Multiple concurrent discussions will be merged

[jdobbin]

Yes exactly some people are just against you and not what you post,,isnt it great? hahha

I'm for whatever makes the forums easier to read, search for threads or improves the content. If I have someone offended Canuck, I apologize. I can't think of any recent occurrence where he would have cause to be angry about an exchange we had. Certainly, I can't think of a reason to personalize and insult on the subject of threads that follow a theme.

[Canuck E Stan]

I guess I won't be seeing you in those threads then. I wouldn't want you getting upset or anything.

Once again the arrogance comes through,you can guess what you want but don't start telling the folks here about what you plan for this forum,

or when you won't be seeing people,....

and it's not about the threads, it's the " I plan to do" crap that you present to everyone here.

Do you run this forum?

You should remember that you are just j.dobbin.....no one different than the rest of us, stop trying to be above those who participate here.

Planning for year end for the this forum........give me a break.

[shavluk]

He is certainly different to me than you and I am sure the majority of the others as well thank god or I would have to spend all day here ,,,,, just my 2 cents Ces while I play pool

[jdobbin]

Once again the arrogance comes through,you can guess what you want but don't start telling the folks here about what you plan for this forum,

or when you won't be seeing people,....

and it's not about the threads, it's the " I plan to do" crap that you present to everyone here.

Do you run this forum?

You should remember that you are just j.dobbin.....no one different than the rest of us, stop trying to be above those who participate here.

Planning for year end for the this forum........give me a break.

Your hostility is certainly evident as is your continued use of insults.

I think I've already said I have no say or what other posters do. I only have control over what I post here. Feel free to ignore my posts if they get you that upset.

[M.Dancer]

Scott and Momo. I think you two are MLW's Jack Lemmon and Walter Mathau. But which one is which?

Well I'm the laid back one and he's the one who is neurotic and in a tizzy about most things.....

[M.Dancer]

Scott and Momo. I think you two are MLW's Jack Lemmon and Walter Mathau. But which one is which?

Well I'm the laid back one and he's the one who is neurotic and in a tizzy about most things.....

[sharkman]

Your hostility is certainly evident as is your continued use of insults.

I think I've already said I have no say or what other posters do. I only have control over what I post here. Feel free to ignore my posts if they get you that upset.

Yeah right, how are we supposed to ignore your posts and threads when you have made over 9900 of them in such a short time? Your The Latest threads are indeed a thinly veiled ploy to have most commentary done in your threads, which, when rubbed together with your 9900 posts seems to indicate a big ego, or a compensation behaviour.

However, I will try to ignore your threads whenever possible.

[jdobbin]

However, I will try to ignore your threads whenever possible.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

[shavluk]

Yeah right, how are we supposed to ignore your posts and threads when you have made over 9900 of them in such a short time? Your The Latest threads are indeed a thinly veiled ploy to have most commentary done in your threads, which, when rubbed together with your 9900 posts seems to indicate a big ego, or a compensation behaviour.

However, I will try to ignore your threads whenever possible.

Now you see I take this the opposite way : that your indicating a very small ego.

Not dobbin's or anyone else's fault.

[Canuck E Stan]

....indeed a thinly veiled ploy to have most commentary done in your threads, which, when rubbed together with your 9900 posts seems to indicate a big ego, or a compensation behaviour.

However, I will try to ignore your threads whenever possible.

Some have too much time on their hands,others are actually compensated financially by writing opinions.

Others who have so much to say and time to do so, write blogs to express their opinions.

[sharkman]

Now you see I take this the opposite way : that your indicating a very small ego.

Not dobbin's or anyone else's fault.

What, dobbin has a small ego?

[jdobbin]

What, dobbin has a small ego?

I see no reason for personalizing things or insults.

[shavluk]

I see no reason for personalizing things or insults.

Quite the contrary and I apoligize for being confusing I meant that to be talking about dobbins post count made that other person seem small, sorry.

[jdobbin]

Quite the contrary and I apoligize for being confusing I meant that to be talking about dobbins post count made that other person seem small, sorry.

I was not referring to your posts.

[sharkman]

Quite the contrary and I apoligize for being confusing I meant that to be talking about dobbins post count made that other person seem small, sorry.

Why I oughta...

No problemo dude, it seems you like dobbin, whatever floats your boat.

[socred]

Why was my thread on Social Credit deleted.

Charles Anthony asked me to explain the difference between the thread on Social Credit and the one I had started earlier on Douglas's A+B theorem. I explained that one was specific to his A+B theorem; whereas the newer thread was an introduction to the entire topic of Social Credit.

However; Charles Anthony deleted the old thread.

Am I only allowed one thread on Social Credit?

It seems to me that there are lots of threads that have similar topics, but they aren't deleted.

I was wondering why my thread was deleted?

[Charles Anthony]

You are mistaken.

None of your threads were deleted. The two threads were combined and all of their containing posts were preserved in their chronological order. A common title was composed for the new combined thread: A synopsis of Social Credit thought, Monetary Reform, Douglas' A+B Theorem

I do not believe the two separate threads were necessary.

[socred]

You are mistaken.

None of your threads were deleted. The two threads were combined and all of their containing posts were preserved in their chronological order. A common title was composed for the new combined thread: A synopsis of Social Credit thought, Monetary Reform, Douglas' A+B Theorem

I do not believe the two separate threads were necessary.

The thread was deleted, just not the post.

Two seperate threads were needed, because they were two seperate topics, as I explained to you.

There are many threads in this forum which are similar topics, do you want me to point them all out so you can combine them?

Or is this a vendetta by JBG because he didn't like my opinions in another thread?

Is there somewhere else I can appeal this?

[Charles Anthony]

I do not believe the two separate threads were necessary because of the obvious overlap of the topic. Fruitful discussion is discouraged when members are confused about which thread to continue.

There are many threads in this forum which are similar topics, do you want me to point them all out so you can combine them?

Yes. Please do that.

Is there somewhere else I can appeal this?

Yes. Send a message to Greg, the forum administrator. He has the final say over me.

[socred]

Yes. Please do that.

Both on issues relationg to the last federal budget:

Tax Free Savings Accounts - TFSAs

Budget Day 2008!, What do you think will be in it? Should be in it?

Both threads on Canada and Afghanistan:

NATO in Afganistan- the other aproach

NATO, Afghanistan & Canada

Issues relating to whites and immigration

Do you think Canada should try to maintain an 80% white majority?

What % of non-whites are assimilated into Canadian culture?, 1st generation, 2nd generation, whatever

This is just a cursory glance, of course I could go back and I'm sure I could dig out lots of threads to keep you busy.

I do not think this decision was applied fairly.

[Leafless]

Att. Charles Anthony:

I to have a complaint regarding a thread I initiated under 'federal politics' on March 3/08, titled "PM threatens to sue Liberals over Cadman allegations'.

You moved this thread to to the ongoing already open thread 'Cadman allegedly offered money' which ended up as post #182, under that thread.

I noticed Shakeyhands complained 'why open another thread on this subject when one was already open' prior to you moving it.

The point is Anthony, my post had nothing to do with Cadman being offered money but more to do with Mr. Harper disciplining the Liberals.

By moving my post you destroyed the impact of my post relating to Mr. Harpers move, by burying it deep under the 'Cadman allegedly offered money thread' and a move that no doubt delighted Shakeyhands a Liberal supporter.

Is it because you want to play political favourites with forum members, please advise me if this is the case.

What other possible reason could you have to remove a very interesting and important Conservative reaction to the Cadman scandal by burying it deep where few members would see it?

Edited March 4, 2008 by Leafless

[Charles Anthony]

Both on issues relationg to the last federal budget:

Tax Free Savings Accounts - TFSAs

Budget Day 2008!, What do you think will be in it? Should be in it?

I disagree. No action taken.

Both threads on Canada and Afghanistan:

NATO in Afganistan- the other aproach

NATO, Afghanistan & Canada

I sort of agree but not enough. Action taken instead: merged first thread with a different active "Afghanistan" discussion thread.

Issues relating to whites and immigration

Do you think Canada should try to maintain an 80% white majority?

What % of non-whites are assimilated into Canadian culture?, 1st generation, 2nd generation, whatever

I agree. Threads merged.

This is just a cursory glance, of course I could go back and I'm sure I could dig out lots of threads to keep you busy.

You would not be the only one. We get requests of this sort often but usually they are sent discreetly through the PM system of the forum instead of creating a thread discussion.

I do not think this decision was applied fairly.

The concept of "fair" is highly variable. However, I am convinced that my decision to merge your two "social credit" threads was applied properly to foster discussion on the topic. [if you are looking to participate in a blog, this forum does not happen to be the place.]

The point is Anthony, my post had nothing to do with Cadman being offered money but more to do with Mr. Harper disciplining the Liberals.

I do not believe it warranted a separate thread which entails a risk of future confusion: same topic but other members do not know where to post.

Is it because you want to play political favourites with forum members, please advise me if this is the case.

No.

What other possible reason

Reducing the risk of future clutter.

---

The decision to merge threads is subjective and it is done with the goal of minimizing clutter and fostering discussion.

I can not stress this enough: many competing factors come in to play and they all have to be balanced subjectively. There is no straight-line continuum from "good" merger to "bad" merger. When I am not certain that a merger of threads is beneficial, I tend to leave it alone.

One factor is seriousness.

To the best of my judgement, I will avoid merging an excellent discussion thread with a poor quality discussion thread. That would NOT be a good merge. However, I admit this is highly subjective.

One other factor is the chronology of the containing posts.

If the interweaving of the various posts from the two sister threads adds confusion, I will avoid merging the two threads even if they are on the same topic.

If there is a time gap between the last post of the first thread and the first post of the second thread, that scenario would lend itself to a good merge on the same topic. However, if the time gap is too great, I might avoid merging the threads. There is value to fresh lively discussion even if the debate is old.

One more factor is the recommendation from other members and their explanations.

---

The title of this thread has been changed from "deleted thread" to "perceived deleted thread, actually just merged into current active thread" for accuracy.

[jbg]

In keeping with suggestions, I sent mention of two other identical threads my private message. My main public observation is that some of this thread proliferation appears to be deliberate.

Edited March 4, 2008 by jbg

[Leafless]

Reducing the risk of future clutter.

Moving a thread for the risk of future clutter does not discount the fact that this reason could also be used as a form of censorship, to move that thread to a less conspicuous place.

As a matter of fact a thread containing many responses, could actually contribute to future clutter, by having members repost opinions that have already been discussed, earlier in the thread.

Obviously no one is going to read a hundred replies to verify what they are going to post has not already been said.

[Greg]

Moving a thread for the risk of future clutter does not discount the fact that this reason could also be used as a form of censorship, to move that thread to a less conspicuous place.

That is ridiculous. Merging a thread, which needed to be merged, is not a form of censorship.

Charles has explained his actions and I agree and support everything he did.