Anger

[piston]

Does it belong here?
Ask yourself, how would your anger against another be dealt with on Facebook, a site intended for "light" socialization between friends?

I'm having an issue with it myself: my own anger and that of others who use the "WTF" and who engage in extaordinarily vicious and vindictive -- uncivil-- interaction.

There's not much of a distance between uncivil and uncivilized.

We have had a DEAR circle of friends here but the lack of manners among some posters has driven some away, and silenced many others.

I'd like to think that a place devoted to classical music -- la musique adoucit les moeurs-- would not become such a site as to drive away the more civilized members and leave only partisan barbarians.

The people/conduct I have missed since May 2009:
... Ralph does not post five percent of what he used to post!;
... the gentle discourse of civilized ladies who are not necessarily on the same side of the right-left equation but who like each other's virtual company;
...the pleasure of sharing scientific studies without getting angry about it all, from archaeology to medecine;
...the trivia of life

How the hell did we get to become so much angry, so much hateful, so much uncivilized?
...

[Brendan]

WTF doesn't have to be taken as rude, just a stunned "what on earth are you talkng about because your post made no sense or reads badly". I've seen posts of my own in a new light when folk have reacted that way on occasion.

Your idea of manners is really rather cute given the partisan rubbish you post regularly. That I really do consider it partisan and rubbish is just the truth. Should I lie to make someone I've never met and never will meet feel all warm and fuzzy? I really am furious all day every day with PC fundamentalism and their pea-brained, destructive garbage and I like to express it. I am well aware that those I lable "PC Fundies" are going to give me grief from their prespective in turn.

Sometimes they even have a point. Perhaps by accident rather than design, so might I every now and then, however objectionable you may mind my mode of expression.

Can we not deal with reality and truth in a time of warfare, economic and cultural ruin and future uncertainty without having to confrom to your ideas of PC expression? Who made you the etiquette police anyway?

As Orwell said, freedom of speach is my right to say things you do not like and vice versa.

[piston]

Well, let me be the first to disclose this to you publicly, Brendan -- you have no manners. Hence,the paradox! So many posts about the great virtues of Western Civilization from someone who is as rude as can be imagined.

You're really rude. What's wrong? Some anger management problem? Some sexual identity problem? What's up with all the venom, all the negativism, ALL the time? Geez, man, go and get laid or something.

[Brendan]

That I am rude to you and most other PC fundies does not mean I am rude to everyone on every topic.

I truly consider Leftist PC fundamentalism to be the bane of modern life and society and constantly annoying and further restricting my freedom every day I live, and I tyruly consider the advocates of PC to be the scum of the earth who are sdeeking to destroy Western civilisation and ewverything I hold dear in the world. Of course I detest such folk and such views.

That may be "rude" by the Lefties but I consider their intellectual and social poison and conformism to be far more ill-maddered than a few adjectives here and there. Do you really think that none of your partisan PC polemic and propaganda is offensive to others who do not share your views? Or is it the usual bias of everything Left and PC is sweetness, niceness and rainbows but anyone who disagrees is, well, heretical and rude?

Faced with the end of the Western Civ I grew up in, admire and love, why wouldn't I hate the causes of it and the people who advocate it long and hard? Why would I be nice to folk who wish to eliminate me and everything I hold dear in the world?

[Madame]

Does it belong here?
Ask yourself, how would your anger against another be dealt with on Facebook, a site intended for "light" socialization between friends?

I'm having an issue with it myself: my own anger and that of others who use the "WTF" and who engage in extaordinarily vicious and vindictive -- uncivil-- interaction.

There's not much of a distance between uncivil and uncivilized.

We have had a DEAR circle of friends here but the lack of manners among some posters has driven some away, and silenced many others.

I'd like to think that a place devoted to classical music -- la musique adoucit les moeurs-- would not become such a site as to drive away the more civilized members and leave only partisan barbarians.

The people/conduct I have missed since May 2009:
... Ralph does not post five percent of what he used to post!;
... the gentle discourse of civilized ladies who are not necessarily on the same side of the right-left equation but who like each other's virtual company;
...the pleasure of sharing scientific studies without getting angry about it all, from archaeology to medecine;
...the trivia of life

How the hell did we get to become so much angry, so much hateful, so much uncivilized?
...

We live in an angry nation and world, Jacques, and it's bound to reflect here. It's so easy to jump into a thread, lash out, and send ... before stopping to think what we're doing. I've had many instances of posting remorse myself. Yet, if you notice, the gentler, perhaps 'less interesting' threads don't often generate a lot of replies. Nothing wrong with a quiet viewing and moving on ... we just don't see the smile, nod. Perhaps that's where some of the civility is to be found.

If you ever feel I'm being uncivil, you may call me on it. Seriously. But if you haven't, I'm not asking for reassurance.

[Chalkperson]

Here is a list of ten members who no longer post in here...

Lance
Agnes
Nutjob
Teresa
Donald Opato
Don Eisler
Werner
Ted
Jared
IcedNote

In the past I have often called for calm in here...

For people to respect each other...
For people to be civil to each other..
For people to stop making personal attacks...
For people to stop swearing at each other...
For people to stop being so vicious and hateful to each other...

BUT...it does no good, so I no longer bother...

[HoustonDavid]

Jacques:

I agree with you 100%. Some of our most interesting people on the CMG Forums are on Chalkie's
list and you've mentioned a few more who rarely venture into The Pub, largely because of the
reasons in Chalkie's response. The fact that Brendan was the first to respond told me immediately
the thread would go nowhere. He is like a pit bull and when he gets his teeth in a thread, he won't
let go until everyone else quits, which I supose he considers a "victory". He is one of two people
on my "foes" list and I wish more people would do the same, which is a form of banishment.

There is a small group of people who share his position: wear out the oppositon with the kind of
behavior detailed by Chalkie. I wish I could propose a workable solution, because some of the people
who disrupt threads with their boorish behavior can also be very interesting when they make their
case in a civilized manner, which is what most of us would prefer.

As a writer, I appreciate that nearly everyone here is quite able to express themselves in good
English rather than the dreadful shorthand and bad grammar on so many other Websites. The only
thing worse than dreadful language usage is rude behavior, which should never be acceptable. It has
nothing whatever to do with PC or freedom of speech, it is simply uncivilized and boorish behavior in
an otherwise civilized community of friendly associates here at CMG Forums.

God bless Corlyss, who ran a pretty tight ship here on The Pub; we need her firm hand to return
and apply her fair hand to the miscreants. She would only put up with so much before certain
individuals were temporarily or permanently banished.

[Barry]

Here is a list of ten members who no longer post in here...

Lance
Agnes
Nutjob
Teresa
Donald Opato
Don Eisler
Werner
Ted
Jared
IcedNote

In the past I have often called for calm in here...

For people to respect each other...
For people to be civil to each other..
For people to stop making personal attacks...
For people to stop swearing at each other...
For people to stop being so vicious and hateful to each other...

BUT...it does no good, so I no longer bother...

I've said it before, and I'll say it here. Some (not all) of the people on the above list repeatedly said things that some of us who do still post here considered obnoxious and rude (one used to get his jollies by seeing how angry he could get me by pushing certain buttons ... it was a fun game to him). When the political tide in this country changed and the same degree of complaining and, yes, sometimes obnoxious posting, was thrown in their direction, they hit the road. It was a simple case of being able to dish it out, but not take it in some of those cases. I feel bad about the people on the list who left for other reasons, but not for the few who left because they could dish it out, but not take it.

And yes, there are those of us who consider it extremely obnoxious to throw around racism charges without evidence to support it and to read sinister, ulterior motives into simple posts that should be taken at face value, and we get "angry" when those things happen on here.

[John F]

I'm with you, piston. It's not about political opinions strongly expressed, even angrily, but about anger taking the form of personal insults that are way out of bounds. This is inexcusable, and in a properly moderated forum, offenders would be warned and the offending passages removed, and then if necessary shown the door. No hope of that here, unfortunately - indeed, while the chief "moderator" is away, the heat in the Corner Pub seems to go down. (HoustonDavid, what can you be thinking?) So we're stuck with it.

[diegobueno]

Faced with the end of the Western Civ I grew up in, admire and love, why wouldn't I hate the causes of it and the people who advocate it long and hard? Why would I be nice to folk who wish to eliminate me and everything I hold dear in the world?

Because Jesus tells us not to hate, but rather to love even our enemies.

You call yourself a Christian, but you're nothing of the sort.

[DavidRoss]

With the exception of one clearly deranged individual, ALL of the aggressive, insulting, vitriolic posts on this site originate with the same half-dozen or so unrepentant "bigots for the left" who habitually and aggressively go out of their way to insult everyone whose opinions do not fully coincide with their own. And when they get called on their insulting rudeness, instead of correcting their obnoxious behavior they play the wounded victim and lash out even more viciously --as if the problem does not originate with their own nasty, bigoted attacks on others but rather with those trying to hold them accountable.

They need to stop blaming the messenger--and others need to stop co-signing these few sh*t-stirrers' nastiness and start holding them responsible for the uncivil atmosphere that poisons this site.

[HoustonDavid]

John (Francis), I was thinking that Corlyss always had her ducks in a row in any thread
she introduced or replied to. Her arguments were detailed and topical, her language was
from the courtroom, not the barroom. She did not resort to vulgar words nor simplistic
accusations to make her points; her anger was contained and she generally respected her
peers here, although she didn't suffer fools lightly.

She was called "her highness" out of respect, not cynicism, and most of all, she had the
power to moderate. Lance prefers to stay out of The Pub and still does, which is certainly
his prerogative and I'm sure no one wants Corlyss back more than he does. If we all
adjusted our sights a little and adopted more of Corlyss general practices, we would have
a lot more fun and a lot less name calling.

I can safely say I agreed with Corlyss politically about as much as I agree with Brendan
on religious issues, which is to say "not at all", but I could deal with Corlyss as a peer
and respect her point of view without resorting to the language and name calling used
by a few others here, but never by Corlyss. Some of those individuals just happen to be
fellow travellers on the liberal side of the spectrum, and we all need to curb our anger
and be more respectful with our choice of words.

Lastly, Corlyss had to power to moderate, and did so as little as possible when dealing
with miscreants here. She perpetually referred people to "the rules" when it was suggested
that someone be disciplined inappropriately. But'ya didn't want to push it too far or you
would get the dreaded suspension or, ultimately, banishment. We luv ya even if we didn't
always like what you said, dear lady. Please come home soon.

[diegobueno]

With the exception of one clearly deranged individual, ALL of the aggressive, insulting, vitriolic posts on this site originate with the same half-dozen or so unrepentant "bigots for the left" who habitually and aggressively go out of their way to insult everyone whose opinions do not fully coincide with their own.

Funny, I was just about to post that ALL of the aggressive, insulting vitriolic posts on this site come from the far far far right, which seems to be the only kind of right which exists on this board.

[HoustonDavid]

Tsk, tsk, tsk, David (Ross), there you go again with your favorite word to end all arguments.
You do much better when you stick to your usually well-thought-out and documented points
of view. We could all do better if we did the same.

[Barry]

With the exception of one clearly deranged individual, ALL of the aggressive, insulting, vitriolic posts on this site originate with the same half-dozen or so unrepentant "bigots for the left" who habitually and aggressively go out of their way to insult everyone whose opinions do not fully coincide with their own.

Funny, I was just about to post that ALL of the aggressive, insulting vitriolic posts on this site come from the far far far right, which seems to be the only kind of right which exists on this board.

There is vitriol on both sides. I can think of one far-left poster on here whose posts routinely drip with so much venom that it's almost difficult to imagine someone can go on living with that kind of anger for son long.

Is this guy an extremist? And if he is, why aren't the other people in his vacinity worthy of the same label?


Yes. We on the right get rather "angry" at times over the double standard we repeatedly see from your side of the aisle.

In fact, you want to know the truth? I can't remember ever being more angry over something politically-related than the recent habit of some on the left to put a nearly blanket label on opposition to the president's agenda as racism. While I didn't mention it on here, I gave serious consideration to taking a break from here for that very reason (and I'm sure you and a few others wish I had).

And you obviously are an extremely selective reader with a skewed political spectrum. I'm guessing you also equate conservativism with racism, like so many of your co-horts on the left, both on and off of this board. Well when that happens, you're damn right we're going to get pissed and call it out for the bigotry that it is.

Jacques rails against vitriol, but I think I remained remarkably civil in the face of what was essentially an accusation from him that I was lying about my motive for posting a simple article on the consequences of a huge national debt.

We've got liberals putting a blanket on tea partiers and calling them racists, but they wouldn't have dared put the "hater" label on all anti-war protesters in spite of the fact that there were countless incidents where some in their midst acted in an absolutely sickening manner.

[Chalkperson]

With the exception of one clearly deranged individual, ALL of the aggressive, insulting, vitriolic posts on this site originate with the same half-dozen or so unrepentant "bigots for the left" who habitually and aggressively go out of their way to insult everyone whose opinions do not fully coincide with their own. And when they get called on their insulting rudeness, instead of correcting their obnoxious behavior they play the wounded victim and lash out even more viciously --as if the problem does not originate with their own nasty, bigoted attacks on others but rather with those trying to hold them accountable.

They need to stop blaming the messenger--and others need to stop co-signing these few sh*t-stirrers' nastiness and start holding them responsible for the uncivil atmosphere that poisons this site.

David, this posts contains an unbelievable amount of anger, do you really feel that you need to post this way, it's this kind of non stop hatred that costs us valuable posters like Teresa...

[diegobueno]

Barry,

Your concern is always "someone on the left did this, so the right can do the same" or "They can't criticize us for doing X, because someone on the left also did X".

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I am not responsible for some guy parading around a picture of W. with a Hitler mustache, so I can feel free to tell all of you who post about Obama being a Nazi (and somehow a communist at the same time) that you're full of hooey. Back during the W. administration, I posted (on some other board) that comparing the guy to Hitler only succeeded in trivializing Hitler. Now I can say the same to you guys. Comparing Obama to Hitler only trivializes Hitler.

I am concerned, and Barry's posts exemplify this attitude, that it's all about getting even. For the past several decades it's all been about undoing the 60s, using the techniques of the 1960s radicals to accomplish the opposite agenda. Always it's "someone on the left did this, so the right can do the same". Well, the radicals of the 60s did a lot of really stupid things, things which are no less stupid when done by people on the right.

[DavidRoss]

With the exception of one clearly deranged individual, ALL of the aggressive, insulting, vitriolic posts on this site originate with the same half-dozen or so unrepentant "bigots for the left" who habitually and aggressively go out of their way to insult everyone whose opinions do not fully coincide with their own.

Funny, I was just about to post that ALL of the aggressive, insulting vitriolic posts on this site come from the far far far right, which seems to be the only kind of right which exists on this board.

Well, I sure don't read all the posts, but I cannot recall any hateful provocation from the few conservatives around here, though I've certainly seen two or three of them give back as good as they get when attacked. Neither do I recall seeing anyone here who could be fairly characterized as "far far right"--though, to be fair, I can't recall any other leftists, but only those who mistakenly call themselves "liberal" while supporting principles and policies that are anything but. And when someone like myself calls them on faulty reasoning or wild-ass opinionating contrary to the facts--or worse, their bigoted assaults on others--their responses usually demonstrate that there's nothing liberal whatsoever about their narrow-minded prejudices and lack of tolerance for diverse points of view.

One astonishing thing to me about this is that several folks here who are doubtless good people are so blinded by their extreme political partisanship that they really seem not to understand how their vile characterizations of others as "right-wingers," "Bush lovers," "racists," etc are prime examples of the hateful bigotry they claim to despise. It's also astonishing few of those who share their basic political orientation will call them on this hateful behavior. Surely I'm not the only left-leaning contributor around here appalled by their hypocritical bigotry who dares to call it what it is? Yet I cannot recall any others speaking out about it--perhaps they fear being branded in vicious attacks as a "right-winger" or worse, as I have been. (Although in the lexicon of these hateful souls it appears that nothing could be worse than a "right-winger."

[DavidRoss]

With the exception of one clearly deranged individual, ALL of the aggressive, insulting, vitriolic posts on this site originate with the same half-dozen or so unrepentant "bigots for the left" who habitually and aggressively go out of their way to insult everyone whose opinions do not fully coincide with their own. And when they get called on their insulting rudeness, instead of correcting their obnoxious behavior they play the wounded victim and lash out even more viciously --as if the problem does not originate with their own nasty, bigoted attacks on others but rather with those trying to hold them accountable.

They need to stop blaming the messenger--and others need to stop co-signing these few sh*t-stirrers' nastiness and start holding them responsible for the uncivil atmosphere that poisons this site.

David, this posts contains an unbelievable amount of anger, do you really feel that you need to post this way, it's this kind of non stop hatred that costs us valuable posters like Teresa...

Not anger at all, Chalkie, but great sadness that this behavior is so pervasive and chronic. And if you want to see provocative anger, then you should look at Teresa's repeated posts in which she smeared everyone sympathetic with the tea party folks as "racist," even after the falseness of the charge and it's willfully bigoted insulting provocativeness had been pointed out to her--and look as well at those who defended her for it. If you just put the shoe on the other foot, and imagine her attacking, say, everyone who supports national health care reform as a racist, then the wrongfulness of such abuse might be more apparent to those who repeatedly defended such nastiness instead of joining in holding her to account for it.

The "non stop hatred" spews from the same half-dozen or so folks, again and again. Blaming me for standing up to their nastiness is not going to solve the problem.

[Barry]

Barry,

Your concern is always "someone on the left did this, so the right can do the same" or "They can't criticize us for doing X, because someone on the left also did X".

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I am not responsible for some guy parading around a picture of W. with a Hitler mustache, so I can feel free to tell all of you who post about Obama being a Nazi (and somehow a communist at the same time) that you're full of hooey. Back during the W. administration, I posted (on some other board) that comparing the guy to Hitler only succeeded in trivializing Hitler. Now I can say the same to you guys. Comparing Obama to Hitler only trivializes Hitler.

Find or point out a SINGLE post in which someone on this board compared Obama to Hitler. Go ahead.

As far as nationally, it happened with Bush as often as it does with Obama, and people on your side of the aisle (I'll give you credit if you're an exception) suddenly decided that on 1/20/09, the level of vitriol directed at the president was dangerous and unacceptable in a civil society. The hypocrisy from the left since Obama has become president is just unbelievable. And if you think I'm alone in noticing this, try talking to just about any conservative in this country. Most of them will tell you the exact same thing.

The problem isn't calling out the people who hold up Bush=Hitler or Obama=Hitler signs. It's when people start blanketing everyone who opposes a given president's agenda with the same charges without any evidence to support it.

And speaking of hypocrisy, when was the last time you posted in the pub without saying something nasty or sarcastic about those of us on the other side of the aisle (your last post excepted)?

People like you and Karl pretend you're not part of the problem because you disguise your vitriol better than some on the right do. It's still obnoxious, whether it's dressed up in a nice suit or spoken bluntly.

And by the way, conservatives who go to lawfully protest the Democrats' agenda are no more responsible for someone in their midst saying something inappropriate than you are for someone on the left holding up a Bush=Hitler sign. When we see people labeled as racists for taking stances we agree with in many cases, you had better believe we take it personally and get angry about it.

[Barry]

Not anger at all, Chalkie, but great sadness that this behavior is so pervasive and chronic. And if you want to see provocative anger, then you should look at Teresa's repeated posts in which she smeared everyone sympathetic with the tea party folks as "racist," even after the falseness of the charge and it's willfully bigoted insulting provocativeness had been pointed out to her--and look as well at those who defended her for it. If you just put the shoe on the other foot, and imagine her attacking, say, everyone who supports national health care reform as a racist, then the wrongfulness of such abuse might be more apparent to those who repeatedly defended such nastiness instead of joining in holding her to account for it.

I'm afraid I'm in agreement with David on this, Chalkie. If someone is going to start throwing around unsubstantiated blanket charges of racism, then get pissed and leave when some people call her on it, it's not the fault of the people who point out how unfair her statements are.

I'm probably going to be off-line the next couple days and won't see responses to this.

[Chalkperson]

With the exception of one clearly deranged individual, ALL of the aggressive, insulting, vitriolic posts on this site originate with the same half-dozen or so unrepentant "bigots for the left" who habitually and aggressively go out of their way to insult everyone whose opinions do not fully coincide with their own. And when they get called on their insulting rudeness, instead of correcting their obnoxious behavior they play the wounded victim and lash out even more viciously --as if the problem does not originate with their own nasty, bigoted attacks on others but rather with those trying to hold them accountable.

They need to stop blaming the messenger--and others need to stop co-signing these few sh*t-stirrers' nastiness and start holding them responsible for the uncivil atmosphere that poisons this site.

David, this posts contains an unbelievable amount of anger, do you really feel that you need to post this way, it's this kind of non stop hatred that costs us valuable posters like Teresa...

Not anger at all, Chalkie, but great sadness that this behavior is so pervasive and chronic. And if you want to see provocative anger, then you should look at Teresa's repeated posts in which she smeared everyone sympathetic with the tea party folks as "racist," even after the falseness of the charge and it's willfully bigoted insulting provocativeness had been pointed out to her--and look as well at those who defended her for it. If you just put the shoe on the other foot, and imagine her attacking, say, everyone who supports national health care reform as a racist, then the wrongfulness of such abuse might be more apparent to those who repeatedly defended such nastiness instead of joining in holding her to account for it.

The "non stop hatred" spews from the same half-dozen or so folks, again and again. Blaming me for standing up to their nastiness is not going to solve the problem.

That is not what I was suggesting, you hit out with multiple insults in the same sentence, can't you insult someone with a smaller number of insulting words, and, I agree that whilst the other Party was in power that the Left criticized the Previous President, but, they never used quite as much vitriol as you guys are throwing out, all I ask for is moderation, not the Corlyss kind but just less downright nastiness, and, being as I support neither Party you might wonder why I am contributing to this Thread, the answer is simple, it's not because you (meaning all, not you in particular) have driven out the other Posters, it's because have you ever thought about what the lurkers think about our Board, or the general public who think that they are visiting a Classical Music Site...in my mind it is very selfish for you guys to act this way, think about the better good of the site when stringing together those abuse laden posts, after all just the word "bigot" gets the point across, it does not need to be augmented the way it is done here...what I say or ask for is not within my power to implicate, but, it would be great if all of you (meaning both sides) thought about the Site first and insulting the opposition second, after all the Rules state that you can't insult other posters and that language should reflect that of a normal conversation, there is no way many of the posts here could be considered to fall within those bounderies...

[NancyElla]

Good points, Chalkie.

[DavidRoss]

With the exception of one clearly deranged individual, ALL of the aggressive, insulting, vitriolic posts on this site originate with the same half-dozen or so unrepentant "bigots for the left" who habitually and aggressively go out of their way to insult everyone whose opinions do not fully coincide with their own. And when they get called on their insulting rudeness, instead of correcting their obnoxious behavior they play the wounded victim and lash out even more viciously --as if the problem does not originate with their own nasty, bigoted attacks on others but rather with those trying to hold them accountable.

They need to stop blaming the messenger--and others need to stop co-signing these few sh*t-stirrers' nastiness and start holding them responsible for the uncivil atmosphere that poisons this site.

David, this posts contains an unbelievable amount of anger, do you really feel that you need to post this way, it's this kind of non stop hatred that costs us valuable posters like Teresa...

Not anger at all, Chalkie, but great sadness that this behavior is so pervasive and chronic. And if you want to see provocative anger, then you should look at Teresa's repeated posts in which she smeared everyone sympathetic with the tea party folks as "racist," even after the falseness of the charge and it's willfully bigoted insulting provocativeness had been pointed out to her--and look as well at those who defended her for it. If you just put the shoe on the other foot, and imagine her attacking, say, everyone who supports national health care reform as a racist, then the wrongfulness of such abuse might be more apparent to those who repeatedly defended such nastiness instead of joining in holding her to account for it.

The "non stop hatred" spews from the same half-dozen or so folks, again and again. Blaming me for standing up to their nastiness is not going to solve the problem.

That is not what I was suggesting, you hit out with multiple insults in the same sentence, can't you insult someone with a smaller number of insulting words, and, I agree that whilst the other Party was in power that the Left criticized the Previous President, but, they never used quite as much vitriol as you guys are throwing out, all I ask for is moderation, not the Corlyss kind but just less downright nastiness, and, being as I support neither Party you might wonder why I am contributing to this Thread, the answer is simple, it's not because you (meaning all, not you in particular) have driven out the other Posters, it's because have you ever thought about what the lurkers think about our Board, or the general public who think that they are visiting a Classical Music Site...in my mind it is very selfish for you guys to act this way, think about the better good of the site when stringing together those abuse laden posts, after all just the word "bigot" gets the point across, it does not need to be augmented the way it is done here...what I say or ask for is not within my power to implicate, but, it would be great if all of you (meaning both sides) thought about the Site first and insulting the opposition second, after all the Rules state that you can't insult other posters and that language should reflect that of a normal conversation, there is no way many of the posts here could be considered to fall within those bounderies...

(1) I insulted no one. I described behavior that is insulting. It is that insulting behavior that is the problem, not my objection to it. There is something dreadfully wrong with the moral compasses of those who find nothing objectionable about the nastiness of a few chronically abusive bigots, but who then get all upset and indignant when someone protests the nastiness.

(2) Except for some quoted posts by the aforementioned nutcase, I have not seen any vitriol directed against Obama by posters here, least of all by me, and I’m offended and insulted by your claim that I have done so. Such a charge is an example of the prejudice that makes it hard for some to distinguish between their biased opinions and objective facts. Several posters, including me, have freely criticized some of Obama's policies and methods, but there is an enormous gulf between substantive criticisms of policy and vicious personal attacks.

(3) I have not seen any comments by posters here about Obama nearly as vicious as the constant barrage of invective that was directed against Bush on a daily basis by the same posters who are responsible for the hostility in the Pub, and which then and now is likewise directed against anyone they have identified as a suitable target for their bigoted hatefulness.

(4) I agree absolutely that the nastiness is uncalled for and should stop. I have been outspoken about this for years, naming it when I see it and describing it so that the offenders can learn to recognize it and stop doing it. However, when I speak out, the offenders and their defenders just turn their vitriol on me, as if pointing out their nastiness were the problem and not the nastiness itself.

(5) I know very well about posters being “driven out” by the mean-spiritedness that characterizes much of the posting in the Pub (and occasionally elsewhere). In the five years since joining this site, I have been so disgusted by the persistent hatefulness of the few that I have abandoned CMG for months at a time on at least three occasions. I even once asked Corlyss to delete my membership so I wouldn’t be tempted to return, but she talked me into just taking a break and growing thicker skin instead of letting the bullies drive me away.

(6) Like you, I also support neither political party. On the “litmus tests” of political identity, I consistently score significantly left of center, and on the controversial issues my position more often lines up with the left than the right. Yet those same few contributors who poison the atmosphere here constantly attempt to demonize me as a partisan for the right (and thus to dismiss my observations). Instead of addressing the issues when there are points of contention, they nearly always just label me as something hateful and abuse me with the bigoted personal attacks that are their stock in trade. And why? I think it stems from my persistent efforts to moderate their extremism, starting back when I joined and argued against immediate unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, believing that since we (our government) had created the present situation, we had a moral obligation to stay and stabilize the region rather than “cutting and running” and leaving the people at the mercy of competing warlords and violent factions. The bigots immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was a “Bush-loving, right-wing, Christian conservative, Republican partisan,” and once having formed that baseless belief, they have ever since resisted examining their own ill-begotten prejudice. (Isn’t that what bigots do?) And having labeled me a "right-winger," they then feel morally justified in abusing me as an acceptable target for their hatefulness, just as they abuse everyone else who disagrees with them.

(7) On the other hand, when I post something in support of typically “liberal” or “leftist” positions, like abortion rights or single-payer health insurance, the conservatives and independents who disagree with me have never attacked me personally or slandered me with their bigoted stereotypes. Instead, they have typically countered with substantive arguments for their own positions, usually buttressed by links to supporting data. The contrast is not only remarkable, but telling…and painfully so.

(8) Finally, I agree with you that “both sides” should stop the vitriol. I am not on “a side,” however, as you insinuate, but am a political independent with little faith in either Party. As a non-partisan chronically abused by a few self-professed “liberals” here and witness to their similar abuse of others, I see quite clearly where nearly all of the vitriol originates—as will any other thoughtful non-partisan who has observed the goings-on around here the past few years. It’s not flattering to the offenders’ self images as “enlightened liberals,” but it’s the truth, and no amount of denial or blaming others will change that painful reality.

[Chalkperson]

1) I insulted no one. I described behavior that is insulting. It is that insulting behavior that is the problem, not my objection to it. There is something dreadfully wrong with the moral compasses of those who find nothing objectionable about the nastiness of a few chronically abusive bigots, but who then get all upset and indignant when someone protests the nastiness.

I'm amazed at your response, i'll just leave it at that...

[Mark Harwood]

Quoting Chalkie:
Here is a list of ten members who no longer post in here...
Lance
Agnes
Nutjob
Teresa
Donald Opato
Don Eisler
Werner
Ted
Jared
IcedNote



That's such a shame. Those are people whose views I'm happy to read, whatever they be.
The U.S. political issues don't engage my attention so much, so the only persons who I've found to be severely obnoxious are two who blithely insult anyone who questions their weird religious assertions. It's childish and cowardly behaviour that brings a sour note to our little community. So all we need to do is add such ridiculous people to our "ignore" lists & talk around them.

[HoustonDavid]

David (Ross), I too am amazed at your response. I don't believe it is your political persuasion
that offends me so much as your personal vitriol and anger against so many people. You say
that you insult no one, you only insult their beliefs and behavior. Is it not possible to see that
calling someone's beliefs and behavior by insulting words - especially that most heinous of
words in your vocabulary, "bigot" - is deeply offensive? If you can't see that, then look in the
mirror sometime and see the deep wrinkled scars of your anger against people who disagree
with you. Reread your history of responses and count the number of times you choose to use
words of anger, and multiply that by the times you use the word "bigot". It is really quite a
remarkable total. You obviously can't see yourself for what you truly are: just another smarmy
bigot. I have added you to my very short list of "foes" because I can no longer abide that word.

[Neytiri]

This all has been absolutely shocking to read.

I'm a newcomer, though I've read the board before I registered.

Chalkperson's mission is an impossible one, one of the reasons being that the board is kind of — infamous around the web and many posters have nicknames/reputation already, others warned not to enter any sort of discussion with them.

[jack stowaway]

This all has been absolutely shocking to read.

I'm a newcomer, though I've read the board before I registered.

Chalkperson's mission is an impossible one, one of the reasons being that the board is kind of — infamous around the web and many posters have nicknames/reputation already, others warned not to enter any sort of discussion with them.

That seems hard to believe. Given the anarchic nature of the internet and the many extremist websites, it would be puzzling that anyone would even bother to 'warn' all and sundry against entering into discussion on this site. CMG is, by comparison with many other sites, mildly uncivil at worst. And its equally hard to believe that a classical music forum talk-board can be 'infamous around the web'

This forum is actually a model of decorum compared to many of the websites out there. Posters here are generally responsible and held accountable for their opinions by the board at large. Check out any forum on Middle-East politics/abortion/religion if you want to see real vitriol at work.

[DavidRoss]

David (Ross), I too am amazed at your response. I don't believe it is your political persuasion
that offends me so much as your personal vitriol and anger against so many people. You say
that you insult no one, you only insult their beliefs and behavior. Is it not possible to see that
calling someone's beliefs and behavior by insulting words - especially that most heinous of
words in your vocabulary, "bigot" - is deeply offensive? If you can't see that, then look in the
mirror sometime and see the deep wrinkled scars of your anger against people who disagree
with you. Reread your history of responses and count the number of times you choose to use
words of anger, and multiply that by the times you use the word "bigot". It is really quite a
remarkable total. You obviously can't see yourself for what you truly are: just another smarmy
bigot. I have added you to my very short list of "foes" because I can no longer abide that word.

(1) I do not have “personal vitriol and anger against so many people.” I am, however, offended by the continuous “vitriol and anger” that some posters here repeatedly express in their personal attacks on those whom they regard as politically to their right. And I will not give tacit consent to such attacks by pretending they are anything other than what they are.

(2) You are putting words into my mouth. I never said that “I’m only insulting [others’] beliefs and behavior.” What I said is that I’m not insulting those who make bigoted attacks by objecting to the attacks and describing them accurately as “bigoted.” The insult is when a bigot labels entire classes of persons with his pejorative stereotyping—not when I or anyone else calls him on such behavior. If he’s offended by being called on his bigotry, then he should stop making the bigoted statements, for it’s the bigotry that’s the offense, not others’ efforts to hold him accountable for it. And pretending that it’s not bigotry would be exactly the same sort of complicitous moral cowardice displayed by those who laugh right along with the boor who tells a racist joke.

(3) “Bigot” is hardly the “most heinous” word in my vocabulary. If I were trying to insult these fellows as they insult others, I could easily do so. That is not my purpose, however, and so I refrain from it. “Bigot” is the correct word to describe one whose prejudices cause him to label an enormous class of persons according to stereotypes, as when posters here label those opposed to Obama’s policies as “racist,” or when they insist on calling tea party supporters “tea baggers,” delighting in the vicious insult delivered by the term. How can they stop engaging in behavior that needlessly offends others and which they themselves find morally repugnant if they don’t know they’re doing it?

(4) Time and again those who make and defend the bigoted attacks on conservatives on this site try to deny their wrongdoing and to shift responsibility by attacking those who object to it. Their false claim that I attack anyone who disagrees with me as a “bigot” attempts to discredit the substance of my objections and to shift the focus away from their own reprehensible conduct, which is the source of the problem in the first place. There are only about half a dozen posters here who engage in these attacks, and they are the only ones I’ve called bigots—and never because I disagreed with their positions on issues, but only because I’m repulsed and offended by their bigoted attacks—as I believe they all would be, too, if only they were honest enough with themselves to see it.

[piston]

The fact that this thread, about anger, in general, including my own, has once again polarized along partisan lines is so illustrative of our growing problem. That's the crux: everything, absolutely everything, is being treated along these partisan lines, including earlier "ice outs" in Maine!

People are increasingly responding in terms of a party/ideological position in virtually every thread of this Pub. Barry's reply about alleged racism is a perfect illustration. Nobody attacked him of racism, not because of his abundant post history, his party affiliation, his tastes, etc. But he is writing in behalf of a party, of a movement in a party. He is posting a Republican reply to a perceived Democratic accusation.

That's the source of the escalating violence. Another one is "PC.'

We're not talking to each other; we're posturing for each other's party (A rather curious notion here, as a supporter of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, is that I'm representing the Democrats. But, of course, that don't count 'cause they're RINOs).

In any case, the partisan battles have been spilling over far too much to make the PUB into a place that belongs in a classical music site. May as well start breaking down the composers along liberal and conservative lines and dig in!

[Guitarist]

I belong to a classical guitar forum that does not allow political or religious discussions at all! It certainly is more civilized, so in view of the increasing hatred/anger, which seems to be spreading across the US, not just in this forum, I wonder if this one should adopt a similar policy? There are numerous dedicated political forums out there where one can spew venom all he wants. That would still leave plenty of non-musical topics that could be discussed. (Interesting science articles, advice for buying a new camera, etc.)

[Madame]

The fact that this thread, about anger, in general, including my own, has once again polarized along partisan lines is so illustrative of our growing problem. That's the crux: everything, absolutely everything, is being treated along these partisan lines, including earlier "ice outs" in Maine!

People are increasingly responding in terms of a party/ideological position in virtually every thread of this Pub. Barry's reply about alleged racism is a perfect illustration. Nobody attacked him of racism, not because of his abundant post history, his party affiliation, his tastes, etc. But he is writing in behalf of a party, of a movement in a party. He is posting a Republican reply to a perceived Democratic accusation.

That's the source of the escalating violence. Another one is "PC.'

We're not talking to each other; we're posturing for each other's party (A rather curious notion here, as a supporter of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, is that I'm representing the Democrats. But, of course, that don't count 'cause they're RINOs).

In any case, the partisan battles have been spilling over far too much to make the PUB into a place that belongs in a classical music site. May as well start breaking down the composers along liberal and conservative lines and dig in!

A very sweet relative (in her 90's) was talking the other day, her face pinched after listening to political bickering everywhere she turned, said, everyone's so g**-d*** MEAN any more. And she's right. This polarization even within families, over politics???

Today I modeled hats for a local ladies' red hat club (barely knew what Red Hats was even about). They just have fun. The leader played a little ditty on a red kazoo and they sang a little song about red hats, some had stories to tell, and each had some kind of red hat -- fur, satin, bucket, cowboy, it was a hoot. One woman read a cute joke:

The little boy asked his father - Daddy, how was I born?

Dad says: Ah, my son, I guess one day you will need to find out anyway! Well, your Mom and I first got together in a chat room on MSN. Then I set up a date via e-mail with your Mom and we met at a cyber-cafe. We sneaked into a secluded room, where your mother agreed to a download from my hard drive. As soon as I was ready to upload, we discovered that neither one of us had used a firewall and it was too late to hit the delete button. Nine months later a blessed little Popup appeared and said: You've Got a Male

For an afternoon, nobody gave a whit about anything than just having fun.

[Jean]

The little boy asked his father - Daddy, how was I born?

Dad says: Ah, my son, I guess one day you will need to find out anyway! Well, your Mom and I first got together in a chat room on MSN. Then I set up a date via e-mail with your Mom and we met at a cyber-cafe. We sneaked into a secluded room, where your mother agreed to a download from my hard drive. As soon as I was ready to upload, we discovered that neither one of us had used a firewall and it was too late to hit the delete button. Nine months later a blessed little Popup appeared and said: You've Got a Male

For an afternoon, nobody gave a whit about anything than just having fun.

LOL...I'm going to save this one. I love it...

[Jean]

Regarding the original topic and issue regarding the copious posts on politics and religion, the absolute beauty of online forums is that you can ignore what you don't want to read or respond to.

If you find that you can't, well then it's ok to respond with passion imo, as long as it doesn't get into personal insults. Okay to say "what you said is stupid", but not okay to say "you are stupid". There are only two posters i have seen routinely get away with personally bashing people rather than what they say.

I almost never engage in the political discussions. I don't even read most of them.

This is a very tame and civil adult forum in comparison to most. When forums start prohibiting selected topics, it ceases to be a real community. I have neither the time nor the inclination to belong to multiple online communities. I much prefer to share with one group I can get to know.

Rather than complain about too much of those heady topics, because there is clearly an interest, I would encourage everyone to also post more of the personal everyday and yes, even trivial sort of things.
Just my two cents.

[jack stowaway]

I belong to a classical guitar forum that does not allow political or religious discussions at all! It certainly is more civilized, so in view of the increasing hatred/anger, which seems to be spreading across the US, not just in this forum, I wonder if this one should adopt a similar policy? There are numerous dedicated political forums out there where one can spew venom all he wants. That would still leave plenty of non-musical topics that could be discussed. (Interesting science articles, advice for buying a new camera, etc.)

That's a terrible suggestion. There are many posters here (moi, for example) who couldn't give a fig about classical music, and even less about advice for buying a camera. I come here not for the music, but for the talk.

Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. There are plenty of bland, anodyne, politically correct forums on the web. They typically attract bland, anodyne, politically correct posters as well. Give me Brendan, Saul, Dulcinea and other controversialists any day of the week.

It's the sharply expressed point of view and deeply held opinion that makes this site worth visiting. Passion is the indispensible ingredient of talk boards such as this one. If we dilute that in the interests of faux civility then we lose half the value of this board. Think, in your mind, which posters are worth reading on any topic? The first names which come to my mind are those who come out swinging on behalf of some deeply-held conviction or other. If anyone crosses the line in the resulting stoush, an apology is usually sufficient to set matters aright again.

And is there any evidence that Teresa, for example, has stopped posting to this forum in protest at alleged rudeness? Knowing Teresa (from her terrific posts) I'd be surprised if that was the case. And knowing Ralph (equally from his posts) he enjoys a good verbal dust-up as much as anyone.

In fact, to be quite blunt about it, this site has gotten a tad boring this past month or so. Another pot-boiler wouldn't go amiss. Evolution, anyone?

[piston]

I belong to a classical guitar forum that does not allow political or religious discussions at all! It certainly is more civilized, so in view of the increasing hatred/anger, which seems to be spreading across the US, not just in this forum, I wonder if this one should adopt a similar policy? There are numerous dedicated political forums out there where one can spew venom all he wants. That would still leave plenty of non-musical topics that could be discussed. (Interesting science articles, advice for buying a new camera, etc.)

That's a terrible suggestion. There are many posters here (moi, for example) who couldn't give a fig about classical music, and even less about advice for buying a camera. I come here not for the music, but for the talk.

Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. There are plenty of bland, anodyne, politically correct forums on the web. They typically attract bland, anodyne, politically correct posters as well. Give me Brendan, Saul, Dulcinea and other controversialists any day of the week.

It's the sharply expressed point of view and deeply held opinion that makes this site worth visiting. Passion is the indispensible ingredient of talk boards such as this one. If we dilute that in the interests of faux civility then we lose half the value of this board. Think, in your mind, which posters are worth reading on any topic? The first names which come to my mind are those who come out swinging on behalf of some deeply-held conviction or other. If anyone crosses the line in the resulting stoush, an apology is usually sufficient to set matters aright again.

And is there any evidence that Teresa, for example, has stopped posting to this forum in protest at alleged rudeness? Knowing Teresa (from her terrific posts) I'd be surprised if that was the case. And knowing Ralph (equally from his posts) he enjoys a good verbal dust-up as much as anyone.

In fact, to be quite blunt about it, this site has gotten a tad boring this past month or so. Another pot-boiler wouldn't go amiss. Evolution, anyone?

I have never heard actual members of either political party respond to each other the way some replies have been expressed here. I guess all politicians appreciate the virtues of your faux civility! In fact, most have learned that, when working on what is presumably a bipartisan committee, you treat members of the opposite party with great respect; you don't discredit them, belittle them, constantly undermine their credibility because everything they do is "PC" or "bigots." You see, they have to live and work with each other and therein lies the difference. They can't just press a "foe" function or disregard their posts.

In fact, it's the same situation in any civilized professional setting involving some kind of council or committee work. If one wants the administrative unit to remain functional, a protocol is in order, along with tacit rules of civil discussion and discourse. Otherwise, it all becomes dysfunctional.

[keaggy220]

We're talking politics folks. If you can't take the heat on this forum then I can safely say there is no forum on Al Gore's entire amazing internet that you will be able to stomach. This is it - you found it - the most polite political discussion in existence. It's amazing anyone is complaining, but most of us are American and when we have the best, we still find a reason to complain.

[piston]

Take the heat, yes; take insults, why?! I'm not running for any position, aggressively climbing up the corporate ladder, standing on one side of a two-pronged manifestation about some highly controversial issue. I'm socializing! And, no, we're not always talking politics but the spilling over into partisan politics has had a contaminating effect; it has poisoned the well of numerous threads -- legal, educational, environmental, etc. It has had a toxic effect on the socializing quality of CMG as a whole!

And please don't tell me that people are simply debating issues. The way some debates have turned out participants would have been thrown out of the debating club and shown the way to a kick-boxing ring!

[piston]

Classical music fora have been closed down because of this very toxicity.

Toxicity is the degree to which a substance is able to damage an exposed organism.

That being the case (and my personal experience elsewhere), then is it worth the risk to have a Classical Music Guide Pub that has so much achieved an existence of its own as to draw people who don't like or contribute to classical music threads? If it ever turns out that the Pub is mainly composed on non-classical music contributors then I see no reason to maintain the association with CMG.

[jbuck919]

Classical music fora have been closed down because of this very toxicity.

Toxicity is the degree to which a substance is able to damage an exposed organism.

That being the case (and my personal experience elsewhere), then is it worth the risk to have a Classical Music Guide Pub that has so much achieved an existence of its own as to draw people who don't like or contribute to classical music threads? If it ever turns out that the Pub is mainly composed on non-classical music contributors then I see no reason to maintain the association with CMG.

Why is it impossible to imagine churches, with all that they give to US society through charity and fraternity, without their worship, which to those not involved and/or convinced seems an arbitrary feature? There is just no explaining some things, and I don't think our Pub could have a separate life apart from CMG. I have posted questioningly on this before, but I have to conclude that our attracting intelligent political posters who have no particular interest in classical music has been a positive thing, even though I disagree with many of their posts. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noted a certain lifelessness here recently as some people who were hotly into issues have been posting less frequently or not at all.

I also don't see a well-moderated Pub as a threat to the board as a whole. And since Corlyss is not here to remind us, the Pub came into being for two reasons: One of the owners--and remember two people actually pay for this site--is a self-admitted political junky who loves the tussle of debate, and, perhaps more important, from what I have heard the earlier non-Pub version of the board had problems with people posting politically on the music board.

[jack stowaway]

I have never heard actual members of either political party respond to each other the way some replies have been expressed here.

By 'either political party' I take it you are referring specifically to the Republican and Democratic parties?

Remember, many of the contributing posters on this site are not from the US and are therefore quite oblivious to the whole Republican/Democrat partisanship you specifically complain of. The heat and passion generated by forum-advocates of either party seem but a glow worm's light from this side of the Pacific. In fact, many US-centric issues, such as the healthcare debate, are of little or no real interest beyond the US itself.

This perhaps explains why the internecine feuds that so exercise you seem but a storm in a teacup to the international contributors to this board.

[keaggy220]

Take the heat, yes; take insults, why?! I'm not running for any position, aggressively climbing up the corporate ladder, standing on one side of a two-pronged manifestation about some highly controversial issue. I'm socializing! And, no, we're not always talking politics but the spilling over into partisan politics has had a contaminating effect; it has poisoned the well of numerous threads -- legal, educational, environmental, etc. It has had a toxic effect on the socializing quality of CMG as a whole!

And please don't tell me that people are simply debating issues. The way some debates have turned out participants would have been thrown out of the debating club and shown the way to a kick-boxing ring!

Insults are a part of life - always have been and always will be.... We all have our bad days and we say or type things we regret later... Sometimes (perhaps many times) our actions do not meet the standards of our intentions. And with that said we all like to be judged by our intentions, but we love to judge others by their actions. This will never change and all I'm saying is that this forum is as close to ideal as you're going to get when it comes to discussing politics.

There's nothing wrong with reaffirming or declaring the behavior you would like to see on this forum and reminding people that civility is almost always the best policy, but compliance will never be 100%.

Personally I'm more offended by illogical arguments. And yes, I realize I make them sometimes, but there are a few on here that are totally driven by their feelings with absolutely no understanding of reality.

[HoustonDavid]

Personally, I would much rather save the Corner Pub by the simple expedient of following the
rules, as Corlyss would have us do. In case most of you (including me) have forgotten, I will
quote them for you:

1. The first and only rule of conduct is civility. Disagreement is okay. Disagreeableness is not. No member has a right to disturb the quiet enjoyment of this forum by others. If you wouldn’t say what you are about to say to someone standing right in front of you, don’t say it to another member in a post.

2. Members agree to refrain from the following behaviors:
a. Verbally abusing other posters;
b. Using profanity, obscenity, or sexually explicit language.

The recent exchanges in The Corner Pub have all too often broken these key rules and been uncivil,
verbally abusive, and made generous use of profanity. The simple solution to our problem is rule
number one: the first and only rule of conduct is civility. It matters not what your political, ethical,
religious, or sexual persuasions are. Simply Be Civil!

I think Rule 2 will simply follow if we obey Rule 1. As someone much more famous than I will ever
be said: "Can't we all just get along?"

[Chalkperson]

I belong to a classical guitar forum that does not allow political or religious discussions at all! It certainly is more civilized, so in view of the increasing hatred/anger, which seems to be spreading across the US, not just in this forum, I wonder if this one should adopt a similar policy? There are numerous dedicated political forums out there where one can spew venom all he wants. That would still leave plenty of non-musical topics that could be discussed. (Interesting science articles, advice for buying a new camera, etc.)

That's a terrible suggestion. There are many posters here (moi, for example) who couldn't give a fig about classical music, and even less about advice for buying a camera. I come here not for the music, but for the talk.

Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. There are plenty of bland, anodyne, politically correct forums on the web. They typically attract bland, anodyne, politically correct posters as well. Give me Brendan, Saul, Dulcinea and other controversialists any day of the week. And is there any evidence that Teresa, for example, has stopped posting to this forum in protest at alleged rudeness? Knowing Teresa (from her terrific posts) I'd be surprised if that was the case. And knowing Ralph (equally from his posts) he enjoys a good verbal dust-up as much as anyone.

In fact, to be quite blunt about it, this site has gotten a tad boring this past month or so. Another pot-boiler wouldn't go amiss. Evolution, anyone?

To answer your question, Jack, I am posting David Ross's comment that drove Teresa away from our Site, the Thread was removed by the Moderators, but, I think it important for everyone to see what "the fuss is all about"...

I have never seen a more vindictive and intentionally hurtful post in The Pub, David believes that he did not insult Teresa, the Moderator disagrees, very much so in fact, because the entire Thread was removed to try and put this dreadful episode behind us...it is in clear violation of Rule 2b about not verbally abusing other Members or using swear words, using * does not change that Rule...

PS We lost Agnes too because of this post, being Teresa's friend she no longer wishes to post in a Forum where this kind of behavior is allowed...David must be very proud of himself for getting rid of two birds with one stone...

It's simply heinous that you persist in tarring those who oppose the administration's policies with your vile stereotyping and slanderous character assassination. Even in your "winking" concession here that all opponents might not be "racist and/or seditious," you nevertheless imply that they are significant characteristics of the opposition, rather than traits that might apply to a small percentage of looney tunes *ssholes who have nothing in common with the many millions of Americans who are neither racist nor seditious and who oppose Obama & the Democrats' Congressional leadership based on earnest belief that the Dems' policies are damaging to the best interests of the nation.

Using the same line of perverted reasoning that you think applies to opponents of Obama's policies, then you must concede yourself to be a racist, since you live in the South and everyone "knows" Southerners are racists, "proven" by the fact that some Southerners have committed racist acts.

[Barry]

I'm afraid I still disagree with your take on David's post, and I happen to know the other board moderator agrees that the word "bigot" is an appropriate description for people who throw out blanket charges of racism against Obama opponents or even just tea partiers. I find that more insulting that the quote by David you posted. And the fact that it's directed at a large group of people who share many of my views and not at me personally doesn't lessen the impact of the insult.

If I came on here and said I've seen three stories a night on my local news involving violent crimes by African-Americans, so they must all by violent criminals or potential violent criminals, I'd be called out by the liberals on this board as a bigot. And I see no significant difference in those two sets of circumstances.

[jbuck919]

If I came on here and said I've seen three stories a night on my local news involving violent crimes by African-Americans, so they must all by violent criminals or potential violent criminals, I'd be called out by the liberals on this board as a bigot.

Aha, NOW we know what's holding you back.

Just for the record, I can't think of anyone here whose posts have led me to conclude that he or she is racially prejudiced. On the other hand, we do have some members, including myself, who are not particularly interested in bending over backward to be accommodating to political positions with which they strongly disagree. It is one thing to say that a black person behaves as we would expect a black person to behave, and quite another to address an individual's position from a consistent political viewpoint, and not to agree or disagree with that position today any more than we did yesterday.

[absinthe]

.....like moths to a flame.


By the way, I've noticed this 'WTF' thing several times. Is it, as I suspect, an abbreviation of
World Transvester Foundation?

[Chalkperson]

I'm afraid I still disagree with your take on David's post, and I happen to know the other board moderator feels exactly as I do on blanket charges of racism against Obama opponents or even just tea partiers. I find that more insulting that the quote by David you posted. And the fact that it's directed at a large group of people who share many of my views and not at me personally doesn't lessen the impact of the insult.

If I came on here and said I've seen three stories a night on my local news involving violent crimes by African-Americans, so they must all by violent criminals or potential violent criminals, I'd be called out by the liberals on this board as a bigot. And I see no significant difference in those two sets of circumstances.

I was not addressing the reason for David's attack, only the way that it was worded, I did not read any of the T.E.A Party Threads and therefore I have no way of commenting on your charges of Teresa's racism, Teresa has the right to an opinion, and everyone has the right to object to it, that is not in dispute at all, I fail to see the reason why he felt the need to destroy a valuable poster with such a nasty and personalized response, even JackC was shocked by the vitriol contained therein, and he wrote a very kind and sympathetic post to Teresa which many people here appreciated because Jack is not one to mince words when posting on this Board, just because you disagree with somebody's viewpoint does not justify an attack so fierce that it make the person who's view you disagree with leave the Site...

[Madame]

David (Ross), I too am amazed at your response. I don't believe it is your political persuasion
that offends me so much as your personal vitriol and anger against so many people. You say
that you insult no one, you only insult their beliefs and behavior. Is it not possible to see that
calling someone's beliefs and behavior by insulting words - especially that most heinous of
words in your vocabulary, "bigot" - is deeply offensive? If you can't see that, then look in the
mirror sometime and see the deep wrinkled scars of your anger against people who disagree
with you. Reread your history of responses and count the number of times you choose to use
words of anger, and multiply that by the times you use the word "bigot". It is really quite a
remarkable total. You obviously can't see yourself for what you truly are: just another smarmy
bigot. I have added you to my very short list of "foes" because I can no longer abide that word.

<psst ... you already added him > <now you have to foe yourself because you just called him a bigot>