Should I clamp down on free speech?
Poll
 | 28 votes (59.57%) | ||
| | 19 votes (40.42%) |
47 members have voted
I think it is indeed time to revisit my current liberal policy on free speech. I've received PMs requesting that various people be banned. Once I start down that road, I'm sure I'll be bothered a lot more with them. I'm a strong believer in free speech, and hate to make rules restricting it. However, some of the fights are getting out of hand, and changing the whole character of the forum.
If I decide to try to clean house, what should the new rules be? Perhaps writing anything that could not be said on network television, except in quoting another, would no be allowed? Perhaps just a general rule to act like gentlemen. I'm one who likes to live by rules, so want to make it as clear as possible what is allowed.
The question for the poll will be "Should I clamp down on free speech?", but I welcome all comments on the topic.
Timeout = being that one cannot post in the forum for 24 hours.
Or something of that nature maybe.
Quote: rxwineCan your code writer (JB?) write code that gives someone a 24hour timeout where when enough people flag a post of someone that's what happens.
Timeout = being that one cannot post in the forum for 24 hours.
Or something of that nature maybe.
I could ask him to write code for that. I'll take that idea under advisement, and welcome comments on it, but my initial instinct it to oppose it. I don't want this turning into junior high where cliques gang up on certain members, and flag every post they write. I'm also more in favor of the republic model of government than a democracy.
Quote: Wizard
I think it is indeed time to revisit my current liberal policy on free speech.
I don't know why you included my name in this, please find one post where I've used offensive language. I go out of my way not to, its a cheap shot and quite frankly, its beneath me.
But when it degrades to just name calling:
Quote: mkl654321Let's try some more common vulgarity:
Fuck you, Bob, you worthless asshole.
This is fun!
That's not really substantive at all. Or entertaining (JerryLogan has had some of his own moments, so I don't mean to single mkl out necessarily).
I'd say maybe a rule to "keep it civil"? Or is that not specific enough?
Quote: EvenBobI don't know why you included my name in this, please find one post where I've used offensive language. I go out of my way not to, its a cheap shot and quite frankly, its beneath me.
I just meant you were involved. Your comment in that thread was fine with me..
Quote: WizardDuring yet another fight between MKL, Jerry, and this time Bob, it was suggested in the thread on Venetian comps that I invoke the temporary ban privilege.
I think it is indeed time to revisit my current liberal policy on free speech. I've received PMs requesting that various people be banned. Once I start down that road, I'm sure I'll be bothered a lot more with them. I'm a strong believer in free speech, and hate to make rules restricting it. However, some of the fights are getting out of hand, and changing the whole character of the forum.
If I decide to try to clean house, what should the new rules be? Perhaps writing anything that could not be said on network television, except in quoting another, would no be allowed? Perhaps just a general rule to act like gentlemen. I'm one who likes to live by rules, so want to make it as clear as possible what is allowed.
The question for the poll will be "Should I clamp down on free speech?", but I welcome all comments on the topic.
I, for one, promise from this point forward not to respond to, reference, or even tangentially engage in any kind of discussion with JerryLogan or EvenBob. I know that Jerry, in particular, will continue to make posts that reflexively gainsay everything I say, and to call me a liar, but I don't have to dignify him with any acknowledgement, let alone a response. EvenBob (despite his moniker) is kind of uneven--sometimes he sounds rational and measured, and isn't even impolite, and other times, he raves like a lunatic. Regretfully, I'll have to block him, because the good stuff isn't worth the bad (and I'm sure several people feel the same way about me).
I WOULD like to remark that to me, the most repulsive aspects of these two person's posts have been their rabid racism and homophobia, and that is something that has no place in ANY forum of public discourse, except perhaps if the American Nazi Party has a chatroom (and why wouldn't they?). But once again, I shouldn't have reacted to it; ignoring it was the best policy.
Again, I apologize for overstepping the bounds of civility. When a couple of internet posters call me a liar, as well as impugning my character, insulting me, and in general making ad hominem attacks, I shouldn't lower myself to their level. So that's more than enough about JerryLogan and EvenBob, and I'll get back to posting that more substantive stuff that you all know and love :). Peace (and free beer).
I'd send them both the quiet corner for a while until they even calm down and learn how to speak civil to each other or bow out and find other pastures. It's gotten to the point where both are just trolling around looking to argue on every thread they can find, and in many cases there's a profound inability on actually read or write in a coherent manner that furthers anyone's knowledge.
I'd -guess- the number of unique posters per day has dropped over the last few weeks. I could be wrong. But it's getting less fun here.... it was fun to debate EvenBob on the finer elements of US healthcare policy, and while I may have been ruder than necessary at times, I think I got something out of it. I'm not sure I've got much out of any the f-bombs between JL and MKL recently
Quote: thecesspitI'd -guess- the number of unique posters per day has dropped over the last few weeks. I could be wrong. But it's getting less fun here.... it was fun to debate EvenBob on the finer elements of US healthcare policy, and while I may have been ruder than necessary at times, I think I got something out of it. I'm not sure I've got much out of any the f-bombs between JL and MKL recently
Yeah. No one does. For my role in that, I apologize. I was set off by all the racism and paranoid homophobia I was seeing from them, and their attacks on me were getting a bit too personal. Responding in kind, however, was not the answer.
Quote: mkl654321I apologize. I was set off by all the racism and paranoid homophobia I was seeing from them
We understand, it wasn't your fault. Had I known you were so easily pushed over the edge, I would have been kinder to you. Or something.
Quote: rxwineCan your code writer (JB?) write code that gives someone a 24hour timeout where when enough people flag a post of someone that's what happens.
Timeout = being that one cannot post in the forum for 24 hours.
Or something of that nature maybe.
I'm sure I'd then be serving a succession of TimeOuts ... of course you might want to remember that Trolls consider a TimeOut to be a Badge of Honor since the Troll has a goal of intentionally being annoying.
I don't know what course of action is wisest.
I've never hit the ignore button but I think I've seen it a few times. Soon I may have to go in search of it. Perhaps for my own posts!
Some people enjoy the bickering, uncivil behavior is their goal. Their goals won't change.
Quote: FleaStiff
Some people enjoy the bickering
I've been on forums since '92 and it never changes. Some people don't get along and everybody is shocked and concerned that its happening on THEIR forum. I've made 10's of thousands of posts, believe me, it always blows over in a short time. Just like real life.
A quick glance told me that I didn't need to read it all.
It's unfortunate that mkl has allowed himself to become Jerry's punching bag. Mlk often has good contributions.
On the other hand, Jerry's contributions are usually worse than useless.
Somehow, EvenBob got sucked into the vortex, but he will have no difficulty getting out, now that his unfortunate participation has been pointed out
For the record, I have Jerry blocked. I often click the link that shows me his post anyway, but keeping him blocked is an easy way to remind myself that I have no intention of responding to his comments.
Wiz, it's your playground. If you don't want certain people to play, that's your decision. I vote Yes - not so much that you SHOULD clamp down, but that you should have the freedom to do so if you so desire.
Quote: WizardI could ask him to write code for that. I'll take that idea under advisement, and welcome comments on it, but my initial instinct it to oppose it. I don't want this turning into junior high where cliques gang up on certain members, and flag every post they write.
Like anything, you'd likely have to tweak the number of individuals flagging someone that would cross a threshhold, to find the balance between making it too easy, like you say, to "gang up" on someone, versus being ineffective.
I figure it still accomplishes a free speech goal because it wouldn't ultimately block speech, just slow it down quite a bit when too many people are finding someone offensive. Maybe they will actually get a clue.
Get a clue? I think Jerry already knows. In fact, I seriously doubt he'd be surprised by ANY actions that Wiz may take.Quote: rxwineMaybe they will actually get a clue.
Quote: mkl654321Quote: WizardDuring yet another fight between MKL, Jerry, and this time Bob, it was suggested in the thread on Venetian comps that I invoke the temporary ban privilege.
I think it is indeed time to revisit my current liberal policy on free speech. I've received PMs requesting that various people be banned. Once I start down that road, I'm sure I'll be bothered a lot more with them. I'm a strong believer in free speech, and hate to make rules restricting it. However, some of the fights are getting out of hand, and changing the whole character of the forum.
If I decide to try to clean house, what should the new rules be? Perhaps writing anything that could not be said on network television, except in quoting another, would no be allowed? Perhaps just a general rule to act like gentlemen. I'm one who likes to live by rules, so want to make it as clear as possible what is allowed.
The question for the poll will be "Should I clamp down on free speech?", but I welcome all comments on the topic.
I, for one, promise from this point forward not to respond to, reference, or even tangentially engage in any kind of discussion with JerryLogan or EvenBob. I know that Jerry, in particular, will continue to make posts that reflexively gainsay everything I say, and to call me a liar, but I don't have to dignify him with any acknowledgement, let alone a response. EvenBob (despite his moniker) is kind of uneven--sometimes he sounds rational and measured, and isn't even impolite, and other times, he raves like a lunatic. Regretfully, I'll have to block him, because the good stuff isn't worth the bad (and I'm sure several people feel the same way about me).
I WOULD like to remark that to me, the most repulsive aspects of these two person's posts have been their rabid racism and homophobia, and that is something that has no place in ANY forum of public discourse, except perhaps if the American Nazi Party has a chatroom (and why wouldn't they?). But once again, I shouldn't have reacted to it; ignoring it was the best policy.
Again, I apologize for overstepping the bounds of civility. When a couple of internet posters call me a liar, as well as impugning my character, insulting me, and in general making ad hominem attacks, I shouldn't lower myself to their level. So that's more than enough about JerryLogan and EvenBob, and I'll get back to posting that more substantive stuff that you all know and love :). Peace (and free beer).
Waaa....waaa....waaa. All that whining isn't worth the time it takes to read it without an explanation into how using vulgarity makes you better than everyone else.
I'm out of action tomorrow morning because we're going to LV, then I have to go to Arkansas for meetings and we're staying the weekend. So that gives poor little mkl almost a whole week to recover from Internet abuse, which simply goes away if he didn't read my posts and would never be there in the 1st place if he didn't input all that made-up nonsense and unsupportable assertions just to impress. You'd think Mensa would train these guys for such a tough life....
Ask the webmasters of some of the best run forums on the net. The difference between WoV and, for example, Miataforum is only scale; the issues are the same, and should be dealt with the same way. I know Gary Fischman a little, I've met him and we've exchanged emails on occasion. He's a good guy, he'd be happy to answer questions. If you do decide to ask him how he handles things, tell him Mosca sent you.
-Ms. D.
Mosca, thanks for the suggestion about Gary Fischman, I'll keep that in mind. I hate bothering people unless I really have to.
I have the greatest of respect for Bryan Bailey. I just had a look at his Forum Rules. I don't want to just copy and paste them here, because that would violate rule 1.7. However, they look well thought out and reasonable. I wouldn't just copy them exactly, but might use them as a place to start.
Please have a look at them via the link above. Would you object to any of those rules applied here? I like his rule 1.16.
Quote: MathExtremistDo you want it to feel more like a dive bar or more like a country-club garden party?
If forced to choose, I'd take the dive bar. However, a happy medium is what I'd prefer.
When I think "dive bar", I think of a place with crappy burgers, beer stains on the floor, and broken fixtures in the bathrooms. A place to get shit-faced and possibly pick up someone and get laid.
When I think "country club garden party", I think frou-frou fancy, with ladies in dresses and hats, drinking tea with their pinky sticking out.
Yeah, I'd pick the dive bar too!
But if that dive bar has fights every night, with people getting hurt, stabbed and/or killed, then the garden party is starting to look better.
You wimps need to toughen up. Banning, blocking, whining, complaining....anyone ever hear of the term "wise up"?
Quote: JerryLoganIt's amazing how grown adults are simply able to just look the other way when there's only one individual here who uses abusive language & vulgarity, yet they choose to praise him for his efforts since he's able to consistently pull the wool over their eyes with his long-winded, made-up assertion-laced posts. It doesn't matter how many times people catch the imposter blowing smoke; it must be his girly-man presentation that wins them over.
You wimps need to toughen up. Banning, blocking, whining, complaining....anyone ever hear of the term "wise up"?
I have, Jerry, I have.
Quote: JerryLoganIt's amazing how grown adults are simply able to just look the other way when there's only one individual here who uses abusive language & vulgarity, yet they choose to praise him for his efforts since he's able to consistently pull the wool over their eyes with his long-winded, made-up assertion-laced posts. It doesn't matter how many times people catch the imposter blowing smoke; it must be his girly-man presentation that wins them over.
You wimps need to toughen up. Banning, blocking, whining, complaining....anyone ever hear of the term "wise up"?
Seriously...you're in a place where *nobody* likes what you're doing. It is time for YOU to either wise(n) up or get out.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
For the record, I have Jerry blocked. I often click the link that shows me his post anyway, but keeping him blocked is an easy way to remind myself that I have no intention of responding to his comments.
Wiz, it's your playground. If you don't want certain people to play, that's your decision. I vote Yes - not so much that you SHOULD clamp down, but that you should have the freedom to do so if you so desire.
I also have Jerry blocked. I blocked MKL for a while, but MKL really does produce some posts that I would like to read when he isn't sniping with Jerry. The problem with that is that the only way to know which type of MKL post was coming was to click the link to read it. Since MKL is so prolific, that was more clicking than it was worth so I unblocked him.
I second the sentiment that there should be an avenue for further action to be taken - whether or not the action *is* actually taken is a different matter.
Quote: rdw4potusI also have Jerry blocked. I blocked MKL for a while, but MKL really does produce some posts that I would like to read when he isn't sniping with Jerry. The problem with that is that the only way to know which type of MKL post was coming was to click the link to read it. Since MKL is so prolific, that was more clicking than it was worth so I unblocked him.
I second the sentiment that there should be an avenue for further action to be taken - whether or not the action *is* actually taken is a different matter.
The only thing for certain around here is seeing a bunch of grown men crying, a huge interest in putting out challenges for the sake of theoretical discussion ad nauseum, and people not doing what they say they're going to do. Wise up, girly men.
Quote: WizardThanks for all the comments thus far.
Mosca, thanks for the suggestion about Gary Fischman, I'll keep that in mind. I hate bothering people unless I really have to.
I have the greatest of respect for Bryan Bailey. I just had a look at his Forum Rules. I don't want to just copy and paste them here, because that would violate rule 1.7. However, they look well thought out and reasonable. I wouldn't just copy them exactly, but might use them as a place to start.
Please have a look at them via the link above. Would you object to any of those rules applied here? I like his rule 1.16.
Would the forum benefit from a thumbs up/thumbs down post "voting" system? There could be negative consequences (suspension of access / loss of access ) for too many thumbs down... There could also be rewards for "thumbs ups"... even if it is just "honor" credits.
Quote: JerryLoganThe only thing for certain around here is seeing a bunch of grown men crying, a huge interest in putting out challenges for the sake of theoretical discussion ad nauseum, and people not doing what they say they're going to do. Wise up, girly men.
I can't help but notice that the more people disagree with you, the more you equate them to women. What does that say about your wife? She must be very smart and reasonable;-)
Quote: rdw4potusSeriously...you're in a place where *nobody* likes what you're doing. It is time for YOU to either wise(n) up or get out.
Especially, apparently, if you're a "girly-man". I've noticed that the worst homophobes are often individuals who are struggling with their own sexual identity issues.
And if Jerry thinks that he doesn't use abusive language...well, that's just silly---unless you consider racist, homophobic, mean-spirited, gratuitously insulting language to not be abusive.
Quote: rdw4potusI can't help but notice that the more people disagree with you, the more you equate them to women. What does that say about your wife? She must be very smart and reasonable;-)
I feel pity for her. What is it like to live with a racist, homophobic, nasty, misogynist blowhard? Can't be much fun. Unless she's VERY smart, and has stifled the expression of all of his caustic feelings to HER, so that he uses internet forums like this as a kind of safety valve. Who knows? Collectively, we may be forestalling a murder. That's one thing all us girly men can be proud of :)
Quote: WizardDuring yet another fight between MKL, Jerry, and this time Bob, it was suggested in the thread on Venetian comps that I invoke the temporary ban privilege.
I think it is indeed time to revisit my current liberal policy on free speech. I've received PMs requesting that various people be banned. Once I start down that road, I'm sure I'll be bothered a lot more with them. I'm a strong believer in free speech, and hate to make rules restricting it. However, some of the fights are getting out of hand, and changing the whole character of the forum.
If I decide to try to clean house, what should the new rules be? Perhaps writing anything that could not be said on network television, except in quoting another, would no be allowed? Perhaps just a general rule to act like gentlemen. I'm one who likes to live by rules, so want to make it as clear as possible what is allowed.
The question for the poll will be "Should I clamp down on free speech?", but I welcome all comments on the topic.
Unless you plan to put people in jail for what they post here, you're not clamping down on free speech at all.
There's a zillion other internet forums/public squares/whatever out there; you're not capable of effectively silencing anybody. So do what you want here and let your "guests" decide where they want to post.
This forum isn't the same thing as an invite-only party, but it's also not the same as a public square where anything can (and should) be allowed. In a way, the people here are in YOUR living room ... virtual as it may be, but still YOURS. It is up to you to allow freedoms and set limits in the way that you think will best serve your goals and make your wanted guests comfortable and willing to participate.
I think that there is a lot of "feel" to where to draw the boundaries, but that's why you make the big bucks! But like I say, short of throwing people in jail, I have no problem with any and/or all restrictions you impose on this forum.
My $0.02.
Quote: mkl654321That's one thing all us girly men can be proud of :)
You know you're too literal when...I think of Bosom Buddies every time I hear/read the phrase "girly men."
It is distressing to have censorship or moderation at all, but it is necessary simply because it only takes a very few weeds to utterly destroy the way the garden is experienced. Botanists can dispute what merits the terminology of weed but that does not aid the gardener. Trolls can dispute their Troll Status forever and probably would dearly love to, but that does not aid the forum readers who want to see on-topic posts without any personal attacks, nit picking or needless criticism.
One can correct mathematical errors or typos without making it sound accusatory. It is easy to suggest errors of reasoning without making personal attacks on posters. And polite and informative comments can be made even on games the poster feels are foolish choices for a gambler to even consider.
Although we all have posted things after Tee Many Martoonis or have inadvertently chosen some less than optimal vocabulary, it seems the problems come largely from those whose sole purpose is to irritate others and then go on at great length to justify their actions to the point of generating page after pages of useless bickering. I know it is entertaining for them and perhaps it is their sole entertainment, but it does get to be a bit much.
Quote: mkl654321I feel pity for her. What is it like to live with a racist, homophobic, nasty, misogynist blowhard? Can't be much fun. Unless she's VERY smart, and has stifled the expression of all of his caustic feelings to HER, so that he uses internet forums like this as a kind of safety valve. Who knows? Collectively, we may be forestalling a murder. That's one thing all us girly men can be proud of :)
Mkl, didn't you just say in page 1, "I, for one, promise from this point forward not to respond to, reference, or even tangentially engage in any kind of discussion with JerryLogan or EvenBob." This is clearly a reference to JerryLogan. Please stick to your promise and don't refer to Jerry, or his wife, in any way at all, except maybe in the Free Speech Zone.
Quote: WizardMkl, didn't you just say in page 1, "I, for one, promise from this point forward not to respond to, reference, or even tangentially engage in any kind of discussion with JerryLogan or EvenBob." This is clearly a reference to JerryLogan. Please stick to your promise and don't refer to Jerry, or his wife, in any way at all, except maybe in the Free Speech Zone.
Sorry. My bad. That was a reference. I'll try not to do that in the future.
In one of my favorite Wizard of Id cartoons, the king (who is very short) tells Rodney the knight that the word "short" will henceforth be stricken from the language and replaced with the word "lovable". Rodney then introduces the king to the crowd with "And now a word from our lovable king". The king tells Rodney to "report to the rack."
I think some reasonable rules are in order because these members are out of hand. I think the appropriate rule is to act as you would in a "live" setting. If you couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't say something to a person's face, why say it here?
BTW as previously mentioned, my wife has great legs....and unlike the beasts in Oregon, she shaves them.
Quote: WizardI think it is indeed time to revisit my current liberal policy on free speech. I've received PMs requesting that various people be banned. Once I start down that road, I'm sure I'll be bothered a lot more with them. I'm a strong believer in free speech, and hate to make rules restricting it. However, some of the fights are getting out of hand, and changing the whole character of the forum.
In general, the Ignore function should suffice. You have to have the discipline to use it and also manually ignore quoted snippets. Almost all of the time, that works.
You have a rule:
4. This forum is designed to be self-moderating. If you find a post which is spammy, harassing, or illegal in nature, you are encouraged to flag that post as inappropriate. When enough members have flagged a post as inappropriate, it will be automatically removed.
You have to delegate the moderation function to your Admin. Get rid of the Flag Post button. If someone has a problem, they should send the Admin a PM. Appoint an Admin whom you trust to make judgment calls as to what is spammy, harassing or illegal. Spam and illegal gets you banned on the first strike; harassment gets you one warning, and 30 days in the cooler on strike 2. Administration is a pain in the ass, but it goes with the territory.
Quote: WizardIf I decide to try to clean house, what should the new rules be? Perhaps writing anything that could not be said on network television
Fuck no! Members should be allowed their full fuckin' range of expression, vocabulary-wise. Free speech doesn't encompass obsessive harassment, however.
It's primarily a Vegas/Gambling/Math board, not a fuckin' free speech experiment. Everybody knows what a troll is. I've run boards where you could say pretty much anything you liked about any subject, and I would've kicked 'em out a long time ago. They're not bringing anything to the table.
If you ever add advertising, you're going to have to bite the bullet. Nobody wants to hang around a place where it always smells like someone just took a dump. Stale beer, puke, and desperation, sure, but not shit.
Quote:the Ignore function should suffice
I've never used the "ignore" function. Does the ignored party receive some type of indication that his posts are not being read?
Quote: Wizard
I think it is indeed time to revisit my current liberal policy on free speech. I've received PMs requesting that various people be banned. Once I start down that road, I'm sure I'll be bothered a lot more with them. I'm a strong believer in free speech, and hate to make rules restricting it. However, some of the fights are getting out of hand, and changing the whole character of the forum.
If I decide to try to clean house, what should the new rules be? Perhaps writing anything that could not be said on network television, except in quoting another, would no be allowed? Perhaps just a general rule to act like gentlemen. I'm one who likes to live by rules, so want to make it as clear as possible what is allowed.
The question for the poll will be "Should I clamp down on free speech?", but I welcome all comments on the topic.
Looks like being at work all day people beat me to my two ideas: a time-out (though I'd start at 72 hours for a first offense then a week then the door, reset after 366 days) and some kind of flag system like craigslist (foul language, illegal acts, whatever) where you and your webmaster can then review the complaint and "flag the flagger" if it is personal, etc.
I've been on forums since 1991. I have seen several die of either all the good people leaving or the college administration closing it and always either because of spam (not a problem here) or flame wars (getting to be a problem here.) In a nutshell, here is what I believe:
You have a great site here with a good balance. I like it enough I was ready to drive to the next state to meet some folks. It is kind of like a big sports-bar where you can discuss other topics, just substitute "gaming" for "sports." But ever see "Roadhouse" when Dalton says, "Good people won't come drink at a slaughterhouse?" This is true. So maybe consider a "policy" as such:
1. The site is for grown-ups and we (you) will treat people as such.
2. Those who want to be treated as grown-ups must act like grown-ups.
3. Acting not like a grown-up shall be decided like the Supreme Court on indecency--we (you) know it when you see it.
4. The site is owned by the Wizard and a business, not a democracy. Those who want a forum with no rules at all should go to usenet at googlegroups
5. Consider your visit to this site as you would a picnic at a park, don't trash it but rather leave it better than you found it.
Quote: CalderI've never used the "ignore" function. Does the ignored party receive some type of indication that his posts are not being read?
I don't think so. But those who use that feature eventually, sooner or later, can't help themselves and go searching for trouble. Besides, I'll bet they spend most of their time surfing the topics to find JUST ONE quoted post from their victim, just so they can respond.
I don't believe in free speech when it's vulgar, and only vulgar people say it's OK. If people can't handle harrassment then review the facts first, then talk to your shrink.
I believe there's too much time being spent on this topic. How do I ban it?
BTW ME, everybody knows they import girls from California for their cheerleading squads in Oregon.
I have no trouble with time outs and if necessary permanent closure of accounts to uphold some rules.
Having said that I have usually just stopped following a thread once I see the 2 of them of as the main posters.
I like lively debates.
I even expect these debates to sometimes turn into heated arguments.
But then there are the bomb throwers. There's no progression. They just show up and throw a bomb. Nobody likes bomb throwers, except perhaps other bomb throwers.
AND WOW, one thing I hate to see is repeated discussion about what to do about the same problem. There's a variation of quote that goes 90% of your time is spent on 10% of people who are problems. (or some other percent, but you get the idea)
WHEN did this all start? Week two -- THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING.
LET'S NOT START THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS, THREE WEEKS, if you know what I mean.
thanks.
Quote: JerryLoganI don't think so. But those who use that feature eventually, sooner or later, can't help themselves and go searching for trouble. Besides, I'll bet they spend most of their time surfing the topics to find JUST ONE quoted post from their victim, just so they can respond.
Pot. Meet Kettle.
Quote:I don't believe in free speech when it's vulgar, and only vulgar people say it's OK. If people can't handle harrassment then review the facts first, then talk to your shrink.
There's plenty of times when you've managed to completely not review the facts and just say whatever you think was the topic under conversation, pontificate on something outside the area and then make vulgar and incendiary statements for either your own amusement or because you've failed to engage your brain.
Quote:I believe there's too much time being spent on this topic. How do I ban it?
By ignoring it, I guess.
Quote:BTW ME, everybody knows they import girls from California for their cheerleading squads in Oregon.
http://www.snmag.com/interviews/Athletes/Oregon-State-University-Cheerleaders.html
First three are all from Oregon. And a quick look through the Ducks website shows two girls from Oregon as well.
You've been caught making up facts about things you don't know anything about.
Pot, once again meet kettle.
Quote: thecesspit
There's plenty of times when you've managed to completely not review the facts and just say whatever you think was the topic under conversation, pontificate on something outside the area and then make vulgar and incendiary statements for either your own amusement or because you've failed to engage your brain.
http://www.snmag.com/interviews/Athletes/Oregon-State-University-Cheerleaders.html
First three are all from Oregon. And a quick look through the Ducks website shows two girls from Oregon as well.
You've been caught making up facts about things you don't know anything about.
Pot, once again meet kettle.
Now you've joined the assertion squad. You ought to think about things first before you write. Then you won't look that dumb.
1. I've never put anyone on ignore. Try again.
2. You just s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d the meaning of vulgarity. You're not doing too well.
3. You used spin on this one just to respond like an idiot, I guess. My words were: "they import Calif. girls for Oregon cheerleading squads". Please show me where I said they import their entire squads from Calif. Let's see....OSU has 3 homespun gals/Oregon has 2.
If you start whining like a sissy over getting caught with your pants down here, please keep it between you and mkl.
Quote: JerryLoganI don't believe in free speech when it's vulgar, and only vulgar people say it's OK.
Quote:http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t4359/
White Pride World Wide
No profanity.
Avoid racial epithets.
No personal flames
I was going to suggest you try out Stormfront org. because they don't like profanity there either. But I see they'd probably throw you out for flames and racial epithets.
