Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

Conservative Message Board

Posted by Bonnie on 9/28/03 at 01:24 (131393)

Hi Ed, You mentioned a conservative message board. Can you tell me how to find it? Thanks, Bonnie

Re: Conservative Message Board -- IS THIS WHAT THIS BOARD IS REALLY ABOUT?!?!

Ed Davis, DPM on 9/28/03 at 11:48 (131461)


I am terribly sorry to see that you have walked into this mess. Some of those who talk about welcoming new members here really do so 'tongue in cheek.' They are saying 'welcome to the board if you agree with us and are willing to talk about what we want you to talk about.'

My gut response is 'please stay here.' I have been on the boards a bit longer and post on the other boards on this site. On the other hand, going to a friendlier environment is certainly less stressful.

There are different types of conservatives (eg. Carole stating yesterday that information from mainstream conservative publications is 'garbage').
There is also plenty of debate on such forums, but unlike here, most try to debate the issues, not personalities. The are some boards, for example, the Ether Zone, which are dominated largely by paleo-conservatives, some of which unfortunately, in my opinion tend toward a semi-racist and xenophobic bent.

I am unable to access the favorites list on my old computer which I had bookmarked a bunch of sites, so give me a few days to go back and find the good ones.

Re: Conservative Message Board

Ed Davis, DPM on 9/28/03 at 11:54 (131462)


Here is one to look at http://www.rightwingnews.com

Re: Conservative Message Board

Ed Davis, DPM on 9/28/03 at 11:57 (131465)

No complaints from the 'gang of 6' that now owns the board. We are finding a place to send Bonnie. For the 'gang' -- don't click on the link because you will not like what is on that board -- again, no one is forcing you to click on that link so I don't want to hear complaining!

Re: Bonnie -- sorry

Phil C. on 9/28/03 at 12:37 (131485)

I am waiting to see what one of the 'gang' has to say to you. I guess they are speechless. I too, would like to see you stay. The gang that appears to be in control of the board represent only a small percentage of those who visit the site so the 'silent majority' out there of readers, of which I was one, appreciate your thoughts.

Re: Bonnie -- sorry

marie on 9/28/03 at 12:43 (131495)


Bonnie didn't say she was leaving heelspurs. She just asked Dr. Ed for a conservative posting site.

Bonnie you are welcome here irregardless of your political affiliation.


Re: Link safety feature.

BGCPed on 9/28/03 at 13:04 (131509)

I have an idea that should appease, to a certain level folks who dont want to stumble upon certain information. Why not design software like the safety on a gun? If Dr Ed, Phil or even myself post a link that may upset some you would have to click once for the pop up or safety warning. Then after a few seconds to make sure it is npot a mistake you would click again to go to the actual offending piece.

You could also make it so you have to hold down say the shift key and click on it. That would creat another level of safety so a person that gets emotional over a political post wouldnt see it by accident like the way it happens now. The system that is in place now doesnt work. Not to pick on him but I will use Dr Ed as an example.

I am sure many people read his posts in all of the other catagories and are happy with the information. I think some of what he posts on the soc board is what riles a few up. Since some folks keep accidentally opening his posts inspite of the fact they dont want his opinions ruining the social boards safety net this extra step would work.

Any software writers out there want to split the profits with me? I am busy working on my house but I would like to offer up an example. A person reads Dr Ed's stuff on the surgical board. They click over to the social board. They see a post from BG about Babs Striesand, and how selling $150 concert t-shirts and having a huge home on a mountain bluff in Ca is good for erosion control.

Knowing that BG is a bit off and Dr Ed will only enforce it with one of his posts you want to ignore it. So while looking for a post about Star Jones and her struggle with pf you accidentally click on the Dr Ed post. A pop-up with a warning that you are about to access materail you have previously registered as bad....click again to continue.

There ya have it a win win situation. Sorry about the gun safety analogy if it upset anybody.

Re: Link safety feature.

marie on 9/28/03 at 13:15 (131516)

Software for security purposes is out there. It cannot determine if something is good or bad. It scans for specific words....like cuss words or nudity. Computers cannot differitiate between the word 'nude' from one site to the next. So an art history site would be blocked as well as an x-rated site. The word breast may be a word on the security list. That would prevent someone from opening a site on 'Breast cancer'.

Computers are just not able to make those kinds of judgements....yet.

Re: Link safety feature.

BGCPed on 9/28/03 at 13:21 (131521)

Marie one feature would be that you could type in offending words on your own. I dont mean it would be to limit access to websites just bb posts. A person would have a field to fill in words like BG, Phil, Dr ED, Dorothy, Marie or????? It would be a gentle reminder and require an extra layer so that they wouldnt accidentally read something from a person on their list

Re: Link safety feature.

Phil C. on 9/28/03 at 13:29 (131524)

Great idea. We could just rate certain posts PG-13.

Re: Bonnie -- sorry

Phil C. on 9/28/03 at 13:40 (131527)


The intent of Bonnie's post seemed obvious to me, but maybe I am wrong. We will just have to wait and see.
Phil C

Re: Link safety feature.

marie on 9/28/03 at 13:55 (131532)

Oh it's a great idea but I don't know how it could be done effectively with the technology we have here at heelspurs. And yes a PG!# rating would help. the problem is this should have been discussed a long time ago and I am afraid people are just tired of it all. So we can take the high road and take the political discussions off the board. Or we can whine all day. The whining and attacks are not helping the situation as it is. thank you for posting a civil thread today.

marie, the big bad meany head!

Re: Link safety feature.

John H on 9/28/03 at 19:08 (131583)

Marie: We can take the political discussions off the board and then what next? We basically have people who differ on a philosophy of life and it is not just political. To find any discusson board, any philosopy discussions, any religious discussions where all agree in not possible. Scott has it sort of right when he applies the be nice rule. The board would be a dull place if we all agreed on everything. How many of you agree with your spouse all the time?How many of you do not engage in arguments with your spouse? We seem to be asking this board to be something that does not exist in life. Life is not the Yellow Brick Road and it does not exist on computer boards or anywhere else. When I was 6 or 7 we used to chant 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'. I bet kids still use this phrase. People you need to toughen up and not let someones post destroy your day. You can only be hurt by words if you choose to. Take control do not be controlled.

Re: Link safety feature * to john

nancy s. on 9/29/03 at 06:02 (131610)

john: my impression is that people are not interested in trying to agree all the time, which as you rightly point out never happens in real life. they simply got tired of the social board being loudly dominated, continually, by the strident (and sometimes hostile, sometimes nasty, sometimes even hateful) voices of a few who have insisted on using this place as a constant platform for their views -- and not just for a week or even a month, but for most of the year. and, let me add, it was pretty much all repetitive, which very much annoys people 'in real life.' it can give a person a daily headache.

i don't find this hard to understand at all, and i don't think it has a thing to do with free speech. what about the free-speech rights of others here who objected to this domination? i think they have been extraordinarily patient for a long time.

if you were at, say, a party, and the multiple conversations became drowned out by one or two visitors who loudly and repeatedly expressed their views to their heart's content for hours -- and you found it difficult if not impossible to carry on other conversation (and maybe you also found these visitors' manner obnoxious in a way) -- eventually wouldn't you or someone else tell them to be courteous and quiet down? someone at the party might even get fed up and say 'shut up.' would that be censorship? would it be unrealistic? i don't think so. these things happen in real life all the time, and they are not censorship: they are a reflection of varieties of people exercising their right to free speech. surely it isn't only the loudest folks who have a right to free speech.


Re: Link safety feature * to john

john h on 9/29/03 at 13:06 (131634)

Godd day Nancy: Nice to see you back. Hope that antique shop is on a roll.

It seems at many parties there is always some loud mouth who wants to dominate a situation. I generally just walk away as do most people. No one forces me to listen to him/her. Same way with some of the grievous post we have. You know who gives you a headache just skip them and read the people you enjoy. Let me pose this question to you. Suppose you walk into the public library and note a number of what you consider very objectionable books. . Would you ask the library to remove them or just not read them? This happens in real life every day. There is in my opinion some real trash on the shelves of libraries but the 1st Ammendment allows this under freedom of speech. The internet is full of trash which any of your children can access but it is all protected. As adults we can access the trash or we can just not access it.

We currently have a big debate going on about the new movie by Mel Gibson on the life of Jesus. Some Jews really object to the movie and think it should not be shown. Some Catholics thinks it accurately depicts the life of Jesus. Who is the Solamon that is wise enough to make this call. When you get into censorship you open a pandora's box. Not all people can agree on what is civil or even what is censorship. Yes we have some trash on the board but we have trash in life. We can escape the trash on the board by just not reading it. In life you cannot escape it. I have had numerous request to delete post,threads from both sides of an argument. The only sensible guide is the 1st Ammendment. When I start playing God and interjecting my personal thoughts or someones else's opinion as to what should be deleted I am no longer a moderator but an advocate. If you get an advocate as a moderator and you are unhappy now then unless the advocate agrees with you then you will be more unhappy. I say to any of you who want to start to deleting post then tell Scott why you should be the moderator/censor and why I should not. It will not hurt my feelings. I will still be here and I will not be angry with you. I do not quit and I do not run...

Re: Link safety feature * to john

nancy s. on 9/29/03 at 16:15 (131656)

hi again, john. i would never ban a book or a film, and people truly do have the choice to avoid them completely or to read/view them.

this board is a gathering place, and in my opinion not equivalent to a book or film. many keep up with it by scrolling through the text of the day's messages in one way or another. if they're completely to avoid constant political posting, they cannot scroll, and if they cannot scroll, they may miss posts they very much do want to see, or gain from, or be able to help someone as a result. the argument 'just don't read if you don't like it' doesn't hold water with me in this situation. and for newcomers as well as regulars, the thread titles don't always let them know what they're in for. you can recommend that people choose not to be hurt by words, but that is much easier said than done.

ok, if there is conversation domination at a party in a *small* one-room apartment, will you agree that you cannot simply walk away without leaving the party altogether? several people left this gathering at hs.com months ago, myself included, because there was no other way to get away from the offensiveness. i think the people who patiently remained have a right after all this time to ask that excessively loud or offensive or repetitive diatribes be 'taken outside.' that is part of the right to free speech, no? to protest? but most have been too polite to protest! they've been rather quiet for many months, waiting for the dominators to go away or at least quiet down. i think they deserve a medal for their patience.

but even more relevant, scottr owns this website, and he has the absolute right to establish any guidelines or rules he wishes. if the behavior of a few quiets the participation of others -- and politics is notorious for fostering nasty conversation (many people feel strongly about politics, naturally) -- and scott doesn't want this happening on his board, he has every right to establish a rule. there are many rules in society that are for the good of all: are they censorship? do they violate the first amendment?

in many posts of those interested in discussing politics here, biases have come out (for example, recently some people have started whole threads against the french -- they were snide, nasty, rash generalizations). on a website meant to help people with foot pain from any country, not only americans, perhaps scott does not want others alienated before they can even seek help here. we have had french people come here before for help. would they now, if they saw those posts and subject lines? of course not.

but i'm not speaking for scott. i simply see that he asked that the problematic topic of politics be avoided; that many posters seemed greatly relieved by this and thanked him publicly (and were insulted for it); and that, in my opinion, no one will be worse off if a few folks don't post constant diatribes against liberals, conservatives, the french, newspeople, women, peace groups, celebrities, or what have you. no one has told anyone they can't think anything they want, and no one has told anyone they can't speak about politics every day all day if they want to. there are simply more constructive venues for doing so -- many, many more. people with foot pain have very few places to go for support. i wouldn't dream of bursting in on a support group of cancer patients, for instance, and go on and on about my politics. it's simple common courtesy, john, and common sense.

you know i have great respect and liking for you, john. we just don't see eye to eye on this, and i guess we won't, so i ask you to join me in agreeing to disagree and we can be done with it.

yes, the antiques shop is going well, thank you. my favorite customer this year was a new guy who came rushing in looking for a trunk in which to carry his gorilla suit when he travels. i kid you not. but i'm still laughing.


Re: Link safety feature * to john

John H on 9/29/03 at 18:01 (131660)

Yes Nancy this is one we do disagree on. Dr Phil says married couples who have disagreements on things end up disagreeing permentently 90% of the time. Neither change. They just work around it and go on. I respect your views and we both must just charge on down the road. In the big scheme of things this is no big deal.

Now for something we do agree on and is dear to our hearts. Could it be the Red Sox and my Cubs could meet in a World Series??????? They are both in the playoffs and the Cubs have not been in the World Series since 1945 or won a World Series for almost 100 years. I will find you in hand to hand combat on this. I might even make a trip to Boston if I could get tickets. I bet we could hear some really rude comments at the game from both sides. I would not be surprised to see you get a little tweeked on a bad call.

Re: Link safety feature * to john

nancy s. on 9/29/03 at 18:13 (131662)

oh yes, john, it is indeed possible that my red sox and your cubs could meet in the world series! wouldn't that be something? you're right on, i don't like a bad call, and when the windows are open while a game is on the tv i'm sure a neighbor walking by can hear me hooting and hollering. and i'm sure they wonder, what is this mild-mannered, friendly, sort of quirky owner of our antiques shop making such a fuss about? and why does she care about the red sox at all? i'll never know, but there it is. i've had a thing for 'em since 1985. (too bad i didn't wait till 19*87* to discover them, if you know what i mean.)

the red sox is a special team this year -- all nice, talented, and articulate guys. well, almost all. no big prima donnas, at least. good luck with your team, good luck with mine, and we can argue later if they do end up playing each other in the series!


Re: to Nancy and John, from the south coast of Crete

Julie on 10/01/03 at 14:19 (131844)

Hello you two - and everyone else

There's nothing like getting away from it all, even for 24 hours, to give one a sense of perspective and proportion. The heelspurs frazzle of the last few days seems very far away as I sit at this unfamiliar and frustrating computer, replete with a lovely meal, the sea in front of me, the mountains behind. But some things don't change.

John: free speech is important. It's absolutely vital in a democracy. Of course there is no argument about that. But things can go wrong.

When one person's, or group's free speech has the effect of stifling another's, then it is time to think about what has gone wrong, because something clearly has. It is written in our constitution that EVERYONE has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What has happened at heelspurs during the last year is that one vocal group has stifled everyone else, and so some people no longer have those rights. The board had become a platform for a certain political agenda.

People were unhappy with this, and began to feel this was not a place they wanted to be, not a place where they felt comfortable. That was sad, and Scott has tried to deal with it.

Now I am going to bed, with the sound of the sea in my ears and the sky up above, full of stars. I'm getting my sense of proportion back - but I am still quite sure that it is right to deal with what has gone wrong with this Social/Support board.

John - it's about balance an fairness to all. Including those who have felt disenfranchised this year.