DVD Talk
Rosa Parks [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Rosa Parks


LurkerDan
10-25-05, 01:25 PM
I'm still not exactly sure what happened, but I think it's really disappointing that the thread in Other announcing Rosa Parks' death was moved to the politics forum. I think it reflects very poorly on this forum and society that mourning her death, and the associated discussion of her life, is considered a political discussion.

Ranger
10-25-05, 01:32 PM
I'm going to look up those Reagan death threads now.

nemein
10-25-05, 01:49 PM
I moved/merged it because there was already a thread in there about it. As it stands since she was a "political" figure (not in the sense of any elected office but in the sense of someone who became the focal point of a political movement) having the thread in the Politics forum makes sense IMHO. Personally I think it's more of a limitation/non-agreement over exactly what the "Politics" forum is supposed to be.

Tracer Bullet
10-25-05, 03:57 PM
I'm going to look up those Reagan death threads now.

If you find them, post them... I searched in vain today.

dick_grayson
10-25-05, 04:03 PM
I'm still not exactly sure what happened, but I think it's really disappointing that the thread in Other announcing Rosa Parks' death was moved to the politics forum. I think it reflects very poorly on this forum and society that mourning her death, and the associated discussion of her life, is considered a political discussion.

There were two threads (one mine which I put in politics and another came after that was in Other). I wasn't 100% sure it should be in Politics since it wasn't meant to incite discussion it did rather more of memorial of a political (civil rights) VIP. I assume the one in Other was merged into mine and the reasoning was not to add fuel to the fire.....which Classicman seemed to be taking care of on his own. How some people need to get in the last word and opine everything to death (let alone admit when they've made a mistake or crossed a line) is what bothers me......

Ranger
10-25-05, 05:35 PM
If you find them, post them... I searched in vain today.
I couldn't find them either, but my point just was that political comments were made often in those threads (even when the thread was in Other) so it's fair to expect the same for Rosa Parks' death thread(s).

X
10-25-05, 06:09 PM
Sometimes the way we handle threads changes over time and maintaining absolute consistency probably isn't the foremost goal moderators are striving for. But we do keep in mind that you can always count on dozens of people to point out when it changes so it isn't done capriciously. How to handle duplicate threads and new ones that may be in the wrong forum is often done with respect to the current existing threads and flow of discussion.

twikoff
10-26-05, 09:26 PM
THE IDIOT MODERATORS KEEP MOVING MY THREADS!!!


oh come on.. someone had to say it! ;)

Preacher
10-27-05, 01:17 AM
I'm still not exactly sure what happened, but I think it's really disappointing that the thread in Other announcing Rosa Parks' death was moved to the politics forum. I think it reflects very poorly on this forum and society that mourning her death, and the associated discussion of her life, is considered a political discussion.

Agreed. Absolutely.

dick_grayson
10-27-05, 09:22 AM
I don't think that just because a thread is in a certain forum means it has to be used for discussion. Politics seems the only place for that. When a tv star dies, the thread goes in tv. When a musican dies, it goes in music. When a political activist dies, it makes perfect sense for a thread to be in politics. Only a few were using it for discussion and had I know it would have taken that direction, I would have posted in Other (or perhaps not at all).

Preacher
10-28-05, 11:42 PM
There is a possibility that it will truly become physically and emotionally impossible to post in Otter due to the fact that all posts must be sensible and yet any sensible material has been moved to some other Forum for like minded people to discuss them amongst themselves as Otter appears to become represented by apes who have constructed rudimentary tools but are really not ready for prime time players.

Bandoman
10-29-05, 11:42 AM
While I understand your frustration, Preacher, I also understand why a thread about the death of someone so important to the political history of our country was moved to the forum which was designed for discussion of such issues.

LurkerDan
10-29-05, 12:37 PM
While I understand your frustration, Preacher, I also understand why a thread about the death of someone so important to the politica histroy of our country was moved to the forum which was designed for discussion of such issues.
And then people are allowed to blatantly threadcrap in it, and cry "but this is the politics forum, we're supposed to discuss politics here!" :up:

Bandoman
10-29-05, 12:43 PM
And then people are allowed to blatantly threadcrap in it, and cry "but this is the politics forum, we're supposed to discuss politics here!" :up:

I think I know the posts to which you refer, but that's part of participating in a message board. Do you think there wouldn't have been any threadcraps or jokes posted if the thread remained in Other? Also, there's something to be said for the point of view that a thread discussing the death of a nationally-known person doesn't have to be a condolences only thread.

Preacher
10-29-05, 01:16 PM
Perhaps one could hope that a thread remembering the accomplishments of one person upon their death, may not be the place for personal attacks and prevaricatory or judgemental comments.

Bandoman
10-29-05, 01:28 PM
I essentially agree, Preacher, but you started this thread as a discussion of why it shouldn't have been moved from Other to the Political forum. My point is that the thread would have had a percentage of irrelevant, and potentially obnoxious, posts no matter where it was (and some might argue that the signal to noise ration would have been even lower had it remained in Other).

Preacher
10-29-05, 02:01 PM
Excuse me, but what is a "signal to noise ration."

Thank you.

Bandoman
10-29-05, 03:30 PM
Sorry about the typo - I meant "signal to noise ratio", not "ration."

LurkerDan
10-29-05, 03:36 PM
I essentially agree, Preacher, but you started this thread as a discussion of why it shouldn't have been moved from Other to the Political forum. My point is that the thread would have had a percentage of irrelevant, and potentially obnoxious, posts no matter where it was (and some might argue that the signal to noise ration would have been even lower had it remained in Other).
First off, it was me, not Preacher.

And second, your responses here seem to say "people are jerks, deal with it". True, of course, but I think it's fair to question why people are jerks.

I miss funny Bando. :(

Bandoman
10-29-05, 03:44 PM
Oops - sorry Dan. It's your thread. :up:

I didn't mean to say "people are jerks, deal with it" so much as to say "you're going to see jerks no matter what forum you're in." I too would have preferred that the thread remain a tribute to a brave woman, but it's not up to me or you to dictate the direction of a thread. The discussion takes on a life of its own. Was it "nice" for someone to point out, in that thread, that there was someone else who, in the poster's opinion, made greater contributions to civil rights? No, but at least it was a reasoned opinion and not a rude-for-the-sake-of-being-rude comment.

LurkerDan
10-29-05, 06:01 PM
Oops - sorry Dan. It's your thread. :up:

I didn't mean to say "people are jerks, deal with it" so much as to say "you're going to see jerks no matter what forum you're in." I too would have preferred that the thread remain a tribute to a brave woman, but it's not up to me or you to dictate the direction of a thread. The discussion takes on a life of its own. Was it "nice" for someone to point out, in that thread, that there was someone else who, in the poster's opinion, made greater contributions to civil rights? No, but at least it was a reasoned opinion and not a rude-for-the-sake-of-being-rude comment.
How was it not a threadcrap? Was the topic of the thread "discuss Rosa Parks significance to the civil rights movement compared to other figures"? I don't think the topic of the thread was remotely close to that. The poster in question didn't even say "Rosa was actually not very important", that would have been slightly more on topic, but Rosa was instead attacked in a backhanded manner. It was a blatant threadcrap, pure and simple, one that apparently was ok for some unknown reason. I completely disagree that it was not a rude-for-the-sake-of-being-rude comment, I think that was exactly what it was.

Ranger
10-30-05, 02:31 AM
Speaking of backhanded attacks, rude comments, and threadcraps, what about people harshly criticizing the OP of a pet loss thread? What, that was different?

All the above are allowed though, but I think it's the really inflammatory posts that usually would catch the attention of the moderators then they make a judgment call on it. But it's still my opinion that the poster in question didn't even make any such comments. The only problem I saw were the (over)reactions of some members against the poster.

LurkerDan
10-31-05, 02:07 AM
All the above are allowed though, but I think it's the really inflammatory posts that usually would catch the attention of the moderators then they make a judgment call on it. But it's still my opinion that the poster in question didn't even make any such comments. The only problem I saw were the (over)reactions of some members against the poster.
Hmmm, wouldn't their reactions indicate that the post was inflammatory? Or they were overreactions because you decided the post wasn't inflammatory?

Ranger
10-31-05, 11:55 AM
Of course I decided the post wasn't inflammatory, but some people overreacted anyway.

My idea of an inflammatory post would have been someone rejoicing her death or cursing her name.

The worst the poster in question did was simply belittle her legacy. Hardly inflammatory.

LurkerDan
10-31-05, 12:41 PM
Of course I decided the post wasn't inflammatory, but some people overreacted anyway.

My idea of an inflammatory post would have been someone rejoicing her death or cursing her name.

The worst the poster in question did was simply belittle her legacy. Hardly inflammatory.
Belittling her legacy was very inflammatory. It was the only thread we were allowed for her passing, since 2 threads were merged. She was a very important woman, one who was (almost, apparently) universally admired. Would someone belittling the legacy of, say, Mother Theresa in the thread where people were expressing their condolences not be inflammatory? I can't fathom how you can acknowledge that the post was belittling her legacy yet not see that as inflammatory.

Ranger
11-01-05, 05:47 PM
Belittling her legacy was very inflammatory. It was the only thread we were allowed for her passing, since 2 threads were merged. She was a very important woman, one who was (almost, apparently) universally admired. Would someone belittling the legacy of, say, Mother Theresa in the thread where people were expressing their condolences not be inflammatory? I can't fathom how you can acknowledge that the post was belittling her legacy yet not see that as inflammatory.
I don't know about Mother Theresa, what about Pope John Paul II?

I see a difference between a "Look, the pope wasn't all that" post and a "Good! The old bastard is finally dead!" post. The latter apparently is inflammatory while the former isn't though a few may take offense.

The other thing is that the thread was already in the politics forum. It isn't fair to expect everyone to restrain from making political comments that may belittle her legacy and then gang up on a sole poster who did voice a political criticism. So your problem shouldn't be with that poster but with the moderator(s) who moved it there though IMO, it isn't a big deal.

Anyway, I'm tired here, you can have the closing post.

Josh H
11-01-05, 05:51 PM
My only comment would be that memorial comments full of posts of nothing but, "Rest in Peace" and similar posts are pretty pointless.

I mean it's a discussion board and that merits no discussion. So I think it's kind of silly to expect nothing but those kind of posts and other positive posts.

But I guess it could have been left in Other where most posts have no meaningful discussion. (couldn't resist, been way too long since I bashed Other.) ;)

dick_grayson
11-01-05, 05:55 PM
My only comment would be that memorial comments full of posts of nothing but, "Rest in Peace" and similar posts are pretty pointless.

I mean it's a discussion board and that merits no discussion. So I think it's kind of silly to expect nothing but those kind of posts and other positive posts.



I agree, but where was the discussion then? If one thinks LBJ did more or Rosa Parks contribution is exaggerated, then they should post why. I didn't see the reasoning behind those and that's why I think people got upset. It was just a hit and run statement that was not explained. One should be able to post what they think, but they need to provide an (any) explanation. Just my 2 cents....

LurkerDan
11-01-05, 08:13 PM
Anyway, I'm tired here, you can have the closing post.
Woohoo! :banana:

The other thing is that the thread was already in the politics forum. It isn't fair to expect everyone to restrain from making political comments that may belittle her legacy and then gang up on a sole poster who did voice a political criticism. So your problem shouldn't be with that poster but with the moderator(s) who moved it there though IMO, it isn't a big deal.
See my first post. :D

Red Dog
12-21-05, 10:31 AM
I was reading Playboy over this past weekend (yes, I like the articles too :)), and there was a blurb about how there were 2 young black women who defied bus segregation in Montgomery prior to Rosa. However, the NAACP did not want to use them as plaintiffs because, how shall we say this, they weren't model citizens. While I usually bow to Mr. Hefner and the magazine he has created, I just had to ask whether this is this actually true.

Red Dog
12-21-05, 10:33 AM
WTF? This thread is now in Feedback? :hscratch:

nemein
12-21-05, 10:46 AM
Because this was the thread that was created complaining about the original Parks thread and the fact it was moved from one forum to another.