No, because the offenders ceased when asked.
Walter, I'm sure I read it in the guidelines--not TOS--guidelines. Maybe it was on another board I don't know. I can't find TOS or the guidelines without a link from somebody though, so if you give me a link, I'll look for it.
If it isn't there, I'll take my lumps.
At the bottom of the page, Fox.
Foxfyre wrote:No, because the offenders ceased when asked.
No they didnt. Eventually they retreated from that one thread, yes - but the cry-baby pics kept appearing across the forum for weeks, in thread after thread. Thats why I was wondering -- since you say you thought badly of them and were earlier complaining about how liberals never remarked on bad behaviour on their own side, whether you spoke up about such bad behaviour on your own side.
(Or ever do.. )
<failed to bit his tongue>
Nimh I have spoken up when I thought somebody on the Right wasout of line and have been praised by some on the Left for doing so. I try to avoid piling on when somebody on either side is catching hell from seven or eight other people. I don't deny that I've made posts I wish I hadn't made. So far I have apparently avoided violating TOS and I do take it seriously. I don't go onto Liberal threads for the purpose of spamming with related or unrelated posts or disrupting the flow of discussion, and once I understood the concept of flaming, I have tried not to commit that offense. What would you like for me to admit?
Re the crying baby picture, the members who were posting that in the "weeping and gnashing' thread did indeed leave the thread when asked. It was no more offensive on other threads than the stuff the Left was posting. I don't like it because I think it is childish, however pertinent it might be from time to time. (I can't remember but I probably actually used it somewhere when it was just too perfect not to.)
Walter, you're right. Mia culpa. A2K does not have guidelines as some other board have and the specific admonition to respect the requests of the thread author for thread content are not there. (Other boards I participate on from time to time have both guidelines that are requests only and TOS that is mandatory.)
The closest things to this in A2K TOS is:
"1) Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt topics with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam." Spammers will be removed from the service, and their accounts terminated."
Foxfyre wrote:Walter, you're right. Mia culpa. A2K does not have guidelines as some other board have and the specific admonition to respect the requests of the thread author for thread content are not there. (Other boards I participate on from time to time have both guidelines that are requests only and TOS that is mandatory.)
Perhaps you were thinking of basic netiquette.
Foxfyre wrote:Nimh I have spoken up when I thought somebody on the Right wasout of line
Oh OK. I couldnt actually remember any occasion, and Ive seen you around in contentious threads a lot. But then, my memory aint all that good.
Foxfyre wrote:Re the crying baby picture, the members who were posting that in the "weeping and gnashing' thread did indeed leave the thread when asked. It was no more offensive on other threads than the stuff the Left was posting.
Well yeah, and I
do most certainly remember you speaking up about "the stuff the Left was posting".
So that goes back to the very point you purported to make just a page or two ago here, doesnt it? You were upset that the liberals "protest that we are being 'mean' when we applaud 'our' side or take pokes at" theirs, but utter no criticism at all when their own side does it. How do you square that complaint with your own logic in happily criticizing leftists for "stuff they're posting", but refraining from calling fellow-conservatives out on something similar because "it was no more offensive than what the other side did"?
Hell, if I'd only ever call out a fellow-leftwinger on stupid stuff he's spouting when its
more (rather than "just as"), stupid than the stuff "the Right" is posting, I'd probably never say something anymore either.
Tico writes
Quote:Perhaps you were thinking of basic netiquette.
Apparently not. I've been told that's not to much to ask, but it's too much to expect.
It's too much to expect from some.
Nimh writes
Quote:Well yeah, and I do most certainly remember you speaking up about "the stuff the Left was posting".
Sometimes its far easier to remember sins than virtues.
Quote:So that goes back to the very point you purported to make just a page or two ago here, doesnt it? You were upset that the liberals "protest that we are being 'mean' when we applaud 'our' side or take pokes at" theirs, but utter no criticism at all when their own side does it. How do you square that complaint with your own logic in happily criticizing leftists for "stuff they're posting", but refraining from calling fellow-conservatives out on something similar because "it was no more offensive than what the other side did"?
I will concede this one. It is far easier to see the log in the other person's eye. The context in which I made my statement, however, was that this thread is specifically designed for the purpose of posting positive conservative information, patting ourselves on the back, and blowing off steam so we didn't flame other threads. We have suggested on numerous occasions that the Left use their own threads for the same purpose from their perspective.
So there are those who come in here whining that we're being mean when they don't consider it mean on threads designed for the same purpose or for the purpose specficially to bash the president or the GOP or conservaties in general.
That's the double standard. I agree that both complain about the way we are portrayed by the other.
Quote:Hell, if I'd only ever call out a fellow-leftwinger on stupid stuff he's spouting when its more (rather than "just as"), stupid than the stuff "the Right" is posting, I'd probably never say something anymore either.
And that's why I generally don't call out anybody on either side for simply staying stupid things. Those who make saying stupid things a science, I can generally ignore. Sometimes though, they leave the door open soooo wide it's irrisistible.
I never claimed to be a saint.
Well, I guess it is finally time to come clean.
Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't be here, on this thread. But normal circumstances do not apply.
You guys are dangerous. You pose a threat to peace, prosperity, liberty, equality, inclusiveness, transparency and honesty in governance, democratic principles, the open-minded pursuit of knowledge, and the viability of the biosphere upon which we and all life finally depend. You are dangerous in the manner of the Red Guard and the Nazi Youth. You have tied yourselves to a leader, an administration, a party and an ideology with such single-minded loyalty that it now seems unimaginable that any set of circumstances or revelations will sever that loyalty and the mindset associated.
Torture, one would have thought, would have been such a revelation.
Continuous deceits and misrepresentations - to you and all other citizens of your own polity - in tandem with the justifications for such Machiavellian governance in American democracy ought to have been enough.
The rejection and dismantling of international agreements, treaties, codes and administrative bodies designed to enact and protect such civilizing advances (land mines, treaty of the seas, nuclear proliferation and experimentation, etc etc) should have done it.
The ubiquitous rejection of, and/or covert burial of critically important scientific investigation and conclusion for perceived political or economic gain might have been adequate.
The instigation of WAR using knowingly false or exaggerated evidence of threat really might have rung your internal bells.
The purposive creation of a media machine designed specifically and only to forward propaganda, falsehoods and smears - precisely what Goering did and exactly Pravda was used for - ought to have bothered you.
The evisceration of environmental standards and the knowing, purposeful forwarding and support of fallacious 'science' while denigrating responsible scientific data in order to please big-time party donors and the cronies of your own leaders (and those leaders themselves) should have been enough to have you at their doors with pitchforks.
Calls here for 'manners' or calls for playing by some set of esoteric and formal set of 'netiquette' rules are absolutely laughable in the context of the above. There is no civilized rule which the modern party you support has not violated in order to gain power or to maintain power.
Ticomaya wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Walter, you're right. Mia culpa. A2K does not have guidelines as some other board have and the specific admonition to respect the requests of the thread author for thread content are not there. (Other boards I participate on from time to time have both guidelines that are requests only and TOS that is mandatory.)
Perhaps you were thinking of basic netiquette.
Well loud thinking then - and wrong :wink:
Foxfyre wrote:The A2K guidelines specifically state that the thread authors reasonable requests for the thread should be respected.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Walter, you're right. Mia culpa. A2K does not have guidelines as some other board have and the specific admonition to respect the requests of the thread author for thread content are not there. (Other boards I participate on from time to time have both guidelines that are requests only and TOS that is mandatory.)
Perhaps you were thinking of basic netiquette.
Well loud thinking then - and wrong :wink:
Foxfyre wrote:The A2K guidelines specifically state that the thread authors reasonable requests for the thread should be respected.
Thank you for that, Walter. You show once again that you can always be counted upon to provide correction, no matter how insignificant or minuscule the matter.
Yes, and I do know the story of that one in the greenhouse throwing stones as well.
I really should remember more what the ancient Europeans said: si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
Thumbs up, Walter - whatever that means! LOL
I think he just called philosophers "man sissies". That was uncalled for, Walter.
