Moved from "Hamas Legit" thread

[jimnyc]

Too bad this Political Correctness has now taken over. Double standards become the Standard if only ONE person claims to be insulted.

Bye.

C'mon bro, don't be like this. Every now and again we all bite a little piece of the bullet. It's not a double standard. That would be true if FJ were allowed to post such pictures and you weren't. I understand your frustration, but this wasn't about someone going after a member, but simply removing what was seen as a tasteless picture. You're taking it personally as if it were a jab at you, it wasn't.

And the LAST thing we can be accused of is being PC!! I refuse to ever give into the world of political correctness.

NT has been with the board from before I even started my prior board. I can't recall if it were late 2002 or early 2003. He's VERY good people and I know he would only do what he thought was good for the board. He wouldn't do shit just to piss you off or take sides. But look at things from our side:

1 - Delete the photo
2 - Leave the photo

As staff members, we LOSE either way. Choose door #1 and we have happen what is transpiring right now, an upset member that thinks we are censoring them or singling them out. Choose door #2 and we are accused of allowing everything and anything and watching women and others shake their heads and accuse me of allowing the board to go down the drain.

It's NOT you aboutime, please understand that. You know who the BIGGEST offender is, of posting things and writing things that are probably 'less than decent'? ME! I'm trying my best to reel it in a bit. We used to be a place about family - and while we were ornery at times, we always posted with decency. Maybe still nasty at times, but respected that others were reading/seeing what we were posting and not just the person we were angry with.

Don't blame NT. I've asked staff to gently try and bring a bit of decency back. It's tiny things that can help that happen. NT thought this was one of those times. If upset, blame me. Shoot me a PM and we can discuss.

[aboutime]

C'mon bro, don't be like this. Every now and again we all bite a little piece of the bullet. It's not a double standard. That would be true if FJ were allowed to post such pictures and you weren't. I understand your frustration, but this wasn't about someone going after a member, but simply removing what was seen as a tasteless picture. You're taking it personally as if it were a jab at you, it wasn't.

And the LAST thing we can be accused of is being PC!! I refuse to ever give into the world of political correctness.

NT has been with the board from before I even started my prior board. I can't recall if it were late 2002 or early 2003. He's VERY good people and I know he would only do what he thought was good for the board. He wouldn't do shit just to piss you off or take sides. But look at things from our side:

1 - Delete the photo
2 - Leave the photo

As staff members, we LOSE either way. Choose door #1 and we have happen what is transpiring right now, an upset member that thinks we are censoring them or singling them out. Choose door #2 and we are accused of allowing everything and anything and watching women and others shake their heads and accuse me of allowing the board to go down the drain.

It's NOT you aboutime, please understand that. You know who the BIGGEST offender is, of posting things and writing things that are probably 'less than decent'? ME! I'm trying my best to reel it in a bit. We used to be a place about family - and while we were ornery at times, we always posted with decency. Maybe still nasty at times, but respected that others were reading/seeing what we were posting and not just the person we were angry with.

Don't blame NT. I've asked staff to gently try and bring a bit of decency back. It's tiny things that can help that happen. NT thought this was one of those times. If upset, blame me. Shoot me a PM and we can discuss.

No Jim. As the Grandfather of six beautiful little people who call me POP. I took that REPEATED photo of the little boy, dead, and body twisted on the sand in what was described as GAZA....as more disturbing, and with NO decency. And NOBODY decided to take that photo down.
As for taking it personally. Your damned right I did. Which is why I called it a double standard.
What I posted was no more, and no less offensive, or tasteless than 90% of the other TASTELESS photo's most of us have seen here. So. Since I have been accused of being THIN SKINNED.
That is what I find so troubling about our ENTIRE NATION today. And DP just happens to be the place...seemingly the Last Place we have to express ourselves... without somebody always complaining like LITTLE KIDS on a playground.
I know you see it differently, and can't blame you for that.
But GEEZ.
Why don't we all just GIVE UP on everything and let the CRYBABIES run it all?

[NightTrain]

No Jim. As the Grandfather of six beautiful little people who call me POP. I took that REPEATED photo of the little boy, dead, and body twisted on the sand in what was described as GAZA....as more disturbing, and with NO decency. And NOBODY decided to take that photo down.
As for taking it personally. Your damned right I did. Which is why I called it a double standard.
What I posted was no more, and no less offensive, or tasteless than 90% of the other TASTELESS photo's most of us have seen here. So. Since I have been accused of being THIN SKINNED.
That is what I find so troubling about our ENTIRE NATION today. And DP just happens to be the place...seemingly the Last Place we have to express ourselves... without somebody always complaining like LITTLE KIDS on a playground.
I know you see it differently, and can't blame you for that.
But GEEZ.
Why don't we all just GIVE UP on everything and let the CRYBABIES run it all?

The picture of that child bothered me. Greatly. I didn't give Jafar the satisfaction of my reaction, though, because that's what he wanted and I refused to give it to him - it was a horrible picture. I was impressed that everyone else on this board, including you, also refused to give him the satisfaction of personal reactions to that terrible image.

However, that picture was the subject of that thread, was it not? Yes, it was. It was brutal, but it was the topic.

If you want to have a thread devoted to tampons, AT, then by all means go ahead and start it. I'll not be visiting it and I think your participation by others in it will be impressively low.

You didn't get censored and I didn't edit your text. I removed a tasteless picture that had no bearing on the conversation, and I already explained that to you.

You can discuss with Jim if you still think I'm being a prick, but I can guarantee that I would have done the exact same thing to anyone else's tampon picture. No one wants to see that crap and you knew it was shitty when you did it or you wouldn't have said :

I PRAY..this photo doesn't "OFFEND" anyone????

IMO you're being ridiculous and are blowing this all out of proportion. I won't discuss this further with you.

[Drummond]

I can't usefully discuss the rights or wrongs of what was posted, because I visited the post too late to see any 'contentious' photo, or picture.

I can only say that I for one will be very sorry to see Aboutime act on any decision to depart. 'AT' is a patriot - of a type rapidly becoming extinct in my own country - and a diehard Conservative who very rightly laments the harm being done to his country. This or any other forum will always lose if people of this calibre cease to contribute to them.

[aboutime]

The picture of that child bothered me. Greatly. I didn't give Jafar the satisfaction of my reaction, though, because that's what he wanted and I refused to give it to him - it was a horrible picture. I was impressed that everyone else on this board, including you, also refused to give him the satisfaction of personal reactions to that terrible image.

However, that picture was the subject of that thread, was it not? Yes, it was. It was brutal, but it was the topic.

If you want to have a thread devoted to tampons, AT, then by all means go ahead and start it. I'll not be visiting it and I think your participation by others in it will be impressively low.

You didn't get censored and I didn't edit your text. I removed a tasteless picture that had no bearing on the conversation, and I already explained that to you.

You can discuss with Jim if you still think I'm being a prick, but I can guarantee that I would have done the exact same thing to anyone else's tampon picture. No one wants to see that crap and you knew it was shitty when you did it or you wouldn't have said :



IMO you're being ridiculous and are blowing this all out of proportion. I won't discuss this further with you.

NightTrain. That kind of reasoning is EXACTLY what is wrong with the entire nation today.

Nobody seems honestly willing to discuss anything because....almost everything, anyone might say. OFFENDS someone.

Since you view my opinions, and statements as ridiculous, and out of proportion.

You might want to keep that kind of statement in mind for the present members whom WE are asked to IGNORE, rather than be honest with each other.
I've seen this stuff before. It never gets better.

[jimnyc]

NightTrain. That kind of reasoning is EXACTLY what is wrong with the entire nation today.

Nobody seems honestly willing to discuss anything because....almost everything, anyone might say. OFFENDS someone.

Since you view my opinions, and statements as ridiculous, and out of proportion.

You might want to keep that kind of statement in mind for the present members whom WE are asked to IGNORE, rather than be honest with each other.
I've seen this stuff before. It never gets better.

When members are asked to ignore one another, it's because there is a personal feud going on that follows around the board. That's much different than something like tampons. Should we tell the women that might be offended to place you on ignore? Same with the C word that is banned. I think that's something that just doesn't have a place in any conversation (I know it's different over there, Drummond!). So out of respect for the women of the board, we make it so they don't have to read it. I think it's similar with this. Quite frankly, I don't care if you and FJ insult one another till you turn blue! I just think the women shouldn't have to see certain things if they don't have to.

I know your comparison is to that of the kid on the beach in Gaza. I think everyone was horrified with the picture. But it was subject matter for that thread, for the discussion at hand. It assisted the discussion. I don't see how posting a tampon is going to further the discussions. Do you really want a forum where anyone can posts anything at all, picture or text? Since you never complained back then about the picture from Gaza, I assume you're upset that you didn't get equal consideration. That's why I ask, do you think anything should be allowed to be posted?

Doing what we may see as courteousness towards the ladies, even if it seemed unfair in this instance, isn't really that big of a deal. Trying to keep the threads a tad cleaner of the fighting and back and forth won't hurt anyone. Go to the cage as Tyr did, say whatever is on your mind and post insulting pictures. The women of the board know what they are getting into when opening threads down there.

[Gunny]

NightTrain. That kind of reasoning is EXACTLY what is wrong with the entire nation today.

Nobody seems honestly willing to discuss anything because....almost everything, anyone might say. OFFENDS someone.

Since you view my opinions, and statements as ridiculous, and out of proportion.

You might want to keep that kind of statement in mind for the present members whom WE are asked to IGNORE, rather than be honest with each other.
I've seen this stuff before. It never gets better.

What would you like to discuss, AT? I understand your position, but you go as far in the other direction as those you accuse do in theirs. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "lefty". You've lost sight of discussing the issue and not the poster. And I keep making the same point to you ... you run these people off then wonder why you have a dead board. Address what they post or don't. Simple as that. Attacking someone each and every time for what they believe is what you accuse WHO exactly of?

I'm not trying to be mean nor anything else. But if you run of the 3 people I have to argue with on this board, and I am going to get bored.

I don't believe in not listening to the "other side". They believe in whatever they do as much as you or I. I have no problem telling them they are wrong. I have no problem dissecting their arguments. I want to know what they're thinking and why. Dismissing them out of hand leaves them to their own devices. That's not how I was taught to view an "enemy", and neither were you.

You're taking this too personally. Let it go. I don't want to see you go. I don't want to see anyone go. I dislike all of you equally.

[aboutime]

Nothing more needs saying. CATCH-22 in effect.

[jimnyc]

Nothing more needs saying. CATCH-22 in effect.

Don't know what this catch 22 is you refer too, but glad this is resolved.

[Drummond]

What would you like to discuss, AT? I understand your position, but you go as far in the other direction as those you accuse do in theirs. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "lefty". You've lost sight of discussing the issue and not the poster. And I keep making the same point to you ... you run these people off then wonder why you have a dead board. Address what they post or don't. Simple as that. Attacking someone each and every time for what they believe is what you accuse WHO exactly of?

I'm not trying to be mean nor anything else. But if you run of the 3 people I have to argue with on this board, and I am going to get bored.

I don't believe in not listening to the "other side". They believe in whatever they do as much as you or I. I have no problem telling them they are wrong. I have no problem dissecting their arguments. I want to know what they're thinking and why. Dismissing them out of hand leaves them to their own devices. That's not how I was taught to view an "enemy", and neither were you.

You're taking this too personally. Let it go. I don't want to see you go. I don't want to see anyone go. I dislike all of you equally.

I think that, from this, I've a better idea of how we'll manage to cross swords in the future, Gunny. I get what you're trying to do, of course, and in consideration of your objective, I'm broadly supportive. That said .. I see areas of contention in your post.

I get the impression from your post that you're not a believer, not particularly so, anyway, of a definite 'right' or 'wrong' in political discussion.

That's a proposition that both 'AT' and myself (and others here) would take exception to.

You say you don't believe in not listening to the other side. This is fair enough, IF you presuppose that both sides have something of great value to offer. But ... what if one side does NOT ? What if one side only has propaganda to offer ? What if one side is agenda-driven, the agenda amounting to an overall intention to con people into believing in a totally false 'nirvana' ?

There are those in your country who take enormous exception to the wreckage the powers-that-be are visiting upon America. They have a right to their outrage. I suggest, Gunny, that they ALSO have the right to express it.

I will listen to what I'd call 'the other side', totally confident that this opposing side can be trounced, with things such as realism, reputability, belief in the worth of the human spirit, and of the right to freedom, unfettered by any crushing control-freakery of the Left. Mine, I'm totally sure, is the reputable side .. and that of my opposition, the DISreputable side.

What it remains to do, always, is to prove the point through argument - to the extent that my opposition ever cares to argue fairly, anyway. If I'm right, I will win.

And I have yet to lose.

Gunny, try to understand the dynamics in play. Try, therefore, to appreciate a thoroughly reputable patriot such as AT !! I trust that this post acquaints you with something of what is truly involved.

[Gunny]

I think that, from this, I've a better idea of how we'll manage to cross swords in the future, Gunny. I get what you're trying to do, of course, and in consideration of your objective, I'm broadly supportive. That said .. I see areas of contention in your post.

I get the impression from your post that you're not a believer, not particularly so, anyway, of a definite 'right' or 'wrong' in political discussion.

That's a proposition that both 'AT' and myself (and others here) would take exception to.

You say you don't believe in not listening to the other side. This is fair enough, IF you presuppose that both sides have something of great value to offer. But ... what if one side does NOT ? What if one side only has propaganda to offer ? What if one side is agenda-driven, the agenda amounting to an overall intention to con people into believing in a totally false 'nirvana' ?

There are those in your country who take enormous exception to the wreckage the powers-that-be are visiting upon America. They have a right to their outrage. I suggest, Gunny, that they ALSO have the right to express it.

I will listen to what I'd call 'the other side', totally confident that this opposing side can be trounced, with things such as realism, reputability, belief in the worth of the human spirit, and of the right to freedom, unfettered by any crushing control-freakery of the Left. Mine, I'm totally sure, is the reputable side .. and that of my opposition, the DISreputable side.

What it remains to do, always, is to prove the point through argument - to the extent that my opposition ever cares to argue fairly, anyway. If I'm right, I will win.

And I have yet to lose.

Gunny, try to understand the dynamics in play. Try, therefore, to appreciate a thoroughly reputable patriot such as AT !! I trust that this post acquaints you with something of what is truly involved.

Ever read any of my posts? I have a complete definition of right and wrong. I also understand the dynamics in play REAL well. I took a dead board and made it one of the most successful on the internet. Then I crashed and burned. You start getting so wrapped around this crap and taking it personally and it will eat you up. I understand the psychology of the antagonists very well. And you've NEVER seen me drunk and lighting into one of them. A few folk here have. And guess what? They won. They got what they wanted. There's nothing anyone has to say on a message board that is that important.

I have no problem with AT and I am not questioning his patriotism, nor have I. And I'm speaking for myself. I'm not on staff and have nothing to do with control nor operation of this board. The dynamic is simple: you run people off and/or don't let them speak, people quit coming. That's not just bad for the board, it's bad for everyone. The board has a reputation as a one-sided, ultra-conservative stronghold. But what's the point to its existence if you have no one to argue with? We just sit around and slap each other on the back and agree? Yea.

I don't have to like someone nor agree with them, but free speech is free speech, right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Don't know what this catch 22 is you refer too, but glad this is resolved.

I hope it is resolved too. I did not se the picture but will agree that if it was off topic or offensive to the women it should not stay. AT is a great friend of mine but right is right. No need to allow offensive posts to the fine ladies we have here.
With that said, I also saw the little boy picture that Jafar placed and although offensive-especially Jafar's lies about it I too refused to give him the satisfaction of my complaining.

AT, I hope you let this one go my friend. Surely you will agree that if it offended or even had the potential to offend the ladies here it should have been removed.

Some calls are hard to make but I am quite sure Nighttrain did not do so out of any personal animosity ..
It was not my post but I respect his doing what he thought best in this case..
Let's try to get along better because THE FFING bamboy got a damn lot of bad shat planned for us all IMHO..- --Tyr

[Gunny]

I hope it is resolved too. --Tyr

Me three.

[aboutime]

Before it was a MOVIE, it was a great book.


Catch-22 also catch-22 (kchtwn-t-t, kch-)
n.
1.
a. A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions: "In the Catch-22 of a closed repertoire, only music that is already familiar is thought to deserve familiarity" (Joseph McLennan).
b. The rules or conditions that create such a situation.
2. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness.
3. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action: "The Catch-22 of his administration was that every grandiose improvement scheme began with community dismemberment" (Village Voice).
4. A tricky or disadvantageous condition; a catch: "Of course, there is a Catch-22 with Form 4868you are supposed to include a check if you owe any additional tax, otherwise you face some penalties" (New York).
[After Catch-22, a novel by Joseph Heller (1923-1999), American writer.]

[Gunny]

Before it was a MOVIE, it was a great book.


Catch-22 also catch-22 (kchtwn-t-t, kch-)
n.
1.
a. A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions: "In the Catch-22 of a closed repertoire, only music that is already familiar is thought to deserve familiarity" (Joseph McLennan).
b. The rules or conditions that create such a situation.
2. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness.
3. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action: "The Catch-22 of his administration was that every grandiose improvement scheme began with community dismemberment" (Village Voice).
4. A tricky or disadvantageous condition; a catch: "Of course, there is a Catch-22 with Form 4868you are supposed to include a check if you owe any additional tax, otherwise you face some penalties" (New York).
[After Catch-22, a novel by Joseph Heller (1923-1999), American writer.]

Just ain't going to quit, huh? There is no "inherently illogical rules or conditions". You get to say what YOU want to within the rules. So does everyone else. Equally and without favor shown to wither person. That's called "Catch-First Amendment". How about "Catch Equal and Fair"?

There's no rule against his expressing his political views. There IS a rule against over the top personal attacks; especially. in threads outside the cage. So WHO exactly is wrong here?

You want someone to side with you for your political views, but have lost sight of what this is about. You rant about Obama. He's still in office. You attack people on this board personally, not their arguments.

Why don't you just let it go. Move on. Find another thread.

AND, I'm speaking for myself. I'm not part of the staff here and have no other vested interest other than I like to debate. I like to debate with anyone about anything. I don't debate with people whose first line is "If it wasn't for O-blah-blah ...." anymore than I would debate with people whose first line was "it's Bush's fault ....." You run off the people I can debate with with intolerance and hatred, guess who is gonna be Gunny's new "best friend"? And I damned sure don't mean that in a nice way.

Let it go. Please. Thank you.