+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 29 of 32 FirstFirst ... 192526272829303132 LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 311

Thread: MOD ANNOUNCEMENT: Member Debates (Input needed)

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shangrila View Post
    Yet they can take a talking point, an idea from that very thread closed to others, and start their own thread, open to everyone.
    Precisely, and I'm pleased this point is understood.

  2. #282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flounder View Post
    Oh be still my heart,,,,Please, Oh please let me be worthy of such a Gift that it may be granted..Let me ask you? as these enlightened posters enter this most humble thread can we have a picture taken? ACTUALLY QUOTE THEM TOO? I really want to know if we can quote them word for word...it's important
    I wonder,,,how am I worthy, how is it this gift will be stowed upon me....
    [I believe we can still start any thread we like, or is that being altered as well.?] I think it is important we know this.

    I guess since these posters have been deemed to have the ''Right Stuff'' we can expect them all to have clean records right? We would not expect such things as infractions, warnings, or GOD FORBID BEING BANNED on their resume,,Heck last thing these people would want is to be labeled is HYPOCRITES!!!
    This is a very important question since trolling and other problematic things have been discussed as part of the reason for this. What's everybody's take on clean records?..I imagine it's very important. Unless certain posters are ''EXCUSED'' for their bad behavior. Naaaa they would never do that, to think that posters that have called other people Racists and Bigots with nothing more then unfounded opinions would never be part of anything like this.

    My God what kind of examples would they be? As pointed out in the OP we want to encourage a certain type of posting. I would expect all those with tarnished records would bow out honestly and willingly.
    We must insist on clean records, and very obviously nobody that has ever been banned should be placed in the position of Moding, Judging, or debating in this New Venture....AGREED?

    Pfffffft, love you too.
    All I'm saying is that we can create another thread about the same topic and go at it. We don't even have to pay attention to the other thread at all.
    No one will make you even look.


    EPV, how about a poll to see who's for it and who's against?

    Wag more, bark less

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shangrila View Post
    EPV, how about a poll to see who's for it and who's against?
    http://www.politicalforum.com/forum-...rticipate.html

  4. Default

    Sounds like good fun; I'm all for it.
    If we do not learn from the past, we will keep making the same stupid mistakes

  5. #285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flounder View Post
    As pointed out in the OP we want to encourage a certain type of posting. I would expect all those with tarnished records would bow out honestly and willingly.
    We must insist on clean records, and very obviously nobody that has ever been banned should be placed in the position of Moding, Judging, or debating in this New Venture....AGREED?

    that and also it may be trying to encourage those debates with links and facts.

    good old fashioned bar room debates have been the mainstay here but this type of posting could be ok once in awhile.
    Last edited by liberalminority; Jul 09 2011 at 03:30 PM.
    NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE RACIST, but all racists are conservative.

    UnAmerican not to be for Obama,Government=Solution,Patriotism=Paying Taxes

    Democrats: Freedom For Poor Republicans: Freedom For Rich

  6. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shangrila View Post
    Pfffffft, love you too.
    All I'm saying is that we can create another thread about the same topic and go at it. We don't even have to pay attention to the other thread at all.
    No one will make you even look.
    Should not even be a thread, it should be in Group. This site allows all members to participate, that's why we have group,,for those that want to be ...errr ''Special''

    This idea is against what the very site stands for and the majority realizes that, group participation or dont you see that? Would you like to show me all the debates here that are ruined by this? Are these people handicapped or something?, short attention span perhaps? If separate is what they want then let them have it in group, have you looked at the polls? They do not have conservative debaters, they hardly have any conservative judges as well...

    Oh,,,the tomato was not for you,,,LOL,,,it was for the idea...
    Infraction??, but he insulted me FIRST!!
    So report him.He reported you, we usually check reports first. Next time report him
    Oh, I will thanx...

  7. #287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liberalminority View Post
    that and also it may be trying to encourage those debates with links and facts.

    good old fashioned bar room debates have been the mainstay here but this type of posting could be ok once in awhile.
    I think you should take a look at the threads, most people where required do post Links. If they forget they supply them, all of us have done that at times, this will not teach Squat.
    Infraction??, but he insulted me FIRST!!
    So report him.He reported you, we usually check reports first. Next time report him
    Oh, I will thanx...

  8. Default

    I have to say, I don't see any harm in trying it.

    I really still don't understand why people are against the idea of trying something new.

    It was suggested that they would work on site performance if they were going to work on something. I personally haven't had a problem with site performance since it went down last time the database was corrupted. That was several months ago, and I visit this site every day.

    That is another thing. It was suggested that when they donated it was to improve site stability and they wouldn't have donated if they knew it wasn't going for that. Donating money doesn't put you on the board of directors or make you a stock holder.

    More than once, I have been told that this site is for open debate only. Then I am given an example of how you can actually have closed debate on this site. So which is it?

    If you already have closed debate on your site, then this is NOT a site for open debate. Even if it was a site for open debate, let say the owner wanted to change that, who are we to say "no"?
    A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. -Albert Einstein

  9. #289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flounder View Post
    Should not even be a thread, it should be in Group. This site allows all members to participate, that's why we have group,,for those that want to be ...errr ''Special''

    This idea is against what the very site stands for and the majority realizes that, group participation or dont you see that? Would you like to show me all the debates here that are ruined by this? Are these people handicapped or something?, short attention span perhaps? If separate is what they want then let them have it in group, have you looked at the polls? They do not have conservative debaters, they hardly have any conservative judges as well...

    Oh,,,the tomato was not for you,,,LOL,,,it was for the idea...
    There are no Con debaters or judges because they have probably ganged together to boycott the idea. That may be because if any of the Cons have to debate without having his/her back covered by the attack pack, they will lose the debate.

    Utter hypocrisy. Complaining this will exclude, while being a member of a group who gang together to exclude any differing opinion from a fair hearing.

  10. #290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viv View Post
    There are no Con debaters or judges because they have probably ganged together to boycott the idea. That may be because if any of the Cons have to debate without having his/her back covered by the attack pack, they will lose the debate.

    Utter hypocrisy. Complaining this will exclude, while being a member of a group who gang together to exclude any differing opinion from a fair hearing.
    Conservatives form alliances; liberals form war parties... and long to be put up on pedestals where their voices are the only ones heard. Notice how many libs signed up to be judges? This kinda thing is right up their alley.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 29 of 32 FirstFirst ... 192526272829303132 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks