Ed!!Posted by JudyS on 9/28/03 at 13:14 (131515)
Dr. Ed good grief - you go to far.
You are doing exactly the same thing you did last spring - you are acting like a baby because you don't like (a) being disagreed with and (b)Scott's decision. You're working pretty hard at being antagonistic now and I suggest you let it go. Get over it. Your inacurrate inflammatory statements include:
1. Bonnie DID NOT say she was leaving this website. She simply asked you for a referral to another. I assume YOU visit sites other than this?
2. NO ONE indicated they wanted to limit your political point of view. Some of us EVEN AGREE WITH IT! We just indicated that we were happy about Scott's decision because political discussions here ALWAYS create problems - geez, look at our track record!
It's time to stop attacking Carole - she's really just your convenient scapegoat isn't she because you're in the middle of a temper tantrum. Whatever she said yesterday Ed you've gotta own this - YOU have never been any LESS culpable of insensitive remarks in sensitive discussions than anyone else! That stuff has been pretty even throughout political discussions since 9/11.
Last, there is nothing wrong with wanting this site to be less involved with topics that are sensitive. NOTHING! Quit making up snide little remarks about those of us who simply want the peace that originated with this site years ago.
Ed, quit being a baby. Scott gets to do what he wants and some of us get to agree with him without your histrionics.
If we decide to continue this then I'll be the first to ask Scott to put the message board on hiatus again.
Re: Ed!!Ed Davis, DPM on 9/28/03 at 13:20 (131520)
If you are objectively interested in the welfare of this board, look at the string below in which Carole again attacks me. Delete that and we will all call it a day.
Re: Ed!!JudyS on 9/28/03 at 13:29 (131523)
I see strings where Carole 'attacks' people and people 'attack' Carole. I'm not deleting any of it. Don't even think about using me to assuage your anger.
My little 'delete' capability is an EXTREMELY tetative one not to be taken lightly. I think the arguments you get involved in have pretty evenly distributed insensitivities so it'd take LOTS of deletions to even attempt to be fair. In fact, I'd have to delete some of my own posts - especially the last 'Ed' one.
If you and I will get off this stuff then we'll call it a day.
Re: deleitng postsPhil C on 9/28/03 at 13:34 (131526)
You are, unfortunately, taking sides here and not being objective. Yes, there was an exchange of words below but, at some point, when one poster attacks the sanity of another poster, I think things have gone too far.
I would encourage Ed to defend himself as he sees fit. Using insults. like calling someone a 'baby' for wanting to defend his or her views certainly shows what you are made of. What you are made of is not looking very good at the moment.
Either do your job objectively or expect the conflict to go on!
Re: Stop this now!marie on 9/28/03 at 13:50 (131530)
Ok I've heard about enough. Sometimes you just have to take the high road. Obviously there seems to be some folks who are worn out from the political discussions...I can't blame them a bit. Now it's no ones fault but those who continued to post without consideration to others. Now PLEASE get beyond this. The only crazy thing here this morning is this discussion. DROP IT. If this makes me a meany head then so be it.
Ed if you and D Thomas hook up to create a chat area for politics let me know. Until then please all of you do your best to be civil.
Some of us are trying. All I ask is some effort here!!!!!!!!!
marie, the meany head and proud of it!
Re: Stop this now!Ed Davis, DPM on 9/28/03 at 13:58 (131533)
D. Thomas and I are going to communicate about a survery he is putting together on PF sufferers -- it has nothing to do with politics.
I, for better or worse, must agree with Phil's request to ScottR to give the message board a rest -- just for 2 to 3 months.
Your intentions are good and I appreciate that. Two of us have asked Judy to be objective in her deletion of posts. I agree with John on most things but he will not intervene to delete posts. That seems to leave Judy who just refused to delete a string upon my request.
Think about it. If no one was allowed to fight, there would be no fights.
Again, we need someone willing to delete posts and do so objectively, not based on their agreement or disagreement with what has been said.
Re: Stop this now!JudyS on 9/28/03 at 14:11 (131536)
Dr. Ed let me be perfectly clear in case you missed my reference to 'fair' in my last post.
With or without my 'moderator' role, I feel that many have attacked many. I do not agree/disagree with you, Carole, Phil, et. al (except on the political discussion thing) - I think everyone has been pretty contributive in the insult department so I'm not deleting any of it.
I also showed an opinion when I said that I think you're being a baby by demonstrating misleading histrionics. I also showed an opionion last night when I agreed with some of your board ideas. That makes me pretty open-minded where you're concerned - just as I am with everyone I've had the pleasure of encountering here - so I have no need to defend a bias that's non-existent.
And now look where I am - just as John h said regarding deletions- darned if I do and darned if I don't
Re: Stop this now!marie on 9/28/03 at 14:22 (131538)
Judy deleted the HAHA post. Now I am sorry to say this but we need to put this discussion to rest. I DO NOT want the board shut down for 2-3 months. I repeat I DO NOT WANT THIS BOARD SHUT DOWN. What I want is for you to get the bigger picture here. You're hurt, ok, that doesn't give you the right to monopolize this board and create havoc and revenge. Now for the sake of the people who suffer with chronic pain ....GIVE IT A REST! Let someone else have a turn. STOP THIS NOW! Take the high road.
sincerely, one big meany head, marie
Re: Stop this now!Ed Davis, DPM on 9/28/03 at 14:26 (131539)
Has anyone disagreed that the string of posts I asked to be deleted not be deleted? As such, your are not 'damned if you do.'
You insist on using inflammatory language - 'baby' 'histrionics' directed at me and that is why I have to question your objectivity. We can agree and disagree on things but when the name calling starts, that changes things for the worse.
Re: Stop this now!Ed Davis, DPM on 9/28/03 at 14:32 (131541)
You seem to imply that it is about me. But if we keep the status quo what do posters like BG, John, Bonnie, Peter and others have to deal with?
What happens to new posters who may want to come here only to be 'run off' by a few. That is part of the big picture too.
Re: Stop this now!John H on 9/28/03 at 18:57 (131581)
Ed: You have touched on the crux of the problem when you say delete post 'objectively'. That would require a robot. We all bring our own predjuice and baggage when we make a judgement call. That is why I repeatedly say I go back to the Constitution and Freedom of Expression. We may not like what we read or hear but who among us is so wise as to say another's post should be deleted. We have people who are on oppsite ends of the poles on many subjects hear. It is going to have to be a really really bad post for me to delete. I served in the military of 22 years defending the right of all people to experess their opinions. I am not about to change now.
Re: Stop this now!Dorothy on 9/29/03 at 11:02 (131624)
John H.: You wrote to Ed, but I am interjecting anyway...
It seems to me that your reluctance to delete a post is well-intentioned but loses its value when applied equally to simple expression of opinion on some political issue versus someone actually endorsing the murder of another person, and doing so in the supposed guise of humor, or the other example that happened recently of posting Klan stuff and directing this at another poster. Your reluctance, it seems to me, holds water when applied to simple political, or other, discussions - even when heated - but does not hold water when comments cross over into territory that is neither opinion nor discussion. The loathsome comments made about the stoning of another human being had no place anywhere ever, and certainly not here. The insertion of the Klan garbage clearly warranted only deletion. Your rationale for the Constitutionally protected freedom of speech pertains to particular settings and circumstances. That is to say, it is ok not to invite people who say despicable things to your tea party and if they show up and say those things anyway, it is ok to tell them to leave or to eject them. Aside from all that, I am sure that your level head and common sense serves the board here very well. I prefer your attitude to the more controlling ones - although I do not want to mischaracterize your attitude. And anyway, someone who just climbed a mountain with foot problems and New Balance shoes should be able to delete or not delete at will, I reckon.
Re: Stop this now!john h on 9/29/03 at 12:42 (131630)
Dorthy: Are your suggesting that I should not have mentioned the stoning of a woman or the KKK in making a point? These are real things that exist in real life. Only through discussions and news has the woman's life been saved. Perhaps you would like to be the moderator/censor. I have no objection to you replacing me. Just send Scott an email and advise him and you can assume the responsibility.
It is interesting that on 48 Hours on TV last night a feature was on freedom of speech. Points made are that Universities not only promote free speech and heated discussions but that in a functional society like ours that they do not need to be civil or even nice. One college in Pennsylvania say they promote free speech but have set up rules on how you can argue. They want freedom of speech to be conducted in a 'civil' manner. They are being sued by FIRE and I think the ACLU as restricting free speech. Other Universites who may have restricted free speech by imposing rules such as civility are also being sued under 1st Ammendment Rights. I am sure you would agree that some of the arguments we see on the floor of both the House and Senate are anything but civil. People have been shot and fights have broken out in both houses. Debates in real life are anything but civil and can get mean and nasty. Civil Liberterians argue this is necessary. The Civil Rights Movement was anything but civil and to get to where we are now it took some very uncivil behavior and speech. I am not a fan of the ACLU or by no means a Civil Liberterian. Actuallly I would like to restrict a lot of speech and behavior but I hope I am wise enough to understand the ramifications of taking the first step in restricting peoples speech. As you know Martin Luther King promoted civil disobedience. In our case we are only talking about a little social board which is not a grain of sand on the beach but if you compromise in the little things you can compromise in the big things. You seem to indicate I should have not used the words 'KKK' or the news item about the woman being stoned. Should we have ignored 9/11 where nearly 3000 people were blown up. You cannot bury your head in the sand and pretend bad things do not happen. You must face them squarely and face them for what they are. On this board, and I have been here from almost day one. such subjects as Hitler, the concentration camps, Pol Pot, Stalin, and countless other topics have been hashed over. To suggest that my mention of the KKK or the stoning of the woman breaks some rule of civility and should be deleted does not make sense. We talk of not discussing politics. How can you separate many of the important things of the day from politics? Almost any thing from war to religion concerns politics. The Social Board was never limited in the begining to anything and in my opinion should never be restricted to any subject. We have rude people, uncivil people, and all sorts of people who stop in or who are here and post. We all need to hear those we disagree with or even dislike as you can learn something about yourself. I come down squarely on the side of the 1st Ammendment and right of free speech even to those who I totally and unconditionally disagree with.
I wish Scott had a board where no one could argue, no one could could discuss anything political, everyone was nice, and everyone agreed on everything. I bet it would not occupy much space or be inhabited by many posters. If Scott will tell me how much such a board would cost him I might foot the bill my self. I want to hear the views of people I disagree with. The arguments from one side of the abortion debate issue finally persuaded me to change my view. I think some of the wild post that show up here are people who just stop in to create controversy. Some are probably just mischevaous teens. We have had more than one person post under a psuedonym. I say again if you do not like what a particular poster post do not read his/her post. No one makes you read them. Read only those post from people you know will agree with you. This sure beats censoring people and playing God on who and what should be censored.
Re: Stop this now!john h on 9/29/03 at 12:45 (131631)
Dorthy: It is not your tea party and it is not my tea party. As a matter of fact it is not a tea party. It has been a board for any discussion what so ever and not limited by the owner.