I've been reading your guys posts about age. About how most of you don't feel comfortable discussing issues with a minor because half the stuff the 'adults' talk about on here are innapropriate for minors to hear. Perhaps many of you have kids around 16 and you think I would never talk to my kid about this stuff. Some of you even say that the org is an 'adult escape' a sort of 'forum of trangression'. Some of you say minors should not be allowed to interact on this website.

The way I look at it is the internet is a public forum. You may like to set it aside as your adult activity in which to escape the social norms of ettiquete or social mores but if this is a public forum, which it is, you're never going to get your fantasy of totally unchecked behavior. Minors can see you and it's not their fault. I think the adults should watch their behavior and remember that they are always setting an example even on prince org. Sure your mad about minors being on here, they spoil your fun. But come on, 16 year olds have just as much of a right to look at a prince fansite as adults do so take your complaints and look inward. Maybe your transgressive behavior is not so cool.

As far as issues such as the one being debated in this thread I see nothing wrong with a 16 year old partaking. Same goes with politics and religion.

hokie1 said:

That's not what she said. She said she doesn't like being treated like she doesn't know what she's talking about just because she's a kid. Very different hokie.

I'm trying to take this thread seriously.

No, I just can't.

I tell ya what..

I used to frequent janetjackson.com, and still do on occasion. To be honest, I just felt I was too old to be there, but then again the young people really respected me.. Most of them were really, really nice--very intelligent..interesting. But I was still uncomfortable with some of the convos going-on, so I only visit on occasion-to get my "crazy" fix.. because that site can be crazy in an energetic sort of way. There are some really interesting discussions going-on over there among the chaos from time to time, plus some people are just so friggin hilarious--really creative. Oh. man... it's too funny.

Well.. there was a member who called "herself" Lena Horne. I'm tell ya'll it was one of the most creative things I've ever seen online. This person WAS Lena Horne, ya know?? She(?????) was great. And from time to time "Lena" would come-up with some interesting insight and commentary--ALL delivered in Lena's persona. Plus there is this other person who tells the funniest anecdotes.. I mean.. just little vignettes. I don't KNOW how old these people are: I only know they are very creative and talented. With Lena.. it was always so much fun to "engage" in a debate or convo. And this other person.. it was always fun to just get into a debate.. but then again.. I also learned something I never thought of before.

Well.. I stayed clear of some other--more seedy discussions, but then there were some that were so much fun regardless of a person's age--just fun, ya know?

BUT, I must admit that I DON'T feel so comfortable over there or really on other Janet sites because her fanbase tends to be young...well the ones on message boards are young. And even though I feel like I'm a "fairly" good role model, I just didn't have a lot in common with a lot of people because I am NOT that "young" anymore. I'm just in a different place. However, I will say some of the discussions were quite interesting and enlightening.

greenpixies said:

True, or being adults we can just ban them from the site without having to justify anything to them.

Fauxie said:

I suppose the creator of the site can do that but I don't know how he would enforce it, giving that this is virtual world.

greenpixies said:

As far as I am concerned, this is an adult website. I am not going to watch what I say because minors are here: it is up to their parents to watch what sites they visit. As as that role model crap you are spouting, you are aware that this is prince.org, right?

greenpixies said:

He'd just say 'because I said so' and that would be the end of it.

Lothan said:

That's fine. I'm speaking to the people that are giving Emocheerleader such a hard time because she's 16 and are discussing their discomfort for minors being on here. They are saying they are uncomfortable with a minor hearing their dirty talk. If you stand by what you say even if a minor hears it more power to ya.

wtf

Fauxie said:

Hmm. That sounds easy.

greenpixies said:

That's not what I saw. I saw people saying that they do not wish to interact with minors.

Let kids post all they want, it doesn't mean that we have to respond, or change the things we say.

greenpixies said:

I have to say, I don't agree with greenpixies, too often--well NEVER, but I agree with her in this case. This particular minor was honest about her age, but I'm sure there are some others on here, pretending to be a bit older than they are?? And this is a public forum for all the world TO READ--if not participate. So..
[Edited 10/7/07 18:06pm]

JustErin said:

Yes. You don't have to interact with them. That's fine.

greenpixies said:

Well, I refuse to engage in conversation with anyone under 18 here. First of all, I don't believe this person is a minor and like Erin said, even if they are, I do not have to engage them.

And if you are naive enough to think there would be no dirty talk on a Prince site, I can't help ya.

Lothan said:




I never said that Lothan. I said if one is uncomfortable with minors hearing their dirty talk they might as well either get over it or change their discourse because minors will see it here on the org.
[Edited 10/7/07 18:07pm]

emocheerleader said:

My youngest daughter was born in 1991 too

are you friends with/of the orgers Igopogo, meggy, shellyevon ?

ZombieKitten said:

Just to clarify, my earlier question didn't refer to directly discussing with members whom you don't know any deep, personal aspects of yourself or your life, I meant strictly interacting via posts on a thread.

With that said, by your response do you mean you purposely bypass posts by members to whose personal information (real name, their picture, whatever it may be) you are not privy? The "if at all" part of your response makes me curious.. Why such an absolute? If a member is not an obvious troll, can write coherent posts and appears to be a decent sort judging by their posting history, why would you dismiss their contributions or attempts to involve themselves in a thread just because you don't know their first name or what it is they look like?

Despite my having not shared my real name or picture, I believe that - on the forums - I still occasionally can contribute things of value or relevency. Had no one ever responded to my posts when I'd first joined this site merely by virtue of the fact that I was new, and my name and face and personal details aren't public knowledge and I'm not anyone's "real life friend", I would have given up and left and wondered what exactly the point of a public message board even is.

I hope I am not coming across as contentious, or disrespectful of your take on the issue because that is certainly not my intent - I am only trying to better understand your viewpoint and the reasons behind it. Perhaps it is just that our personal definitions of 'engaging' with others on a message board are quite different.
[Edited 10/7/07 18:20pm]

This discussion has veered-off to another topic.

The topic was more about the message board dynamic.. Ya'll know what I'm talking about .. where people have talk behind others backs. I don't think there is anyway people are going to stop doing it regardless of being called-out because it's just a microcosm of the real world, right?

So I say... just don't be bothered.
[Edited 10/7/07 18:19pm]

WillyWonka said:

Yes - yes you do ! Ones I look forward to reading and thinking about

WillyWonka said:

For me (and I know you weren't addressing me, but your post got me to thinking), I don't dismiss an orger's posts solely because of not knowing their personal information, but I do prioritise my time here. It's not even just about time either. In theory I could interact with and respond to every amiable person here, but I don't. I may even skip over a very good post by someone I don't know and respond to something inane by someone I do know.

At one time I felt that I should get to know everybody on forums such as this, interact with everyone, always recognise and give credit for good posts, whoever the poster may be, but that made me frustrated. Now I like to find a level, a number of people I interact with, that I'm comfortable with. That then involves making choices of who to interact with and things like knowing a bit more about someone can come into play. It could sound cliquey, since it ultimately means I'm nearly always responding to the same people (people over topic), but to me it's just practical and is the way I get the most enjoyment from the website. I know that orgers certainly don't all need interaction with me in order to have a good experience here!

There are orgers here I already know I will probably never respond to, unless something they say really jumps out at me, even though I may potentially get on as well with that person as I do the people I regularly interact with. I've just found what's comfortable for me.

Fauxie said:

I can't speak for Willy, but I guess for me--someone who also doesn't share a lot of personal info except in the context of my posts/discussions, that's just the way it goes. Just because some members don't respond to my posts because they don't "know" me, doesn't really mean a lot to me. I have feeling that some of us are looking for different things regarding our participation on these sites. I can't say I'm NOT looking for "friends," or socializing in a more personal context, but more I'm looking more for conversation. I respond to posts which interest me, not having to do with the "person" necessarily. Hey, if a "real" friendship develops--like it did on one site--I'm real happy about it, but it's not something I necessarily seek on the internet.

Ya know, a lot of sites warn members about sharing too much personal info. I don't think it's all that uncommon for people to be hesitant to share anything more than their usernames.

Isel said:

I totally understand not sharing too much personal info on the internet. It's not something I ever gave a lot of thought when I first starting going on the net, but if I had I may well have kept more back. I have started to look at where I am on the internet and what I'm putting out there, but on the org I remain the same as ever.

MissMe said:

i agree.. and now i screen posts before i even answer then .. cause of minors..

emocheerleader said:

no disrespect to you.. but some adult topics arent for minors.. and im sure your parents would not want you in those conversations...

Two words people:

spooky

muffin

Isel said:

Then that would really make this person not new wouldn't it? How would a new 16 year old know about others posting behind others back?

And for the record, I don't say anything in orgnote that I wouldn't say to someone face or on the public boards. Other people can be cowards and spread rumors about other people without going to the actual source. The best part about it though, is that most of us don't know each other outside this place and clikcing off the Org ends the bullshit for another day.

Lothan said:

Lothan said:

Hey, you're preaching to the choir here.

And yes, it's true.. we really can't be sure about EVERYTHING somebody tells us. That said, I might take this person at her word about some incident because similar things have happened to me and also some former members.

BUT.. I have LEARNED over time, it just ain't all that serious in the final analysis.



Yeah.. I like the org. I was looking at my profile, and I've been a member since September, 2004! Relatively speaking, I don't have a lot of posts--even though I've spent entire days--like I have today--debating certain topics. I remember I used to look-up stuff, and have books spread everywhere!! LOL But I just CAN'T devote that much time to it or any other message board anymore.

I tell ya what, I don't see anything "wrong" with making friendships or sharing info, per se, (given the fact there are risks involved), but I guess I also don't see anything wrong with being the type of member--like I am--who just posts opinions on certain topics.

I just think there's room for everybody. I do understand why people wouldn't want to invest a "friendship" with somebody like me because I really don't offer my "friendship" except to a few people who--for some reason-- seem to be interested in me in spite of my "reclusiveness." But then again, I don't see anything wrong with responding to posts on a public message board--even responses to those who aren't as "personable" as others.
[Edited 10/7/07 19:48pm]

WillyWonka said:

I think you are an exception I do interact with you, despite knowing very little about you. It is possible that I might interact more with you if I felt I knew about you as much as you know about me.

Like fauxie said about prioritising, I guess given the choice to engage with someone I share rapport or have some kind of relationship with, and a stranger with an opinion, I think I choose the former. (That is not to say that responding to posts of a more secretive/mysterious type of person hasn't resulted in some sort of friendship - obviously similar viewpoints on issues you feel strongly about will always draw you to someone.)

Who a person is, can make what they say more interesting to me because I know where they are coming from, or maybe it is a surprising thing for them to say. On the other hand, there are lots of people I know lots about, who I never respond to. Usually because we have nothing in common or I cannot relate to that person at all.

Kindness and sincerity can still be demonstrated in a relatively anonymous way, and perhaps that is why you are still hanging around, people will always respond well to that, myself included

Fauxie said:

and jeez, fauxie, you're SO cliquey.