I joined the site for a higher level of quality in debate. What I got was a more structured debate, that was just as empty, and filled with *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** from pompous-*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** blowhards as any other site on the net.

I know you all congratulate yourselves for your incredibly superior wit and wisdom, and ability to not use ad-hominem and bad language, but I think it's a bunch of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

Please ban me from this stupid *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***ing debate board. I am SO through wasting my online time in this manner, and plan to spend more of it on YouTube, MySpace, WeAreMorons.com or any other site that actually admits to being a pointless waste of time than this overbloated fake punidtry that passes for debate these days.

Bush is the worst president in our country's history, and is worse than Hitler, Manson, Pol Pot and Mao all rolled into one. He's a murderer and an idiot, and all of our politicians are just tools of the Military/Industrial complex, and the Huge Corporations that own our *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** like pieces of stinking, rotting meat.

GET ME THE *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** OUT OF HERE!!!!!

Done. Best of luck.

Mike

Well Mike. I was impressed with your quick reaction time.

I'm feeling a great emptiness already, an absense of something that filled me like that which fills the chamber pot. O! How shall I go on? Who will guide me into the proper thought patterns of which they insist? To agree or to agree, that shan't be the question, but to trash and smash, blather and jabber primate squeals into the Net for thy edification and delight, my existence wanes like the impress of a soiled tome.

The King has left the Site.

AM yer killing me.

Hey Sleeper, I noticed your avatar is from the 300 movie/comic book.

I had never realized that the chippendales dancers repulsed the Persians at Thermopolye (sp)

I'm surprised our relatively small band of conservatives got to you so much as to do this.

Endeavor not accomplished. So much for that "Best New Overall Debater or Rookie of the Year" nomination.

Why some people find it necessary to call attention to themselves in such a fashion is really beyond me. If you don't dig the way the game is played, just quit, but at least go out with some degree of dignity instead of being evicted like an unruly patron kicking and screaming from a restaurant. Why call attention to yourself in such an immature and embarrassing manner?

As Mike once said, "Nobody has to post here." Agreed. The fact that there are rules and they are actually enforced is what keeps more of a special place than just the online debate equivalent of McDonald's franchises.

Then again, it probably should not come as a surprise that someone who boasts of their flame wars experience and describes themselves as a flamer would at some point spontaneously combust.

Me- I was just trying to go all random on the comments.

Stop signs don't have back doors.

I liked the man's intensity, his introspective questions had potential. If only he had some patience. Better luck next time.

Well, I guess I can sorta see the guy's point. If you play the title of "America's Debate" backwards, you can clearly hear someone saying "etabeD saciremA" which is latin for "A place where we all share the same view". And the really, really eerie part is, the initials are "APWWASTSV". See? See?? Uh-huh...you know where I'm coming from...

It was an easy mistake.

It seems to me that everyone gets a little bent out of shape around here sometimes (I sure do!). That's what "time outs" are for. Sorry he couldn't hack it.

I was talking to the OP actually.

I don't know that many other debate boards where respect and a certain degree of decorum is expected. A lot of what is out there is just blowhard gunk and appeal to the whole "FOG" and "newbie" garbage that is out there. I've been on a number of boards, and I keep coming back because of the fine structure and way that it's run. If I want a juvenile board filled with partisan name calling and non-sourced posts, I'll check them out. If I want to come to intelligent debate, I'll come here.

PE-I never understood how people get "upset" when a debate gets dragged out. A given person might agree with you in another thread. It's the internet for crying out loud people!- go for a walk, fix your roof, work more hours at work, volunteer with your local libertarian party like Mike does , but don't take this serious debate any more seriously than it deserves.

You guys had me at "I don't agree."

He's totally going to get banned for cursing....

In all seriousness, if you don't like a place, the door is easy enough to find without telling everyone how much we suck.

CP

How dense does someone have to be to take two months to realize they don't like a debate forum?

I would be less than honest if I did not acknowledge that some postings I read can get under my skin, and I suspect that others here have felt the same way. There are other times when a protracted, heated debate can be stimulating.

There wouldn't be much point to trying to have a debate with people who agree with you all the time though, would there?

I second the sentiment that there is plenty to do away from the computer. was not intended to be a substitute for getting and living a life, especially for those who have problems maintaining a sense of perspective.

I am a little curious to know just what set fbwc off, though.

Quick to dismiss his argument, yet nobody bothered to read what he said.

We do all congratulate ourselves in the Year End Awards. Heck, Nighttimer practically campaigns for them. One of our most popular threads was the Ad-hominen debate. And we can't use bad language, or you'll get a strike. A timeout for bad language? Am I a 3-year old or a grown man? We're all adults here. Let's use adult language. Ted has been on this board for going on 4 years with over 2,000 posts and he has yet to post a source or a fact backing up anything he's ever written. If we were able to use adult language, Ted might post a link to something. I would love to read a post by Bikerdad in a race debate if he were given free reign. It would be revealing. To Mike, Jaime and all the Mods, the board won't spiral out of control if we have flexibility. We can figure out how to behave. A debate with Deng won't look anything like a debate with BoF or Quarkhead.

Let's be honest though. The board has lost it's luster because the community that is AD has become so familiar with each other. We all have our friends who we back during a debate, and we all have our enemies who we start threads just to call out and pick a fight. But recently, I look for a good debate and I get "What's your Favorite Movie?" "What kind of computer do you have?" "What's your sign?" That's because everybody knows the other person's position before they even write it. It would be nice to have more new people, but the sad fact is a newcomer either has to conform or leave. And what's even sadder, is that that is acceptable to many. Thoreau once said, "Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist." I challenge AD to relax the rigid structure and see what happens.

Just what do you consider so rigid to the structure, barnaby2341? The fact that we aren't allowed to use some of the four-letter words common to other forums? Hasn't it been amply demonstrated here time and time again that if we want to ridicule or demean another poster or his/her position here, or express strong emotions (usually) in opposition to someone else's opinion, there are plenty of good, descriptive words available to us in the English language?

I will agree, though, that many of us are accustomed to forming sides in the debate threads. But don't you think that it's inevitable?

Are you suggesting that the admins adapt to the newcomers rather than the other way around? I think hearing fresh new voices is wonderful, but they need to follow the same rules we do.

Just a thought . . .

This doesn't sound like fbwc at all, from the old posts I just looked at.

Is it possible that somebody has stolen his account and maliciously abused it?

Might be...Mike could check to see if it was posted on the same computer(s) fbwc uses. Interesting point, Vicki.

The rules don't always facilitate the debate one is looking for - or said another way I'm guessing he has a different definition of what constructive debate is. I know I do. After rereading his post it is definitely aimed directly at the moderation team not an individual debator.

I wonder if the AD is becoming stale? If the rules are seen as restrictive, then maybe we come across as an old boys club?

I appreciate the sentiment, but I have to respectfully disagree on almost all counts.

You may be a grown man, but we are not in fact all adults here, either in membership or readership. We don't permit juvenile ("adult") language, we haven't from the beginning, and we have no intentions of changing this in the future. A debate related to racial issues, per your example, would not be improved by the use of profanity, which would certainly serve to increase emotional impact instead of further a convincing position.

The board would spiral out of control if given the "flexibility" to use profanity. MemberA would call MemberB a <<pick your adjective>>, MemberB would retaliate, upping the ante. MemberA would fire back with further escalation, and before our very eyes the site would turn into every other of the thousands of supposed debate sites out there, all at the expense of debating the actual subject of a given topic.

The site has not lost its luster because of familiarity amongst the members. Member views and positions change, albeit at a slow pace, as a result of the circumstances that surround particular issues and, believe it or not, as a result of the debates that occur here. New members trickle in and those who find that they mesh well with the site stick around and become active, productive members.

In five years, we have gone through phases. At this particular moment, we are in the summer doldrums. It happens every summer. We are also in the middle of an off-election year. The activity and participation here is directly related to the proximity of the next federal election. As the 2008 election approaches, expect to see an increase in new members, a reappearance of members who have not participated in a considerable amount of time, and an overall general increase in site activity.

This site is not for everyone, there is no doubt about that. But breaking away from the well-established foundation that is present here, and which is the essence of what makes the site unique, in order to gain a larger quantity of members is counterproductive to nearly every goal we have established for the site. To use a sports analogy, some people like baseball and some people like auto racing. That doesn't mean that Nascar should try to expand their audience by having drivers hit balls with bats as they drive, nor should Major League Baseball require players to play from the comfort of an automobile-- it would destroy what makes each sport unique.

As Nighttimer quoted me, "Nobody has to post here." If is not a particular member's bag of tricks, there are literally thousands of other options out there that might be. We recognize this, and have accepted and embraced this.

Thanks for the input.



Mike


I see nothing that would indicate that fbwc's account has been compromised.



Mike

Wow. Looks like somebody needs a cookie AND a hug.

I don't know if you're a grown man or an extremely verbose 3-year old, barnaby2341. What I do know is the nature of boards like this one are people come and people go. There's always a lot more lurkers than posters, guests instead of members and people who like the rules just fine instead of chafing under them. I don't think the board has "lost its luster." Things just go in cycles and that's just the nature of things.

As regards "adult language" I submit if you've got to resort to four-letter words to get your point across, you probably don't have much of a point to make. There are other boards that are more freewheeling and less restrictive with the F-bomb and what have you when you feel like totally disrespecting the other guy by calling him a dirty so-and-so. I would suggest you seek them out and see if you prefer that type of coarse discourse.

Relax the civility and the rules so those whom find it too difficult to step up their game will feel at home? Maybe...if Vince McMahon makes Mike and Jaime an offer they can't refuse. Barring that, it's a lousy suggestion.

But if the day comes that THIS board decides to let it all hang out and allow dropping F-bombs and other epithets with reckless abandon, that is the day I'll depart for other more civil climes. I've been on boards where you could be as rude and crude as you liked. Pretty soon all the smart posters had gone and left it to the flame-throwers to dog each out.

At least then you won't have to gnash your teeth over my alleged "campaigning" for Year-end awards or Ted's supposed lack of source material. Maybe with less formidable competition around the field will open up so you too might finally win an award or two, Barnaby2341.

Not to me. I jumped right in, and found just what I like here. But, I'm an old boy, so maybe I'm not the right n00b to deny.

I also think the year-end awards are worth continuing. I very much appreciate being nominated and selected as r00kie of the year; quite an honor considering the other nominees, including fwbc. I was also flattered to be nominated in the USSC category, and quite surprised to get any votes at all with Mrs. P on the same ballot. Seriously.

I can sympathize to a small degree with the frustration fwbc (or the intruder using that account) expressed, but a certain level of ad-hoc teamwork or disagreement (even slightly tinged with disagreeability) is inevitable in debate. 's rules, as administered by the mods, produce a far more collegial, constructive debate forum than I've found elsewhere. No, it's not perfect. Yes, tempers can still flare; but they generally avoid the flame wars. Good job, everybody, unabashed pats on the back all around.

The occasional introspection is frequently constructive whether or not its stimulus is well-founded. I for one probably get a little carried away detailing why I don't like certain politicians; I should volunarily tone it down. Also, I occasionally get overconfident in my memory and post inaccuracies (I blame the propaganda machines and old age!) without making the extra effort ahead of time to verify or substantiate them, especially in a time crunch (like recently). To get better, I've started working on some responses offline just to be sure I get them right. However, now I notice it can take me a really long time to post a well-reasoned, well-supported reply when I'm taking my five minutes here and there several days apart. That's when it's nice to be able to stop in and post about Mac v. PC, What's your sign?, What kind of candy are you? etc., just to say "I'm still here, not ignoring you".

I learn the most when I discover what I'm wrong about. To that end, I really don't mind being accused of "living in a fantasy world" or "constructing mythology" when I've gotten something wrong. I can see how some might construe such phrases as overly spicy or pointed, but I'm not offended by it. I appreciate being kept honest in the context of a lively, constructive debate. Yet, I also recognize I'd often be better off not to be so direct myself.

We n00bs may have a lot to learn about civil debate, but I suspect we're not the only ones still learning. It's great to be given room for improvement. fwbc's colorful departure, if authentic, should be taken in its context; a recovering flamer "falling off the wagon", so to speak; probably more of a reflection on the individual than on as a whole.

(later...)

And I'd be right behind NT. Glad to read Mike's reassurances.

Damn. Level-headed-torch...passing it to you now....I also dub thee Saint, Victoria.

If his account was hijacked, it was done at his IP address. Unlikely.

Edited to add: I must say, this thread is (ironically) immensely interesting and entertaining.

That's because most *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** don't bother trying to *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** around the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

Your loss

Goodbye.

Oh, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Speaking of which, what is your favorite movie, barnaby2341? We just rented Bambi for the kids. I just luv Thumper's character! I think I'll watch it again...

And I thought I was the only one who loved Thumper.

To answer Barnaby, I believe that most of us have "seen what happens" when standards are relaxed, yes? That's, like, why we're here....

Before this thread was started I didn't even know there was a member named fwbd....so kudos to him for finding a way to make such an obscure acronym stick.



Ummm...I think this was the whole point, to gain recognition and notoriety. Like a suicide bomber, he had to take his own life to do so.



I don't think the use of foul language is what makes a man a man. I would say it is the ability to put thoughts, ideas, and arguments together in a cohesive and intelligent way.



Actually, part of the appeal (for me at least) is the community feel. I'm not the type of person who trusts random internet forums where I don't at least have some sense of the kind of people I'm talking to.

Let's not just say "men" here. I've heard women, particularly younger women, say things that my mother would have reacted to in horror.

You do make a point, though. Since profanity is forbidden the board, and I think for a good reason, it is necessary to a way to say things in a creative manner. My thoughts on Bush are similar to those of fwbc. I have often accused Bush of being "a cork in the canal of progress." I don't know how old you have to be to translate that into the vernacular.

There are times when profanity is needed - not on the board - but in creative writing or movie making. When doing character dialogue, realness is important. Writers like Larry McMurtry and John Steinbeck have employed it well.

What's useful in novels and films isn't useful on this board. We have a lot emoticons on the board, but we don't need one with a middle digital extended.

Board policy is fine as it is.

As far as fwbc goes, I think he might have had this departure in mind for some time - maybe from the beginning.

Good point. I think over time you become accustomed to people's style of debate, and often learn things from someone. This may not happen in a forum where random people consistently post junk. I think AD gives us all a chance to second guess opinions, think about ourselves as people, while also venting our frustrations/opinions/thoughts.

Good for you Seamus. I do the same. In my case the delicate balance between subject and predicate gets thrown out if I rush so I must use the long form continuously or risk sounding muddled. Or said in short - I have used word since day one because I need the editing function to complete every sentence I start. I am cursed with thinking completely in point form and this does not always translate clearly into written language. This limits my posting frequency and I simply do not have the time to sponsor many threads. This is not a slight on AD but merely an honest admission to my posting habits.

The personal habits of the poster have a bearing on our response. If the interface is clumsy we will see frustration. Well the rules are part of the interface. If you add a clicky group that spouts off "Your loss, your problem, don't let the door hit you on the way out" which permeates entrenched apathy - the old boy/new guy dynamic is going to go sour in a hurry. Enforcement and vigor will not solve this problem, only propogate it.

I realize a website cannot be everything to everyone but I feel their are enough examples of decadent behaviour to warrant further discussion. The like it or leave it philosphy translates an heir of arrogance which overwhelms the intended code of civility.

I've been around enough flamers to know they have no problem being told where to shove-it. They do have a problem with being told to stop. Denying them self expression is far more inflammatory than vulgar posting. Maybe this is an part of the competitive nature Lord Helmit was trying to convey as his vision of a healthy forum. Maybe I have an underdog complex or maybe I just think counter to the herd. All I know is something is definitely wrong here when I start empathizing with multiple banned members which is an extraordinary statement considering I never agree with them.



Many political discussions are about controlling the type of questions being asked. An introspective thread begins with a good question. As you can see, this takes time. You may get alot of responses. You may get none. People are fickle. There haven't been many good questions lately - maybe Mike was right, these are the summer doldrums. If I had the time I'd pen more, but I don't so I can only comment and hope for the best.

There is more to debating than simply regurgitating the questions of the day. Occasionally we are tasked in relating more tedious current events, like discussing the merits of taxing a baseball for example. It does happen. But far too often the why is left out of the discussion. This means responding in a manner that does not repeat verbatum the same points we've seen elsewhere in the media. To fail here is to parrot existing talking points and become a diluted verion of the pundits themselves. The poster was trying to relay this concept and so far it has not been successful.

We must remember this poster felt compelled to lash out because he was not able to communicate himself in an effective fashion. Now how much of it was "us" and how much was "him"? I will admit the poster might have been compelled to convince the world of his view and to hold a contrary view could be interpreted as failure on his part. Again I can't say for sure.

I'm at least willing to entertain a more aggressive tone to the questions if not the answers. If you view this as esoteric, unnecessary, and straying from the original content, I won't hold it against you - it is a debate forum after all. I'm simply connecting the dots in the most comparative way I can.

Strange, really strange. That's about the only thong I can say about fwbc's remarks. I thought he did so well, and enjoyed reading his posts. I even made him a compliment through PM after I read one of his posts. I had the feeling he had no problems with this debate site.

It is strange .... really strange.

Well, anyway, goodbye fbwc.

I can't help but think that the responses to this guy's thread mirrors what is wrong with American politics as a whole. Yeah really good wit and cynicism for a response, and that's good....for an unfunctioning slapstick version of society. I say this because I have made thread after thread and they've been closed down for no other reason that it's a guaranteed losing argument. Can't have anything that makes the right wing look bad. I make a thread about a Republican, a few actually, who have said that the US needs another 911 type attack so Americans will wake up and see that Bush is on the right track and whatnot, and I ask, for debate, whether you think it's ok or right for an elected official to be hoping for another 911-style attack so the American people will "wake up". Pretty strong words worthy of further discussion. But no. I get the feeling if it was just me saying something like that, hoping for the deaths of thousands of my own people, the thread would have remained and left open to discussion. It would be left to wither and die quickly, but OPENLY. But it someone who represents millions of people is hoping for the deaths of thousands of his or her own people, it has to be closed and shut down and UNDISCUSSED. That guy's issue is dead on and, sadly and of course, it was insulted, with wit, immediately.
One note: THIS:...
....has the same level of comic wit as the Fallujah Mosque murder when the GI says "this guy's *Edited to remove attempt to bypass profanity filter* faking he's dead!"....<BANG! BANG!> "Well, he's dead now"...Funny in a morbid way.

That's a fair point, and would be apposite here if fwbc had posted some concerns about the way the board worked and THEN flipped his wig when he got told "don't let the door hit you on the way out", "like it or leave it", etc.

As far as I am aware, this is not what happened. He posted here within the rules then decided he didn't like them and spouted a lot of guff to get himself banned. Hardly a constructive attitude, and it's lack of constructiveness that I think the board can do without. He's already banned, and in a huff with , so I doubt a couple of throwaway gags thrown away in his wake will make much difference to him.

You, on the other hand have quite sensibly and sensitively expressed some misgivings with the rules and culture of . As such, you get a fair reply.

There is nothing wrong with question the rules from time to time, as long as you stay within those rules to do it. The same happens to be true for government - most laws that do not have public suppport have to be changed by lawful protest and campaigning, or by peaceful lawbreaking. Only completely unfair and obviously egregious laws merit armed revolt and active, angry rule-breaking.

Things on will have to be a lot worse than not being able to swear and curse before I will support the forum equivalent of a revolution.

But to your substantive points - do you really think there is entrenched apathy here that is being permeated? What examples of decadent behaviour do you think warrant further discussion?

In the comments and suggestions forum a while back, I posted a concern of mine about the type of topics that were being formed. Many of them had no intention of DEBATE but rather were questions that just made statements. Asking "Due to the incompetence and corruption of politician XYZ, should he resign?" is not conducive to debate. Its a statement that already makes too many assumptions. Simply asking "What should happen to the politician?" takes away the editorializing and lets the debaters focus in on the debate without having to also account for the assumptions of the topic creator. The purpose of your topics Truthmarch were not to debate anything. In fact you make it clear that with your topic, there was no room for debate. Thats not what is about. We are here to debate others and learn from others. If that cannot be handled, then I hope that whoever deems this too restrictive to simply leave.

I joined this site a little over 3 years ago and I am not afraid to say how much it has changed me. I believe that it has contributed to my intellectual growth even more so than school has. There are times when I have been faced with a fellow debater who I have thought ridiculed me or used language I deemed condescending. But I have learned to shrug it off because that kind of talk gets us nowhere. When there is a topic in that is on the brink of a flame war, I try to enter the topic and answer the questions directly, instead of the back and forth. This is in the hopes that we could steer the topic back to civil discourse. Debate is about passion and I think the reason that the community has become so close knit these past couple of years is because we understand that while we have different viewpoints, we all respect eachother's right to make those viewpoints known. As long as you come with a cool demeanor, a bucket of facts, and a bit of logic, you will be well received. Not everyone is cut out to make it at . That is what makes it different than the rest.

Glad to hear you're not ignorant of your own actions. However, I don't agree with this thread being locked. Bykofsky's column has the wingnut appeal that often comes under attack by conservatives when the author is a liberal. Then again you're pretty much admitting that that you're rigging debate questions. You blew it.

Actually I've seen your threads. They get "shut down" because:
They aren't debates
They are conspiracy theory fodder
They are poorly constructed

Other than that though they're pretty good. I'd help your threads out by rewording the questions so they could be answered but everyone always gets all mad at me when I do that.

I don't think Mike or Jamie will ever be described as tools of the Right Wing.

It is not that unlikely Mrs P.. When somenbody starts up my computer and goes to , he will log in automatically under my name. From there he/she can do whatever he/she likes. Perhaps he has a really annoying (little) brother or sister that wanted to take revenge by writing something here that would surely get him banned?

I find it entertaining that you throw out "more civil climes" then intentionally insult someone. Ring Ring Kettle...

From Leder


I think many of us can learn something from this quote. Myself included.

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. Do we have a funniest thread nomination? How about, Member Least Likely To Hear Smack From Punk Members In Real Life nomination?

Not only that, he's mischaracterizing his own mischaracterization. Which is part of the reason the debate questions don't work. You're right, this would have been interesting debate, but look how it was done, and look how it's described by its own author.
The original question:


The original column is one guy, who writes sort of like a Jack Cafferty-type, cranky old man column in Philly. The Republicans thing comes from a prison-planet link to a capitol hill blue piece with anonymous sources that still doesn't say what "truth"march is saying. Not to mention that it's from 2005, so that wouldn't really mean that anyone is "praying" or "hoping" but should be in the past tense.




I searched through the columnist's archive, and I can't tell whether he's a Republican or not. He's obviously not a Republican elected official though, and his name generated no record of political donations on opensecrets.org, so he's not funding any campaigns, either. So how does "Truth"march describe his 'question?'

One conservative crank columnist in one local newspaper becomes
- A Republican (a few actually)
- An elected official ...whose district population must be "millions of people"

A 2-year-old memo describing very possible scenarios, including the economy and terrorism becomes
- Republicans and Bush supporters "praying for another attack"



If the debate question itself is a strawman and mis-representation of the very fact being debated, I don't think it's a fair question. Just my 2¢.

Carlito and/or Lesly (or anyone else), if you are interested in starting a similar subject for debate, feel free. Just make sure that the questions are written in such a way that they could lead to a constructive discussion and not simply an insulting one-sided rantfest so obviously intended to inflame. That type of thing violates the spirit of the forum.

I think that was an honest mistake not a deliberate one. It would be very easy to confuse the ruminations of Tom Tacredo with the man in question. The difference between us is that I would have Tancredo brought up on anti-semetic hate charges for his Mecca and Medina comments, not this for Israel-only nonsense. Isn't this indicative of the larger arguement? Strawmen accusations in an effort to shut things down?

Julian I'll reply in length when I have more time.

It's worth noting (though you didn't) that I didn't start the drama with Barnaby2341. HE got ugly with ME. To the extent that I think of him at all I have no strong feelings about him good, bad or indifferent. Apparently though, he feels somewhat differently. Whether based on an honest feeling or simple green-eyed envy, I neither know, nor care.

Speaking of trying to "intentionally insult someone" is that what you had in mind with this slap you made at Ultimatejoe?



And I really dig how smugly you look down your nose at others when you engage in exactly the same behavior.

Clean up your own backyard, Aevans176. You're hardly qualified to tell me how to clean mine.

Ahhh...the Sky is falling argument. Just because people are allowed to use curse words doesn't mean that they will or will do so in excess. I ask you Mike, Seamus, Nighttimer, doomed_planet, BoF, Mrs. PigPen, would you all start cussing uncontrollably if given the opportunity? If not, what makes you so different than everybody else? Must we save ourselves from the Barbarians? Or do you just think you are all superior?

But it's not just the lack of cussing that bothers me, which is insignificant, but the reporting of truthful language that the tattle-tales reject because it doesn't flatter them. We talk about politics, but we don't need to be politically correct. Free speech as written about in the Constitution is a sham. So the one place we should be able to freely express our opinions without reprisal or repercussion is the "Internets."

I have been to the VH1 Flavor of Love message boards (can't be all business ) and yes, unmoderated boards are childish, inflammatory, and a waste of time, because the TROLLs run wild. AD has moderators, but here they don't moderate TROLLs; they moderate passion.

As far as this comment from Nighttimer goes: all I have to say is that I am not like you. I take more pride from being disliked than liked. I don't want to fit in. I don't want to be like everyone else. I reject the pack mentality. I am an anarchist, while you are a conformist. My award Nighttimer, is no award at all.

What is the determiner of "in excess" in terms to profanity usage? As an owner, obviously one of the ultimate determiners would be my opinion, along with Jaime's opinion. We have decided that "in excess" is any profanity. I cited one reason as the diverse ages of our members. Other factors include the desire not to be blocked at primary and secondary educational institutions, our desire to maintain our current readership by members of the executive branch, legislative branch, other governmental agencies both state and local, and media organizations, and our desire to not be blocked from access by businesses and corporations.

I think your list of members is, frankly, a bad list, and its flaws are obvious. I don't think any of the members you listed maintain any assertion of superiority than any other member. But of the members you listed, there is a site founder, a long-time and trusted moderator, two members who have been here for around 4 years, one who has been around 3 years, and one who has been around about 8 months. We all fully understand the rules, and know that leading by example is an effective way to influence others to follow our lead and abide by the rules of the site.

But would the last six members who joined automatically refrain from profanity? How about the six before that? Or the 3,000+ before that? From my years of experience working on this site, the answer is a definitive no, not all of the members who register would voluntarily refrain from even your definition of excessive profanity. Heck, read the first post to this topic if you need a perfect example of what this forum would end up being if the rules were not in place and evenly applied.


Again, look at my arguments regarding profanity, and now change profanity to "inflammatory and nonconstructive posts." You might disagree, but the rules are well established, easily accessible, and proven to provide the foundation for the kind of debate that we have set out to host.

Not to get into a constitutional argument, but "free speech as written about in the Constitution" does not apply here. We are not funded or operated by the government, and therefore there is no right to free speech that is applicable here. This is the same at any privately-operated website in existence. Individuals are able to "freely express our opinions without reprisal or repercussion" online. See blogs, personal websites, newsgroups, chat rooms, and other forums-- given that they are either government-operated or the private ownership has enfranchised their site in the constitutionally-protected rights established in the first amendment.


We do moderate trolls, you just don't see it. We have staffers online at just about any given moment, and the trolls that do attempt to participate here are very quickly dealt with in a civil and consistent fashion. We didn't get to where we are by sitting on our hands and ignoring what is going on at the site. We take an active role in ensuring that members participate in accordance with the rules we've established, and members who choose not to follow the rules are very quickly and deliberately made aware that there are greener pastures for them elsewhere.



Mike