How will the new "Ignore" function affect the 9/11 Forum?

[HamdenRice]

Now, this is a really interesting upgrade.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3076551

The new ignore function allows each DUer not only to ignore posts and emails from others; it allows each of you to prevent the ignored person from posting in a thread that you start.

This means that it is possible to prevent OCTabots from disrupting 9/11 threads with name-calling, hijackings, distraction and other troll like behavior.

What will the 9/11 Forum look like after this fuction is widely adopted?

I suspect that there is going to be a lot less back and forth here. I also guess that several OCTabots are going to get on many people's new ignore list.

On the other hand, I suspect that OCTers will not put non-OCTers on their ignore lists, because most OCTers and OCTabots prefer the billigerant type threads.

What is your prediction about the effect of the new ignore function on this forum?

[Grateful for Hope]

1. I predict

that some OCT'ers will not only place non-Oct'ers on their ignore lists, but, they will also suddenly engage in "thread fever" -- starting thread after thread.

[HamdenRice]

2. In Skinner's thread on the fuction ...

a lot of people predict that this will lead to dueling threads. Interestingly, some members of the Israel/Palestine forum mentioned that that forum is likely to become very segregated, and I can see the same happening here.

So I agree your scenario is also possible.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Only in response to being placed on that "non-OCTer's" block list, Hope.

However, Hope, you will find that I have not placed you on my block user list - because I am not afraid of anything you can dish out. I've seen what you have to contribute to conversations. I do not fear it.

Hamden, I find your OP most insulting. How you can engage in name-calling while deploring the name-calling of "OCTabots" is beyond me.

And the only reason to not put someone on a block user list is because you "prefer" the belligerent threads? (No charge for correcting your spelling.) How gratuitously backhanded of you!

Here's what I think - if someone puts a person on their block user list, they should AUTOMATICALLY be prevented from responding to posts or threads of that person as well. None of this coy "Look at me, I blocked you" bullshit currently coming from the keyboard of Hope2006. If you have the audacity to exclude, you should be excluded yourself.

Period. If responses from a person are that much of a problem for you, you should eschew temptation.

[HamdenRice]

4. Do you identify with OCTabots?

There is a difference between OCTers and OCTabots. I thought you once protested mightily that you are not an OCTabot.

There are people here who (1) only post in this forum (or have a tiny percentage of mostly right wing talking points in other forums); (2) routinely write illogical, non-sequitur, name-calling posts; (3) disrupt and hijack threads; (4) seem to appear at all hours of the day or night; (5) post repetitively, like a "bot".

Saying this is so is not name-calling, it's calling a spade a spade.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. I'm not even an OCTer.

The "official story" isn't a theory.

Whatever flattering unction you lay to your heart is of no concern to me. You are engaging in name-calling while you deplore name-calling. That's a spade.

[angstlessk]

20. You are correct .. the official story is not a 'theory'..it is an outright lie!

btw... I have never iggiyd anyone ever...

[Bolo Boffin]

22. OMGWTFBBQ!

USOPWNEDME!!!!!1!

[mirandapriestly]

42. I agree, "official theory" makes it sound too legitimate.eom

[Grateful for Hope]

7. Could happen

But, so far, am only seeing OCT-type threads. I suspect the "dueling" will be one-sided in this forum.


Skinner's thread also mentioned the reasons for this function:

"If there are some underlying themes to this change, they are these: 1) We want individual members to have control over their own DU experience. 2) We want the jerks and bullies to know that they are disliked by others, and to face consequences for their behavior. And 3) if we are really lucky, there might eventually be less need for top-down moderation because the members themselves are setting limits on the troublemakers."

I think it is an excellent idea. I participate in a number of groups on-and-off, and enjoy the DU experience in these groups. This forum is another story. I think this function will help to eliminate my feeling that, in this forum, everything one says will be attacked. To me, this forum had long since ceased to be a discussion forum, and had, instead, become a battlefield.

BTW, I agree with your observations.

[HamdenRice]

9. For once, perhaps, discussion will be able to "build up"

I agree with your observations. One of the things wrong with this forum is that threads get hijacked so quickly. Someone posts some interesting new find, and the OCTabots jump in with same lame criticism of space weapons and alien lizard overlords and assorted personal attacks, and the entire thread then becomes back and forth over something other than the OP.

The ignore function will allow like minded people to build on and comment on each other's points, rather than defend stupid side issues.

Also, I think Skinner's observation my also hold true: that routine disrupters will re-think their strategy in order to avoid blanket ignoring throughout the forum. I'm beginning to sense the possibility that some OCTabots may disappear completely from this group.

[Kingshakabobo]

10. Maybe you should take note of the moderator sticky at the top of this forum.

>>>>- There are many beliefs and theories which are highly controversial and outside of the mainstream. Disagreement or acceptance does not make one either deliberate disruptor or provocateur. Accept this. <<<

[HamdenRice]

12. It's the way certain people disagree

There are many obvious rhetorical strategies at work in this forum that have nothing to do with sincere disagreement.

I am looking forward to using the ignore button generously.

[salvorhardin]

30. How can you tell what is a sincere and what is an insincere disagreement?

Poster 1 say A)
Poster 2 says she disagrees with A) because of B)
Poster 3 says she disagrees with A) but does not give a reason
Poster 4 says A) is only believed by people who believe alien lizard people control the government

How would you know whether Posters 2,3 & 4 are sincere or insincere?

Also, what specific rhetorical strategies would you say have nothing to do with sincerity? I'd say all, but I'd appreciate hearing your point of view.

Finally, I've quoted philosopher Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit here before, but it's rather appropriate so here's the quote again...

As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgement that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial - notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.

[HamdenRice]

37. Your model is off

Poster A posts a well documented fact from a mainstream media source.

Poster B states, Poster A must also believe in alien lizard overlords because he doubts the 9/11 Commission and and doesn't accept the premise of the basic decency (albeit combined with incompetence) of George W. Bush.

Poster C says Poster A is full of shit, well because.

Poster D starts a debate about what Poster A did or did not write three weeks ago.

Poster E says ...

Well, why bother continuing. Just read what the OCTers and OCTabots do and say.

[salvorhardin]

38. You didn't answer the question

How do you tell a sincere disagreement from an insincere disagreement?

[HamdenRice]

39. Rhetorical strategy

There are well known rhetorical strategies that show that a poster has no intention of engaging with the OP. These include: straw man arguments ("you must believe in alien lizard overlords"); name-calling ("you are a poopoo head"); irrelevant distraction; changing the subject; and on and on.

You know, the stuff that OCTers routinely do.

If a poster does not engage in the ideas presented in the OP, I assume that person is not arguing in good faith. It is rampant in this forum.

[William Seger]

47. What a crock

Your description of what goes on here bears no resemblance to reality. Oddly enough, neither does most of what gets posted in support of conspiracy theories, but this spiffy new feature will allow you to simply block anyone who might tell you so.

I'll make one prediction: This new feature means that HamdenRice will be posting more often.

[HamdenRice]

49. "what a crock" is not a rational argument

welcome to my ignore list!

[Grateful for Hope]

53. Not a rational argument

and quite representative of types of posts that add nothing to a discussion, and merely serve to antagonize.

[Grateful for Hope]

11. I hadn't heard the term "OCTabot" until I read this thread

Your definition was interesting...and, I think, accurate.

Like you, I had noticed that some very informative threads were no sooner posted, and, "wham", they were hijacked. I was guilty of it in a thread last night as I was offended by the title of the thread - and, while this was very unusual for me, this, of course, is no excuse. However, I do hope that the hijacking we see on a regular basis in this forum will cease with the aid of this new function.

I am also noticing that non-OCT'ers do not seem to be nearly as bothered by the new function as their OCT counterparts (for instance, there is a post that proclaims that anyone using the function is either mentally or intellectually challenged...pretty strong sentiments, I'd say). Not sure why this is so, but, it does suggest to me that non-OCT'ers are more likely to want civil discourse and a build up of ideas as you indicated.

[HamdenRice]

13. Yes, I noticed who is most upset about the function

It has the potential of completely changing the dynamic of this forum, I think, in a useful direction. That seems to have some people very upset.

[Grateful for Hope]

18. I look forward to a dynamic change. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

50. Very, very upset, it seems

to the point of keeping a running total of how many are using the new function - judging by posts both here and in the Skeptics Group. It occurred to me that this is an attempt to demonize those who have chosen to use the new function -- which, I am sure was not the intention of the DU administration. I am also sure that it won't work.

When all the dust settles, I am hoping for a calmer and more informative experience in the 9/11 forum.

[HamdenRice]

51. The vitriol is amazing

I think it's because they see their fun and games with thread hijacking coming to an end. They are behaving like small children whose toys have been taken away.

I think the change is permanent and is going to permanently change the DU experience for the better.

Thanks for the info about the skeptics forum. And I just noticed something funny about the title of that forum -- namely, that you can read it too ways, one of which is that they practice skepticism, they practice science, and they practice pseudoscience!

[Grateful for Hope]

52. I agree that the change may well be permanent

at least I hope so.

I also agree that the vitriol is amazing...and, very one-sided it appears.

[Kingshakabobo]

6. The name-calling goes both ways ....'OCTabots' indeed.

'bush supporters' etc.

I think the people who use the block function will only demonstrate that their positions can't stand up to scrutiny. I still have faith in DU. I'm assuming only the mentally unbalanced and/or intellectually challenged among us will attempt to use(when not in response to being blocked) it to stifle discussion. In other words, I would think anyone THAT upset with a certain poster would ALREADY have them on ignore. To use the 'block' function only attempts to silence the other poster.

[vincent_vega_lives]

8. The Ignore function is lame

I never have and never will use it. It will result in theads like this...

Poster 1: "heres some good controlled demolition evidence"

Poster 2: "Yes that is good"

Poster 1: "I amd good poster"

Poster 3: "Where did you get your good info"

Poster 1: "I found it on a website. A good website."

Poster 2: "I like not planes"

Poster 1: "kick"

Poster 1: "kick for good info. Truth out!"

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. Who are "OCTabots?"

[HamdenRice]

15. To name names could be considered a personal attack

so I won't do so. But if you read this forum, you can easily tell who they are. It has been discussed extensively in the past.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. Gosh, would it now?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. But not naming names slanders anyone you disagree with.

Tell me that's not your intent.

[HamdenRice]

19. Did you read the definition in post 4?

I have precisely described what I consider to be an OCTabot. If you post in other forums, what are you riled up about?

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Outright hypocrisy, sir.

I deplore it in George W. Bush, and anywhere I find it.

[HamdenRice]

23. You can engage in "name calling" all you want

but the phenomenon exists. If you don't think so that's your opinion.

Of course, it soon won't really matter what you think or what names you want to call, because I'm pretty sure that in the near future, this forum is going to self-segregate by virtue of the new ignore function, and I doubt I'll be reading much more of what you believe.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. I'm sorry. Do you identify with "outright hypocrisy"? n/t

[salvorhardin]

32. What are the characteristics of an OCTabot?

Could you please enumerate them so I might tell these dangerous creatures from the sincere posters?

[HamdenRice]

34. see post 4 nt

[hack89]

24. I think Skinner is trying to finally kill the 911 forum. nt

[LARED]

25. If that's the case I doubt it will work

Seems to me the folks that post a lot in the 9/11 forum like the debate more than trying to win the other side over. Preventing your 'adversary' from replying will kill debate taking all the fun out of it.

[LARED]

27. You have this habit of broad brushing people -

like this; because most OCTers and OCTabots prefer the billigerant < sic> type threads. Outside of the fact that I think you are wrong about this, and you have no evidence to state this, this mentality is quite similar to your notion that the so called OCT'ers have deficit reasoning skills. Something you got your ass handed to you for advocating.

I don't think this change will have the effect you envision. Without the so called OCT'er the 9/11 forum will become a boring echo chamber for the CT'ers. They will never stand for it.

[HamdenRice]

29. Your misguided opinion

I pointed out clear epistemological problems in the reasoning of OCTers, and most objective observers agreed. The fact that there was a lot of heckling from the OCTabot gallery does not mean I had my ass handed to me.

As for this thread, I stand by it. At any rate, I suspect that your run on this forum as a heckler is coming to an end, because you are probably going to be on many DUers ignore list.

[LARED]

31. You are course are entitled to your opinion

And time will tell what becomes of the 9/11 forum, but no matter what - by whatever method you acquired the notion that so called OCT'ers have reasoning problems - that smug, pretentious, misguided, and arbitrary opinion does not withstand even mild scrutiny.

[HamdenRice]

33. I demonstrated a fact, not an opinion

and everyone except a few OCTabot hecklers agreed. A college professor even posted saying that he wanted to use the post in a class on critical thinking.

It is easily demonstrated that OCTers are incapable of inductive reasoning, and their responses in that thread were a graphic demonstration of that fact.

[AZCat]

35. I disagree.

When I reviewed the thread, it seems that your analysis is incorrect. I count 19 different posters in the thread (including you) and have grouped them according to support of your theory (if anyone feels they were grouped incorrectly, please let me know). They are as follows (in alphabetical order).

CT
Bryan Sacks
dailykoff
HamdenRice
Hope2006
mhatrw
mirandapriestly
petgoat
RedSock
rman
wildbilln864

OCT
Anarcho-Socialist
AZCat
boloboffin
greyl
hack89
LARED
MervinFerd
vincent_vega_lives
William Seger

I count 10 supporters of your theory and 9 opposers. How you construe this to be "everyone but a few OCTabot hecklers agree{ing}" I don't know, but perhaps you'd explain?

Oh yeah - about your claim regarding the college professor. That'd be Bryan Sacks it appears, and nowhere in his post did he say "he wanted to use the post in a class on critical thinking." Perhaps you remembered incorrectly, or he communicated in a PM?

[Kingshakabobo]

40. Hey! What am I? Chopped liver? n/t

[AZCat]

41. You didn't post in that particular thread.

That's all I was counting - sorry if I was not clear.

[Kingshakabobo]

43. Got it. I thought you mean this thread...

I was kidding anyway.....:)

[Bryan Sacks]

66. Jerry liked Terrence McKenna, Kingshakabobo

"if you get confused" (which you are) "listen to the music play"

[Kingshakabobo]

67. Don't you blaspheme, don't you blaspheme!

[Bryan Sacks]

69. R-E-S-P-E-C-T

That's what I'd like to see from thee.

[Kingshakabobo]

70. .

:)

[LARED]

36. Demonstrated a fact? Hardly. (n/t)

[tenseconds]

57. re: boring echo chambers

Do you deal with boring echo chambers in your line of expertise?

[AZCat]

28. The funny thing is...

when I look at older threads, it seems that there are more tombstoned CTers than OCTers. You claim that the so-called OCTabots engage in particular behaviors, but those are exactly the ones that eventually get someone banned. How do you rationalize this apparent disparity in numbers?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

46. Not that Skinner would ever do it...

but it would be interesting to see a statistical breakdown of the reasons people get banned from here. Obviously (for those who have been reading my posts over the years) I disagree with you about the double standard and about OCTs in general, but I don't think either of us is going to convince the other of anything different by now.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

68. This is quite true...look at all the deleted posts in this thread. n/t

[AZCat]

64. For the record...

I had nothing to do with these posts being deleted - I don't even know why they were.

Since I can't reply to the poster commenting on this, perhaps that person will read this (whether I am believed is another thing entirely).





Edit: said threads, meant posts.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

72. They (and Skinner & the boys) are the final word on what's acceptable.

This is not a publicly owned forum. Your criticism (trenchant or not - I can't remember) seems to have violated in some way the rules established by the owner/operators of this space. If you have a problem with the way this site is run, DU certainly isn't the only forum on the internet, nor are all forums moderated in the same manner and perhaps you'd find a better match elsewhere. I encourage you to consider if the posting restrictions are really that significant and detract from your posting pleasure enough to prevent you from participating here. There is a lot to be gained from the various possible interactions at DU and I would be hesitant to throw that away without some thought (insert baby-bathwater sort of pithy saying here).

[Grateful for Hope]

75. Delete

[Grateful for Hope]

74. Yup!!

[Norrin Radd]

45. I think it may encourage more people to participate in the forum.

I've only ever barely dipped my toes in here, and the piranhas started biting, nonetheless.

[leftstreet]

55. I agree

When you look at the thread "views," it's obvious more people are reading threads here than the handful of regular posters would indicate.

I think it will lead to actual discussion. And BONUS make it easier for those unfamiliar with 9/11 research to ask some basic questions without getting attacked or bombarded with talking points.

[Grateful for Hope]

60. It is true

Good points...and, I hope that this will turn out to be true.

[DoYouEverWonder]

58. Interesting point

and it is done deliberately to discourage people from participating.

Fortunately, I don't think it will be much longer before 9-11 and the truth about 9-11 will become an acceptable mainstream topics again.

People are getting tired of obstructers and bullies.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

63. Thank you for sharing your experiences

I do agree that both sides can caught up in the "personal silliness" and, I also agree that it is definitely preferable not to get caught up the silliness of either side.

I would really like to see this forum become the "safe haven" that you speak of.

Unfortunately, anger at what I see happening in this forum gets the better of what I really want to see here at times.

Thank you, BTW, DYEW.

[Grateful for Hope]

73. Testing

will this get deleted too?

Testing...

[SidDithers]

54. I think that it will turn this forum ...

into even more of an echo chamber than it already is, with truthers banning all disagreement from their threads, and engaging in a giant self-congratulatory, mutual admiration society.

"Who's schmoopie?"
"You're schmoopie.."
"No, you're schmoopie..."

etc, ad nauseum.

Sid

[Marie26]

56. Conspiracy theorists

and non-conspiracy theorists can form their own mutual admiration societies w/o fear of an opposing view.

ETA: Yes! I'm not blocked!

[DoYouEverWonder]

65. There are plenty of other places on the Internet

that are mixed groups that people can go who like to argue for the sake of arguing.

DU is a private forum and it does have limitations on who can be a member and how members are suppose to behave with each other.

I have no problem open discussions where people tackle a question or problem. I do have a problem with the sarcastic remarks and the insults and putdowns. That is not why I picked DU to be where I spend my time.

[G Hawes]

78. Of course there are

but why should fellow democrats and members of DU have to go to "other places on the internet" to have conversations about this particular subject just because they don't agree with the conspiracy theories that you and some other fellow democrats and members of DU subscribe to?

[DoYouEverWonder]

84. As long as they can debate in a civil manner

I have no problem.

However, there are people who show no signs of supporting the DEM agenda and only post in the 9-11 forum. Their posts usually lack content and they usually resort to hurling insults and putdowns when their 'facts' fall apart. There is a difference between someone whose a disrupter has opposed to someone who disagrees.

[canetoad]

76. The effect is already apparent

Judging from who is whining that the other kids don't want to play with them.

IMO can be nothing but a welcome enhancement. If you want to play with the group, learn how to gain their respect.

Oh, and special thanks to Azcat who conveniently gathered all the names together in one place.

[AZCat]

77. Those aren't comprehensive lists.

They only list the respondents to a particular thread (one that was being discussed).

[canetoad]

80. The sarcasm smilie is redundant, don't you think?

I'm genuinely grateful that you have saved me some work. Not all - just some.

[AZCat]

81. I was sincere.

I try to make my sarcasm obvious, mostly because I myself sometimes have difficulty differentiating.

Ultimately it is subjective - determining who you think is an OCTer versus CTer, I mean. My list may not be the same as yours. Those particular lists were merely made up of those who supported or opposed the theory put forth by the OP in the thread, although they seem to mirror the commonly accepted CT/OCT divide pretty well.

[mirandapriestly]

91. Yeah, it is apparent, who would want to

post to someone who isn't interested in what they have to say? It's a weird behavioral trait if you ask me, and they are all like that not just a few , like, not one says: "okay fine, we can just talk among ourselves...". What would be the motivation of such people?

[canetoad]

94. If this were a bar

and a group of undergrad loudmouths tried to dominate every conversation in the place, others have a couple of options; they can leave or ignore the loudmouths.

I'm not sure there is any motive other than disruption for the sake of it. I'm looking forward to the day that those who wish to dominate the conversation are ignored by all but their own gang.

[sagesnow]

79. I love the new ignore function.

Won't have to wade through childish arguments to get real information on 9/11, thanks to the new Ignore Function. Yeah!!

[Ferry Fey]

82. Hear no evil, see no evil

It's an interesting twist on the standard "ignore" features, and I'll be curious to see how it affects discussions.

But my objection to ignore buttons has always been that just because someone can let the software squinch their eyes shut and put their fingers in their ears, it doesn't stop bullies and trolls from wreaking conversations in a forum. Those who refuse to see it no longer have any way of assessing patterns of dysfunctional behavior in a forum, and leave others to do the heavy lifting of countering nonsense or dealing with obnoxious behavior.

I don't use ignore functions myself. I like to know where the spiders are in a room.

[jschurchin]

83. Common sense will become

the norm in the forum. I know this scares some of the posters here, but it truly amazes me how uncommon common sense is to some people.

Thanks for the thread Hamden.

[Grateful for Hope]

85. One thing I hadn't counted on

is an increase in the behavior you describe since the feature was implemented. Kind of reinforces the need for the feature, don't you think?

Also, there is a poll in GD that, I think, is fairly representative of DU at this juncture concerning the pros and cons of the feature. Please respond if you have not already:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3109046

[dailykoff]

86. I think the new strategy is to hijack the whole forum.

I notice they're starting / kicking b.s. OCT threads in record numbrers.

[Grateful for Hope]

87. Yes they are

it's pretty obvious what's going on.

[SidDithers]

88. At the time of this posting...

12 of the 25 threads at the top of this page were started by what you would call OCTers. 12 were started by those on your side of the argument. And 1 is not really clear either way.

I guess, since the numbers are even, that it could be said that IJCers are starting / kicking BS threads in record numbers.

Sid

Edit: and only 12 of the next 30 threads started by us. Perhaps you've been so used to dominating the forum with 9/11 "truth" that you're just not used to having a more balanced representation of ideas here.

[HamdenRice]

89. The quality of new OCT threads: potatoes and cigarettes brought down towers

Yes, you can see what is happening. Unable to join in certain conversations they are posting flame bait, such as that the rest of us believe potatoes and cigarettes dipped in nitrogen brought down the towers.

How informative.

[DoYouEverWonder]

92. Many of the OCT threads

have little to do with the events of 9-11 and are more about attacking and discrediting CTers.

They are not discussions about 9-11 and has a long term DUer, that is what I would like to have, discussions about 9-11. If I wanted to be attacked constantly and get into ridiculous circular arguments, there are a lot of other forums to do that on.

Maybe if the personal attack threads weren't allowed, things could calm down, down here?

[Grateful for Hope]

93. Kicking threads is one thing

starting threads that are obvious flamebait is another. I agree with you, DYEW, that things would be a lot better in this forum is the BS flamebait threads were not permitted.

[SidDithers]

90. You might want to check out the king of Old Thread kickers...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=125098&mesg_id=126068

And open your eyes to the reality that nothing is one-sided in this forum.

Sid

[Grateful for Hope]

95. It appears that the flamebait threads

are getting worse...moving from BS to absolute idiocy. Hiding behind Skinner is also a new tactic.

Maturity at it's finest.

[canetoad]

96. It's the cyber-stamping

of little feet.

Pouty little lower lips thrust out. Sometimes ya just wish they'd take their ball and go play with their friends.

[Grateful for Hope]

97. LOL and 1/2!!

The little gremlins, I am sure, hope that their acting out will persuade the DU administration that the new feature was "such a very bad idea".

Oh my...

[Lithos]

98. Locking

This has become personal.