Why is PS slower than 10 yrs ago?

[missy]

Hi Autumnovember! I am glad you stopped by and glad you are doing well and just want to say I miss you and hope you will post a bit more if time and energy permits. (((Hugs))).

And I also want to say after reading some really out there posts in this thread that I think Gypsy is one of the loveliest posters on PS (though there are many lovely posters) and PS would not be as nice or informative a place to be without her!

 

[Maria D]

Deb, I agree with your analysis. The pent-up "we don't like you" came out indeed. But it started with some people who took it upon themselves to maintain their notion of the correct direction and content of a thread, even though they are not moderators. To me, that's the definition of being a net nanny.

By the way Deb, I don't necessarily remember who said what - Google does it for me!

 

[Gypsy]

Maria you mischaracterize what happened. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/heartbroken-and-confused-some-insight-please.197266/....']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/heartbroken-and-confused-some-insight-please.197266/......[/URL]. Here's the thread. I was not being a net nanny. I was disagreeing with fundamentally bad advice from Smith who was of the opinion that Alley should stay in an abusive relationsip because 30 was too old to find a better spouse. And I stand by that.

I was blunt but it is not bullying to call someone out and disagree with their bad advice. And I was polite about it. Even nice you read my subsequent posts.
Aldj was also a respondent and she disagreed too with Smith. But there was no bullying and no net nannying certainly not by me or her.
As for Smith leaving...that was a result of her experiences in multple threads. Not just that one.

If you are going to accuse me of something at least post all of the information incliding the link.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Yeah, threads and experiences like that does give one an unpleasant feeling but fortunately it seems like those are few and far between. What I would have liked was if that poster had stayed and ignored those few who were being mean to her because there were others here who supported her. But she let them drive her away and ultimately that's her decision, her choice and she did what was right for her. But she could have stayed and stood her ground. Those ladies don't rule PS yanno? I think by far there are more nice people here than those who behave meanly. Just ignore the "mean" girls.

Not anymore, Kenny is the king now!...

 

[Gypsy]

And I also want to say after reading some really out there posts in this thread that I think Gypsy is one of the loveliest posters on PS (though there are many lovely posters) and PS would not be as nice or informative a place to be without her!

Thank you. So much missy. I feel the same way about you and many of the posters in this thread.

 

[Gypsy]

Maria you mischaracterize what happened. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/heartbroken-and-confused-some-insight-please.197266/..........']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/heartbroken-and-confused-some-insight-please.197266/............[/URL]. Here's the thread. I was not being a net nanny. I was disagreeing with fundamentally bad advice from Smith who was of the opinion that Alley should stay in an abusive relationsip because 30 was too old to find a better spouse. And I stand by that.

I was blunt but it is not bullying to call someone out and disagree with their bad advice. And I was polite about it. Even nice you read my subsequent posts.
Aldj was also a respondent and she disagreed too with Smith. But there was no bullying and no net nannying certainly not by me or her.
As for Smith leaving...that was a result of her experiences in multple threads. Not just that one.

If you are going to accuse me of something at least post all of the information incliding the link.

Oh my memory finally kicked in and.... Yes in the second half of the thread I did get ticked and either deco or I started a new thread- I dont recall which. And I may have indeed net nanny-ed. Why? Because Smith decided that Allys thread about her abusive relationship was the appropriate place to GBCPS. Which was rude and selfish.

So I'll cop to being the pot in this case. Because threadjacking is okay...but this was an extreme and completly derailed Allys thread where she was seriously hurting and instead, turned it into a thread about Smith. Smith should have started a new thread.

 

[Trekkie]

Maria you mischaracterize what happened. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/heartbroken-and-confused-some-insight-please.197266/............']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/heartbroken-and-confused-some-insight-please.197266/..............[/URL]. Here's the thread. I was not being a net nanny. I was disagreeing with fundamentally bad advice from Smith who was of the opinion that Alley should stay in an abusive relationsip because 30 was too old to find a better spouse. And I stand by that.

I was blunt but it is not bullying to call someone out and disagree with their bad advice. And I was polite about it. Even nice you read my subsequent posts.
Aldj was also a respondent and she disagreed too with Smith. But there was no bullying and no net nannying certainly not by me or her.
As for Smith leaving...that was a result of her experiences in multple threads. Not just that one.

If you are going to accuse me of something at least post all of the information incliding the link.

Oh my memory finally kicked in and.... Yes in the second half of the thread I did get ticked and either deco or I started a new thread- I dont recall which. And I may have indeed net nanny-ed. Why? Because Smith decided that Allys thread about her abusive relationship was the appropriate place to GBCPS. Which was rude and selfish.

So I'll cop to being the pot in this case. Because threadjacking is okay...but this was an extreme and completly derailed Allys thread where she was seriously hurting and instead, turned it into a thread about Smith. Smith should have started a new thread.

Smith is back. Again. Under yet another name. Her third, if I'm not mistaken.

Have been meaning to ask if there are rules about multiple identities but meh.

 

[Gypsy]

Interesting. I guess we aren't all monsters and killers and what not if she's back. What is her current nickname?


Regarding Ally's thread. Just reread. I stand by what I wrote.

 

[Maria D]

Gypsy, I didn't bring up the thread, and in fact deliberately left out details of its content, because of the wise advice given towards the end that it may be in the OPs best legal interests not to have that thread out there. So much for that.

You are still maintaining that the offender should have started a new thread. She was rude and impolite you say. Sez you. I didn't find her rude and impolite at all. Not one bit ever. (edited to add: And apparently neither did Ella, whose opinion is the only one that matters.) Then and now I would not tell her where and what to post.

In fact, I found the thread in question to be in poor taste and did not feel it belonged in Hangout. I said nothing. I was appalled that her so-called friends were telling her that they weren't surprised, they fully expected the turn of events in her life. I didn't say anything to them either.

Bottom line - not my job to police what people post.

 

[Maria D]

Have been meaning to ask if there are rules about multiple identities but meh.

You can find the policies here

https://www.pricescope.com/content/forum-policies

 

[Gypsy]

Maria, I don't even know where to start.

First, if Ally wanted to she could have had the thread deleted. It's still up. So, I'm not sure why YOU are policing ME about posting it (see, there you go, pots and kettles). Her Legal interests are HER's to worry about. Not yours.
Second, if you are going to make accusations about the events in a certain thread, don't be surprised if someone posts the thread as, you know, FACTS in response to you. If you really didn't want it brought up, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT IT UP. But to criticize ME for posting thread when YOU are the one that brought it up is all kinds of wrong.
Third, as for impolite and rude. I didn't say she was and impolite and rude person. I said that posting a GBCPS in the middle of someone's serious thread asking for advice about a bad situation is selfish and rude. I criticized the action not the person HERE, in this thread. NOT In that one. In fact I didn't interact with her at all about the GBCPS in that thread, as you can see if you look at it. I didn't net nanny her about it.
Finally, about "so called" friends and Ally. TRUE FRIENDS tell each other the truth. Even when it hurts. Why should we have lied to Ally. We want the best for her. Should be have lied because it would have been 'nicer'? That's NOT nice. Quite the contrary. Ally needed to hear that this is not an isolated thing, that it's a pattern over years of abuse. We would have done her no favors if we'd have pretended to be surprised.

I appreciate your post about it not being your business to police what others post. And you are right. As Monnie says, Not my Circus not my monkeys. But DISAGREEING with someone is not policing them. If you go back and read what I wrote to Smith, you'll see that while I disagreed with her advice, and said so, I didn't not object to her right to offer it. Disagreeing with someone isn't the same as policing them or bullying them.

If you read Smith's GBCPS post you will see that she herself states that her leaving (which apparently didn't take) was the result of multiple threads worth of 'insults' and that this one was the last straw for her. And apparently she's back...so really, not the best example of someone being so harmed by the meanies on the board as to have departed permanently.

As for the moderators leaving it be... you are right. They did, and that is what matters. But you'll also notice they left MY posts, and ALDJ's and DECO's up as well. So our posts couldn't have been cruel or nasty or rude or bullying... or whatever you want to accuse us of. So if you are going to post that Smith's post was fine because the moderators left it up... I'm going to counter that by saying OUR posts were fine, cause they left those up too.
EDITED ABOVE.

 

[Trekkie]

Interesting. I guess we aren't all monsters and killers and what not if she's back. What is her current nickname?


Regarding Ally's thread. Just reread. I stand by what I wrote.

JanesJewels.

She's mostly staying out of Hangout this time, which is probably for the best. Minimises the opportunities for her to get all butt hurt again.

 

[Trekkie]

Have been meaning to ask if there are rules about multiple identities but meh.

You can find the policies here

https://www.pricescope.com/content/forum-policies

Thanks, Maria. The only reference to multiple identities refers to shilling, and I don't think Smith is a shill.

Thanks for pointing it out though.

 

[Gypsy]

Interesting. I guess we aren't all monsters and killers and what not if she's back. What is her current nickname?


Regarding Ally's thread. Just reread. I stand by what I wrote.

JanesJewels.

She's mostly staying out of Hangout this time, which is probably for the best. Minimises the opportunities for her to get all butt hurt again.

Oh I saw her posting on RT. And I wondered cause the posting style seemed familiar but the post count was low. But my memory is trash, in general, so I didn't think too much about it. There is only one poster I recognize no matter the 'skin' they wear. And Smith is not it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Trekkie|
Smith is back. Again. Under yet another name. Her third, if I'm not mistaken.

Have been meaning to ask if there are rules about multiple identities but meh.[/quote]



How can you be so sure?...

 

[Calliecake]

I think it's a pretty fair assumption that we are all going to have difference of opinions. I would much rather someone tell me their point of view and why they feel the way they do than someone making snarky passive aggressive comments. Everyone one of us has different life experiences. Of course we are going to view things differently. I love hearing others opinions and I like getting different perspectives.

Gypsy, please don't ever stop posting!

 

[kenny]

Yeah, threads and experiences like that does give one an unpleasant feeling but fortunately it seems like those are few and far between. What I would have liked was if that poster had stayed and ignored those few who were being mean to her because there were others here who supported her. But she let them drive her away and ultimately that's her decision, her choice and she did what was right for her. But she could have stayed and stood her ground. Those ladies don't rule PS yanno? I think by far there are more nice people here than those who behave meanly. Just ignore the "mean" girls.

Not anymore, Kenny is the king now!...

DF, go peel me some grapes.

 

[Maria D]

Maria, I don't even know where to start.

First, if Ally wanted to she could have had the thread deleted. It's still up. So, I'm not sure why YOU are policing ME about posting it (see, there you go, pots and kettles). I'm not. You said I should have brought it up to back up my assertions. I'm telling you why I didn't. I don't care what you do.

Second, if you are going to make accusations about the events in a certain thread, don't be surprised if someone posts the thread as, you know, FACTS in response to you. If you really didn't want it brought up, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT IT UP. True, that's why I wrote "So much for that."
But to criticize ME for posting thread when YOU are the one that brought it up is all kinds of wrong. Again, I don't care what you do.

Third, as for impolite and rude. I didn't say she was and impolite and rude person. I said that posting a GBCPS in the middle of someone's serious thread asking for advice about a bad situation is selfish and rude. I disagree. It's your opinion. Your opinion (and mine) do not matter. We are not moderators.

I criticized the action not the person . That applies toward ANYONE that does it. Not just Smith.

Finally, about "so called" friends. TRUE FRIENDS tell each other the truth. Even when it hurts. Why should we have lied to Ally. We want the best for her. Should be have lied because it would have been 'nicer'? That's NOT nice. Quite the contrary. I don't care what you or her other "true friends" do. If she were my true friend (which in my world is a real life friend), having seen that post I would have emailed her privately and given her advice that did not include telling her that I saw the whole thing coming because it was never meant to be to begin with. That's me. I don't tell others what to do.

I appreciate your post about it not being your business to police what others post. And you are right. As Monnie says, Not my Circus not my monkeys. But DISAGREEING with someone is not policing them. If you go back and read what I wrote to Smith, you'll see that while I disagreed with her advice, and said so, I didn't not object to her right to offer it. Actually, you told her she was not being helpful because she didn't know the back story. You told her that she should reserve that kind of advice for when she knew all the details. To me that sounded like you objected to her posting it, but that was just my impression. I would never tell you NOT to post that because, again, I don't care what you do. Disagreeing with someone isn't the same as policing them or bullying them.

If you read Smith's GBCPS post you will see that she herself states that her leaving (which apparently didn't take) was the result of multiple threads worth of 'insults' and that this one was the last straw for her. And apparently she's back...so really, not the best example of someone being so harmed by the meanies on the board as to have departed permanently.

I don't blame you or anyone else for whether or not a member decides to stay or leave. It's his/her own decision. Your perception of my intent is inaccurate. I didn't bring up this form of net nannying because I am trying to stop it. That's Ella's job, not mine. I'm bringing it to light for anyone who thinks their net nannying is somehow better than someone else's. It's all the same thing.

 

[Maria D]

Have been meaning to ask if there are rules about multiple identities but meh.

You can find the policies here

https://www.pricescope.com/content/forum-policies

Thanks, Maria. The only reference to multiple identities refers to shilling, and I don't think Smith is a shill.

Thanks for pointing it out though.

I don't know that ending one id and starting a new one would count as multiples. I *think* multiples means having more than one id at one time.

 

[Trekkie]

[quote="Trekkie|
Smith is back. Again. Under yet another name. Her third, if I'm not mistaken.

Have been meaning to ask if there are rules about multiple identities but meh.

How can you be so sure?... [/quote]

Posting style seemed familiar (idiosyncratic use of English, multiple >$1000 purchases with great care taken to tell us all exactly how much $ was spent), as did her name - it seemed a bit pretentious to refer her collection as "jewels". Only know one other poster who so did that. So looked at her jewellery. Recognised a pendant.

There were a couple of other things too, but I'd rather not bring them up in case I get net nannied.

 

[Gypsy]

Callie, I don't know if "EVER" is going to happen. LOL. But I have no plans to leave. And if I did, it wouldn't be with a GBCPS post, it would just be because I've moved on.

 

[Karl_K]

In any community there are things that are not right that don't rise to the level of breaking rules/laws.
Pointing that out at times is not being a net-nanny.
I do that myself at times.

When it is a problem is when someone comes in and tries to impose their views on the community and being a bully doing it. That is being a net-nanny and you can expect push back.
The PS community has never been one to accept it and at times backlash against the person doing it are going to happen.

 

[Trekkie]

Have been meaning to ask if there are rules about multiple identities but meh.

You can find the policies here

https://www.pricescope.com/content/forum-policies

Thanks, Maria. The only reference to multiple identities refers to shilling, and I don't think Smith is a shill.

Thanks for pointing it out though.

I don't know that ending one id and starting a new one would count as multiples. I *think* multiples means having more than one id at one time.

1. Smith1940
2. Smith1942
3. JanesJewels

Three identities, with a two year overlap between the last two.

I don't particularly care how many identities she has. If anything, I find it mildly amusing how she repeatedly castigates the community for being mean, flounces off, and then skulks back.

 

[Gypsy]

I appreciate your post about it not being your business to police what others post. And you are right. As Monnie says, Not my Circus not my monkeys. But DISAGREEING with someone is not policing them. If you go back and read what I wrote to Smith, you'll see that while I disagreed with her advice, and said so, I didn't not object to her right to offer it. Actually, you told her she was not being helpful because she didn't know the back story. You told her that she should reserve that kind of advice for when she knew all the details. To me that sounded like you objected to her posting it, but that was just my impression. I would never tell you NOT to post that because, again, I don't care what you do. Disagreeing with someone isn't the same as policing them or bullying them.

Not me. I MENTIONED that she SHOULD go back and read the old posts. BUT I did not at any time say that her posts had no value because she didn't have the back story, those are two different things. I objected to her actual advice ITSELF on its own merits. Here are my posts. You have me confused with someone else, maybe Kaleigh, because THIS is all I posted, plus a simple response to HER comments about being rushed that serious advice should perhaps be offered when she has more time to research. THAT'S IT. It NONE of it was net nannying. It was a CONVERSATION and a disagreement of opinions. I was NOT being hypocritical OR net nannying:

Smith, for the love. She's 33. She's young. There are lots of men out there.

The relationship is abusive. Has been for a long time. And it's mutual. You don't have to physically hit someone to abuse them.

You should go back and read Ally's old posts.

And scaring someone into staying in an abusive relationship because there may not be a lot of good fish left in the sea.....

I am married. Have been with my husband since 1999. And I advocate for saving marriage where I can. But there are huge problems and red flags here, and frankly, these two shouldn't have married in the first place (and we tried to talk her out of it).

Kaleigh and Gypsy you're right, I haven't read the back story. I just wanted to help her and it's a busy day, so I didn't go hunting.

I wasn't really trying to scare her, but IF you want the option of kids, if you're 33 and still have yet to go through a divorce, you don't have oodles of time, when you work it out: First, you have to meet someone, then it takes quite a while to date and decide if they're the right person for you. Many people - not all, of course - want to be married first and then, ideally, have at least a little time together before the rigours of raising kids takes over. Meeting someone and going through the dating process can take a few years. I was single for ten years before I met my husband.

I did say in my message a couple of times that some divorces are meant to be and she should divorce if that's what's best.

She doesn't want kids. At least, not with him.

As for pools shrinking. Not necessarily. Lots of people divorce from their first marriage. Pool opens back up.

I appreciate you were trying to help, but I think maybe helping folks on topics such as marriage should be reserved for times when you can do some research instead of posting on the fly. Otherwise all you are doing is confusing, not helping. Which I know was not your intent.

 

[kenny]

Each of us considers ourselves to be pretty groovy; that's natural.
Admit it or not we all would find it nice if everyone in the world was more like us.
To a person with an opposing opinion, any post expressing an opinion could be interpreted as net nannying.

Net nannying is not out there; it's existence is not black and white; it's perception occurring in the brain of the reader.
IMO, like beauty, net nannying is often in the eye of the beholder.

I can't count how many times someone calls a post net nannying.
But then another poster says it's not net nannying, but it's just that the second poster shares the perspective that was labled net nannying.

Accepting that people just vary would reduce net nannying.
IOW, just because you think THAT does not mean you are trying to get anyone else to think THAT.
You just think THAT, and are saying so.
If people can vary is your default perspective then opinions are not threatening.
Opinions no longer are bullets aimed at you.

Unfortunately often when person A reads the opinion of person B, A assumes B is not just expressing B's opinion.
Rather, A assumes B wants A to adopt that opinion.
This assumption is defective thinking and leads to 64.2154% of the conflicts here on PS.

The other conflicts are when one person really does expect everyone to adopt their opinion.
That child leash thread was the perfect example where the OP actually thanked those who shared her opinion for 'understanding'.
Anyone, like 95% percent, who didn't share her opinion was guilty of 'not understanding'.
Massive exasperation ensued for six pages.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/putting-your-child-on-a-leash.202348/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/putting-your-child-on-a-leash.202348/[/URL]

Did I just 'net nanny'?
I'm sure a few people think so.

For some reason that mystifies me, not getting that people vary is MUCH more common on PS than on other fora I frequent.
Hence, Kenny's futile people vary campaign.

Maybe diamonds cause drain bamage.

 

[crown1]

Callie, I don't know if "EVER" is going to happen. LOL. But I have no plans to leave. And if I did, it wouldn't be with a GBCPS post, it would just be because I've moved on.

To be fair, I believe you did state you would not pursue this thread but have repeatedly. I am aware that is not GBCP but a fact I think is relevant.

This thread has certainly gone South big time.

 

[Maria D]

I appreciate you were trying to help, but I think maybe helping folks on topics such as marriage should be reserved for times when you can do some research instead of posting on the fly. Otherwise all you are doing is confusing, not helping. Which I know was not your intent.

[/quote]

Yep, that ^ is the quote I was referring to. I stand by my paraphrase of it.

 

[Kaleigh]

I haven't been here very much. Was hoping to find this thread to be interesting and constructive. Once gain there goes the finger pointing. Naming people or grouping them all together as the bullies. The piling on and such.

Since I have been a member for almost 10 years ( Nov 18th) I really miss the early days. You could speak your mind, make a valid point. It was the norm to do so. I found much to be very educational, intersting and learned a heck of a lot. Not just diamonds but posting on the internet and giving the benfit of the doubt or saying if there was a lack of it. Did I get slammed a few times?? Yup. Did I deserve it ,
You betcha. Did it bother me, perhaps for a minute. But went back to learn where perhaps what I was saying wasn't spot on... Maybe I could have said it a bit clearer...

BUT what I do know, the people are great here. And many of the old timers come back and I love that they do.

It may not be the same PS but it's still our PS and our little community...

 

[pyramid]

I think that people left because the old cut club took over and people got more greedy for huge diamonds. Although old cut diamonds were popular with celebrities, most young couples were probably looking for more modern and ofcourse couldn't get a Six Carat U color vs2 diamond in a custom made setting which was also antique looking.

 

[pyramid]

With the increase of diamond prices in 2011 some maybe thought to abandon the hearts and arrows ideal cut diamonds spoken so highly of here, because the people giving advice here also started saying that hearts were not needed, after the dealer before who did appear on the board then were really speaking highly of them and saying the look was all in the hearts and it could be seen as a better brig mjhter diamond from above because of it. This was conflicting information.

The dealers were no longer allowed to give advice and so no longer give interesting articles and debates either about cut as cut in a way has become downgraded although those who are helping customers now, who are previous customers themselves, still say that cut is king, this is conflicting. Cut was downgraded by GIA giving excellent grades to steep deep diamonds in other words saying the work that went on here for years did not mean a thing and lots of diamonds are great.

The old cut is the opposite of the ideal cut in that peole liked the diamond cut for what it was a bit wonky sometimes but they wanted good pattern, no word of cut angles and all that so that is conflicting to the ideal cut where you stressed over angles and each degree and put it into a database the hca to get a grade, also you get idealscope and asset readings, none of this with old cut diamonds. Therefore a newbie must think well it is just a fad because you do it with one but not the other. Conflicting information again.

In my opinion the boards lost a lot when people like Rockdoc were no longer here, he was always answering questions as well the other dealers and although some appraisers still do there is not such a presence of professional people here. If learning from scratch I would rather go to a jeweller even a bricks and mortar one than believe one time customers that this is the way to buy a diamond no matter how much they know. I also feel that those giving the information are biased towards value for money and so will recommend a mid grade color and lower clarity as you cannot see it and the world of diamonds as being rare is not being sold here at all. I mean I don't want a J colored SI2, I want a diamond because a diamond is magical and rare and sparkly and worth a lot of money, so a smaller F VS1 would be more interesting to me than one with good value so I can get larger. This is never mentioned it is just assumed everyone is the same and wants a diamond that looks good but is not that valuable. It has taken the magic out of diamonds that jewellers tried to put into them. Some times fairy tales are better even if they are not true.

Now it seems that diamonds are not that special and the young people prefer stainless steel to gold and precious jewels. Just a theory that may be true unless you live in Asia. I wonder how they market them, are the jewellers there saying get a J Si2 of over a carat or go for a W 2 carat old cut diamond that belonged to someone else whom you never knew and is not an heirloom to your family.

Conflicting information is the reason why I think.