Didn't you disprove your entire point, folkbum?
If there were no real debate here, you would not have been able to post a disagreement with this blog's owner.
So really, stop acting as if you are not allowed to make your point.
As in most conservative blogs, personal attacks and name calling are not allowed. It is true on this blog, my blog, Sykes blog, McBride's blog, and just about every other conservative blog out there.
Come on, is it so difficult to disagree without the name calling and the personal attacks?
If it is, then people need to stop reading blogs if they get so worked up about it.
It is called personal responsibility. The idea that person was driven to be nasty and start verbally attacking someone on a blog is ludicrous.
Seriously, if a blog entry makes folks that angry, then stop reading it!!! Go read something else!
It is just that simple!
Kathy, I hope you notice the irony of Fred's deleting my comment as you were typing yours lauding Fred for allowing debate.
I'm sure, Kathy, you will confirm that there was nothing in my now-deleted comment that was inflammatory, profane, or illogical. I called no one names.
And yet . . . >poof< . . . it's gone.
Good thing I saved a copy. I can post it again if you'd like, Fred.
Jay, I do not allow attacks against me on my own blog, you know that.
You invited the attacker, I do not appreciate that.
You also do not have one ounce of criticism against the person attacking me without provocation.
You are encouraging the behavior, that makes you part of the problem.
For the record, I agree with John on his point as well.
As I've said, I don't envy McIlheran or Sykes or Belling. I could never do their jobs. Not because I cannot express myself but because I couldn't handle the venomous personal attacks they receive simply for having an opinion and expressing it publicly for pay.
They have to have elephant skin to deal with the unhinged. I don't have elephant skin.
Jay, I do not allow attacks against me on my own blog, you know that.
There was no personal attack on you in my comment Fred. Ask Kathy. I described your behavior. I didn't call you names, insult your character, or cast aspersions. I merely described your behavior.
You invited the attacker, I do not appreciate that.
Fair enough. But I did not seek him out. As I wrote--before you summarily deleted it--he asked for space to post an essay on his experiences here. He is not, by the way, the first person to email me complaining about your seemingly capricious banning policy. I doubt he will be the last.
You also do not have one ounce of criticism against the person attacking me without provocation.
False. I criticized him.
You are encouraging the behavior, that makes you part of the problem.
False, again. I have done nothing of the sort and I think it would be great, Fred, if you would try to find "the behavior" in 3rd Way's post at my blog, or any of the comments at my blog. You won't find it. It's not there.
I will re-post, word for word, comma for comma, the now-deleted comment. If you see fit to let it stand, you can allow your readers to judge whether what you have said is false, and whether what I said was anything like an attack.
If you choose not to let it stand, well, that will also say something to your readers.
The now-deleted comment, reposted:
Fred, I read the thread--and capper's post at Whallah to see what that poster said that was so awful--after he politely asked if he could post an essay at my blog about his experience. I was appalled, though not surprised, at what I saw.
Go back and look at the first two comments in that thread. Just the first two.
The poster in question made a perfectly legitimate point, with no harsh language, no name-calling. You dismissed him with an insult, out of hand.
As the thread progressed, and he kept trying to make his point, you just kept berating him for not getting the "jest" and for treating the issue seriously.
How do your actions in that thread promote "real debate"? How do you not see that your own words (and the words of conservatives like pcd) were nothing but provocation?
Should he have called you names? No. But I've seen worse in these very comment threads directed at me, at other liberals you've eventually banned, at conservatives who dare to deviate from the party line. And none of that was ever provoked the way you and your allies provoked that poster in that very thread.
I've been saying it for years: There is no real debate here.
you apparently missed the part where he called me a "nutcase sociopath", I let that go.
My crime was suggesting a "typical liberal response".
Fact is Jay you are incapable of reading this with an ounce of integrity or honesty as you left those behind long ago.
You have proven that again.
He called another poster a "simpleton"
After dropping that they asked should I stay or should I go.
My response, "If you make a default silly response, expect one in return."
They escalated and let go with the final insult that led to the ban.
3rd insult by them in the thread Jay, two to me, one at someone else.
I'm done with them, they did it, not me.
My sole crime was calling a response, liberal.
In response we got simpleton, dolt, fat, bald, sociopath.
You should step away and try to look at the whole world instead of your narrow liberal view of it.
You embrace and encourage these types of attacks.
You might have encouraged this person to try something unique and apolgizing for their insults, instead you gave them a stage to add onto them.
You are no better than they are.
Fred, are you just assuming people won't go back and read the original thread? No one called you a "nutcase sociopath."
3rd Way called pcd a simpleton (pcd has called me worse) after pcd told 3rd Way to "Stick that in your bong and smoke it." (Which followed pcd's call for the police to kill first and ask questions, well, never--which is what resulted in the "nutcase sociopath" comment.)
3rd Way also asked you--after you dismissed his point out of hand--again what your opinion was, and you said to him, "Like all liberals you refuse to see the point while taking the jest literally."
One person began that thread engaging the purported topic of your original post. He got slammed, hard, before anyone else even bothered to offer a single serious comment, simply because he offered an opinion slightly different from yours.
If you dislike seeing your behavior described in the cold light of day, you should perhaps consider changing your behavior.
You are entitled to your opinion Jay.
I will not engage you any further as you are not worthy of the effort.
And yes he did call me a nutcase sociopath, it is right there plain to see.
Still waiting to see your condemnation of the person who said Jessica McBride "Claimed" to have been called the C word.
You know the truth, you just don't care when liberals excuse bad behavior by other liberals. By default I can only assume you agree.
Fact: These are the first four comments from the thread in question, the only place where the phrase "nutcase sociopath" appears.
That is a good point. If you were to deny people welfare for failing a drug test I would wager that the crime rate would immediately spike.
Is it cheaper to pay for their welfare or is cheaper to pay to send them through the criminal justice system?
3rd way | 01.11.08 - 11:55 am | #
-------------------------------------
All rightie then.
A typical liberal response.
Fred | Homepage | 01.11.08 - 12:22 pm | #
-------------------------------------
I say, if you are in the act of committing a crime, you can be blown away without retribution from the state or arrest by the gendarms.
PCD | 01.11.08 - 12:36 pm | #
-------------------------------------
"I say, if you are in the act of committing a crime, you can be blown away without retribution from the state or arrest by the gendarms."
All rightie then.
A typical nutcase sociopath response.
3rd way | 01.11.08 - 12:44 pm | #
Fred, it takes either a wheelbarrow full of dishonesty or a massive ego to believe that the "nutcase sociopath" is about you.
Again, I reiterate my point: At the start of that thread, one person was engaging the purported topic of your post. It wasn't you.
Still waiting to see your condemnation of the person who said Jessica McBride "Claimed" to have been called the C word.
I don't know who this is or where it is, so a link would be helpful. It certainly was not at my blog. It is true that IllyT did essentially call McB the c-word, even though he didn't actually type it. I was one of those calling out IllyT for what he wrote.
I just wish I had one-tenth the energy expended here . . .
amen, Tom.
Carpenter, there are several blogs in the Cheddarsphere that seem to thrive on name-calling, such as inventing hilarious nicknames and then repeating them endlessly for comedic effect. The hard part about refuting categorical assertions such as yours means lots of work and interpretation on the skeptic's part, searching to give you convincing evidence that your assertion is wrong. I have posted a collection of not-so-nice things that have been said to me on RDW, but it's posted elsewhere and I won't link to it here. I'll pick one: "Gee Foust what is it like to go through life with absolutely no insight? Clue in." Is that real debate or personal insult?
To continue... But here's two other examples of arbitrary justice from other places. I was banned from Texas Hold Em after just a few comments. In that one post, I had been called a crank, a moonbat, a fascist, a bigot - and most of that was in the writings by the blog owner made before I'd even commented. I did not respond in kind. I guess I must have elephant skin. (To Fred's credit, there is some evidence he has not always tolerated such outbursts here.) If you like, examine the original thread and the post that got me banned. Perhaps I offended by making a comment that was too long, as it had to address several points.
To continue... I was banned from Boots and Sabers, it was claimed, for violating their ban on sock-puppetry. Wikipedia defines it as "an alternate account used deceptively". You can see it here. Do you think I was deceiving anyone? In the dismissal, I'm accused of having posted under a "half-dozen" names. Utterly false personal slam, entirely unsubstantiated. Yet the blog owners have blocked the entire range of 32 IP addresses I use in association with my small-town ISP business. My customers and I can't even read B&S by normal means. When you visit, you get "Error Message / This site is currently unavailable." Due to my elephant skin, it would've been far easier if they'd just made a personal insult. Instead, they went for the actual character smear.
For the record, my kids say "Dad, you don't have just a forehead, you have a five-head." I can pinch an inch-and-a-half on my belly, but they think I'm tremendously overweight. Fortunately, they almost always know I'm smarter than them, or at least that's what they say to my face. Does that still make me an old fat bald dolt? I like to think I have the wisdom and the self-control to refrain from personal insults like that when having a civil debate. Sometimes people do it out of youth, inexperience on the web, or out-of-control frustration. Cooler heads can prevail. Peer pressure works wonders.
John you push and you push, you are not innocent.
People have their reasons for banning you I am sure.
Hey I gave you credit in this post, I agreed with you completely.
Jay the McBride comment must have been at the other attack website, it is so easy to confuse the two...
You keep the main propietor there posting on your site as well.
You are nowhere near as innocent as you claim to be. You encourage and participate in the left wing slime machine.
I wish you would do it somewhere else.
Furthermor who care who that person called a nutcase sociopath, THEY DID IT!
And still you portray them as the innocent.
Seriously Jay, go play gotcha in your own sandbox.
John Foust...I think I may have been banned from B&S too. I just tried it and I get an "forbidden" message. Does that mean I am banned too? That would be funny because I don't think I have ever posted a comment on that blog.
there are several blogs in the Cheddarsphere that seem to thrive on name-calling, such as inventing hilarious nicknames and then repeating them endlessly for comedic effect.
God forbid some of us might actually :gasp: HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR!
The one thing that seems to be forgotten here is that the blog owners have the right to banish anyone for any reason.
Just like a business has the right to not serve any person for any reason.
Fred exercised this right, that should be the end of it period!
Fair Play, try again later, I am sure it was a technical issue.
Thanks Michael.
Since I was involved in the discussion at the time 3rd way's comment was made, I saw it before Fred removed it. It was totally uncalled for, angry and emotional with directed name calling. I won't repeat what I read here.
Like M. Cheaney said, "Fred exercised his right and that ought to be the end of it. Period!"
In debates in which people are at the opposite ends it often gets emotional and sometimes comments are made that are borderline (I've made them myself). However, the comment by 3rd way was waaaaaaay over the borderline.
The complaints about Fred's serial banning are not about his right. Of course he can ban anyone. So what?
The question is, should he ban people, especially if he's going to call his blog "RealDebate." The answer is obviously that he should not ban people nearly as often as he does. Banning Scott was inexcusable. Banning Mr. IsJustAlrightWith me was expected, but cowardly.
When you ban people, even vile people, you look like a giant chicken. You do your blog a disservice. And you also give me one less reason to read.
Wait a minute ... are you trying to tell me that there are liberal blogs in Wisconsin? Interesting news to me, maybe some day I'll have to check those out.
Paul:
Of course he Should. We/Fred have expectations, and one of those expectations is that people do not launch personal attacks against others, that expectation was breached and Fred punished him for it.
And therein I think lies the big difference between Conservatives and the Liberals.
We tend to believe that there should be consequences for not living up to the rules.
Liberals on the other hand do not seem to believe there should be consequences for well. Anything.
"When you ban people, even vile people, you look like a giant chicken."
To which I say so F IN what?
Michael,
I would offer links that would disprove your position, but I'm afraid that Fred would only erase the comment. But I would refer you to Jay's comments showing that 3rd way didn't fire the first shot. (however, he did go too far.)
Fred does, of course, have the right to run his blog anyway he sees fit. Just as we have a right to criticize what we see as hypocritical behavior. That would be a debate.
Fred, in the end, thank you for the acknowledgment. I'm sure there are other things we agree on.
Although Fred and I agree that any blog owner gets to set the rules for their sandbox, and that we can't imagine any way other than that, I would hope there would be similar agreement that it's fair game to discuss what's just and reasonable as well. If that discussion can't take place on one blog because of that owner's rules, then it will no doubt take place on another. This is why banning seems to me to be a finger in the dike; a two-edged sword that might've ejected someone but also shows you've lost control of your party. You can't stop people from talking. You might be able to rule your sandbox, but that's all. I had no memory that Scott (Feldstein, I presume) had been banned. JIJARWM seems like a nice fellow, too, and I had no idea he'd been banned. It certainly gives me the impression that banning is not uncommon. I remember only a few months ago that some blog owners would claim they'd banned only a very small number. You don't hear that now, do you?
If you ever wanted to explain what "push and push" means, I'm all ears.
Mr. McMahon, may you find the energy to create your next inspired Four-Block World.
Cheaney, meet my friend Sarcasm. Sarcasm, this is Cheaney. Does saying Shrillary over and over make you laugh?
Cheaney, meet my friend Sarcasm. Sarcasm, this is Cheaney. Does saying Shrillary over and over make you laugh?
John I have met your friend sarcasm, and Believe me is is no friend of yours.
And capper you are correct.
For the record John, Scott Feldstein is banned. He'll argue the reason why but he had a nasty habit of making up lies to attack me with and taking things completely out of context on purpose.
I tired of it.
All I asked was a little intellectual honesty from him and he proved incapable of it.
The last lie was that I restricted my contributors as to the content they could post.
It was a complete lie and he should know. I invited him to be a contributor with my usual instructions, post what you want, when you want without edit from me.
Ask any of my contributors and they will tell you the same. In his zeal to challenge everything I said he resorted to fiction one too many times.
Frankly Scott knew that the way to anger me way to question my integrity so he did it time and time again to try and make me nuts.
I decided his little mind games were not worthy of my energy any more.
Funny thing, after he left (and his puppet Djheru) my traffic went up,
As for JIJARWM, he was banned, I lifted it long ago, and he has posted here fairly recently. I'm sure he is out smashing me on the hate blogs, he always does.
He is another that tries to intentionally inflame in a snarky intellectual way to intentionally tick me off. You two would probably get along well.
And here comes Capper too fresh off his sliming of me on his attack blog.
For those unaware Capper runs the second blog I mentioned, the one that does nothing but attack people personally for the crime of thinking differently from him.
Capper is kind of like the King of the hate left around here
Paul, I am no giant chicken.
I've banned right and left when they go too far.
I'll continue to do so if they cross the line.
If asking people to watch their language and to not personally insult is distasteful to you, I'm sorry but I'm not going to change a thing.
Fred, you don't have to justify anything you do on your blog. It's your blog, it's your rules.
Ban anyone you like, re-admit anyone you like....
Like I said, you don't have to justify anything you do or say (short of slander) on YOUR blog.
You are of course correct Asian Badger.
King of the hate left? Gee, thanks, Fred. I'm sure you didn't meant that as a personal attack. You're above all that.
And for the record, refutation of fallacies is not a personal attack. Highlighting the lies and the hypocrisies of the right wing media is not an attack. It is giving voice to the other side, which they are trying to suppress. But you will believe what you will believe.
I don't want to get too kumbaya lest I offend the sensitive, but would it be possible for anyone here to reach consensus on a few points?
Saying "Bullwinkle is a D _ _ _" or "You are O _ _, and F _ _ too" or "Rocky should get a clue" or "You are king of the doody-heads" are not really debating statements. They're closer to personal attack or as we say the Romans say, an "ad hominem" attack. "To the man," not the argument.
And that goes double for words that anyone considers perjorative personal insults in their own right, such as dismissing someone outright by calling them a "liberal" or a "Republican." If you want to pretend you're actually thinking, you're going to have to try harder than that. Anyone care to step outside and push and push on these points?
It's Fred's blog . . . he can do what he wants. That said, I'd prefer no one be banned as, if nothing else, it exposes a person for who they really are when they post offensive remarks. We can debate this, but it's common on many liberal blogs. But, there is a line that can be crossed. Where that line is is up to the host.
So Fred, do you ascribe knowledge of every commenton every blog to every reader? If a commenter only saw the claim on McBride's Blog, should he state unqualified that she was called the c word or qualify his comment based on her claim?
I have no idea what you are trying to say Sam.
Of course I don't know every coment on every blog.
I know in that case the comment was made and also that in the aftermath of it now someone is saying it was a claim and using it to attack the person who was intially attacked again.
I could not possibly speak in generality across the huge cross section of commentary. I can speak to THAT case that I am aware of and read myself.
Fred, Jay is just mad at me because he can't admit the truth about Democrats and their desire to tax everyone and everything, and I keep reminding him of an apology he owes.
Now, I may not lay out my full reasoning and all my informations sources because many on the left don't have an open mind to discuss an issue in the first place.
I wonder, do John and the other liberals complain on Liberal sites when non-liberals are banned? I find such people very hypocritical on that point. In fact, I know one person who never fails to defend the muslim point of view, but when challenged to post the same demands and arguments to stop killing, etc. that he posts on a conservative website, this person just can't deliver the posts he said he would if we pointed out where he could post his stuff.
Fred, you know of some instance where someone was banned from a "liberal" blog?
Why are you lumping me in with "the other liberals" when I supported your right to ban or dance on one leg or whatever else you wanted to do here?
I am completely confused by the rest of your paragraph, however. Who did what to who, and what does this have to do with debates where one side regularly says "You don't have a clue"?
John,
I suggest you slow down your reading. I SAID that about YOU and other liberals.
Now, John, on what Liberal sites did you protest a Conservative getting banned from? Crickets will be chirping until you answer.
Cheaney, when you wrote:
Liberals on the other hand do not seem to believe there should be consequences for well. Anything.
did you mean to include holding bloggers responsible for their comment policies?
Fred, I've been annoyed many times by DJHeru at my place. He's annoying. So what? He occasionally makes a good point. So does Scott. It's not like these guys just show up and call you names. They have always, in my experience, stuck on the topic. Just because you don't like what they have to say about the topic does not mean that they are insulting you.
In fact, usually your rather dismissive responses to the effect of:
"A typical liberal talking point"
or some such nonsense are far more lacking in substance than comments that have resulted in people being banned.
And I don't care if you change your policy. I think you should change it, but if you don't want to, fine. My comment was an assessment of how it reflects on you, and how it reflects on the blog. If you think that banning Mr. Feldstein increased your traffic, fine. That seems unlikely, as it removed at least one reader and likely did not add any ("let's go read RealDebate, he finally banned that Scott guy!"), but hey, in this world too many people believe that correlation = causation, why should you be any different.
Lastly, as has been pointed out to you, by me and others 80 jabrillion times (so many times that I had to make up a number to represent it), the name of your blog impresses a higher standard for tolerating discourse than would a blog called "NoDebateWisconsin" or "TotalitarianDictatorshipWisconsin."
Having that name, and banning as many people as you do is offensive. It's as offensive as when Capper says he wants to regulate something in the name of freedom. It doesn't make sense.
If you want to claim that your policy is simply holding people resposnible, fine. I hold people resposnible by convincingly arguing the other side. I suppose if I din't have any good arguments on my side that I would have to ban people too.
Liberals on the other hand do not seem to believe there should be consequences for well. Anything.
did you mean to include holding bloggers responsible for their comment policies?
That is EXACTLY what I meant. Those who were banned kept pushing, and pushing and pushing until Fred had enough and said Your outta here.
Show me where in Freds' TOS it says "I shall not ban anyone for anything"
I've got a million dollars that says you won't find it.
Also, Mr. IsJustAlrightWithMe is still banned. When he has posted here recently, he has done so on another IP address.
But aside from that, banning people and then unbanning them is no different than banning them, unless you tell them that they are no longer banned.
Cheaney, I'm just trying to hold Fred responsible for his comment policy. The blog is called "RealDebate."
Paul,
Sounds like you are dictating policy to Fred. That is a very liberal thing to do.
Oh, no, PCD, I confused something you wrote with something Fred wrote. I'm sorry! How amazingly ironic given the present situation! I expect the full forgiveness you'd give anyone when that happens.
I'm not aware of conservatives being banned from liberal sites. Are you? It would be much more fun to talk specifics. As I've said here, I generally think banning is unnecessary and not easy to defend if you want to simultaneously proclaim that your blog is an oasis of openness and fair exchange. As the title of this thread shows, I'm generally rather pro-First Amendment, both in government cases as well as private places like blogs where they want to act like public forums, and for the same prophylactic reasons. So without specifics, I'd say "Of course the imaginary conservative shouldn't be banned from the imaginary liberal blog." Happy?
But I gave plenty of specifics about two actual bannings involving little old me. Care to defend the actions of Peter and Owen with something deeper than "It's their sandbox, they can do whatever they want"? Should blog owners be defended when they smear character without evidence? Is that akin to calling someone an old pilgarlic? There were lots of crickets singing at B&S when I was booted, left or right. I suspect some lefties didn't want to rock the boat because then they'd be tarred, too.
How am I dictating policy to Fred?
If I tell you that your comment was idiotic and that you should delete it from this thread, am I dictating the kinds of comments that you should leave, or am I giving my opinion about your comment? Don't mix up free expression with oppression. Fred can do whatever he wants, it's just that one choice is right, and one choice is wrong.
Mr. IsJustAlrightWithMe also requested that I point out that he did not engage in personal insults or profantiy here, and was booted over a disagreement. Evidence for this, and other unjustifiable (other than "I felt like it.") banning stories can be found here:
http://www.scottfeldstein.net/bl...et/blog/?
p=1843
at the banned Mr. Feldstein's site.
Ironic that there are 45 comments on this post with the majority complaining that Fred does not allow dissent.
Priceless
Thank you, Paul, my memory of Scott's banning has returned after revisiting that link. I'd also completely forgotten the moment when it was hilariously suggested that I would eagerly have have sex with a horse.
David, I think it's more subtle than that. I know ivory-tower intellectualism isn't always highly regarded, but I thought the discussion was about Fred not allowing visitors to engage in personal attacks and name-calling.
Cheaney, I'm just trying to hold Fred responsible for his comment policy. The blog is called "RealDebate."
NO Paul what you are trying to do is shove YOUR idea of real debate down our throats.
If you don't like it. TOUGH. Fred is not accountable to you.
Fred, I promise never to show up at your house and attempt to physically force you to change your comment policy. That's not how I do things, but Cheaney seems worried about you. Either that, or he believes that I possess magical powers that can force people to do things if they read my writing.
If that is the case, Cheaney should become smarter and write using fewer capital letters. You can thank me later Mikey.
Finally, I'm not trying to shove my idea of Real Debate down anyone's throat. Debate requires competing opinions. Too often, Fred silences one side. That is, objectively speaking, not debate.
I'd also completely forgotten the moment when it was hilariously suggested that I would eagerly have have sex with a horse.
John:
Wow, you are ultra sensitive! I followed that link, and NOWHERE did the words John Foust even appear, now how do you think that applies to you specifically?
Paul clue in please. "Real Debate" does not mean no rules. Real debate means civility and honesty in my definition and like it or not I am the sole arbitor.
In other words, Real Debate means that if you don't like it, you won't hear it. Cool. Good. Got it. Excellent.
Good luck with that
Paul for the record, you are wrong.
I have never banned for opinion, I have banned for people pushing too hard in a dishonest way, intenionally insulting myself or posters in a way over the line or being ridiculously over the line in the rhetoric. I have banned posters from the left and right.
I am the arbitor.
I'm willing to welcome anyone back if they would agree to the rules.
Here are the rules.
Stick to the topic, don't be vulgur, respect the other posters. If you somehow think that is too much I'm sorry, but I am the arbitor.
You may have a right to be a loud vulgur insulting person, but I don't have to allow it.
"ivory-tower intellectualism". Oh boy, maybe us ignant peoples may just learn sumptin good here.
Let the "intellectualism" based discussion on what Fred can do on his own blog commence!!
I should point out that Fred warned me that I would be banned a long while ago when I pointed out that people arguing against the Patriot act were stupid if they had not actually read it.
His beef was with the "stupid" part and he was quite firm. He did not say I was wrong, but he did point out this is his place and guests should behave.
Tell me something Paul, seeing as you have inserted yourself as ombudsman here.
Scott and I had many altercations we kept them to each other in private emails. He ticked me off, I ticked him off, he apologized, I apologized, we tried.
Should I have allowed Scott to continue to tell lies and to intentionally take half sentences out of context to attack me?
Because that is why I banned him. I got sick and tired of him questioning my integrity with flat out lies. His last was that I handcuff my contributors with what they are allowed to post. He had nothing to back that up, but he brought it insinuating me to be some overbearing ogre to the very people I invited to participate onmy blog.
Feel free to ask any of them the truth. My instructions are the following, post what you want, when you want without edit from me. Scott should know that as when I invited him I told him the same thing.
That is real restrictive.
I know Scott turned me into the bad guy for his lies, I'm used to that.
What we never hear from your side of the isle is an acknowledgement of their bad behavior. If Scott could honestly argue the issues without making stuff up to personally attack people (me), he'd still be here today.
I like to think of real debate as being honest debate.
Thanks David.
I appreciate that.
If people are kind enough to put down contact info I always try to let them know privately when they need to back it up a bit.
Paul if you would like to apply to be the official RDW Ombudsman we could talk about it.
You'll have to agree to be just as hard on right and left...
Cheaney, I'm referring to this: "I truly believe at least one of these idiots would volunteer to do the horse if asked. I am sick of these clowns." He links to my web site, so I deduce he's referring to me.
Have you never seen me yell at Jay and Capper? Ask Bullock if I'm harder on lefties or righties and see what he says. You don't want me as an ombudsman, I would never censor anything. But if someone is lying about you, I recommend handling it as follows. You stated that you have never banned anyone for difference of opinion. I stated the opposite.
You are lying, or perhaps just forgetful. I am telling the truth. The evidence is as follows. After you banned JIJAWM, you had an e-mail exchange with him which he posted on Feldstein's site. It reads as follows. The context is in a debate about thug culture.
Fred Said:
“Trying to tie your hate for christianity with thug culture.
I’ve had it.
Consider yourself banned.”
…
Jesusisjustalrightwithme Said:
Fred,
So much for real debating I guess. I made no personal attacks on anyone. I used no profanity. I’m pretty sure I followed every rule you have for commenting on your blog. If I actually violated one of your rules than I apologize. But I doubt that’s the case.
How is my “hatred” for Christianity ban-worthy but your “hatred” for thug culture perfectly acceptable? They are both cultures. There is a solid argument that both have led to lots of murder and fear and chaos (If you disagree, say as much. I’d LOVE to hear you try to argue that thug culture has caused more death than Christianity). We agree about thug culture but disagree about Christian culture. So what? Why does that disagreement make you ban me? The underlying point, that some cultures are inferior to others and we should be able to say as much and that government shouldn’t pay to perpetuate said cultures, still stands.
Are you that incapable of supporting your opinions with reason and consistent logic that you have to silence dissent? Pffft, whatever. You’re the ultimate hypocrite. You should really change the description of your blog because it’s complete bullshit. It should be called “Right wing garbage Wisconsin” because no real debate would silence one side like you do.
Very truly yours,
JIJAWM
…
Fred Said:
Because it is my blog and I make the rules.
You try in practicly every name to insult Christianity, your very nickname does so.
You try and do it in an intellectual way, but that makes your intent no better.
I’ve had half a dozen requests to ban you from readers and last night you crossed my line.
Take it elsewhere.
Excuse the profanity, but I wanted to get the quotes accurate. I wouldn't want to be accused of misrepresnting anyone.
You are clearly, in this example, taking umbrage with the opinion expressed. The opinion does not speak to anyone's character, it is not an ad hominem, and in the post, there was no vulgarity.
So, if not these things, why did you ban the fellow? Not a Doobie Brothers fan?
John: I still think its a stretch...Although that picture in the upper right corner. VERY FRIGHTENING!
The opinion does not speak to anyone's character, it is not an ad hominem, and in the post, there was no vulgarity.
AH yes however what is left out are the things LEADING UP to the banishment. See he was not banned because of that one comment.
What you fail to realize and take into account are his past comments.
See we are smart enough to understand that it is not a one and done policy. The people who have been banned and their defenders apparently are not.
JIJARWM had a history and of course you are looking at one piece of the over-all puzzle.
He would insult all Christians often in his posts, it went too far. Go read his blog.
You've made it clear you have no standards, I do have them.
You may not agree with them, so be it.
You also fail to mention that he has posted here again, and I let him do so without issue. He'd be welcome back if he would lay off the Christian slime and stick to the issues.
I'm sure we could work it out and he and anyone else is welcome to contact me at any time.
For the record, I love The Doobie Brothers.
You've made it clear you have no standards, I do have them.
Funny.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm attempting to hold you to a high standard. Ergo, I have standards. Also, I believe that constitutes a personal attack on me. Perhaps you should ban yourself.
Bashing Christianity is not the same as bashing Christians. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is the expression, I believe.
You banned him for criticizing other cultures in a post in whch you stated that we should be free to criticize other cultures.
His comment made you practice what you preach. It tested you. If you really wanted people to be free to do so, you could not have banned him.
But you did.
I know his history, and it was always the same. He took one thing that you didn't like, and repeated it ovr and over, very cleverly.
And you lie again when you say:
You also fail to mention that he has posted here again, and I let him do so without issue.
I did indeed do so earlier in the comment thread:
Also, Mr. IsJustAlrightWithMe is still banned. When he has posted here recently, he has done so on another IP address.
It's nice that you didn't ban him again, but my other earlier point, that unbanning someone without telling him is the same as banning him, still holds.
You have standards. Fine. I have higher standards.
You made it clear you would ban no one, that means you have no standards.
I'm really tired of playing gotcha with you.
Look, there are some people who just don't get it when they are being obnoxious.
If I walked into a meeting of African-Americans with shoe polish on my face and dressed as Aunt Jemima, I may be making a statement of opinion----but they would also have a right to be highly insulted and tell me to leave.
It's the same with bloggers. You are entering someone else's territory. That means you abide by their rules and do not deliberately provoke. The person called JIJARWM, by the very pick of his/her handle, came in just like shoe polish and Aunt Jemima. It was an insult to get a rise right from the word go.
REAL debate does not include deliberate provocation. And REAL debate does not allow the sort of language that 3rd way used (which I saw before it was removed).
Those who can't figure that out ought to be banned. Learn the rules of REAL debate or quit your whining!!!!!!!!!
My head spins, too, Fred.
I believe that having standards means that you ahve certain principles that you will adhere to and stick up for. I will ban no one because I believe in free, unfetterd speech. That is a principled approach.
Your standards seem to follow your ideology closely. They seem connected to your emotional whims. They do not seem well thought out. They seem reactionary.
They seem like no standards at all.
When you banned JIJAWM you basically added a new rule, which was to ban others from criticizing religion. Call it blasphemy if you want. That rule came into spontaneous existence when you became fed up with the individual engaging in it. That rule did not exist prior to that moment.
That is not a principled stand.
Ergo, you have no standards. Or your standards suck. Take your pick.
"Gotcha" is when you attempt to bait someone into saying something with a preconceived notion of contradicting that statement with the mark's own preexisting statement. What I did was take an assertion you made, unprompted by me, and producd evidence to the contrary. Also, for "Gotcha," the evidence should be surprising. This was widely known.
I am tired of arguing with you, however I have actually provided evidence of my views. You have merely stated that I have no standards. I declare victory.
As for Scott F. I sort of miss his illogical diatribes, but I am also not privy to the private e-mails that went on between him and Fred, so I have to trust Fred that the banning was reasonable. That ends it for me.
Noonan says: ""Gotcha" is when you attempt to bait someone into saying something with a preconceived notion of contradicting that statement with the mark's own preexisting statement."
---- And I must say, some of you liberals are excellent at that game. JIJARWM did it just by picking an insulting handle. I'm surprised that Fred even allowed that to stand.
Noonan, you have provided no evidence. You have merely picked what is convenient. Rudeness and deliberate provocation is NOT DEBATE.
Your victory is extremely hollow and even laughable.
Clearly, Fred can reserve the option of banning some people who repeatedly offend him. He knows his standard when he sees it, and frankly, anyone eager to ban probably has situational standards. Not that that's a bad thing.
JIJARWM had some well-polished methods of ridiculing the beliefs of Christians. I'd call them "opinions". He probably trots them out when he sees rabid rants made by Christians. I'd extend this to say Paul and I would probably agree that Fred is indeed banning people for their opinions. Fred would say it's because they've crossed his lines for offense.
To invent an example, if someone here said gays are indecent, immoral perverts who are going to a smelly special Hell, Fred would say that's just opinion and not offensive. JIJARWM, feeling provoked, might recite one of his clever 50-word rephrasings of an event from the Old Testament in order to demonstrate perspective. Fred would find this offensive and insulting to Christians, so it became another tick mark in the "to be banned" column. Have I got this approximately correct?
Paul one thing you need to learn is when there is such a significant difference of opinion that two people will never agree.
I believe we have reached that impass.
Feel free to keep whatever opinion of me you will.
I am sure of this, no matter what I do, you will find a reason to be critical of that action.
Please note that you are still welcome to participate.
Cheaney - which frightening pic on my web site? The one with the kitties or the male model?
If you don't think Peter was saying I was the "one of them" who would eagerly have sex with a horse, then who was he talking about? More on-topic, would you consider that opinion or personal insult?
Not even close John. It was a repeated and frequent history of degrading Christians in the vast majority of his posts.
JIJARWM had a way of using flowery language and providing intellectual insults. He never crossed the profanity line.
Be assured he was intentionally trying to insult and flame up persons of the Christian faith.
I would not allow gay bashing for a tenth as long as I let him go on, nor would I allow racial insults in the same way.
Why should I allow Christian bashing?
I stand by that decision but I would still be willing to discuss the issue with him.
Okay, I'm to the IP address that you didn't ban, so as long as I'm being talked about here, I'll add my 2 cents.
Talking about the problems Christianity causes is not the same thing as wearing a racist costume or mocking gay people. People CHOOSE to be Christian. They don't choose to be black or gay. Christianity is an idea, like liberalism. It's a culture. Of course I knock Christianity every chance I get. I believe that the idea of Christianity is stupid and dangerous. You could debate me on that, but instead you banned me. You banned me for my policy position on the merits of Christianity. It's that plain and simple. What's ironic is that the post that was evidently the last straw was about how you, Fred, believed we should be free to criticize cultures that are detrimental to society - in that case it was "thug culture." All I have ever done here is criticize a culture that I think is detrimental to society. If you disagree with me, why not, ya know, debate me on it? Like, a real debate?
The fact of the matter is that Paul has been 100% right on this thread. Fred's banning policy is ridiculous. The fact that he implies that he welcomes all viewpoints is too.
And why do you guys keep saying I'm a liberal? Or that Paul Noonan is a liberal? That's just silly.
You are wrong on your very premise.
Christianity is not a culture, it is a faith.
You attack Christians on posts not about Christianity. I stand by my position. I would not allow people to bash gays in the same way.
You are a one issue guy, every thing is the fault of Christianity and you view the world through that prism.
If I viewed all the world's issue on homosexuals and argued on that premise I'd be justly labeled a hater.
If you could stick to the actual issues at hand, I'd welcome you back but I can see you still do not get it.
And no, Paul is wrong.
The point you two fail to see is that this is MY BLOG. I put the hours into it, I built it, I make the rules.
I think they are fair.
If you disagree, hey that's fine that is up to you.
But you don't get to condemn me for it here.
And no, Paul is wrong.
The point you two fail to see is that this is MY BLOG. I put the hours into it, I built it, I make the rules.
I think they are fair.
If you disagree, hey that's fine that is up to you.
But you don't get to condemn me for it here.
I never said that you did not get to make the rules. This was never about your rights. You can do whatever you want with your property.
I said that your rules were lousy. So no, I do not "fail to see" your point. I see your point crystal clear. It is irrelevant, but I see it.
Why, JIJARWM? Because anyone who criticizes a conservative position must immediately be declared a LIE-beral and dismissed with a wave of the hand and a snort of the nose. No Nolan charts around here. No inconvenient truths. You're either with us, or you love the terrrrists, and you better darn well admit you love the terrrists.
Fred doesn't like thread drift. I think it kind of means you can't make comparisons. Gotta stay on topic, stay in the chute. Kinda like the McLaughlin Group. It's like the difference between saying "You're the King of The Hate Left" and "You're like the King of the Hate Left." The former is a personal insult because it's a direct statement. The latter is an analogy, so it's OK.
Paul, refer back to this please.
http://www.haloscan.com/
comments...200373777#77687
Noted. Still irrelevant.
See, we could have a debate about whether Christianity is a "faith" or a "culture" [My position: It's both! And it's stupid and dangerous.] but you don't want a real debate, you want to ban me. The topic of the post in which you banned me WAS culture. Detrimental cultures specifically. That includes Christianity imho, so I brought it up. My point in distinguishing it from being gay or black is that people choose which sky-wizard they talk to. It's just an idea and we live in a country that was built on a vigorous exchange of idead - in other words, on debate. You may not embrace that, but I do.
What you're failing to see fred is that although you are free to make your own rules, you are still, objectively speaking, butchering the definition of "debate" by silencing one side. That's true even if the topic is "culture."
What you're failing to see fred is that although you are free to make your own rules, you are still, objectively speaking, butchering the definition of "debate" by silencing one side.
Don't really want to get into this, because it's too much fun reading from a distance. However, without too much snark, and regarding JIJ's comment above ....
Amen!
You still refuse to see the point...
And yes you will think I refuse to see the point.
Hate is not a debate platform, we were talking about more than that post but your continued need on virtually every topic to attack Christians.
Again, what if the focus was race or homosexuality? I would not allow attacks on those issues to continue either.
Frankly I'm tired of this discussion. If you would like to continue this offline, fine. You think I was wrong, and I'm not going to change my mind.
I still stand by my decision.
Do you not see how race and homosexuality are different from religion? Religion is an idea, and I swear I read somewhere that "we discuss ideas here."
Who let the fantasy baseball bloggers in? What kind of place is this? I'm calling the manager.
In your view it is, to many others it is much much more.
What you do not understand is that just as surely as racial slurs can be hate speech, so too can very personal attacks on persons faith, and that is all you do.
Just because one is less politically correct than the other does not make it any less true.
Your comments were deeply personally hurtful to many reader of this blog and I understand their complaints. Your response appears to be screw them, I'll insult them all I want.
Let me clue you in on something.
In this country I respect your right to be an athiest, I honestly do. I don't understand it, but you have the right.
Why can't you offer an ounce of respect to persons of faith?
Perhaps if you were more tolerant of other's beliefs you would not come off so harshly.
To put it in a biblical analogy. Pull the plank out of your own eye before you worry about the speck in someone else's.
I'm going to have to comment as I read through this, so sorry for repeat posts.
The one thing that seems to be forgotten here is that the blog owners have the right to banish anyone for any reason.
Just like a business has the right to not serve any person for any reason.
Fred exercised this right, that should be the end of it period!
Michael J. Cheaney | 01.13.08 - 5:09 pm | #
Yes, and like consumers we have a right to complain about his actions to try to compell him to change them. Your argument is only valid if someone were arguing Fred should be arrested or fined.
Like M. Cheaney said, "Fred exercised his right and that ought to be the end of it. Period!"
roseindigo | 01.13.08 - 8:13 pm | #
I suppose I should expect the hard core conservatives to do what they do best: find a motto and cling to it, chanting it like a mantra, even though it is seriously flawed.
Ironic that there are 45 comments on this post with the majority complaining that Fred does not allow dissent.
Priceless
David | Homepage | 01.14.08 - 3:33 pm | #
That is definitely distorting what the majority of the posts say. None accuse Fred of not allowing dissent. They accuse him of having a much shorter leash on those with different viewpoints and banning those people in an unwarranted manner.
Fred, I promise never to show up at your house and attempt to physically force you to change your comment policy. That's not how I do things, but Cheaney seems worried about you. Either that, or he believes that I possess magical powers that can force people to do things if they read my writing.
If that is the case, Cheaney should become smarter and write using fewer capital letters. You can thank me later Mikey.
Finally, I'm not trying to shove my idea of Real Debate down anyone's throat. Debate requires competing opinions. Too often, Fred silences one side. That is, objectively speaking, not debate.
PaulNoonan | Homepage | 01.14.08 - 4:20 pm | #
Paul, you completely fail to understand that many of the posters on this site don't understand the idea of competing opinions leading to debate. Their idea of "debate" is mockery of the other side. Several of them (not all) are apparently incapable of analyzing an argument and producing a counterargument that responds to the points that were made. It would be fun to come here and retort with mockery similar to theirs, but that would probably get you banned.
I have never banned for opinion,
Well technically, JIJAWM got banned for posing arguments in support of his opinion...
Stick to the topic, don't be vulgur, respect the other posters. If you somehow think that is too much I'm sorry, but I am the arbitor.
Yeah, well the rules are unevenly enforced. Back when I posted here more often I'd get off-topic, vulgar attacks that showed a complete lack of disrespect, as did the other non-conservative die-hards. You're the arbitor, that is understood. That does not mean it is wrong to criticize your decisionmaking in that regard.
You may have a right to be a loud vulgur insulting person, but I don't have to allow it.
Nope, you don't, but in many cases you do.
As for Scott F. I sort of miss his illogical diatribes,
He had far less of these than you did. Just because you don't have the same underlying views doesn't mean the argument (based on those underlying views) is not logical.
Your comments were deeply personally hurtful to many reader of this blog and I understand their complaints. Your response appears to be screw them, I'll insult them all I want.
JIJAWM does have an overdone vendetta against religion. Religion is attacked sometimes unnecessarily. Still, the reason the comments were "hurtful" was not because they slammed anyone individually, but because they seriously questioned and mocked religious beliefs. I would prefer to defend religion with arguments because if you shut off reason than one can claim any set of beliefs as a religion. Any cult could be defended as immune to criticism because it is offensive to question or mock its tenets and followers' behaviors.
John, You aren't being even handed.
I have noted that lefties howl like wounded dogs when they even suspect they are being censored or banned, but when confronted with actual cites of people being banned from liberal sites they weakly demurr and weakly change the subject.
I have been banned from Daily Kos and from Iowa Underground.
Do you want to continue your whining?
"What you do not understand is that just as surely as racial slurs can be hate speech, so too can very personal attacks on persons faith, and that is all you do."
Well I don't really buy the idea of hate speech in either case.
"Your comments were deeply personally hurtful to many reader of this blog and I understand their complaints. Your response appears to be screw them, I'll insult them all I want."
My response is closer to feeling sorry for them. That's why I'm trying to help. To free their minds. But they will protect the Matrix at costs!
"In this country I respect your right to be an athiest, I honestly do. I don't understand it, but you have the right. Why can't you offer an ounce of respect to persons of faith?"
I respect people's right to be what ever they want. It's the idea itself I don't respect. Because it's a stupid idea. So, for the sake of those people trapped by that idea and who perpetuate that idea to the detriment of the whole country, I try to explain all of the things wrong with that idea. Until someone who doesn't like to hear competing views bans me anyway.
jijarwm...do you honestly believe you are going to change people's minds about their faith in God on a blog (or anywhere else)? I am not a "religious" person but I find it (dare I say) offensive that you would even go there with anyone.
And right here again you call someone's faith stupid.
You have no understanding at all how deeply personal faith can be and how serious those types of unending attacks are.
Scott with all due respect, you don't have a clue what goes on behind the scenes.
Assuming someone leaves an email, I've sent email to more people than you could possibly know asking them to quiet their rhetoric.
Know what I get from conservatives usually? (one exception)
You are right Fred, I'm sorry, I'll tone it down.
I usually get quite a different response from liberals.
Which would you respond better to?
I try, I ain't perfect. But you, nor anyone else but me knows about these things as I try to do them quietly and off the radar.
Look back at David's comments above, that should tell you something.
Liberals have attacked me since I started here for the crime of having an opinion, this is all the same old same old as far as I am concerened. The politics of personal distruction.
Have I ever knocked you down Scott, edited or deleted one of your comments in any way? No. We disagree quite often and I never have.
Yet here you are making me to be the big ogre of the blogosphere.
Same stuff different day.
Fair Play makes a good point.
I do not overtly push my religion here. Do I offer a Merry Christmas, or Happy Easter, sure I do. If that is not your cup of tea, pass it over.
I also offered a Happy Hannukah and I'm not Jewish.
How about I offer you a special, I think everyone else is stupid but me day? Would that make you feel better?
Seriously, if you can not cut the attacks, then I ain't interested.
One thing is certain JIJARWM, you have showed a complete disregard for how your actions are hurtful to others.
I suppose I should expect the hard core conservatives to do what they do best: find a motto and cling to it, chanting it like a mantra, even though it is seriously flawed.
Well then please scott by all means tell the class what you would do.
And for that matter PAULIE too.
PCD, how could I be more even-handed in your eyes? I invited and welcomed your examples. I'd be glad to talk about them. What were the circumstances, what was the stated reason you were banned from those sites?
I also gave my examples of my bootings from THEB and B&S, but no one here seems willing to even discuss them at all, much less even defend them to any degree, even with something as weak as Roseindigo's eyes-wide-shut "And that should be the end of it" approach.
I think my ban from THEB is particularly telling. THEB's blog post was about something I did that made the news on the front page of the MJS as well as national wire services. Charlie made it his topic for an hour, and I called in and went toe-to-toe. Can you find anything that's personally insulting or offensive in what I wrote there or what he wouldn't post? My post was zapped because of ideas, not insults - and yet I was the initiator of the news item he was writing about. Why wouldn't he want me there? What an opportunity! Shortly after that, I was banned in this thread. The dismissal? "There’s no point in talking to you. You are a smarmy, arrogant, condescending liberal elitist."
Cheaney - any new opinions about these questions?
John, that is a perfect description of you.
As for my being booted. I refuted their cunnard that no lefties were saying "Bush=Hitler" and that no lefties were backing the terrorists. I put up cites including Ted Rall cartoons, but the truth hurts liberals mightily.
John:
The male model, anyone with more hair on his body than on his head, is well unattractive.
Why does everybody fail to see that it is NOT one comment, but rather a repeated pattern that gets people banned?
To make an analogy here, its like the person who gets a prison sentence of 5 years for carrying an ounce of pot, that also has a CCAP report the length of my arm.
Its not the carrying of the one ounce of pot that landed him in prison for 5 years, but the fact that he has been given breaks in the past and not learned from them.
That is what seems to be what is getting glossed over here.
Well, PCD, I presume we agree: if that's what you did, it was unreasonable for them to ban you. Care to comment on my bans, now?
Cheaney, so who was supposed to play horsie?
Cheaney, so who was supposed to play horsie? WHO CARES?
There are bigger things for me to worry about.
Repeated pattern of what, Cheaney? Another theme claimed here is that repeated levels of personal-insult and ad-hominem noise is ignored when the writer holds conservative views, and the level of tolerance seems to be different when the writer is criticizing conservative views. Of course the same-old-same-old gets annoying, from either perspective. Can we formulate any suggestions to improve the quality of discourse here?
Scott, you said...
You don't like the manner in which Fred enforces Fred's rules on Fred's blog and you sit here in the comment steam of a post by Fred on Fred's blog and complain about it.
Fred lets you guys (leftist elitists) get away with a heck of a lot more than us conservatives and yet you act like you are a poor little pathetic poster who is being picked on by a bully. Grow up and either debate in a manner that Fred says is acceptable or take your ball and go home.
When was the last time you saw a healthy debate without rules? Never. Apparently the little point that can not creep into your brain is that if Fred were to allow the constant cuss words, personal attacks, and Christian bashing to continue his blog would turn into another closed minded outpost because no conservative would want to read that trash.
Fred I apoligise if my opinion did not accurately reflect your policy and if any of the above phrases could be deemed a personal attack. If any did please feel free to edit the post in whatver manner you see fit since this is YOUR blog
I'm just trying to get a grasp of what level of evidence satisfies or puzzles you, Cheaney. I read Peter's horse-sex remark, see where he says "this one" and includes a link to my site, and you say "it's a stretch" that he's talking about me. Did I get that right?
John, I'm not interested in what you did to get booted from other blogs.
No John your trying to bait me. And I am not falling for it.
David, long before drastic "rules" need to be invoked, there's notions of politeness and civility. There's those cultural notions of what constitutes good behavior when you know you're in a diverse crowd. It should be apparent to anyone who's been online for a while that the isolation and often anonymity in forums tends to bring out bad behavior, but that in some forums, better patterns tend to emerge. Why don't all forums suffer in the same way as RDW? Is it the visitors, the manager, or both?
John, please refer back to this post...
http://www.haloscan.com/comments.../?
a=35941#77904
Repeated pattern of what, Cheaney? Another theme claimed here is that repeated levels of personal-insult and ad-hominem noise is ignored when the writer holds conservative views, and the level of tolerance seems to be different when the writer is criticizing conservative views. Of course the same-old-same-old gets annoying, from either perspective. Can we formulate any suggestions to improve the quality of discourse here?
I have a suggestion:
Its Freds' Blog.
Play by Freds' Rules
Its so stunningly simple.
Fred, I think back-channel emails are a great idea. You said liberals give some sort of different response. What do they do?
Even before you'd need to send someone an email, I think peer pressure helps even more. One little "Gee, Bullwinkle, I agree with your premise, but let's not call our opponents 'ijits'" would help coming from any side, no?
"Why don't all forums suffer in the same way as RDW? Is it the visitors, the manager, or both?"
Most blogs that aren't echo chambers and have enough of a readership have problems like this. Personally, I *like* that I get to see the other side's arguments (though I don't agree with them). *Most* of the posts here are well thought out, non-obnoxious and interesting (even if I don't agree).
Some people, however, have no tact, and despite repeated warnings, keep posting the same garbage over and over with the intent to insult, demean or get a reaction from others. Those people are *trolls*. Heck, I believe there's an example in this thread.
Reasonable people can usually find a way to agree (even if it's to disagree on something). Unfortunately not everyone is reasonable.
Fred, I think back-channel emails are a great idea. You said liberals give some sort of different response. What do they do?
The usual response is something like this John, "Don't tell me what I can or can't say, you are a ^$&@*!^ (@^&!*^!......."
In short they always try and justify by blaming someone else.
Fred, I think you need to end this silliness by deleting the whole damned thread. What a waste of precious time. It's YOUR BLOG. You don't have to put up with this.
Frankly Rose I find it illuminating to let some people show themselves to be who they are.
I tried with JIJARWM to help him understand how his rhetoric is personally painful to certain people. I thought I provided a good example in letting a racist or someone like that prattle on.
By refusing to even acknowledge that reality and by persisting in calling Christianity and thereby Christians by defualt stupid, he made my point for me.
He'll never see that of course but by his actions I think it provided the perfect illustration to this post.
To get back to the start of this I am getting beat up by the left for banning someone who behaved very badly. Hundreds of words against me, narry a peep about the nasty slime perpetrated by them.
You saw it so you know how low down a 2nd grade BS crack it was. They earned their banishment.
If you are done with it, move on!
I certainly could not blame you, I'm tired of it too.
I do know that every blog I've ever participated on has these controversial moments. It's inevitable when people are polarized, and many people do a good job of talking about "civility" without knowing what it is---on both sides.
Yes, I think I shall move on because this whole controversy is absurd.
If I may, Fred, I don’t think the issue is whether or not you can do what you want on your blog. I think everyone agrees that you can, without a doubt, do what you want on your own blog. I also don't think the issue is whether or not 3rdWay was out of line, because I think we can all agree he went too far. I think from what I have read on this thread is that it seems like some feel there is a distinct selectiveness to what you find offensive. Granted, you did say you do email some of your conservative bloggers behind the scenes if they get out of line, but, the problem is, if you are doing it behind the scenes it appears to those not privy to your behind the scene conversation that you are letting your conservative bloggers get away with being disrespectful all the while taking the bloggers who lean more to the left to task (online) if they respond in kind. It is perceived as being unreasonable and one-sided, and I would think would cause the left leaning bloggers who participate on your blog feel like there isn't a fair debate on the issues, which is the main purpose of your blog. So, maybe, (not to tell you what to do on your blog) you should treat everyone the same (online) when you feel they are stepping over the line, so it doesn't appear like you are being selective. It's just a suggestion. I think it would help.
I appreciate your suggestion, but I feel it best to keep those discussions private whenever possible.
You and I recently had an issue and we kept it between each other and resolved it without airing it in public.
Frankly I think that is the better way of handling those issues.
Think of the workplace, would you rather be taken aside and spoken to privately if there was an issue of concern or to have that issue brought out in front of all of your co-workers?
I always found it much more respectful and productive if those issues were dealt with privately.
Basicly, if Fred made the Left admit when they were lying, the Left would cry foul.
When the Left can't condescend and name call, they cry foul.
When the Left is condescended to or called names, they cry foul in the most foul language.
Fred lets you guys (leftist elitists) get away with a heck of a lot more than us conservatives and yet you act like you are a poor little pathetic poster who is being picked on by a bully. Grow up and either debate in a manner that Fred says is acceptable or take your ball and go home.
David, first, I resent that you automatically assume that I am a leftist or an elitist. Second, I've never had any problems debating in a manner that Fred says is debateable, I've rarely, if ever, even been warned. Third, it is the posters who shell out the fabricated personal attacks and name calling whenever someone who isn't a conservative posts an opinion who need to grow up. Judging from your post's tone, you're not too far from being one of them.
I should add that now the majority of posters are not the types I mentioned above.
Fred, you're right, I don't see the e-mails. I can only go on what I see.
I readily admit that you don't ban for simply disagreement. I just hear announcements about the banning of those who disagree, but I don't remember seeing any for conservative posters - although I will admit there are some obnoxious ones who no longer post here.
Thanks Scott. I could not have proved my theory better than you just did.
Commenting by HaloScan
