# This place is a joke - Merged with AIRING OUT GRIEVANCES



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

I was wondering if there was a acknowledged call out board here?If not why not?Surely we should have a board where we can vent without fear of intervention or censorship, it could be invisible to guests.I know I appear to be the affable lovable Roomy but sometimes some of you anger me to the point of me wishing to rive a new arsehole out of your face and it would be handy if I could do this without admin or mods taking sides.Just a thought:huh: :blah2:


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 17, 2006)

roomy said:
			
		

> I was wondering if there was a acknowledged call out board here?If not why not?Surely we should have a board where we can vent without fear of intervention or censorship, it could be invisible to guests.I know I appear to be the affable lovable Roomy but sometimes some of you anger me to the point of me wishing to rive a new arsehole out of your face and it would be handy if I could do this without admin or mods taking sides.Just a thought:huh: :blah2:



Tell you what - first off, 99% of anything you want to discuss would be allowed in this chat section. But just in case there is stuff that needs to be said, here goes:

ANYONE is free to say ANYTHING they want in this thread right here. Air your complaints. Tell me the problems of this board and how I run it wrong in your mind. NOBODY should feel afraid of repraisal, as you have my word that anything in this thread is allowed as I want it finally ALL aired out.

Be forewarned, I'm not so nice sometimes either. And I'm really fucking miserable and pissed right now. No banning anyone, but I will feel free to speak my fucking mind in this thread too. I'm tired of all the petty whining and complaining about this place when I have poured my heart and soul into the place, spent thousands of dollars, and continue to do everything in my power to make this a great place for EVERYONE. I defy anyone to point out other boards that have owners willing to bend over backwards like I do to make this a place that is created by what the users are looking for and recommend.

Anyway, go ahead, speak your minds...


----------



## dmp (Jun 17, 2006)

I THINK

[Post Edited by Moderator]


THERE! F' Y'all!!


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> Tell you what - first off, 99% of anything you want to discuss would be allowed in this chat section. But just in case there is stuff that needs to be said, here goes:
> 
> ANYONE is free to say ANYTHING they want in this thread right here. Air your complaints. Tell me the problems of this board and how I run it wrong in your mind. NOBODY should feel afraid of repraisal, as you have my word that anything in this thread is allowed as I want it finally ALL aired out.
> 
> ...



I have made myself clear, I hope.
You are in a bad fettle, boo fucking hoo, we all get in bad fettles
I like it here, I wouldn't post otherwise, My beef was with the, he disagrees with us ban him mentality that seemed to leap to the fore, he may be a troll, the thing is, we don't fucking know, OK, we can take our best guess, and I guess, thats what mods are for, but 4 fucking posts in and he's banned Apart from that, everything is fucking great, can I have lots of rep points and oodles of power please, I do desreve it.

Has there ever been a better man here than me?



Edited to ask:- am I really allowed to post a link to another board I post on?I thought it was against the rules


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I THINK
> 
> [Post Edited by Moderator]
> 
> ...




You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dmp again.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 17, 2006)

Ew. I can see Darin's avatar's weenie.


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Ew. I can see Darin's avatar's weenie.




Excellent, I thought I was the only one, now if you just move to one side............


----------



## Said1 (Jun 17, 2006)

roomy said:
			
		

> Excellent, I thought I was the only one, now if you just move to one side............



Why? Will he have a better running chance at you?


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Why? Will he have a better running chance at you?



Nooooooooooooo.....................he needs a bit of legroom, thats all.Carry on.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 17, 2006)

Suuuuuuuuurrrrrrrre.


And btw, I'll decide with this conversation is over. That is all.  Now YOU can  carry on.


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

I may delete.


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

roomy said:
			
		

> I may delete.



It smacks of heavy handed censorship when you are banned from a discussion that you have been made an integral part of by those that ban you from it.


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Suuuuuuuuurrrrrrrre.
> 
> 
> And btw, I'll decide with this conversation is over. That is all.  Now YOU can  carry on.




I beg to differ, neither you nor I will decide when this is over, that has been made abundantly clear.

Anytime time you like censors.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 17, 2006)

Huh?


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Huh?



You know the crack.

They are playing me, but I aint nobody's fool.It's all rules, or is it?:teeth:


----------



## Annie (Jun 17, 2006)

roomy said:
			
		

> You know the crack.
> 
> They are playing me, but I aint nobody's fool.It's all rules, or is it?:teeth:


Moving to chat. You are pushing for a time out?


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Moving to chat. You are pushing for a time out?



Tell me why, without the the mod talk.


----------



## Annie (Jun 17, 2006)

Merged like threads


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

I am not an idiot, I have been here long enough to know this isn't normal, this is a case of closing ranks, fair enough, I tell you what, instead of you banning me for an opinion, how about me deleting my profile?I have asked the  the question in PM and recieved no answer, you can edit or delete any or all of my posts, up to you, but fuck it, I need a time out from you lot, goodbye.I am sorry if I have caused offense it was never my intent.


----------



## Annie (Jun 17, 2006)

roomy said:
			
		

> I am not an idiot, I have been here long enough to know this isn't normal, this is a case of closing ranks, fair enough, I tell you what, instead of you banning me for an opinion, how about me deleting my profile?I have asked the  the question in PM and recieved no answer, you can edit or delete any or all of my posts, up to you, but fuck it, I need a time out from you lot, goodbye.I am sorry if I have caused offense it was never my intent.



Just stop posting. The only option is permanently banning you, which I can do if you like. We will not delete your posts. Any info you have on your profile, you are free to delete. Let me know what you want. 

BTW, you didn't send ME a pm, so I've no idea what you are speaking of.


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Just stop posting. The only option is permanently banning you, which I can do if you like. We will not delete your posts. Any info you have on your profile, you are free to delete. Let me know what you want.
> 
> BTW, you didn't send ME a pm, so I've no idea what you are speaking of.


I didn't send you a PM because until now when you made it youe business it was DMP and Jimmy's business, and I have PM'd them.Should I PM you as well?Should I PM every fucker here?I am beginning to feel victimised, fuck it, I am sick of this shit.


----------



## Annie (Jun 17, 2006)

roomy said:
			
		

> I didn't send you a PM because until now when you made it youe business it was DMP and Jimmy's business, and I have PM'd them.Should I PM you as well?Should I PM every fucker here?I am beginning to feel victimised, fuck it, I am sick of this shit.


I responded politely, as I'm the one here. I'm closing this thread now.


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 17, 2006)

Not sure how things degraded so quickly, who was banned from what threads or what transpired here.

My offer was legit, I would like the members here to speak freely once again so that things can be aired and I can learn what we need to do to make things better and clear the air of the bickering.

I will re-open this thread, but please leave it for what it was intended, and let's not get it locked again. Thanks!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 17, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> Not sure how things degraded so quickly, who was banned from what threads or what transpired here.
> 
> My offer was legit, I would like the members here to speak freely once again so that things can be aired and I can learn what we need to do to make things better and clear the air of the bickering.
> 
> I will re-open this thread, but please leave it for what it was intended, and let's not get it locked again. Thanks!



I'm taking you at your word jim.  I truly feel mods are abusing the block from thread feature, to do odd things like, decides someone's contribution is irrelevant, or just being spiteful.  Relevance is in the mind of the beholder.  IS being irrelevant against the rules?  This featur is being abused spitefully by player haters and mods trying to be thought police and playing favorites.


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 17, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I'm taking you at your word jim.  I truly feel mods are abusing the block from thread feature, to do odd things like, decides someone's contribution is irrelevant, or just being spiteful.  Relevance is in the mind of the beholder.  IS being irrelevant against the rules?  This featur is being abused spitefully by player haters and mods trying to be thought police and playing favorites.



There were 5 thread bans put in place since I've added this option. I've just removed all 5. Until we all grasp the concept better I am willing to step in and allow things to proceed with everyone on the same equal page. I think we all know why I added that code and I hope we can learn to implement it in a manner where mods are happy and members are more understanding.

In the mean time, if anyone has any banning issues such as in the threads, or feel they are censored, PLEASE pm me if this thread is no longer open. I cannot help those that don't make me aware, tell me specifically what transpired and link to the problem in question. Plenty of problems go farther than necessarry over simple misunderstandings or lack of communication.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 17, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> There were 5 thread bans put in place since I've added this option. I've just removed all 5. Until we all grasp the concept better I am willing to step in and allow things to proceed with everyone on the same equal page. I think we all know why I added that code and I hope we can learn to implement it in a manner where mods are happy and members are more understanding.
> 
> In the mean time, if anyone has any banning issues such as in the threads, or feel they are censored, PLEASE pm me if this thread is no longer open. I cannot help those that don't make me aware, tell me specifically what transpired and link to the problem in question. Plenty of problems go farther than necessarry over simple misunderstandings or lack of communication.



Cool jim.  You rock.  

Justice Is Served! 

The world is beautiful.  Good triumphs over evil.  It's all true.


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 17, 2006)

I just locked 2 similar threads discussing pretty much the same topic. Let's continue all discussion here. Nobody should hold back...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 17, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> I just locked 2 similar threads discussing pretty much the same topic. Let's continue all discussion here. Nobody should hold back...




Excellent Jim.

Dunno why Kathianne didn't read your first post going by the way she was talking to Roomy...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 17, 2006)

_Originally Posted by dmp
You are NOT a better judge of who or who isn't a troll. You have no place to question me because I do not work for you. If you want to comment on my administration practices of this board, please do so via PM - as per the rules you agree to, in order to post here_. 


Absolutely I'm a better judge than you going from what I've seen over the past couple of months. Personally I don't think you are fit enough to be a mod let alone the administrator on this board, but Jim made the call for better or worse and I'll respect that. I initially saw Yukon as a liberal version of RWA, but I guess we'll never know...


Jim

On the intro thread you said this:_* It was hard to find a place that was moderated fairly and allowed for open and free debate*_. for starting the USMB

How does this marry with Darin saying crap like this: *Because we don't run this board as a democracy. This board is a dictatorship.*

Either you believe what you wrote in the intro thread or you don't. If you do, tell Darin to pull his head in or give up his role in the USMB. He is becoming a bore. 

The only thing I agree on is that Yukon should have a chosen a different thread. A PM would have sorted that out...
__________________
Poor men wanna be rich, rich men wanna be king, but a king ain't satisfied 'til he rules everything.


----------



## dmp (Jun 17, 2006)

I'm pretty tired of whiney users.  People get their posts closed quite often because you go outside the rules, then sit back and start bitching...

"OOOH! It was ONLY cuz of my OPINION!!!"

What a crock of horseshit - how can you live with yourselves?  Honestly?  SURE it was cuz of your OPINION - when your opinion is something like: "So-and-so Moderator is a piece of horseshit and a nazi and keeps hatin' on my cuz I keep posting nearly IDENTICAL threads about IDENTICAL subjects! blah blah blah boohoo!!"

You know who you are if you fall into that group.


Then we have the snipers.  Those folk who aren't involved in a situation who jump in with their $.02 as if anything was about 'them'.  They sit back and pick apart actions by the mods without knowing ANY history between the Mod and the User who is likely in violation of SOME board rule, or the rule of Common Decency.   

Then we have the anarchists - those who want NO organization or moderation on the board.  Those are users who feel this board is somehow 'their RIGHT' or their sandbox.

I stand behind EVERY action a moderator has taken in the last few weeks.  I stand behind MY actions taken in the last few weeks.   My actions speak for themselves, and if Jim felt I no longer made good choices, I'd willingly step down.   I'm passionate and not very logical at times, but I'm honest if I'm anything.   At NO time over the last few weeks have I seen where a Moderator acted in ANY way other than in the best interests of this board.    

We have insurgent members here; who may honestly FEEL like they could do a better job running this board.  From a personal note I'd invite them to go outside and play a game of hide-and-go-fuck-themselves.  From a professional standpoint I'd invite them to build a forum, and COMPETE against this forum.  IF they are correct, we'll LOSE membership, and their boards will skyrocket and become the greatest WebPhenom since "Evolution of Dance" on YouTube.


----------



## dmp (Jun 17, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Absolutely I'm a better judge than you going from what I've seen over the past couple of months. Personally I don't think you are fit enough to be a mod let alone the administrator on this board, but Jim made the call for better or worse and I'll respect that. I initially saw Yukon as a liberal version of RWA, but I guess we'll never know...




You are welcome to your opinion.  I feel VERY good that I only had to convince JIM of my ability to administer, and not you.  Shows Jim's judgement; which means a LOT more to me than your drivel.


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 17, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> _Originally Posted by dmp
> You are NOT a better judge of who or who isn't a troll. You have no place to question me because I do not work for you. If you want to comment on my administration practices of this board, please do so via PM - as per the rules you agree to, in order to post here_.



Maybe could have been a bit more polite, but he is right. I'm not saying users here don't have a right to question decisions that affect the board, but please have the courtesy to follow the rules and do that questioning in private.



> Absolutely I'm a better judge than you going from what I've seen over the past couple of months. Personally I don't think you are fit enough to be a mod let alone the administrator on this board, but Jim made the call for better or worse and I'll respect that. I initially saw Yukon as a liberal version of RWA, but I guess we'll never know...



Not true, if he emailed me about his banning I might just let him return. He broke the rules a few times within a few posts. Darin's judgement calls should be brought to his attention via PM or I can be PM'd if someone disagrees with a decision.




> Jim
> 
> On the intro thread you said this:_* It was hard to find a place that was moderated fairly and allowed for open and free debate*_. for starting the USMB
> 
> ...



I do believe what I wrote.

I believe what Darin meant was that we don't need reasons to ban people, nor do we need to explain why we make our decisions. I like to make that a matter for all to know in fairnesss to the board, but that doesn't mean it needs to be discussed with every banning and my mods or admin ridiculed because they did what they throught was correct, as per MY instructions.

He should have chosen a different thread. He should have chose a different forum. He shouldn't start off by going after rules and/or moderators. There was a lot wrong with his entrance and I think everyone knows that. Nonetheless, I would still welcome hime back so long as he agreed to be like everyone else and at least reasd the rules before posting!


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 17, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> Maybe could have been a bit more polite, but he is right. I'm not saying users here don't have a right to question decisions that affect the board, but please have the courtesy to follow the rules and do that questioning in private.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I have tried in the past to have a decent conversation in PM's, but all that happened was one of the mods whined to Darin (without addressing me), who then basically told me to shut the fuck up. What is the point of having a rule of putting questions to mods or the admin in PMs if they are just dismissed.
> ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 17, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> You are welcome to your opinion.  I feel VERY good that I only had to convince JIM of my ability to administer, and not you.  Shows Jim's judgement; which means a LOT more to me than your drivel.



Grow up Drain.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 17, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> I believe what Darin meant was that we don't need reasons to ban people,



Don't bannings have to have at least SOMETHING to do with breaking  a rule?


----------



## dmp (Jun 17, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> I have tried in the past to have a decent conversation in PM's, but all that happened was one of the mods whined to Darin (without addressing me), who then basically told me to shut the fuck up. What is the point of having a rule of putting questions to mods or the admin in PMs if they are just dismissed.



Are you talking about that time you wouldn't stop with a moderator, and I told you to back off? Was it you I reminded that 'talking' about a situation was fine, but what you were doing was borderline harrassment?



> Wouldn't do any harm to have a lib moderator either, just for a little balance.



When or IF moderators ever used their moderating ability to direct outcomes of threads We'd consider giving two rats asses about their political leanings.


----------



## dmp (Jun 17, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Grow up Drain.



Stop being an asshat Grump.


----------



## dmp (Jun 17, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Don't bannings have to have at least SOMETHING to do with breaking  a rule?




Yes. Nobody has been banned w/o them breaking a rule.


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 17, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Don't bannings have to have at least SOMETHING to do with breaking  a rule?


Ha! since when?


----------



## dmp (Jun 17, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Ha! since when?



Name one person, sharpshooter.


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 17, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> I have tried in the past to have a decent conversation in PM's, but all that happened was one of the mods whined to Darin (without addressing me), who then basically told me to shut the fuck up. What is the point of having a rule of putting questions to mods or the admin in PMs if they are just dismissed.



Be polite, accept the answers, ask again politely, and if still troubled you then PM me. It will work itself out then. Many times users get frustrated when they don't get a quick answer and then they take it to the public, and that will rarely end good, as breaking the rules isn't the best way to get heard. I assure you that by the time a PM reaches me the user will be happy with the decision. They obviously won't always agree, but I'm honest and have no problem explaining board decisions to those pissed or just plain interested.



> Well I think that sucks and is an anathema to your " moderated fairly and allowed for open and free debate" quote. But it's your board...I'll go on record as saying the only mods worth a damn are yourself, Jeff and Mtnbkr. Everybody else needs to pull their heads in. Wouldn't do any harm to have a lib moderator either, just for a little balance.



No wanting disruptions on the board with users complaining mods sucks, the forums suck, board sucks... is just good 'ol fashioned moderating on a fair board. Not wanting to ruin the board is certainly not censoring or not allowing debate or questioning, it's just that there are proper places and times. It's not much different than those that come here, go directly to the announcements section and link to somewhere else. Am I censoring them when I remove the post? Do you think I should allow them to have their way in such a manner, or should these posts be moderated in the best interest of the board? Do you know what anarchy is?

I do see what you're aiming at, but please try to see our point of view. There are many benefits to enjoy here and I think the rules are lax enough where members can do much, much more here than elsewhere. It would be nice to not need moderation, bannings or locking of threads, but once again I think we all can agree on what would happen in that case. So it boils down to the decision process. We can't ALL be mods on the board, so only those appointed have that ability to speak on behalf of the board. I try to have them follow things the way I like, but I certainly don't moderate them either. What would be the point of me having mods if I couldn't trust them to make tough decisions on their own and stand behind them?

We all make mistakes, we all disagree at times, and that's why we have ocassions such as this to air things out and speak our minds. And hopefully we all learn from others and then can move on, and talk about better things, like the hole in my neck, or boobies, or drugs...


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 17, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Name one person, sharpshooter.


Ain't going there and I was a expert, not a sharpshooter..

I'll leave it at this, roomy and Grump have a case. 
I live with it, like many others here do too.

Jim can pm me if he needs to know. Hey, that's the way it works right?


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 17, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Don't bannings have to have at least SOMETHING to do with breaking  a rule?



In most instances, yes. But I can't say I personally never banned someone out of emotion. It happens and will continue to do so as long as we are human. I can't think of a specific instance where someone was banned outside of the rules but we would be lying if we didn't admit our personalities and opinions do persuade or moderating. But I expect that, knew that going in, and have no issue with that. I take that into account when making someone a mod. We can still be human and yet know how to be fair, even to those we don't like or disagree with, and I think our crew has been pretty damn fair throughout the past few years. But I'm open to suggestions and airing things out, which is why we're all chatting right now!


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 17, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Ain't going there and I was a expert, not a sharpshooter..
> 
> I'll leave it at this, roomy and Grump have a case.
> I live with it, like many others here do too.
> ...



I'm honestly happy with the moderating that takes place here. I can't help with what I don't know about, but I won't be on daily scavenger hunts either. If someone is upset and can't get an answer, they are always free to PM me. If it's kept back-channeled and amongst 'friends', then it will unfortunately remain and that's how bad feelings fester.

I'm not complaining, just saying that now is the time to speak up if something needs to be said!


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 17, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Are you talking about that time you wouldn't stop with a moderator, and I told you to back off? Was it you I reminded that 'talking' about a situation was fine, but what you were doing was borderline harrassment?



No. It was the time when I started a thread asking why a thread had been closed and was told to take it to PM's, which I did and then she told me to contact you whereby you were dismissive. I think if a mod has the nads to shut a thread they should give a reason, and if they haven't got a reason then it shouldn't be shut.



			
				dmp said:
			
		

> When or IF moderators ever used their moderating ability to direct outcomes of threads We'd consider giving two rats asses about their political leanings.



You do it all the time.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 17, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> Be polite, accept the answers, ask again politely, and if still troubled you then PM me. It will work itself out then. Many times users get frustrated when they don't get a quick answer and then they take it to the public, and that will rarely end good, as breaking the rules isn't the best way to get heard. I assure you that by the time a PM reaches me the user will be happy with the decision. They obviously won't always agree, but I'm honest and have no problem explaining board decisions to those pissed or just plain interested.



Fair enough. 



			
				jimnyc said:
			
		

> I do see what you're aiming at, but please try to see our point of view. There are many benefits to enjoy here and I think the rules are lax enough where members can do much, much more here than elsewhere. It would be nice to not need moderation, bannings or locking of threads, but once again I think we all can agree on what would happen in that case. So it boils down to the decision process. We can't ALL be mods on the board, so only those appointed have that ability to speak on behalf of the board. I try to have them follow things the way I like, but I certainly don't moderate them either. What would be the point of me having mods if I couldn't trust them to make tough decisions on their own and stand behind them?



Well, you are speaking to someone who doesn't really believe in moderation, but I can see you have a good point. As for the mods, there are enough good ones (I should have included Bonnie in there - sorry Bonnie!!!) that some of the others can get cut loose IMO. You need a good temperament to make a board work by being a moderator. Clearly some don't have the temperament. 




			
				jimnyc said:
			
		

> We all make mistakes, we all disagree at times, and that's why we have ocassions such as this to air things out and speak our minds. And hopefully we all learn from others and then can move on, and talk about better things, like the hole in my neck, or boobies, or drugs...



Cool....


----------



## roomy (Jun 17, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jimmy is sound, all mods are sound in PM, pm is a good call, REALLY, THEY ARE REAL:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:


----------



## dmp (Jun 17, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> No. It was the time when I started a thread asking why a thread had been closed and was told to take it to PM's, which I did and then she told me to contact you whereby you were dismissive. I think if a mod has the nads to shut a thread they should give a reason, and if they haven't got a reason then it shouldn't be shut.



You are a liar and slanderer.  Dismissive?  Did you keep bugging people when I finally told you we don't OWE you an explanation? Could it be I and the mod GAVE you an explanation you were just too whiney to accept it?




> You do it all the time.




Again, you are a liar.  Talk about banning somebody based on emotion - I am not going to put up with your baseless accusations.  

Here's your chance:

SHOW me where I have moderated to AFFECT THE OUTCOME of a discussion towards my political point of view.  

If you don't show by clear evidence this is the case, you'll owe me a huge apology.   IF I do that 'all the time' you'll have no problem finding one.  I'll give you until tomorrow.  If you don't come up with an example, you'll retract that statement, right?  Probably not; as you don't have the strength of character to be wrong.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> You are a liar and slanderer.  Dismissive?  Did you keep bugging people when I finally told you we don't OWE you an explanation? Could it be I and the mod GAVE you an explanation you were just too whiney to accept it?



There are many things I am, a liar ain't one of them. I only bugged you because you kept on replying to my PM's with nothing but BS. You gave no explanation. I don't consider "we did it because we can" as an explanation. I call it a cop out....



			
				dmp said:
			
		

> Again, you are a liar.  Talk about banning somebody based on emotion - I am not going to put up with your baseless accusations.



Huh? Are you saying I said that YOU banned somebody based on emotion? We were talking about you affecting the outcome of a discussion...




			
				dmp said:
			
		

> SHOW me where I have moderated to AFFECT THE OUTCOME of a discussion towards my political point of view.
> If you don't show by clear evidence this is the case, you'll owe me a huge apology.   IF I do that 'all the time' you'll have no problem finding one.  I'll give you until tomorrow.  If you don't come up with an example, you'll retract that statement, right?  Probably not; as you don't have the strength of character to be wrong.



Show me where you have moderated to affect the outcome? You have never closed a thread? If you have never closed a thread I apologise. If you have, you have affected the outcome...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

BTW, thanks for the neg rep Darin. You obviously have so much respect for Jim you ignored the second paragraph in Jim's first post on this thread. So glad you entered into the spirit of it


----------



## dmp (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> There are many things I am, a liar ain't one of them. I only bugged you because you kept on replying to my PM's with nothing but BS. You gave no explanation. I don't consider "we did it because we can" as an explanation. I call it a cop out....



You are lying.  You're lying about our supposed conversation and the outcome.  Unless you can give me specifics, I'm remembering SOMETHING about you never being satisfied with an answer given you, so I told you to knock of harrassing me or the moderator in question.

(shrug)


> Show me where you have moderated to affect the outcome? You have never closed a thread? If you have never closed a thread I apologise. If you have, you have affected the outcome...





> When or IF moderators ever used their moderating ability to direct outcomes of threads We'd consider giving two rats asses about their political leanings



THAT was my reply to YOUR statement to 'add a Liberal Moderator' - MY reply states "When somebody's political leanings affect how they moderate, we'll care about their leanings".  


I negative rep'd your  slander of my character.  I will always do so when I see blatant lying about me or any of the other staff of this board.  Your comment, which I repped was personal in nature and not called for.  Negative Reputation points are NOT "Reprisal".  If I negatively repped EVERY post you made since, based on that one, it'd be reprisal.  Or, if I banned you or did something any OTHER member couldn't do, that might be reprisal.  NOT approving of your slander, and subtracting from your reputation is something I'd so whether I am an Admin or not.



			
				jimnyc said:
			
		

> ANYONE is free to say ANYTHING they want in this thread right here. Air your complaints. Tell me the problems of this board and how I run it wrong in your mind. NOBODY should feel afraid of repraisal, as you have my word that anything in this thread is allowed as I want it finally ALL aired out.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> You are lying.  You're lying about our supposed conversation and the outcome.  Unless you can give me specifics, I'm remembering SOMETHING about you never being satisfied with an answer given you, so I told you to knock of harrassing me or the moderator in question.



Nope I am not lying. You and I had a back and forth about your piss weak excuses about why mods close threads....as I said, I don't consider "we do it because we can" a satisfactory answer. It is copout. As for the moderator in question, she closed a thread and told me to take it to PM's. I PMed her, she told me to get hold of you. I asked why I needed to talk to you as she closed the thread and told me to go to PMs (or something along those lines as I haven't kept the PMs in question). Two PMs trying to clarify a position is hardly harassment. As I said, you need to grow a thicker skin.



			
				dmp said:
			
		

> THAT was my reply to YOUR statement to 'add a Liberal Moderator' - MY reply states "When somebody's political leanings affect how they moderate, we'll care about their leanings".



And I say that if you have closed threads you have done so..



			
				dmp said:
			
		

> I negative rep'd your  slander of my character.  I will always do so when I see blatant lying about me or any of the other staff of this board.  Your comment, which I repped was personal in nature and not called for.  Negative Reputation points are NOT "Reprisal".  If I negatively repped EVERY post you made since, based on that one, it'd be reprisal.  Or, if I banned you or did something any OTHER member couldn't do, that might be reprisal.  NOT approving of your slander, and subtracting from your reputation is something I'd so whether I am an Admin or not.



Look up the word slander. I have not slandered you once. You however have libelled me by calling me a liar, which I am not. It totally was reprisal, and that is fine. I have certain standards as to your character and you are living up to them in spades....


----------



## dmp (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Nope I am not lying. You and I had a back and forth about your piss weak excuses about why mods close threads....as I said, I don't consider "we do it because we can" a satisfactory answer. It is copout. As for the moderator in question, she closed a thread and told me to take it to PM's. I PMed her, she told me to get hold of you. I asked why I needed to talk to you as she closed the thread and told me to go to PMs (or something along those lines as I haven't kept the PMs in question). Two PMs trying to clarify a position is hardly harassment. As I said, you need to grow a thicker skin.



I don't buy it not the way you are convieniantly portraying here.  But I remember PM'ing with you a few times.  It IS a fact we don't owe you explanations.  Generally, when ppl approach me via PM and ask why in a respectful manner, I reply in kind.  Perhaps you got arrogant with me? perhaps you 'demanded' YOUR way be used?





> And I say that if you have closed threads you have done so..



Done so what? Used my moderation ability to affect outcomes favourable to my political leanings? If you say that, you're an idiot because it doesn't happen. 



> Look up the word slander. I have not slandered you once. You however have libelled me by calling me a liar, which I am not. It totally was reprisal, and that is fine. I have certain standards as to your character and you are living up to them in spades....



Reprisal? WTF? How is that a 'reprisal'? What Jim means is "None of the Mods/Admins will ban you or F with your Account cuz you blew your wad all over the board in this thread.  I Negatively Repped you - that means "I did NOT approve of you lying about me."  You LIED about me and what I do with threads.  Bald-face LIE.  IF you were honest you'd have replied back something like this:

"Oh - I thought you meant you never AFFECTED threads.  I consider 'closing' a thread affecting it's outcome.  I didn't understand you were repsonding to MY suggestion that the moderators mostly having the same political leanings caused left-leaning people to suffer.  My bad. "

But - you're obtuse.  I need thicker skin? Try understanding a few things:

1) You don't know me.
2) NONE of the moderators here answer to you.  I answer to Jim. 
3) I don't have a third - just hate lists w/ only 2 statements.


If you have a problem with ANY of that, take it up with my boss.  


And STOP lying about me Liar McLyingMan.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I don't buy it not the way you are convieniantly portraying here.  But I remember PM'ing with you a few times.  It IS a fact we don't owe you explanations.  Generally, when ppl approach me via PM and ask why in a respectful manner, I reply in kind.  Perhaps you got arrogant with me? perhaps you 'demanded' YOUR way be used?



I know you don't owe an explanation. You made that plain in your first PM. In fact I was more than polite, but due to you taking umbrage with me asking the question, you were on the defensive from the get go..go figure..




			
				dmp said:
			
		

> Done so what? Used my moderation ability to affect outcomes favourable to my political leanings? If you say that, you're an idiot because it doesn't happen.



No, you said this: _When or IF moderators ever used their moderating ability to direct outcomes of threads We'd consider giving two rats asses about their political leanings._

The above doesn't say to me that you use your political leanings to direct outcomes, it says you use your moderating ability to moderate outcomes...why you put in the last bit I have no idea...gibberish?? 





			
				dmp said:
			
		

> Reprisal? WTF? How is that a 'reprisal'? What Jim means is "None of the Mods/Admins will ban you or F with your Account cuz you blew your wad all over the board in this thread.  I Negatively Repped you - that means "I did NOT approve of you lying about me."  You LIED about me and what I do with threads.  Bald-face LIE.  IF you were honest you'd have replied back something like this:
> 
> "Oh - I thought you meant you never AFFECTED threads.  I consider 'closing' a thread affecting it's outcome.  I didn't understand you were repsonding to MY suggestion that the moderators mostly having the same political leanings caused left-leaning people to suffer.  My bad.



I'm not blowing my wad at all. Had a very civil, enjoyable ADULT discussion with Jim about how the board is run. The only one blowing his wad/ego over the board is you. And of course mods having the same political leanings make the lefties suffer to a degree - Jim even said he expects his mods to be like that due to the fact they are human. 




			
				dmp said:
			
		

> But - you're obtuse.  I need thicker skin? Try understanding a few things:
> 
> 1) You don't know me.
> 2) NONE of the moderators here answer to you.  I answer to Jim.
> ...



I may not know you, but I know people _like _ you. Of course moderators don't have to answer to me, never said you did, but civil discourse on why certain things are done don't do any harm and having a "we're the supreme beings and dictator's of the world/this is not a democracy" BS, does nothing but cause argument and vitriole. And if that is the kind of board you want to sponsor then so be it, but going on talking to Jim he doesn't want that. If you want to act like Big Man on Campus, go for it. I'll call it as I see it and it has nothing to do with me thinking I can tell you what to do. Oh, and if you read the thread I did take it up with your boss.

Stop whining like a little baby....


----------



## dmp (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> No, you said this: _When or IF moderators ever used their moderating ability to direct outcomes of threads We'd consider giving two rats asses about their political leanings._
> 
> The above doesn't say to me that you use your political leanings to direct outcomes, it says you use your moderating ability to moderate outcomes...why you put in the last bit I have no idea...gibberish??



Okay - as if to a child:

YOU say this: "We need more Liberal moderators to 'balance things out'. 

See, it's very clear in YOUR statement you feel because most mods are conservatives it has an effect on how they MODERATE.

I quoted THAT statement, YOU made - remember the one I just listed a few lines up? Yeah - I quoted THAT one saying WHEN (their political slant) changes the outcome of threads due to their moderator 'powers', we'll start CARING about moderator's political slant.

YOU quoted THAT statement and said I do that all the time.  

See? You're a liar or you have comprehension problems.  If you can't follow lines of thought just SAY so and we'll ALL word our comments VERY clearly so you don't have to reach logical conclusions all by yourself.



> I'm not blowing my wad at all. Had a very civil, enjoyable ADULT discussion with Jim about how the board is run. The only one blowing his wad/ego over the board is you. And of course mods having the same political leanings make the lefties suffer to a degree - Jim even said he expects his mods to be like that due to the fact they are human.



See - now you're saying what I think you claimed, which you just denied claiming.  

I asked you to show me ONE instance of a Moderator using their mod abilities to change a thread's outcome to THEIR Point of Political View.  You claimed I, specifically "do that all the time".  




> I may not know you, but I know people _like _ you. Of course moderators don't have to answer to me, never said you did, but civil discourse on why certain things are done don't do any harm and having a "we're the supreme beings and dictator's of the world/this is not a democracy" BS, does nothing but cause argument and vitriole. And if that is the kind of board you want to sponsor then so be it, but going on talking to Jim he doesn't want that. If you want to act like Big Man on Campus, go for it. I'll call it as I see it and it has nothing to do with me thinking I can tell you what to do. Oh, and if you read the thread I did take it up with your boss.
> 
> Stop whining like a little baby....



I can and will stop you in ad hominem attacks on my character, and insults about the way I administer or that of the moderators.  Outside this 'amnesty' thread I will shut down ANY voice you have which doesn't STRICKLY adhere to the rules of this forum.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

This isn't to anyone in particular, but having watched all 82 billion pages of this drivel come to life, my opinion is this...

Yes, a few threads have been shut down needlessly, just  because 1 or 2 people were acting like children..

However, a new process was developed wherein the problem children can be removed from the thread in question without the whole thing being shut down..  I see this as a good thing.  The people having fun in a thread shouldn't have it locked on them.. The people causing a problem shouldn't be allowed to be a problem to others..

So, what's all the bickering still going on for?  What's the point?  The "way this board is run" has numbers that speak for it loudly, and clearly..

I'd say suck it up and deal, or try to join DU.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> This isn't to anyone in particular, but having watched all 82 billion pages of this drivel come to life, my opinion is this...
> 
> Yes, a few threads have been shut down needlessly, just  because 1 or 2 people were acting like children..
> 
> ...



Because remove from thread is a nazi feature which has only been used for abusive purposes this far.  Just so you know.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Because remove from thread is a nazi feature which has only been used for abusive purposes this far.  Just so you know.



I disagree.. I don't think it's being used enough.. I can name at least half a dozen threads one particular member should have been removed from last night, but wasn't.  I can also come up with close to a dozen I think should have been shut down completely last night, but weren't.

Just my opinion, tho..


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> This isn't to anyone in particular, but having watched all 82 billion pages of this drivel come to life, my opinion is this...
> 
> Yes, a few threads have been shut down needlessly, just  because 1 or 2 people were acting like children..
> 
> ...



Exactly.  Don't you love it when someone new comes around and tries to change the way a well-established organization is run just to suit their pov? I've seen it everywhere from business meetings to PTA meetings to message boards.


----------



## MtnBiker (Jun 18, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Because remove from thread is a nazi feature which has only been used for abusive purposes this far.  Just so you know.



Nazis would force you to be an active member of this messageboard. No one on the admin or mod staff is doing so.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Jun 18, 2006)

Ever hear of Godwin's Law?  I think it applies particularly well in this thread.

Nazis would put you into a gas chamber using Carbon Monoxide so they could get that nice healthy pink glow on you before removing your skin and using it as a lampshade because it has a nice tattoo!

Removing you from a thread when you act like a weiner isn't quite in that same class of eggregious behavior.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Okay - as if to a child:
> 
> YOU say this: "We need more Liberal moderators to 'balance things out'.
> 
> ...



Maybe you need to write more clearly and concisely...



			
				dmp said:
			
		

> I asked you to show me ONE instance of a Moderator using their mod abilities to change a thread's outcome to THEIR Point of Political View.  You claimed I, specifically "do that all the time".



No you did not. Well, you think you did. The ABOVE says that now. I can't help it if you have an inability to write clear sentences 




			
				dmp said:
			
		

> I can and will stop you in ad hominem attacks on my character, and insults about the way I administer or that of the moderators.  Outside this 'amnesty' thread I will shut down ANY voice you have which doesn't STRICKLY adhere to the rules of this forum.



Nothing ad hominem about them at all. Look up the term. I know you'll shut me down. You give proof to the saying that giving people a little power goes to their head. I'll say it again, grow up.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Don't you love it when someone new comes around and tries to change the way a well-established organization is run just to suit their pov? I've seen it everywhere from business meetings to PTA meetings to message boards.



And don't you love it when people set in their cosy little ways get their panties in a wad when their little ego-driven power trip is challenged? :rotflmao:


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> I disagree.. I don't think it's being used enough.. I can name at least half a dozen threads one particular member should have been removed from last night, but wasn't.  I can also come up with close to a dozen I think should have been shut down completely last night, but weren't.
> 
> Just my opinion, tho..



And if everybody had ignored said threads and member the threads would have died a natural death like most of them are doing now....


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> And if everybody had ignored said threads and member the threads would have died a natural death like most of them are doing now....



Such is the reason rules and consequences are put into place.. Because not everybody is going to ignore everything.

Having come from a political board where there were *no* rules, I can tell you...that board is no more.  It's gone.  Dead. 

Rather than giving the Mods/Admin shit for enforcing, why not just mind your own business, and post according to how you see fit, until it becomes a problem?  (I really don't mean that as rudely as it sounded..)

Most threads here DO run their course.. In comparison to what's posted in any given day, very few are actually closed..  A few, seemingly wrongfully, yes.. But most, for pretty good reason..

Honestly, if you think you can run a board better, godaddy.com will give you a domain for a whopping $8 a month.. Since you won't need Mods/Admin, you can just spend your time advertising your site, and just see what happens.


----------



## dmp (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> My ego won't let me say i'm wrong.  I'll keep going on thinking I'm right, but deep down inside I know I can't read or comprehend basic written english.
> - _Reality Filter Translation by dmp_







> Nothing ad hominem about them at all. Look up the term. I know you'll shut me down. You give proof to the saying that giving people a little power goes to their head. I'll say it again, grow up.



Of course they are ad hominem;  You are calling me a liar without proof - you are taking 'how' I Admin or Moderate and bringing it to a personal nature.  

You say "Boohoo - tell me why you closed a thread!!"

I say "Because it'd run it's course."

You say "Boohoo! That's not good enough! You moderate based on your desire to change the conclusion of a topic so it aligns with your political leaning!!"

I say I never do that.  You call me a liar.   That's personal, and has NO Basis in fact.  

www.hop.com - maybe you and a couple other members can get a group discount.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Such is the reason rules and consequences are put into place.. Because not everybody is going to ignore everything.
> 
> Having come from a political board where there were *no* rules, I can tell you...that board is no more.  It's gone.  Dead.
> 
> ...



And i have come from two huge political boards that were closed and were more moderated than most including this one. I don't think moderation was the problem on them, it was the contentious posters. 

All I asked was a simple, polite question. I can tell you right now, if I was a Bush-loving, God fearing, gun totting conservative my question would have been answered no problemo. But I'm not, so the defensive attitude started from the get go. Let's face it, it was just a minor question - nothing for the mods to get all het up about.

As if to prove my point, take ole Kathiann that everybody seems to treat like some little goddess. She just neg repped me for telling Roomy to stop drinking. You think she disagrees with that premise? Hell no! She neg repped me for the comments in this forum but because Jim said there should be no repercussions so she had to take her vindictiveness to another forum so as not to be seen to break the rules. THAT is what us non-conservative posters have to put up with. Pure pettiness - nothing more, nothing less. If I see somebody playing dirty, I'll call them on it...simple. If they want civil discourse I'm up for that too....As I stated before there are enough mods on these boards who are conservative AND fair and equitable we don't need the Kathi's and Darin's of this world to make this board an enjoyable place. Having said that, Jim places faith in them and you gotta respect his place in that regard. But having respect for Jim is one thing, certain mods another...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Of course they are ad hominem;  You are calling me a liar without proof - you are taking 'how' I Admin or Moderate and bringing it to a personal nature.
> 
> You say "Boohoo - tell me why you closed a thread!!"
> 
> ...



Ok, NOW I'm calling you a liar. You never said the thread had run its course. You said you didn't have to give me a reason and you didn't. So the "thread has run its course" is a total lie. So is you "boo hoo" quote. Running its course by the way, is a piss-poor reason to close a thread. As long as people are talking in a civil manner it shouldn't be closed IMO. Why you would care is beyond me...

I'm not gonna address the bit about aligning with your political leanings. I've already shown the original post was all over the show and didn't make much sense. Write clearly next time what you mean...


----------



## Annie (Jun 18, 2006)

Actually it was this post:



			
				roomy said:
			
		

> The only ones to neg rep you are the ones with enough power to not give a fuck if you reciprocate I don't fucking think so.





			
				dr. grump said:
			
		

> Aw c'mon, you don't really care that much do ya?


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> And i have come from two huge political boards that were closed and were more moderated than most including this one. I don't think moderation was the problem on them, it was the contentious posters.
> 
> All I asked was a simple, polite question. I can tell you right now, <b>if I was a Bush-loving, God fearing, gun totting conservative</b> my question would have been answered no problemo. But I'm not, so the defensive attitude started from the get go. Let's face it, it was just a minor question - nothing for the mods to get all het up about.
> 
> As if to prove my point, take ole Kathiann that everybody seems to treat like some little goddess. She just neg repped me for telling Roomy to stop drinking. You think she disagrees with that premise? Hell no! She neg repped me for the comments in this forum but because Jim said there should be no repercussions so she had to take her vindictiveness to another forum so as not to be seen to break the rules. THAT is what us non-conservative posters have to put up with. Pure pettiness - nothing more, nothing less. If I see somebody playing dirty, I'll call them on it...simple. If they want civil discourse I'm up for that too....As I stated before there are enough mods on these boards who are conservative AND fair and equitable we don't need the Kathi's and Darin's of this world to make this board an enjoyable place. Having said that, Jim places faith in them and you gotta respect his place in that regard. But having respect for Jim is one thing, certain mods another...



Sorry..but that's a load of shit.  On that, I speak from personal experience.

Having been nailed by *both* of them repeatedly because of my "discussions" with Archangel, and then basically telling them to get bent when called on it... I can tell you political affiliation has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## dmp (Jun 18, 2006)

> All I asked was a simple, polite question. I can tell you right now, if I was a Bush-loving, God fearing, gun totting conservative my question would have been answered no problemo.





Get over it.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> And i have come from two huge political boards that were closed and were more moderated than most including this one. I don't think moderation was the problem on them, it was the contentious posters.
> 
> All I asked was a simple, polite question. I can tell you right now, if I was a Bush-loving, God fearing, gun totting conservative my question would have been answered no problemo. But I'm not, so the defensive attitude started from the get go. Let's face it, it was just a minor question - nothing for the mods to get all het up about.
> 
> As if to prove my point, take ole Kathiann that everybody seems to treat like some little goddess. She just neg repped me for telling Roomy to stop drinking. You think she disagrees with that premise? Hell no! She neg repped me for the comments in this forum but because Jim said there should be no repercussions so she had to take her vindictiveness to another forum so as not to be seen to break the rules. THAT is what us non-conservative posters have to put up with. Pure pettiness - nothing more, nothing less. If I see somebody playing dirty, I'll call them on it...simple. If they want civil discourse I'm up for that too....As I stated before there are enough mods on these boards who are conservative AND fair and equitable we don't need the Kathi's and Darin's of this world to make this board an enjoyable place. Having said that, Jim places faith in them and you gotta respect his place in that regard. But having respect for Jim is one thing, certain mods another...



if you are so unhappy here and dislike the way the place is run why do you stay?


----------



## dmp (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Ok, NOW I'm calling you a liar. You never said the thread had run its course. You said you didn't have to give me a reason and you didn't. So the "thread has run its course" is a total lie. So is you "boo hoo" quote. Running its course by the way, is a piss-poor reason to close a thread. As long as people are talking in a civil manner it shouldn't be closed IMO. Why you would care is beyond me...
> 
> I'm not gonna address the bit about aligning with your political leanings. I've already shown the original post was all over the show and didn't make much sense. Write clearly next time what you mean...




pssst...knucklehead...that 'conversation' I listed was an EXAMPLE of how you are just a whiner.  WHATEVER answer I gave or didn't give you to WHATEVER the hell thread you wanted to remain open isn't the point.  

If you want to get ahead in life, don't bitch because people use words you don't understand, try getting better at understanding, little brother.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> if you are so unhappy here and dislike the way the place is run why do you stay?



Simple, m'dear.. To argue, and bitch his way to getting banned, so he can shout "I told you so!" on his way out.  Problem is, tho, it hasn't happened, and as long as it remains in this thread, it probably won't happen...


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Simple, m'dear.. To argue, and bitch his way to getting banned, so he can shout "I told you so!" on his way out.  Problem is, tho, it hasn't happened, and as long as it remains in this thread, it probably won't happen...



why do these people even bother getting up in the morning


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> why do these people even bother getting up in the morning



Nobody to fight with under the sheets?  :happy2:


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Actually it was this post:



Was it? hhmmm, when I pushed the button it linked to the one I quoted. Still, not really my point....just showing you for the vindictive person you are...  :rotflmao:


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> if you are so unhappy here and dislike the way the place is run why do you stay?



I'm actually not that unhappy at all. I asked a simple question, which the mods didn't seem to want to answer. Roomy then started so Jim started this thread. Nothing wrong with talking it out is there?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> pssst...knucklehead...that 'conversation' I listed was an EXAMPLE of how you are just a whiner.  WHATEVER answer I gave or didn't give you to WHATEVER the hell thread you wanted to remain open isn't the point.
> 
> If you want to get ahead in life, don't bitch because people use words you don't understand, try getting better at understanding, little brother.



Sure....


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Nobody to fight with under the sheets?  :happy2:



christ would you want to wake up in the morning next to a bitchy liitle man like that?....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Simple, m'dear.. To argue, and bitch his way to getting banned, so he can shout "I told you so!" on his way out.  Problem is, tho, it hasn't happened, and as long as it remains in this thread, it probably won't happen...



How come you guys always think people are trying to get banned? I ain't trying to get banned. Think about it, all I asked orginally was a simple question. By their very nature conservatives don't like being questioned as is shown by all you guys being here and bitching about it. It is the nature of the beast. I want to get banned? No. Just showing things as they are. If you are feeling uncomfortable about it, so be it. Calling it "whining" and "bitching" is just a dismissive way of dealing with the situation and a common tactic.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> I'm actually not that unhappy at all. I asked a simple question, which the mods didn't seem to want to answer. Roomy then started so Jim started this thread. Nothing wrong with talking it out is there?



you could have fooled me....talk all you like....people are not required to answer your questions however.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> people are not required to answer your questions however.



Never said they were.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> How come you guys always think people are trying to get banned? I ain't trying to get banned. Think about it, all I asked orginally was a simple question. By their very nature conservatives don't like being questioned as is shown by all you guys being here and bitching about it. It is the nature of the beast. I want to get banned? No. Just showing things as they are. If you are feeling uncomfortable about it, so be it. Calling it "whining" and "bitching" is just a dismissive way of dealing with the situation and a common tactic.



fair enough ..... enlighten me ...what are you trying to acomplish?


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> How come you guys always think people are trying to get banned? I ain't trying to get banned. Think about it, all I asked orginally was a simple question. By their very nature conservatives don't like being questioned as is shown by all you guys being here and bitching about it. It is the nature of the beast. I want to get banned? No. Just showing things as they are. If you are feeling uncomfortable about it, so be it. Calling it "whining" and "bitching" is just a dismissive way of dealing with the situation and a common tactic.



Ok.. What happened specifically to YOU to piss you off so bad?


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Never said they were.



youare the one demanding mods answer you questions....hell you complained about it so much they started this thread just for you


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> fair enough ..... enlighten me ...what are you trying to acomplish?



Not a lot it seems. It originally started out as to why Darin banned Yukon and morphed into how some mods run the board.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Ok.. What happened specifically to YOU to piss you off so bad?



Actually I wasn't "pissed off" so bad at all. I just queried a while ago why a thread was closed and told to bugger off...an answer which didn't satisfy me. As I said, if I had been of a different political persuasion that answer might have been forthcoming.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> youare the one demanding mods answer you questions....hell you complained about it so much they started this thread just for you



Actually, that's a fair call Manu. I did want an answer to one specific question. This thread wasn't stared for me, it was started for Roomy originally.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Actually I wasn't "pissed off" so bad at all. I just queried a while ago why a thread was closed and told to bugger off...an answer which didn't satisfy me. As I said, if  had been on a different political wave that answer might have been forthcoming.



I did the same exact thing.. One members thread was closed, while another members of the same type was allowed to run free.. I wasn't satisfied with my answer either..but you know what.. I'm still alive.  One persons reason for doing something are always going to be subjective..There's always going to be somebody that disagrees...  If you're a Mod, or an Admin, you're basically damned if you do, and fucked if you don't.  It's always going to be a no-win situation..  Cut'm some slack, and worry about your own posts...


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Not a lot it seems. It originally started out as to why Darin banned Yukon and morphed into how some mods run the board.



hmmmm.....re yukon....who cares....their board...they run it the way the want.....their house their rules


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> I did the same exact thing.. One members thread was closed, while another members of the same type was allowed to run free.. I wasn't satisfied with my answer either..but you know what.. I'm still alive.  One persons reason for doing something are always going to be subjective..There's always going to be somebody that disagrees...  If you're a Mod, or an Admin, you're basically damned if you do, and fucked if you don't.  It's always going to be a no-win situation..  Cut'm some slack, and worry about your own posts...



You make a fair point, but a simple answer isn't that hard to address. I disagree with you about being damned if you do etc. If a thread starts going south real bad (lots of cussing and people posting objectionable pics etc) I can see why they would close a thread. I can't see anybody complaining if a thread takes another direction or morphs into something else, can you? When was the last time that happened? I doubt it ever has....so I don't think the mods would be damned by anybody if that occurred.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> hmmmm.....re yukon....who cares....their board...they run it the way the want.....their house their rules



I disagree. It's Jim's board and they work on his behalf. If users see things they don't like or want addressing I don't see a problem with that being queried.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> You make a fair point, but a simple answer isn't that hard to address. I disagree with you about being damned if you do etc. If a thread starts going south real bad (lots of cussing and people posting objectionable pics etc) I can see why they would close a thread. I can't see anybody complaining if a thread takes another direction or morphs into something else, can you? When was the last time that happened? I doubt it ever has....so I don't think the mods would be damned by anybody if that occurred.



There are different sections of the board for different types of discussion.. If a discussion in World Politics morphs into discussion about Hell's Kitchen, it should be either closed, or moved to the lower half of the board to keep things clean.. It's not an insult to anyone.. It's general board upkeep.. (if that's what you were getting at - your post wasn't real clear)..

As much fun as this is, I have tornados flying around my head less than 10 mins from me, and moving toward me, so I'm going to go collect my cats and sit in the threatre room in the basement for a bit..

Toodles!


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> I disagree. It's Jim's board and they work on his behalf. If users see things they don't like or want addressing I don't see a problem with that being queried.



fair enough....but did jim change anything? fire them? replace them? nope....
but then that doesn't bother me because i was taught to behave a certain way when a guest in anothers "home"


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

A house cleaning of MODS is in order here, has been for a long time IMO. *Its a great board*, but that doesnt mean it is without some problems. Nothing personal, but what Grump and some others have said in this thread is true. 

*This board can be better than it is.* Some Mods are seldom here. Some are here a great deal. IMO all mods should be involved in the board all the time, not just a few, Tis not my call I understand that.

Just my 2 cents. 
Good Luck.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> There are different sections of the board for different types of discussion.. If a discussion in World Politics morphs into discussion about Hell's Kitchen, it should be either closed, or moved to the lower half of the board to keep things clean.. It's not an insult to anyone.. It's general board upkeep.. (if that's what you were getting at - your post wasn't real clear)..
> 
> As much fun as this is, I have tornados flying around my head less than 10 mins from me, and moving toward me, so I'm going to go collect my cats and sit in the threatre room in the basement for a bit..
> 
> Toodles!



I have no problem with threads being moved to their correct location.

Hope things work out Ok....


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> And don't you love it when people set in their cosy little ways get their panties in a wad when their little ego-driven power trip is challenged? :rotflmao:



Geez, it sounds like you are feeling, as libs love to call it, disenfranchised. Believe it or not, things have worked just fine here with the moderators we have long before you showed up, and they will continue to work fine long after you are gone. 

Personally, I wouldn't spend one minute of my precious time on a board that I thought sucked as much as you do this one. I would move on (hint hint) to a place that I thought had capable mods and admins. You cannot seriously think that you can stay here and turn the board into one that reflects your personal wishes. I think Jim's laid back admin style has gone to your head. As the saying goes, do not mistake kindness for weakness. 

I do not get into board wars, and stay out of complainers rants, but here's the bottom line: You are rude and out of line with your denigration of our mods and admins. Such hubris from a guy who has been here for such a short while is preposterous.


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> There are different sections of the board for different types of discussion.. If a discussion in World Politics morphs into discussion about Hell's Kitchen, it should be either closed, or moved to the lower half of the board to keep things clean.. It's not an insult to anyone.. It's general board upkeep.. (if that's what you were getting at - your post wasn't real clear)..
> 
> As much fun as this is, I have tornados flying around my head less than 10 mins from me, and moving toward me, so I'm going to go collect my cats and sit in the threatre room in the basement for a bit..
> 
> Toodles!



Threads morph naturally, as do conversations. Why on earth would you want someone else unilaterally deciding your conversation is at an end so long as it is respectful and civil?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> fair enough....but did jim change anything? fire them? replace them? nope...."



That is true, but he did set up this thread, which would suggest he was interested in feedback.




			
				manu1959 said:
			
		

> but then that doesn't bother me because i was taught to behave a certain way when a guest in anothers "home"



If you were being totally honest you would also so that it doesn't bother you because you are of the same political/idealogical persuasion as the mods. And I have been nothing but courteous and friendly to Jim - it's his home.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Geez, it sounds like you are feeling, as libs love to call it, disenfranchised. Believe it or not, things have worked just fine here with the moderators we have long before you showed up, and they will continue to work fine long after you are gone.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't spend one minute of my precious time on a board that I thought sucked as much as you do this one. I would move on (hint hint) to a place that I thought had capable mods and admins. You cannot seriously think that you can stay here and turn the board into one that reflects your personal wishes. I think Jim's laid back admin style has gone to your head. As the saying goes, do not mistake kindness for weakness.
> 
> I do not get into board wars, and stay out of complainers rants, but here's the bottom line: You are rude and out of line with your denigration of our mods and admins. Such hubris from a guy who has been here for such a short while is preposterous.



Nope not feeling disenfranchised at all. I think Jim is a fair and equitable person and he has proved that time and again. 

I don't think this board sucks at all and I do not in any way expect it to turn into one that reflects my wishes. All I asked was a simple question. That is just being silly.

As for being rude and out of line, mayhap Darin shouldn't have started out that way with me. He isn't a god you know....he's just a guy on a messageboard. 

As for hubris, that is a typical conservative leaning. Let's all kowtow and be little sheeple because we are new here. Let's not say anything because you might be seen as a troublemaker. Get over yourself Abbey....


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Threads morph naturally, as do conversations. Why on earth would you want someone else unilaterally deciding your conversation is at an end so long as it is respectful and civil?


One of my problems with "This thread has run its course" closed.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> That is true, but he did set up this thread, which would suggest he was interested in feedback.
> 
> If you were being totally honest you would also so that it doesn't bother you because you are of the same political/idealogical persuasion as the mods. And I have been nothing but courteous and friendly to Jim - it's his home.



possibly but having been here for a while....it seems to me that this was set up to avoid having other threads destroyed...

to call me partially honest is rude....but being rude is how you are.....as for my politice....my politics would surprise you for i am far from what you belive me to be....

farewell and good luck in your search


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> One of my problems with "This thread has run its course" closed.



And that is all I was asking...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> possibly but having been here for a while....it seems to me that this was set up to avoid having other threads destroyed...
> 
> to call me partially honest is rude....but being rude is how you are.....as for my politice....my politics would surprise you for i am far from what you belive me to be....
> 
> farewell and good luck in your search



And calling me a little man when I had not even addressed you isn't rude? I am not rude by nature and if you look at who does the calling first it is not I. And it wasn't my intent to be rude, but I honestly believe that you fall on their side of the fence, and going by other posts of yours on other threads I have yet to see my opinion being wrong in that regard.

I believe Jim when he says he won't take any shit and not to take advantage of his nicer nature. Therefore I don't think he would tolerate a thread that destroys his place so I doubt that was his reason for starting this thread.


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> And that is all I was asking...


Been there. "talk to jim if you have a problem". No problem I am asking a question to a MOD. They shut the thread, THEY should answer for it not redirect to Jim, IMO.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Nope not feeling disenfranchised at all. I think Jim is a fair and equitable person and he has proved that time and again.
> 
> I don't think this board sucks at all and I do not in any way expect it to turn into one that reflects my wishes. All I asked was a simple question. That is just being silly.
> 
> ...



You know what's really funny? How you've bitched and moaned for two days now, called mods and admins all sort of names, and then when you are called on it by several people,  you revert to your guileless "I just asked a simple little question" backpedal. In addition to rude and out of line, I wil now add dishonest to your list of sterling quallities. If you are going to start all this anti-mod, let's get rid of 'em cause I don't like 'em crap, at least be a man about it and admit you are doing it. And this thread didn't magically "morph" into that. Your posting about the mods did that.  

As for me "getting over myself", huh? Are you complaining that I am disenfranchising you too? I am expressing my opinion about all the stuff you have stirred up. I happen to agree with Manu that you don't start crap with your hosts when you are a guest in their house. On another board, we called what you have been doing "sh*t-stirring.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> You know what's really funny? How you've bitched and moaned for two days now, called mods and admins all sort of names, and then when you are called on it by several people,  you revert to your guileless "I just asked a simple little question" backpedal. In addition to rude and out of line, I wil now add dishonest to your list of sterling quallities. If you are going to start all this anti-mod, let's get rid of 'em cause I don't like 'em crap, at least be a man about it and admit you are doing it. And this thread didn't magically "morph" into that. Your posting about the mods did that.
> 
> As for me "getting over myself", huh? Are you complaining that I am disenfranchising you too? I am expressing MY opinion about all the garbage YOU have stirred up. I happen to agree with Manu that you don't start crap with your hosts when you are a guest in their house. On another board, we called what you have been doing "sh*t-stirring.  I think the term is more than applicable here.



Ah, yes the old "I have no answers to your queries, so I'll just flame"..talk about shit stirring. Abbey dear, even at your best you couldn't disenfranchise me.
I do not like moderation, I have stated that before, but this is Jim's house and he wants them....and some of them are very good. That is not the problem. And it WAS a simple question. In order for a convo to morph it takes more than one poster to do so - you are on here too doing so, so you are helping. So go back to your hidden thread and your coven and bitch some more. When you have something to add to the convo, come back.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Ah, yes the old "I have no answers to your queries, so I'll just flame"..talk about shit stirring. Abbey dear, even at your best you couldn't disenfranchise me.
> I do not like moderation, I have stated that before, but this is Jim's house and he wants them....and some of them are very good. That is not the problem. And it WAS a simple question. In order for a convo to morph it takes more than one poster to do so - you are on here too doing so, so you are helping. So go back to your hidden thread and your coven and bitch some more. When you have something to add to the convo, come back.



Just because others _reply_ to your attacks on the mods, doesn't mean they made this thread what it is. That, my dear, rests squarely on you. 

As I said before, this board was fine before you showed up, and it will be fine long after you are gone. Don't let the screen door hit you, kay? 

Ah, scratch a lib just a bit, and the name-calling comes out. Now I'm a witch. Woohoo! Seems kind of childish, but I guess you go with your strengths when arguing.  

Okay, by my reckoning, it is now your turn to go into your "Darin and Kathianne are incompetent liars, but it was just simple little question" routine. 

And more name-calling of me too, no doubt. 

T-10, 9, 8, 7...


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> One of my problems with "This thread has run its course" closed.



Yup. There is that. Mostly this is a nice place to hang and the discussions can be interesting. A little fine-tuning doesn't hurt sometimes. I have to say I've been generally treated fairly since I've gotten here and only been neg-repped for my opinion once.

Doesn't mean that some people aren't a bit full of themselves.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Just because others _reply_ to your attacks on the mods, doesn't mean they made this thread what it is. That, my dear, rests squarely on you.
> 
> As I said before, this board was fine before you showed up, and it will be fine long after you are gone. Don't let the screen door hit you, kay?
> 
> ...



As somebody rightfully pointed out, you don't have to come outright and insult somebody to be insulting and rereading your first post on here was about as rude as it gets, so stop acting like you are being hard done by. You came in all guns blazing, don't act so hard done by when it is turned back on you. I plan to be around for a long time Abbey. And yes, Abbey, others replying does make this thread what it is. If they didn't, it would die, which is fine by me...


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Yup. There is that. Mostly this is a nice place to hang and the discussions can be interesting. A little fine-tuning doesn't hurt sometimes. I have to say I've been generally treated fairly since I've gotten here and only been neg-repped for my opinion once.
> 
> Doesn't mean that some people aren't a bit full of themselves.



I don't think anyone minds positive suggestions on how things could improve, and I too have been surprised by a few of the "thread has run it's course" closings. I see a big difference, though, between expressing a wish for a change in procedure, and openly dissing mods and admins. Something I have not seen you do, btw.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> As somebody rightfully pointed out, you don't have to come outright and insult somebody to be insulting and rereading your first post on here was about as rude as it gets, so stop acting like you are being hard done by. You came in all guns blazing, don't act so hard done by when it is turned back on you. I plan to be around for a long time Abbey. And yes, Abbey, others replying does make this thread what it is. If they didn't, it would die, which is fine by me...



My first post is quoted below. I can't believe you have the cajones to state that this is "as rude as it gets". Especially after all you've said here. I stand by it, and after reading how you've treated others on here, I am rather proud of my restraint. 

Nice try.  



> Exactly.  Don't you love it when someone new comes around and tries to change the way a well-established organization is run just to suit their pov? I've seen it everywhere from business meetings to PTA meetings to message boards.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> My first post is quoted below. I can't believe you have the cajones to state that this is "as rude as it gets". Especially after all you've said here. I stand by it, and after reading how you've treated others on here, I am rather proud of my restraint.
> 
> Nice try.



My bad. I was talking about you second post, I forgot about this first one. I have only treated others how they have treated me. Go figure.

laterZ


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> My bad. I was talking about you second post, I forgot about this first one. I have only treated others how they have treated me. Go figure.
> 
> laterZ



Me too. I have to run to a Father's Day lobster, corn on the cob, potato salad feast, to be followed  by much (in)digestion, I'm sure.


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone minds positive suggestions on how things could improve, and I too have been surprised by a few of the "thread has run it's course" closings. I see a big difference, though, between expressing a wish for a change in procedure, and openly dissing mods and admins. Something I have not seen you do, btw.



I think in terms of Grump, he made it clear he was responding to Darin's tone, which was pretty combative. Doesn't make his suggestions less positive but no one should be expected to not respond accordingly when treated a certain way.

And, no, I haven't attacked the mods. I'm very careful not to because they've been fair to me down to a one and some went out of their way to make me feel welcome here and even stood up for me against a poster of far longer duration when they thought it was the right thing to do.

Again, doesn't invalidate Grump's observations. Nor do I think he stated them in a negative way.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

The two that are getting the most flack are the two that actually moderate..  Is it possible familiarity breeds contempt?


----------



## dmp (Jun 18, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Okay, by my reckoning, it is now your turn to go into your "Darin and Kathianne are incompetent liars, but it was just simple little question" routine.




That's exactly what's happening - his passive agressive bullshit.

Grump: Darin's a liar!
Abbey: "no,  you started shit talking!"
Grump:"All I did was ask a QUESTION!!" (wimper...wimper..)

Abbey - I've known his kind on board before; The blustering and fussing when they can't be in charge.   When they get called on what they said they say 'Well, YOU should have been More CLEAR!!" blah blah blah.

Thanks for your efforts AN.   He's stuck on 2+2=5.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 18, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> He's stuck on 2+2=5.



Well it does.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> The two that are getting the most flack are the two that actually moderate..  Is it possible familiarity breeds contempt?



I don't know about familiarity but it doesn't surprise me that the two who do the most "disciplining" are the ones who catch the flack. I don't think anyone really likes to get chastised especially by those who out rank them. Chalk it up to human nature?


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> The two that are getting the most flack are the two that actually moderate..  Is it possible familiarity breeds contempt?



Or maybe when some people get a little power, they can overuse it a little?


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Or maybe when some people get a little power, they can overuse it a little?



If they wanted to overuse it, trust me..they could.  What's to stop them from locking your account just for kicks, all the while saying "I don't know why you can't log in."  What's to stop them from banning you for your first "offense"?  What's to stop them from following you around watching every debate you're in, and picking it completely apart, while nailing you for "harrassing" other users?

I already admitted that I thought some threads were locked needlessly, and for little reason.  But for the most part, you have to admit this board is run pretty fairly..

How would you feel if it were your "job" (unpaid, mind you) to babysit the board, and then when you DO ban someone, have it more often than not overturned by the owner?  So, not only are they getting flack from you guys, but they're sometimes questioned behind the scenes for doing what they were put in a position to do in the first place.

Until you've actually done it, you have nothing to base any of your statements on, other than biased opinion.


----------



## GotZoom (Jun 18, 2006)

I have said many times that unless someone does something totally outrageous (like what AA said to Jillian), I think no one should be banned. 

But it is not my board; not my rules.  Jimmy makes the rules and the people who have been appointed as mods/admins/etc, enforce the rules. 

Don't like it; find another board.

Honestly...I think the people who do the most bitching about the way the board is run just like to whine and complain. 

It shows up many times in their posts.


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> I have said many times that unless someone does something totally outrageous (like what AA said to Jillian), I think no one should be banned.
> 
> But it is not my board; not my rules.  Jimmy makes the rules and the people who have been appointed as mods/admins/etc, enforce the rules.
> 
> ...



Actually, Jim made it pretty clear he's largely a free speech kinda guy...for which I have the utmost respect. If there are some issues, then it's appropriate to air them, IMO...not because one isn't happy here, but because if no one says anything, how would Jim know there are ANY issues which perhaps need to be cleared up?

BTW, the only whining I've seen is from people who don't like that Grump spoke his piece.


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> If they wanted to overuse it, trust me..they could.  What's to stop them from locking your account just for kicks, all the while saying "I don't know why you can't log in."  What's to stop them from banning you for your first "offense"?  What's to stop them from following you around watching every debate you're in, and picking it completely apart, while nailing you for "harrassing" other users?
> 
> I already admitted that I thought some threads were locked needlessly, and for little reason.  But for the most part, you have to admit this board is run pretty fairly..
> 
> ...



Actually, I *was* a mod on a board way bigger than this. So I know exactly how thankless it can be. And when any of the mods got heavy-handed, they were put in check by the board aministrators. In one instance, a mod (not me) was actually banned because he got into a huge pissing match with another poster and then with the board admin himself.

So there ya go. I'd say I know from whence I speak 

*Edit* Oh...and just for the record. The person who was quickest to call me on it when any of the mods, including myself, got a bit too quick to act, was Grump...


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 18, 2006)

Also notice guys that jim made it clear that mods are allowed to be human and  simply may not like you and ban you for that, so kissing mod ass will never be a "bad" idea, per se.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Actually, I *was* a mod on a board way bigger than this. So I know exactly how thankless it can be. And when any of the mods got heavy-handed, they were put in check by the board aministrators. In one instance, a mod (not me) was actually banned because he got into a huge pissing match with another poster and then with the board admin himself.
> 
> So there ya go. I'd say I know from whence I speak



The board I was a Mod, and an Admin on is no longer in operation because of the way it was run, and the fact that the owner just gave up and let the domain name run its course, because his user base was dropping daily (I left long before this happened, not because of it dying, but *because* the board was run the way some of you seem to want this one to run - it just doesn't work).

So..what type of board were you a Mod on?  I still say you don't know *too* much..And...if it was still a political board, and "larger than this", why are you not a Mod?  Why did you leave?


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 18, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Also notice guys that jim made it clear that mods are allowed to be human and  simply may not like you and ban you for that, so kissing mod ass will never be a "bad" idea, per se.



You kissing Darins ass ? Thanks a whole lot for that visual !!


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Also notice guys that jim made it clear that mods are allowed to be human and  simply may not like you and ban you for that, so kissing mod ass will never be a "bad" idea, per se.


Yeah, BUTT! He was on drugs when he said that. But, if that's how ya gotta act with a Mod.....I be gone.

*Does seem to be going that way*


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> The board I was a Mod, and an Admin on is no longer in operation because of the way it was run, and the fact that the owner just gave up and let the domain name run its course, because his user base was dropping daily (I left long before this happened, not because of it dying, but *because* the board was run the way some of you seem to want this one to run - it just doesn't work).
> 
> So..what type of board were you a Mod on?  I still say you don't know *too* much..And...if it was still a political board, and "larger than this", why are you not a Mod?  Why did you leave?



The board was a fairly balanced community left leaning/right leaning, though probably a little bit more to the left. Then came the election and the site was mentioned in Drudge Report. After that, the Drudge Sludge, for lack of a better word for these people, invaded the site and destroyed discussion. And, yes, speech was so free that, ultimately, no one could have a conversation b/c of all the intentional abuse by the sludge, so the admins of the site shut it down. Also, the worst offenders thought it amusing to spam the board and, on being banned, changed their ip address/es and started all over again. I remember one night deleting about 150 threads.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> The board was a fairly balanced community left leaning/right leaning, though probably a little bit more to the left. Then came the election and the site was mentioned in Drudge Report. After that, the Drudge Sludge, for lack of a better word for these people, invaded the site and destroyed discussion. And, yes, speech was so free that, ultimately, no one could have a conversation b/c of all the intentional abuse by the sludge, so the admins of the site shut it down. Also, the worst offenders thought it amusing to spam the board and, on being banned, changed their ip address/es and started all over again. I remember one night deleting about 150 threads.



G-lian.  Do you consider DemocraticUnderground to be tolerant of free and open debate?


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> The board I was a Mod, and an Admin on is no longer in operation because of the way it was run, and the fact that the owner just gave up and let the domain name run its course, because his user base was dropping daily (I left long before this happened, not because of it dying, but **because* the board was run the way some of you seem to want this one to run - it just doesn't work*).
> 
> So..what type of board were you a Mod on?  I still say you don't know *too* much..And...if it was still a political board, and "larger than this", why are you not a Mod?  Why did you leave?


Just wondering how is that? I haven't picked-up on anyone saying "this is how it should be"..Seen many opinions about stuff..nothing else..


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 18, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Also notice guys that jim made it clear that mods are allowed to be human and  simply may not like you and ban you for that, so kissing mod ass will never be a "bad" idea, per se.



Hey now! I didn't say it like that! Although I agree a little ass kissing definitely won't hurt!

All I meant is that we are ALL human and it's human tendency to act upon our emotions. That's why we have multiple moderators and admins, to make sure we're all in check. I'd like to think it never happens, but nature makes it likely. Fortunately, I think our crew is fair enough to not simply banish people because we don't like them. I directly ask the mods to try not to let things get personal, and should it happen, it may be best to allow another mod to step into that particular issue so to not give the appearance of any abuse. The history here will show that VERY few have been banned before their time was due. I get yelled at when users are banned and other members don't understand why, and I get yelled at when I allow unruly users and threads to continue. I get yelled at if "one of my mods" bans someone, and I get in trouble with them if I overrule their decision. This is what comes with the territory. There really is no decision a mod/admin can make to generally please everyone, only decisions that benefit the board.

Members get angry because threads get locked before they feel it was deserved. I implement code to assist keeping threads alive by having the ability to remove an unruly user from a thread instead of locking it. I get heat for having this option.

Like I said earlier, it's not politics, it's decisions. Sometimes decisions need to be made and someone has to make them. We certainly can't have the board run itself or it would become just another sounding board on the net that runs afoul with abuse. So we institute a few general rules and have a few members appointed to help make sure the rules remain in effect, and that everyone here has an ability to enjoy the board without others ruining it for them.

The bottom line is that there will NEVER be a time where everyone is satisfied with the decision making process, at least not on a political, free speech based forum. The best we can do is the best we can, and learn from our mistakes. Leave the doors open for members to express their likes and dislikes. These things have always been open to members and I will always take the board in the direction that the members want. The only thing I prefer handled via PM is complaints about the board and/or moderators. I don't think it's unfair of me to ask to let me handle internal matters privately.

So now we all air out our thoughts and compile what's left to hopefully move in a better direction, and that's where we're at now. I'll happily leave this thread open to learn as much as I can, I just ask that "what happens in grievances, stays in grievances". I can debate and argue with someone and then happily chat with them about music 3 minutes later. If I can do it, you can all do it.


----------



## GotZoom (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> The board was a fairly balanced community left leaning/right leaning, though probably a little bit more to the left. Then came the election and the site was mentioned in Drudge Report. After that, the Drudge Sludge, for lack of a better word for these people, invaded the site and destroyed discussion. And, yes, speech was so free that, ultimately, no one could have a conversation b/c of all the intentional abuse by the sludge, so the admins of the site shut it down. Also, the worst offenders thought it amusing to spam the board and, on being banned, changed their ip address/es and started all over again. I remember one night deleting about 150 threads.



"Drudge Sludge"

"invaded"

"destroyed" discussion"

"intentional abuse"

Doesn't sound like you aren't biased at all.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Just wondering how is that? I haven't picked-up on anyone saying "this is how it should be"..Seen many opinions about stuff..nothing else..



Did I not say "seem to want"?  I do believe I did..

Umm.. Jillian... Isn't deleting about 150 threads the same as censoring on a "free speech" board?  Complaints that threads get *closed* here - tho all the words are still there for everyone to read, and you were deleting entire threads?


----------



## GotZoom (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Did I not say "seem to want"?  I do believe I did..
> 
> Umm.. Jillian... Isn't deleting about 150 threads the same as censoring on a "free speech" board?  Complaints that threads get *closed* here - tho all the words are still there for everyone to read, and you were deleting entire threads?



Sweetie...it was the invading Drudge Sludge who intentionally abused the threads and destroyed the discussion.

She had to practice censorship and delete all 150 threads in their entirety.


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Did I not say "seem to want"?  I do believe I did..
> 
> Umm.. Jillian... Isn't deleting about 150 threads the same as censoring on a "free speech" board?  Complaints that threads get *closed* here - tho all the words are still there for everyone to read, and you were deleting entire threads?


Yeah ya did. Want what? Don't leave us hangin.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 18, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> Hey now! I didn't say it like that! Although I agree a little ass kissing definitely won't hurt!
> 
> All I meant is that we are ALL human and it's human tendency to act upon our emotions. That's why we have multiple moderators and admins, to make sure we're all in check. I'd like to think it never happens, but nature makes it likely. Fortunately, I think our crew is fair enough to not simply banish people because we don't like them. I directly ask the mods to try not to let things get personal, and should it happen, it may be best to allow another mod to step into that particular issue so to not give the appearance of any abuse. The history here will show that VERY few have been banned before their time was due. I get yelled at when users are banned and other members don't understand why, and I get yelled at when I allow unruly users and threads to continue. I get yelled at if "one of my mods" bans someone, and I get in trouble with them if I overrule their decision. This is what comes with the territory. There really is no decision a mod/admin can make to generally please everyone, only decisions that benefit the board.
> 
> ...



I appreciate you letting everyone hash things out a bit like this.There is something about handling everything privately that leaves a bit of paranoia in peoples' minds. BUT YOU"RE THE BEST,DUDE !!
* KISS KISS KISS * :teeth:


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Yeah ya did. Want what? Don't leave us hangin.



Who is "us"? You got a mouse in your pocket?

I haven't seen you pop in with anything other than "mods suck", in a nutshell..


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> "Drudge Sludge"
> 
> "invaded"
> 
> ...



Oh...I absolutely was. Doesn't mean we acted on the bias.

And you didn't see what they did to our home. So there ya go. Or do they get to spam and create obscene threads because they're right wing?


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Who is "us"? You got a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> I haven't seen you pop in with anything other than "mods suck", in a nutshell..


OK ya can give an answer, and mods don't suck never said that. Nevermind.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Oh...I absolutely was. Doesn't mean we acted on the bias.
> 
> And you didn't see what they did to our home. So there ya go. Or do they get to spam and create obscene threads because they're right wing?



So.. It's OK to close threads, move things around, etc. when there are disruptions, or things veer off course?  Who makes that decision?  Who determines when things need to be taken back into control?


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Sweetie...it was the invading Drudge Sludge who intentionally abused the threads and destroyed the discussion.
> 
> She had to practice censorship and delete all 150 threads in their entirety.



Ummmmm...honey, I think Shattered is smart enough to understand what happened without translation. I write pretty clearly.

Refer to my prior question.


----------



## GotZoom (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Ummmmm...honey, I think Shattered is smart enough to understand what happened without translation. I write pretty clearly.
> 
> Refer to my prior question.




Sarcasm...honey.

Whew.  If you misinterpreted that, I wonder how many of those 150 were closed due to the same thing.


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> So.. It's OK to close threads, move things around, etc. when there are disruptions, or things veer off course?  Who makes that decision?  Who determines when things need to be taken back into control?



In our case, the admin had the final call. 

BTW, did I say that those 150 threads were EXACTLY the same and all would have violated obscenity laws?

But to get back to my initial point, even in those circumstances, Grump would get annoyed with me that threads were being deleted/closed or whatever b/c he felt that whatever it was would run its course. And he was probably right then.

And I haven't seen anything here that even comes close to the kind of nastiness that we got.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> In our case, the admin had the final call.
> 
> BTW, did I say that those 150 threads were EXACTLY the same and all would have violated obscenity laws?
> 
> But to get back to my initial point, even in those circumstances, Grump would get annoyed with me that threads were being deleted/closed or whatever b/c he felt that whatever it was would run its course.



Then why not let the law handle it?  Why censor posts on a "free speech" board?

I'd have preferred to see pretty much all of Roomy's pointless threads closed, and see him locked out of a few threads that he purposely tried to be an ass in.  It didn't happen..  Is there any point in throwing a fit?  Nah. Suck it up and move on..

Point is, nobody is going to like everything.. Nobody is ever going to 100% agree on what should be done, and how something should be run.  THIS one happens to be run in a manner that keeps 95% of its members satisfied.  The masses have spoken.


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> That's exactly what's happening - his passive agressive bullshit.
> 
> Grump: Darin's a liar!
> Abbey: "no,  you started shit talking!"
> ...



Hmmmmmm....passive aggressive, Darin? Because he questioned the way you responded to his inquiry?

You really that thin-skinned?


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Then why not let the law handle it?  Why censor posts on a "free speech" board?
> 
> I'd have preferred to see pretty much all of Roomy's pointless threads closed, and see him locked out of a few threads that he purposely tried to be an ass in.  It didn't happen..  Is there any point in throwing a fit?  Nah. Suck it up and move on..
> 
> Point is, nobody is going to like everything.. Nobody is ever going to 100% agree on what should be done, and how something should be run.  THIS one happens to be run in a manner that keeps 95% of its members satisfied.  The masses have spoken.



Oh...absolutely.... but Grump's point that a couple of the mods (not all) perhaps acted in a heavy-handed fashion, was a fair one and certainly wasn't said with malice. Again, I'm not taking shots at the mods. They've been largely very nice to me. But I think the response he got to a small inquiry was uncalled for.

BTW, postscript...the reason I call them Drudge-sludge is because they were sent over by that site for the sole purpose of disrupting it. And what eventually happened was that the normal conservatives and moderate dems left the board because it became a chore.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Oh...absolutely.... but Grump's point that a couple of the mods (not all) perhaps acted in a heavy-handed fashion.
> 
> BTW, postscript...the reason I call them Drudge-sludge is because they were sent over by that site for the sole purpose of disrupting it. And what eventually happened was that the normal conservatives and moderate dems left the board because it became a chore.



Perhaps they aren't being "heavy-handed" enough in some cases.. My point is..those two are the ones that moderate on a consistent basis, thus the reason they're targets no matter what they do...


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Sarcasm...honey.
> 
> Whew.  If you misinterpreted that, I wonder how many of those 150 were closed due to the same thing.



Nope. I'm thicker skinned than that. I prefer to deflect than confront nastiness except when necessary. See my post to shattered for WHY the threads were deleted.

But in retrospect, truth is, the normal folk probably just should have gone on vacation for a week or two until the psychos got bored of their new playground. Then we could have gone back to playing nice.


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Perhaps they aren't being "heavy-handed" enough in some cases.. My point is..those two are the ones that moderate on a consistent basis, thus the reason they're targets no matter what they do...



Maybe. Or maybe they make more out of some stuff than they should. What I will say is that I had a similar question to Grump's as regards a thread where I was having a convo with ScreamingEagle. It was a cordial convo, but Jeff shut it down. I pm'd him as to why. He responded politely and answered my question. I didn't agree with him, but I respected his answer because he felt the reason was a good one and did me the courtesy of a respectful response.

Perhaps it's all in the handling of the inquiry.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

this all seems more like a witch hunt to get d nuked than anything else....i smell one of the seven deadly sins at play


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Maybe. Or maybe they make more out of some stuff than they should. What I will say is that I had a similar question to Grump's as regards a thread where I was having a convo with ScreamingEagle. It was a cordial convo, but Jeff shut it down. I pm'd him as to why. He responded politely and answered my question. I didn't agree with him, but I respected his answer because he felt the reason was a good one and did me the courtesy of a respectful response.
> 
> Perhaps it's all in the handling of the inquiry.



Perhaps it's all in the wording of the inquiry..  I don't much care for your opinion on a lot of things, but I haven't seen you get as nasty as I've seen some others get.  If you're asking questions the way you're responding to my posts, you're more likely to get a polite, well thought out answer.. If you ask with a "WTF, ass!" tone, you're likely going to be told to "get fucked"..


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's all in the wording of the inquiry..  I don't much care for your opinion on a lot of things, but I haven't seen you get as nasty as I've seen some others get.  If you're asking questions the way you're responding to my posts, you're more likely to get a polite, well thought out answer.. If you ask with a "WTF, ass!" tone, you're likely going to be told to "get fucked"..



I always try to be polite unless someone is rude to me first. And even then, I'm more likely to let it go than get nasty. I've ignored more than a few pot shots taken at me by certain posters because they're long-time members and well-regarded and I felt that deserved some deference from a newbie. Though I'm not above telling someone where to go if they get snitty with me. 

As for Grump. He's been one of my closest friends for about three years now and my all time best cyber buddy. Knowing him, I'm fairly sure the initial inquiry was neutral but he has no problem responding to someone in kind. But you have to ask him.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> I always try to be polite unless someone is rude to me first. And even then, I'm more likely to let it go than get nasty. I've ignored more than a few pot shots taken at me by certain posters because they're long-time members and well-regarded and I felt that deserved some deference from a newbie. Though I'm not above telling someone where to go if they get snitty with me.
> 
> As for Grump. He's been one of my closest friends for about three years now and my all time best cyber buddy. Knowing him, I'm fairly sure the initial inquiry was neutral but he has no problem responding to someone in kind. But you have to ask him.



Ah.. So you have no problem with the mods/admin, but you're defending him because he's a friend of yours?  Admirable.  But try looking at it from a logical standpoint, since apparently, you used to be a Mod.. If you were any good at it, then you often found yourself in the same situation as those two being referenced...


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Ah.. So you have no problem with the mods/admin, but you're defending him because he's a friend of yours?  Admirable.  But try looking at it from a logical standpoint, since apparently, you used to be a Mod.. If you were any good at it, then you often found yourself in the same situation as those two being referenced...



No. We don't defend each other when we disagree. And we disagree on a lot of things. (He thinks I'm a leftie...). I happen to agree with him on this one.

And yes, I found myself on the wrong side of stuff as a mod. Doesn't mean one or the other of us didn't act incorrectly from time to time and get slapped by the admin.

*Edit* And just because I have not been personally affected by the situation, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that I don't observe certain things. For example, I don't think a mod should ever start the name-calling in a discussion. I've seen that happen, too.


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> this all seems more like a witch hunt to get d nuked than anything else....i smell one of the seven deadly sins at play


I don't think it's about D at all.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> I don't think it's about D at all.



gumpy sure seems to have made it about him


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> No. We don't defend each other when we disagree. And we disagree on a lot of things. (He thinks I'm a leftie...). I happen to agree with him on this one.
> 
> And yes, I found myself on the wrong side of stuff as a mod. Doesn't mean one or the other of us didn't act incorrectly from time to time and get slapped by the admin.
> 
> *Edit* And just because I have not been personally affected by the situation, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that I don't observe certain things. For example, I don't think a mod should ever start the name-calling in a discussion. I've seen that happen, too.



I agree about the name-calling thing.. I believe Mods/Admin should be held to a higher standard of conduct.  (This was also previously discussed, and I named one particular Mod I had a problem with for just that reason).

But.. on the other hand, Mods/Admin are still human, and subject to the same thoughts and emotions the rest of us have.. In order to make sure that they're not part of any "scuffles", you basically have to take away their ability to post their opinion on any subject, and that's just not going to fly either.

All in all, do you seriously have any real, legitimate complaints on how this board is run?  If so, then ask Jim to start a "suggestions" thread.. If not, then what's the point in debating all of this?


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> gumpy sure seems to have made it about him



I think you're trying to do that, actually. Easier than having a discussion?


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> gumpy sure seems to have made it about him


Well, he's just a member like all the rest of us, no better no worse.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> So.. It's OK to close threads, move things around, etc. when there are disruptions, or things veer off course?  Who makes that decision?  Who determines when things need to be taken back into control?




Spam threads get deleted here too.


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> I agree about the name-calling thing.. I believe Mods/Admin should be held to a higher standard of conduct.  (This was also previously discussed, and I named one particular Mod I had a problem with for just that reason).
> 
> But.. on the other hand, Mods/Admin are still human, and subject to the same thoughts and emotions the rest of us have.. In order to make sure that they're not part of any "scuffles", you basically have to take away their ability to post their opinion on any subject, and that's just not going to fly either.
> 
> All in all, do you seriously have any real, legitimate complaints on how this board is run?  If so, then ask Jim to start a "suggestions" thread.. If not, then what's the point in debating all of this?



Absolutely, they're human and fallable. 

But I thought airing grievances/making suggestions was the purpose of *this* thread. 

The only complaints I have are the same ones that were raised by Grump. I think a couple of them just need to use a lighter touch is all.

And, yes, we're in agreement that mods have to be held to a higher standard, for better or worse.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Absolutely, they're human and fallable.
> 
> But I thought airing grievances/making suggestions was the purpose of *this* thread.
> 
> ...



Any "suggestions" are being cloaked in "complaints", and buried within the thread.. If there are real, legitimate suggestions, they should be confined to a single area, to make sifting through, and considering them easier.

I'll also tell you that you haven't seen "heavy-handed" yet, until one particular Mod comes out of the woodwork, and decides he doesn't like you.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Any "suggestions" are being cloaked in "complaints", and buried within the thread.. If there are real, legitimate suggestions, they should be confined to a single area, to make sifting through, and considering them easier.
> 
> I'll also tell you that you haven't seen "heavy-handed" yet, until one particular Mod comes out of the woodwork, and decides he doesn't like you.



AMEN SISTAH !!:teeth:


----------



## Shattered (Jun 18, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> AMEN SISTAH !!:teeth:



:halo:


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> I'll also tell you that you haven't seen "heavy-handed" yet, until one particular Mod comes out of the woodwork, and decides he doesn't like you.



Hopefully, I'll never have the "pleasure".


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Hopefully, I'll never have the "pleasure".







Ohoh...:fifty: 





:teeth:


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Any "suggestions" are being cloaked in "complaints", and buried within the thread.. If there are real, legitimate suggestions, they should be confined to a single area, to make sifting through, and considering them easier.
> 
> I'll also tell you that you haven't seen "heavy-handed" yet, until one particular Mod comes out of the woodwork, and decides he doesn't like you.



Well, how's this for a legitimate suggestion. If a thread is just rocking along and changes course - and the discussion is civil, how about letting it run its course?

And I thought OCA said he was coming back soon...


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Well, how's this for a legitimate suggestion. If a thread is just rocking along and changes course - and the discussion is civil, how about letting it run its course?
> 
> And I thought OCA said he was coming back soon...


And take rep power from mods..Boy I got nasties when I suggested that last!


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Well, how's this for a legitimate suggestion. If a thread is just rocking along and changes course - and the discussion is civil, how about letting it run its course?
> 
> And I thought OCA said he was coming back soon...



OCA owns his own business, so his participation is sporadic.  In the past, he's been on daily for weeks at a time.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 18, 2006)

I will chirp in that it seems rather silly for the board to have mods who are almost never around. They have no sense for the recent moods of the board. IMO, it'd be nice if there was a minimum participation requirement in order to keep your mod position. Not that I don't sympathize with those who don't have the time, but if you don't have the time, you don't have the time.

And while the list of mods is fairly lengthy, the list of mods who actually do anything (maintenance, discipline, etc. etc.) is much shorter. I think the mods who do most of the behind the scenes work just end up getting all the shit directed towards them whether its deserved or not. I think most of these problems would go away if passive mods stepped up a bit more, or perhaps a couple new mods were added to help lighten the load.

It would also seem fairly logical to me if each mod had a domain to mod over. Instead of everyone trying to police everywhere, why not consider giving a bit of jurisdiction?


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I will chirp in that it seems rather silly for the board to have mods who are almost never around. They have no sense for the recent moods of the board. IMO, it'd be nice if there was a minimum participation requirement in order to keep your mod position. Not that I don't sympathize with those who don't have the time, but if you don't have the time, you don't have the time.
> 
> And while the list of mods is fairly lengthy, the list of mods who actually do anything (maintenance, discipline, etc. etc.) is much shorter. I think the mods who do most of the behind the scenes work just end up getting all the shit directed towards them whether its deserved or not. I think most of these problems would go away if passive mods stepped up a bit more, or perhaps a couple new mods were added to help lighten the load.
> 
> It would also seem fairly logical to me if each mod had a domain to mod over. Instead of everyone trying to police everywhere, why not consider giving a bit of jurisdiction?



Ya know, even though ya dont know how to wear a hat right, ya gotta lot of common sense.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Ya know, even though ya dont know how to wear a hat right, ya gotta lot of common sense.


The hat is to keep it all from evaporating... :scratch:


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> The hat is to keep it all from evaporating... :scratch:


If ya find something that WORKS for that, let us ole farts know, OK? It's never to late...or so they say.


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> And take rep power from mods..Boy I got nasties when I suggested that last!



Ahhhhh...the rep issue. It can be a bit off-putting when mods can zing you. I was a little surprised that Kathianne negged Grump for a comment telling Roomy to stop drinking, which seemed pretty innocuous and light-hearted under the circumstances. Perhaps she was annoyed at him for his comments on this thread, on which Jim specifically said people can speak freely and not get zapped for it. I hope that isn't the case, though. 

Might be something to consider. I can see where some might have gotten a bit snarky about it, though.

I have mixed feelings about the whole rep system though. As Dillo pointed out, those little green lights are very addictive. Personally, I love getting rep, if I were to be honest about it. Like giving it, too. I've only negged two people, though, both of whom I thought were simply trolls, one on the left, one on the right.  On the other hand, there have been times I bit my tongue cause I knew I'd get zapped if I spoke my mind. I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing, whether we're talking about mods or just regular posters.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 18, 2006)

The rep system is like a grown-up test. How you use it is very indicative as to whether you're acting like a child or an adult.

But getting all in a hussy about it is rediculous. If you don't like being neg repped, then put your grown-up hat on and talk to the person about it in PM.

Lord knows if Pale Rider and I can do it, any of the rest of you can


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Ahhhhh...the rep issue. It can be a bit off-putting when mods can zing you. I was a little surprised that Kathianne negged Grump for a comment telling Roomy to stop drinking, which seemed pretty innocuous and light-hearted under the circumstances. Perhaps she was annoyed at him for his comments on this thread, on which Jim specifically said people can speak freely and not get zapped for it. I hope that isn't the case, though.
> 
> Might be something to consider. I can see where some might have gotten a bit snarky about it, though.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about the whole rep system though. As Dillo pointed out, those little green lights are very addictive. Personally, I love getting rep, if I were to be honest about it. Like giving it, too. I've only negged two people, though, both of whom I thought were simply trolls, one on the left, one on the right.  On the other hand, there have been times I bit my tongue cause I knew I'd get zapped if I spoke my mind. I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing, whether we're talking about mods or just regular posters.


I am only talking of mods..


----------



## jillian (Jun 18, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> The rep system is like a grown-up test. How you use it is very indicative as to whether you're acting like a child or an adult.
> 
> But getting all in a hussy about it is rediculous. If you don't like being neg repped, then put your grown-up hat on and talk to the person about it in PM.
> 
> Lord knows if Pale Rider and I can do it, any of the rest of you can



Actually, Pale was the only person ever to neg me for an opinion. And I did pm him about it. 

Wouldn't throw a hissy fit about it or anything. Just figured as long as the issue came up that I'd put in my two cents.  




			
				Mr. P said:
			
		

> I am only talking of mods..



Oh...I know.


----------



## Annie (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> I am only talking of mods..





			
				manu1959 said:
			
		

> gumpy sure seems to have made it about him





			
				Mr. P said:
			
		

> Well, he's just a member like all the rest of us, no better no worse.


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

>


Posts out of order but, Yer point is?


----------



## Said1 (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> If ya find something that WORKS for that, let us ole farts know, OK? It's never to late...or so they say.


Ginkgo biloba.


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Ginkgo biloba.


Sounds French, forget that shit!


----------



## Said1 (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Sounds French, forget that shit!




Non, non, mon chum. No es Francais. It's Chinese....I think.


----------



## Annie (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Posts out of order but, Yer point is?


Oh just that mods/admins. 'are just members like the rest of us, no better no worse.' Along with 'they shouldn't be able to rep.', just regular members. Just kind of confusing trying to make sense out of it.


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Non, non, mon chum. No es Francais. It's Chinese....I think.


I like Chinese food..Hot & spicy please.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Such is the reason rules and consequences are put into place.. Because not everybody is going to ignore everything.
> 
> *Having come from a political board where there were *no* rules, I can tell you...that board is no more.  It's gone.  Dead. *
> 
> ...



Kinda' sorta.'  I can confirm that Shattered is telling the truth that the board she mentions had relatively no rules (except don't piss off the owner), and it is no more.

It actually is no more because the absentee owner never reappeared to renew it, but it was far from a success because the owner insisted on chaos being the norm.

The board never got bigger than about twenty members, and the regular, daily posters amounted to about 6-8-10.  The mininmal amount of rules made it that way.  Most disagreements ended in flaming.    

Shattered was an admin on that board at one time, as well as I.  And even with relatively few rules, AND a separate forum for personal attacks, we STILL listened to the same accusations there levelled at the staff here, and I DID have a 50-50 conservative/liberal staff, so that's a non-player. 

One of the few rules we had there is the same one in place here .... you have a problem with a mod/admin, take it to PM, but under no circumstances would I allow it on the board for the very reason this thread exemplifies.  It's a polarizing pissing contest.  Nothing more.


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 18, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Oh just that mods/admins. 'are just members like the rest of us, no better no worse.' Along with 'they shouldn't be able to rep.', just regular members. Just kind of confusing trying to make sense out of it.


I suppose it would be confusing out of context. I didnt say any of what you would like to think I said.

I said, one member here was no better nor worse than anyone else.
Mods should not have rep power.

That doesnt seem confusing to me.


----------



## MtnBiker (Jun 18, 2006)

This is a great messageboard. One of the reasons that the USMB is such a great messageboard is due to the quality of members who are engaged here. Also the quality of content on the board. It is fortunate that the vast majority of both members and posts maintain that quality. There are times however that situations call for a mod or admin to make decisions and take action to correct or keep in check the integerity of the board. It is my belief that such actions are done with integerity and within a framework of rules. Of course we are dealing with a great number of different people and personalities, so it is inevatiable that from time to time someone is going to become upset or confused. The mod staff strives to have the best functioning board for the enjoyment of all the members and all are willing to help out. If a member is frustrated with one particular mod contacting another mod can be a good option. 

Again I would like to say that the USMB is a great messageboard. Also thanks to all of the members posting in this thread. I believe it shows concern for the board. A board that allows us to comunnicate and share with people from all over the country and around the world. What a great oppurtunity for us to debate our intrests with other people whom we likely would never have the chance to otherwise.

MtnBiker


----------



## Annie (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> I suppose it would be confusing out of context. I didnt say any of what you would like to think I said.
> 
> I said, one member here was no better nor worse than anyone else.
> Mods should not have rep power.
> ...


No better nor worse, just with less? How is this equal or fair? Just because you don't like it? Just because some have more than others? Post more, you'd get more...


----------



## roomy (Jun 19, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Then why not let the law handle it?  Why censor posts on a "free speech" board?
> 
> I'd have preferred to see pretty much all of Roomy's pointless threads closed, and see him locked out of a few threads that he purposely tried to be an ass in.  It didn't happen..  Is there any point in throwing a fit?  Nah. Suck it up and move on..
> 
> Point is, nobody is going to like everything.. Nobody is ever going to 100% agree on what should be done, and how something should be run.  THIS one happens to be run in a manner that keeps 95% of its members satisfied.  The masses have spoken.




You should see a doctor about theunhealthy obsession you have with me.


----------



## insein (Jun 19, 2006)

By looking at the sheer volume of shit in this thread i'd say...

1) People have too much time on their hands

2) it's a FUCKING Message board. lighten up.  

My 2 cents.


----------



## Shattered (Jun 19, 2006)

roomy said:
			
		

> You should see a doctor about theunhealthy obsession you have with me.



Don't let the reference go to your head, Arch-Wannabe.. You're the perfect example, because your antics are currently reigning supreme for stupidity...Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## roomy (Jun 19, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Don't let the reference go to your head, Arch-Wannabe.. You're the perfect example, because your antics are currently reigning supreme for stupidity...Nothing more, nothing less.



Take a look at yourself, If you can stand too:rotflmao:


----------



## no1tovote4 (Jun 19, 2006)

Deep Breathely folks!  A thread to air it out is nice...  No need to get all personal.

That being said, you are all nutjobs!  Looped out...  Just crazy ya know?

 <---  Yeah, this guy knows!

:


----------



## 007 (Jun 19, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Wouldn't do any harm to have a lib moderator either, just for a little balance.





			
				Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Either you believe what you wrote in the intro thread or you don't. If you do, tell Darin to pull his head in or give up his role in the USMB. He is becoming a bore.



Didn't even know this thread was here. Didn't even know there was NEED for a thread like this. I've been here for over two years, and think this is the best board on the web. I don't think there's another board out there that gives people more freedom to say whatever the fuck they want, and I've been on a few, so I've compared. For those whining about censorship and heavy handed moderation, I think you're all full of shit, and need to grow up. Try and find a better board.

But when I read the quoted comment above, now I have a comment, "this board DID used to have a LIBERAL mod". Don't recall his board name right off the bat, but he was an ex-marine. I butted heads with him often, but he was always fair.

I also had a huge fight with Darin when I first came on this board, about "helmets" none the less. But we've both moved far beyond it, and it's past. I think it was just a "getting to know you" thing. Since then, Darin has treated me with respect, and I him. He's been more than fair in my opinion. And as far as his actions with other board members, I think he gives you every possible chance to say whatever it is that's on your mind, but when you start with the personal attacks, and the _"you're a fucking moron piece of shit"_ stuff, what mod WOULDN'T ban your ass? I would. Say what you want to a mod, but keep your potty mouth in check. I would go as far as to say, "you won't get banned".

This is a great board. Like I said, the best one on the web in my opinion. Lord knows I'm an opinionated son of a bitch, and I don't hold back when I put it out there, and I'm still here. So anyone that thinks you get banned around here for simple shit is a fucking sniveling baby and liar.


----------



## Bonnie (Jun 19, 2006)

MtnBiker said:
			
		

> This is a great messageboard. One of the reasons that the USMB is such a great messageboard is due to the quality of members who are engaged here. Also the quality of content on the board. It is fortunate that the vast majority of both members and posts maintain that quality. There are times however that situations call for a mod or admin to make decisions and take action to correct or keep in check the integerity of the board. It is my belief that such actions are done with integerity and within a framework of rules. Of course we are dealing with a great number of different people and personalities, so it is inevatiable that from time to time someone is going to become upset or confused. The mod staff strives to have the best functioning board for the enjoyment of all the members and all are willing to help out. If a member is frustrated with one particular mod contacting another mod can be a good option.
> 
> Again I would like to say that the USMB is a great messageboard. Also thanks to all of the members posting in this thread. I believe it shows concern for the board. A board that allows us to comunnicate and share with people from all over the country and around the world. What a great oppurtunity for us to debate our intrests with other people whom we likely would never have the chance to otherwise.
> 
> MtnBiker



I agree!! thank you for stating that so clearly and reasonably.  For reasons only known to them some here think free speech means it's open season on hurling insults incessantly, ruining it for those that have differing opinions and discuss them in a respectful manner.


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 19, 2006)

If anyone has anything they would like to add, please do so now. Suggestions, critique, complaints .... they're all welcome. I would like to close the thread and address what I have learned here. It's not that you all aren't welcome to contact me afterwards but this thread is nice as it's here for the world to see and we are all on the same page.


----------



## Joz (Jun 20, 2006)

No complaints, just a suggestion.

Is there anyway for some icon to pop up when your own PM box is full?  Seems every once in awhile someone has to remind a person, they're trying to contact, to delete a few messages.  It can be frustrating when you write a PM, send it, and it can't be delivered.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 20, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> No complaints, just a suggestion.
> 
> Is there anyway for some icon to pop up when your own PM box is full?  Seems every once in awhile someone has to remind a person, they're trying to contact, to delete a few messages.  It can be frustrating when you write a PM, send it, and it can't be delivered.


 Brilliant idea !!


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 20, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> No complaints, just a suggestion.
> 
> Is there anyway for some icon to pop up when your own PM box is full?  Seems every once in awhile someone has to remind a person, they're trying to contact, to delete a few messages.  It can be frustrating when you write a PM, send it, and it can't be delivered.


I concur. Brilliant.


----------



## Joz (Jun 20, 2006)

I wouldn't go so far as to say brilliant.  But I appreciate the sentiments.


----------



## dmp (Jun 20, 2006)

See that big Red/Amber/Green line in your PM 'list messages' folder?? 

Keep an eye on that.


----------



## Joz (Jun 20, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> See that big Red/Amber/Green line in your PM 'list messages' folder??
> 
> Keep an eye on that.


I do.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 20, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> I wouldn't go so far as to say brilliant.  But I appreciate the sentiments.



It's brilliant dammit---accept the compliment and shut up! :teeth:


----------



## Bonnie (Jun 20, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> No complaints, just a suggestion.
> 
> Is there anyway for some icon to pop up when your own PM box is full?  Seems every once in awhile someone has to remind a person, they're trying to contact, to delete a few messages.  It can be frustrating when you write a PM, send it, and it can't be delivered.



I just deleted Joz..... sorry:tng:


----------



## Joz (Jun 20, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> I just deleted Joz..... sorry:tng:


I wasn't singling you out.  
You just reminded me.


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 20, 2006)

Doesn't everyone have this on top off the page? *No not with my name*
No brainer ain't it?

Welcome, Mr. P.
57 New Posts since your last visit.
You last visited: 06-20-2006 at 08:44 AM
Private Messages: Unread 0, Total 8.
You have no new reputation comments.


----------



## Bonnie (Jun 20, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Doesn't everyone have this on top off the page? *No not with my name*
> No brainer ain't it?
> 
> Welcome, Mr. P.
> ...



Hey!  I had stuff to do okay....


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 20, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> Hey!  I had stuff to do okay....


Not pickin on you..just commenting. On what shouldn't be a problem, IMO. Brings up a question though. Yer staff, do you have a pm limit?:scratch:


----------



## Bonnie (Jun 20, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Not pickin on you..just commenting. On what shouldn't be a problem, IMO. Brings up a question though. Yer staff, do you have a pm limit?:scratch:



I was just teasing ya


----------



## no1tovote4 (Jun 20, 2006)

Jim says that with the new release this will be a feature...  Just hold a bit longer and you'll have your warning.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 20, 2006)

I shut it off, but there was an option to notify via e-mail if you received a private message, this was the case if your pm box was full too, onlly the e-mail read "so and so is unable to send you a pm because your box is full" or somthing to that effect. Is that feature still available?


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 20, 2006)

I've read the input from all of you and appreciate the feedback. I thought it was time to address what I've learned through this. I'll do my best to address the most I can, but if you feel something pertinent has been missed, just say so and I'll address it.

It seems this all started when a new user to the forums 'Yukon' was banned. Why some got upset over the banning of a user with only 4 posts is unclear, I can only assume it was the principle behind everything. There are so many "what if's" what can be discussed but that would only make things worse. Let's just say a judgement call was made on whether to ban a new member that was becoming disruptive and antagonistic from the get go. I am the one who made it clear to the moderators to immediately ban a new member that arrives just to stir up the water. So don't blame them, they were just doing what I've asked of them. We will try harder to be more tolerant of new members and give them the benefit of doubt and chance to change their ways. This may be done in a thread they are disrupting or via PM, but if they don't follow the rules we will have no choice but to ban them. Maybe a 24 hour ban to start to show them the errors of their way and give them a chance to return in good standing.

Censorship. This banning also brought up the subject of censorship, and how it is applied here at the USMB. I still stand by my original statement that little, if any, censorship takes place here. All members are allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want, so long as they follow the rules. None of the rules censors a members ability to speak their opinions. The only objectionable material is discussing private matters about the board in public. All inquiries & complaints should be directed to an admin via email or PM. This is not so that members get censored but a precautionary method of keeping order within the board.

Ban from threads. This new feature was used a total of 5 times. All of those thread bans have now been removed. I still think this is a great addition to the board and better than long term bans. A user can be removed from a thread first, temporary board bans, and longer if necessary. Of course the gripe is over WHO gets banned and WHY. Again, these are judgement calls and will always be in question and some people will always be upset. The idea is to remove an unruly user who isn't sticking to the topic and making the thread harder for those participating. I'm asking the users to please understand why we've implemented this feature, and the mods to use care when utilizing this tool. I'm hoping any users that get removed will be done so to assist the thread and make the board better as a whole. There is no intent to use it as a tool to 'mess' with users. All efforts will be made to keep things in order before utilizing board tools to control users.

Moderation. Some users just don't like moderation at all. They feel it unneccesary and bordering on censorship. Some feel it's a much needed tool to help keeping boards run smoothly and within the confines of rules. Some feel it's a way of having complete control and use the power with ridiculous abandonment. You won't find the 'no reason at all' moderation here that you'll find in such places as DU. You also won't find a lack of moderation here as with Yahoo's boards. I like to have people around that believe in the board, and are willing to help to make it a better place for them and everyone else. The main function of a mod is to keep the board spam free, ensure posts are made in proper forums, remove any extremely offensive and/or illegal content, help with user assistance, help with disagreements & put an end to problems if necessary with the tools alotted to them. I've rarely been to a board where you have a mod that enforces the rules that is liked by all. Sort of like the police - some will like and others will despise, it just comes with the territory and the perceptions. I've never shyed away from communicating with users who had problems with moderation and I'll continue to keep an open mind when looking into issues. Mods are human too as I've stated many times before. All in all, I think our team is outstanding and I don't see any open issues that need further addressing at this point.

Liberal Moderator. The most recent was Isaac Brock. For unknown reasons he really never returned so unfortunately he was made back to a regular user. There are a few others, that will remain unnamed, that turned down the offer to become a moderator. My decision to ask someone to moderate has nothing to do with political leaning. In fact, there are a few libs I know of right now that I would have no problem whatsoever with on the mod team. I'm unsure of picking up any moderators soon, but if I do they will be included.

Darin. I've received a lot of complaints about him since I made him admin of the board. 99% of the gripes didn't really have any merit, more of a disagreement with too much personal involvement. You guys have to understand, Darin has done a tremendous job of keeping the board in check and remaining involved in so many aspects. When you put so much of yourself out there it only stands to reason that you receive the majority of the heat. Been there, done that. I went through the same thing when I was gung-ho in the political section and monitoring every aspect of moderating. It's a hard job and zero rewards! Can he be sarcastic at times? Absolutely! Why? Because he's human! Go back in history and watch the way I handled users that pissed me off and you'll see that Darin is more machine like than I and tends to follow the rules outlined for the mods in handling board issues. I think anytime you mix personal involvement on a board that you must moderate will be difficult. I think Darin has done this admirably. It's hard to try and be friendly with so many, participate in conversations, make jokes & create laughs and then have to turn around and be the bad guy when an issue arises. Nonetheless, my 'door' remains open should anyone feel it necessary to go around him.

Closing threads. Users feel threads that 'have run their course' shouldn't necessarily be closed. The ban from thread option is supposed to enable just this desire. I also ask the mods to understand when a thread goes in a different direction, so long as all participants are cool with the direction.

Current moderators. jimnyc, dmp, -cp, 5stringjeff, Avatar4321, Kathianne, MtnBiker, Bonnie, Merlin1047, OCA
I believe the longer a moderating team is together the more cohesive they become. We do a decent amount of communicating on the back end and generally work on things for the board and come to a general agreement. The only mod on the list that 'rarely' comes to the board is Merlin1047 who is since deceased. He will remain a moderator and part of the board logo so long as I own the board. OCA hasn't posted as much of late but still rears his ugly head in now and again and makes himself known to the other mods and myself. The mods are sometimes here at different times of the day, another reason that helps in my decisions, to make sure the bases are usually covered. Some don't moderate as much as others, and that's good! Less problems to moderate the better. I prefer to have a board where mods have their rights extended throughout the forums as opposed to specific areas, this way they can all assist one another when they need to. Obviously some forums need more moderation than others and some don't need any at all.


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 20, 2006)

I would like to add a few words about Kathianne. She as well has taken a lot of heat since she is so involved in the board. She has dedicated a lot of her time to this board and I have a huge amount of respect towards her. She shares great stories that she finds (and a lot from smaller blogs we would miss), gets involved in debates, interacts with users & watches over the board. She's the first to ask me things before acting, and always keeps me updated with things I may have missed. As with Darin, she has taken a lot of the heat because she sometimes has to make difficult decisions. Her decision making process is always in line with what I have asked of the moderators.

Let me add also that I feel strongly about all of the moderators, it's just that a few were called on so I thought I would address a few things individually. I find this group to be very loyal to the board and myself, and I refuse to be anything but the same in return unless given a real good reason not to be.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 20, 2006)

Can I ask what your thoughts are on giving moderators jurisdictions so as to cut down/focus their work loads?


----------



## Shattered (Jun 20, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Can I ask what your thoughts are on giving moderators jurisdictions so as to cut down/focus their work loads?



Not to me, I know..but..from past experience.. If you give mods specific jurisdictions, there's going to be one section of the board policed constantly, and the rest of them left to the masses, because it's out of the currently logged in mods "jurisdiction"..

Incidently, the mods do have specific areas..Like.. I think CP is the Moderator of the Cooking forum...Darin's probably the Moderator of the Pics forum, Evil used to be the Moderator of the music forum (dunno who is now), etc.

So, I think they each have their sections, but still need to "moderate" all sections...


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 20, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Can I ask what your thoughts are on giving moderators jurisdictions so as to cut down/focus their work loads?



That sounds good in theory but leads to sections un-monitored when said moderator is not online. With a minimal amount of moderators, it's easier to allow access throughout the board, this way any mod can handle a particular issue when it arises.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> I would like to add a few words about Kathianne. She as well has taken a lot of heat since she is so involved in the board. She has dedicated a lot of her time to this board and I have a huge amount of respect towards her. She shares great stories that she finds (and a lot from smaller blogs we would miss), gets involved in debates, interacts with users & watches over the board. She's the first to ask me things before acting, and always keeps me updated with things I may have missed. As with Darin, she has taken a lot of the heat because she sometimes has to make difficult decisions. Her decision making process is always in line with what I have asked of the moderators.
> 
> Let me add also that I feel strongly about all of the moderators, it's just that a few were called on so I thought I would address a few things individually. I find this group to be very loyal to the board and myself, and I refuse to be anything but the same in return unless given a real good reason not to be.



Jim, thank you, the respect is returned to the nth degree. I love sharing what I come across, you've given us the forum to do so. That is what make USMB unique and great. We get to share. Whether it be my multi articles, or RWA's conspiracies of the day, or even, G*d forbid, Roomy's searches for attention, we able to voice our say. 

As for moderating, I've come under what I consider an unfair amount of attack, yet I can understand it somewhat, as I'm pretty hard to nail down. I'm Catholic and Christian, though not rabidly so in the way of some. I believe we should state the way to salvation, but more importantly live it, demonstrate it. Others think a 2 X 4 is more appropriate, with links of course. I disagree. I am pro-Israel, I was married to a Jew, but my support for Israel started before that and continues in spite of his being an idiot.

I've said from my initial joining, I view myself as a GOP'er, with a serious libertarian bent. I'm not sure who here has more bonafides than myself as working for the GOP, locally or on the national level. I still think GW has sold us out on immigration and with the prescription health addendum. I think he should have anticipated the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least by 2005, I could understand the initial problems. I think they wasted the people's good will by not explaining the successes, when the media was focused on the failures. 

The only reason I spelled out the above, is to put in perspective why some have a natural antipathy towards myself. Couple that with my being a non-male, with a tendency not to explain myself at length, well there you go. I tend to post, with commentary, links that made me think and I hope will others. 

As for moderating, I am all in favor of free speech. I will let the weirdest go on and on,  Matts, yet when it devolves into namecalling, parentage, etc., well I get bored. Psycho and others are more than open to having their say. It's rare that a thread by Psycho, Bully, or another lib gets shut down. Check it out. Most of the shut down theads were started by conservatives, then segued into something that was no longer of topic, much less interesting. 

Thanks Jim, for the words of support. I'm fortunate to have a job that let's me be here when many are unable, but it's also brought me into the line of fire, well I guess my style might have something to do with it, not too mention my gender.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 20, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Jim, thank you, the respect is returned to the nth degree. I love sharing what I come across, you've given us the forum to do so. That is what make USMB unique and great. We get to share. Whether it be my multi articles, or RWA's conspiracies of the day, or even, G*d forbid, Roomy's searches for attention, we able to voice our say.
> 
> As for moderating, I've come under what I consider an unfair amount of attack, yet I can understand it somewhat, as I'm pretty hard to nail down. I'm Catholic and Christian, though not rabidly so in the way of some. I believe we should state the way to salvation, but more importantly live it, demonstrate it. Others think a 2 X 4 is more appropriate, with links of course. I disagree. I am pro-Israel, I was married to a Jew, but my support for Israel started before that and continues in spite of his being an idiot.
> 
> ...




What do you consider to be a fair amount of attack?


----------



## Emmett (Jun 21, 2006)

OK, I'll give it anyway!

I have found this board to be one of the most entertaining places to spend time I have ever seen. While I may not post thousands of entries like some I do post my feelings and opinions in a sometimes unique manner and try to interject a little humor from time to time and hope noone is offended (except Ted) when I do so.

Jim, the board is top tier man. Absolutely top tier! I do however question the censorship in regards to situations like Yukon. As was mentioned by one member, it is the new posters who usually are on the attack and will be the most likely to post an out of line statement about you or another administrator based solely on the fact that they have no history and see only the recent thread or posts and may be simply looking for a shitpot to stir. Excellent! Isn't that what we really want. I would view that as a sort of indoc training for the administrator. In my opinion all of the admin's seem able to handle these folks very well actually. By banning them we seem to lose something. Firstly, they get wjhat they came for, a stinking shitpot. Secondly we have in a sense given in to them by allowing them this privledge. Debate them, even in their venue so they can be exposed for what they are.

Kathianne is truely a jewel. Where she digs up some of the stuff she finds is wild. The research timw she must spend doing this is commendable. She has been one of the only people on this board that I have developed a back and forth chatting friendship with and that is special. I would think we are very lucky to have her skills here and would say this. If she was being attacked unfairly by an ass through a thread I know that she would be capable of handling it, or she would just stop listening. It's like a radio man. If you don't like what is on, turn the volume off. I think RWA was the dissenter on the policy of censorship, I can't remember, but he was right to have that opinion. I realize all the other admin's agreed with you about the Yukon thing but I must say I think you should have allowed him to get his lunch eaten.

It appeared to me that maybe the amount of posts Yukon had influenced your decision to ban him at that time. I have seen users with history say much worse and they were not sensored. Hmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I know I don't have much clout being only an occasional user due to restricted time allocations but I just wanted you to get ALL the opinions, even the ones that don't completely agree and not because they are just trying to "stir the pot" which I of course am not. Yukon appeared to be well on his way to making an ass of himself and I would have liked to have been here that evening so I could have helped it along a bit. The number of posts though should play no role in the decision. I read alot of the posts, almost all during the period I am on however I don't post that much as you well know. I do seem to have a very high % of posts vs. points however I must admit I don't even know how all that works, and frankly I don't much care. I just write what I write.

We have rules everywhere in life and I certainly realize that. The board needs lefties though man. Even if they are off to bad start by saying things considered "banable" they may learn from the more mature members and become productive members. There must have been something to them or they wouldn't have came to begin with. I know you will say that a simple thread ban dosen't prevent them from posting, and I agree that this should be the most stringent "punishment" we disperse but I still think the mod's appear capable of handling this sort of thing and would like to have seen this happen in this case.

Maybe I'm off on this one but if so, oh well. I mean I remember a thread I got in on a few months ago when I thought things were getting a little tacky and frankly it was the moderator I thought was being so. We all get passionate about our opinions from time to time and certainly there is no place for one that has no aspirations to make a clear debateable argument because noone wants to talk to those kinds of people. We are motivated to come here out of a clear desire to debate the issues of the day and learn more from those who post and debate, at least I am. I mean take for instance CNN, CBS, ABC and even FOX. They publish one sided stories all the time manufactured to their respective bases and have the incentive of advertising to those in their market for payments from the business sector. We simply are interested Americans who care about the issues that affect our lives and want to debate them, sometimes only to gain confidence in our own opinions by taking out our frustrations on other members. We should get used to the fact that undersireables will come here with the sole intent to cause shit and kaos. We should welcome them ALL! Everyone of them, then slam them with facts, researched details and opinions. When they are out of line we should ignore them and the lesson will be learned quicker than a ban which will simply give them further motivation to cause shit on another thread because it worked on the previous one. Bonnie seems to be very well versed in this practice as I notice she will sometimes just disappear when some of the users start to get tacky, and she seems to hardly ever respond to that activity. This sends a clear message in my opinion as I have noticed it and I am sure other members have as well. The more agressive mod's such as Jeff will stand and fight which is OK too, that's what it is about. CHOICE MAN.

I agree that this board is the most interactive product of tolerance I have seen. Others ban for just about anything. We should not ban at all ! NONE! I mean hell, look at Psycho, lord knows I would NOT WANT to live next door to the guy but he IS entertaining and stimulates the best debates out there, as do alot of the lefties they are what we are here for aren't they. I've seen folks so riled up with him (Gunny) for instance but they just handle him and the debate continues. 

I'm babbling so I will close. Good job everyone. The board is an overwhelming success. All the mod's should be proud of it and the members as well. There have been thousands and thousands of wonderful debates that have taken place here and it would never have happened quite like this, anywhere else! As to those of you who look solely to stir the shitpot, do it with tact, stir it well and lets debate, but be respectaable to others and cut the namecalling and childish behavior out of the equation so as to allow the elasticity of the debate to go to the broadest ends of the spectrum and still be respectable because it is when we are at the "danger zone" ends of the debate that REAL progress will be made toward stimulating conversation. I mean, why do we come here?


----------



## OCA (Jun 21, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> OCA hasn't posted as much of late but still rears his ugly head in now and again and makes himself known to the other mods and myself.
> 
> 
> Uhh sorry Jimmy, taking anger management classes, they aren't working out so well................
> ...


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 22, 2006)

Emmett said:
			
		

> OK, I'll give it anyway!
> 
> I have found this board to be one of the most entertaining places to spend time I have ever seen.



Emmett, than you for the kind words, and I apologize in taking so long to reply. Been a rough week and I've been starting things and then going to sleep! LOL

As for Yukon, your points are valid and we will do our best to make things better in the future. Maybe he was a casualty of past trolls coming to the board and we just 'assumed' what the outcome would be. We will work harder as a moderating crew to communicate with one another, make sounder decisions, and try to be as fair as possible. The doors are always open, this board is always a work in progress, and we will do everything we can to make everyone happy and at home here.

This board was not my doing other than starting it and helping with the bills. It's the members and their posts that makes this a success, so it only makes sense to listen to those very members and mold the board to what everyone thinks is the best.

I want liberals to register and post. Not solely for debate but because I enjoy the debate AND having more people to chat with! I've said from day one on this board that differing opinions and debate is what holds the key to making this board successful. So you want to invite 'arguments' but at the same time you have to control them so that everyone is happy. There was NEVER an effort to recruit conservatives, democrats, liberals... Other than placing ads at particular sites that may invite more from one party, I've never intended this board to be a one sided affair. But that too is being looked into and worked on and I hope things will diversify even more as we grow.



			
				OCA said:
			
		

> Uhh sorry Jimmy, taking anger management classes, they aren't working out so well



Who the hell are you, queer boy? Must be one of those 49er fans!


----------



## OCA (Jun 22, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> Who the hell are you, queer boy? Must be one of those 49er fans!



LMFAO! At least we don't have a complete idiot like Ben Kneivel!

But because I know how much you like tender words, go get teabagged!


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 22, 2006)

OCA said:
			
		

> LMFAO! At least we don't have a complete idiot like Ben Kneivel!
> 
> But because I know how much you like tender words, go get teabagged!



Yep, he is a complete idiot for the stunt he pulled. But the Steelers still won the SB while the 49ers were entertaining the local rainbow club, headed by none other than our board pole smoker, OCA!


----------



## OCA (Jun 24, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> Yep, he is a complete idiot for the stunt he pulled. But the Steelers still won the SB while the 49ers were entertaining the local rainbow club, headed by none other than our board pole smoker, OCA!



Yeah welcome to the 5 S.B. group of which we were the founding members, now hold tight to this S.B. because it will be years before your back there again. Shouldn't have got rid of Randle-El, he was your best qb lol.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 25, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> One of my problems with "This thread has run its course" closed.




Me too.   I have only seen it used when mods don't like the topic or poster.  It's bs.


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Me too.   I have only seen it used when mods don't like the topic or poster.  It's bs.


Hmmm, I've had some closed by other mods, so can't just be that 'they don't like you.' BTW, I've never questioned the judgement of those closed. I may not see their logic, but I assume it's there. I'm sure if I did ask, the person would tell me.

Arguing about it, nah. I can always start another thread.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 25, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I've had some closed by other mods, so can't just be that 'they don't like you.' BTW, I've never questioned the judgement of those closed. I may not see their logic, but I assume it's there. I'm sure if I did ask, the person would tell me.


Well, that's the difference between you and me; you're a follower, I'm a leader.


> Arguing about it, nah. I can always start another thread.



Wow.  You're so centered.  How can I be more like you?


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 25, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Me too.   I have only seen it used when mods don't like the topic or poster.  It's bs.



Have threads been being closed for no valid reason since this thread was 'aired'?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 25, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> Have threads been being closed for no valid reason since this thread was 'aired'?



Not that I've noticed.

I was just in a pissy mood and thinking about things in the past.  

Sorry too, kat, for being such a smarmy bastard.


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Not that I've noticed.
> 
> I was just in a pissy mood and thinking about things in the past.
> 
> Sorry too, kat, for being such a smarmy bastard.


No problem. Is it 'that time of the month?' J/K


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 25, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Not that I've noticed.
> 
> I was just in a pissy mood and thinking about things in the past.
> 
> Sorry too, kat, for being such a smarmy bastard.



Welcome to the group! I'm pissy 23 1/2 hours out of the day, and thank the Lord daily that I'm not a woman (I'd be PMS'n way too damn much!)

BTW - There are all kinds of cool narcotics out there to help with pissiness!


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

Seriously.

Now, there are quite a few intelligent posters here, but for the most part, this message board is a forum of insularity.

"I am fed up and tired of hearing liberals say ..."
"Vote Democrat - It Is Easier Than Working "
"You can't spell LIBERALS without LIES "

You all paint this picture, where half of all politicians are honest, truth telling, good someritans, while the other half are all liars and cheats.  Half of the populous is forthright, while half are a bunch of baby killers.  Then you all pat each other on the back for agreeing with each other.

It's ridiculous really.  I mean, just from those quotes above, "You can't spell liberals without lies," to really assume idealogical differences (because that's all it is, erally) imply a difference in truth-telling is absurd.  

So, like I originally said, this place is a joke.  I can only hope that the few of you who are capable of thinking for yourselves shine through this mess.


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Seriously.
> 
> Now, there are quite a few intelligent posters here, but for the most part, this message board is a forum of insularity.
> 
> ...


Well, thanks for the laugh!


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Seriously.
> 
> Now, there are quite a few intelligent posters here, but for the most part, this message board is a forum of insularity.
> 
> ...



Don't you know all republican politicians are devoted, god-fearing, faultless, loyal, public servants?  God...you liberals are all the same...let me guess you are gay too (and you certainly were not born that way).  Now find your way off of this board you secular, flag-burning, communist, hippie.  Please do not forget to take your illegal mexican amigos with you.  Now I am going to go burn some oil in my back yard...

Fuckin' lib pigs.

:tng:


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

Seriously though, I think Rush Limbaugh could whack off to some of the comments made on this board.

But that is why us liberals have to throw in our say...it ruins the experience for Rush.


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

School is apparently out.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Seriously.
> 
> Now, there are quite a few intelligent posters here, but for the most part, this message board is a forum of insularity.
> 
> ...




WHy do you generally lose arguments then?


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> Seriously though, I think Rush Limbaugh could whack off to some of the comments made on this board.
> 
> But that is why us liberals have to throw in our say...it ruins the experience for Rush.



Aside from the mind-picture of Rush whacking off, that's pretty funny!


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Seriously.
> 
> Now, there are quite a few intelligent posters here, but for the most part, this message board is a forum of insularity.
> 
> ...



OK.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> WHy do you generally lose arguments then?


Perhaps because your idea of losing an argument is not agreeing with you politically?

John Kerry: "The sky is blue"
George Bush: "No it isn't!  It's bright red!"

rtwngAvngr: "Did you see Kerry lose that argument to Bush?  It was brutal!"

Anyway,  
Typically, I abstain from arguments here.


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

CSM said:
			
		

> School is apparently out.



It has been out since finals ended the first week of May...

I was able to post more in May and early June because I was visiting my father in Michigan.  Now I am back in Jersey and I have to work from 7-3 everyday.  

A few more months and I will be back at school and back to passing out election notices for the Dems.


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> It has been out since finals ended the first week of May...
> 
> I was able to post more in May and early June because I was visiting my father in Michigan.  Now I am back in Jersey and I have to work from 7-3 everyday.
> 
> A few more months and I will be back at school and back to passing out election notices for the Dems.


 Good for you...it doesn't end around here until Friday this week.

It is nice to see the kids getting involved in the democratic process at an early age.


----------



## dmp (Jun 26, 2006)

that was a very stupid joke, Max - here's a better joke:

A blonde, a brunette, and a redhead are on the run from the law when they find an old barn to hide out in. The police are close on their tails, so when the women find three sacks, they immediately jump into them. About a minute later, a policeman comes into the barn and sees the suspicious-looking sacks. He kicks the first one.

"Meow," says the redhead.

"It must be a cat," thinks the policeman and he kicks the second sack.

"Woof," says the brunette.

"Must be a dog," thinks the policeman and he kicks the third sack.

"Potatoes," says the blonde.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Perhaps because your idea of losing an argument is not agreeing with you politically?
> 
> John Kerry: "The sky is blue"
> George Bush: "No it isn't!  It's bright red!"
> ...



No.  I mean your opinions on issues and policy are not based on facts and sound theory of any kind.  It's just hysterical, emotional, antiamericanism, and socialist  dogma.  You're so brainwashed, you can't see that your justifications and explanations lack merit.


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> WHy do you generally lose arguments then?



The winner and loser of a political argument is purely subjective.  There is no cut and dry answer to what is debated here.

Usually an argument will initially involve just one or two posters.  A liberal view is quickly pounced on by multiple conservative posters.  The conservative posters will echo similar views and begin to share congrats for the victory over a liberal poster.  The liberal argument does not have to be disproved, just outnumbered.

All parties involved walk away feeling that they were right.

I am not faulting any conservative posters, I am merely pointing out that the system tends to work that way here.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  I mean your opinions on issues and policy are not based on facts and sound theory of any kind.  It's just hysterical, emotional, antiamericanism, and socialist  dogma.  You're so brainwashed, you can't see that your justifications and explanations lack merit.


 
Let's see a link, rtwngAvngr.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Let's see a link, rtwngAvngr.



You post an example of this place being a joke.


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

CSM said:
			
		

> Good for you...it doesn't end around here until Friday this week.
> 
> It is nice to see the kids getting involved in the democratic process at an early age.



When I was in high school I got out around this time.  That is the nice thing about college: classes start around the same time, but end over a month sooner.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You post an example of this place being a joke.



I posted 3 in this thread already, had you been paying attention.  There are plenty more, I simply chose those because I had seen them recently.

"I am fed up and tired of hearing liberals say ..."
"Vote Democrat - It Is Easier Than Working "
"You can't spell LIBERALS without LIES "

And, like I already said,
_
It's ridiculous really. I mean, just from those quotes above, "You can't spell liberals without lies," to really assume idealogical differences (because that's all it is, really) imply a difference in truth-telling is absurd._


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> The winner and loser of a political argument is purely subjective.  There is no cut and dry answer to what is debated here.
> 
> Usually an argument will initially involve just one or two posters.  A liberal view is quickly pounced on by multiple conservative posters.  The conservative posters will echo similar views and begin to share congrats for the victory over a liberal poster.  The liberal argument does not have to be disproved, just outnumbered.
> 
> ...



I totally disagree.  Usually the opinions can be traced back ultimately to some verifiable theory of government, or economic principle or verifiable fact.  The fact that you feel everything is subjective is perhaps why you lose everytime, yet fail to learn.


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> The winner and loser of a political argument is purely subjective.  There is no cut and dry answer to what is debated here.
> 
> Usually an argument will initially involve just one or two posters.  A liberal view is quickly pounced on by multiple conservative posters.  The conservative posters will echo similar views and begin to share congrats for the victory over a liberal poster.  The liberal argument does not have to be disproved, just outnumbered.
> 
> ...


Basically you are correct; the reverse is also true (libs dogpile the single conservative) and then summarily dismiss them as "ignorant" or brainwashed. Occassionally there are real debates between opposing views with valid points on both sides as well as solid substantive support for each point of view...it does happen and those usually are the most thought provoking threads. Usually those types of threads avoid the usual "talking points" from either side.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Seriously.
> 
> Now, there are quite a few intelligent posters here, but for the most part, this message board is a forum of insularity.
> 
> ...



Can you copy and paste like remarks and behavior made by myself?


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> When I was in high school I got out around this time.  That is the nice thing about college: classes start around the same time, but end over a month sooner.


 College classes up here are running later too. Spring floods, etc had an impact...unfortunately.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Can you copy and paste like remarks and behavior made by myself?



I did not say, nor did I imply, that *everyone *here is like that.

I don't know if you have made any remarks like that.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> I did not say, nor did I imply, that *everyone *here is like that.
> 
> I don't know if you have made any remarks like that.




Oh. So when you said "you all" you didn't mean me. I feel so out of le loop. At least I'm one of the "smart ones", but considering the source..........:rotflmao:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> I did not say, nor did I imply, that *everyone *here is like that.
> 
> I don't know if you have made any remarks like that.



Name one person who is, then find a remark of theirs, proving your point.  Do it.  I said.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Name one person who is, then find a remark of theirs, proving your point.  Do it. *Cause I said*.




Posts in this thread don't count.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Name one person who is, then find a remark of theirs, proving your point.  Do it.  I said.



Although I left the posters identities anonymous, I've already done this with three examples, that you've now *twice *chosen to ignore.

In other words
Me:  
You:  
You again:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Although I left the posters identities anonymous, I've already done this with three examples, that you've now *twice *chosen to ignore.
> 
> In other words
> Me:
> ...



link to the post.  You're lying again.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> link to the post.  You're lying again.



Look in this thread.  Posts #1 and 18.


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I totally disagree.  Usually the opinions can be traced back ultimately to some verifiable theory of government, or economic principle or verifiable fact.  The fact that you feel everything is subjective is perhaps why you lose everytime, yet fail to learn.



I agree with you to a certain extent about theories of government and economics.  However, most of the arguments that take place here concern issues of independent moral judgement.  Validity of a war, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, secular/non-secular worlds, etc.

If we are going to debate abortion I will give you my stance; there is absolutely no way you can tell me I am wrong.  You can only give me your side of the argument.  



> Basically you are correct; the reverse is also true (libs dogpile the single conservative) and then summarily dismiss them as "ignorant" or brainwashed. Occassionally there are real debates between opposing views with valid points on both sides as well as solid substantive support for each point of view...it does happen and those usually are the most thought provoking threads. Usually those types of threads avoid the usual "talking points" from either side.



You are right.  Though on this board the demographics favor conservatives, so it is more common for conservatives to overwhelm liberals.  But as you say, the reverse is possible.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> link to the post.


"You can't spell LIBERALS without LIES !"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33106
Post #2, see the signature.

"I am fed up and tired of hearing liberals say ..."
"Vote Democrat - It Is Easier Than Working "
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32938
Post #1, see post and signature.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You're lying again.


So, as you can plainly see, you're 100% wrong; I was not lying.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

5stringJeff said:
			
		

> Look in this thread.  Posts #1 and 18.



He's making that shit up.  Unless he wants to post where on this forum he read it, i'll consider them lies.  Thanks for coming to his defense though jeff.  He does need it.


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

CSM said:
			
		

> College classes up here are running later too. Spring floods, etc had an impact...unfortunately.



Wow, that is no fun.  Classes until the end of June...ouch.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 26, 2006)

Oh, geez, looks like someone is hoping the Complaint Office is open again.  

Are we now forcing people to join, read and post here?


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> He's making that shit up.  Unless he wants to post where on this forum he read it, i'll consider them lies.  Thanks for coming to his defense though jeff.  He does need it.



 
You managed to post this *after *I posted links proving that I'm not making any of this up.
Bravo.


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> Wow, that is no fun.  Classes until the end of June...ouch.


The unpublicized price of an education.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

If you don't like it here, why do you continue posting?


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Oh, geez, looks like someone is hoping the Complaint Office is open again.
> 
> Are we now forcing people to join, read and post here?



I saw the amount of conservatives here and tried to leave immediately.  Unfotunately this place is run like a street-gang.  In order to quit, a member must run down the street and dodge bullets being shot by other members.  I decided to just stay aboard.  But seriously...the dodging bullets thing should be mentioned somewhere on that front page invitation.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> You managed to post this *after *I posted links proving that I'm not making any of this up.
> Bravo.




We're talking about the assertion that some here say republican leaders are all good or dems are all this that or the other.  These are just true statements.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> If you don't like it here, why do you continue posting?


Actually, I don't post here much, anymore.  

Today, I simply felt like sharing my observation.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round.


----------



## insein (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power:   

You whine about the "insularity" (word of the week i guess) of this board and yet you have freedom of speech here.  You speak your mind and other liberals like you get to speak theres so long as they keep the personal insults to a minimum.  So all i see from you is whining because someone has decided to make a joke about liberals and you don't like it.  How tolerant of you.  

People have differing opinions in the world.  This board is the best on the net for showing both sides of an argument without resulting to senseless name-calling, personal insults and banning by mods of opposing viewpoints.  The fact that your even speaking should show you how fair this board really is.  Goto DU and type in the words "conservatives are good" and watch how fast your IP is banned.  But i have a feeling you find DU a more tolerable atmosphere for yourself because they have similar viewpoints and opinions as your own.  

So quit your whining and grow a pair.  This is real life where people dont agree but they talk about it anyway.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't post here much, anymore.
> 
> Today, I simply felt like sharing my observation.


Obviously.


But why?


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We're talking about the assertion that some here say republican leaders are all good or dems are all this that or the other.  These are just true statements.



Did you get beat up by a ruthless mob of angry liberals when you were a child?  I don't know how else you could come to the conclusion that all repuclican leaders are good.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We're talking about the assertion that some here say republican leaders are all good or dems are all this that or the other.  These are just true statements.



Yes, clearly true statements.


----------



## insein (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> Did you get beat up by a ruthless mob of angry liberals when you were a child?  I don't know how else you could come to the conclusion that all repuclican leaders are good.



You have to understand that RWA is the extreme.  He wil lsay what he needs to say to get a rise out of liberals.  Just like many libs come here and say what they need to say to get a rise out of conservatives, like "military kills babies," "no war for oil," etc.  The sooner you realize the caricature that he is, the sooner you'll understand his mindset.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> I saw the amount of conservatives here and tried to leave immediately.  Unfotunately this place is run like a street-gang.  In order to quit, a member must run down the street and dodge bullets being shot by other members.  I decided to just stay aboard.  But seriously...the dodging bullets thing should be mentioned somewhere on that front page invitation.



Shoot, you know I wasn't referring to you. You seem reasonable and fun for a lib.    But if you really want to leave, I'll call a temporary cease-fire just long enough for you to make it down the street, lol.


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> I agree with you to a certain extent about theories of government and economics.  However, most of the arguments that take place here concern issues of independent moral judgement.  Validity of a war, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, secular/non-secular worlds, etc.
> 
> If we are going to debate abortion I will give you my stance; there is absolutely no way you can tell me I am wrong.  You can only give me your side of the argument.
> 
> ...


 Very astute. The threads that end up in name calling, etc are usually those threads that are either based on opinion, require a moral judgement or are based on hypotheticals. The demographics here do favor the consrvatives, mostly  because the liberals who have come here to debate have a difficult time avoiding the traps: name calling, hypocricy, arrogance, etc. Not that the conservatives are not guilty of the same, but the preoponderance of cons here avoid that trap (mostly). We obviously have some libs here who are successful at holding their own in true debate. I, for one, am glad of that...this board would be no more than a typical chat room if it were not for some of them.

And then there are the plain old whackos from both sides of the house...fun to play with for a short time but not worth serious engagement.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Yes, clearly true statements.




I'm just generally sick of your general attack on our generalizations!


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> I saw the amount of conservatives here and tried to leave immediately.  Unfotunately this place is run like a street-gang.  In order to quit, a member must run down the street and dodge bullets being shot by other members.  I decided to just stay aboard.  But seriously...the dodging bullets thing should be mentioned somewhere on that front page invitation.


 One way to avoid beign shot at is not to do anyting that draws fire...but what fun is that?


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We're talking about the assertion that some here say republican leaders are all good or dems are all this that or the other.  These are just true statements.



Except that it's not true.  Bill Frist is all good?  Dennis Hastert is all good?  George Bush is all good?  I think not.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

insein said:
			
		

> Max Power:
> 
> You whine about the "insularity" (word of the week i guess) of this board and yet you have freedom of speech here.  You speak your mind and other liberals like you get to speak theres so long as they keep the personal insults to a minimum.  So all i see from you is whining because someone has decided to make a joke about liberals and you don't like it.  How tolerant of you.
> 
> ...


:rotflmao: 
Real life?  This is the internet, my friend.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that you would describe me as a liberal, and claim that I would fit in at a Democratic board, despite the fact that my political ideology is neither liberal, nor is it aligned with the Democratic party.
Thank you for demonstrating another point for me, that whenever someone is in disagreement with this board, that person is often labeled a liberal, with or without reason.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Obviously.
> 
> 
> But why?


Why not?


----------



## insein (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> :rotflmao:
> Real life?  This is the internet, my friend.
> 
> I find it interesting, but not surprising, that you would describe me as a liberal, and claim that I would fit in at a Democratic board, despite the fact that my political ideology is neither liberal, nor is it aligned with the Democratic party.
> Thank you for demonstrating another point for me, that whenever someone is in disagreement with this board, that person is often labeled a liberal, with or without reason.



Max, ive had many arguments with you.  You oppose the war.  You feel Bush is evil.  You feel he engineered 9/11.  You feel the illuminati runs this country.  I think you'd fit in fine over at DU.  ITs not a "Democratic Party" site.  ITs a left-wing cook site that holds many of the ideals you do.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> :rotflmao:
> Real life?  This is the internet, my friend.
> 
> I find it interesting, but not surprising, that you would describe me as a liberal, and claim that I would fit in at a Democratic board, despite the fact that my political ideology is neither liberal, nor is it aligned with the Democratic party.
> Thank you for demonstrating another point for me, that whenever someone is in disagreement with this board, that person is often labeled a liberal, with or without reason.



To what political ideology do you subscribe?


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

CSM said:
			
		

> Very astute. The threads that end up in name calling, etc are usually those threads that are either based on opinion, require a moral judgement or are based on hypotheticals. The demographics here do favor the consrvatives, mostly  because the liberals who have come here to debate have a difficult time avoiding the traps: name calling, hypocricy, arrogance, etc. Not that the conservatives are not guilty of the same, but the preoponderance of cons here avoid that trap (mostly). We obviously have some libs here who are successful at holding their own in true debate. I, for one, am glad of that...this board would be no more than a typical chat room if it were not for some of them.
> 
> And then there are the plain old whackos from both sides of the house...fun to play with for a short time but not worth serious engagement.



Nice to think it's the "liberals" who don't avoid the traps. Truth is that unacceptable behavior on the part of a right-winger is much more tolerated, and even encouraged, by some of the other right-leaners on the board. I can think of one example, without even trying to hard, who, if he was a lib would have been run off the board for his attitude and the kinds of threads he posts.

And please note, I didn't say "all conservatives" or all "right wingers"...


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> To what political ideology do you subscribe?


Libertarian would be most accurate.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

5stringJeff said:
			
		

> Except that it's not true.  Bill Frist is all good?  Dennis Hastert is all good?  George Bush is all good?  I think not.



Yeah, nobody says that.  So Min Power is just flat wrong.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 26, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Nice to think it's the "liberals" who don't avoid the traps. Truth is that unacceptable behavior on the part of a right-winger is much more tolerated, and even encouraged, by some of the other right-leaners on the board. I can think of one example, without even trying to hard, who, if he was a lib would have been run off the board for his attitude and the kinds of threads he posts.
> 
> *And please note, I didn't say "all conservatives" or all "right wingers*"...




Phew. I had my guns drawn for a second.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Why not?


Non-answer.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Seriously.
> 
> Now, there are quite a few intelligent posters here, but for the most part, this message board is a forum of insularity.
> 
> ...



OK, now that I am done LMAO.......


OK seriously now...

I'll admit it was a bit of a joke when I first started using the phrase "_You can't spell Liberals without Lies_".  It just sounded funny the first time I saw it.  But the more and more I learn about what the liberals and Democratic party leaders are up to and listen to their arguements, the more and more the statement rings true.

  I'm certainly not going to sit here and say that all Republicans are completely trustworthy, many politicans are going to become corrupt.  I do not believe that all "liberals" are liars and cheats, I just think most of them are misled and don't realize the Democrat leaders they follow are usually full of shit.
  Most of my family would probably consider themselves democrats, and alot of them feel they should be democrat simply because thats how they were raised --Democrat.  I remember my Grandmother was a staunch "FDR" Democrat, but she was very smart and read up on politicians.  She confided in me that she voted for H.W. Bush when he ran against Clinton because she did her homework and found out what kind of person he really was.  I was raised by my parents to believe that Reagan was an "idiot" and H.W. Bush was even worse.

  No sir, I am not painting any picture about anyone.  Liberals are the ones that use feel-good blanket statements in order to coax people into following their line of thought. I mean hey, who can argue against slogans like "we need to find jobs for the needy", or "we want blacks to have a fair opportunity in today's society".  But when you examine these great ideas further, what do we find?  Racist policies such as Affirmative Action, laws that put people out of jobs just because they aren't the right skin color.  No sir, we do not need to paint any picture, we just shed light on the illusions that liberals paint for us and expose them for what they really are...and usually those turn out to be outright lies.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

Oh, geez, here it comes.


			
				insein said:
			
		

> Max, ive had many arguments with you.  You oppose the war.


That's correct.



> You feel Bush is evil.


An exagerration, at best, and blatantly false, at worst.



> You feel he engineered 9/11.


That's incorrect.



> You feel the illuminati runs this country.


That's incorrect.



> I think you'd fit in fine over at DU.  ITs not a "Democratic Party" site.  ITs a left-wing cook site that holds many of the ideals you do.


Again, trying to paint a very inaccurate picture of me, not based on reality.


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Phew. I had my guns drawn for a second.



:rotflmao: Never!! You know I think you're cool! 

Actually, from what I've seen, you lean right but are generally reasonable...you just call 'em as you see 'em.


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Nice to think it's the "liberals" who don't avoid the traps. Truth is that unacceptable behavior on the part of a right-winger is much more tolerated, and even encouraged, by some of the other right-leaners on the board. I can think of one example, without even trying to hard, who, if he was a lib would have been run off the board for his attitude and the kinds of threads he posts.
> 
> And please note, I didn't say "all conservatives" or all "right wingers"...



I cannot say that I disagree with your assessment. There are some "conservatives" who post on this board whose attitude and posts overstep the bounds....

By the way, there have been conservatives who did not avoid the traps either.


----------



## 1549 (Jun 26, 2006)

CSM said:
			
		

> Very astute. The threads that end up in name calling, etc are usually those threads that are either based on opinion, require a moral judgement or are based on hypotheticals. The demographics here do favor the consrvatives, mostly  because the liberals who have come here to debate have a difficult time avoiding the traps: name calling, hypocricy, arrogance, etc. Not that the conservatives are not guilty of the same, but the preoponderance of cons here avoid that trap (mostly). We obviously have some libs here who are successful at holding their own in true debate. I, for one, am glad of that...this board would be no more than a typical chat room if it were not for some of them.
> 
> And then there are the plain old whackos from both sides of the house...fun to play with for a short time but not worth serious engagement.



Very nice post, you presented a very objective veiw of things...if I could give rep points I would hand some over to you.  (though it looks like you have quite a few as it is).


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

I find it both amusing and fitting that this very (type of) thread only illicits and encourages the precise behavior maxpower so vocally (and charitably) detests.


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

CSM said:
			
		

> I cannot say that I disagree with your assessment. There are some "conservatives" who post on this board whose attitude and posts overstep the bounds....
> 
> By the way, there have been conservatives who did not avoid the traps either.



Fair enough.


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

1549 said:
			
		

> Very nice post, you presented a very objective veiw of things...if I could give rep points I would hand some over to you.  (though it looks like you have quite a few as it is).



 The whole Lib vs. Con thing is often inaccurate anyway. I find that even the staunchest conservative has what could be considered liberal views in some areas and vice versa. It truly is a matter of perspective. For some on the far right, I am sure I look like a liberal lefty. On the other hand I can only imagine what I look like to a leftist! 

Then there is the view I have of myself. With all those perspectives, its no wonder we get confused around here!


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I find it both amusing and fitting that this very thread only illicits and encourages the precise behavior maxpower so vocally (and charitably) detests.


 It does?


----------



## Said1 (Jun 26, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> :rotflmao: Never!! You know I think you're cool!
> 
> Actually, from what I've seen, you lean right but are generally reasonable...you just call 'em as you see 'em.




I'm really a closet lib. I might as well admit it, since we're owning up to things.



That IS what we're doing, right?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I find it both amusing and fitting that this very thread only illicits and encourages the precise behavior maxpower so vocally (and charitably) detests.



Really? I think most of the posts have been reasonable...


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I'm really a closet lib. I might as well admit it, since we're owning up to things.
> 
> 
> 
> That IS what we're doing, right?



I promise I won't tell.  




			
				CSM said:
			
		

> The whole Lib vs. Con thing is often inaccurate anyway. I find that even the staunchest conservative has what could be considered liberal views in some areas and vice versa. It truly is a matter of perspective. For some on the far right, I am sure I look like a liberal lefty. On the other hand I can only imagine what I look like to a leftist!
> 
> Then there is the view I have of myself. With all those perspectives, its no wonder we get confused around here!



I think we all also have our hot button issues. Some people are also just more genteel by nature.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

CSM said:
			
		

> It does?


Apologies. Unclear.

These types of threads are a rallying point for everyone to get together, pile on, rep each other up, and generally continue the exact kind of stuff that drives the thread starter nuts. That's not to condemn it, but rather just that I always find it amusing when someone comes on to complain about something and only ends up making what they didn't like increase.

I wasn't trying to be thread-specific, although my post certainly seems that way. Hope that clarifies...


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I'm really a closet lib. I might as well admit it, since we're owning up to things.
> 
> 
> 
> That IS what we're doing, right?


 AHA!!!!

This was really a test ... to find the closet libs on this board so we conservatives could gang up on them and run them off the board!  Go ahead, post something liberal and see how long you last!


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> I promise I won't tell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 True enough and of course, some people are just one big button that simply screams "PUSH ME!" I find those extremely hard to resist...


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

Dr Grump said:
			
		

> Really? I think most of the posts have been reasonable...


Never said anyone was being unreasonable. Well maybe Max, if he thought starting this thread would actually accomplish anything he thought of as resolving the issue.


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

CSM said:
			
		

> True enough and of course, some people are just one big button that simply screams "PUSH ME!" I find those extremely hard to resist...



It is kinda fun, isn't it?


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Apologies. Unclear.
> 
> These types of threads are a rallying point for everyone to get together, pile on, rep each other up, and generally continue the exact kind of stuff that drives the thread starter nuts. That's not to condemn it, but rather just that I always find it amusing when someone comes on to complain about something and only ends up making what they didn't like increase.
> 
> I wasn't trying to be thread-specific, although my post certainly seems that way. Hope that clarifies...


 Understood. It often does turn out that way doesn't it. I cannot help but wonder sometimes if that is not the intent anyway.


----------



## CSM (Jun 26, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> It is kinda fun, isn't it?


Of course it is! The danger is forgetting when to take other posters seriously.


----------



## insein (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Quote: You feel Bush is evil.
> 
> An exagerration, at best, and blatantly false, at worst.



Perhaps not evil but coniving and manipulative.  
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22969&highlight=bush+idiot

And then an idiot around the next turn.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=345982&postcount=16



> Quote:
> You feel he engineered 9/11.
> 
> That's incorrect.



Let me rephrase that.  You feel 9/11 was engineered by our government. You may or may not feel that Bush personally engineered it.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27611



> Quote:
> You feel the illuminati runs this country.
> 
> That's incorrect.



Again speculative on my part but im going by what you give me in your posts about 9/11 "coincidences" and Bush's setting up puppet regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.  



> Quote:
> I think you'd fit in fine over at DU. ITs not a "Democratic Party" site. ITs a left-wing cook site that holds many of the ideals you do.
> 
> Again, trying to paint a very inaccurate picture of me, not based on reality.



Just working with what you give me.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

insein said:
			
		

> Perhaps not evil but coniving and manipulative.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22969&highlight=bush+idiot
> 
> And then an idiot around the next turn.
> ...




ANd we're back at liberals lying.  They are liars.  They will forswear no evil to achieve the greater good of destroying america and instituting world socialism.  Libertarian my ass.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

insein said:
			
		

> Perhaps not evil but coniving and manipulative.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22969&highlight=bush+idiot
> 
> And then an idiot around the next turn.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=345982&postcount=16


So, I'm correct, you were exagerating.



> Let me rephrase that.  You feel 9/11 was engineered by our government. You may or may not feel that Bush personally engineered it.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27611


No, I simply am open to the possibility of it.  You must admit that those are some strange coincidences, no?
Perhaps you think closed-mindedness is a virtue, I do not.




> Again speculative on my part but im going by what you give me in your posts about 9/11 "coincidences" and Bush's setting up puppet regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Uh huh, pure speculation.  In other words,


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> ANd we're back at liberals lying.  They are liars.  They will forswear no evil to achieve the greater good of destroying america and instituting world socialism.  Libertarian my ass.



Thank you,  , for demonstrating my point.

The irony, of course, is that I'm a staunch fiscal conservative.  Try reading a few of my posts in the Economy forum.  You're *far* more of a socialist than I am.

But, you'd rather label anyone that disagrees with you as a "liberal," a "liar," and a socialist, who wants to destroy America... based on absolutely nothing.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Thank you,  , for demonstrating my point.
> 
> The irony, of course, is that I'm a staunch fiscal conservative.  Try reading a few of my posts in the Economy forum.  You're *far* more of a socialist than I am.
> 
> But, you'd rather label anyone that disagrees with you as a "liberal," a "liar," and a socialist, who wants to destroy America... based on absolutely nothing.



What am I socialist about?  Wanting trade embargos against china? That's not socialism, it's sanity.


----------



## dmp (Jun 26, 2006)

Please continue this thread in one other half-dozen 'this board is unfair to libs' threads.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Please continue this thread in one other half-dozen 'this board is unfair to libs' threads.



Here's fine.  Thanks though.  what, are we having too much fun?


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> What am I socialist about?  Wanting trade embargos against china? That's not socialism, it's sanity.



Well, since you're the one who first insinuated that I was socialist, why don't you tell me how I'm a socialist?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Here's fine.  Thanks though.  what, are we having too much fun?



heh!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Well, since you're the one who first insinuated that I was socialist, why don't you tell me how I'm a socialist?




I don't know what you are, really.  I just know you're a polesmoker.


----------



## dmp (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Here's fine.  Thanks though.  what, are we having too much fun?




Only one bitchin' about this place thread per year, okay?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

See what you did, max?:teeth:


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I don't know what you are, really.  I just know you're a polesmoker.


 

Again, thank you for proving my point.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> What am I socialist about?  Wanting trade embargos against china? That's not socialism, it's sanity.



Actually, it's protectonism, which will only serve to raise prices (and unemployment) in America.  Way to go.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

5stringJeff said:
			
		

> Actually, it's protectonism, which will only serve to raise prices (and unemployment) in America.  Way to go.



But on the flip side, it will bring the fascist china to it's knees, and will stop us from even TRYING to outproduce a slave nation in a productivity war we cannot possible win.  Business must take place inside a moral context, or else, it's a deathrace to the bottom.  Of course, this is the plan for reducing the world to a series of cooperating totalitarian states.


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> But on the flip side, it will bring the fascist china to it's knees, and will stop us from even TRYING to outproduce a slave nation in a productivity war we cannot possible win.  Business must take place inside a moral context, or else, it's a deathrace to the bottom.  Of course, this is the plan for reducing the world to a series of cooperating totalitarian states.



How you gonna bring China to it's knees when it owns our debt and can bankrupt us any time it feels like?

Just wondering.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> How you gonna bring China to it's knees when it owns our debt and can bankrupt us any time it feels like?
> 
> Just wondering.



We stop buying their crap.  They will fold.  The IMF world bank, and all that crap is a jew constructed house of lies anyway.  It means nothing.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We stop buying their crap.  They will fold.  The IMF world bank, and all that crap is a jew constructed house of lies anyway.  It means nothing.


And so the whole debt thing... that just magically disappears?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> And so the whole debt thing... that just magically disappears?



Yep.  What other countries pay back their debts?  Dollars are backed by the threat of our military force.  What are we gonna do?  Attack ourselves?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

We're the only country in position to stop the NWO, and we should.


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yep.  What other countries pay back their debts?  Dollars are backed by the threat of our military force.  What are we gonna do?  Attack ourselves?



Our military force versus China's? Er....how many people do they have again? 

 :dev1:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Our military force versus China's? Er....how many people do they have again?
> 
> :dev1:



You're trying to use fear to get people to abandon freedom.  It won't be a man war if it happens.  

We will recover quicker because we are a nation of free thinkers, not slaves who've given their brains over to the collective.  Kissingers plan is dead.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

He's played this out a million times on Civ 3. We always win the space race.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

The New World Order: Just Say No!

Boycott Totalitarians:  Just Do It!


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> He's played this out a million times on Civ 3. We always win the space race.




He does inhabit a separate universe, doesn't he?


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> But on the flip side, it will bring the fascist china to it's knees, and will stop us from even TRYING to outproduce a slave nation in a productivity war we cannot possible win.  Business must take place inside a moral context, or else, it's a deathrace to the bottom.  Of course, this is the plan for reducing the world to a series of cooperating totalitarian states.



First, free labor always outperforms slave labor.  See the North vs. the Souh, 1787-1861 for proof.

Second, individuals, not governments, are responsible for moral decisions in the marketplace.  A government _outlawing _trade with another country is the totalitarian practice, not a government _allowing _trade with another country.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 26, 2006)

The IMF and World Bank are simply in place to manipulate developing nations. Or so I've heard. I have no real hard data to back that up.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

5stringJeff said:
			
		

> First, free labor always outperforms slave labor.  See the North vs. the Souh, 1787-1861 for proof.


With enough slaves and enough inhumanity, you might be suprised how much production you can get done.


> Second, individuals, not governments, are responsible for moral decisions in the marketplace.  A government _outlawing _trade with another country is the totalitarian practice, not a government _allowing _trade with another country.




Wrong.  OUr government has traditionally put moral boundaries on business foreign and domestic.  Boycotting south africa for instance. Or outlawing child labor domestically, or outlawing prostitution.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Y'all are brainwashed.  We do have options.  It's simply not the case that we MUST TRADE WITH TOTALITARIANS.  We've been told it will make them free, but I see no evidence of that.  It's all a lie, to get us to race each other to the depths of fascist inhumanity.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Pretty compelling, I know.  The sad thing is the public stock market has gotten a huge segment of the population in the position of benefitting from the evil, and also gives them a level of plausible deniability they need to sleep at night.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Wrong.  OUr government has traditionally put moral boundaries on business foreign and domestic.  Boycotting south africa for instance. Or outlawing child labor domestically, or outlawing prostitution.



The federal government has the ability, in the Constitution, to put restrictions on interstate commerce, so of course they can regulate child labor.  Prostitution, however, is a state-by-state decision, and is not outlawed by the federal government, just like phone sex isn't outlawed.  Again, individuals make moral decisions as to whether or not they should purchase those services.

Boycotting an entire country should be an individual choice, not a national choice, unless we are at war with that country.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

5stringJeff said:
			
		

> The federal government has the ability, in the Constitution, to put restrictions on interstate commerce, so of course they can regulate child labor.  Prostitution, however, is a state-by-state decision, and is not outlawed by the federal government, just like phone sex isn't outlawed.  Again, individuals make moral decisions as to whether or not they should purchase those services.
> 
> Boycotting an entire country should be an individual choice, not a national choice, unless we are at war with that country.




I disagree, it should be done at a national level, as we have done with other nations many times in the past, even without being at war, South Africa, for instance, over their apartheid policy.

Besides, it's not that far of stretch to assert we should be at war with china.


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

5stringJeff said:
			
		

> The federal government has the ability, in the Constitution, to put restrictions on interstate commerce, so of course they can regulate child labor.  Prostitution, however, is a state-by-state decision, and is not outlawed by the federal government, just like phone sex isn't outlawed.  Again, individuals make moral decisions as to whether or not they should purchase those services.
> 
> Boycotting an entire country should be an individual choice, not a national choice, unless we are at war with that country.



Actually, States can't regulate anything covered by the commerce claus IF such regulation impacts on interstate commerce. It's kind of an interesting area, one I'm not particularly fluent in.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (and by that take RWA's side :funnyface ) He raises a good point about our government setting moral boundaries, and rightfully so, when not doing business with a country like South Africa when it followed apartheid or with a country's leadership, like Hamas, if it doesn't foreswear terrorism.

I just think we've allowed China too much power over our financial well-being to do anything like that.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> I just think we've allowed China too much power over our financial well-being to do anything like that.




We haven't jillian.  We just have to decide if we prefer cheap crap to moral clarity.  Materialism vs. freedom.


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We haven't jillian.  We just have to decide if we prefer cheap crap to moral clarity.  Materialism vs. freedom.



I'm talking about the debt issue, not "cheap labor".


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We haven't jillian.  We just have to decide if we prefer cheap crap to moral clarity.  Materialism vs. freedom.



Actually, you mean freedom (what I'm espousing) vs. government-dictated trading (which is what you're espousing).


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

5stringJeff said:
			
		

> Actually, you mean freedom (what I'm espousing) vs. government-dictated trading (which is what you're espousing).



No.  You're espousing enabling totalitarians, while I'm espousing cutting their infernal influence out of world affairs.  We should take the time to rebuild all our production capacities domestically, so we're not so dependant.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Actually, States can't regulate anything covered by the commerce claus IF such regulation impacts on interstate commerce. It's kind of an interesting area, one I'm not particularly fluent in.



You're right.  I thought that was inferred in my post... if not, sorry.



> Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (and by that take RWA's side :funnyface ) He raises a good point about our government setting moral boundaries, and rightfully so, when not doing business with a country like South Africa when it followed apartheid or with a country's leadership, like Hamas, if it doesn't foreswear terrorism.
> 
> I just think we've allowed China too much power over our financial well-being to do anything like that.



Doing business with terrorists is rightly outlawed, since we are at war against terrorism.  But for the most part, I believe individuals should make their own decisions about where they spend their money.  In the case of South Africa (and I don't know much of the historical background of the embargo), the country itself was not a threat to America; we just didn't like their apartheid policy.  I would argue that 99% of America didn't like apartheid, and that if we had announced an unofficial boycott, individuals would have made the moral decision not to buy South African products.  People are currently free to do the same with China, if they so desire.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 26, 2006)

Let's just build a giant 

Each coast can have a hand, and somewhere in Nebraska their can be a giant waving tongue with a PA system constantly repeating lalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalal


----------



## 5stringJeff (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  You're espousing enabling totalitarians, while I'm espousing cutting their infernal influence out of world affairs.  We should take the time to rebuild all our production capacities domestically, so we're not so dependant.



In other words, you favor a less efficient economy and higher prices, leading to higher unemployment and more government benefits paid out to welfare recipients.  Did you also register as a Democrat for the '06 elections?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

5stringJeff said:
			
		

> You're right.  I thought that was inferred in my post... if not, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing business with terrorists is rightly outlawed, since we are at war against terrorism.  But for the most part, I believe individuals should make their own decisions about where they spend their money.  In the case of South Africa (and I don't know much of the historical background of the embargo), the country itself was not a threat to America; we just didn't like their apartheid policy.  I would argue that 99% of America didn't like apartheid, and that if we had announced an unofficial boycott, individuals would have made the moral decision not to buy South African products.  People are currently free to do the same with China, if they so desire.



No. they wouldn't have.  There are options to trading with china, such as, not trading with china.   the government makes trade decsions all the time.  It just so happens that china is the nation that will be used to drive all others to tyranny themselves, in vain hopes of trying to compete.  This is the NWO formula for reducing the world to corporate tyranny.

Wake up!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

I like the old days when we used to actually FIGHT totalitarians.  I hate the New World Order.  Maybe jesus will will stop it.

"Dear Jesus, Please help people see how their thirst for cheap goods is making them support evil.  Amen."


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> :rotflmao:
> Real life?  This is the internet, my friend.
> 
> I find it interesting, but not surprising, that you would describe me as a liberal, and claim that I would fit in at a Democratic board, despite the fact that my political ideology is neither liberal, nor is it aligned with the Democratic party.
> Thank you for demonstrating another point for me, that whenever someone is in disagreement with this board, that person is often labeled a liberal, with or without reason.



Congrats on speaking out of one mouth while the other was slinging crap. Here you are complaining about generalizations about liberals, while generalizing about this entire board. Why do you feel the need to knock the board because you don't like some members here and the way they post? Do you not believe they are still entitled to post, regardless of their views about liberals?

If this place is a joke, can you name some better places, that allow all political parties to participate in fair debate, regardless of where you may reside? No banning simply because you don't agree? I mean, if this place is a joke, there must be better places for you to spend your time, no?


----------



## no1tovote4 (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally Posted by *Max Power*_
> 
> Real life? This is the internet, my friend.
> 
> ...



Trolling...  Trolling on the riiiiver!


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> Congrats on speaking out of one mouth while the other was slinging crap. Here you are complaining about generalizations about liberals, while generalizing about this entire board. Why do you feel the need to knock the board because you don't like some members here and the way they post? Do you not believe they are still entitled to post, regardless of their views about liberals?


Like I said in my first post, it's not the entire board, and there are quite a few intelligent posters, including some who are biased towards a certain side of the political spectrum, and I certainly believe that everyone is entitled to post, but the quality of the entire forum declines when the majority of threads are "Why do liberals hate..." and "Ask the Dems" strawman arguments.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=49
The top 5 threads in this forum are essentially complaints about liberals (and, let's not forget, the "liberal media").
If whining about liberals is a "good" message board, then count me out. 



> If this place is a joke, can you name some better places, that allow all political parties to participate in fair debate, regardless of where you may reside? No banning simply because you don't agree? I mean, if this place is a joke, there must be better places for you to spend your time, no?


Quite a few, actually.  This thread aside, I've pretty much stopped posting here, save one or two threads in the WOT forum and one or two threads in the Economy forum.

So, yes, I do have better places to spend my time, and I've been coming here a lot less lately than I used to (ask any of your regulars who've engaged in discussion with me, and they'll attest to that).  

Again, if your idea of a good discussion board is to simply whine about how liberals are ruining America, then mission accomplished.  If people are looking for an intelligent discussion, they'd probably be better off looking elsewhere.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Like I said in my first post, it's not the entire board, and there are quite a few intelligent posters, including some who are biased towards a certain side of the political spectrum, and I certainly believe that everyone is entitled to post, but the quality of the entire forum declines when the majority of threads are "Why do liberals hate..." and "Ask the Dems" strawman arguments.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=49
> The top 5 threads in this forum are essentially complaints about liberals (and, let's not forget, the "liberal media").
> If whining about liberals is a "good" message board, then count me out.
> ...



STFU, whiner.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> If whining about liberals is a "good" message board, then count me out.




don't let the door hit ya on the way out....


----------



## dmp (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Like I said in my first post, it's not the entire board, and there are quite a few intelligent posters, including some who are biased towards a certain side of the political spectrum, and I certainly believe that everyone is entitled to post, but the quality of the entire forum declines when the majority of threads are "Why do liberals hate..." and "Ask the Dems" strawman arguments.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=49
> The top 5 threads in this forum are essentially complaints about liberals (and, let's not forget, the "liberal media").
> If whining about liberals is a "good" message board, then count me out.
> ...




Then why - oh WHY the drama?  Seriously? Just go away.  What's the point of your rant?  Did you need an esteem boost? Maybe a 'PAY ATTENTION TO ME" thread?  Well, sonny - you got your wish.  Great. Fine.  We all see you there, posting. 

Now - grow a pair of balls...Grow UP...find some esteem on ebay or whatever it takes.  Just stop posting and nobody will care.  You can go on your merry way and live your life.  We won't chase you - I promise.


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Like I said in my first post, it's not the entire board,



Sure sounded like you were expressing that the board was a joke as a result of comments about liberals that you have read. I no longer like the sports section of the NY post since their damn news section contains crap I don't want to read. 



> and there are quite a few intelligent posters, including some who are biased towards a certain side of the political spectrum, and I certainly believe that everyone is entitled to post, but the quality of the entire forum declines when the majority of threads are "Why do liberals hate..." and "Ask the Dems" strawman arguments.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=49
> The top 5 threads in this forum are essentially complaints about liberals (and, let's not forget, the "liberal media").
> If whining about liberals is a "good" message board, then count me out.



I don't have the time but there are hundreds of posts here from liberals who come screeching in here to vent their life frustrations on George Bush. If this is typical complaining of a liberal, then count me out of their threads too.



> Quite a few, actually.  This thread aside, I've pretty much stopped posting here, save one or two threads in the WOT forum and one or two threads in the Economy forum.



Honestly, I don't even remember you, so I'll take your word for it. So you found places you like better, only like a couple of forums here, then come to one you don't use to post complaints? May I ask why you felt the need to do so? Maybe a parting shot on your way out?



> So, yes, I do have better places to spend my time, and I've been coming here a lot less lately than I used to (ask any of your regulars who've engaged in discussion with me, and they'll attest to that).



That's your perogative, and I can only speak for myself when I say you won't be missed. 



> Again, if your idea of a good discussion board is to simply whine about how liberals are ruining America, then mission accomplished.  If people are looking for an intelligent discussion, they'd probably be better off looking elsewhere.



If you think it's nothing but whining about liberals here then you seriously have a comprehension issue. Sure, there are wacky complaints about both parties but to say that's what the board is made up of is ridiculous.

Either way, daily posts are at their highest, unique visitors at their highest and the participation was only stronger just prior to the election. Many before you have claimed this board was crap and 3 years later it continues to be a success. Complain of the intelligence but I find MANY posters here to be extremely educated and worthy of some of the best debates I have ever come across.


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

Clearly, I had no real intention of sticking around.  

Perhaps I'll stop in every now and then, to give rtwngAvngr or Hobbit a quick verbal ass whooping (it's just so damn easy).

I don't really expect this place to change, but I do suggest it.


----------



## Said1 (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Clearly, I had no real intention of sticking around.
> 
> Perhaps I'll stop in every now and then, to give rtwngAvngr or Hobbit a quick verbal ass whooping (it's just so damn easy).
> 
> I don't really expect this place to change, but I do suggest it.




Piss off already. Like really.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Clearly, I had no real intention of sticking around.
> 
> Perhaps I'll stop in every now and then, to give rtwngAvngr or Hobbit a quick verbal ass whooping (it's just so damn easy).
> 
> I don't really expect this place to change, but I do suggest it.



promises promises.......you don't have the will power to piss off


----------



## no1tovote4 (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Clearly, I had no real intention of sticking around.
> 
> Perhaps I'll stop in every now and then, to give rtwngAvngr or Hobbit a quick verbal ass whooping (it's just so damn easy).
> 
> I don't really expect this place to change, but I do suggest it.



Are you going for the record for the world's longest goodbye?  Dude, if you don't like it change the channel!  Only silly weak-knees hover and then make a big deal about taking home the extra-beat up baseball that nobody is using and going home!

We get it.  You cry because this site has made you feel bad because you are a liberal...  It isn't necessary to keep repeating you are going to leave!


----------



## Max Power (Jun 26, 2006)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Are you going for the record for the world's longest goodbye?  Dude, if you don't like it change the channel!  Only silly weak-knees hover and then make a big deal about taking home the extra-beat up baseball that nobody is using and going home!
> 
> We get it.  You cry because this site has made you feel bad because you are a liberal...  It isn't necessary to keep repeating you are going to leave!


Sorry I mentioend rtwingavenger and left you out.

You're another joke of a poster.  Thanks for saying bye  

(BTW, if you're so interested in seeing me go, why are you still saying "bye"???)


----------



## Gunny (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Sorry I mentioend rtwingavenger and left you out.
> 
> You're another joke of a poster.  Thanks for saying bye
> 
> (BTW, if you're so interested in seeing me go, why are you still saying "bye"???)



Get a thicker skin.  At least on my part, it isn't personal unless it's made to be.  

I wouldn't exactly put you in my "Top Ten" of "Most Well-Mannered." 

If your idea of a "better" board is one where all the people agree with you, power to you.


----------



## Annie (Jun 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> Get a thicker skin.  At least on my part, it isn't personal unless it's made to be.
> 
> I wouldn't exactly put you in my "Top Ten" of "Most Well-Mannered."
> 
> If your idea of a "better" board is one where all the people agree with you, power to you.



Everbody, SSSSSsssssssssshhhhhhhh I think he's gone. :fifty: :duh3:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Clearly, I had no real intention of sticking around.
> 
> Perhaps I'll stop in every now and then, to give rtwngAvngr or Hobbit a quick verbal ass whooping (it's just so damn easy).
> 
> I don't really expect this place to change, but I do suggest it.



You've never beaten me.  Are you tripping?


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 26, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You've never beaten me.  Are you tripping?




yes...... he has fallen and he can't get up


----------



## dmp (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Clearly, I had no real intention of sticking around.
> 
> Perhaps I'll stop in every now and then, to give rtwngAvngr or Hobbit a quick verbal ass whooping (it's just so damn easy).
> 
> I don't really expect this place to change, but I do suggest it.



Then Please, grow a pair and just GO AWAY.  Nobody will miss you; you aren't important to this board.  You are not smarter than anyone/everyone here...Just LEAVE


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 26, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Clearly, I had no real intention of sticking around.
> 
> Perhaps I'll stop in every now and then, to give rtwngAvngr or Hobbit a quick verbal ass whooping (it's just so damn easy).
> 
> I don't really expect this place to change, but I do suggest it.



Last time you gave me a 'verbal ass whooping,' your argument boiled down to 'uh-uh, you're wrong.'  After that, I just put you on my ignore list until I remembered how amusing you were to watch.  If that's your idea of a verbal ass whooping, then please, keep handing them over.  As I recall, my rep boosted over 100 points from it because I was 'mature,' 'consistent,' 'educated,' and 'wise beyond my years.'

In fact, this is great news for me, as I can still see enough of you to be amused, but not enough to be annoyed.

Oh, and accusing no1 of being on the list of people whose asses you can whoop just shows exactly how stupid you are.  My dad is about the only person in the world I think could beat him in a debate, and my dad was one of the best debaters in the state in high school and pretty much debates with people who don't realize he's right for a living now.  Come to think of it, when he beats somebody at a debate, many still disagree with him, go their own way, then spend months fixing a problem that they wouldn't have had if they'd listened in the first place.  Sounds kinda like somebody I know...


----------



## Max Power (Jun 27, 2006)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> Last time you gave me a 'verbal ass whooping,' your argument boiled down to 'uh-uh, you're wrong.'  After that, I just put you on my ignore list until I remembered how amusing you were to watch.  If that's your idea of a verbal ass whooping, then please, keep handing them over.  As I recall, my rep boosted over 100 points from it because I was 'mature,' 'consistent,' 'educated,' and 'wise beyond my years.'


Uh huh... just like in this thread here
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33163&page=3
Where you were talking out of your ass, "Every source I've ever seen says otherwise, including liberal ones."  Then you got called on it, and I posted some numbers *PROVING *that you were wrong, so you decided to disappear from the thread and not make anymore posts there.  Uh-huh, I'm right.
Of course, this was all of 2 days ago, so I guess you must have forgotten.  

BTW, your getting reps demonstrates nothing more than what I've been saying in this thread - that people here simply pat each other on the back for having the same political beliefs, regardless of the merit or quality of their posts.  Not that it matters, so you can go take your posts and buy yourself a Coke with them.




			
				dmp said:
			
		

> Then Please, grow a pair and just GO AWAY.  Nobody will miss you; you aren't important to this board.  You are not smarter than anyone/everyone here...Just LEAVE


Aww, Darin, I know that YOU'LL miss me, after all, if I'm not here who's going to call you out when you blatantly post someone else's material and try to pass it off as your own?  Well, I hope that someone steps into that role  




			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You've never beaten me.  Are you tripping?


And rtwngAvngr, how could I forget you.  Well, you seem to be having memory problems, because you already forgot what happened in the beginning of this thread, when you *tried* to call me out, but got caught with your pants down when you realized that the quotes I was posting were 100% legit.  
You got caught with your pants down, and everybody pointed and laughed...  That happen to you a lot, does it?  

Anyway, I just wanted to give a special goodbye to these three.  So, goodbye to the rest of you.  It's been fun.  Well, not really.  It's been funny though... like I said, this place is a joke.  Enjoy yourselves.


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 27, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Uh huh... just like in this thread here
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33163&page=3
> Where you were talking out of your ass, "Every source I've ever seen says otherwise, including liberal ones."  Then you got called on it, and I posted some numbers *PROVING *that you were wrong, so you decided to disappear from the thread and not make anymore posts there.  Uh-huh, I'm right.
> Of course, this was all of 2 days ago, so I guess you must have forgotten.



I hadn't even looked at that thread since I last posted there (never saw that post you made).  I have a life, you know.  I have a job.  I have other things to do (most of the time) than troll this message board calling out idiots like yourself and correcting any mistakes I may have made (and I did make a bit of a doozy).  I forgot this thing even existed since most of the posts took place when I was at work and sometimes the board only posts new activity if it happened within the past couple of hours.  Anyways, the problem is solved.    You're still an arrogant dumass.  Either piss off or stop talking about how you really are going to piss off.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 27, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> BTW, your getting reps demonstrates nothing more  - that people here simply pat each other on the back for having the same political beliefs, regardless of the merit or quality of their posts.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jun 27, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Uh huh... just like in this thread here
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33163&page=3
> Where you were talking out of your ass, "Every source I've ever seen says otherwise, including liberal ones."  Then you got called on it, and I posted some numbers *PROVING *that you were wrong, so you decided to disappear from the thread and not make anymore posts there.  Uh-huh, I'm right.
> Of course, this was all of 2 days ago, so I guess you must have forgotten.
> ...




But those quotes were not of people saying "republicans are all x and dems are all y", thus you still failed in proving your basice premise.  Run along now.


----------



## jimnyc (Jun 27, 2006)

I'm not overly concerned right now with those that think my decisions aren't fair concerning this particular user. He has made it clear that he thinks this board is a joke and is intent on just riling up members. He stated he found other boards he likes better and better suit what he considers is fair. Hopefully he'll enjoy it there as he's had his priviledges removed here.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jun 27, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> I'm not overly concerned right now with those that think my decisions aren't fair concerning this particular user. He has made it clear that he thinks this board is a joke and is intent on just riling up members. He stated he found other boards he likes better and better suit what he considers is fair. Hopefully he'll enjoy it there as he's had his priviledges removed here.


It's what he was going for all along. Now he can go brag about it elsewhere. "I dissented and got banned!" :blah2:


----------



## dmp (Jun 27, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> It's what he was going for all along. Now he can go brag about it elsewhere. "I dissented and got banned!" :blah2:



Eggsrackry.  Damned if we put up with his no-contribution-just-shit-talking...damned if we don't; as his lack self-worth will ONLY Let him see it as an 'honor'.   That child will brag and stage and prop him/herself up because they got banned "SIMPLY for disagreeing".


----------



## Mr. P (Jun 27, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> It's what he was going for all along. Now he can go brag about it elsewhere. "I dissented and got banned!" :blah2:


I think he antagonized for the most part. I won't miss it.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 27, 2006)

Max Power said:
			
		

> BTW, your getting reps demonstrates nothing more than what I've been saying in this thread - that people here simply pat each other on the back for having the same political beliefs, regardless of the merit or quality of their posts.



boo hoo no one likes me.......


----------



## Nienna (Jun 27, 2006)

I liked him.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 27, 2006)

Nienna said:
			
		

> I liked him.



guess that explains where he got some of his little green squares....although that flies in the face of his therory that only like minded political attitudes would reward each other


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jul 16, 2006)

Mods are tripping out again and using their power to enforce their points of view.

I have been banned from the Santorum dead baby thread for talking about jews.  The fact is, that thread was started to bash "extreme christians".  WHy is payment in kind not allowed?  Christianity and islam are bashed all day long on this forum.  WHy is judaism exempt?  Pointing out the doctrines of noahidism is just as valid as pointing out the doctrines of Jihad.  calling someone a jew is just as valid as calling someone a "whacked out christian".  Why the double standard.  Jimmy, I know you wanted this board to be a free speech zone.

The mod in question believes in the racially preferential doctrines of affirmative action, discrimination against white people, and he's using his mod powers to attempt to enforce his anti-white views.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jul 16, 2006)

I demand justice.  This remove from thread feature is and always has been a bullshit-nazi feature, and has only ever been used by overzealous tyrannical mods trying to control discussions. 

Why does OCA approve of discrimination against white people?  Is that maybe why he gets all girly about anyone who discusses jews, who also share his loathing?  This is crap through and through.


----------



## jimnyc (Jul 16, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Mods are tripping out again and using their power to enforce their points of view.
> 
> I have been banned from the Santorum dead baby thread for talking about jews.  The fact is, that thread was started to bash "extreme christians".  WHy is payment in kind not allowed?  Christianity and islam are bashed all day long on this forum.  WHy is judaism exempt?  Pointing out the doctrines of noahidism is just as valid as pointing out the doctrines of Jihad.  calling someone a jew is just as valid as calling someone a "whacked out christian".  Why the double standard.  Jimmy, I know you wanted this board to be a free speech zone.
> 
> The mod in question believes in the racially preferential doctrines of affirmative action, discrimination against white people, and he's using his mod powers to attempt to enforce his anti-white views.



You have been unbanned from the thread in question, although I don't have an issue with the actions of OCA. I'm asking anyone and everyone that posts here, that if you're going to speak of a sensitive issue, please do so appropriately and in the appropriate threads. I have seen way too many debate stances carried over to other threads, ruining it for the participants involved.

Our concern is not only that, but of the perception of the board. I don't want new users to the site inundated with any hate speech, whether it be against Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites... We all have our prejudices, and I don't have an issue with anyone speaking their point of view. Keep it appropriate, keep it on topic, and keep the forums clean.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jul 18, 2006)

I'm being harrassed via pm by mods who are upset with me for arguing with other mods who can't hold up their side of an argument.  I have been called the embodiment of hatred for simply discussing the reality of noahide teachings.  If the truth offends people, they need to adjust their worldview and quit claiming some kind of f'ed up victim status.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jul 18, 2006)

BTW,  if someone is alleging I'm harrasing them through pm's, that is just a lie.  

Thanks, again.


----------



## OCA (Jul 18, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I demand justice.  This remove from thread feature is and always has been a bullshit-nazi feature, and has only ever been used by overzealous tyrannical mods trying to control discussions.
> 
> Why does OCA approve of discrimination against white people?  Is that maybe why he gets all girly about anyone who discusses jews, who also share his loathing?  This is crap through and through.



Bullshit. You are spinning this like a Demo who has been bit by a rabid dog.

I simply asked you to stop turning every thread you get involved in into a rant on your Noahide and rabid anti-semitist crap. Please show me exactly where the thread in question explicitly bashes Christians.....well besides your alternate reality interpretation of the thread topic. 

RWA you are all over the place on Christianity, would you like me to show you a thread or threads with a long ago hardcore Christian user by the name of Newguy where you bashed Christian teachings? Or maybe the thread with KLSuddeth where you claimed to be some sort of new age guru? And now you want to claim to be the defender of Christianity?

You are about as consistent as the football career of Ricky Williams.

I will continue to ban you from fiurther threads that you rant on Jews that the topic has nothing to do with Jews.

Debate the topics or else.........


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jul 18, 2006)

OCA said:
			
		

> Bullshit. You are spinning this like a Demo who has been bit by a rabid dog.
> 
> I simply asked you to stop turning every thread you get involved in into a rant on your Noahide and rabid anti-semitist crap. Please show me exactly where the thread in question explicitly bashes Christians.....well besides your alternate reality interpretation of the thread topic.
> 
> ...




This isn't about you.  This is something else.

Show whatever you want.  I stand by whatever I have ever said.


----------



## OCA (Jul 18, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> This isn't about you.  This is something else.
> 
> Show whatever you want.  I stand by whatever I have ever said.



This isn't? I banned you from the thread asswipe! Plus you mentioned me by name about three posts ago, stand up and take it like a man!

Quit playing the victim! You screwed the pooch now move on.


----------



## dmp (Jul 18, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I'm being harrassed via pm by mods who are upset with me for arguing with other mods who can't hold up their side of an argument.  I have been called the embodiment of hatred for simply discussing the reality of noahide teachings.  If the truth offends people, they need to adjust their worldview and quit claiming some kind of f'ed up victim status.
> 
> Thanks for listening.




Bullshit again.   You are perhaps the whiniest little turd I know lately.  Get over yourself.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 18, 2006)

Can't we all just get along.


----------



## 007 (Jul 18, 2006)

theHawk said:
			
		

> Can't we all just get along.



That would be boring.


----------



## jimnyc (Jul 18, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I'm being harrassed via pm by mods who are upset with me for arguing with other mods who can't hold up their side of an argument.  I have been called the embodiment of hatred for simply discussing the reality of noahide teachings.  If the truth offends people, they need to adjust their worldview and quit claiming some kind of f'ed up victim status.
> 
> Thanks for listening.



How about we clear this up right here without further interruption of quality threads.

You weren't necessarily 'harassed'. You were sent a PM warning you of certain actions, and of further action that may be taken should the behavior continue. This is typical protocol, and I think good protocol. 

All we're asking is a few simple things. Post that you hate jews, blacks, whites, libs... Just please do so in appropriate threads with appropriate topics, and refrain from bringing up the subject in unrelated threads.

Also, try to be a little more civil towards the mods. Reply in kind is always fair. If you disagree, but they were civil, disagree in return but in a civil manner. If someone attacks you outside of mod capacity, feel free to reply in kind, but let's not make it habitual. 

If a mod is debating with you, all bets are off. But if you are PM'd or approached by another mod, please listen to them and adhere to the rules.

I think I've been pretty consistent all along about giving everyone freedom of speech but as usual that comes with responsibility. I know too well that everyone knows what I mean, it's just a matter of applying it when in a heated debate.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jul 18, 2006)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> How about we clear this up right here without further interruption of quality threads.
> 
> You weren't necessarily 'harassed'. You were sent a PM warning you of certain actions, and of further action that may be taken should the behavior continue. This is typical protocol, and I think good protocol.
> 
> ...




I don't just blatantly spew hate.  All iv'e done is discuss certain aspects of talmudic thought, namely the concept of the noahide, and the noahide court system, which is theocratic in nature.  I'm sorry some people are in denial about it.  That's not my problem.  Let's not crucify the messenger.    This is the same on the hate axis as a discussion of jihad.  Discussing jihad isn't hate.  Discussing noahidism isn't hate.  Let's all take a :chillpill.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jul 18, 2006)

And btw, jim, your goons screwed with my account and put my requests in the low priority queue.  Nazi tactics again.  What is with these people?


----------



## jimnyc (Jul 18, 2006)

I am going to close this thread now. Board problems and/or personal problems and issues should be handled via PM or email.

I wanted this thread so that everyone can see the complaints in one place, and what we were going to do to make the board better. 

I really don't want this thread brought back to life everytime someone is unhappy.


----------

