I don't understand the aversion to the FA feature. You are dealing with people whose only purpose here is to get you to say something they can FA. When you see a post that is inciteful, instead of replying, just FA it.I'm coming around to that way of thinking.I guess an FA flies in the face of what I consider good etiquette. That is to say, I don't want to prevent free speech, even if I consider it hateful, disruptive, etc. I just don't want to have to read it.If everyone who was similarly disinclined to want to read that here were to stop replying to those folks, then one could hope they would just get bored and go away. And if not, then at least I wouldn't have to keep reading it in replies, and nor would everyone else (especially newcomers) have to keep hitting disruptive speech.But since it seems that some people are pathologically unable to recognize when their speech is not wanted, and that some people actually enjoy engaging the trolls or are pathologically incapable of ignoring them, then -- much as it goes against the grain for me, of allowing everyone the right to state their opinion -- then I'll use that tool.Frankly, I wish TMF would implement moderated boards, similar to Yahoo's groups, where the board creator/moderator had the right to exclude people from participating. Unlike Yahoo's groups, in which I believe you can only choose between read+write or no-access, I would prefer that TMF allow the moderator a choice between read+write or read-only.But, they won't do that. It's "not the kind of community they want", apparently.Hence, we have to use the tools given to combat trolling. And, reluctantly, I agree with you on FA's in this case.--FY
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra