AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

okie wrote:

Notice to all posters, I just placed Debra Law on ignore, thats number 3. For basically posting sewer garbage. Also, she doesn't matter any more, as she has refused to answer point blank if she sympatizes with or agrees with Marxism. I think it is safe to say that if you don't make an effort to disavow an idealogy that has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths, then something is definitely very very haywire there with that individual.

So, if someone won't specifically answer your 'stop beating your wife yet?' questions, you ignore them? Great way to go through life, that.

Cycloptichorn

Notice to all posters, I just placed Debra Law on ignore, thats number 3. For basically posting sewer garbage. Also, she doesn't matter any more, as she has refused to answer point blank if she sympatizes with or agrees with Marxism. I think it is safe to say that if you don't make an effort to disavow an idealogy that has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths, then something is definitely very very haywire there with that individual.

Notice to all posters, I just placed Debra Law on ignore, thats number 3. For basically posting sewer garbage. Also, she doesn't matter any more, as she has refused to answer point blank if she sympatizes with or agrees with Marxism. I think it is safe to say that if you don't make an effort to disavow an idealogy that has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths, then something is definitely very very haywire there with that individual.

Joe, you can't be more wrong. You are not on ignore for example. I place on ignore those posters that post repeated personal insults and attacks on character. It may even include virtually pornographic material, or language not fit for mature people. It has nothing to do with disagreement, it has to do with basic decency. We can disagree but still be decent.

okie wrote:

Joe, you can't be more wrong. You are not on ignore for example. I place on ignore those posters that post repeated personal insults and attacks on character. It may even include virtually pornographic material, or language not fit for mature people. It has nothing to do with disagreement, it has to do with basic decency. We can disagree but still be decent.

That sort of behavior transcends partisan boundaries, but I'll venture to guess that you don't have too many conservatives in your own personal "gang of three." You say you don't like repeated personal insults and attacks on character, but you forgot to mention that you'll only ignore them when they come from someone with whom you disagree. I'm sure that you are far more magnanimous toward all of the conservatives on this forum who post repeated personal insults and attacks on character.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Notice to all posters, I just placed Debra Law on ignore, thats number 3. For basically posting sewer garbage. Also, she doesn't matter any more, as she has refused to answer point blank if she sympatizes with or agrees with Marxism. I think it is safe to say that if you don't make an effort to disavow an idealogy that has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths, then something is definitely very very haywire there with that individual.

So, if someone won't specifically answer your 'stop beating your wife yet?' questions, you ignore them? Great way to go through life, that.

Cycloptichorn

Obviously your understanding of logic is severely lacking in this instance.

The question I asked Debra was not: "Have you stopped believing in Marxism, but rather do you believe in it? So my question was not parallel with "Have you stopped beating your wife," it was rather "Do you beat your wife?"

I asked her at least a couple of times, and I did not look up the exact quote, but the basic meaning of my question as I cite it here is correct.

I've put almost everyone who post word games and translation/grammer help on ignore.

Quote:

I've put almost everyone who post word games and translation/grammer help on ignore.

Perhaps you should rethink this.

joefromchicago wrote:

okie wrote:

Joe, you can't be more wrong. You are not on ignore for example. I place on ignore those posters that post repeated personal insults and attacks on character. It may even include virtually pornographic material, or language not fit for mature people. It has nothing to do with disagreement, it has to do with basic decency. We can disagree but still be decent.

That sort of behavior transcends partisan boundaries, but I'll venture to guess that you don't have too many conservatives in your own personal "gang of three." You say you don't like repeated personal insults and attacks on character, but you forgot to mention that you'll only ignore them when they come from someone with whom you disagree. I'm sure that you are far more magnanimous toward all of the conservatives on this forum who post repeated personal insults and attacks on character.

I'll pull a Walter here and interject with my opinion. I have 3 users that could be considered from the "right" on ignore as I found their posts to be useless. Considering the number of people that post here that could be considered from the right, that is a much higher percentage than libbies I have on ignore.

Having the ability to not see repeated and regular remarks intended to hurt and offend people has improved my experience on A2K considerably.

The short list of numbnuts I have on ignore include left and right and all are on ignore because of regular unacceptable offensive remarks intended to hurt other people.

Foxfyre wrote:

The short list of numbnuts I have on ignore include left and right and all are on ignore because of regular unacceptable offensive remarks intended to hurt other people.

I agree: there's an incivility problem on A2K, and it's totally the fault of all those numbnuts who keep calling people names.