One of the Scariest Things You'll Ever Read

[fansince'76]

Originally Posted by Mosca

And of course you are allowed an opinion, fan76. But the opinion you are voicing in this thread isn't directed toward the subject, toward the issue raised in the post; it is an opinion about whether or not the post is proper, or on topic. If this is an administrative issue, then dropping it on the membership in this way is a bit high-handed, don't you think? And the first amendment is not at all relevant to this message board, as you well know.

Again, with all due respect, I have to question the propriety of a post when we have been forced to dole out infractions for other politically-based threads that have devolved to name-calling over less controversial subjects than the one dealt with in the initial post of this thread. I don't have a choice but to question the propriety of the thread on the open board when the post itself is made on the open board. Would you rather we lock the thread from behind the scenes? I doubt you would. You can post and simply leave, whereas we have to deal with things when they explode. I was simply trying to head the problems off at the pass, because honestly, I don't see any other purpose of this post than to incite. Thanks.

[Cape Cod Steel Head]

It's called the first amendment to the US. Constitution

[Livinginthe past]

Originally Posted by Hammer67

The irony of this whole discussion as that board members are off limits but can post personal attacks against the President. I find that disrespectful regardless of political beliefs and whether you think his policies are any good.

As a moderator, myself, at another site (which is much stricter then this one), I have seen nothing wrong in the posts so far.

This post is way, way off.

We going to stop 'personal attacks' on Marv Lewis too?

You seem like a moderate guy from what i've read in your previous posts, but I dont feel its reasonable to stop people critcising the President - otherwise we are promoting values that America generally abhors - namely the stifling of free speech.

As I understand it, it is against the rules to personally attack another member....everyone else (within reason) is up for grabs.

I have to side with Tom on this issue, if there is stuff going on 'behind the scenes' it shoudn't be spilling onto the main forum.

The thread originator is now banned, anyhow.

[Livinginthe past]

Originally Posted by fansince'76

Again, with all due respect, I have to question the propriety of a post when we have been forced to dole out infractions for other politically-based threads that have devolved to name-calling over less controversial subjects than the one dealt with in the initial post of this thread. I don't have a choice but to question the propriety of the thread on the open board when the post itself is made on the open board. Would you rather we lock the thread from behind the scenes? I doubt you would. You can post and simply leave, whereas we have to deal with things when they explode. I was simply trying to head the problems off at the pass, because honestly, I don't see any other purpose of this post than to incite. Thanks.

How about letting these threads work themselves out, and doling out infractions after people actually break the rules?

The original post could only be thought of as 'incitement' by those who do not wish to debate the subject - if that is so, then the opportunity is always there to just ignore the thread.

Politics is a part of this board, for better or worse, and I don't think heading problems off with heavy sarcasm is the way to go either.

[Mosca]

Hammer, I don't see any personal attack on the president in the original post, nor in the article quoted. there is an attack on his policies, but there is no attack on the man himself. But two others did say that others do attack him, and use that as justification to head off discussion of the initial topic. Nevertheless I do think that the policy has been established that it's OK to discuss prominent people in those terms, otherwise we would also not be permitted to mock Chris Henry, or say that Ben was stupid for throwing into triple coverage. And it is certainly fair to throw words at Michael Moore. Bush and Cheney shouldn't be exempt, just like Hillary and Bill and Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be. If you've decided it's OK to gore oxes, then you shouldn't also get to decide which ones people want to gore.

If the owner of the board wants to restrict all discussion, I'll abide. If he wants it open, let it be open. If he wants all political comment to toe a specific line, then it's his forum and he can do that, with no squawk from me. But if so, then tell us what the line is; don't imply it through asides and mockery.


Tom

[Mosca]

Originally Posted by Livinginthe past

The thread originator is now banned, anyhow.

Oh, wow. Tough for him, holding that opinion so strongly.

I'd read about that policy just last night, somewhere else. I'll do some research on it and figure it out. Honestly on the surface it doesn't look all that different from anything planned out in the 50s and 60s when we had the threat of nuclear annihilation; there were even plans to deliver mail and collect taxes, IIRC. I think the only question is, who gets to call and define the emergency?


Tom

[Hammer67]

Originally Posted by Livinginthe past

This post is way, way off.

We going to stop 'personal attacks' on Marv Lewis too?

You seem like a moderate guy from what i've read in your previous posts, but I dont feel its reasonable to stop people critcising the President - otherwise we are promoting values that America generally abhors - namely the stifling of free speech.

As I understand it, it is against the rules to personally attack another member....everyone else (within reason) is up for grabs.

I am just pointing out an example of irony, not commenting on forum rules. The OP has personally bashed the Pres in other threads. Not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do so but if one engages in that kind of political rhetoric, one should also be prepared for the reaction.

I was only stating that I saw no issue with the moderator responses posted.

That is all...continuing with my coffee.

[Livinginthe past]

Originally Posted by Hammer67

I am just pointing out an example of irony, not commenting on forum rules. The OP has personally bashed the Pres in other threads. Not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do so but if one engages in that kind of political rhetoric, one should also be prepared for the reaction.

I was only stating that I saw no issue with the moderator responses posted.

That is all...continuing with my coffee.

Ok man!

I didn't see any problem with the opinions voiced in the responses either, unless they became confused with forum policy.

Enjoy the coffee

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Livinginthe past

This post is way, way off.

We going to stop 'personal attacks' on Marv Lewis too?

You seem like a moderate guy from what i've read in your previous posts, but I dont feel its reasonable to stop people critcising the President - otherwise we are promoting values that America generally abhors - namely the stifling of free speech.

As I understand it, it is against the rules to personally attack another member....everyone else (within reason) is up for grabs.

I have to side with Tom on this issue, if there is stuff going on 'behind the scenes' it shoudn't be spilling onto the main forum.

The thread originator is now banned, anyhow.

Banned for this or was he already on double secret probation?

[Mosca]

AD, I abide by the moderators decision to ban him. They don't need to justify it. I took on Bburgh in a different thread, pointing out to him that his attacks on Bush were not in any way helpful or on-topic; he's a hardhead in that way, I guess.

HOWEVER. The knife should cut both ways. Similar punishment should be meted out if the subject of attacks were to be the duly elected Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, or the esteemed Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. They, too, represent their peoples' choice. And were Hillary to be elected president I would expect her to get the same respect that is being requested for President Bush. Since the office should be respected, after all; she WOULD be our leader, and we should all stand behind her.


Tom