Why is PS slower than 10 yrs ago?

[Gypsy]

Lara, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

Smithcompton was criticized because she personally attacked a number of posters (against forum rules). Not for "naming them." And also for the irony of her complaining about those poster "bullying" others, when she herself was bullying them in her personal attack.

If you are going to state an issue, please represent that issue accurately.

 

[Kaleigh]

Back in the day you could really discuss stuff. People still do but it's not like it was. It's a watered down version which make many happy. I keep checking in to keep up, and still love PS. It's a part of me, the whole community, etc... Gosh 10 years. Anybody want some pie???

 

[kenny]

I just can't understand why there are so few people left on PS ... I mean ... I've been posting more than ever.



... Oh, Wait!

 

[ame]

I just can't understand why there are so few people left on PS ... I mean ... I've been posting more than ever.



... Oh, Wait!

It isn't just that you're here.

I do think it's sad that a lot of the major regulars are long gone. I am sure some of it is new hobbies, some is life moving on, and some is Facebook groups are more interesting. I am sure they lurk, they just don't post.

 

[kenny]

I just can't understand why there are so few people left on PS ... I mean ... I've been posting more than ever.



... Oh, Wait!

It isn't just that you're here. ...

DANG!

I'm going to have to stop being so nice.

 

[LaraOnline]

Lara, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

Smithcompton was criticized because she personally attacked a number of posters (against forum rules). Not for "naming them." And also for the irony of her complaining about those poster "bullying" others, when she herself was bullying them in her personal attack.

If you are going to state an issue, please represent that issue accurately.

On a ratio of posts, I'd say you often expect to get the last word, Gypsy.
But I wonder why you feel why you get to define the terms of the debate, right down to dictionary meanings?
Smithcompton's jewellery collection, and her behaviour in terms of leaving or rejoining the forum, was discussed in unedifying detail.
And that is as rude as any of her own behaviour that you are so quick to critique.
But, by all means...

I am just exploring reasons why people may be reluctant to post on PS...

 

[aljdewey]

Hi,

The disagreements, or opposing opinions in discussions, cause a problem because some people are relentless in continuing to state their opposition. It seems to me that there are people who won't withdraw. So, if we happen to have a pile-on, which frequently happens, it feels and looks like a pounding against a poster. Once, after such a pounding one poster said she "loathed" the other poster. In fact Gypsy, AJ Deco and others were the pounders. It wasn't a decent discussion, you were killers, and enjoyed it. Then when the poster leaves, you call her a whiner. There are times you should stop.

Some people do feel superior, and need to deride others who are more able than they are. They can continue to feel superior at someone elses expense. The internet is not the best place for learning or good discussion. Too many variables with people behind a screen. I read some posts from some people. I do read Packrat, as I feel she is genuine, as Ksinger is as well.

My suggestion is, by all means disagree, but don't continue en masse to pound another.

I don’t know who exactly you think you are, Annette…..but I do know for a fact who you are not:

You are not the owner of this site – you do not make the rules.
You are not a PS-designated moderator here – so you are not sanctioned to decide when conversations stop or not.
And you are most assuredly not qualified at all to credibly represent my motivations for posting or how I feel when doing so.
Killers who ‘enjoy’ it – seriously? Not only is it an absurdly gross accusation, but it’s so off the mark it’s ridiculous.

I't is comical and outlandish to me that you'll point fingers at others in an accusation of superiority while simultaneously taking it upon yourself to dictate how others should engage here. As Deb suggests, you are not sprinkled with some special fairy dust that entitles you alone to determine when or how frequently others should or shouldn’t post or when conversations should conclude.

As a poster here, you are certainly entitled to hold opinions and to express them. You don’t like the way I post? That’s completely fine – you’re entitled to that, and you’re even entitled to say so. But let’s be completely clear that right isn’t exclusive to you. I am equally entitled to hold any opinion I’d like to and to express it as often as I’d like to, as long as I am posting within the PS guidelines and I feel it’s germane to the discussion. It doesn't matter to me if you like or dislike me or my posts, so I will continue participating (or not) in accordance with my beliefs, not yours.

I believe that conversations are relevant as long as two or more people continue engaging, and they naturally fade to conclusion when people disengage – that is, only when the participants themselves decide to stop, not because you or others tell them to. If you believe a conversation should die off, the best way to influence that is to lead by example and withdraw yourself. If others agree, they will follow suit.

As we are on the topic of expressing opinions, I'm really over the broad accusations in threads of piling on or group-think. It seems fairly obvious to me that people who have some things in common might also hold some of the same opinions, so there isn't really a need for a conspiracy when like-minded people agree. Speaking strictly for myself, I do not post as a “voice of the chorus” or as a delegate on behalf of others. I post my own thoughts, which are represented as just that. I could be the only dissenter in the room to popular opinion, and that would be equally fine with me.

I’m very comfortable in expressing my thoughts directly, and I don’t need validation through others’ agreement. If you dislike that directness, you can choose to exert the self-control to simply ignore my posts or utilize the PS block functionality. Of course, you don't have to do either of these things.........but if it bothers you, it is within your control to do something about it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Alj...the pounder!

 

[Gypsy]

Lara, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

Smithcompton was criticized because she personally attacked a number of posters (against forum rules). Not for "naming them." And also for the irony of her complaining about those poster "bullying" others, when she herself was bullying them in her personal attack.

If you are going to state an issue, please represent that issue accurately.

On a ratio of posts, I'd say you often expect to get the last word, Gypsy.
But I wonder why you feel why you get to define the terms of the debate, right down to dictionary meanings?
Smithcompton's jewellery collection, and her behaviour in terms of leaving or rejoining the forum, was discussed in unedifying detail.
And that is as rude as any of her own behaviour that you are so quick to critique.
But, by all means...

I am just exploring reasons why people may be reluctant to post on PS...

Lara, I did not know people kept track of who posts last and who doesn't. But it seems to me that the people keeping track of that type of thing, like you, probably care about that more than I do.

First word or last, I do believe in correcting inaccuracies. And that is all I did. If you want ascribe some other motive to it... perhaps that is a reflection of your values, not mine.

 

[LaraOnline]

Now you have glancingly introduced my 'values' into the debate. I think that's a tricky one.
As an Arbiter of Truth perhaps you might concede that one PS user sneering at another's jewellery collection and deliberately attempting to embarrass same PS user by tracking their private online movements is in fact a Very Nasty thing to do.

 

[chrono]

I do think it's sad that a lot of the major regulars are long gone. I am sure some of it is new hobbies, some is life moving on, and some is Facebook groups are more interesting. I am sure they lurk, they just don't post.

The solution has nothing to do with the site but its participants. If we want PS to move quicker, posters (and lurkers) need to be more active on the boards. It is up to the posters to be a regular, and once they know their stuff, contribute back to the boards by being a major regular. If PS is boring, it is up to those still here to make things interesting to draw others in. PS makes or breaks based on what WE make out of it.

 

[walkinfaith]

Now you have glancingly introduced my 'values' into the debate. I think that's a tricky one.
As an Arbiter of Truth perhaps you might concede that one PS user sneering at another's jewellery collection and deliberately attempting to embarrass same PS user by tracking their private online movements is in fact a Very Nasty thing to do.

Sorry to butt in, but I think that perhaps you're confusing 'smitcompton' with 'Smith1942'/'JanesJewels.' Just thought that clarification might alleviate some of the frustration.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I do think it's sad that a lot of the major regulars are long gone. I am sure some of it is new hobbies, some is life moving on, and some is Facebook groups are more interesting. I am sure they lurk, they just don't post.

The solution has nothing to do with the site but its participants. If we want PS to move quicker, posters (and lurkers) need to be more active on the boards. It is up to the posters to be a regular, and once they know their stuff, contribute back to the boards by being a major regular. If PS is boring, it is up to those still here to make things interesting to draw others in. PS makes or breaks based on what WE make out of it.

Butttt, can we put up with 10 more Kenny?..

 

[chrono]

Luckily there is only one DF....at least I hope so, unless he is giving away Octavias to everyone.

 

[kenny]

Now you have glancingly introduced my 'values' into the debate. I think that's a tricky one.
As an Arbiter of Truth perhaps you might concede that one PS user sneering at another's jewellery collection and deliberately attempting to embarrass same PS user by tracking their private online movements is in fact a Very Nasty thing to do.

Sorry to butt in, but I think that perhaps you're confusing 'smitcompton' with 'Smith1942'/'JanesJewels.' Just thought that clarification might alleviate some of the frustration.

I do get confused because it has been stated that one poster here has a sequence of names.
I think smith1940 was one, followed by smith1942 followed by one or more others (perhaps Janesmith?), but I can't keep up.

Can the person of whom we speak, speak up and clarify if this is true and what exactly are her names?

Things cannot be too clear and it would be best for the poster herself to clarify.

 

[kenny]

Luckily there is only one DF....at least I hope so, unless he is giving away Octavias to everyone.

Why is it that Octavio-owning men are such naughty troublemakers?

Karl, have you put a spell on Octavias?

 

[kenny]

I do think it's sad that a lot of the major regulars are long gone. I am sure some of it is new hobbies, some is life moving on, and some is Facebook groups are more interesting. I am sure they lurk, they just don't post.

The solution has nothing to do with the site but its participants. If we want PS to move quicker, posters (and lurkers) need to be more active on the boards. It is up to the posters to be a regular, and once they know their stuff, contribute back to the boards by being a major regular. If PS is boring, it is up to those still here to make things interesting to draw others in. PS makes or breaks based on what WE make out of it.

Butttt, can we put up with 10 more Kenny?..

Please stop talking about my butttt.

 

[AprilBaby]

Now you have glancingly introduced my 'values' into the debate. I think that's a tricky one.
As an Arbiter of Truth perhaps you might concede that one PS user sneering at another's jewellery collection and deliberately attempting to embarrass same PS user by tracking their private online movements is in fact a Very Nasty thing to do.

Sorry to butt in, but I think that perhaps you're confusing 'smitcompton' with 'Smith1942'/'JanesJewels.' Just thought that clarification might alleviate some of the frustration.

I do get confused because it has been stated that one poster here has a sequence of names.
I think smith1940 was one, followed by smith1942 followed by one or more others (perhaps Janesmith?), but I can't keep up.

Can the person of whom we speak, speak up and clarify if this is true and what exactly are her names?

Things cannot be too clear and it would be best for the poster herself to clarify.

She left about a year ago after a combo of bashing and playing victim.

 

[walkinfaith]

Lara, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

Smithcompton was criticized because she personally attacked a number of posters (against forum rules). Not for "naming them." And also for the irony of her complaining about those poster "bullying" others, when she herself was bullying them in her personal attack.

If you are going to state an issue, please represent that issue accurately.

On a ratio of posts, I'd say you often expect to get the last word, Gypsy.
But I wonder why you feel why you get to define the terms of the debate, right down to dictionary meanings?
Smithcompton's jewellery collection, and her behaviour in terms of leaving or rejoining the forum, was discussed in unedifying detail.
And that is as rude as any of her own behaviour that you are so quick to critique.
But, by all means...

I am just exploring reasons why people may be reluctant to post on PS...

Now you have glancingly introduced my 'values' into the debate. I think that's a tricky one.
As an Arbiter of Truth perhaps you might concede that one PS user sneering at another's jewellery collection and deliberately attempting to embarrass same PS user by tracking their private online movements is in fact a Very Nasty thing to do.

Sorry to butt in, but I think that perhaps you're confusing 'smitcompton' with 'Smith1942'/'JanesJewels.' Just thought that clarification might alleviate some of the frustration.

I do get confused because it has been stated that one poster here has a sequence of names.
I think smith1940 was one, followed by smith1942 followed by one or more others (perhaps Janesmith?), but I can't keep up.

Can the person of whom we speak, speak up and clarify if this is true and what exactly are her names?

Things cannot be too clear and it would be best for the poster herself to clarify.

Moreover, smitcompton is the user who has posted in this thread, while Smith1942 aka JanesJewels is the user about whom comments have been made in regards to her leaving and returning, her jewelry collection. I think LaraOnline thought they were all one in the same, so in other words she incorrectly thought smitcompton = Smith 1942/Smith1940/JanesJewels.

 

[Gypsy]

Moreover, smitcompton is the user who has posted in this thread, while Smith1942 aka JanesJewels is the user about whom comments have been made in regards to her leaving and returning, her jewelry collection. I think LaraOnline thought they were all one in the same, so in other words she incorrectly thought smitcompton = Smith 1942/Smith1940/JanesJewels.

Ahh, another "Arbiter of Truth".

Yes, I think you are right and Lara did seem to collapse the adventures of two different posters into one.

She really doesn't seem to appreciate being corrected though. So you might want to be careful.

 

[LaraOnline]

Lol you are hilarious.
And take yourselves rather seriously.
An amusing combination!
I dont have time to read back through this thread again. And work out if both smitcompton AND smith vs Janesjewels were being discussed as single people in this thread.
Yes tbh I did originally read this thread as conflating smitcompton with janesjewels.
And to further the confusion for some reason I personally was always a little confused between smith and smitcompton.
Additionally I currently access PS mostly through my phone so typos and little mess ups have to stay as they are.
So two people were discussed unedifyingly in this thread lol smitcompton and then smith/ jane rather than smitcompton alone. ??
I have to admit I felt smitcompton had been singled out for the pleasure.
Oh apart from now me as well that is.
LOL

 

[walkinfaith]

Lol you are hilarious.
And take yourselves rather seriously.
An amusing combination!
I dont have time to read back through this thread again. And work out if both smitcompton AND smith vs Janesjewels were being discussed as single people in this thread.
Yes tbh I did originally read this thread as conflating smitcompton with janesjewels.
And to further the confusion for some reason I personally was always a little confused between smith and smitcompton.
Additionally I currently access PS mostly through my phone so typos and little mess ups have to stay as they are.
So two people were discussed unedifyingly in this thread lol smitcompton and then smith/ jane rather than smitcompton alone. ??
I have to admit I felt smitcompton had been singled out for the pleasure.
Oh apart from now me as well that is.
LOL

I genuinely thought that clearing that up would alleviate some of your frustration in going back and forth discussing exactly what happened in this thread, but it appears to have had the opposite effect. Apologies for that!

 

[AGBF]

I genuinely thought that clearing that up would alleviate some of your frustration in going back and forth discussing exactly what happened in this thread, but it appears to have had the opposite effect. Apologies for that!

You did good. The effects it had aren't within your control.

Deb

 

[Gypsy]

I genuinely thought that clearing that up would alleviate some of your frustration in going back and forth discussing exactly what happened in this thread, but it appears to have had the opposite effect. Apologies for that!

You did good. The effects it had aren't within your control.

Deb

Walkinfaith, just because someone doesn't appreciate you stepping in with the best intentions, doesn't mean that it is any less admirable. You did good.

 

[walkinfaith]

Thank you AGBF & Gypsy, that is so kind of you both, I really appreciate it

 

[LaraOnline]

Lol you are hilarious.
And take yourselves rather seriously.
An amusing combination!
I dont have time to read back through this thread again. And work out if both smitcompton AND smith vs Janesjewels were being discussed as single people in this thread.
Yes tbh I did originally read this thread as conflating smitcompton with janesjewels.
And to further the confusion for some reason I personally was always a little confused between smith and smitcompton.
Additionally I currently access PS mostly through my phone so typos and little mess ups have to stay as they are.
So two people were discussed unedifyingly in this thread lol smitcompton and then smith/ jane rather than smitcompton alone. ??
I have to admit I felt smitcompton had been singled out for the pleasure.
Oh apart from now me as well that is.
LOL

I genuinely thought that clearing that up would alleviate some of your frustration in going back and forth discussing exactly what happened in this thread, but it appears to have had the opposite effect. Apologies for that!

It's fine. This is really a conversation about twaddle. If you look at my original post, yes, you will see that I did in fact read that the previous contributors to this thread had nailed down smitcompton as the one with the unworthy jewellery collection, and the ever changing avatars.
While I don't have time to go through the thread once more, I still in fact do recall the thread as running that way.

But ultimately, whether previous contributors sneered at smitcompton, or another user, my original post still stands.
My mother often told me that when you point a finger, there are three more pointing back at you. Smitcompton got the rounds of the kitchen, and she or another were ridiculed. Why the silence on the treatment of that 'mystery poster'.
No-one should have to run the gauntlet in this space.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi Lara,


Just to clarify for you that I,Smitcompton, answered the question in the original ops post. I suggested that certain people, who I named, had treated another poster, Smith1942 badly. It was Smith1942 whose jewelry they were referring to. Apparently they are now saying that Smith1942 is posting under other names. I have checked myself and one poster is from Florida, Janesjewels, and the other they mentioned is Janesmith. She is from Washington and appears to have a scientific background.

I brought this up because I felt bad that I hadn't stuck up for Smith1942 as well as I should have when this was occurring. There is one person who did stick up for her and that is JUnebug, who I will always admire for her aid to Smith1942.

I have been asked who decides what is Ok to say. It seems that free speech is at stake here . I decide what is acceptable to me. Thats all I am concerned with. I decide for me.


Hope this helps.


Annette

 

[junebug17]

Hi Lara,


Just to clarify for you that I,Smitcompton, answered the question in the original ops post. I suggested that certain people, who I named, had treated another poster, Smith1942 badly. It was Smith1942 whose jewelry they were referring to. Apparently they are now saying that Smith1942 is posting under other names. I have checked myself and one poster is from Florida, Janesjewels, and the other they mentioned is Janesmith. She is from Washington and appears to have a scientific background.

I brought this up because I felt bad that I hadn't stuck up for Smith1942 as well as I should have when this was occurring. There is one person who did stick up for her and that is JUnebug, who I will always admire for her aid to Smith1942.

I have been asked who decides what is Ok to say. It seems that free speech is at stake here . I decide what is acceptable to me. Thats all I am concerned with. I decide for me.


Hope this helps.


Annette

Thanks Annette…I felt Smith was treated badly in that thread, and in a few others, and I still do…I've also seen a few other members treated rather shabbily IMO…I've curtailed my participation on PS and these days I stick to jewelry threads, I steer clear of the controversial topics, and I take frequent breaks. In a way I'm grateful for that thread (and a few others) because it opened my eyes to the fact that there is an undercurrent of toxicity running below the surface of PS that I can do without.

But there are posters here that I like and admire, and I really like seeing other peoples' new acquisitions, so I stick around a bit. So…I really don't know why PS is slower these days and I suppose it's a combination of different things, but my personal reason is stated above.

 

[Calliecake]

Junebug, I wish you would post more often. I miss you! Callie

 

[junebug17]

Thanks Callie, that's nice of you to say! I always enjoy your posts, you're a great addition to PS!