OT: John Spencer :-(

[Scersk '97]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:
Why don't you not read threads you're not interested in, instead of telling people to be silent or take their thoughts elsewhere?[/q]

But I am interested in this thread.  I said that already, above.  In fact, it was through this thread that I first heard the news about Spencer's death.  I'm a fan.

I'm also a fan of the the separation of information sources.  When I come to eLynah, I expect to read specifically about Cornell hockey and, through reasonable off-topic extension and thread drift, about Cornell and hockey in general.  I don't expect to come across news of a famous actor's death, a scree regarding national politics, or a study of urban land-use issues.  I have other sources for those types of information.  If I want the unmediated firehose, I go to Google news.

My friends will tell you that I'm a bit too easily distracted.  This post on Spencer's death led me to obituaries, which got me thinking about the IMDB, etc., etc.  A simple urge to see what was going on in hockey land led to a colossal waste of time.  I may not be alone in this.

So, to sum up, I'm going to continue to tell people to "take their thoughts elsewhere," but I have never told people to "be silent."  There are appropriate places to discuss The West Wing.  I directed people towards a good place to discuss the show and Spencer's death.  There, fans of the show can interact with a group of other people that are fans of the show; here, you interact with a group of people who are fans of Cornell hockey.  This[/I] forum is one of the few appropriate places to discuss Cornell hockey without distraction.  Let's keep it that way.

[Josh '99]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:
While it must be delightfully fun to call me a ACLU-hugging liberal...[/q]Well, but...  you ARE an ACLU-hugging liberal.

[Ben Rocky '04]

Well.... yes..... but..... but.....:-P

[DisplacedCornellian]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:


My friends will tell you that I'm a bit too easily distracted.  This post on Spencer's death led me to obituaries, which got me thinking about the IMDB, etc., etc.  A simple urge to see what was going on in hockey land led to a colossal waste of time.  I may not be alone in this.





Edited 1 times. Last edit at 12/18/05 02:57AM by Scersk '97.[/q]

So we're supposed to take your "attention issues"  into account when choosing what we post?  Geesh.  How about some simple impusle control...if you can't afford "a colossal waste of time" STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD.

[ugarte]

[Q]DisplacedCornellian Wrote:

 [Q2]Scersk '97 Wrote:

My friends will tell you that I'm a bit too easily distracted.  This post on Spencer's death led me to obituaries, which got me thinking about the IMDB, etc., etc.  A simple urge to see what was going on in hockey land led to a colossal waste of time.  I may not be alone in this.


Edited 1 times. Last edit at 12/18/05 02:57AM by Scersk '97.[/Q]
So we're supposed to take your "attention issues"  into account when choosing what we post?  Geesh.  How about some simple impusle control...if you can't afford "a colossal waste of time" STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD.
[/q]
No, all you need to consider is the point of the community. There are thousands of general interest websites and West Wing specific websites where a post about the death of Leo McGarry is appropriate (NB: He'll always be Mullaney to me). This isn't that place.

In all seriousness, how many people do you need to share this with, how many fora do you have to discuss this in, how badly do you need to get this out of you that the place you elect to do it is eLynah? Isn't there maybe a phone call you could make*? The ultimate question to ask about OOOOT postings is "Who is really the person with impulse control issues?"

* Special to Fred: I don't want you to feel that I am attacking you personally. This one post doesn't bother me all that much. I think that Rich, Scersk and I are more concerned with getting a policy established while it is a minor annoyance to some of us before it becomes a really big problem. If this becomes a general interest forum that also happens to discuss Cornell hockey, I'll walk away and wait until one of the many folks here with the web-savvy to do it starts a new, dedicated forum. Save the "no great loss" reply. I have no illusions that it would be.

[DeltaOne81]

You know, I have no objection to the fact that some people didn't like this being posted here. While I continue to disagree, it's a comment that can be made and a discussion that can be had. What I take outright offense to, is the pure vitriolic, hateful, and downright insulting way that it was brought up. Treating me like a child that needs a list of topic descriptions or mocking me by suggesting that I may as well post my breakfast or the year of the dime I found on the ground is insulting and entirely uncalled for. And I think the fact that Scersk admitted that he's a WW fan and found out about this here first, proves that it IS a topic that people are intersted in (therefore not even being in the same ballpark as my breakfast :-P).

In the, what now, 5 (?) years I've been on this board I've probably started less than that number of 'OT' threads. Listen, I appreciate Rich's comments that he generally enjoys talking with me - although I can't remember meeting you in person, I apologize if I'm just forgetting :-) - but if an aquaintance or co-worker of yours says something you feel is out of context, do you mock them, insult them, and rag in them in front of the crowd? Or do you politely mention aside later on that you didn't like it? I do not deserve being treated like a child and called out.

It's probably the anonymity of the internet and I understand that that makes it much easier to react strongly, but that was still entirely uncalled for and hurtful. If you made the comment politely on the thread, or PMed me to discuss it, or something, I may still disagree, but it wouldn't have been aimed at mocking me publically.



As far as comparing me to a facetimer, well, I know that wasn't meant as harshly as it could be taken - so I won't take it harshly. But I still think the analogy is wrong. The key phrase that you said was "during a game." You're not a facetimer for turning and talking to your friend about whatever before the game, or after the game, or in class, or while walking down College Ave. Not only was this not during a game, it wasn't on a game day, or even a game week. In fact, if Cornell hockey was actively doing on I probably wouldn't have posted this here at all, but this this several week break from game action, I felt that "truely OT" wasn't interferring with anything.

Listen, I read a few message boards which get way too OT way too often and I've made comments on those boards as to its effect. I agree with you that that can be a very bad thing. But eLF, well, besides our infamous thread drifts, is actually incredibly on topic most of the time. I think its anything but a problem here. If it became a problem I would be one of the first to speak up, but the very very occassional mention of something very OT doesn't hurt anyone.

Based on the fact that Jordan uncovered that Rich has actively participated in "truely OT" threads, and based on the fact that Scersk said he's a WW and first heard of this news here, I think the mentioning of it was not a problem and actually helpful. And had this bile not been flung at me, this thread would be off the first page by now and out of everyone's way.

[Ben Rocky '04]

Is this forum eventually going to have a cabal for everything?

We already define good fans/bad fans, facetimers/lynah faithful, gooney/good hockey, good obyrne/ bad obyrne, appropriate cheers/inappropriate cheers,  trolls/useful posters....

Now you all want to have us censor our own posts, and eliminate everything that Ugarte and Scersk (the newly forming suitable ELF topics cabal) define as off-topic.  It seems to me that DeltaOne81 wanted to share entertainment news that he saw as important with his fellow hockey fans.  Is that honestly making your viewing of the forum that difficult?  Did having to see this thread appear bring you to tears, or cause you to give up on the 12-Steps program?

This forum works because we all have lapses of impulse control, and from those we post our independent ideas and opinions.  This is literally the only internet forum I read, and I read it because I want to hear other Cornell hockey fan's thoughts on hockey, other cornell sports, and anything in general really; and if I don't want to hear those thoughts, I don't start suggesting that they shut up.  Instead, I just don't come to this webpage.  Try doing that yourselves.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
* Special to Fred: I don't want you to feel that I am attacking you personally. This one post doesn't bother me all that much. I think that Rich, Scersk and I are more concerned with getting a policy established while it is a minor annoyance to some of us before it becomes a really big problem. If this becomes a general interest forum that also happens to discuss Cornell hockey, I'll walk away and wait until one of the many folks here with the web-savvy to do it starts a new, dedicated forum. Save the "no great loss" reply. I have no illusions that it would be.[/q]

Ugarte, thanks. In fact as you can see in my post right after you, I agree. If eLF had a problem with OT thread, of had it even been a game week, I wouldn't've posted it. And if eLF develops a problem with OT threads, I would absolutely speak out against it. But I think we've been going for long enough that I trust the people on this forum to keep things reasonably on topic with the occassional reasonable diversion that others may find interesting.

P.S. I actually did check around the couple other forums (which are actually collections of boards) that I post to to see if there was a TV related one. There wasn't, so I came here, because as long as it was going to be OT anywhere, people here might care. And whether some people like me posting it or not, it seems I was right that some people did care and want to discuss it a little.

[min]

would a separate eLF page for all (or most) off-topic dicussions (a la Ticket Exchange) be a reasonable compromise here?

[Scersk '97]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:
Is this forum eventually going to have a cabal for everything?
[/Q]
Cabals are fun!  Do we have to be secretive, though?  Indeed, I announce the formation of a new group:  eLF Validity Evaluating (Rotarian Yelling Boosting) Off-topic Discussion Yodellers.  

As one of the head spokesmen of the above organization, I, Scersk '97, do hereby declare this thread gratuitously off-topic.  All persons who further post in this off-topic discussion will be subscribed to pornographic e-mail lists and forced to copy, at the blackboard, each of RichS's eLF posts 20 times in cursive.  (Watch out, here comes RichS!  Oh, the synergy!)

Seriously, I'm not going to set myself up as head huckleberry.  (I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned this topic:  http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,75016.)  We all are guilty, at some point or another, of contributing to off-topic rambling.  I'd just prefer to keep it out of the subject headings on the front page if it's not about Cornell hockey, Cornell, or hockey.  Call me anal, or anti-American (but, if being American is about not questioning our government, does that mean I would be anti-anti-American?), or a big ol' hypocrite, but I prefer talking hockey here and other things elsewhere.  The suggestion of café (another un-American word) space might work out, but that's up to the moderators/owners/enabling devils of this forum to decide.

Meanwhile, in confirmation of my last posting on the subject, I say:  hockey, hockey, hockey!  (Poof!)

[Beeeej]

I think the most important thing is that we have several dozen more rounds of this scintillating off-topic discussion about how off-topic the original off-topic discussion was.  ::rolleyes::

Beeeej

[ugarte]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

 I think the most important thing is that we have several dozen more rounds of this scintillating off-topic discussion about how off-topic the original off-topic discussion was. [/q]That's a little unfair. I think a consensus from the Forum about whehter the "hockey cabal" or the "inclusion cabal" is the more popular cabal wouldn't be a bad thing. If there was a general understanding then the losing side could decide what to do. Leaving it ambiguous means that the same fight will happen every time a cast member of the West Wing dies. And the guy who plays Toby has never looked particularly healthy to me.

[ugarte]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:
Now you all want to have us censor our own posts, and eliminate everything that Ugarte and Scersk (the newly forming suitable ELF topics cabal) define as off-topic.[/q]So your point is that there is a conceivable definition that would make this on-topic, but we are unduly restrictive?

Oh, wait, you do have such a definition:

[q]I want to hear other Cornell hockey fan's thoughts on ... anything in general...[/q]Why? For the love of Dryden, why? There isn't any polite way to say this, so ... I really don't care about the opinions of everyone here about most things. I suspect that you feel the same about me. That is exactly what is GOOD about a narrowcast forum like eLynah.

[Jacob '06]

I would like to know Bill Howard's opinion on HDTV, can we get that in this thread?

[Beeeej]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
 [Q2]Beeeej Wrote:
 I think the most important thing is that we have several dozen more rounds of this scintillating off-topic discussion about how off-topic the original off-topic discussion was. [/Q]
That's a little unfair. I think a consensus from the Forum about whehter the "hockey cabal" or the "inclusion cabal" is the more popular cabal wouldn't be a bad thing. If there was a general understanding then the losing side could decide what to do. Leaving it ambiguous means that the same fight will happen every time a cast member of the West Wing dies. And the guy who plays Toby has never looked particularly healthy to me.[/q]

Unfair?  It was sarcasm, O Cranky One.  :-P

I think what's really needed at this point is a thread prefix like "META" so you know before you click on the thread that it's a discussion of eLF.  Otherwise, how are the people who make a careful practice of avoiding OT threads ever going to know that the rest of y'all are using an OT thread to make a decision about OT threads?!  Your "consensus" will have a pretty big gap in it.

Beeeej