Let me briefly hijack this back in the direction of lofty minded analysis. Recall that when I started this thread, the concept was to decide things by vote. We have voted, and now it has become a long bunch of harrumphing harrangues of the sort you hear out of old men wearing rigs in Pariliament.
I once interviewed researchers at the University of Minnesota Twin Study and learned that two of the most hereditable/genetically determined human personality traits were what might be termed authoritarianism/propriety/religiosity on the one hand, and Bohemianism/free spiritedness/anythinggoes bonvivant-ism on the other.
Obviously, people can fit anywhere along this spectrum, but these are sort of the normal extremes.
It seems to me that whenever you get human groups together, these extremes recognize their kindred spirits as well as their natural antagonists. The former justify their righteousness on the grounds of basic decency; the latter justify their rightness on free thinking, open mindedness, and tolerance to alternative possibilities. It's almost like Absolute vs. Relativistic ethics.
What is striking to me in this debate is that all the women seem to me, at least, to be reasonable. Peter Cruise, too, seems eminently reasonable. And many other of the fellows, as well, especially those whose wit lacks venom seem reasonable.
These groups never get along terribly well because they are trying to prove the moral superiority of their personality: control vs. live and let live; censor vs. let anything fly. If not censor, then try to hound off-topic subjects into other rooms, where I can virtually guarantee anyone here claiming to find such topics such wastes of time are much more likely to view than, say, toe craps and what to do about them.
The most poignant things I've read on these threads lately are 1) Beth's daughter's healthy diagnosis, 2) SeaGurls isolation somewhere out in Oregon/Washington State, where she swims by her self and this is as close as she can find to true team camaraderie, and 3) the twin sisterhood of Beth and Fortess (I am an identical twin myself, so I feel for anyone who wants to have such a wonderful relationship.)
The people who want to control things--and correct me if I am wrong--have all been men, and what they want to control tends to be primarily, when it comes down to it, flirtingesque spice of life conversations.
I went out with my team tonight in Pittsburgh, and granted, a few who would have disagreed with the topics decided not to come, but over the course of the evening we talked about everything from hand dominance and natural freestyle breathing side, to "fluffing", to Happy Endings. Ribald? Certainly. But a lot of people find this stuff amusing, and where really is the harm.
It breaks my heart to think that SeaGurl is out in the boonies of the wild west, surrounded by Aryan Nation Posse Comitatus training camps, swimming by herself, and having no place in the world besides right here where she can catch up on the catch up stroke drill as well as fluffing techniques.
Put me in the Long Live Bohemianism Camp.
Two points:
I draw a distinction between "private and confidential" and "said while no one else was around". If someone privately tells me something confidential I will do my best to keep it confidential. If on the other hand someone calls me nasty names while no one else is around to hear it I don't feel any compunction to treat the fact that they did so as confidential. The idea that because I choose to abuse you via private message does not earn me any right to your silence in my opinion.
I think there are two separate objections to content that are getting mixed up in this thread. One is "these topics should not be allowed to be discussed on this message boards" the other is "serious discussion about swimming should not be drowned out with frivolous off-topic posts". I think the vast majority of people participating on the boards have no problem with the actual content of almost anything that has been posted here, except the personal attacks. I think Rich correctly identified that most people who have an issue are really objecting to people changing the topic of a thread instead of starting a new thread. The point is that threads are a great mechanism for keeping everyone happy. Talk about whatever you want in a thread that is about that topic (within the rules of the board), let the people who want to have "serious" discussions have them uninterrupted. If something in one thread inspires a humorous but off-topic thought, post it in a new thread. I don't think anyone seriously objects to a brief quip or witty comment in a serious thread, it is just a matter of respecting the right of people to carry on a coherent discussion on a particular topic.
Just my :2cents:
Two points:
I think Rich correctly identified that most people who have an issue are really objecting to people changing the topic of a thread instead of starting a new thread. The point is that threads are a great mechanism for keeping everyone happy. Talk about whatever you want in a thread that is about that topic (within the rules of the board), let the people who want to have "serious" discussions have them uninterrupted. If something in one thread inspires a humorous but off-topic thought, post it in a new thread. I don't think anyone seriously objects to a brief quip or witty comment in a serious thread, it is just a matter of respecting the right of people to carry on a coherent discussion on a particular topic.
Just my :2cents:
I can admit to doing it a couple of times but I've been cutting back. Serious threads to me would be regarding techniques, asking for analysis or discussion of strategey for races etc. Threads that seem to be socially oriented "Look at me & my buddy at the meet" or "Who's going to nationals?" for example, are going to draw social posters and their comment. There is nothing wrong with that IMHO.
For the record feel free to divert any thread I start with your witty comments or piss-taking of me. It's all good for me. It the social network I grew up with in the pubs of East London and Essex. If you acted like you were the big cheese you get ripped to shreds...cockiness was always tongue in cheek, but the cardinal sin was to take yourself to seriously.
because like my sis, I stick up for myself and will not just roll over for the "big boys" of the forum.
Your big sis pointed out that Rob Copeland said you had just as much right to post as other dues paying members of USMS. So if you don't fall into the authoritarian/propriety/religiosity spectrum as the "big boys," who cares? Carry on. You do good work here too.
Suggest you avoid sprints and work on improving your stroke :joker:
I hate sprints. What kind of workout is that?
As for stroke technique, that seems quite controversial, but there have been some serious discussions on the subject lately. Just not enough for some. Who should start new threads.
I do know. I agree with respect to the dislike of being called nasty names. No one wants to be referred to with profanity or other obvious insults, if possible. But, as I said, there are other equally effective ways to diss people that may be no less offensive. A four letter label is still just a label. (Some people swear like troopers in private; others don't.) The gift of gab and intellect allows for much for sophisticated or intellectual dissing that may go well beyond simple sarcasm. You know?
Same for posting. Some people like humorous postings; others like attack posting. Maybe some like both? We should respect everyone's preference and co-exist, since none of us are supreme dictators. Yet.
PMs should still be kept private IMHO only. That's what they're for. (I haven't publicized some of the unbelievably nasty ones I received during a certain thread when I first joined the forum. They didn't use **** or other profanity (I don't think), but they might as well have. OMG, they were hateful in the extreme. No tongue in cheek.) Hateful is no different than profanity to me.
But I don't see how name calling in PMs vitiates the privacy of PMs. If everyone publicized PMs, what would happen to the forum then? It would be a lot more objectionable than simple Wonder Woman talk. Plus, if PMs routinely became public, people would stop PM-ing and then there might be worse threads.
I know you're resisting that inane thread, but trying to tempt you ... :eek: I know, you're just worried you'll be Supergirl like Jim Clemmons ... ;) Toungue in cheek. Maybe more pictures of your super cute daughter would help. I would submit some, but you're way more tech saavy than me and a much better photographer. That colour was unbelievable on those shots. Off topic, I know, but compliments are a nice relief. (Not kissing up Geek. :thhbbb: ) It's just a fact that those photos were good.
I was not aware that anybody was making such nasty PM's. How unfortunate that is. The last time I had something really nasty to say to somebody on here I did it in a public forum and was banned for a week. I had it coming for sure.
I'll see what I can do about some more photos. Thanks for the compliment. I have been working on improving my skills and equipment lately and in small increments it is starting to show.
This now infamous mention of a bra (if I have the right post) could be considered an on topic swimming post. For some women, large bossoms are a problem and constriction beyond a normal swim suit is required. Perhaps a guy might need a jock strap, it's a legit problem to some. I don't see this as out of line. I wouldn't see a post about tampons out of line either, it's a legit concern to female swimmers. I think we've proven with this thread that swimmers come in all persuasions. A thing of interest to one person, may be found offensive to others, but that doesn't make it any less important or viable....on both sides of the aisle. Socializing to some is just as important as technique.
As for posting private messages, this dips WAY below the belt line IMHO. Those are meant to keep things away from the public eye. When invited to be posted in the public eye it's far to easy to pick and choose what part is posted. The information could be false or taken completely out of context. We simply have no way of knowing and it's not our business to know. If invited to share it's the discretion of the people involved, and it should either all or nothing....perferably nothing.
Personal attacks and things done in mean spirit are just as juvenille as everything else in question. Arguements can be civil without toeing the line.
As for the supposed flirting, I don't think it was ever a problem. Yes it happens, but as far as I understand, the majority of this forum is happily married, has been for a LONG time, with no intention of seeking otherwise. Flirting for many is just another expression of humor.
I love hearing about peoples lives and what their going through, both non-swimming and swimming related. I've mentioned before that I go to college in a small town in Idaho. How many chances do you really think I have to talk about anything with a cardiologist, or a lawyer, or any of the other incredibly admirable professions held by people here, and actually have them pay me any attention? These forums open up incredible opportunities for people, in swimming and beyond. I've learned immeasurable things about swimming technique and training. But I've also learned a great number of life lessons that I can carry into things in my everyday life....which isn't all about swimming.
I know I won't have the last word on this, but I agree it's time to bury this and move on. We've made it this far co-habitating, everyone has a system of skimming. Maybe in future at the top of the post in the bold heading mark "off topic." Then you don't even have to skim the post, you know from the get go. But then if you choose to read it, you can't turn around and complain about the content. You've been warned and you continued to read so take the blame for the waste of those precious seconds of your life.
