GD response.

A place for discussions that don't fit elsewhere.
Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

GD response.

Postby Gerasene Demon » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:53 am

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: GD response.

Postby woodgreen » Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:50 pm

My response is more to Daffy than Neil.

Daffy - can you explain what locking -out a thread is? I am a little concerned, although I know you are between a rock and a hard place here, that this action can be seen as denying Neil his right to free speech on a forum that thrives on just that principle. We all appreciate the need for netiquette, but the SES have no netiquette in life or in freedom of speech. Neil was one of the reasons for this forum, and is testimony to why many have persevered in posting here. Neil has explained this - he should not have to be put through a wringer on this forum any more in my opinion.

Be that, Neil will take care of himself, but I am concerned about the locking of a thread. If I said something in capital letters could I be locked out.? If I was having a funny do ( as I call it) could I be locked out?

We need to be sure that the forum can support its members, unlike the SES, who do not.

Also, is there a time-out on when we are composing drafts? I frequently am composing at some length, and the "Post a Reply" seems to time - out before I post. It may be my broadband, or my laptop, but can you say whether the site has a time -out on using the post a reply? i.e. do we need to save drafts after 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or any minutes? I'll post now in case it times-out!

regards

woodgreen
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: GD response.

Postby Gerasene Demon » Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:33 pm

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: GD response.

Postby woodgreen » Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:41 pm

Hey ho, welcome back then GD.

Now we can post with freedom.

Daffy, can you say whether the "post a reply" has a time limation or not? Or maybe just down to our kit. No problem if it is the latter, will compose accordingly.

regards

woodgreen
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Re: GD response.

Postby Daffy » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:01 am

I've done some searching for the timeout problem and I think I've found a board setting that controls what's called the 'session length'.

The setting was previously the default of 3600 seconds (= 1 hour) but I've now made this 10 hours. See if that works and let me know what happens. In the meantime I suggest you copy the text to your clipboard before posting (in Windows, CTRL A, then CTRL C) just in case.

Bear in mind a longer session time means that anyone returning to your PC within that session time will be logged in, even if (I think) you've closed the browser window. So if you use a shared PC you may wish to log out rather than just close the browser.

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Re: GD response.

Postby Daffy » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:17 am

woodgreen wrote:Daffy - can you explain what locking -out a thread is?

Locking a thread simply means stopping any further posts from being made in it. It's a commonly used feature on forums where a thread has 'served its purpose', such as where the original poster's question has been answered and the conversation has gone off-topic (by way of example). As I said before, GD is welcome back and locking the thread doesn't suggest otherwise.

Long-time members of this board will know that you hardly ever hear from me (I'm really too busy with parenting to spend a lot of time here) - but this doesn't imply that any intervention from me is a gross violation of 'freedom of speech'. As in the real world, every person's freedom of speech needs to be balanced against everyone else's.

I've explained why I've intervened in this case and I don't really have anything else to add. You can disagree with me (and unlike the SES I don't hold this against you!) but as I mentioned before, experience suggests that people do feel constrained from contributing when the conversation goes in a certain direction. I had a number of private messages supportive of my action.

Over to you all to continue the conversation about the SES and its satellite schools around the world...

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: GD response.

Postby woodgreen » Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:51 am

Many thanks Daffy. Enough said.

woodgreen
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

bluegreen
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:42 pm

Re: GD response.

Postby bluegreen » Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:38 pm

Thank you GD for taking the time to write about your mental health and for giving us an insight into what it is like to be troubled with depression or bipolar disorder. It was very honest of you and you obviously went to some effort to put it all down for us. I did not know what to think about daffy's decision to temporarily block you but I was concerned that it would hurt you and I'm sorry that it did..."deeply". I find Daffy to be fair and sensible and so I felt that his explanation seemed reasonable, but I would not want you to stop using the forum to vent, educate or communicate as you want.
I am glad to see that subsequently you are feeling a little lighter about the 'mind dump' term. I am amazed at your insight into your own illness so that you can predict the cycle and when different aspects of it will affect you. And am impressed that bacause you are so aware of the various causes for your moods, you can choose not to act on them. It makes me wonder if my friend (who is now dead) could have been able to master his bipolar disorder and recognise what he was feeling and why and predict when, may be he would still be alive today.
Anyway, glad you are back on the forum.
St James Girls School 1977-1981

Ella.M.C.
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:12 am

Re: GD response.

Postby Ella.M.C. » Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:45 am

I just want to acknowledge Gerasenes response, and echo the words of bluegreens post in reply.
I too was very impressed with your explanation, giving us insight into your condition,
and your ability to predict the cycles and act accordingly.
It was very helpful in understanding, thank you for such honesty Gerasene.

Welcome back x

OneBadRat
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: GD response.

Postby OneBadRat » Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:36 am

Demon,
I'm apologise for talking about you and your parents, of which I have no direct knowledge -that was over the line.
Maybe I was also in a pompous moment at the time, sorry again.
I would ask you to consider though, whether your posts always add value to this place, -(many of them have).
(Maybe that sounds pompous again? - Sorry mate.)

woodgreen however, I can simply accuse of adding nothing save a theft of anyone's time who can be bothered to groan through her stultifying updates to nothing.
woodgreen, do you really imagine that you are adding anything at all except distraction and obfuscation to this place? Do you actually think it is of value to anyone relating that you sent an email about nothing to Dr. Cairncross and -wait for it -nothing happened? Do you really think that your stale little crumbs of information are not already known to anyone involved in countering the SES? Are you, as someone so sick as to join the SES, as an adult, and spend 3 years as a member, really equating yourself with any victim of it's schools such as to make any reference at all such as 'we' ???
'we' ? ? ? 'WE' ? ? ?
Have you really made 200 posts ? ? ? !

And Daffy, once again I will ask you to justify your complete unaccountability, your non-neutral position as an ex-St.James pupil, your failure to complete routine administrator's tasks - such as answering questions from board users, and to give clarification of the ownership of the ses-forums.org site and the copyright status of material uploaded there.
(And is it not obvious to you that by suppressing GD's last thread you have simply generated one more -where there are already too many!) (Suppress a god and you create a demon - but we're already past that aren't we, Parent?)
Last edited by OneBadRat on Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: GD response.

Postby Gerasene Demon » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:03 am

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: GD response.

Postby Gerasene Demon » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:20 pm

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: GD response.

Postby woodgreen » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:28 pm

Onebadrat

Don't know what your problem is with me, but I will not be entering into a personal slanging match with you.

woodgreen.
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: GD response.

Postby Gerasene Demon » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:55 pm

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bluegreen
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:42 pm

Re: GD response.

Postby bluegreen » Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:16 pm

Gerasene Demon wrote:....in the absence of fellow pupils .... I may well have behaved differently if other pupils were around but they weren't

GD

Oh :(
St James Girls School 1977-1981


Return to “Miscellaneous”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest