[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

And the only thing I advocated was that our actual locations be listed next to our nicknames so that American voters here at MacNN might have some indication of who was arguing what and how many of the people were arguing whatever they were arguing were from countries OTHER than the USA.

Ultimately I realized enforcing this would be impossible so I gave up the effort.

I NEVER said that foreign agents shouldn't be allowed to comment on American politics.

Even if I may have wished that were the case.

I understand your point, and I also recognize where you come from. There are many who are not fully immersed in our politics who comment from the sidelines. We also do this with Canadian politics - I noticed several Americans posting comments to the Canadian Election thread.

However, I'd say that your recommended fix makes the assumption that Americans who comment on their own politics are immersed in their politics. That isn't a fair assumption. Only about 10% of the population are, and the rest of us (perhaps even including those clumped in that 10%) base their opinions on fragments of information they hear here and there.

So, I understand the problem you are trying to solve, I just don't think it can really be solved. We just have to hope that intelligent people will not read what they see at face value. I've never believed that Cindy Sheehan is Satan reincarnated, so we'll just have to hope that others aren't this easily swayed by what some anonymous person says on the internet.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

But if ole aberdeenwriter even with his "idio^H^H^H^H antics" can forgive, forget and let bygones be bygones...consistently...(I challenge you to show where I have dredged up old animosities and revived them) why can't THAT act to motivate some of you and not the negative things?

Stop posting bullsh¡t, and people won't be tempted to call you on it.

[besson3c]

Speaking of Sheehan... it's funny how everybody with their knickers in a bunch over her months ago seemed to have sort of disappeared into the woodwork.

I guess she actually just was a woman with an opinion, and not some incredibly powerful politician with the ability to set our foreign agenda...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Don't want to play... You've led me on too many wild goose chases before and have proven to be evasive in answering direct questions.

I'm not interested in chasing a wild goose.

HONK! HONK! HONK!

[d4nth3m4n]

page 15 here we come!!

wow, tune out for a day and look where we are now.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I understand your point, and I also recognize where you come from. There are many who are not fully immersed in our politics who comment from the sidelines. We also do this with Canadian politics - I noticed several Americans posting comments to the Canadian Election thread.

However, I'd say that your recommended fix makes the assumption that Americans who comment on their own politics are immersed in their politics. That isn't a fair assumption. Only about 10% of the population are, and the rest of us (perhaps even including those clumped in that 10%) base their opinions on fragments of information they hear here and there.

So, I understand the problem you are trying to solve, I just don't think it can really be solved. We just have to hope that intelligent people will not read what they see at face value. I've never believed that Cindy Sheehan is Satan reincarnated, so we'll just have to hope that others aren't this easily swayed by what some anonymous person says on the internet.

"However, I'd say that your recommended fix makes the assumption that Americans who comment on their own politics are immersed in their politics. That isn't a fair assumption. Only about 10% of the population are, and the rest of us (perhaps even including those clumped in that 10%) base their opinions on fragments of information they hear here and there."

Thanks for attempting to understand the issue here. Just read through the "Foreign Agent" thread to get an accurate estimation of who might be influenced by what.

If the posters in that thread represent the top 10% then what assumptions would you make about the casual voter?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

"However, I'd say that your recommended fix makes the assumption that Americans who comment on their own politics are immersed in their politics. That isn't a fair assumption. Only about 10% of the population are, and the rest of us (perhaps even including those clumped in that 10%) base their opinions on fragments of information they hear here and there."

Thanks for attempting to understand the issue here. Just read through the "Foreign Agent" thread to get an accurate estimation of who might be influenced by what.

If the posters in that thread represent the top 10% then what assumptions would you make about the casual voter?

Could you summarize the Foreign Agent thread for me? I don't have time to go through all of that right now....

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by analogika

Stop posting bullsh¡t, and people won't be tempted to call you on it.

Well, now that you put it THAT way...

What I post is simply my point of view. The fact that you disagree and respond as you do is an indication of your lack of intelligence or imagination or tolerance or self-discipline.

OR, it indicates you love it. And to continue acting as you do, so you might continue being entertained by all of this, you unwittingly but willingly continue to play the dim-witted foil to my rapier-like wit and intelligence.

If someone says, "TIT" must you always respond, "TAT?"

The other options would be any other word in your vocabulary, or to simply say nothing at all.

I am trying to tone down the insults. I am trying to be a kinder and gentler Aberdeenwriter but it is difficult.

If I self-censored to the point where I was sure you would not be offended I would have to ask you for a salary and benefits.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Could you summarize the Foreign Agent thread for me? I don't have time to go through all of that right now....

Aberdeenwriter:
And the only thing I advocated was that our actual locations be listed next to our nicknames so that American voters here at MacNN might have some indication of who was arguing what and how many of the people were arguing whatever they were arguing were from countries OTHER than the USA.

Ultimately I realized enforcing this would be impossible so I gave up the effort.

I NEVER said that foreign agents shouldn't be allowed to comment on American politics.

Even if I may have wished that were the case.
__________________

The majority of the other posters:
This is an open forum. How can you advocate restricting our free expression? You are nutz. You are paranoid.

That pretty much summarizes it IIRC.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Well, now that you put it THAT way...

What I post is simply my point of view. The fact that you disagree and respond as you do is an indication of your lack of intelligence or imagination or tolerance or self-discipline.

OR, it indicates you love it. And to continue acting as you do, so you might continue being entertained by all of this, you unwittingly but willingly continue to play the dim-witted foil to my rapier-like wit and intelligence.

If someone says, "TIT" must you always respond, "TAT?"

The other options would be any other word in your vocabulary, or to simply say nothing at all.

I am trying to tone down the insults. I am trying to be a kinder and gentler Aberdeenwriter but it is difficult.

If I self-censored to the point where I was sure you would not be offended I would have to ask you for a salary and benefits.

No offense man, but you have been very self-righteous in the past within the political lounge. Criticizing this guy for disagreeing with you seems similarly self-righteous. I mean, it is possible to disagree with you without being dim-witted.

The next time you go on a rant about Liberals ruining everything or something similar, consider that the very definition of "Liberal" that has been demonized is a "progressive thinker", somebody open-minded, etc. Consider that being stuck with one unwavering perception of the world isn't necessarily a good thing.

Yes, not all Republicans are self-righteous, but we certainly are knee deep in self-righteous folk who want to question our very questioning them.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Speaking of Sheehan... it's funny how everybody with their knickers in a bunch over her months ago seemed to have sort of disappeared into the woodwork.

I guess she actually just was a woman with an opinion, and not some incredibly powerful politician with the ability to set our foreign agenda...

Don't discount the power of all the voices of opposition to her which may have prevented her from becoming an incredibly powerful politician with the ability to set our foreign agenda. And now that she has been discredited those voices are content to chill out.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Don't discount the power of all the voices of opposition to her which may have prevented her from becoming an incredibly powerful politician with the ability to set our foreign agenda. And now that she has been discredited those voices are content to chill out.

If by that you mean bullies like Bill O'Reilly who have demonized her, and/or any politicians that may have tried to squash her somehow, it makes me sick to my stomach to think of a grieving mother/citizen targeted this way.

More self-righteousness.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

No offense man, but you have been very self-righteous in the past within the political lounge. Criticizing this guy for disagreeing with you seems similarly self-righteous. I mean, it is possible to disagree with you without being dim-witted.

The next time you go on a rant about Liberals ruining everything or something similar, consider that the very definition of "Liberal" that has been demonized is a "progressive thinker", somebody open-minded, etc. Consider that being stuck with one unwavering perception of the world isn't necessarily a good thing.

Yes, not all Republicans are self-righteous, but we certainly are knee deep in self-righteous folk who want to question our very questioning them.

Well, I guess this gives me an interesting panorama. Your problem with me is, I believe, quite different in nature than analogika's or Icruise's.

With that in mind let me take this opportunity to say that although my way of expressing my contempt for the liberal philosophy and my absolute belief that in most cases (though not ALL cases) the conservative answer is the best path for our country, I will give some effort to being kinder and gentler in my self-righteousness.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If by that you mean bullies like Bill O'Reilly who have demonized her, and/or any politicians that may have tried to squash her somehow, it makes me sick to my stomach to think of a grieving mother/citizen targeted this way.

More self-righteousness.

Further comment from me on this matter would serve to derail this thread from it's original topic.

If you start or revive a P/L thread, I will comment there. Thanks.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Further comment from me on this matter would serve to derail this thread from it's original topic.

If you start or revive a P/L thread, I will comment there. Thanks.

What is the original topic again?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Well, I guess this gives me an interesting panorama. Your problem with me is, I believe, quite different in nature than analogika's or Icruise's.

With that in mind let me take this opportunity to say that although my way of expressing my contempt for the liberal philosophy and my absolute belief that in most cases (though not ALL cases) the conservative answer is the best path for our country, I will give some effort to being kinder and gentler in my self-righteousness.

The problem is not in you or anybody else having an opinion they are confident with, but it is in not welcoming a differing opinion, and being absolutely cemented to one narrow point of view.

[d4nth3m4n]

you're only worried about derailing it now?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What is the original topic again?

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=283081

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=283081

Yeah, I read the first page. What is the issue? You are against this couple having sex in every city? Too many diversions and smokescreens on the first page for me to want to dig deeper to find out what you are actually trying to say. Care to summarize?

[paul w]

This thread is not a derail, it's a portal into another dimension.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The problem is not in you or anybody else having an opinion they are confident with, but it is in not welcoming a differing opinion, and being absolutely cemented to one narrow point of view.

But how can there be any other answer to what is up and what is down?

There ARE instances where the differences between points of view are the matter of opinion. But other times when the difference is NOT a matter of opinion, but one of one side being totally ignorant to the facts of life and being ignorant to the fact that they are ignorant.

Vivre la difference!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yeah, I read the first page. What is the issue? You are against this couple having sex in every city? Too many diversions and smokescreens on the first page for me to want to dig deeper to find out what you are actually trying to say. Care to summarize?

OHMIGAWD!!!!!!

I do not fricking believe you!!!



HAWWWWWWWW!!!!!!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

But how can there be any other answer to what is up and what is down?

There ARE instances where the differences between points of view are the matter of opinion. But other times when the difference is NOT a matter of opinion, but one of one side being totally ignorant to the facts of life and being ignorant to the fact that they are ignorant.

Vivre la difference!

Yes, but politics have almost become like religion. Nobody (esp. outside the field of politics, but possibly including many inside) really *knows* the facts, it's ignorant for one to think that they do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

OHMIGAWD!!!!!!

I do not fricking believe you!!!



HAWWWWWWWW!!!!!!

??

It is astonishing how you can go from articulately written posts to completely incomprehensible posts such as this. I guess this is what makes you special.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

you're only worried about derailing it now?

Unlike SOME people I do have some sense of propriety. The P/L, which exists thanks to a suggestion by our own, Spliffdaddy, is the place for political discourse.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Unlike SOME people I do have some sense of propriety. The P/L, which exists thanks to a suggestion by our own, Spliffdaddy, is the place for political discourse.

I think this thread is pretty much anything goes by now.

There is the original topic, and I'm sure many (such as myself) aren't sure how you would characterize the story as an issue. There is the whole purging thing, there was some WD-40, Will Ferrell and Cheri O'Teri made a cameo, some secret political agents, this is the new home for hilarity day... ummmm....

In order to determine what is off limits to this thread, maybe it would be more prudent to determine what this thread is actually about?

[Cubeoid]

A teaspoon of Cubeoid anyone?

[Kevin]

Teaspoons of QB are nice.

It's too bad QB most of the time wants to give us bagfuls.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

A teaspoon of Cubeoid anyone?

I hear it helps the medicine go down!

[Cubeoid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

??

It is astonishing how you can go from articulately written posts to completely incomprehensible posts such as this. I guess this is what makes you special.

The original post was to solicit people's opinions ABOUT this couple's wanting to "do it" in every city where the husband pitches.

Suspecting that the posters from the previous 'David Bowie lying thief' might still be in attack mode, I sought to lay a trap for them by pointing out their viciousness and willingness to continue their attack no matter what the thread topic might be.

By doing so I also hoped to point out the need to read and perceive what we read without interjecting our own pre-conceptions into what we read.

Little did I know how discomforting this would prove to be to so many here.

If you'll re-read the O.P. you'll see I NEVER stated my opinion of their antics or their plans or her statement. In fact, for those who have read or posted in the lounge (specifically the Howard Stern threads as well as the Bowie thread) they would have, should have had some clue as to my position on the matter of consensual, safe, legal married sexual relations.

Even if one had n't read any of the other posts/threads, by simply READING what's on the page accurately - without reading INTO IT - anyone and everyone would have avoided the trap.

I'm afraid you fell into the trap, too.

You, like most here, THOUGHT I was against the actions of this lovely couple. They were incorrect in their thinking.

Their criticism of what they incorrectly THOUGHT I was saying will forever discredit whatever criticisms they might have of me because they are now on record as having flawed powers of perception.

They have to live with the fact that any future criticisms they might have of me that isn't accurate can and will be lampooned with ammo that they have no one but themselves to blame for bringing to light.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yes, but politics have almost become like religion. Nobody (esp. outside the field of politics, but possibly including many inside) really *knows* the facts, it's ignorant for one to think that they do.

Well, I wasn't there for the whole Sheehan thing, but to use her as an example, her choice of bringing the troops home IMMEDIATELY was the wrong thing to do and now most everyone understands this. During the height of her newsiness there were MANY people who thought her proposals were a good idea.

It wasn't.

The people who knew better rose up to 'inform' those who supported her that Sheehan was wrong.

Eventually they recognized the fact.

[Cody Dawg]

Sex, again, anyone? It's always the subject it appears!

How are YOU, Cubeoid?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

The original post was to solicit people's opinions ABOUT this couple's wanting to "do it" in every city where the husband pitches.

Suspecting that the posters from the previous 'David Bowie lying thief' might still be in attack mode, I sought to lay a trap for them by pointing out their viciousness and willingness to continue their attack no matter what the thread topic might be.

By doing so I also hoped to point out the need to read and perceive what we read without interjecting our own pre-conceptions into what we read.

Little did I know how discomforting this would prove to be to so many here.

If you'll re-read the O.P. you'll see I NEVER stated my opinion of their antics or their plans or her statement. In fact, for those who have read or posted in the lounge (specifically the Howard Stern threads as well as the Bowie thread) they would have, should have had some clue as to my position on the matter of consensual, safe, legal married sexual relations.

Even if one had n't read any of the other posts/threads, by simply READING what's on the page accurately - without reading INTO IT - anyone and everyone would have avoided the trap.

I'm afraid you fell into the trap, too.

You, like most here, THOUGHT I was against the actions of this lovely couple. They were incorrect in their thinking.

Their criticism of what they incorrectly THOUGHT I was saying will forever discredit whatever criticisms they might have of me because they are now on record as having flawed powers of perception.

They have to live with the fact that any future criticisms they might have of me that isn't accurate can and will be lampooned with ammo that they have no one but themselves to blame for bringing to light.

Ahhh... well, only speaking for myself, I can explain my reaction by saying that you have a history of inviting debate over controversial issues (which is cool). You generally don't post about stuff you'd see as a filler story in a newspaper or something.

FWIW...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

YELL HERE X

I QBoid I don't yell. You know that, my little clitoral cheese nip!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Well, I wasn't there for the whole Sheehan thing, but to use her as an example, her choice of bringing the troops home IMMEDIATELY was the wrong thing to do and now most everyone understands this. During the height of her newsiness there were MANY people who thought her proposals were a good idea.

It wasn't.

The people who knew better rose up to 'inform' those who supported her that Sheehan was wrong.

Eventually they recognized the fact.

There was also some subtext in this protest complaining the war as a whole. She was known more as an anti-war protester than anything else.

[Cubeoid]

I am being controlled by the seductive Cody Dawg!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think this thread is pretty much anything goes by now.

There is the original topic, and I'm sure many (such as myself) aren't sure how you would characterize the story as an issue. There is the whole purging thing, there was some WD-40, Will Ferrell and Cheri O'Teri made a cameo, some secret political agents, this is the new home for hilarity day... ummmm....

In order to determine what is off limits to this thread, maybe it would be more prudent to determine what this thread is actually about?

All I ask is that in-depth political discourse be relegated to it's rightful home.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Sex, again, anyone? It's always the subject it appears!

How are YOU, Cubeoid?

Are you flirting with Cubeoid?

[Cody Dawg]

Of course. He's very funny and underappreciated and his humor is unknown to most...he's hilarious, to be blunt.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

page 15 here we come!!

-t

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Ahhh... well, only speaking for myself, I can explain my reaction by saying that you have a history of inviting debate over controversial issues (which is cool). You generally don't post about stuff you'd see as a filler story in a newspaper or something.

FWIW...

Oh?

Hmmm...

Thanks, I think.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Of course. He's very funny and underappreciated and his humor is unknown to most...he's hilarious, to be blunt.

Ahhh... you must love me by extension then, because we're practically joined at the hip! But, enough about me....

Cubeoid actually looks like Antonio Bandaras. Seriously - no joke. He has a nice voice too (I've chatted with him over iChat AV). Sort of like a cross between Grover from Sesame St. and Russell Crowe - a friendly voice with a sexy foreign Australian accent. I suggest that you have sex with him.

[Kevin]

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I QBoid I don't yell. You know that, my little clitoral cheese nip!

For the record, QB & Kevin, I enjoy both of your posts as they both make me think and feel and frequently laugh.

BTW, Kevin, I like the new sig. Your design? And the "cheese nip" line is hilarious!

[Cody Dawg]

Okay, besson, I can love you too...

[turtle777]

Ok, I'm gonna take this to page 10... WOOT

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Okay, besson, I can love you too...

Well, I appreciate your gesture, but I don't want your love of me to come in between your love of Cubeoid. I think you should focus on loving him. He's a man with a lot of love to give, and is so often misunderstood. Also, he has beautiful genitals.

Me, I'm just a stupid foreign agent that nobody seems to like... As made clear by this very post, I'm the parsley that goes along with the main course that is Cubeoid. That's okay though, my admiration of that man runs so deep that I can live resigned to be the parsley.

[turtle777]

Darn, Still page 9. Try again.

-t

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

There was also some subtext in this protest complaining the war as a whole. She was known more as an anti-war protester than anything else.

No one I know criticized her viciously on that point. To the contrary, everyone made a point of acknowledging her right to protest as a citizen with free expression rights and as the mother of a fallen Marine.

If that were her only position she wouldn't have been newsworthy.

P/L, now?