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

[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. 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 seems like some people are Truly not able to.

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.

It is like some people are 'proud' that they are 'ignorant', and 'proud' that they will not, (fingers in ears), 'listen to' others and their views/ideas. Although is seems unbelievable these people are actually 'proud', and boastful, of being CLOSED human beings.

[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. 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.

Obviously, if "accelafine" just STOPPED talking, and writing, ABOUT others, then the other/s would NOT feel a NEED to 'defend' "themselves", and nor to RESPOND. And then "accelafine" would NOT get 'red dot notifications'.

Also, and by the way, does this one read EVERY email it gets? Does EVERY email notification "accelafine" get 'annoy' it?

If no, then WHY do 'notifications' that 'the one' that "accelafine" KEEPS ON talking ABOUT has just responded to what "accelafine" wrote ABOUT 'them' 'annoy' "accelafine" SO MUCH?

OBVIOUSLY, if "accelafine" just STOPPED doing what it keeps doing here, then it would NOT get 'red dot notifications', FROM me.

And who are you to say what others 'should' or 'shouldn't' find annoying?

But, "alexiev" NEVER said ANY thing about what other's 'should' or 'should not' find annoying.

"accelfine" just 'read this' into what was actually said and written, because it is just BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that getting 'annoyed' at some thing as so TRIVIAL as just another 'email notification' is beyond what some of you adult human beings would call 'childish'.

Do you have a garden? Do you get annoyed when the neighbour's cat/dog shits all over it every night?

Is "alexiev" doing any thing to ATTRACT the neighbor's cat or dog to defecate on their garden, like "accelafine" is doing to ATTRACT responses, from me?

And, do I respond EVERY night, or day, or ONLY when "accelafine" CHOOSES to talk ABOUT 'me' or when CHOOSES to say and write things that NEED Correcting?

[Age]

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

The 'ego' really was RAMPANT among some of the adult human population, in the days when this was being written. As can be clearly seen here, ONCE MORE>

[Age]

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.

So, just IGNORE them, like others do in so-called 'real life'.

LOL Does this one LISTEN to EVERY conversation within 'ear shot', and/or READ EVERY book at 'arms length'?

If no, then it could just CHOOSE to skip past posts, as well. And, as ALREADY NOTED posting or bragging about 'ignoring' one or another is nothing more than being 'egotistical', and PROVING just how Truly CLOSED one IS.

Also, noticed is the BLAMING of 'the other', here.

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.

GREAT. But, WHY does this one 'harp on' SO MUCH?

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.

LOL AGAIN, further PROOF of just how CLOSED this one REALLY IS.

LOL HOW would it KNOW where, when, and what to AVOID, if it has not FIRST HEARD and/or SEEN?

And, AGAIN, this one is showing prime examples of APE thinking.

With really persistent types, I can hold up a hand and say not interested.

Has this one NOTICED just how PERSISTENT it IS when it comes to talking ABOUT 'me'?

Very few people ever try to push past that.

Which is, EXACTLY, what you are doing here AGAIN, now.

What 'we' have here is another one who if it just STOPPED talking ABOUT me or referring TO me, then it would NOT get notifications that I have replied to its words here.

Also, let 'us' not forget that this is a public philosophy forum where ANY and ALL ideas, views, perspectives are OPEN to being questioned, challenged, and/or critiqued,

But, of course, if one has CHOSEN to IGNORE others, then they have MADE SURE that they do not have to answer, clarify, nor elaborate on their views, ideas, and/or perspectives. Which is, REALLY, quite convenient when they KNOW that what they are saying cannot be backed up nor supported.

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.

Great. Then just USE IT.

And, let 'us' not forget that the 'foe function' can be USED, without having to 'brag about' USING it.

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.

ONCE MORE this one BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that it does NOTHING Wrong here, and so, ONCE AGAIN, 'tries' to' 'justify' its, obviously, egoistical ways.

It is like this one, actually, BELIEVES that it does not do Wrong, while it is continually JUDGING others at the same time for doing WRONG.

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.

AGAIN, as a Truly "egotistical" one would.

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, just like when this one wants to tell others things, because of their behaviors, which it is judging those others on, this is being told some thing, because of the behaviors it is doing here, because of its ego, here.

And what I chose to do was a response to what I did not like.

And, the response/s this one is getting is because of what others do 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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

SO, just STOP 'looking at' those posts.

AGAIN, how much more SIMPLER and EASIER could this get?

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.

BUT, this one, and others, just LOVE and WANT TO keep talking ABOUT 'one'.

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.

Yes, 'banding a group together', to 'shut another out', was a very common habit, among the human population, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

And, this phenomena happened and occurred more frequently when people's views and beliefs were being questioned and challenged, but they were completely incapable of backing up and supporting those Truly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect perspectives.

As can be clearly seen throughout this forum, at least.

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.

LOL 'silently'.

I wonder if this one thinks that its continual posts are not being READ, and HEARD.

You're an immature person if you announce you are going to ignore someone. Nah, I disagree.

OF COURSE this one WOULD.

It is one of the LOUDEST when it comes to EXPRESSING who it, supposedly, will not 'hear out', and IGNORE

And I think it's a very rare person who lives by that rule IRL.

I wonder how many 'lives' and/or how many 'unreal lives' there, really, are.

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.

AGAIN, another clear example of the 'ego' at work, and at play, here.

But I note that it actually can be valuable feedback for the person being closed out of at least one person's contact.

Yes, it is INVALUABLE information that this one is providing here. Saying, and SHOWING, how it, and others, will Truly IGNORE others COMPLETELY, PROVES just how CLOSED some human beings REALLY WERE, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written. Which EXPLAINS WHY those human beings, 'back then', took SO LONG to CATCH UP, here.

The VERY REASON WHY ALL 'new or opposing knowledge', which is ACTUALLY True, and Right, takes SO LONG to be comprehend and understood is because of people's CHOICE to IGNORE it, and others. That it is the earth that revolves around the sun would have become 'common knowledge' much earlier if only people did not IGNORE 'that information' nor 'the one' who was just expressing the Truth, for example.

[Age]

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.

It is also a sure sign that one does not like HEARING what OPPOSES their 'current' BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

And, only the Truly weak 'worry' about how others 'feel' about them.

ONCE MORE "iwannaplato" 'I', for One, could not care less what 'you' 'feel' ABOUT 'me'.

I will remind, those who READ here, that this is a philosophy forum where the only thing that is Truly important are 'the words', alone, which are before 'us' here.

How 'you' human beings 'feel' ABOUT 'each other' is of NO 'real concern'. And, considering the Fact that in the days when this is being written, NONE of 'you' KNEW 'the answer' to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' what 'you' 'feel' about 'each other'/"yourselves", or even 'I', 'I' certainly do NOT CARE.

But it's a weak one.

Should I make a strong one?

YES, PLEASE DO.

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.

And, IGNORING 'another' is the BEST and Right thing to do, correct?

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.

This makes one wonder what this one's other goal/s are here?

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.

In ALL of the previous times that 'you' have done this with 'me', at least.

And your post to me included an insult - you know the kid thing you repeated again, here. So, now you've insulted me twice.

Here, AGAIN, is ANOTHER example of how the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, ACTUALLY, BELIEVED that labeling or classing "themselves" 'as children' was AN INS\ULT.

This EXPLAINS WHY there was so little regards to children, and their views/perspectives.

These adult human beings had just about EVERY thing BACKWARDS, which is WHY it took them SO, SO LONG to CATCH UP, here.

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.

Well they are, OBVIOUSLY, very 'egotistical' activities. Which, really, is some thing ONLY adult human beings ARE.

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.

AND, if this one EVER HEARD and SAW what I SAYING and WRITING, then it would KNOW the ABSURDITY of CONTINUALLY talking and writing ABOUT 'me', while MOANING and COMPLAINING ABOUT 'me' just RESPONDING to its words, ONLY.

Anyway, you insulted me.

Which is A SURE SIGN of one who has, still, not yet GROWN UP.

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.

LOL the 'ego' at work, and at play, AGAIN.

I spent a long time posting in a variety of ways with Age.

LOL 'long time'. LOL

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.

This one says and writes this while, also, WANTING TO remain absolutely IGNORANT of what others think of it.

This one claims that it is 'good' that 'I' KNOW what it and others think of 'Me', but WANTS to REMAIN Truly IGNORANT of what others think of it.

So, AGAIN, what is 'good' for others, is NOT 'good' for "iwannaplato".

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

ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT DISTRACTION, and DEFLECTION, from what was just being POINTED OUT ABOUT this one's egotistical 'behavior' here.

Note how there was absolutely NO acknowledgment of what it actually did? There was ONLY attempts at 'justifying' what it has done.

[Age]

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.

THANK YOU for POINTING OUT what is Truly VERY SIMPLE and EASY to those that are VERY SLOW OF LEARNING.

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.

Why do you say and write, 'only', here?

A VERY QUICK LOOK will SHOW that the words 'ad hominem', also, refers to 'attacking (or insulting) 'the person' instead of the argument'.

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.)

Just saying, 'that is a line from such or such', does not explain what 'that line' actually means, or is referring to, exactly, to you.

[Alexiev]

Just saying, 'that is a line from such or such', does not explain what 'that line' actually means, or is referring to, exactly, to you.

Since you ask, Uncle Remus was an African Americsn teller of folk tales. In one, Br'er Fox catches Br'er Rabbit and threatens him with a variety of horrid fates.

"Do what you want," says Br'er Rabbit. "Only whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch. Anything but that!"

So cruel Br'er Fox, wishing to torment the bunny, throws him into the briar patch. "Ah!"says the rabbit. "My home, where I am most comfortable." (Almost as comfortable as being ignored be so nasty and dull a person as accelafine.)

[Age]

Just saying, 'that is a line from such or such', does not explain what 'that line' actually means, or is referring to, exactly, to you.

Since you ask, Uncle Remus was an African Americsn teller of folk tales. In one, Br'er Fox catches Br'er Rabbit and threatens him with a variety of horrid fates.

"Do what you want," says Br'er Rabbit. "Only whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch. Anything but that!"

So cruel Br'er Fox, wishing to torment the bunny, throws him into the briar patch. "Ah!"says the rabbit. "My home, where I am most comfortable." (Almost as comfortable as being ignored be so nasty and dull a person as accelafine.)

Although I never 'asked', thank you for explaining anyway.

[Iwannaplato]

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

Impressive! I prefer to use 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.

We should? Whose moral code is that? I would guess that some of my insults have been witty, but I don't have that as a rule.

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.

So, your insult is less egotistical because it was witty and you're, with moderation, proud, or at least aware, of that. This is getting a bit hard to follow.

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.

Oh, he certainly deserves to be insulted on occasion.

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.)

I remember the line.

Anyway, I've certainly heard your criterion for the proper way to insult. I'll keep it in mind. Too late, I think, in the possible case of me being witty with Age, since he is truly and finally on ignore, no peeking. Fortunately, in the days this was being written, I've seen few signs Age has a sense of humor, so my shortfall probably hasn't kept him back from insight or entertainment. Others, however, may have suffered.

[Age]

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

Impressive! I prefer to use 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.

We should? Whose moral code is that? I would guess that some of my insults have been witty, but I don't have that as a rule.

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.

So, your insult is less egotistical because it was witty and you're, with moderation, proud, or at least aware, of that. This is getting a bit hard to follow.

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.

Oh, he certainly deserves to be insulted on occasion.

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.)

I remember the line.

Anyway, I've certainly heard your criterion for the proper way to insult. I'll keep it in mind. Too late, I think, in the possible case of me being witty with Age, since he is truly and finally on ignore, no peeking.

LOL This one REALLY IS A "liar".

Fortunately, in the days this was being written, I've seen few signs Age has a sense of humor, so my shortfall probably hasn't kept him back from insight or entertainment. Others, however, may have suffered.

ONCE MORE this one, as it obviously clear here, is ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of just not talking ABOUT 'me'.

And, this is BECAUSE I have PROVED, irrefutably, that it is a "liar", and that some of what it says and claims is ABSOLUTELY False and Incorrect.

[Alexiev]

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.

We should? Whose moral code is that? I would guess that some of my insults have been witty, but I don't have that as a rule.

Your entire post is so filled with non sequiturs it barely merits a response. I quote this section as an example.

Why would assume that "should" implies a moral judgement? Consider the following sentences:

We should brush our teeth every day.
People who like novels should read War and Peace
Children should look both ways before crossing a street.

"Should" is a reasonable word to use in all these cases. In none of them is a "moral code" involved, nor was it in my quoted comment. Posters "should" write entertaining, enlightening or educational posts for aesthetic reasons, not out of a moral obligation. This is so obvious I "shouldn't" have bothered to write it.