Does not appear to block PMs from folks one wishes to ignore. I am not finding such a tool anywhere in the User settings. Is there one I have overlooked?
Some folks won't respect a polite request to back off.
The Foe Feature
The Foe Feature
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: The Foe Feature
Just delete them without reading them. Someone is obviously looking to make trouble yet wants to appear the victim in public forum.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Re: The Foe Feature
It's funny you should happen to mention that; I was recently looking for the same thing....Does not appear to block PMs from folks one wishes to ignore. I am not finding such a tool anywhere in the User settings. Is there one I have overlooked?
Re: The Foe Feature
Maybe there is an admin feature which can be tweaked which determines the level of foe blocking. In any case, a quick return PM telling the sender to get fucked (in the nicest possible way of course 
) should do the trick!
If the sender persists I would suggest naming and shaming publicly.
) should do the trick!If the sender persists I would suggest naming and shaming publicly.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: The Foe Feature
That feature would be highly desirable. It would enable cowards to have the last word. And we need more of that. God knows we don't have enough of it now.
If you do not wish someone to contact you by PM, then say so. But do not presume that you have some right not to have that responded to.
When you say that -- just as when you say anything -- you invite a response. If you do not wish communication to go further, then do not reply to that response.
But you cannot have it both ways.
If you want to stop communicating, then stop communicating.
If you want to keep communicating, then keep communicating.
But do not pretend to stop communicating, then keep communicating, then pretend to be offended when someone keeps communicating with you.
If someone keeps sending you PMs after you have asked that person not to and after you have declined to respond to that person's subsequent PMs, that is harassment worthy of some action.
But if the only thing happening is that someone has sent you a response to a PM which you sent to her or him, then just suck it up. You are the one terminating the communication; just don't respond to the unwanted communication.
Otherwise, you are just whining.
"Waah, waah, waah! She won't let me have the last word! Waah, waah, waah!"
If you do not wish someone to contact you by PM, then say so. But do not presume that you have some right not to have that responded to.
When you say that -- just as when you say anything -- you invite a response. If you do not wish communication to go further, then do not reply to that response.
But you cannot have it both ways.
If you want to stop communicating, then stop communicating.
If you want to keep communicating, then keep communicating.
But do not pretend to stop communicating, then keep communicating, then pretend to be offended when someone keeps communicating with you.
If someone keeps sending you PMs after you have asked that person not to and after you have declined to respond to that person's subsequent PMs, that is harassment worthy of some action.
But if the only thing happening is that someone has sent you a response to a PM which you sent to her or him, then just suck it up. You are the one terminating the communication; just don't respond to the unwanted communication.
Otherwise, you are just whining.
"Waah, waah, waah! She won't let me have the last word! Waah, waah, waah!"
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: The Foe Feature
She? Who knows, maybe it was a she, but I know it wasn't me
...again, like the sock puppet accusation, some controlling folks really wish I craved their attention. Sorry , but no, I don't.
...again, like the sock puppet accusation, some controlling folks really wish I craved their attention. Sorry , but no, I don't.
Re: The Foe Feature
No one mentioned a gender until you did. What was that I said about people wanting to make themselves look like the victim in public forum...
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Re: The Foe Feature
Andrew D wrote:
Otherwise, you are just whining.
"Waah, waah, waah! She won't let me have the last word! Waah, waah, waah!"
Re: The Foe Feature
Yes, someone else did mention gender before I did, so just suck it.
Re: The Foe Feature
And so you automatically felt it was necessary to proclaim that it wasn't you? What could Andrew possibly have against you that he would be hinting it was you ?
As I said, cola de paja.
As I said, cola de paja.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Re: The Foe Feature
Well Andrew, if somebody replied to a PM of mine asking me not to PM them again I would not reply. I consider that to be common courtesy. It's nothing to do with whining, just a simple request. To reply with anything other than, "Sorry, I won't bother you again", is simply rude, childish and oafish behaviour.
Oh and not wanting to read the words of another poster does not make one a coward. Again, an oaf might disagree with that...
Oh and not wanting to read the words of another poster does not make one a coward. Again, an oaf might disagree with that...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: The Foe Feature
Okay, so you might reply with "Sorry, I won't bother you again". That fits squarely within the rule which I have proposed.Sean wrote:Well Andrew, if somebody replied to a PM of mine asking me not to PM them again I would not reply. I consider that to be common courtesy. It's nothing to do with whining, just a simple request. To reply with anything other than, "Sorry, I won't bother you again", is simply rude, childish and oafish behaviour.
Of course not.Oh and not wanting to read the words of another poster does not make one a coward.
But what if one insists on addressing what another poster says while claiming to be ignoring that other poster?
What should any of us make of that?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: The Foe Feature
You know, if the Foe feature could be amended so that quoted posts of ignored posters were not shown I for one would be very happy. Have you stopped to consider that these posters actually do have the other on ignore yet cannot use the Foe feature to ignore quotes?
Didn't think so...
Didn't think so...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: The Foe Feature
I don't think AndrewD has anything against me, that's just your projection. It's up to him to say different. It was the projectors, I was addressing, thX.Scooter wrote:And so you automatically felt it was necessary to proclaim that it wasn't you? What could Andrew possibly have against you that he would be hinting it was you ?
As I said, cola de paja.
Re: The Foe Feature
¡Oy, no arrimate a la candela, muchacha!
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Re: The Foe Feature
Homophobic putdowns now, eh? Why am I not surprised.
And I clearly do not need lessons in conjugating verbs from you, thanks anyway chica.
And I clearly do not need lessons in conjugating verbs from you, thanks anyway chica.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Re: The Foe Feature
LOL Wot? Like I started the feminine pronouns for homos, girlfriend?
Like I don't give my life's blood to save your brethren in peril?
Is that all you got? ....Really?
You wanna 'jack this thread to be all about you,'eh?
No problemo, you're not the only reason, I care ...thX dawg.
Like I don't give my life's blood to save your brethren in peril?
Is that all you got? ....Really?
You wanna 'jack this thread to be all about you,'eh?
No problemo, you're not the only reason, I care ...thX dawg.
Re: The Foe Feature
And you really think that they want to?Sean wrote:You know, if the Foe feature could be amended so that quoted posts of ignored posters were not shown I for one would be very happy. Have you stopped to consider that these posters actually do have the other on ignore yet cannot use the Foe feature to ignore quotes?
Didn't think so...
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.