Since it seems that Hoss is itching for a fight, I have deleted his post and moved it here.
arbilad wrote: DaKnife, please refrain from the use of pejorative words. Just because you do not agree with a source does not make it propaganda. Does the source use incomplete information? Is the information inaccurate? Does it selectively report? Those are qualities of propaganda to me. Instead of making a blanket accusation, please state specific criticisms. Do you even CARE when you take sides? If that had NOT been a Ron Paul site, you wouldn't have even cared.
The accusation has been made often, but never backed up, that I ignore provocation when it is done by those in favor of Ron Paul. I see no factual basis for this. In this past couple of weeks I have deleted a great number of posts on both sides. I care not because it was a site supporting Ron Paul, but because I am tired of simply dismissing the source without any discussion of the content. Is there any reason to dismiss the content in this case? Is it inaccurate? Is it incomplete? Is it not relevant? Those would all be legitimate approaches to the question, whether or not the poster was accurate. Others have posted links to sites that obviously support their candidates. And yet there has been no mention of "propaganda" or "bias" in those cases. Should we now be limited only to sites against Ron Paul?
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
It's biased information for Ron Paul, pure and simple, and you'd delete it if it was for ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. Hoss, you make a lot of unfounded assertions. Please name even one instance where I have deleted a link someone made to a website supporting a specific candidate. Or, how about this: name even one instance where I have deleted a link to a website against Ron Paul. If you're going to make accusations, at least have some factual basis for them.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I don't think that arb would delete biased information for any other candidate, but I am not entirely convinced that he would object to it being called propaganda, either.
It's real easy to sit back and criticize the moderator for doing something I don't agree with. The fact is, mods are imperfect and less than objective, just like the rest of us. I was a lot more critical of mods before I took a little turn at being one. What an eye opener that was.
Edited per Pollyanna's request. Sorry for the delay.
When I invite people to MY house, I don't put gags on their mouths just because they don't intend to vote for some bizzaroworld candidate that I favor.
I don't treat them like they're stupid if they don't agree with me.
And I sure as heck don't ask the visitors for donations to build my house and then treat them like they don't have any say about it.
But, Pollyanna, your sage advice is, well, sage.
Perhaps when the site is left with people who like to talk about kitties and bunnies, then arbi can shut it down and save himself some money. Oh wait, he asks for donations, so that won't happen either.
Good grief, Polly. I was there when things were "worked out" in the chatbox. Now, you're bringing it up again and you're ticked all over again? Posting things "of substance" has never been a problem here as far as I've seen. It's when things cross the line of respect for someone else or become flippy and rude between people. And how someone could use pics of your married kids against you in the future truly escapes me.
Since when has arbi gagged anyone who doesn't support Ron Paul? That's crazy. Lundbaek posted a link. No comments. No nothing. Then DaKnife wants him to defend it for some reason. I didn't click on it but I thought the request was kinda weird... only later did Hoss post with something actually from the website that he didn't agree with, although his comments weren't terribly enlightening, imo, and then Organist posted what I thought were more thoughtful "flipsides" to what the website presented. I think arbi's point was that you don't just post "That's a load of crap," without giving something of meaning... otherwise aren't both posts a load of crap? Worthless, in other words. I mean, if we're going to talk about things.
I'll probably tick people off with this comment, but I've always been of the mind that if you don't like it here, don't let the door hit you on the way out. This goes for any other forum, too. Why whine?
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
Cocobeem wrote:Good grief, Polly. I was there when things were "worked out" in the chatbox. Now, you're bringing it up again and you're ticked all over again?
I guess the "more favored than I" comment took me by surprise. It doesn't sound like something you'd say - I feel like you're one of the "top dogs" of the forum, myself. I'm not trying to make an issue out of it, either.
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
Posting things "of substance" has never been a problem here as far as I've seen. It's when things cross the line of respect for someone else or become flippy and rude between people. And how someone could use pics of your married kids against you in the future truly escapes me.
