Black Dog

And yet.

Oh so he's a different kind of misogynist.

Well, I guess you're just a better person. You're missing the point. Trolling is against the rules, disrupts the discussion and makes time spent here less worthwhile and enjoyable. I have been a member here since 2003 so I feel invested and would like to continue to be so. The direction the board has taken of late and the selective enforcement of site rules by the moderator(s) has me questioning whether its worth my time.

Yeah, a bunch of people (mostly long term users) are fed up with a persistent and self-confessed troll who has been allowed free reign to disrupt discussion on these boards for far too long. Go figure.

That's exactly it. Unions and the Sun demo in one shot. Bad policy but good politics.

I don't know if he means it. It's a dumb policy for sure. I am imply speaking to your question of the motivations behind such a policy, motivations which will forever be shrouded in mystery.

See there's thing thing called "context"... Be that as it may, perhaps ask yourself what would prompt such a sudden and visceral reaction. I am not talking about that particular instance, but a persistent pattern of behaviour. But since we're on the subject, the "something new" was completely off-topic and irrelevant. But sure, the response was the problem.

You mean the statement he made at a campaign event? I have no idea what could be behind this!

Yeah it's a real head-scratcher why a party usually considered soft on crime would make statements like this in the midst of a hotly contested election campaign. Guess we'll never know their motivation.

Since it seems some people need a refresher course on the rules: I mean: come on. This is obviously distinct from personal attacks or insults. Point is this: rules against personal attacks are regularly and enthusiastically enforced, as they should be. Persistent trolling, however, appears to be is tolerated.

Why does it matter? Why should the government be concerned with an individual's biological sex at all?

Trolling is a violation of forum rules, whether the moderators choose to enforce that rule or not.

And what principle is that?

The purpose of trolling is to incite such things, so yeah, it was the trolling that got that topic shuttered. If certain posters continue to incite certain responses (and not because they are bringing anything new or challenging to the table), doesn't it make sense to excise that cancer?

Read a great piece on this earlier this morning that cemented by 180 turn from my original post. It's worth a look: link. The comments, for once, are worth a read as well. And when I think about it more, I wonder now as an adult how many of the total shitheads I see in the rec sports I play were raised with the attitude that winning is the only thing that matters.

Thinking about this a bit more, and I'm coming around. It all depends on the circumstances of course, but I don't see anything wrong with a token to show you were part of something. the first time I ran a 10K race I got a medal despite not winning a damn thing. But it was a personal achievement and I appreciated having something to show for it. Similarly, when I was a kid and we all got participation ribbons at the track meet, we all knew they weren't as significant as the ones for first place. Er, so basically, what Moonlight Graham said earlier.

We got participation awards in elementary school in the early 80s. It's a Gen X thing I think.

I didn't say anything about millennials tho.

"In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income." A unadjusted flat tax rate (one without rebates or exemptions) is a regressive tax because it doesn't take relative income or spending into account. Pretty simple.

Do you have any evidence that this is the rationale for this policy? Because your explanation sounds like a crock of shit.

I'd suggest you consider what "relative to resources" means before you accuse others of comprehension problems. I love that you're still crying about the thread you made that no one cares about.

You missed the rest of the quote there. "...there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."

Telling kids that just turning up is an achievement worth recognizing is dumb. I'd like to think kids aren't fooled, but given the state of entitlement among the participation generation, I'm not so sure.