Closing of Threads

David Wile · July 24, 2001, 11:36 PM

Hey folks,

I was looking at some threads started by Billy Jacobs and was not sure what he was trying to say exactly. Two of the Jacobs threads were immediately closed by Lawdog, and I am at a loss to understand why. Jacobs seems to have a point of view that he is trying to get across, but I am not sure what it is. This is supposed to be a legal and political forum, and shutting a thread down because you do not like a fellow's politics does not seem to be the right thing to do here.

Heck, if you don't like his politics, don't respond to his posts. If his messages are bad and people end up ignoring him, he will eventually go away for lack of interest. Shutting him down like Lawdog did only adds fuel to whatever flames someone is fanning. I would like to think of myself as a fairly free thinker, but if I read much more of his stuff and still find his words uninteresting, I will ignore his posts.

If I were moderating a forum, there are some things that I would consider offensive and would knock off the forum, but I would like to encourage Lawdog to not make a martyr out of someone by cutting them off as he did recently.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

AR-10 · July 24, 2001, 11:47 PM

It's none of my business, but I was wondering earlier why Billy even started additional threads. He could have posted that information in the one thread he had going, as the other threads were basically his responses to questions and statements in the orignal thread.

Elizabeth Petersen · July 24, 2001, 11:55 PM

Let me see if I can answer this one.

One thread was shut down because it had already been discussed in two other previous threads.

The other was shut down because it was redundant (illegal immigrants, etc.) from a thread currently in discussion.

In LawDog's defense, I don't see any martyring going on here. I saw the termination of duplicate/reduntant threads. Notice that Billy Jacob's other two threads (both of which have elicited several passionate responses) are still active and have not been shut down.

If his two current threads start to devolve into nasty name calling, I fully expect (and hope) that they get shut down.

At least, that's what I see.

Don Gwinn · July 25, 2001, 12:09 AM

We don't generally explain this sort of thing in public after the fact, but Elizabeth is exactly right. No thread was closed because of disagreement with the author's politics. If I closed all the threads with political ideas I didn't like we wouldn't have much of a forum left, especially since Lawdog and Bluesman would be busily closing half the threads of which I approved.

We have always closed duplicates and the most redundant threads, especially oft-repeated discussion of topics that are way off topic for the board or consistently degenerate into shouting matches. Abortion threads, for instance, usually die a swift and painless death whether the poster is pro or con, because abortion brings out the worst in the board and isn't really on topic. 1911 vs. Glock has the same effect but we haven't figured out how to run a gun discussion board without it.
With the new software we can occasionally merge threads, but unless there are a lot of posts to each or some really important information posted in the second thread, we'll still usually close the second one. This thread should technically be in Questions, Suggestions and Feedback but we'll leave it here for now.

**Mal H** · July 25, 2001, 12:24 AM

One additional point to add to Elizabeth's and Don's is that even in the Legal and Political forum, topics on TFL should concern firearms, state and federal laws affecting firearms, ccw, the RKBA, etc., etc. A few of Mr. Jacobs closed threads did not do that, even remotely.

July 25, 2001, 12:41 AM

I have learned that TFL's staff are among the most fair and open minded staff of the gun forums. You will not get a thread locked because of your views. If they do not agree, they usually state their opposite point like any other member would. An on topic thread remains open if civil and not a duplicate.

David Wile · July 25, 2001, 01:07 AM

Hey folks,

I still do not know what this guy is saying or why he is saying it. I may be wrong, but it seems to me he is trolling for arguments, and there certainly are folks here willing to oblige him. I would rather see him ignored than to see him shut down. As for duplicate threads, there certainly is no shortage of them on this or any of the other forums. To shut his thread down because it is a duplicate and allow other duplicates to remain open makes it look bad. For example, a few days ago, there were several threads open about the business of Lowe's supporting an anti-gun position on an internet site. Duplicate threads are something that seem to be part of the forum territory. Shutting this guy down based on a duplicate thread just seems to look bad, and I wish it would be handled differently.

Besides, I really cannot figure this guy out. I still want to see what he is saying for a while, but I suspect my interest in him will depart before too long. Also, I have not been moved to respond to him thus far, but I suspect that is because I can't understand what he is saying.

Oh well, I enjoy reading and posting to these forums, so thanks for the opportunity.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Elizabeth Petersen · July 25, 2001, 01:11 AM

David,

Open the closed thread up and scroll down. Lawdog even provided the links for the duplicate threads as explanation for shutting it down.

Just FYI

Don Gwinn · July 25, 2001, 01:50 AM

You answered your own question, David--those Lowe's threads have all been merged or closed.

Grrrrr.....smiley won't show. Rest assured I was smiling until I tried to get the fershlugginer smiley in there.....

July 24, 2001, 11:36 PM	#1
David Wile Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2001 Location: Mechanicsburg, PA Posts: 585	Closing of Threads Hey folks, I was looking at some threads started by Billy Jacobs and was not sure what he was trying to say exactly. Two of the Jacobs threads were immediately closed by Lawdog, and I am at a loss to understand why. Jacobs seems to have a point of view that he is trying to get across, but I am not sure what it is. This is supposed to be a legal and political forum, and shutting a thread down because you do not like a fellow's politics does not seem to be the right thing to do here. Heck, if you don't like his politics, don't respond to his posts. If his messages are bad and people end up ignoring him, he will eventually go away for lack of interest. Shutting him down like Lawdog did only adds fuel to whatever flames someone is fanning. I would like to think of myself as a fairly free thinker, but if I read much more of his stuff and still find his words uninteresting, I will ignore his posts. If I were moderating a forum, there are some things that I would consider offensive and would knock off the forum, but I would like to encourage Lawdog to not make a martyr out of someone by cutting them off as he did recently. Best wishes, Dave Wile

July 24, 2001, 11:47 PM	#2
AR-10 Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2001 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,182	It's none of my business, but I was wondering earlier why Billy even started additional threads. He could have posted that information in the one thread he had going, as the other threads were basically his responses to questions and statements in the orignal thread.

July 24, 2001, 11:55 PM	#3
Elizabeth Petersen Senior Member Join Date: March 6, 2001 Location: Utah Posts: 571	Let me see if I can answer this one. One thread was shut down because it had already been discussed in two other previous threads. The other was shut down because it was redundant (illegal immigrants, etc.) from a thread currently in discussion. In LawDog's defense, I don't see any martyring going on here. I saw the termination of duplicate/reduntant threads. Notice that Billy Jacob's other two threads (both of which have elicited several passionate responses) are still active and have not been shut down. If his two current threads start to devolve into nasty name calling, I fully expect (and hope) that they get shut down. At least, that's what I see.

July 25, 2001, 12:09 AM	#4
Don Gwinn Staff Emeritus Join Date: March 9, 2000 Location: Virden, IL Posts: 5,917	We don't generally explain this sort of thing in public after the fact, but Elizabeth is exactly right. No thread was closed because of disagreement with the author's politics. If I closed all the threads with political ideas I didn't like we wouldn't have much of a forum left, especially since Lawdog and Bluesman would be busily closing half the threads of which I approved. We have always closed duplicates and the most redundant threads, especially oft-repeated discussion of topics that are way off topic for the board or consistently degenerate into shouting matches. Abortion threads, for instance, usually die a swift and painless death whether the poster is pro or con, because abortion brings out the worst in the board and isn't really on topic. 1911 vs. Glock has the same effect but we haven't figured out how to run a gun discussion board without it. With the new software we can occasionally merge threads, but unless there are a lot of posts to each or some really important information posted in the second thread, we'll still usually close the second one. This thread should technically be in Questions, Suggestions and Feedback but we'll leave it here for now.

July 25, 2001, 12:24 AM	#5
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 17,067	One additional point to add to Elizabeth's and Don's is that even in the Legal and Political forum, topics on TFL should concern firearms, state and federal laws affecting firearms, ccw, the RKBA, etc., etc. A few of Mr. Jacobs closed threads did not do that, even remotely.

July 25, 2001, 12:41 AM	#6
PreserveFreedom Guest Posts: n/a	I have learned that TFL's staff are among the most fair and open minded staff of the gun forums. You will not get a thread locked because of your views. If they do not agree, they usually state their opposite point like any other member would. An on topic thread remains open if civil and not a duplicate.

July 25, 2001, 01:07 AM	#7
David Wile Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2001 Location: Mechanicsburg, PA Posts: 585	Hey folks, I still do not know what this guy is saying or why he is saying it. I may be wrong, but it seems to me he is trolling for arguments, and there certainly are folks here willing to oblige him. I would rather see him ignored than to see him shut down. As for duplicate threads, there certainly is no shortage of them on this or any of the other forums. To shut his thread down because it is a duplicate and allow other duplicates to remain open makes it look bad. For example, a few days ago, there were several threads open about the business of Lowe's supporting an anti-gun position on an internet site. Duplicate threads are something that seem to be part of the forum territory. Shutting this guy down based on a duplicate thread just seems to look bad, and I wish it would be handled differently. Besides, I really cannot figure this guy out. I still want to see what he is saying for a while, but I suspect my interest in him will depart before too long. Also, I have not been moved to respond to him thus far, but I suspect that is because I can't understand what he is saying. Oh well, I enjoy reading and posting to these forums, so thanks for the opportunity. Best wishes, Dave Wile

July 25, 2001, 01:11 AM	#8
Elizabeth Petersen Senior Member Join Date: March 6, 2001 Location: Utah Posts: 571	David, Open the closed thread up and scroll down. Lawdog even provided the links for the duplicate threads as explanation for shutting it down. Just FYI

July 25, 2001, 01:50 AM	#9
Don Gwinn Staff Emeritus Join Date: March 9, 2000 Location: Virden, IL Posts: 5,917	You answered your own question, David--those Lowe's threads have all been merged or closed. Grrrrr.....smiley won't show. Rest assured I was smiling until I tried to get the fershlugginer smiley in there.....