Actually.......

I would like a few, er, "other voices" here. You guys who still have CC access oughta invite a few, and they don't have to be gang members only imo.

Anyways it goes, I can say that I am glad to be away from CC. It really had become too much, and the repugs/neos were getting worse ... noticeably so.

imaginethat wrote:I would like a few, er, "other voices" here. You guys who still have CC access oughta invite a few, and they don't have to be gang members only imo.

Anyways it goes, I can say that I am glad to be away from CC. It really had become too much, and the repugs/neos were getting worse ... noticeably so.

And here's something to think about:

How do we keep it from degenerating here? I've got a couple suggestions, but it depends a lot on what we want this forum to be.

I'd like to see the format being such that in the main debate/info area, we are limited to discussions that are on topic with the OP or article. For example, if the article is about monetary policy, the discussion must not be allowed to degenerate into a "Ron Paul is a crank messiah" rant. At the same time, if someone posts a "McCain would have kept us from getting this bad" type of thing, it would be fair game to list reasons why that may or may not be true....but allowing the discussion to turn into another lesson on "lesser of two evilism" would be off topic. (a thread about LOTEism is fine, but we need to keep things on topic.)

I think it can be done with clear rules that are enforced without partiality and clear bias on the part of the mods.

Posts that are not on topic will be cheerfully deleted. Personal attacks will be called out, condemned and then deleted.

Agreement is NOT a good goal for a forum, but vigorous debate is. We had moments of that on the old forum....but then the usual suspects showed up. I think several of us here are mature enough to recognize the difference between a personal attack and a disagreement.

As long as posters understand that personal attacks are not tolerated, I don't think we'll have too much of them.

Pretty good ideas DT.

The old forum had good rules, the original ones I mean, only, they were enforced about like US immigration law. And the new rules read like the PATRIOT Act.

No name-calling, no insults, no preaching .... A BIG PET PEEVE OF MINE, posters speaking for "we," e.g., "We all know that you _______." ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, I can live with most other "violations." Honestly, I don't mind a little free-for-all, such as the best of the Solo-IT battles, and for this reason: Sometimes, defining "civility" is totally subjective, and becomes a "debating tactic." Gag me. If I never saw the word "whining" again, that would be just fine.

I'd also be fine with never seeing the identity of a source being a cited reason to disregard what was said. And, I could do without "Latin phrase criticisms." They don't impress me, at all. English works just fine.

And, on staying on-topic, sometimes, it's fun to watch a thread evolve. Sometimes it's quite natural, and the new direction becomes more interesting than the original topic.

I think this discussion is worth having, and hey everybody, please chime in here.

imaginethat wrote:Pretty good ideas DT.

The old forum had good rules, the original ones I mean, only, they were enforced about like US immigration law. And the new rules read like the PATRIOT Act.

No name-calling, no insults, no preaching .... A BIG PET PEEVE OF MINE, posters speaking for "we," e.g., "We all know that you _______." ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, I can live with most other "violations." Honestly, I don't mind a little free-for-all, such as the best of the Solo-IT battles, and for this reason: Sometimes, defining "civility" is totally subjective, and becomes a "debating tactic." Gag me. If I never saw the word "whining" again, that would be just fine.

I'd also be fine with never seeing the identity of a source being a cited reason to disregard what was said. And, I could do without "Latin phrase criticisms." They don't impress me, at all. English works just fine.

And, on staying on-topic, sometimes, it's fun to watch a thread evolve. Sometimes it's quite natural, and the new direction becomes more interesting than the original topic.

I think this discussion is worth having, and hey everybody, please chime in here.

Civility is actually rather easy to define....but many people have different definitions, especially when they are one of the parties involved in an uncivil matter. If we define it, we need to enforce it. Written rules consistently enforced are never the source of discontent. It's always the unwritten rules that cause the problems.

I've judged many a debate at the highschool level.....my daughter was the state champ and went to nationals. When a team name called (never saw it happen) or attacked the source (saw it happen once) it almost always resulted in their defeat. In other words, if someone doesn't like a source, that's too bad. They need to refute the source, not just insult it.

Mods can enforce that sort of thing by saying, "I'm watching the conversation, and all you're doing is making fun of Alex Jones. That is not a refutation of Doc's premise. If you can't refute the premise then keep silent. We will simply delete your posts if you continue to avoid honest debate."

Same with answering questions. If someone refused to answer a question, their posts should be deleted or modified until they do so. This only has to happen a couple times and people will get the hang of it.

As a libertarian, I'm not against rules......unless they be ill-defined, arbitrary or unfair. A few simple rules, enforced objectively will do wonders.

Sure Doc, civility or the lack thereof can be defined. cjelephant is a good example of the complete absence of civility.

But, I think you can relate to what I said as well. There definitely were times when an out-of-ammo poster used "civility" as a debating tactic.

I understand that you might be a little tender on this subject, because imo you always went out of your way to be civil, and you did not receive the same in return.

Said as simply as I can: If a person is being civil, and some dip claims they are not being civil .... that's what I'm talking about, and it happened ... along with the "Latin phrase criticisms."

imaginethat wrote:Sure Doc, civility or the lack thereof can be defined. cjelephant is a good example of the complete absence of civility.

But, I think you can relate to what I said as well. There definitely were times when an out-of-ammo poster used "civility" as a debating tactic.

I understand that you might be a little tender on this subject, because imo you always went out of your way to be civil, and you did not receive the same in return.

Said as simply as I can: If a person is being civil, and some dip claims they are not being civil .... that's what I'm talking about, and it happened ... along with the "Latin phrase criticisms."

yep. I agree with that.

At this point, I don't have anything "deep" to say right now, but I just gotta say that it's great to have you two back online somewhere again! Hopefully, Annie, Caco, AAA and Swifty can join in on this thread. I will add something that Annie said over at CC a couple of months ago, and what I hope that we don't turn into is, as she said, "a back slapping forum".

I don't know if you two noticed before your departure at CC, but I posted something over on TLS that said basiclly that I was going to slow down my posting over there, as I'm a moderator both here and at another web forum. I didn't give a lot of details, but as I already said on another thread here, I made a general announcement on Facebook abot this place...TWICE.......

...So, if you take into account that thread, and my announcement over at Facebook...I'd say that my days at CC might be numbered. I don't know...we'll have to see how ugly things get over there.

By the way...just before you two got banned...IT...we discussed this one on the phone a few weeks ago, remember?.......

Anyway, this post on CC has yet to be replied to:

****************************************************************

swiftfoxmark2 wrote:

Bhmason wrote:Wait a minute! So there IS a difference between the two parties?
:faint:

Yeah, one sucks, the other blows, and we get caught in the windy middle of all that.

Speaking as a brother in Christ, and ONLY as such...


...ALL political parties are created by man, all eventually will let us down, you have not my words on that but God's word, and you and rely on that, my friends!

When I made the somewhat heart breaking decision to leave the GOP (WHo wouldn't after 27 years involvement?), I at first decided that I was going to join the Constitution Party. To date, I haven't OFFICIALLY joined, but that's where my heart is and where the bulk of my convictions lie right now. But for now, I am just a constitutionaly based independant. Wherever these convictions take me, that is where I vote. I've become more and more convicted that one needs to follow Noah Webster's advice when he said,

"In selecting men for office, [size=200]let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate - look to his character...." [/size]--Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education, 1789

And John Quincy Adams:

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
John Quincy Adams quotes (American 6th US President (1825-29), eldest son of John Adams, 2nd US president. 1767-1848)

And...

“Duty is ours; [size=150]results are God's[/size]”
John Quincy Adams quotes (American 6th US President (1825-29), eldest son of John Adams, 2nd US president. 1767-1848)

If you find a noble character in the Democratic party, vote for him, the same applies for Republican, as well as Constitution and Libertarian parties as well. Noah Webster said it, I say it now, and more importiantly, God says so too:

Proverbs 3:5-6 (King James Version)

5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Matthew 6:28-30; Luke 12:27 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Matthew 6:28-30

28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Romans 4:21
21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform

Ephesians 3:20-21 (New King James Version)
20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

So, are we trusting God, or are we trusting man when we pour all of or energies into one party? If God could vote, would he be a "Lessor of two evils" voter? I don't think so! Something to think about, people!

****************************************************************************

Not one damned reply yet! Surely, I expected Chary or CJ to reply to it, but they didn't.

Maybe they don't have a dog to bring to the fight? Who knows!

Good stuff!
All forums start out as backslappers....then they change. If we get some more members we'll see what happens, eh?

Awesome post, DSM, just awesome. I hope the sentiment, the logic, you expressed becomes a basic tenet of this forum.

The opposite idea is what dominated CovCon, and part of what made it unbearable.....

Well, right after I posted that here, I went over to Coverts and did a "Bump", and about 15 minutes later, StreetSoldier quit masturbating to Mut's picture loing enough to make some lame reply. It was so gawd awful, I won't even repeat it here.

Now, watch that thread get some action. Not the right kind of action, mind you, but all because SS makes a lame remark, the harpies will soon come in and finish it off.