EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Envirolink's Number of Posters Declined ..
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1423
Page 1 of 4

Author:  arc108 [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Envirolink's Number of Posters Declined ..

Many people who posted on this Feedback board are no longer
at Envirolink. They do not believe that the hunters on the board
have environmental concerns. The hunting element
on the board has reduced the numbers IMHO

Author:  josh knauer [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Envirolink's Number of Posters Declined ..

arc108 wrote:
Many people who posted on this Feedback board are no longer
at Envirolink. They do not believe that the hunters on the board
have environmental concerns. The hunting element
on the board has reduced the numbers IMHO


The statistics do not reflect your assertion. Postings to this board are way up in the past few months and even a cursory glance shows that there are people on all sides of the issues.

-josh

Author:  phantomuk [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

The number of posts maybe up but look at the number of people that post. All the posts are from just a few people and not many people do take part in this forum. You only have to look at who is posting to see that Josh

Author:  Theila [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Perhaps the definitition of 'Animal Concerns' needs to be addressed.

Arc and Phantomuk's definition of 'Animal Concerns' is different then others. This is not a bad thing, in fact it is a good thing, but everyone at this board is concerned about animals. They just have different ideas of what is best for the overall animal population.

Author:  phantomuk [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

Theila wrote:
Perhaps the definitition of 'Animal Concerns' needs to be addressed.

Arc and Phantomuk's definition of 'Animal Concerns' is different then others. This is not a bad thing, in fact it is a good thing, but everyone at this board is concerned about animals. They just have different ideas of what is best for the overall animal population.



Discuss all things related to animal rights, welfare, etc.

How many you are eating and how you are cooking them is not quiet what you would expect from the discription. If you have noticed a couple joined a few days or so ago and asked a few questions about why the sad comments and went. Never to come back.

Author:  Fosgate [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Theila wrote:
Perhaps the definitition of 'Animal Concerns' needs to be addressed.


I think it's fine, personally. "Discuss things related to animal rights, welfare, etc.", the key point being "etc."

I do believe recipes fall more under a "cooking" umbrella than environment or animal concerns, vegan or otherwise. Yet, if one is allowed so must the other be. Same goes for other stuff that doesn't seemingly fit.

Author:  Archer [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

phantomuk wrote:
The number of posts maybe up but look at the number of people that post. All the posts are from just a few people and not many people do take part in this forum. You only have to look at who is posting to see that Josh

It's been like that since I've been on here. A few people making a lot of posts. Now I see a few more people making a lot of posts.

And if your beliefs and ideals are so strong and set in concrete, then you shouldn't mind a little challenge. Now, I understand that you feel like you receive more than just a challenge, but so does everybody else on here. It comes from both sides.

Author:  josh knauer [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

Theila wrote:
Perhaps the definitition of 'Animal Concerns' needs to be addressed.

Arc and Phantomuk's definition of 'Animal Concerns' is different then others. This is not a bad thing, in fact it is a good thing, but everyone at this board is concerned about animals. They just have different ideas of what is best for the overall animal population.


Please see the most recent comment I made in the "looking for moderators" thread. I have tried to very clearly define the intent of why I created this place. Thanks for calling the question!

-josh

Author:  josh knauer [ Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

Not to rehash old issues, but I finally got the statistics tool to work here. All users can click on the "Statistics" button at the top of every page to see overall statistics for the Forum. I have tried to add in some interesting modules that help to show usage over time, etc.

As of this posting, the EnviroLink Forum has been up in its current form for over 991 days! That's how long it has been since I switched it over to this current software from another package. It is amazing to see the growth that we have experienced over the past few months!

Thanks to all for your participation!

-josh

Author:  arc108 [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:13 am ]
Post subject: 

It seems to me there are perhaps a dozen regular posters

of which

phantomuk
nt species
and I are animal rights people

while
Donnie
Wayne
Archer
Oinks
Theila
Emuking
OhioSteve
and others are hunter oriented

you Josh and Sandra are in the middle

I would say that the number of hunters has increased
and the number of ARA's has decreased

Author:  Archer [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:35 am ]
Post subject: 

arc108 wrote:
It seems to me there are perhaps a dozen regular posters

of which

phantomuk
nt species
and I are animal rights people

while
Donnie
Wayne
Archer
Oinks
Theila
Emuking
OhioSteve
and others are hunter oriented

you Josh and Sandra are in the middle

I would say that the number of hunters has increased
and the number of ARA's has decreased

So? What do you expect to be done about it?

Author:  phantomuk [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:18 am ]
Post subject: 

Archer wrote:
arc108 wrote:
It seems to me there are perhaps a dozen regular posters

of which

phantomuk
nt species
and I are animal rights people

while
Donnie
Wayne
Archer
Oinks
Theila
Emuking
OhioSteve
and others are hunter oriented

you Josh and Sandra are in the middle

I would say that the number of hunters has increased
and the number of ARA's has decreased

So? What do you expect to be done about it?


I would expect don to be banned for a start. He is only around for an argument and it is obvious he is totaly anti AR not productive.
I lost count at 98 the amount of AR people who I know who used this site. I contacted some and they said it was a waist of time because it was full of anti AR hunters who do nothing but ridicule. Not productive.

Yes it is true the posting stats have gone up and I would say the went up a great deal since I came on. If Arc NT and mysel left the forum you would notice the rate of posts group again until the next unsuspecting AR comes along to be preyed on by don and the likes.

Author:  Donnie Mac Leod [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

And here is the crux of Josh's problem. I asked that Phantie not be banned because of his remarks before some of which were very vulgar and counter productive.. Today's actions make me question my sanity but that is the action I desired because I would rather point out the actions and counter actions which need to be weighed in the AR debate. In fact I think Josh himself weighs issues much further then he did when I first came to the boards. What bothers me most about the AR is I see compassion that we all have turning into the stripping of individuals right to raise animals or to practice sound conservation management which causes less suffering then boom and bust cycles. If 98 people left because they have trouble facing up to those points ,that is their problem.

Author:  phantomuk [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
And here is the crux of Josh's problem. I asked that Phantie not be banned because of his remarks before some of which were very vulgar and counter productive.. Today's actions make me question my sanity but that is the action I desired because I would rather point out the actions and counter actions which need to be weighed in the AR debate. In fact I think Josh himself weighs issues much further then he did when I first came to the boards. What bothers me most about the AR is I see compassion that we all have turning into the stripping of individuals right to raise animals or to practice sound conservation management which causes less suffering then boom and bust cycles. If 98 people left because they have trouble facing up to those points ,that is their problem.


You do not have to stick up for me. I will not lose sleep over getting banned but it is an ey opener that you and josh have discussed the matter.

You are one of the main reasons the numbers have gone down and your name comes up all over the place.

You still did not reply to my last questions. I have screen shot of all your identical forum posts ;)

Author:  josh knauer [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

phantomuk wrote:
You do not have to stick up for me. I will not lose sleep over getting banned but it is an ey opener that you and josh have discussed the matter.


You didn't know there is a cigar-filled back room of this Forum where I sit and conspire with the animal haters? :roll: Donnie has on several occasions and on his own volition (ie: I didn't ask for his opinion) stuck up for your right to be here.

Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/