posted on December 26, 2000 08:59:53 PM
PatTaylor: I see Bearmom's request to stop the the posting of election-related threads as CENSORSHIP. No one is being forced at gun point to click on any thread that I initiate, or read any post of mine -- therefore, persons tired of my diatribes need only go about their business and ignore my threads altogether.
As far as being close to disruptive and needing to look closer at guidelines -- funny, you haven't applied this same bit of advice to say, HCQ, when she intentionally went into a thread of mine and bragged about how she has blocked all posts by me and just how much she enjoys it. Insulting? Absolutely! Am I amused that she went into a thread of mine soley to post that insult? no. Do I complain about it? And the others who have returned to me as good as they have gotten have not been told to refresh their reading of the AW guidelines either. But I do not care: I only want FAIRNESS.
I gear my hostile remarks towards the sky, the polticial parties, and my opinion of voters in general or for those of specific parties. I do not point at anyone and berate them -- but I will make every effort to discredit any remark that they make if I should feel it is needed: if you decide to join a fight, expect to get hit back.
While AW is not really a political forum, still, I am aghast at the endlessly blank, empty fluff that users have been having to suffer before I came here to pass out some black eyes. That the content is now more emotional and polarizing, it reflects the current situation in this country and that makes AW's Round Table up to date and a place for current affairs to take place.
Yet, I will quit posting anything of a political nature in AW's Round Table or other AW forum if you request it, Patty. All you need to do is to post that request in these public forums and I will gladly oblige.
posted on December 26, 2000 09:48:37 PM
I would like everyone to go to some of the political threads and look at some of the comments that have been made towards Republican voters...ie, that they are soooo stupid, they are ignorant, they are sheep...etc.
Now, change Republican to Black, Asian, Jewish, Methodist, or any other nationality or denomination. Funny, but when insults are geared toward anyone other than conservatives, then it's offensive.
Borillar...I hardly think anyone deserves any black eyes for holding certain political views and I'm curious as to why you feel the need to be the one to do the blackening.
Your comment, "before I came here to pass out some black eyes" is itself a combative and disruptive statement. Because you have already been cautioned about posts of that nature, I am issuing you an informal warning.
If another member's posts bother you in any way, we encourage you to make use of the ignore button. If you have issues concerning moderation, please post them in the Moderator's Corner.
In the meantime please keep in mind that basic etiquette is required, no matter what the subject.
posted on December 26, 2000 10:48:51 PM
Marshmellows are fluffy, are they not? Until they get stale. Then I betcha if one is tossed hard enough, it could black an eye. Then again, that would have to call for a food fight, which is another thing that could be called "fluffy" thread, yes? Hmmm....sounds fun
posted on December 27, 2000 12:17:15 AMnjrazd:"Now, change Republican to Black, Asian, Jewish, Methodist, or any other nationality or denomination. Funny, but when insults are geared toward anyone other than conservatives, then it's offensive."
The thing is that neither Blacks, Jews, Asians, Methodists, etc., are not the ones who voted GW into office nor do they condone what the Republican party has done in this last election concerning ballots and Democracy. Therefore the guilty parties must bear the brunt of criticism for supporting such an onerous situation.
The Community Guidelines specifically require the discussion of moderation issues be conducted in the Moderator's Corner. If you wish to appeal Pat's decision, you must post a message in that Forum - the issue will not be discussed in this thread.
posted on December 27, 2000 12:21:50 AM
Sorry Michelle: I just beat you to it by seconds. I re-read Pat's post and saw my error and went to Cut and Paste it elsewhere.
posted on December 27, 2000 06:41:40 AM
Borillar, you are still missing the point. I did not say to stop the political posts, just requested something different. I am quite willing to discuss politics, government, etc., in fact I enjoy it. If you notice, I suggested several areas I would enjoy talking about-I didn't say you COULDN"T bash Bush, just that I was tired of looking on the forum and seeing nothing BUT inflammatory topic titles. Judging from some of the other posts, I'm not alone in this.
You seem to have formed an opinion of me that is based on what YOU wish to see, rather than what I actually say. As someone else said, it is a mistake to judge someone's character based on a quickly written post, because you have really misread me.
The solution to your problem is very simple. If you want to
discuss another topic, start another thread. If you don't want to
read about political issues, just ignore them.
The fact that most people right now are interested in the election
debacle should not and cannot be changed.
posted on December 27, 2000 08:49:41 AM
do a search for the term "networker67" on the altavista search site, it's quite interesting to see what comes up.
I discovered this accidentally searching for something else on altavista and was surprised to see AW EO and Roundtable web pages come up in the links.
so as an experiment I put in the above name and voila some interesting results.
I had no idea Altavista was indexing AW pages, including Ebay Outlook and the Round Table too. are we famous on the web now???
posted on December 27, 2000 08:55:47 AM
Borillar...YOU are missing the point.
Bush DID get votes from Blacks, Asians, Jews, Methodists, etc., as well as from several of us in this forum. Just because you are not happy with the results, that does not give you the right to toss around insults as to our intelligence or views under the guise of "voters in general."
Therefore the guilty parties must bear the brunt of criticism for supporting such an onerous situation.
HUH?? Gee, judge, jury & executioner all wrapped up in one! You are quite the package.
If you want to rag on Bush, go ahead, but please stop your ranting against US. You make yourself look much more foolish then you portend us to be.
How do you support your claim that "Bush DID get votes from Blacks,Asians,Jews,Methodists, etc"?
Not that it has anything to do with your previous attempt to classify Republicans along with other minority voters in "change Republican to Black, Asian, Jewish, Methodist, or any other nationality or denomination".....as that has been established by the vote totals.
And, may I inquire as to the criteria you would use in determining the level of foolishness which Borillar obtains causing you to state to him "....You make yourself look much more foolish"....?
posted on December 27, 2000 09:56:57 AM
Borillar is making himself look foolish for the same reasons I stated-he reads what he wants to into other poster's comments. if he would calm down and read them carefully, he would find out that we are not all so far apart in our beliefs! He and Krs seem to be too angry to have a rational discussion with right now, and that's a shame. I'm sure they both could contribute a lot.
posted on December 27, 2000 10:01:56 AM
They DOcontribute a lot, ie. "food for thought". It's up to the individual whether they want to partake of these snacks.
posted on December 27, 2000 10:06:15 AM
krs...the membership of the local Republican organization here is made up of every age, socio-economic group, color, nationality and denomination. They all voted for Bush. There are similar groups throughout the suburbs/rural areas of California with the same diversity.
As far as Borillar, IMO, the need for him to punish those who hold opposing political views does not add to his credability.
posted on December 27, 2000 10:40:18 AM
I do not feel a need to punish those who hold an opposing view, njrazd, but to punish those who have broken the sacred trust of our fragile democracy. I also do not feel a need to punish those who hold an opposing view, njrazd, but to try to tell them that the house we live in is on fire and that they better turn off the TV set and go do something to save themselves before they burn. If that means a more direct approach than usual, that I have to shake the chair that they sit so comfortably in so that I can get their attention, then that is what I will continue to do.
Now I come on strong, I'll admit. Do I have anger? You bet I do! As Mel Gibson stated in his portrayal of William Wallace in the movie Braveheart, "It's well past rage!" To me, seeing an election so blatantly tampered with and then condoned by our own court system, to see OUR ELECTION halted by the courts on the behest of a powerful political party, these things should make every American voter MAD AS HELL! That there are those who not only refuse to see that a fundamental plank of our democracy has been broken but actually CONDONES it should see what blind rage looks like. The demolition of our democray is not a pretty sight nor should anyone's reaction to it be otherwise.
I submit this to you njrazd, that our democracy won't get fixed through the usual court system or through Congress or through the Executive branch: they all conspired against us in this last election. You and I and everyone else won't be getting anywhere simply by being rational and intellectualy polite; our democracy won't be fixed by those who just sit around and "discuss" the problem.
So if I come off angry, it doesn't mean that my post's content is invalid -- maybe I just feel a bit more strongly about things than you do.
posted on December 27, 2000 10:57:50 AM
borillar- i share most of your views. if, as you say, the Democracy will not be fixed by the court system, congress or the executive branch, what specifically do you propose to prevent a similar thing from happening again? abolishing the electoral system?(wouldn't this have to be a congressional act?), voting Republicans out of office? would these be enough? just read your proposed amendment thread-another congressional act?
[ edited by stusi on Dec 27, 2000 10:59 AM ]
[ edited by stusi on Dec 27, 2000 11:18 AM ]
posted on December 27, 2000 11:42:10 AM
borillar - I too feel rage. Rage that the government I trusted deceived me. Rage that what I taught my children about democracy is a lie. Rage that I can't do much to change it. Rage at opinions that I should forget it and move on.
This is not just an argument between Republicans and Demorcrats. This is the core of our existance in a free country. To elect our President is one of the most important freedoms we have. That was taken from us. It wouldn't matter if it was someone other then Bush that did it, I would feel the same rage.
posted on December 27, 2000 11:42:39 AM
Enchanted- That is verrrrrrrryyyyyy interesting! I also typed in my own AW name and found myself! ACK! I had no idea everything I typed here was searchable on the internet! That is too strange! Will make me more careful about personal information given out I think. I didn't check the other search engines, do you suppose they all have us indexed!? Gotta check it out!
Do lawyers really use the term "bogus registration" now?
