[Lerkfish]

title says it all:

the last thread I'll start in a long while.

what say you all? should pro to anti Bush threads ratio be equal? if not, why? If so, why?

Who decides what is an acceptable ratio? Why?

Are there topics which should be considered off limits in terms of criticizing Bush or his administration? Why?

Should those anti or pro Bush be allowed to curtail the frequency of posting by someone with the opposing view?

These are valid questions. It would be nice to get everyone's input in a calm, rational manner.

[Zimphire]

Lerk I told you it wasn't about pro or for

A ANti-Bush thread is perfectly fine when not in the conspiracy/petty/redundant category.

Stop being a drama queen.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk I told you it wasn't about pro or for

A ANti-Bush thread is perfectly fine when not in the conspiracy/petty/redundant category.

Stop being a drama queen.

define "petty".

[Zimphire]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=petty

[Spoogepieces]

It's not a question of being anti-something or pro-something but Jesus H. Christ it would be nice if someone were anti-something to provide a pro-something solution in the process.

Such as:

"That George Bush really has poor grammar. I like Kerry instead because he's a snotty Hahvahrd fahrt."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=petty

ok, but I meant, what is it about MY posts that YOU consider petty?

[Orion27]

It's called the "Fairness Doctrine". The left is out gunned in the debate. Most people agree
there has been and continues to be liberal bias in traditional media outlets such as the big three TV networks, and print. The Democrats, losing the debate, insist they be given equal time, by law, on private networks. it's not the quality of the argument that counts. Only that the socialist model be forced down our throats in the name of fairness.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Orion27:
It's called the "Fairness Doctrine". The left is out gunned in the debate. Most people agree
there has been and continues to be liberal bias in traditional media outlets such as the big three TV networks, and print. The Democrats, losing the debate, insist they be given equal time, by law, on private networks. it's not the quality of the argument that counts. Only that the socialist model be forced down our throats in the name of fairness.

People are sick to death of leftist lies, and news delivered by biased liberals. Just look at the ratings, FOX is killing them all !

People are also tired of liars like Michael Moore, and his impotent army of goons with their "let's take this country back" crap.

The truth is, this is OUR country, and we are going to keep it, thank you very much.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by PacHead:
People are sick to death of leftist lies, and news delivered by biased liberals. Just look at the ratings, FOX is killing them all !

People are also tired of liars like Michael Moore, and his impotent army of goons with their "let's take this country back" crap.

The truth is, this is OUR country, and we are going to keep it, thank you very much.

People are sick of rightist lies, and news delivered by biased conservatives. All Fox proves is that there are a lot of sheep grazing.

People are tired of liars like George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, and their impotent army of goons with their "compassionate conservative" crap.

The truth is, this is ALL our country, and you seem to have forgotten that, thank you very much.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by KarlG:
The truth is, this is ALL our country, and you seem to have forgotten that, thank you very much.

No, I didn't forget that. I wasn't the one who started all this "let's take our country back" crap. The divisive extreme left with all their lies and propaganda really thought that they were going to get away with their crap. I bet you when Michael Mooreons lying movie came out, there were a lot of smiles on the faces of certain people. Yeah, his movie turned out to be really "historical" and an election changer, LOL.

As far as people being sick of the things you say, the media ratings certainly do not reflect your statements. People are fleeing from liberal channels as if their lives depended on it.

[Wiskedjak]

I'm gonna have to side with Zimp on this one. Generally, I like the way you think, Lerk. You have a very analytical mind that can sometimes see connections between things where others don't. Unfortunatly, this can sometimes lead to seeing connections where they don't exist.

To be honest, lately you've been coming off as a conspiracy theorist, even to me. Not because your posts aren't logically thought out, but because you've been posting WAY too many theories that have many possible explanations besides the one you offer. You are probably ending up doing more harm than good.

[vmarks]

Wiskedjak,

Nice start off, but let's answer lerk's questions rather than making this about him.

Thanks!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Wiskedjak,

Nice start off, but let's answer lerk's questions rather than making this about him.

Thanks!

Sure, but ultimately, that's what this thread is about, isnt' it? He's wondering why he's getting so much flak for his threads lately. I'm hoping that someone who shares his perspective can help him see why.

[spacefreak]

Can you guys take this outside?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Sure, but ultimately, that's what this thread is about, isnt' it? He's wondering why he's getting so much flak for his threads lately. I'm hoping that someone who shares his perspective can help him see why.

no, I think its a valid question, ENTIRELY apart from me whatsoever. No matter who gets the flak, the flak represents someone's desire to address what they consider wrong. I'm attempting to determine exactly the perceived nature of the wrong. And why does the wrong justify any sort of behaviour to address it rather than simply ignoring it?

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
He's wondering why he's getting so much flak for his threads lately.

Because he doesn't offer solutions and only cuts and pastes from the daily newspapers?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Because he doesn't offer solutions and only cuts and pastes from the daily newspapers?

It is a discussion board.

Have you offered any solutions yourself so far?

[Millennium]

Actually, I think the fact that both sides plausibly complain about a bias against themselves to be an indicator that it's probably about right. Despite the way they moan and whine about it, people actually seem to love being the underdog, and will go to great lengths to exaggerate any bias they find in order to feel as though they are that underdog. But exaggeration can only go so far before it becomes truly ridiculous (just look at Fox News and Al-Jazeera for examples of this).

The fact that both sides here can actually still complain about bias without looking like complete fools is a sign that it's probably really somewhere within a 60/40 ratio at any given time, and who's on top changes pretty often. The conservatives here complain when Kerry is on top, and the liberals complain when Bush is on top, and just about everyone here is going to complain about the mental imagery of that sentence .

I can pull out threads with complaints about bias from just about everyone on these forums, and it's amazing to look at just what was going on during each of these posts. It goes back and forth, with each side dominating for roughly three weeks before it switches again. This isn't perfect, but it's probably the best that can be hoped for.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
title says it all:

the last thread I'll start in a long while.

what say you all? should pro to anti Bush threads ratio be equal? if not, why? If so, why?

That should be to the owners or the mods to decided. This is a discussion board, and the rules are from the owners. On the other hand, having an equal ratio of both parties sounds nice, but the representativity will have to be decided by vote, which will not be easy, because said candidates will never have the full support of their voters. Also, there will always be some who will disapprove of what one candidate might say simply because they disagree on that a of the issue. We will be back to square one in no time.

Are there topics which should be considered off limits in terms of criticizing Bush or his administration? Why?

No. If we believe in freedom of speach, we take it all and not an ersatz of it, otherwise it is not freedom. But we do have the right to be offended and defend in kind. Now where does that lead us? Good question.

Should those anti or pro Bush be allowed to curtail the frequency of posting by someone with the opposing view?

No, See above.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, I think the fact that both sides plausibly complain about a bias against themselves to be an indicator that it's probably about right. (...)
This isn't perfect, but it's probably the best that can be hoped for.

I agree.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, I think its a valid question, ENTIRELY apart from me whatsoever. No matter who gets the flak, the flak represents someone's desire to address what they consider wrong. I'm attempting to determine exactly the perceived nature of the wrong. And why does the wrong justify any sort of behaviour to address it rather than simply ignoring it?

You aren't doing anything 'wrong' as far as the subject matter of your threads goes. That's why you can't figure out what you're doing wrong.

The only thing that needs work is the portrayal of your online character. We're all actors here, ya know. In real life, I'm far from the right-wing conservative hillbilly that you guys think I am. So pick a character, Lerk, and *be* that character. Because we're all acting while you're being serious. It's mighty difficult to take things personally when folks can only attack your 'online character'.

Simply put, you'd be an absolute blast to have around - if we didn't have to worry about treating you like a 'real' person.

I've never lost a debate in this forum. But Spliffdaddy has.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You aren't doing anything 'wrong' as far as the subject matter of your threads goes. That's why you can't figure out what you're doing wrong.

The only thing that needs work is the portrayal of your online character. We're all actors here, ya know. In real life, I'm far from the right-wing conservative hillbilly that you guys think I am. So pick a character, Lerk, and *be* that character. Because we're all acting while you're being serious. It's mighty difficult to take things personally when folks can only attack your 'online character'.

Simply put, you'd be an absolute blast to have around - if we didn't have to worry about treating you like a 'real' person.

I've never lost a debate in this forum. But Spliffdaddy has.

Post of the year

[Orion27]

Wrong!!! Look at the fact the Canadian powers that be do not allow Fox news to be broadcast in Canada, but do allow Al Jazeera to be broadcast. That's not an exaggeration
that's anti American liberal bias. if the lefties could get away with that here they would. witness the Republican Convention and the lefties demonstrations against Fox. O'Reilly had some of the most compelling interviews with the likes of Puff Daddy Combs and Bono.
Not to mention the string of Democrat operatives interviewed duting prime time. There was nothing comparable on any other network and I browsed them all.

Originally posted by Millennium:
. But exaggeration can only go so far before it becomes truly ridiculous (just look at Fox News and Al-Jazeera for examples of this).

[/B]

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Wrong!!! Look at the fact the Canadian powers that be do not allow Fox news to be broadcast in Canada, but do allow Al Jazeera to be broadcast. That's not an exaggeration
that's anti American liberal bias.

The MacNN forums are not the Canadian powers that be. I agree with you that not allowing one network which fraudulently claims balance while in reality being ridiculously biased (Fox News) while allowing another network guilty of exactly the same thing but in another direction (al-Jazeera) is cause for alarm for that particular body. However, they are outside the scope of this discussion.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The MacNN forums are not the Canadian powers that be. I agree with you that not allowing one network which fraudulently claims balance while in reality being ridiculously biased (Fox News) while allowing another network guilty of exactly the same thing but in another direction (al-Jazeera) is cause for alarm for that particular body. However, they are outside the scope of this discussion.

Funny that you pass an opinion agreeing with a poste whilst adding a "by the way" it is not the topic in this thread...

BTW that topic had been covered already and I demonstrated that the process for any media channels looking for access in Canada is rather fair and that FoxNews is not done with the process yet...

You guys are funny...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Can you guys take this outside?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Funny that you pass an opinion agreeing with a poste whilst adding a "by the way" it is not the topic in this thread...

It's a technique called acknowledging a point's validity while denying its relevance to the topic at hand. I've found this tends to work better at keeping threads from going off-topic, but only if nobody else decides to enter the fray. By posting quickly after Orion's comment, I had hoped to deflect discussion on that topic off into another thread; essentially "Yes, but please take it outside."

Had this stayed between Orion and myself, it would almost certainly have ended with my previous post. You, however, have stepped in, leaving me to try and run damage control before the whole thread goes spinning away from the original topic. In doing so you've forced me to reveal my technique -everything I said was in fact in earnest, but the post itself was made with a specific outcome in mind- thus almost certainly undermining the effect I was going for, namely, keeping the thread clean.

Gee, thanks.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
It is a discussion board.

Have you offered any solutions yourself so far?

Yes, I have. What's the point of discussion if only to criticize and not to offer a solution to the proposed problem?

[Orion27]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
title says it all:

Who decides what is an acceptable ratio? Why?

Gee, I guess Millenium does, he's fair and balanced. He just equated Al Jazeera with Fox

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It's a technique called acknowledging a point's validity while denying its relevance to the topic at hand. I've found this tends to work better at keeping threads from going off-topic, but only if nobody else decides to enter the fray. By posting quickly after Orion's comment, I had hoped to deflect discussion on that topic off into another thread; essentially "Yes, but please take it outside."

Had this stayed between Orion and myself, it would almost certainly have ended with my previous post. You, however, have stepped in, leaving me to try and run damage control before the whole thread goes spinning away from the original topic. In doing so you've forced me to reveal my technique -everything I said was in fact in earnest, but the post itself was made with a specific outcome in mind- thus almost certainly undermining the effect I was going for, namely, keeping the thread clean.

Gee, thanks.

Next time share your plans/techniques with everyone!

That way, I will know that if you bring a topic with which you agree by piggybacking it on another one to appease the delinquent, whatever the topic, we will know it is meaningless!

What a technique!

Using it the way you did you agreed with the topic Orion brought, not on its worth as a topic. That is quite a challenging moment for a canadian who believes it's political institutions are rather fair! Feels like your own subjectivity took over and it is normal that I react that way.

On top of that, you decide to blame me for your bad maneuver...

Oups!

Sorry... We're you mod'ing here?

[Millennium]

I won't dignify the rest of this post with a response, however there is one thing here which needs addressed...

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Oups!

Sorry... We're you mod'ing here?

I am not a moderator here. I have no power to do anything in the PoliWar Lounge which you as users cannot do, and in fact, I don't want that kind of power here. If you want me to call the admins in here to prove that I am not a mod here, then I will see what I can do to arrange that. I have asked them on several occasions to see if there is any way of removing the blue stars from anyone who is not a moderator in a given forum, but they don't think that it would be a good idea to do that.

As a user with an interest in this thread, I tried to deflect what I saw as an imminent derailing of the topic. I failed in this effort -no thanks to you- and I sincerely apologize to everyone else for that. This is a technique which has worked many times in the past, but it depends on its undetectability. If I made any mistake, it was in revealing the fact that I used it. I stand by all my other actions.

[PacHead]

Yeah, just read what it says on the top of forum. Millenium is not a mod here.

Vmarks, gorgonzola, thinkinsane & demonhood.

[angaq0k]

My apologies for derailing this thread even further.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Can you guys take this outside?

ROTFLOL

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Gee, I guess Millenium does, he's fair and balanced. He just equated Al Jazeera with Fox

Yes?

AJ isn't nearly as biased as one might think, it is not far from FN on the bias-o-meter. Just a dash too far for normal people.