Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Level of Discourse in OT

OT Civility 2009

  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#1 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 09:33 AM

When I first began posting here in the fall of 2004, sarcasm and unflattering generalizations and such could get one a warning. Even getting hot under the collar and being visibly angry in your response to someone could get you a warning.

The result was that there were more interesting discussions. People had to back up what they said. If there was contradictory evidence, it was presented. There was no name-calling, no snide derision. Arguments were won or lost or tied on the basis of logical support. Those are productive arguments. Unfortunately, they have become rare here.

I am NOT saying that I want heavier moderation. Instead, I am wondering if thread-starters may be able to designate certain threads as "flame-free" zones: do not enter unless you can debate points with solid evidence instead of snide remarks or hysterical rants. Do not enter unless you can consider the possibility that you haven't considered all angles on the topic. Do not enter unless you are willing to engage in a fallacy-free, logical, supported-with-solid-evidence discussion that will be beneficial to all involved, in agreement or not. We can all learn things from one another even when we don't see eye-to-eye.

If enough people are interested in this, perhaps we could have an icon--like the cool-it icon--that thread-starters can use to indicate their desire to have a decent, rational, respectful discussion on the topic. The community can self-police. If people violate the rules of discussion on the thread, they can be gently reminded of them. If they persist, then they're trolling and any credibility they'd like to think they have is shot: they just have a bug up their ass about something and want to act out. We can ignore them and continue the discussion.

This would not require anything of the staff. Again, this is simply a designation that a thread is a flame-free, sarcasm-free zone where one is expected to support one's assertions with evidence and avoid fallacies. People will disagree and point out weaknesses in arguments, but will do so without being insulting.

What do you all think? Is anyone interested in this? If not, that's cool. I just thought I'd float the idea. I know that I've been shoving back a bit more lately, and I'd rather not go there. So something like this may be helpful to encourage us (me too) to holster the sarcasm and rants.

(Staff if this needs to go to AQG, I understand.)
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#2 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 09:49 AM

I like this. I presume, where you say if someone does start going off, in different directions (not thread drift but disruptive to calm, reasoned debate/discussion) that you mean we choose to just ignore them (which we can do in any thread ;) ), they don't get a warning from staff unless they break regular guidelines that apply to all threads. I don't start a lot of threads in OT, but I certainly considering using this if I felt it was needed/useful to the thread I started, if it becomes an adopted option.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#3 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 09:56 AM

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for my raunchier (adult humor) posts in OT, which I've been told have offended some. No harm was meant-all I meant to do was try and lighten the mood.

I'll dial back on posts like that.

:)
Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#4 NeuralClone

NeuralClone
  • Islander
  • 23,092 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 09:56 AM

I really like this idea, Specs. I think I might be more willing to participate in, and even read, more OT topics if this kind of thing were done. Right now though, I have very little desire to even come in here, let alone participate since most threads (not all) seem to degenerate into pointless namecalling (often in creative ways that don't violate the GLs) and endless snark without any actual evidence to back up any of the claims being made. It's frustrating and isn't remotely fun to read or participate in. That's not why I'm here anyway.
"My sexuality's not the most interesting thing about me."
— Cosima Niehaus, Orphan Black, "Governed By Sound Reason and True Religion"

#5 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:01 AM

I would absolutely love this.

#6 szhismine

szhismine

    why must you hurt me in this way Harry...

  • Islander
  • 13,661 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:02 AM

it's definitely a good idea :) i'll bring it up in the SL. :)
Neville: "My grandmother forbids me from using raunchy language."
Harry: "Well your grandmother is a Blast-Ended Skank!"
Neville: *GASP*
Hermione: "He doesn't mean it Neville, he's just testing out some wizard swears."
Harry: "I mean every word I ever say ever, because I'm Harry Potter." --'Wizard Swears', Potter Puppet Pals

Hermione: "What's your problem Harry?"
Harry: "My parents are dead, my life sucks, I can't hold down a girlfriend, and I'm surrounded by f*ck*ng goblins and sh*t all the time. I mean what the f*ck?"
Ron: "But it's magic Harry. The goblins are magical!" --'Wizard Angst', Potter Puppet Pals

Me: "It's just a matter of looking past [McKay's] arrogant exterior to see his warm, fuzzy, probably angst-filled interior."
Hawkeye: "You harperchondriac girls think everyone has an angst filled interior."

"Good gods, you sniff out angst like a police dog sniffs out drugs." --Lyric (to me)

#7 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:09 AM

View PostGhost Rider, on Jun 9 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for my raunchier (adult humor) posts in OT, which I've been told have offended some. No harm was meant-all I meant to do was try and lighten the mood.

I'll dial back on posts like that.

:)

It probably has, but I think Specs is talking more about what NeuralClone has said, post that degenerate into namecalling creatively within guidelines, as oppose to someone trying to lighten the atmosphere, even as far as you go. Though I think it would apply anyways, I don't know your type of humour belongs in reasonable discourse anyways ;) At least you, with your humour, don't go after specific people (or types of people), so you don't cross the guidelines. At least thats my experience reading your posts. When you go after someone, or a group of someone's (smart car thread) you don't do it sideways or nastily, unless someone considers upfront and blunt nasty. Can be, I can't quite put my finger on how to communicate this, but, while you are blunt, I don't find you ?*personal*? in your attacks. Is that what I'm going for. You aren't personal in your attacks, blunt yes, personal no. I think thats it. Hopefully this post makes sense. On the odd occasion you offend me, I realize its mostly my issue, not any guidelines violation (spirit-wise or otherwise), and leave it be.

ETA: Other people's mile on your posts may vary of course, just thought I've give my pov, since you seemed to be asking for it ;)

Edited by sierraleone, 09 June 2009 - 10:14 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#8 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:19 AM

Personally, I think your suggestion shouldn't require a special disclaimer or icon, but rather be the default.  By and large I think even the heated discussions tend to stay cordial, but there are still some participants who will go into hysterics regardless of a disclaimer or special icon.

#9 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:37 AM

There have been a number of threads where the thread starter specifies the rules of engagement -- "this thread will be a flame free zone" or "this thread will probably get heated."  

I don't think we need to change any guidelines in order to encourage more thread starters to do this as a voluntary thing.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#10 NeuralClone

NeuralClone
  • Islander
  • 23,092 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:39 AM

View PostGhost Rider, on Jun 9 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for my raunchier (adult humor) posts in OT, which I've been told have offended some. No harm was meant-all I meant to do was try and lighten the mood.

I'll dial back on posts like that.

:)
I don't personally have an issue with your sense of humor, GR. My friends and I can be much, much worse. Is it always appropriate? Well, no, probably not. But you're trying to lighten the mood and that has to count for something. :)

View PostNick, on Jun 9 2009, 11:19 AM, said:

Personally, I think your suggestion shouldn't require a special disclaimer or icon, but rather be the default.  By and large I think even the heated discussions tend to stay cordial, but there are still some participants who will go into hysterics regardless of a disclaimer or special icon.
I agree that it should probably be the default. I'd love to see it that way. But I think a special disclaimer icon or whatnot is the next best thing.

Edited by NeuralClone, 09 June 2009 - 10:39 AM.

"My sexuality's not the most interesting thing about me."
— Cosima Niehaus, Orphan Black, "Governed By Sound Reason and True Religion"

#11 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:53 AM

You broke the board Specs :D (for some reason Exisle was inaccessible to me for a few minutes)

Nick as much as I like less of what we speak of in this thread, I don't think its necessary for every thread. Perhaps it should be default behaviour not to do this, but it is human behaviour, and it seems within guidelines. Though hysterics are (or can be anyways, there is certainly overlap) different from creative attacks. I don't think it would be helpful for it to be put on every topic, for example, from the threads on OT's first page now, does it really need to be in/on:

Man dies after ambulance detour (heck, it says "rant-mode" right under the title)
Gingrich says Americans are surrounded by paganism (i'm personally fine with that one, I may not like everything in it, but I wasn't expecting the most reasoned discourse as soon as I read the title, but I was still interested in the topic. YMMV. I was expecting that thread to be very personal for some people, so expected it to be a little more opinionated, less factual, is all. While some have attempted a reasonable debate about the things brought up in that thread, to some people on that personal topic, those things don't matter)
Parliamentary Intrigue in UK, Canada... (maybe just because so few are interested in those politics, and Canadians are so polite, its not a problem? ;) )
Pastor:Bring Guns to Church for the 4th (same as the surrounded by paganism thread, except even more so)
And just like that, Maine has international recognition in the media


I think threads that need (of course who determines needs? I suppose the thread starter is as good as any other) more reasoned discourse *and* are more likely to be heated & personal despite there being much potential for reasoned discourse, are the ones most needing this kind of icon of whatever. For examples:

US government budget
Cheney admits: Never any evidence of Iraq&9/11 (?)
Medical bills tied to 60 percent of bankruptcies (though its natural people were making it personal by bringing up personal stories to suppliment the discussion, but I don't think hysterics or creative attacks belong there)
"Deep Cuts Threaten to Reshape California"

So I picked 4 threads I wouldn't apply it to, that I think people will likely disagree with (yes, I purposely did that for a couple ;) ), and four I would. Generally, I imagine I'd think most economical or political threads should have it, but there are exceptions. Reasoned discourse on religion seems an oxymoronic (is that a word?) to me (not to diss religion, or religious belief, but its sort of the whole point, take it and all it says, on faith, right?), but there are religious discussions I would want to be, or expect to be, reasoned.

Like you suggest, sometimes both situations are happening in the same thread. Some people are doing hysterics and/or creative attacks, while others are having (or trying to have) a reasoned discourse.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#12 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:54 AM

Apparently I have kept this private for too long.  Anyone who can get hysterical enough to force old friends off her own mb over a minor political squabble, and delete a new friend's membership at that mb for the same minor political squabble, has no right to dictate to the rest of us how to post.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#13 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,757 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:54 AM

We've actually discussed this idea (and ones like it) many times in the Staff Lounge over the years. Having it originate as a member initiative with broad support would make it much more workable, because it MUST be a cultural choice among the discussants, evolved over time. It can't be imposed by fiat, however reasoned or benevolent.

Quote

[I am NOT saying that I want heavier moderation. Instead, I am wondering if thread-starters may be able to designate certain threads as "flame-free" zones: do not enter unless you can debate points with solid evidence instead of snide remarks or hysterical rants. Do not enter unless you can consider the possibility that you haven't considered all angles on the topic. Do not enter unless you are willing to engage in a fallacy-free, logical, supported-with-solid-evidence discussion that will be beneficial to all involved, in agreement or not. We can all learn things from one another even when we don't see eye-to-eye.

For one thing, though you are not asking for heavier-handed moderation, you really are -- at least in those threads. What do we do when someone doesn't "play along"? In instances of namecalling, it's fairly easy to make the adjustment, but in many other situations it really isn't -- and those other situations are much more common. Certainly The Real World has never settled on uniform standards of evidence and proof -- even in science (though I think science comes as close as anything we have at present). In political/social discourse in particular, one man's evidence is another man's nonsense.

What do we do if a poster feels their stereotypes or pet peeves are well-weighed facts? If the miss the icon? If a poster claims an overly snarky, even combatative, attitude as personal prerogative ("I gotta be me" or "I calls em as I sees em")? We've all certainly seen, and perhaps sympathized with, cases where a member felt they were singled out almost weekly, but are able to cite individual instances where similar remarks were not sanctions -- that's often a fundamental philosophical issue: often this happens because a given poster *posts* in a certain style weekly, while that may be an aberrant lapse for another.  Is that fair, or should each case be weighed independently? There's no simple answer: a reader's human reaction to an ongoing pattern WILL be different than to a more isolated incident, and the rules seek to minimize the unnecessary annoyance of some discourse, not weigh lifeless words on a page.

Perhaps more importantly: Who decides? In the short term, only the forum moderators can levy sanctions or draw the boundaries, but in the longer term, the discussants must decide the desired boundaries among themselves -- and there will NOT be unanimity. "Be excellent to each other" may be a bit lofty a goal to legislate, but every lesser gradation ("Be civil to each other") that I can think of seems to carry a similar vague and slippery slope. We must embrace that. The right standard isn't some objective line, but rather a compromise that lies within the group comfort zone.

I'm not against the idea. In fact, I support it personally. I'm just noting a few of the kinds of concerns that kept us from implementing it in the past. It's a second standard, when it has taken us a long time to even crudely hammer out the first

The good news is that I feel we *have* basically gotten the first standard hammered out. OT isn't nearly as rancorous as it has been in times past. It makes sense that we might want to build on that. I'd like to see us try. It may be an idea whose time has come.

Just an idea: though I have come to dislike subforums (I feel they are too easily overlooked, and hence reduce participation) and have often heard members oppose the proliferation of primary forums, we may want to consider --*only* consider-- a separate forum if we're going to have a different standard. It could help people "change gears".

#14 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 10:56 AM

Quote

Scott: I don't think we need to change any guidelines in order to encourage more thread starters to do this as a voluntary thing.

I agree. I think an icon would help, though.

And I agree with Nick: what I described should be the default. But it isn't. I think that increased designation of threads as evidence-based and flame-free would help to change the culture of OT, which, let's face it, ain't so pleasant. Maybe, over time, using icons designating threads as places where only civil discourse is welcome will help to re-set the default.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#15 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 11:02 AM

View PostNonny, on Jun 9 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

Apparently I have kept this private for too long.  Anyone who can get hysterical enough to force old friends off her own mb over a minor political squabble, and delete a new friend's membership at that mb for the same minor political squabble, has no right to dictate to the rest of us how to post.

No, you haven't kept quite about an issue from another board, you bring it up
every chance you get despite it being against the GL's.  The other parties
involved have followed the GL's and protected your integrity even while you
impugn theirs.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#16 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 11:05 AM

^ Orpheus I don't think Specs is suggesting more work for the moderators (we'd need her to clarify), but something to let people know the thread starter has a specific tone in mind, and they only want other people who want that tone to post. It may not be able to be enforced. But also don't be surprised if you do not keep in that tone that you will be marginalized in the discussion (not thru name calling or anything like that that makes the situation worse, but thru other means). Of course, these are things that can be (and are done) in other threads, but it just makes the intent clear from the get-go. And perhaps lets people know who do respond to heated comments in kind (but generally may be not start them themselves) that its not welcome here, and as above, that heated comments are best left be, unless they violate the guidelines then involve a moderator. Its about more self moderating than usual. Thats *my* interpretation.

Edited by sierraleone, 09 June 2009 - 11:06 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#17 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 11:16 AM

Quote

Orpheus: OT isn't nearly as rancorous as it has been in times past. It makes sense that we might want to build on that. I'd like to see us try.

If that's the consensus, then there's no need for my suggestion. I think, however, that OT only seems less rancorous because staff is not as closely involved, fewer warnings are issued, and most anything goes.

I really don't think this requires any more moderation than we currently have--which is very light. The community can police itself.

Quote

Certainly The Real World has never settled on uniform standards of evidence and proof -- even in science (though I think science comes as close as anything we have at present). In political/social discourse in particular, one man's evidence is another man's nonsense.

Right--and that's how we learn from one another even when we disagree. There are ways of challenging the facts presented by another without disparaging the person for putting them forward.

Quote

What do we do if a poster feels their stereotypes or pet peeves are well-weighed facts?


We remind them of the icon and ask them to support their opinion with evidence--or point to them that stereotypes are logical fallacies and explain why that particular stereotype is an unfair generalization--offering counter-evidence. And we do so as respectfully as possible. If the person persists, we ignore him or her and discuss with others who are willing to continue the discussion civilly.

Quote

If the miss the icon? If a poster claims an overly snarky, even combatative, attitude as personal prerogative ("I gotta be me" or "I calls em as I sees em")?

Well, countenancing that has led to the current climate where anything pretty much goes. Again, it seems less contentious to people who do not regularly post in OT because there are fewer AQG threads spawned these days. But almost every discussion degenerates into a below-the-radar form of gang warfare that is not really conducive to productive discussions.

I do not want more moderation because I do not want more AQG threads. However, it would be nice to be able to say "knock it off in this discussion, folks. If you can't do anything but toss bombs and rant, please stay out of this thread. If people don't honor that, with no sanctions, the best recourse to maintain the spirit of the thread is to ignore that person. He'll look like the drunk with the lampshade on his head and he'll leave.

Would it hurt to give this a try? Again, all I'm asking for is an icon and thread-author-generated request for a thread to be a sarcasm and flame-free, substantial, discussion of the topic--where civil and rational disagreement is welcome. No new guidelines. No new staff involvement.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#18 NeuralClone

NeuralClone
  • Islander
  • 23,092 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 11:25 AM

View Postsierraleone, on Jun 9 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

^ Orpheus I don't think Specs is suggesting more work for the moderators (we'd need her to clarify), but something to let people know the thread starter has a specific tone in mind, and they only want other people who want that tone to post. It may not be able to be enforced. But also don't be surprised if you do not keep in that tone that you will be marginalized in the discussion (not thru name calling or anything like that that makes the situation worse, but thru other means). Of course, these are things that can be (and are done) in other threads, but it just makes the intent clear from the get-go. And perhaps lets people know who do respond to heated comments in kind (but generally may be not start them themselves) that its not welcome here, and as above, that heated comments are best left be, unless they violate the guidelines then involve a moderator. Its about more self moderating than usual. Thats *my* interpretation.
That's my interpretation as well.

Edited by NeuralClone, 09 June 2009 - 11:27 AM.

"My sexuality's not the most interesting thing about me."
— Cosima Niehaus, Orphan Black, "Governed By Sound Reason and True Religion"

#19 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 11:35 AM

^ Well, I don't think Specs thinks it will eliminate behaviour complete, but hopefully *a little* in the people who perhaps engage in it the most often, and even more hopefully, the people who engage in it in response to others starting it. If they know its especially not welcome in the thread, that they will be marginalized from the discussion in the thread as well, and people will generally be participating in this thread because they want reasoned discourse, so if you want it its there. We can suggest, if 2 people are going at it within guidelines in one of these threads, to take it to PM or start their own thread. Thats the only place were I can see someone wanting a mod (unless they want stronger moderation in general), is if the thread-starter request a thread split because of too much of the undesirable behavior.

(ETA: you know now NeuralClone, people probably don't know what I'm responding to, since you edited out a whole paragraph :D maybe you thought it was too repetitious, but just so you know, I caught that paragraph before you deleted it ;) or am I going crazy  :dontgetit: ;) )

Edited by sierraleone, 09 June 2009 - 11:38 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#20 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 11:37 AM

View PostNonny, on Jun 9 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

Apparently I have kept this private for too long.  Anyone who can get hysterical enough to force old friends off her own mb over a minor political squabble, and delete a new friend's membership at that mb for the same minor political squabble, has no right to dictate to the rest of us how to post.

I agree that I am a flawed human being and I have no right to dictate to others how they should post. This has nothing to do with my suggestion that starters of threads may designate them flame-free zones.

Since you brought it up, you and another person carried things far beyond a "minor political squabble" and crossed the line into attacking me personally here and elsewhere. I'm under no obligation to associate closely with people who treat me like crap. And there are people still there with whom I had the same "minor political disagreement" and we're just fine--mainly because they didn't hate me for not supporting Obama in the primaries and for refusing to buy into the Hillary-Clinton-is-evil hogwash, most of which was proven to be false. After all, she campaigned for Obama and is his Secretary of State. But because I was pissed off when people twisted her every utterance into something horrendous, I was just an irrational lesbian who had a crush on her. No. I don't have to do a damned thing for people who questioned my sanity and my integrity because I disagreed with them over a "minor political" point. I want people like that far, far away from me.

Mods, do what you will with Nonny, but I should probably be warned for importing a dispute from another board.

Edited by Spectacles, 09 June 2009 - 11:38 AM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: OT, Civility, 2009

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users