Vote on Adopting "No Thread-crapping, etc" Rule (A Mod Sponsored Community Poll)

[Bowfinger]

It doesn't round out anything, nor does it help tie your points together. Personal insults break down - not strengthen - your position. As soon as you throw in the use of ad hominem attacks you damage your credibility. I'd even go so far to say that with your extremely excessive use of such things that you have zero credibility left when it comes to any sort of meaningful debate. If you can't figure out that simple fact, well, I cannot help you. I've tried to point it out to you, and you refuse to comprehend, so why I'm even wasting my time I have no idea

While I agree insults are rarely a productive response to substantive posts, I think they are often a perfectly appropriate response to tripe, e.g, blatant trolls, entrenched intellectual dishonesty (after a reasonable attempt to address more constructively), personal and dishonest attacks, etc. Insults exist for good reason. Often they are well-deserved.

 

[JSt0rm]

While I agree insults are rarely a productive response to substantive posts, I think they are often a perfectly appropriate response to tripe, e.g, blatant trolls, entrenched intellectual dishonesty (after a reasonable attempt to address more constructively), personal and dishonest attacks, etc. Insults exist for good reason. Often they are well-deserved.

Exactly.

If you care to look back at my posts you will see I do actually have honest debate with people who want to have honest debate. Also when I'm wrong I say so.

Now when dealing with half the idiots who bubble up to announce some ignorant stance and 8 people have already responded in some rational way and the person is still there quivering in their idiotic dissonance well then they get treated like they deserve.

 

[shortylickens]

Along the lines of logical fallacies I'd like the ban the use of "Red State/ Blue State". Theres no such thing and people tend to be wrong anyway.

 

[JSt0rm]

Along the lines of logical fallacies I'd like the ban the use of "Red State/ Blue State". Theres no such thing and people tend to be wrong anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

It does exist. Believe.

 

[cybrsage]

As much as I like you I am not into these petty little exceptions to all the rules....so please respect me like I respect you!

We all know and believe OJ was guilty. But if the article says other wise as did the jury then he is not guilty. -- but In my opinion in your required commentary I see no reason NOT to speak your mind....

So the answer to your attempt at drawing an exception to the rule is you post exactly what the articles title is regardless of if the future proves it to be wrong or even more correct.

I have done that with threads that have to do with the middle east. I have also done that with other peoples threads that appeared to be correct and then turned out to be one sided.....

Here is a better one. Chinese blogs say the North Korean dictator was killed in China. No other sources are available. According to you, anyone who posts this info, if it is later found to be not true, should be sanctioned for posting a lie. They should have read the articles about it and magically knew they were all not true.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Here is a better one. Chinese blogs say the North Korean dictator was killed in China. No other sources are available. According to you, anyone who posts this info, if it is later found to be not true, should be sanctioned for posting a lie. They should have read the articles about it and magically knew they were all not true.

Umm blogs are a different story......
Blogs are not usually from a reputed news source......

You see I did not say if at a later date the source of the information was found to not be true that somebody should be sanctioned.

You are trying your best to win an argument that you cannot win!

If you are the OP of the thread and you start a thread that is entitled Obama has 4 illegitimate love children and the article has no bearing on your thread title...IMO you should be sanctioned!

If the article is from a reputable news source NOT somebodys blog...then feel free to run with.

If 5 hours later the retract the article nothing should happen to you.....

Please don`t assume or put words that were not said!
We all know that you do not have problems comprehending the English language...so why twist what is being said to meet your need for attention?

 

[cybrsage]

Umm blogs are a different story......
Blogs are not usually from a reputed news source......

CNN runs blogs. Are they suddenly non-reputable?

You see I did not say if at a later date the source of the information was found to not be true that somebody should be sanctioned.

Yes I did:

Sometimes a story is thought to be true until something later comes along and shows it is not.

To which you replied:

As much as I like you I am not into these petty little exceptions to all the rules....so please respect me like I respect you!

Now you are changing your stance. This is good, since it is a much more logical stance to hold.

 

[shortylickens]

Are you kidding me?
CNN NEWS is not a good source any more. No way in hell I'd trust their opinion page or blogs or anything.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The problem\solution is being portrayed completely back assedwards. The problem is not people who post an off topic or flaming post, it is the reaction of the others involved in the thread. You are asking a few to moderate a forum for you because you cant do it your selves. Is it so hard to ignore a thread that has irrelevant information? When reading a tech manual or political paper on an ad supported site, do you contact the admin of that site to complain about the intrusion of the ad or do you make a decision to either continue to read or find a less annoying site to read it from? Is calling someone an idiot for thread crapping any better than the initial crap in the first place. Ignore the crapper he will go away. If you give someone else the ability to remove posts based on the content of that post, what happens when you have a point somewhat off topic but relevant in a twisted obscure way in an attempt to show that something is possible? How is every mod expected to know everything about everything and everyone?


Yes there are some people that post shit, but you don't need a mod to point them out or remove their posts.

If the mods are right leaning you will end up with all derogatory posts from the left removed. Ready for that? I for one glean as much information from a flaming off topic poster than I do from an on topic one.

No more right leaning Mods. A couple of apolitical Mods may walk by but that is it.
When the right leaning mods existed, there was no censorship and exceptional tolerance toward the left leaning posters

 

[dmcowen674]

Are you kidding me?
CNN NEWS is not a good source any more. No way in hell I'd trust their opinion page or blogs or anything.

None of them are good sources anymore unless you are looking for Entertainment.

They are Entertainment Organizations as defined by the United States Supreme Court.

You have to go to real news or cover real news yourself these days.

 

[dmcowen674]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

It does exist. Believe.

In some cases it is not just a state.

For example if you took the city of Chicago out of Illinois it would be 100% Red.