CLOSED THREADS

In the past week, two threads, one begun by me and another begun by Don Cardi were closed at the "request[s] of the originator."
My Thread which was intended to provoke replies decried Rush Limbaugh's attack on Michael J. Fox as well as what I considered a racist ad run in Tennessee against Senate Candidate Harold Ford.

DC's thread had to do with John Kerry's comments connecting a lack of education and getting stuck in Iraq. DC ran the AP story, and then added his own provocative commentary which included something about Kerry being a disgrace.

These are topics of great public interest, and they invite debate and disagreement. The pro Limbaugh people claimed he was taken out of context, the pro Corker people said the ad was not racist and disavowed it, and Kerry claimed he "botched a joke."
Frankly none of those explanations passed the smell test for me, but still there is a lot of room to go back and forth on these issues without the kinds of outrageous nonsense that some people insist on inserting into these debates. The Gangster BB is one of the more civil places to go on the internet, and the real shame here is that for some the intent is always to be abusive and over the top.

I have, as have others from time to time, become heated in my commentary, but that is the extent of it. After being criticized for calling right wingers "wingholes" I stopped using the word even though I did not deem it a personal attack on any member.
It is regrettable that we cannot have spirited discussions and arguments on controversial topics. In my thread someone posted a photograph of a disfigured black man and blamed slavery and the civil war on "democrats." In DC's thread the personal attacks got totally out of control, and I do not blam him for asking that it be shut down.

It is even more regrettable to see this has spilled over to the Godfather film threads when newcomers get ridiculed because they are asking questions that some long term members have already dealt with. Personally, I always enjoy it when some newbie brings up some question about the Tahoe hit because inevitably Turnbull will provide some really good insight into who killed the hitters, why Michael went to see Roth, etc.

I do not know what the solution to this is because we need to balance free speech with common sense. Until we come up with something, people, just cool down, make your point, and by all means disagree. Just cut out the personal attacks and the irrelevant and mean spirited nonsense.

Well said DonT, well said!





Don Cardi

Then there is NO solution. Not when posters who call other posters 'jerk' end up with about 4 warnings in the same thread.

Well said or not, I find it interesting that you happened to reach out on this topic, having begun your own 'topic of great public interest'...by stating you don't know how Republicans, male or female, can look themselves in the mirror.

Yes and the 2nd post by SC told the whole story on what it would turn out to be:

My crystal ball says this one'll be a doozy.

and to further the point on starters of posts how about this poster on a 2nd post on a topic he started:

I have absolutey no respect, wahtsoever, for anyone who bashes a soldier who is out there fighting for his life, and fighting to protect the lives of the same scumbags, scumbags like John Kerry, who undermine them every chance that they get.


What a piece of shit.


Yes, these things do matter and they do set the tone of how people will respond.

Or how you call the followers of Rush immoral

I concur Apple. How can one wonder why this is happening and yet not realize their thread(s) exemplifies the problem?

Furthermore, this has been going on for quite some time. My signature is evidence enough for that.

Um, just taking a stab here, but maybe DT did realize it, and is trying to make things better. I could be wrong, but I thought I would just throw that into the mix.

I was the one who made that statement. And I still stand by it.

And for you to imply that I am just as guilty as those who make direct and personal attacks is very misleading. In doing so you fall right into the category of those who are guilty of, to quote DonT, posting "irrelevant nonsense."

Seriously, and I don't intent this as a personal attack on you or your character, there was a time when you used to make some excellent contributions to these boards. A time when you debated and discussed the issues without any nonsensical bullshit. But more and more it seems like all you intend to do when you make a post is to incite discord amongst the members, without adding anything of substance to the discussion.

The undertone of what your wrote in your reply in this topic is exactly what DonT was talking about hoping to do away with in these discussions.

In your desire to create more controversey, you've managed to ignore everything that DonT was trying to say.


I sincerely hope that one day you'll graduate from being just another member of the Brat Pack, to an elite member of The Breakfast Club.

So "until we meet."



Don Cardi

I don't think you're transparent.

My Thread which was intended to provoke replies

Yes, PROVOKE :to excite or stimulate to action. to arouse to anger or passion.
Well, you got what you wanted....anger and passion all right.

Maybe.

Then again, maybe he just likes to stir the pot one second, and then cry 'wolf' the next.

For more information, see Fathersson's reply.



I don't claim to be innocent by any means. Rather, I simply think that if a discussion is designed for just that, discussion, healthy discussion (such as DT's Israel thread or my Hiroshima one) it will turn out fine and free of garbage.

When it is purposefully intended to incite a (negative) reaction and twinge at those who disagree, then its going to end up as a (deserved) clusterfuck.



Was this...necessary (as Don Vito would paraphrase)?

After all, just because some of us haven't attended a meeting ( not that anyone seems to care) doesn't mean we're not longtime members, or should be excluded or treated differently. Cliques suck, especially on message boards.

Furthermore, I think the whole debate problems are vicious cycles, largely because of the fact that people still argue the same crap and we're tired of posting well-thought rebuttals that have already been posted long ago but largely ignored (i.e. 9/11 conspiracy threads), thereby eliciting the sardonic or aggressive responses.

Regards,
Double-J

Yes it is my opinion that YOU set the tone:

scumbags, scumbags like John Kerry, who undermine them every chance that they get.


What a piece of shit.


and now you even let it be known that you think the Breakfast Club is better then the rest huh...yea right

The joke is that you want an open forum, but you want to micro-manger ever poster and every repley, spelling and content.

Gee Cardi...how many people have you battled with over the last year or two? No wonder people don't post.

While I usually take a very harsh stance on many issues, I agree with fathersson.

I merely reply to what has been presented and I get slammed for not agreeing. When I call people on it, I'm some how making an "attack." (Jesus Christ, if you think that the "j work" is an attack, I'm sorry, you need help. I mean that in all sincerity)

So I catch someone doing it and people don't like my methods. Fine. At least I can defend my viewpoint in a logical manner.

btw, JJ, you're a poopey head

Libertarian!

Snotty nosed snot face!

Off topic for a second -

You brought up something that appears to be a sore point among a few members and I'd like to address it.

You're right.... cliques DO suck. There's a comeraderie (sp?) that comes about from meeting others face-to-face that sometimes translates into what others see as a clique. Once you've met someone in the "real world" and have had time to talk to them about day-to-day things in their life and get to know them better you become more relaxed in conversing with them on the boards. Thats natural.

I understand that those who haven't met others off the boards may feel left out in some of these conversations. Thats natural and thats unfortunate. I'd like to point out, though, that all these big get-togethers have been advertised well in advance of the times that they took place. All members were invited to join. I know many cannot travel distances, or perhaps the cost involved doesn't fit their budgets, but I'll tell ya that NOBODY is being excluded on purpose and to make comments to that effect is being unfair.

As a longtime member here your presence is valued but don't make the mistake of thinking you're being treated differently because you haven't attended any of these "sitdowns".

OK.... back to topic. Continue beating each other up.

.

Can we leave the third grade humor out of this?

Um, until people learn how to chill... no

Thats your choice, and since you're not breaking any rules by posting that crap you have every right to do so. As a personal comment, though, you're making yourself look bad.

I don't mind the "third grade humor" so much, but it needs to be clear what it is and taken into context. In this case, he was just playing around, which is fine when it's clear that's what he's doing. The use of smilies, for instance, would make such comments clearer. And also considering the reaction, it's apparent that it wasn't a personal attack.

While we should respect each other, we still are allowed to have some fun. I don't enjoy suspending/banning members, but those are the ones who don't listen/learn, and don't give a crap. So while we don't all need to like each other, that fact shouldn't cloud our minds when we're posting replies to that person -- especially in controversial threads.

And BTW - I wasn't implying that SC or anyone else thought that MJ's comment was a "personal attack" at all, I was speaking in general. Upon re-reading it, it may seem otherwise, so sorry if it came across that way.

I agree, dt. I've said before that newcomers should be reminded to use the "search" function. But I don't object at all when they ask familiar questions because once in a while, someone comes up with a new twist on the old question--and someone else comes up with a viewpoint or explanation that we haven't seen before.

Humor is always welcome, as long as it "good".
I would have to think about this last one tho....Nah it sucked.

*DING DING* WE HAVE A WINNER FOLKS.

I am not attempting to create any arguing, dislike or disharmony with any of you here. I have not really been an active poster here, so I really don't know many of you the way that you seem to all know each other. But I must share the observation that I have made from reading all of these posts. And I hope that my post will be read with an open mind.

By using those adjectives, I believe that Don Cardi was setting the tone to draw some interest and discussion about the topic itself. I honestly don't see that he made a personal attack or directed those words at another member here. I also cannot see where he ever said that some members were better than others. So I must respectfully disagree with the way that you have made an attempt to paint what Don Cardi said as just another attack on these boards. Over in another thread a direct attack was made on Don Cardi by a member who straight forward called him a jerk. Yet you did not even bother to address that member for his direct attack on Don Cardi in the same manner that you did here for something Don Cardi said that was not as direct and blatant as that other attack. In truth, I have to believe that by your constant references to Cardi's posts, by your cute little jabs in your replies and by your adaptation of his name in your signature, that you have a strong dislike for Don Cardi. And if you do, that's fine. That is your business. However, putting personal dislikes aside for a moment, you should at least remain consistant in your posts about your disliking personal attacks being made, no matter what member makes them. If you really believed in that strongly about doing away with the attacks and personal insults, then you would address any and all members who do those things, regardless of if you liked them or not. Plus you go on to accuse some members here of favoring certain members over other members. But when you really look at how and when you chose to post your feelings here, you are really the one that is guilty of favoring some members over others. You actually proved it in the way that you reacted to one member, who didn't attack another member, and in your non-reaction to another member, who really did make a direct attack on a member.

As I said at the begining of this post, it is not my intention to start any fights or to instill any bad feelings with others on these boards.

Arse faced arse head! Mblah TIMMAH!

It's only funny the FIRST time. Now let it go.

NYCGOODFELLA I am not saying that Cardi is attacking another board member.

Let me make this as clear as I can.

If you are bitching about something and you use shit words when you post then you can't be surprised when everyone else does the same thing. Calling anyone a piece of shit is doing just that. He set the tone of name calling.

and for the record. I call them as I see them.

Let me add my own 2¢ .....

I personally don't have an issue with John Kerry (even if he looks like Herman Munster and he did say something INCREDIBLY stupid about our soldiers) but I think any public figure (especially a politician) is fair game for our remarks.

With that in mind, I follow NYC Goodfella's logic that remarks made against these figures can provoke some interest. I also agree that I can't see any personal attack made against a fellow member (in Don Cardi's post).

Now, I follow fathersson's train of thought, too, BUT there's something very important to note about that... regardless of how heated the subject matter gets no personal attacks AGAINST A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER will be allowed.

Quite frankly, I'm getting real tired of making that point and can't for the life of me understand why some members here don't get that. Ignorance may be bliss but those offending members who make a personal attack against another member will be finding their bliss elsewhere.

Stop your whining already. Its wearing thin, much like the third grade jokes in half your replies.

I've spelled out the reasons why what you said was a personal attack (a few times). I will not repeat myself. I advise you to follow the same course of behavior. I will not warn you again.

Capiche???

Calling John Kerry a piece of shit is provocative, just as calling George Bush a coke addled drunk is provocative, but still it is a statement of a point of view. Members have every right to call out fellow members for limited vocabularies, or for lame arguments, but when it is reduced to personal attacks on their character, that is where the line should be drawn.

That was funny SC. What about Lurch?

He's better looking than Kerry.

In the interest of "equal time" .... what about this? :

Are you trying to provoke discussion by implying that these guys are animals? Monsters?


Don Cardi

Don't look at me.... Mig started it.

Stop it, SC. Aren't you done YET?? Oh, wait, wrong thread....

I always though Osama Bin Laden looked a little like Danny Thomas