What would everyone think about PBM banning member SIGNATURES? Would this be a middleground compromise? If you want to email someone you could still click their membername (like you can now). It takes only two seconds more to type your name which already appears at the top of the post anyway...
Giving up civil liberties is a predictable response to terrorism, LOL. In this case, I don't know why the rest of us should give up our signatures because you two have waged warfare using yours. For that reason, I'll vote no to that suggestion. Doc
Doc; I am only willing to give mine up if the PBM forces me. I have used a signature on this board since 1996. I am not at war with anyone, except the "evil doers". Herb www.creditsense.com
You can turn signatures off! Go under your account preferences and: Display signatures in posts? Every member can have a custom signature which appears at the end of their post. Do you want to see those signatures when you read through the messages? Choosing 'no' will suppress display of all signatures including your own.
I hope you're really joking about the terrorism thing Doc. TWO? No, I don't think it's just two people Doc. Civil Liberty? I'm not suggesting imposing on your freedom of speech. You can type anything on a message, you just can not edit your previous xxxx posts. I don't know if it could be done, but what if signature changes only applied to new messages instead of every post you've ever made? Doc: What suggestion for middleground would you recommend? Pat: I understand what you're saying, but the same could be said of ignore. That's not what I'm implying. Because must of the member frustrations are coming from advertisements in signatures, why not do away with them. Editing my preferences does not keep the advertisement from being posted for lurkers or newbies to be mislead.
Oh, lord, Creditwork, sorry for the non-specific pronoun "you"... When I said "you two waging war" I meant, of course, the two people who are in conflict here much of the time. I didn't mean you! You must have been that innocent kid with the guilty face back in school who was always wrongfully accused of misbehavior. No, I was just respectfully voting "no, I vote for us to keep our signatures." I know that Bkev expected a variety of opinions when he posted what is really a creative suggestion. I just happen to be on the "no" side of this particular vote. Again, it has nothing to do with Creditwork. Doc
Bkev I have a question. You are speaking about a middle ground in regards to the members signature lines. In your upmost honest opinion, will this resolve the issue btw opposing members? I am not being a smart a**, I am asking a relevant question.
Re: Bkev All issues? No. But I don't know of any solution to all the issues. I do think this could be a MAJOR step in the right direction.
Bkev, great question. Since you're one of the subjects of the suggestion you're soliciting I'll talk about you in the third person, lol. Here goes: My middleground suggestion would be for Bkev and bbauer to be asked to refrain from responding to each other or from criticizing each other. I have seen some very serious and silly things leveled back and forth. (Bkev seems to specialize in "serious" [i.e., "you break the law"; "you don't pay taxes"; etc.], while bbauer specializes in "silly" ["exlax"; "little boy"; etc.].) I think you guys should be asked to simply not engage each other at any level anymore. Furthermore I think that pbm should automatically add each of you to the other's ignore list (if that's possible). That way, you won't be reading each other by default -- unless you go out of your way to do so. Finally, I think that any violation of that request should probably result in regretfully implementing pbm's final imperative. I'd hate to see that, because I respect both of you very much. Those are my middleground suggestions that don't deprive the rest of us of privileges that we've been able to handle fairly well. (I say "fairly," because I don't think any of us who've had opinions one way or the other have been perfectly behaved. I sure haven't, and that's why I've apologized to Bkev in email, and I've appreciated his apology for certain comments in return as well.) Doc
Re: Bkev Reshod, do me a favor. Do a search on these keywords "Bkev creditwrench" and review the mountains of primary source materials available to you. I think asking either Bkev or bbauer to summarize the situation really IS an invitation to more of the same. Respectfully, I would ask that you spend some time reviewing the tremendous amount of information available to you already. Doc
Doc...great comments I too have expressed my concerns to Bkev in an email. I too have been unfair in sacrificing one member instead of sacrificing both, no preference to either! But what is a common middle ground? You expressed that PBM should add ignore to the others list of post, so that they do not communicate against one another. This seems like a reasonable solution, unless as you stated, one does go out of there way to communicate or defame the other. I think that it was a great idea for Bkev to start this post in search of a common solution. I wish that Bill would also solicit some solutions.
Re: Bkev Doc: That does nothing to solve Saar's complaints and other people... That limits my free speech (and BBauer's) which you were so passionate to protect yours just a few posts earlier! I know I've said it a million times, but here's one more... this is NOT a BKev vs BBauer issue. It's not personal.
Re: Bkev The majority of members appear to not have problems with one another. The vast majority should not have to 'compromise' for a select few that cannot check their egos at the login and refuse to accept PBM's polite requests and play semantics with his words. Does PBM have to supply a list of definitions with his posts to stop the two of you from jumping through possible loopholes. The 'two of you' have shown blatant disrespect for PBM and the membership of Creditnet fueled by your arrogance. This is not a democracy. PBM has rules, has made polite requests. If any member believes his / her signature is causing problems may I suggest they take it upon themselves to 'dump' their signature. I hope you can all get along. Goodbye.
Re: Bkev Jeff........ PBM does have rules. He doesn't enforce them equally. Take for example this thread that got moved I guess because it was off topic. Yet a joke remains on the main board. Again, it's not a Bkev vs BBauer issue. If you notice, I'm not even in the top ten posters, but AT LEAST 4 of the people who are have a problem with Bill spamming the board! Doesn't matter.... yet another active discussion squashed by moving it. I was trying to offer a suggestion, but obviously someone "complained" and this thread was moved. What a joke! Some people bitch about freedom of speech, but only want to let it apply to people with their same viewpoints.... let a dissenting opinion show up and you want to stomp it out. What a freakin joke!
Re: Bkev more FREE and accurate advice brought to you by... [Bkev] Bkev, Your signature appears to be a jab at Bill. This should sound ridiculous. I believe that most members have probably thought the same thing however. I bring this up only because it makes a point. The fact your signature IS seen as a veiled jab at Bill says something in regard to how most of us have viewed your recent posts. Many of your posts as of late have been informative and on topic but have also been clever jabs at Bill. This is IMO what's offensive to most. Posting in such a way has only harmed you, evidenced by this thread being so quickly shuttled off the main board where other off topic threads remain as you have noted. Obviously you have a strong opinion as to how Bill operates. My spears v. brennan thread is an example of some of my own issues with Bill and my thoughts as to how he operates. My point being, I do support anyone in posting their views and dissenting opinions. It seems you've let this get a bit too personal for too long. It appears to be hurting you at this point. IMO, you are informative and helpful. A value to this great board. My exhortation to you would be not to 'push the envelope' quite so close with this issue my friend. The point has come where you seem to be limiting your own voice. I have no problem with you Bkev. The board however seems to be disrupted out of proportion to what it seems it can gain from this continuing. The spirit in which you post is important. My best to you.
Re: Bkev This issue of bbauer-n-Bkev has become nothing but a flame war. This is a dead thread with no resolution and "these two" need to move it on to their own turf (personal e-mails) and leave others out of it. Why should other board members have to "suffer" due to these two egotisical BOYS?
Re: Bkev Jeff and River: I've said it before in another post.... I'm not a Top Ten poster at Creditnet, but at least four of the people who are have a problem with Bill's marketing efforts and hard sell on the board. Are they in a BKev vs. Bbauer flame war? I guess some people will say anything I post if anti-Bill because I spread free information. MANY people take offense to Bill's misleading and marketing here. Are they seen as anti-Bill, pro-Bkev or maybe just wanting the rules of the board enforced! If they are not going to be enforced, then what is the point of having them? Jeff... you can read anything you want into my signature. I don't care. I offered a suggestion to help us move forward. Do you see Bill doing anything like it? He knows what is pissing people off, but continues to do it. Where is your criticism of him? Why do you single me out? What's equal about that? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Re: Bkev Bill's signature doesn't piss me off...seems like the smallest things piss you off. There is a time and a place for this type of bickering, and I was under the impression that that place was middle school. I used to be a top 20 poster, but since this whole thing YOU started, I have posted very little. Bill was here longer than you, and not very many people had a problem with him until you came to this board. You have made it our business in your abusive posts to Bill. Just my $.02. Just remember that all I gave you was 2 cents, so take it at face value.
