That's fine LB, but the term tarnish wasn't meant for you alone, if it was meant for you at all.
But what the hey, one posts on a public forum with people they don't know, one should expect anything. If I can't take it, then I should go, right?
LoneStarMadam wrote:That's fine LB, but the term tarnish wasn't meant for you alone, if it was meant for you at all.
But what the hey, one posts on a public forum with people they don't know, one should expect anything. If I can't take it, then I should go, right?
I think you may have misunderstood my post. By saying that tarnish was a bit harsh, I am saying that I wouldn't have viewed the actions of anyone else as having tarnished me.
Correction: Anyone currently here.
When you said that you wanted to give the benefit of the doubt because you don't know that Buterfly had read the post about MC being your husband is not what I was talking about LB. When he said that MC & I tarnished you (I assume he was talking about MC & myself since we all joined the same day) I took note of that. Not about you, because I think you can probably handle any insults that might come your way.
Why do I sign on and post to a thread that is based on an article linking Nancy Pelosi to NAMBLA and the ACLU?
It is probably because I find the news intriguing, admittedly owing to conservative orientation. No surprises there. I have found some real outright lies (but not what have been called lies on this thread). For example, I was reading where someone wrote on the Mark Levin comments section that Pelosi took campaign contributions from NAMBLA. Anyone making that kind of charge without posting a link to the appropriate data is blowing smoke. A blogger wrote that Pelosi marched in a parade where NAMBLA had a float. That, too, is inaccurate.
I am sure that dlowan probably would be able to comment on this subject with more authority than I, but from what I have been reading, hard statistics on child molesters is difficult to get. The only consensus I've read is that they are predominantly men. From what I have read, pedophiles can be found within every socioeconomic strata, race, religion, or orientation. Even within the prison population, known child molesters are often beaten and sometimes murdered. The one thing we can all agree on is they are scum. That's NAMBLA. Even the gay crowd is against NAMBLA.
They remind me of this religious group that goes around to the funerals of gay soldiers and loudly protests. They happen to be Christians, but it's a really small faction. Then someone uses that aberration of sickos to tar the Christians, implying that Christians go around harrassing the families and loved ones of people who gave their lives defending this country from paying their last respects. They gay community is struggling to make homosexuality legitimate. I need not bother comment on that, but NAMBLA is a thorn in...well, you get it.
So IMO, the reason that this thread is so highly charged is rooted in several issues:
The general disdain for child molesters of any type
Partisan-Democrat vs. Republican
Orientation-Debating any connection between homosexuality & pedophilia
Associative-How solid are the relationships between Pelosi, NAMBLA, & ACLU?
Any one of these is enough to send a thread into a flame war, but combining two or three is a recipe for a perfect cyber-storm, and now toss in that it's the newbies advancing the minority position and it's cayenne pepper added to the malatov cocktail that's already burning.
I've rarely seen a thread burn this white-hot and I hate to see a friend of mine getting so much negative feedback. It seems that it would be difficult for someone not to respond unfavorably when being the brunt of many posters attacking at once.
I'd say "tarnished by" was spot on. I will be surprised if LSM is still a member at the end of this month. I've seen a good number of more coherent, less offensive posters disappeared for much less. A2K is notorious for weeding out trolls. That's why we like it here.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I'd say "tarnished by" was spot on. I will be surprised if LSM is still a member at the end of this month. I've seen a good number of more coherent, less offensive posters disappeared for much less. A2K is notorious for weeding out trolls. That's why we like it here.
I hope that you are mistaken about LSM. I have found her witty, humorous in a very down to earth way, and respect the fact that she sticks to her guns.
I also like this board. There is a lot of opportunity to actually debate and discuss issues. I have become a much calmer and more well reasoned poster owing to the caliper of the members. I was impressed by the number of people that welcomed my wife, myself and LSM. (Insert Bush41 sobbing uncontrollably and applause).
Where's the Beef?
LoneStarMadam wrote:When you said that you wanted to give the benefit of the doubt because you don't know that Buterfly had read the post about MC being your husband is not what I was talking about LB. When he said that MC & I tarnished you (I assume he was talking about MC & myself since we all joined the same day) I took note of that. Not about you, because I think you can probably handle any insults that might come your way.
I thought it a bit strange that a poster appeared on this thread, not to discuss the subject, but to offer an editorial on the newcomers. Where's the beef? I thought the idea was to post on the topic!
Where's the Beef?
Monte Cargo wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:I'd say "tarnished by" was spot on. I will be surprised if LSM is still a member at the end of this month. I've seen a good number of more coherent, less offensive posters disappeared for much less. A2K is notorious for weeding out trolls. That's why we like it here.
I hope that you are mistaken about LSM. I have found her witty, humorous in a very down to earth way, and respect the fact that she sticks to her guns.
I also like this board. There is a lot of opportunity to actually debate and discuss issues. I have become a much calmer and more well reasoned poster owing to the caliper of the members. I was impressed by the number of people that welcomed my wife, myself and LSM. (Insert Bush41 sobbing uncontrollably and applause).
Thanks MC, but don't pay it any mind, I'm not.
Re: Where's the Beef?
Monte Cargo wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:When you said that you wanted to give the benefit of the doubt because you don't know that Buterfly had read the post about MC being your husband is not what I was talking about LB. When he said that MC & I tarnished you (I assume he was talking about MC & myself since we all joined the same day) I took note of that. Not about you, because I think you can probably handle any insults that might come your way.
I thought it a bit strange that a poster appeared on this thread, not to discuss the subject, but to offer an editorial on the newcomers. Where's the beef? I thought the idea was to post on the topic!
Where's the Beef?
I'm not bothered by that anymore either. :wink:
For those with the heart and bravery to persevere, speaking to those who come to judge, the bravehearted ask:
OCCOM BILL wrote:I'd say "tarnished by" was spot on. I will be surprised if LSM is still a member at the end of this month. I've seen a good number of more coherent, less offensive posters disappeared for much less. A2K is notorious for weeding out trolls. That's why we like it here.
That's up to her, of course, but when I said she reminded my of MA/AM it was in respect to her passion for her position, prolific number of posts, and stamina. I think LSM will be here for a long while.
I hope that those who would choose to ignore any poster will do so without comment. I also hope that those who choose to interact will do so without name calling, but then I was the kid who always wanted everyone to play nicely on the playground. It's also why I spend most of my time on the less contentious boards.
Examine this
this exchange to get a competency bearing and then factor in the tendency towards vitriol and you'll understand why I think my assessment probable. I have no horse in this race and would be just as content with a moderate behavior modification.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Examine this
this exchange to get a competency bearing and then factor in the tendency towards vitriol and you'll understand why I think my assessment probable. I have no horse in this race and would be just as content with a moderate behavior modification.
My name appeared nowhere in that link.
JPB wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:I'd say "tarnished by" was spot on. I will be surprised if LSM is still a member at the end of this month. I've seen a good number of more coherent, less offensive posters disappeared for much less. A2K is notorious for weeding out trolls. That's why we like it here.
That's up to her, of course, but when I said she reminded my of MA/AM it was in respect to her passion for her position, prolific number of posts, and stamina. I think LSM will be here for a long while.
I hope that those who would choose to ignore any poster will do so without comment. I also hope that those who choose to interact will do so without name calling, but then I was the kid who always wanted everyone to play nicely on the playground. It's also why I spend most of my time on the less contentious boards.
Thank you.
I plan on being here, barring any unforseen
circumstances. I have decided that it's best to answer or comment on a point, & leave the attackes both of me & by me out of any of my discussions. I do & will defend my positions on any given topic understanding that my views will draw ire from some corners, but that's ok, they have the right & I, like you suggested, have the right to ignore & will do that without comment of a personal nature.
Elated, Higgins can hardly believe what he has heard: "I think she's got it. I think she's got it."
No Bull. I've seen it demonstrated on other threads too!
That was a pat on the back, LSM. As in, good on you.
Having read the last 12 pages,I am totally confused.
Are we supposed to be talking about Nancy Pelosi,or are we having a group therapy session?
an A2k thread has veered off topic?
shocking...
