I'm not interesting in going further with this...

[Lanefan]

It sounds like you want to continue engaging people after they've asked you not to, and are scoping out the boundaries. My question is this: why do you want to engage with people who don't want to engage with you? (It's a rhetorical question).

A non-rhetorical answer: because the one person who asks someone to stop is very often not the only person one is engaging with, within a given thread.

The first 20 posts in this thread, for example, were made by 8 different posters - and thus with this post my assumption is that I'm posting to all of them, even though I've only quoted one poster's words.

A hypothetical example (and I'll pick on FrogReaver as such an interaction has never in fact occured between us), if @FrogReaver and I get into a discussion that others chime in on as well but which eventually leads to FrogReaver asking me to stop, that could put an early end to a conversation that other people were closely following. And if other people then chime in again, what am I allowed to do?

It's like sitting around having beers with a bunch of people in the pub (remember those days?) - sure someone else at the table can tell me I'm full of bull and that I should shut up, but I'm under no obligation to listen and in theory should be free to continue that conversation with the rest of the table.

 

[Morrus]

A non-rhetorical answer: because the one person who asks someone to stop is very often not the only person one is engaging with, within a given thread.

The first 20 posts in this thread, for example, were made by 8 different posters - and thus with this post my assumption is that I'm posting to all of them, even though I've only quoted one poster's words.

A hypothetical example (and I'll pick on FrogReaver as such an interaction has never in fact occured between us), if @FrogReaver and I get into a discussion that others chime in on as well but which eventually leads to FrogReaver asking me to stop, that could put an early end to a conversation that other people were closely following. And if other people then chime in again, what am I allowed to do?

It's like sitting around having beers with a bunch of people in the pub (remember those days?) - sure someone else at the table can tell me I'm full of bull and that I should shut up, but I'm under no obligation to listen and in theory should be free to continue that conversation with the rest of the table.

Either you’ve completely misunderstood the topic at hand or I have. It’s not about being asked to stop talking full stop, it’s about being asked to stop quote/responding to a specific person.

 

[Umbran]

It’s not about being asked to stop talking full stop, it’s about being asked to stop quote/responding to a specific person.

This.

If someone is recusing themselves from discussion of a particular point, you stop replying to them. You can still continue on the general subject yourself. Just stop referring to that one person. Since they will be recusing themselves from that point, there won't be further posts from them on the subject to reply to. It really isn't all that difficult.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

View attachment 124995

The panel that changed my life.

 

[Bagpuss]

Either you’ve completely misunderstood the topic at hand or I have. It’s not about being asked to stop talking full stop, it’s about being asked to stop quote/responding to a specific person.

But sometimes when you are quoting someone it is as much because they have raise an important point that you want to respond to, to the group, not just that individual.

If you remove the poster ID bit after the QUOTE= is that okay?

(has a test with this message)

 

[Umbran]

But sometimes when you are quoting someone it is as much because they have raise an important point that you want to respond to, to the group, not just that individual.

So, what's more important to you?

1) Showing basic respect to your fellow posters when they make a simple request, or

2) Responding to the thing you want to respond to.

Answer that question, and what you should do ought to be pretty clear.

 

[Bagpuss]

You are right of course Umbran, one persons preference shouldn't be used to stifle the debate of several others. It's better to upset one rather than several miss out.

Especially when they are perfectly capable of not responding to the thread if that's what they want, no one can force anyone to read or engage if they don't want to.

I am curious though if you remove the name do they even get an alert? Would that be a balanced solution.

 

[Umbran]

You are right of course Umbran, one persons preference shouldn't be used to stifle the debate of several others. It's better to upset one rather than several miss out.

Ah, yes, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Like most platitudes, it is not entirely true. Taken strictly, this is tyranny of the majority over the minority, which doesn't fly. Sorry.

Especially when they are perfectly capable of not responding to the thread if that's what they want, no one can force anyone to read or engage if they don't want to.

The point is to actually be sensitive and respectful, not to be disrespectful of others wishes, and then blame them for the results.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think you can have a little victim blaming if they continue to deliberately subject themselves to the source of what upsets them when it is easily avoided. "I hate the taste of Marmite why do they keep making it?" "Why do you keep eating it if you hate it so much?" "Stop blaming me."

Now if the person follows them to another thread and tries to continue the discussion then fair enough, they are then to blame.

But places like this are an open forum for discussion involving several people, often beyond those that are even commenting. If you don't like the discussion you can easily leave the thread, or if one individual bothers you mute them. I think it is very self-centred to think others should stop talking about a subject they are engaged in because you don't want to engage with them any longer.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah, yes, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Like most platitudes, it is not entirely true. Taken strictly, this is tyranny of the majority over the minority, which doesn't fly. Sorry.



The point is to actually be sensitive and respectful, not to be disrespectful of others wishes, and then blame them for the results.

I was going to let this go but there is continued interest on this topic I think it’s appropriate to bring up:

a few days ago I asked someone to not continue further on this with me. They did. No mod action was taken. I’m trying to reconcile that with what I’m being told in this thread. Can you elaborate any there?