View Full Version : What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?
Jay Zeno
07-05-2004, 08:18 AM
Hm. Solid examples are ignored in favor of semantic hairsplitting. Then "Let's move to something else" equates to censorship.
Oooooooooookay.
Let's at least split of the last few pages of this thread and title it "solipsistic musings." No "censorship" involved.
A whimsical thought following a fun-filled Fourth. Hope you all had a good time this weekend.
Pumpkin Pie
07-05-2004, 08:42 AM
Hm. Solid examples are ignored in favor of semantic hairsplitting.
That was happening only between Tigerlily and I. Not between Madcap and I. I had stopped discussing the matter with Tigerlily awhile ago due to her conduct towards me, but was having a nice discussion with Madcap.
Then "Let's move to something else" equates to censorship.
First, it was "Time for this thread to die."
Second, it amazes me how people not involved in a discussion feel it is their duty to call a discussion to an end. If you don't like a thread, do not read or participate in it. It is really that simple.
Let's at least split of the last few pages of this thread and title it "solipsistic musings." No "censorship" involved.
I would very much appreciate if the censorship discussion were split off since it has nothing to do with the thread in anyway ... except to try to censor it.
And I'm not opposed to all forms of censorship. I'm a moderator of four newsgroups (misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated, misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated), one forum (http://exoticdancerforums.com/index.php?s=), and a back-up moderator for another newsgroup (sci.nanotech). The moderation policy for the first four listed newsgroups would have censored the calling for the end of the discussion. The reasoning we (there are three other moderators for those four beside me) would send along with the rejection notice to the person trying to censor the discussion would be exactly what I've been saying here. If you do not want a thread to continue and your post only calls for a thread to stop, that's censorship and your post will not be approved. If you do not like a thread anymore, do not read it.
Jay Zeno
07-05-2004, 09:15 AM
I thought in a quick skim that I noted examples of Madcap's that, indeed, were ignored. [/shrug]
***
It shouldn't amaze you. Any number of us have offered, in real life, to redirect (end, terminate, distract, whatever) discussion that we felt was unproductive, whether we involved with it or not. In Internet life, there's always the objection to just wasting bandwidth.
Main Entry: cen·sor
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from censEre to give as one's opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit samsati he praises
1 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
3 : a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness
Djoser said he wanted the thread to end. He does not have the authority, as he so stated, to supervise morals or conduct or delete or suppress anything. It's not censorship to say, "Time for this thread to die." It's an opinion.
DENNIS: "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! .... Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"
(Monty Python and the Holy Grail)
Pumpkin Pie
07-05-2004, 09:38 AM
I thought in a quick skim that I noted examples of Madcap's that, indeed, were ignored. [/shrug]
Then raise them if you feel Madcap hasn't. That's how to discuss things. If you feel I'm missed a point, you bring it to my attention. What you don't do is call for an end of discussion.
It shouldn't amaze you. Any number of us have offered, in real life, to redirect (end, terminate, distract, whatever) discussion that we felt was unproductive, whether we involved with it or not. In Internet life, there's always the objection to just wasting bandwidth.
It doesn't amaze me that people try to censor another that they disagree with. What amazes me is that they feel they have the right to. If you do not like a discussion, don't read or participate in it. It's just that simple.
Main Entry: cen·sor
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from censEre to give as one's opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit samsati he praises
1 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
3 : a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness
Djoser said he wanted the thread to end. He does not have the authority, as he so stated, to supervise morals or conduct or delete or suppress anything. It's not censorship to say, "Time for this thread to die." It's an opinion.
Here's a definition of "censoring" from an online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=censoring):
Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Djoser was trying to suppress a discussion that he disagrees with. He's against Bush. The thread is about why those that are thinking of voting for Bush are voting for him. The discussion that Madcap and I had was on topic since I stated that one of the reasons why I might be voting for Bush is because he's done a good job at combating state-sponsored international terrorism. I made the assertion that there isn't any today. Madcap and I were discussing whether or not that assertion was valid. That Djoser then comes in and wants the thread to die is uncalled for, inappropriate, and trying to censor a discussion he disagrees with.
montythegeek
07-05-2004, 09:53 AM
Pumpkin Pie,
I frequently disagree with DJ and happen to disagree with DJ about the basic proposition and am more in agreement with you on that score. I agree with him, however, on the point that this thread has deteriorated to quibbling, and pointlessness, and its value has evaporated. When a debate has degenerated to a recitation of debating points and "gotchas" the medium loses the message. The noise-to-sgnal ratio of this thread has risen too high.
Jay Zeno
07-05-2004, 09:55 AM
He can't suppress it or delete it, and he said so. Under your definition, I might suggest that you're trying to censor Djoser, but I don't feel that way.
Obsessive and inappropriate focus on a misdirected meaning of "censor."
Thanks for the opinion, Pumpkin.
Pumpkin Pie
07-05-2004, 10:05 AM
I agree with him, however, on the point that this thread has deteriorated to quibbling, and pointlessness, and its value has evaporated. When a debate has degenerated to a recitation of debating points and "gotchas" the medium loses the message. The noise-to-sgnal ratio of this thread has risen too high.
Read the exchange between Madcap and I. It was civilized and trying to reach consensus. We were acknowledging each other's good points and trying to calmly discuss the issue.
Pumpkin Pie
07-05-2004, 10:14 AM
He can't suppress it or delete it, and he said so. Under your definition, I might suggest that you're trying to censor Djoser, but I don't feel that way.
You are trying to suppress a discussion if you come in and state the discussion must die. Try that at your next cocktail party. Walk into a polite discussion between two individuals that has been going on all night and tell them to stop discussing it. The phrases "Who made you God?" and "If you don't like the discussion, go away." will greet you. Now are those partiers trying to censor you? Think about it. Who's trying to censor who and who is trying to stop who from censoring them?
Obsessive and inappropriate focus on a misdirected meaning of "censor."
Which would never have happened if people didn't jump in and try to shut down (a.k.a. suppress) a discussion.
Thanks for the opinion, Pumpkin.
Anytime. ;)
Jay Zeno
07-05-2004, 04:45 PM
{{{{{{{(((((((sssssssiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhh)))))))} }}}}}}
This is not a cocktail party.
I have no problem at all suggesting people move to another topic, or suggesting another topic myself, when discussion is fruitless. Nobody has yet asked me about my aspirations to a deity. Nobody has accused me of censoring them. I don't feel I'm trying to censor them. I'm trying to be helpful to them and to the poor saps who are listening.
I guess we can politely agree to disagree on what constitutes censorship, particularly in the case of someone who has no ability or power to censor. I'm happy to leave it up to the minds of the readers here to determine for themselves if the statement "This thread needs to die" a dozen-plus postings ago constitutes censorship.
Good day.
Tigerlilly
07-05-2004, 04:57 PM
No state supported terrorist groups huh ? Really ? Where's Pumpkin's links to back up his words ? That's right he didn't provide a single link that agreed with his stance that ALL state supported terrorism ended when Bush declared war on Afghanistan ( the start of the War on Terror) . He feels only those who don't agree with him have to show proof. Why should anyone else have to show links to back up their case but Pumpkin not have to do the same ?
If Pumpkin is correct that ALL state supported terrorism ended when Bush declared war, then Charles Taylor (who the UN says directly supported the Revolutionary United Front) would not have been Liberia's President in 2002 or 2003. If Taylor was indeed as I claim still in Liberia's President, that proves Pumpkin is in fact wrong.
Can P.P prove that Taylor was either not President after Bush began his attacks or that the UN is wrong in saying Taylor supported the Revolutionary United Front.
Pumpkin, you said only one example was needed to disprove your claim-- Well there's an example. Now it's up to you to prove it wrong. And don't forget your links to back up your case ;)
:-\ I agree this thread has run its course. I think I'll stick to the blue site. Its more fun to think about a Wed and Thurs redezvous with hot stippers ;D
JZ you have the patience of Job.
FBR
Jay Zeno
07-05-2004, 05:20 PM
Yo, FBR. I got the first round.
JZ I'll buy round two and then we can fight about the rest ;D LOL
Have a good one bud,
FBR
Tigerlilly
07-05-2004, 06:14 PM
I see that Pumpkin can not disprove what I have said about Charles Taylor. If he could, he would, but he can't so I guess he won't. ;D
Pumpkin Pie
07-05-2004, 06:23 PM
I see that Pumpkin can not disprove what I have said about Charles Taylor. If he could, he would, but he can't so I guess he won't. ;D
I do not discuss issues with people who have exhibited the conduct you have towards me. I warned you that I would stop replying to you if you didn't change it to a more respectful and civilized level. You didn't change and even went further into the gutter. This will be the last time I will reply to you.
Tigerlilly
07-05-2004, 06:25 PM
I thought the last time was the last time ? Forget about it being me asking , focus on the subject.
Can you prove with links that Taylor was either not President after Bush declared war on Afghanistan ( the start of the War on Terror) or that the UN is wrong in saying Taylor supported the Revolutionary United Front .