New Poll

[yellow_crane]

It's true I would come back...but I was asked.

Most forums take pride in being intelligent and acting with reason..this is one where bad behavior is thought to be  just another voice. Ahh well...not my problem, like you said I should not have talked to him...what was I thinking? having a member that is called a snake and it is my fault that I got sucker punched by him, because I talked to him. But gee he is a valued member...right.
Anyway...hope all have a great 2008.
terra

Yes, Terra, but you were notorious for doing GBCW in this forum "back in the day".

I agree that it is not my problem.  I was just commenting on the situation.

Rich is rude and a jerk and you obviously know that so maybe it might have not led to all this if you had just not bothered replying to his posts.  Just sayin'...

I'm for preventative measures when possible.

NEW PLAY IN TOWN

"Participatory Democracy"  a play in three acts.


ACT I    "It's all about personalities . . ." 
Starring Richpo

ACT II   "No, it's about principles . . . "
Starring Entire Forum (those participating)

ACT III   "Un uhh . . . it's about personalities . . . "
Starring Brassmark


REVIEW

This play is great in its inception, beginning with a dramatic and caustic unwarrated attack on a returning member; coincident with circumstances following a long and protracted endurance of abuse by the ever-disgruntled attacker, who is finally is confronted on the complete paucity of his position.  Hope comes strong in the second act, wherein a cagey strawboss contrives to elucidate the true dynamics of managerial responsibility by turning the entire event inside out by creating a voting booth, wherein the entire group, confronted with a highly uncomfortable but necessary reckoning, rises in force (l7 to 3) to respond, even though they would much rather go to lunch.

The play falls apart in a weak third act, in which high drama pretending to be relevant is revealed merely to be a tawdry, take-care-of-feelings cop-out.

[Cynthia]

"The play falls apart in a weak third act, in which high drama pretending to be relevant is revealed merely to be a tawdry, take-care-of-feelings cop-out."

Fun interpretaton, Yellow.  !Creative!


I disagree with the "cop out" description, and the "pretending to be relevant", YC.    Feelings have always been a part of any board, and this one is no different. Relevant is a relative term...but expression of any feeling is the essence that is DHS DGATE....always has been, always will be.

The word, "Outlet" comes to mind....and if you look at the past post history, feelings have grown from slight teasing, sarcasm, digs,  to down right attacks, back to slight teasing with a lemon twist with "relevance". Expression of feelings when it comes to any member, presents itself wrapped as a new topic  "POLL THREAD". A sort of proper place setting for the "outlet" and room to view the ugly with the dainty, back to the ugly again.

Deadhorses...Debategate is actually in Wikipedia, I've discovered. Wow, after all these years!  So, why not with FEELINGS mixed in?

I consider feelings relevant in any venue. They are the backbone of expression, whether in a heated intellectual debate or not. It's all personal in a way.


Someone has to  pick up the garbage once in a while, however. So we must "take out the trash".

 Recycling? I say give a person a chance to come back home and make a start...new or otherwise.

 

[Brassmask]

It's true I would come back...but I was asked.

Most forums take pride in being intelligent and acting with reason..this is one where bad behavior is thought to be  just another voice. Ahh well...not my problem, like you said I should not have talked to him...what was I thinking? having a member that is called a snake and it is my fault that I got sucker punched by him, because I talked to him. But gee he is a valued member...right.
Anyway...hope all have a great 2008.
terra

Poking a snake and getting bit is not even remotely comparable to a sucker punch.  You know Rich.  You know how he will react to you.  What he said was wrong but you can hardly be taken seriously if you want to play the victim.

Come on.

[Brassmask]

NEW PLAY IN TOWN

"Participatory Democracy"  a play in three acts.


ACT I    "It's all about personalities . . ." 
Starring Richpo

ACT II   "No, it's about principles . . . "
Starring Entire Forum (those participating)

ACT III   "Un uhh . . . it's about personalities . . . "
Starring Brassmark


REVIEW

This play is great in its inception, beginning with a dramatic and caustic unwarrated attack on a returning member; coincident with circumstances following a long and protracted endurance of abuse by the ever-disgruntled attacker, who is finally is confronted on the complete paucity of his position.  Hope comes strong in the second act, wherein a cagey strawboss contrives to elucidate the true dynamics of managerial responsibility by turning the entire event inside out by creating a voting booth, wherein the entire group, confronted with a highly uncomfortable but necessary reckoning, rises in force (l7 to 3) to respond, even though they would much rather go to lunch.

The play falls apart in a weak third act, in which high drama pretending to be relevant is revealed merely to be a tawdry, take-care-of-feelings cop-out.

Hmm.

Not sure if the reviewer really understood what he was seeing. 

The third act, for me at least, revealed the play to be a cautionary tale on the benefit of avoiding totally unnecessary tawdry drama when it is not utterly necessary.  (And something about knowing the nature of snakes.)

[Cynthia]

Well, Brassie, this thread has been viewed over 575 times! People have 'NEEDS" HA!

Whether to vent, be part of a reality show, watch an event as if it were a car accident...no matter......it seems to have affected enough viewers for ratings.

ha!

[hnumpah]

Well, Brassie, this thread has been viewed over 575 times! People have 'NEEDS" HA!

Whether to vent, be part of a reality show, watch an event as if it were a car accident...no matter......it seems to have affected enough viewers for ratings.

I've just been checking back to see how it was going...Didn't even know there was a flap until a coupla days ago.

I see we still have one more vote than there are voters...

And I noticed 'Yes' was about double 'No', and both were ahead of 'Suspend', until Rich made his dramatic "I'll save you the trouble" post, then 'Suspend' took off.

Maybe Biden is hoping that'll work for him...

[yellow_crane]

NEW PLAY IN TOWN

"Participatory Democracy"  a play in three acts.


ACT I    "It's all about personalities . . ." 
Starring Richpo

ACT II   "No, it's about principles . . . "
Starring Entire Forum (those participating)

ACT III   "Un uhh . . . it's about personalities . . . "
Starring Brassmark


REVIEW

This play is great in its inception, beginning with a dramatic and caustic unwarrated attack on a returning member; coincident with circumstances following a long and protracted endurance of abuse by the ever-disgruntled attacker, who is finally is confronted on the complete paucity of his position.  Hope comes strong in the second act, wherein a cagey strawboss contrives to elucidate the true dynamics of managerial responsibility by turning the entire event inside out by creating a voting booth, wherein the entire group, confronted with a highly uncomfortable but necessary reckoning, rises in force (l7 to 3) to respond, even though they would much rather go to lunch.

The play falls apart in a weak third act, in which high drama pretending to be relevant is revealed merely to be a tawdry, take-care-of-feelings cop-out.

Hmm.

Not sure if the reviewer really understood what he was seeing. 

The third act, for me at least, revealed the play to be a cautionary tale on the benefit of avoiding totally unnecessary tawdry drama when it is not utterly necessary.  (And something about knowing the nature of snakes.)

You forgot to mention the voting figures.

Maybe they all avoided tough love responsibility.

Maybe somebody did.

[Lanya]

We essentially kicked out a contributing member, even if some of us didn't like his methodology, he still presented a viewpoint.

His comments to Terra were, well insensitive, but I have been called a lot of crap here as well over the time I have been involved. I usually end up retreating for a while and then coming back later. After all, not ALL of his posts were, well, over the top.

Do I need to go back and locate ones that were not over the top?

I'm just bowled over by this post, and many of the others.   Professor, would you like it if your wife or your daughter---or perhaps your mother-- had the same things said to her on a forum?  Would you say those comments were, well, insensitive or would they be beyond all the bounds of decency?   
Where is the line?  He advocated that Henny blow up her child with a bomb.  Hm. That's a contribution?  Or was that, "well, over the top" but not enough to damn him to eternal exile, oh the shame of that is too, too much.
I just don't get where the line is drawn.
Terra had insults completely out of the blue tossed at her.  You wail, "Oh but he's a contributing MEMBER! And JS is so IRRITATING!" 

Again I ask.  If this were your daughter, would that be your first response?  "Honey, he's got things to say that, well, aren't always over the top.  Deal with it."

I guess this is something that feels right to you.  A liberal non-Christian woman, Terra, gets horrible things said to her but hey, she's liberal and non-Christian so it's OK.  Your wife, your daughter, I bet, you'd think it was totally inappropriate.  Because guess what. It is.  It does not matter who it's said to.   
Unless maybe part of the draw of this place is, nudge nudge wink wink, occasionally you get to punch out (with words only, darn it) an older liberal woman.  What fun.  Come one, come all. 
As you do to the least of these, so you do also to Me.   Who said that?  Do you agree with that?  Or do you think it doesn't pertain to this situation?   

[The_Professor]

We essentially kicked out a contributing member, even if some of us didn't like his methodology, he still presented a viewpoint.

His comments to Terra were, well insensitive, but I have been called a lot of crap here as well over the time I have been involved. I usually end up retreating for a while and then coming back later. After all, not ALL of his posts were, well, over the top.

Do I need to go back and locate ones that were not over the top?

I'm just bowled over by this post, and many of the others.   Professor, would you like it if your wife or your daughter---or perhaps your mother-- had the same things said to her on a forum?  Would you say those comments were, well, insensitive or would they be beyond all the bounds of decency?   
Where is the line?  He advocated that Henny blow up her child with a bomb.  Hm. That's a contribution?  Or was that, "well, over the top" but not enough to damn him to eternal exile, oh the shame of that is too, too much.
I just don't get where the line is drawn.
Terra had insults completely out of the blue tossed at her.  You wail, "Oh but he's a contributing MEMBER! And JS is so IRRITATING!" 

Again I ask.  If this were your daughter, would that be your first response?  "Honey, he's got things to say that, well, aren't always over the top.  Deal with it."

I guess this is something that feels right to you.  A liberal non-Christian woman, Terra, gets horrible things said to her but hey, she's liberal and non-Christian so it's OK.  Your wife, your daughter, I bet, you'd think it was totally inappropriate.  Because guess what. It is.  It does not matter who it's said to.   
Unless maybe part of the draw of this place is, nudge nudge wink wink, occasionally you get to punch out (with words only, darn it) an older liberal woman.  What fun.  Come one, come all. 
As you do to the least of these, so you do also to Me.   Who said that?  Do you agree with that?  Or do you think it doesn't pertain to this situation?   

Gee, did I hit a nerve or what?

I do not know any details regarding the child blow up issue. I honestly do not know why he would say such a thing. But then again, my friend Bob, aka Mr Perceptive, got stuff said to him that were way over the top. As is his nature, after he got fed up, he just said F--k it and went elsewhere.

Rich said a lot of insentivie things but then again others have as well. Terra herself could be, well, biting. That she will go to Hell is beside the point. When she was here, I found many of her posts to be rewarding. In fact, many were very thought-provoking. What does THAT have to do with "the price of milk"? Nada. Zip.

I see liberals here say all kinds of crud and do not get kicked out but a conservative one does and ZAP! Was he over the top? Yep. Massively. But then again, I did say that, didn't I? Perhaps you are reading a cached version?

And, if you notice, the vote was NOT unanimous, was it? So, his supposedly "heineous crime" was not really so clearly "heineous" after all, huh? So, please feel free to depart from your elevated location, aka high horse, and stand on the good ole Earth again, if you please.

[_JS]

First, Rich is not a snake so there is no need to blame Terra at all. Rich is a human being with full cognitive functions and unlike a snake he does not act out of instinct. Terra's past behavior is irrelevant to the discussion. She should not have been treated as she was. Rich had a mind and he used it to do what has become a pattern of behavior for him.

Second, it does not matter if one is liberal, conservative, green, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Labour, Tory, or Lib Dem. No one should be permitted to threaten anyone's children nor any similar actions. As Mike and others have conveyed in very easy to understand format, there is a simple line between heated debate and outrageous behavior. Most of us recognize and do not cross that line. Others repeatedly have problems with it. It isn't rocket science.

Lastly, in my opinion Rich should have been banned when he acted as he did with Henny in regards to her son. He wasn't and he was given yet another chance. Hey, you put your finger in the electric outlet repeatedly and it keeps shocking you - after a while you've got to start understanding the cause and effect that is taking place, right?

[yellow_crane]

The common denominator in all this overthetop reactionaryness about Richpo's well-deserved, poll-tested rewards' reaping is how he might react, rather than how his actions warrant trimming.

It is as if everybody is saying "Hey!!  He will quit!  All of this will just make him quit."

That would be consistent with all the other times he vowed to emerge victorious by pouting.

I called for a reckoning because I saw him unable to communicate with, and to every oppositional point for him to consider, he simply called names, impuned with acid vitriolic, and threats, threats, threats.  Promises of unspecified violence.   Many of his latter posts contain an element of mocking any authority within and without the forum for some time.  Two things I never mentioned were his religous bigotry contained within his post and his heavy past--these would extend beyond his quite sufficient culpable actions in regards to addressing someone who was clearly trying to get along.  

Clearly you can see that he backed himself into a corner by playing "come and get me if you dare" for some time now.  

In all that he sits he is the author of.

If all this sounds liike I am talking about the actions of an emotionally immature child, I am being heard.

The perfect scenario would be that he would realize the strength against him, and examine himself for any possibles of healing contrition.  He holds the entire world out there in check by not aplogizing for his actions, and nobody can move until he does.  That is how it works. This is an age-old ritual to correct the collective, and his fitting that template in this occurance is too obvious to mention.  Certainly he has heard this resolution described often, if his religious associations are to be believed.  It is time they took.

His punishment, as it now stands in the vote, seems quite on par, and not like the unmentionable horror some few others' acting out of their own dysfunction are trying to suggest.  They seem to say that the forum 'does not know what it is doing;'  I myself find it a reaffirming return to center, a forum displaying that it is well able to counter the bluster of a protracted tantrum spoken with increasing, nay multiplying, vileness.

And you are wrong about the party thing.  

Knute was right.  He has been routinely whacked for much less a defiant posture.  

Knute, too, though, writes his own novel, as do we all.

[Plane]

The common denominator in all this overthetop reactionaryness about Richpo's well-deserved, poll-tested rewards' reaping is how he might react, rather than how his actions warrant trimming.

It is as if everybody is saying "Hey!!  He will quit!  All of this will just make him quit."

That would be consistent with all the other times he vowed to emerge victorious by pouting.

I called for a reckoning because I saw him unable to communicate with, and to every oppositional point for him to consider, he simply called names, impuned with acid vitriolic, and threats, threats, threats.  Promises of unspecified violence.   Many of his latter posts contain an element of mocking any authority within and without the forum for some time.  Two things I never mentioned were his religous bigotry contained within his post and his heavy past--these would extend beyond his quite sufficient culpable actions in regards to addressing someone who was clearly trying to get along.  

Clearly you can see that he backed himself into a corner by playing "come and get me if you dare" for some time now.  

In all that he sits he is the author of.

If all this sounds liike I am talking about the actions of an emotionally immature child, I am being heard.

The perfect scenario would be that he would realize the strength against him, and examine himself for any possibles of healing contrition.  He holds the entire world out there in check by not aplogizing for his actions, and nobody can move until he does.  That is how it works. This is an age-old ritual to correct the collective, and his fitting that template in this occurance is too obvious to mention.  Certainly he has heard this resolution described often, if his religious associations are to be believed.  It is time they took.

His punishment, as it now stands in the vote, seems quite on par, and not like the unmentionable horror some few others' acting out of their own dysfunction are trying to suggest.  They seem to say that the forum 'does not know what it is doing;'  I myself find it a reaffirming return to center, a forum displaying that it is well able to counter the bluster of a protracted tantrum spoken with increasing, nay multiplying, vileness.

And you are wrong about the party thing.  

Knute was right.  He has been routinely whacked for much less a defiant posture.  

Knute, too, though, writes his own novel, as do we all.

What is the path for RichPo redemption?
Is it poossible that our community remain diverse and represent all points of the compass , but not become a saloon brawl ?

[Brassmask]

Lastly, in my opinion Rich should have been banned when he acted as he did with Henny in regards to her son. He wasn't and he was given yet another chance. Hey, you put your finger in the electric outlet repeatedly and it keeps shocking you - after a while you've got to start understanding the cause and effect that is taking place, right?

Dude, this was my point exactly.

[Michael Tee]

<<What is the path for RichPo redemption?>>

He apologizes to terra in a manner that our moderator will judge to be sincere and unconditional.  Otherwise, fuck him and fuck his redemption.

<<Is it poossible that our community remain diverse and represent all points of the compass , but not become a saloon brawl ?>>

Yeah, sure it's possible.  But let's keep our priorities in order: no. 1 is that there has to be, allowing for all the heat and vituperation of debate, a basic unbreachable level of respect of one human being to another.  AFTER that comes diversity, all points of the compass and not becoming a saloon brawl.

[Cynthia]

Yeah, sure it's possible.  But let's keep our priorities in order: no. 1 is that there has to be, allowing for all the heat and vituperation of debate, a basic unbreachable level of respect of one human being to another.  AFTER that comes diversity, all points of the compass and not becoming a saloon brawl.

YES!

Who is willing to wager how much of this discussion has been about RichPo and how much has been a venue -the vent-mobile?