Wht is the ratio of posts deleted between "Liberal and Conservative Views"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the more important number is the ratio of neurotic troll posts to posts by reasonable people with solid arguments.

I would encourage you to keep thinking. You may be able to develop something. Aim for expanding your mind to freedom of expression. You certainly have a right to ask for any number you like, though absent any original thought of your own. However, that right should not supercede mine or any one else.

Where do rights come into it. The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean s/he is disputing your right to speak.

However, I should add that this is Jeff's website, and as his guests we do not have unlimited right to insult him or his other guests.

Someone thinks "neurotic troll post" is a "solid argument" and dismisses a legitimate question. Right.

If the facts are too hard hitting like the DeKalb County fireavoiders union and a recent post I wrote reminding one of your crew that Rev. Wright were more pleased than he could be about 911, "the chickens have come home to roost"; then just say so.

The last thing I want to do here is take advantage of people who are confused by facts.

[Anonymous]

PP here

Caroling Heldman Phd. Liberal

On FOX Now!

More to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Someone thinks "neurotic troll post" is a "solid argument" and dismisses a legitimate question. Right.

If the facts are too hard hitting like the DeKalb County fireavoiders union and a recent post I wrote reminding one of your crew that Rev. Wright were more pleased than he could be about 911, "the chickens have come home to roost"; then just say so.

The last thing I want to do here is take advantage of people who are confused by facts.

Some would argue that your demented right-wing fantasies already receive enough of an airing in this country. Believe me we have all heard enough of your bullshit. The only thing you are convincing people about is what a nut-job you are.

Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Someone thinks "neurotic troll post" is a "solid argument" and dismisses a legitimate question. Right.

If the facts are too hard hitting like the DeKalb County fireavoiders union and a recent post I wrote reminding one of your crew that Rev. Wright were more pleased than he could be about 911, "the chickens have come home to roost"; then just say so.

The last thing I want to do here is take advantage of people who are confused by facts.

Some would argue that your demented right-wing fantasies already receive enough of an airing in this country. Believe me we have all heard enough of your bullshit. The only thing you are convincing people about is what a nut-job you are.

Sorry.

And this must be your illustration of "a solid argument." Giant minds at work.

[Anonymous]

PP here again

Mike Sutter, president Wisconsin teacher union

On FOX now

More to come.

[Anonymous]

PP here again.

Bob Shieffer, Diane Sawyer, Christine Amanpour

on deck on FOX

more to come

[Anonymous]

PP

Has a liberal, excuse please, progressive post ever been removed and for what reason?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:PP

Has a liberal, excuse please, progressive post ever been removed and for what reason?

Do you think that I am deleting your posts because:

A) you have conservative views

or

B) because you start thread after thread with the same or similar topic; if nobody replies to your threads, you reply yourself; you demand that responses adhere to strict parameters (e.g. don't mention distribution of wealth when you have posted about tax burdens) but routinely respond yourself with unrelated incomprehensible gibberish; and you don't engage in discussion but simply simply post the same dogma time after time?

I am trying to give you every benefit of the doubt because I would like to encourage conservative participation in this forum. But your are doing everything that you can to convince me that you are a simple troll.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP

Has a liberal, excuse please, progressive post ever been removed and for what reason?

Do you think that I am deleting your posts because:

A) you have conservative views

or

B) because you start thread after thread with the same or similar topic; if nobody replies to your threads, you reply yourself; you demand that responses adhere to strict parameters (e.g. don't mention distribution of wealth when you have posted about tax burdens) but routinely respond yourself with unrelated incomprehensible gibberish; and you don't engage in discussion but simply simply post the same dogma time after time?

I am trying to give you every benefit of the doubt because I would like to encourage conservative participation in this forum. But your are doing everything that you can to convince me that you are a simple troll.

First, I think you chose not to answer the simple question of whether a liberal post has ever been deletd and why.

Second, you are biased which is fine just so we all understand that changing the subject is changing the subject.

Thirdly, I have no idea why the amended "Gaddafi, Farrakahn, Wright, Obama what is your take?" post was eliminated. Do you guys find it uncomfortable to think about? I guess so. Are you sensitive to issues about Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Tim Geitner, Van Jones, Chris Dodd, the accuracy of info on the DeKalb County firefighters union, and so on? The 47% NO PAYERS presents an entirely different issue than the 10% who cover 73% and yes, to distort that or minimize it by wandering into sales taxes and whatever is pointless to me.

If this is how you treat contrary points of view and the gloves are off for you to call names and others to pointedly provide annoyance only and no hint at responsiveness, then I understand why I may be one of the only ones with "different" views. I suspect this drill has preceded me and surely it is not the name calling that will scare me away. Unfairness will. Perhaps "Progressive Political Discussion" would be a more accurate and honest title. That is a shame when we should all be in this together and trying to at least understand differences.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:That is a shame when we should all be in this together and trying to at least understand differences.

Please, read your posts and honestly ask yourself if you are trying to understand differences. Attempting to make people discuss an issue within the narrow confines that you prescribe -- because going outside those confines will weaken your argument -- is not a way to gain understanding. Responding to people by telling them to "pass the weed" is not a way to gain understanding.

Yes, a lot of Americans have met from time to time with Gaddafi. John McCain recently had dinner with him and called him an "interesting man". Bush took him off the terrorist list. You would like to talk about Farrakahn and Wright, but if we mentioned McCain and Bush you would throw a fit that we are not addressing the topic and tell us to pass the weed. That is not a way to gain understanding.

Do you want to know whether I have ever deleted a progressive post? I'll tell you. Honestly, I don't know, but probably not. I have been administering this forum (both this one and on the old software platform) for almost 10 years. I don't remember every post that I have deleted. But, I do know that liberals don't come in here spewing nonsense the way you have been. They don't come in here talking about how politicians smell like the the other guy. Besides you and him, there is only one other poster that I recall having an issue with due to politics. That guy posted very abusive posts on thread after thread and, when I warned him, claimed it was his right and that I simply biased. But, having a different political viewpoint from me does not give you a license to post the same abusive response on every recent thread. There is nothing that gives you such a license.

Your threads are currently dominating the Political forum. Five of the top ten threads at the moment were started by you and you are actively participating in a sixth. Yet, you are crying about not being treated fairly. Maybe you have confused this forum with your personal blog. That's not what it is. I am giving you the chance to participate in a responsible manner. But, if you are not responsible, you will not be participating.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a shame when we should all be in this together and trying to at least understand differences.

Please, read your posts and honestly ask yourself if you are trying to understand differences. Attempting to make people discuss an issue within the narrow confines that you prescribe -- because going outside those confines will weaken your argument -- is not a way to gain understanding. Responding to people by telling them to "pass the weed" is not a way to gain understanding.

Yes, a lot of Americans have met from time to time with Gaddafi. John McCain recently had dinner with him and called him an "interesting man". Bush took him off the terrorist list. You would like to talk about Farrakahn and Wright, but if we mentioned McCain and Bush you would throw a fit that we are not addressing the topic and tell us to pass the weed. That is not a way to gain understanding.

Do you want to know whether I have ever deleted a progressive post? I'll tell you. Honestly, I don't know, but probably not. I have been administering this forum (both this one and on the old software platform) for almost 10 years. I don't remember every post that I have deleted. But, I do know that liberals don't come in here spewing nonsense the way you have been. They don't come in here talking about how politicians smell like the the other guy. Besides you and him, there is only one other poster that I recall having an issue with due to politics. That guy posted very abusive posts on thread after thread and, when I warned him, claimed it was his right and that I simply biased. But, having a different political viewpoint from me does not give you a license to post the same abusive response on every recent thread. There is nothing that gives you such a license.

Your threads are currently dominating the Political forum. Five of the top ten threads at the moment were started by you and you are actively participating in a sixth. Yet, you are crying about not being treated fairly. Maybe you have confused this forum with your personal blog. That's not what it is. I am giving you the chance to participate in a responsible manner. But, if you are not responsible, you will not be participating.

Thank you for an honest response on probably not deleting any liberal threads.

I have never made the "smelly" suggestions, only asked once what that was about. I am not "the other guy" and would think you can make that disticntion.

I have never thrown a fit and think it is perfectly fair to factually present info on McCain or anyone else. Did I take exception with Clinton having no chance at Bin Laden. Yes I did and provided a link. Was the response, well, ah the Republicans accused of wagging his tail or something which dissuaded him from making an attempt. My response: can you show a link for that, WANTING to understand, no link. Was someone pissed off that I challenged them and backed it up. Probably. Did I bring up liberating Aushwitz..... yes. Did someone clarify that as just a little fault in speech by Obama, yes. I said thanks and did not do the misspelling of potato dance. Maybe you guys have something to learn too???

Now if my point is the percentage of federal income taxes paid by whom and some smart ass responds: yes we invaded Iraq because Hussein did not pay his taxes. Would you like me to digress into some discussion, say thank you or reply in kind?

I introduced the reduction of vitriol thread with some degree of sincerity. Some chose to treat that like a joke; some did not. If the idea is accept all that and bow, then I think you are unfair. If that is not nonsense and Sargent Underpants, Islamo, Ayers, Flightsuit, aargel arrgel is not nonsense then, I guess I don't know the definition; or nonsense for nonsense is inequitable in your eyes.

I would throw a fit if Bush was mentioned. Again I have thrown no fits. Bush is all over the place. All I did which irritated your crew was point out that he never whined about or pointed his finger at Clinton. I was embarassed by him not stringing two words together for all of his first term, and never was hopelessly in love. Your crew could not deal with the fact I presented and wanted to point at Cheney or who ever. My point was and is the decorum of the office. Would you like me to apologize for being right?

I was dominating unknowingly in trying to defend my postions as the only one I guess. I will refrain from that. It is a legitimate criticism.

If you honestly ask yourself whether some of your colleagues seek to annoy, distort, do not support their contentions or become angry when their argument is weakened by me, then I believe we will have some footing to proceed if you really desire another point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:...
Do you want to know whether I have ever deleted a progressive post? I'll tell you. Honestly, I don't know, but probably not. I have been administering this forum (both this one and on the old software platform) for almost 10 years. I don't remember every post that I have deleted. But, I do know that liberals don't come in here spewing nonsense the way you have been. They don't come in here talking about how politicians smell like the the other guy. Besides you and him, there is only one other poster that I recall having an issue with due to politics. That guy posted very abusive posts on thread after thread and, when I warned him, claimed it was his right and that I simply biased. But, having a different political viewpoint from me does not give you a license to post the same abusive response on every recent thread. There is nothing that gives you such a license.

Your threads are currently dominating the Political forum. Five of the top ten threads at the moment were started by you and you are actively participating in a sixth. Yet, you are crying about not being treated fairly. Maybe you have confused this forum with your personal blog. That's not what it is. I am giving you the chance to participate in a responsible manner. But, if you are not responsible, you will not be participating.

Thank you for an honest response on probably not deleting any liberal threads.

I have never made the "smelly" suggestions, only asked once what that was about. I am not "the other guy" and would think you can make that disticntion.
...

If you look back at the boldfaced part of his note, I think you'll see that Jeff was quite clearly distinguishing between you and the B.O. person. It might have been a bit more obvious if he had put a comma in: "talking about how politicians smell, like the the other guy". But some of us like commas more than others -- I think Palin refers to it as the "comma sense" approach to politics.

[Anonymous]

Are you a POTATOE DANCER?

[Anonymous]

12:01 again. I should perhaps have added that until Jeff's posting, I assumed you and the B.O. poster were the same person. Things sometimes get confused about the identity of the writer, and I suspect that you may also have assumed that different responders were the same.

I wish there were some way to number us as we post, so we'd recognize poster number x when he or she writes again. We could all sign in, but that probably takes too much effort.

[Anonymous]

OK

Let me ask you. Has Jeff ever put online comments to a Sargent Underpants, Islamo, Ayers, 44 caliber, pickup truck, codpiece, troll, fox lover yadda, yadda, poster?

Since all the major networks, Katie, Chris Mathews, etc. and now NPR are all LIB, should FOX be eliminated by Executive order and whatever it takes because the Libs do not care for freedome of expression and hate facts they cannot deal with?