Wow, go on vacation for a few days and come back to all sorts of excitement. :lol:

IMO the mods made a decision that will make TP a much nicer place to be. At the very least we'll be saved reading the same hackneyed vitriolic knee-jerk posts over and over and over and over and over again.

Hopefully this will help skip the first 6-pages of cut-and-pasted arguments, red herrings, etc and dive straight into intelligent discourse on a topic. I think this sends the message that even if you've been here forever and PW daily you're still not above the rules.

40,000 posts don't count for somehting ;)

First off, I am not left leaning by any stretch.
...and or liberals, whereas Xnargs were, quite often, attacks on democrats and or liberals.


If it walks like a Duck .... quacks like a Duck ... not left leaning ? :shake: I guess next you will be saying you never call anyone Racist either without backing up your accusations.

Xnarg will be missed by many of us primarily because contrary to what his distracters want people to believe he had this bad habit of backing up his comments with proof via links.

On a side note. I personally would like to see a set of compete rules and established definitions (i.e. Trolling) in a single post so we would know what the rules are. I keep seeing stuff like “that was discussed and it was decided “ .. the problem is I don’t have time to go thru all the “discussion” post to see what was decided.

It is kinda hard to live within the rules when so many are subjective or at least look to be.

If it walks like a Duck .... sounds like a Duck ... not left leaning ? :shake: I guess next you will be saying you never call anyone Racist either without backing up your accusations.

Xnarg will be missed by many of us primarily because contrary to what his distracters want people to believe he had this bad habit of backing up his comments with proof via links.

On a side note. I personally would like to see a set of compete rules and established definitions (i.e. Trolling) in a single post so we would know what the rules are. I keep seeing stuff like “that was discussed and it was decided “ .. the problem is I don’t have time to go thru all the “discussion” post to see what was decided.

It is kinda hard to live within the rules when so many are subjective or at least look to be.

I will try to work on that this weekend time permiting.

I will try to work on that this weekend time permiting.

Thanks .. and please don't forget the ones broght up in the treads .. i.e. Titles of Threads have to match the title of the article referenced, no name calling of politicians , etc.

Xnarg will be missed by many of us primarily because contrary to what his distracters want people to believe he had this bad habit of backing up his comments with proof via links.

:iagree:

Xnarg will be missed by many of us primarily because contrary to what his distracters want people to believe he had this bad habit of backing up his comments with proof via links.

Contrary to what his worshipers believe, linking to articles to support one's red herring does not add meaningful material to the discussion. ;)

We're seeing revisionist history in the making. :lol:

Contrary to what his worshipers believe, linking to articles to support one's red herring does not add meaningful material to the discussion. ;)

We're seeing revisionist history in the making. :lol:
I also remember lot of challenges went unanswered by Xnarg, only to have his minions opine what Xnarg may have meant.

Contrary to what his worshipers believe,...:

And just who may they be? Sounds like you are jealouse. :lol:

And just who may they be? Sounds like you are jealouse. :lol:
:D I'm not stepping into that trap. FWIW a couple of those folks that have since evolved into valuable members of TP in my opinion.

Cheerleaders may have been a better word (though I like iamiam's use of minions).

No jealousy here; I'll take a clever adversary over a group of cheerleaders any day. :lol:

:D I'm not stepping into that trap. FWIW a couple of those folks that have since evolved into valuable members of TP in my opinion.

Cheerleaders may have been a better word (though I like iamiam's use of minions).

No jealousy here; I'll take a clever adversary over a group of cheerleaders any day. :lol:

IMO this perception really depends on what side of the fence you reside. I'm sure many podiumites thought the same thing about roobosmith's "minions". If you are left of center, you tend to agree with and argue the same points of others who are left of center. If you are right of center, same. Since roobo and xnarg were two of the most prolific posters, it's natural that they might be perceived as the leaders.

The problem for me is that things have seemed to become more and more emotionally driven and less and less rationally driven. And, the bigger problem, open-mindedness is truly a rare gift.

:D I'm not stepping into that trap. FWIW a couple of those folks that have since evolved into valuable members of TP in my opinion.

Cheerleaders may have been a better word (though I like iamiam's use of minions).

No jealousy here; I'll take a clever adversary over a group of cheerleaders any day. :lol:

So if someone agrees with someone else’s post most of the time then they have to be worshipers, or cheerleaders, or now minions. Why can’t they just be someone who happens to agree most of the time?

Why do you feel you have to assign some “negative” label to them. Does it make you feel superior or more of a mature adult to do so? You’re just proving my point about the left and their “negative” comments. I bet you joined right in with the other name callers and those who ridiculed her clothes and makeup when Ms. Harris didn’t do what the liberals wanted her to.

Yeah ... we saw what happened when you had a clever adversary ... no wonder you are so happy he is gone ... :lol:

IMO this perception really depends on what side of the fence you reside. I'm sure many podiumites thought the same thing about roobosmith's "minions". If you are left of center, you tend to agree with and argue the same points of others who are left of center. If you are right of center, same. Since roobo and xnarg were two of the most prolific posters, it's natural that they might be perceived as the leaders.

The problem for me is that things have seemed to become more and more emotionally driven and less and less rationally driven. And, the bigger problem, open-mindedness is truly a rare gift.

So why is it no one on the right has ever accused anyone who agreed with roobosmith's views or post of being a worshiper, or cheerleader, or now minion? Why is it only the left who feels a need to put a negative label on someone who agrees with most of Xnargs post but I haven’t seen anyone on the right put any such label on those who agreed with roobosmith?

BTW .. sorry .. I agreed with Xnarg's post and viewpoint most of the time but no .. I didn't consider him a leader .. just someone who had his act together and constantly proved the left wrong with his post and links proving his statements.

BTW .. sorry .. I agreed with Xnarg's post and viewpoint most of the time but no .. I didn't consider him a leader .. just someone who had his act together and constantly proved the left wrong with his post and links proving his statements.

Hence my wording "might be perceived".

So if someone agrees with someone else’s post most of the time then they have to be worshipers, or cheerleaders, or now minions. Why can’t they just be someone who happens to agree most of the time?
Ugh. I spelled out the difference.

Why do you feel you have to assign some “negative” label to them. Does it make you feel superior or more of a mature adult to do so? You’re just proving my point about the left and their “negative” comments.
Jeez man. Do you prefer yes men to thinkers? I don't, thus the negative labels.

You're "point" about "the left" is ridiculous. Please try to think outside party lines, one cannot paint all of those that disagree with them with such a broad brush and expect to be taken seriously.

I bet you joined right in with the other name callers and those who ridiculed her clothes and makeup when Ms. Harris didn’t do what the liberals wanted her to.
:huh: I must have missed that.

Yeah ... we saw what happened when you had a clever adversary ... no wonder you are so happy he is gone ... :lol:
That's sad. Wu, Paperboy, Hurricane, Bonk, and many others here are clever. You won't see posts from them that are simply a cut and paste of the same crap over and over and over. That's the type of thing I'm talking about. I want to butt heads with ideas and arguments rather than dogmatic rhetoric.

So why is it no one on the right has ever accused anyone who agreed with roobosmith's views or post of being a worshiper, or cheerleader, or now minion? Why is it only the left who feels a need to put a negative label on someone who agrees with most of Xnargs post but I haven’t seen anyone on the right put any such label on those who agreed with roobosmith?

Did you see any of that before today? I believe I'm the only one that used those words (except for minions). It's folly to attribute my opinion to all those you perceive to be on my side of the aisle.

So why is it no one on the right has ever accused anyone who agreed with roobosmith's views or post of being a worshiper, or cheerleader, or now minion? Why is it only the left who feels a need to put a negative label on someone who agrees with most of Xnargs post but I haven’t seen anyone on the right put any such label on those who agreed with roobosmith?

BTW .. sorry .. I agreed with Xnarg's post and viewpoint most of the time but no .. I didn't consider him a leader .. just someone who had his act together and constantly proved the left wrong with his post and links proving his statements.

You mean like those on the right who continually refer to Obama as the "messiah" just as a way to attack his supporters? Why is it only the right who feels the need to put a negative label on someone who agrees with many of his views?

I'm sorry, but those on the right are just as guilty as putting negative labels on people. And the right leaning posters here did have a much greater habit of ganging up and attacking those on the left who disagreed with Xnarg's posts by jumping in and speaking for him, much more than anyone on the left here did for roob.

You mean like those on the right who continually refer to Obama as the "messiah" just as a way to attack his supporters? Why is it only the right who feels the need to put a negative label on someone who agrees with many of his views?

I'm sorry, but those on the right are just as guilty as putting negative labels on people. And the right leaning posters here did have a much greater habit of ganging up and attacking those on the left who disagreed with Xnarg's posts by jumping in and speaking for him, much more than anyone on the left here did for roob.

Could it be one's position was more defensible than the other?

Could it be one's position was more defensible than the other?

Roobo posted some doozies, but then again so did X. Roobo posted things that just didn't make sense sometimes and he did so IMO more frequently than X.

When X was in the wrong (on things like the merits of abstinence-only sex ed in the US, for-profit pharmaceuticals and drug pricing, for-profit health insurance etc.), I definitely let him know about it and posted links.

Could it be one's position was more defensible than the other?
I think it's more of a solidarity issue. You're either with us or against us, etc.

As rrc06 says, they both posted some doozies.

Roobo posted some doozies, but then again so did X. Roobo posted things that just didn't make sense sometimes and he did so IMO more frequently than X.

When X was in the wrong (on things like the merits of abstinence-only sex ed in the US, for-profit pharmaceuticals and drug pricing, for-profit health insurance etc.), I definitely let him know about it and posted links.

interesting wording there. Quite definitive.

That's really a shame. I continually disagreed with this politics and grew very tired of his constant railings on liberals, but in the Tech Support forums his posts were always very articulate and helpful. He's not hurting SD by removing them; he's hurting anyone that could have stumbled upon them looking for good tech support.

I felt remiss not saying anything about this. I completely agree with riptide; I've lurked the Tech Support forums here and there and generally find the answers I would have given already provided by X. He's a valuable resource to that forum; he knows his stuff.

If it walks like a Duck .... quacks like a Duck ... not left leaning ? :shake:

I am very far from left leaning.
I am an avid gun owner and I like Ron Paul.
Would you say there are a lot of left leaning folks that can say that ?

I guess next you will be saying you never call anyone Racist either without backing up your accusations.

I would never call anyone Racist unless I truly felt in my heart that they were.
I would also tell them what part of their behavior led me to that conclusion.

Xnarg will be missed by many of us primarily because contrary to what his distracters want people to believe he had this bad habit of backing up his comments with proof via links.

What gave you the impression that the bad habit the mods didn't like was the posting of links to back up his comments ?

On a side note. I personally would like to see a set of compete rules and established definitions (i.e. Trolling) in a single post so we would know what the rules are. I keep seeing stuff like “that was discussed and it was decided “ .. the problem is I don’t have time to go thru all the “discussion” post to see what was decided.

It is kinda hard to live within the rules when so many are subjective or at least look to be.

As much as I agree that there should be some clearer rules, it's all but impossible to have a set or rules that has no gray area.

I am very far from left leaning.
I am an avid gun owner and I like Ron Paul.
Would you say there are a lot of left leaning folks that can say that ?



Not to get into the whole rest of this conversation too much, but.. I would call you left leaning too :) I think it is because we only know you here by what posts you respond to the most and how you respond to them. I always feel like you are moderate to left based on those posts.



As for Rooob and Xnarg, I'll miss them both, I hope it isn't permanent but it sounds like it may end up being. I think they both had a tendency to be overly partisan. I have to say though, when I found out who the two banned people were, I laughed out loud. Not because I wanted them banned, but more like at the irony of it being the two of them. Arch enemies :nod:

Arch enemies :nod:

I guess moderation is key for TP.

interesting wording there. Quite definitive.

Well, I didn't know how to phrase it better. I posted articles and studies that documented why an abstinence-only sex ed was bad for US teen pregnancy rates, teen STD rates etc. compared to the rest of the world.

When it came to drug pricing and big pharma, I posted articles about how the US is beholden to the drug lobbyists, how we pay more for drugs than anyone else in the world, and how things such as Medicare Part D were handouts to the pharmaceutical industry.

X had some positions that were not defensible when looking at the available evidence.

What troubled me about roobo is that he frequently made pointed statements without ANY links, and others would eventually post links to refute what he had said.

Not to get into the whole rest of this conversation too much, but.. I would call you left leaning too :) I think it is because we only know you here by what posts you respond to the most and how you respond to them. I always feel like you are moderate to left based on those posts.

I have stated it before, but I'll say it again, I was in a lot of left leaning threads because that was primarily where all the attacks were.
What position have I taken that you would take as left leaning ?
Merely backing up someone that is being attacked and is left leaning does not make me left leaning.

Well, I didn't know how to phrase it better. I posted articles and studies that documented why an abstinence-only sex ed was bad for US teen pregnancy rates, teen STD rates etc. compared to the rest of the world.

When it came to drug pricing and big pharma, I posted articles about how the US is beholden to the drug lobbyists, how we pay more for drugs than anyone else in the world, and how things such as Medicare Part D were handouts to the pharmaceutical industry.

X had some positions that were not defensible when looking at the available evidence.

What troubled me about roobo is that he frequently made pointed statements without ANY links, and others would eventually post links to refute what he had said.

I have no desire to, nor is this a thread for, disputing any of your assertions. However, I do not believe posting an article or two and/ or some studies proves you are right regarding a certain topic. There is always room for new information and/or a reexamination of the current information with a different perspective. That's why I am uncomfortable with your definitive wording and believe that the many podiumites (including myself more often) could stand to be less definitive rather than more.

I have no desire to, nor is this a thread for, disputing any of your assertions. However, I do not believe posting an article or two and/ or some studies proves you are right regarding a certain topic. There is always room for new information and/or a reexamination of the current information with a different perspective. That's why I am uncomfortable with your definitive wording and believe that the many podiumites (including myself more often) could stand to be less definitive rather than more.

point taken. I've always been open to new information that would cause me to re-examine my understanding of the issues.

I have stated it before, but I'll say it again, I was in a lot of left leaning threads because that was primarily where all the attacks were.
What position have I taken that you would take as left leaning ?
Merely backing up someone that is being attacked and is left leaning does not make me left leaning.

Look, I'm not saying you ARE left leaning, I'm saying you come across as left leaning.

Not to get into the whole rest of this conversation too much, but.. I would call you left leaning too :) I think it is because we only know you here by what posts you respond to the most and how you respond to them. I always feel like you are moderate to left based on those posts.
:iagree: If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's more than likely a duck. And well, I have never seen him defend the other "side". So there is no credible source to believe his words.

:iagree: If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's more than likely a duck. And well, I have never seen him defend the other "side". So there is no credible source to believe his words.
This is a good conversation....for PM. I'm not entirely sure how it relates to this thread. :confused:

This is a good conversation....for PM. I'm not entirely sure how it relates to this thread. :confused:

sorry :)

If it walks like a Duck .... quacks like a Duck ... not left leaning ? :shake:

:iagree: If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's more than likely a duck.

My vote is for parrot.

I for one will not miss Xnarg in the podium. Too often his arguments sounded like: I use precisely whatever words I choose, and they mean precisely whatever I want them to mean. I kept looking for a "very late" white rabbit....

But I will miss Roo's insights.

My vote is for parrot.

:lol:

My vote is for parrot.

:lol:

This thread is the new "Evolution vs Creationism". Podium Renewal is so Passe'


But I will miss Roo's insights.

"Neocons did it!"

Look, I'm not saying you ARE left leaning, I'm saying you come across as left leaning.

I have shared PM's with some people about that.
It's actually quite funny because I am probably the only person that is defending liberals here that's not even close to a liberal.
The point I have always wanted to get across in my posts, is that a lot of people here make posts that I feel are unfair, wrong, and or unnecessarily disrespectful.
There has been a completely lopsided onslaught towards liberals here, it truly has been shameful.
I truly have not seen anything even remotely close from liberals towards conservatives.

My vote is for parrot.

I hate having to repeat myself but they keep feeding me crackers.
BTW, is that a personal attack ? :D

I for one will not miss Xnarg in the podium. Too often his arguments sounded like: I use precisely whatever words I choose, and they mean precisely whatever I want them to mean. I kept looking for a "very late" white rabbit....

But I will miss Roo's insights.

Am I the only one who remembers when Rooob started the entire post about how Bush lied to him b/c he wasn't eligible for the stimulus check?? He never backed down... it made me not want to engage in any more conversations with him b/c I felt that it showed that no matter how wrong he obviously was, he'd never admit it. I'm not sure that Xnarg was ever willing to admit that he was wrong either..

I hate having to repeat myself but they keep feeding me crackers.
BTW, is that a personal attack ? :D

I believe I was put on her ignored list for less.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I truly have not seen anything even remotely close from liberals towards conservatives.

Were too busy getting smoking our "medicinal" marijuana. I am sad about roob leaving, I guess I missed some of his more controversial posts so I'm sort of confused.

Thats a shame that Robo and Xnarg are no more.

I learned a great deal from both of them whether I agreed with them or not.

Am I the only one who remembers when Rooob started the entire post about how Bush lied to him b/c he wasn't eligible for the stimulus check?? He never backed down... it made me not want to engage in any more conversations with him b/c I felt that it showed that no matter how wrong he obviously was, he'd never admit it. I'm not sure that Xnarg was ever willing to admit that he was wrong either..

:iagree:

Roobo made some assertions that came out of left field. When he was proven wrong, he simply did not back down.

Thats a shame that Robo and Xnarg are no more.

I learned a great deal from both of them whether I agreed with them or not.

IMO this is the true "moderate" position.

:iagree:

Roobo made some assertions that came out of left field. When he was proven wrong, he simply did not back down.

There were plenty of threads where he did the same thing. E.g. saying that Rumsfeld was glad or something that we had 911. And when he was called on it, he continually kept believing it.

IMO, he was too controversial, too anti-american. He wouldn't admit when he was wrong. He would never say anything positive of America.

It would have been fine if he was controversial and/or had anti-American views or even if he didn't change his mind when others felt they proved he was completely wrong. The point was both he and Xnarg had many many many posts that either had personal attacks or just stated things to be a troll.

Wow even in their absence people cant help but try and take one last swipe at either of them.:(

Life goes on someone else will pick up the slack in a couple months to replace their absence.

You should allow Xnarg and Roobosmith back to TP... Only, however, that they must defend "the other side" [i.e. Xnarg defending liberal viewpoints, Roobo defending conservative points]. That would be a concession, right?

Wow even in their absence people cant help but try and take one last swipe at either of them.:(

Life goes on someone else will pick up the slack in a couple months to replace their absence.

:iagree: Time to end the discussion now. Everyone had a chance to have their say.

You should allow Xnarg and Roobosmith back to TP... Only, however, that they must defend "the other side" [i.e. Xnarg defending liberal viewpoints, Roobo defending conservative points]. That would be a concession, right?
You are ignoring why they were banned in the first place.

The point was both he and Xnarg had many many many posts that either had personal attacks

I very rarely saw either of them using personal attacks.

I very rarely saw either of them using personal attacks.
They weren't so easy to ignore for those who were often the targets of such personal attacks. :sadwalk:

They weren't so easy to ignore for those who were often the targets of such personal attacks. :sadwalk:

I honestly don't recall either of them making a lot of personal attacks.

It may have come across as harsh but there was never, or at least rarely, name calling, or otherwise derogatory comments, other than maybe calling someone a Socialist or a Neocon.

I honestly don't recall either of them making a lot of personal attacks.

It may have come across as harsh but there was never, or at least rarely, name calling, or otherwise derogatory comments, other than maybe calling someone a Socialist or a Neocon.

Again, I would suggest that this may be an example of selective reading and/or memory. When someone repeatedly attacks your personal integrity and/or ethics for daring to disagree w/him or her, it's rather difficult to forget.

Again, I would suggest that this may be an example of selective reading and/or memory. When someone repeatedly attacks your personal integrity and/or ethics for daring to disagree w/him or her, it's rather difficult to forget.

IMO Roobosmith was doing the same to me that you percieve Xnarg did to you.

IMO Roobosmith was doing the same to me that you percieve Xnarg did to you.
Really? Because just a few posts ago, you were more than ready to defend both of them.... Now, all of a sudden, not so much. :scratchh:

BTW, interesting choice of words. When you suggest that Roobo was attacking you (after initially claiming that he didn't) you use a clear, definitive term like "was doing." When referring to my suggestion that I was being so attacked, you use a vague, subjective term like "percieve"..... almost as if you were trying to imply that attacks against you really happened, while mine were merely "perceptions".

But I'm sure the fact that your own politican persuasions are far more inline with Xnarg as opposed to Roobo has absolutely no bearing on that at all. :rolleyes:

Note to self: When entering a discussion in the Podium, remember to be immoderately moderate, very slightly opinionated, dispassionate, inoffensive in the extreme, all sweetness and light. On second thought, maybe the Podium isn't really worth my time if Xnarg and roob aren't there.

Really? Because just a few posts ago, you were more than ready to defend both of them.... Now, all of a sudden, not so much. :scratchh:

BTW, interesting choice of words. When you suggest that Roobo was attacking you (after initially claiming that he didn't) you use a clear, definitive term like "was doing." When referring to my suggestion that I was being so attacked, you use a vague, subjective term like "percieve"..... almost as if you were trying to imply that attacks against you really happened, while mine were merely "perceptions".

But I'm sure the fact that your own politican persuasions are far more inline with Xnarg as opposed to Roobo has absolutely no bearing on that at all. :rolleyes:

I don't believe you're following what Parafly is saying. I believe Parafly is saying your perception is wrong, b/c you're being too sensitive. I don't agree with him... I agree with you, but I think I understand what he's saying. I think he's still defending both of them in saying that his perception is that they were both being hostile with their opponents and it wasn't anything to get upset about.

Again... I don't agree with him. I think they were both prone to excess.

On second thought, I do have one last parting observation. Xnarg and roob's contributions have been the type of discourse I would expect to see out of REAL people in a public, long-winded, ongoing discussion of contentious issues complete with passion and personality. Without their contributions to the forum it becomes, for me, an exercise in sterility. If the Podium is to become the intellectual equivalent of the Phillips Exeter Academy debate team with it's pretentious, restrictive decorum and conduct rules, its value to me will have declined to the point of not wishing to participate. Adios for now.

On second thought, maybe the Podium isn't really worth my time if Xnarg and roob aren't there.
Seriously? Have you not enjoyed the past few days of clicking on a thread and not knowing exactly what thoughtless partisan crap you were going to read for the first few pages? It's like a breath of fresh air, the threads aren't cluttered as much as they were with statements that basically amount to "Your party sucks!!!1!"

I don't believe you're following what Parafly is saying. I believe Parafly is saying your perception is wrong, b/c you're being too sensitive. I don't agree with him... I agree with you, but I think I understand what he's saying. I think he's still defending both of them in saying that his perception is that they were both being hostile with their opponents and it wasn't anything to get upset about.

Again... I don't agree with him. I think they were both prone to excess.

Thanks Wu, that is exactly what I was saying.

Really? Because just a few posts ago, you were more than ready to defend both of them.... Now, all of a sudden, not so much. :scratchh:


I am defending both of them. :dontknow:

I am just saying that Roob on the left is not so much different from X on the right. They are both partisan, stubborn on their views, and held their own opinions in high regard. They both would be offensive to a person on the other side, surely. I happen to think both had posts within bounds. Apparently you think Roob did but X did not, which I find way more partisan than I could ever be accused of.

BTW, interesting choice of words. When you suggest that Roobo was attacking you (after initially claiming that he didn't) you use a clear, definitive term like "was doing." When referring to my suggestion that I was being so attacked, you use a vague, subjective term like "percieve"..... almost as if you were trying to imply that attacks against you really happened, while mine were merely "perceptions".

No, I'm saying that the comments were the same on both sides. Roob = X. You perceived Xnarg's comments as an attack. I'm saying Roob was very similar to Xnarg, but I didn't perceive them as an attack.

If you think Xnarg was attacking, then it is only reasonable that it would show your partisanship if you thought in the same wing that Roob was not.

But I'm sure the fact that your own politican persuasions are far more inline with Xnarg as opposed to Roobo has absolutely no bearing on that at all. :rolleyes:

My political persuasions are more in line with Xnarg. But I take great pride in following what I believe is right and correct, regardless of what Xnarg or Roob or anyone else thinks.

I am defending both of them. :dontknow:

I am just saying that Roob on the left is not so much different from X on the right. They are both partisan, stubborn on their views, and held their own opinions in high regard. They both would be offensive to a person on the other side, surely. I happen to think both had posts within bounds. Apparently you think Roob did but X did not, which I find way more partisan than I could ever be accused of.



No, I'm saying that the comments were the same on both sides. Roob = X. You perceived Xnarg's comments as an attack. I'm saying Roob was very similar to Xnarg, but I didn't perceive them as an attack.

If you think Xnarg was attacking, then it is only reasonable that it would show your partisanship if you thought in the same wing that Roob was not.



My political persuasions are more in line with Xnarg. But I take great pride in following what I believe is right and correct, regardless of what Xnarg or Roob or anyone else thinks.

great job at describing what you meant! :)

No, I'm saying that the comments were the same on both sides. Roob = X. You perceived Xnarg's comments as an attack. I'm saying Roob was very similar to Xnarg, but I didn't perceive them as an attack.

If you think Xnarg was attacking, then it is only reasonable that it would show your partisanship if you thought in the same wing that Roob was not.

Either that or because she has the views she does, she was only attacked by one of them.

Either that or because she has the views she does, she was only attacked by one of them.

But that isolates it down to only her experience, and doesn't look at the actions of the poster or the impact on the Podium as a whole.

If she is going to criticize Xnarg for being "attacking", it is only fair for her to also recognize that Roob was doing the identical thing on the other side.

An attack is an attack. Just because the attacker is on your side doesn't change the fact that an attack occurred.

Following that logic is the reason we have such divisiveness in our society.

Seriously? Have you not enjoyed the past few days of clicking on a thread and not knowing exactly what thoughtless partisan crap you were going to read for the first few pages? It's like a breath of fresh air, the threads aren't cluttered as much as they were with statements that basically amount to "Your party sucks!!!1!"

:dontknow: I guess I still see the game as the same, just the players that have changed.

But you are right, the anticipation of the NEW partisan BS is great. :D

We are more sensitive to the transgressions of those we perceive to be our opponents. I don't think anyone is immune.

We are more sensitive to the transgressions of those we perceive to be our opponents. I don't think anyone is immune.

I have been innoculated :woot:

Jesting aside, I do concede this is true, however the degree to which this is exhibited varies greatly. I'd like to think I'm reasonably fair on most things. Although surely, if I agree with someone 90 times and then they say something I disagree with, I would give them more credence or thought for sure.

Who knows.


But you are right, the anticipation of the NEW partisan BS is great. :D

:woot:

:O I only started posting here to counter all the extreme right-wing propaganda perpetuated by Xnarg. I feel I'm no longer needed :(

I am defending both of them. :dontknow:

I am just saying that Roob on the left is not so much different from X on the right. They are both partisan, stubborn on their views, and held their own opinions in high regard. They both would be offensive to a person on the other side, surely.
Being partisan, stubborn and arrogant was *not* what "offended" me wrt Xnarg. :shake:

I happen to think both had posts within bounds.
So do I.... And both had posts that were not.

Apparently you think Roob did but X did not, which I find way more partisan than I could ever be accused of.
Apparently, you have read implications into my posts that I never made.

Where did I claim that Roobo's posts were all "within bounds" but that Xnarg's were not? :look:

Nowhere. Nor did I even suggest that *generally* Roobo's posts were "within bounds" but that Xnarg's were not. :shake:

No, I'm saying that the comments were the same on both sides. Roob = X. You perceived Xnarg's comments as an attack. I'm saying Roob was very similar to Xnarg, but I didn't perceive them as an attack.
I don't see how anyone could perceive some of the comments Xnarg made against me (and others) as anything but a personal attack. But that's my opinion, which obviously is markedly different than yours.

If you think Xnarg was attacking, then it is only reasonable that it would show your partisanship if you thought in the same wing that Roob was not.
Again, where did I ever claim that Roobo never "attacked" anyone?

I didn't, because, IMHO, I have no standing to make such a claim. OTOH, I feel I have more than sufficient standing to suggest that Xnarg did, in fact, make a substantial number of personal attacks.

But that isolates it down to only her experience, and doesn't look at the actions of the poster or the impact on the Podium as a whole.
I can only speak to my own experiences w/each poster. :dontknow:

If she is going to criticize Xnarg for being "attacking", it is only fair for her to also recognize that Roob was doing the identical thing on the other side.
FWIW, I can't immediately remember any comments by Roobo that would be equivalent to some of the ones made against me. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Perhaps it is my bias... perhaps it is a lack of equivalency. .

An attack is an attack. Just because the attacker is on your side doesn't change the fact that an attack occurred.
Again, IMHO, I don't see it as quite so black and white (i.e. either both of them attacked or neither of them attacked). It's quite possible that they were not as equivalent as some perceive.

Being partisan, stubborn and arrogant was *not* what "offended" me wrt Xnarg. :shake:

What was it, then? Because it seems that you hold X to a different standard than Roob.


Apparently, you have read implications into my posts that I never made.

Where did I claim that Roobo's posts were all "within bounds" but that Xnarg's were not? :look:

Nowhere. Nor did I even suggest that *generally* Roobo's posts were "within bounds" but that Xnarg's were not. :shake:

Maybe I have. It's based on you claiming X made personal attacks; while not admonishing Roob for his similar style of posting.


I don't see how anyone could perceive some of the comments Xnarg made against me (and others) as anything but a personal attack. But that's my opinion, which obviously is markedly different than yours.


That it is :comfort:

Again, where did I ever claim that Roobo never "attacked" anyone?

If you didn't, I apologize. I had the impression you were admonishing Xnarg for his comments, but giving Roobosmith a pass, which I found to be insightful into your partisanship.

I didn't, because, IMHO, I have no standing to make such a claim. OTOH, I feel I have more than sufficient standing to suggest that Xnarg did, in fact, make a substantial number of personal attacks.

Why do you feel one but not the other?

I can only speak to my own experiences w/each poster. :dontknow:

:huh: So posts that aren't specifically directed toward you you can't speak towards :huh:

Are you suggesting you aren't objective enough to identify when someone with whom you agree on the issues makes an "attack"?

FWIW, I can't immediately remember any comments by Roobo that would be equivalent to some of the ones made against me. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Perhaps it is my bias... perhaps it is a lack of equivalency. .

I think it is exactly your bias. Which, from MY experience, I perceive to be much heavier on your side than my own is on my side.

Again, IMHO, I don't see it as quite so black and white (i.e. either both of them attacked or neither of them attacked). It's quite possible that they were not as equivalent as some perceive.

I can only speak from the 1000's of posts I have read from each of them.

Smeg - I'm curious to see an example of what YOU consider to be a personal attack.

Smeg - I'm curious to see an example of what YOU consider to be a personal attack.
That's a pretty safe query considering all the posts are deleted. :P

That's a pretty safe query considering all the posts are deleted. :P

:lol:

There must be some left that mods thought were OK that she considered a "personal attack".

No?

If not, how about something just that you would consider to be a personal attack? (make it up!)

:lol:

There must be some left that mods thought were OK that she considered a "personal attack".

No?

If not, how about something just that you would consider to be a personal attack? (make it up!)

No? Have you been watching Hell's Kitchen?

What was it, then? Because it seems that you hold X to a different standard than Roob.
<sigh> Where have I held Roobo to *any* standard? You are the one who brought Roobo into the conversation. I responded to a post you made claiming that neither of them engaged in personal attacks. My response was based on my own personal experience of being attacked by Xnarg.

Maybe I have. It's based on you claiming X made personal attacks; while not admonishing Roob for his similar style of posting.
Again, how can I admonish Roobo for something I don't know if he ever did? :dontknow: I'm not claiming that Roobo was perfect. I'm claiming that I don't have the same level of knowledge/experience wrt his "attacking" posts as I do w/Xnarg's "attacking" posts.

*If* Roobo made direct personal attacks against other posters in the same vein that Xnarg did, then I hereby admonish him. Satisfied?

If you didn't, I apologize. I had the impression you were admonishing Xnarg for his comments, but giving Roobosmith a pass, which I found to be insightful into your partisanship.
For the umpteenth time, I commented on Xnarg and not Roobo because I have direct personal knowledge/experience of the former committing direct personal attacks against other posters.

My lack of comment on Roobo was exactly that -- a lack of comment.

Why do you feel one but not the other?
Because I was (repeatedly) personally attacked by one and not the other. Any other poster who felt s/he was so directly personally attacked by Roobo is free to comment on that.

:huh: So posts that aren't specifically directed toward you you can't speak towards :huh:

Are you suggesting you aren't objective enough to identify when someone with whom you agree on the issues makes an "attack"?
I am suggesting that, given their direct and personal nature, I remember such attacks by Xnarg. I do not have that same level of knowledge wrt to every post that Roobo made and whether it was a similar "attack."

I think it is exactly your bias. Which, from MY experience, I perceive to be much heavier on your side than my own is on my side.
Of course you do. :rolleyes:

I can only speak from the 1000's of posts I have read from each of them.
And apparently, you found *none* of those 1000s of posts to contain a personal attack. Obviously, I disagree with that assessment.

Smeg - I'm curious to see an example of what YOU consider to be a personal attack.

Here's a quick example of the kind of attack to which I refer:

Provide an alternate and believable explanation of what BHO meant, preferably one not in "amoral defense attorney deception mode."

Such comments were commonplace after I outed myself wrt my education background / hopeful career. Before then, I was merely another "Libunatic".

:lol:

There must be some left that mods thought were OK that she considered a "personal attack".

No?
Whoa! Am I drunk or were all his posts replaced with the word delete a few days ago? I thought he'd deleted all his posts and that's why I said what I did.

If not, how about something just that you would consider to be a personal attack? (make it up!)
IMO that's probably not one of the offenses that prompted the ban. From what I saw the attacks were more general (sweeping statements about all "dems" or "liberals") so they don't really qualify as personal attacks in my book. There were some of course, but who hasn't stooped to that once or twice?

Most of the things I saw that I'd consider attacks were statements attacking the integrity of a poster. I didn't see much (if any) direct name-calling that I remember.

IMO that's probably not one of the offenses that prompted the ban. From what I saw the attacks were more general (sweeping statements about all "dems" or "liberals") so they don't really qualify as personal attacks in my book. There were some of course, but who hasn't stooped to that once or twice?
Just to clarify, I'm not including such unsubstantiated generalizations as "direct personal attacks." They're still unsubstantiated generalizations, of course, just not "direct personal attacks." ;)

Most of the things I saw that I'd consider attacks were statements attacking the integrity of a poster. I didn't see much (if any) direct name-calling that I remember.
Exactly. If I had a dollar for every time Xnarg attacked my integrity/morals/ethics.... well, that would be one heck of a slick deal. :D

Again, how can I admonish Roobo for something I don't know if he ever did? :dontknow: I'm not claiming that Roobo was perfect. I'm claiming that I don't have the same level of knowledge/experience wrt his "attacking" posts as I do w/Xnarg's "attacking" posts.

I'm suspicious of your claim that you could notice one and not the other..... :scratch: :dontknow: I suppose it can be the case. But IMO after reading through entire threads I'd be surprised..

*If* Roobo made direct personal attacks against other posters in the same vein that Xnarg did, then I hereby admonish him. Satisfied?

Yes


Here's a quick example of the kind of attack to which I refer:

Such comments were commonplace after I outed myself wrt my education background / hopeful career. Before then, I was merely another "Libunatic".

A very good example.

Note to self: When entering a discussion in the Podium, remember to be immoderately moderate, very slightly opinionated, dispassionate, inoffensive in the extreme, all sweetness and light. On second thought, maybe the Podium isn't really worth my time if Xnarg and roob aren't there.

Well I'd like to think that both of them check in from time to time and see how things are going. ;)

IMO this is the true "moderate" position.

Lol, maybe I should run for president!

How do we maintain this environment of open conversation?

First, some rules have been put in place below as a guideline to follow. This is just a guideline and will be updated as needed. Next, well thought out posts encourage a back-and-forth discussion. Based on previous experiences, we have found that members who continually criticize the opinions of others but rarely share their own side tend to kill off discussions. With that in mind, the moderators will remove members who we believe have a negative impact on the community as a whole. This decision will be based on a consensus of the moderators.

Before I close this thread and issue a new one with the new consolidated rules, I just wanted to highlight the part that I think explains what occured the past couple of days. Please feel free to continue discussion in the new thread but we will not allow discussion on other members posting habits or their pros and cons.