# Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thread



## Walter (Sep 30, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> Elgee is the universally accepted description of a pure nonsense poll.



Some years ago I suggested to separate the fora into two sections, one for on-topic threads concerning Tolkien's legendarium and issues concerning TTF, and another one for the chit-chat and the idle and dispensable musings of the members.

In the former section the threads would be kept forever, whereas in the latter the threads could be periodically deleted, e.g. after two weeks or so, and thus the waste of space and bandwith would be kept at a reasonable level...

I think this thread serves very well to illustrate my point, maybe the powers at TTF will ponder the issue once again...


----------



## Ithrynluin (Sep 30, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*

As you can see, Walter, Stuff and Bother currently has 9 pages, the oldest of these dating from 12-24-2002. Clearly, things have been deleted from this forum 'periodically'. I am personally against such reckless and total deletion, because Stuff and Bother tends to host quite a few quality and memorable discussions. It is unfortunate that some members lump all off-topic discussion into one basket (or rather, bin), and look down on them all from lofty pedestals and label them as idle and dispensable. Ultimately, it is up to each site owner to decide whether bandwidth is being wasted or not.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Ithrynluin said:


> As you can see, Walter, Stuff and Bother currently has 9 pages, the oldest of these dating from 12-24-2002.



Only 9 pages ?!!! 
What a shame!!!  

I strongly suggest to do something about it!
How about filling in the so important S&B section with the following very much and profoundly comprehensive threads and polls like:

*1. Do you know Elgee? .... You DON'T ??!!! Shame on you! 
2. What did Elgee wear last weekend?
3. What did Elgee have for breakfast this morning?
4. How did Elgee's feel last night?*"

etc.
(_Boy! It took me a whole hour to form the titles of the above serious and enlightening topics! After all, every item had to be very carefully thought of and over!.... 
But if you need more of those, please, address "the original", not me! I don't have the vast expanse of her thought, to be able to create more alike! )_



> Ultimately, it is up to each site owner to decide whether bandwidth is being wasted or not.


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*

It looks like a hornet's nest has been well and truly stirred. For shame! This isn't some timewasting new arrival filling threads with rubbish - if it were you may have an excuse for your callous replies. Honestly, I've seen many "serious" polls and topics of much less merit than this. What happened to the hippy ideals of your grandfathers? Mellow out, dudes, and vote on the poll


----------



## Aulë (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Hammersmith said:


> It looks like a hornet's nest has been well and truly stirred. For shame! This isn't some timewasting new arrival filling threads with rubbish - if it were you may have an excuse for your callous replies. Honestly, I've seen many "serious" polls and topics of much less merit than this. What happened to the hippy ideals of your grandfathers? Mellow out, dudes, and vote on the poll


 
No- this is a timewasting old arrival filling threads with rubbish.  
Show me a "serious" poll/topic with less merit than this and I shall be satisfied...


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*

With open eyes towards the fact that I risk stepping on a few toes:

If one so seriously dislikes threads such as these, why bother?
Why not just leave them alone?

From first-hand experience, I can tell that unless a thread does have something notewothy in it, it will not exist any longer than a few months.



Lhunithiliel said:


> 1. Do you know Elgee? .... You DON'T ??!!! Shame on you!
> 2. What did Elgee wear last weekend?
> 3. What did Elgee have for breakfast this morning?
> 4. How did Elgee's feel last night?"



I would have preferred that you presented your point in a manner that came across in a manner looking less as a personal attack, Lhun.


----------



## Walter (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Ithrynluin said:


> It is unfortunate that some members lump all off-topic discussion into one basket (or rather, bin), and look down on them all from lofty pedestals and label them as idle and dispensable. Ultimately, it is up to each site owner to decide whether bandwidth is being wasted or not.



_It is unfortunate_, that the horses of some moderators grow so high, that they loose all perspective, sitting on such high horses...

----

Your statement above, Ithrynluin, and my statement here have one thing in common: _"It is unfortunate..."_ is an unwarranted generalisation. Don't you think that _"I consider it unfortunate..."_ would have been a better opening in both cases?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*

I think that the frustration from some members comes from the fact that not (that) much interest is given to "serious" topics; but that can't be solved by attacking light-hearted threads. Ithy's initiative with re-starting the debates is one of the solutions and indeed a laudable one. And may I say that, after all, humour and relaxing is an important part of our lives, even at work, let alone this forum.


----------



## Walter (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Arvedui said:


> From first-hand experience, I can tell that unless a thread does have something notewothy in it, it will not exist any longer than a few months.



My point was a different one: If there exists such a section, where it is clear from the first that posts won't survive any longer than a given period of time, then members probably would refrain from placing valuable, keepworthy information in there (the deletion of which might otherwise cause some frustration). And moderators would not have to bother deciding which threads to keep and which to get rid off. Things might be easier and smoother for everyone...

----



Thorondor said:


> And may I say that, after all, humour and relaxing is an important part of our lives, even at work, let alone this forum.



I entirely agree and I'm glad that there is room for this at TTF. Though I do consider it some form of abuse when some members open hundreds of ego-centered threads of questionable value for the community and provide thousands of such posts. But that, of course, is just the way I see it...


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Aulë said:


> No- this is a timewasting old arrival filling threads with rubbish.
> *Show me a "serious" poll/topic with less merit than this and I shall be satisfied.*..



Me, too.
Me, too! 

A necessary definition:

*merit*

# noun: any admirable quality or attribute (Example: "Work of great merit")
# noun: the quality of being deserving (e.g., deserving assistance)
# verb: be worthy or deserving


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Aulë said:


> No- this is a timewasting old arrival filling threads with rubbish.
> Show me a "serious" poll/topic with less merit than this and I shall be satisfied...



Show me how many of these nonsensical threads survive at all, let alone make it to the archives?

Why, then, should you be so bothered by them? Or do you, and others who have crawled from hiding with such an admirable cause in mind, lack the self-control necessary _not_ to examine threads that apparently so offend your delicate sensibilities?

What have _you_, as individuals, who are so accusing, self-righteous and fond of pointing fingers, done that is so deserving of merit?

You would do well to remember that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. What you are doing at the moment is hurling _rocks_. 

That is going to stop.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



> Show me how many of these nonsensical threads survive at all, let alone make it to the archives?


True, many of the bars and inns threads will just keep getting larger as the time goes by ... and if anyone checks, there is *a lot* of activity there. So attacking just this thread is... another form of enterntainment?


----------



## Beorn (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*

All this really is is the same old story. Every time it comes up, there's a disagreement, usually about the same thing:

- Making TTF more "purely" Tolkien, or making it more "diluted" from one side, and
- Making TTF more "obstinately" Tolkien, or making it more "fun" from the other.

Different people simply have different ideas of what is valuable or [strike]in[/strike]not valuable. Walter and Lhun & Co. lean towards the purely/diluted side and want the purely Tolkien side of things, Elgee and others lean towards the obstinately/fun side and want the fun side of things.

The simple solution is there is no solution that everyone is happy with. Tolkien interest now is (obviously) lower than before. We have allowed off-topic threads since the day TTF started, and I'm fairly sure that there was a section similar to it back on thelordoftherings.com. To take the off-topic threads away would drive people to other forums, rather than invite them here. I *am not* saying that we should make off-topic the center of the forum, but rather that allowing off-topic threads will keep people at this site longer per visit, which will in turn result in more Tolkien based threads than otherwise.

Don't let this descend into a fight over someone's exact words. Don't read this verbatim to argue I should've used a slightly different word. Read this for the value of it. Each side can be argued with words that have positive and negative connotations. Just give it a rest. If these threads bother you, don't read S & B.

- Mike


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*

At the risk of making it look like a 'Gang Up'  I will post my views now.



Walter said:


> Some years ago I suggested to separate the fora into two sections, one for on-topic threads concerning Tolkien's legendarium and issues concerning TTF, and another one for the chit-chat and the idle and dispensable musings of the members.


S&B is in the 'Off-Topic' section of TTF so there should be no threads concerning Tolkien's legendarium in it. The 'Off-Topic' section also houses other fora where various subjects can be discussed. S&B is basically for anything that does not fit.


> My point was a different one: If there exists such a section, where it is clear from the first that posts won't survive any longer than a given period of time, then members probably would refrain from placing valuable, keepworthy information in there (the deletion of which might otherwise cause some frustration). And moderators would not have to bother deciding which threads to keep and which to get rid off. Things might be easier and smoother for everyone...


 I think that it is simpler to have just one forum to check for such threads and clear it out periodically.


Lhunithiliel, to use Walter's comments as an excuse for a personal attack is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.


----------



## Walter (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Ithrynluin said:


> That is going to stop...



...said the operator of the steam engine and held the overpressure valve shut, because he was annoyed by its whistling...


----------



## e.Blackstar (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*

 Calm down, people! It's just an amusing poll...if you want to argue about it, please don't do it here; you're ruining the whole point of the thread: to get a laugh.  

*jumps out of the fray*


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Aulë said:


> No- this is a timewasting old arrival filling threads with rubbish.
> Show me a "serious" poll/topic with less merit than this and I shall be satisfied...



Is Gollum The Next Eminem?

Social Debate: Who is hotter? Fingon Or Finduilas?


Don't pretend there's no foolish topics on this board


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 2, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> Lhunithiliel, to use Walter's comments as an excuse for a personal attack is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.



That my posts and presence are not, and shall not be acceptable and tolerated around here, as long as I keep on upseting the TTF-Prima donna, I know. 
Sorry! Just cannot change my opinion of her! Pity that you consider this to be a 'personal attack". It's not.

However, I am not sure what you mean by using Walter's comments! I quoted Ithy's ones, not Walter's. The fact that perhaps I express a similar to Walter's opinion, is another thing. 

I think, *Beorn* is very right in what he's saying, and I respect his comment!

I shall not bother TTF with my scandalous posts!

With all my honest respect for you! 
Lhun


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



> as long as I keep on upseting the TTF-Prima donna


I don't think that even a person who is a long time member of TTF has the right to call names. Or to cross the rules of this forum.

"We do not allow any type of derogatory or disparaging activity of a personal nature. This means that there is no need to resort to name calling"


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*

Lhun. Your presence is acceptable on TTF, it is your constant unwarratned snipeing that is not. So you do not like Elgee and her theads. Make you life better by not reading them. If they are on matters that you have no interest in, do not post in them.

I am well aware that Beorn's comments were right. He had already posted and therefore caused me to shorten my intended post.

I am glad that you will cease your scandalous posts, your other posts are far better.


----------



## Walter (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Thorondor_ said:


> "We do not allow any type of derogatory or disparaging activity of a personal nature. This means that there is no need to resort to name calling"


I haven't read the rules for a while, but I am beginning to understand.

Calling someone a _"primadonna"_ (which means 'first woman', btw., hardly a derogatory remark, IMHO) is a breech of the rules, but calling anotherone a _"cabbage reeking bugger"_ is presumably not...


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*

Walter, I have already apologised for missing that attack. However, in the case of Lhun v Elgee, this has happened before and is not being allowed to go any further this time round.


----------



## Walter (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Gothmog said:


> Walter, I have already apologised for missing that attack.


Gothmog, I never blamed you. It was the site owner and other ones of the "powers" here, who knew about that post and still decided for one reason or another not to react...

I suppose - at least for some - the difference lies in who is being attacked and who is attacking, whether such an attack is beningly ignored or whether the moderators and others gang up in defense and counterattack...


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*

I didn't take it as an attack, we had already sorted that out  But to answer the first part of your post I felt it necessary to also answer the second part.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



> > "We do not allow any type of derogatory or disparaging activity of a personal nature. This means that there is no need to resort to name calling"
> 
> 
> Calling someone a _"primadonna"_ (which means 'first woman', btw., hardly a derogatory remark, IMHO) is a breech of the rules


disparaging="to depreciate by indirect means (as invidious comparison)"


----------



## Walter (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Thorondor_ said:


> disparaging="to depreciate by indirect means (as invidious comparison)"


Thanks for helping me to brush up my English  Though, I'm not sure I see anything _disparaging_ (you noted the etymology of that word, I take it?) in the term 'primadonna'...

Would you had jumped in as brave and eager back then to defend the victim and condemn the attacker - as you did now - but IIRC you restricted yourself to lamenting over my withdrawn posts instead...


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



> Would you had jumped in as brave and eager back then to defend the victim and condemn the attacker - as you did now - but IIRC you restricted yourself to lamenting over my withdrawn posts instead...


I have "jumped in" now because there is an increasing trend of personal comments lately, some targeted at me also, and, as far as I know, all of those were done by long time members of this forum. Interesting, I would say.

I only commented on your post withdrawal because: I too am puzzled why you didn't use the "bad post" report; deleting your posts in Tolkien threads is about the worst thing you can do to this forum. I really do hope that you will let the moderators fix this...


----------



## Walter (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Thorondor_ said:


> I only commented on your post withdrawal because: I too am puzzled why you didn't use the "bad post" report; deleting your posts in Tolkien threads is about the worst thing you can do to this forum. I really do hope that you will let the moderators fix this...


If you had bothered to read my post there and the one above in this thread you might have understood why I did not report a bad post. I will repeat it once again: The "report bad post button" is meant to direct the attention of one of the moderators or administrator at a post which may constate a breech of rules and which otherwise may remain unnoticed. This simply was not the case at that time. At least two persons with sufficient moderating access were at the time I read it already aware of that post. One of these two was the site owner. And both - for one reason or another - decided not to react. 

What I did - an unfortunately still do - notice at TTF is some sort of double-standards in certain cases...

As I said in my pre-previous post: It seems to make a big difference who is attacking and who is attacked, whether or not the righteous jump in to defend and counterattack....


----------



## Aulë (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Hammersmith said:


> Is Gollum The Next Eminem?
> 
> Social Debate: Who is hotter? Fingon Or Finduilas?
> 
> ...


 
Note that both are Tolkien-related silliness, whereas Elgee makes threads that are a little random and entirely about herself. I'd think that the type of light-hearted or off-topic threads on this forum should be encouraged to either be remotely Tolkien-related, something sensible, or something that everyone can relate to. I'm not calling Elgee self-obsessed or anything, but that perhaps as a moderator she should try to set a better example.

Also, the title of this "new" thread seems a tad immature to me.


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



> This is going to stop ...
> 
> 
> Walter said:
> ...


  This made me laugh out loud.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Hammersmith said:


> ...What happened to the hippy ideals of your grandfathers?



Hey! I resemble that remark! 



Hammersmith said:


> Is Gollum The Next Eminem?
> 
> Social Debate: Who is hotter? Fingon Or Finduilas?
> 
> ...



And leave us never forget: Do balrogs have belly buttons? And the ever-popular Who's hotter, Elijah Wood or Daniel Radcliff? 



Lhunithiliel said:


> That my posts and presence are not, and shall not be acceptable and tolerated around here, as long as I keep on upsetting the TTF-Prima donna, I know.  Sorry! Just cannot change my opinion of her! Pity that you consider this to be a 'personal attack". It's not.



Nobody is asking you to change your opinion. However, _bringing it up_ so much _is_ a personal attack. I have my opinions about people on the board, but that doesn't mean I make them conspicuously public. If someone really gets on my nerves they go on my IGNORE list — I don't read their posts. Or I report offensive posts to the mods. I suggest you do the same. I daresay nobody is really interested in your negative opinions of others — I know _I'm_ not.

Barley


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Aulë said:


> Note that both are Tolkien-related silliness, whereas Elgee makes threads that are a little random and entirely about herself. I'd think that the type of light-hearted or off-topic threads on this forum should be encouraged to either be remotely Tolkien-related, something sensible, or something that everyone can relate to. I'm not calling Elgee self-obsessed or anything, but that perhaps as a moderator she should try to set a better example.
> 
> Also, the title of this "new" thread seems a tad immature to me.



Are you therefore the sole determiner of what constitutes silliness? If I created a thread in which the only text was "Tolkien is a cabbage", it would rightfully be designated spam. But it's related to Lord of the Rings, and so by your logic is completely allowable, no matter how inane the content. Or is there a limited amount of silliness allowed in Tolkien threads and a different threshold of tolerance in off topic threads? You've made no sense whatsoever, old boy. Try again. And in my opinion the title of this thread matches the content of the thread splendidly in immaturity levels.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: What is an Elgee?*



Aulë said:


> Note that both are Tolkien-related silliness, whereas Elgee makes threads that are a little random and entirely about herself. I'd think that the type of light-hearted or off-topic threads on this forum should be encouraged to either be remotely Tolkien-related, something sensible, or something that everyone can relate to. I'm not calling Elgee self-obsessed or anything, but that perhaps as a moderator she should try to set a better example.
> 
> Also, the title of this "new" thread seems a tad immature to me.


\

Fitting because I have always found these arguments when they pop up to be about as immature as they get.

It was never my intention on this forum to get Lhun to like me by posting, and if what I post causes her not to like me, I'll let that be because I would say the majority of members have a sense of humor and like what I post, and if one person gets sour, let them. 

Oh, I am admitted a little self-indulgent, but as far as I am concerned everyone on the forum has a right to make a similar poll, and it is very sad that people feel it necessary to attack when I do it. 

I think that off-topics can be totally silly. I think random silliness is one of the best parts of life, and it should always be encouraged. Now, if this thread in question had grown to ten pages worth of silliness, then you'd have an argument, but as it is it is a teensy-eensy bit of whatever space we have on this forum, people were having fun with it, and that is what is important, isn't it?

Now, if you want to set up a censorship board to go through each post and rate it for worthiness, go ahead and volunteer to WM. As it is, my idea is to allow anything fun that isn't nasty. Your idea is to allow anything nasty that isn't fun. . .hmmm. . .
You would also put the same system for members, I see. It is not ok to be silly, self-absorbed, or "primadona." It is ok to be condescending, snobbish, and judgemental. Makes sense. Makes a ton of sense. So let's break out the scarlet S's for silly and we can all have fun.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*

Nothing ever changes!


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 3, 2005)

Which to me would be a pretty good indicator that most people are happy with the way things are. . .but maybe I'm just a tad bit optimistic.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*

One thing I have to admit: I have never ever in my life met a person so self-centered, self-loving, self-...whatever, hence so self-blinding/fooling, and because of this - so arrogant, like you, HLGStrider!

*Moderators and others who disapprove of my posts*, before you blast your wrath at me again, I am asking you to first analyse my several posts in this thread, before the present one, and show me the disrespectful, offensive, arrogant or harsh words which I used in these posts, and then compare my posts to those of many other people, who let themselves and *were let*, to be disrespectful, offensive and harsh to me!

And be honest!


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 3, 2005)

May I suggest that everyone take a step back and take a looong breather?

At the moment, this is neither getting anywhere, nor serving any good!!!!

It only causes trouble, and if we think a little about it: to what purpose?
After all, considering the War in Iraq, the effects of numerous hurricanes, forest-fires, AIDS, cancer, bird-flu, and what not, this is rather a minor thing in the sceme of things isn't it?

Isn't there enough to make enemies about in the whole wide world? Why commence hostilities among people who came here initially because of common love for one thing: Tolkien and his works?


----------



## Aulë (Oct 3, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> Isn't there enough to make enemies about in the whole wide world? Why commence hostilities among people who came here initially because of common love for one thing: Tolkien and his works?


 
Hence the one topic of conversation that can occur where there will be no personal attacks should (since I know there have been exceptions) be topics related to Tolkien and his works.
Perhaps there is a lesson there....? 



Hammersmith said:


> Are you therefore the sole determiner of what constitutes silliness? If I created a thread in which the only text was "Tolkien is a cabbage", it would rightfully be designated spam. But it's related to Lord of the Rings, and so by your logic is completely allowable, no matter how inane the content. Or is there a limited amount of silliness allowed in Tolkien threads and a different threshold of tolerance in off topic threads? You've made no sense whatsoever, old boy. Try again. And in my opinion the title of this thread matches the content of the thread splendidly in immaturity levels.


 
Quit looking for loopholes in my statements, young Hammersmith. I didn't mean it like that, and you know it. If you could come up with a genuine reason on why you thought Tolkien was a cabbage, I'm sure that sort of thread would be accepted quite readily on this forum. It's the silly threads such as Elgee's latest attempt that should not be allowed. Threads such as "I just bought a pony", "I made an Irish Stew for dinner" and "What is an Elgee" are the sorts of chatty things that perhaps should be left for instant messaging (or PMing) programs. Silliness should be allowed, but as long as it is not so "chatty" such as stating something or asking a basic question.


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Aulë said:


> Quit looking for loopholes in my statements, young Hammersmith. I didn't mean it like that, and you know it. If you could come up with a genuine reason on why you thought Tolkien was a cabbage, I'm sure that sort of thread would be accepted quite readily on this forum. It's the silly threads such as Elgee's latest attempt that should not be allowed. Threads such as "I just bought a pony", "I made an Irish Stew for dinner" and "What is an Elgee" are the sorts of chatty things that perhaps should be left for instant messaging (or PMing) programs. Silliness should be allowed, but as long as it is not so "chatty" such as stating something or asking a basic question.



You're making as much sense as you were previously, young Aulë. If not like that, what did you mean? You're still enforcing a judgement system whereby you and you alone are the sole decider as to what constitutes a silly thread. In my opinion, your thoughts on how Gollum and Eminem can be compared are just as silly as my unpublished thesis on why Bill the Pony was a large and sentient sack of potatoes. Of course, I'm perfectly happy for you to post this silly thread. I merely ask that you refrain from sinking to Lhun's level in condescending hypocrisy.


----------



## Aulë (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Hammersmith said:


> You're making as much sense as you were previously, young Aulë. If not like that, what did you mean? You're still enforcing a judgement system whereby you and you alone are the sole decider as to what constitutes a silly thread. In my opinion, your thoughts on how Gollum and Eminem can be compared are just as silly as my unpublished thesis on why Bill the Pony was a large and sentient sack of potatoes. Of course, I'm perfectly happy for you to post this silly thread. I merely ask that you refrain from sinking to Lhun's level in condescending hypocrisy.


 
My thought on how Gollum and Eminem could be compared (jokingly) were based on a MFlash file that I had found, showing Gollum rapping a song about LotR. It was silly, yes, but it was mainly a cover for other people on this forum to see something unorthadox based on Tolkien's works. Elgee's thread was about herself, basically encouraging idle chit chat. Perhaps that could be acceptable from a newish member, but as a Mod, Elgee needs to realise that she is setting an example to the other members. Responsibilty does come with power, afterall. I'm not saying that I should be the sole decider - that is the job of the Mod Corp (which now seems to include Elgee). I'm not demanding anything; just putting forward ideas for the Mods to think over. You are the one who jumped to the conclusion that I was to be the sole judge of the quality of posts.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



> Elgee's thread was about herself, basically encouraging idle chit chat


 What is the big problem with that? As it has been already stated, such threads are deleted on a rather regular basis.


----------



## Beorn (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*

There's a really simple solution to this thread....Hopefully I can at least get lunch and address the many issues raised here before it gets bad enough to warrant that solution.


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



> _I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become universal law. -- I. Kant_



While this should be true for everyones actions, it is all the more so for those who have a leading role anywhere.

----

Also I'd like to invite everyone to imagine some hundreds of members, each contributing some thousands of posts and some dozens - or hundreds - of threads with little other purpose than to display their humble self here...

Still funny? Still no problem? I doubt it...


----
Edit: Typo in Kant's name corrected


----------



## Snaga (Oct 3, 2005)

I think that people who despise self-promotion should realise that Elgee's thread's do nothing to promote a good opinion of her, however much she may wish it. However annoying one member may be, it seems wrong to create rules purely to try to proscribe her activities, that have wider negative implications. I am content to allow such things continue. Children are very self-absorbed, its not an edifying sight but, Walter, we more aged ones should just be content that it is fairly natural. The odds are good that even Elgee may grow out of this. In the meantime, I suggest we look the other way.



Elgee said:


> I think random silliness is one of the best parts of life, and it should always be encouraged.


Its scarcely random to repeat an observable pattern ad nauseum. May I suggest that you mean in fact 'mindless'?


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*

I entirely agree with you, Snaga, hence I did not suggest to forbid such threads/posts, but to have these threads in a section where purging can happen automatically after a given period of time (which is, IIRC, one of the functions supported by the vBulletin software)...


----------



## Beorn (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Walter said:


> I entirely agree with you, Snaga, hence I did not suggest to forbid it, but to have such threads in a section where purging can happen automatically after a given period of time (which is, IIRC, one of the functions supported by the vBulletin software)...



Yes, purging is possible, but not automatically, and considering that there isn't nearly enough new-posted content to do it frequently, I don't really see the point of making such a section. It would just clutter up the frontpage more.

One interesting idea is that I can set up vB so that it merely hides S & B from anyone who specifically requests it....of course that function is really to deny people access to it, people who pay attention to it. If you choose to ignore it, that's the same thing. Of course, I'd need to talk it over with Dave before I turned that system on....but keep it in mind if you aren't capable of ignoring the threads and fora you don't want to read.


----------



## Grond (Oct 3, 2005)

I've always loved Elgee... I've always loved Lhun... go figure. The Tolkien Forum has always been a place where Tolkien fans can discuss serious and not so serious Tolkien topics. It was decided long ago that some amount of non-Tolkien related "silliness" would be allowed in S & B. I fail to see the "big deal" here. 

If you don't like Elgee's thread... ignore it. If you don't like Elgee's contributions, add her to your ignore list. I got to know Elgee (several years ago) on Messenger and found her to be delightful... and a Tolkien fan. LHun is one of my favorite people here on the forum.

I never even come into the S & B section. (I am here now only because of reported posts). If these things bother people, don't pay any attention to them. If the bandwidth gets too much, I'm sure that Mr. Dave will handle the problem. 

Cheers,

grond


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Aulë said:


> My thought on how Gollum and Eminem could be compared (jokingly) were based on a MFlash file that I had found, showing Gollum rapping a song about LotR. It was silly, yes, but it was mainly a cover for other people on this forum to see something unorthadox based on Tolkien's works. Elgee's thread was about herself, basically encouraging idle chit chat. Perhaps that could be acceptable from a newish member, but as a Mod, Elgee needs to realise that she is setting an example to the other members. Responsibilty does come with power, afterall. I'm not saying that I should be the sole decider - that is the job of the Mod Corp (which now seems to include Elgee). I'm not demanding anything; just putting forward ideas for the Mods to think over. You are the one who jumped to the conclusion that I was to be the sole judge of the quality of posts.


Aulë, dear chap, you don't need to defend your Gollinem clip to _me_! 
It's a silly thread, no matter how much it may reference Tolkien. It's fun. It's something to enjoy. It's idle. Much like Elgee's thread. Within time, the short-lived fun will be over and the whole thing will be forgotten. I may find the Gollum Eminem clip hilarious and pertinent. I may find Elgee's poll equally amusing. I may not. And I'm glad you've admitted that your own evaluation of the "idle" thread isn't definitive. Maybe now we can concentrate on entering only those threads that engage our attention, hm?


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 3, 2005)

Excuse me, Aule, but aren't you the same character who used to continually post things from Albino-Blacksheep?

Snaga, if you look back it has been several months since I have made a random poll. I wouldn't care, however, if I made more, because as I said I LIKE them.

And no, I don't plan to grow out of it, but I do believe myself to be more mature than the majority of my detractors, simply because I have not sunk to the level of biting at their ankles. Tell me, what harm does it do? Give me a specific harm that the thread does? I mean, the best anyone has come up with is "sets a bad example," but as I see it most people like the threads very much, and we haven't seen a huge amount of copy cat threads, mainly because these threads are my style and no one elses. 

If anything is self-centered, however, it is being unable to shut up about other people's posting practices. It's like Lhun thinks these threads personally insult her. 

People always wonder why people leave the forum. Don't you think it is more likely people leave the forum because of the constant inter-member-sniping than that people leave because they don't want to bother to ignore another one of my polls? 

I don't think I've ever attacked another member. That's more than I can say for most of you.


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 4, 2005)

Grond said:


> I've always loved Elgee... I've always loved Lhun... go figure.


My thoughts exactly. Well, perhaps not "love," but at least I have a lot of respect for both of them. And I could add the names of all the others who have contributed in this thread as well. And also a number of other members of TTF. And discussions such as these just make me sad. Why not just accept the fact that people are different? Isn't that all about respect? Isn't that after all what makes living and interacting so fascinating?


Elgee said:


> People always wonder why people leave the forum. Don't you think it is more likely people leave the forum because of the constant inter-member-sniping than that people leave because they don't want to bother to ignore another one of my polls?


I think that you have a point. I, for one, am getting fed up with this.
There has just been too many quarrels like this in my time around, and I wasn't even a member when Harad was...


----------



## Ingwë (Oct 4, 2005)

It seems that you have made many posts while I was studying 

I agree that there are many unuseful threads here and probably some are started by Elgee. But the description of *Stuff and Bother *is _'If what you have to say just doesn't seem to fit anywhere else, this is the forum for you.' _

_



I don't think that even a person who is a long time member of TTF has the right to call names. Or to cross the rules of this forum.

Click to expand...

You're right, Thorondor, but... There is always 'but'. I know Lhun. She's not evil. You may check the older threads of this forum and you'll see that she has posted in many threads, you'll see Gil-Galad and Ithy joking, you'll find gate7ole's posts and Finduilas's one. _

_Guys, you say that she must ignore the threads she doesn't like. I don't think that she can. I don't think that I can (I don't mean Elgee's threads). I don't know many Bulgarians that can ignore things that they don't like. There are students in my school, younger than me, who call me names. But I am patient. However, my patience is not unlimited so I do understand Lhun though I don't hate Elgee nor any person here. I like you all. Everything has limit and though I am a member from 1 year I know some things about this place. _

_Are *Росица*'s  post personal attacks. I depends. Don't forget it. _


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*

Someone still loves me on TTF? 
Unbelievable!! 
Ah, Arv! Don't _*you*_ love me, too, my old friend?!   

Master *Grond*, *Ingwe* thank you !

Enough of this, indeed!
As I said, nothing changes ... will ever change. We are who we are.


----------



## Walter (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Ingwë said:


> _Are *Росица*'s  post personal attacks. I depends. Don't forget it. _


Be that as it may, they constitute a breech of the rules...

Members simply are not allowed to say what they think, when they are violating rules with that. And it doesn't matter whether or not what they say has a point and/or is true.

Also it doesn't matter whether or not the members who break the rules come here because they have a deep urge to explore Tolkien's legendarium and contribute - or have contributed - hundreds or some thousand Tolkien related posts.

Just as it doesn't matter whether or not the members whose feelings may have been hurt may think themselves the center of the universe, gods/goddesses who have to be worshipped weekly, daily or hourly and seldom miss a chance to draw attention to their humble - or not so humble - selves. Or whether or not they come here to discuss Tolkien and his world of fiction and myths. Even if they consider TTF a vanity fair they are very welcome. 

All members are equal here.

Amen


----------



## Walter (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Lhunithiliel said:


> Someone still loves me on TTF?
> Unbelievable!!
> Ah, Arv! Don't _*you*_ love me, too, my old friend?!
> 
> ...


_Panta rhei_... Everything flows, nothing will ever be the same...

Peace, woman...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Lhunithiliel said:


> One thing I have to admit: I have never ever in my life met a person so self-centered, self-loving, self-...whatever, hence so self-blinding/fooling, and because of this - so arrogant, like you, HLGStrider!



As an ex-therapist, I observe that the qualities that an individual simply cannot stand in others are many times the qualities that one cannot stand about oneself which, repressed out of awareness, are then projected on to others.

Barley


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> As an ex-therapist, I observe that the qualities that an individual simply cannot stand in others are many times the qualities that one cannot stand about oneself which, repressed out of awareness, are then projected on to others.
> 
> Barley



No need to start a new loop, Barley!
Such psychological analysis "moves" me as much as the one about what "a sense of humour is and who possesses it and who does not" ... for example !


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Walter said:


> _Panta rhei_... Everything flows, nothing will ever be the same...
> 
> Peace, woman...


Many things change ... More don't ever.
But peace it be!


----------



## Aulë (Oct 4, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> Excuse me, Aule, but aren't you the same character who used to continually post things from Albino-Blacksheep?


 
Yes, but I am not a Mod. 
You had plenty of fun before with such posts, but perhaps you could restrain yourself from setting a bad example to the other newer, more impressionable members?  (such as poor Snaga...such a n00b  )


----------



## DGoeij (Oct 4, 2005)

At times like this I feel stupid. I've been reading the thread and I am completely unable to see the reason for anyone to become so flustered.

Put your hands up, back away from the keyboard, take a deep breath and consider this: There's potentially more harm in your next meal than in ANY thread that's produced on this forum. So where's the fuss about?


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Lhunithiliel said:


> Ah, Arv! Don't _*you*_ love me, too, my old friend?!


I was going to leave it as it was, but there was a certain wife standing behind me with a meat-cleaver!!!!


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



> There's potentially more harm in your next meal than in ANY thread that's produced on this forum


It seems to me you had a good karma so far . I can tell from my experience that personal comments can really ruin your day. And they are not a thing of the past.


----------



## Beorn (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



DGoeij said:


> There's potentially more harm in your next meal than in ANY thread that's produced on this forum. So where's the fuss about?



Apparently more true than you ever thought!



Arvedui said:


> I was going to leave it as it was, but there was a certain wife standing behind me with a meat-cleaver!!!!


----------



## Walter (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Arvedui said:


> I was going to leave it as it was, but there was a certain wife standing behind me with a meat-cleaver!!!!


Oh sweet surrender.... 

Rule #7 for the loving husband: "Never argue with your wife, when she's holding a meat-cleaver...." 

Btw. ... anyone remember that old Pink Floyd song: "Careful with that axe, Eugene"?


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Arvedui said:


> I was going to leave it as it was, but there was a certain wife standing behind me with a meat-cleaver!!!!


Oh! You must've misunderstood her ... 'cause she was there only out of women's solidarity ... and the innocent utensil ... it just happened to be in her hands! ... Quite accidentally! Such thing do appear in our hands by pure chance!


----------



## Ingwë (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Lhunithiliel said:


> Someone still loves me on TTF?
> Unbelievable!!
> Ah, Arv! Don't _*you*_ love me, too, my old friend?!
> Master *Grond*, *Ingwe* thank you !
> ...


Of course there sre users who still love you! But the problem is that some of us aren't active users...


----------



## DGoeij (Oct 5, 2005)

The meatcleaver incident proves my point. Real life is where you get hurt. 

I cannot remember many incidents where I was insulted or even annoyed by people miles away (here on TTF or any other forum I visited), by the use of a keyboard for heavens sake, but to me they were quite insignificant, I do remember that.

I do not seem to grasp the fact that you could first type a comment that is potentially un-nice, then re-read your post and then still press the 'submit reply'. So people who do, cannot be worth it or are too worked up to mean anything they say. Perhaps not that great a defence strategy, but it works pretty well.

Even in dutch I'm constantly aware of the fact that I'm making typos and lousy sentences, so I have to re-read what I type. Funny thing is, in real life I am not known for an ability to keep my big mouth shut (delivering snappy comments is a habit I can hardly control), but writing them down apparently works as a filter to me.


----------



## Walter (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



DGoeij said:


> The meatcleaver incident proves my point. Real life is where you get hurt.



Rule #8 for the loving husband: Do nothing that could potentially upset your wife, especially, do not declare love to other women in her presence. (This rule is of particular importance in connexion with rule #7, when your wife holds a meat-cleaver, or other things which might serve as a weapon)...


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 5, 2005)

This is endearing: After all is said and done, the participants of this thread gladly throw down their raiment of cantankerousness and indulge in silly camaraderie. Indeed I am glad that _this_, at least, has never changed!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Walter said:


> Rule #7 for the loving husband: "Never argue with your wife, when she's holding a meat-cleaver...."
> Rule #8 for the loving husband: Do nothing that could potentially upset your wife, especially, do not declare love to other women in her presence.



There are two rules in my marriage that keep it fabulously humming along:

1. In marriage it's better to be happy than to be right!
2. When Momma ain't happy, ain't _nobody_ happy!

Barley


----------



## DGoeij (Oct 5, 2005)

Would you two 'mature' *cough*old*cough* persons quit it now? I'm trying to get used to the idea that the girl I'm in love with for the past five years, might be the one I will grow old with. Considering she has a pretty good left hook as it is, your worrying prospects aren't helping.


----------



## Aulë (Oct 5, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> This is endearing: After all is said and done, the participants of this thread gladly throw down their raiment of cantankerousness and indulge in silly camaraderie. Indeed I am glad that _this_, at least, has never changed!


 
Come now, Itchy Mod! I remember a certain current moderator who caused all sorts of mischief on TTF with Nóm and myself a few years back.  Your inner-child is just begging to unleash with some sort of silliness!!


----------



## Walter (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



DGoeij said:


> Would you two 'mature' *cough*old*cough* persons quit it now? I'm trying to get used to the idea that the girl I'm in love with for the past five years, might be the one I will grow old with. Considering she has a pretty good left hook as it is, your worrying prospects aren't helping.


Nothing wrong with that...

I'm living with the girl I'm in love with for almost 30 years now and I couldn't be any happier.

Only, there are a few rules to live by....


----------



## Grond (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> There are two rules in my marriage that keep it fabulously humming along:
> 
> 1. In marriage it's better to be happy than to be right!
> 2. When Momma ain't happy, ain't _nobody_ happy!
> ...


DGoeij,

From someone who has been married a total of 31 years... take it from me... Barliman's post is dead on.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 5, 2005)

Aulë said:


> Come now, Itchy Mod! I remember a certain current moderator who caused all sorts of mischief on TTF with Nóm and myself a few years back.  Your inner-child is just begging to unleash with some sort of silliness!!



Why say that - I never objected to silliness, if it's in the right place, and when there is neither too much nor too little of it. I included myself in the statement I made earlier: my inner child has constantly been alive and kicking and will continue to do so, in a sensible manner, for days on end.


----------



## DGoeij (Oct 5, 2005)

Well, Grond, Walter (and no doubt, Barley), I've got parents, recently they were married for 30 years and I've occasionally seen reason enough for your attitudes to be indeed, spot on.  

No harm done though, the fireworks that seem come for free with a stable relationship, do have their very own charm. Making up afterwards is the best part.


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 6, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Walter said:


> Btw. ... anyone remember that old Pink Floyd song: "Careful with that axe, Eugene"?


 This is a thread I _don't _mind trolling in and responding to mindless, childish chitchat with more of the same ...yeah, not only do I recall it, but I've just been singing along to a song quoting it in passing reference.

*Hums*


----------



## Walter (Oct 6, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Hammersmith said:


> This is a thread I _don't _mind trolling in and responding to mindless, childish chitchat with more of the same ...


By all means, be our guest and do so...


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 8, 2005)

Thanks, everyone, for the wonderful replies.
I am rolling over with laughter at the moment.  



> There are two rules in my marriage that keep it fabulously humming along:
> 
> 1. In marriage it's better to be happy than to be right!
> 2. When Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!



Amen!


----------



## Walter (Oct 8, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Walter said:


> I'm living with the girl I'm in love with for almost 30 years now and I couldn't be any happier.


I have just been informed, that this very day happened to be last thursday, and somehow I have a remote feeling that I was supposed to remember it... 

Rule #9 for the loving husband: Certain days - like birthdays, anniversaries, etc. - ought to be remembered. Flowers, candlelight dinners, etc. are always a welcome diversion...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 8, 2005)

*Re: Elgee didn't want to ruin your delightful argument but didn't want it on her thre*



Walter said:


> I have just been informed, that this very day happened to be last thursday, and somehow I have a remote feeling that I was supposed to remember it...
> 
> Rule #9 for the loving husband: Certain days - like birthdays, anniversaries, etc. - ought to be remembered. Flowers, candlelight dinners, etc. are always a welcome diversion...



_Uh-oh_... it's candy and flowers time (sometimes they're not just a diversion, but a combination apology and peace offering)! 

BTW, unless one is prepared to be _preternaturally *patient,*_ do NOT try to teach one's wife — if she is intimidated by technoelectronics — the intricacies of a new picturephone...also time for candy and flowers... 

Barley


----------

