Friday Funnies

-----

"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08

"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

LOLcats endorse Obama:

http://yeswecanhas.com/

Did Joan just delete someone's post and tell them to "stay off her threads?"

-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08

Joan-I suggest you censor Arvid also.

Joan, this isn't your classroom and you do not own this thread.  You do not get to set the standard of discoure for the conversation that takes place in it, even if you are the primary author.  I'm certain everyone here has started a thread that goes a direction they really didn't want it to.  It's not your blog, it belongs to IP, who has made it clear in the past that it is not acceptable to delete the comments of registered users.  You have been granted elevated privileges (hence your ability to bump threads to the front) for various reasons.  I'm fairly certain this was not one of those reasons.  Yes, eww is a moron and a bigot.  That doesn't give you the right to delete his posting, though.

I tolerate a lot from people, including your hate filled hyper-partisan rants and "funnies", but one thing that always pushes my buttons is when a group of people who take great joy in pointing out the censorship on the UCIMC site turn around and to the exact same thing here.  EW is a registered user, jackassery and all.  His right to post in all threads is the same as yours (regardless of how utterly stupid they make him look), or are some users more equal than others?

-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08

Anyone else remember when several people pitched a fit when people used the democratic options on the forum to demote a particular poor edition of the "Friday Funnies"?

Arvid, I guess your wrong the comments are gone.

Of course she does.

No, she doesn't.  She is exercising a power that other posters do not have.  If all users were given the ability to delete other users posts in threads that they start, then I would be a lot more ok with this.  However, since has been made clear in the past, this isn't acceptable, and I'm calling "shenanigans".  Again I ask, since when is one contributor more equal than others?

As with anything, there is always a standard. It just depends on how low or high one wants to set the bar.  Yours is rock bottom, hers isn't.

You know nothing of me, or the standards that I maintain. Your'e also not fully parsing what I'm saying.  I agree that EW spews some rather ignorant, misguided and vile crap.  I opt to ignore it, as has been the general guiding operating procedure for most people (see Mr. Mortland's postings about his deployment where people who disagree with what he is doing are told "if you don't like it, don't read it").  Glock opts to respond to it, and hilarity usually ensues (at EW's expense).  However, Joan seems to think that if she is offended, it's ok to delete what a registered user has posted.  I don't agree with that, and her claims of this being "her thread" are invalid.  It's not "her blog", and any claim of ownership of a conversation is not valid.

----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08

One difference between this forum and a classroom is that the posters here are generally less impressionable than kids.  I don't think that there's much chance of IP readers seeing ew's posts and believing that Fred Phelps is right.  Another difference is that adults are usually less shielded from the natural consequences of their actions than kids are.  So sure, ew's posts were idiotic, and many readers probably judged him accordingly.

Hey look! It's those old school 3D glasses!

At the last Bad Conservative meeting we had to throw out two of them.

"I'm reclaiming that permission for myself only, and I'll go back to the old policy:  if someone has a problem with something, email me and I'll take a look."

Excellent.  While I agree (*cringe*) that there needs to be someone who has the unilateral power to delete comments, I'm comfortable with IP in that role.

It's his blog, but more importantly, he has earned my respect as one who dispassionately moderates what can often be a very passionate site. 

I must have missed class the day you covered unpublishing a comment.  Even better.

"IP, I am not sure that I should agree with the notion that my comments were off-topic."

I didn't think your comments were an attempt to be humorous, your track record on here doesn't lend people to interpret your comments as humorous, you made no attempt to let anyone know that your comments were intended to be humorous, and at this point, I'm reluctant to watch the videos you link because of the foulness of the things you've written on here, so forgive me for not knowing they were humorous.

But that doesn't matter - I don't care if you agree, as it's not your decision to make.

"And if being opposed to the propagation of homosexuality makes me a Bigot, then I am well pleased to be a proactive Bigot on that account."

Hooray for you.  Understand that your hatred of homosexuals, to the point where you call for their execution, offends almost everybody who participates here, including me.  I will not criticize Joan or anyone else for reacting too strongly to your garbage, because I think that's why you post here - to provoke and offend as many people as possible as some way of seeking attention.

Unfortunately, your provocations have the effect of not adding to discussions, but rather distracting from them, as every thread in which you comment becomes a thread about you, instead of about the topic originally posted.  I previously had two other posters who had a similar effect, and I banned both of them, because they were unwilling to participate more congenially and everybody else was unwilling to allow their provocations to go unanswered.

You are rapidly approaching being banned from here - not because I'm afraid of your ideas, or because I'm too sensitive about your calling me a liberal Democrat, but because I don't want to have so many discussions derailed by your misogynistic rantings on the evils of everyone and everything you hate.  Your banning offense would be that you are an attention whore, unable or unwilling to allow an otherwise constructive discussion to continue unpolluted, without attempting to re-focus it on you and your hatred.

For me, the best solution to this problem would be for you to start your own blog, and see if you can build up a readership for your hateful observations. 

Failing that, I'd prefer that you save your most disgusting garbage to be posted as blog entries of their own.  People can then choose to dicuss or ignore them on their own, without them infringing on any constructive discussions. 

If you wish to comment in other discussions, I am going to continue to monitor your comments closely.  If I anticipate that a comment from you will ruin a discussion, I will unpublish it without hesitation.  Since you seem to think I am misunderstanding many of your comments, you should make a greater attempt to explain them so that I understand exactly what you mean when reading it so that I won't heavyhandedly unpublish something you meant in jest.  (And please fix your line breaks and formatting - I'm completely annoyed by them.)

Of course, any decision I make regarding your participation on here is subject to change, based on my whims, at any time. This site costs me a significant sum of personal funds every year, and is a labor of love.  I'm not going to have it ruined (or even worse - co-opted) by someone so hateful.

If you, or anyone else, wants to further discuss this, please email me.  This thread has veered far enough off course already.

Narc, few Christian conservatives call for the death of Homo sexuals, none who understand the theology of Jesus, who have Christ in their heart, would judge to the point of calling for their death.  Those that do, have missed the point, they are right to be concerned for their welfare, some are destined to Hell, some are not.  Judge and ye shall not be judged.  EW iss over the top when he condems with a vengance.  Was it Mel Brookes who spoke of Abbey Normal?  Through Jesus all things are possible.  EW, I have seen enough of your theology to suggest you consider self introspection.  I'm sure you are aware of the plank in the eye parable, give it some thought.  If you want to save souls, go for the great commision, go after souls who have not heard the word, stop preaching hate, you are begining to remind me of the Jihadists.  Get over this homophobia thing, it is hurting the cause, some of these people are associating you with Christianity, your doing more harm then good.  If your heart is in the right place, recognize you have alienated many here on IP, might be best to rethink your aproach, both on the subject and to the audience.

Lets face it, shock gets response, their is no bad publicity.......Everyone uses the system. 

I agree with Joan, had no one questioned her on this deletion, the blog would have gone on, instead it changed to a new topic.  Bad kids should sit in the corner and wait it out, sometimes.          I like to have my calls screened sometime, saves me time.

Keep up the good job on Fridays, Joan, I enjoy your efforts.

What happened to the post on anonymous posts, I cant seem to find it?

Wow, I quit paying attention for a couple of days and you guys go all ape s***.  It's probably just as well that I wasn't here, since my fundamental understanding of the Constitution makes me a staunch foe of censorship.

There was a similar discussion when the local Democrats first established their blog.  Some in the party wanted to prohibit all public comments, on the basis of a legal opinion that the party would be liable for anything anyone said.  The majority argued successfully that Democrats should promote dialogue.

There are really only a very, very few justifications for censorship.  Basically, it comes down to protection of minors and adherance to clearly defined rules which have been publicly delineated in advance.  After that, the only truly acceptable solution to offensive speech is more speech.  That goes for hate speech, as well.

On the other hand, as someone much smarter than I pointed out, freedom of the press only exists for the owner of the press.  The necessary corollary to that is that freedom of public speech only goes so far as the press allows.

I wonder, given the checkered history of the IMC forum and the consensus sensibility here, is there a place in C-U for an essentially unmoderated, adults only forum?  What would it look like, I wonder, and would it be worth it?  There'd be an amazing amount of wickedly stupid bs, to be sure, but would there be enough honest discussion to justify it?

I wonder if there'd be any demand for it.

I'm not sure how well it'd work - it could be a magnet for spam and nutcases. which would probably push legitimate users out.

I think that would be great because it might help direct those who need attention to that forum and the regular comments could be more constructive discussion.

But if most posters abandoned that forum and it became a bunch of reposts or spam, then those who wanted attention might figure out that they weren't getting it.  At that point, chances are that they'd try to insert themselves into the regular comments again.