What's up with combining these threads? The conservatives here have been known to start numerous threads about Obama, sometimes filling up the entire first page of new threads and they were not targeted for consolidation. These threads are now virtually unreadable.
Probably the point. Toad gets away with his serial threads, we have multiple threads relating to Libya, but I guess I was taking up too much bandwidth. The point with having the separate threads was to stimulate debate on each separate topic. Lumping them together just diminishes the serial lying on so many separate topics by Mitt.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
And lower petrol consumption in 2012 compared to 2008? This can be for a number of bad reasons.
1) Economy still in the toilet, people can't afford the higher gas prices to take long distance drives and flights.
2) Less people having to buy gas to drive to work since the total number of employed are down.
Good reasons for lower consumption not to do with Obama?
1) People buying cars that consume less fuel because gas prices are too high and they no longer have the income to afford to fill up their pickups.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
archer wrote: What's up with combining these threads? The conservatives here have been known to start numerous threads about Obama, sometimes filling up the entire first page of new threads and they were not targeted for consolidation. These threads are now virtually unreadable.
While we do not have hard and fast rules about how many topics one poster can start a day, when one member starts 4 threads with almost the identical title within 4 hours it's a form of spamming the board - that one poster is dominating the forum with multiple threads when they could easily go into one thread. We put them together for organizational sake only, it has nothing to do with whether it's "liberal" or "conservative", as we've merged topics before the same way without regard as to whom started them. Each of the threads had 3 or less replies and if you look at the title of each post, it's easy to figure out which post went with each topic as there are very few that are out of order since there were so few replies to each topic.
We asked a while back when LOL pointed out that the Courthouse was becoming dominated by several "drive-by" topics (or topics that had very few replies) if we could get opinions on starting one anti-Obama, one anti-Romney, one pro-Obama, and one pro-Romney thread and all posts and replies relating to the 2 candidates go into those threads in order to make it easy for members and guests to read the forum and cut down on the number of seemingly duplicate topics (we even joked that maybe we should make it a contest to see if the "pro-" threads could beat out the "anti-" threads!). No one responded and we'd love to hear your thoughts. It would only apply to news stories/opinions posted about the candidates; if there are other topics or subject matters to discuss (ie energy, not Obama's policy on energy, but say US energy policy in general, or climate change, or something like bailey bud's topic on the Pakistani girl that was shot), then they would be a separate thread. The election is still almost a month away and it's going to only get more heated so it would be nice to hear your input sooner rather than later on how to organize it. We only want to make posting and reading here an enjoyable experience for everyone, for you to have fun with it, and we'd like to do our best to accommodate your wishes. Thanks!
Proudly serving mountain Jeffco, Clear Creek & Park County!
You can also find & connect with us on: Facebook
• X
• Instagram
• YouTube
• LinkedIn
my thoughts are exactly what I posted.... consolidating several threads, each with it's own unique topic, into one is wrong....I was interested in 2 of the three, and having to wade through the pages to figure out which reply goes to which thread is truly annoying. Especially for those of us using smart phones as our primary internet access. I wasn't saying you should have done more with the conservative threads...only noting that you didn't. One night Becky started numerous threads, I think it was more as a protest. I asked her about it and felt that was the way to go rather than take it to the mods to do something. If there are no replies the threads will disappear in a few hours....if there are several replies then don't you think that shows people want to discuss the issues in each one? If the topics are identical then that is a whole different story and sure, combining them makes sense.
Blazer Bob wrote: I have no problem merging identical threads. I prefer that similar threads remain separate and I don't let my mashed potatoes touch my peas.
OTOH, if there are business reasons for it I favor that users STFU and stop whining.
Who said there were business reasons for consolidating the threads? Is the real estate in the forum so expensive that it is not cost effective to have multiple threads? Perhaps the threads could be consolidated as suggested into two echo chambers so the Obama supporters and the Obama haters don't have to interact, that way the forum can be easily shrunk to save space. No need to have any echo chamber for the Mitt supporters as there does not seem to be any.
I had intentionally initiated multiple topics dealing with the inconsistencies with Mitt's statements on numerous points. While those topics did unfortunately have a common heading, they were quite distinct. I had hoped that by keeping threads narrowly focused on a single issue, that there could be debate instead of the usual deflections away from the issue of the thread. At this point, the consolidated threads are so muddled, it is near impossible to have any discussion at all. It is difficult to follow a discussion on Mitt's inconsistencies on navy size when it is conflated with Mitt's inconsistencies on green energy conflated with Mitt's inconsistency on abortion, and so on and so on. The consolidation has pretty much killed off any discussions at this point.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: The consolidation has pretty much killed off any discussions at this point.
Which is what prompted my post, it seemed like that was the point of consolidating those 3 threads. I'm hoping that isn't true, but it is the first time that I can recall three totally different threads were combined into one.
Blazer Bob wrote: I have no problem merging identical threads. I prefer that similar threads remain separate and I don't let my mashed potatoes touch my peas.
OTOH, if there are business reasons for it I favor that users STFU and stop whining.
Who said there were business reasons for consolidating the threads? .
Do you need help with the definition of if? I can think of a couple of possibilities.