Can we bring this back to the real world?

Basically it's discourteous not to send denial emails to people with a genuine and fair-minded wish to get their work seen, citing the actions of a few idiots as an excuse.

regards, Jerry

Jafo

Basically it's discourteous not to send denial emails to people with a genuine and fair-minded wish to get their work seen, citing the actions of a few idiots as an excuse.

Rubbish.

It's discourteous to assault voluntary staff via email with verbal invective that would make a Marine blush.

It's not warranted and won't be tolerated.

Since some Admins were [justifiably] disheartened by this abuse by 'a few' it was determined that no-one would receive that 'courtesy email of rejection' unless it was a specific case.

The type of people who feel inclined to react this way are not particularly encouraged to participate.  Some have been removed permanently.

We are currently pushing towards 1 million members and it is quite natural to expect 'a few idiots' [as you call them] will be attracted to the party.

As always, the few can spoil it for the many...

We'll have to disagree then won't we.

I have nothing more to say on the matter.

regards, Jerry

JerryHat

You have just done what Jafo was talking about, I got that one, imagine how many the Admins would get, if you had your way <

And if all of you are wondering about my previous post.

I'll leave it to JerryHat to explain

Stumpy> if you're talking about the email, you seem to be suggesting I was in some way foul mouthed or in some way assaulting you. This is disengenuous.

For this reason I present my entire email:

---
Subject: Offence taken
Stumpy> If you have no concern for children whatsoever, then I pity you.

I find that particularly offensive, but have no interest in starting a flame-war in the WC forums.

Jerry
---

I also find it offensive to make such a suggestion in veiled terms.

Jerry

I stand by what I said, regardless.

And if you can't say it openly and have to send me emails, Tough, i'll bounce them back >

The role of a site's Admins is to assist in maintaining a standard of behaviour...that the users here have come to expect/appreciate.

In part that requires a degree of 'censorship', preferably before the act rather than after....for good reason.

To maintain a standard of decorum that enables the site members to feel 'comfortable' with their children equally enjoying the site, without fear of confronting language or images is what we do.

Mostly we get it right.

It's really simple.  Anyone who has an issue with this achieved standard is free to create a site themselves and administer it to their heart's content, at whatever standard of

just supported when it effects them negatively.

  that suits them.

Here we'll get it right with a little pre-emption. [Saves on cleaners]...

You know, I purposely do not speak of the past when here because I do not care to remember it. I also do not wish to prompt others who might have lived through even one iota of the things that happened to me as a child into view because of my actions.

It's called respect and it *IS* because I care about others shown by my actions and not just words...

People can bounce around the edges of it and not go into any detail, but each and every single time I read about *abused children* I want to scream. Frankly speaking unless you've lived with it (a survivor, loved one of a survivor) or are part of the process of healing it, your only guessing.

There *are* standards for the site and if someone can not wrap their mind around them and accept them at least while on this site I personally do not see a reason for them to continue using it.

It's simple really...


[Message Edited]

Nice post IP , shame some people will disregard it

Jafo, I agree entirely. I'm not totally sure why what I've said is being taken badly.

Maybe my language was inflamatory, by being poorly written or explained, or I assumed a certain level of what you might call 'unsaid agreement' which isn't there. I don't advocate that this site should be full of adult content (certainly nothing harder than the wallpaper on your current desktop) and I find the lack of swearing quite refreshing.

As far as the 'shielded' comment goes, I defend it with the following that I just wrote elsewhere - the 'you' mentioned is obviously not you:

"I've never been of the mind that children should be shielded from life"

Oh come on, you're falling into the easy online discussion trap of taking a reasonable comment and quibbling around the edges to make something of it.

Did I mention that children should be protected from the bits of life that involve bullets being aimed at them, or famine killing them, or paedophiles abusing them? I didn't? Well does that mean I'm advocating those things?

Of course not. Those things should not need be said in a reasonable forum.

regards, Jerry

Jerry.....the problem we all have on this here net thingie is we are 'pan-dimensional beings' only visible via the words typed on this board.

It is IMPERATIVE that as much as is humanly possible, one thinks clearly about what one types in order to eliminate 'assumptions' and 'inferences' from the mind/s of the audience.

The adage of 'think twice - type once' paraphrased from 'measure twice - cut once' is a good one....

As far as the ceonsorship thing goes.. mea culpa.

And I agree with most of what you say, but there has to be a certain level of assumption and inferences for communication at any level to take place. The problem is finding the level that best accomodates everyone involved. As well as the problems of what I call 'the barren text wasteland' you also have differences in culture and experience to contend with.

Well, I've already missed the first half (and 3 goals) talking about this - it's time to give my gobby fingers a rest and watch some sport.

regards, Jerry

Jerry.....yer a Pom...I'm an Aussie....we ain't that different.....[except we can play cricket and you can't]...

Basically it's discourteous not to send denial emails to people with a genuine and fair-minded wish to get their work seen, citing the actions of a few idiots as an excuse.

Perhaps we could send an auto-reject email or somehing. So the system sends an email to those whose submissions have been rejected. But I'm not about to perosnally email the dozens of submissions I have to remove every day.  Like Jafo said, we're volunteers and the abuse we get or demands for justification or whatever is too time consuming to deal with.