# Don't like changes to political forum



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I don't understand why users won't see the topics on the political forum. I have not seen topics that are vulgar or likely to upset even the most delicate sensibilities. On the other hand, the topics are pertinent to homesteading in that they may impact your decisions. 

It seems to me that this has undertones of the nanny gooberment stepping in to protect us. If you don't like what you see, change the channel.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Can't help you Nimrod. First word out of my mouth was doggie, 2nd word-Why?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

7thswan said:


> Can't help you Nimrod. First word out of my mouth was doggie, 2nd word-Why?


 Seems to me it is the same kind of folks that have cable TV and just HATE to even SEE channels on their "guide" like Playboy, And the very few words that the show might be about, and then the ones that a little rougher. They can't even Stand to SEE the title of what it is about. As you can Blank them out also you they don't "see" them. 
Can't understand why. But some just like to make believe that things like that are not shown on TV. Same thing here I guess. Can't even stand to see the title. Gee just "Pass It By" but I guess not.


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

There was a meme on FB that said. "Oh, I am sorry, did my concern for the future of this nation and desire to discuss its direction offend you? By all means then, please finish telling me what you had for lunch today."

It isn't as if they were forced to read any of the discussions...I skip over stuff that I am not interested in every time I open the page. Why is that so difficult?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I was going to say that it would be good to have a sort so "new posts" would only be in those catagories desired but in thruth I have learned so much by being made curious over some thread title. I even check out sewing for info at times.

I guess it's like my Mom, who would say as regular as clockwork before any family gathering "No one is to argue- we need to all get along." Which was sure to irritate someone into starting an argument for the sheer contrariness of it. Poor Mom- she did not raise any shirking violets at all.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

I asked to be banned from the politics forum a while ago. :happy: I don't even want to see the topics, so I chose to be banned. After browsing that forum several times, I was amazed at all the hate speech and I just don't care to see that at all. 

And I hate being badgered by political posts of FB too, and have unfriended the worst offenders and even blocked the feed off a few. I don't care to read/see hate speech or constant whining. I may post the occasional thing now and then, but it's few and far between and certain not hateful. I don't care for it when ALL people post is political gripes designed to rile people up. For me, Facebook is for friends and fun, not political tirades. 

Just because someone chooses not to read political stuff on internet forums (or Facebook) doesn't mean they don't care about politics or that they don't know what's going on. Some people prefer to keep their thoughts on topics like politics and religion to themselves. 

I'm not sure what the problem is...it's not like politics was completely removed from the forum.


----------



## Ardie/WI (May 10, 2002)

Oh good Lord! 

I can count on about three fingers how many times I went to that forum. It didn't impress me.


----------



## floyd242 (Jun 11, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> I asked to be banned from the politics forum a while ago. :happy: I don't even want to see the topics, so I chose to be banned. After browsing that forum several times, I was amazed at all the hate speech and I just don't care to see that at all.



I did the same thing... I come here to read about homesteading and tips for raising animals and gardening etc. It's peaceful... There are a billion other websites I could go to for that other stuff.


----------



## farmerj (Aug 20, 2011)

Beauty of a mouse. Either scroll past or don't click on it.

Someday, there might be that random topic that needs more exposure, then what?

Why should i and others be censored when we are indifferent to it and can select what we care to pay attention to.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

So, if someone has never been there and is new to the site they will not even know it exists?


----------



## homebody (Jan 24, 2005)

Well, I take the world news on tv with a grain of salt. I come to the political forum to get the truth without added embellishments of facial expressions and tone of voice that newscasters use. LOL


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

[YOUTUBE][ame]http://youtu.be/ounJsqomcv8[/ame][/YOUTUBE]


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

farmerj said:


> Why should i and others be censored when we are indifferent to it and can select what we care to pay attention to.


How exactly are you being censored?


----------



## Bret (Oct 3, 2003)

I click on "new posts" and race through everything. Like walking around the buffet table. I see most everything but I don't always put each on my plate. I marvel how there is someone that likes each once or it wouldn't be there.

I once made a reply, tongue in cheek as normal, in a the political forum and received a good natured "what are you doing in this pig sty.  

I enjoy what others have to say. I am not a politician and normally keep political thoughts to myself. I accept that I will get some on me once in a while.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I too think this is a waste of time and too controlling but I just put my name down to be included in the Politics forum. After all - this is a private site so they can do as they wish.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I have a question.

When I go down the list od forums I see GC. Under that I see politics. If I want to see politics I have to click on it. Otherwise I don't care. What was wrong with that?

Now, I did see a thread in politics IF it was the last one posted. Question. Will I now not see this post on the first page? Just the posts on GC? If I still want to enter "politics" forum I will need to click on that sub forum? 

IF I don't do anything....with the new change, I will not see anything BUT the sub forum "clicky". I see this as a good thing. I will have to click on the sub forum to see post. Am I missing anything?

Thanks for the discussion....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Ok. I went back out and see the sub forum at the top after I enter GC. Wake up man. I guess with not checking in here often and this little cell phone, I miss soooooo much. I see it there like all other forums here. I don't see a problem with it the way it is. Don't want to see, don't look. Wow, that sensitive? Really....James


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Seems it would be easier to ask those offended by a thread title in New Posts to lock their selves in their house, put an ax through the TV, and shoot the computer...

The world isn't a pretty place... even a field of beautiful wildflowers has nasty stuff in it...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Same old, same old.

The vocal few - carrying the flag of mock outrage and political correctness, makes things more difficult, for everybody else.

Definitely a "sign of the times"


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

farmerj said:


> Beauty of a mouse. Either scroll past or don't click on it.
> 
> Someday, there might be that random topic that needs more exposure, then what?
> 
> Why should i and others be censored when we are indifferent to it and can select what we care to pay attention to.


I got a mean mouse it has a mind of it's own :runforhills: It made me make this post :shrug:


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Nimrod said:


> I don't understand why users won't see the topics on the political forum. I have not seen topics that are *vulgar or likely to upset even the most delicate sensibilities*. On the other hand, the topics are pertinent to homesteading in that they may impact your decisions.
> 
> It seems to me that this has undertones of the nanny gooberment stepping in to protect us. If you don't like what you see, change the channel.


If you were to read my pms you'd retract that statement . 
Hey how about that Putin :









~ girly giggles ~


----------



## anita_fc (May 24, 2008)

where I want to said:


> I was going to say that it would be good to have a sort so "new posts" would only be in those catagories desired but in thruth I have learned so much by being made curious over some thread title.


This describes me. I too dislike the tone of most political threads and choose not to open most of them for reasons already mentioned. Politics is not a forum I choose to visit, but I appreciated seeing the subject lines in case something does catch my interest. I have learned something from those few i have chosen to read. If it doesn't interest me, I pass right by it like the buffet table analogy. I

If asking to have onesself banned from uninteresting forums keeps those posts off of your "new posts" feed, it seems unnecessary (and overkill) to remove them from everyones new-post feed.

Sigh. Now I will have to remember to GO to Politics just to browse that section of the buffet.

Anita Crafton
Dan-Ani Pygmy Goats
Hansen, Idaho


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

The regular media has been told to keep it quiet on certain subjects, maybe the government has intimidated the owners of HT. If people don't know what is going on, how will we stop it.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

It is just an added feature now available on the HT server platform as a result of updates.

Gen Chat et al is currently only viewable to members logged in. All this change does is makes politics viewable to logged in members who choose to opt in to view the politics sub board by adding their name to the sticky thread in the politics topic sub board or here in General Chat prime board.

It is simply taking the environmental situation of "We can please all of the folks some of the time and please some of the folks all of the time but we can't please all of the folks all of the time " more towards an environment of "
"Lets try to please the most folks the most of the time we can with a little co-operation from all the folks as we set it up."

Work with us on this one. If you want to opt into viewing Politics sub board please post a reply on one of the threads posted by AngieM2 explaining the change as that is the list she will use to opt in folks wanting to view Politics.

If you don't view Politics sub board but like to check General Chat main board, you don't have to do anything.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Also notice it isn't a secret hidden forum. It's simply an opt in or opt out forum. Plus you can already see it's going to contain the usual folks who are already there. Nothing much is even going change.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Can we vote on who gets in? Oh, wait, never mind.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

7thswan said:


> The regular media has been told to keep it quiet on certain subjects, maybe the government has intimidated the owners of HT. If people don't know what is going on, how will we stop it.



You should start your own political forum. Then you can control whatever goes on there.


----------



## Wolfy-hound (May 5, 2013)

A lot of insulting going on for a group saying that it's not upsetting to read the politics forum... 

I usually click on 'New Posts' and then I skip over 99.9% of the politics threads. But I also skip over a lot of other threads that don't particularly interest me too, so it's not like skipping over the politics was a real chore.

But it's hardly being censored and I doubt it needs all the wailing since anyone who wants to can "opt in" and see all the politics threads they like. Most sites I've visited put politics/religion into a subforum called "Quarantine" that you have to go ask a moderator to see each thread, or you'd never know the entire section existed. This is way way more open than that.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

farmerj said:


> Beauty of a mouse. Either scroll past or don't click on it.
> 
> Someday, there might be that random topic that needs more exposure, then what?
> 
> Why should i and others be censored when we are indifferent to it and can select what we care to pay attention to.


Some folks just don't have the capability to make tough decisions like that. They offend easily and believe (falsely) that they have a constitutional right to not be offended. I've been married 45years and have no interest in a singles forum but I don't feel offended that others like it.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

MDKatie said:


> I asked to be banned from the politics forum a while ago.


And you can't just stay out of the politics board all by yourself? :runforhills:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Does this mean we can use curse words and insult each other? :catfight:


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> And you can't just stay out of the politics board all by yourself? :runforhills:


I do.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> And you can't just stay out of the politics board all by yourself? :runforhills:


I imagine most of them can stay out by themselves but I guess it still peeves them that it is even there. Reckon it offends them when they drive by churches not of their denomination? I just don't see the problem.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

I am offended that people are offended about people being offended who are offended by what they think it is proper to be offended by... or something like that.. wait... I'll just shorten that to "I am offended." Yeah, that's it. You can sort it out. If you can't, I'm offended.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

To me, it is just like our satellite tv. There are lots of channels that my husband watches but I just go right on by them because they don't interest me. I can choose the channels that I want and he can choose his.:grin:


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

I'm surprised by all the negativity. It's not a control issue, it's very simply a courtesy being extended to both sides. Everyone gets their choice. You get what you want, they get what they want. Everyone should be happy! :grin:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Does this mean we can use curse words and insult each other? :catfight:


Think they might just pick one person a week to insult ,that way it will be a while before their turn comes around again . :sing:

Harry you should be offended :sing::grin:


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Sorry Jim, I only have a limited number of offendeds per day.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

I have been wondering why this irritates me and it occurred to me segregating a group of people because they are disliked for their innocuous interest is wrong on many levels. Politics whether anyone likes it or not is as much a part of homesteading as sowing a garden. Politics will determine whether or not one can own the land to sow that garden on.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Hey, can anyone tell me where the politics forum went? I seem to have misplaced it.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

"Giving everyone what they want"? I don't think so. 
It's setting up barriers to the political forum by making those who want it jump through more hoops. 
It's taking those few who grumble and saying their voices are more equal than those who read it. 
It's just what's going on today in the US. Those who shout loudest have more say than those who just do-de-do along in order for those who have the power to be politically (pun) correct. 
It's more of taking away our choices buy saying those who have higher "sensibilities" can't use a mouse and have to be protected.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

There is a sticky thread start now where you can put you name if you wish Political Forum access. Or you can PM me.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Wolf mom said:


> "Giving everyone what they want"? I don't think so.
> It's setting up barriers to the political forum by making those who want it jump through more hoops.
> It's taking those few who grumble and saying their voices are more equal than those who read it.
> It's just what's going on today in the US. Those who shout loudest have more say than those who just do-de-do along in order for those who have the power to be politically (pun) correct.
> It's more of taking away our choices buy saying those who have higher "sensibilities" can't use a mouse and have to be protected.


 Ya, and everyone gets a Trophy too.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Wolf mom said:


> "Giving everyone what they want"? I don't think so.
> It's setting up barriers to the political forum by making those who want it jump through more hoops.
> It's taking those few who grumble and saying their voices are more equal than those who read it.
> It's just what's going on today in the US. Those who shout loudest have more say than those who just do-de-do along in order for those who have the power to be politically (pun) correct.
> It's more of taking away our choices buy saying those who have higher "sensibilities" can't use a mouse and have to be protected.


Jim Crow in action. Thought we god rid of Jim years ago and then he keeps popping up like this.


----------



## farmerj (Aug 20, 2011)

I wanted a ribbon...


----------



## bluefish (Jan 27, 2006)

bjba, love your second sig line! :thumb:

A comment was made (don't remember if it was here or on the original sign up thread) that part of the reason that a few people have been whining is the 'snarkiness'. I personally found WAY more of that on certain livestock forums here.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

I do open the political threads just to see what folks are saying. Let me tell you I shake my head at some post, laughs at others and go huh on some. It's all good as people have different thoughts on different topics but some are way out there :runforhills:


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

susieneddy said:


> I do open the political threads just to see what folks are saying. Let me tell you I shake my head at some post, laughs at others and go huh on some. It's all good as people have different thoughts on different topics but some are way out there :runforhills:


LOL, yeah I've had the same reaction to threads in other parts of the forum too. People are different, sometimes they see things through a very narrow lens. :icecream:


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Uh-oh, I can post in GC now (insert evil laugh here). :bow:


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

no really said:


> Uh-oh, I can post in GC now (insert evil laugh here). :bow:


OMG, you behave or I'm telling your Mom..:teehee:


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Karen said:


> I'm surprised by all the negativity. It's not a control issue, it's very simply a courtesy being extended to both sides. Everyone gets their choice. You get what you want, they get what they want. Everyone should be happy! :grin:


I am wondering what the non-committal members get - the members who do not feel they are on either side (I assume that is the majority of members). Was an automatic decision made for them? Was the decision one to not show them the Politics forum?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

I'm curious as to the count so far in favor of access.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

"But I don't want to be offended by anything I see as I stick my head and tush back in the sand."
"I think everything is peaches and cream as I go dah dah on face book......"

This day and age desperately needs the good folks to get very involved in the monster called goobermint........
This monster has eaten away our good old US of A........

There for: No restrictions what so ever should be placed on a forum which is helping to wake up America......


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Ambereyes said:


> I'm curious as to the count so far in favor of access.


Much more than expected given the number of members in that forum at sny one time. :shrug:


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Ambereyes said:


> LOL, yeah I've had the same reaction to threads in other parts of the forum too. People are different, sometimes they see things through a very narrow lens. :icecream:


or rose colored glasses


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Karen said:


> I'm surprised by all the negativity. It's not a control issue, it's very simply a courtesy being extended to both sides. Everyone gets their choice. You get what you want, they get what they want. Everyone should be happy! :grin:


Sorry but we do not see it as a matter of courtesy, we see it as another example of people wanting a 'nanny government' (in this case the board owners) to do what they want because apparently they can not be trusted to pass it by all by themselves.
Is the word 'politics' so offensive that someone can't see it and pass it by all by themselves if they don't want to participate?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Much more than expected given the number of members in that forum at sny one time. :shrug:


Sounds like people want their options to remain open to them... You just never know what reactions will follow an action.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

Karen said:


> Also notice it isn't a secret hidden forum. I*t's simply an opt in or opt out forum*. Plus you can already see it's going to contain the usual folks who are already there. Nothing much is even going change.


Actually Karen, the owners have made it strictly an Opt-In section of the fourm--I had to ask to be allowed to view it. I'm curious though, since it is an opt-in, what will members who sign up after this takes effect will be able to do? Will the receive a welcoming message that informs them that there is a exclusive members-only forum that they can additionally sign up for? Basically if you don't see something, how do you know it there and to ask for it?

And why not apply this to all the forums here. When you sign up, you get your "Chinese take-out menu" and pick what you want from Column A and Column B and see only the things that interest you?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> Sorry but we do not see it as a matter of courtesy, we see it as another example of people wanting a 'nanny government' (in this case the board owners) to do what they want because apparently they can not be trusted to pass it by all by themselves.
> Is the word 'politics' so offensive that someone can't see it and pass it by all by themselves if they don't want to participate?


I agree. It is rather unsettling to know there are people incapable of controlling their mouse finger to the point that they need someone to remove that burden from them. Also unsettling to see those weak people catered to. We've seen it in government for decades and now it is even being done on boards like this. Amazing really. I understand the mods have a tough job and pesky complaints get annoying, but it seems a reasonable response to such complaints would be "Don't go there".


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Hows about just going back to the way it was?


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

I support the change. Anybody who wants access to Politics gets it. Others come to this forum for neighborly help and friendly advice, not to read obnoxious attack headlines from the GC Politics lifers splashed through the site. Site management has to worry about the experience of all members and visitors here, most of whom expect some base level of civility. A bunch of folks in Politics try hard, day in and day out, to get away with insulting others. Now comes a consequence for that bad behavior. I would suggest you stop carping about what HT is doing to you, since very clearly you did it to yourselves.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nimrod said:


> Hows about just going back to the way it was?


Can't have that, it's only "fair" if the minority controls the majority.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I support the change. Anybody who wants access to Politics gets it. Others come to this forum for neighborly help and friendly advice, not to read obnoxious attack headlines from the GC Politics lifers splashed through the site. Site management has to worry about the experience of all members and visitors here, most of whom expect some base level of civility. A bunch of folks in Politics try hard, day in and day out, to get away with insulting others. Now comes a consequence for that bad behavior. I would suggest you stop carping about what HT is doing to you, since very clearly you did it to yourselves.


Why not ask those that do not want to se it? And have Those then blocked instead of going this way. Way more people imo want to see it and use it then don't even want to see that the forum even exists. LOL


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I support the change. Anybody who wants access to Politics gets it. Others come to this forum for neighborly help and friendly advice, not to read obnoxious attack headlines from the GC Politics lifers splashed through the site. Site management has to worry about the experience of all members and visitors here, most of whom expect some base level of civility. A bunch of folks in Politics try hard, day in and day out, to get away with insulting others. Now comes a consequence for that bad behavior. I would suggest you stop carping about what HT is doing to you, since very clearly you did it to yourselves.


But you are ignoring the question. Why in the world complain about it? Is just skipping the politics forum too much to ask? You know the answer as well as I. The politics forum is predominately conservatives and some liberals don't like that, so they want to limit access to it. I'll wager ALL of the complaints were from liberals.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Not the same forum that I am used to. Nothing remains the same though. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I sure wouldn't want to be Angie when something real bad happens, maybe WW3 and everyone is clammering to see what's up in politics.


----------



## bridget (May 10, 2002)

I probably agree with about 5% of the opinions on the PF, however I believe those who don't agree with me would pull me out of a burning building if need be. Well, maybe.:duel:


Oh grand moderators , may I be allowed access to the PF? :happy:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

bridget said:


> I probably agree with about 5% of the opinions on the PF, however I believe those who don't agree with me would pull me out of a burning building if need be. Well, maybe.:duel:
> 
> 
> Oh grand moderators , may I be allowed access to the PF? :happy:


Any reward?:nana:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I imagine that a fair number of people are going to do the same thing that I do about people on my ignore list. Most of the time I don't think I miss anything by skipping their comments but there are times when I want to hear what their opinion is, so I look at that particular post anyway.
The next thing will be that those who have the political and GC subforums blocked from the new threads sort are going to go to it periodically anyway. But they will not be able to complain about it because they made so much noise about not having it contaminate their purity of thought in the first place. 

But this will not stop the complaints of the group wanting this blinder put on- they will still be offended when the nasty political people show up in other forums and dirty that world too. Darn that persistent reality anyway.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Choice! It all boils down to choice.

We all come to HT voluntarily. The owners and/or the mods have decided to change the forum. The site belongs to or is managed by THEM and they can do with it as they wish. But they must live with the consequences of their actions, good or bad.

WE, as simple members, must now choose whether we want to continue to use the forum or go elsewhere. It is no more complicated than that. I am betting that no amount of complaining is going to change anyone's mind.

I choose, as I did when they changed the rules slightly a while back, to continue to use the site and see how it goes. If I don't like it, I can log out with a simple click of the mouse and never return.

I respect Jim for opting out and will miss the debates. We will see what happens in the future.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

I've given this a little thought. Angie apparently took my comment in the opt-in thread as just a comment and not wanting to opt-in, so I got the opt-out status. I'm not upset with Angie in the slightest for that, but it did make me stop and think.

My first thought is that this is a forum that is owned, and as long as the forum owners do not mess with the content of my posts (deleting of one is fine) or claim complete copyright over what I write, they can do as they please. The forum has to be supported, and unfortunately in this world, it also has to be moderated. Angie does a good job, but in a perfect world, moderation wouldn't be required.

What is disturbing to me though comes down to a few points -

If you take a group that can have a tendency towards giving credence to the unbelievable, and segregate them into a hidden room, just what might happen? I'll give you a hint - there are mainstream Muslims, and there are extremists who believe some pretty perverse things and avoid confrontation that will shake those beliefs.

Next, if you are someone in the government who is looking for a short list of which people to round up when conflict arises, just how convenient is a list of people interested enough in confrontational politics to "opt-in" to a closed forum? I'll give you a hint - in history, such activities are extremely common. "Round up the usual suspects" is the norm.

Next, except for activities that honestly are required for the military defense of the U.S., I expect openness in government, and openness in public debate. No matter how offensive, it is part and parcel to the ideals of the country and an important part of the checks and balances that keep people honest. This move to hide the forum flies against those ideals. 

To those who are offended, my comment is that jury duty can be offensive as well, and an exposure to a side of life that most citizens would rather avoid. That doesn't lessen the importance of serving on a jury. No matter how offensive someone might find political posts and "snarkiness" it is also a part of a well-rounded understanding of what goes on in the U.S. to read one or two of said posts on occasion. To do so, you must have access.

In short, I think the idea of the hidden forum is a _very_ bad one. Normally in posts, I'll have a hidden joke or levity. There is none in this one. I consider the issue serious.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> some base level of civility. A bunch of folks in Politics try hard, day in and day out, to get away with insulting others. Now comes a consequence for that bad behavior. I would suggest you stop carping about what HT is doing to you, since very clearly you did it to yourselves.


How insulting................


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

It does seem simple- let the minority opt out rather than expect the majority to opt in. Both get what they want and those who are new and don't understand the situation are not inadvertantly cut off without even knowing about it.

Wanted to get this in before the thread is closed. There is a great confusion in this world about conflict- having a disagreement, even an intense one, is not the same as an insult.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Harry Chickpea said:


> What is disturbing to me though comes down to a few points -
> 
> If you take a group that can have a tendency towards giving credence to the unbelievable, and segregate them into a hidden room, just what might happen? I'll give you a hint - there are mainstream Muslims, and there are extremists who believe some pretty perverse things and avoid confrontation that will shake those beliefs.
> 
> Next, if you are someone in the government who is looking for a short list of which people to round up when conflict arises, just how convenient is a list of people interested enough in confrontational politics to "opt-in" to a closed forum? I'll give you a hint - in history, such activities are extremely common. "Round up the usual suspects" is the norm.


Actually, most of us old-timers went through this 9 years ago. My join date is Sept 1004, but I was here and actively posting for about a year before that. Back then we could view GC and even post there without joining. What we did was to submit posts signed with a moniker (I used Nevada, of course) so people knew who they were talking to.

For the times we lived in it was a good thing to not join. There was a prevailing wartime attitude that wasn't good for anyone speaking out against the administration. In fact, Bush said in words of few syllables that you were either with him or you were with the terrorists. That was intimidating. It would still be possible for board admins to trace most non-members by IP address, but that's a lot of trouble. By not joining at least we weren't handing the HT our info on a silver platter.

In Sept 2004 membership became mandatory to post anywhere on the board, and also to see GC. The thing is that with GC being hidden from non-members political posts weren't going to be indexed in the search engines. I suppose government snoops could still join HT and view GC, but I figured that there was plenty of unregulated political fodder in the search engines to keep government snoops occupied without joining boards.

Based on that I decided to join. But I actually thought about it for a few days before joining.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

"My join date is Sept *1004*, but I was here and actively posting for about a year before that."

!!!!!!!!!! 

As you can imagine, The Bush comment went over with me like a lead balloon. The day that I am scared to express a reasoned comment on the state of affairs, with the intent on improving the country, is the day I move to France, where reparte is an art form.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

The more I consider this move, a hidden, segregated forum, and by implication second class members. I am stunned that a group I have been a member of for so long can and will discriminate against and insult other forum members and be supported in that by the administrators. Without contributors there would be no board. Are those who discuss goats, dogs, bees, cooking, construction and etc. more worthy than those who discuss politics or current events? Who judges who is worthy of first class membership?


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

The way I see it, HT is a privately owned & operated sight.They are graciously allowing others to use it for free. I rarely see anyone thanking them for it either. They dont owe anything to anyone.
They can run it whatever way they want for whatever reason they have.

I can see this being a sight dedicated primarily to homesteading. It does get hot & heated in the political forum & I can see why they would want to run it as a by request to enter forum.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I support the change. Anybody who wants access to Politics gets it. Others come to this forum for neighborly help and friendly advice, not to read obnoxious attack headlines from the GC Politics lifers splashed through the site. Site management has to worry about the experience of all members and visitors here, most of whom expect some base level of civility. A bunch of folks in Politics try hard, day in and day out, to get away with insulting others. Now comes a consequence for that bad behavior. I would suggest you stop carping about what HT is doing to you, since very clearly you did it to yourselves.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Ok, let me try to say this again because many of you don't understand. It is not a segregated, secret, or unknown forum. ANYONE on HT can go there, all they have to do is send Angie a PM and within minutes, they are there. No one is exempt if they want in; no one.

So it's all the usual cast of characters that's always been there. There aren't even any rule changes. The new rules are 95% of the exact same wording of what they were before, but a couple of sections are just clarified more of what that means. There are no new rules that weren't here before.

Nothing changes folks; absolutely nothing other than you have to say you want to take part in the discussions.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Oh I can't wait for the next few posts................


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

bjba said:


> Politics whether anyone likes it or not is as much a part of homesteading as sowing a garden. Politics will determine whether or not one can own the land to sow that garden on.


I wish more people understood this important concept. I have been happy that Chuck elected to have a politics section on this board and I think part of the reason is he clearly understood the above reality.

Politics, as distastful as it may be, clearly has the ability to negatively or positively affect my lifestyle in a significant manner. Be that as direct action at the national level, associated or trickle down effect from the national level to the local level, or at the local level (state, county, city).

I have found a portion of the rural/homesteading population around here (local) to be of the, 'that can't happen here' mindset. These folks are in denial and have their eyes closed and ears plugged. They 'dislike' politics and don't want to get involved because it's messy, full of conflict, and they need to have conversations with people who's viewpoint they may disagree with. This is of course their prerogative and none of my business, but I get real tired of hearing these same people complain when something does happen that negatively affects their way of life.

Even if folks choose not to be politically active, they at least can benefit from being politically aware as the information gives them time to prepare for changes that may be coming.


----------



## bridget (May 10, 2002)

Hey poppy - you get the reward of knowing you helped a friend in need. rincess:


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this, and I'm quite sure I don't know what problem this solves; but I do know that I'm not the owner of the site so I don't get to make the decisions. I'm happy to have such a great place to discuss these issues, and great people with whom to discuss and debate those issues. It took about 5 seconds to opt in, and I haven't seen anything else change. It really isn't a big deal.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I know I am very new to this forum, but I have to say this is one of the mildest, least confrontational places I have been in. That includes the political forum and general chat. It may be that the others I frequent are military and former military.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Shucks i always wanted to be a member of an exclusive private club ,just couldn't afford it . :awh: Now i made it and it was free to boot :clap::clap:

And if those with no mouse control will just not peek over the fence they won't be offended :nana:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I support the change. Anybody who wants access to Politics gets it. Others come to this forum for neighborly help and friendly advice, not to read obnoxious attack headlines from the GC Politics lifers splashed through the site. Site management has to worry about the experience of all members and visitors here, most of whom expect some base level of civility. A bunch of folks in Politics try hard, day in and day out, to get away with insulting others. Now comes a consequence for that bad behavior. I would suggest you stop carping about what HT is doing to you, since very clearly you did it to yourselves.


Nonsense. The complainers are people who get insulted WAY too easily. Simply tell them they are wrong and they are insulted. I visit other boards that also have political forums and they don't tolerate complainers. Some even have sections that are unmoderated and they are by and large peaceful. It does no good when you pander to the lowest common denominator. Is it really better to have a bunch of mealy-mouthed people afraid of explaining their views because someone might be offended
? The Obama administration thinks so because they go after everyone who disagrees with them. Seems to be a trait among liberals.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Karen said:


> Ok, let me try to say this again because many of you don't understand. It is not a segregated, secret, or unknown forum. ANYONE on HT can go there, all they have to do is send Angie a PM and within minutes, they are there. No one is exempt if they want in; no one.
> 
> So it's all the usual cast of characters that's always been there. There aren't even any rule changes. The new rules are 95% of the exact same wording of what they were before, but a couple of sections are just clarified more of what that means. There are no new rules that weren't here before.
> 
> Nothing changes folks; absolutely nothing other than you have to say you want to take part in the discussions.


As I understand the change the politics forum will be invisible and the new posts will not be displayed so they too will be invisible. How is something that is made invisible not hidden? How will new members even know there is a politics forum and by extension know to ask for access? If one is offended by another and seeks to have he/she and their contributions hidden how are the hidden not deemed second class or less worthy? Why is it acceptable to discriminate against a subset of forum members? I well understand that the forum owners may make whatever rules they wish. It seems to me that if the owners don't want political discussion on this forum it is their decision. A decision to ban political discussion would be far less offensive than the decision to hide and discriminate against those who 
enjoy political discussion.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Shucks i always wanted to be a member of an exclusive private club ,just couldn't afford it . :awh: Now i made it and it was free to boot :clap::clap:
> 
> And if those with no mouse control will just not peek over the fence they won't be offended :nana:


Oh, they will peek and be offended and want more protection. Sometimes peeking over the fence is a learning experience. I was invited the the Playboy Club in Chicago once and had no idea a bunny costime could look so good on a young woman.:nana:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

bjba said:


> As I understand the change the politics forum will be invisible and the new posts will not be displayed so they too will be invisible. How is something that is made invisible not hidden? How will new members even know there is a politics forum and by extension know to ask for access? If one is offended by another and seeks to have he/she and their contributions hidden how are the hidden not deemed second class or less worthy? Why is it acceptable to discriminate against a subset of forum members? I well understand that the forum owners may make whatever rules they wish. It seems to me that if the owners don't want political discussion on this forum it is their decision. A decision to ban political discussion would be far less offensive than the decision to hide and discriminate against those who
> enjoy political discussion.


Some forums i have seen will have the heading in their board list and when you click the topic it says by request for admittance only and you can take it from there . In this case i have no idea :awh:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I used to be a member of a large site. We had a group, among maybe thousands of others-Christian Conservatives. We started discussing Obamas past, this was before his past was scrubbed. The Libs. found out. They kept comeing into our group and argueing,makeing all kinds of trouble for the site moderators/owners. Eventualy after closeing our group to outside groups/posts someone made a claim that someone made a threat against O. That threat was investigated by the Government-it was never proven that any member of our group made the threat. Our groups were closed-the Libs that kept comeing in-nothing happened to them. Most of the people that got closed down,went off and made our own Site. We would link to other friends back in the main site. The site claimed that that "hurt" their site-ya, a Link hurt them.excuse. They then banned everyone of us thru our IP.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

This is a privately owned site and the bills are paid by the sponsors. The sponsors want to know the users are happy with the way the site is managed. I'm not unhappy about changes being made if they improve the site. 

But if they ruin the political forum I will not be spending much time on HT

... I will be looking for a good political forum with a smaller number of participants ... a place where everybody knows my name.

Cheers


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Perhaps there should be a list of people who have complained about the political forum being visible, after all if they find even seeing the political forum as offensive, perhaps others will see their posts as offensive.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

It's my understanding that the board itself *is* visible; only the posts are not visible until you opt in.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

7thswan said:


> I used to be a member of a large site. We had a group, among maybe thousands of others-Christian Conservatives. We started discussing Obamas past, this was before his past was scrubbed. The Libs. found out. They kept comeing into our group and argueing,makeing all kinds of trouble for the site moderators/owners. Eventualy after closeing our group to outside groups/posts someone made a claim that someone made a threat against O. That threat was investigated by the Government-it was never proven that any member of our group made the threat. Our groups were closed-the Libs that kept comeing in-nothing happened to them. Most of the people that got closed down,went off and made our own Site. We would link to other friends back in the main site. The site claimed that that "hurt" their site-ya, a Link hurt them.excuse. They then banned everyone of us thru our IP.


Although I don't always agree with your views, you are exactly posing the issue at hand. If the ability to POST was restricted in politics, instead of the ability of forum members to VIEW it, I might be a tiny bit less concerned. However, you expressed excellent points.


----------



## farmerj (Aug 20, 2011)

why should we have to "opt-in"?

If the minority is the ones complaining, let them "opt-out". .

Seems the list will be small that way and less work for the mods.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Its probably the same ones who got the Religion forum excommunicated.":catfight:"They can't stand the truth".


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Jim-mi said:


> "I think everything is peaches and cream as I go dah dah on face book......"


I guess some people want to constantly worry about everything going on in the world, always ready for a fight, or ready to get angry at a moment's notice. 

Me? I like to unwind sometimes. I don't watch the news. I don't care to see only the bad things that go on in this world. I know the world isn't perfect, I know there are bad things that happen. Does it do me any good to know about them? Nope, it just makes me sad. I don't want to live life being sad or angry all the time, I'd rather just ignore it all and live my life surrounding myself with happy things. Does that mean my head is in the sand? Nah, because I educate myself about important things that I need to know, but I let all the other stuff go. 

I'm not sure what happened on the forum to have the mods make changes. Since I opted out of the political forums a while ago, this change does not affect me. I am willing to bet there were far more complaints than most people want to think. When I did read threads in there, I was shocked at the hateful things. I guess others were too.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Good grief, what a mountain out of a mole hill!

I think the change is a great idea and kudos to admin for their decision. :thumb: 

Hundreds of other forums do exactly the same thing, I don't see what the problem is. Don't any of you folks who are complaining about it ever read anywhere else and see how many other forums opt for exclusive sign-up to controversial forums?

I signed up for viewing the politics forum and I don't care who sees my name on the list. Y'all need to stop being so paranoid and jumping to conclusions. Save that for the politics forum.


----------



## farmerj (Aug 20, 2011)

ya mean they ARE out to gitcha?


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

If this stands, it will forever alter my opinion of the site owner and his moderators.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

I will just say this, I won't miss the ones that opt or opted out.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I've been reading your posts. Even the insulting ones that should have been deleted due to the insulting nature of them, but they were left so everyone could see the nature of the person posting them.

No one has checked to see what plus's came with the change in the status, but of course, when you are working on verbally tearing something down you cannot explore to see what is happening.

And someone asked how many, I haven't looked in the last few hours, I was taking my Mom shopping and doing errands for Dad. But I was checking in and trying to let more people in, and reading the charming comments here so I could digest them.

Just to let all those concerned with the new people finding the Political Forum and might miss the brilliant posts that happen there - you will be so very excited to know that at least two people that just signed up are now there, too. Others that never seemed to have been able to do more than read, now that their account has been seen, can now post. Some should have been able to weeks or months ago. But I was counting on the s/w working automatically unless someone contacted me, then I'd check and fix what I could. 
So, that concern should be satisfied by all those posting that line of objection. 

The objection that everyone there is a 2nd class citizen. So, a meeting place that the outside is seen, but not the content, and just has to have the open for me sent (preferably in a polite manner) is 2nd class. Please tell that to the Cabinet to the President of the USA, the head meeting boards of every corporation, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the concave to choose the next Pope. And just for the fun of it, the Masons and the Illuminiti. All of them are 2nd class citizens. heck, maybe even the Supreme Court. Yep, all second class citizens there! 

To the comments that Political will tell the other forums about issues the will effect being able to buy land, etc. What a bunch of disillusion and if you think anyone that thinks seriously would believe it, really. Just think, in the Political forum there is a post, there is an argument, there is name calling and no one changes their mind. And someone will come along and say "I told you so, it's Bush's fault". Nothing other than entertainment happens. If you seriously consider the issues that happen that the Poultry forum needs to know - it is posted there, and what to look out for, and no one is concerned whether it's Bush's fault, a new EO by Obama or just the local neighbors causing the state to do something. Now, please, don't try that line it does not fly very well.

And to all wanting to let others be blocked if they don't like it - why. Why are they any less worthy than you? This is the only consistently mentioned forum to be blocked from. And the seeing your arguments does drip over into those livestock forums that some say have worse. And that brings up another point. The effect of "But, Mom, Joey or Sally is doing it" at which time most Mom's (or Dad's these dasy) will say "if Joey or Sally jumped off a bridge would you do it?" We are talking about this combination of forums General Chat which has subforum Political that almost everyone that's posted seems to be in a tizzy about.

I had a choice last night when making the new group classification for this. I could have done the basic that would have given each of you what has always been the basic that allows posting in General Chat and Political forums, but Keith and Austin had created a Higher classification some time back, and many that posted in one week was grandfathered in. About 700 of you. It has larger avatars, more PM's and I think something better in signature. I used the better one for the format to this new classification, so no one would lose anything they had, but it also now gives the new, and two levels of other posters better abilities. 

And there is a side benefit that I was after when the discussions of this started - the new people do not have to ask - WHEN WILL I BE ABLE TO POST IN GENERAL CHAT AND POLITICAL. I hope that does not have to come back, it depends on if people come in and join and then start trolling or worse. I don't expect that to happen.

This was discussed for several days by a few of the mods/admins. We watched the Political forum in the average is 25 people participating, and on a high day 40. Usually there is about 300 to 400 people, and 2500 or more guests reading. Of course, guests do not see GC or P. So, it was logical to go with the lesser numbers to change. Seems that this little change has pulled people out of the woodwork, just like checking out the wreck on the interstate or up the road. And watching the numbers today, there are at least 125 that can see it - and it's been running 13 to 27 today. 

To all of you that were neutral or polite about asking, or not understanding - thank you, I appreciate you. To those that posted less, well some of you it was a surprise and some it was not a surprise. But we all have to be true to ourselves. If that is being true to you, understood.

It would be very nice to see all those so concerned about how the political aspects effect Homesteading to do something more than just argue about it in Political forum. Maybe visit a Livestock forum and help someone with some of your knowledge. Some of you don't do that very much at all.

I'll get the ones that request the change in classification done as soon as I can. And the way it is set, is that the forum should be seen, but the threads and posts are not. But new people should know it's there. A person that chose not to be opt'd in, sent me a pm and that's what she saw. I'll have to change that sub title to put contact me once this change has settled down.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I still don't understand what people were seeing that was upsetting them so much. I can only see the main header of any thread.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

7thswan said:


> I still don't understand what people were seeing that was upsetting them so much. I can only see the main header of any thread.


I still don't understand why some people believe that other people were upset and complaining about anything. In the announcement about the change to politics forum there was nothing said about anybody complaining. It's just a conclusion and accusation that some politics participants have jumped to. 

It seems to me that the only reason people objecting to the change would accuse other people of complaining is because the accusers know there really was something valid to complain about but the accusers don't want to acknowledge it because that would be an admission of guilt in participating in what there was to complain about. 

Trying to pass the buck on to uninvolved and innocent members? Not cool.

:hohum:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Paumon said:


> I still don't understand why some people believe that other people were upset and complaining about anything. In the announcement about the change to politics forum there was nothing said about anybody complaining. It's just a conclusion and accusation that some politics participants have jumped to.
> 
> It seems to me that the only reason people objecting to the change would accuse other people of complaining is because the accusers know there really was something valid to complain about but the accusers don't want to acknowledge it because that would be an admission of guilt in participating in what there was to complain about.
> 
> ...


 Well gosh, are you always so helpful.


----------



## bluefish (Jan 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I still don't understand why some people believe that other people were upset and complaining about anything. In the announcement about the change to politics forum there was nothing said about anybody complaining. It's just a conclusion and accusation that some politics participants have jumped to.
> 
> It seems to me that the only reason people objecting to the change would accuse other people of complaining is because the accusers know there really was something valid to complain about but the accusers don't want to acknowledge it because that would be an admission of guilt in participating in what there was to complain about.
> 
> ...



I believe that in Angie's original thread giving notice about this, it was said that it was being done, in part, because some people had complained.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

It was a contributing factor, yes. But was not the whole factor.

Now please, but nicer if you can. I think you can.


----------



## bluefish (Jan 27, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> It would be very nice to see all those so concerned about how the political aspects effect Homesteading to do something more than just argue about it in Political forum. Maybe visit a Livestock forum and help someone with some of your knowledge. Some of you don't do that very much at all.



*That* is taking your life in your hands, right there. :gaptooth:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

7thswan said:


> I still don't understand what people were seeing that was upsetting them so much. I can only see the main header of any thread.


The wording of several of the thread titles are trash. Not enough to delete but enough to be trash, and many people object to being subject to trash.
And we would like people to get to know the good of Homesteading Today, and the helpful people and good information, before being subject to the titles in their news feed.

Plain enough for you?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> The wording of several of the thread titles are trash. Not enough to delete but enough to be trash, and many people object to being subject to trash.
> And we would like people to get to know the good of Homesteading Today, and the helpful people and good information, before being subject to the titles in their news feed.
> 
> Plain enough for you?


Plain is the best kind. I did not know there were 'bad" titles, and just thought some could see more. I just got the ability to see red under my incorrectly spelt words. Seems others have had that forever.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Thanks 7th.

Sorry to get short with you.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

No problem Angie, You do a Great Job here, I never question your judgment.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

> to let all those concerned with the new people finding the Political Forum and might miss the brilliant posts that happen there


That sarcasm is part of the reason why people are upset. They are feeling judged by their posts, opinions, etc, so the fact that their favorite board is now being changed to what they feel is a second class forum gets their ire up. 



> And to all wanting to let others be blocked if they don't like it - why. Why are they any less worthy than you?


And people who are riled up about this change ask, "Why am I less worthy than they?" 

The quotes above seem more to show the mods'/admins' negative feelings about the forum rather than any reason to make it 'opt in'.

You can have all the best intentions in the world, but when you segregate a board based on what people post there, you are, effectively, insulting each and every member who regularly posts on that board. You can say all you want that there is no real change, but the fact that the board was made 'opt in' makes it and the content something of a lesser, second class board in the eyes of the regulars. Opt in means it is different. Mods/admins may not intend the difference as derrogatory, but I understand why regular posters would see the opt in as negative.

This discontent regarding the change was not formed in a vacuum. There has also been an uptick/change in moderation that even I have noticed. This, combined with the new opt in requirement...it shouldn't have been a surprise that some regulars took it personally.

I come to this board because of the excellent moderation, making it not just safe for work but also safe for my own sensitivities. I really, really don't understand this idea that Politics is some sort of den of iniquity. I've never seen a more appropriate politics board. The fact that people have gotten upset about mere thread titles puzzles me.

Anyways...I don't have a hamster on this wheel. I just observe. And I guess in this instance of observation I needed to put my two cents in. Thanks for listening.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

FeralFemale - you have your outlook and views. And they are how you feel.

Hope you have the rest of a good weekend.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

FeralFemale said:


> There has also been an uptick/change in moderation that even I have noticed.


Your right, there has been. It's because we're actually enforcing the posted rules now and even actually expect people to 'be nice'. It's kind of a new concept to some here. :grin:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> Even the insulting ones that should have been deleted due to the insulting nature of them, but they were left so everyone could see the nature of the person posting them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is exactly why people resent this change. It assumes that there is fault with the strong feeling, and yes even fairly extreme feeling, being expressed rather than the problem being with the delicate who like to sanitize the world. One favors the real and the other favors the fantasy. It assumes a right to not have the fantasy disturbed. Are we any less worthy than them?

Those people already have a way around it- they can just not look. I do that even in the political forum itself. I know that some people will start posts on, let's say, particular political figures and I just don't look because I have found them to be unproductive in the past. 

It is always better to know what others think than to be continuously puzzled about why things don't work like the rule book says.

In this country, the freedom of expression is always given more weight than the sensativity of even a majority who are offended. It was considered so important that it is always at the center of every contentious issue.

Now this is a private commercial institution so it has the right to be as arbitrary as it wants. But I have noticed that contradicting the powers that be is treated as if it is a deadly insult. Arguing is a deadly insult. Not massaging the delicate poster with approval is a deadly insult. 

I think the thing that bothers me is that the definition of insult is supplied by one side and what the other considers insulting is dismissed as a lack of understanding. It's the arbitrary application of the power to control that offends the most. Hateful seems to be in the camp that wants to purge and restrict. 

Nobody likes to be told they are wrong, much less told that in dismissive tones. If the moderators find that to be true for themselves, why would they expect that the vigorous posters should not feel the same over this issue? 

As Putin said this week at the G20, he and Obama understand each other- they just disagree. That is not the same as insulting each other. In that, Putin is certainly a realist.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

There's where you have it all wrong. _*Everyone*_ is totally free to give their opinions, thoughts, ideas, express their dreams and even to disagree with any thing at all on any forum here. They just have to do so with respect to others, without snark, without being nasty, and without an attitude of my-idea-is-better-than-yours-and-your-a-total-idiot. On HT we call it "being nice". Another word for it is "courtesy" or having manners.

Do we need to candy coat things? Yes, sometimes we do if it means it will offend or hurt someone else. Why? Because we all are a guest here and that's the rule and request the hosts have made in their own house. 

You have the right to say anything your little hearts desire, but you don't have the right to offend others in the way you present it. _It's in the presentation, not in what is being said_. There's no reason a person can't say exactly the same thing, but in a kinder manner. Shooting straight often is just an excuse to be rude. Rude, offensive, unkind, disrespectful, and hurtful is simply not acceptable, is not courteous and is definitely 'not nice' nor "Neighborly Help and Friendly Advice". Being nice really isn't that hard.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Karen said:


> There's where you have it all wrong.
> 
> You have the right to say anything your little hearts desire, but you don't have the right to offend others in the way you present it.
> 
> Being nice really isn't that hard.


I think it must be desperately hard in some cases.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

well, consider me as one of the "offended ones". to make us jump through hoops to get to a certain forum IS censorship. its like the current drive for "Voter Id", just another way of putting obstacles in a person's path. i for one will choose not to participate and lend this ill-thought out policy any legitimization...


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

pcwerk said:


> well, consider me as one of the "offended ones". to make us jump through hoops to get to a certain forum IS censorship. its like the current drive for "Voter Id", just another way of putting obstacles in a person's path. i for one will choose not to participate and lend this ill-thought out policy any legitimization...


Perhaps it is a "hoop", but it has a pretty dang large opening. You don't really have to jump through it either, it's held low enough you can just step through.

To paraphrase an old saying - He who owns the site makes the rules.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

7thswan said:


> Plain is the best kind. I did not know there were 'bad" titles, and just thought some could see more. I just got the ability to see red under my incorrectly spelt words. Seems others have had that forever.


Oh no .... Swan's misspellings always make me chuckle

.... no more dicktaters


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

1. I have not opted in, I did not opt out. I have just not decided to join.....




......






....Yet.

I didn't think ----tingTF would be so bad for me. I think I know why, now. Something to be said about keeping your head down. Also you (me) are/is saving ammo.




Ducking....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

OPPS I was censored S HittingTF was what I wrote....James


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

poppy said:


> But you are ignoring the question. Why in the world complain about it? Is just skipping the politics forum too much to ask? You know the answer as well as I. The politics forum is predominately conservatives and some liberals don't like that, so they want to limit access to it. I'll wager ALL of the complaints were from liberals.


My suspicion is that it was not liberals who complained, but people who don't like to hear about politics at all, one side or the other.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> Perhaps it is a "hoop", but it has a pretty dang large opening. You don't really have to jump through it either, it's held low enough you can just step through.
> 
> To paraphrase an old saying - He who owns the site makes the rules.


It was low enough i even found the hole in the fence .

I heard some mention of voter ID they have had that in some States a long time even in Ky. No big hoop there either . If one leaves their house they are required to have ID if asked for it :hobbyhors


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I know I am slow, and really am not here to stir the pot, just asking/bringing up a point. I have not complained about the Politics forum, I liked it. Just in a tough place right now and do not really need the aggravation. I like that I don't HAVE to see any of it. I do like this new way. I like the option to be able to opt in AND out. I hope I could/can opt in and out as I would want.

BUT.... I see what many are saying. Hidden??????? I also don't like THE few making the rest have to change. I will stop there.

I like to keep my glass more than 1/2 full in life (at least I am happier this way) I do not bury my head in the sand, I just like to come and go as my needs/wants/life changes. Not be bombarded at all times/unexpectedly. I am a VERRRRRY conservative person, small government and all. Leave me to my own life, I do not want or need anything from BIG government, nor have I ever asked.

Now, what I see. I come into Homesteading Today and go down the list of forums. I get to Specialty topics (where politics used to be) nothing shows any more (also, no where else). Yes GC is here, I came in. If it were not for the stickys and this post, I would never know there was a politics forum. I asked how it would work when this first came up, as I thought there would be a heading, something. I figured if you clicked on "it" it would say you needed to "opt in". Nothing....this is what I see now....James


----------

