Oh, I see. But how come?
Again with the “smarmy.” Well, overuse it all you want, presumably for lack of much other vocabulary. “Odious” is an interesting addition, though, a wrod associated with hatred in all of its many forms. I realize that you are applying the word to me and my utterances. Do you ever wonder why you would choose to use such word, in any context, in the first place?
Too easy. Loft me a nice, easy pitch and I’m likely to take a swing. But this one’s just too easy.
I’d say you’re treading on thin ice, here, as to appropriate content for any of these boards.
And not to compare myself with Benjamin Franklin, or anything, but how long do you think it would take him to get punched in the mouth, in the presence of yourself and other people you know? Those many aphorisms from Poor Richard’s Almanack generally make great sense, but few really want to hear them. Especially if they make sense.
He’s far from being on my ignore list either. Given how little I use that feature, what I’ve figured would be more useful is something like a ‘User Profile’, but one you fill out on other people. Then I would be able to jot down a short note of my impressions of posters, for context later.
[ul]
[li]‘Knows electronics’[/li][li]‘Smarmy Bastard’[/li][li]‘Has sex with sheep’[/li][/ul]
You know, I like the idea. Closely examine your thoughts and consider if you really like the idea, too. Careful.
[QUOTE=Nanoda]
[li]‘Knows electronics’[/li][/QUOTE]
If this in any way in reference to me, I stated that I had “learned some carpentry.” Different in about every respect from “knows electronics.” Do you read?
[QUOTE=Nanoda]
[li]‘Smarmy Bastard’[/li][/QUOTE]
Oy, de shmarmy it is again! And, my parents were married when I was born. Still, I think it is cruel in this day and age to to use such a term as “bastard” when plenty of ably-contributing members of society were born of parents out of wedlock. It’s just mean.
[QUOTE=Nanoda]
[li]‘Has sex with sheep’[/li][/QUOTE]
This is a curious leap of reasoning. What does it say about you, and what you like?
What it says about you is that you don’t know the board as well as your alleged omnivorous intake of opinion would otherwise indicate. Not all those notes were about you. Delusions of grandeur?
165 posts and it’s dawned on me that drmark2000’s arguments have missed one key part of the ignore list. If I were to put, say, drmark2000 on that list, I’d wouldn’t see his words when he posts them but I would when they are quoted. It’s not like ignoring someone is on the level of wishing that someone’s words into the cornfield.
Oh, hardly. At least one of those allusions was aimed at me, and I acknowledged that another might not be.
So what about it? State your point! What is it?
Assuming that your account is accurate, or that it even ever happened, the psychologist was saying something along the lines of, “I can’t speculate on the unlikeliness of such a thing.“ If again, your account is true, then it came out in a way that could be read as comical, if any comedy can be derived from a sex abuse case.
My guess is you’ve never been required to appear on the stand, as an expert in anything, at any rate.
You wouldn’t see the words unless you chose the “view it anyway” option, which has already been pointed out. But you would see that I, or anyone on your ignore list, had posted. I’ve already acknowledged that this is a significant feature of which I was previously unaware.
And, of course, you would see an ignored poster quoted in others’ posts. No option to eliminate that, as yet.
But I appreciate the allusion to “It’s a Good Life,” by Jerome Bixby, 1953, later dramatized in a memorable episode of The Twilight Zone.
No, we can’t wish each others’ posts “into the cornfield.” I still question the desire to wish anyone’s thoughts even partially away.
Good gods! I automatically subscribe to threads because I like to check back when I post and I come back to find that the OP has smeared feces all over his own thread. I had no idea this would turn into such a trainwreck.
For the record, while I still haven’t found much use for the “Ignore List” feature, I will almost certainly be skipping any further posts by drmark2000. I’ve seen enough in this thread alone to convince me that he has very little to say that I would find worthwhile reading. I doubt it would be worth my time to ferret out any useful information from the trash.
If the ignored poster said something important enough for someone else to quote, don’t you think that takes away from your missing out on information argument?
Given that the words are still there to read at one’s desire, what’s the problem?
Feces? Ah, again, examine your own vocabulary.
Careful not to mix your metaphors in the same paragraph. Bad form! Well, people in a trainwreck, or who believe that they have been in one, might just shit their pants; I’ll give you that much.
If you are saying that there is, in your estimation, any “useful information“ included in what you otherwise deem as “trash,” then you are proving my point. I find my own perusals through these boards like grinding through thousands of tons of ore to derive a button-sized amount of gold. This is what we must each devote ourselves to, boy. It’s all pretty subjective, but we must devote ourselves to the effort.
The point is to cull all the information available as it becomes available, not just that which some other poster may deem quotable. The ignore feature delays this process, to the detriment of one’s own understanding.
So? Of all the thousands of subscribed members, and who knows how many guests, what are the chances of nobody making the same point as someone on an ignore list?
Some of us find that there are a few out there whose signal to noise ratio is so low that it makes trying to find that signal an exercise in futility and decide not to bother, at least temporarily. These people likely don’t care that they’re missing out on information because there is so little identifiable information there to begin with. That’s where quotes come in–someone else found a nugget of information in the noise.
Go, find your gold nuggets and don’t bother those who think certain veins have been played out. They’re not you. Deal with it.
The entire concept of a “signal to noise ratio” is a judgement call in this context, an unnecessary and lame rationale for personal prejudice. To summarily decree any aspect of our interactions an “exercise in futility“ speaks only one’s own limitations, whether manifesting temporarily or permanently.
I don’t read every post word-for-word. It’s not that I don’t want to; I do. But doing so is just impractical (I’m one of those people who needs to make a living), so I engage reluctantly in some skimming. I’ll venture a guess that everyone here engages in some degree of skimming posts. That’s different than deliberately ignoring another poster. I never have, and I can’t see that I ever will. Why would I?
“…so little identifiable information there to begin with…” is again a judgement call, and again reflective of one’s own limitations. How can you possibly know how much information is present from a source you deliberately refuse to investigate? Relying on other posters to provide you with quotes you might find worthwhile is like treating the other posters as employees, and unpaid at that.
Now, let’s not take a metaphor further than it will comfortably go. Metaphors are metaphors, and not to be taken literally. Of course I know that other posters are “not [me].” I think that pretty much goes without saying. I’m not them, either. As for “[dealing] with it,” I am. We all are. Right here, right now.
Thus far I’ve seen only a few limitations posted in this thread. drmark2000 is unable to make a statement that does not make him sound like a condescending prick of the highest order. drmark2000 is unable to comprehend that views that are not his own can be of equal weight, or that equally intelligent posters might parse information differently. Lastly, drmark2000 is woefully unable to pull his head out of his ass; rather each attempt more firmly lodges his cranium in his rectum.
Fortunately for the SDMB community, these limitations are mostly limited to this thread, and are not shared through multiple posts in multiple threads. Thank Og for small favors.
I’ll freely admit to my own limitations. 
It’s not that much different. Putting someone on ignore results in their posts always being skimmed until they’re taken off ignore or if one decides to look at their posts anyway.
The source was investigated to the point that they were deemed as providing so little useful information that they’re better off being ignored. I doubt anyone has ever been or ever will be put on an ignore list without several of their posts being read by the person that put them on ignore.
I do agree with you to a point. As I said earlier, those who use the ignore list should check on the ones they ignore from time to time to see if they’ve improved or possibly should not have been put on the list in the first place.
No, you’re not. If you were, you wouldn’t be telling us what we must each devote ourselves to, boy.