Can this be done? Remove "foes" from notifications.

[Age]

And Age should know by now that to me, knowledge of the absolute truth is the prime example of a blind belief.

So, this one BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'absolute truth'.

Which, if it had any actual sense of 'knowing', itself, is a 'blind belief', itself.

LOL How could one, logically and rationally, 'reason' and CLAIM that there is NO 'absolute truth' without realizing that 'that' is 'an absolute claim of knowledge, and if truth', itself?

I didn't.

BUT, you DID.

And, you 'trying to' get out of this now is only going to make you look MORE FOOLISH and MORE OF A COWARD than you have ALREADY showed and proved you ARE

Hey I can also use my right hemisphere, which gives me the ability to cognize infinite regresses. It's not something you can imagine.

Okay.

Again, if you 'want to' BELIEVE things like this are true, and 'want to' express them here, openly, in a public forum, then that is all well and good.

My points and claims just keep getting proved MORE.

[Atla]

So, this one BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'absolute truth'.

Which, if it had any actual sense of 'knowing', itself, is a 'blind belief', itself.

LOL How could one, logically and rationally, 'reason' and CLAIM that there is NO 'absolute truth' without realizing that 'that' is 'an absolute claim of knowledge, and if truth', itself?

I didn't.

BUT, you DID.

And, you 'trying to' get out of this now is only going to make you look MORE FOOLISH and MORE OF A COWARD than you have ALREADY showed and proved you ARE

Hey I can also use my right hemisphere, which gives me the ability to cognize infinite regresses. It's not something you can imagine.

Okay.

Again, if you 'want to' BELIEVE things like this are true, and 'want to' express them here, openly, in a public forum, then that is all well and good.

My points and claims just keep getting proved MORE.

Proved to whom? Does the universal 'I' and do the people from the future also lack the right hemisphere?

[Age]

I didn't.

BUT, you DID.

And, you 'trying to' get out of this now is only going to make you look MORE FOOLISH and MORE OF A COWARD than you have ALREADY showed and proved you ARE

Hey I can also use my right hemisphere, which gives me the ability to cognize infinite regresses. It's not something you can imagine.

Okay.

Again, if you 'want to' BELIEVE things like this are true, and 'want to' express them here, openly, in a public forum, then that is all well and good.

My points and claims just keep getting proved MORE.

Proved to whom? Does the universal 'I' and do the people from the future also lack the right hemisphere?

Obviously this one, still, BELIEVES that it knows what the 'absolute truth' is here. Which it also, let 'us' not forget, also BELIEVES does not even exist.

[Atla]

BUT, you DID.

And, you 'trying to' get out of this now is only going to make you look MORE FOOLISH and MORE OF A COWARD than you have ALREADY showed and proved you ARE


Okay.

Again, if you 'want to' BELIEVE things like this are true, and 'want to' express them here, openly, in a public forum, then that is all well and good.

My points and claims just keep getting proved MORE.

Proved to whom? Does the universal 'I' and do the people from the future also lack the right hemisphere?

Obviously this one, still, BELIEVES that it knows what the 'absolute truth' is here. Which it also, let 'us' not forget, also BELIEVES does not even exist.

Yawn, carry on.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, I got my first notifications from Age in a long time, 8 in row, as predicted.
But I will ignore him and them and they will start to fade away again or he will be putting a lot of energy into talking to himself.

[Age]

Well, I got my first notifications from Age in a long time, 8 in row, as predicted.
But I will ignore him and them and they will start to fade away again or he will be putting a lot of energy into talking to himself.

LOL How DELUDED is this one?

OBVIOUSLY if one talks ABOUT 'another', then this will be far more chances 'the other' responds.

And, conversely, the less this one talks ABOUT 'me' the less I will respond to this one's words.

How much more BLATANTLY OBVIOUS could this be?

Also, and LOL, just because one responds to what another one said, and/or wrote, this in no means that the former is talking TO the latter.

The former, after all, could just be Correcting, or just POINTING OUT things in, what the latter said, or wrote. Exactly like what I have been doing here.

[Iwannaplato]

It'd be truly odd if Age got irritated by the views, not beliefs , of people from the past who he thinks are confused about pretty much everything. That would be like going to a museum of Renaissance Art to yell at the painters about their works and telling them about Fauvism. So, I assume his responses are mainly positive here .

But I'll never find out, given my lack of interest in his ideas. The phenomenon of Age itself was interesting, then it got repetitive.

[Age]

It'd be truly odd if Age got irritated by the views, not beliefs , of people from the past who he thinks are confused about pretty much everything.

Once again this one starts out from ANOTHER False belief or presumption of its, and proceeds from there.

That would be like going to a museum of Renaissance Art to yell at the painters about their works and telling them about Fauvism. So, I assume his responses are mainly positive here .

But I'll never find out, given my lack of interest in his ideas. The phenomenon of Age itself was interesting, then it got repetitive.

And, AGAIN, what this one BELIEVES ABSOLUTELY IS TRUE, is OBVIOUS.

Although this one BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that it does not believe ANY thing absolutely, it is OBVIOUS what the ACTUAL and Real Truth is, here.

By the way just like some 'died'. BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY, that the sun revolves around the earth, even though the ACTUAL and Real Truth was being expressed, and explained, to them, the Fact is the "ignorant" 'die' COMPLETELY UNAWARE.

And, if one is not going to LISTEN to another, then 'that one' could not be MORE 'ignorant'.

[Alexiev]

It'd be truly odd if Age got irritated by the views, not beliefs , of people from the past who he thinks are confused about pretty much everything. That would be like going to a museum of Renaissance Art to yell at the painters about their works and telling them about Fauvism. So, I assume his responses are mainly positive here .

But I'll never find out, given my lack of interest in his ideas. The phenomenon of Age itself was interesting, then it got repetitive.

I wonder what the "ignore" function accomplishes. Are people here incapable of ignoring some posts without using the function? It reminds me of small children putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

In addition, the public announcement ("I'm putting so and so on ignore!") Is egotistical. Who cares? If you want to ignore someone, feel free. No need to use the function or make a public announcement.

[accelafine]

It'd be truly odd if Age got irritated by the views, not beliefs , of people from the past who he thinks are confused about pretty much everything. That would be like going to a museum of Renaissance Art to yell at the painters about their works and telling them about Fauvism. So, I assume his responses are mainly positive here .

But I'll never find out, given my lack of interest in his ideas. The phenomenon of Age itself was interesting, then it got repetitive.

I wonder what the "ignore" function accomplishes. Are people here incapable of ignoring some posts without using the function? It reminds me of small children putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

In addition, the public announcement ("I'm putting so and so on ignore!") Is egotistical. Who cares? If you want to ignore someone, feel free. No need to use the function or make a public announcement.

Actually it serves a purpose. Getting a row of twenty red dot notifications from someone when you have made it clear to them that you want nothing to do with them is irritating and the kind of thing you would expect from an older childhood sibling-- akin to that thing where they repeat everything you say back to you, or continuously poke you in the car.

And who are you to say what others 'should' or 'shouldn't' find annoying? Do you have a garden? Do you get annoyed when the neighbour's cat/dog shits all over it every night?

[accelafine]

I wish to publicly announce that Alexhiev is on my 'foe' list.

[Iwannaplato]

I wonder what the "ignore" function accomplishes. Are people here incapable of ignoring some posts without using the function? It reminds me of small children putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

Yes, people often have judgments of this, but perhaps they don't notice that IRL we use all sorts of ignore functions to streamline. I'd rather not see posts by certain people, even catch glimpses of phrases or toxic responses. Yes, I could develop a discipline and carefully engage with the names first and jump over posts, but the ignore or really foe function streamlines this. I don't have to see some idiotic or mean-spirited or toxic phrase or response and then feel the urge to respond. IRL I can generally avoid toxic acquaintances and not hear or see their responses to me. With really persistent types, I can hold up a hand and say not interested. Very few people ever try to push past that. But due to the nature of this medium toxic bs can arrive from that person, so the foe function works rather well at holding up a hand and saying not interested.

In addition, the public announcement ("I'm putting so and so on ignore!") Is egotistical. Who cares?

And what you are doing here isn't egotistical, how's that. Aren't you putting me in my place and judging me? But you are literally correct: the ego is about boundaries. The pejorative part of egotistical.... nah, I don't buy it. Unless you simply, IRL, just ghost everyone you no longer want contact with.

If you want to ignore someone, feel free. No need to use the function or make a public announcement.

I don't need to. I wanted to. Just as in other facets of my life I've wanted to tell certain people that because of their behavior I was choosing to_________________. And what I chose to do was a response to what I did not like. And here in this thread this is also a reaction to two other people who found the behavior of someone, yes, that bad, that they wanted to not see their posts. Just as IRL the behavior of some people makes us want to shut them out or not hang out with them or whatever measures we take.

Sure, you can ghost people. You can just disappear. That has plusses and minuses. It's probably the right move in many situations, especially if the other person is a threat, such as a physical one. But sometimes for yourself, sometimes even for the other person, it's got plusses to say why you are shutting them out, or to confirm for others that you understand why they are shutting someone out.

And, of course, since we are all fallible, any choices here might be not the best ones. But I, obviously, see no need for a rule. Just silently disappear. You're an immature person if you announce you are going to ignore someone. Nah, I disagree.

And I think it's a very rare person who lives by that rule IRL. And as someone who has been on the other end of both being ghosted and having someone tell me that and why they were ending contact, I tend to prefer the latter. I am not making a claim that I am being benevolent. But I note that it actually can be valuable feedback for the person being closed out of at least one person's contact.

[Alexiev]

I wonder what the "ignore" function accomplishes. Are people here incapable of ignoring some posts without using the function? It reminds me of small children putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

Yes, people often have judgments of this, but perhaps they don't notice that IRL we use all sorts of ignore functions to streamline. I'd rather not see posts by certain people, even catch glimpses of phrases or toxic responses. Yes, I could develop a discipline and carefully engage with the names first and jump over posts, but the ignore or really foe function streamlines this. I don't have to see some idiotic or mean-spirited or toxic phrase or response and then feel the urge to respond. IRL I can generally avoid toxic acquaintances and not hear or see their responses to me. With really persistent types, I can hold up a hand and say not interested. Very few people ever try to push past that. But due to the nature of this medium toxic bs can arrive from that person, so the foe function works rather well at holding up a hand and saying not interested.

In addition, the public announcement ("I'm putting so and so on ignore!") Is egotistical. Who cares?

And what you are doing here isn't egotistical, how's that. Aren't you putting me in my place and judging me? But you are literally correct: the ego is about boundaries. The pejorative part of egotistical.... nah, I don't buy it. Unless you simply, IRL, just ghost everyone you no longer want contact with.

If you want to ignore someone, feel free. No need to use the function or make a public announcement.

I don't need to. I wanted to. Just as in other facets of my life I've wanted to tell certain people that because of their behavior I was choosing to_________________. And what I chose to do was a response to what I did not like. And here in this thread this is also a reaction to two other people who found the behavior of someone, yes, that bad, that they wanted to not see their posts. Just as IRL the behavior of some people makes us want to shut them out or not hang out with them or whatever measures we take.

Sure, you can ghost people. You can just disappear. That has plusses and minuses. It's probably the right move in many situations, especially if the other person is a threat, such as a physical one. But sometimes for yourself, sometimes even for the other person, it's got plusses to say why you are shutting them out, or to confirm for others that you understand why they are shutting someone out.

And, of course, since we are all fallible, any choices here might be not the best ones. But I, obviously, see no need for a rule. Just silently disappear. You're an immature person if you announce you are going to ignore someone. Nah, I disagree.

And I think it's a very rare person who lives by that rule IRL. And as someone who has been on the other end of both being ghosted and having someone tell me that and why they were ending contact, I tend to prefer the latter. I am not making a claim that I am being benevolent. But I note that it actually can be valuable feedback for the person being closed out of at least one person's contact.

Announcing that you are putting someone on "ignore" is often meant as an insult. But it's a weak one. That's because it's about the poster, not the person being ignored (hence the "egotistical"). I suppose putting your fingers in your ears and chanting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" is sometimes justified, too. It annoys the person you dislike, and, perhaps, prevents a fight.

Perhaps we can agree that announcing someone is on ignore while responding to his posts is weak sauce, since it is clearly a lie.

[Iwannaplato]

Announcing that you are putting someone on "ignore" is often meant as an insult.

It's certainly letting someone know how you feel about them.

But it's a weak one.

Should I make a strong one?

That's because it's about the poster, not the person being ignored (hence the "egotistical").

It's about both of them or their way of relating.

I suppose putting your fingers in your ears and chanting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" is sometimes justified, too. It annoys the person you dislike, and, perhaps, prevents a fight.

It might annoy the person and it certainly has sometimes to tell them you are putting them on ignore. There's a reason to do it if you have that goal, though it's not my only one.

Perhaps we can agree that announcing someone is on ignore while responding to his posts is weak sauce, since it is clearly a lie.

Sure, let me know when I do that.

And your post to me included an insult - you know the kid thing you repeated again, here. So, now you've insulted me twice. I guess that's about you, right? At least, according to your logic. Me, I think telling people why you don't want contact with them and/or letting other people going through the same thing you did that you did are adult activities. When I got 8 notifications from Age after I posted in this thread, I let him know again I was going to ignore his posts. He'll do whatever he wants with that information.

Anyway, you insulted me. I can see the benefits and morality of your approach and how distinct it is from mine. However, since you haven't simply ghosted me, I assume you still find value in my posts. I spent a long time posting in a variety of ways with Age. I no longer found any value in his posts. Other people seem to have similar reactions. I actually think, if anything, it's good he knows that.

But then I said that and a few other things you didn't respond to already.

[Alexiev]

Announcing that you are putting someone on "ignore" is often meant as an insult.

It's certainly letting someone know how you feel about them.

But it's a weak one.

Should I make a strong one?

That's because it's about the poster, not the person being ignored (hence the "egotistical").

It's about both of them or their way of relating.

I suppose putting your fingers in your ears and chanting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" is sometimes justified, too. It annoys the person you dislike, and, perhaps, prevents a fight.

It might annoy the person and it certainly has sometimes to tell them you are putting them on ignore. There's a reason to do it if you have that goal, though it's not my only one.

Perhaps we can agree that announcing someone is on ignore while responding to his posts is weak sauce, since it is clearly a lie.

Sure, let me know when I do that.

And your post to me included an insult - you know the kid thing you repeated again, here. So, now you've insulted me twice. I guess that's about you, right? At least, according to your logic. Me, I think telling people why you don't want contact with them and/or letting other people going through the same thing you did that you did are adult activities. When I got 8 notifications from Age after I posted in this thread, I let him know again I was going to ignore his posts. He'll do whatever he wants with that information.

Anyway, you insulted me. I can see the benefits and morality of your approach and how distinct it is from mine. However, since you haven't simply ghosted me, I assume you still find value in my posts. I spent a long time posting in a variety of ways with Age. I no longer found any value in his posts. Other people seem to have similar reactions. I actually think, if anything, it's good he knows that.

But then I said that and a few other things you didn't respond to already.

I ignore most of Age's posts myself. But I don't need mechanical help to do it.

To answer your question, I'm not adverse to insults. But, like everything else we post, we should try to make them witty, or entertaining, or (at least) telling. Announcing putting someone on ignore fails in this regard. Personally, I think my "I can't hear you" jibe is at least mildly funny and entertaining, although you are free to disagree. Immanuel Can repeatedly accuses me of ad hominems when I insult him or his arguments -- although I've reminded him that the only excuse for using the Latin is to expose a fallacious argument, not to complain about being insulted.

I mean to insult not you, but another nasty participant who has said before that I am on her "ignore list" but cannot resist repeating herself. As I told her before, please don't throw me into the briar patch. (For any Brits unfamiliar with Amercan folk literature, that's a line from Uncle Remus.)