It's nice to know that I am missed Holly......I haven't been active on the board, other than this weekend, in almost two weeks. Glad to see that you noticed.....
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote: > > KIT, > > Huh? You've been MIA for a couple of weeks? I spoke to you on another > thread maybe 6 or 7 hours ago. Do you mean MIA in your capacity as a > moderator, but not as a posting member? Have I been talking to another > Keith In Tampa????? > Heck, you posted in this thread today. What gives? > > > On Jul 12, 6:32 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Fred, Bruce, Holly, Richard, and all Group Members, > > > > I sincerely apologize, to Mark, to Mystery Moderater No. 1, > (affectionately > > called, "Newie" even though (s)he's been around the block a few times) > but > > most importantly, to the Group as a whole. I was missing in action for a > > couple of weeks, my schedule was rather hectic, (No.....I was slammed!!) > > and I literally had no time for moderation, much less trying to turn the > > light bulb on for Fred/Jack, Sean "SugarShack" Virtual Truth, Studio, > > Fritzie, Bill, Biffie, Golem, and all of our friends over at Euwetopia. > > > > In a nutshell, Bruce's comments were out of line, as were several other > > members. I don't know who started it; I point Bruce out, because it > seems > > as though you Fred, are inferring that Young Bruce is getting some kind > of > > special treatment, and that is incorrect. The bottom line is, we don't > > allow for the nasty, vile personal attacks against another Group Member, > and > > I salute Mark for trying to keep a lid on it! > > > > We have only one rule here in PoliticalForum: "Govern Yourself With > > Dignity, and be respectful of each and every other Member". You can > find > > this rule, and our guidelines here: > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum/web/political-forum-dec... > > > > For the most part, all of us here have known one another for years. I am > > the proverbial "Newbie", being only a member since April of last year. > > Everyone seems to get along, and there is no reason for slinging hateful, > > nasty barbs and insulting commentary. > > > > There is a distinction between debate, I dare say even heated debate, and > > just downright offensive name calling and insult slinging. We don't do > that > > here, and if that is the only way that you can express yourself, then I > > strongly suggest that you find another political discussion board. It > just > > don't work here. > > > > The rule goes for everyone, from any political persuasion, and there are > no > > exceptions. > > > > If someone got their feelings hurt by something said here during the last > > couple of weeks, then I take full responsibility. Again, I apologize for > > not being around like I was supposed to be. I have corrected that > > problem. > > > > There is also a distinction between using colorful metaphors, and > slinging > > insulting "nasties" at another member, and we all know what I am talking > > about. By example, Holly on occasion and from time to time uses the, > > "Colorful Metaphors".....Holly is not being insulting when he uses such > > language, Holly has been doing this ever since I have been a member of > PF, > > and I have no problem with it....As stated, that is the way that he > > expresses himself, and his comments are not directed at any one member to > > insult them. Those of you who seem to want to analogize another Member > > with a part of either the male, or female anatomy, and/or make a > comparison > > to a Member with human, or any other animal species' body waste, again, > this > > is unacceptable. > > > > Again, I apologize for my absence. I respectfully ask that everyone be > > respectful of each and every other member, and if there is a question, > or > > if there is anything in this message that you don't understand, then by > all > > means, please feel free to contact me by e-mail. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > KeithInTampa > > Co-Moderator > > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well Keith, nice to write but I don't believe you. Virtually every > > > reply Bruce writes has his puerile little references to dicks, shit > > > etc... Now suddenly you are concerned that anyone does it? You're > > > lying and the proof will come as soon as Bruce writes his next few > > > replies and lo what do you know - he remains in the group anyway > > > because as the pigs put it "some are more equal than others". > > > Look I don't care. I don't bother reading his replies etc... because > > > it's all the same pattern: 1. Find something to criticize 2. Disagree > > > with any point made by those have have kicked his ass in various > > > discussions (poor little guy definitely holds onto anger ;). 3. When > > > he starts getting his ass kicked again, act like he was talking on > > > some larger, philosophical level that no one else can understand (a > > > tactic used by both extremists and mental ward patients) 4. Make some > > > insults. 5. Start new post or replies. 6. Repeat pattern. Just take a > > > look at any thread and it's evident. I can provide a dozen examples > > > that are laughably dead on to this. > > > > > There are people who are actually worth engaging in debates with - and > > > then there is Bruce. And Zeb. And on the Left, Saint Bezaerk and > > > Rebel. They all possess pretty much the same personal character. Their > > > weakness and fragile egos are evidenced by their inability to ever > > > acknowldge countering points. Instead, like any frightened small > > > animal, they attack the moment they feel cornered. Pretty basic > > > psych101 stuff and really, who cares? > > > > > On the other side, I've actually reconsidered a few of my opinions on > > > subejects because of (surprisingly) Dick, Hollywood (there's two ends > > > of the spectrum for you!) and others who have the reason, maturity and > > > class that actually persuades people to at least consider their > > > insights. Legalizing pot, for example. > > > That is worthwhile as opposed to interacting someone who is the > > > equivalent of a computer-enabled homeless person who comes at you > > > swearing and screaming, and wonders why no one takes them seriously. > > > > > So okay, the personal attacks, swearing etc... is going to be stopped? > > > We'll see. > > > On Jul 12, 12:32 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello Fred? > > > > > > WTF??? > > > > > > What is it that you believe this thread is about? What is the major > > > point > > > > of this thread? What is it it that you are in disagreement with > Bruce > > > > about? Somewhere, I got lost in the shuffle. > > > > > > If you go down (or up) from this thread, you will see my point about > > > Holly. > > > > Some ignorant statement about Ronald Reagan not being a Libertarian, > but > > > > rather a Republican. > > > > > > Yes, we will remain civil on this board. Its one thing to attack an > > > > individual's political philosophy or ideas, and its quite another to > just > > > > sling nasty personal attacks at one another. That goes for Bruce, > me, > > > every > > > > other member on this board, it matters not what your political > philosophy > > > > is. Nevertheless, the mudslinging and nasty barbs are unbecoming > from > > > > you....Just as they are from Bruce. That crap stops now. > > > > > > We will continue to allow for Holly to "shine the light" on > > > inconsequential > > > > matters that have nothing to do with the issues at hand, or that are > > > being > > > > discussed in any particular thread. > > > > > > Again, you have lost me in whatever point that it is you are > attempting > > > to > > > > make. > > > > > > I clearly said that Bruce and I don't see eye to eye on Immigration, > he > > > > holds Libertarian Party tenets, as opposed to a Libertarian Ideology, > and > > > > again, this is just but one example, of why I ask Holly to read the > posts > > > > several times before he responds. I could not have made it any > clearer > > > > above. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Well Keith, that was a complete load and you know it. Although I > like > > > > > the "Oh gee, I haven't had a chance to read the thread" attempt at > a > > > > > complete dodge, the conclusion is inescapable. Bruce was just > slinging > > > > > his usual bs and you were siding with Bruce only because of the > > > > > personalities and obviously not because of the points being made. > It's > > > > > cool Keith, at least you have a bit of class. > > > > > So again obviously this was not some abstract conversation about > the > > > > > rights of governments in general. Bruce's cop out when he realizes > his > > > > > bullshit is being walked all over is to wax poetic and then act as > if > > > > > others are somehow, just not on his level (of complete bullshit). I > > > > > even anticipated this because it's so predictibel from him and I > > > > > wrote: > > > > > "I guess you could go with a cop out like, this was some deep, > > > > > esoteric bullshit but really, Bruce was just being Bruce: babbling > > > > > crap..." Which he was nice enough to prove with his very next post > ;-) > > > > > This was a very specific topic about the rights of illegal aliens > and > > > > > the obligation (or in Bruce's replies "rights") of our government > to > > > > > enforce immigration laws. The Reader's Digest version so you won't > cop > > > > > out to the ""Gee, i didn't have time to read it all" thing again: > > > > > 1. In reply to Holly's suggestion that both the illegals and the > > > > > companies should be punished for breaking our immigration laws, > Bruce > > > > > wrote: > > > > > "People should be free to work and live where they like " and then > > > > > "States don't have a right to tell non-violent people where they > can > > > > > travel. If someone invites them to visit they should be able to" > > > > > > > Now if you somehow interpret that to mean "People should NOT be > free > > > > > to work and live where they like - if it's here and illegal; and > > > > > states DO have a right to tell ANYONE not to come to our country > > > > > illegally", then what you say has absolutely no credibility at all. > > > > > > > As far as it even being "legal" for us to have immigration laws at > > > > > all, Bruce wrote: > > > > > > > "You believe that what governments say is important and has > something > > > > > to do with what is wrong or right . You believe they are the source > > > > > of > > > > > rights. You are wrong." > > > > > > > So do you believe our government has no right to enforce > immigration > > > > > laws? Or for that matter, any laws or rights? That they are or are > > > > > not > > > > > "the source of" immigration rights? > > > > > > > So Keith, it's cool. You seem to be a more civil version of Bruce. > You > > > > > will agree with whatever BS he slings, as long as > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
