Plan B Forum

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.

Just delete them without reading them. Someone is obviously looking to make trouble yet wants to appear the victim in public forum.

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?

It's funny you should happen to mention that; I was recently looking for the same thing....

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.

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!"

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.

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...

Cola de paja

Yes, someone else did mention gender before I did, so just suck it.

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.

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...

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.

Okay, so you might reply with "Sorry, I won't bother you again". That fits squarely within the rule which I have proposed.

Oh and not wanting to read the words of another poster does not make one a coward.

Of course not.

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?

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...

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.

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.

¡Oy, no arrimate a la candela, muchacha!

Arrimarse juera, pero buen intento, mija.

Homophobic putdowns now, eh? Why am I not surprised.

And I clearly do not need lessons in conjugating verbs from you, thanks anyway chica.

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.

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...

And you really think that they want to?