Thanks Joe. The basic character of the site should not be altered because some of the members were irresponsible.
Usually, irresponsible members are taken care of by rest of the members. If still some are not responsible, it is very easy to deal with. All members know that in every Internet forum there are limits. Let us hope everyone is considerate to and cooperative with other members.
What's ment by irresponsibility?
Well, that could range from a breech of the Rules of Road, such as wall-papering, or it could just be someone's unwillingness to agree to disagree on something. Sometimes there have been folks who just couldn't leave something alone and they got rude, were not respectful of the opinions of other members - or at least the right of others to hold differing opinions, etc.
Others may have more specific ideas in mind, but that's what being irresponsible on a forum means to me. This is especially true because supposedly this is a "spiritual" forum - about spiritual matters, at any rate. How we treat others counts.
If a person is referring to Plato is he/she then "wall-papering" Plato?
We look for a couple things:
A) Is someone posting long tracts of material in an attempt to proselytize?
B) Are they trying to drown out conversation?
The other factor is that usually a wallpapering piece is a one way conversation, as in someone preaching to a crowd. There is no attempt at dialog or promoting community. I think we all have had unpleasant experiences with that kind of thing.
Perhaps I was thinking of the meaning of "referring". To me, if you refer to something, a person, or something they said or wrote, that is just a small thing, very limited. Quite different from posting vast reams of some work or other. Perhaps I misunderstood what was meant by "referring". Even if you reference a work, IMO, it should be just a short snippet, or only a citation. I guess that's my librarian persnickety-ness showing through. LOL