Rocky’s letters blog full of nasty thugs
Most of those commenting on the Rocky Mountain News’ letter to the editor Web site are nasty thugs. They seem to enjoy mocking and attacking letter writers and other bloggers. They contribute few comments that seek to improve the discussions or our government or our society. They have lost their optimism for making society better. They seem to be feral people who thrive on destruction and viciousness.
Does it trouble the managers of the Rocky who monitor the Web site? Or is the Rocky working to eviscerate public discussion? Does the Rocky seek a society in which there is no respect for other people and their contributions to improve our political choices? Is the Rocky emulating the results of talk radio?
Raise your standards for public discourse, Rocky. Facilitate and require exchange instead of insult. Arguments on contentious issues by informed and respectful participants benefit society. Marginalize the thugs.
Bruce Baker, Thornton
Mr. Baker is correct.
The RMN has lately started to identify posters using different names to offer differing, personal anecdotes and false corroborating opinions.
This helps to establish as least a minimum level of integrity and candor.
Beyond that though I would like to see the RMN take a closer look at posts that contain nothing beyond ad hominem attacks not just for the usual, vile language but also for content.
The number of posts would drop dramatically but the quality of the discouse would be improved dramatically.
Well said Baker.
Posted by James Jones on July 7, 2007 06:04 AMBravo for Bruce Baker. Is there any way to improve the situation? I wish I felt some optimism. It seems like it would take a considerable investment in weed control to keep the weeds out. One danger is that people might be inclined to think that the abusers are a a microcosm of America. Of course they are not. Rather, they are a microcosm of America's philosophical slum.
Posted by Truth on July 7, 2007 06:24 AMThe meek or silenced lambs shall inherit the following; (a) 3500 "bodybags" (poor and working class families) in Iraq-NAM, (b) invasion of Iraq and exterminating Iraqis in a manner (use of chemical weps) that would make Hitler even blush, (c) re-elect a prez that is a known UCMJ-felon (illegal separation and discharge), who is guilty along with his father of "high crimes and misdemeanors" (violated Pesident Truman's executive order which desegregated all of our military units, however, the Bush-Klan resegregated all of our military units, when they carved out a sanctuary slot for "W" in the racially segregated Texas Air National Guard (violated Civil Rights Act of 1964 too), (d) a leopard doesn't change his spots ("W" fled for Barbara's dresstail when NAM broke-out and on 9/11 while America was being attacked in the east, he fled west for his personal sanctuary), (e) felon appointed another felon, USSC Judge Alito (UCMJ-illegal separation and disacharge-AWOLee and deserter), (f) when NAM broke-out, Mitt (separation of church and state) broke for his Mormon mission arranged by his daddy a cabinet member in the Nixon adminiatration, (g) black Muslims Elijah Muhammad (Ali's religious advisor) and his son, Wallace D. Muhammad, were "both" sentenced to 3 years in federal prison for having the audacity to seek a religious military draft deferment, (h) Iraq-NAM broke-out and rich white Mile High GOP donor's "blood and treasure", broke for the ski-slopes, college, shopping malls, NFL, etc. And so it goes.
Posted by fleecedbyritterowens on July 7, 2007 06:29 AMI would argue that the letters writers who frequent this forum are representative of our society. Our society is fragmented, divisive and rude so this letter section is a microcosm of that crudeness. The idea that we are going to have genteel conversations while sipping mint juleps is as Abu Gonzales said quaint but obsolete. What you read in this forum is a very clear indication of the kinds of psychosis that affects this nation. We are crazy as a nation right now and the political extremism that drives some is on display every day.
Fleecedbyritterowens, just WTF has that posting got to do with the topic at hand. The topic of certain people who harang letter to the editors with thier thoughts and opinions being censored?
Just another attempt by anti Bush and hate America first pukes taking over the blog.
I would say that yes the Rocky needs to do a little editing , however that would be censorship and against the 1st admnedment. A free dialog of ideas is what is supposed to be going on here. However if the readers and those who wish to join in the disccussion let a few dictate things then shame on them. If truth and OLD grouch, or Sharron B control all direction of these opinions then it is the people who wish to join in who are the loosers.
Posted by on July 7, 2007 06:53 AMModeration in moderation can be a good thing.
As always, it's a tough to know where to draw the line. Should the policy extend to the letters themselves? Many times the "hostile" tone of the letters is what gets the hostility ball rolling.
In the end, I think the line should fall closer to inclusion than exclusion. Thoughtful people can wade through the muck (and even stick their toe in occasionally) and still manage to stay clean.
Many times I've done some toe-dipping myself because I read a post so callous that to let it stand unopposed would have signaled acceptance in my eyes.
Looking around the web you'll find blogs that do a great job of self-moderation using flagging and reporting mechanisms. While the human element is still ultimately necessary to make the call, these methods can take most of the work out of identifying posts as candidates for removal. As this blog grows in readership it might be wise to consider such as system.
And of course the problem with trolls is they can be so fun to play with.
Posted by Charles B on July 7, 2007 07:01 AMGuilt by association?
Posted by on July 7, 2007 07:08 AMGood Idea Bruce, We should restrict anyone that doesnt agree with me. Okay everyone put your right hand on your mouse and we'll all sing kumbiya.
Posted by FW on July 7, 2007 07:33 AMWell "golly gee" Mr. Baker, ever heard of "freedom of expression"?? Even obnoxious expression?? I find the diversity of opinions interesting in these "Letters to the Editor". With all that is going on in the world you're upset about RMN blogs?
Opinions are just that and no more. Relax and skip over the posts you find offensive.
Posted by A on July 7, 2007 07:46 AM06:53AM,
My, my, my. "Control your opinions"? HAH! I have suggested - as have many others as well - that editorial functions here might include clearing up the multiple postings of the same material, true. Repeating nonsense - or insults - 4,5,6, times does what for you? Or for the value of the posting?
BUT! I have said, and will repeat here, You should have your say. NO ONE should be refused posting as such.
By the same token, when the posting is nonsense, or merely fantasy, fiction, and imagination, the poster should be - and is - open to whatever contradiction, presentation of facts, and return of comments that the posting receives.
Or, to put it into the words of an old cliche: If you cant' stand the heat, you shouldn't be in the kitchen.
Statements that clearly indicate: "This is an opinion", in basic format, are, usually not open to debate as such. Statements that indicate a prejudice/superstition/belief-system, are not debatable at all. BUT! None of these statements is immune to response, criticism, or counter expression. Just because a person strongly believes something, and presents that belief, does NOT mean that the posting is to be taken as some form of absolute truth which must then be accepted and adopted by everyone else.
Again, to put it into simple statement: You may well believe - or hold the opinion - that the moon is made of green cheese. And you are completely free to express this on this website. BUT! The nature of an open forum is such that you had better expect others to laugh you off the stage when you do.
The beauty of the RMN website is, simply, it is open to all; and it provides a full range of intelligent discussions, as well as a lot of fun dealing with the "green cheese" believers as well.
The idea that I would ever want to "control your opinions" gave me the best belly-laugh I've had since reading some of the "green cheese" material a while back.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 7, 2007 07:48 AMKempe Children's Center experts tell us to teach children to "use your words" instead of hitting. Some are offended by which words are used. But consider if the choice is ugly words or ugly bullets? I would rather read a few ugly words than see a higher level of crime or body counts. If people using words find them to have an impact, there might be fewer guns used. People denied a voice are more likely to bear arms. And quite frankly, when and why certain words became offensive is a strange trip through etymology. Even so, at least for awhile, the blogosphere must tolerate those who just wish to take potshots instead of forwarding well-thought-out plans to solve the problems of our society if we want all voices to be welcomed. And how can problems be solved without encouraging all voices? Perhaps inclusion will in time temper the ugly words. But please forbid censorship or the speakers will go elsewhere for other resources.
Paula Rhoads
Denver
I disagree with Wes on the forum being representative. In my opinion, the class of people who sit around as I do and write letters to the newspaper on a regular basis is not at all representative of the whole people. It is a class that is much more likely to be infested with thug types. The trouble with most Americans is not that they are thugs but that that are either too complacent or too disheartened. Or perhaps too busy making a living (I sure wouldn't be doing this if I weren't retired). Thugs are much more inclined to make their views known than are most decent people.
Posted by Truth on July 7, 2007 07:55 AMI think it can get rather boisterious on here at times. Some people are rude and like to call names instead of debate or opine on an issue.
Sometime we all get mad and respond in ways that just lower the level of a discussion because someone starts the name calling.
You are too,I am not,you are too , I am not , you are too , I am not etc......
I think so many people today are tired of not being heard on issues that are important to them.They want to speak their mind and voice an opinion. For so long our opinions and ideas where confined to people at a get together ,our spouses,friends,etc...
Now we have this wonderful world of computers. It let's us speak our mind and talk in ways we never would in front of our bosses or family.
At times it is mindless.At times it is rude and crass.At least we have the freedom to speak our minds,even though some of it is innappropriate at times
There are good bloggers who refrain from name calling and their are some that just like to incite.
As a blogger you have a right to respond or not. That's the beauty of a computer it to has an off button or you can switch to something else.
Mr. Baker though I share your concern,that doesn't mean RMN should start censoring the blogs. For the most part most bloggers are just exchanging frustrations along with their ideas.Some are down right awful,but if ignored and not fed they will quietly whither away.
Some are down right funny.Don't take away my funny columns.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on July 7, 2007 08:02 AMTruth: At last you finally admit who and what you are. thank you.
Posted by on July 7, 2007 08:04 AMIt's amazing how many of the verbose thugs agree with this writer!!!!!!
Posted by on July 7, 2007 08:15 AMCigAMEN,
If Bruce Baker will excuse the fact that I don't know the difference between an oyster fork and a fish fork; and never have learned how to keep my pinky finger extended when drinking my tea, I would like to say: Excellent posting you have made there.
(With your permission, I'll reserve my "Amens" for use elsewhere.)
08:15 AM
Sure hope you don't wreck a rotater cuff, or dislocate something, reaching round to pat yourself on the back, there. Or were you intending to refer to the original letter writer? Ah, well! Opinion noted.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 7, 2007 09:15 AMWell how about you "Old Grouch" with that raciist characterization of Thomas Sowel show the level of "class" you display.
Posted by tj1961 on July 7, 2007 09:20 AMSo Wes, You would not go have coffee as a group to discuss in a forum that fits adult conversation and discussion?
As a fact, Yes I have asked people in here to discuss differences via a coffee cup. Offer still stands. We can not make excuses for the country being crazy. We are the country. If we can not discuss our differences(and in a normal forum would find those differences not that great)
We scream in hear that we want moderation, understanding, and cooperation with the rest of the world, but we bash our own in the same line.
Part of it I think is stress relief and entertainment on a personal basis.
Bottom line. As ugly as it gets, dont censor. That does more harm than good
Posted by bwr on July 7, 2007 09:26 AMIf you want a kinder, gentler discourse, you need to discuss gardening or how to serve a perfect luncheon.
This is all sex, politics and religion. All that stuff you couldn`t discuss at the dinner table when you were a kid.
Even the insults are precious. I referred to James Jones as "A Glow in the Dark Bitch" and would hate to lose the freedom to repeat that over and over and over......
Posted by Sharon B. on July 7, 2007 09:27 AMWlecome tothe oneline world, where Daily Kos and other anarcho-leftists have made such hate-filled predatory anti-social behavior not only possible, but prevalent.
Unfortunately, the Right seems ot have learned from Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, and are now starting to use the same tactics, although such behavior is far more common and voluminous coming from the left.
Its how they get others to shut up - by drowning them in filth and personal attacks, instead of engaging them in conversation.
Us online libertarians have been watching the degradation by leftists for years now.
Posted by Ordinary Coloradan on July 7, 2007 09:53 AMThat we so enjoy our thuggishness is a little discomfiting,and I'm sure that we all would like to express our sentiments in a calm,elegantly mannered fashion that would instantly convince everyone of the absolute rightness of whatever we're saying........
HOWEVER,if we actually were the kindly,tolerant,turn-the-other-cheek types we tell ourselves we are,the world (and this forum) would look very different indeed.
Letter writer: remember, this is the =Rocky Mountain News= published in Colorado...this is a second-tier paper in a second (or third)-tier market...who do you expect you'd find lurking on the blogs, and what level of discourse can you reasonablly expect? Enjoy it while you can and consider it a release valve for the more heated elements of our society...just 10+ years ago some of these types allowed such frustration to bottle up to the point where they blew up a Federal Bldg in Okla. Now they can vent, and then get back to their daily lives of blissful denial and projection re: the problems facing our country...not exactly healthy for them, but better for our gov't employees.
BTW - RMN can censor whatever and however they want without violating the First Amendment...they aren't the gov't afterall...just its cheerleader.
Posted by on July 7, 2007 10:03 AMI wonder just when the citizens of Colorado, especially those in Denver, are finally going to stand up to the Democrats Nanny form of Government. Now I hear that the Liberal Socialist want to increase the smoking ban to cigar bars. Whats the matter with you people? If some folks wish to gather without the constant annoyance of some LIberal trying to tell them what to do, what s it to you anyway ? The Democrat Nanny Government in Colorado is out of control and its way past time for the Real Americans to vote these people out !!! (and stay out)
Posted by DB Coffman on July 7, 2007 10:06 AMIf fools be not suffered easily then all suffer. That which was thought foolish once is now the norm and ever the past comes back around, that which was will be again and that which is old, in time, becomes what is new yet again. The only constant in the universe is change. There are to many feelings posing as opinion, the trouble is there are to few real opinions. You can't have an opinion about anything without having knowledge of the subject. Emotion is not opinion, feeling is not opinion, opinion requires considered thought and reasoned thinking. Who ever said opinions are like aholes, everyone has one, was not expressing an opinion, he was defining a feeling he had by resorting to base and ignorant verbage. and, that is my opinion based on an astute observation of the obvious.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 7, 2007 10:18 AMI’m surprised at how many people supports the censorship of a discussion forum. If someone wants to say something upsetting and offensive, they should be able to do it, and without a moderators restrictive personal opinion, it’s called freedom of expression. Besides they already filtering out foul language and it takes too long to upload a post. Do you really want to wait half a day for someone’s reply? This is not children’s book we are writing here. Sharon said it best…
Posted by Uno on July 7, 2007 10:30 AMPosted by James Jones on June 15, 2007 09:11 PM
blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/06/unintended_pregnancies_sex_edu.html#comments
"Of course if the world were more just and you ran things then condtitions would be much different. The great unwashed would be held to strict standards and would not be allowed the freedom to express themselves however they want whenever they feel like it. Oh no, rules would be put in place,and strictly enforced, to ensure that everyone conforms to the standards of behaviour (and obviously thought)that meets your approval.
This is a wonderful example of the pretensions and tyranny of the left and is due entirely to what this page offers - freedom."
Posted by James Jones on July 7, 2007 06:04 AM
"I would like to see the RMN take a closer look at posts that contain nothing beyond ad hominem attacks not just for the usual, vile language but also for content.
The number of posts would drop dramatically but the quality of the discouse would be improved dramatically."
Anyone else notice the hypocrisy?
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on July 7, 2007 10:34 AMThis is an open forum to people of all different types of intelligence, education, wisdom, literacy, etc. That's a good thing.
Politicians should be on this forum mixing it up with us. Interacting with us. Debating us.
What is thuggery when words are the only weapons? Clever insults, ad hominem attacks, profanity: these things are not thuggery; they are merely wasted words that do nothing to further an argument.
I do think, however, that a moderator would be helpful. Not for the purpose of censoring speech but for keeping the debate reasonable. Points should be adequately addressed. Questions should be answered. Comments should be relevant to the topic. Facts should be verified.
An objective RMN moderator could help the discussion become much more readable.
RMN could even save some money by firing some it's columnists and simply print the bloggers discussions in the paper each day.
Posted by John II on July 7, 2007 10:46 AM"Anyone else notice the hypocrisy?"
No.
That was not an ad hominem attack by Mr. Jones. He was merely expressing his opinion as to what the world would be like had we followed a particular ideology.
The excerpts you posted did not prove any hypocrisy on Mr. Jones part.
Posted by John II on July 7, 2007 11:06 AMOriginal letter said in part:
Is the Rocky emulating the results of talk radio?
One reply said in part:
Unfortunately, the Right seems ot have learned from Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, and are now starting to use the same tactics, although such behavior is far more common and voluminous coming from the left
Why shouldn't RMN try to capture the commercial success of talk-radio? They are a business, in a declining industry, so it's natural for them to consider any opportunity to increase profits, including a form of entertainment (like talk radio) that appeals to the more base emotions.
Interesting though is how success in talk-radio has ibeen from programming espousing conservative viewpoints, and according to at least the reply quoted and other sources, the blogosphere (such as it can be defined) appears to be a haven for 'leftists'.
Made me think of the differences in the formats of each. Talk radio is more like a standing opinion column in the paper -- one regular host chooses the topics, chooses who to respond to, how much time to give them, and retains control over the framing of the caller's input pre- and post- phone call. The ad hominem attacks are of a more refined sort, but are still bread-and-butter entertainment that keeps people tuning in. But the degree of interactivity is demonstrated by the immortal 'ditto' catchphrase from Limbaugh in his heyday.
Compare to blogs (of all political persuasions) that are much more interactive -- no one voice can dominate or control the forum (unless other contributors allow them to by simply not engaging, or the forum itself is moderated by a host (such as RMN) with a heavy hand....and these will tend to be the less visited, and therefore less commercially successful), and any topic can wind itself out for however long people are willing to discuss (or battle).
Here's the question: is the interactivity of blogs (many-to-many speakers) and the command-control broadcast model of talk-radio (one speaker, many listeners) reflective of different political ideologies? Or the ability or willingness to examine issues under the light of debate, no matter how crass?
It may well be that blogs are the counter-balance to talk-radio...and there is money to be made from each. But trying to apply a format that works for conservative entertainment (a la the liberal and unsuccessful 'Air America') newspapers and other ventures may tap the wallets (via ad sales, etc) of liberals via blogs...which simply may not be as appealing (or naturally suited) to conservatives. I consider myself liberal, and rather than be shocked or disturbed by the crass comments from either side of the spectrum in the comments, I find it as amusing and entertaining as I do when I've tuned into conservative talk-radio. Buy in the case of a blog (unlike radio) I get the same chance as the radio host to let out some wild yells of opinion (or emotion) amongst others doing the same. If there are some pearls of wisdom in what others say (or even I might blurt out) so much the better, but that's not what commercial success in media is about anymore.
Posted by on July 7, 2007 11:19 AMtj1961,
Do have someone read you the posting I put up earlier on this line. Perhaps they can explain it in terms you will be able to grasp. Your perception of something as "racist" is your own. And "class" is really not at all relevant here.
By the way, are you related to - or even, perhaps, a clone of - the writer whose works are contrasted in the posting from Queen Gorgo @ 10:34 AM?
Ah! Well! Bruce Baker surely stirred up a hornet's nest.
How many want to belong to the "Bruce Baker's Nasty Thugs Club"; and keep the forum lively, productive, and full of ideas?
We're sure to be outnumbered by the, "Our way or not at all" bunch; and equally surely be the targets of those for whom insult, epithet, unfounded assertion - as well as sniveling, whining, little temper tantrums when questioned, or shown to be without facts or substance in their presentations - are the substitutes for reason, judgment, or intelligent discussion.
But it will be informative, entertaining, and a lot of fun too. Charter Memberships open today.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 7, 2007 11:28 AMJohn II
Like Jonesy, you are often willfully ignorant in your posts.
JJ June 5 decried "rules ...put in place,and strictly enforced, to ensure that everyone conforms to the standards of behaviour" and July 7 says he wants exactly that.
Please tell me why this is not hypocrisy?
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on July 7, 2007 11:30 AM"for whom insult, epithet, unfounded assertion - as well as sniveling, whining, little temper tantrums when questioned, or shown to be without facts or substance in their presentations - are the substitutes for reason, judgment, or intelligent discussion."
It's good that you can be honest with yourself about your style of debate.
Posted by on July 7, 2007 11:30 AMJohn II, do you remember "The Wind In the Willows" and the mayor of "Toad Hall"?
Every time you write a letter like this one above, I envision you as the "mayor of toad hall" all proper and dignified with your muttonchops and gold pocket watch.
If you and JJ get your way and this forum, dragged kicking and screaming to the wash basin like a street urchin, is gentrified, it is over.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 7, 2007 11:34 AMWhile it would not be that difficult to censor out purely ad hominem attacks, it would require a degree of moderating that I can't blame the News for not being willing to provide.
It would be nice, but quite impractical, if there were two forums, one permitting ad hominem and the other not.
For any debate to be worthwhile, it must exclude purely ad hominem attacks. But this is not a debate forum. In actuality, it is a free for all forum that doesn't attempt to debate issues but rather to provide a platform for people to express their feelings, however outrageous or insulting. I would much prefer a different kind of forum but I guess I am too lazy to see if there is one out there. The forums I have participated in over the years have not really been that much different from this one.
Censorship is not, of course, a bad word. There would not be much meaningful discussion anywhere if it were not for censorship, whether it is in the home or school or business or in forums which have worthwhile discussion as their purpose. One reason the constitutional convention meetings were secret was to keep out the thugs.
While a person has the right to speak his mind, he does not have the right to demand that others provide him with his forum for doing so. Just because he can stand on the street corner and criticize, for example, a particular church does not mean he has the right to go into the church and do so. He simply does not have the right to demand that the Rocky Mountain News spend its money to provide him with a place for making ad hominem attacks.
Posted by Truth on July 7, 2007 11:38 AMHi Sharon.
Did you get your copy of "TheFacts of Life"?
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on July 7, 2007 11:39 AMI think these forums help illustrate why we are so stymied by big problems in our society. We are all so entrenched in our positions (I speak for myself as well) that we can no longer operate in a solution focused manner.
How on earth did our founding fathers do it?
Posted by Michael R. on July 7, 2007 11:44 AMYes, this blog can be full of nasty thugs. Many of them are only thuggish infrequently, but just about all of us participate in it at one point or another. Even the "saintly" John II and Jim Jones, the "disinterested scholar" Dan2, our British friend Bango Skank, and, of course, myself (no matter which handle I may use at the time).
However, is this tendency for those on the left, right, and center really that hard to understand? If anything, it is a mirror of political discourse and society that has plagued this country since its inception, and in the modern form since Watergate. I mean, honestly now, what is the difference between Ann Coulter and Micheal Moore? Sure, they come from the opposite fringes of the political spectrum in the US, but all there needs to be is a mention of their names to get people on the left or right foaming at the mouth. Furthermore, they are the masters of personal attack and the slinging of fictional mud, as well they are masters of tossing red meat to the base of either side of the political spectrum. Many posters here only emulate this kind of screaming past each other, and have the audacity to think that is actually debate. And, hey, I am guilty of that too! I just wish that more people would be that honest with themselves and everyone else. Please ask yourselves an honest question, all of you: When have any of you ever won someone over to your side by being an aggressive, vulgar, and petulant a**hole? It's never worked for me, and I doubt very seriously that it has ever worked for anyone else either.
Observe the pattern since the 1970's: Democrats screaming for blood with Nixon; Republicans screaming for blood with Jimmy Carter; Democrats screaming for blood with the Iran-Contra Affair; Republicans screaming for blood with the Clinton impeachment; Democrats screaming for blood with Bush and Cheney; now Republicans desire the head of Nancy Pelosi on a plate, and Democrats want Cheney's head on a plate too. The only thing that most, if not all, of us are doing is reflecting this somewhat violent ideological struggle. It must be terrible to have it so good in the US that we have reduced ourselves to this, eh?
All I can do is try my hardest to stop being a hyper-opinionated and hyper-defensive pr*ck when I post here. I certainly do hope that others would want to try to do the same.
Posted by Paulie on July 7, 2007 12:04 PMThe moderator is alive and well lest you forget Keith was stricken (later to become fish) for his language typical of a drunken sailor on leave (me fifty years ago). Anyone who suggests censorship is an enemy of humanity just like those who use the word "obvious" and the expression "common sense," a collection of a person's bias and prejudices.
Which Hitler amongst bloggers is going to define what common sense can be printed and what cannot be printed? Look for my name before you read my print and scroll but don't play the role of Comstock, a guy reincarnated into Jerry Falwell.
It is not nice to speak ill of the dead; however, Jerry is not dead, right? He is at the feet of his Jewish god sired from the "loins of David," a god with very big feet to accommodate so many.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahhoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for a copy of Freethought Today) on July 7, 2007 12:11 PM11:19,
You said:
"Compare to blogs (of all political persuasions) that are much more interactive -- no one voice can dominate or control the forum (unless other contributors allow them to by simply not engaging, or the forum itself is moderated by a host (such as RMN) with a heavy hand....and these will tend to be the less visited, and therefore less commercially successful), and any topic can wind itself out for however long people are willing to discuss (or battle)."
Have you ever posted on the most popular liberal blog, The Daily Kos? It does lack talk radio's overriding moderatator. But, I believe it has something worse: tyranny of the majority.
The Daily Kos has it's own form of censorship provided by a rating system. Bloggers can rate comments by other bloggers. If a comment receives enough low ratings, it is expunged from the record.
After a certain amount of expunged comments, the user account is banned from posting permanently. The result of this system is startling: there is near 100% agreement on every thread. A comment considered a "Republican talking point" will eventually receive hundreds of negative ratings and eventually expunged from the record.
I was banned from The Daily Kos numerous times. Eventually, I tried an experiment. I created numerous new accounts. On some accounts, I impersonated a liberal. On others, I argued as myself.
My liberal accounts said things like, "Bush should hanged." or "The minimum wage should be set to $15 per hour" or "Christianity should be outlawed." Those comments were given positive ratings.
On my serious accounts, I was eventually banned. Comments in support of WalMart or against the minimum wage received so many negative ratings that they were eventually expunged from the record.
Here's an actual comment by a DKos member in regards to my serious comments:
"This particular group is pretty interesting. Much more polished and on point than your typical run of the mill rethug trolls. Seemed really concerned about defending Republican Corporate policies i.e big pharma in nyceve's recent diary "Strip them of THEIR healthcare coverage. It appears that they only attack serious diaries where they can debate the issues and advance their talking points. They are not, willie nillie, spamming the site. Your Wal-Mart titles naturally drew their attention."
Bruce,
.Exactly WHAT offended you?
Who are the "THUGS" where did that come from?
What's the point in venting? We're responding to Letters to the editor...
These letters aren't always nice either.
Ok people , no more comments about the Judge, Illegals , and our do nothing Salazar.
Just 'FLUFF" the comments.
Let me not forget .....the 7 roosters... that I was totally shocked about at my old neighbothood. Did that offend anyone?
Posted by maria-now -Independent on July 7, 2007 12:49 PMThe main reason for the "thugs" is they are able to hide behind their keyboard.
I'm quite sure most of them would utter not a
peep of their vitriol if face to face with some one, or they were identified for all to see.
Richard Lee Landrum II
Longmont
I've read stuff on other newspaper forums, primarily Florida's Sun Sentinel, on the most mundane topics, that makes the most virulent posts around here sound like Sunday school.
Anyone who actually believes these posts serve any purpose other than amusement, venting, or preaching to the choir, is deluded to the point of requiring medical attention. And there's not one participant who can honestly claim not to have indulged in insult at least once--some merely are more clever about it than others.
You want this blog cleaned up? Okay, ban all discussion of homosexuality, abortion, the Bible, Christianity, immigration, war, liberals vs. conservatives, global warming, anyone named Clinton, anyone named Bush...and we'll all be fighting over comic strips like the other newspapers.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 7, 2007 12:55 PMSharon B. Oh! You make me soooo HOT! yeah, I like the undisciplined, non-edited forum that we have here. Unfortunately, I really have some projects to do that will positively impact my life which pre-empt the monumental waste of time posting on here (except getting hot over Sharon B) OH! OH!
Posted by Harry on July 7, 2007 01:16 PMAgreed. There are some very rude people on here. They are all assholes who curse and abuse weenie liberal simps that can't backup their stupid aguments! The letter writer is a moron true, but he is correct. So all you dumbasses try to be nice.
Posted by truthy on July 7, 2007 01:53 PMHarry, Good Lord what did I say this time?
Queen, sorry, was in Hastings and forgot to even look. Will definitely try next time.
Truthy is satire, right? Or have we all lost our sense of humor?
What is a weenie liberal? If an insult is so vague or weird that no one has any idea what it means, well, why bother.
Was that another penis insult?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 7, 2007 02:30 PMtruthy,
You are as guilty as all of us. For you to side with Bruce is contadictory to everthing you said. You are'nt so nice yourself.
Let's all be honest here. I'm guilty of alot ,
and I stand on my convictions..I buy American ..don't spend my money in Taquerias or any foriegn store. I think Americans should be first in everything,
I think Salazar is a trader to the voters who put him in office..Like me for one. Ted Kennedy too. All the Rev's writting letters and pandering to the illegals when they..
reject the American citizen..their own.
Yet the call us racists...and we spew negative
only because we don't like how our country is changing into a third world county ..here in Denver. Now we have roosters....maybe Bruce would like half a dozen as neighbors.
I'm not guilty of Judging the Judge...that is way to much ..May he rest in peace. Bless his family may they have counseling.
Lastly: In the past I've taken under my wing ,
alot of people alot of illegals..and legal of all nationalities...Americans too..of all nationalities. Some from bad backgrounds ,some rejected..some homeless, for free..because there was a need..never made it a non-profit corp..never funded. So, I know the two sides of the coin.
Who wanted to assimulate and who didn't,
all of them didn't..they loved their own country,
the way we love ours. But there should be some respect for our flag..if you live and work here. My friends and family agree with me on all issues..And we will tell people to stand in reverance to our flag ..if we see it. If thats "THUG" so be it!
I read Bruce Baker's letter with interest this morning and decided to venture over to the RMN's website to see if his complaint holds water. Sad to say, it most certainly does. As an occasional contributor and peruser of the Post's eLetters page, I can say that there is a dramatic difference. Exchanges on the Post's site seem to be much less vociferous and nasty than many of the "discussions" I've examined at this site. I don't believe either paper moderates the discussions, so perhaps this is simply a function of the educational level, intelligence, and etiquette characteristic of each paper's readership.
The RMN's eLetters seem to display many of the characteristics of talk radio. Sad to say, talk radio has become a sewer for the miscreants of society to play in. Unfortunately, there's no Fairness Doctrine available to remedy the situtation here. Thus, it's up to the RMN itself to enforce the standards it sets for participants. I hope they decide to do so; to do otherwise does not reflect well on either the paper or its readers.
Posted by RB on July 7, 2007 02:40 PMLet's see, what else should be taboo subjects so as not to elicit "thuggish" responses? Fox News Network, stem cell research, smoking, Ronald Reagan, oil, non-English speakers, school vouchers, the price of gasoline, terrorism, secularism, drugs, SUVs...
Well, back to Paris Hilton, everybody. Or is that too controversial a topic? I know: how about all those people who stood in line for days for the honor and privilege of purchasing an iphone cluing in us lesser mortals on how their lives are now worth living?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 7, 2007 03:27 PMRB,
That fairness doctrine thing makes you feel all good inside doesn't it? The Post is nearly dead. Let it fade away in peace. If RMN wants to censor, then it will die that same slow death too. Either way my opinions stay exactly the same.
P.S.
"Miscreants" ? The miscreants are the punks painting tags on your garage, and the crooks that are selling out our great nation to make a buck. Oh, and miscreants are snooty control freaks like YOU!
You can't silence me. Don't even try.
Posted by truthy on July 7, 2007 03:28 PMHans Christian Brando thinks the subject matter is the cause rather than the authors. Or perhaps he means to say, although he didn't, that with the kind of posters we often have there is no way to deal civilly with controversial topics. But basically civility is not restricted to discussions of flower gardens. Civility can be and often is exercised in proper venues on any topic whatsoever. Lack of civility is not the fault of the topic but the fault of the poster who lacks civility. The problem is that it isn't fair to ask RMN to go to the trouble and expense of monitoring the posters that closely.
Posted by Truth on July 7, 2007 04:20 PMtj1961..... Old Grouch is NOT a racist..take my word for it. He just does what I call......his "Dogpatch speak" when he is trying to make a point.
I have even engaged in "Dogpatch Speak" with him on occasion. I don't think Lil' Abner or Daisy May would mind. Please don't take offense "Dogpatch Speak" is just a silly way to converse now and then.
Posted by A on July 7, 2007 04:33 PMTruth, can you picture some sad sack, having to read everything we post? We don`t even do that. We probably don`t even read our own posts.
There are thugs and then there are Thugs, who say, so sorry to hear of your medical condition, that explains perhaps what is wrong with your posting. This when they KNOW someone is ill.
That is what I call evil, not thuggery.
Is thuggery really a word?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 7, 2007 04:42 PMAmen, Bruce. I wasn't aware of the tone of this forum until I had a letter recently published, and went online to see the comments. If a letter has a Conservative tilt, the "thugs" come out in mass, under the cover of anonymity. They don't really care much about the content. Nor do they want to debate logical points. They just attack with their hateful bumper sticker slogans, that are starting to sound like a broken record. And it's always the same people. Don't they have a life?. I think the forum should be moderated to keep it on an acceptable level of civility.
Posted by Dinty on July 7, 2007 04:57 PMAmen, Bruce. I wasn't aware of the tone of this forum until I had a letter recently published, and went online to see the comments. If a letter has a Conservative tilt, the "thugs" come out in mass, under the cover of anonymity. They don't really care much about the content. Nor do they want to debate logical points. They just attack with their hateful bumper sticker slogans, that are starting to sound like a broken record. And it's always the same people. Don't they have a life?. I think the forum should be moderated to keep it on an acceptable level of civility.
Posted by Dinty on July 7, 2007 04:58 PMLet it be recorded that the participants of the blog agree the letter writer is accurate in his charactarization of this forum.
Recap of observations -
1- few bloggers want and the Rocky couldn't afford a censor, but an appeals judge might serve to punish over the top bombthrowers
2- bloggers have shown amazing self-restraint and topic focus, so this group has the ability to do better.
3- The Rocky has a self-interest in improving this forum.
4- The Rocky can affect public discourse by whether it lets this forum be place where "thugs" make attacks by their mean-spiritedness, clever wit and nasty words to charge an emotional toll on letter writers (like talk radio - thugs being mostly the hosts, but sometimes the callers) OR it requires focus on discussing the topic raised.
Possible solutions- the devil is in the details
1- limits (just like the word limit and number of published pieces the Rocky has)- Blogger is limited to 30 postings a month (must pay 25 cents per post for useage above that level) Posts must be length limited and copy/paste is not allowed. These functions would be cheap, computer monitored tasks.
2- require money deposit to play ($20.00) and charge a fine when posters overstep the bounds of civil interaction (It would cost $1 to complain about anothers conduct, if judge finds complaint accurate $1 is returnded and offender is charged $5, the Rocky keeps the money to partly pay the poor devil assigned as judge). All upheld complaints are kept as part of archive so the judges standards are known to all.
3- don't censor or delete any posts, just annotate the consequence of nasty postings.
We all know the Rocky DOES censor and delete stuff, but this should be an open and archived activitiy The Rocky knows identities of posters and some claim it does reduce the numbers of allowed pen-names. Immediate consequences make Face to face conversations are move civil than semi-anonymous webstuff, so these solutions might ameliorate this situation.
Posted by Dave on July 7, 2007 06:56 PMI like it the way it is now......Shouldn't have to pay for free speech,an yew shoodnt hev tew bee uh Rodes Skoller afore yew git tew hev yer say.
Posted by Jimminy on July 7, 2007 08:29 PMBombthrower....bombthrower, now where have I heard that term. Oh, now I remember, on the Bill Orally show.
We could charge $1.00 every time someone calls a poster a liar. But where would we send the money?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 7, 2007 08:55 PMJohn II
I have copied this post to make a point:
>>>[As a courtesy to other readers, please choose one screen name, "Repugnants are liars," and use it consistently]
Skeptical,
You're wrong:
(I'll spare you the text)
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on June 14, 2007 11:06 PM
Queen Gorgo was posting under different, assumed names in the same thread for reasons best known to herself. The RMN exposed her dishonesty just ouf of sense of basic fairness.
The freedom we have on this page is widely understood. What is not well understood is that this freedom properly used requires responsible behaviour.
I appreciate the trouble and expense the RMN bears to allow us this forum. I think it would be benficial if they could go one step beyond the sort of hygiene illustrated above and simply remove those posts that offer nothing beyond personal attacks.
That's all Baker is arguing.
The thugs who don't have the imagination to offer a material comment will complain about their loss of freedom just as they have here.
I'm prepared to live with that.
Posted by James Jones on July 7, 2007 09:52 PMHere's my favorite, "Clinton did it"!
Posted by rick on July 7, 2007 10:41 PMSeems as how there's a hull lot o speechafyin bout "responsible behavior" an sech like hyar, Thet's sposed ta mean sumpin, I guess. But peers as how it means sumpin else ta them as are amakin the speeches.
Now, seems ta me as ifn whan a body makes a statement bout sumpin thet air sorta teknikal, it might be "responsible behavior" ta have at least larnt sumpin about tha subject; stead o firin off nonsense, an then agettin all fussed up bout bein told the nonsense air jest that.
Er mebbe ifn a feller says one thang outen one side o the mouth, one time, an says sumpin differnt outen t'other, right short after, it might be "responsible behavior" ta kinda reconsider whats done been said; an mebbe figger out which sayin tha feller wants ta hold onta. Last I done heerd, fence straddlin jest manages ta put tha family jewels in a bad spot.
Ifn folks want ta tell usns thet tha moon is made o green cheese, an they believe this, fine an dandy. But peers ta me thet agettin thar bloomers all knotted up whan ither folks tell em thet's foolishness is not much in tha way o "responsible behavior" neither.
Course, them air jest tha very ones what air ademandin ta decide what "responsible behavior" air in tha fust place. So . . . ! Peers ta me as ifn it all biles down ta a kinda position o, "What I say is allus right no matter how I say it; an airyone what says I'm wrong air jest not allowed, since thet ain't "responsible behavior", ta criticize me."
Guess I jest better get used ta bein one o them thar "nasty thugs", cause I shore nuff ain't agonna call a fool's foolishness tha pure an holy Gospel truth, jest ta please tha fool. Nother old sayin comes ta mind: "Ifn ya caint stand tha heat, ya oughtent ta be in tha kitchen."
Posted by Old Grouch on July 8, 2007 07:50 AMTruthy exclaimed proudly:
"Either way my opinions stay exactly the same."
Even in the face of contravening evidence?
Posted by Charles B on July 8, 2007 08:15 AMThe people who write responses to letters reminds me of the scene in "Blazing Saddles" where the town folk discuss the problems facing them. Everyone has a opinion, including the moutain guy who is totally unintellible. It takes all kinds...and you kind of have an idea of someones position is before reading the letter...because they say the same thing(just fill in the blanks) everytime...and then sometimes they surprise you and one ends up agreeing with them. Yeah, there are thugs, halfwits, nerdowell, creative typists and intellectual giants...but I like reading them all.
Posted by Yaakov on July 8, 2007 08:25 AMBecause Queen was exposed as using more then one name, James Jones will never stop crowing about this.
Better then to answer all her questions.
If someone posts on a work site how does that go, many people using the same computers.
Can we never change our names, just for fun?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 8, 2007 09:55 AMI will bet that Bruce Baker is a Democrat.A Liberal Democrat.This is very much like the reasons that they are giving to close talk radio.Democrats can not stand the truth because it goes against everything they stand for.That is why they like the liberal news media.If anyone lives in Thornton look up his number and call.Ask him if he is a Democrat.Put his number on this page I will call him.
Posted by True on July 8, 2007 10:02 AMGee, I must be slipping. Truth thought I was being serious!
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 8, 2007 10:06 AMBruce Baker is a Democrat.He bashed talk radio.Only Liberal Democrats are against talk radio.There is the proof.Democrats are against all your freedoms.Do you notice he did not mention any of the issues we are talking about to give his opinion.That is because liberal ideas do not stand up in the market place.So all he could hope to do is close down the debate.
Posted by True on July 8, 2007 10:12 AMOld Grouch,
No one expects you to understand the requirements of reponsible behaviour when you are left solely to your own devices. That's why the calls for adult supervision arise.
We can discipline you ourselves but it is much like being asked to spank your brother's children: we know how to do it but it would be better for everyone if he took care of the job himself.
Posted by James Jones on July 8, 2007 10:57 AMJames Jones
I am at a loss. You said I was wrong, and that you would spare me the text.
To what are you referring.
Old Grouch,
"Thou shoulds’t not have been old till thou hads’t been wise"Posted by John II on July 8, 2007 11:59 AM
That was a post directed to you by Queen Gorgo. I just copied in from the earlier thread.
It had nothing to do with you.
I edited out the text of the post out to as to spare the reader. One reading is more than enough.
Posted by James Jones on July 8, 2007 11:59 AMJim,
Could you please provide a link to that quote so that Skeptical an I can get up to speed with you?
Thanks
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on July 8, 2007 12:36 PMGlad to:
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on June 14, 2007 11:06 PM
Is the signature for a post I found in the archives at the time and date shown. I remembered the incident and wanted an example to clarify the nature of the problem.
The first one I found was addressed to "skeptical" but there are others addressed to me on a nearby thread.
The same request to you from the RMN found in that post
"[As a courtesy to other readers, please choose one screen name, "Repugnants are liars," and use it consistently]"
Can be found in other threads where you post different names on that same day. If you look you will find numerous examples.
You don't recall any of this?
If it helps in your search your psot usually begins with the sentence,
"James Jones is a liar."
and you will prbably find the request to use one name nearby.
That will probably be either you or Old Grouch.
Harry: Name your weapon. Three dogs went into the bar: Collie, Shepard, Mexican Ch... and the attractive bitch says whoever uses the word "cheese" in a sentence I like gets me. They all tried and one of them got her when he said: "Cheese ees mine," so I'm giving you fair warning, Harry.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for copy of FreeThought Today) on July 8, 2007 01:41 PMI repeat:
Could you please provide a link to that quote so that Skeptical an I can get up to speed with you?
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on July 8, 2007 02:17 PM
Queen Gorgo
Go to this page.
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/
Click on June under Archives. You will find it on the right-hand side near the top.
Scroll down unitl you find the letter written on the 15th - there are at least two threads with examples.
Posted by James Jones on July 8, 2007 03:58 PMI have a few minutes so I will look it up for you.
I have left the RMN identifier, your salutation and sign off and removed the body of the text from the following.
In the letter:
Abortion
Wednesday, June 13 at 12:25 PM
Max Ernst of Arvada writes
[As a courtesy to other readers, please choose one screen name, "Repugnants are liars," and use it consistently]
Skeptical,
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on June 14, 2007 11:06 PM
Under the letter
Unintended pregnancies & sex education
Wednesday, June 13 at 12:24 PM
James Jones of Littleton writes:
[As a courtesy to other readers, please choose one screen name, "Queen Gorgo," and use it consistently]
Hey Jim,
Posted by Repugnants are liars on June 14, 2007 11:17 PM
[also Repugnants are liars]
Manish Tanah Haliliah Hazeh?
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on June 16, 2007 07:56 PM
[also Repugnants are liars]
Thanks, Jim.
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on June 17, 2007 02:21 PM
[Repugnants are liars]
Jim,
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on June 17, 2007 07:18 PM
[Repugnants are liars]
Oh Yeah,
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on June 17, 2007 07:30 PM
Any of that ring a bell?
Jim,
I never claimed I didn't remeber it, I wanted the link so I could see exactly what happened, ehich your redacted version dosen't show, and you still haven't provided the link.
It's
blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/06/abortion_11.html#comments
Which was written on 6/13.
On that post I only wrote as Queen Gorgo.
The only time I ever used two names in the same thread was the previously cited example.
blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/06/unintended_pregnancies_sex_edu.html#comments
I have not posted as Repugnants are Liars since.
I would have liked to use that handle for this thread, as your posts are a perfect example of why I use it. Queen Gorgo is for matters of reproductive freedom, not conservative hypocrisy.
Re: James Jones is a liar.
You are, you proved it again today.
"Queen Gorgo was posting under different, assumed names in the same thread for reasons best known to herself.
Posted by James Jones on July 7, 2007 09:52 PM"
"Having been called an imbecile, dumber than a bug, and a terrorist sypathizer by this supposed paragon of "Judeo-Christian" values, the urge to offer him a smack down via insult was irresistable. However, using multiple handles on this site (can you guess my others?) I chose to use a different alias for the insult to keep Queen Gorgo's Spartan virtue intact ;-)
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on June 16, 2007 10:55 AM "
If you wish to smear me because I post under a pseudonym, consider that people in my line of work have been the targets of terrorists and assasins who purport to uphold "Judeo-Christian values."
On that same thread you wrote a letter including "Lizzy Annison, Colorado director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood... about a study from a leftist institute...If Ms. Annison and her colleagues want to dip even more deeply into the public coffers..."
It was pointed out to you that the institute in question was in no way "Leftist" and that PPRM doesn't have their hands in the public coffers. You ignored the first point and responded to the second by claiming some nonsense about the hstory of PPRM's state funding, and that your letter wasn't about Planned Parenthood at all.
Don't want me to call you a liar?
Stop lying.
As one who has been at the receiving end of your insults, which were enclosed within your arguments, I find it telling that you object to "posts that contain nothing beyond ad hominem attacks."
I suppose according to you, ad hominem attacks are ok when they're not the only thing in the post.
Your nonsense about the tyranny of the left was in response to me stating:
"If the Rocky wants people to post as unique identities, they can create a log-in system like virtually EVERY other daily paper website."
I mentioned nothing about censoring speech or ideas, yet you claimed I did, and thought that such censorship was horrible. No here you are today recommending it.
Check the 9th commandment.
You're a repugnant lying hypocrite.
p.s.
A login system like the Des Moines Register's allows searches for user's posts which would make this a lot easier.
Also, your constant insults when cornered by the logical conclusions of your own arguments that you find unpleasant would get you disqualified from that website for bad beavior.
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on July 8, 2007 04:38 PMQueen Gorgo,
When you post under different names to protect yourself from religious fanatics, do you put on different clothes for each personality just to be really sure?
You know masks, false beard, that sort of thing?
Posted by James Jones on July 8, 2007 04:58 PMIf the News wants people to post by the same name, they can provide registration. They can require an e-mail address. They can actually post terms of service. They can hire a forum moderator who isn't a dumb-ass pissant who chastises some users for changing screen names, and allows others to post anonymously (the well-known Republiscum Coward in particular.) If they want change, they can do any and all of these things, and yes, they can even delete posts if they violate a defined TOS. But since they do none of this, Baker and the other whiners, including queen sniveler James Jones, can continue to kiss my shiny metal ass.
Posted by UYRMN on July 8, 2007 05:20 PMJJ can find one little nit and pick it to death. Queen showed vulnerability, (posting under more then one name) and like a shark in bloody water JJ is after her.
Queen has consistently shown JJ to be lacking in correct information, while waiting patiently for an answer to her questions.
She is a doer, he is a kvetch er. She works with the women health care issue every day, he pontificates.
I, however, am not afraid of JJ because his smug, gotcha method has never touched me.
JJ will spend hours dwelling on the RMN pointing out that Queen needs to use one name. And he will spend minutes answering direct questions or points of argument.
If you think I have beaten this point to death, well, I learned from the best, `ol JJ himself.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 8, 2007 06:12 PMSharon,
I don't want to "find one little nit and pick it to death", but there is something you do that drives me crazy.
You use the word 'then' when you should be using 'than'.
"Queen showed vulnerability, (posting under more then (sic) one name) and like a shark in bloody water JJ is after her."
I don't mean to be a picker of nits (I like that saying), but that really does drive me crazy.
Posted by Mike on July 8, 2007 07:16 PMMike:
I disagree. You seem saner then before.
(snicker).
Posted by Charles B on July 8, 2007 07:35 PMThis thread just confirmed for me why I come here. Entertainment.
This forum is what it is - a rough and tumble free for all where people come to air opinions, vent and generally disagree. Just lkie society at large.
While I'd agree that a few often go over the line I'm not for censorship of any kind. If we don't like the comments nobody forces anybody to read this.
Posted by RU Serious on July 8, 2007 08:27 PMCharles,
Good one.
Posted by Mike on July 8, 2007 09:09 PMJames Jones,
I'm the one with the furry eyebrows, black rimmed glasses and a big nose. LOL
Posted by on July 8, 2007 09:15 PMTalk about posting 3-4-5-6 times..
Really .this is a chat room between a few people.
Posted by on July 8, 2007 09:24 PMMike, got me on that one. I will definitely watch my thens and thans in the future.
Even without the chairs breaking and windows blowing out, this is as close to a barroom brawl as most of will get these days.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 9, 2007 02:37 AMRU Serious
How do you feel about censorship in the schools?
By that I mean;
Should students be compelled to sit at a desk and speak when deemed appropriate by the teacher or, should they be free to walk about the room and speak at any time on any topic without any restraint?
Jonesy,
When speaking of "discipline" - for others, as is your habit, since you rather obviously have none of your own - you might try to consider a few little disciplines for yourself.
Not, of course, that you will pay any attention; but I'll offer a few suggestions anyway.
1. When presenting a controversial argument, at least attempt to do so in a logical fashion, i.e., learn how to construct a syllogism.
2. When presenting a technical argument, at least attempt to learn something about what you are presenting, i.e. giving a "definition" of legal terms, for instance.
3. When posting at length, and repeatedly, on any subject, at least attempt to remain consistent in your argument, i.e., stop the habit of insisting that what you said earlier was not what you meant, and/or denying that you said it.
4. When asked for reference material, or sources, at least attempt to provide it from time to time, i.e., don't just act as if what you say is unchallengable because you said it.
5. When posting - other than just expressing an opinion, AND clearly indicating that what is posted is opinion ONLY - at least attempt to have a grain of fact, or truth, somewhere in the posting,
6. When posting, at least try to remember that what you do post as an opinion - such as YOUR OPINION on the nature of something as controversial as blastocyst/fetus, for instance - is JUST THAT, OPINION ONLY, and not necessarily some kind of revealed absolute that everyone else must accept as final truth.
7. When posting, at least try to remember that others may well have opinions quite contrary to yours; and that their expressions of their opinions are not subject to your approval, nor to your comments on their personal character for holding them.
8. When posting, at least try to remember that others may well have education, experience, even some degree of expertise in the area; and that their responses might even offer something of a learning experience for you, one that perhaps might even supply that fact , or facts, so frequently missing in your own postings.
Some attention on your part to these matters of self-discipline might eventuate in your own presentations not being subject to the present responses from others that you find so hurtful to your feelings.
John 2,
Are you saying that I belong in your company? Thanks so much for the invitation. However, I prefer to remain young at heart, and active in mind, rather than just sinking into fossilization for chronology's sake.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 9, 2007 08:27 AMOld Grouch,
What I find remarkable is your belief that:
"...responses from others that you find so hurtful to your feelings."
The fact that you relish ad hominem attacks is of itself interesting.
But beyond that, what is remarkable is that you have actually convinced yourself that you have the ability to "hurt the feelings" of people you do no know with insults and mocking on this page.
Queen Gorgo asked me if I wanted her to stop calling me a liar. This is one of her odder questions.
The answer is - I don't care.
I don't complain about lack of courtesey on this page on a personal level precisely because it does not "hurt my feelings."
It is patently obvious that the only result of bad manners is to demean not the target but the perpetrator.
Any yet you, for instance, remain completely oblivious to this self-evident fact.
Baker, John II and I have requested the RMN instill some sense of good manners based on the general understanding that meaningful discourse can only occur in an environment of disagreement accompanied by mutual respect.
However, another benefit would be the maturity it would help instill in people who think that tapping out insults on your computer has the romance of a bar room brawl.
You in particular Old Grouch would benefit greatly from greater supervision.
Posted by James Jones on July 9, 2007 10:07 AM"It is patently obvious that the only result of bad manners is to demean not the target but the perpetrator.'
Great, we've found out Miss Manner's secret identity. By day a pedantic whining sop with an ability to torture any originality or guts out of an idea, by night a prissy spinster bloviating endlessly on topics of no importance. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the same thing around the clock.
In the immortal words of that brave soldier, let me say "Your mother was an hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. I fart in your general direction!"
Proud Thug and JJ-pisser on
Posted by UYRMN on July 9, 2007 11:57 AM"RU Serious
How do you feel about censorship in the schools?
By that I mean;Should students be compelled to sit at a desk and speak when deemed appropriate by the teacher or, should they be free to walk about the room and speak at any time on any topic without any restraint?
Posted by James Jones on July 9, 2007 07:50 AM"
I don't call it censorship when a person can speak his mind but has to do so in a civil manner, which is mainly about not transgressing on the rights of others. People use the term "censorship" much too frequently to describe situations that do not involve censorship. If I can stand outside of the school and criticize the teachers, but can't do so in a math class, I am not being censored. Censorship has to do with the ability to speak one's mind, not the abililty to speak it whenever and wherever I want.
Uno said with startling clarity ” I’m surprised at how many people supports the censorship of a discussion forum.”
Yup, it always amazes me how hard it is to win freedom and liberty, and how eagerly people wish to give it away again.
Paulie said ” our British friend Bango Skank”
British!?
Bloody thanks, I think not.
;)
You are dead right about Coulter and Moore - although perhaps not the specific individuals.
The fringe on both “sides” are far more like each other than not. There specific obsession may be different, but the mechanisms of it and the methods and the unwillingness to accept differences are identical.
It’s the same “kind” of person.
On a different level, I also doubt that many folks change their views due to anything they read here, but they do get to refine their view and test them out to a kind of scrutiny.
In this way at least it is a useful exercise and refinement often leads to change.
What is really most amusing of all about this line of postings is the simple fact that, unless he does so under a screen name, there is no evidence that the original letter writer himself has every participated in the blog. Yet he published a letter, counselling aa"proper manners and politness" on the blog, that is itself nothing more than a thoroughly overbearing insult directed at the people who do post here, calling them "nasty thugs"
What a wholesale return of defensiveness on such a relatively trifling investment of self-righteous snobbery!.
Jonesy,
For someone who protesteth that "(he) does not care", you certainly are concerned with other people's need for "supervision". Bit of a paradox there, old boy. But then again, you were the first response to praise the orignal writer's insulting of the blog too.
Ain't open forums fun!
Posted by Old Grouch on July 9, 2007 03:46 PMBango,
"Yup, it always amazes me how hard it is to win freedom and liberty, and how eagerly people wish to give it away again. "
Great point. I'll wager that if the Great Mockers who frequent this page had ever been called on to so much as lift a finger to secure the blessing of free speech, they would use their liberty more responsibly.
Posted by James Jones on July 9, 2007 07:01 PMJames Jones made a mockery of mockery when he said mockingly to the mockers:
"I'll wager that if the Great Mockers who frequent this page had ever been called on to so much as lift a finger to secure the blessing of free speech, they would use their liberty more responsibly."
I donate to the ACLU. That counts right?
Posted by Charles B on July 9, 2007 08:16 PMCharles B,
A) You don't
B) It doesn't
James Jones,
Are you ready with your kool-aide for a few people who don't agree with you?
Evelyn Mercer
Always looking for the easy way out.
Don't you know how you date yourself with the Jones jokes? I have heard a lot of them and they're all about equal humor-wise.
Posted by James Jones on July 9, 2007 09:28 PMJames Jones
the only reason that the hall monitor thought that I had posted under a different name, namely Ricky Lee, is that Ricky Lee and I work at the same company and have similar e-mail addresses. I explained that to him, the hall monitor on one of my posts, and he noted the difference and apologized.
skeptical
Baker's letter requested more oversight from the RMN as required to enhance effective discourse.
I made the point that the RMN currenlty offers certain hygienic measures including the identification of people who pose under different names offering different viewpoints in the same thread.
As an example I copied posts by Queen Gorgo who sometimes also poses as Repugnants are Liars in the same thread and was exposed by the RMN.
One of those posts was addressed to you.
That is the only reason your handle was involved.
You have not to my knowledge posted under different names and it was not my intention to imply that you had.
I hope that clears up any misundersatnding.
Posted by James Jones on July 10, 2007 06:45 AMBruce,
You're heavy in the mix..so what are you talking about? A paticipant.
James, what is the big deal over this multiple names thing?
What difference does it make that somebody posted under different pen-names?
When it was revealed that Stephen King also wrote under the name of Bachman, his explanation was very similar to Queenies, so what are you getting your knickers in a knot over?
Answer what she said, not what name she posted under.
Bango,
As a matter of fact, I did answer her questions. I try to respond to all material questions irrespective of the source - as you well know.
I don't ususually respond to false attributions unless an interesting point, or clever insult is involved - which is rare.
You seem to have lost of the fact that it was the RMN, not me, that revealed the dual names.
If you don't understand the polciy, you should call them and inquire why they think it is important. It is one of the few times they interceed.
I think it has to do with integrity and would like to see them go further pace Baker.
Posted by James Jones on July 10, 2007 11:57 AMJJ,
Those burning britches (all the lying) must smart; you should put them on your head.
I posted as two different names on one thread exactly once, and it was not to offer a viewpoint, but a well deserved insult.
"[As a courtesy to other readers, please choose one screen name, "Queen Gorgo," and use it consistently]
Hey Jim,
You think sex is simpler than driving?
I feel sorry for Mrs. Jones.
Posted by Repugnants are liars on June 14, 2007 11:17 PM "
You don't answer questions you don't like. You throw insults.
"I also made several assertions about your previously expressed views which you have ignored, so for the sake of argument, unless you rebut them, we can assume that you've conceded the points:
"either evolution is real or your god is a practicing eugenicist." (or both)
...
WIll you debate or will I continue to hear the crickets chirping?
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on May 30, 2007 09:27 PM"
' "either evolution is real or your god is a practicing eugenicist."
Probably an interesting question for an imbecile...
Do enjoy the crickets. You ought to listen, they're smarter then you.
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 10:47 PM "
So spare us the sanctimony about good manners you lying hypocrite.
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on July 11, 2007 12:24 PMlvtdsunpq esblcr srvofb azgkft fahsoidk ugzipwvnf veyfzicr
Posted by inyeljr uafjt on July 12, 2007 09:30 AMqrmgbpiso itxe gutf javcz qhlotnd teqmsv mzthrsja http://www.fxswqncl.lwmpv.com
Posted by eakl ykcnflg on July 12, 2007 09:32 AMqrmgbpiso itxe gutf javcz qhlotnd teqmsv mzthrsja http://www.fxswqncl.lwmpv.com
Posted by eakl ykcnflg on July 12, 2007 09:32 AMuhcyf wyrqbs jyxlw vgdns pzqg hnze fjzx lgyqxdozn iegbp
Posted by qwvogt auhes on July 12, 2007 09:34 AMuhcyf wyrqbs jyxlw vgdns pzqg hnze fjzx lgyqxdozn iegbp
Posted by qwvogt auhes on July 12, 2007 09:35 AMuhcyf wyrqbs jyxlw vgdns pzqg hnze fjzx lgyqxdozn iegbp
Posted by qwvogt auhes on July 12, 2007 09:36 AModvfygl ymob axvkrqc cklmrwp aqnsep dyst eshjnwxl [URL=http://www.pvurmd.vdaloh.com]ujozaibxn hyjoxq[/URL]
Posted by ptofuvx jecgqkwz on July 12, 2007 09:37 AModvfygl ymob axvkrqc cklmrwp aqnsep dyst eshjnwxl [URL=http://www.pvurmd.vdaloh.com]ujozaibxn hyjoxq[/URL]
Posted by ptofuvx jecgqkwz on July 12, 2007 09:38 AMEach and every discussion I have ever read has digressed to nothing more than an episode of Jerry Springer.
Taking away your freedom of speech was not suggested. Limiting the bullying and encouraging INTELLIGENT discourse was.
Posted by on July 13, 2007 12:46 PM