what do you don't like here,..??

[krisgil_aguila]

well, it has been more than weeks since i register here,...
i am enjoying this much and i'm learning new things from all of the people here,...
but one thing i didn't like,...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
vBulletin Message
This forum requires that you wait 60 seconds between searches. Please try again in __ seconds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

haixt (-_-)

__________________________________________________ ______________
I grew up with six brothers. That's how I learned to dance - waiting for the bathroom.
Bob Hope

[Niamh]

Thats a standard message that appears if you try to repeat an act on the forum within less than one minute after the last. It will appear if you try to post another post directly after one within a matter of seconds. You need to give the page a change to properly refresh.

[IJustMadeThatUp]

Thats a standard message that appears if you try to repeat an act on the forum within less than one minute after the last. It will appear if you try to post another post directly after one within a matter of seconds. You need to give the page a change to properly refresh.

:lol: [commence whiney voice] But I wanna search noooooooooooow!
It bugs me too, but I do realise the purpose.

[Scheherazade]

It also helps prevent spamming (in case a bot starts posting or conducting searches).

[BienvenuJDC]

LOL...we have become a society of NOW....
I can learn to wait...

[IJustMadeThatUp]

LOL...we have become a society of NOW....
I can learn to wait...

We have become a society of now.

I can be a now person, but only because I forget things quickly - my short term memoryis atrocious, so it's a survival mechanism from years of being told off for forgetting things. Otherwise, I'm extremely patient.

[BienvenuJDC]

I have a short memory too...

BTW...we are a society of NOW

[Maximilianus]

It's only 60 seconds. I think it's a very bearable wait. I can't quite think of what I don't like here. I think it's one of the best organized forums in the history of forums, and it's not because I want to earn points from the mods :p :D If I find anything I dislike I may come back. I'm thinking ... http://smiles.kolobok.us/artists/just_cuz/JC_thinking.gif ... still to no avail.

[BienvenuJDC]

However...if you have some threads that you always post on....just SUBSCRIBE to them. You can click the User CP (Control Panel) as often as you like to bring up your subscribed threads...

[Haunted]

Can private messages be displayed more elegantly? I like the way messages flow chronologically, please don't change that. But the box within a box doesn't work so well. Early messages are squished so much the lines break with every one or two words. Long string of messages are virtually impossible to read. As more boxes are added, the width of the page increases and scrolling interrupts the train of thought.

Is it just a matter of tinkering with the html codes to reduce the width between boxes? Or how about separating each messages with just a simple rule? Time stamping each messages would be a nice feature too.

[BienvenuJDC]

Can private messages be displayed more elegantly? I like the way messages flow chronologically, please don't change that. But the box within a box doesn't work so well. Early messages are squished so much the lines break with every one or two words. Long string of messages are virtually impossible to read. As more boxes are added, the width of the page increases and scrolling interrupts the train of thought.

Is it just a matter of tinkering with the html codes to reduce the width between boxes? Or how about separating each messages with just a simple rule? Time stamping each messages would be a nice feature too.

Now that's a great idea...

[Admin]

That formatting is deep within the settings and not something I'd care to change as it'd break again after every upgrade.

The PM system as a whole isn't meant for long conversations like that. You can always delete the quoting of the old replies as well, they're still saved in your PM box if you ever want to go look at them.

[Maximilianus]

Not complaining, just curiosity... would it be difficult to implement a way to perform a batch download of visitor messages? Something similar to what we can do with the PM box, saving messages as XML or text files or something alike?

[Admin]

Maybe. That feature might even already be in the next version, it would seem a logical extension.

[Maximilianus]

Thanks for considering :nod:

[mtpspur]

Only real thing I dislike is lack of a next chapter button when reading a novel online. I know it sounds petty but untitled chapters drive me crazy and I sit there and go now did I finish chapter 68 of Book 3 of the 3 rd series or was it chapter 4??? A next chapter button would be wonderful.

[Admin]

I will be doing a site redesign later in the year and will add that feature at that time.

[BienvenuJDC]

While we are at it...can we add the menu bar at the bottom near the quick reply window.

[mtpspur]

Thank you very much.

[Virgil]

I can't stand the ridiculing of religious world views. The religious section was not meant to debate how one religion (and I include atheism as a religion) is better or correct over another. If the rules mean anything, then discussion of religious issues are supposed to be limited to religious texts, and the meaning of texts and how they differ, not whether atheism or Chistianity or Buddhism Islam is the correct world view. The lack of wide spread enforcement show that the rules don't mean anything. Even respectful atheism versus religion, and they are rarely respectful, are supposed to be outside the appropriate topics of discussion. If you notice, many of the muslim members of lit net have left, and that's a shame.

[AimusSage]

I can't stand the ridiculing of religious world views. The religious section was not meant to debate how one religion (and I include atheism as a religion) is better or correct over another. If the rules mean anything, then discussion of religious issues are supposed to be limited to religious texts, and the meaning of texts and how they differ, not whether atheism or Chistianity or Buddhism Islam is the correct world view. The lack of wide spread enforcement show that the rules don't mean anything. Even respectful atheism versus religion, and they are rarely respectful, are supposed to be outside the appropriate topics of discussion. If you notice, many of the muslim members of lit net have left, and that's a shame.
I avoid the religious forum mostly, but when I do post there I try to make it a balanced reply, and everyone who provides a balanced reply there is ignored by all sides, (with balanced I mean to say that I favour one side heavily, but respect other views even if I disagree) when people leave it is because initially they came to convert and failed. I have seen it happen, I have seen it done, and most that post there are trying to convert, it is a cesspool of intolerance on all sides, and I find it most unpleasant.

I prefer to search for other threads every other 60 seconds :D

[Logos]

Virgil, actually, right now people can discuss anything to do with religion, as long as it's within the forums' rules. There was a time for a few months last year where the Religious Texts area rules were amended to only allow specific threads about *texts*. People needed some cooling off time :)

All I can say is, it never has been and never will be an easy area for any of us to deal with as posters or Moderators. People make their own choice whether to participate or not; it's just that it's very hard to be objective when people are reacting with emotions. Can't please everybody.

/me skips off hoping this thread isn't going to get jacked by a Religious War :Yawn: :D

[Jozanny]

I have no problem discussing religious texts in terms of their literary and aesthetic values. To say that the Qu'ran and the KJB are triumphalist is simply an observation, but when the discussion of belief systems devolves into proselytizing, and both believers and non-believers have to be right, well, I have to say I am unhappy that the network has the RT sub-forum set up as it is.

I am not trying to be overly critical, truly, as I am somewhat surprised that I have not been banned in the two years this community has tolerated my posts--but I would do it differently. I'd set up a forum for biblical works, and much like the admin(s) do with authors, set up sub threads for known versions and books, with eastern and pagan texts included, to the best of your ability. Then we would have little room for impassioned arguments over whose doctrine wins. I would at least try it, and I would include stuff like Hubbard's Dianetics for the Scientologists, seriously. Then everyone has a text and can create threads within them.

[The Comedian]

I avoid the religious forum mostly, but when I do post there I try to make it a balanced reply, and everyone who provides a balanced reply there is ignored by all sides, (with balanced I mean to say that I favour one side heavily, but respect other views even if I disagree) . . . . it is a cesspool of intolerance on all sides, and I find it most unpleasant.

Couldn't agree more -- and I almost never participate in those religions vs science discussions for the reasons mentioned here. I do like to watch them; however, I have a weakness for watching bloodsports. :lol:

[Paulclem]

Couldn't agree more -- and I almost never participate in those religions vs science discussions for the reasons mentioned here. I do like to watch them; however, I have a weakness for watching bloodsports. :lol:

:biggrin5:

I watch a bit, but I only get involved with what I understand. It can be quite emotive, and it is ironic that it is a bear pit considering the topics. A shot of grace with a dignity mixer wouldn't go amiss sometimes.

:argue:

[billl]

There is a point that people sometimes make about how "ridicule" is a valid technique for bringing down an ideology that is wrong/harmful. I first heard this argument in an essay by or youtube clip of Christopher Hitchens, I forget which. It is, I think, a pretty good point. I think Hitchens is smart, and does a great job. I don't always agree with him, but usually do, and always find him interesting, and a superb writer and speaker.

However, I wonder sometimes if this idea (that ridicule has its place, when it is justified) can end up being an excuse for people to enjoy the rush of ridiculing or embarrassing complete strangers, in front of an online audience. I mean, the thrill of ridicule might sometimes be the overriding reason for its implementation, rather than the necessity or effectiveness of it.

But, yes, it is entertaining to watch the bloodsport, sometimes. But I'm most impressed when someone just makes a good case, trusts the readers/audience to 'get it', and refrains from ridicule (even perhaps bending backwards to avoid it). Now THAT'S an impressive trick. Not saying I always do that myself, but I have tried in the past. OrphanPip often does a great job at it, as do others.

[Jozanny]

bill, I am a bit envious of Hitchens and the way he tackles religion for reasons I cannot divulge, but it goes to the point that there are advantages to using articles and other vehicles of written discourse over posts. In a public community like this I am a troll, but if I am Hitchens demolishing doctrines and their norms, I am a brilliant troll getting paid, something I wish I could do more of myself, knowing full well I can barely compete with the big boys--but I will say this. The fellow has balls, and could get hurt too if he incenses certain parties the wrong way.

[billl]

I agree, Jozanny. He is far from anonymous, and isn't just razzing Christians on forums.