Agree, last year was the first time I ever ventured to internet forums other than here, seeing this kind of atmosphere. Never at ws, my heart (due to the social side concerning the members).
People that are making a statement are being pounded, things thrown in that has nothing to do with that post. It's become about the posters instead of the case. Responsible posters aren't participating in the tit for tat, baiting and now they have given up on posting all together.
No one knows yet who is responsible for Haleigh's disappearance, we have ideas, we are able to surmise who has responsibilities towards the children, but the way Ron and Misty have been talked about here is tasteless and not what I've believed ws is about.
Our public forum is a place for the public to visit, read and acquire information, facts and opinions most of the time before it even hits major news outlets, which is what gives ws the edge. If we are running off our public that looks highly upon ws, we lose our edge above others. LOL Passionate opinions are so welcome. Tasteless remarks over and over again directed at ron, misty and the cummings family are being made in their posts along with being intentionally aimed at posts made by those who don't post in this manner. In turn eventually the poster who doesn't hate Ron takes it personally because its nonstop. Many members taking one post, quoting it over and over, mind you not adding to it, just saying the same anti comments about the content and adding a jab at ron and misty to boot.
Thanks for letting me get this off my chest, I'll do my part in posting responsibly which in my mind means, just because it's not against tos, doesn't necessarily mean I have free reign to say at will. Use discrestion, if several members have already said what I think too, I don't need to keep it up towards that one poster who disagrees, it becomes a gang mentality and does cause hurt feelings.
Off to read tos concerning the names, I wasn't aware.
Yes, exactly; You mentioned, "the post and not the poster." When a moderator says that something is, "about the poster not the post" that has meaning for me. To me that means that instead of being about the case, for example, the subject of the post is the WS site itself, the posters at WS, or the trend in the conversation, or negatively characterizing or describing certain comments made by so-n-so poster/s. To me these are examples of thread killers, b/c generally after these types of things are said, I noticed the discussion typically then either immediately, or soon following, goes to heck in a handcart.
I just wondered what causes this downspiral, - like what starts it. So out of curiosity I paid attention
and wrote it down so I wouldn't forget it
duh. Iow, there are certain types of trigger sentences that seem to get the thread going in a bad direction and it's not just once but many times. Ahd heh I'm just anal enough
and weird enough to be interested in making note of it and watching it happen. (wishing it wouldnt, of course, but nevertheless) FWIW, here are a few examples of how "about the poster not the post" conversations can get started. Like someone said recently somewhere, (I'll paraphrase so no one will be singled out b/c that's not my point at all)
Example:
"There are some of you who seem to be following the case just so you can nitpick about _____ (name here).... - - -
I just want to find Haleigh."
Wow... to me that is so .. wow.. First it subtly (or not) implies that the "other" whoever poster
doesn't want to find Haleigh. Second, the person is presuming to know why someone else is here which is mind reading; and to boot, the inferred reason is not very honorable - (as in -
"...You're just here to nitpick at _________ and that's tacky") But that's the thing. That's the beauty of DIFFERENT OPINIONS.
For example, if you (I dont mean, "you" you - but the collective you)
- if you stated your opinion about, let's say, Casey Anthony, for example, before she was arrested (or choose anyone -- for that matter) it would be rude and inpprorpriate of me to admonish you and try to stop you from saying what you felt about Casey or whoever-fill-in-the-blank-person. Iow, let's say that you state that you find Casey (or whoever -fil-in-the-blank; I cant think off the top of my head - anyone--) but let's say that you state that you find Casey to be untruthful, inconsistent, and you find her behavior cold and uncaring when she did XYZ things... that's YOUR OPINION.
And if I dont find her to be any of those things - iow if I dont think she's cold, uncaring, lying, inconsistent, cold or whatever - just b/c I dont agree, I don't have a right to characterize YOUR opinion as "nitpicking," "unfair," "boorish" and "wrong" just b/c I don't agree with it. Imo it would be rude and inappropriate of me to say to you,
"You shouldnt talk about her that way," or
"That is tacky or inelegant to say such things about _____ so-n-so..." -- b/c
that is your opinion. Just b/c it's not my opinion, I dont have a right to try to silence you and characterize you as "being tacky" b/c I disagree. Another "talking about posters instead of posts" imo that I observed recently is :
"I just read where everyone's complaining. You're just bitter because you like ____ and you don't like ____. I'm glad to see that at least some people in this thread get it and are not tacky."
YIKES; Also, there are people who get into to arguing technicalities about wording and semantics; To me, I think that person
very well knows when he/she is being snide and snotty to fellow posters and when he/she is denigrating, labeling, and characrteizing the opinons of others as "unacceptabe" or "wrong" or "tacky" and so does everyone else reading the post. I guess what I'm saying is that there are ways to disagree with a fellow poster that aren't the written equivalent of an insulting eye-roll loaded with contempt. Most people do not respond well to that and understandably so.
