helping to save the planet, I'd take a probing". Of course I wouldn't enjoy it, but I'd find it more acceptable than our current alternatives. What do you all think?

Allow the public individuals to only start a thread once or twice a month or once a week. They can respond to any thread they'd like, as long as they remained on topic and non-insulting. I think any rational person could agree with those terms.

Yea, I've kinda confused myself on the whole point I was getting at as well. I knew what I was getting at before I got sick but my mind has been so clouded due to medicine, drowsiness, and congestion I kind of forgot my point. I do apologize if I wasted your time though. It also doesn't help that you led me to new thoughts that I haven't yet thoroughly thought out. Not that I'm blaming you for my lack of intellect, just trying to give you a little clarification.

So so true. I must look into these things you have listed though. I didn't know about the slave ownership thing nor have I been intrigued about why the British drive on the opposite side of the road. Thankfully google is my friend and I won't need to ask you to divulge the info . Nom nom nom, pass some tobbasco ones my way America was founded by fleeing a tyranical government, and people are still in fear that tyranny may return. With some logical reasoning I might add. I don't think that is too unreasonable. I also enjoy the whole internet for the reasons you listed in your first paragraph. If it wasn't for the internet and forums such as this, I'd be one ignorant cookie.

I join forums to understand other peoples opinions, define my own opinions and beliefs, to ask about information that may be misleading, as well as bring up issues that may be critically influential in todays society. Why do you join discussion forums?

I think somehow all governments should have a forum in which all representatives are required to have an account, respond to at least one post a week, and all issues that wouldn't hurt national securities be discussed. I also think any nation that sets up a forum like this should be interlinked so as to squash as many disputes as possible. Any person in the world should have access to these forums and be able to post after creating an account. To create an account a person must register with a valid ID at a proper location. In America for example, a person could sign up at the BMV, post office, state accredited library, state college, etc. Officials of the country would have obvious details that signify they are true representatives. Same as moderators and admins have obvious distinctions from normal members of a forum. Just some thoughts.