DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on December 28, 2007, 09:14:49 PM
-
Vote once please
-
What comments? What thread? ???
-
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4904.0
-
Vote once please
He should be banned for what he said to Plane as well. I have been exiled for much less.
-
Totally uncalled for. Brings the level of debate right down into the gutter, as low as it can get. I'd give 24 hrs. to make an unconditional, serious and sincere apology and then ban him for life if he doesn't. You can be the sole judge of whether the apology is serious and sincere or not, but IMHO, it would have to score pretty high on the grovel level. A simple "sorry" is not going to pass muster.
-
Bull hockey.
It was certainly and unquestioningly uncalled-for, IMHO, no doubt about that. But, things around here can and do get a little dehumanizing occasionally anyway, so it was more negative than most but not by much.
Plus, Rich does provide a valuable service here at the Forum. I would like that voice to be heard. I soemtiems agree with him and sometimes don't, but it is a vocie/position that should be heard.
I find the intense condescending attitude of JS to be EXTREMELY grating, but I wouldn't advocate him being cast out where gnashing of teeth occurs either.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lVzK_JR66Q&feature=related
-
<<It was certainly and unquestioningly uncalled-for. IMHO, no doubt about that. But, things around here can and do get a little dehumanizing occasionally anyway, so it was more negative than most but not by much.>>
IMHO, it was a LOT more vile than most of the personal insults that occur here. It was purely ad hominem or ad feminem, a purely personal attack and just as foul and vile as it can get.
<<Plus, Rich does provide a valuable service here at the Forum. I would like that voice to be heard.>>
Yes, he does, and I'll miss his voice if he goes. But there's no contribution so valuable that it trumps the basic human decency that we as members owe to one another. Insults DO get batted around here, but I really can't recall any one of them as vile and disgusting as Rich's attack on terra.
<<I find the intense condescending attitude of JS to be EXTREMELY grating, but I wouldn't advocate him being cast out where gnashing of teeth occurs either.>>
Ludicrous to compare your feeling of what is basically annoyance or irritation with the hurtfulness of the insult levelled at terra.
-
Just vote folks.
let's save the speeches for damnation or redemption for later.
-
I can't find the comment.
Perhaps someone could tell me where this is?
Thank you.
-
I can't find the comment.
Perhaps someone could tell me where this is?
Thank you.
BT posted the link further down in this thread. Here it is again: http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4904.0
-
<<Just vote folks.
<<let's save the speeches for damnation or redemption for later. >>
But people need guidance before they vote. That's why political campaigns are conducted before the voting and not after.
-
<<Just vote folks.
<<let's save the speeches for damnation or redemption for later. >>
But people need guidance before they vote. That's why political campaigns are conducted before the voting and not after.
No, campaigns are handled to "handle" people. Don't tell me you actually believe cmapaigns change a great number of votes. ????
-
Ludicrous to compare your feeling of what is basically annoyance or irritation with the hurtfulness of the insult levelled at terra.
Both you and Terra have said some pretty vile things to me in the past, but I don't remember either of you being banned for them.
-
Speaking from personal experience as someone who was once kicked out, herself ;)(but of course I was very upset with an individual here, and I suppose it was good for everyone at that time that I take a long deserved break from the old western saloon days).....
I think Richpo's words were harsh, indeed. I was taken aback by them, but I wouldn't kick him out. It's still a saloon, afterall. He has had a pretty good track record, you have to admit.
Ok...yes, I also agree that we should be allowed to speak to the issue before voting.
-
<<Both you and Terra have said some pretty vile things to me in the past, but I don't remember either of you being banned for them.>>
Bullshit. terra can speak for herself, but I never said anything to you that was vile or even close to the line.
-
<<No, campaigns are handled to "handle" people.>>
"handle," "persuade," whatever. You're just playing semantic games here. The purpose of the campaign is to affect the outcome of the vote in a way favourable to the campaigner. That is obvious.
<<Don't tell me you actually believe cmapaigns change a great number of votes.>>
As I understand the modern campaign, it's aimed at the so-called "swing vote" but it can't afford to make any mistakes that will cost it votes from either the core or the swing.
-
Bullshit. terra can speak for herself, but I never said anything to you that was vile or even close to the line.
I consider calling my family "Nazi sympathizers" - several times - to be over the line.
-
He has had a pretty good track record, you have to admit.
Since when? He has a history of going over the line, being banned, and being let back in later. For years.
Then there was the time a few months back when he advocated that I blow my son up with a suicide bomb.
Again, what good track record?
That said, and a bit in Rich's defense, he never pretends to be something he's not. And I think it might be kind of boring without him. How much fun is it to debate with people you agree with?
-
He has had a pretty good track record, you have to admit.
Since when? He has a history of going over the line, being banned, and being let back in later. For years.
Then there was the time a few months back when he advocated that I blow my son up with a suicide bomb.
Again, what good track record?
That said, and a bit in Rich's defense, he never pretends to be something he's not. And I think it might be kind of boring without him. How much fun is it to debate with people you agree with?
Ooops...didn't know that, Henny.
-
Advocating blowing up your son is certainly over the line. Assuring, to the best of your ability, he is a Christian is indeed called for and entirely Scriptural. God holds us accountable for our actions regarding our children. But, it is YOUR business how you proceed. If that was the event of a few months ago, I left a while over it, I believe, since JS made the unilateral decision to not post all posts. Sic Semper Tyrannis!
You make a good point -- Rich provides a distinct point of view. It is entertaining to see it displayed. Plus, there are gems in what he says - sometimes. You just need to analyze what he says and not particularly how it says it. It is too easy to simply dismiss what is said without analyzing it.
Plus, as Plane has indicated over and over, we need a diverse range of views here.
-
Advocating blowing up your son is certainly over the line. Assuring, to the best of your ability, he is a Christian is indeed called for and entirely Scriptural. God holds us accountable for our actions regarding our children. But, it is YOUR business how you proceed. If that was the event of a few months ago, I left a while over it, I believe, since JS made the unilateral decision to not post all posts. Sic Semper Tyrannis!
You make a good point -- Rich provides a distinct point of view. It is entertaining to see it displayed. Plus, there are gems in what he says - sometimes. You just need to analyze what he says and not particularly how it says it. It is too easy to simply dismiss what is said without analyzing it.
Plus, as Plane has indicated over and over, we need a diverse range of views here.
Actually, this was a later episode. He did delete his own post but later defended it. And I don't disagree with you on the other points in the first paragraph, but all things said, I would never write a venomous post about Rich's children, and expected the same.
As for gems in what he says - is that something like shitting diamonds? LOL.
I don't always disagree with Rich, for the record. But his method of delivery is horrible and always has been.
-
"As for gems in what he says - is that something like shitting diamonds? LOL"
Well, I remember as a child going to a place in Arkansas, I believe, where you go out in a field and dig up dirt. Diamonds are naturally scattered there and people do occasionally get one or several.
-
I'll save you cocksuckers the trouble.
-
I'll save you cocksuckers the trouble.
Ahhh, I voted for a brief stay away.....but maybe he can't take the heat.
quacks like a duck,suppose. ???
-
I believe we made an error here, folks.
-
What error is that?
-
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?
-
No one kicked out anyone. Essentially or otherwise.
-
I am sorry, but you are incorrect, BT.
Rich left, or may leave, due to the actions taken here -- this poll. Therefore, cause and effect.
-
Rich left or may leave all on his own.
-
I am sorry, but you are incorrect, BT.
Rich left, or may leave, due to the actions taken here -- this poll. Therefore, cause and effect.
Boofuckenhoo. What a sensitive soul this richpo must be- LMFAO!
-
I find the intense condescending attitude of JS to be EXTREMELY grating...since JS made the unilateral decision to not post all posts. Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Damn...what did I do? :P
-
Damn...what did I do?
You did the job of a moderator, you moderated.
Now the members get to share the experience and burden of deciding the fate of a peer, something we have had to do lo these many years.
-
And frankly, BT.....I have to say the groups choice to escort one out of the saloon has, for the most part been a good one....heat can't stay cool for long....it only escalates into a blood bath..as we have all seen in the past.
RichPo took breath away from some with such remarks. He sure did. I hadn't known about the remark about a child...Henny's boy...that would have set me off for certain.
All in all....there were folks who gave him a good college try in the past day here.....and he thumbed his nose at us. Takes a brave soul to realize when "we done wrong".....bruised egos are testy little articles, but Richpo really made his bed and if he choses to leave...perhaps he will return with an Imus sentiment of sense and sensibility...
No matter....presently, he went over the top and if allowed to stay, that sort of "gad goy" behavior would revivify the old badly toiled days here.
I thought the "dude" would say sorry and move on.....guess not.
But, I do feel for him...as I have had to bite the dust and scoot outta town.....but it was for a good reason. I was not being very "nice".
Tempers flair and dare to create ugliness in here...nature of the beast?
Frankly, this board has really cleaned up nice! I love to post here. I still enjoy the read....and I find myself learning more each time I return.
Cynthia
-
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?
Bull.
Rich made his own choice. He was a pro at "dishing it out," and this time he got a bit of that back.
Rich took his toys and went home. Simple as that.
-
RichPo took breath away from some with such remarks.
And Rich will be back.
It's a pattern. He will come back, be civil and decent for a while, and then regress into name calling and nastiness. Wash, rinse, repeat.
-
I am sorry, but you are incorrect, BT.
Rich left, or may leave, due to the actions taken here -- this poll. Therefore, cause and effect.
Boofuckenhoo. What a sensitive soul this richpo must be- LMFAO!
Knute -- your insensitivity brands you an ass - a legitimaite ASS! If you father with this level of insensitivity, I feel for your offspring -- same applies to your wife. Try at least, a little, to care, huh?
I have no offspring because the little boogers like to rebel, they would have been as big fascist as Richpoo I am afraid, and I wouldnt want to bring any o\more of that nasty bullshit into the world. My wife is treated like a queaen and not beaten and traded around like you RW freaks like to do.
-
I am sorry, but you are incorrect, BT.
Rich left, or may leave, due to the actions taken here -- this poll. Therefore, cause and effect.
Terra apparently left because of Rich's comments, so I would call that a quid pro quo; however, the fact is both of them left of their own free will. If Rich left because he felt singled out (or just insulted) his behavior was the cause of the attention. Terra, IMO, did not deserve the filthy level of the insults Rich threw at her. I have no problem with him (or anyone) calling someone names which might be relevent to the debate (e.g. hypocrite, wing nut, commie, fascist, whatever) though I don't consider them to be particularly rational. But Rich's comments were not just inflammatory, they were abusive. I think we do need voices such as his here, but that when someone reaches this level of intensity, it's time for at least a break. I do not know if this poll was intended to be binding, to make a point about the difficulty of making such decisions, or just to give Rich (and perhaps others of us) a wake-up call about minimum levels of civil behavior. At any level, it seems to have had an effect.
-
<<I consider calling my family "Nazi sympathizers" - several times - to be over the line.>>
As I remember the thread, you were the one who brought your family into the discussion in the first place, and I called it the way I saw it, based on:
1. Popularity of the Nazis in Austria
2. Lack of any resistance to the Nazis by the Austrians, particularly in view of their "occupation" by Germany "against their will"
3. Participation of many Austrians, from Adolf Hitler on down, in the Nazi movement (for a small - - 34 pages - - list of prominent Austrian Nazis, including some of the worst war criminals and concentration camp guards, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Austrian_Nazis)
4. Filmed documentation of public persecution of Jews in Vienna by large and enthusiastic crowds of Austrian citizens, including forcing the Jews to crawl on their hands and knees in public, eating the grass like animals and "cleaning" the sidewalks with toothbrushes
5. The bullshit charges that your father's elementary school was "bombed" in broad daylight by "British" aircraft -- typical Nazi defences of "victimization" and "suffering" to distract from their own crimes and atrocities
6. The general absence of any repercussions following from your family's alleged "anti-Nazi" sympathies.
7. The anti-Soviet and then anti-British commentary, followed by an unsupported general declaration of "anti-Nazi" sympathies only after the Nazi-like nature of the family animosities was pointed out to you.
None of this adds up to proof positive. Life rarely gives us the opportunity to make such proof without the aid of a prosecutorial team of investigators, researchers, etc. But it's a common pattern, which I easily recognized and pointed out in response to your own initial use of your family's "evidence" in smearing our former Soviet allies.
I believe what I said was that the odds were overwhelming that your family - - whose anti-Soviet opinion you had provided as "evidence" of how "bad" the Russians really were (another hallmark, BTW, of Nazi propaganda) - - were in fact Nazi sympathizers, spouting the usual Nazi line about the "atrocities" of the Red Army. Note that I did not include YOU in the characterization. Still don't. But in the context of the discussion we were engaged in at the time, the comments were all legitimate. They didn't even come close to the line.
-
I calls 'em like I sees 'em. You called my family Nazi sympathizers, even after proof was provided that several of your "points" were incorrect. You even even said that you would believe if I told you that they were not, which I did, then you continued to say that they were Nazi sympathizers. That was over the line in my opinion.
I guess in your clean and clear world, no one can be against the Nazis and also not like the actions of the Soviets or the British? You have to love the Soviets in order to hate the Nazis?
-
<<You even even said that you would believe if I told you that they were not, which I did . . . >>
I honestly don't recall putting it like that. It would be a stupid thing to say, since you could be honestly mistaken by what they told you, but if I said it, I'll stick to it.
You never proved any of my points were incorrect, I think once you corrected me when I said the RAF never conducted daylight raids, but the exceptions were (1) at the very start of the war, for a short period of time, when the bombers' range probably wouldn't have included Austria anyway and (2) towards the end of the war. I further produced the web-site of all RAF bomber ops and couldn't find any daylight raids on Austria. Other than that one minor and inconsequential error, I don't believe you proved any of my points incorrect.
<<I guess in your clean and clear world, no one can be against the Nazis and also not like the actions of the Soviets or the British? You have to love the Soviets in order to hate the Nazis?>>
In my clean and clear world, the British are the good guys and thank God for them. They are the only combatants who remained on their feet after the Fall of France and refused to give in to Hitler. I'm alive today because of them. Same for the Red Army, who killed millions of Nazi bastards and are more responsible than any other Allied country for the defeat of Hitler. AND did not "forgive and forget" after the war, but were the only Ally that made sure the Nazi bastards and their collaborators actually paid for their crimes.
-
all right all right.....let it go~
New Poll please! Bt!!
Why make a new bitch poll out of this voting booth?
-
amimo deficere aliquamdiu
-
If Rich leaves voluntarily while we are considering whether or not to take any action, then he has stolen the initiative and taken the responsibility.
Does this get us off the hook?
We still need to decide whether or not we need a firm policy or a lax one , on the amount of insult and invective we must tolerate.
Whether or not we believe in redemption and second chances.
Whether or not our forum serves our membership or frustrates us.
Most of you know I have always lobbied for lax rules and attempted to encourage self controll rather than imposed contoll.
Can my idea be achieved?
The stakes here are low , if we loose this forum we will all find other places to post our opinions , or just quit wasting time like this.
If we can't solve such problems here where the stakes are so low , what is the hope for us in the real world where such problems are common and the stakes are often high?
The value of simple civility is plain here and now , nothing more is required for our little community to prosper , nothing less is adequate on any scale up to the whole world..
-
Plane has indeed here demonstrated excellent discernment. Now, what are the answers?
-
Plane has indeed here demonstrated excellent discernment. Now, what are the answers?
Proactive encouragement of good behavior.
-
You never proved any of my points were incorrect, I think once you corrected me when I said the RAF never conducted daylight raids, but the exceptions were (1) at the very start of the war, for a short period of time, when the bombers' range probably wouldn't have included Austria anyway and (2) towards the end of the war. I further produced the web-site of all RAF bomber ops and couldn't find any daylight raids on Austria. Other than that one minor and inconsequential error, I don't believe you proved any of my points incorrect.
Actually, I proved that your point about the Austrians being "overwhelmingly" pro-Nazi was incorrect (with the documentation on voting patterns for the Anschluss vote), and I also pointed out that your documentation about RAF raids only listed the primary targets for bombing missions. Even you should know that all bombing missions also had secondary targets along the flight path (and the RAF's flight paths were almost all over Austria) which were to be hit in several situations - a) if the bombing mission did not expend all of it's ordinance over the primary, it would hit secondary targets on the way back, and b) if a bomber was damaged so that it could not complete it's mission, it was to hit the closest secondary target and turn back. Since your documentation did not show secondary targets, it does not prove that the RAF did not target sites in Austria.
-
Austrian voting patterns on the Anschluss would prove very little, since the pre-Anschluss Austrian government was also fascist and anti-Semitic. A vote against Anschluss was more a vote for Austrian as opposed to German nationalism , and didn't necessarily reflect any deep philosophical disagreement with the basic tenets of the Nazi party. When the Anschluss was a fait accompli, there was little if any Austrian opposition to the Nazi program, as evidenced by the 34-page list of prominent Austrian Nazis and war criminals which I posted. A "voting pattern" which you neglected to quote was the 3% rise in Kurt Waldheim's popularity, polled after the revelations of his buried S.S. past were brought to the surface. Remarkable, isn't it, that revelations of a carefully hidden Nazi past would cause a man's popularity to rise in a supposedly anti-Nazi country?
-
The International Committee of historians
Because of the ongoing international controversy, the Austrian government decided to appoint an international committee of historians to examine Waldheim's life between 1938 and 1945. Their report cited evidence of Waldheim's knowledge about preparation for war crimes but denied any personal involvement in those crimes. According to the controversial Betrayal: The Untold Story of the Kurt Waldheim Investigation and Cover-Up by Eli Rosenbaum, the Austrian government and a number of media outlets vigorously opposed the allegations both before and after the release of the report.[24] During the controversy, Waldheim was defended by Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal,[25] who stated in a letter to The Forward, published October 15, 1993:
The people from the World Jewish Congress, who were so committed to the Waldheim case, find it difficult to accept the results of the international commission of historians. This commission, which was formed at my instigation in Vienna, had come to the conclusion that Mr. Waldheim knew about the wartime crimes in the Balkans but that he was not personally involved in these. A similar judgment was pronounced by a committee that examined the documents about Mr. Waldheim on Thames Television in London. The committee included some of the most respected jurists; the former director of the Office of Special Investigations, Alan Ryan, functioned as prosecutor. This group, too, concluded that there is no 'case' against Mr. Waldheim.
As Simon Wiesenthal publicly stated, there was no evidence found by the committee that Waldheim took part in any war crimes. Rather Waldheim's offence has been to lie about his military record. [26] The International Committee in February 1988 concluded, with regard to Waldheim's ability to do something about the crimes he knew that were going on in Yugoslavia and Greece:
In favour of Waldheim is, that he only had very minor possibilities to act against the injustices happening. Actions against these, depending on which level the resistance occurred, were of very different importance. For a young member of the staff, who did not have any military authority on the army group level, the practical possibilities for resistance were very limited and with a high probability would not have led to any actual results. Resistance would have been limited to a formal protest or on the refusal to serve any longer in the army, which would have seemed to be a courageous act, however would have not led to any practical achievement. [27]
[edit] Ostrovsky claims
In 1994 the supposed former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky claimed in his book The Other Side of Deception that Mossad doctored the file of the then UN Secretary General to implicate him in Nazi crimes. These false documents were subsequently "discovered" by Benjamin Netanyahu in the UN file, and triggered the "Waldheim Affair". Ostrovsky says the reason was Waldheim's criticism of Israeli action in Lebanon. [28] Debate surrounds Ostrovsky and his writings but they have not as yet been shown to be false, nor have they been shown to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Waldheim
-
<<Plane has indeed here demonstrated excellent discernment. Now, what are the answers?>>
No holds barred except when a post is purely personal attack, speaks to no other point in issue and reaches a level of hurtfulness and vileness that I'm content to let the moderators be the judge of. (Like pornography, I know it when I see it and so would any half-way intelligent moderator.)
I'd like to leave it to the moderator. If he or she is good enough to moderate the group, he or she is good enough to know when a line's been crossed. Why is "left-wing commie traitor" or "killer of American troops" OK and "ugly bag of puss" not OK? Obviously, because one refers to a political stance which can be picked up or abandoned at will, to a choice which one has made and ought to be prepared to stand behind regardless of verbal abuse; the other is purely an attack on the persona and being of another poster, not in the remotest way issue-connected.
Polls may be helpful in gauging the degree of public acceptance of various levels of personal abuse, and if a moderator chooses to be influenced by them, he or she should be free to exercise his or her discretion any way that he or she chooses. If the chosen style of exercising discretion is to take polls, so be it.
I agree with plane that these are low stakes, but I also believe in mutual respect (at some basic bottom-line level) and the Golden Rule - - I wouldn't like to be a part of something that shows significantly less respect to another member (terra in this case) than I would like to receive myself, and my demands in terms of respect are pretty minimal. If a poster can't reach that minimal level, fuck him, let him find some other place to spew his bile.* My two cents' worth.
P.S. I meant, after giving him or her 24 hours to apologize.
-
My point was that Waldheim's popularity in Austrian polls ROSE by 3% after his buried Nazi past was revealed. The issue was Austrian attitudes towards the Nazis. My point was proven by the rise in popularity triggered by revelations of a Nazi past - - it does not depend on the truthfulness or falsity of the revelations - - when the guy was seen to be a Nazi, rightfully or wrongfully, more people liked him than when he wasn't seen to be a Nazi.
That "famed Nazi hunter" Eli Wiesenthal is a sell-out was proven in the Balkan wars when he denounced Serbian "war crimes" and defended Croatia. The Croats were Hitler's allies in WWII - - the Croatian fascist movement, the Ustashe, massacred 60,000 Jews and 600,000 Serbs in some of the most barbaric and sadistic killings of the entire war. Even the Germans condemned some of their actions. The Italian war correspondent Curzio Malaparte gave a terrific account of their atrocities, some of which he had witnessed first-hand. He was present in the Croatian leader Ante Pavelic's office when Pavelic's aide brought in a wicker basket full of human eyeballs. The Serbs, who with the Montenegrans, formed the bulk of Marshall Tito's anti-fascist guerrilla forces, were our Allies throughout the war, but when they defended Serbs against Croats during the break-up of Yugoslavia and tried to get a little payback for the wartime crimes of the Croatians, suddenly, to Wiesenthal of all people, they became the "bad guys." Wiesenthal had whored himself out to U.S. foreign policy interests because the U.S. was now backing the Israeli apartheid state. Nothing else mattered to him. Now the Croatians, with their neo-Nazi skinhead volunteers from Germany, were on the side of the angels. OF COURSE the guy would join in the whitewash of Kurt Waldheim. Fooling nobody who knows him.
-
If your grandfather wronged me, i have the right, no the duty, to wrong you?
Is that what you are saying?
-
Rich grossly crossed the line because he engaged in a naked personal attack entirely divorced from rational argument or its logical extension. Trading on the closely personal, Terra's Wiccanism, he seized a vile stereotype of witches and proclaimed her a "bag of pus" and decried her "crack" in pejorative terms. This went beyond argument and competition into the purposefully hurtful, and it did not accord Terra the baseline of what I demand from this club: a core of respect that transcends disagreement. Perhaps hard to live up to at times in the heat of argument, the line is nonetheless definite, and Rich clearly crossed it. I have voted for the one-month suspension.
-
I will note in addition, and emphasize this point, that Rich's behavior is directly antithetical to the Catholicism he brandishes on his chest like a badge of honor. Rather than being Christlike and charitable (loving), Rich has perverted his religion into the bludgeon of the majority, the barbaric segment of the majority, in a most despicable combination of "righteousness" and hate that the true villains of history could be "proud" of.
-
Perhaps it's time for RichPo to find redemption, then. God works in mysterious ways.
-
Rich is prone to attack. This is well known. His "methods" are well known.
As are his buttons.
If one knows that a snake will bite when poked with a snake, or even knows there is even a snake in the bushes, why go near it, let alone poke it?
Not to blame the victim but I generally ignore Rich as much as possible because I just don't want to give him the opportunity to be an ass unless I just want to get into it with him.
I voted for him to be on probation for a month rather than outright banned. As it turned out, he may have imposed his own sentence; however, as we all know, he will be back for if he were intent on not returning he would not have thumbed his nose as he headed towards the door.
Those intent on actually leaving simply leave and don't return. Terra has left and returned numerous times always in the same manner. At Dailykos, they call it "GBCW". Good Bye Cruel World. A diarist writes a post detailing the cruelty and harshness of the environment and decrying the perceived enemies of all justice then ceases posting only to return after some period (long or short) of lurking/absence.
-
My point was that Waldheim's popularity in Austrian polls ROSE by 3% after his buried Nazi past was revealed.
First, I discount polls completely. Nevertheless, polls rising in this case is adequately explained by Austrian citizens being pissed about outsiders involving themselves in Austrian politics. It's a very common attitude among Austrians - if an outsider tries to influence them, they do the opposite just to be ornery.
-
It would not be my style to use terms he did, however a better question might be:
"If Rich was a liberal, would we even be asking this question?"
-
<<If your grandfather wronged me, i have the right, no the duty, to wrong you?
<<Is that what you are saying?>>
Wait till you stand in the shoes of someone like a Serbian militiaman whose entire family was tortured and murdered by Nazis in atrocities that you don't even know about before you roll out the Socratic questions about grandfathers and grandsons. It looks a lot different through the eyes of the victims than it does through the eyes of the bystanders who don't even know what happened the day before yesterday.
When you truly understand who the grandfather was, you won't lose any sleep over the fate of the grandson. From rotten trees you get rotten fruit. Nineteen times out of twenty. The twentieth was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. In answer to your question, my grandfather wasn't a fucking war criminal. If he had been, I'd be a totally different person.
And a further reality check for you: some of the grandfathers are still around even today. Some of the payback was direct to the source. As for the others, the presence of neo-Nazi German skinhead volunteers in the Croatian army should indicate even to the semiconscious the nature of their cause and what they still stand for. Only that egregious little prick Wiesenthal would support them, and that's because "the West" and in particular the U.S.A. have chosen to back them in opposition to the pro-Russian Serbs. It's a trade-off - - he and the Likud support the Nazis and in return (he hopes) the U.S.A. supports the Israeli apartheid state. Unprincipled little schmuck.
-
I'll keep your reply in mind next time you spout off about peace.
How different is your justification for generational revenge than the Israeli's desire for a safe secure homeland, no matter the price.
-
<<I'll keep your reply in mind next time you spout off about peace.>>
I hope you do. You'll notice when I "spout off" about peace, it's to condemn those conducting gratuitous wars of aggression against people who have given them no cause for the aggression. I never confuse "peace" with giving war criminals and their descendants a free pass. I never confuse "peace" with surrendering to fascism, racism and militarism.
<<How different is your justification for generational revenge than the Israeli's desire for a safe secure homeland, no matter the price.>>
When the "safe, secure homeland" is already occupied by millions of innocent Arabs, the Israeli desire for "peace" in the West Bank is pretty much the same as the Nazi desire for "peace" in Occupied Europe.
-
When the "safe, secure homeland" is already occupied by millions of innocent Arabs, the Israeli desire for "peace" in the West Bank is pretty much the same as the Nazi desire for "peace" in Occupied Europe.
Perhaps the Palestinian forebearers offended the Israeli's in some way, back in the day. Which makes their actions OK in your book, if your model is consistent.
-
<<Perhaps the Palestinian forebearers offended the Israeli's in some way, back in the day. Which makes their actions OK in your book, if your model is consistent.>>
No, perhaps you have the Palestinians confused with the Germans or the Eastern Europeans. Their forebearers really DID offend the Jews back in the day and accordingly some payback might be in order for them. The Palestinians, despite the odd massacre here and there, were relatively inoffensive. Even the massacres were in response to a land grab, made all the worse by Arab memories of broken promises made by the British. And I have to say in the case of the Germans, they have been remarkably straightforward in acknowledging their crimes, making amends as best they can and guarding vigilantly against the return of Nazi ideology. They might be one of the rare cases where payback could be gratuitous and unjustified. They certainly rejected Nazi ideology and violence in a way that the Croatians never have and never will.
-
The Palestinians, despite the odd massacre here and there, were relatively inoffensive.
Subjective at best. Sounds like you are on the outside looking in.
Besides blood grudges are ok in your book. Who says the offense has to be real or fit nicely on a scale.
-
Austrian voting patterns on the Anschluss would prove very little, since the pre-Anschluss Austrian government was also fascist and anti-Semitic.
Funny how, at the time, you brought up the vote for Anschluss as part of your "proof" that Austrians were all Nazi sympathizers. Now, all of a sudden, it proves very little. Funny how that works, huh?
-
<<Besides blood grudges are ok in your book. Who says the offense has to be real or fit nicely on a scale.>>
Blood grudges? What the hell are you talking about? In Serbia it was about avenging crimes of mass extermination. No way do those crimes match up to the small-scale massacre in Hebron in 1929, which you could more or less expect in any war for land. The massacre of Jews and Serbs was a purely gratuitous act of racial hatred.
-
So blood grudges are ok if they attain a certain level of causalities?
Would Armenians be justified in blowing up random Turks?
Cherokees shooting random Scots-Irish?
Irish and Scots against the English?
Year round hunting of whites by blacks?
Just curious how this works.
-
<<Funny how, at the time, you brought up the vote for Anschluss as part of your "proof" that Austrians were all Nazi sympathizers. Now, all of a sudden, it proves very little. Funny how that works, huh?>>
Well it might seem funny to somebody who's incapable of admitting to a mistake, but the way it works is actually pretty humdrum. I was under the mistaken impression that the Austrians voted overwhelmingly to approve the Anschluss. That would prove overwhelming Austrian support for the Nazi Party.
Well, apparently (according to you) I was wrong. There were a lot of anti-Anschluss votes, or so you say. Well, when I wasn't aware of a large anti-Anschluss vote, all I needed to analyze was the pro-Anschluss vote. It's pretty clear that a pro-Anschluss vote would be an endorsement of the Nazi Party. It wouldn't matter whether the existing Austrian government were fascist or not - - if they were fascist, the vote would be an endorsement of fascism and antisemitism and if they weren't fascist, the vote would be an endorsement of fascism and antisemitism.
When you brought to my attention the anti-Anschluss vote, it also had to be analyzed. Anti-Anschluss could be either anti-Nazi or pro-status quo. If the status quo was already fascist and anti-Semitic (and it was) then one looks for differences between the status quo and the Anschluss - - and quickly finds one striking difference, the difference between Austrian nationalism and German nationalism. Now we have an anti-Anschluss vote which can be explained as either motivated by anti-Naziism (unlikely, since the Nazi Party principles were pretty much the same as the Dolfuss government and its successor's principles) or by Austrian nationalism. On the other hand, a pro-Anschluss vote is pretty much unequivocal.
And of course the reason that I never considered the large anti-Anschluss vote in the first place was simply that I wasn't aware of it. And since I'm not one who's afraid to admit his mistakes, I turned my attention to it as soon as I discovered my error.
So you see that what seems "funny" to the irrational mind is actually not so funny to the logical mind.
I also want to remind you of this: there are many, many reasons why I believe the Austrians in general are just a bunch of unregenerate fucking Nazis. The Anschluss vote is just one of many reasons. You have an understandable reluctance to come to the obvious conclusions that I have regarding Austria, and so - - the truth being so hard to avoid - - you have a kind of desperate tendency to grasp at straws. For example: if you can just prove me wrong on the Anschluss vote argument, my whole theory collapses. It doesn't work that way - - my view of the Austrians was not determined merely by an analysis of the Anschluss vote; Anschluss voting was just one more brick in the wall. Proving that my take on that one brick was wrong doesn't mean the wall falls down; on the contrary because the wall is built of many bricks, it stays up (because it's in fact the reality of the situation) and because it's the truth that Austria is a Nazi nation, the vote can be explained in a way that is consistent with that reality, not with your fantasy of an anti-Nazi Austria.
-
<<So blood grudges are ok if they attain a certain level of causalities?>>
I guess it depends on justification for the original provocation, length of time elapsed, degree of remorse and repentance shown, lots of thing
<<Would Armenians be justified in blowing up random Turks?>>
I dunno.
<<Cherokees shooting random Scots-Irish?>>
I dunno. Sounds like a kind of suicidal venture because they're outnumbered and outgunned, also because the Scots-Irish of today aren't as genocidal as their ancestors were and a lot of them seem to be ashamed of their ancestors' actions. But basically it's wrong because it wouldn't accomplish anything, and the Scots-Irish haven't been the aggressors against the Indians for a long time.
<<Irish and Scots against the English?>>
Nope. Fuck 'em. The English did them a favour.
<<Year round hunting of whites by blacks?>>
No, cause the whites never hunted the blacks year-round. The lynchings all told only took about 8,000 victims over a period
of 100 years. How the hell would that equate to year-round hunting?
<<Just curious how this works.>>
Wait till you or your people become victims of a huge racist massacre on a scale approaching that of the Holocaust, of which you apparently know little to nothing. The comparisons you are making are absurd. They would actually be offensive if I weren't factoring in an ignorance allowance. When something like that hits you or people you actually give a shit about, you won't have to be "curious" any more. You'll just know.
-
I also want to remind you of this: there are many, many reasons why I believe the Austrians in general are just a bunch of unregenerate fucking Nazis.
Your latent racism would be another way to explain it, as well.
-
not with your fantasy of an anti-Nazi Austria.
I guess it's just part of my fantasy that Austria outlawed Nazism in 1933.
-
Are you saying Jews own victimhood?
And did you know my sister is Jewish ?
And there is Jewish blood on my fathers mothers side. Shalom Bro
-
<<Your latent racism would be another way to explain it, as well.>>
No, that would be your way of dodging an unpalatable truth by imputing it to "racism."
<<I guess it's just part of my fantasy that Austria outlawed Nazism in 1933.>>
No, your fantasy is in attributing that to a philosophical disagreement with Nazi racism and anti-Semitism, rather than to a struggle between two competing forms of anti-Semitic and racist nationalism.
-
unlikely, since the Nazi Party principles were pretty much the same as the Dolfuss government
You do realize that the Dolfuss government outlawed discrimination against Jews in housing and jobs in an effort to stem the tide of anti-semitism among the Catholics of the time? Is that where they were like the Nazi Party?
-
<<You do realize that the Dolfuss government outlawed discrimination against Jews in housing and jobs in an effort to stem the tide of anti-semitism among the Catholics of the time? Is that where they were like the Nazi Party?>>
Nope. Never knew that. It's a good point and it led me to the Wikipedia article on Austrofascism, and the sub-article on anti-Semitism within it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrofascism#Antisemitism
The situation is more complex than I originally thought. The pre-Anschluss governments of the 1930s were not as bad as I had imagined. Their fascism was much more like the fascism of Mussolini's Italy but with a stronger pro-Catholic slant to it. Admittedly there was no evidence of the kind of anti-Semitism that I attributed to it at the start of my discussions with you.
However, support for Hitler, the Nazi Party and anti-Semitism must have been very strong in Austria, much more so than in, say, France, Belgium or Luxembourg. I base this on the documented persecution of Jews in Vienna following the Anschluss, in which the documentary films clearly show crowds of Austrian citizens tormenting the Jews, also on the enthusiastic participation of many Austrians in the Holocaust, from the top (Hitler, Seyss-Inquart) on down as per the 34-page list of Austrian war criminals previously referred to, the 3% rise in Waldheim's popularity after the issue of his hidden Nazi past surfaced (for which your explanation is lame and absurd) and the absence of any real effective anti-Nazi resistance within Austria. The factors indicate large-scale widespread Nazi support in Austria, although I am somewhat surprised at the relative lack of anti-Semitism in the pre-Anschluss Austrian governments, of which I had to confess my ignorance.
-
<<Are you saying Jews own victimhood?>>
I don't even know what that means. Nobody "owns" it, but I say that the Jews are by far the biggest victims of fascism, racism and militarism that the world has ever seen. That's why most of us are still liberals and will always root for the underdog no matter how much material success we may have enjoyed. WE are the underdog, we understand the underdog and we hurt for the underdog. Even when we are riding high because we have seen too many examples of how fast the tables can turn to forget who we are and where we come from. I would go so far as to say that that is really what it means to be Jewish.
<<And did you know my sister is Jewish ?>>
So what? Probably converted to marry one. Sure as hell didn't rub off on you.
<<And there is Jewish blood on my fathers mothers side. >>
Field Marshall Erhard Milch, a convicted Nazi war criminal, can go you one better - - his father WAS Jewish. Jewish blood on the father's side doesn't count, BTW. Only a Jewish mother (or a bona fide conversion) can make a Jew. I kind of suspect a lot of people have "Jewish blood." Doesn't seem to have much effect on them, but I wouldn't write it off completely. Can't do any harm. Who the hell knows? Shalom Bro. Happy New Year.
-
However, support for Hitler, the Nazi Party and anti-Semitism must have been very strong in Austria, much more so than in, say, France, Belgium or Luxembourg. I base this on the documented persecution of Jews in Vienna following the Anschluss, in which the documentary films clearly show crowds of Austrian citizens tormenting the Jews,
Anti-semitism in Europe was pretty thorough - pretty much anywhere the Catholic Church had any power, there was anti-semitism. Just because Nazis were anti-semitic, and Catholics were anti-semitic, doesn't make them automatically support each other.
Oh yeah, BTW, the city of Vienna during the early to mid 30s was effectively controlled by pro-Marxist politics. This lead to a near civil war when the fascists came to power, whose support base drew from the rural parts of Austria. So, that shows that even "your side" (the Marxists) were anti-semitic in central Europe. The Nazi party was supporting the Marxists in Vienna, which led to the outlawing of the Nazi party as well as the Marxist party after their armed insurrection.
-
You know, I realize what the problem is, even though you deny it - Austrians are basically anti-communist, which galls you.
-
<<You know, I realize what the problem is, even though you deny it - Austrians are basically anti-communist, which galls you.>>
It rankles my ass when ANYBODY is anti-communist. The Taliban, for example - - but I don't call them Nazis. If they had shown the same participation in Nazi war crimes and atrocities as the Austrians did, that would be a different story.
-
I simply do not understand your position, MT. Communism as does Fascism CONROLS you unlike democracy. Why would you want to be CONTROLLED?
-
I voted for the one month suspension also. I am another person who tends to visit the forum regularly for a period of time, then drop off the radar. The reason for this isn't so much that I'm offended, but that my work often takes me to remote areas (can you say Alaska?), and I have neither the time nor inclinations to debate and defend my positions effectively. As some of you (ami in particular) have probably noticed, I'm still pretty rusty, but I'm working on it.
That said, I'm not sure that there's ever any reason for a purely personal attack that has no basis in the issue being discussed. A personal attack is a failure of the debator to make their point and has to transgress to petty, albeit hurtful, attacks in order to assuage his/her frustrations. Just because you don't like someone's politics doesn't mean that you have to attack that person, in fact it has nothing to do with their politics so much as your own deficiencies. My personal rule in here is never to say to someone something that I wouldn't say if they were right in front of me, even if I don't like them or their politics. It works well for me most of the time. I enjoy talking to all of the people in here with the different backgrounds and life experiences, they are people that I wouldn't meet on the street of my town. And it's nice to see other viewpoints and their explanations, even if I don't necessarily agree with them, it deepens my own understanding of the issue. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not for a unilateral set standard of punishment, and I agree with MT that the moderators should be the arbiters of this problem. Like MT said, if they're wise and committed enough to be the moderators, then they are capable of taking care of problems like Rich, Hoot, etc. I also tend to think that the majority of the posters here would support their decision.
-
<<Communism as does Fascism CONROL you unlike democracy. Why would you want to be CONTROLLED?>>
It's pretty complex, Professor. First of all, there is plenty of control exercised on you in this society right here and now, so it's not a choice between being as free as a bird or being locked up in a cell, (although that's the analogy people tend to use who know nothing about communism, in fact life under communism is a far cry from life lin jail.) The differences are noticeable, but minimal. For example, when I was in Cuba, it was almost impossible to get foreign newspapers and magazines and the local communist papers were "all Fidel all the time." I remember once was at the time of a sensational Japanese Red Army (a "terrorist" group) assault with automatic weapons on an Italian civilian airport, and it was buried in the back pages of Granma (the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party, and the widest-circulated newspaper in Cuba) in an article about the size of a small classified ad. There was virtually no real news either in print or on Canal Rebelde (Rebel Channel TV).
Communism is sort of a work in progress. The basic aim is to end man's economic exploitation of man, which benefits only a very small minority of humanity and thus to end the terrible extremes of wealth and poverty that today condemn billions of human beings to lives of poverty, desperation and dehumanization. To achieve those ends, to build socialism, sacrifice is necessary, and one of the things we have to sacrifice is the so-called "freedom" that we think we in the West still enjoy. And of course, compared to life under Communism, we DO enjoy more freedom, but we are not really free. Most of us have to labour a lifetime in thrall to banks, mortgage companies and the insurance industry, eating foods which ruin our health, watching idiot boxes from which all originality and controversy have been edited out and never failing to congratulate ourselves on our "freedoms." We vote for candidates who all stand for more or less the same-ol'-same-ol', particularly as regards foreign policy or even the domestic economy, in a basically one-party state whose professional politicians have perfected the art of elevating minor differences into major differences at election times so that we can preserve the illusion of voting for a new path or (more pathetically yet) "for change."
Under Communism, some freedom is sacrificed. Not enough to make a difference in the lives of the ordinary working people, but enough so that an intellectual, artist or writer would definitely notice it. In return, a society is built in which every citizen has a right to decent basic housing (and gets it!) Has a right to basic medical care, education, and nourishment (and gets it!) We have met campesinos (peasants) whose kids have become teachers and technicians, studied at the university in Havana and at technical schools and colleges in Cuba and the Eastern Bloc (back in the days of the U.S.S.R.) Things to which their parents had never even been able to dream of. These small things might not seem like a lot to people raised in the culture of excess that is the United States of America. But they mean a hell of a lot to the billions of people born to live and die in abject poverty, like the Cubans or the Chinese before Communism saved them.
People who live under communism have a choice - - they can work together to build socialism, in which case they are hardly under control, because they are just one unit in a society of units all working toward the same basic goal. Or, for whatever reason they can choose to become enemies of the people, enemies of the Revolution and of the socialist state, in which case (thank God!) they WILL be "controlled" and IMHO with whatever degree of firmness is necessary, to prevent the undoing of the Revolution's many accomplishments by the boring of worms ("gusanos") from within.
You seem to place a huge importance on freedom, Professor, on not beng "CONTROLLED." You are quite right to do so. Freedom is a precious asset and if there is no socialist society to protect, there is no compelling reason to sacrifice any of it. IMHO, Amerikkka is much more controlled today than it was twenty years ago and in the direction it is currently headed, there will be even more "CONTROL" exercised over the population in the next 20 years than there is now. When comparing the relative merits of communism vs the American way, absence of control is a factor very much favourable to the American side of the balance, but it shouldn't be the only factor and there should be some recognition of the fact that as an advantage, it's a shrinking advantage.
-
Properly conceived, in my view, socialism/communism is the necessary critique of the liberal, capitalist philosophy. The tug between the poles is the essential economic and social struggle of modern societies. Michael states the case well, but forgets that the essence of a healthy society lies somewhere in the middle, after the corrective ebbs and flows have played out.
-
BT has given three choices in the poll, further choices might dilute the impact of the vote.
Yes 6 (31.6%)
No 3 (15.8%)
Suspend for a month 10 (52.6%)
Total Voters: 18
As I see this , four fifths of us are in favor of some sort of penalty for the sort of egregious behavior recently displayed by RichPo.
Still leaveing to be decided , what is the most and least offensive behavior to be penalised , that is , where is the trip line.
And indicateing only generally how severely that punishment should be applied.
Twice as many voteing for eventual redemption as for total banishment.
Should we have a vote about whether this system should be a democracy?
-
Should we have a vote about whether this system should be a democracy?
Interesting idea - with the moderators voting for a veto if necessary.
-
Rich is prone to attack. This is well known. His "methods" are well known.
As are his buttons.
If one knows that a snake will bite when poked with a snake, or even knows there is even a snake in the bushes, why go near it, let alone poke it?
Not to blame the victim but I generally ignore Rich as much as possible because I just don't want to give him the opportunity to be an ass unless I just want to get into it with him.
I voted for him to be on probation for a month rather than outright banned. As it turned out, he may have imposed his own sentence; however, as we all know, he will be back for if he were intent on not returning he would not have thumbed his nose as he headed towards the door.
Those intent on actually leaving simply leave and don't return. Terra has left and returned numerous times always in the same manner. At Dailykos, they call it "GBCW". Good Bye Cruel World. A diarist writes a post detailing the cruelty and harshness of the environment and decrying the perceived enemies of all justice then ceases posting only to return after some period (long or short) of lurking/absence.
I made no GBCW and I am a member of Kos...have been for a long time. I made no complaint about Rich and what you all do with him is strickly up to you. This forum is not one I visit very much, but I was just stopping by to say hi...when I made the mistake of conversing with Rich. You are right though...snakes should be caged, why would anyone want to play with it?
But like I said...what goes on in this forum is for the managers to take care of...I neither asked nor expect for Rich to be banned. You all can put up with that behavior, I do not have to, so I left. I was curious on what was going on with the poll...
Oh and when I left to begin with I wrote no long good byes with any weeping and gnashing of teeth...I just left. If I can not take the heat, that is my problem not yours. And I cannot.
terra
-
Yes 6 (31.6%)
No 3 (15.8%)
Suspend for a month 10 (52.6%)
Total Voters: 18
But when I look at the results, there are 19 votes...
Perhaps it is a hanging chad...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
;)
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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! :D
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
<<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.
-
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?
-
<<Who is willing to wager how much of this discussion has been about RichPo and how much has been a venue -the vent-mobile?>>
Speaking for myself only, this thread was 100% about Rich and his vile, hurtful and totally unacceptable conduct towards terra. If we can't put human dignity and basic respect towards each of our members at the forefront of all our other concerns, it doesn't really say much for our collective values or even for us as human beings.
-
<<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.
Hmmmm...
Well said .
How about tolerance for the diffrence when we diagree about the placement of these lines?
-
<<Who is willing to wager how much of this discussion has been about RichPo and how much has been a venue -the vent-mobile?>>
Speaking for myself only, this thread was 100% about Rich and his vile, hurtful and totally unacceptable conduct towards terra. If we can't put human dignity and basic respect towards each of our members at the forefront of all our other concerns, it doesn't really say much for our collective values or even for us as human beings.
Well, true...this was all about RICHpO.
So, now...why aren't we asking RichPo for an apology? SEriously, why aren't we trying to upgrade the member's rude behavior instead of discussing the "behavior" past tense?
Oh.....of course...RichPo would never apologize. But a better man would have....
So, he's gone!!
Let's move on!
-
So, he's gone!!
Let's move on!
Rich isn't gone. He is waiting until the poll closes.
-
Would that one month suspension be active from the date of offense, the date the poll closes, or the date the decision is delivered?
-
That would be up to the moderators. I'll try to gather a consensus of where we go from here, not only with Rich, but the forum in general, this weekend.
Moderators please send me an email to bt@debategate so i have current addresses.
-
Geezzz.... I'll miss RichPo in the sports section of this saloon.
He wasn't rude to me.
Oh well......like I've said...even I was once banned from the club BABALOO....and I deserved it.
Anger is part of life....and so is conflict.
Terra has made comments about us all in the past. She can push buttons, 'tis true...but she didn't deserve to be called such outrageous names....upon her return...,, for God's sake.
So, let's move the freak on!