It was fine to close the thread Arbi, however:

Please help me understand how my post could have been expressed in a kinder way, please?

Simply as a member of the forum I was trying to express that it was better to play things safe in that thread. It appeared to me, and I could not care less about the politics of the members here, some of the posts were not political, they were as mean as any anti comments I have read. The posters seemed to be hoping to insight a "rise" in others, and IMO the overall tone has been building in other threads as well regarding the election. I was hoping that everyone would just ignore them. I guess that was too much to hope for.

While a don't believe that the members who rose to that bait should have participated in the fray... I believe that the underlining "baiting attitude" need to be addressed, at the very least privately, with any individual who posts comments of that type... please.

Is calling people "dangerous" that you disagree with considered Christ like behavior?

Is touting I am more Christ like than they becoming of members?

hidden, listen to arbilad on this please.

Okay. So, are you going to allow anyone to say anything here? Honest question (like the one I placed in my earlier response)... just want to know if you are saying that the subject is closed and there will be no discussion at all...

I'm glad it was closed but I must warn everyone that I will not sit back and let people insinuate that I am slow, asleep, stupid, inept, uneducated, uniformed, lazy, not listening to church leaders, etc because I simply do not agree with their political views.

Well if the Jack Boot fits......

Arb, I know you agree with what those Ron Paul/Strict Constitutionalists post but the methods are simply horrible. I've sat back for months and watched these post belittle those who don't agree with their positions or do see things the way the see them yet they go unchallenged but when I point out what I feel is their incivility the thread is closed. I don't mean to be insulting on this Arb but I frankly do not think you see the incivility because you happen to agree with the politics. I don't mind people supporting Ron Paul and stating why they support him but portraying those who don't as defective in some way is very uncivil. If you can step outside the Ron Paul box for a moment and see it from our perspective I think you would agree that we have been very civil over the past few months but at some point it becomes too much and I cannot just sit back and be run over rough shod anymore. Being civil goes both ways. I realize there are some who feel the constitution is in dire straits right now and if something drastic isn't done we are doomed. That is fine but there are those that do not see it that way and to say that we are out of touch, asleep, uniformed, uneducated, or ignoring the counsel of church leaders is being very uncivil. When these were not closed down or admonished in the past it gave the impression that the uncivil behavior was being condoned.

I offer this with the upmost respect for my forum brothers and sisters but feel that someone needs to stand up and say it. You may see things differently but this is how I see it and there are others who also are getting the same impression.

So the question is, what do we do now?

Thanks for expressing your feelings about the political discussions, Jase. I  think it needs to be said. There have been times when I've felt much the same way. They often seem pretty one-sided.

I also agree with Arbi, that we need to try to keep posts on topic, and civil.

It may "feel" heavy-handed to see enforcement going just one way... but let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to think that even Democrat Mormons could publish their opinioins here without feeling hostility to their opinions either. I admire those who can stand up for what they believe in, I admire more those who stand up for their beliefs but do so in a loving way so that others don't feel threatened by theirs... And I sympathize with the fact that you've felt threatened for believing something different than others...

I can also understand why LDS might feel a need to be a bit more vocal about their politics if they don't follow what they perceive to be a mainstream cultural trend in politics... though I don't think there's any reason why they should be insulting about it... something I have not always have felt has been the case in our political discussions, but I'm sure I'm offensive just existing... and claiming to want to vote for Mitt cuz he's a mormon. :)

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 13:31, 2007-12-11

arbilad wrote:

---

State what your opinion is, but be civil. You weren't.

---

And neither was the other party I was responding to. 

It should have been closed before it was opened. Closed and covered over with rebar enforced concrete with a six inch steel door welded shut over the top of it and armed, jack booted thugs guarding the entrance.

Well, it would be nice if he'd answer my question, because is certainly looks as if he is favoring his pet posters.

I mean, seriously, saying "don't talk about who started it" is ridiculous if someone is ALWAYS starting it. Eventually the "starter" needs to stop starting stuff.

Judging from her comment, I believe Jen is stating her opinion that there are mulitple personalities ALWAYS starting stuff...

--Ray

For the record, I agree. I agree with Jason and Hoss.

If you don't want to name names, perhaps we can discuss the perception in terms of what's been said thusfar:

So is the objection, certain folks who post controversial stuff, or is it the controversial stuff itself? Are there topics that one feels certain moderators in certain groups are more tolerant to permit, which come off as condescending or insulting to others? And is this seen as one or two who post--are they inept at posting anything other than in an insulting way? or is it a general feature of the rhetoric or candidate itself? Or is it in the starting of controversial topics, but not allowing a descenting opinion?

Also, specifically (since my memory's so bad, I don't recall), but Has anyone tried to start a purposefully controversial topic or discussion only to be shut down immediately? (thus supporting the idea that some people do get preferential treatment, cuz their threads are not favored...) Or is it just the fact that there are some who start a lot of the same threads, continually implying the stupidity of all who don't agree that you find objectionable?

I've stood up against the Ron Paul thing before, and found it to be somewhat unpleasant. But heck, one poster thought I was employing "thought police" by casting a dissenting opinion... I thought that was funny--kinda made me think that anyone, regardless of how forceful their discussion can come to the conclusion or reframe a point of view as though they are in the victim state. :)

--Ray

PS> I do think we attract people who have very strong opinions about their politics and the dangers our country faces, and how this or that idea will save us all... I've commented on it a lot. I remember a year ago how we had some claiming that this summer there would be a doomsday scenario enacted upon us this Summer...implying that a nuke would go off, among other things... (yeah, that's right, the summer that's now past).  I questioned their sources and their motives and they got really upset, and likened me to the scriptural equivalent to those Nephites who embraced Secret combinations... or like the foolish virgin without enough oil in his or her lamp... or like the person who is caught unawares when the Savior returns... I can see how a mormon who tries really hard to live his or her covenants might feel attacked in that sense... though I tend to agree with those who level that attack at me... cuz well... chances are I'll still be singing "Eat drink and pass the pizza!" 

 


-- Edited by rayb at 15:42, 2007-12-12

Yes.

There are a couple of other points that I would like to add. What I have heard so far on this thread is various versions of "Make the other guy not start it, and you won't have to worry about me being uncivil". That's a very low standard of discussion. You are saying, in essence, that anytime you are offended you will become so offensive yourself that others will seek the path of least resistance and not even approach the topic, civilly or uncivilly. Let me state again: It doesn't matter who started it. It matters who behaved themselves better. If you behave yourself well, then at least you're blameless.
Remember, no one can make you angry. You make that choice. Are you really going to let the spirit of the Devil (contention) enter your soul because someone said something on a message board? Is it worth it to have that wound on your spirit just to get back at the person who has wronged you, intentionally or otherwise?

rayb wrote:

---

Or is it just the fact that there are some who start a lot of the same threads, continually implying the stupidity of all who don't agree that you find objectionable? 

---

That's mostly it for me.  And I perceive that Arbilad only closed the thread after those who posted disagreement seemed to be "winning."  So it just seemed that the moderation attitude was "it's okay to be offensive, because everyone chooses to be offended."

It just gets a tad tedious from time to time.  I suggest that we all just post a yawning emoticon in those "bait the saints" threads from now on.

Yep, here's the one I'm going to use.  It fits since I'm accused of being asleep while the globalists take over and shred the constitution.  Plus it will also show just how interesting I think the reoccurring broken record or insults to the intelligence of those who dissagree with the posts.