So political discussions in IMHO operate under different rules than other discussions in that forum, is what you’re saying. Perhaps we should just ban all political threads for IMHO entirely. What’s the point in participating in any thread about politics if “certain opinions” aren’t going to be allowed in them? The way I see it, nothing Wierddave posted in there was inappropriate to that thread. If his posts were inappropriate for the forum, then perhaps that’s an indication that the whole thread was in the wrong place.
If I were moderatin’, I’d have problems with the following bits:
“Hillary is a republican wet dream.” Not a huge problem, but the mods have expressed a desire for fewer ejalation-related metaphors in political debates, I think.
“She’ll simply help expedite the downfall of your party.” Weirddave, if you’re a Democrat, didn’t you use the wrong possessive form above? Shouldn’t that have been “our party”?
“The more people like you harp on this, the more your side looks like imbeciles. Just…stop. Stop being idiots.” That’s pretty damn close to calling zoog an imbecile and an idiot, behavior inappropriate outside of the Pit. And that’s the bit that strikes me as way over the line, whereas my two previous complaints are just nitpicking.
Daniel
As I understand the discussion, and Weirddave and Czarcasm, correct me if I’m wrong:
Weirddave wants to engage in a fairly heated debate in IMHO, where he can be himself, without having to worry about cites.
Czarcasm feels the level of heat that Weirddave has brought to a political poll/discussion in IMHO isn’t forum-appropriate.
ISTM that there IS a forum where a poster can get into as heated a debate as is allowable anywhere on this board, with no requirement of cites. We’re in it.
Fuck you, RTF. They’re my opinions, and as such, they don’t need cites, because I have clearly labled them as opinions. When I state facts, I cite them. YOUR opinions may be nothing more than the regurgetated bullshit from the latest outraged idiot liberal blog you’ve read, and are thus citable, but my opinions are formed on my own, after giving a good deal of thought to matters, and thus are not. Sorry if this baffles you a little bit, but it’s time you realized some of us think for ourselves. Get used to it.
Well, you do something for yourself, History-Boy, but it hardly qualifies as thought. But then ‘opinions’ don’t require thought.
But ‘opinons’ often relate to factual matters, and if you don’t want to have to worry about what light actual facts might shed on your ‘opinions’, I agree that fora like IMHO and the Pit are indeed the best places for you.
And FWIW, History-Boy, I’ve got nearly five years’ worth of posts that I made here before I ever visited a blog. I don’t care what you think about my track record, because you’re an idiot. But I think I’ve long since proven, to the satisfaction of anyone with functioning frontal lobes, that I don’t need anyone’s help to come up with strong arguments.
You know why I visit blogs? For news. That story in the LA Times about employers pressuring workers to put in overtime ‘off the clock’ might not be in the WaPo or on CNN.com. Ditto a BBC story about the dangers of driving from Baghdad to the Baghdad airport. Ditto a Washington Times story about how we ‘broke the back’ of the Iraqi insurgency. I go to the blogs to learn.
You might try that sometime. It’d be a new experience for you.
Cite?
I wanna party with you, man… how many miles from Tupelo?
Roughly 500.
Nyeh, objectively I’d have to back that up, Lib. Opinions MAY spring from thought…but they don’t REQUIRE it.
snicker
Oh, RTF, you’re so KYOOT! don’t ever change, OK? We need the amusement factor now more than ever. I know that Reeders’ suspension gave you the rare opportunity to be the cracker in the liberal circle jerk that goes on around here, but don’t go mistaking that moisture on your cheeks for a gentle spring rain, you haven’t been doing anything even remotely similar to critical thinking for a long time now. I wonder if you actually realize what you just said. For five years, your posts were normal, cordial, often times intelligent (if misguided) examples of someone who wanted to have a discussion of issues, you know, a give and take, the old back and forth, sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you, a pleasant debate with people who, while they may not agree with you, were still worthy of respect and son of a gun, sometimes they were actually right. Since you started reading the blogs “to learn”, you have become an angry, irrational partisan bully looking to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with you slavishly. You don’t suppose there’s a connection, do you? Nah, there couldn’t be. Forget I mentioned it.
Yer loving pal,
The idiot.
Reeder was suspended?
Damn. I need to keep up better with what’s happening around here.
And I’m sure you can back that up with actual cites.
You see, sometimes an opinion is about something in reality. And the opinion can then be backed up with cites, or not. Which was where we started in this particular discussion, if you recall: you want to play in fora where you don’t have to back up your opinions with cites, because after all they’re just opinions.
But here, it seems, you present them as facts. Looks like you want to have it both ways, bucko.
FWIW, the transition you ascribe to me seems to have occurred about a year earlier, during the run-up to the Iraq war, when you started calling anyone against the war an “appeasement idiot” or some such.
Since then, insult has pretty much been your stock in trade, as the thread that inspired this one attests to. (See link in OP.) It’s what people resort to when they have no reasoned argument to marshal.
That shoulda been “seems to have occurred in you about a year earlier…”
I’m gonna say one last thing, and then I’m prolly going to let this one go. You can mischaracterize my statements all you want, and that’s fine, have at it and feel like a big man, but there is one core of truth that you are willfully ignoring. I’m not talking about the interaction between you and I when I say that you have become nothing more than a shrill partisan shill lately, other people have commented on it to me. I made my observation with the hope that you might indulge yourself in some painful introspection. If you don’t want to, that’s fine, it’s your choice, you have to live with yourself, I don’t. This “war on terror” is going to last far beyond your or my lifespans. We can either fight it wholeheartedly, or weasel around hoping that the rest of the world will come to like us and treat us nicely. I prefer the former, you prefer the latter. That’s the beauty of a free society, we can all believe what we want, in the face of the facts or allowing for them.
Regardless, you are still welcome in my home, I like you, you’re generally a nice guy, just out of touch with realpolitik. Dope the halls IV is coming up, will you and Jackie be in attendence? We’d love to have you.
Peace
Kum-Bay-Yah, O Lord!
Wow, speaking of mischaracterizations… :rolleyes:
Maybe you are the one who should do some introspection.
FWIW, if people are saying these things about me, they are welcome to simply bring them up with me. My email address is in the profile. If it’s just you and manny, plus maybe a Starving Artist or two tossed in for bulk, I’ll just consider the source. If it’s any reasonable person from Polycarp to Sam Stone, then I’ll listen.
No, I don’t think so.
There comes a point beyond which the insults and the fuck-yous just can’t be compartmentalized away, at least not by me. You want to take a pretty mild comment, and respond with fuck-you and add a whole bunch of unrelated vitriol, then expect things to be fine between us off the board…I can’t do that. There’s a limit to how much I can wall off and pretend it was some Online Dave character who said those things when I’m talking with IRL Dave. And RTFirefly and Kim aren’t two different people either, even if different parts of my nature are going to show up to a greater degree online than IRL. That’s just the same way that different parts of my nature are more in evidence at the office, and other parts are more in evidence at home. But it’s the same me, throughout.
So I hope you have a great party on the 11th, and that a lot of people show up and have a terrific time, and go all gaga over Jimmy. But I think I’ll sit this one out, thanks.
P.S. I got a real chuckle out of the “out of touch with realpolitik” line. Thanks for brightening my morning.
Hey, it’s your choice. If you want to sit at home and sulk because I’m all nasty and mean at you online, be my guest. I just wanted you to know that if you do so it’s because you chose to do so, not because you have to do so.
BTW, I wouldn’t characterize saying that one has no ability to use facts and is thus full of shit as a “mild comment”. If you do, then I surprised by your reaction to how I’ve responded, because I haven’t said anything half as nasty. Go figure.
I know this will come as a shock to you, but my Saturdays are generally pretty busy, even when a soiree at Weirddave’s isn’t on the calendar.
Believe me, it’s my free choice. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it none.
People can scroll up, and compare my first post in this thread with your response. That’s the great thing about message boards. I don’t expect too many people to arrive at the same conclusion as you.
Rt, WeirdDave, I like and respect both of you, so with love in my heart I ask you to knock trhis shit off.
Stop namecalling and start, y’know, talking. Earnestly, respectfully. Sure, you both have strong opinions and that’s part of why you both are are so great. But I really hate to see MADs who previously got along great falling out over politics. Mind, I got in trouble because of very mild snarking in Cafe Society that alluded quite elliptically to the election, so I know from getting heat over political opinions.
But is the need to feel right more important than maintaining amity with one another? Political issues come and go, but people last. I hate to see the repercussions from the current zeitgeist interfere with people getting along IRL.
Could the two of you kiss and reconcile?
But no make-up sex, OK? I’m watching you two. 
That’s fine with me, Gobear, that’s kinda why I made a point of letting RT know he’s still welcome at the holiday party. I take very little of what is said on these boards personally, especially in this forum. I respond here, and leave it here. “Board Dave” and “RL Dave” are essensially the same person, but I don’t allow one to dictate the other’s actions. Board fights have little or nothing to do with Rl interactions.
And don’t worry, I’m saving my make-up sex for you. Go ahead and insult me, let’s get the process started, big guy. 
Tried that in post 35, got snark back in post 36. End program.
It isn’t the politics. It’s the steady stream of personal insult that Dave consistently throws at his debate adversaries. It’s almost always within the rules, certainly; got no problem there. But after enough times when you feel you’ve been less debated with than slimed at, you don’t want to be around the person who’s been throwing the slime; you don’t want to go out of your way to seek out that person, nor do you want to take advantage of his hospitality.
I’m not going to go out of my way to avoid him, either: if Dopefests are held at public places or other people’s houses, I’m just going to go or not go, depending on my mood and my schedule.
But it is not right to walk through a man’s door and accept his hospitality when you’re not feeling charitably disposed towards him. There’s something false about that, and I can’t do it.