How seriously do we take our debate here? It could be of National Interest. OPP could become a site, like other blogs, that are listened to.
I have been enormously impressed by a number of members here that really have something to say and say it extremely well, on both sides (though mostly the Right). (I feel at odds naming anyone so I will not.) My point is, do we want our voices and opinions to be heard? To matter? In our present state of Troll-dominance, this will not happen. Especially in this present atmosphere with both sides of the aisle, and even extremist, calling for more civil and less h**eful rhetoric after the recent attempt on a Republicans life. Even Ted Nugent, notorious and dedicated attacker of the Left, has sworn no more "h**eful rhetoric." Do we want to continually allow, even encourage--the disruptive, asinine, h**eful, and useless--trolls that make OPP a laughing stock?
First Amendment Rights? Every debate has rules of engagement, protocol, for discussion to keep the focus on the subject. If I have a plumbing problem and the person I hired to fix it wants to talk electricity, changing the topic back to plumbing is not violating his 1st Amendment right. Keeping the focus in a debate on the named subject is just reasonable and fair, and not an attack on the 1st Amendment. What is an attack on the 1st Amendment is the person or persons that look to discourage, undermine, or somehow disrupt the free exchange of ideas. This is the tactic of oppressive regimes. Intimidate opposing voices, threaten their reputation, and question their loyalty.
Eugene Debs wrote:
I have been enormously impressed by a number of members here that really have something to say and say it extremely well, on both sides (though mostly the Right). (I feel at odds naming anyone so I will not.) My point is, do we want our voices and opinions to be heard? To matter? In our present state of Troll-dominance, this will not happen. Especially in this present atmosphere with both sides of the aisle, and even extremist, calling for more civil and less h**eful rhetoric after the recent attempt on a Republicans life. Even Ted Nugent, notorious and dedicated attacker of the Left, has sworn no more "h**eful rhetoric." Do we want to continually allow, even encourage--the disruptive, asinine, h**eful, and useless--trolls that make OPP a laughing stock?
First Amendment Rights? Every debate has rules of engagement, protocol, for discussion to keep the focus on the subject. If I have a plumbing problem and the person I hired to fix it wants to talk electricity, changing the topic back to plumbing is not violating his 1st Amendment right. Keeping the focus in a debate on the named subject is just reasonable and fair, and not an attack on the 1st Amendment. What is an attack on the 1st Amendment is the person or persons that look to discourage, undermine, or somehow disrupt the free exchange of ideas. This is the tactic of oppressive regimes. Intimidate opposing voices, threaten their reputation, and question their loyalty.
I have been enormously impressed by a number of me... (
show quote)
>>>>>>>>>>
This is an Open Forum there are no rules hardly... there shouldn't be any rules really...
Let it fly
Let it rip
Lead fly's both ways too...ha !
Who cares ....
Most people are programmed by the Propaganda machine anyway, they don't believe the Facts we post.
Do you ?
WTF ?
Really ?
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
This is an Open Forum there are no rules hardly... there shouldn't be any rules really...
Let it fly
Let it rip
Lead fly's both ways too...ha !
Who cares ....
Most people are programmed by the Propaganda machine anyway, they don't believe the Facts we post.
Do you ?
WTF ?
Really ?
So it seems you are saying surrender any possibility of legitimacy and let chaos rule and accept it? As to who cares, I do. An "open forum" does not mean no responsible rules of engagement. That "Most people are programmed by the Propaganda machine anyway, they don't believe the Facts we post." Post them anyway. Do I care again? Yes!
Eugene Debs wrote:
So it seems you are saying surrender any possibility of legitimacy and let chaos rule and accept it? As to who cares, I do. An "open forum" does not mean no responsible rules of engagement. That "Most people are programmed by the Propaganda machine anyway, they don't believe the Facts we post." Post them anyway. Do I care again? Yes!
>>>>>>
Noted and you have valid points.
Good day. Most forums of open debate do turn into chaos. Unfortunate nature of the beast. I believe most vitriol comes form the left, but in full disclosure I am of the "right" persuasion. Therefore; my opinion is skewed. Very few here can take insults and not insult back. Slatten is the best example of level headedness followed by lindajoy. I hope I am in the middle of the pack, but I have always had a temper and been a smartass. I look forward to your posts.
Eugene Debs wrote:
I have been enormously impressed by a number of members here that really have something to say and say it extremely well, on both sides (though mostly the Right). (I feel at odds naming anyone so I will not.) My point is, do we want our voices and opinions to be heard? To matter? In our present state of Troll-dominance, this will not happen. Especially in this present atmosphere with both sides of the aisle, and even extremist, calling for more civil and less h**eful rhetoric after the recent attempt on a Republicans life. Even Ted Nugent, notorious and dedicated attacker of the Left, has sworn no more "h**eful rhetoric." Do we want to continually allow, even encourage--the disruptive, asinine, h**eful, and useless--trolls that make OPP a laughing stock?
First Amendment Rights? Every debate has rules of engagement, protocol, for discussion to keep the focus on the subject. If I have a plumbing problem and the person I hired to fix it wants to talk electricity, changing the topic back to plumbing is not violating his 1st Amendment right. Keeping the focus in a debate on the named subject is just reasonable and fair, and not an attack on the 1st Amendment. What is an attack on the 1st Amendment is the person or persons that look to discourage, undermine, or somehow disrupt the free exchange of ideas. This is the tactic of oppressive regimes. Intimidate opposing voices, threaten their reputation, and question their loyalty.
I have been enormously impressed by a number of me... (
show quote)
JFlorio wrote:
Good day. Most forums of open debate do turn into chaos. Unfortunate nature of the beast. I believe most vitriol comes form the left, but in full disclosure I am of the "right" persuasion. Therefore; my opinion is skewed. Very few here can take insults and not insult back. Slatten is the best example of level headedness followed by lindajoy. I hope I am in the middle of the pack, but I have always had a temper and been a smartass. I look forward to your posts.
Hmmm, did not want to show favor but I agree. You have shown passion for your position but also show the same degree of level-headedness. I have been impressed with how you give at times. My, er ahem, objective assessment, as I stated, is that the Right appears to show the greater degree of tolerance. Though the Right appears to have the most obdurate trolls.
Eugene Debs wrote:
I have been enormously impressed by a number of members here that really have something to say and say it extremely well, on both sides (though mostly the Right). (I feel at odds naming anyone so I will not.) My point is, do we want our voices and opinions to be heard? To matter? In our present state of Troll-dominance, this will not happen. Especially in this present atmosphere with both sides of the aisle, and even extremist, calling for more civil and less h**eful rhetoric after the recent attempt on a Republicans life. Even Ted Nugent, notorious and dedicated attacker of the Left, has sworn no more "h**eful rhetoric." Do we want to continually allow, even encourage--the disruptive, asinine, h**eful, and useless--trolls that make OPP a laughing stock?
First Amendment Rights? Every debate has rules of engagement, protocol, for discussion to keep the focus on the subject. If I have a plumbing problem and the person I hired to fix it wants to talk electricity, changing the topic back to plumbing is not violating his 1st Amendment right. Keeping the focus in a debate on the named subject is just reasonable and fair, and not an attack on the 1st Amendment. What is an attack on the 1st Amendment is the person or persons that look to discourage, undermine, or somehow disrupt the free exchange of ideas. This is the tactic of oppressive regimes. Intimidate opposing voices, threaten their reputation, and question their loyalty.
I have been enormously impressed by a number of me... (
show quote)
Most people on this forum prefer no holds barred responses. Personal attacks, calumny and vitriol are their pleasure. The invite only forum was an attempt to achieve some of what you have said but it limits itself to removing users of profanity. I don't know whether Admin will act in uncivil discourse or not, I haven't seen that happening. This forum is looked down on as being too highbrow or sissified and its users are vilified.
Also there is no regulation on any forum against hijacking the discussion thread and you find the same people exchanging bandinage no matter what the topic was, no matter how far it is off the original topic. This results in everyone else abandoning the thread.
Some people exhibit a monomania that is truly astounding. On every thread they have to insert their shibboleths, diverting the discussion to their views no matter what the original topic was. They decline to post their own threads because most people ignore these johnny one note characters.
Given the lack of rules for discourse, OPP will never become the force you envision. It is a nice dream but it won't happen here.
pafret wrote:
Most people on this forum prefer no holds barred responses. Personal attacks, calumny and vitriol are their pleasure. The invite only forum was an attempt to achieve some of what you have said but it limits itself to removing users of profanity. I don't know whether Admin will act in uncivil discourse or not, I haven't seen that happening. This forum is looked down on as being too highbrow or sissified and its users are vilified.
Also there is no regulation on any forum against hijacking the discussion thread and you find the same people exchanging bandinage no matter what the topic was, no matter how far it is off the original topic. This results in everyone else abandoning the thread.
Some people exhibit a monomania that is truly astounding. On every thread they have to insert their shibboleths, diverting the discussion to their views no matter what the original topic was. They decline to post their own threads because most people ignore these johnny one note characters.
Given the lack of rules for discourse, OPP will never become the force you envision. It is a nice dream but it won't happen here.
Most people on this forum prefer no holds barred r... (
show quote)
>>>>>>>>
Ha...monomania... that's awesome !
I need to find a facial expression to match that description... way cool.
Eugene Debs wrote:
I have been enormously impressed by a number of members here that really have something to say and say it extremely well, on both sides (though mostly the Right). (I feel at odds naming anyone so I will not.) My point is, do we want our voices and opinions to be heard? To matter? In our present state of Troll-dominance, this will not happen. Especially in this present atmosphere with both sides of the aisle, and even extremist, calling for more civil and less h**eful rhetoric after the recent attempt on a Republicans life. Even Ted Nugent, notorious and dedicated attacker of the Left, has sworn no more "h**eful rhetoric." Do we want to continually allow, even encourage--the disruptive, asinine, h**eful, and useless--trolls that make OPP a laughing stock?
First Amendment Rights? Every debate has rules of engagement, protocol, for discussion to keep the focus on the subject. If I have a plumbing problem and the person I hired to fix it wants to talk electricity, changing the topic back to plumbing is not violating his 1st Amendment right. Keeping the focus in a debate on the named subject is just reasonable and fair, and not an attack on the 1st Amendment. What is an attack on the 1st Amendment is the person or persons that look to discourage, undermine, or somehow disrupt the free exchange of ideas. This is the tactic of oppressive regimes. Intimidate opposing voices, threaten their reputation, and question their loyalty.
I have been enormously impressed by a number of me... (
show quote)
Look Ignacious,
It's simple.
If you can't stand the heat of verbal warfare, then plant yourself a rose garden in a cool climate and sit there twittling your thumbs until the perfect world you're fantasizing about comes to fruition.
Fortunately however, OPP has created a jellyfish pond in the form of the ignore option.
It's a sheltered safe place for pansies and wussies.
So put on your big boy breeches and learn to come strong or stay home.
GOT IT...............................Ignacious ?
pafret wrote:
Most people on this forum prefer no holds barred responses. Personal attacks, calumny and vitriol are their pleasure. The invite only forum was an attempt to achieve some of what you have said but it limits itself to removing users of profanity. I don't know whether Admin will act in uncivil discourse or not, I haven't seen that happening. This forum is looked down on as being too highbrow or sissified and its users are vilified.
Also there is no regulation on any forum against hijacking the discussion thread and you find the same people exchanging bandinage no matter what the topic was, no matter how far it is off the original topic. This results in everyone else abandoning the thread.
Some people exhibit a monomania that is truly astounding. On every thread they have to insert their shibboleths, diverting the discussion to their views no matter what the original topic was. They decline to post their own threads because most people ignore these johnny one note characters.
Given the lack of rules for discourse, OPP will never become the force you envision. It is a nice dream but it won't happen here.
Most people on this forum prefer no holds barred r... (
show quote)
My recent struggle with trying to exactly define what is a troll tells me you are right. No way Admin of OPP could police or arbitrate punishment for a Troll. My hope was that both sides would police themselves. Either ignoring or chastising the frequent and obvious offenders. Show a dedication to honest and civil and reasonable debate. A Child vomiting, crying, or pooping in their diaper should not be allowed to hold the floor or direction in a discussion. Take them outside. Put them outside. I see it as possible. Give in to the useless rabble that appear to care nothing about the issues affecting America is like giving Russia a thumbs up to interfere in our e******ns.
Wolf counselor wrote:
Look Ignacious,
It's simple.
If you can't stand the heat of verbal warfare, then plant yourself a rose garden in a cool climate and sit there twittling your thumbs until the perfect world you're fantasizing about comes to fruition.
Fortunately however, OPP has created a jellyfish pond in the form of the ignore option.
It's a sheltered safe place for pansies and wussies.
So put on your big boy breeches and learn to come strong or stay home.
GOT IT...............................Ignacious ?
Look Ignacious, br br It's simple. br br If you ... (
show quote)
It is not the heat of verbal warfare, WC, but the cool total lack of brain power. Flatlining! You have nothing to say but be offensive. That is easy. Debate? Beyond your realm. The "heat of verbal warfare" is just a euphemism you use to disguise a desire to insult and inability to intelligently respond. Jellyfish is an apt description of you: of little substance but stinging.
Trading insults and macho threats are for pansies and wussies. The big bully on the playground hurting younger and smaller children is your style. You are such a complete ass in your thinking. You never outgrew your place in the playground.
Eugene Debs wrote:
My recent struggle with trying to exactly define what is a troll tells me you are right. No way Admin of OPP could police or arbitrate punishment for a Troll. My hope was that both sides would police themselves. Either ignoring or chastising the frequent and obvious offenders. Show a dedication to honest and civil and reasonable debate. A Child vomiting, crying, or pooping in their diaper should not be allowed to hold the floor or direction in a discussion. Take them outside. Put them outside. I see it as possible. Give in to the useless rabble that appear to care nothing about the issues affecting America is like giving Russia a thumbs up to interfere in our e******ns.
My recent struggle with trying to exactly define w... (
show quote)
If you think you are going to get honest, civil, and reasonable debate from l*****t progressives, you are dreaming. Once you figure out where l*****ts are coming from, what they stand for, and how they "articulate" their world view, you will understand that any effort to debate them is futile. There may be one or two liberals on here who are not so far into the kook fringe that you can have a reasonable conversation with them, but for the most part, the l*****ts here are nothing more than attack machines.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.