Why Has Greg Abdicated His Responsibilities

[Montgomery Burns]

This poll sucks because it presumes that Greg is doing something wrong, so I'm not voting.

It's a 'troll poll'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never voted either. The 3 who did vote showed their true colors.

[cybercoma]

and greg can see who voted for what with this forum software, so I'm voting political biases just for the hell of it.

[cybercoma]

This poll sucks because it presumes that Greg is doing something wrong, so I'm not voting.

It's a 'troll poll'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never voted either. The 3 who did vote showed their true colors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I guess if you take these things seriously...

[Cartman]

The thread was appropriate because it was topical and showed the ugly side of the left - who were using dead people to further their political agenda.

Had you created a thread saying that hatred is evident in any political party, I would have gladly supported your efforts. This is not what you did.

As for your African-Americans comment, it is a strawman's arguement. And it wasn't me who suggested that Bush was laughing about ni**ers dying.

I do not believe you read my last post carefully. I never claimed you made such a statement so it cannot be said that I am constructing a straw man. I said that the thread title was inappropriate because it stereotyped an entire group of people and this is impossible to disprove (or prove). The only way to disprove that the left is hate filled, would be to cite a poll demonstrating that people who identify themselves as leftists also have reduced levels of hatred. I doubt that such a poll is available.

This is stereotyping "The Ugly Hate Filled Left"

This is not "Examples of Hatred from the Left"

People like you are scary. You want anything deleted or anyone censored who does not agree with your political agenda.

Not true. I have had several good debates here with people of all stripes. I enjoy diversity, but I do not tolerate stereotyping. You should follow examples of others on the right who post with sincerity and politeness.

And BTW, it is not just you IMO. B.Max created a similar thread entitled " The left outed once again: A despicable lot". Individuals on the left may be despicable, but the entire lot?

Oh, and Greg is back. And it appears that your wish of your opponents being "punted" turned into another fantasy, instead of reality.

My fantasy? First, please refrain from thinking about or constructing my fantasies. That disturbs me. Second, I just think Greg should warn you, not ban you...not yet anyways.

[Tawasakm]

Tawaskasm is a disappointment to me. He has obvious intelligence and power of expression yet he has always wanted the threads to be an academic debating society. More than that even. He wants posts to be peer reviewed papers.

Eureka,

In point of fact I was asking that those who make statements of fact be ready to back them up. I don't know how many times I said that opinion and deductive reasoning are completely valid arguments. My problem was always in dressing those things up as facts and then refusing to back up that assertion.

Sorry for the disappointment - which, by the way, runs both ways.

Mirror,

I understand your point of view. When I joined this forum I was attracted by the quality of debate and it is something that is worth preserving. However Greg is only one person and probably has many other committments. I see that he raised the possibility earlier of getting some help with the moderation. This is an avenue that may well be worth exploring although that it appears his idea was shot down.

This forum could be the best or one of the best around. That always take special effort to maintain. While it is worth it I don't know it can be expected that one person can do this. Alot of it, of course, must come from posters being mature enough to self regulate but it is a fantasy to think that everyone who comes here will do that. Moderation is necessary to maintain quality. I think Greg has, over all, been a very good moderator. After all this forum generally continues to be of good quality. If I had any helpful suggestion to make it would be that he might look to find some help. There may be teething problems but, more then likely, it would just make things smoother and faster.

I can't see how this forum needs continuing stereotyping fuelling 'debate'. Such abbreviations as 'LLL' are symptomatic of 'ranting' not 'debating'. There are intelligent posters here who will respond thoughtfully but I can observe the quality of their posts being affected too. After a while you can see things like 'STFU' sneaking in. The quality is being lost. I don't believe that it hurts to insist on the quality of 'respect' being required from posters in their arguments.

Eureka said this:

And, their "over-the-top threads have the rather surprising side benefit of beinging out some real political ideas in the correction and chastisement of the offenders.

I would say that those political ideas could be introduced without any of the stereotyping, insults etc that accompany them and would, in fact, be far more powerful without them. Most importantly debate is more easily encouraged without all that nonsense. More ideas would be exchanged and explored and more insights gained with a more mature debating style. Combativeness does not enhance discussion.

Well thats my two cents.

[Tawasakm]

Incidentally I did not vote in the poll since I don't think it is entirely fair to Greg. Obviously I have some 'issues' with things here but I think we can all see that Greg has done his best to be a fair moderator and to do a good job - even if I don't agree with all his decisions.

[Cartman]

Greg said:

3) Statements such as, "Conservatives are all fascists" or "Liberals are all theives" or "NDPers are communists" will no longer be tolerated in these forums (these are just a few examples). The rule against using insults against individual posters has now been extended to include third-parties, such as nationalities, political parties, etc.

Then, in only one miraculous post in the thread "Why isn't Canada helping to promote democracy?, Why isn't Canada in Iraq?" Burns said:

Only the communistica-left would call building a democracy in the Mid East "BS".

I'm going to take a wild guess and state that I believe that Err is a socialist who believes in stealing from the productive and giving to the non-productive, so they can everything for "free" - courtesy of the productive.

I beat Black Dog....like a Dog, and forced him to give up like a broken beaten Black Dog.

Since the Islamopussies can't beat the US in face to face combat, they have to resort to acts of terrorism against the innocent Iraqi people trying to establish a democracy.

That is why terrorism has increased. All the better to have most of them in one spot to track and whack them.

Do you have any idea how dumb you sound?

Do you get all your news from Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style CBC?

[Black Dog]

I've been here a while, not as long as some but a lot longer than most. I don't really think it's been getting worse, as there have always been unsavoury characters around (I shan't name names). What's interesting about this one is that, unlike Rabble or FreeDominion, there's no dominant idealology in place here: it's a free for all. As a result, you get trolls and assorted crazies from all persuasions dropping by. Some get banned, some lose interest, some ahng about. None are worth losing sleep over. Sometimes it can get a bit ugly, but generally things are decent and there are a number of intelligent and rational posters.

[shoop]

I love the irony of you attacking another poster for violating MLW rules.

Yet more irony due to your previous statement on alphmale behaviour.  He?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cartman, your knowledge/usage of the term irony ranks up their with Alanis Morrissette. Care to explain yourself....

[B. Max]

Sparhawk

Have you read the comments from people at News And Announcements who complain about the insulting comments that have now become regular here at MLW?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes mirro i have. There's one below by eureka.

Perhaps the last refuge of a scoundral, by those who can dish it out but can't take it.

I always thought i took it easy on you mirror, however if you would like me to take it even easier on you i can do that. Or any one else who has such a problem. Maybe you could start a list or something and anyone who wants to can add their name to it and i'll gladly oblige.

It, perhaps, says that you should enter a little more into the spirit of debate without running to the moderator.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Cartman]

Cartman, your knowledge/usage of the term irony ranks up their with Alanis Morrissette. Care to explain yourself....

Gee, thanx for the Alanis comparison. Don't you think it is ironic that you hurled personal insults at him when he is requesting Greg strictly apply MLW rules? You did more to prove his point than your own. Personal attacks make everyone look bad.

[Guest eureka]

I would not vote in this, of course, and I did not want to comment on Greg, either positively or negatively.

However, I must. Greg is an excellent moderator. That is shown in part by his tolerance of what is being said here. He allows debate to go on without interference unless it goes completely off the rails.

One of the problems with any forum I imagine is that most participants are enthusiastic amateurs and have no idea where lines should be drawn. Then there the few who think that they have a monopoly on ideas of how debates should be conducted and what should be the content.

Why not give this childishness a decent burial and get back to the playing fields?

[shoop]

Gee, thanx for the Alanis comparison.  Don't you think it is ironic that you hurled personal insults at him when he is requesting Greg strictly apply MLW rules?  You did more to prove his point than your own.  Personal attacks make everyone look bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't it ironic? That mirror attacks more people personally than any other poster on his board yet is whinging about the personal attacks.

There is a difference between taking issue with someone's actions, which I have done with Mirror's actions in my earlier comments on this thread; and "attacking them" personally, which none of my comments on this thread can be fairly seen as a personal attack against mirror.

Keep up the good work Greg!

[PocketRocket]

Dear Pocket Rocket,

Is It Just Me or....., ...is this place degenerating???

Cheers,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely. But you will notice that nowhere in that thread did I cast aspersions at GREG.

We are all supposedly adults here.

We shouldn't need a chaperone to tell us all to play nice.

A person can say just about anything in a non-offensive way, if they so desire.

Unfortunately, some people do not desire to be non-offensive.

(Edited to add)

And this thread is now 3 pages long, and you STILL haven't answered SPARHAWK's question.

[Renegade]

I would not vote in this, of course, and I did not want to comment on Greg, either positively or negatively.

However, I must. Greg is an excellent moderator. That is shown in part by his tolerance of what is being said here. He allows debate to go on without interference unless it goes completely off the rails.

One of the problems with any forum I imagine is that most participants are enthusiastic amateurs and have no idea where lines should be drawn. Then there the few who think that they have a monopoly on ideas of how debates should be conducted and what should be the content.

Why not give this childishness a decent burial and get back to the playing fields?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka, there is a lot of things I disagree with you on, but I'm 100% in agreement of your sentiment on this.

[Montgomery Burns]

The thread was appropriate because it was topical and showed the ugly side of the left - who were using dead people to further their political agenda.

Had you created a thread saying that hatred is evident in any political party, I would have gladly supported your efforts. This is not what you did.

As for your African-Americans comment, it is a strawman's arguement. And it wasn't me who suggested that Bush was laughing about ni**ers dying.

I do not believe you read my last post carefully. I never claimed you made such a statement so it cannot be said that I am constructing a straw man. I said that the thread title was inappropriate because it stereotyped an entire group of people and this is impossible to disprove (or prove). The only way to disprove that the left is hate filled, would be to cite a poll demonstrating that people who identify themselves as leftists also have reduced levels of hatred. I doubt that such a poll is available.

This is stereotyping "The Ugly Hate Filled Left"

This is not "Examples of Hatred from the Left"

People like you are scary. You want anything deleted or anyone censored who does not agree with your political agenda.

Not true. I have had several good debates here with people of all stripes. I enjoy diversity, but I do not tolerate stereotyping. You should follow examples of others on the right who post with sincerity and politeness.

And BTW, it is not just you IMO. B.Max created a similar thread entitled " The left outed once again: A despicable lot". Individuals on the left may be despicable, but the entire lot?

Oh, and Greg is back. And it appears that your wish of your opponents being "punted" turned into another fantasy, instead of reality.

My fantasy? First, please refrain from thinking about or constructing my fantasies. That disturbs me. Second, I just think Greg should warn you, not ban you...not yet anyways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Where's all the ugliness and hatred from the right in the Katrina aftermath? IT would be dishonest creating a thread titled "Hatred on both sides in the Katrina aftermath".

2) I find it telling that you are quibbling over how I titled that thread, but you were silent when one poster accused President Bush of sitting around doing nothing because it was only ni**ers dying warranted not a peep from you.

Apparently the way I titled that thread was more offensive to you.

And I never titled the thread "All of the left is ugly and hate-filled". I gave numerous (and could have given many many more) examples of the ugliness and hatred that popped up after Katrina. Indeed, it was another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Indeed, we saw many on this forum rushing in to politisize this tragedy. They know who they are. And you could not muster the energy to tell them to stop it. Perhaps you were too tired from complaining about the title of the thread. You even stated that the topic was illogical and that the thread and posts were "insane."

Illogical?

Insane?

3) It was not stereotyping. I provided numerous examples of deplorable conduct in the wake of a tragedy. Instead of stepping up to the plate and saying that it was deplorable conduct, apparently you wanted the thread deleted.

And your argument that it was like titling a thread called "Hate-filled African Americans" was a strawman. The irony that you used an argument like that was probably not lost on others on this forum - in the wake of your silence about the 'ugly claim' (there, I said it) that one poster made about Bush not caring about the Katrina victims in LA because they were mostly ni**ers.

4)

That is why Greg warned people to obey. So, when he gets back I assume a few people are gonna be punted.

Now you backtrack and say "I just think Greg should warn you, not ban you...not yet anyways" after I called you out on your statement.

I can't shake the feeling that you do not want anything posted on any topic that shows the left in a negative light, and if someone does post like that, you want them "punted". I hav noticed that many on the left seem to claim their free speech right, but when it comes to the right and free speech, it is another story.

Who could ever forget the hypocrisy of those leftists camped outside Fox News in NYC (during the Republican National Convention) chanting that Fox News should be taken off the air.

Then when a reporter from the NY Post confronted them, they said they were exercising their right to free speech.

You should follow the example of others on the left who sincerely and amiably condemned the actions of many of their own for their deplorable antics (blaming Bush for the inaction of local and state officials) and attempts to politicize the Katrina tragedy.

[Montgomery Burns]

Greg said:

3) Statements such as, "Conservatives are all fascists" or "Liberals are all theives" or "NDPers are communists" will no longer be tolerated in these forums (these are just a few examples). The rule against using insults against individual posters has now been extended to include third-parties, such as nationalities, political parties, etc.

Then, in only one miraculous post in the thread "Why isn't Canada helping to promote democracy?, Why isn't Canada in Iraq?" Burns said:

Only the communistica-left would call building a democracy in the Mid East "BS".

I'm going to take a wild guess and state that I believe that Err is a socialist who believes in stealing from the productive and giving to the non-productive, so they can everything for "free" - courtesy of the productive.

I beat Black Dog....like a Dog, and forced him to give up like a broken beaten Black Dog.

Since the Islamopussies can't beat the US in face to face combat, they have to resort to acts of terrorism against the innocent Iraqi people trying to establish a democracy.

That is why terrorism has increased. All the better to have most of them in one spot to track and whack them.

Do you have any idea how dumb you sound?

Do you get all your news from Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style CBC?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Are you denying that the communism is on the left side of the political sphere? Are you denying that communists don't want a democracy in Iraq?

2) When someone advocates socialism, you are forbidden to conclude that they are socialist? If someone wants to call me a capitalist, they are free to do so. I won't go running to the moderator and complain.

3) It was a reply to Black Dog insults to me. However, I admit I shouldn't have taken the bait. I should have taken the high road.

Curiously you failed to list Black Dog's insults. I find that telling.

4) I admit it was not the best choice of words, but I feel it is true. I think those Islamists are pussies for blowing up innocents and trying to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy.

Will you be offended if I call them Islamofascists. Historians call them Islamofascists. Or will you deem that offensive and not politically correct?

Can I call people who blow up innocent men, women, and children - terrorists? Or do I have to call them militants and activists so I don't offend you?

5) When someone makes an over-the-top statement claiming that Iraq and Al Qaeda were never linked, they sound dumb.

6) What is incorrect about calling the CBC, Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style news service?

[shoop]

6)  What is incorrect about calling the CBC, Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style news service?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely nothing.

They are keeping the only things people really care about, sports, antiques road show and those british soaps.

Don't really care if they ever come back.

[BHS]

I would not vote in this, of course, and I did not want to comment on Greg, either positively or negatively.

However, I must. Greg is an excellent moderator. That is shown in part by his tolerance of what is being said here. He allows debate to go on without interference unless it goes completely off the rails.

One of the problems with any forum I imagine is that most participants are enthusiastic amateurs and have no idea where lines should be drawn. Then there the few who think that they have a monopoly on ideas of how debates should be conducted and what should be the content.

Why not give this childishness a decent burial and get back to the playing fields?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka, there is a lot of things I disagree with you on, but I'm 100% in agreement of your sentiment on this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I concur.

[Cartman]

MB said:

I can't shake the feeling that you do not want anything posted on any topic that shows the left in a negative light, and if someone does post like that, you want them "punted". I hav noticed that many on the left seem to claim their free speech right, but when it comes to the right and free speech, it is another story.

Completely untrue MB. I enjoy thoughtful criticisms of the left. But, I do not enjoy automatic criticisms of the left. For example, when August recently stated, in the "Government Effectiveness" thread,

IMV, the Left must decide why governments exist and what they can do.

I then retorted that:

Point taken if only for the moment.  I need to give this more thought than a knee jerk reaction.

I think that Marx's law of accumulation has been found incorrect.

This demonstrates that I am willing to consider serious criticisms from those outside the left. Consider the significant nature of the criticism! He directly confronted the foundation upon which the left exists. I wonder if you would you ever respond in kind? If I said to you that "the right needs to think about why governments exist and what they can do", would you say you need to think about this criticism in order to provide a thoughtful answer? I could have simply cited examples where Harper has been inconsistent or where mistakes were made by the Conservatives. Instead, I chose to give his criticism some merit. After all, the NDP is not in power.

MB said:

I find it telling that you are quibbling over how I titled that thread, but you were silent when one poster accused President Bush of sitting around doing nothing because it was only ni**ers dying warranted not a peep from you.

Silent? When Argus stated in the thread "Hurricane Bush, Where was the US government?":

I didn't blame Bush for "everything" I blamed Bush for doing "nothing". Actually he did less than nothing, given he cut funding. And so given the obvious need one must surmise why he did that: the fact New Orleans is mostly made up of blacks and democrats is certainly a valid suggestion given Bush's known shallowness. Can you think of another reason to slash funds by up to 2/3rds?

I then said:

I am not sure whether racism entered into the equation, but I would be lying if I said it had not occurred to me.

Clearly, I was not silent because I responded to this statement. I claimed that I was unsure about the potential effects of racism. Being honest, I said that it had crossed my mind. It still does. Even major news anchors are saying as much. I was not silent and I have never stated that I believe race affected this situation; I only said that this possibility entered my mind. Thus far, however, I believe that Argus is winning the debate even though I think that government officials often take too much blame for such events. IMO, I see few reasons why Bush should be in NO when he can order sufficient relief from anywhere.

You may consider me an idealogue, but I am not. I have found August's proposition that markets represent cooperation very insightful and most difficult to refute. Though labeled an "extremist", I find Hugo's anarchist ideals most interesting and worthy of discussion. I even used them in a lecture I delivered a year ago. But, given a decision to vote for a party which wants to solve certain social difficulties and possibly spend too much doing so and voting for a party (parties) that do not consider them problems worthy of state consideration, I will choose the former. But, I have said many times that I believe any party could reduce waste and reduce the level of government intervention into people's lives at the same time. I am a "good government" advocate actually.

[Montgomery Burns]

Cartman, you were offended by me posting a thread about the ugly hate-filled reaction by the left towards Bush in the wake of the Katrina tragedy. That is why I titled it Bush Derangement Syndrome.

You were offended by my use of words like Soviet, Communist left, and socialist.

Yet you were not offended by a poster on this forum who used the very offensive word Ni**er. Indeed, you admitted that the thought crossed your mind that Bush's actions were due to racism. How do you explain Colin Powell and Condi Rice being appointed - by Bush - to Secretary of State - a very high position in the US govt?

I can assure you I am no Bush lackey. The fact is that there is no reason to blame him for this tragedy.

There are many things I disagree with Bush on. Don't get me started on his crap response to the Mexican border (the Democrats could hammer him on that but they are worried about alienating Hispanics, which still vote more Democrat than Republican). I disagree with his spending like a drunken Ted Kennedy ($28 million to the arts community?!), his kid glove treatment of those blood-thirsty murderers at Gitmo (serving them Duck a la Orange), and his refusal to bomb the hell out of Syria (where many of the terrorists are coming into Iraq from), keeping that politically correct Norm Mineta as Secretary of Transportation, etc.

But of course, no one is perfect. I would only be content if I was in charge.

Be that as it may, I do believe that history will treat Bush kindly and he will go down as a great President. The left hates him with a burning passion, but they also hated Reagan just as bad back in the 80s. Now Reagan is considered one of the greatest Presidents ever. He helped (with Maggie Thatcher and the Pope) to collapse the USSR and 110 million people were liberated from the Evil Empire. Bush has liberated 2 countries (50 million people) that were previously under brutal dictatorships, and both have had free elections.

Plus I admire Bush's steely determination to do what he thinks is best. He doesn't "follow" whatever the latest polls say, like the wishy-washy Clinton did.

Plus, you've got to love a President who cuts taxes. I will never forget seeing him on TV - in response to a typical hostile question from the liberal press - saying, "Doggone it. It's the people's money and they should have it back."

How I wish Canada had a leader with that attitude towards OUR money.

I'm not saying that Bush is another Reagan, but I do believe he will be treated kindly by history.

[newbie]

"...

I can assure you I am no Bush lackey.  The fact is that there is no reason to blame him for this tragedy.

There are many things I disagree with Bush on.  Don't get me started on his crap response to the Mexican border (the Democrats could hammer him on that but they are worried about alienating Hispanics, which still vote more Democrat than Republican).  I disagree with his spending like a drunken Ted Kennedy ($28 million to the arts community?!), his kid glove treatment of those blood-thirsty murderers at Gitmo (serving them Duck a la Orange), and his refusal to bomb the hell out of Syria (where many of the terrorists are coming into Iraq from), keeping that politically correct Norm Mineta as Secretary of Transportation, etc.

But of course, no one is perfect.  I would only be content if I was in charge. 

Be that as it may, I do believe that history will treat Bush kindly and he will go down as a great President.  The left hates him with a burning passion, but they also hated Reagan just as bad back in the 80s.  Now Reagan is considered one of the greatest Presidents ever.  He helped (with Maggie Thatcher and the Pope) to collapse the USSR and 110 million people were liberated from the Evil Empire.  Bush has liberated 2 countries (50 million people) that were previously under brutal dictatorships, and both have had free elections.

Plus I admire Bush's steely determination to do what he thinks is best.  He doesn't "follow" whatever the latest polls say, like the wishy-washy Clinton did.

Plus, you've got to love a President who cuts taxes.  I will never forget seeing him on TV - in response to a typical hostile question from the liberal press - saying, "Doggone it.  It's the people's money and they should have it back."

How I wish Canada had a leader with that attitude towards OUR money. 

I'm not saying that Bush is another Reagan, but I do believe he will be treated kindly by history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that's staying on topic.

[Montgomery Burns]

Newbie, why are you so mean-spirited most of the time?

[Cartman]

What is incorrect about calling the CBC, Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style news service?

C'mon. Are you serious? Maybe because:

1. It is not Soviet and not true. Therefore, it is meant as an insult to those who enjoy the CBC. It is inappropriate to call anything communist, fascist, Nazi like etc., except communists, fascists and Nazis. It is that simple.

2. It is sarcastic.

3. It lowers the overall intelligence of the board and its contributors.

4. It is against the rules.

Yet you were not offended by a poster on this forum who used the very offensive word Ni**er.

Argus said he could see others using this reference or thinking of African-Americans in such a racist fashion.

[newbie]

MB, I just commented using sarcasm, you know the word well, in my response. And because the topic was about Greg, not about how you much you seem to love Bush. And you lecturing me about mean-spiritedness is rich. Could it be because I seem to disagree with your postion on just about everything. Check out some of your posts for examples of hateful rhetoric.