CHAT

[LightningBoy]

So, I've looked around a bit and I can find no trace of the CHAT option.
Perhaps I've missed it.
I know it was seldom used before the site crash, but I did use it occasionally.
At least I would idle there waiting for someone, ...anyone to stumble into the room.
I would use it now as well, and frankly, I'm growing a liitle desperate to speak "real time" with others that share my views, concerns, and in general, about the path we're on as a resistance movement against Tobacco Control as well as the larger picture of where we are and where we're going as a Nation.

I still believe it could generate real interest if it were working and promoted as a place to share information faster than posting and waiting for a response, pm's between members, or through targeted email lists for specific working groups.

It just needs to be made noticible and alert visitors that someone is actually in there and ready to chat.

[__-Steve-__]

I'll add the chat facility back in when I get chance.

[WinstonSmith]

What time are you usually in there, LB?

[LightningBoy]

Thank you Steve,....
Please place it where it is easily accessible by all visitors. The front page would be good if at all possible.
That candle burning in the darkness would make a good icon to click for discussion about the light of truth.

Winston,..
When it was working, I tried to idle in there on most days while at work, at my desk.
Now that business has slowed dramatically, I have even more time, ..though I'd certainly prefer that wasn't the case.

[gary k]

Dear Winston,

I bet you just LOVE wasting your time deleting postings that are garbage!!!

[WinstonSmith]

Dear Winston,

I bet you just LOVE wasting your time deleting postings that are garbage!!!

I wish that I'd never have to do it at all. I have to confess, though, that I get some satisfaction out of eliminating them in three mouse clicks and maybe two keystrokes while mumbling "Take this. F**k you bastards" under my breath.

[LightningBoy]

I apologize in advance if anything that follows is discouraging or offensive to anyone that reads it.

As pointed out numerous times and in different threads, participation here is,.....dwindling.
AND, as has been noted previously the general sentiment among knowledgeable people, ...at least people that are aware of this site at all, ...when you mention FORCES, the typical response is "Good Information",...but that's about it.

While FORCES may be among the oldest, if not the oldest Pro-Liberty site, it also seems to be the least relevant, ..or least cited source,..and certainly not the most popular. I don't mean this to be strictly negative criticism, but nobody ever asks me "Well, what does FORCES think?" on any given subject, or news item etc., especially when I relate a discussion going on over at Siegels blog, or what's happening on so many different fronts in so many different states...but they should.

We should be directing the conversation where we want it to go rather than always playing catch up, or always playing defense. It takes time and effort I understand, but unless there is a significant amount of activity taking place "behind the scenes" so to speak and this is certainly not reflected in the Forums ...FORCES appears to be simply an empty shell.

I'm sick of playing Defense.
I believe that part of the problem here is the scope of FORCES promoted interests. Noble causes all, but the result is that with the minimal participation we have, any support at all for such widely varied interests becomes paper thin and nothing of substance gets done at all. I apprecieate the fact that attention must be focused on the international aspects of the constant assualt on liberty, but railing against the WHO, the UN, and other Socio-Eco-Politically corrupt organizations detracts from any fight that must still be waged on the front lines of that assault. (Forgive the analogy but, the Vietnam war continued to escalate even as Peace talks were being held in Paris)

We are well past the line in the sand and it's time for some offensive manuevering.
Third Hand Smoke!!?,...are you kidding me!!
Generally well written and thoughtful articles posted on a static homepage simply isn't enough, especially when nobody thinks about coming here first to get to the bottom line and heart of the subject matter to begin with.
FORCES should be in the enviable position of having media contacts clamoring to get our opinion on all things smoking related, but clearly that just isn't the case.
Are we afraid of possible negative publicity? ....Why?...at this point it would be better than none at all, and unless we're making this stuff up,...why aren't we speaking up and speaking out? Is the truth on our side, ...or not?
Why aren't we supporting those states that are currently resisting the fascism that's creeping across the nation?

We have some seriously smart people here. A small group that I see posting in all the same places.

I'm sorry, I've lost my train of thought as I'm in my office at the moment and am supposed to be working to keep my business afloat. Bottom line is this.
I volunteer to help as much as I reasonably can, but not to the exclusion of continuing the fight wherever it's needed.

We could make a good start by having an active CHAT, or blog posting system similar to others out there that do get a significant amount of play and get an active on-going dialogue between all interested parties.
I also volunteer to monitor (actively watch for spam and Anti-attacks) on such a system if that would be helpful.

[runamok]

I apologize in advance if anything that follows is discouraging or offensive to anyone that reads it.

Ditto for me on that.

I've harped on this before and I'll harp some more.

South Dakota.

If Forces as an organization wants to get into the fray and get some publicity whether it be good or bad, this is shaping up as a battle royale in the coming months before the November vote on the legislated, comprehensive, state-wide smoking ban. It appears that the ban opponents have some resources and are quite serious about it. I guess I don't know exactly what kind of activities Forces (as a non-profit, etc.) can legally be involved in but this would seem to be a rare opportunity to take the offensive and engage the enemy on the front lines in what would be a landmark event should the ban be dismissed by the voters.

Previous posts by me on this subject have gone largely ignored and I often wonder if I'm missing something here. Is this only a big deal in my mind? If so, please tell me why and I won't bring it up again.

[WinstonSmith]

I'm not really the person to respond to these concerns, but I think they deserve an airing. I don't want to post my response in the open forum, so I've put it in my private section under the topic "Participation".