|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 22, 2008 20:48:09 GMT -5
Big Dog, you give yourself way too much credit. If anything, the use of your foul language shows that you blew a fuse, plain & simple. You are not dealing with street punks here, but law abiding citizens who pay taxes, obey the laws and some of us have a differing opinion. I appreciate your commenting, knowing that you are "done" with me, (that wouldn't be the first time). I don't see what you are saying that you singled out any particular poster and as a matter of fact, I felt like you targetted the forum in general as many have participated in the elections topics, you included. I felt like you took a "cheap shot" calling people a**holes and then you would not appear until after the election. You didn't hit a nerve and maybe that was your intention. I think your name-calling was a reaction to your nerve being hit because of the upcoming election and it doesn't look so good for the Republicans, but that is no excuse, especially you, being so respected, to lower yourself to the PD mindset. I am more worried to the reaction of our forum. Will they follow suit? Being with this group for so long, I think I know some of you enough that I am used to your intellectual insults, and you do that well, but you don't seem to take it like a man the same way that you dish it out.  Edited to add: Big Dog, I will not call you any names. I just need to establish the rules for any who have entered the forum recently as that thread is no longer available. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 22, 2008 21:37:40 GMT -5
Mink, if you want to call Big Dog an asshole for suggesting that people who make or post "attack after petulant attack while completely ignoring substance." (which charge I believe is valid) are assholes, go for it. He can take it. I doubt he will be seriously offended, if offended at all. But get over it already. It isn't that big a deal. Or, if you are going to be touchy and complain any time someone makes an insulting comment, be willing to be taken to task every time you toss out one of your frequent insults.
As I posted earlier, some of the garbage you dish out with regularity I find at least as offensive as being called an a-hole. But I guess because you are an enlightend progressive it's cool to insult, belittle and demean people.
Even the ubiquitous "neocon", which was coined as a pejorative used against those who had been libs but then dared to reject and then expose the moral and philosophical bankruptcy of the liberal movement, has decended to a catchall pejorative hurled at just about anyone who is not a "progressive." It has undertones of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism. Think of it as the "n word" of the political world.
Saunterelle, why can blacks call each other "the n word" with no problem but bristle and call anyone else who uses it a racist? It is the intent - Mink uses it as a belitting insult. Ditto for one of her favs "pubbies." It is even worse when she uses it in an attempt to insult those who have time and again made it clear that they are not real fond of Bush, but seem to support him because they refuse to sit still and watch the leftist lynch mob going after Bush with lies, half truths, and innuendo. If some here are going to feel free to throw insults at others, they need to be willing to take a few hits themselves.
Was Big Dog a bit blunt? Yep, he was. Was he over the line? I doubt it. If he makes a habit of it, yeah, that will be over the line and it will be addressed then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 22, 2008 21:58:25 GMT -5
Subdjoe, no , I won't lower my standards by name-calling. My use of the word "pubbie"or "neocon" is not intended to be insulting, but it is shorter than R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n. These aren't vulgar words, or are they?
I am only pointing this out because it was made an issue that I took a few posts from a link that started a thread, which wasn't well accepted. Posting links was irritating for some, but name-calling is just as irritating. For the name calling to come from a respected member of good standing, poses future offenses, the same as my so-called "spamming", which I explained myself after I was politely warned.
I think Big Dog is being treated too lightly, but that is my opinion. Yes, he was "over the line" and now he feels he is supported enough to respond with "bingo".
I am a regular and I suppose it is inconvenient for others who would like to post one-sided views. I feel I am providing another point of view as well as others do, and they shouldn't be mass jumped on so "ugly" without recourse, just for the sake of being a member of good standing and one-sided opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Sept 22, 2008 22:03:43 GMT -5
Mink, based on The Big Dog's history of well thoght out posts in this forum, I seriously doubt he "blew a fuse" in the manner you suggest. I do think he is toeing the line of decorum with this particular use of an expletive. But if someone was truly offended by that, or any other expletive usage, I would hope that it would be handled appropriately. I think your starting a conversation to address it was fine and seems to be serving its purpose. TBD explained his reasoning and seems to understand the inititial concern of its use. We are not here to debate his thought process nor are we qualified to do so. I must say, to your credit, you do a wonderful job in doing the EXACT thing that caused TBD to throw out his *A* bomb at unknown targets when you said this: I think your name-calling was a reaction to your nerve being hit because of the upcoming election and it doesn't look so good for the Republicans... And the thread comes full circle  |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 22, 2008 22:17:36 GMT -5
Well crossride, when one is in these forums, we meet with all kinds trying to express ourselves...some, better than others.
Explaining foul language is not easy and there is no justification.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 22, 2008 23:41:35 GMT -5
My use of the word "pubbie"or "neocon" is not intended to be insulting, but it is shorter than R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n. quote] Depends on the intent, Mink. I guess "the n word" is just a shorter than 'african american', isn't it? As for "not intended to be insulting" I have to say bull pucky. But, since you are a 'rat (hey, shorter than Democrat, right?) I guess anything you say is OK, since 'rats are so tolerant, diverse, and inclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 23, 2008 0:00:43 GMT -5
sigh.....  please subdjoe, save your ammo. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 23, 2008 7:47:48 GMT -5
Just using your reasoning, Mink. Or, is that somehow not fair?
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 23, 2008 8:03:01 GMT -5
For me, I am not saying the word itself sends me over the edge, and I expect it from some posters, and others...
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 23, 2008 18:13:42 GMT -5
Very recently, a regular poster of good standing, had blown his fuse and called particular posters "a**holes". Now, I was politely warned not to spam and I explained that spam wasn't my intent, but to get a point across. Will this regular poster of good standing also receive the same polite warning? Is this behavior of name-calling being overlooked at the distress of recipients it was intended for? As Moderator, I must say this is unacceptable and goes beyond respect of the forum and I don't wish to wait until after elections for an answer.  As a moderator, wouldn't it be your job to warn the poster who made the infraction? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 23, 2008 18:18:36 GMT -5
The Big Dog clearly wrote: "In short and in total, once again we are going to go through the next 40 days with attack after petulant attack while completely ignoring substance. Such is the way of the modern Democrat party. Litle wonder why Joe won't caucus with them even though he has been a Democrat pretty much forever. Well I don't need that. It sucks, all of you practicing it are assholes. See you after the election." So I guess that if Mink and JMO were offended, they must be guilty of issuing "attack after petulant attack while completely ignoring substance." I'm having to agree with The Big Dog on this one. These types of posters are definitly "assholes." I, personally, do not see a problem. The term was not directed to anyone specific, in fact, it was directed only to people who post attacks and no substance. What I am seeing is basically an over-reaction to a most endearing term. "He who dares not offend can not be honest." - Thomas Paine. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 23, 2008 18:23:31 GMT -5
The term"Bushie" is a valid one to use. Also, what's wrong with "neocon?" The term "Bushie" became prominent during the investigation of the controversial replacement of several U.S. Attorneys when it was revealed that Justice Department official Kyle Sampson suggested in an e-mail to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft that "we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys -- the underperforming ones . . . The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc." If those in the White House use it as a term of endearment, why can't we use it to describe their supporters? Honestly, I don't mind being called an asshole as long as I am getting my point across. Also, Bigdog's gripe about petulant attack goes both ways. Look at how many threads here attack Obama for things that are a non-issue or perpetuate lies that are confirmed false. Wish I had more time to post here and right these wrongs but I've been incredibly busy lately. Will find more time soon. Do you mean like the lies that he has in bed with him the people most responsible for the current financial crisis that is griping this nation? He is partly to blame also, since he voted against the one law in 2005, along party lines, that would have prevented this crisis. He made that vote even after the warning by Alan Greenspan, who turned out to be 100% correct. |
|
please subdjoe, save your ammo.
