Thanks for responding, The Logo. Could you please let the membership know whether there are plans to improve the store as mentioned earlier by Jo and BrentB67? · 11 minutes ago
Charlotte, I should have mentioned that we will be improving the Ricochet store, too. Thanks!
I'm sorry to be so slow to chime in here. Please know that, while you haven't seen many changes to the site lately, development for Ricochet 2.0 is underway. Our plan calls for us to implement more features to allow Ricochet members to engage with one another online in a variety of ways, to invite friends to the conversation, to follow posts by topic or category and to do so on pages that load a whole lot faster. We also plan for a significantly upgraded mobile experience from phones or tablets. Most of these changes will be in place by early summer. Thanks, everyone, for your patience and your continued support.
Hi, Jon. Thanks for asking the question. We'll put up a status report post of sorts within the next day or so. The response from members, and from visitors who decided to become members, has been tremendous. Many gift subscriptions have been given, as well. So, things are looking a bit brighter. We'll know more, though -- and will share more -- in short order. Keep the faith!
tabula rasa To the Ricochet Suits: Is is part of your business plan for your website administrator to hector and insult your customers? I doubt it. But that's just what happened. · 1 hour ago
Thanks, everyone, for the thoughtful comments. We very much appreciate the feedback. We're taking steps to distinguish between Ricochet's editorial stance and the individual opinions of staff members. Apologies for blurring that line in this discussion this morning.
Apologies for the delay in getting you the book. Going forward, if you have any problems with your account, please email us at support@ricochet.com. If you haven't already sent Rob Long your details, please send them to support@ricochet.com so we can get the book signed and delivered to you.
"Deafening silence?" We've made a number of comments in this thread, most recently at comment 209.
. . .
If you have a question, then you're free to email us at editors@ricochet.com. If it's germane to this thread such that you want to pose the question for all to see, then go ahead and do so. · 60 minutes ago
I'm not really sure how to proceed. This entire discussion has occurred in the thread, but this is not explicitly germane to the original post, more to the comments that followed. I can email the editors address or send a private message directly to you if you prefer that. Let me know how you would prefer to proceed. · 2 hours ago
We somehow missed comment #175. I've deleted the more egregious form of the insult, but let the softer, "You've been following the thread long enough..." construction stand, as it allows room for other interpretations.
I apologize for the oversight. · 7 minutes ago
Thank you. You might want to check 180, as well. It wasn't an isolated incident. · 6 minutes ago
"Deafening silence?" We've made a number of comments in this thread, most recently at comment 209.
. . .
If you have a question, then you're free to email us at editors@ricochet.com. If it's germane to this thread such that you want to pose the question for all to see, then go ahead and do so. · 60 minutes ago
I'm not really sure how to proceed. This entire discussion has occurred in the thread, but this is not explicitly germane to the original post, more to the comments that followed. I can email the editors address or send a private message directly to you if you prefer that. Let me know how you would prefer to proceed. · 2 hours ago
We somehow missed comment #175. I've deleted the more egregious form of the insult, but let the softer, "You've been following the thread long enough..." construction stand, as it allows room for other interpretations.
Tommy De Seno: Well, it's off to a walk through with my Jr Pee Wee team who have a playoff game tomorrow.
Here's hoping none of them look suspicious enough to any of you so that you follow and shoot them. NO SKITTLES at this game, OK?
In the meantime, I leave you with this cherubic, very boyish looking face: · 15 minutes ago
8 hours ago
I wouldn't say they constitute a cogent argument, but more of an offhand explanation that he'd be leaving the thread for a while, along with a little (but not CoC-violating) dig.
Edited 5 hours ago
In the interest of further clarifying the CoC, perhaps you could explain exactly what it was about my comment at #9 (a reference to a fantasy out of the Rocky franchise, if I recall correctly) that warranted redaction. Personally, I don't find it nearly as snarky as many of Tommy's unredacted comments. In fact, Tommy gave what I consider to be a pretty good response to the comment before it was redacted. · 15 hours ago
Whiskey Sam: The deafening silence from the editors despite repeated inquiries directly addressed to them has made me question exactly how much "skin in the game" the members have. There is a de facto double standard in place where the Code of Conduct is concerned. This whole experience has left a bad taste in my mouth. · 41 minutes ago
"Deafening silence?" We've made a number of comments in this thread, most recently at comment 209.
Please note that we generally do not debate Code of Conduct violations in these threads because doing so seems to always require that we describe the infraction. What would be the point of editing it out if we then debated the content that went over the line?
If you have a question, then you're free to email us at editors@ricochet.com. If it's germane to this thread such that you want to pose the question for all to see, then go ahead and do so.
Re: Which Actors Are the Same Person in Every Movie?
He hasn't been in a film in a while, but Robert Redford always struck me as playing the same guy every time.