On topic?

[phillyd2]

just saw a mod saying to keep posts on topic? Is that too a rule that only those posts which are directly related to the subject are allowed?

[unclejumbo]

just saw a mod saying to keep posts on topic? Is that too a rule that only those posts which are directly related to the subject are allowed?

That thread, spun off into hitting an animal control officer in the face with a bat for not wearing a seat belt. Users are often warned when posts are off-topic and to keep threads on-topic. You'll figure that out after you've been here awhile.

[JRswack]

Another 9 years and maybe you'll get the gist!

[phillyd2]

That thread, spun off into hitting an animal control officer in the face with a bat for not wearing a seat belt. Users are often warned when posts are off-topic and to keep threads on-topic. You'll figure that out after you've been here awhile.

Been here longer than all but 5, I think, which is why I asked.

Is the answer to my question yes or no? Or depends. Or depends on the subject.

[normanvin]

Been here longer than all but 5, I think, which is why I asked.

Is the answer to my question yes or no? Or depends. Or depends on the subject.

Depends on who, what, where, how and what context the comment was made. It has always been that way and odds are it always will be that way.

[unclejumbo]

Been here longer than all but 5, I think, which is why I asked.

Is the answer to my question yes or no? Or depends. Or depends on the subject.

We really do need a sarcasm flag.

[phillyd2]

We really do need a sarcasm flag.

No doubt but in this case I'm completely serious.

[unclejumbo]

No doubt but in this case I'm completely serious.

You see, I don't think you are. I think you're pulling your usual instigation foolishness. Because, I know with a certainty, that's you've seen it done before given your tenure here.

For as long as I've been here, mods have stepped in to keep threads from derailing, to shut down things before they get nasty and to generally maintain some sense of order. It's what we're not paid to do. We have latitude to step in, even if there is no written rule to cover exactly the situation.

If you're unsure about that, there is a sticky to explain it.

[phillyd2]

You see, I don't think you are. I think you're pulling your usual instigation foolishness. Because, I know with a certainty, that's you've seen it done before given your tenure here.

For as long as I've been here, mods have stepped in to keep threads from derailing, to shut down things before they get nasty and to generally maintain some sense of order. It's what we're not paid to do. We have latitude to step in, even if there is no written rule to cover exactly the situation.

If you're unsure about that, there is a sticky to explain it.

You are way out of line. You may question my meaning and not believe when I tell you differently but you most certainly do NOT know for certainty my motives. As I said before, they were serious questions I asked for honest intentions and I reject you trying to paint them as instigation or trolling.

It remains a simple question if you don't want to answer just close the thread.

[jw34]

I think I already added my two cents, but let's make it four. If you reference the attached pic. You'll see that there are 135 members online, and 465 guests. So there are far more guests viewing this forum than users who post.
Now if we look at the total number of members, looks like about 67,000.
I typically see less than a dozen members who post inflammatory rhetoric in an extreme manner. Over and over again. Creating a larger quantity of inflammatory posts than most of the more objective members. The members who do this, represent less than one half of one percent of PAFOA membership. Yet they attract the most attention. (Sounds much like the few bad apples analogy). So these few PAFOA "bad apple" gather most of the spotlight, which we see is viewed by so many spectators who are not members. So now we have to think, with so many non-member lurkers, how do they view PAFOA? Is this an extreme right wing, LEO hating, paranoid militia promoting type site? Or are we an objective, Constitution loving, rights protecting bunch trying to have reasonable discussions? Who do we represent?

What image does the site owner wish to portray? We are guests in his house.