bigvalboy

HADDONFIELD, N.J. (AP) — The woman who created a Thanksgiving staple enjoyed by millions — the green bean casserole — has died at age 92.
 
Dorcas Reilly died on Oct. 15 of Alzheimer’s disease, said Ken Tomlinson of the Hinski-Tomlinson Funeral Home in Haddonfield, New Jersey.
 
Campbell Soup officials said the New Jersey resident was the driving force behind the popular dish, made with green beans and cream of mushroom soup and topped with crunchy fried onions. The company said it is the most popular recipe ever to come out of its corporate kitchen. The recipe’s website got 2.7 million visits during last year’s holidays, the company said.
 
The original recipe card was donated to the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2002.
 
“Dorcas was an incredible woman, whose legacy will live on for years to come. She will be missed by her Campbell colleagues and all those who were impacted by her creativity and generous spirit,” the company said in a statement.
 
Reilly was a Campbell Soup kitchen supervisor in 1955 when she combined the ingredients of the now-legendary green bean casserole for an Associated Press feature.
 
In a 2005 AP interview marking the recipe’s 50th anniversary, Reilly said she didn’t remember having a hand in it because the dish was among hundreds that were created during her time at Campbell’s. She also helped create a tomato soup meatloaf, a tuna noodle casserole and Sloppy Joe-like “souperburgers.”
 
The recipe is still a fixture on soup-can labels and television commercials. And Reilly said she always kept the ingredients for the casserole on hand in her home — just in case someone asked her to whip one up.
 
Reilly also noted whenever the company held recipe contests, she would typically see “homemade” variations of the soup-can recipe for the casserole.
 
“It would be Aunt Suzy’s or Grandma’s,” she said.
 
Campbell’s officials have said consumers often tell them practically anyone — even novices or bad cooks — can make a green bean casserole because it’s so easy to prepare.
 
Reilly worked for Campbell’s on and off between the late 1940s and 1988, when she retired as manager of the Campbell’s kitchen.
 
She is survived by her husband of 59 years, Thomas, and a son and daughter. A service will be held Saturday in Haddonfield.
 
 
Gman

I love Lookin's optimism and I liked his idea, but I'm more skeptical, and I see the problem a little more simply. I don't think the problem was about being conservative or liberal, or our tolerance for either, but it was about trolling. Two members clearly came on to troll the board. I don't give two fucks about Avalon's political views, he's entitled to them and entitled to express them. I never put him on ignore, but I did choose not to respond to him. If others who were so bothered by his seemingly endless threads and apparent racist views, then they should have stopped posting on every single thread that he started. If you can't exhibit some self control, and your not aware enough to realize that your being trolled, and that you are not going to change the views of posters like Avalon, then don't be surprised when your participation encourages more trolling behavior, and certainly don't complain about their participation here.
 
I think Admin made this about liberal and conservative, but I saw it as someone who logged on with the sole purpose to disrupt, and I think admin was divisive, intolerant of posters who were complaining, and took far too long to address the issue. Some posters have left for the other site, which is a joke and seriously not a solution, some posters left permanently, and some have clearly stuck it out, but damage has been done, that is a fact. Perhaps this is merely a bump in the road, certainly admin has had to banish disruptive posters before, so time will tell, and maybe thoughtful and prolific posters like Moondance will reconsider their decision to leave.
 
My Two Cents...

OK...lol I "liked" your post, but I disagree with your assessment of the use of the "like" button.
I think the "like" button is a valuable tool. All of us use it for different reasons. For myself, I will like a post for the obvious reasons. Yes, sometimes it is to validate and be on record for agreeing with a posters point of view, but more often than not, the like is for different reasons. There are conservative members who I might disagree with, but I will like their post as an acknowledgement that they have presented a good point of view. I will also like a post to express appreciation for a well thought out argument or research. I will do that with @stevenkesslar sometimes or with @Lookin, or @quoththeraven because very often the research or information that goes into their post is worth noting. And lastly, sometimes I will like multiple posts in the middle of a debate in the political forum. If a poster or posters are making a case in the middle of a heated debate in the political forum, better than I am able to do, then I will like a post instead of jumping into the fray. And sometimes I just enjoy watching the debate. It's not necessary to participate in every thread. I don't see the point of repeating the thoughts of someone that I already completely agree with and who is presenting the point better than I could. So my vote would be to keep the like button. AND... for the love of God, how do you not have a like button in the gallery?
 
 
I have made friends here, good friends, some will be life-long. Some, because of logistics, will be good friends in this cyber community on the forum. So I hope the political forum returns, and I hope that this was a good learning experience for everyone, and I hope that the members who chose to leave, will re-think that decision and come back. I have learned more on this forum than I could have almost anywhere else.

FWIW...I understand the privacy issue, but I've always felt that it would be helpful to other members when we are notified that a poster has been banned for violation of the TOS. Especially in the case of a poster who is attacking or harassing other members. Doing it publicly would also put other offenders on notice that the Grinch is lurking...

FWIW...I understand the privacy issue, but I've always felt that it would be helpful to other members when we are notified that a poster has been banned for violation of the TOS. Especially in the case of a poster who is attacking or harassing other members. Doing it publicly would also put other offenders on notice that the Grinch is lurking...

+1 @Guy Fawkes I'm not seeing any sort of strike through line?

As Cooper mentioned up-thread, I believe that's how it is now. Only the person being attacked can submit a "report, if I'm understanding you correctly. I always felt that was a bad idea, because as several members have mentioned, they will never report an offending post when they are being attacked, which allows the troll behavior to continue, even as other posters recognize the problem. I think if anyone is allowed to report trolling, stalking, or harassment, then perhaps admin can correct the problem sooner. I agree however that this would put an additional burden on the moderators, so perhaps adding another moderator to help out would be a good idea...

FYI, I don't see this anywhere so I can't tell if no one I checked is on time-out or something else.

As Cooper mentioned up-thread, I believe that's how it is now. Only the person being attacked can submit a "report, if I'm understanding you correctly. I always felt that was a bad idea, because as several members have mentioned, they will never report an offending post when they are being attacked, which allows the troll behavior to continue, even as other posters recognize the problem. I think if anyone is allowed to report trolling, stalking, or harassment, then perhaps admin can correct the problem sooner. I agree however that this would put an additional burden on the moderators, so perhaps adding another moderator to help out would be a good idea...

The ground rules aren't the issue. More rules will not correct the problem. Dealing with the "Shirley's"* on a case by case basis is the only way to have a P,R,&W forum.  
* Shirley the rules don't apply to me!

I agree with your disagreement of my overarching suggestion. I guess we're all just grasping for solutions here to fix a problem which was suppressed ignored for too long and then was presented to us as if we were the last cigarette smoked before the Surgeon General finally put warnings on the side of the packs of Marlboro's.

OK...lol I "liked" your post, but I disagree with your assessment of the use of the "like" button.
I think the "like" button is a valuable tool. All of us use it for different reasons. For myself, I will like a post for the obvious reasons. Yes, sometimes it is to validate and be on record for agreeing with a posters point of view, but more often than not, the like is for different reasons. There are conservative members who I might disagree with, but I will like their post as an acknowledgement that they have presented a good point of view. I will also like a post to express appreciation for a well thought out argument or research. I will do that with @stevenkesslar sometimes or with @Lookin, or @quoththeraven because very often the research or information that goes into their post is worth noting. And lastly, sometimes I will like multiple posts in the middle of a debate in the political forum. If a poster or posters are making a case in the middle of a heated debate in the political forum, better than I am able to do, then I will like a post instead of jumping into the fray. And sometimes I just enjoy watching the debate. It's not necessary to participate in every thread. I don't see the point of repeating the thoughts of someone that I already completely agree with and who is presenting the point better than I could. So my vote would be to keep the like button. AND... for the love of God, how do you not have a like button in the gallery?
 
 
I have made friends here, good friends, some will be life-long. Some, because of logistics, will be good friends in this cyber community on the forum. So I hope the political forum returns, and I hope that this was a good learning experience for everyone, and I hope that the members who chose to leave, will re-think that decision and come back. I have learned more on this forum than I could have almost anywhere else.

On a side note: I vote @Lookin as a alternate or backup moderator...If one is needed. On more than one occasion, his consistent sense of fairness and even temperament has brought calm to an otherwise contentious pile up.

On a side note: I vote @Lookin as a alternate or backup moderator...If one is needed. On more than one occasion, his consistent sense of fairness and even temperament has brought calm to an otherwise contentious pile up.

On a side note: I vote @Lookin as a alternate or backup moderator...If one is needed. On more than one occasion, his consistent sense of fairness and even temperament has brought calm to an otherwise contentious pile up.

On a side note: I vote @Lookin as a alternate or backup moderator...If one is needed. On more than one occasion, his consistent sense of fairness and even temperament has brought calm to an otherwise contentious pile up.

It wasn't the greatest idea, that's for sure! It started from the premises that (a) we should let folks know when they were being disruptive and (b) site managers and moderators do not want to waste their time running a daycare.
 
 
I learned later that the coding to make the process automated would itself take a lot of work so, in a subsequent post, I backed off the automation idea and kept just the idea of a counter that tallied posts that folks considered disruptive. The final decision on what to do as numbers accumulated would be left up to management.
 
Over the years, I've seen two kinds of disruptive posters: those who have no clue they are ruining the Forum for others, and those who knowingly come here to do exactly that. Personally, I like the idea of letting the first group know how others are perceiving their posts and giving them a chance to learn some new behaviors. That process isn't much different from the socialization skills most of us learn on the playground, and others learn later in life.
 
The second group who is here to willfully engage in pathologic behaviors which drive others away, and create problems for moderators, would not change and would disappear over time. Just as they should. I'm not talking about those who hold "unpopular views" but rather those who are shit-disturbers: disruptors, if you like. I think we all know the difference and my hope is for a system that collects that knowledge and uses it to make the Forum better for those who remain.
 
Over the past few days, others have added better ideas. No doubt that process will continue. It's most heartening to me to hear @Guy Fawkes, @deej, and @Cooper express their desire to see the Politics Forum continue and their willingness to make it happen. But they need our help and it's good to see so many step forward to offer it.
 

On a side note: I vote @Lookin as a alternate or backup moderator...If one is needed. On more than one occasion, his consistent sense of fairness and even temperament has brought calm to an otherwise contentious pile up.

On a side note: I vote @Lookin as a alternate or backup moderator...If one is needed. On more than one occasion, his consistent sense of fairness and even temperament has brought calm to an otherwise contentious pile up.

A Modest Proposal.....
 
The events which led to the shutdown of the politics forum were almost entirely the result of the compulsive and incessant posting behavior of one member and the reactions to it by others, which included a combination of attempts at friendly persuasion, harsh criticism which sometimes crossed over into personal attacks, ignoring said member, or departing the forums altogether. None of these responses had any effect whatsoever on this person. As others have pointed out, the problem was not confined to the politics forum, but extended to every forum where this member participated.
 
In the time I have been posting here there have been a number of instances of behavior which resulted in timeouts but none rose to the level of the current crisis. We all can probably think of a few posters with whom we sharply disagree and whose behavior we find to be annoying. I think the difference this time was the sheer volume of posts, mostly trivial, diversionary, and/or attention-seeking, which this member made.
 
My suggestion is to place a limit on the number of posts each member can make each day. I can tolerate annoying and/or disagreeable posts from anyone as long as they do not take over the entire forum. If there were a limit of, say 25 posts per member per day, that would force each of us to more carefully consider if what we are about to post contributes any real value or is just diversionary or repetitive. Whenever any discussion becomes dominated by one or a small group of posters it discourages others from participating and often devolves into behavior which devalues the forum for everyone.

There is one possible consideration I don’t believe has been raised. Let the PRW forum remain with the caveat that it is a free-for-all and only adults are allowed in the room. Can’t take the heat? Too damn bad, stay away.
 
The overarching rule would be; absolutely NO bleeding / overflow into other forums. Hurt feelings, bad personalities, Ill-will towards another based on PRW interaction ENDS THE MOMENT ONE CLICKS TO ANOTHER FORUM.
 
Honestly I see no way of conditioning behavior. Buttons, warnings, likes, dislikes...people are going to be who they are, do what they do when it comes to devisive issues.
 
Yes I like the PRW forum despite the heat and I wonder if it disappears many might express their energetic personalities in the other forums.

I'll be honest and admit that while I have read the rules, I missed this nuance about what is actionable for the administration. It certainly could explain the perception the rules were not being enforced equally. Regardless, I think this rule should be changed, it makes the rules situational, which I believe is not a recipe for success.
 
Additionally, this has not been my experience here, as I have never reported anyone for attacking me (I prefer to deal with that myself, if I even feel it's needed) but when another member had a total meltdown and changed his thread title to attack me and continued the attack me in a series of posts in that thread, while I was deciding if I wanted to reply (he was doing a pretty good of incinerating his credibility, so I wasn't sure I needed to interrupt him) the entire thread went away. I realize now that anyone with an understanding of the rules would have concluded that I reported him, which I did not, and I think that's a little unfair to me (I'll live).
 

 
I have seen this happen myself, so moderators have done this. And actually I think we need more of it, not less. I don't believe moderators publicly commenting why a member's public comment is being moderated is a privacy issue. I will say this, most other boards I've been on have a zero-tolerance policy toward forum members publicly commenting on moderation, members are expected make comments about the administration privately to the administration. This is mostly due to these conversations quickly breaking down to arguments about semantics, which are only a distraction.
 
So in the end, I think clear rules, enforced consistently, regardless of how violations are reported, would be helpful.
 
On the topic of forum reputation system, like the one I linked in post #35, this is an attempt to somewhat automate a process. Just like the other rules, it shouldn't be used to shut out different opinions and the people who abuse such a system should be sanctioned in some way. Not perfect, but it's something. It certainly could be run for a bit without any enforcement, just to see if people can get the hang of it. Maybe this would be coupled with some restrictions on new accounts, so new members would have a chance to see how the system works before they can use it. I want to think a reputation system already exists for the forum software, this is far from the first forum to wrestle with the issue.

OK...lol I "liked" your post, but I disagree with your assessment of the use of the "like" button.
I think the "like" button is a valuable tool. All of us use it for different reasons. For myself, I will like a post for the obvious reasons. Yes, sometimes it is to validate and be on record for agreeing with a posters point of view, but more often than not, the like is for different reasons. There are conservative members who I might disagree with, but I will like their post as an acknowledgement that they have presented a good point of view. I will also like a post to express appreciation for a well thought out argument or research. I will do that with @stevenkesslar sometimes or with @Lookin, or @quoththeraven because very often the research or information that goes into their post is worth noting. And lastly, sometimes I will like multiple posts in the middle of a debate in the political forum. If a poster or posters are making a case in the middle of a heated debate in the political forum, better than I am able to do, then I will like a post instead of jumping into the fray. And sometimes I just enjoy watching the debate. It's not necessary to participate in every thread. I don't see the point of repeating the thoughts of someone that I already completely agree with and who is presenting the point better than I could. So my vote would be to keep the like button. AND... for the love of God, how do you not have a like button in the gallery?
 
 
I have made friends here, good friends, some will be life-long. Some, because of logistics, will be good friends in this cyber community on the forum. So I hope the political forum returns, and I hope that this was a good learning experience for everyone, and I hope that the members who chose to leave, will re-think that decision and come back. I have learned more on this forum than I could have almost anywhere else.

Early on in this thread Deej posted this: I believe this to be accurate.

"I do know that anyone trying to alter basic human nature is doomed to fail. I’ve been online since before there was an internet. This behavior (and SPAM) have always been with us and likely always will be."

There will always be by some on message forums, troll behavior, a lack of civility, disrespect, and a disregard for the viewpoints of others. That is a fact. Most can change, but some will not.

Perhaps what is needed is a Political forum that is by invitation only.
 
Early on in the day when the Political forum had first been shut down, I got a couple of calls from forum members who weren't aware of what was going on. They were concerned that they were unable to post in the political forum, but seemed to be able to post elsewhere. They assumed that they had done something wrong, but couldn't figure out what. I logged on and realized what had happened. They were much relieved that they had not been singled out.
 
Perhaps what is needed, is a PR&W forum that is by invitation only. Everyone would be allowed to post at first, but misbehavior, with a couple of warnings, would get you temporarily banned from that particular forum only, not the rest of the site. If they choose to post elsewhere, and continue they're disruption, then a ban from the whole site would of course be in order. I've also always felt that banning someone without the rest of the forum knowing what is going on lacks transparency, and shrouds the offense in mystery. Perhaps when the offender is in violation, admin could remove the offending post, and post in red letters that the member is in violation of forum decorum, and further violations will result in temporary or permanent banishment. This was done recently, and it seemed effective. I also realize that his might mean more moderation, more work for the administrators, and that might present a problem... My 2 cents.
 
There will always be offenders on the Internet, there will always be trolls, just look at Twitter, it's a cesspool, but keeping those offenders in check, would greatly enhance the experience on the site.
 

 
 

OK...lol I "liked" your post, but I disagree with your assessment of the use of the "like" button.
I think the "like" button is a valuable tool. All of us use it for different reasons. For myself, I will like a post for the obvious reasons. Yes, sometimes it is to validate and be on record for agreeing with a posters point of view, but more often than not, the like is for different reasons. There are conservative members who I might disagree with, but I will like their post as an acknowledgement that they have presented a good point of view. I will also like a post to express appreciation for a well thought out argument or research. I will do that with @stevenkesslar sometimes or with @Lookin, or @quoththeraven because very often the research or information that goes into their post is worth noting. And lastly, sometimes I will like multiple posts in the middle of a debate in the political forum. If a poster or posters are making a case in the middle of a heated debate in the political forum, better than I am able to do, then I will like a post instead of jumping into the fray. And sometimes I just enjoy watching the debate. It's not necessary to participate in every thread. I don't see the point of repeating the thoughts of someone that I already completely agree with and who is presenting the point better than I could. So my vote would be to keep the like button. AND... for the love of God, how do you not have a like button in the gallery?
 
 
I have made friends here, good friends, some will be life-long. Some, because of logistics, will be good friends in this cyber community on the forum. So I hope the political forum returns, and I hope that this was a good learning experience for everyone, and I hope that the members who chose to leave, will re-think that decision and come back. I have learned more on this forum than I could have almost anywhere else.