# Brrrraaaaaggghhhh!!!!



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I know you all are going to tell me I shouldn't be posting at Huff Po, anyway, but I just have to vent about their ridiculous censorship there.

It seems that if you have something intelligent to say or an irrefutable point made that doesn't fall lock step with the progressive view point they scrub it or don't allow it to be posted at all. It is infuriating.

I have all but given up on posting on political topics. I never get through. But now I can't get a post on the entertainment section unless it is totally benign and banal.

For example, just recently, on the topic about Oliver Stone making anti semetic comments, mention that if you are honest and Mel Gibson said the same stuff, everyone would be up in arms -- doesn't make the cut.

Post about how Roman Polanski (another woman has come forward to say she was brutally raped by him when she was a young model) seems to have a history of such behavior, mentioning the 13 year old, Charlotte Lewis coming forward, how he began a relationship Nastassja Kinski when she was just 15, that date rape was not believed until recently, and that there seems to be a smoke/fire thing going on -- doesn't make the cut.

I have experienced this many, many times. 

Does free speech exist on Huff Po for people who have a different view point? Apparently not. 

Grrr....


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Just so you know, their readership just isn't that bright. They will eat whatever swill is dished out by the leftist elites and accept it as truth.

Read your own tag line: "Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour."

How much weight did you just lose with this little exercise?


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Okay - just one too many "adult" beverages and you go off to HuffPo and make nasty remarks and expect to get a way with it. Ha!!
If you're going to get "censored" do it here - at home.


----------



## Daddyof4 (Jan 5, 2004)

Haha! It makes you wonder if America can survive at all with the thinking of your typical leftist.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Gercarson said:


> Okay - just one too many "adult" beverages and you go off to HuffPo and make nasty remarks and expect to get a way with it. Ha!!
> If you're going to get "censored" do it here - at home.


Hmmmm...maybe I need an adult beverage to deal with the people on Huff Po....


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

FeralFemale said:


> I know you all are going to tell me I shouldn't be posting at Huff Po, anyway, but I just have to vent about their ridiculous censorship there.
> 
> It seems that if you have something intelligent to say or an irrefutable point made that doesn't fall lock step with the progressive view point they scrub it or don't allow it to be posted at all. It is infuriating.
> 
> ...



Hah......now you know EXACTLY how it feels to most liberals that post here on HT.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

On the rare occasion I post there, I don't hang around to see if my post is accepted or not. I don't purposely try to get a rise out of them, but I am a Conservative so I can't help but rile them a little.:grin:


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Shygal said:


> Hah......now you know EXACTLY how it feels to most liberals that post here on HT.


Really? So your posts are deleted here because you are liberal?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Common Tator said:


> Really? So your posts are deleted here because you are liberal?


A lot of times, yes liberals posts are deleted, threads closed, people banned, etc. 
You also need to pay attention to what I said. "Exactly how it *feels* ". Im sure huffpo would say the same thing, no one is deleted for having a different opinion , etc, yet FF certainly feels that way.

Again, thats exactly how it feels here for a lot of people, no one is allowed an alternate opinion and only the people that speak the accepted viewpoints here, are allowed to say anything they want


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Shygal said:


> A lot of times, yes liberals posts are deleted, threads closed, people banned, etc.
> You also need to pay attention to what I said. "Exactly how it *feels* ". Im sure huffpo would say the same thing, no one is deleted for having a different opinion , etc, yet FF certainly feels that way.
> 
> Again, thats exactly how it feels here for a lot of people, *no one is allowed an alternate opinion and only the people that speak the accepted viewpoints here, are allowed to say anything they want*


I REFUDIATE THIS DRIVEL!

That is an outrageous lie and an affront to our moderators. Deletions and bannings happen ONLY to posters who fail to follow the written rules of the site.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> *no one is allowed an alternate opinion and only the people that speak the accepted viewpoints here, are allowed to say anything they want*


For the most part I have to agree with Shygal about that. There are only certain viewpoints are acceptable on this board. Topics with alternate opinions get deleted, left or left to center people eventually get banned, progressive view points are shot down lickety-split with personal insults which are hurled and acceptable if they're hurled by righties, but not by lefties, and for god's sake, whatever you do, don't say anything critical about the glorious saviour and leader Beck and his crocodile tears, and don't admit to not being a christian or an American. Don't confess to believing in global warming, the emancipation of women and their rights of reproduction and the fact that there's another world out there. And last but not least, don't ever, ever say anything nice about President Obama or his family. Oh, the horror of it all. :shocked: 

I'm sure I haven't covered all the unwritten 'righty's rules' but we all know what they are, don't we? Anyone who pretends otherwise is a hypocrite. 

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Common Tator said:


> I REFUDIATE THIS DRIVEL!
> 
> That is an outrageous lie and an affront to our moderators. Deletions and bannings happen ONLY to posters who fail to follow the written rules of the site.


Tripe. It has nothing to do with our moderators, it's all about the posters *unwritten rules* and what makes a certain sector of them happy - or unhappy as the case may be.

Like I said:



> Anyone who pretends otherwise is a hypocrite.


.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Since the leftys here that insist on defaming our moderators can't spare a few seconds to open the GC Rules and Operating Procedures thread, I opened it for you. And I am pasting it here for you, if you can spare the few seconds it takes to read them.

_In order to take full advantage of the GC Forum you must read and understand the following rules and operating procedures and agree to abide by the rules and operating procedures in their entirety.

These rules will be strictly enforced and violators may, at the sole discretion of the moderators be suspended or "locked out" of the forum for any reasons without prior notice or opportunity to be heard. GC promotes the free flow of ideas and encourages wide ranging discussion of issues, certain behaviors carry potential risk to both individual and users and thus cannot be tolerated. While moderators may not be able to monitor all messages posted in the forum, members are encouraged to "report a post" to a potentially problematic message.

Respect all other members of the forum at all times.

Use this forum to promote and facilitate only legal activities.

Construct messages and files without obscenity and/or explicit or implicit descriptions of sex.

The messages and files you create should either be original or with specific written permission of the original author.

No public reproduction of any kind of private messages (PMs) without the expressed written permission of the message sender.

No commercial advertisements, ads for information exchange, solicitations for funds, or advertisements for other online services will be permitted without prior approval.

Disregard for forum policy or disrespect for forum staff members performing assigned tasks are grounds for immediate disciplinary action.

Like all forums, the GC forum is a friendly place, and good manners are expected of all members. Respect and simple courtesy towards others are necessary in a situation where so many different people with conflicting points of view come together.

While no one has the right or ability to tell you who you should and shouldn't respect, the GC forum asks that you display only a respectful tone and style in your messages and files regarding other members represented on the GC forum. Some examples of a lack of this basic public respect include but are not limited to the following:

anti-social behavior

deliberate disruption of forum discussions

harassment of other users, including taunting mocking and baiting attacks on the person instead of focusing on the issues

inappropriate familiarity

excessive duplication, quotation and/or blank messages

ad hominem attacks, implications of personal wrong-doing, libel 

While there is nothing wrong with a healthy argument, you must not use offensive language or engage in personal attacks on GC forum. Personal attacks may subject you to potential liability for defamation, contribute nothing to the free flow of ideas, and tend to inhibit rational discussion of the issues. So why invite an official intrusion into your exchanges when just a bit of courtesy or respect for others could avoid it?

So, what exactly might lead to a lockout VS a warning, etc.? Messages that are of questionable taste or which might be construed as a personal attack on another forum member will be moved from the general discussion area or deleted. Depending on the seriousness of the offense and the user's prior posting history, the user may get a friendly warning or a more formal warning. 

Please realize that essentially all of these actions take place in private, so that an apparent lack of response by GC doesn't mean that no response has occurred. Similarly, don't simply believe that you are allowed to break any forum rules because it appears another has already done so. If someone seems to treat you unfairly with regard to the rules of GC, report it to admin with as much relevant detail as is possible, as soon as you can. Please don't try taking matters into your own hands, as you would only open yourself up to action too. Two wrongs don't make a right.


We hope that the above rules and considerations and suggestions will be useful to users who are trying to understand how the forum demands for good manner, courtesy and respect are interpreted by the moderators. We hope you will find the forum useful, enjoyable and informative.


The Moderators _

The above was written by Dawndra.

This was followed by Chuck:

_If you are new to Homesteading Today - you will not be able to start a new thread in General Chat until you have been here for awhile and have participated in a friendly and helpful fashion on some of the other areas of our site. _

I have only ever seen post deletions and member bannings for violation of these rules. If you have examples to the contrary, cough them up please.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I didn't mean to start some lib/conservative fight, but I have to say to our friends who claim this site is the same exact way...NOT.

Do you ever post something and get a message saying that this comment is pending moderation? Do you post and have nothing ever appear?? NO.

You post your opinion and it only gets deleted or the thread gets locked when we all go too far past playing nice.

Apples and oranges, but nice try.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

FeralFemale said:


> I didn't mean to start some lib/conservative fight, but I have to say to our friends who claim this site is the same exact way...NOT.
> 
> Do you ever post something and get a message saying that this comment is pending moderation? Do you post and have nothing ever appear?? NO.
> 
> ...


If you post and nothing appears, then I would say its a site glitch. 

But Ive seen things here pending moderation, yes


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Common Tator said:


> Since the leftys here that insist on defaming our moderators can't spare a few seconds to open the GC Rules and Operating Procedures thread, I opened it for you. And I am pasting it here for you, if you can spare the few seconds it takes to read them.
> 
> I have only ever seen post deletions and member bannings for violation of these rules. If you have examples to the contrary, cough them up please.


Everyone has read the rules. And you can unwad your panties. 

No one is defaming the moderators, nice try to make it sound like that. Thats exactly what I mean, things are said and then spun in a way to make someone posting an alternate opinion, the "Bad Guy" here. 

Its my opinion that it feels to a lot of people here, just like FF said it felt with her posting on HuffPo. Are you telling me my opinion is not valid and I cannot state it?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I'm sure I haven't covered all the unwritten 'righty's rules' but we all know what they are, don't we? *Anyone who pretends otherwise is a hypocrite.*
> .


******************************************

You forgot to mention one further word description immediately after hypocrite; like "racist".....


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

copperkid3 said:


> ******************************************
> 
> You forgot to mention one further word description immediately after hypocrite; like "racist".....


Oh no, I wouldn't go that far. I don't think there's a lot of racists on this board, only a few, and I don't think most people pay too much attention to them anyway.

.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

FeralFemale said:


> I didn't mean to start some lib/conservative fight, but I have to say to our friends who claim this site is the same exact way...NOT.
> 
> Do you ever post something and get a message saying that this comment is pending moderation? Do you post and have nothing ever appear?? NO.
> 
> ...


That simply is not true. I got *banned*, without ever having gotten a _single_ warning, for the simple crime of pointing out that post counts are not accurate because posts have been lost in server crashes over time, most particularly when this site was in the other format. I was not rude or confrontational, I simply pointed out that post counts are not a realistic representation of how much a person has posted. This apparently was offensive enough to ban me. :huh:


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

I have seen many,many rude & downright insulting posts directed at Nevada, or they talk about him in threads he hasn't even posted in. Dude sure takes it well, though, but I'll wager that if it was done to a right-leaning poster, you can bet yer britches that the offending poster would be banned. Least that's how it seems to go round here,from my observation. 

I don't read Huff-Po so I have no opinion on that.


----------



## Daddyof4 (Jan 5, 2004)

Shygal said:


> A lot of times, yes liberals posts are deleted, threads closed, people banned, etc.
> You also need to pay attention to what I said. "Exactly how it *feels* ". Im sure huffpo would say the same thing, no one is deleted for having a different opinion , etc, yet FF certainly feels that way.
> 
> Again, thats exactly how it feels here for a lot of people, no one is allowed an alternate opinion and only the people that speak the accepted viewpoints here, are allowed to say anything they want


Care to show us examples of where someone was banned or posts deleted for spewing liberal nonsense? Which part of the rules specifically say that liberals will be singled out in any way? And then show examples? Specifically.


----------



## Daddyof4 (Jan 5, 2004)

JMD_KS said:


> I have seen many,many rude & downright insulting posts directed at Nevada, or they talk about him in threads he hasn't even posted in. Dude sure takes it well, though, but I'll wager that if it was done to a right-leaning poster, you can bet yer britches that the offending poster would be banned. Least that's how it seems to go round here,from my observation.
> 
> I don't read Huff-Po so I have no opinion on that.


Nevada has been on here a long time. He gives as good as he gets. We have fun with each other. We all take jabs but it still isn't the same as saying "Daddyof4 is a stupid dumb____" (while many may believe so). And your wager would be wrong.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Daddyof4 said:


> Care to show us examples of where someone was banned or posts deleted for *spewing liberal nonsense*? Which part of the rules specifically say that liberals will be singled out in any way? And then show examples? Specifically.


Do you have a real problem with comprehension or just pretending to be thoughtless? How can examples be shown when the slate has been wiped clean and the examples no longer exist except in people's memories? 

Furthermore, what you are asking for - if examples were posted even from memory, those would be grounds for getting demerits or even for being banned. It has already happened several times. 

Your use of the phrase "*spewing liberal nonsense*" shows that you are hostile against anyone who doesn't think the same way you do and has just proven the point that was being made by Shygal and myself. That suggests to me that you're just pretending to be ignorant and hoping that Shygal will fall for your hostile trap and post examples that will get her banned. 

That would make you happy if she was tricked into posting something that got her banned but it would also most certainly prove the point, wouldn't it? 

She would have to be really stupid to fall for such a mindless stunt as you propose. :hand:

.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Tripe. It has nothing to do with our moderators, it's all about the posters *unwritten rules* and what makes a certain sector of them happy - or unhappy as the case may be.
> .


To be fair, when you talk about threads being deleted or locked and members being banned just because of their political leanings, it is about the moderators and forum ownership. They are the only ones who can lock or delete threads and ban members.

As far as unwritten rules, I don't believe that's the case. And it's not that differing viewpoints aren't allowed. Yes, there are conservative posters who are very vocal and can make posts that are attacking and insulting to librel members. But, there are also librel posters who are very vocal and make posts that are attacking and insulting to conservative members. It happens on both sides, with the same intensity of venom from the posters.

I think the entire issue simply revolves around numbers. There are a lot more conservative/conservative leaning members here than librel/left leaning members (at least vocal ones who spend time in GC). To me it's that simple. It's not that anyone on the left isn't entitled to their opinion or that you can't post whatever you want (as long as it is allowed by the forum rules). It's just that there are more people responding who are on the other side of the political spectrum. It's not that there are any unwritten rules or threads have to keep anyone happy. It's just numbers thing.

To be honest though, I can see that it might *feel* otherwise at times for the librels here. I really can. I really don't think it's true but I can see how it can feel that way to the group that is the minority. It's a matter of perception. 

As far as insults, they fly both ways and posters on both sides are wrong to do it.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Shygal said:


> Hah......now you know EXACTLY how it feels to most liberals that post here on HT.





Shygal said:


> A lot of times, yes liberals posts are deleted, threads closed, people banned, etc.
> You also need to pay attention to what I said. "Exactly how it *feels* ". Im sure huffpo would say the same thing, no one is deleted for having a different opinion , etc, yet FF certainly feels that way.
> 
> Again, thats exactly how it feels here for a lot of people, no one is allowed an alternate opinion and only the people that speak the accepted viewpoints here, are allowed to say anything they want


Except you're forgetting one very pertinent point: Huffpo is (supposedly) a *news site*, HT is a private discussion board. 

Comparing HT to other similar discussion boards, I have to say that Chuck is actually pretty lenient in what he allows, be it topics or how far the discussion goes. 

But what I am curious and intrigued to know is, are you simply _speculating_ on why people were banned or is that the reason that was given by the mods?

~~~~~~~~~~

Re: the OP, BTDT....gave up trying last year. And since Obama recently recommended that people read Huffpo for their 'news', now I understand why.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Why would anyone, liberal or otherwise, go to Huffington Post, let alone try to post there?

Liberals get a fair amount of bashing here - I wouldn't exactly call this a friendly environment - but we do get to speak our mind. This is pretty much an open forum, and everybody gets to speak their mind.

There is, however, no guarantee that having spoken your mind, that you're going to get a welcome reception for those thoughts. That's not what the First Amendment guarantees, nor does it guarantee that any private forum has to grant you a platform to voice your thoughts. HT does so to it's credit, but Huffington Post is more of a 'preaching to the choir' sort of site. I don't know for a fact (nor do I care), but I'd assume that there are similar conservative sites. I personally stay away from any 'news source' that considers opinions to be news and presents them as such.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

I was halfway seriously debating closing this thread temporarily just to see what it'd do. :lol:

Sharing some thoughts here...but it's as Kung, not 'the tech/admin guy.'

Re: Helianthus' assertion, I was not head admin at the time nor do I (to be honest) remember what was done, so I won't discuss details. (Cuz I don't have 'em. LOL) But I'm FAIRLY sure we don't ban people for merely pointing out that the post count was inaccurate, as in "Oh hey, the post count's inaccurate, didja know that....oh, I'm banned...wonder why that happened." 

Concerning Nevada, he's an excellent example of how this site works correctly. He and I are diametrically opposed on almost darn near everything that is said.  I mean, I can count the # of times we've agreed on both hands since I've been here, and I've been here 6 years.

*BUT* even if I don't agree with him, or if I think his viewpoints are total junk, they ARE well thought out and well spoken, and he's NOT one to make personal attacks or malign someone's character (that I'm aware of). Even if he persists in sticking to his viewpoint, he doesn't do so 'offensively.'


----------



## jerzeygurl (Jan 21, 2005)

Nevada still being on here not banned as a left leaning poster disproves the point that one gets banned for being left of center.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

jerzeygurl said:


> Nevada still being on here not banned as a left leaning poster disproves the point that one gets banned for being left of center.


The allowed 'good natured' jabs at Nevada are a prime example of how the rules aren't applied the same across the board.

Members see that some are allowed to insult(supposedly good naturedly) a member and it's allowed. So they use the same good natured jabs technique and they're given demerits or banned. No discussion, no set way of determining what is or isn't ok on any given day other than be nice. Apparently be nice is applied differently for different posters which makes having rules appear rather ambiguous & arbitrary.

Why is is ok for one poster no matter how well they think they know a person such as Nevada, toss out insults & blanket statements(good natured of course) and then when another person who feels they know someones online persona does the same thing they get slapped, deleter or banned? 

Look how many recent bannings there have been, how many are of people most here would consider conservatives? If you look at these banned peoples last few postings before they disappeared, you'll see that they weren't the only ones tossing snarky comments but yet, they are now gone while the people with the opposite viewpoint who also were snarky are still around.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

You're right...it's a huge conservative conspiracy, I admit. :gaptooth:

Funny thing is...I've been here long enough to remember a time when the mods were accused of allowing too LIBERAL an atmosphere to exist. People were upset that those on the left seemingly could say whatever they wanted to say and get away with it.

Now it's the opposite. You can please some of the people all of the time....


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Well at least Nevada makes me think and dig :teehee: If every body agreed we might quit learning and digging . :sob:

Post count never gave it a thought but i think you need so many per acre or your fence may fall down . Also at 60mph they are hard to count ,try it sometime .


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> For the most part I have to agree with Shygal about that. There are only certain viewpoints are acceptable on this board. Topics with alternate opinions get deleted, left or left to center people eventually get banned, progressive view points are shot down lickety-split with personal insults which are hurled and acceptable if they're hurled by righties, but not by lefties, and for god's sake, whatever you do, don't say anything critical about the glorious saviour and leader Beck and his crocodile tears, and don't admit to not being a christian or an American. Don't confess to believing in global warming, the emancipation of women and their rights of reproduction and the fact that there's another world out there. And last but not least, don't ever, ever say anything nice about President Obama or his family. Oh, the horror of it all. :shocked:
> 
> I'm sure I haven't covered all the unwritten 'righty's rules' but we all know what they are, don't we? Anyone who pretends otherwise is a hypocrite.
> 
> .



Every viewpoint I have ever seen you or Shygal for that matter post is contrary to the "righty's" viewpoint..and what of Nevada/and PyroDOn for goodness sakes..and yet ya'll are still here...how odd.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

naturelover said:


> For the most part I have to agree with Shygal about that. There are only certain viewpoints are acceptable on this board. Topics with alternate opinions get deleted, left or left to center people eventually get banned, progressive view points are shot down lickety-split with personal insults which are hurled and acceptable if they're hurled by righties, but not by lefties, and for god's sake, whatever you do, don't say anything critical about the glorious saviour and leader Beck and his crocodile tears, and don't admit to not being a christian or an American. Don't confess to believing in global warming, the emancipation of women and their rights of reproduction and the fact that there's another world out there. And last but not least, don't ever, ever say anything nice about President Obama or his family. Oh, the horror of it all. :shocked:


And yet somehow you're still here...not sure how we missed that. Lemme go take care of this...

:gaptooth:

I think you know better than this. I can think of loads of examples of people who do all of the above on a regular basis, and are still here.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Kung said:


> You're right*...it's a huge conservative conspiracy,* I admit. :gaptooth:
> 
> Funny thing is...I've been here long enough to remember a time when the mods were accused of allowing too LIBERAL an atmosphere to exist. People were upset that those on the left seemingly could say whatever they wanted to say and get away with it.
> 
> Now it's the opposite. You can please some of the people all of the time....



Why it is epic... in fact it is...could it be? a _VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY_..

And you are correct..many of my "right wing friends" are not allowed to post here any longer..people don't know how to act.. they have to go...simple as that. It is what it is...BTW..You guys do a good job of moderating considering the very divisive mood in the country and on this board of late.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

I haven't been banned, and I tick off both sides on a regular basis.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

NoClue said:


> I haven't been banned, and I tick off both sides on a regular basis.



LOL.. True....


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> Helianthus
> 
> 
> That simply is not true. I got banned, without ever having gotten a single warning, for the simple crime of pointing out that post counts are not accurate because posts have been lost in server crashes over time, most
> ...


I don't believe that is the whole story. Let's put it to the test. My post count has been wrong for over a year. I have been remiss in bringing it to the attention of the mods. My post count was over 2000 before the first great series of crashes and at some point my post count was lost and reset to 0.
I don't know what if anything can be done about it. 
Let's see it I am banned for bringing post count up.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Why it is epic... in fact it is...could it be? a _VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY_..


We need a 'muhahaha' smiley. 



> And you are correct..many of my "right wing friends" are not allowed to post here any longer..people don't know how to act.. they have to go...simple as that.


Pretty much. Oh, I'm sure if we sat around and analyzed everyone who's ever gotten banned, yeah, there'd be a larger amount of this or that group...but when people get banned it's a combination of

a) what the mods catch by reading (which is about .0001% of all posts) and
b) what is reported (which is probably another .0001%).

Then there's the fact that lots of stuff always goes on via PMs and the like....and when you factor all that in, the simple fact is that if there WERE some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy, it'd be *OBVIOUS.* Trust me...I've been on boards where there were, and *I* had to leave because it annoyed me. And I'm staunchly conservative.

Trust me...all of the mods are WAAY too busy to have anywhere near enough time to start up any conspiracies, let alone maintain them.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

bjba said:


> I don't believe that is the whole story. Let's put it to the test. My post count has been wrong for over a year. I have been remiss in bringing it to the attention of the mods. My post count was over 2000 before the first great series of crashes and at some point my post count was lost and reset to 0.
> I don't know what if anything can be done about it.
> Let's see it I am banned for bringing post count up.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

Kung said:


> You're right...it's a huge conservative conspiracy, I admit. :gaptooth:
> 
> Funny thing is...I've been here long enough to remember a time when the mods were accused of allowing too LIBERAL an atmosphere to exist. People were upset that those on the left seemingly could say whatever they wanted to say and get away with it.
> 
> Now it's the opposite. You can please some of the people all of the time....



Nice deflection but it doesn't actually clarify the issue. So from your statement above, are you indicating that the conservatives are given more leeway than the liberals now since it was percieved to be the liberals given a pass a while back?
If one side or the other is allowed to toss insults/personal attacks(always said to be good natured), how exactly is one to know where the line is drawn until it is crossed? If 
someone is following the rest of the members who's posts are allowed to stand, can you explain how one would know that the level of snarkiness isn't allowed? If some good natured insults are allowed then why aren't ALL good natured insults allowed?
Or maybe a better question is why does anyone need to be tossing personal insults & derogatory statements? If it's not acceptable for *anyone* to state another member must not work for their money, is an idiot, is a socialist/communist/societal leech, mentally ill or in need of meds wouldn't that make both sides less likely to yell favoritism not to mention it would make the discussions less volatile & on topic instead of becoming personal attacks.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Kung said:


>


Whoa... now I am really scared.. me thinks Chuck gave you too much power and now it has went to your head...:run:


ROTFLOL


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Kung said:


> And yet somehow you're still here...not sure how we missed that. Lemme go take care of this...
> 
> :gaptooth:
> 
> I think you know better than this. I can think of loads of examples of people who do all of the above on a regular basis, and are still here.


I think the only reason I'm still here is because I don't throw a lot of harsh personal insults at people here on the board so nobody's had a valid reason to ban me. Shygal doesn't insult people either. Even when I get the rights' insults coming at me from all directions from numerous people all at once, I don't throw nasty personal insults back at them and I never insult anybody's personal political leanings. 

I can't begin to count the number of times that people on the right here have insulted me and called me a 'filthy commie liberal socialist' simply because I'm a Canadian posting in a non-political or neutral topic and been told I should stop posting here and leave the board because Canadian view points aren't wanted. Many people here automatically assume that ALL Canadians are liberal socialist communists and call me that all the time - and I am a registered CONSERVATIVE for heaven's sakes. And if I do defend myself their insults fly thicker and thicker and then the topic gets deleted. Twice this week already I expressed a personal OPINION about something, then got insulted by several people, was told to go away, was called a troll, and the topics got locked.

So what am I supposed to think about that? You want to see an example of that - here take a look, this is one where all I did was ask a question and express an opinion based on personal experience, and 3 days later got attacked for it and told to leave and I refused. It's locked but not deleted yet: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=360120

.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Hah......now you know EXACTLY how it feels to most liberals that post here on HT.


Hey, you're allowed to post! 
As well as anyone else, even if its ridiculous. Or not even backed up by links-sure WE say where's the links but you don't get deleted.
Snarkiness is not the same as deletion.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Murray in ME said:


> To be fair, when you talk about threads being deleted or locked and members being banned just because of their political leanings, it is about the moderators and forum ownership. They are the only ones who can lock or delete threads and ban members.
> 
> As far as unwritten rules, I don't believe that's the case. And it's not that differing viewpoints aren't allowed. Yes, there are conservative posters who are very vocal and can make posts that are attacking and insulting to librel members. But, there are also librel posters who are very vocal and make posts that are attacking and insulting to conservative members. It happens on both sides, with the same intensity of venom from the posters.
> 
> ...


A POTDA.

PS-the libs have GOT to realize that conserves outnumber them in the real world too-about 2 to 1. Its higher here, I'd guess, just b/c of the nature of "Homesteading".


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

NoClue said:


> I haven't been banned, and I tick off both sides on a regular basis.


Yea but you do it with style .An equal opportunity ticker offer now that is what i call pc :bouncy:

Kung what those other two buttons for :kung:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

NoClue said:


> I haven't been banned, and I tick off both sides on a regular basis.


You are thoughtful, intelligent, have values, show some proof, and..................I like ya.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> You are thoughtful, intelligent, have values, show some proof, and..................I like ya.


you have no idea how shocked I was the first time I got a POTDA


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

naturelover said:


> I can't begin to count the number of times that people on the right here have insulted me and called me a *'filthy commie liberal socialist'* simply because I'm a Canadian posting in a non-political or neutral topic and been told I should stop posting here and leave the board because Canadian view points aren't wanted.
> 
> .


Interesting. I never saw anyone call you that. I couldn't imagine the mods let anyone get away with that kind of name calling. So I did a search for 'filthy commie liberal socialist' and the only thread that came up was this one, and YOU are the only one to use the term. 

So please provide a link to show who the offensive name caller is.

Otherwise, admit that you just lied to garner sympathy for yourself and falsely brand all conservatives here.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

bjba said:


> I don't believe that is the whole story. Let's put it to the test. My post count has been wrong for over a year. I have been remiss in bringing it to the attention of the mods. My post count was over 2000 before the first great series of crashes and at some point my post count was lost and reset to 0.
> I don't know what if anything can be done about it.
> Let's see it I am banned for bringing post count up.


You are missing the point. I am a liberal who at the time disagreed strongly with W's war and was vocal about that. However, I was careful not to violate rules. Therefore, something as petty and niggling as mentioning lost data during crashes was used as an excuse, without preceding warning, to ban me. If this is not the case, then I want my old handle (chamoisee) back.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

Interesting thread. I have seen lots of snarky comments that were not deleted nor the person banned. That is different than not being able to post your opinion about something at all as the OP stated. Thats a world of difference. Here you can post any opinion you like...doesnt mean that people are going to agree with it but you still get to post it.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

FF - sorry you cannot post on a different site, and bring it up here where you feel others will understand.

And the rest, about here, sure has caused some interesting searches for the person who is saying they were banned about questioning post counts, and that's not the case for the one person that fits the criteria. Now to see what' happens next?

The rest of you, if I were to come back and delete the insult ping-pong games a thread of about 6 pages would dwindle down to maybe 20 posts. You all do it.

This sure is a strange thread, but better than my day at work. (on lunch break on my own computer, so I'm not taking from the company).

Angie


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Kung said:


> I was halfway seriously debating closing this thread temporarily just to see what it'd do. :lol:
> 
> Sharing some thoughts here...but it's as Kung, not 'the tech/admin guy.'
> 
> ...


True; too bad more couldn't follow his example.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Kung said:


> Re: Helianthus' assertion, I was not head admin at the time nor do I (to be honest) remember what was done, so I won't discuss details. (Cuz I don't have 'em. LOL) But I'm FAIRLY sure we don't ban people for merely pointing out that the post count was inaccurate, as in "Oh hey, the post count's inaccurate, didja know that....oh, I'm banned...wonder why that happened."



Hi Kung, no it wasn't you, it was Mean Dean. If I had access to my old account, I could probably bring up the PM's. I think he was just having an incredibly bad day??? At any rate, if it is possible for me to get my old account back (botched post counts and all!) I would far rather be Chamoisee again than Helianthus. ;-)


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> A POTDA.
> 
> PS-the libs have GOT to realize that conserves outnumber them in the real world too-about 2 to 1. Its higher here, I'd guess, just b/c of the nature of "Homesteading".


Hmmmm....wonder how come the democratic candidate won the presidency, if that's true? :baby04:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

not who I thought it was


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> You are missing the point. I am a liberal who at the time disagreed strongly with W's war and was vocal about that. However, I was careful not to violate rules. Therefore, something as petty and niggling as mentioning lost data during crashes was used as an excuse, without preceding warning, to ban me. If this is not the case, then I want my old handle (chamoisee) back.


Seems to me you are looking for sympathy or perhaps justification. I am solid libertarian and am against any and all military adventures and no one has ever accused me of being shy about expressing my opinion. 
I still don't think the whole story of your banning has been told. 
The administration of this board has been in my, several years, experience, while infuriating at times, eminently fair.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Back to the op, I've had the same thing happen to me on 'cpnservative' sites. It happens all round.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> FF - sorry you cannot post on a different site, and bring it up here where you feel others will understand.
> 
> And the rest, about here, sure has caused some interesting searches for the person who is saying they were banned about questioning post counts, and that's not the case for the one person that fits the criteria. Now to see what' happens next?
> 
> ...


Now, to add insult to injury - thanks AngieM2, we truly love you and Kung for your immense kindnesses - we recognize the direction that America is headed and the trashing of our constitution - that makes it difficult sometimes to remain genteel - especially when there are overt posters (my opinion) who are out to destroy our "system". I am guilty of "speaking my mind" in defense of America and our freedoms. Perhaps HT is not the place, but we live and breath homesteading and that's where we are - I have noticed that you AND Kung have chimed in along those same lines. 
Again - I appreciate the fact that some threads have been allowed to "play out" and it is by the grace of the moderators.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Whoa... now I am really scared.. me thinks Chuck gave you too much power and now it has went to your head...:run:
> 
> 
> ROTFLOL


you better watch it or you'll be next. . .oops now I'm on the radar. . .WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!? I didn't mean it, I'm sorry I'll behave I promise. . .


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Gercarson said:


> Now, to add insult to injury - thanks AngieM2, we truly love you and Kung for your immense kindnesses - we recognize the direction that America is headed and the trashing of our constitution - that makes it difficult sometimes to remain genteel - especially when there are overt posters (my opinion) who are out to destroy our "system". I am guilty of "speaking my mind" in defense of America and our freedoms. Perhaps HT is not the place, but we live and breath homesteading and that's where we are - I have noticed that you AND Kung have chimed in along those same lines.
> Again - I appreciate the fact that some threads have been allowed to "play out" and it is by the grace of the moderators.


To be honest, this, along with the fact that the 'reported threads' PLUS the ones the mods/admins actually catch probably amount to .0004% of all the threads here at HT, is the biggest reason that threads don't get closed.

That's why I had to somewhat chuckle at sisterpine's statement:



> Nice deflection but it doesn't actually clarify the issue. So from your statement above, are you indicating that the conservatives are given more leeway than the liberals now since it was percieved to be the liberals given a pass a while back?


My statement didn't indicate squat other than THERE IS no 'slant' nor is any group being given 'a pass.' Websites ebb and flow in their posting/posting styles; it's not like the mods conduct Bilderberg conferences in the Mod Cave to try to figure out which group we'd like to suppress this year. 

Why people think more libs are banned than more conservatives, I don't know...and to be honest, it's a statement easily and SUBJECTIVELY made. To prove it, we'd have to look at each past banned person, determine their slant, determine why they were banned, etc.

Mods don't ban for political/religious slant; they ban for violating rules. Far be it from me to say mistakes are never made; but no, we DON'T gallivant around banning people for giggles.

I mean, seriously (and I say this with all honesty), does anything truly think we've got time to sit around and read all threads to determine if they're fair, what slant they take, if we agree with them, if the rules are being enforced, etc.? I know I sure don't.

It's not that we don't want to moderate more fairly or catch more. EVERY mod and admin wants to do the best they can. It's that we CAN'T because we're human. That's why the 'Report to mod' buttons exist.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Helianthus said:


> Hi Kung, no it wasn't you, it was Mean Dean. If I had access to my old account, I could probably bring up the PM's. I think he was just having an incredibly bad day???


Knowing what I do about Mean Dean's job and the work he does, that is entirely possible. LOL



> At any rate, if it is possible for me to get my old account back (botched post counts and all!) I would far rather be Chamoisee again than Helianthus. ;-)


Based on the fact that those here weren't involved and those that WERE involved are busy just now it'll have to hold off for a few days; but we'll look into it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

NoClue said:


> you have no idea how shocked I was the first time I got a POTDA


You post good stuff, how shocked can ya be? :goodjob:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JMD_KS said:


> Hmmmm....wonder how come the democratic candidate won the presidency, if that's true? :baby04:


Speaking of now, not then.

Here's results of about a yr ago, supposedly its even more that are conserves now. 

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/10/26/poll-more-americans-identify-themselves-as-conservative/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/po...atives_should_hold_the.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

NoClue said:


> I haven't been banned, and I tick off both sides on a regular basis.


I can't always figure out if you're a conservative or a dadblamed liberal. 
Come on - come out of the closet.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Kung said:


> Concerning Nevada, he's an excellent example of how this site works correctly. He and I are diametrically opposed on almost darn near everything that is said.  I mean, I can count the # of times we've agreed on both hands since I've been here, and I've been here 6 years.
> 
> *BUT* even if I don't agree with him, or if I think his viewpoints are total junk, they ARE well thought out and well spoken, and he's NOT one to make personal attacks or malign someone's character (that I'm aware of). Even if he persists in sticking to his viewpoint, he doesn't do so 'offensively.'


Then why was I M Contrary banned? He was one of the most inoffensive posters on this board.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Every viewpoint I have ever seen you or Shygal for that matter post is contrary to the "righty's" viewpoint..and what of Nevada/and PyroDOn for goodness sakes..and yet ya'll are still here...how odd.


We are pretty much the ONLY ones left, for goodness sake, dont you see that? You name 4 people, I could name about 100 of the "righty's" that post here, and maybe perhaps 7 total liberals.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Shygal said:


> Then why was I M Contrary banned? He was one of the most inoffensive posters on this board.


Who is banned and why is not ususally discussed. In some case not even the mods have all the reasons to each banned person.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Who is banned and why is not ususally discussed. In some case not even the mods have all the reasons to each banned person.


What she said. Shygal, you operate under the false assumption that I had a clue why (s)he was banned. :shrug: Simply put, beats me...I dunno.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

I am myself again! Thank you guys! :bouncy:


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

No problem. :thumb: Glad we could get it cleared up. 

(BTW - what's 'chamoisee' mean?)


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Glad to see yourself again


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Chamoisee is a color pattern in Alpine dairy goats. Brown or red with black dorsal stripes, legs, facial markings, etc. The word is derived from chamois, a wild goat that lives in mountains. I am sort of a wild thing that likes to climb and rock hop, as well as being goat crazy, so it seemed appropriate. Besides, it is a name that nobody else has when I register usernames.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Now that's true.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Kung said:


> What she said. Shygal, you operate under the false assumption that I had a clue why (s)he was banned. :shrug: Simply put, beats me...I dunno.


Kung, he was THE most inoffensive and kindest, most generous person on the board and didn't get into fights. He was never given an explanation for why he was banned. Several people think he was banned because he admitted to being gay. Other gay people on the board won't admit to it because they're afraid they'll get banned too but he was honest about it.

.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> A POTDA.


Thank you.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> I can't always figure out if you're a conservative or a dadblamed liberal.
> Come on - come out of the closet.


I'm actually, truly, some of both, which makes me neither. I have values and I stick to them. I learn and my values evolve. I'm not so concerned with what I'm called. The powers that be decide where the left/right line is drawn, not me.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Then why was I M Contrary banned? He was one of the most inoffensive posters on this board.


Whatd'ya expect w/that name!?!? 
:gaptooth:


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Not very funny. IMContrary is sweet, gentle, compassionate, a truly nice person.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Kung, he was THE most inoffensive and kindest, most generous person on the board and didn't get into fights. He was never given an explanation for why he was banned. Several people think he was banned because he admitted to being gay. Other gay people on the board won't admit to it because they're afraid they'll get banned too but he was honest about it.
> 
> .


I distinctly remember one or two people here who posted for a year or two (or more) and it was publicly known they were gay, yet were never banned. Fairly sure that's not the reason.

As to why he WAS, again, I've got no clue; but I know what people DON'T get banned for.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

There have been several openly gay posters over the course of the years I have been coming to this site. Seems to me there are some sour grapes being expressed.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

bjba said:


> There have been several openly gay posters over the course of the years I have been coming to this site. Seems to me there are some sour grapes being expressed.


Yeah, sour grapes, and outright lies.



naturelover said:


> I can't begin to count the number of times that people on the right here have insulted me and called me a 'filthy commie liberal socialist' simply because I'm a Canadian posting in a non-political or neutral topic and been told I should stop posting here and leave the board because Canadian view points aren't wanted. .


Do a search on *'filthy commie liberal socialist'* and see how many times anyone on this forum has been called that.

However, she has been called a 'Canadian'.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Common Tator said:


> Yeah, sour grapes, and outright lies.
> 
> Do a search on 'filthy commie liberal socialist' and see how many times *anyone* on this forum has been called that.
> 
> However, she has been called a 'Canadian'.


Anyone?? You're joking, right? :teehee: 

Hon, you're doing the wrong kind of search, don't look for words combined in phrases, look for the individual words. Or better yet, start by doing a search of your OWN posts that are still standing (like I searched mine) to find out how many times you've insulted people. Look for how many times you've used not only those 4 words but many other insulting words and accusations too, like drivel, swill, crazy or "you just lied" for example. 

I wasn't setting out to pin you down in particular in this topic but I think you protest too much and pretend to be outraged while secretly enjoying the outrage. I sincerely hope it may come as bit of a shock to your conscience when you see the results of your own posts search and realize you're one of the worst offenders when it comes to insulting people right here on this board. :shocked: Try it.

Everybody try it. Do a search of your own posts to find out what kind and how bad of an offender you are to other people on the board. It's easy to do.

:indif:

.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

She wont. She has called me a liar before, and tried to spin things I said here into me insulting the moderators.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Nature Lover, please provide links to where anyone called you a 'filthy commie liberal socialist', and we will know you are telling the truth. 

You said _*"I can't begin to count the number of times that people on the right here have insulted me and called me a 'filthy commie liberal socialist' simply because I'm a Canadian* posting in a non-political or neutral topic and been *told I should stop posting here and leave the board because Canadian view points aren't wanted. *."_ I have been waiting for nearly two days for you to provide a link. 

It never happened. First, you painted all conservatives with a broad brush by saying that this happens a lot. You can't begin to count the number of times that someone has called you that? Sure you can. According to you, this has happened not once, but so many times that you can't even count them. Provide links and let us count. You are playing the victim card. Woe is nature lover! Bad people ON THE RIGHT are calling her a 'filthy commie liberal socialist' JUST BECAUSE she is Canadian! :Bawling:

And as for turning it on me, and accusing me of calling you names, I invite you to prove it. That is a diversionary tactic intended to take attention off the falsehoods you told. It isn't working.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Shygal said:


> She wont. She has called me a liar before, and tried to spin things I said here into me insulting the moderators.


I know that, we all do. She's accused lots of people of being liers, me too, countless times. 

I know she's lurking, I'm just waiting now for her to post another one of her "I'm outraged - you better show me some proof" posts. :hysterical:



ETA: Oh, will you look at that, she beat me to it. Now how predictable is that? :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

So we shouldn't expect your links any time soon.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Nope. Do it yourself - I just told you how. Be your own judge and jury of yourself.

.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

For the record (and this is the case on almost any website), the one making the positive accusation or assertion is the one upon whom the burden of proof rests. When I make an assertion and then say "Search for it yourself" it's usually because I HAVE given said proof 3 or 4 times before and truly don't have the time. This being said, it still looks as if I'm making an assertion I can't back up - even if I HAVE backed it up before.

ALL of this being said....the thread is starting to descend into not much more than name calling or fussing. Let's try to keep it clean and respectful.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> It seems that if you have something intelligent to say or an irrefutable point made that doesn't fall lock step with the progressive view point they scrub it or don't allow it to be posted at all. ...


 Actually intelligent posts from all sides of the political spectrum get posted there.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Feral Female has always made intelligent posts here. I am sure she made intelligent posts there too.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

This thread is an example of why I visit another, much less moderated, forum occasionally. It's sometimes a breath of fresh air to call someone a blooming idiot without getting demerits. But, when the topic becomes totally lost due to posters just cussing people out, I know I can come back to HT for some sanity.

Funny, though... sometimes on a rant, I say something in GC that I just KNOW I'll get warned or smacked for, yet nothing happens. Then, the one demerit I DID get here in GC was completely out of the blue... nothing different said than any other day. I merely turned around a question that was asked of me. Guess the mod that day had his panties in twist for some reason, and I was the next post he read.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

naturelover said:


> There are only certain viewpoints are acceptable on this board. Topics with alternate opinions get deleted, left or left to center people eventually get banned, .


Sorry, I have to disagree with this, as a fairly outspoken liberal I have never been banned or had threads closed, the only time I even got a warning was when I got too personal in a disagreement with a certain poster - yes he was a far right wing wacko :smiley-laughing013: but I shouldn't have gotten personal. I really don't see discrimination on the part of the mods -- now you will get big time disagreements from the opposite side, but thats to be expected and if everyone agreed here the board would get boring.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Kung said:


> For the record (and this is the case on almost any website), the one making the positive accusation or assertion is the one upon whom the burden of proof rests. When I make an assertion and then say "Search for it yourself" it's usually because I HAVE given said proof 3 or 4 times before and truly don't have the time. This being said, it still looks as if I'm making an assertion I can't back up - even if I HAVE backed it up before.
> 
> ALL of this being said....the thread is starting to descend into not much more than name calling or fussing. Let's try to keep it clean and respectful.


Im glad you said that and I wish you'd put it in the rules lol

Many many times people have posted an accusation here with nothing to back it up. When I ask for the link, I get told to search for it myself, If I wasnt lazy I would look it up myself, Im expecting them to do "All the work" for me, etc etc etc. I have been told many times here by people that if I want to find proof then Im the one that has to look it up.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Common Tator said:


> *I REFUDIATE THIS DRIVEL!*
> That is an outrageous lie and an affront to our moderators. Deletions and bannings happen ONLY to posters who fail to follow the written rules of the site.


ROTFL

Of course you do.:stars:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Kung said:


> For the record (and this is the case on almost any website), *the one making the positive accusation or assertion is the one upon whom the burden of proof rests. When I make an assertion and then say "Search for it yourself" it's usually because I HAVE given said proof *3 or 4 times before and truly don't have the time. This being said, it still looks as if I'm making an assertion I can't back up - even if I HAVE backed it up before.
> 
> ALL of this being said....the thread is starting to descend into not much more than name calling or fussing. Let's try to keep it clean and respectful.


Kung, I don't really have a dog in this fight - although I've been insulted a few times for being Canadian I don't post here often enough for me to worry about it or keep track of it - but I have to ask this question now. Based on what you wrote above, does this mean you ARE giving NL permission to produce more evidence of insults? *I noticed she has already produced one link as evidence,* (2 full pages of unreasonable insults aimed directly at her because she's Canadian) are you saying it's okay for her to go ahead and produce more evidence of insults and single out the people that have done it? Just for this topic of course. Will there be demerit repercussions for her (or Shygal or anyone else) if she (they) does single out certain people? Would that be considered descending into more name calling and fussing? 

If it is okay then I think it should be fair for NL to use Common Tator for evidence since even I have noticed that Common Tator very often does get extremely insulting and is the one now protesting and DEMANDING so much evidence as if she has a _right_ to make demands (and is using her typically offensive border guard's repetitive 3rd degree grilling techniques).

Or perhaps this topic should just be put to rest, which is what I think most of the guilty offenders would like to see happen now before even more hard feelings are created and some people made to look like fools.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

In real life and in courts, so far as I know, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Someone says "That's not true" and someone else says "Prove it." It's then upon the accuser or the one making the assertion to prove it.

Does that mean I was saying "Sure, produce more insulting evidence?" Come on. I think the answer to that was obvious.

If someone has a problem (I've said this before and will say it again) with another poster then bring it to the attention of the mods via PM (or the 'Report' function) and we'll take a look at it and take appropriate action. Threads full of public grievances don't do much other than aggravate emotions. 

We catch some things; we can't catch everything. I'm sure people would like to find conspiracy theories behind every banning/demerit or lack thereof; such do not exist. If we miss stuff, I almost guarantee it's because we just flat didn't catch it.


----------

