Not even close. Arclighter and I rarely agreed, but he had a quick wit, and was fun to spar with now and again. He was also able to acknowledge an opposing view on occasion, when it was based on valid information not driven by an agenda.neversayno said:because he also was your best pal
Please ban Rogerstaubach
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
------ I am not taking sides but after reading this thread and taking special note of the 'time' of the posts(danmand's original post and Fred Zed's post) it has become apparent that:danmand said:Moderator, please ban Rogerstaubach from the "Politics and International affairs" forum. His latest post in the "Commitment in Afghanistan" goes beyond his usual juvenile rantings into the realm of the perfide.
------The above quoted post was the direct cause of roger's suspension. A member pleaded for another member to be banned. Cause(ban him) and effect(banned him). A direct link of cause and effect. Simple, swift and executed in less than 10 minutes by danmand and FredZed.
------ No problem here, I couldn't agree more about banning those who we disagree with and/or object to, irregardless of merit. I am just pointing out simple cause and effect.
Please. Roger was suspended before, came back knowing he was on thin ice, and tested the waters as it were. Not a big surprise as to the outcome.gm3501 said:------ I am not taking sides but after reading this thread and taking special note of the 'time' of the posts(danmand's original post and Fred Zed's post) it has become apparent that:
------The above quoted post was the direct cause of roger's suspension. A member pleaded for another member to be banned. Cause(ban him) and effect(banned him). A direct link of cause and effect. Simple, swift and executed in less than 10 minutes by danmand and FredZed.
------ No problem here, I couldn't agree more about banning those who we disagree with and/or object to, irregardless of merit. I am just pointing out simple cause and effect.
------ I am not taking sides here just trying to present the chronology of events that were the cause(ban him) and effect(banned). A plea to ban led to a banning in less than 10 minutes. Read the first few posts in this thread and take note of the 'time' of the posts. The cause and effect is rock solid.Asterix said:Please. Roger was suspended before, came back knowing he was on thin ice, and tested the waters as it were. Not a big surprise as to the outcome.
----- What is perplexing is the content of roger's 'offending post' that danmand complained about and that which danmand pleaded for roger's banning. I've taken the initiative to read thru the 'Commitment to Afghanistan' thread and isolated the offending post that danmand referred to in his original post in regards to banning roger. Roger's post stated this: Danmand states, "terrorism, what terrorism?"
----- I conclude that based upon cause and effect in this case, statements such as roger's, Danmand states, "terrorism, what terrorism?" are obviously offensive and against the Terb posting guidelines regarding name-calling, and abusive and derogatory language. Thank God no other Terb member engages in such abusive and derogatory statements such as roger's, Danmand states, "terrorism, what terrorism?". If they did this board would lose two-thirds of their members.
----- As I stated previously, I do not take sides. Just presenting cause and effect and noting that statements such as roger's, Danmand states, "terrorism, what terrorism?" are abusive and derogatory. Shit if I were danmand or any other member to whom roger offensively stated, (fill-in member name) states, "terrorism, what terrorism?" I would pound the podium for his banning too.
----- Good work danmand. We don't need the roger's and arclighter's and the rest of their kind in our little insulated Terb-world. It's better we all walk the same path.
I would say that he was one of the bigger fools on the board. That being said, I think the reason arclighter’s suspension was made permanent was coming back during a second temporary suspension under the named “Banned”. That was just really really dumb even for someone like arclighter who cited creation magazine as an authoritative source.Asterix said:Not even close. Arclighter and I rarely agreed, but he had a quick wit, and was fun to spar with now and again. He was also able to acknowledge an opposing view on occasion, when it was based on valid information not driven by an agenda.
I'm surprised feminista is still gone after more than 2 weeks, she was usually quite calm yet could make her points forcefully. Is it permanent? There are others who get more enraged yet are still here.
Even so, this board is fairly mellow compared to some sites where the flaming is out of control.
Even so, this board is fairly mellow compared to some sites where the flaming is out of control.
He wasn't dumb, and neither was roger. They were both entirely indulgent of their own personas, and paid the price. Foolishness defined.someone said:I would say that he was one of the bigger fools on the board. That being said, I think the reason arclighter’s suspension was made permanent was coming back during a second temporary suspension under the named “Banned”. That was just really really dumb even for someone like arclighter who cited creation magazine as an authoritative source.
I’m not sure what distinction you’re making between dumb and foolishness. I’m just using both terms informally for lack of intelligence. Anyway, it is now past history. Lang, I’m more curious about. I usually thought his heart at least was in the right place, even when I disagreed completely with him.Asterix said:He wasn't dumb, and neither was roger. They were both entirely indulgent of their own personas, and paid the price. Foolishness defined.
TOVisitor said:Your meagre attempts at humor aside, laddie. What you are engaging in by talking about summary executions of those on the left has been documented by many -- most notably David Neiwert -- as the eliminationist rhetoric of the right.
From Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, the right wing has made it "legitimate" to speak of killing one's political adversaries.
This rhetoric has made it into the mainstream of the right. Let's examine John Derbyshire of National Review Online, talking about Chelsea Clinton:
Got that? The Derb is talking about killing Chelsea and all the Clintons.
If you need more proof and links to the heinous quotes and actions of the right-wing, I suggest you look at these posts by Neiwert:
And this one:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/06/eliminate-them.html
I really don't expect someone of your tender sensibilities to understand Neiwert and what he is getting at, but perhaps others on this board will read his words and be careful about what they say in the future about one's political adversaries.
More importantly, it's necessary to be vigilant aganst these types of words and they actions they engender. Face the facts: the conservative movement has been infiltrated by racists, fascists, homphobes, misygonists, gun nuts, religious fanatics, and other assorted crazies. Until the conservatives clean up their own house, we will continue to see the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Michael Savage, David Duke, David Horowitz, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and so many, many others be accepted and feted by the Republican party.
As for me, I am tired of being demonized by the right-wing and I am not going to let the nutjobs on the right take over the discourse.
Since 911, the right wing has been WRONG, utterly and completely wrong about just about everything. Listening to hacks like roger squeal and pee his pants when he thinks about the "threat" posed by Iran -- and yet he does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up his insane rhetoric -- makes my blood boil.
TOV how did you know I was thinking of you. Thanks for making my point.
someone said:I was wondering why langeweile has not posted for some time. I just did a search and he is listed as being banned. Does anyone no what happened there? Or have a link to a thread on the topic?
I was wondering that today, but was too damned lazy to investigate. It puzzles me as to why he was banned. I can think of others who should go instead unless there is something really bad that we missed.
Really. As a teacher, I'm sure you must have recognized this before, certainly in some of your students, when a fairly intelligent person allows themselves to be taken in by their own ego. Guilty of it myself on a near daily basis.someone said:I’m not sure what distinction you’re making between dumb and foolishness.
Don't flatter yourself.LancsLad said:TOV how did you know I was thinking of you. Thanks for making my point.
Then I don't see how it applies if we're not talking about "fairly intelligent" people but I guess it has become and academic question anyway. However, ego is a common "fault". I put "fault” in quotations as some ego likely leads people to become more then logic would predict.Asterix said:Really. As a teacher, I'm sure you must have recognized this before, certainly in some of your students, when a fairly intelligent person allows themselves to be taken in by their own ego. Guilty of it myself on a near daily basis.
Love you too babe, but not in that manly back slapping, great goal, saved the game kind of way. More in a lets do lunch then see Brokeback Mountain kind of way.TOVisitor said:Don't flatter yourself.
There, I was nice to the deservedly modest, pompous twit so I can't be banned.
This surprises me. I thought he had just decided to take a hiatus again. I never saw anything that would have suggested he should be banned. As Don likes to say, confused.someone said:I was wondering why langeweile has not posted for some time. I just did a search and he is listed as being banned. Does anyone no what happened there? Or have a link to a thread on the topic?
It's nice to see people
banned because someone didn't like what was said. I've read posts by lots of fools on this board and would never ask for them to be banned. Skip over someone's post if you don't like them.
Typical of people who promote free speach until someone says something that is not liked. If people want intelligent conversation, why are they on a escort review board? I bet you don't talk about escorts on a classical music site.
I didn't agree with everything that Roger said, but like lots of other people, I will defend his right to say it. I think Neversayno is an idiot who posts links from left-wing papers to support his view, but I have never asked him to be banned. If I didn't want to read his posts, I could skip over them. I get a kick out of reading his postings. It reminds me that no matter how educated someone may be, it doesn't make them smart.
By the way, I would be considered to be right of centre. Does that mean that I am evil and eat freshly aborted fetuses? No, it only means that I have different beliefs. I suppose this is where I could list names of left-wingers who are loonie to support my beliefs. I also like reading the post that mentioned misogynists,homephobes,racists,etc. as being right-wing characteristics. Wouldn't that be generalizing; a form of prejudice. Where is the open-mindedness thta left-wingers are known for? Oops, instead of writing left-wingers, I should have written commies,pinkos,etc.
x
banned because someone didn't like what was said. I've read posts by lots of fools on this board and would never ask for them to be banned. Skip over someone's post if you don't like them.
Typical of people who promote free speach until someone says something that is not liked. If people want intelligent conversation, why are they on a escort review board? I bet you don't talk about escorts on a classical music site.
I didn't agree with everything that Roger said, but like lots of other people, I will defend his right to say it. I think Neversayno is an idiot who posts links from left-wing papers to support his view, but I have never asked him to be banned. If I didn't want to read his posts, I could skip over them. I get a kick out of reading his postings. It reminds me that no matter how educated someone may be, it doesn't make them smart.
By the way, I would be considered to be right of centre. Does that mean that I am evil and eat freshly aborted fetuses? No, it only means that I have different beliefs. I suppose this is where I could list names of left-wingers who are loonie to support my beliefs. I also like reading the post that mentioned misogynists,homephobes,racists,etc. as being right-wing characteristics. Wouldn't that be generalizing; a form of prejudice. Where is the open-mindedness thta left-wingers are known for? Oops, instead of writing left-wingers, I should have written commies,pinkos,etc.
x
It's too bad...
that Roger wasn't targeting groups like Americans,Jews,or Republicans, or any other group that is popular to take shots at. We would be lucky enough to have him here. I always thought it was better to know where people stand than have them hide their true beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may be. That is a consequence of true democracy.
x
that Roger wasn't targeting groups like Americans,Jews,or Republicans, or any other group that is popular to take shots at. We would be lucky enough to have him here. I always thought it was better to know where people stand than have them hide their true beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may be. That is a consequence of true democracy.
x
xdog said:that Roger wasn't targeting groups like Americans,Jews,or Republicans, or any other group that is popular to take shots at. We would be lucky enough to have him here. I always thought it was better to know where people stand than have them hide their true beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may be. That is a consequence of true democracy.
x
The left advocate tolerance and acceptance ( of their ideas) while demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.
