HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Flying Squirrel » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Flying Squirrel

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Aug 20, 2010, 06:40 PM
Number of posts: 2,916

About Me

I am the same DU member who formerly posted under the name FlyingSquirrel (no space) on DU2. If you are reading this as the result of an alert: I have never once claimed that I will not vote for the Democratic nominee this November. Ask for a link and read carefully. :)

Journal Archives

Sorry for the multiple threads.. Skinner says they may be able to tweak the jury selection process

So that those of us who have stopped being selected have more opportunities to serve.

Posted by Flying Squirrel | Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:48 PM (24 replies)

I have less confidence in the jury system now that I'm no longer part of it.

Anyone else having a similar experience? Before the change, I was serving on a jury every 2-7 days. My last jury service was December 24th. I have not been selected for a jury since then. I had a post hidden on January 13, well after the selection process changed; and my supposed 80 percent chance of serving on a jury is still double what it was before I bought a star, at which time I was serving on a jury at least once a week.

The jury process has changed. Who is now serving on them? I don't know anymore and it gives me less confidence in the system.
Posted by Flying Squirrel | Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:44 PM (26 replies)

The Jury system needs serious overhaul.

It's the only reasonable conclusion I can possibly reach at this point. MIRT doesn't get the trolls fast enough, and many people are now purposely hiding under the radar so they can be allowed to vote on a jury. It's unconscionable and it's getting worse by the day, you can see it in the jury results more and more. The site cannot be self-policing, at least not the way things are going. Also - despite being on this site for hours a day (usually reading, not posting) I have not been on a jury ONCE since they changed the jury selection rules. It makes me wonder who IS being chosen to serve. Something needs to change soon or I will be outta here like last time I left over the Unrec function. (Not that my leaving will make the slightest impact on DU, of course, but there were many who left over that same disagreement and in total that DID affect DU.)

Edit: I was chosen to serve pretty often before I bought my star. Now? Not so much. Something weird is going on, maybe I'm paranoid but it almost seems like a hack of some sort.

Edit 2: Ok, maybe it doesn't need to go, but it does need to be overhauled.
Posted by Flying Squirrel | Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:36 AM (54 replies)

Is there a Satire forum? (If not, how about making one?)

Perhaps in the "Offbeat" Topic forum. And we could start strongly suggesting to people who post Onion, Daily Currant etc. stuff as being real, to post them in that forum instead of GD.
Posted by Flying Squirrel | Sat Feb 2, 2013, 09:10 PM (10 replies)

It has been a source of personal pride for me that I put nobody on "Ignore"

But after seeing the PPR's lately, it seems apparent that Skinner has been taking into account the number of "star members ignoring" a DU'er when deciding to PPR them. If that's what it takes to get some of these long-time disruptors (or people who otherwise just seem to be on the wrong website) out of here, then that's what I'm gonna start doing.

There will always be a few left who can (and will) leave them off ignore and alert on their posts - and I thank those people for their service to DU. For my part, I'm going to start ignoring them.

Posted by Flying Squirrel | Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:22 AM (35 replies)

What can be done about failed Jury results on threads which make DU look bad?

This one for example

The above thread had at least 23 recs at one point

Here are a few suggestions:

(I opposed a blanket unrec function before and still oppose it)

1. A thread which has been alerted on and gets at least 2 votes to "HIDE IT" may be unrecommended by any DU'er.

2. Replace recs with thumbs up/thumbs down. Use thumbs up to determine placement on Greatest Page, but thumbs down is shown as well which would make it quick and easy to notice if there is a large percentage of DU who disagree with its placement on the GP.

3. An alert on an OP (whether successfully hidden or not) will trigger an automated PM to anyone who recommended the thread, letting them know that an alert had been placed and asking them to revisit the thread, and decide whether they want their recommendation to stay or want to undo their recommendation. (This is my favorite option of the first three that came to mind)

4. ???
Posted by Flying Squirrel | Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:57 AM (16 replies)

Why did Admin change # of recs from 5 to 10 to reach Greatest Page?

Usually when they make changes to the site they'll post a thread explaining the reasoning but so far I've heard nothing. At first I didn't mind but sometimes it makes it easier than going thru all the latest threads (particularly on my phone.)

What's the general opinion here, like 10 recs? Liked 5? Don't care?
Posted by Flying Squirrel | Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:33 AM (3 replies)

Hey...

When did the threshold jump to 10 recs to get on the greatest page? Not that I'm complaining..
Posted by Flying Squirrel | Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:39 PM (5 replies)

I was on a jury and never got back results.

Earlier today.. don't remember everything about it, it was a post by a DU'er who had been here since 2001(I think) with low post count, freaking out about all the election fraud/intimidation etc. The alerter was saying we needed to lock it cause it would depress turnout - some were calling the poster a troll, others were sympathetic. Anyone have a link to the post? Or know what happened? Would I not get an email if the post was simply deleted instead of hidden? I voted to leave it and said we didn't need to censor such posts and that they would drop on their own.
Posted by Flying Squirrel | Tue Nov 6, 2012, 07:05 PM (2 replies)

About Life

I almost feel silly having to point this out, but after the Republican who claimed that a raped woman's pregnancy was a "gift from God," it just seems like a good time to point out that which is obvious to me: Neither life nor death is inherently good or evil (or inherently good or bad, if you prefer.) If you buy the argument that God is only concerned with creating life, and not in causing death as well, then death is Satan's job. Those with the mind of a three-year-old believe this, and point to the story of Adam and Eve where they were going to live happily in the Garden of Eden forever till the serpent messed things up for them (and, by extension, all the rest of us.) The reality of the matter is plain to see: Everything, including or perhaps especially life, has a beginning and an end. If you believe in an all-powerful God, you must believe that this is His will.

To believe otherwise, you'd have to believe that God wants the world overpopulated, with all the misery this would cause, or perhaps wants a perfect number of each species on the Earth after which He would take away our ability to reproduce (thus robbing us of the joy of having children). Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that this is not likely to be the case - a loving God would not want to deprive us of joy.

Furthermore, if you believe in an afterlife, the absence of death would prevent one from going to Heaven. Well perhaps we'd all have Heaven on Earth. But if each person's idea of Heaven is different, how could that be? I wouldn't much like a Heaven without babies or children, where I was forever separated from those I love who had already passed away.

The point I'm making here is that life may be God's will but so is death. Whether it's a gift or not depends on your perspective - I, for one, cannot understand how some of those starving children bloated with hunger could perceive their miserable existence as a gift but maybe that's just me.

We've been given free will. That means there's God's will and there's human will on this earth. Sometimes they coincide, and sometimes they don't. A man raping a woman sounds like human will to me, not God's will. If a baby is conceived as a result - a result of human will, not God's will - that baby was therefore created from the will of the man who raped the woman. And thanks to medical advances (the result of God-given intelligence as well as God-given human free will), the woman who was raped now has the free will to choose whether to have the baby or not, and live with the consequences of her decision in this life and perhaps the next - at least in this country she does, at the present time, thanks to those who have paved the way for her to have such a choice.

Nobody who thinks she should have a choice in that matter also thinks that murder is acceptable in society. Nobody who thinks she should NOT have a choice in the matter has to be in her shoes and live with the results of the rapist's actions. And nobody who is making her business THEIR business is truly affected by her decision, or her ability to make her own decision. It's not like society is going to legalize infanticide and make it possible for a woman to come into their home and kill THEIR baby (born or unborn). This is simply not a situation where society has a clear interest in legislating away a certain action by one of its members.

And this post won't convince a single person on the other side of the issue. But I had to write it anyway.
Posted by Flying Squirrel | Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:53 AM (3 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »