Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tctruffin

Blocking topics

Recommended Posts

One of the things I greatly appreciate about this board is that it has places for folks to discuss politics that are separate from the places to discuss the arts.

I know that there is a way to block individual's messages from appearing on my screen. Is there also a way to block messages from a certain topic or area? For instance, when I do a "view new posts" search, is there a way for me to block results from the politics area?


Jesus is not a zombie...I shouldn't have to tell you that.

--Agent Booth, Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tctruffin, even if there's no automatic way to do that, there IS a column that lets you know which section of the board each thread is in -- so all you have to do is ignore the "Politics" ones.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tctruffin, even if there's no automatic way to do that, there IS a column that lets you know which section of the board each thread is in -- so all you have to do is ignore the "Politics" ones.

Well, yes, but then that's not automatic is it? I'm an American and I demand everything to be automatically done for me because that's what God meant when he created this, the Promised Land.


Jesus is not a zombie...I shouldn't have to tell you that.

--Agent Booth, Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yes, but then that's not automatic is it?  I'm an American and I demand everything to be automatically done for me because that's what God meant when he created this, the Promised Land.

LOL. That may be my favorite response ALL MONTH.


In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. You hate politics that much? So much that you don't even want to know that other people are talking about politics?


I have a blog? here at A&F that I sometimes post in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. A kindred spirit.

Tctruffin for President! grin.gif

-s.


In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow.  A kindred spirit. 

Tctruffin for President!  grin.gif

-s.

That's SO political! pinch.gif


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your emoticon and raise it. I was also trying to imply something other than what might have been interpreted. I actually meant the comment tongue in cheek.

FWIW, I obviously love political discussions and appreciate your criticism of them above. Feel free to PM me and set your terms anytime.


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...