eddo

LOL, this is all starting to make my head hurt, but I think I didn't get what you were getting at, IWS. I'm sorry for that. ok, lets go thru this one by one, to make sure we are talking about the same instances: [ ]TJ brought up wez's killer status. Wez misunderstood, got upset, and TJ manned up apologized. Wez ignored it. [ ]Earlier Wez said to TJ "Welcome to liberalism". TJ got upset, no apology, just denial from wez. [ ]Earlier than that IWS mentioned the word "ban" in a pm to TJ. TJ misunderstood, got upset, IWS manned up and apologized. TJ ignored it (as best as I remember anyway.) It is my opinion that the one that originally stated the offending remark should be the one to apologize, if for nothing else than just the confusion. Sure the other one should likely apologize as well, especially if they over-reacted to the confusion (like TJ did with the "ban" comment) but that isn't as necessary as accepting the given up apology. Know what I mean? I'm getting into this much more than I anticipated, but seriously, is apologizing for confusion really that hard to do, or accept?

because the confusion started with what wez said. (and because Tj apologized as well.) Actually, I said it more in reference to this site. But, as has been said, this is in the past. I agree on both counts- that it should, and because some of us cannot move forward, it isn't.

What's bad about it is that you know he isn't a liberal. Thus welcoming him to the liberal party is a slam. I will agree that he went overboard with it, but I do not doubt that you meant it as a slam. Relevance? Actually no. it would be you who should apologize to him (which I thought you did.) You made the comment, he misunderstood, but since it wasn't what you meant- it would be then, in my opinion, your responsibility to apologize for it. I dunno that we should, as we are all adults here, but I thought it was pretty cool of TJ to apologize for the misunderstanding, and wez just blew it off. I thought maybe if he returned the favor (which I knew he wouldn't do) it might help us to move past it. I didn't say you "owed" him anything, but I thought it would be nice.

Perhaps you could apologize to him for the confusion, as he did regarding the confusion of the killer comment...

because that was after you used it as a slam, showing that it obviously bothered you. I was curious, so I asked. Huh?? What does a post about missionaries and/or Jehovah Witnesses at another site have to do with any of this?

It was my intent to have a very civil conversation, and I thought we were. I see things have changed a bit since I left... Didn't you ask me 2 days ago what was so bad about being called a liberal? Please explain... I asked you personally what was so bad about being called a liberal when your views so closely align with liberals. I don't understand why you are asking for clarification of that... None. Perhaps that was a bad example, but it was public, and it involved you. Only a couple things came right to mind regarding that, and that was one of them. I apologize to all. I thought this was going to be decent and civilized, but I was wrong- it has turned into the same old crap post filled of "hypocrites," non-listening, and bickering.

That is quite the goal...

I dunno. I do think "intent" is a very hard thing to prove online, and that is going to be a hard concept for many of us to get behind. Like when you called TJ a liberal. I know your style, so I knew right away that it was a slam. Others, that don't know you as well, thought it was just a typo. I don't think TJ meant it as an attack when he referred to you being called a "killer," but it did make his point that even in context, it shouldn't be allowed. Did you catch that I can't see your infraction level? So maybe then you can't see other's infraction levels?

Nope, I cannot see that on your info. Not the infraction part anyway. edit: whoa, we got split... lol

See what? I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

They would likely prefer to be killed, or "martyred" as they will see it. Chop their nuts off instead. Getting 72 virgins and not having nuts would really suck.

Why do you have to see it? I had this same convo with an opponent of yours the other day wez- Just because you don't see everything doesn't mean it isn't happening. It may or may not be, but the truth of it isn't dependent on your viewing of it.

Did you notice that the one who made the original "killer" comment on this thread was doing so as an example of how it was bad to do such a thing?

Completely untrue. Off the top of my head I can think of a post I made for you, and how to better get along with people there (because the pm'ing wasn't working. I thought maybe an open shot for people to explain to you the things they were telling me would help you- it didn't.) All that did was upset you, you started chasing people around then, making snide comments whenever they disagreed with you on other topics, and eventually led to your banning. Doing that in the open did nothing to help the situation. Heck, Feckless even made the vote to bring you back a public vote. You were most certainly handled publicly, and when that failed to work, it went private. All handling things publicly did was give you more ammo as to who was not happy with you.

When you report a post, a post is made in the admin area and it links right to the offending post: so to the admins- it is all in the open. They can see exactly what the offended party is referring to, and can then make up their own minds. Wez, you have never liked situations with you being handled publicly, or at least that is how you came off. You get angry, bitter, and take the "fight" all over the board- thus resolving nothing. I, too, would rather things be held in the open, but it isn't working here.

In the way that you might get a lot of griping at first, a lot of posts reported that are frivolous, or some using the system for payback- because some won't like this- but as they get used to it, and you, it will get better.

The reporting isn't because anyone is too afraid of you to say it to your face, as you imply, it is to keep the bickering off of the board. It is pretty obvious that some of us cannot handle our bickering without it spilling over onto everything, so this way a mod can view it and make a determination without the constant crap about it. Honestly, I like it. It will take some getting used to, but as long as the rules are applied to everyone equally, there won't be a thing for any of us to gripe about. it might be a little hairy at first for IWS, but in the long run it should make this a better p[lace to be.

Almost. The inappropriate language question- Is it possible to have inappropriate language with the language filter in place? I have seen some work around the filter- is that "inappropriate language"? I agree. We have a decent discussion going here, and who starts the bickering back up? I agree here too.

Thanks for the clarification. I block out everyones signatures anyway, so that one doesn't matter to me, but it is nice to know.

I was actually talking about that with a friend the other day, and had the opposite view: I am surprised that she isn't using the Clinton moniker, as I really do think America would vote Bill back into office if we could. He is still a very popular and charismatic speaker. I would think she would want to use it more.

I kinda agree with Timesjoke, although judging by the severity of the points it would take quite a bit to be idiot boxed, so it likely isn't that bug a deal. What do these mean? What is a Signature Rule violation? I didn't know we had a signature rule. Why are innapropriate pictures worth less than innapropriate language? What constitues either of these? Is in innapropriate language if we bypass the language filter? Do these points apply to all the forums, or just the On Topic one? Is "Free for All" still a free for all? I don't mean to be a pain, but I think some clarification is necessary to understand this better.

I am an Enterpriser as well.

1. Protecting the environment is a primary social responsibility we have, regardless of how it effects businesses. Not exactly True "Not Exactly"??? How is that a viable answer vs. "True"? I voted that way, because while I don't think a company needs to be deliberately trashing the environment, I don't think it should be their main concern. 2. Immigration policies Should be less strict. Immigrants enhance this country. Should be more strict. Too many people enter illegally. Lock the door, then start working on sending the illegals here home and to the end of the "enter the country legally" line. 3. Gay marriage Should be legal and given the same rights as heterosexual marriage. Should not be legal. Marriage is between a man and a woman. "Marriage" is between man and woman. If two gays want to have a binding legal contract between them, any paralegal can help them with that. 4. Public education could be improved by Having a voucher system Revoking No Child Left Behind Technically I voted for the vouchers, but easily could have said both. 5. If you smoke marijuana... You should be punished with a slap on the wrist It's your business As long as it is illegal, you should be punished for doing it. 6. Affirmative action Gives minorities and women a level playing field Is unfair, outdated, and hurts those with the most merit It's unfair, outdated and hurts those with the most merit- and stupid. 7. Carrying a gun is: Taking responsibility for one's own defense, and admirable Dangerous and sketchy Don't see very many shootings in army surplus stores. I wonder why that is? 8. Some people have less luck than others False True Like Brotherman, I don't believe in luck. Life hands you all kinds of stuff- some good, some bad- deal with what you got. 9. Social Security: Is simply a transfer payment that should be replaced by personal accounts Can easily be fixed by making the rich and employers pay more all for personal responsibility 10. Taxes should be... Cut to stimulate the economy and give people more of their money back. Something the rich pay more of. They can afforded. again with the personal responsibility. Let me handle my money. If I blow it all on nachos and then can't afford the payment on my new house, then it's my own damn fault. 11. It's more important for our country Reduce the deficit and national debt To help the poor and helpless I don't think it is the countries responsibility to take care of the poor. That's my job. and yours. 12. The Fed should be more concerned with Controlling unemployment Controlling inflation I voted for Controlling inflation so it would keep minimum wage from ever being increased again.- personal responsibility. Not making enough money for a new house? better yourself so you can get a better job. 13. The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. False True Companies are there to make money for the people invested in it. 14. Everyone has a right to health care, even if they can't afford it False True I voted true on this one- because everyone deserves to be treated. This does not mean that I think everyone is entitled to health insurance, or cheap insurance if they are not doing their part to be living a healthy lifestyle. 15.All authority, by its nature, should be questioned False True If the question said "All authority, by its nature, should be open to be questioned" my vote wold have been different. Just because authority is there does not mean I should question it. It is a privilege to have a job, and as such, my boss doesn't have to let me work there. He is my boss and I need to respect the opportunity he gives me to make a paycheck. 16. Abortion should be... Completely legal and available Restricted, discouraged, or illegal abolutely 17. Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified. True False Yep. Sometimes it's good being the most powerful county in the world. 18. The war in Iraq is justified True False Yep, Hussien had WMD (give me 10 years to hide something and see how well I do at it...) and he was an evil bastard. Iraq is better off without him. 19. The problem with the US justice system is: Too many plea bargains and loose interpretations of law Not enough rehabilitation and prisoner's rights I'd add frivolous lawsuits to that as well.. 20. The death penalty Is appropriate in select cases Is a violation of human rights should be added for drug users. lol

nope, not interested.

I dunno either. I didn't think the issue was actually about the word "liberal" until TJ said that is what it was. I have no doubt that wez saying it to TJ was intended as an attack, but thought the issue was more about the combative spirit of the reply than the word itself. That is inaccurate. You have many times said you aren't a "word," but instead you are a "wez", and I have seen you tell Tj not to label you as such. In debates, especially political ones, it is helpful to know (and yes, even label) the parties involved, in order to follow their thought processes without them having to explain every single political view every single time. Know what I mean? I do it more mentally than in writing, but I most definitely keep track of my fellow debaters stances on things- to better understand their viewpoints. Extraordinarily accurate point. For the blind... Do you deny that these type of fights follow you around to every board you are active on?