Community Chat

[Moonchilde]

---

@truffle wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@hyacinth003 wrote:

Something I just don't understand.

Lisa's name is in the title of the post.  IF one is uninterested in her, sick of her, has no interest in her whatsoever, why do they READ IT????

That's why threads have titles.  For example, there have been hundreds of threads about former host Kathy Levine.  I never saw her on QVC.  I must have started watching after she left.  Most posts were how much people missed her.  Since I had no clue about her, I stopped opening threads regarding her. 

I think Lisa Robertson did a great job for QVC.  I liked watching her.  I have no personal feelings toward her one way or the other. 

So why do people respond with angst when someone posts about her?

Hyacinth

---

Most of the "angst" comes from those who were very, VERY fond of Lisa.

Being "interested" in a topic enough to respond to it or express an opinion about it does not require all interest and comment to be positive or even relevant.

How many threads are started as "I love _____!" and are quickly full of posters stating they don't love whatever or whoever, every day on these forums. People may not "understand" it, but they sure practice it here daily, on all sorts of topics. Why should threads about one particular person, and only that one particular person, be regarded as off-limits for anything but praise and agreement? 

Example: A thread was started in Wellness titled "Diabetics  - have you tried Sparkling Ice?" Within an hour, the thread was full of people commenting who stated they were not diabetic but, didn't drink carbonated beverages but, would never ever let an artificial sweetener pass their lips as it's poison and what they think of consuming it, yadda yadda. That's just one example. Forum threads are chock-full, every day, of people commenting UNfavorably about a topic. 

What I don't understand is why people think it's okay to lobby so hard for a hands-off policy for one person while everyone freely expresses negative sentiments across the forums on all other subjects. It isn't logical.

---

At least you admit to expressing negative sentiments...that's progress. @Moonchilde

---

'Negative' in the sense that they may not be 'positive' as defined exclusively by uber-fans who will not permit a discouraging word in the home-on-the-range they feel belongs to them and no one else. 

Expressing negative sentiments? Me and nearly every other poster on these forums at one time or another. And you wouldn't be excluded.  'Negative' is in the eye of the beholder with most posters. The old "what I say/think/believe/have read online is true and justified, but what (figurative) 'you' say/think/believe/read online isn't true or valid if I say it isn't."

[NYC Susan]

---

@truffle wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@hyacinth003 wrote:

Something I just don't understand.

Lisa's name is in the title of the post.  IF one is uninterested in her, sick of her, has no interest in her whatsoever, why do they READ IT????

That's why threads have titles.  For example, there have been hundreds of threads about former host Kathy Levine.  I never saw her on QVC.  I must have started watching after she left.  Most posts were how much people missed her.  Since I had no clue about her, I stopped opening threads regarding her. 

I think Lisa Robertson did a great job for QVC.  I liked watching her.  I have no personal feelings toward her one way or the other. 

So why do people respond with angst when someone posts about her?

Hyacinth

---

Most of the "angst" comes from those who were very, VERY fond of Lisa.

Being "interested" in a topic enough to respond to it or express an opinion about it does not require all interest and comment to be positive or even relevant.

How many threads are started as "I love _____!" and are quickly full of posters stating they don't love whatever or whoever, every day on these forums. People may not "understand" it, but they sure practice it here daily, on all sorts of topics. Why should threads about one particular person, and only that one particular person, be regarded as off-limits for anything but praise and agreement? 

Example: A thread was started in Wellness titled "Diabetics  - have you tried Sparkling Ice?" Within an hour, the thread was full of people commenting who stated they were not diabetic but, didn't drink carbonated beverages but, would never ever let an artificial sweetener pass their lips as it's poison and what they think of consuming it, yadda yadda. That's just one example. Forum threads are chock-full, every day, of people commenting UNfavorably about a topic. 

What I don't understand is why people think it's okay to lobby so hard for a hands-off policy for one person while everyone freely expresses negative sentiments across the forums on all other subjects. It isn't logical.

---

At least you admit to expressing negative sentiments...that's progress. @Moonchilde

---

Everyone here is free to express both positive and negative sentiments.  They're called opinions.  These are forums, the purpose of which is to share opinions and ideas, and exchange information.  No on has to "admit to" anything.  It's what we all do here, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[NYC Susan]

---

@truffle wrote:

@NYC Susan joining a thread about someone you dislike so you can spew your negative comments helps who?  You? Yep that's about it and no one else! Disgusting.  

---

Expressing an opinion is not "spewing".  Unless, of course, in your world it is if the person has a different opinion than you do.  Posting comments and opinions, both positive and negative, leads to lively discussions that many posters here clearly enjoy.

It's only disgusting if you choose to look at it that way.  There's no rule here that only people with positive things to say are allowed to post.  How boring that would be!  If negative comments bother you so much, then maybe forums aren't a good place for you.

(And please don't make it sound as though I was out of line in any way.  I've never "spewed" here, or even come close.  I've never once been nasty or unnecessarily unkind.  I simply post my opinions, as pretty much all of us do.  You are free to agree or disagree, but everyone's opinion carries the same weight.)

[fourpaws56]

I hope she is well and enjoying life....

[hyacinth003]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@hyacinth003 wrote:

Something I just don't understand.

Lisa's name is in the title of the post.  IF one is uninterested in her, sick of her, has no interest in her whatsoever, why do they READ IT????

That's why threads have titles.  For example, there have been hundreds of threads about former host Kathy Levine.  I never saw her on QVC.  I must have started watching after she left.  Most posts were how much people missed her.  Since I had no clue about her, I stopped opening threads regarding her. 

I think Lisa Robertson did a great job for QVC.  I liked watching her.  I have no personal feelings toward her one way or the other. 

So why do people respond with angst when someone posts about her?

Hyacinth

---

Most of the "angst" comes from those who were very, VERY fond of Lisa.

Being "interested" in a topic enough to respond to it or express an opinion about it does not require all interest and comment to be positive or even relevant.

How many threads are started as "I love _____!" and are quickly full of posters stating they don't love whatever or whoever, every day on these forums. People may not "understand" it, but they sure practice it here daily, on all sorts of topics. Why should threads about one particular person, and only that one particular person, be regarded as off-limits for anything but praise and agreement? 

Example: A thread was started in Wellness titled "Diabetics  - have you tried Sparkling Ice?" Within an hour, the thread was full of people commenting who stated they were not diabetic but, didn't drink carbonated beverages but, would never ever let an artificial sweetener pass their lips as it's poison and what they think of consuming it, yadda yadda. That's just one example. Forum threads are chock-full, every day, of people commenting UNfavorably about a topic. 

What I don't understand is why people think it's okay to lobby so hard for a hands-off policy for one person while everyone freely expresses negative sentiments across the forums on all other subjects. It isn't logical.

---

You have a point!

I wouldn't lobby for ANY particular point of view.  I know exactly what you mean with your example about "sparkling ice."  It becomes a crazy thing that whomever started it never intended. 

That's why I think a forum for adults DOES NOT NEED babysitters.  Some of the reasons I have seen for removing posts stretch my imagination.  But, I don't get to make the rules.  I still say if "Lisa R" or whatever pushes someone's buttons, they are best to skip the post.

Hyacinth