What to do with the Politics?

[seadove]

Geoffery wrote:
but believe that no war is won until both sides are friends, and that is usually only accomplished after a fight to the death. in other words, jarkko my friend, it's time to exert your leadership qualities in a constructive way by deleting the entire section.

Peace is the word. And the voice of peace is your station 24 hours a day.

Abey Nathan

[Byron]

delete the entire section............................!!!!!!!!!

Strewth, what would George Smiley have to say about that proposal ?? Do we start with Section Heads, or begin with the foot soldiers out in S'pore and Macau ?

[Squidgy]

Ehhhh...as usual, a simple question results in everybody going on and on, wandering off-topic, cross-talking about other stuff not related even to the original question, much less to Leonard Cohen. We're human, we're a family, that's what we do when we get together and gab.
I'm amused by the hard-liners who say that if it isn't strictly related to Leonard Cohen and his songs, it shouldn't be here. If we tried to follow that rule, we wouldn't have a forum, or a family. I know I'm guilty of being off topic frequently, being chatty about nothing-of-particular-importance (and nobody here is without this sin, so why is anybody casting stones?)
But with a nod to Remote1 of partial agreement , however, I do try to adhere to this rule in life and online, and wish others would consider it: EVERY SINGLE THOUGHT that passes thru yer dangfool head does NOT have to come out yer mouth----or be typed out in lengthy and excrutiating detail, and posted here. But if violaters of that dictum were deleted, then certain people ( a certain person) woulda been outa here a long time ago.
The real, underlying problem, I think, is that some folks stay online 24/7.
In general, I think a lot of questions about the particular makeup of the Forum would instantly be resolved if people here (if the shoe fits, wear it) spent more time actually DOING something in the real world to solve the kajillions of things that need attention, and less time online flapping their virtual jaws and opining about them.

[Byron]

Blimey Squidgers, it's bin a long time since I seen such a multi-fangled, colloquialy discharged piece of transcendental meandering through a palpably dense undergrowth of infernally faceted views, without even a ceremonial nod to the niceties of interpersonal exchange towards he who shall be nameless. If you want to have a go at chuckin a ball at the coconut, at least step up to the plate, grab the bull by the 'orns, grasp the freekin' nettle and call a spade a bloody shuvel.
Don't go dancin' 'round the daisies. Speak it as it is. There's no point in being so delicate in your understated verbosity. Let'm 'ave it betwixt the eyes girl.



Oh, I see that you did............................









I'll get me coat........

[John the Shorts]

delete the entire section............................!!!!!!!!!

Strewth, what would George Smiley have to say about that proposal ?? Do we start with Section Heads, or begin with the foot soldiers out in S'pore and Macau ?

Got to agree with Byron - the death of the second greatest left wing politician post world war 1 has excited absolutely nil comment - maybe Leonard needs to include Ebbw Vale on his tour list? (Not sure I can do Plymouth)

[efc]

Well there is obviously some relatively serious bother about it, or else surely the question would not have been raised for debate in the first place?
Further, it seems an obvious and un-required comment, when it is said that

Jarkko will do what he considers appropriate.

Well -he is running this forum afterall!
But the happy difference is, that instead of signing into the forum to find a news item entitled 'Scheduled forum changes- the politics section is being axed' (for example), here we have a referendum of sorts taking place, atleast an opinion poll ahead of any decisions being made.

Whatever decision is to be made on it all in the end, the very existence of this thread itself, simply induces further confidence that this forum is being operated in a thoughful and appropriate manner.
Something that I for one greatly appreciate.
A

x

"Serious bother" sounds rather dramatic if I may say so.

Actually, what I said was "That of course is entirely correct. For my part I am expressing an opinion, an opinion that has been requested. It's also an opinion that has been informed by how I believe my posts have been unfairly dealt with. Jarkko will do what he considers appropriate", in response to B4real's "All I have to say is that this is Jarkko's site and he can do with it what he wants. He has very democratically (politically) asked our opinions but he doesn't have to do what we say."

So all I was doing was acknowledging/agreeing with that comment, which puts my comment in rather better context than you managed.

And let's note that you didn't feel it necessary to tell B4real "Well -he is running this forum afterall!". Funny that.

[efc]

Why don't we just run a "Yes"/"No" poll ?

Good idea provided that everyone is limited to one vote, and that this can be enforced - Liberals have a record of manipulating the vote.

[efc]

Jarkko is thinking of down away with Politics, as a section, and most people who have replied, are against that. I don't see how Jarkko's comments amount to his having a "headache" about the issue.

Hi Rob, I think we both made assumptions. To me having to tidy up threads and listening to grumping sounds like something that would give me a headache - mind you my status as a wife and a mother (7 & 9 year old boys) might effect my perception. Now your ability to know what Jarkko is thinking is impressive, but my guess is that you are also assuming but I'm not sure why you've come to that conclusion.
Jarkko clearly said

I don't want to close the section totally, but we could introduce some other methods. What about merging all new Israel-threads to just one, and all messages about US politics also to one.

Hi Cate,

As a general point Jarkko says he doesn't want ro close the section totally, which isn't the same as saying he wouldn't (and the conversation had turned into a for and against Politics section before I started posting). Now that might be an academic distinction, but as we're quoting Jarkko's comments it's one that should be noted.

But what I said is that "Jarkko is thinking of down away with Politics, as a section". Jarkko's proposal amounts to setting up Politics in such a way that it wouldn't be a normal section, and that was the point I was trying to make - I understood that he was wishing to merge threads within Politics (and I've referred before to someone having already done that on the sly). There are other sections with non-Leonard content, and Politics is being treated differently from them. Some people say thay are against Politics because of it's non-Leonard content, but they're not against the other non-Leonard sections. Those types might want to rethink their positions.

I don't even need to factor in the link between Leonard's lyrics and Politics.

[efc]

But might it not be an imposition to open up multiple threads within a short period of time on similar -- IMHO VERY similar topics? Might it not be an imposition to ask Jarkko to provide the space to maintain a thread of 120 pages which consists overwhelmingly of back-and-forths between only 2 members (True, this thread has 14K views, but again --- does it justify the time and cost of maintenance?)

The number "2" again. It can't be referring to Politics because as I've already pointed out significantly more than 2 post there.

[efc]

To be honest, I did wonder how a politics thread ever came in to being on a Leonard Cohen Forum ?

Jarkko must have felt it necessary, so........

Exactly, Jarkko did feel it necessary.

"did" being the operative word of course , this is now, not then.

Times change and Jarkko obviously felt that now, for one reason or another, that it might be best to ask the members if they would prefer it to be "history".

But Jarkko doesn't want to close the section.

[efc]

John the Shorts

I'm responding to different points in several posts, and you've responded by repeating all 8 posts. I'm sure even you agree that I was entitled to 1 reply, so I take it you object to only 7.

I simply object to multiple responses in quick succession - not being interested in boosting my own post count (which incidentally you've done again, albeit not to the same degree)

You've obviously found your niche in life - objecting to a member of a discussion forum responding to postings from other members, members in the plural being the point. Anyone would think that I'd made 8 replies to one person.

Anyway, thanks for going to the trouble of repeating all 8 posts, thereby emphasising my comments.

[efc]

jarkko wrote:
>the threads get excessive visibility in the "View new posts" option which is used by most of our members.

no problem for me, because i have never yet managed to implement this option, try though i most certainly have. also, i have to write my name and password EVERY SINGLE TIME i visit this site, even though i tick the box in which is written 'log me on automatically each visit'. the only time it ever works for me is when i am laying in bed; a mattress is a platform where cripples walk, where blind and deaf can see and hear, where lots of weird things occur. but when i'm awake and not dreaming, i can forget about viewing new posts of logging on automatically. but it's no problem, i have accepted it. optimism for me is merely a rocket rusting on the launching pad. "I know I'll never get it right," as Leonard said in 'coming back to you'.

concerning the 'politics' column, the 'for or against' discussion. i may not possess the wisdom of solomon, but believe that no war is won until both sides are friends, and that is usually only accomplished after a fight to the death. in other words, jarkko my friend, it's time to exert your leadership qualities in a constructive way by deleting the entire section.

Jarkko doesn't want to delete the whole section - have you not read his comments.

[efc]

In general, I think a lot of questions about the particular makeup of the Forum would instantly be resolved if people here (if the shoe fits, wear it) spent more time actually DOING something in the real world to solve the kajillions of things that need attention, and less time online flapping their virtual jaws and opining about them.

You won't be posting again then.

[efc]

delete the entire section............................!!!!!!!!!

Strewth, what would George Smiley have to say about that proposal ?? Do we start with Section Heads, or begin with the foot soldiers out in S'pore and Macau ?

Got to agree with Byron - the death of the second greatest left wing politician post world war 1 has excited absolutely nil comment - maybe Leonard needs to include Ebbw Vale on his tour list? (Not sure I can do Plymouth)

Nil comment is not inappropriate, he was a leftie. He had better taste in football though, as his poem, written in 1935 proves:

"Ode to Everton FC

When at Thy call my weary feet I turn,

The gates of paradise are opened wide,

At Goodison I know a man can learn,

Rapture more rich than Anfield can provide.

In Coulter’s skill and Geldard’s subtle speed,

I see displayed in all its matchless bounty,

The power of which the heavens decreed,

The fall of Sunderland and Derby County.

The hands of Sagar, Dixie’s priceless head,

Made smooth the path to Wembley till that day,

When Bolton came. Now hopes are fled,

And all is sunk in bottomless dismay.

And so I watch with heart and temper cool,

God’s lesser breed of men at Liverpool.”

[Byron]

A 'Foe' in time saves '9.'