Bush supporters' aftermath thread

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Actually, FD, while this thread is for everyone, spammers and trolls are not welcome. As they are well-aware, the chief spammers and trolls of this thread lately, are c.i. and blatham.

Yes, but spammers and trolls are not welcome anywhere.

I would argue that your definition of spam seems to take into account a presumption that the thread is only for Bush Supporters. When the sister thread to this one was opened to all, it was open for those who wanted to gloat as well as those who wanted to mourn. Those who wanted to say "snap out of it and quit sniveling" were not considered spammers or trolls. Those who questioned our logic or refuted our ideas were not considered spammers. Of course, that thread was abandoned when the need for such emotional and irrational partisanship (ie. election is over and gone) faded. So you all are free to keep this thread going, and anyone who wishes to rain on your gloating is also free to post. You have, as you say, a well-oiled scroll button.

I do see your point when the posts are just drive-bys, and I agree that is trolling. But blatham's posts are certainly something that you could refute or discuss cordially -- if you wanted to.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting this be a thread where Bush Supporters take shots at others, with impunity. The problem I have is with the flaming spam posts of some. There's really only a few doing it.

I've no problem with those that question our logic or ideas. Those posts are quite welcome. That isn't what blatham's about, normally. You apparently think it's appropriate for blatham and c.i. to come in to a thread where the topic is "Bush Supporters" and post the drive-bys you're referring to, after having been asked politely SEVERAL times to cease.

As Foxy said, it's rude and boorish. Of course, I now expect blatham to redouble his efforts.

Foxy wrote:

I welcome civil discussion from all sides here or anywhere. We almost achieved it just yesterday. And then Blatham and CI spoiled it again.

Indeed.

0 Replies

Re: Foxfyre

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

You may want to make an appointment with your mental health counselor to have the term "projection" explained to you. [..]

(I must stop mixing metaphors.) :wink:

No, you must stop making remarks about how people must be mental patients.

My counselor says it's a cheap shot.

0 Replies

And Nimh, opening a thread is not an invitation for spamming. It is not that people come in to discuss whatever issue. It is those who seem to intentionally not allow any kind of resonable discussion that I take issue with. At no time has Tico or any of us suggested any form of censorship. Courtesy was requested. It has not been granted.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

You apparently think it's appropriate for blatham and c.i. to come in to a thread where the topic is "Bush Supporters" and post the drive-bys you're referring to, after having been asked politely SEVERAL times to cease.

You apparently read my post and then farted it away if this is what you got from that.

Everything else, I agree with.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You said MANY pages back that we should not be able to have a thread where we could take shots at the Left with impunity. Why not?

Because it's a public forum and a public thread and if you post something that can be refuted it should be. Doesn't mean you can't post it, just that you can't expect not to be called on it.

Quote:

We suggested you guys do your own thing in your own thread and you would be left entirely alone. Why wasn't that good enough?

It's a public thread on a public forum. It's not a clubhouse. You have to accept that people have the right to question and refute what you have to say.

Again, I'm not disputing that there is trolling and that's not what I'm talking about, but I think that you let one or two trollers excuse you from responding to actual discussion points. Everyone is able to ignore the trolling. I assume you have a scroll button too. But to take it as an indication that "they" are spamming and peeing on your clubhouse in general, is just a cop out. Some of "you" use it to excuse yourselves from civility anywhere on the board. Continue to discuss what you want to discuss and ignore what you want to ignore. But whenever I hear this bs about how "they", meaning all non-Bush supporters need to go to their own thread and leave you all alone I feel it necessary to remind you that it's open to all.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
You apparently think it's appropriate for blatham and c.i. to come in to a thread where the topic is "Bush Supporters" and post the drive-bys you're referring to, after having been asked politely SEVERAL times to cease.

You apparently read my post and then farted it away if this is what you got from that.

Everything else, I agree with.

I read it again, and admit I read it wrong the first time.

Not sure if I "farted it away," since I'm not sure what that means. But I do have a head cold that I'm ready to pin the blame on.

0 Replies

a2k is a public forum isn't it? It also doesn't allow for "restrictions" if we abide by the TOS. Simple, isn't it?

0 Replies

To Free Duck:

As is apparent in other posts immediately preceding, I did not mean to imply that we do not want challenges or rebuttal to posts here. I am one who believes no opinion is worth having if it cannot be defended. But protests that we are being 'mean' when we applaud 'our' side or take pokes at yours seem so hypocritical when there is no criticism at all directed at the other side when they do it.

This thread was intended to be a place where we could express conservative ideas, celebrate victories, and yes, blow off steam without spamming or flaming other threads. Every now and then it has also produced some good discussions when somebody from the Left has genuinely wished to have a good discussion.

I just don't think it was too much to ask.

(Edited to correct misspelled word since the spelling police have been in force this week.)

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I read it again, and admit I read it wrong the first time.

Not sure if I "farted it away," since I'm not sure what that means. But I do have a head cold that I'm ready to pin the blame on.

Ok, I can accept that and certainly understand how a head cold can interfere with reading comprehension. I wish I had one I could blame mine on sometimes.

Anywho, farting away is a bit like blowing something out of one's ass. I'm sure you get the picture.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I just don't think it was too much to ask.

Maybe not. But maybe too much to expect.

0 Replies

I know we're mostly finished with this sidebar, but I couldn't resist posting this one taken from the Weeping thread.

georgeob1 wrote:

Ignore and stomp your feet if you wish, but this childish demand for a dialogue exclusively of the similarly inclined on this or any like public forum is laughable and absurd.

0 Replies

Free Duck

FreeDuck wrote:

I know we're mostly finished with this sidebar, but I couldn't resist posting this one taken from the Weeping thread.

georgeob1 wrote:

Ignore and stomp your feet if you wish, but this childish demand for a dialogue exclusively of the similarly inclined on this or any like public forum is laughable and absurd.

You devil, you!

BBB :wink:

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Anywho, farting away is a bit like blowing something out of one's ass. I'm sure you get the picture.

Vividly.

0 Replies

Then again, we told Georgeob1 off in no uncertain terms about that post...

Foxfyre wrote:

But protests that we are being 'mean' when we applaud 'our' side or take pokes at yours seem so hypocritical when there is no criticism at all directed at the other side when they do it.

But there is, plenty.

For one, 'your people' will tell off any liberal "when they do it" in as fierce terms as the liberals protest "when you do it"; equivalency there, for better or worse.

Plus, additionally, you'll find a leftwinger criticizing misbehaving folks from his own side every so often too. Not as often as I would like to see it, but certainly no less often than you see a rightwinger criticizing folks from his own side.

0 Replies

Yes, we did and Tico invited him here and he obliged. Of course, that was also before it was opened to all.

But I also recall seing that stupid crying baby pic everywhere, including on that thread. Anyway, my point was to show that it's not one-sided.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I know we're mostly finished with this sidebar, but I couldn't resist posting this one taken from the Weeping thread.

georgeob1 wrote:

Ignore and stomp your feet if you wish, but this childish demand for a dialogue exclusively of the similarly inclined on this or any like public forum is laughable and absurd.

You forgot to say that after that, he left. Without posting a page-busting anti-Kerry cartoon to that thread. Without making a snotty remark about not bothering to remove it. George found the demands made to him childish, but he did respect them. That's the difference between him and ci in this regard.

0 Replies

Yes, I agree.

0 Replies

The A2K guidelines specifically state that the thread authors reasonable requests for the thread should be respected. If the thread author doesn't mind if there is flaming and spamming, who am I to take issue with that? I just go play someplace else.

And Freeduck, no it is not one-sided. The crying baby pictures bug me too. I participate on another board that is weighted slightly heavily to the right, and I have been embarrassed at the behavior of some of the less-disciplined rightwingers too. Most members on A2K seem to be mostly grownups of whatever age which is why I keep coming back. It only takes a few immature monkeys, however, to spoil it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And Freeduck, no it is not one-sided. The crying baby pictures bug me too.

Regarding your above point about the hypocrisy "when there is no criticism at all directed at the other side when they do it", can I ask you whether you ever spoke up about it when your fellow-conservatives here kept posting those cry-baby pictures?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The A2K guidelines specifically state that the thread authors reasonable requests for the thread should be respected.

Must have missed that - can you help me to re-find it, Foy?

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know