General Chat

I wonder if, sometimes, people don't read postings properly and RR what they think they have read rather than what was actually written.

Maybe Sharron

but sometimes it more who has posted something not really what it says :-D

So they will not have read the posting at all.

That could very well be a fact or just skimmed it :-(

:-0

I suppose we would be the wiser if we knew what reason they gave for reporting it. With BC's thread it can't be that it reminds them of a death in their own family or theyw ould have RR'd all of the in memory posts. I suspect that one is just stirring it and may be an old 'enemy' lurking.

Well, whoever did it knows it can't be removed until GR admin notice/bother/do their once weekly scan of the boards....

if that was so Ann
why on earth would they join a family history site

that is all about births deaths and marriages

I think some people should get out more :-( :-(

I remember contributing to a thread about The Archers. It would be after Fred had had his stroke.

Peggy Woolley (in The Archers) had had one and recovered miraculously in a week, as they do on there.

I said it was a pity because I had wanted to hear the sanctimonious old trout dribbling (how do you do that on the radio then?).

Somebody drove in to me alarmingly saying that she didn't know who I was being so rude about but she hoped it wasn't anybody on GR.

Only if they are also characters in The Archers!

Perhaps it should be made a bit more complicated to RR anything.
Say making the reporter type in their name, phone number and e-mail address.
A link could be sent to that email address to be clicked on before the report is actioned.

Maybe, if people ignored the RR, it would not be as much fun for them.

It is not really that important in the great scheme of things, apart from the harrumphing one who does the reporting.

They evidently are not confident enough to offer their disagreement for discussion.

I think that all GR has to do is make it visible that anyone who RRs a thread their name is shown, perhaps that would stop whoever it is from doing it.

True Joy. Nowt so queer as folk I think the saying goes.

That would only work if the reporter is a signed-in member..

Then perhaps GR should only permit full paying members to have that facility.

I agree with Sharron; best to ignore the RR; he / she / they probably don't like being ignored but like to receive attention.

I honestly don't think the name of the RR'er should be made public ...................


knowing the way some people act on GR ................ the person who is named will be villified by someone who doesn't like what they've done, just doesn't like them, or just wants to make trouble



that means that those of us who RR posts only for reason may well be loath to do anything .................


and "for reason" to me means ........... homophobic, racist, sexist, demeaning




It is far far better, as Sharron has said, to say nothing


the RR'er often seems to get his/her kicks from the furore that arises after the event



shut up, post nothing, behave as if nothing has happened ................ and the fun will have gone.



hard to do, I know :-)

I totally agree - naming the person who has reported the post would not be a good idea at all and certain people would jump on them straight away.

My guess is that it would also be a legal nightmare.