Watching another "Rant"

[Ray Martin]

ScottM posted a lighthearted rant about the (child proof) screw-on tops of cans. http://www.ncwoodworker.net/forums/f29/can-rantings-33108/ The last post ponders the number of lawsuits against container manufacturers. Looks like another one to keep an eye on.

 

[SteveColes]

Since Scott has been reading my thread on the Rant & trolling, etc., I suspect he was making a point. Scott, just go ahead and make it. I suspect Scott has some things to say but held back becuase of my request to the board/officers to stay out of these type of discussions. Thanks Scott.

The truth of the matter is that there was nothing wrong with that thread. But for the purposes of illustration, I decided to assume that it was a real rant. So I edited the first post, by changing the title and deleted the first few words. Now, I think the post reads such that it would be a stretch to see it as a rant, humorous or otherwise.

I then removed the sentence in Smitty's post about law suits, but left his main point there and gave what I thought was a polite and understandable reason for my edit.

I believe that Smitty will not have an issue with what I did given the reason I gave. Time will tell:gar-La;

So thoughts?

 

[ScottM]

Since Scott has been reading my thread on the Rant & trolling, etc., I suspect he was making a point. Scott, just go ahead and make it. I suspect Scott has some things to say but held back becuase of my request to the board/officers to stay out of these type of discussions. Thanks Scott.

The truth of the matter is that there was nothing wrong with that thread. But for the purposes of illustration, I decided to assume that it was a real rant. So I edited the first post, by changing the title and deleted the first few words. Now, I think the post reads such that it would be a stretch to see it as a rant, humorous or otherwise.

I then removed the sentence in Smitty's post about law suits, but left his main point there and gave what I thought was a polite and understandable reason for my edit.

I believe that Smitty will not have an issue with what I did given the reason I gave. Time will tell:gar-La;

So thoughts?

You caught me red handed. Folks are allowed to rant and can even do so on a WW subject. As a WW website devoted to education we need to even support these rantings when they are civil stay on topic and help others. I got several good suggestions and even encouraged other can ranters out of the closet. My point is we can't focus on a single word or phrase and assume the worst.

I know from my three years as a Mod it is not easy. We just need to keep in mind there are always at least two sides.

I will go away again. You guys and girls are the best.

 

[Gotcha6]

Straight out of the Policies & Guidelines:

Threads, Posts, CommentsWhen a thread, post or comment is contrary to policy, the moderator will make an effort to edit the offending material and leave the primary content intact. If that is not possible, the whole thread, post or comment will be deleted. At this point a Private Message (PM) will be sent explaining the action taken.

On occasion a thread that starts within guidelines becomes disruptive despite attempts to moderate. If a moderator(s) feels the thread will continue to be problematic, the thread will be closed and/or deleted as a preventative measure. In this situation the moderator will provide a reason for the thread closure in a PM.

Looks like a textbook response to a textbook problem. :thumbs_up:thumbs_up

 

[SteveColes]

First, was I right about smitty's reaction?

No. I don't understand. Your reasoning is totally without merit. Who in the world would disagree with the fact that we are a litigious nation? I think you are way out of line here.

R A Smith

Originally Posted by SteveColes

Hi smitty62,

The post that you created in the following thread has been edited

================================================== =======================
Post: While I agree, I have much more of an issue with those food ...
Thread: Opening Finish Cans
Reason: Sorry, everytime law suits get mentioned, we get a fight :smile: , so I deleted the reference. Thanks for understanding
================================================== ========================


If you have any questions, you can ask an administrator for assistance

Sincerely,
The North Carolina Woodworker staff
​

:swoon::no::no::no::thumbs_do:thumbs_do:thumbs_do

Well, I still think I have the right concept, just not the correct writing skills and/or the wrong user:rotflm:Comments?

You caught me red handed. Folks are allowed to rant and can even do so on a WW subject. As a WW website devoted to education we need to even support these rantings when they are civil stay on topic and help others. I got several good suggestions and even encouraged other can ranters out of the closet. My point is we can't focus on a single word or phrase and assume the worst.

Scott, since I'm about to disagree with you :gar-La;, please feel free to respond here.

I really do disagree. From my subjective pov yours was not a rant at all. It was a legitimate discussion on a woodworking related issue. You got legitimate and helpful responses and only one weak attempt to take it astray.

If you all will notice mshel's thread he is calling his subject a rant and apologizing for it. I see no rant at all, but a real problem for many of our professional woodworker members. Certainly, this is a valid topic. (in fact I moved the thread to General Woodworking)

But, what I think of a rant, in particular ones involving off-topic issues, really have no place here. But of course we get into the problem of definition an gray areas:dontknow::help:

 

[SteveColes]

Bump