Need help

[jimnyc]

The board is slowly dying. I'll take the blame of course, but the success mostly lies with whether or not the community enjoys it here anymore or whether or not they would like to continue. There are like 10 "senior" members who either left, or come here often and simply don't post. Then we have members who only respond to things, but without new things, they don't follow up post. Then we have no newer members coming in. I'm trying, but not successfully. I have spent $150 in the past month alone on Google Adwords advertising and I don't think we got a single member out of my money. I would also like to get back here some of the members we have all expressed that we missed.

We need new articles/threads. We need a way to spur those visiting into replying to posts instead of just reading. We need a way to increase membership.

[defectiverepresentative]

Hey new member here and I am loving the debates.

Debate is intimidating for most people and because of this it's hard to hold onto new members. Also it seems that most people on this forum lean to the right perhaps because it's easier to attack from the premise that country is everything.

[Drummond]

Hey new member here and I am loving the debates.

Debate is intimidating for most people and because of this it's hard to hold onto new members. Also it seems that most people on this forum lean to the right perhaps because it's easier to attack from the premise that country is everything.

Welcome to the forum !

As to the last sentence of your debating-point .... well, I'm sure that to a Conservative, patriotism has definite meaning. I for one see nothing wrong with that, and where I come from (the UK) we could do with a whole lot more of that spirit.

But I wonder: is what lies behind your remark a proposition that a globalist, rather than a country-proud, mindset is the preferred one to go with ? A scenario where, in the more distant future, Nation States' autonomies are watered down in favour of rather larger power-blocs instead ?

And who would govern such entities .. and who would want to ?

Cue ... just coincidentally ... THE LEFT, by any chance .. ?

Judging from the control-freakery we see from the EU these days (.. which, if you recall, started out as a mere trading confederation !) ... I'd have to say so.

[Drummond]

The board is slowly dying. I'll take the blame of course, but the success mostly lies with whether or not the community enjoys it here anymore or whether or not they would like to continue. There are like 10 "senior" members who either left, or come here often and simply don't post. Then we have members who only respond to things, but without new things, they don't follow up post. Then we have no newer members coming in. I'm trying, but not successfully. I have spent $150 in the past month alone on Google Adwords advertising and I don't think we got a single member out of my money. I would also like to get back here some of the members we have all expressed that we missed.

We need new articles/threads. We need a way to spur those visiting into replying to posts instead of just reading. We need a way to increase membership.

Very sorry to learn of these difficulties ... though I've just replied to a new member on this very thread, which surely is a good sign ?

I for one would be very sorry indeed to see further decline -- I'm happy here !

[defectiverepresentative]

But I wonder: is what lies behind your remark a proposition that a globalist, rather than a country-proud, mindset is the preferred one to go with ? A scenario where, in the more distant future, Nation States' autonomies are watered down in favour of rather larger power-blocs instead ?

And who would govern such entities .. and who would want to ?

Cue ... just coincidentally ... THE LEFT, by any chance .. ?


Haha, nice investigative skills. I do believe that a country-proud mindset may sometimes blind us but that it is necessary to defend our population's interests. It is true that a globalist state decreases the power of individual nations but we're looking to the goal in the distance. Larger power blocs decrease financial burdens and more effectively gaurantee job creation.

Just take your love for country and translate it to love for continent.

[Gaffer]

Global domination is a socialist agenda. Do you really want to give up your rights to a global society DR? Just look at the current corruption in the present administration to get an idea what a global society would be like. Only fools and elitists who think they will be running things want a globalist society.

[aboutime]

Haha, nice investigative skills. I do believe that a country-proud mindset may sometimes blind us but that it is necessary to defend our population's interests. It is true that a globalist state decreases the power of individual nations but we're looking to the goal in the distance. Larger power blocs decrease financial burdens and more effectively gaurantee job creation.

Just take your love for country and translate it to love for continent.


defectiverepresentative. Obviously. You have never participated in serving your COUNTRY.

That's what seems to be wrong with the nation, and now..this Forum. It's always easy for someone to come and pretend to know what is WRONG with everything when...you haven't spent any time personally DEFENDING it, or stealing hours, days, weeks, and months from living with your family to serve your COUNTRY.

Politics, of all forms, from all sides has been permitted to DESTROY everything Most Americans take for granted, and remain apathetic about because...They believe they have nothing to lose.

TRANSLATE THIS. "Do you, or do you not LOVE YOUR COUNTRY?" Not a continent. That sounds more like AL GORE-SPEAK.

[aboutime]

The board is slowly dying. I'll take the blame of course, but the success mostly lies with whether or not the community enjoys it here anymore or whether or not they would like to continue. There are like 10 "senior" members who either left, or come here often and simply don't post. Then we have members who only respond to things, but without new things, they don't follow up post. Then we have no newer members coming in. I'm trying, but not successfully. I have spent $150 in the past month alone on Google Adwords advertising and I don't think we got a single member out of my money. I would also like to get back here some of the members we have all expressed that we missed.

We need new articles/threads. We need a way to spur those visiting into replying to posts instead of just reading. We need a way to increase membership.


Jim. I suspect, the answer to your woes about how this site is not growing as you would like. Seems to be self evident, and nearly self-explained with the SUDDEN, AMAZING, APPEARANCE of a New member....How Ironic?
And, if you read closely what the new member instantly dove into. THEREIN lies the reasoning you are looking for as to WHY so few members hang around here.
Someone must always arrive to SAVE THE DAY...so to speak, as other recent members have tried to do. Only to bring more hate and discontent...driving members away.

I know you will disagree with me. I fully expect that. But, since I was only born YESTERDAY. I am obviously incapable of seeing what is taking place...because I simply can't conform to all of the phoniness around us anymore.

[Drummond]

Haha, nice investigative skills. I do believe that a country-proud mindset may sometimes blind us but that it is necessary to defend our population's interests. It is true that a globalist state decreases the power of individual nations but we're looking to the goal in the distance. Larger power blocs decrease financial burdens and more effectively gaurantee job creation.

Just take your love for country and translate it to love for continent.

Who's 'we're' in your text ? Who are you referring to ?

Questions:

Don't individual nations have the right to be fully autonomous, deciding THEIR direction, THEIR way ?

You say 'larger power blocs decrease financial burdens and more effectively guarantee job creation'. Really ? And what happens when a weaker economy cripples the 'power bloc' by being a large drain on its other members ? Such as ... the EU, and Greece having to be repeatedly bailed out by them ?

They say a chain is as strong as its weakest link. What happens with such an unequal burden where the burden threatens to mire the whole bloc into instability and even poverty ?

.... AND ... what demands does the 'power bloc' make as a price for the bailout ?

NONE of this augurs well for autonomous control, does it, with the stronger 'parent' dictating terms to the weaker social sub-unit. But then, political power-grabs, with nature abhoring a power vacuum, created the political machine of the EU, where only a trading confederation existed before.

Goodbye national identity, and hello political dominion foisted on you by others, courtesy of a form of blackmail. What a 'brave new world' THAT will be ....

[tailfins]

I've been really busy with the Free Justina movement. Would posts from that interest people here?

[defectiverepresentative]

I'm not exactly sure what makes me APPEAR to be an existing member. I don't mean to stir up discontent I just want my liberal views scrutinized by the other side of the aisle. Yes, I have never served my country but it's nearly impossible to not know someone in the military.

Globalization has the possibility of increasing free trade and raising quality of life worldwide. Nation-states that are more interdependent on each other tend to not declare war as often.

As to the user Drummond: "nature abhors a power vacuum" Do you keep a copy of Machiavelli on your nightstand?. The EU isn't truly a power bloc, it's America's little bitch and we all know it. Why do you think Russia can come and go throughout Eastern Europe as they please? They fear no reprecussions.

[gabosaurus]

There are a ton of right-wing message boards out there. Most of them are not doing any better than this one is. I think the art of internet conversation is losing ground to instantaneous communication.

Or it could be that no one else can put up with you loons... :slap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There are a ton of right-wing message boards out there. Most of them are not doing any better than this one is. I think the art of internet conversation is losing ground to instantaneous communication.

Or it could be that no one else can put up with you loons... :slap:

Loons reside on both sides. I have been called one often . Yet to the AMERICA OF THE 50'S I WOULD BE CONSIDERED PERFECTLY SANE BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE!!

So are we now so damn much wiser than they(?) --the ones that DID NOT CRASH THIS NATION !!!! I think not! I know we are not!!!!!
The opposite is true because it was engineered...
We suffer from a globalist agenda that seeks to enslave us and the sheep bleet praise for their coming masters. Those that will surely treat them like vermin to be used up and disposed of like toilet paper.. A fact!

One man's loon is another man's useful goon
Sad so many will find that out very damn soon
Look for the saucer , the gold plate and the silver spoon
When all are stolen you and others will sing another crying little tune..-- :laugh:-Tyr

[SassyLady]

Jim,

I can't speak for any of the other "senior" members ..... for me it seems there are more personal attacks than actually discussing the subject. I remember when the majority of a post was refuting the facts and a small portion would be dedicated to getting a left hook in once in a while. Now it seems that this place has turned into one continuous free-for-all. I see a subject that sounds interesting enough and I think I'd like to respond. However, by the time I've read two or three posts it's no longer about the subject it's about the posters and not the subject.

Here's a thought on something that might generate some interest (or get us senior members to participate more). Take one thread (a short one that is from a few years ago so no one feels they are being picked on). Pick out a couple of the posts in the thread and members can "rewrite" the post to reflect no personal attacks.

I randomly picked post 501 in the Political Forum:


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?15506-fundamental-choices

Wow, I was looking for a thread with posts of people attacking each other, but lo and behold .... I believe it to be a good example of debating a POV without personal attacks. Read it and see if you can see the difference with that thread and the majority of threads you find here today.

Anyway, just some thoughts on the subject, Jim. You and I have had conversations in the past about the differences from then and now.

[jimnyc]

Jim,

I can't speak for any of the other "senior" members ..... for me it seems there are more personal attacks than actually discussing the subject. I remember when the majority of a post was refuting the facts and a small portion would be dedicated to getting a left hook in once in a while. Now it seems that this place has turned into one continuous free-for-all. I see a subject that sounds interesting enough and I think I'd like to respond. However, by the time I've read two or three posts it's no longer about the subject it's about the posters and not the subject.

Here's a thought on something that might generate some interest (or get us senior members to participate more). Take one thread (a short one that is from a few years ago so no one feels they are being picked on). Pick out a couple of the posts in the thread and members can "rewrite" the post to reflect no personal attacks.

I randomly picked post 501 in the Political Forum:


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?15506-fundamental-choices

Wow, I was looking for a thread with posts of people attacking each other, but lo and behold .... I believe it to be a good example of debating a POV without personal attacks. Read it and see if you can see the difference with that thread and the majority of threads you find here today.

Anyway, just some thoughts on the subject, Jim. You and I have had conversations in the past about the differences from then and now.

This one post alone says it all. The depth, the length and the concern for wanting to debate and discuss things. I hope people will see that the animosity is about to kill this place. Cool to see AFbombloader, Sitarro and Jeff again, even if they aren't here! :)

We could also try to do them again, or even go back to the beginning of certain forums, find old threads like this and see if anything has changed since then and perhaps continue a thread?

[Drummond]

I asked you previously ....


Who's 'we're' in your text ? Who are you referring to ?... and I've not seen any answer to that. Oh, well - no matter.


Globalization has the possibility of increasing free trade and raising quality of life worldwide. Nation-states that are more interdependent on each other tend to not declare war as often.

I gave you the example of Greece being a drain on EU funds, having already had multiple bailouts. The fact is that poorer economies can be a drain on more prosperous ones, thereby (except for the very worst off, I suppose) making most people, and nations involved, suffer gratuitous impoverishment in a very avoidable way.

But then, that's the way with economies run along Left-wing lines. Those running them seem to be all about spreading a uniform extent of misery around, and stamping on profit-making.

'Nice', eh ?


As to the user Drummond: "nature abhors a power vacuum" Do you keep a copy of Machiavelli on your nightstand?.

Nope. But thanks for the thought ...


The EU isn't truly a power bloc

... a joke, surely ?? It becomes ever-more a dictatorial power-wielder from one week to the next !! These days, we in the UK are actually being dictated to by Brussels. Their requirement that we give prisoners the vote, for example. Their attempts to levy swingeing fines on public bodies in the UK when public buildings fail to fly the EU flag !!!

And their outlawing of non-regulation bananas because there was too much of a 'bend' in their shape .. !!! ... is legendary ...

The EU started out as 'EFTA', or 'European Free Trade Association' ... NOTHING was wrong with that idea AT ALL. These days, though, we have the European Court of Human Rights .. well known over here for being soft on foreign criminals and even terrorists, because incarceration 'might rob them of their rights to a family life' ... !!! .... and, of course, the European Parliament, busily dreaming up edicts and laws designed to override national ones held by their Member States.

But then, I'm sure you'd approve of all that rubbish. Yes ?

What do you think of this piece of EU lunacy ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/7969335/Fake-goods-are-fine-says-EU-study.html


A new European Union-funded report has declared that buying designer goods can benefit consumers and the companies whose brands are being ripped off.

They are an impulse holiday purchase that many buyers later have second thoughts about – the fake Louis Vuitton bags and Rolex watches picked up for a song abroad.

While shoppers are happy with the price, there are often nagging doubts about the items' quality, their legality and who ends up profiting.

However, such worries are, it seems, over. A new EU-funded report has declared that it is OK to buy fake designer goods.

The study, co-written by a Home Office adviser, says consumers benefit from the market for knock-off designer clothes at knock-down prices.

It also rejects the complaints of designer companies, claiming that losses to the industry as a result of counterfeiting are vastly exaggerated – because most of those who buy fakes would never pay for the real thing – and finding that the rip-off goods can actually promote their brands.

The report adds that the police should not waste their time trying to stop the bootleggers.

It disputes claims that the counterfeiting of luxury brands is funding terrorism and organised crime, and argues there is little public appetite for tough law enforcement measures as consumers enjoy the bargains offered by the illegal trade, which has been estimated to be worth £1.3 billion in the UK.

Fascinating, eh ? There, we have the EU recommending that lawlessness, running counter to UK law, is permissible !! How's that for power-mania taken to extremes ?

Believe me, there are other examples out there of cloud-cuckooland diktats dreamed up by EU bureaucracy.


[The EU] .. it's America's little bitch and we all know it.

I know nothing of the kind. OK, you might have a point of sorts if you factor in American dominance of NATO. Possibly. But in other areas ... what cooperation the EU gives America is its own decision. EU legislators are way too arrogant to stand for American dominion over them.

Care to advance an argument showing me I'm wrong ?


Why do you think Russia can come and go throughout Eastern Europe as they please? They fear no reprecussions.

Russia has the arrogance it has, and the will to back it up, because it knows that much of Europe is dependent on it for its energy needs -- especially Germany, I understand. It has nothing to do with being anyone's 'bitch', but everything to do with energy practicality.

[NightTrain]

Jim, I would say that this board (and probably every political board) is cyclical, in that there is more interest by the general public in these political debates in the run-up to a Presidential election. People that frequent political boards year round have a higher-than-average interest in politics.

Then there are the social media site giants, like Facebook, where the debates rage - they siphon off traffic that would otherwise come here or a similar board.

Finally, there's the comments sections of news articles where people slug it out, even though it's difficult to keep track of an argument because of the format. That still doesn't deter the vast amount of people wanting to get in their $0.02.

I don't know how to boost traffic. I don't even know if paying Google is effective, probably because the adblock software is so effective and prevalent with all internet-savvy users.

I think the best bet is word-of-mouth.

[gabosaurus]

This one post alone says it all. The depth, the length and the concern for wanting to debate and discuss things. I hope people will see that the animosity is about to kill this place. Cool to see AFbombloader, Sitarro and Jeff again, even if they aren't here! :)


Political debate produces, even encourages, animosity. Heated debate can productive until it becomes personal. Then it becomes counterproductive.
The real problem comes when people start taking what it said too seriously and get overly butthurt about it. Then normally rational people turn into idiots and start accusing others of "trolling" and questioning their parentage. When the correct response is to ignore it and go on.

Which brings us to the ultimate solution -- find those who create the animosity and kill them. :soldier99:

[aboutime]

Political debate produces, even encourages, animosity. Heated debate can productive until it becomes personal. Then it becomes counterproductive.
The real problem comes when people start taking what it said too seriously and get overly butthurt about it. Then normally rational people turn into idiots and start accusing others of "trolling" and questioning their parentage. When the correct response is to ignore it and go on.

Which brings us to the ultimate solution -- find those who create the animosity and kill them. :soldier99:


AND...as you do that. Be sure to eliminate the 1ST Amendment gabby.

[tailfins]

If you owned an artwork stand and there were no customers on a given day, would you say your stand is "dying"? DP is not perishable merchandise. You are letting a few slow days bother you. That's unnecessary.

[Abbey Marie]

Sassy, your random thread happened to bring back memories of some awesome folks that I miss. I think it really made your point.

[DragonStryk72]

The board is slowly dying. I'll take the blame of course, but the success mostly lies with whether or not the community enjoys it here anymore or whether or not they would like to continue. There are like 10 "senior" members who either left, or come here often and simply don't post. Then we have members who only respond to things, but without new things, they don't follow up post. Then we have no newer members coming in. I'm trying, but not successfully. I have spent $150 in the past month alone on Google Adwords advertising and I don't think we got a single member out of my money. I would also like to get back here some of the members we have all expressed that we missed.

We need new articles/threads. We need a way to spur those visiting into replying to posts instead of just reading. We need a way to increase membership.

Well, really, it isn't so much the articles. It's more the fact that we've lost most, if not all, of the board's liberals. I mean, it's debate site, but it's not really a debate if we essentially agree with one another, right? Of those we have, Gabs doesn't even really try, and any time Jafar posts, it becomes about him being Muslim.

We need people on the opposition to talk with, but at the same time, it can't just be them constantly getting beaten down verbally. I want the board to continue to survive, but really, there are threads that I don't even bother with, because I know nothing useful is coming out of it, or I just don't have any input to add because it's already been covered, and there's no dissenting opinion.

I mean, hell, the whole thing with FJ was a huge thing. He actually posted some legitimate debates, and it just became Drummond hammering him without halt about Margaret Thatcher, and then he tracked it into every thread like it, until we got to a point where Gabs firebombed it with trying to troll the living hell out of the conservatives with her "debate".

You want more people, you've got to start looking at the people who disagree with you, Jim. We have more than enough conservatives, but we need liberals in order to have any effective debate.

[gabosaurus]

You want more people, you've got to start looking at the people who disagree with you, Jim. We have more than enough conservatives, but we need liberals in order to have any effective debate.

You aren't going to attract liberals by attacking them en masse for daring to express an alternate opinion. That is not the purpose of debate.

[DragonStryk72]

You aren't going to attract liberals by attacking them en masse for daring to express an alternate opinion. That is not the purpose of debate.

And that was my point. You don't precisely help matters, though. A lot of times, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I disagree to hell and gone with how you post. Yeah, I get it, other people act like assholes, but just like you would say to your students, their behavior does not necessitate your bad behavior. Again, I'll use the debate topics FJ was posting. He eventually would've gotten around to Conservatism, except you decided that we were "attacking" Progressivism and Liberalism (we weren't), and took a swipe at the entire board. The things is, though, me and FJ were actually having a really in-depth discussion about Progressivism and Liberalism, even outlining the good points of each, alongside the bad. You could've joined in on that debate, but instead, you chose to burn it down.

Believe it or not, you actually hurt your own side of the argument most of the time, because of the manner in which you attack. This isn't a matter of being a skilled debater or not, it's a matter of not just a soundbite drive-by, and lobbing a personal attack, or an attack against a whole group.

For instance, you and I both agree on gay marriage, but I sure as hell don't want you on my side of the debate, because I know it's just going to get into just shy of an all-out flame-war. I'm not saying don't post, but you've gotta start posting more reasonably if you want to get out of the cycle. You can have your personal opinion, and still present it in a respectful manner. Let the assholes be assholes, and just keep posing reasonable responses. At the least, you'll be able to walk away with an extra measure of dignity for point that you didn't descend to their level.

Yeah, I've gone at Tyr, and Drummond at various points for the attacking style of their posts, so don't even act like I haven't said boo to the conservatives around here. I have, but it doesn't help me to back you up, if you then turn around and start a fight two minutes later in another thread, which you have done, by the way.

[Abbey Marie]

And that was my point. You don't precisely help matters, though. A lot of times, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I disagree to hell and gone with how you post. Yeah, I get it, other people act like assholes, but just like you would say to your students, their behavior does not necessitate your bad behavior. Again, I'll use the debate topics FJ was posting. He eventually would've gotten around to Conservatism, except you decided that we were "attacking" Progressivism and Liberalism (we weren't), and took a swipe at the entire board. The things is, though, me and FJ were actually having a really in-depth discussion about Progressivism and Liberalism, even outlining the good points of each, alongside the bad. You could've joined in on that debate, but instead, you chose to burn it down.

Believe it or not, you actually hurt your own side of the argument most of the time, because of the manner in which you attack. This isn't a matter of being a skilled debater or not, it's a matter of not just a soundbite drive-by, and lobbing a personal attack, or an attack against a whole group.

For instance, you and I both agree on gay marriage, but I sure as hell don't want you on my side of the debate, because I know it's just going to get into just shy of an all-out flame-war. I'm not saying don't post, but you've gotta start posting more reasonably if you want to get out of the cycle. You can have your personal opinion, and still present it in a respectful manner. Let the assholes be assholes, and just keep posing reasonable responses. At the least, you'll be able to walk away with an extra measure of dignity for point that you didn't descend to their level.

Yeah, I've gone at Tyr, and Drummond at various points for the attacking style of their posts, so don't even act like I haven't said boo to the conservatives around here. I have, but it doesn't help me to back you up, if you then turn around and start a fight two minutes later in another thread, which you have done, by the way.

Not directed at you, DS, but the bolded is precisely why I don't like it when people here single out Gabby. Which they do. Often.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am active on 3 other sites. They all are very, very slow and have been for well over a month!
Could be the final release from al the bad weather and people are just out enjoying life.
However its so very true this site needs more dem/libs to balance out and stir debate, conversation and offer variety.
It has enough solid right wingers. It just needs some strong people that are blindly misguided enough to defend liberalism, dem party and that disaster named Obama!

How to get them I haven't a clue. --Tyr

[jimnyc]

Not directed at you, DS, but the bolded is precisely why I don't like it when people here single out Gabby. Which they do. Often.

I think it was Darin or NT who did a fine collection for us in the past. And while no doubt Gabby has been given her share of nastiness, the majority of times she shows up in a thread out of nowhere and immediately tries to troll and pisses people off into responding, and yep, they often respond like assholes. She trolls more than she gets hit for no reason, no doubt about that. And worse off when she admits freely that she often comes here just to piss people off. Guaranteed that if she tried to post without the trolling, after awhile she would no longer get jumped on as she does now.

I believe we get what we give. That's why some members never get crap tossed in their direction, because they never do it to anyone either.

[jimnyc]

And that was my point. You don't precisely help matters, though. A lot of times, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I disagree to hell and gone with how you post. Yeah, I get it, other people act like assholes, but just like you would say to your students, their behavior does not necessitate your bad behavior. Again, I'll use the debate topics FJ was posting. He eventually would've gotten around to Conservatism, except you decided that we were "attacking" Progressivism and Liberalism (we weren't), and took a swipe at the entire board. The things is, though, me and FJ were actually having a really in-depth discussion about Progressivism and Liberalism, even outlining the good points of each, alongside the bad. You could've joined in on that debate, but instead, you chose to burn it down.

Believe it or not, you actually hurt your own side of the argument most of the time, because of the manner in which you attack. This isn't a matter of being a skilled debater or not, it's a matter of not just a soundbite drive-by, and lobbing a personal attack, or an attack against a whole group.

For instance, you and I both agree on gay marriage, but I sure as hell don't want you on my side of the debate, because I know it's just going to get into just shy of an all-out flame-war. I'm not saying don't post, but you've gotta start posting more reasonably if you want to get out of the cycle. You can have your personal opinion, and still present it in a respectful manner. Let the assholes be assholes, and just keep posing reasonable responses. At the least, you'll be able to walk away with an extra measure of dignity for point that you didn't descend to their level.

Yeah, I've gone at Tyr, and Drummond at various points for the attacking style of their posts, so don't even act like I haven't said boo to the conservatives around here. I have, but it doesn't help me to back you up, if you then turn around and start a fight two minutes later in another thread, which you have done, by the way.

Very well said.

[Abbey Marie]

I think it was Darin or NT who did a fine collection for us in the past. And while no doubt Gabby has been given her share of nastiness, the majority of times she shows up in a thread out of nowhere and immediately tries to troll and pisses people off into responding, and yep, they often respond like assholes. She trolls more than she gets hit for no reason, no doubt about that. And worse off when she admits freely that she often comes here just to piss people off. Guaranteed that if she tried to post without the trolling, after awhile she would no longer get jumped on as she does now.

I believe we get what we give. That's why some members never get crap tossed in their direction, because they never do it to anyone either.

No doubt Gabby likes to toss a firebomb regularly. (And I know that you have defended her in the past). That is not my style, but if I was just about the only Conservative on a board of liberals, who knows how I'd act? Frankly, I give her credit for showing up.

Then there's the fact that when she does post "nicely", she gets attacked immediately. She cannot even post about her daughter's success in school without people responding offensively. How can we expect her to be more polite, if we, the majority, cannot even manage that? To your point, we get what we give.

In any event, I am continually surprised that people expect someone whose viewpoints differ dramatically from a debate board's majority, to be nicer in the first place. It's politics, one of the two topics we were taught not to discuss if we wanted a pleasant get-together. :cool:

[jimnyc]

Then there's the fact that when she does post "nicely", she gets attacked immediately. She cannot even post about her daughter's success in school without people responding offensively. How can we expect her to be more polite, if we, the majority, cannot even manage that? To your point, we get what we give.

I started very first in that thread. I gave her a million chances to not troll and she insisted on pushing back as much as possible. It's difficult for me to respond kindly in an incident like that. How someone could trash 98% of the board, and then expect a positive response in bragging, is beyond me.

I think I'll just shut up, there was less confrontation that way. I was dumb to starting to reply to her again. :)

[tailfins]

How to get them I haven't a clue. --Tyr


Offer free stuff.

[logroller]

Offer free stuff.
Free membership isn't enough?

[tailfins]

Free membership isn't enough?

Free cheese.

[jimnyc]

Free cheese.

And a van down by the river?

[Drummond]

Yeah, I've gone at Tyr, and Drummond at various points for the attacking style of their posts, so don't even act like I haven't said boo to the conservatives around here.

That you have ...

Answering your other post mentioning my posting to FJ ... I'm not at all sure that this should go unanswered. So here's my comment ...

Do you acknowledge that the 'attacking' style isn't one-sided ?

I'm a believer, you see, in fair and honest debate. This means a couple of things within the context I'm addressing here -- one, that the people debating should represent themselves, and their views, in an honest, straightforward fashion. And it also means that gimmickry point-scoring has little if any place in the debating process.

Ask yourself whether I go in for 'quoting' other peoples' posts where the supposed 'quote' is really a rewrite of that post !!

Also ask yourself whether I misrepresent what I say I believe in, and support. And whether I supply frequent proof that this is so, inviting appropriate comment.

Ask yourself whether I've EVER indulged in requoting where the quoted text is 'crossed out'.

I do none of this, because fair and honest debating rules out ALL of this. But ... can the same be said for my opposition ?

[fj1200]

We need people on the opposition to talk with, but at the same time, it can't just be them constantly getting beaten down verbally.

Yup, it shouldn't be hard to have a debate about ideas without trying to make it about the person.

[fj1200]

... but if I was just about the only Conservative on a board of liberals, who knows how I'd act? Frankly, I give her credit for showing up.

You have to be better than the majority otherwise you give them ammunition and de facto permission to open up on you.

[fj1200]

I do none of this...

Oh geez, I never knew the Brits could whine this much. Let me know the next time you can have a discussion without bringing up your "leftie" and "Thatcherite" crutches.

[Trigg]

No doubt Gabby likes to toss a firebomb regularly. (And I know that you have defended her in the past). That is not my style, but if I was just about the only Conservative on a board of liberals, who knows how I'd act? Frankly, I give her credit for showing up.

Then there's the fact that when she does post "nicely", she gets attacked immediately. She cannot even post about her daughter's success in school without people responding offensively. How can we expect her to be more polite, if we, the majority, cannot even manage that? To your point, we get what we give.

In any event, I am continually surprised that people expect someone whose viewpoints differ dramatically from a debate board's majority, to be nicer in the first place. It's politics, one of the two topics we were taught not to discuss if we wanted a pleasant get-together. :cool:


I can agree with you mostly. Gabby does get attacked with no provocation when she posts personal threads.

Having said that though, she brings a lot of it on herself by not bothering to have conversations and instead throwing out one liners and insults during political discussions.

Noir (who's been MIA recently) is well respected on the board precisely because he keeps his head and doesn't insult people. He beats them with facts and thinking outside of the box.

[DragonStryk72]

Not directed at you, DS, but the bolded is precisely why I don't like it when people here single out Gabby. Which they do. Often.

Hence my later mention of Tyr and Drummond, both of whom I've gone at for stuff.

[DragonStryk72]

That you have ...

Answering your other post mentioning my posting to FJ ... I'm not at all sure that this should go unanswered. So here's my comment ...

Do you acknowledge that the 'attacking' style isn't one-sided ?

I'm a believer, you see, in fair and honest debate. This means a couple of things within the context I'm addressing here -- one, that the people debating should represent themselves, and their views, in an honest, straightforward fashion. And it also means that gimmickry point-scoring has little if any place in the debating process.

Ask yourself whether I go in for 'quoting' other peoples' posts where the supposed 'quote' is really a rewrite of that post !!

Also ask yourself whether I misrepresent what I say I believe in, and support. And whether I supply frequent proof that this is so, inviting appropriate comment.

Ask yourself whether I've EVER indulged in requoting where the quoted text is 'crossed out'.

I do none of this, because fair and honest debating rules out ALL of this. But ... can the same be said for my opposition ?

Those specific things? Probably not, but I've already had this argument with you, and those weren't the problems I was having. Hijacking threads so that they can devolve into you trying to troll FJ into the ground is absolutely no better. Attacking is attacking is attacking, and no, it doesn't matter who starts it, because we're all adults here, and can mitigate our vitriol thanks to the point that we are typing, and not actually speaking.

[KitchenKitten99]

I have to admit I don't come here as often as I would like. Part of that, as others have mentioned, is Facebook. Since my businesses and friends (most of whom I have met in person) are in that one place, and I am friends with several liberals, it offers a variety of debate opportunities and places to vent my frustration. Before Facebook was something I was on, I was here and on a couple other boards as well for the ability to communicate and debate with others outside my regional area. Many of you I consider much like an extended family, though I have not met any one of you in person. However like my actual relatives, my communications are few and far between only because I just don't like 'small talk' and repetitive conversations.

That and Facebook is about as instant-feedback as you can get, getting conversation and post updates quicker. To come here, I either have to use my laptop or I have to use my phone's browser and log in if I am mobile, which I am most of the time. Now that I have the farm and a few boarders in my pastures, I sit down to a computer only a handful of times per week. Which is how I prefer to visit this site since I hate touch screen typing and the voice-to-text feature isn't foolproof.

Right now things are slow in the political arena and there isn't much going on aside from the usual BS from the DFL and Rhino-GOP (YAWN!!!). Mid-term elections are coming up and as things get closer, I will probably spend a little more time here. Right now warmer weather (well, warmer enough to not snow) is here, my husband is learning to ride, I am trying to build my boarder clientele, start the 501c3 portion of my stables (equine assisted therapy for military vets and their families) and I will be spending very little time on my laptop other than to work on the non-profit, enter business data into Quickbooks and do books for our now 3 small businesses, one that has payroll. All that on top of being a mom to my kids.

Keep in mind, thing are slow *everywhere*. Our shop sales are slow, the bars and restaurants near me are down in sales. With nice weather recently, no one wants to be inside, staring at a screen when that was pretty much all they could do all winter.

On that note, I do know that of everyone here that I have 'known' for what...10 years? I joined USMessageBoard in 2004 I think. If something were to happen to this board, I'd like to remain in contact. I just realized I am only friends with one person from here on FB, and that's Avatar4321 (Neil).

PM me if you'd like to connect via FB.

[Abbey Marie]

I am the opposite. Because my FB is filled with diverse people from my life (friends, family, colleagues) I try to keep it friendly there. I use DP for expressing my political viewpoints. I don't want to alienate people I actually have to see.

[NightTrain]

I am the opposite. Because my FB is filled with diverse people from my life (friends, family, colleagues) I try to keep it friendly there. I use DP for expressing my political viewpoints. I don't want to alienate people I actually have to see.

Most of my friends have similar viewpoints as I do, but every now and then someone will post something on FB that really fires me up and I can't resist... usually that something is a deliberate smear or an article that's an outright lie and I can't allow it to go unanswered.

But you're absolutely right, the fastest way to alienate someone is to argue either politics or religion, as the old saying goes.

[Drummond]

This is amusing !

Post #36 of this thread .. and it contains this comment:


Yup, it shouldn't be hard to have a debate about ideas without trying to make it about the person.

... and, not many minutes later, I see this added ...


Oh geez, I never knew the Brits could whine this much. Let me know the next time you can have a discussion without bringing up your "leftie" and "Thatcherite" crutches.

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture ? :rolleyes::rolleyes::laugh:

Since you saw fit to add that personalised comment about me, FJ, I'm happy to answer. Simply ... when you stop posting as a 'Leftie' would, I'll have no reason to remark on it. Will I ?

As for what you call 'Thatcherite crutches' ... have you checked out what YOU make sure gets added to every one of your posts ?? Can you tell me that they've been devoid of references to Lady Thatcher .. or, contain incessant reminders of her ?

Have a nice day, FJ .....

[KitchenKitten99]

I am the opposite. Because my FB is filled with diverse people from my life (friends, family, colleagues) I try to keep it friendly there. I use DP for expressing my political viewpoints. I don't want to alienate people I actually have to see.


I have plenty of family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and classmates of all levels and backgrounds on my list. The ones I debate with are all under the 'debate, but agree to disagree' and 'no personal attacks' mindset. We keep it light and don't get into everything too deeply but enjoy the sparring once in a while.

[Drummond]

Those specific things? Probably not, but I've already had this argument with you, and those weren't the problems I was having. Hijacking threads so that they can devolve into you trying to troll FJ into the ground is absolutely no better. Attacking is attacking is attacking, and no, it doesn't matter who starts it, because we're all adults here, and can mitigate our vitriol thanks to the point that we are typing, and not actually speaking.

I think you'll find that 'trolling' is more the province of FJ than myself. You yourself acknowledge that 'those specific things', 'probably' can't be directed as criticisms of my own conduct. Which is all well and good.

I definitely don't go in for gimmicks. I neither have the need for them, nor see them as worthwhile.

I note you state 'and no, it doesn't matter who starts it' .. taken to mean that you see no point in apportioning blame. Again, fair enough, I suppose. Still, we each of us hold responsibility for what we post. And for lessons needing to be learned, if any.

I will say this, as reiteration: honest representation in debate is important. I have always represented my views honestly ... 'what you see is what you get'. I see nothing wrong with expecting just such a standard from anyone else I debate with.

[fj1200]

This is amusing !

Incorrect. Your whining is not amusing and neither is a crutch. And I'm sorry that you're offended by my admiration for Mags.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hence my later mention of Tyr and Drummond, both of whom I've gone at for stuff.

Have at me anytime you like. I do not now nor have I ever trolled here or anywhere else for that matter. When a grizzly attacks a person do not fault the victim for defending ..
As to my attacking an evil that's another matter. Defense of evil can not ever be right. Just sayin'.

And my great friend Drummond does not troll! To accuse that is an absurd folly surely beneath your abilities IMHO..-Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

I think you'll find that 'trolling' is more the province of FJ than myself. You yourself acknowledge that 'those specific things', 'probably' can't be directed as criticisms of my own conduct. Which is all well and good.

I definitely don't go in for gimmicks. I neither have the need for them, nor see them as worthwhile.

I note you state 'and no, it doesn't matter who starts it' .. taken to mean that you see no point in apportioning blame. Again, fair enough, I suppose. Still, we each of us hold responsibility for what we post. And for lessons needing to be learned, if any.

I will say this, as reiteration: honest representation in debate is important. I have always represented my views honestly ... 'what you see is what you get'. I see nothing wrong with expecting just such a standard from anyone else I debate with.

No the trolling isn't apportioned more to FJ than you. You went at him about the whole Thatcher thing, by your own words you decided he didn't actual believe in the message of Margaret Thatcher, and that he was really a Progressive Liberal, making yourself the sole gatekeeper of who believed in Thatcher's general message, and yeah, he then started taking a swipe back at you.

Instead of seeing someone who could be a potential ally, you turned it into a war that hijacked multiple threads, your own personal witch-hunt, and that was your choice. No one made you started doing it in every other thread he posted in, and if you really had a problem, you could've PMed him directly to settle the matter, but that's not what you wanted, was it? It wasn't about settling anything, it was about forcing him to tap out in front of others so you could hold it over him.

Yeah, honesty is important, but not being a judgmental dick who browbeats others is also important. People are unlikely to stick around if they see someone hunting after someone between a bunch of threads to keep going after them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hey new member here and I am loving the debates.

Debate is intimidating for most people and because of this it's hard to hold onto new members. Also it seems that most people on this forum lean to the right perhaps because it's easier to attack from the premise that country is everything.

Welcome to the forum... enjoy but be forewarned we have bushwhackers lurking here in the shadows..-:laugh::laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No the trolling isn't apportioned more to FJ than you. You went at him about the whole Thatcher thing, by your own words you decided he didn't actual believe in the message of Margaret Thatcher, and that he was really a Progressive Liberal, making yourself the sole gatekeeper of who believed in Thatcher's general message, and yeah, he then started taking a swipe back at you.

Instead of seeing someone who could be a potential ally, you turned it into a war that hijacked multiple threads, your own personal witch-hunt, and that was your choice. No one made you started doing it in every other thread he posted in, and if you really had a problem, you could've PMed him directly to settle the matter, but that's not what you wanted, was it? It wasn't about settling anything, it was about forcing him to tap out in front of others so you could hold it over him.

Yeah, honesty is important, but not being a judgmental dick who browbeats others is also important. People are unlikely to stick around if they see someone hunting after someone between a bunch of threads to keep going after them.
All very interesting suppositions while you ignore that fj never once ever showed a ounce of interest in Thatcher until he saw Drummond was a huge fan of Thatcher. Then he added that Thatcher line in his quote and the ball started rolling from there.

It doesn't work to tell a victim that he/she should not respond when attacked.. And to do so by telling the first accosted party how wrong they are is folly IMHO.
Blaming a lion for the thorn in it's side does nothing to solve the pain/problem IMHO.
They do not like each other which is a common occurrence at political sites. And its not a one way street either.
Drummond posts long , very detailed and linked/sourced posts in his defense of his views during what you called trolling. Trolls do not do that.. An honest debater does, an angry honest debater does.
Takes two to tango amigo.. --Tyr

[logroller]

Hey jim, you get that help you needed? Seems to me like more of the same.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hey jim, you get that help you needed? Seems to me like more of the same.

And your quote changes that how?
If this place needs more left side members how does your comment bring them here?
Also since most political boards are very, very slow now your "astute observation" seems like more of the same complaining that hasn't increased either activity or membership.

[logroller]

And your quote changes that how?
If this place needs more left side members how does your comment bring them here?
Also since most political boards are very, very slow now your "astute observation" seems like more of the same complaining that hasn't increased either activity or membership.
It may not help, but it certainly doesn't hurt or cause others to feel unwelcome. So far as how my comments "seem" to you, I don't recall asking, but thanks nonetheless for the condescending insult. Has it ever occurred to you that you're actions may have an adverse on this board?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It may not help, but it certainly doesn't hurt or cause others to feel unwelcome. So far as how my comments "seem" to you, I don't recall asking, but thanks nonetheless for the condescending insult. Has it ever occurred to you that you're actions may have an adverse on this board?

Really?
Certainly never thought myself that important in the scheme of things but if you marvel at my abilities it must surely be so, huh?
I mean Germany had it's Jews to be slaughtered and the promises that would solve it's problem.
Every problem can easily be solved by sacrificing a scapegoat!
I think your bias is showing and its a bit ugly amigo.

Is this going to evolve again into that old accusation that the new members destroyed this board?
Because if it is then what the hell does that say to --new members coming in--, that most agree is so needed?
Or do you think the bad piece of work I am should just leave for the greater good?
What would that say about the members here if my three years here were to blame(for slow down) when I was active at my previous board for 5 solid years with absolutely no negative results ??
In fact, I still return there to post although sparingly. Certainly was not banned/ran away from that board which is by the way much,much larger than here and very much slower now!

I believe the charge you just leveled at me has been cast before more than once(you did it before) and Jim shot it down. Even told me to ignore the hell out of it.
However, if it milks your cookie carry on Hoss. I've been attacked by bigger, smarter and braver than you all my life.
Being "obedient to a message of truth" always brings such attacks. I never run from them and welcome the chance to point to what is always behind them.
Last time that was shot at me while Jim was away also.
What an Amazing repeat, eh?

Carry on Hoss, the weakness you reveal is your own!
I marvel that after the last few times you still try the same tactic!

Me the problem... --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It may not help, but it certainly doesn't hurt or cause others to feel unwelcome. So far as how my comments "seem" to you, I don't recall asking, but thanks nonetheless for the condescending insult. Has it ever occurred to you that you're actions may have an adverse on this board?


So far as how my comments "seem" to you, I don't recall asking, but thanks nonetheless for the condescending insult.

I never knew comments posted needed a request to be replied to!
Perhaps therein lies part of the problem.
Are is it only your comments that are above reproach???

Jim clearly put Abbey in charge while he is away. Should she ask me to leave I'll go and not look back.
Otherwise you can shove it pedro.. -Tyr

[aboutime]

I never knew comments posted needed a request to be replied to!
Perhaps therein lies part of the problem.
Are is it only your comments that are above reproach???

Jim clearly put Abbey in charge while he is away. Should she ask me to leave I'll go and not look back.
Otherwise you can shove it pedro.. -Tyr



Tyr. Seems like that old expression about "When the cat's away...mice will play" has some meaning.
Wonder if Jim ever intended for any of us to ASK Permission for Anything relevant to posting?

[logroller]

Really?
Certainly never thought myself that important in the scheme of things but if you marvel at my abilities it must surely be so, huh?
I mean Germany had it's Jews to be slaughtered and the promises that would solve it's problem.
Every problem can easily be solved by sacrificing a scapegoat!
I think your bias is showing and its a bit ugly amigo.

Is this going to evolve again into that old accusation that the new members destroyed this board?
Because if it is then what the hell does that say to --new members coming in--, that most agree is so needed?
Or do you think the bad piece of work I am should just leave for the greater good?
What would that say about the members here if my three years here were to blame(for slow down) when I was active at my previous board for 5 solid years with absolutely no negative results ??
In fact, I still return there to post although sparingly. Certainly was not banned/ran away from that board which is by the way much,much larger than here and very much slower now!

I believe the charge you just leveled at me has been cast before more than once(you did it before) and Jim shot it down. Even told me to ignore the hell out of it.
However, if it milks your cookie carry on Hoss. I've been attacked by bigger, smarter and braver than you all my life.
Being "obedient to a message of truth" always brings such attacks. I never run from them and welcome the chance to point to what is always behind them.
Last time that was shot at me while Jim was away also.
What an Amazing repeat, eh?

Carry on Hoss, the weakness you reveal is your own!
I marvel that after the last few times you still try the same tactic!

Me the problem... --Tyr

I never knew comments posted needed a request to be replied to!
Perhaps therein lies part of the problem.
Are is it only your comments that are above reproach???


Jim clearly put Abbey in charge while he is away. Should she ask me to leave I'll go and not look back.
Otherwise you can shove it pedro.. -Tyr
All that for simply asking you a question when a simple yes or no would have sufficed. Your extroversion isn't all that problematic but perhaps you should look into glue for that chip on your shoulder. I think that might solve the problem.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

All that for simply asking you a question when a simple yes or no would have sufficed. Your extroversion isn't all that problematic but perhaps you should look into glue for that chip on your shoulder. I think that might solve the problem.

Maybe so but a past history between you and I gave cause for me to reflect more deeply when replying.
No chip amigo just quick on the blade. A habit that I have and one that has saved me often!
Usually I give simple yes or no to simple comments, accusations made without true foundation aren't simple in my book. May be in yours but that's yours to deal with.
To be frank about it I was mildly amused but knew it deserved a serious reply.
You got one and it was a measure of respect that I even gave it! -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

From my thread in the lounge...


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45531-Dang-Rev-When-are-you-coming-back!




Default Dang, Rev.. When are you coming back!??



I freely admit to missing your posts . Always looked forward to more of your revelations about the corrupt state our government revels in . I am too busy, too lazy and too inept to do the kind of research you did. Character flaws I admit.

Do consider the pain you inflict upon others while vacationing from here. --Tyr


"We say Grace, we say Ma'am. If you ain't into that we don't give a damn."
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! "


Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tyr-Ziu Saxnot For This Useful Post:



Abbey (05-02-2014),Kathianne (05-02-2014)


Thanked by two members ONLY. Two members that saw a loss just as I saw a loss...
Which points to an apathy about that member leaving.
That apathy and the reason for it is more the problem than posts given here by any one member IMHO!!
I disagreed often with the Rev's posts but respected the man and his honesty. For that reason and knowing it was truly a loss for this forum I authored that thread.

Now I see it being mistakenly offered here that certain member(s) posts are at fault. ha!
Lack of posts, lack of caring (apathy) and slow time for political discussion is IMHO..-Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Rev is a huge loss. If anyone cannot see that, they are pretty blind to what debate boards need to thrive.

It is most certainly not your fault that Rev left us.

[Drummond]

All very interesting suppositions while you ignore that fj never once ever showed a ounce of interest in Thatcher until he saw Drummond was a huge fan of Thatcher. Then he added that Thatcher line in his quote and the ball started rolling from there.

It doesn't work to tell a victim that he/she should not respond when attacked.. And to do so by telling the first accosted party how wrong they are is folly IMHO.
Blaming a lion for the thorn in it's side does nothing to solve the pain/problem IMHO.
They do not like each other which is a common occurrence at political sites. And its not a one way street either.
Drummond posts long , very detailed and linked/sourced posts in his defense of his views during what you called trolling. Trolls do not do that.. An honest debater does, an angry honest debater does.
Takes two to tango amigo.. --Tyr

Comments very appreciated, Tyr. And you're exactly right. FJ showed no interest either in Lady Thatcher, nor in expressing support for her in any way, until my own considerable respect and support for her was evident.

[Drummond]

No the trolling isn't apportioned more to FJ than you. You went at him about the whole Thatcher thing, by your own words you decided he didn't actual believe in the message of Margaret Thatcher

By my own words, yes. But also by HIS words.

I've shown in other threads that FJ has lacked an understanding of what she stood for. He has advanced arguments which would defy positions she would've taken herself. FJ even had no knowledge of the Thatcher Foundation, which was her principal surviving legacy after her death, founded by her, meant to keep her message and works alive. And there is no mistake on that score ... I tested for that knowledge not once, but TWICE.

Which is strange, is it not, for a one-time self-professed 'Ultimate Thatcherite' ... !!!!


and that he was really a Progressive Liberal, making yourself the sole gatekeeper of who believed in Thatcher's general message, and yeah, he then started taking a swipe back at you.

Correct in large measure. FJ could prove me wrong any time he chooses, by consistently adopting positions which no Left-winger would adopt. Instead ... I've even seen him advance one position, an economic argument, which was a carbon copy of that taken by the UK's Labour Party, and one which currently defies our own Conservatives !!

As for being the 'sole gatekeeper of who believed in Thatcher's general message' ... well, that's only a matter of fact, and presumably temporarily at that. Besides, there will be various people here who'll recognise her as a Conservative and identify with the Conservatism she represented, just because they ARE Conservatives, so ... on reflection, if anything, your assumption is sweeping and possibly inaccurate.

Should a genuine devotee of LADY Thatcher care to join with me in representing himself or herself here, I'd warmly welcome that. The more the merrier !! Though, they should be GENUINE about it.


Instead of seeing someone who could be a potential ally

I saw no such thing. I'd have been a fool to have thought otherwise.


you turned it into a war that hijacked multiple threads, your own personal witch-hunt, and that was your choice.

Correct only in part. For one thing, I'd say 'it takes two to tango'. FJ need not have argued with me. He chose to. Which was strange, was it not, if he truly was my 'ally' ? Do allies - as FJ did - go in for put-down gimmickry, and of the kind which you yourself have conceded I did NOT reciprocate in kind ?

Likewise with any 'war'. If only one side participates in a 'war', then how can it be one ??

FJ misrepresented his 'beliefs'. I have proved this. I have a right - AS DO WE ALL - TO EXPECT THOSE WE DEBATE WITH TO DO SO HONESTLY, ARGUING WITH THE FOCUS BEING ON PROVING THE MERITS OF ONE'S CASE.


No one made you started doing it in every other thread he posted in, and if you really had a problem, you could've PMed him directly to settle the matter, but that's not what you wanted, was it? It wasn't about settling anything, it was about forcing him to tap out in front of others so you could hold it over him.

Funnily enough, you direct your 'PM' point at me. But it applies equally to FJ, most especially if he 'really was' the potential 'ally' you say he was. So ... ask him if he's ever tried to launch any PM conciliatory exchange with me.

Or do you just want to direct your criticisms at me, and ONLY me ?

Examine the thread contents you're critical of. Compare indulgences of put-down gimmickry. See who indulged in it, and who countered with reasoned argument. Then, once you've done that, may I suggest that you come back to me with appraisals containing greater balance to them.

You are not merely invited to post such balance -- you are challenged to do so. Is it a challenge you'll accept ?

[fj1200]

FJ showed no interest either in Lady Thatcher, nor in expressing support for her in any way, until my own considerable respect and support for her was evident.

Honestly, the Thatchinator and her views had hardly ever arisen prior to over-compensating pompous Brits showing up. ;) Let alone one which denies her basic tenets. :shrug:


... I've even seen him advance one position, an economic argument, which was a carbon copy of that taken by the UK's Labour Party, and one which currently defies our own Conservatives !!

:facepalm99: I see that imagination of yours is getting quite the workout again.

[aboutime]

Honestly, the Thatchinator and her views had hardly ever arisen prior to over-compensating pompous Brits showing up. ;) Let alone one which denies her basic tenets. :shrug:



:facepalm99: I see that imagination of yours is getting quite the workout again.



fj. Do you happen to remember GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS who made a statement that applies so well to people like you...who prove his words accurate, and truthful?

He's the first person to identify you, when he said "YOU can't fix stupid!"
Thanks for continuing to prove the General right...every time you post here.

[NightTrain]

fj. Do you happen to remember GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS who made a statement that applies so well to people like you...who prove his words accurate, and truthful?

He's the first person to identify you, when he said "YOU can't fix stupid!"
Thanks for continuing to prove the General right...every time you post here.

Actually, it was Ron White that coined that phrase. He's probably my favorite comedian.

And the owner & moderators have asked everyone to tone down the unnecessary attacks, FJ is far from stupid and you know that.

Drummond and FJ have a tit-for-tat thing going, even though their political views are actually not far apart.

You're adding fuel to the fire, AT.

[Drummond]

Actually, it was Ron White that coined that phrase. He's probably my favorite comedian.

And the owner & moderators have asked everyone to tone down the unnecessary attacks, FJ is far from stupid and you know that.

Drummond and FJ have a tit-for-tat thing going, even though their political views are actually not far apart.

You're adding fuel to the fire, AT.

Sorry, NightTrain, I can't agree.

Tyr has it right. FJ's 'interest' in Lady Thatcher only surfaced after my arrival, and only after my own beliefs and allegiances became well established on this forum. And despite billing himself as the 'Ultimate Thatcherite', FJ has shown thoughts and beliefs very different from her own. Lady Thatcher, to give one example, believed strongly in fiscal prudence, of paying your way according to what you can realistically afford ... which devetails nicely with our own Conservatives' current austerity measures, undertaken to reduce our national debts. FJ is wholly opposed to the direction of our own Conservatives, however, and regards their actions as some sort of road to ruin.

But he's being proven comprehensively wrong on that. Not that this will, of course, change FJ's opinions, because nothing will do that. Not Conservative thinking. Not Lady Thatcher's own principles. Not the real world, and what happens within it.

However, he and our LABOUR PARTY see eye to eye .....

[fj1200]

Actually, it was Ron White that coined that phrase. He's probably my favorite comedian.

And the owner & moderators have asked everyone to tone down the unnecessary attacks, FJ is far from stupid and you know that.

Drummond and FJ have a tit-for-tat thing going, even though their political views are actually not far apart.

You're adding fuel to the fire, AT.

You've identified why he's on ignore. :) Did you see the Ron White special on Comedy Central? That was filmed in my home town; "coo-pins." :laugh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovk4JNw3hAk

[fj1200]

Sorry, NightTrain, blah, blah, blah...

Yet you can't name one of my "leftie" positions. :laugh: And that must be why you abandon all of the threads where I take you to task; your imagination usually lets you down.

[Drummond]

Yet you can't name one of my "leftie" positions. :laugh: And that must be why you abandon all of the threads where I take you to task; your imagination usually lets you down.

Ah, you're back to the rewrites !! Just one of your little gimmicks that I've never stooped to copying or equalling .... preferring debate, instead ...

No 'Leftie' positions, you say ? And I'm abandoning this thread ? Really ?

Try this example out for size, then ....

In the thread which contains the post this link leads to, you'd already posted the comment (post #86) ...


Why should government preference traditional marriage?
A couple of points come from that comment. One, that the above comment could've easily originated from a LEFT WING mindset.

Two ... that, if you were any sort of devotee of Lady Thatcher as you've been CLAIMING, you'd have not only known the counter-argument to that, but you'd have known that you were diverging from Lady Thatcher's own principles in saying such a thing.

As to my link ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45282-Conservatism-What-it-is-and-Why-it-s-Bad&p=688648#post688648


Curious, isn't it, that a self-proclaimed 'Thatcherite' should seek to question this ....

FJ, what you're doing is to prove, AGAIN, that your views and those of Lady Thatcher's, vary widely. In fact, SURELY, the time has come for you to abandon such a pretention of being a so-called 'Thatcherite' ??

Observe ....

http://protectthepope.com/?p=7117


Thank you Margaret Thatcher for Section 28′s protection of children from gay propaganda

BY DEACON NICK DONNELLY, ON APRIL 17TH, 2013

Faithful Catholics and Christians of the United Kingdom owe Margaret Thatcher our lasting gratitude for attempting to protect our children from homosexual propaganda being taught in schools and for stopping local councils promoting homosexuality through Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 until its tragic repeal in 2003.

Section 28 contained the following provisions:

Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material

(1)The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the [1986 c. 10.] Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition of political publicity)—

“2AProhibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material

(1)A local authority shall not—

(a)intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

(b)promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

(2)Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.

(3)In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.

(4)In subsection (1)(b) above “maintained school” means,—

(a)in England and Wales, a county school, voluntary school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944; and

(b)in Scotland, a public school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.”

Protect the Pope comment: Margaret Thatcher had the foresight to see that homosexual activists would seek to indoctrinate children at school with the false idea of the ‘acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’ and the political and moral courage to legally prohibit the promotion of homosexuality by teaching. The tragedy is that the Conservative party is now led by David and Samantha Cameron who are hell bent on foisting on the country the ultimate homosexual pretense of a family relationship, same-sex marriage.


I think you have a perfectly adequate reply to you highly UN-'Thatcherite' objection, FJ ... Lady Thatcher had no qualms at all in getting Government actively involved in matters to do with traditional, versus 'non' traditional, sexual orientation .. to the point where she'd take a moral stand backed up by legislation designed to protect the young. She obviously saw that Government had a necessary role to play in determining the direction Society should take in these things !!!

Lady Thatcher felt that her Government had its role to play in that issue. YOU, however, FJ, had a brand of thinking which (a) didn't recognise any such role, and (b) was in defiance of her own thinking ... and you, the professed 'Thatcherite' ....

HOWEVER .. Socialists have long since been advocates of a more 'Liberal' attitude towards such things. As, it seems, are YOU, FJ ..

You were never a genuine Margaret Thatcher supporter. In this post, I provide an illustration of the proof of that. Indeed ... I'd be willing to bet that, at the time I first posted the above, you'd had NO IDEA of Lady Thatcher's thinking on such matters.

[NightTrain]

Sorry, NightTrain, I can't agree.

Tyr has it right. FJ's 'interest' in Lady Thatcher only surfaced after my arrival, and only after my own beliefs and allegiances became well established on this forum. And despite billing himself as the 'Ultimate Thatcherite', FJ has shown thoughts and beliefs very different from her own. Lady Thatcher, to give one example, believed strongly in fiscal prudence, of paying your way according to what you can realistically afford ... which devetails nicely with our own Conservatives' current austerity measures, undertaken to reduce our national debts. FJ is wholly opposed to the direction of our own Conservatives, however, and regards their actions as some sort of road to ruin.

But he's being proven comprehensively wrong on that. Not that this will, of course, change FJ's opinions, because nothing will do that. Not Conservative thinking. Not Lady Thatcher's own principles. Not the real world, and what happens within it.

However, he and our LABOUR PARTY see eye to eye .....

You two certainly know far more than I about the The Iron Lady.

I don't presume to speak for FJ, but I suspect he enjoys playing Devil's Advocate... I've watched him post for a few years now.

My point was that there's nothing wrong with you two having Thatcher viewpoint differences, but it does nothing constructive for me or AT or anyone else to snipe from the sidelines without adding anything to the discussion.

Ownership and the Mods have expressed distress at our willingness as members to get down in the mud in damn near every post on the board and when a prospective new person views the board it's probably intimidating to even offer an opinion for fear of being ruthlessly attacked, because there's more than a few threads that are vicious free-for-alls... even though many of the individual attacks are meant to be humorous, to an outsider with no board history, it doesn't appear that way.

I've scaled way back on being aggressive and offensive here, because of the many pleas from Jim & Crew to all of us to do so. I personally don't know if fireworks attracts more members or if being more moderate attracts more members, but the decision was made to try and make this a less aggressive forum than it was/is.

This is the exact same thread that Jim is asking for help in expanding membership on this board, and here we are with sniping attacks.

I'm just a regular member, my words carry no official weight. I just wanted to point out a couple of things in the interest of the board that I've been a member of since it was created and I'd like to see this forum grow.

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You two certainly know far more than I about the The Iron Lady.

I don't presume to speak for FJ, but I suspect he enjoys playing Devil's Advocate... I've watched him post for a few years now.

My point was that there's nothing wrong with you two having Thatcher viewpoint differences, but it does nothing constructive for me or AT or anyone else to snipe from the sidelines without adding anything to the discussion.

Ownership and the Mods have expressed distress at our willingness as members to get down in the mud in damn near every post on the board and when a prospective new person views the board it's probably intimidating to even offer an opinion for fear of being ruthlessly attacked, because there's more than a few threads that are vicious free-for-alls... even though many of the individual attacks are meant to be humorous, to an outsider with no board history, it doesn't appear that way.

I've scaled way back on being aggressive and offensive here, because of the many pleas from Jim & Crew to all of us to do so. I personally don't know if fireworks attracts more members or if being more moderate attracts more members, but the decision was made to try and make this a less aggressive forum than it was/is.

This is the exact same thread that Jim is asking for help in expanding membership on this board, and here we are with sniping attacks.

I'm just a regular member, my words carry no official weight. I just wanted to point out a couple of things in the interest of the board that I've been a member of since it was created and I'd like to see this forum grow.

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

To be fair I point this out and anybody can go back to the start of this thread and find it is true.
Drummond made three posts --no mention of fj at all.
THEN DS MADE THESE TWO SEPARATE POST AND THE BAL BOUNCED FROM THERE.


Well, really, it isn't so much the articles. It's more the fact that we've lost most, if not all, of the board's liberals. I mean, it's debate site, but it's not really a debate if we essentially agree with one another, right? Of those we have, Gabs doesn't even really try, and any time Jafar posts, it becomes about him being Muslim.

We need people on the opposition to talk with, but at the same time, it can't just be them constantly getting beaten down verbally. I want the board to continue to survive, but really, there are threads that I don't even bother with, because I know nothing useful is coming out of it, or I just don't have any input to add because it's already been covered, and there's no dissenting opinion.

I mean, hell, the whole thing with FJ was a huge thing. He actually posted some legitimate debates, and it just became Drummond hammering him without halt about Margaret Thatcher, and then he tracked it into every thread like it, until we got to a point where Gabs firebombed it with trying to troll the living hell out of the conservatives with her "debate".

You want more people, you've got to start looking at the people who disagree with you, Jim. We have more than enough conservatives, but we need liberals in order to have any effective debate.









And that was my point. You don't precisely help matters, though. A lot of times, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I disagree to hell and gone with how you post. Yeah, I get it, other people act like assholes, but just like you would say to your students, their behavior does not necessitate your bad behavior. Again, I'll use the debate topics FJ was posting. He eventually would've gotten around to Conservatism, except you decided that we were "attacking" Progressivism and Liberalism (we weren't), and took a swipe at the entire board. The things is, though, me and FJ were actually having a really in-depth discussion about Progressivism and Liberalism, even outlining the good points of each, alongside the bad. You could've joined in on that debate, but instead, you chose to burn it down.

Believe it or not, you actually hurt your own side of the argument most of the time, because of the manner in which you attack. This isn't a matter of being a skilled debater or not, it's a matter of not just a soundbite drive-by, and lobbing a personal attack, or an attack against a whole group.

For instance, you and I both agree on gay marriage, but I sure as hell don't want you on my side of the debate, because I know it's just going to get into just shy of an all-out flame-war. I'm not saying don't post, but you've gotta start posting more reasonably if you want to get out of the cycle. You can have your personal opinion, and still present it in a respectful manner. Let the assholes be assholes, and just keep posing reasonable responses. At the least, you'll be able to walk away with an extra measure of dignity for point that you didn't descend to their level.

Yeah, I've gone at Tyr, and Drummond at various points for the attacking style of their posts, so don't even act like I haven't said boo to the conservatives around here. I have, but it doesn't help me to back you up, if you then turn around and start a fight two minutes later in another thread, which you have done, by the way.

Some truth in what is being said but as to this thread a man defending himself when accused is definitely his right. Drummond made three posts to new member and no mention of any fj or any feud.
Then DS made those two posts. That put the ball onto the court IMHO.
I am not condemning anybody just pointing out how it went down.
DS had his right to express it how he sees it but Drummond has the right to refute. Just sayin'.

[DragonStryk72]

Ah, you're back to the rewrites !! Just one of your little gimmicks that I've never stooped to copying or equalling .... preferring debate, instead ...

No 'Leftie' positions, you say ? And I'm abandoning this thread ? Really ?

Try this example out for size, then ....

In the thread which contains the post this link leads to, you'd already posted the comment (post #86) ...


A couple of points come from that comment. One, that the above comment could've easily originated from a LEFT WING mindset.

Two ... that, if you were any sort of devotee of Lady Thatcher as you've been CLAIMING, you'd have not only known the counter-argument to that, but you'd have known that you were diverging from Lady Thatcher's own principles in saying such a thing.

As to my link ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45282-Conservatism-What-it-is-and-Why-it-s-Bad&p=688648#post688648



Lady Thatcher felt that her Government had its role to play in that issue. YOU, however, FJ, had a brand of thinking which (a) didn't recognise any such role, and (b) was in defiance of her own thinking ... and you, the professed 'Thatcherite' ....

HOWEVER .. Socialists have long since been advocates of a more 'Liberal' attitude towards such things. As, it seems, are YOU, FJ ..

You were never a genuine Margaret Thatcher supporter. In this post, I provide an illustration of the proof of that. Indeed ... I'd be willing to bet that, at the time I first posted the above, you'd had NO IDEA of Lady Thatcher's thinking on such matters.

Drummond, you are proving my point for me. Here we are, back on the same crusade without end. Take it to PM, or let it die, man. This was exactly what I was on about with this. I get it, you don't think FJ really believes in the philosophies espoused by Margaret Thatcher. FJ gets its, Tyr gets, everyone looking at any thread where it can in any way be brought into the discussion gets it.

This isn't about "defending", because you aren't defending, you're attacking. When you stopped bringing Ms. Thatcher, so did FJ, and then, poof, we're right back here with you hammering about it. You're even doing in a thread about not doing this kind of stuff.

[Jeff]

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG :laugh:

[fj1200]

Ah, you're back to the rewrites !! Just one of your little gimmicks that I've never stooped to copying or equalling .... preferring debate, instead ...

No 'Leftie' positions, you say ? And I'm abandoning this thread ? Really ?

Oh geez. You don't prefer debate, you prefer yelling which IMO is why "help" is needed. Debate is a discussion of opposing viewpoints not a rehash of whatever Mags had to say on a particular subject.

And as far as you rehashing your post from another thread you'll note that you have abandoned that thread after I pointed out you and yet another of your big government positions.

[Drummond]

Oh geez. You don't prefer debate, you prefer yelling which IMO is why "help" is needed. Debate is a discussion of opposing viewpoints not a rehash of whatever Mags had to say on a particular subject.

And as far as you rehashing your post from another thread you'll note that you have abandoned that thread after I pointed out you and yet another of your big government positions.

FJ ... it is true that I've left threads before now ... but not simply for the sake of 'abandoning' them, but more to the point, because you repeatedly prove the uselessness of trying to usefully debate with you. I win arguments, providing the stronger argument - and you can never concede. The worse off your position is, the more you compensate with gimmickry and put-downs.

This, you do a lot of ...

You do not debate honestly. You've little interest in debating honestly. THAT is the truth of you.

Oh, and by the way .. you keep trying to smear me by saying I advance 'big government positions'. Well ... tell me, what would you call Lady Thatcher's position on active Governmental intervention, as I proved she committed herself to, in the example I posted previously here ?

[Drummond]

You two certainly know far more than I about the The Iron Lady.

I don't presume to speak for FJ, but I suspect he enjoys playing Devil's Advocate... I've watched him post for a few years now.

My point was that there's nothing wrong with you two having Thatcher viewpoint differences, but it does nothing constructive for me or AT or anyone else to snipe from the sidelines without adding anything to the discussion.

Ownership and the Mods have expressed distress at our willingness as members to get down in the mud in damn near every post on the board and when a prospective new person views the board it's probably intimidating to even offer an opinion for fear of being ruthlessly attacked, because there's more than a few threads that are vicious free-for-alls... even though many of the individual attacks are meant to be humorous, to an outsider with no board history, it doesn't appear that way.

I've scaled way back on being aggressive and offensive here, because of the many pleas from Jim & Crew to all of us to do so. I personally don't know if fireworks attracts more members or if being more moderate attracts more members, but the decision was made to try and make this a less aggressive forum than it was/is.

This is the exact same thread that Jim is asking for help in expanding membership on this board, and here we are with sniping attacks.

I'm just a regular member, my words carry no official weight. I just wanted to point out a couple of things in the interest of the board that I've been a member of since it was created and I'd like to see this forum grow.

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

Actually, I know quite a bit about the Iron Lady. But part of my problem with FJ is that, though he described himself as an 'ultimate Thatcherite', he LACKS the knowledge one would expect a genuine devotee to have.

But he continues on, regardless ....

You say FJ likes to play devil's advocate. Perhaps this describes your past observations of him. Mine are different to this, though.

I respect your overall message, though. Lessened combativeness is to be striven for. Perhaps just ignoring FJ is my answer .....

Thanks for your observations and advice - appreciated.

[Drummond]

Drummond, you are proving my point for me. Here we are, back on the same crusade without end. Take it to PM, or let it die, man. This was exactly what I was on about with this. I get it, you don't think FJ really believes in the philosophies espoused by Margaret Thatcher. FJ gets its, Tyr gets, everyone looking at any thread where it can in any way be brought into the discussion gets it.

This isn't about "defending", because you aren't defending, you're attacking. When you stopped bringing Ms. Thatcher, so did FJ, and then, poof, we're right back here with you hammering about it. You're even doing in a thread about not doing this kind of stuff.

You continue to single me out for criticism, I see. None directed at FJ, who himself continues to indulge in argumentation laced with gimmickry put-downs .. but plenty aimed at me.

You should note and acknowledge Tyr's comments on this, which are no less than fair and factual. But .. you do not.

I wonder why.

I suggest to you that NightTrain's comments are worthy of respect and support.

[fj1200]

FJ ... it is true that I've left threads before now ...

You don't win anything; you just yell louder, scream "leftie," blather on about Mags, parse every half sentence, make accusations you're unable to substantiate, and then get all huffy when your foot stomping doesn't win the day. Now if you want to tell yourself that you leave threads because of words on the interwebs... well I can't help that now can I? Sometimes it's a mere question that throws you into a tizzy and exposes your inability to discuss conservative positions. I ask you how conservatives address pollution and you state that only lefties pollute or some such ridiculous thing. I ask you to point out the state's compelling interest in governing interpersonal relationships and I get a thirty year old treatise from dead politicians. You repeatedly state incorrectly that I mirror Labour's positions on something but are unable to provide specific examples. You winning an argument or providing a stronger argument is utterly laughable which is of course the real reason why you abandon threads.

[aboutime]

Sir Drummond. Perhaps you are unaware of why fj continues to be the way he is.

Truth is. He is probably very, very happy that ROE V. WADE became the law of the land.

Otherwise. fj might not be here to enjoy being such a typical, liberal pain in the butt.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Perhaps you are unaware of why fj continues to be the way he is.

Truth is. He is probably very, very happy that ROE V. WADE became the law of the land.

Otherwise. fj might not be here to enjoy being such a typical, liberal pain in the butt.

Truth be told, it's the fact of FJ being a typical liberal pain in the butt (... whilst denying that obvious truth ...) that's the real issue. I really wonder why I bother with him.

I don't run away from fights. But I don't seek them, either. It's FJ who could stop goading yet more contention .. IF he chose to.

[Drummond]

You don't win anything;

You're in denial. Take the point about 'big government', and my proof that Lady Thatcher could be as strongly interventionist as the best of them. Point NOT conceded, eh .. even though this thread contains proof that I'm right.


you just yell louder, scream "leftie,"

I call a spade a spade. If you don't like what you start .. DON'T START IT.


..blather on about Mags, parse every half sentence,

Tut tut. Such strange wording from a Thatcher devotee, one indicating he's nothing of the kind !!!


make accusations you're unable to substantiate,

.. Ahem. I just DID ...


and then get all huffy when your foot stomping doesn't win the day.

Nice, 'peacemaking' language, I think ... not 'contentious' .. ? Not intended to goad .. really ?

Let others here objectively judge which of us is the more inclined to indulge in this conduct.


Now if you want to tell yourself that you leave threads because of words on the interwebs... well I can't help that now can I?

?????????????????????????

I'll tell you what you CAN help ... you can help the goading language you've employed in the very post I'm replying to !


Sometimes it's a mere question that throws you into a tizzy and exposes your inability to discuss conservative positions.

More goading language - you're full of it. Besides, discussion isn't all that's involved .. acknowledgment of demonstrably RIGHT positions is involved. If I want to represent Lady Thatcher's arguments and remain loyal to them, what I do NOT expect is to be disdainfully accused of 'parroting' them .. this coming from a so-called 'Thatcherite' !!!!


I ask you how conservatives address pollution and you state that only lefties pollute or some such ridiculous thing.

Quote me that example verbatim !


I ask you to point out the state's compelling interest in governing interpersonal relationships and I get a thirty year old treatise from dead politicians.

NO, what you get is proof that Lady Thatcher, someone you're supposed to 'revere', adopted a position contrary to your own !! And this 'dead politician' you're now being disdainful about, IS your supposed 'idol' !??!!

MORE AND MORE, FJ, YOU REVEAL THE TRUTH OF YOUR REAL BELIEFS.


You repeatedly state incorrectly that I mirror Labour's positions on something but are unable to provide specific examples.

You mirror their approach to the British economy. You've opposed the countering approach now adopted by their opposition, our Conservatives, in your expressing staunch opposition to their current austerity measures. THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ALREADY, DESPITE YOUR CLAIM THAT I CANNOT SUPPLY ANY EXAMPLES.


You winning an argument or providing a stronger argument is utterly laughable which is of course the real reason why you abandon threads.

You mean, when I'm winning this one ??

FJ .... you KNOW that I'm telling the truth in my reply to you, and you KNOW that I could provide links to illustrate my case from other threads. So, why are you persisting with all of this argumentation, regardless ??

WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR PERSISTING, for STOKING UP MORE NEEDLESS CONTENTION ?

And so publicly, too. No hint of this being 'taken to PM's', as an apparent ally of yours suggested I do. No, FJ, you enjoy this sort of altercation. Obviously so. Otherwise, you'd give it up.

[Drummond]

Further to my post ... FJ, note that my reply to NightTrain was genuine. I do think that my best course of action is to opt to ignore you rather than rise to your goading, and your other derisory gimmickry.

No doubt you'll characterise this as my 'running away' from a thread 'again'. Well, naturally you will want to. Since, after all, YOU are the one who seeks the form of contention currently considered problematic here.

My intention is to be constructive. Our latest crossing of swords, FJ, is therefore at an end.

[fj1200]

... to ignore... at an end.

Of course it is; You ignore what you can't shout down. And your pansy response is to let loose with no less than three posts to me or about me prior to announcing that you are, yet again, "at an end." You ignore like the French win wars.


You don't win anything; you just yell louder, scream "leftie," blather on about Mags, parse every half sentence, make accusations you're unable to substantiate, and then get all huffy when your foot stomping doesn't win the day.

Wow, I nailed that one didn't I? Check, check, check, check, check, and :drumroll: check. Six for six.


You're in denial. Take the point about 'big government', and my proof that Lady Thatcher could be as strongly interventionist as the best of them.

Lie. Deflect. Foot stomp.

In thread after thread you are constantly making pro-statist claims and arguments; that drones must be used in your name, torture must be done in your name, economies need to be harmed in your name, individual liberties must be restricted in your name... There are multiple threads where you have declared "at an end," or just left without such histrionics, when your shouting has not had your required effect.

And no, I don't intend to make peace. Your views are in some case despicable and in many others just plain wrong. To point out how wrong you are in PM just wouldn't do. My "REAL BELIEF" of advancing actual conservatism with reasoned thinking and fact will go on. ;)

[Drummond]

Of course it is; You ignore what you can't shout down. And your pansy response is to let loose with no less than three posts to me or about me prior to announcing that you are, yet again, "at an end." You ignore like the French win wars.

Wow, I nailed that one didn't I? Check, check, check, check, check, and :drumroll: check. Six for six.

In thread after thread you are constantly making pro-statist claims and arguments; that drones must be used in your name, torture must be done in your name, economies need to be harmed in your name, individual liberties must be restricted in your name... There are multiple threads where you have declared "at an end," or just left without such histrionics, when your shouting has not had your required effect.

And no, I don't intend to make peace. Your views are in some case despicable and in many others just plain wrong. To point out how wrong you are in PM just wouldn't do. My "REAL BELIEF" of advancing actual conservatism with reasoned thinking and fact will go on. ;)

Surely, nobody reading this can now be in any doubt as to the real source of contention. Yes ?

FJ, answering you would be easy (.. it always has been ..). It would also perpetuate the contention you insist upon adding to.

Sorry - I'm not playing. Cease and desist. Do this forum a favour.

[fj1200]

Surely, nobody reading this can now be in any doubt as to the real source of contention. Yes ?

That you're a mindless parrot who understands neither conservatism nor actual small-government principles? Yes, I think they understand. That and your imagination has completely let you down. Now, if you really mean that you're again "at an end" then yes, I've done the forum a favor.

[aboutime]

That you're a mindless parrot who understands neither conservatism nor actual small-government principles? Yes, I think they understand. That and your imagination has completely let you down. Now, if you really mean that you're again "at an end" then yes, I've done the forum a favor.



fj. The ONE, and ONLY favor you could ever HONESTLY do for this forum would be to LEAVE.

[Drummond]

fj. The ONE, and ONLY favor you could ever HONESTLY do for this forum would be to LEAVE.:clap::clap::clap:

[fj1200]

:clap::clap::clap:

The parrot and the drone, trolling again. I guess it's just easier for you to ask someone to leave you can't shout down.

[Gunny]

This board has a reputation as a hard-line, right wing board with members that gang up on any "outsiders"/lefties and mob them out. Barring that, it is expected the staff will favor the people on the right in any decisions and if anyone complains, they're gone.

The loyalty to long-time members is commendable from a loyalty perspective. Too often though that bears weight in the decision-making process; which, should not happen.

I personally don't come here a lot for many reasons. One of the biggest though is that most of the people here agree with me. Where's the fun in THAT?

Then there is accounting for the changing times/mindsets. There is no civil discourse in politics right now. No one wants to debate a point on its own merit and let the best person win. The first loser starts deflecting and using personal attacks in a vain attempt to try and hide what everyone can see ... they don't have an argument. They're fooling only themselves.

If the board is dying, examine your choices. You can watch it die, or you can change your mindset. DO you want what you want just for you, or do you want a successful board? Either way you go, it's going to cost you something. You just have to decide which you would rather have.

And please don't shoot the messenger. :)

[Noir]

Given the topic and original post it's pretty mortifying how most of the thread has descended into private feud bashing and trolling. Not to mention the 'you should leave the board' comments etc.
Like seriously guys...

[Little-Acorn]

This board has a reputation as a hard-line, right wing board with members that gang up on any "outsiders"/lefties and mob them out.

TRANSLATION: Leftists can't win arguments when they come here. What's worse, when they come up with their usual bogus arguments, they get laughed at. The situation is absolutely intolerable to them.

This place is unlike the real world, in that what you say here, gets remembered, analyzed, and discussed. That's fine with conservatives, but death to leftists, who rely completely on people not thinking through what they say, but just accepting it uncritically.

Leftists who do fine in the real world where voters aren't concerned with government and don't pay much attention to it as a result, don't do well at all here. So a lot of them leave, and the board winds up with more conservatives than leftists.

If you believe the board is "slowly dying", then unfortunately the only solution is to bring in more leftists. You will be bringing in more BS, but you can't have one without the other.

[Abbey Marie]

Given the topic and original post it's pretty mortifying how most of the thread has descended into private feud bashing and trolling. Not to mention the 'you should leave the board' comments etc.
Like seriously guys...

So true. And since the posts have gone exactly opposite to the spirit of Jim's first post, I am going to close it for now. Jim can re-open his thread if he sees fit.

The last thing we need is people telling each other to leave. Oh, the irony.

PS Good to see you, Gunny.