See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Attention 4um Members
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://none
Published: May 4, 2008
Author: me
Post Date: 2008-05-04 22:40:24 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 18704
Comments: 655
I have to be honest, I'm completely distressed at what's happened to this forum. The fighting and the distrust between those for and those against Obama has gotten to the point where, in my opinion, it's destroying the forum. What's the point of having an open free speech venue when everyone is bozo'ing everyone else? When I read my mission statement and what Freedom4um was created to be, I don't even recognize the place anymore. There will be changes made in the near future as I decide what is best for the continued growth of this forum.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-544) not displayed.
.
.
.
#545. To: HOUNDDAWG (#508)
It's true. Political 'roid rage isn't by accident. Great post Dawg.
Read for yourself: I'm simply here to keep you busy, ... FOH posted on 2008-05-06 10:41:08 ET Christine, you think limiting the number of names allowed per poster will be an effective tool to discourage problems. I don't know, but this is a problem that needs more than limited filtering can solve.
Perhaps a lesson you've learned on this thread.
Agreed. There are 2 tools handy to deal with posters like these. If one were exercised properly, the bozo filter would not be an issue.
Oh, I believe you. I put FOH on bozo weeks ago, after he made a posting saying he intended to mock and ridicule. I asked myself why I should have to put up with that, and put him on bozo.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
FOH is a perfect example of bozo bait. He's freely admitted that he is here for no other purpose than to harass people he disagrees with. Not debate them, but to intimidate them into silence with his Freeper tactics. Just make it too much bother to post your opinion here. He admitted it to me at the link you posted above and he admitted it to ari a few days back. And if anyone doubts this, call up fifty posts by the guy and count how many amount to a one line attack or a childish image. And the surprising thing is that this guy is one of the people who whined loudest to the mods about how many people had him on bozo.
.
I'm sure there are lessons all round.
Enough to make one suspect that his plan all along was to provoke being bozoed, so that he could then complain about it and get the bozo system changed.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I still don't trust you. Not one bit.
If that was the plan, it worked well.
No idea why.
Having done what you did, you couldn't possibly be that stupid, and feigned stupidity should be one obvious reason why I do not trust you. Everyone can see that. Or most, anyway.
Well, okay.. whatever. Neil, back on the gun thread, when you made the comment about the 2a, I said, wow. Then you stood behind it, and we had a civil talk until you decided I was a shill. I still don't know what that was about. Then, you twisted your argument into something rediculous, and I just got out of the way. If you find that suspicious, then, I can't help you. As for the privacy issue, I thought it had been addressed and have stated so. So, really, you can choose to believe anything you want to. Never had an issue with you before the post about the 2a thing.. If you have pent up issues with me, I'm clueleses about them. Okay? Moving on.
Good lord LWAN, that Ecuadorian climate must be getting to you. You've turned into a full blown head case.
She stikes me as "nouveau-riche". At any rate, I don't find her terribly attractive.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
The Wikipedia entry on James Willis Hensley (Cindy McCain's father) makes it sound as if he was a self- made man: Jim Hensley married the former Marguerite "Smitty" Johnson (b. 1919, d. 2006) [4] [7] on March 29, 1945 in Memphis, Tennessee while he was on leave from the USAAF.[4] They would have one child, Cindy Lou Hensley, born c. 1954.[8] Following his discharge in 1945, Hensley and his brother went back to work for Marley in his United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson. [3][2] In 1948, both brothers were prosecuted by the federal government and convicted of falsifying liquor records to conceal illegal distribution of whiskey against post-war rationing regulations.[9][5] Jim Hensley received a six-month suspended sentence while his brother received a year in federal prison.[9] In 1953, Jim Hensley and Marley were charged by federal prosecutors with falsifying liquor records.[9] Defended by future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, they were acquitted.[9][5] If he was blue-blooded, the Wikipedia entry would mention his parents, but it does not. Also, if he had been blue-blooded, I doubt if the feds would have prosecuted him.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I saw as many if not more insults and babbling on that thread by three dots than FOH. He's responding to Obamabots (once RPers) the way most of us are... With disbelief, frustration and outrage. FOH was clearly only being sarcastic when he said the above and you try to portray him literally to get him kicked off. You're an idiot! I'm getting really peeved at what is going on here. And I see it mostly from the democrats and Obamaphiles who've come out of the woodwork and retired to their true roosts. This place looks more like LP everyday.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx As I said, call up fifty posts by the guy and read them. Get me five that arn't one line direct insults and attacks. I bet you can't do it. If it was one post, what you say might have some merit. But it isn't one post, it's about 95% of the posts. And don't take my word for it, use the search function above and see for yourself. My point is that the guy does nothing but attack and insult - and his posting history can be seen to bear this out. So why shouldn't the guy be bozo'd? And given his behavior, which is there for all to review, why should he be the loudest whiner about the number of people who have him on bozo? If the guy is bothered by his bozo count, he should clean up his act instead of whining and sobbing to the mods about it. Which is what has been happening here for the past few days. Recall that all the problems of the last week stem from these guys sobbing to the mods about how many meanies have them on bozo.
.
The big problem drawing me into the frey is a substitution for debate and discussion on the issue is the FReeperish attempt to dehumanize those of us supporting Barack Obama with name calling and baiting. This has turned into a pie fight as is a typical human response to this, and this is not doing the forum any good. Example: Using Pedophile as a source for part of an epithet for Obama supporters to redirect fire from the issue to do ad hominem attacks on people disagreed with is indeed very LP-like, and has no place here. All this does is drive off lurkers who have better things to do then watch food fights, and it increases polarization of the posting community. I've been doing this for over 13 years and way too hardened to feel the heat from petty ad hominem swipes at me. And I certainly can hold my own if I chose to return fire. I would rather discuss and debate the issues, but if you all want to continue to do a food fight complete with name calling and slander, have it your way. But frankly this is foolish and I respectfully a re-examination of how we all are doing business in here.
I just use "Obamaphile" as the opposite of "Obamaphobe." Pedophile isn't the only word ending in -phile. I like movies, computers and books, and wouldn't get worked up if somebody calls me a cinephile, technophile, or bibliophile.
Oh don't go getting your panties all in a wad. If I don't trust Peppa, that's my business not yours, and since it's apparent bozo filter use is being discouraged (at your encouragement, I might add), it's obviously all the more expected that I give my opinions and people deal with them. And the weather is quite nice here. About 65 degrees and quite sunny most of today thank you very much. This morning was incredibly beautiful in fact. Ecuador is a great place to be.
The name was not coined in the nicest spirit. And it is still a tactic meant to replace debate on candidates and issues with a turning of the body of posters here into participants in an us v. them war. I suggest we all take a deep breath and calm down. We are adults and we can agree to disagree where we do and discuss things where it is interesting and engaging to do so without the rancor. I am here to tell you I have seen open, full spectrum of opinion forums work very well. And we have a smart, experienced and very capable body of people in this virtual community who can make this place work well as an open forum.
No, there was no problem. I repeat there was no problem. The forum system was functioning as it should. Rude, childish and insulting posters were put on bozo. You see, that is what is so strange about all this. Everything was working the way it was supposed to and now - it has been "fixed" to NOT work as well. Interesting, isn't it?
I agree. There's no need to change much. I have Peppa, ______ and LACUMO or LACUNO on the bozo and everything else is enjoyable. Even FOH don't bother me much. He's vulgar in a stupid way way, for sure, but he sometimes amuses me, which I could not say about the 3 I rejected. If Christine wants to make the bozos expire after a while, that should be fine, maybe making someone invisible forever is a bit too radical but I think that the number of possible bozo slots should be at least restored to what it was if not expanded.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
That's sounds like a good way to handle it actually.
.
Lord, break out the shawl....brrr...70s here in central Pennsylvania, USA. Hey, here's a hypothetical for you, and any other O who hasn't got me on bozo: Would Iran welcome a newly elected President Obama with a nuclear enrichment freeze or - more likely - by testing him by moving identifiable Iranian militia units into Basra province on a large scale?
Why do you care about what Iran is doing anyway? I am looking at the map and Iran is nowhere near our borders. Do you see Iran anywhere near our borders? On the other hand, the following nuclear powers are at or close to Iran's borders: Russia, Israel, China, Pakistan. And, right over the horizon: India, France, England. Did I miss any?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
How Iran Sees the US Primaries. Sounds like they'd like to negotiate.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I hear you IndieTX, we're in a very confusing time. It's apparent this forum has a hard political left, right and an agnostic/libertarian. RPs platform was the glue that kept us together. With him gone it's mind blowing to me some can opt for a socialist, but it is what it is. As long as we can have it out in the arena of ideas and keep the argument somewhat civil, we'll have the only forum on the net that allows and encourages heated debate. I just hope the left doesn't flee when their tails get scorched :)
alright, let's go ahead and do that. that takes care of bozos left by a member who has long left 4um, so i think that's a very good solution.
I care b/c Obama and McLame are internationalists. McLame loves war, and while Obama is a novice he has surrounded himself with a stable of war horses. He also plans on redeploying troops from Iraq, where we got our asses kicked, to Afghanistan, where we will get our asses kicked. So to answer your question why I care about Iran, it's b/c whether inadvertently, or by design, Iran, with it's neighbors all beat to shit, will be the big boy on the block.
Which makes it all the more desirable to negotiate with her.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It's quite possible.
Actually, yes. But looking that up didn't take much time. I just wouldn't want some unsuspecting person getting a fine or worse believing he had a valid legal argument which would hold up in court.
Wait a damn minute here. FOH spams this forum incessantly. I portrayed him the way I see it. If he was "clearly only being sarcastic", it escaped my discernment. Three dots is also a distruptor in my eyes, but certainly not as blatant. If you have a point of view to share, calling me an idiot is not the most effective way to have a person view your input. You're not the only one getting peeved here. And if you bothered to read a few of my posts, you would know beyond a doubt that your insinuation that I'm a democrat or Obamaphile is false.
Some of Iran's neighbors include: Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan. None of them was beat yet and some of them are getting stronger rather than weaker. I don't think even internationalists need to worry much about what's going on half a world away.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Same here, but it's equally mind boggling to me how some former Ron Paul supporters could back a warmongering tool of the neocons like McCain. I guess it's because there are lots of single issue voters around (Iraq/Iran for supporters of Obama, R2KBA or lower taxes for McCain). I refuse to vote for somebody who promises a little less of a warfare state abroad in exchange for a bigger welfare state at home, just as I'd never go for more wars abroad in exchange for a (slightly) smaller welfare state at home.
Who?
A few popped up on the "Open letter to Obamaphobes" thread that vast started. I guess they aren't as vocal as the pro-Obama people.
Thank you. I'll check it out.
Ummm.... that's not a hypothetical question. A hypothetical question usually presents some abstract circumstances and then asks what you would do in such a situation, not what someone else would do. What you ask is more of a theoretical question, and in theory, Iran would not change their nuke program plans no matter who was elected. In theory, neither Iranian hardliners that want a confrontation with the west nor the Iranians that want peace would change their tune.
Comments (586 - 655) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd if we fail to recognize that chaos is part of the master plan and ass bite each other, then 4um will become another political themed mosh pit by default.
#546. To: aristeides, arete, ..., christine (#539)
Do you have an intelligent response or are you just going to continue to babble like this?
#547. To: Peppa (#545)
It's true. Political 'roid rage isn't by accident.
#548. To: angle (#546)
Christine, you think limiting the number of names allowed per poster will be an effective tool to discourage problems. I don't know, but this is a problem that needs more than limited filtering can solve.
#549. To: angle, FOH (#546)
#550. To: angle (#546)
#551. To: Pinguinite (#547)
It's true. Political 'roid rage isn't by accident. Perhaps a lesson you've learned on this thread.
#552. To: ..., FOH (#550)
And the surprising thing is that this guy is one of the people who whined loudest to the mods about how many people had him on bozo.
#553. To: Peppa (#551)
I'm sure there are lessons all round.
#554. To: aristeides (#552)
Enough to make one suspect that his plan all along was to provoke being bozoed, so that he could then complain about it and get the bozo system changed.
#555. To: Pinguinite (#553)
I'm sure there are lessons all round. I still don't trust you. Not one bit.
#556. To: Peppa (#555)
No idea why.
#557. To: Pinguinite (#556)
Having done what you did, you couldn't possibly be that stupid, and feigned stupidity should be one obvious reason why I do not trust you. Everyone can see that. Or most, anyway.
#558. To: Pinguinite (#556)
#559. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#541)
he's still not blue blood "old money."
#560. To: iconoclast (#559)
(Edited)
Hensley and his older brother Eugene first began working in the liquor distribution business before World War II, being in the employ of Kemper Marley, Sr., an Arizona rancher who had become wealthy in the liquor distribution business in Phoenix and Tucson following the end of Prohibition. [3] Jim Hensley then served three years as an officer in the United States Army Air Forces during World War II.[2][4] He was a bombardier on B-17 Flying Fortresses.[5][6] On his thirteenth mission,[2] his plane was shot down over the English Channel;[5] in all his planes where shot down three times.[6]
#561. To: angle, ..., jethro tull, christine, foh, rickyj, nobody222, peppa (#546)
I'm simply here to keep you busy, ...
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#562. To: IndieTX (#561)
(Edited)
#563. To: IndieTX (#561)
(Edited)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#564. To: Ferret Mike (#563)
(Edited)
Using Pedophile as a source for part of an epithet for Obama supporters
#565. To: Jethro Tull (#558)
#566. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#564)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#567. To: ... (#562)
(Edited)
Recall that all the problems of the last week stem from these guys sobbing
#568. To: Arete (#567)
#569. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#568)
If Christine wants to make the bozos expire after a while, that should be fine ..
#570. To: Pinguinite (#565)
And the weather is quite nice here. About 65 degrees and quite sunny most of today thank you very much
#571. To: Jethro Tull (#570)
#572. To: Jethro Tull (#570)
But it's Obama's declared willingness to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with the Iranian leadership that has generated the most interest among senior officials in Tehran, since this would mark a sea-change in Washington's approach. "Obama is a man of engagement, a man of negotiations," one Iranian official told TIME. Amir Mohebbian, an analyst close to Iranian conservative politicians, argues that "the mentality of Iranian decision makers is ready for that." He adds: "I think that the coming of Obama — maybe, maybe — helps to solve this problem, but it needs bravery, from both sides."
#573. To: IndieTX (#561)
And I see it mostly from the democrats and Obamaphiles who've come out of the woodwork and retired to their true roosts.
#574. To: Pinguinite, a vast rightwing conspirator, ALL (#544)
Certainly could be done but that's a software change, of course. It's a good idea.
#575. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#571)
Why do you care about what Iran is doing anyway? I am looking at the map and Iran is nowhere near our borders.
#576. To: Jethro Tull (#575)
Iran, with it's neighbors all beat to shit, will be the big boy on the block.
#577. To: aristeides (#572)
#578. To: ghostdogtxn (#522)
A lot of time on your hands, I see.
#579. To: IndieTX (#561)
#580. To: Jethro Tull (#575)
ran, with it's neighbors all beat to shit, will be the big boy on the block.
#581. To: Jethro Tull (#573)
(Edited)
With him gone it's mind blowing to me some can opt for a socialist, but it is what it is
#582. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#581)
how some former Ron Paul supporters could back a warmongering tool of the neocons like McCain.
#583. To: angle (#582)
(Edited)
#584. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#583)
#585. To: Jethro Tull (#570)
Hey, here's a hypothetical for you
Would Iran welcome a newly elected President Obama with a nuclear enrichment freeze or - more likely - by testing him by moving identifiable Iranian militia units into Basra province on a large scale?
.
.
.