Thought the situation over and decided that the only way I was going to keep my 'cool' and remain here on this forum, was to place Rinky and Dinky's names on my 'Ignore List'. Some of the rest of you may want to consider this option.:whistle:
I've never used an ignore function on any internet site. It seems strange to visit a political discussion site and start filtering opposing viewpoints and stupid comments. It displays a little intellectual insecurity. It's very easy to comment when there is something to comment about, and pass over the rest of the stuff. Don't expect Thomas Paine and James Madison to show up. They're busy.
With the way things have been going, I wouldn't have been surprised if they had showed up. Basical you are right, and it's not the opposition and differing view points that cause me the any problems. It's just that I recognize the great possibility that when STUPID statements are made, and it appears to be intentional, I can come unglued. This I have decided will not happen with the two people I have black-balled so to speak. I really don't want to loose this forum to what is basically a tit-for-tat issue and then have no place to let it all hang out. I don't know how you do it Cloudy, my nature isn't one of 'turn the other cheek'. I do and will continue to fight back with all the strength in me. And you can bank on that! Yes, I'm admiting that I'm weak on letting some one use certain issues and immages to make me boil. So this is my way to attempt to keep an even keel. I can only hope that Peter keeps his word and keeps track of the events and happening on this forum a little closer and then disposes of those who do not abide by the decision that it isn't to happen again. I hope this explains my use of the delete or ignor button. By the way Cloudy, the line about "It displays a little intellectual insecurity." could be interpreted to be just a little bit of assumed intellectual superiority showing on your part. What do you think?
I think you should have included a sentince like. Sometimes there becomes a debate that goes beyond the limits of be being debatable. Or certain individuals that continually start rediculous threads or interupt topics or debates to purposely anger certain other members with insults and nothing else. Many times I have used the ignore feature to do nothing more than keep from getting evicted from CoinTalk. To control my temper and keep from saying something I will regret later. And a few days later when I cool down I will remove the ignore setting. If more people used the ignore feature Peter wouldn't have to continually come here and slap some hands before the looting starts. And Cloudy in my opinion the statement "It displays a little intellectual insecurity."Is exactly the kind of insulting phrase that will always get an angered response and start many of the problems that Peter is trying to control and stop.
Old Dan, Ol' Silver, The way I tolerate some of the things said is by not taking it too seriously. When you come right down to it, this is merely entertainment. I know going in that nothing is ever resolved, and no opinions have ever been changed through an online political chat room. Regarding the comment about "intellectual insecurity," I'm a little surprised that this phrase is considered the sort of inflamatory comment that Peter is trying to stop. I would think all of the personal insults thrown back and forth constantly would be more of a target for control. I've never become upset by any dissenting opinion, perhaps because I'm "intellectually secure" in my own beliefs. So I just try to have a good time throwing out some facts, stating some opinions, knowing the difference between a fact and an opinion, poking holes in the statements of others, and just being a tiny grain of sand in the gears of a world and nation that has gone mad.
Tiny grain of salt? It looks more like a monkey wrench that has beeen thrown in the spinning wheels of the CIVILIZED world! Just the other day in Boston, MA, you had hillzbollah supporters clashing with other Americans on OUR soil. It's madness that these animals are protesting the U.S. and Israel HERE, on this soil. I wish I was there...damn, I wish I was there to give them a piece of mind and my fist!
They can still affect public opinion if not debated. There is always a danger of incorrect information being taken seriously if repeated often enough and eventually being taken as fact. Speilberg has made that error with his hollywood style recreation the 1972 Olympic Massacre and aftermath. Many people view this as a documentary which it is not. This can be dangerous. Please take Muslim Extremism and lies seriously and continue to combat them.
Mamooney, Nothing can save a gullible public. You are probably right about Speilberg and other movie-makers tricking people into believing a false history. Even about 25% of what you read in a college history book is probably a deliberate deception, or maybe just an honest mistake. But you need to consider the possibility that your belief that posting messages here is "combatting muslim extremism" is just about as accurate as believing that the US defeated the USSR in Afghanistan because it was in a Rambo movie. So lighten up and have some fun. Try to give and receive factual information when you can. Be very careful to distinguish between fact and opinion. Consider the possibility that sometimes, you might be wrong [or as a friend of mine once said jokingly, "I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken."].
Thanks for your insight.... Here is a translated quote from World War II They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. It is always important to speak up for yourself and others for what you believe in.
It really shoulddn't surprise any one that this is taking place in this particular location. The real wonder is that Ted Kennedy and his crowd wasn't out there helping them carry their flags and banners.
Nor can hiding your head in the sand and pretending it isn't happening. It sure didn't stop a nut in Seattle from walking into a group at prayer, killing one and wounding four. All the time yelling " I hate Jews". The excuses have already started being made suggesting "he was at his wits end" and "had no where to turn to for guidance'. Remember when the churches were fire bombed in the south? Didn't take them long to name names and put a reason for the actions. As I remember it was called 'race related' and proceded to go down hill from there. Lets see just how long it takes them to get this one right, If they ever do!
Old Dan, I'm not pretending that it isn't happening. I'm just not pretending that anything can possibly be resolved in an online political chat room. So I'll just continue to take it a bit more lightly around here than you do. I expect most people to ignore most of my comments, and I expect to ignore most of theirs. Going from memory, I believe the TV networks stopped covering the church burnings when it was revealed that it was largely a black-on-black crime and not the white-on-black crime that the networks were hoping for.
I didnt think HATE speech was protected. It is too late to do some research on that this morning. But I am sure it isnt a right. I thought I lost all you guys for awhile. I could not find the political thread where it used to be. Oh, BTW. Here is a peaceful religion article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14082298/
Hate speech is protected. It has to be. Because one man's hate speech is another's gospel truth. And each man has a right to say their piece. Each man, however, is not guaranteed an audience. One can't make people listen. If that speech leads to an action violating another's rights, then society, in its self-interest, can limit it. The real problem comes in defining how speech goes from annoyance to a violation of rights.
Okay, if the Hate Speech results in physical harm to an individual would that be legal? Here is a nice link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14082298/ I would say all the hate speech this MUSLIM (hmmm that is strange, another Terrorist who is a Muslim) has heard would be considered Hate Speech even if he didnt kill anyone. It may not be ILLEGAL without some form of action to go along with it, but that day is coming soon. Let some more of these Muslim Terrorists keep attacking innocent people and see if we dont get some wartime Freedoms taken from us temporarily. It wont be the first time. I wonder if these libs think that attack was just a random act of violence and still dont see who the real enemy is. We may be able to win this war a lot faster if that headline read....Police: Seattle Muslim ambushed teen
