New Approach for TM/GZ Case

I'm reposting KZ's post as an announcement so everyone will see it.

We are going to try a new approach to organizing the discussions on the TM/GZ case. With the current "generic" thread, after about 1000 posts, the thread is simply locked and a new one started. We'd like to try to break out some of the topics into their own threads, as well as maintain a general discussion thread. For example, on a hearing day, we will have a thread for the hearing, and after the discussion has waned, lock it, and start a new one for the next hearing. Same with document dumps.

This format may feel familiar to posters, as this is how RC managed their Caylee threads in the past. Other discussion sites use this approach, also (THM, Websleuths, etc.) There are a number of benefits to this approach for all members-- being able to participate in the topics or discussions one is most interested in, etc. From a moderating perspective, it's easier to keep discussions on topic. And if a thread goes way off the deep end, it's easy to lock ONLY that thread, and still allow other members to continue discussions on other threads.

Let's try it for a few days and see how it goes. I'm going to lock this thread now, and open GZ #6 for general discussion, but let's try out the new threads and see if the flow is improved and more productive. A suggestion-- if the discussion begins to tend toward an existing thread topic, anyone can suggest to your fellow posters to "let's meet in the XYZ thread for further discussion". That has worked well elsewhere.

And let's all celebrate the fact that our discussions here have progressed to a point that we can support a more complex forum approach! How cool is that?!

Not trying to be preumptious....But if your running trials on threads concerning Trayvon Martin G Zimmerman threads...How about similsr to the Hinky had micsellenious threads on Caylee case,,Mic i Mic 2 ect..You could try Genral one two three for more of a disscussion thread theorys ect..An then Specific Thread one for say forencics two for a pre trial hearing an docu dumps any specific happenings throuout the course of events..An through trial jury watch all that if it gets that far..An I think we definetly will see a trial.

DOH you already calling it genral discussion ???Just noticed..........

I don't like change, but I will give this a try and withhold my comments about it until I have given it a fair chance.

double DOH KZ you got everything covered looks good to me,,,,,,,,,

Chickenbutt wrote:I don't like change, but I will give this a try and withhold my comments about it until I have given it a fair chance.

DITTO -

Okay, I tried it - I hate it. I don't like the idea if I am wanting to post on a topic, I have to inform everyone that "hey, follow me over to the media thread because I have something I want to say about that" - and I don't know what we are going to talk about in a general thread if there are all of these categorized threads - what? The color of GZ's tie? I just don't like it. I can understand a separate thread for the day of hearings, or the day of a document dump - but that's about it for me. I mean it is such a pain, that I know myself - I will just forego posting altogether before I start chasing threads around. But, hey, maybe that is the goal???

My concern is the over lapping of topics. If the media posts an article about Paypal and MOM and I want to discuss that, do I go to the media thread, the MOM thread, or the Paypal thread. I'm thinking I am not going to like this. Too many threads, too narrow topics, too confusing for my little mind.

I feel like a drunk dizzying with staggering about trying to find the newest doc dump, the latest postings, responses to some postings (by self and others). Go to sites and sent to other locations only to find they are closed. (Wait! I wanted to comment on something! Never mind.)

I am getting giddy here. Or is it dizzy? Please. Someone leave some bread crumbs, would ya?

CherokeeNative wrote:Okay, I tried it - I hate it. I don't like the idea if I am wanting to post on a topic, I have to inform everyone that "hey, follow me over to the media thread because I have something I want to say about that" - and I don't know what we are going to talk about in a general thread if there are all of these categorized threads - what? The color of GZ's tie? I just don't like it. I can understand a separate thread for the day of hearings, or the day of a document dump - but that's about it for me. I mean it is such a pain, that I know myself - I will just forego posting altogether before I start chasing threads around. But, hey, maybe that is the goal???

Hmm. Sometimes you scare me with your thoughts for I see myself looking back at me.

I could even understand separating hot button topics like "race" - that way, if you go to that thread, you know you will be discussing race and you have no reason to get upset about what is being discussed. But I would prefer that we maintain our old thread where it is open discussion to all topics.

Chickenbutt wrote:My concern is the over lapping of topics. If the media posts an article about Paypal and MOM and I want to discuss that, do I go to the media thread, the MOM thread, or the Paypal thread. I'm thinking I am not going to like this. Too many threads, too narrow topics, too confusing for my little mind.

CN and CB

I do not see the need for you to change how you are posting on the general thread.
There are no articles here and a mod moderating what is supposed to be 'general' or not.

I think the extended discussion forum is appealing for other posters or readers who may have a particular topic that they want to specifically discuss, and if you see the contribution you can post or not, or just peek in occasionally.

It can be liberating for other posters who just want to address a particular issue without feeling like they have to break into an established conversation that they have no history in, and for readers or lurkers who can direct themselves to a particular topic of their interest in the case.

SOme people just want to talk about media influence and others the chain of evidence on the T for example, etc.

Tamta wrote:

Chickenbutt wrote:My concern is the over lapping of topics. If the media posts an article about Paypal and MOM and I want to discuss that, do I go to the media thread, the MOM thread, or the Paypal thread. I'm thinking I am not going to like this. Too many threads, too narrow topics, too confusing for my little mind.

CN and CB

I do not see the need for you to change how you are posting on the general thread.
There are no articles here and a mod moderating what is supposed to be 'general' or not.

I think the extended discussion forum is appealing for other posters or readers who may have a particular topic that they want to specifically discuss, and if you see the contribution you can post or not, or just peek in occasionally.

It can be liberating for other posters who just want to address a particular issue without feeling like they have to break into an established conversation that they have no history in, and for readers or lurkers who can direct themselves to a particular topic of their interest in the case.

SOme people just want to talk about media influence and others the chain of evidence on the T for example, etc.

I am glad it will work for you - it doesn't work for me.

I don't see how the General Discussion thread is of any use if we have to go to the specialized threads to discuss what we saw/read about the case. I just don't see the need for the separation.

reminds me of the game over in the game room. Last post wins. So - there is never a last post - an no one ever wins.

Tis much too complicated for me, I'm no big loss though, didn't feel I had much to add, was busy keeping up.

so long !

CherokeeNative wrote:Okay, I tried it - I hate it.

Oh dear, ditto for me.
Can't we just stay in one place and have our enthralling conversations, discussions, disagreements and agreements all together?

Well that's 4 to 1 - hopefully the mods will listen if enough people express their dislike for this change.

I was afraid to say so- but I have to agree with everyone here.
I could see if we tried to seperate a thread to keep out the race issues if people really need that but so much of this is intertwined.
If you want to discuss defense strategy naturally the opposing strategy is going to inform the discussion- but that's not allowed?
Id say it would be great if we could have a media thread but the defense is directly using the media and fundraising in a way that's never happened before.
I really wouldn't know where to post anything.
Would we not be able to have the same discussions and link sharing we already do?
I'm not sure what "problem" this is fixing.
Do we feel a need a pro- Zimmerman thread? Because I'm thinking that's what's really bothering some and has led to this. I'd be fine with that.
I think the general thread is enough for me until there's a hearing or trial. I'm hoping we're all welcome to continue to have a free form and civil discussion there.

angela_nw wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:Okay, I tried it - I hate it.

Oh dear, ditto for me.
Can't we just stay in one place and have our enthralling conversations, discussions, disagreements and agreements all together?

WeeBonnie wrote:I was afraid to say so- but I have to agree with everyone here.
I could see if we tried to seperate a thread to keep out the race issues if people really need that but so much of this is intertwined.
If you want to discuss defense strategy naturally the opposing strategy is going to inform the discussion- but that's not allowed?
Id say it would be great if we could have a media thread but the defense is directly using the media and fundraising in a way that's never happened before.
I really wouldn't know where to post anything.
Would we not be able to have the same discussions and link sharing we already do?
I'm not sure what "problem" this is fixing.
Do we feel a need a pro- Zimmerman thread? Because I'm thinking that's what's really bothering some and has led to this. I'd be fine with that.
I think the general thread is enough for me until there's a hearing or trial. I'm hoping we're all welcome to continue to have a free form and civil discussion there.

angela_nw wrote:

Oh dear, ditto for me.
Can't we just stay in one place and have our enthralling conversations, discussions, disagreements and agreements all together?

Technically, the reason we are even allowed to have the GZ thread on this blog is because it involves a minor/child, Trayvon. I think it would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the RC Blog to have a Pro-GZ thread. I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that is an option. I can understand a thread for hot topic issues in the GZ case that tend to upset others, but besides that, I am hoping strongly that the moderators will return the thread to the way it was.

I appreciate RC so much, I don't want to complain and will go with whatever is decided. But, I would prefer fewer different topic threads. Maybe one for non-court related subjects, like the media discussion, Crump, etc., and one General Discussion.

And as I type that, I see even that wouldn't work easily since 'the media' is filing motions, so that would fall into the General Discussion.

I'm also fine with skipping over posts that don't interest me, like the different things swirling around the case. I want to focus on the interesting legal stuff, I can only handle so much info!

This is just too confusing and minor topic drift is just part of any threaded discussion. Please go back to the format that we know.

Where did everyone go??

I like a GENERAL DISCUSSION with a LIBRARY for links.

A problem I see is when the postings covers several issues.
Or a poster wants to address several issues. The old way, the poster could itemize the issues in one posting. The new way has the poster having to go to different threads. This makes it complicated for follow up. (Sometimes, a poster asks a question and checks back to see what dialogue followed. If there are many threads, it could be confusing to try to follow back.)

Cher- I am with you on that count so add one more to the sub-total you have.

CherokeeNative wrote:Well that's 4 to 1 - hopefully the mods will listen if enough people express their dislike for this change.

I rarely post anything, (I'm usually too far behind) and I was having a hard enough time keeping up with one thread, let alone 7!

Freckles wrote:I like a GENERAL DISCUSSION with a LIBRARY for links.

A problem I see is when the postings covers several issues.
Or a poster wants to address several issues. The old way, the poster could itemize the issues in one posting. The new way has the poster having to go to different threads. This makes it complicated for follow up. (Sometimes, a poster asks a question and checks back to see what dialogue followed. If there are many threads, it could be confusing to try to follow back.)

Cher- I am with you on that count so add one more to the sub-total you have.

Please add me to the count. Thamks!

Just arriving home after a long drive.

Well, I knew change would be difficult for some members. But I had hoped that giving a new format a try would be longer than 5 hours.

What I'm puzzled about is a few things. First, no one is trying to TAKE AWAY a discussion venue from ANY poster/s. I think it's too bad that offering MORE threads for specific conversations is being interpreted as a covert/ overt technique to DISCOURAGE conversation. Or worse yet, some kind of punishment! What is up with THAT?? If you went to a dinner party expecting apple pie for dessert, and the host presented apple pie, AND 3 other choices, would you feel cheated? Vaguely upset at the selections? Would you refuse dessert all together and just grab your jacket and leave?? Hmm.

And as to these comments:

Do we feel a need a pro- Zimmerman thread? Because I'm thinking that's what's really bothering some and has led to this. I'd be fine with that.

oh right. I knew it would be odd to have a pro-killer thread here, but it seems GZ does have enough supporters here to keep such a thread active.

Absolutely no one, not one single poster, has advocated for some kind of "pro GZ" thread. I am personally offended by that suggestion. I have been very vocal that I do not believe the evidence supports 2nd degree murder. I will never believe GZ was sitting around polishing his firearm, channelling white racist themes, and hoping to go hunting for a trophy kill of a young black teen. Not a single piece of information since February 26 has persuaded me he is anything other than an incredibly immature, stupid, impulsive guy who has a wannabe cop complex, and was carrying a loaded firearm.

The questions to be sorted out LEGALLY in this case is "followed" vs "profiled", and self defense and/or SYG as GZ's defense.

I have something else to say. And I'm not this direct very often.

As some of you know from J4A's posts when the thread here was closed, they were not entirely enthusiastic about hosting discussion about the GZ/ TM case. They did not have a thread here at all for the case until the demise of THM-- and this case doesn't fit the types of cases typically followed here. Other sites on the web have closed their discussions on the case-- most notably, the large site, Websleuths. And discussion of the TM case also lead, in part, to the demise of THM, as many here are well aware. It IS a controversial case, and the discussions ARE more volatile that typical cases. It requires more time, effort, and patience on the part of any host to sustain cordial and welcoming conversation. Part of why I agreed to moderate here at RC was to assist at keeping THIS particular thread open. I wanted ex-Hinkies to have a comfortable place to come and discuss the case.

I have supported and advocated for ex-THM members here at RC-- continuously. Even when it would be easier to simply close down a discussion, or walk away. I have had YOUR backs at every turn. I have tried my BEST to be a bridge with the influx of Hinky members on all the threads.

I am not trying to screw up anything for anyone.

{Rant complete.}

KZ wrote:Just arriving home after a long drive.

Well, I knew change would be difficult for some members. But I had hoped that giving a new format a try would be longer than 5 hours.

What I'm puzzled about is a few things. First, no one is trying to TAKE AWAY a discussion venue from ANY poster/s. I think it's too bad that offering MORE threads for specific conversations is being interpreted as a covert/ overt technique to DISCOURAGE conversation. Or worse yet, some kind of punishment! What is up with THAT?? If you went to a dinner party expecting apple pie for dessert, and the host presented apple pie, AND 3 other choices, would you feel cheated? Vaguely upset at the selections? Would you refuse dessert all together and just grab your jacket and leave?? Hmm.

And as to these comments:

Do we feel a need a pro- Zimmerman thread? Because I'm thinking that's what's really bothering some and has led to this. I'd be fine with that.

oh right. I knew it would be odd to have a pro-killer thread here, but it seems GZ does have enough supporters here to keep such a thread active.

Absolutely no one, not one single poster, has advocated for some kind of "pro GZ" thread. I am personally offended by that suggestion. I have been very vocal that I do not believe the evidence supports 2nd degree murder. I will never believe GZ was sitting around polishing his firearm, channelling white racist themes, and hoping to go hunting for a trophy kill of a young black teen. Not a single piece of information since February 26 has persuaded me he is anything other than an incredibly immature, stupid, impulsive guy who has a wannabe cop complex, and was carrying a loaded firearm.

The questions to be sorted out LEGALLY in this case is "followed" vs "profiled", and self defense and/or SYG as GZ's defense.

I have something else to say. And I'm not this direct very often.

As some of you know from J4A's posts when the thread here was closed, they were not entirely enthusiastic about hosting discussion about the GZ/ TM case. They did not have a thread here at all for the case until the demise of THM-- and this case doesn't fit the types of cases typically followed here. Other sites on the web have closed their discussions on the case-- most notably, the large site, Websleuths. And discussion of the TM case also lead, in part, to the demise of THM, as many here are well aware. It IS a controversial case, and the discussions ARE more volatile that typical cases. It requires more time, effort, and patience on the part of any host to sustain cordial and welcoming conversation. Part of why I agreed to moderate here at RC was to assist at keeping THIS particular thread open. I wanted ex-Hinkies to have a comfortable place to come and discuss the case.

I have supported and advocated for ex-THM members here at RC-- continuously. Even when it would be easier to simply close down a discussion, or walk away. I have had YOUR backs at every turn. I have tried my BEST to be a bridge with the influx of Hinky members on all the threads.

I am not trying to screw up anything for anyone.

{Rant complete.}

KZ, we truly appreciate all your time and effort in helping to keep this thread open.
Maybe some just feel as if there are too many choices for dessert?

CherokeeNative wrote:Well that's 4 to 1 - hopefully the mods will listen if enough people express their dislike for this change.

I'm in the with you, It's too confusing, and at my age I would probably end up talking to myself all the time and that's no fun.

Until whatever takes place can we all meet on this thread?

I personally don't think a "pro Zimmerman" thread would be appropriate on here. I really haven't come across too many of them.

As far as Zimmerman profiling Trayvon. I truly believe he was. He may not have been in waiting and hoping that a black teen would come walking by so he can shoot him. However, it wasn't a far thought from his scope of thinking. His own lawyer stated publicly that there had been previous breakins by black men, which is why Zimmerman was looking at Trayvon, well if that's not profiling I don't know what is. Had Trayvon been white then I doubt that this tragedy would have occured.

By Zimmerman walking or riding his patrol with a loaded gun, I believe it may indicate that he was infact waiting in hiding to use it on the next suspect. Trayvon just happed on the scene of this crazed individual and it ended up with his life being taken.

No one in their right mind would follow and stalk someone that they thought was a criminal or a threat unless they had a weapon on them and ready to be used. Had Zimmerman NOT had that loaded 9mm he would have kept his butt in that car and waited for the police, but he wasn't going to let another suspect (in his warped mind) get away. In my books that would indicate intent to get his suspect one way or the other. In Zimmermans mind, if it meant shooting this suspect, so be it. And that's the attitude that Zimmerman has kept thru this entire ordeal. It's as though he is saying "what's the big deal?", I rid the community of a suspect. He has shown no remorse what so ever that he killed an innocent, yes "innocent" young man that was not armed and did not pose a threat to anyone at all.

I truly believe that this is where the intent comes in and why the "murder two" charge.

CherokeeNative wrote:Okay, I tried it - I hate it. I don't like the idea if I am wanting to post on a topic, I have to inform everyone that "hey, follow me over to the media thread because I have something I want to say about that" - and I don't know what we are going to talk about in a general thread if there are all of these categorized threads - what? The color of GZ's tie? I just don't like it. I can understand a separate thread for the day of hearings, or the day of a document dump - but that's about it for me. I mean it is such a pain, that I know myself - I will just forego posting altogether before I start chasing threads around. But, hey, maybe that is the goal???

No, please don't leave, just stay on this thread.

KZ wrote:Just arriving home after a long drive.

Well, I knew change would be difficult for some members. But I had hoped that giving a new format a try would be longer than 5 hours.

What I'm puzzled about is a few things. First, no one is trying to TAKE AWAY a discussion venue from ANY poster/s. I think it's too bad that offering MORE threads for specific conversations is being interpreted as a covert/ overt technique to DISCOURAGE conversation. Or worse yet, some kind of punishment! What is up with THAT?? If you went to a dinner party expecting apple pie for dessert, and the host presented apple pie, AND 3 other choices, would you feel cheated? Vaguely upset at the selections? Would you refuse dessert all together and just grab your jacket and leave?? Hmm.

And as to these comments:

Do we feel a need a pro- Zimmerman thread? Because I'm thinking that's what's really bothering some and has led to this. I'd be fine with that.

oh right. I knew it would be odd to have a pro-killer thread here, but it seems GZ does have enough supporters here to keep such a thread active.

Absolutely no one, not one single poster, has advocated for some kind of "pro GZ" thread. I am personally offended by that suggestion. I have been very vocal that I do not believe the evidence supports 2nd degree murder. I will never believe GZ was sitting around polishing his firearm, channelling white racist themes, and hoping to go hunting for a trophy kill of a young black teen. Not a single piece of information since February 26 has persuaded me he is anything other than an incredibly immature, stupid, impulsive guy who has a wannabe cop complex, and was carrying a loaded firearm.

The questions to be sorted out LEGALLY in this case is "followed" vs "profiled", and self defense and/or SYG as GZ's defense.

I have something else to say. And I'm not this direct very often.

As some of you know from J4A's posts when the thread here was closed, they were not entirely enthusiastic about hosting discussion about the GZ/ TM case. They did not have a thread here at all for the case until the demise of THM-- and this case doesn't fit the types of cases typically followed here. Other sites on the web have closed their discussions on the case-- most notably, the large site, Websleuths. And discussion of the TM case also lead, in part, to the demise of THM, as many here are well aware. It IS a controversial case, and the discussions ARE more volatile that typical cases. It requires more time, effort, and patience on the part of any host to sustain cordial and welcoming conversation. Part of why I agreed to moderate here at RC was to assist at keeping THIS particular thread open. I wanted ex-Hinkies to have a comfortable place to come and discuss the case.

I have supported and advocated for ex-THM members here at RC-- continuously. Even when it would be easier to simply close down a discussion, or walk away. I have had YOUR backs at every turn. I have tried my BEST to be a bridge with the influx of Hinky members on all the threads.

I am not trying to screw up anything for anyone.

{Rant complete.}

KZ - I am sorry if this has upset you. I realize that you have expended a lot of effort and personal time supporting us at RC and keeping this thread open. I've never thought that you had anything but our best interests in mind, and I appreciate that. In my defense, I call your attention to your post on thread #5 which states:

There are a number of benefits to this approach for all members-- being able to participate in the topics or discussions one is most interested in, etc. From a moderating perspective, it's easier to keep discussions on topic. And if a thread goes way off the deep end, it's easy to lock ONLY that thread, and still allow other members to continue discussions on other threads.

Let's try it for a few days and see how it goes. I'm going to lock this thread now, and open GZ #6 for general discussion, but let's try out the new threads and see if the flow is improved and more productive. A suggestion-- if the discussion begins to tend toward an existing thread topic, anyone can suggest to your fellow posters to "let's meet in the XYZ thread for further discussion". That has worked well elsewhere.

Blue BM

I interpreted the high-lighted portions to mean that we were required to only discuss those topics which have designated threads in those threads, and should we venture into one of those topics that has a designated thread, we will be required to move our discussion because we would be off topic or risk being being admonished by the moderators. For the most part, I am an impulsive person when it comes to participating on a blog. I don't want to have to worry about what aspect of the GZ case I am discussing and whether or not there is a designated thread, or that I need to send a shout out to everyone in the general thread that I am now going over to the "whatever" topic thread to post my thoughts - for sure, it is going to be disruptive to spontaneity and a flowing conversation. I don't know about others, but I believe this is true from my observations, is that when our personal life calms down from our daily routine, we settle in to have a discussion with our fellow bloggers on the GZ case. The old format was similar to sitting around the kitchen table and having a discussion with your friends and discussing whatever comes to mind or is happening at the moment in the case. By setting up topical discussion threads, it is akin to having to stand up from that kitchen table, find another table that is topic related and posting whatever it is you want to say at that table even if no one else is sitting there, standing back up and going back to your kitchen table. If no one was sitting at the topic table where you posted, you have lost any chance of spontaneious discussion. I don't post a comment and then walk away from my computer most of the time. When I post, I am interested in carrying on a conversation. The topical threads are not really conducive to that type of flowing conversation. On the other hand, this would give the moderator an opportunity to nip a comment in the bud should it appear inappropriate - which is more or less what I meant when I posted my thoughts about how this change in the thread may have been designed to squelch discussion.

I am sorry you feel that I and others do not appreciate your efforts or the fact that you have had "our backs" in championing for the maintenance of this thread. I truly did not mean to seem unappreciative. I have always respected your thoughts, enjoy reading your perspective, and have vocally supported many of your opinions. You are beneficial to our thread in many respects and an asset to our group. It's just that I would be dishonest if I said I liked this new thread design, or that I will be able to adjust to these changes as I don't believe I can. Perhaps, if we had been questioned on whether we could adapt to such changes in advance, this misunderstanding could have been avoided.

Unrelated to the change in this thread, is your comment that, "I will never believe GZ was sitting around polishing his firearm, channelling white racist themes, and hoping to go hunting for a trophy kill of a young black teen. Not a single piece of information since February 26 has persuaded me he is anything other than an incredibly immature, stupid, impulsive guy who has a wannabe cop complex, and was carrying a loaded firearm."

Had GZ been sitting around polishing his firearm, channelling white racist themes, and hoping to go hunting for a trophy kill of a young black teen, this would have been a Murder 1 case. I am in the midst of preparing a post that addresses the Murder 2 versus Manslaughter charges and how they apply to GZ, and why I believe if the prosecution presents its case to jury skillfully, they will be able to obtain a Murder 2 conviction - but that is a few days off since I only have limited time to work on it.

Thanks KZ

Since I usually just lurk and read every day, I'm thinking I should still check here for the usual conversational-type posts? I understand the doc dumps, etc., will/should be in the library but discussion will be still be here, right?

Really, I don't want to seem THAT dumb, but if someone would just sort of point me in the right direction I would really be tickled pink. ~~C

KZ. I appreciate what you are trying to do but I think the one thing that everyone has echoed is continuity. One of the marvels of RC is that it gives the reader base the opportunity to grasp a real feel for the discussion. We may not always agree but it is that very sense of continuity that allows us to get from point a to point b in this discussion.

I have had readers who I vehemently disagreed with but later came around to see their point -because- of the continuous nature of the thread. One important intangible of a single focal thread is that is also allows the reader to scroll up and easily catch themselves up, particularly after a busy day. Alternatively, a multi-thread approach risks the reader missing important points because it forces one to either read every related fora, or simply jump to the last known forum that one posted in during the previous login.

Lastly, I realize that other large blogs have avoided this discussion ( which I feel is a bit myopic) and I believe others will agree when I state that we fully appreciate the willingness of RC to be a trend setter and house this thread.. As evidenced by our relative * lack* of sniping, I believe that all of us here have demonstrated that it is quite possible to engage in serious discussion about this important matter, in a meaningful way. I hope and trust that you will consider our collective thoughts on this.

I agree with Porky. I am new here, and I like the fact that everyone is respectful. Multiple threads would be impossible for me. I don't even have time to read everything on this one thread.

I appreciate your efforts here, KZ. Keeping up with this thread is a part-time job in itself, moderating is so much more.

KZ wrote:Just arriving home after a long drive.

Well, I knew change would be difficult for some members. But I had hoped that giving a new format a try would be longer than 5 hours.

{snipped}
I have supported and advocated for ex-THM members here at RC-- continuously. Even when it would be easier to simply close down a discussion, or walk away. I have had YOUR backs at every turn. I have tried my BEST to be a bridge with the influx of Hinky members on all the threads.

I am not trying to screw up anything for anyone.

{Rant complete.}

I REALLY appreciate the work you & RC have done with helping all us orphans find a home here! Re-organizing the forum took time and thought too, but will it be easier to moderate this way? I would think having more threads to check would be harder, but it might be simpler when trying to find a specific problem post.

I think if we had a lot more people commenting, it might be more useful to have separate subjects, but there's pretty much a small, core group of regular posters and others who only read. I really enjoy everyone here, so I hope people don't stop posting. I think it is hard to not cross topic lines when discussing things online, so maybe a loose moderation style in the 'general' thread will help get over the hump of folks not liking the separate ones.

KZ wrote:Just arriving home after a long drive.

Well, I knew change would be difficult for some members. But I had hoped that giving a new format a try would be longer than 5 hours.
{snipped}

The one thing I would like about the new changes would be that one thread could be locked and we'd still have others open for discussion...as long as it wasn't the GD one. lol

KC & Justice4All, thanks for all you do,. imo, I like it much better. There are some aspects of the case I am more interested in than other's, such as the Pen Pal account & the Media aspect. I am not as interested in every single item on the DOC dump because I learned from Caylee's case, 1/2 of it probably won't even make it into trial. The jury forms their opinion on just the presented evidence, I can remember for days things discussed at Val's that never even came up at trial, at the time of the doc dump, we thought surely the Jury would see it, but alot they didn't. If the threads aren't seperated, people like me that read on the GZ thread have to wade through the opinions/arguments over the doc dump, it's difficult to get to anything else of substance on the thread. Val seperated this also, the Hinky Meter ran just fine until Val needed an overdue break.

I rarely post on the GZ thread because, imo, most of the objectivity has been lost by many, nothing that the Defense Team can do is ever going to be acceptable to them & they state so endlessly, it is their right but it doesn't change a single thing. The fact is, MOM is doing his job like it or not, its just that simple, you don't have to approve of anything he does but it is important you understand that because he is going to continue to represent GZ to the best of his ability. Complaining doesn't change anything about MOM's representation of GZ, nothing.

If I post anything, remotely different from the opinion of most that post daily on GZ, I take a beat down everytime. It is lost on many that other's can view the same information but see it differently, I too want the same Justice those that want to argue about everything want . LOL, if I don't totally agree with you, they seem to think I am not seeking the same Justice, I just laugh everytime. Some have already convicted GZ of 2nd degree murder, I don't know what he is going to be convicted of but I certainly agree he is going to be convicted of something, at least I hope.

It's unfortuate some excellent blogger's no longer post on the GZ thread & some have left RC. Some that have left presented objective opinions & validated their opinions w/facts everytime.

I appreciate KZ stating her opinion from time to time as she is objective, something imo, the thread desperately needs.

KZ I spend alot of time on the various cases that I have participated in discussing. There are aspects of the case that I am not particularly interested in; such as assumptions about who contributes to paypal. Although I do like to read about how it is being allocated etc... MOM isn't one of my favourite people but he has a job... and that is to represent the low life and smarmy out there as well as the innocent. If he gets rich in the process ... oh well ... as that is why he is what he is and the price he accepts for not being able to look at himself in the mirror and to drown out the little voice of consciousness that he may or may not have.

This new format does serve a purpose and gives us the freedom of choice. As an old hinky I found it difficult to familiarize with RC but adapted.. and this too will grow on me... Thank you for all you do to keep us inline!

justanopinion wrote:KZ I spend alot of time on the various cases that I have participated in discussing. There are aspects of the case that I am not particularly interested in; such as assumptions about who contributes to paypal. Although I do like to read about how it is being allocated etc... MOM isn't one of my favourite people but he has a job... and that is to represent the low life and smarmy out there as well as the innocent. If he gets rich in the process ... oh well ... as that is why he is what he is and the price he accepts for not being able to look at himself in the mirror and to drown out the little voice of consciousness that he may or may not have.

This new format does serve a purpose and gives us the freedom of choice. As an old hinky I found it difficult to familiarize with RC but adapted.. and this too will grow on me... Thank you for all you do to keep us inline!

justanopinion, your thoughts are correct imo, Val did it the same way, if KZhad been here from the day HM closed, she would have set it up exactly the way it is now.

Too, it's going to make it real easy to look back on the specific thread for information. If you wanted to look up an old link as it used to be, you would have to go through thousands of posts probably unrelated to the information you were looking for, nobody has that much time. A good example is Pay PAL, if it had been set up the way it is now, you could quickly read old articles from shared links on Pay Pal. Any former HM members know this as you have stated you are & so am I & countless others.

well, I can't comment exactly. I have been finishing off this entire "humble pie" in front of me. Sorry, I can't share, it had my name on top. I am glad we have a general discussion, appreciate all the work KZ has done.
Someone stole my jacket..........

art tart wrote:

justanopinion wrote:KZ I spend alot of time on the various cases that I have participated in discussing. There are aspects of the case that I am not particularly interested in; such as assumptions about who contributes to paypal. Although I do like to read about how it is being allocated etc... MOM isn't one of my favourite people but he has a job... and that is to represent the low life and smarmy out there as well as the innocent. If he gets rich in the process ... oh well ... as that is why he is what he is and the price he accepts for not being able to look at himself in the mirror and to drown out the little voice of consciousness that he may or may not have.

This new format does serve a purpose and gives us the freedom of choice. As an old hinky I found it difficult to familiarize with RC but adapted.. and this too will grow on me... Thank you for all you do to keep us inline!

justanopinion, your thoughts are correct imo, Val did it the same way, if KZhad been here from the day HM closed, she would have set it up exactly the way it is now.

Too, it's going to make it real easy to look back on the specific thread for information. If you wanted to look up an old link as it used to be, you would have to go through thousands of posts probably unrelated to the information you were looking for, nobody has that much time. A good example is Pay PAL, if it had been set up the way it is now, you could quickly read old articles from shared links on Pay Pal. Any former HM members know this as you have stated you are & so am I & countless others.

Actually, the way I remember THM is Val would write an article and we would post under that - when a new article was posted, the prior thread was closed. Agreed, Val had folders that she moved information to under a case - but I think that has already been set up more or less under the GZ thread. But most importantly, this is not THM and I hope we are not trying to clone THM. One of the things that I liked about RC over THM was the general thread covering the case. I do not have the time nor do I want to expend the energy to post at different threads depending upon what aspect of this case I want to post about. Nor do I want to have to go bouncing from one thread to the next in order to try and catch up on what was discussed during the day about the case - because, I am interested in ALL aspects of this case... not just parts.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Actually, the way I remember THM is Val would write an article and we would post under that - when a new article was posted, the prior thread was closed. Agreed, Val had folders that she moved information to under a case - but I think that has already been set up more or less under the GZ thread. But most importantly, this is not THM and I hope we are not trying to clone THM. One of the things that I liked about RC over THM was the general thread covering the case. I do not have the time nor do I want to expend the energy to post at different threads depending upon what aspect of this case I want to post about. Nor do I want to have to go bouncing from one thread to the next in order to try and catch up on what was discussed during the day about the case - because, I am interested in ALL aspects of this case... not just parts.

I really hope you keep posting CN, just stay in this thread and see how it goes! :prettyplease: ;)

I agree that RC is RC and THM was THM. We all came here, learned their system and became used to it. I don't remember THM having 7 threads to comment on about one case, unless it was during a trial. I like CN's analogy about the kitchen tables. Or as I look at it....speed posting. One post here, one post there, asking people to go to such and such a thread to respond, or telling others to follow me here to discuss this. I just find it all too confusing. I just can't see how this is better than the original. And I thought people were behaving pretty well in the general thread. If you want to have a hot button thread, like CN suggested, then that would work. I find this format to cumbersome and hard to navigate. JMO

Chickenbutt wrote:I agree that RC is RC and THM was THM. We all came here, learned their system and became used to it. I don't remember THM having 7 threads to comment on about one case, unless it was during a trial. I like CN's analogy about the kitchen tables. Or as I look at it....speed posting. One post here, one post there, asking people to go to such and such a thread to respond, or telling others to follow me here to discuss this. I just find it all too confusing. I just can't see how this is better than the original. And I thought people were behaving pretty well in the general thread. If you want to have a hot button thread, like CN suggested, then that would work. I find this format to cumbersome and hard to navigate. JMO

A discussion is a discussion, we don't leave the roomand go to another room when a discussion gets hot, we stay and give our opinions. If I don't like something that someone posted, I jump over it.

I Think I will stay right on this thread.

I Too appreciate what RC is doing and allowing us to discuss what we find interesting.

Chickenbutt wrote:I agree that RC is RC and THM was THM. We all came here, learned their system and became used to it. I don't remember THM having 7 threads to comment on about one case, unless it was during a trial. I like CN's analogy about the kitchen tables. Or as I look at it....speed posting. One post here, one post there, asking people to go to such and such a thread to respond, or telling others to follow me here to discuss this. I just find it all too confusing. I just can't see how this is better than the original. And I thought people were behaving pretty well in the general thread. If you want to have a hot button thread, like CN suggested, then that would work. I find this format to cumbersome and hard to navigate. JMO

Chickenbutt, though it is different to you, I think you are going to find it efficient. In Session, web slueth, Justice Quest, the hinky meter, victim's heartland, just to name a few use this format because it is efficient & because it serves their growing number of blogger's. Niecey's Place & Humble Opinion write a piece on a new subject & start a thread as does the Caylee Daily in a case. I can't think of any other blog site I have visited that runs everything through a miscellaneous rambling thread, all the information from an arrest, court hearings, bail hearings, links on articles, etc., except the old way RC used to do the GZ thread. It's not really anything new, other blogs have always done it because it is efficient, I really think you are going to like it. jmo.

AT, I go no where but here at RC. Wait, I have been to Websleuths in the past, could not find what I wanted to read about so I left and never went back. Remember when your mom used to say "If everyone jumped off the bridge would you?" Just because everyone does it doesn't, imo, make it better. So I guess I will just keep posting on the General thread and if I get spanked then I will quit posting about GZ altogether. I will not troll thru 7 threads looking for the "right" place to post. I will continue to post on other threads that I am interested in. JMO

Chickenbutt wrote:AT, I go no where but here at RC. Wait, I have been to Websleuths in the past, could not find what I wanted to read about so I left and never went back. Remember when your mom used to say "If everyone jumped off the bridge would you?" Just because everyone does it doesn't, imo, make it better. So I guess I will just keep posting on the General thread and if I get spanked then I will quit posting about GZ altogether. I will not troll thru 7 threads looking for the "right" place to post. I will continue to post on other threads that I am interested in. JMO

I DITTO those sentiments exactly CB. This is what made RC unique and why I post here. If I had liked the other blogs' format, I would have probably never found RC - but I purposely never posted at the others because I did not like their format. It appears from reading the responses that those who do not follow this thread exclusively are the ones that do not have a problem with the change-up JMO - for those of us that are only following the GZ thread, it appears that we prefer the original format. With that said, I will continue to post exclusively here on the general thread and if I am admonished for it, I will forego posting altogether.

I think everyone here is being objective as they possibly can. None of us have seen what evidence there is to the evidence of depravity that could make this second degree murder. I think the majority agree there could be a case for manslaughter, although a few seem bothered or perplexed an arrest actually occured at all.

Im hoping the thread can move forward respectfully without any further swipes toward those who have other opinions. I can argue forcefully and welcome counter arguements without hurt feelings as long as the discussion is respectful.
To maintain again and again that only a couple of people here have any objectivity or facts to back them up adds nothing to the discussion at all.
It is tiresome and ultimately disrespectful of many of the posters here.
I think we need to rise above those sorts of insults. I am accustomed to posting on political boards where people go at issues viciously even if they are ninety percent on the same page. I enjoy the intelctual sparring and feel I learn a lot from it. There is ways loads of dirt and smack to talk about politicians. But the boards that allow people to take personal swipes at each other always devolve into some kind of ugly immature pissing match. People tend to bait others and enjoy starting crap storms, or fling crap and get all hurt if and when it gets flung back. I don't think anyone here is trolling, and I think we're all better than that.
Perhaps we could use some guidines



If MOM wasn't appealing to some very low aspects in human nature, little would be said

To finish my thought...

If MOM wasn't making some odd choices in his appeal for funding (which is in an of itself a new and odd thing) we'd not be criticising him. It's understood that he has a job to do. But please understand, it's an aspect of the case here that some would like to discuss without having others look down on them for doing so.
If anyone feels they don't like an aspect, there's an option to explain why, or ignore it. But saying others aren't objective because they want to discuss lawyers tactics makes no sense to me. Getting upset at people discussing something currently news worthy makes even less sense to me.

My apologies for the chopped up post. Gotta fix the laptop sooner rather than ter.

I lean toward a general thread and a library thread - maybe once in a while an additional thread thrown into the mix.

I posted on THM on the Rebecca Zahau thread only. I don't know about the other threads, but on RZ's thread, Val would write an article and we'd make posts on it; then she would write a 2nd article and lock down the 1st article. When we had additional thoughts about the 1st article, they would have to be posted on the 2nd article (because the 1st one was locked) and then we'd get chastised for being "off-topic". At times, it did get frustrating. It finally got to a point that a thread covering several topics was opened, so that we could talk about various topics on the one thread.

I prefer a general thread (and an occasional additional thread would be okay) and believe it could work as long as different view points are allowed to be made without posters getting so emotional. This is a very emotional case and those extreme emotions are what caused THM and Websleuths threads to be shut down and other blogs to not even open GZ threads.

Some posters do want to wait and see all the evidence first and don't feel it's fair that they should be deemed pro-Zimmerman, as though that's the worst thing possible because they want to see the rest of the evidence. IMO, that's emotion taking over and is most likely a reason that this thread could get shut down, too, if all posters' comments are not respected due to emotions taking over.

In my case, I'm on the fence and lean one way one day and another way another day - and definately want to see all the evidence. If I'm not firmly decided how I feel, how can others presume to know...even reading my mind wouldn't give someone else the answer. ha

I'm hopeful that this week's doc dump will be revealing. Do we know if after this week we will have seen "all" the evidence yet?

I, personally, hope that RC is able to continue to keep the GZ thread open; I surmise it's up to the posters.