***Official PSF Moderation Thread***

[rockaction 14,324]

18 minutes ago, krista4 said:

Ha. I honestly am not certain what’s going on here.

Nor I. 

[Herb 1,175]

1 hour ago, krista4 said:

Ha. I honestly am not certain what’s going on here.

You're better for it.

[knowledge dropper 3,417]

Just don’t compare a voting block to tribbles.  Apparently, that’s very offensive.  

[tonydead 4,733]

Quote

 

Warning

Content:Democratic Debates

Penalty:

Given 1 points which will never expire.

Restricted from posting - 6 days and 2 hours

Banned - 6 days and 2 hours

  

Note:

Quote

 28 minutes ago, eoMMan said:

Let's hear more from the ladies. 

Agree, less questions to Sen Warren.  

Don't do this.

 

What's wrong with wanting to hear from the ladies on the stage other than Warren?  Warren had fielded like 80% of the questions at that point.

[sho nuff 11,735]

23 minutes ago, tonydead said:

What's wrong with wanting to hear from the ladies on the stage other than Warren?  Warren had fielded like 80% of the questions at that point.

Seems obvious there you weren't referring to that...but inferring she wasn't a lady. 

Also 6 days is pretty harsh for that.  

[knowledge dropper 3,417]

34 minutes ago, tonydead said:

What's wrong with wanting to hear from the ladies on the stage other than Warren?  Warren had fielded like 80% of the questions at that point.

Wow.  6 days.  

[[scooter] 11,268]

Shoulda wrote "Fewer questions to Sen. Warren".

[knowledge dropper 3,417]

10 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Shoulda wrote "Fewer questions to Sen. Warren".

The point should be 6 days for a PERCEIVED insult of a Democratic politician vs. almost always 0 days for OBVIOUS and INTENTIONAL insults of the President is pretty telling and alarming. 

[sho nuff 11,735]

1 minute ago, knowledge dropper said:

The point should be 6 days for a PERCEIVED insult of a Democratic politician vs. almost always 0 days for OBVIOUS and INTENTIONAL insults of the President is pretty telling and alarming. 

People have been suspended for insults of the president. HTH

Someone was suspended for such a post about Sarah Sanders.  This claim of bias in the moderation is fake news.

[knowledge dropper 3,417]

2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

People have been suspended for insults of the president. HTH

Someone was suspended for such a post about Sarah Sanders.  This claim of bias in the moderation is fake news.

IIRC.  It was a pig reference and it wasn’t 6 days?

[GoBirds 5,785]

5 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

The point should be 6 days for a PERCEIVED insult of a Democratic politician vs. almost always 0 days for OBVIOUS and INTENTIONAL insults of the President is pretty telling and alarming. 

Hard to know where the line is, I was told a personal attack by a regular wasn’t a big deal and to only report if “way”over the line which is fine with me as long as we can dish it back. My experience though is that we can’t dish it back. The post mentioned above doesn’t seem across the line, much less way across the line. 

[[scooter] 11,268]

9 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

22 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Shoulda wrote "Fewer questions to Sen. Warren".

The point should be 6 days for a PERCEIVED insult of a Democratic politician vs. almost always 0 days for OBVIOUS and INTENTIONAL insults of the President is pretty telling and alarming. 

Nope. Pretty sure the point is that he used poor grammar.

[sho nuff 11,735]

2 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

IIRC.  It was a pig reference and it wasn’t 6 days?

Im not sure how long it was...as i said already 6 days for that was harsh.  But suspension length seems NFL like...arbitrary at times.  But there may have been other things that led ti the length.  I dont pretend to know what all the moderators saw.

[Bucky86 15,572]

Just now, GoBirds said:

Hard to know where the line is, I was told a personal attack by a regular wasn’t a big deal and to only report if “way”over the line which is fine with me as long as we can dish it back. My experience though is that we can’t dish it back. The post mentioned above doesn’t seem across the line, much less way across the line. 

The "line" moves often. Good luck trying to pinpoint exactly what that is at any given moment.

[John Blutarsky 1,706]

13 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I dont pretend to know what all the moderators saw.

Yet you claim the moderating is fair. 

[John Bender 6,517]

Imagine the guys who post in here are into football.

Edited July 2 by John Bender

[tonydead 4,733]

2 hours ago, tonydead said:

What's wrong with wanting to hear from the ladies on the stage other than Warren?  Warren had fielded like 80% of the questions at that point.

 

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Seems obvious there you weren't referring to that...but inferring she wasn't a lady. 

Also 6 days is pretty harsh for that.  

Thanks, but, I was hoping to get the mod's thoughts. 

@Clayton Gray

Did you think I was questioning Warren's sexuality?  I don't think there is any question, in my mind anyway, that she is female.  Or did you think that I was saying she wasn't a proper and polite person?  Does this new rule hold true for male candidates; anyone that suggests someone isn't a gentleman should be reported and given a week long time out?

TIA

[HellToupee 11,747]

4 minutes ago, tonydead said:

 

Thanks, but, I was hoping to get the mod's thoughts. 

@Clayton Gray

Did you think I was questioning Warren's sexuality?  I don't think there is any question, in my mind anyway, that she is female.  Or did you think that I was saying she wasn't a proper and polite person?  Does this new rule hold true for male candidates; anyone that suggests someone isn't a gentleman should be reported and given a week long time out?

TIA

Elizabeth Warren , my senator btw, is my most hated politician.Ever.  Not because she’s a democrat , I loved Deval Patrick, not because she’s a woman. The reason why is simple 

[NCCommish 7,488]

4 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Elizabeth Warren , my senator btw, is my most hated politician.Ever.  Not because she’s a democrat , I loved Deval Patrick, not because she’s a woman. The reason why is simple 

Well don't leave us hanging.  

[Da Guru 5,091]

1 hour ago, Bucky86 said:

The "line" moves often. Good luck trying to pinpoint exactly what that is at any given moment.

Yup..the line has always been very fluid. Believe me I know.

[Joe Summer 7,298]

Posts that question a woman's gender are generally frowned upon.

Edited July 2 by Joe Summer

[tonydead 4,733]

6 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Posts that question a woman's gender are generally frowned upon.

JFC    FWIW, I have zero doubt in my mind that Warren is female.  If that's what Clayton thought I was saying it says a lot more about him than it does me.  

[Max Power 1,621]

8 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Posts that question a woman's gender are generally frowned upon.

We shouldn't assume gender either...

[OrtonToOlsen 15,259]

7 hours ago, Da Guru said:

Yup..the line has always been very fluid. Believe me I know.

Oh please. Do go on.

[randall146 3,948]

17 hours ago, tonydead said:

JFC    FWIW, I have zero doubt in my mind that Warren is female.  If that's what Clayton thought I was saying it says a lot more about him than it does me.  

He probably thought that’s what you were saying because that is the clear meaning of the words you used. 

If you didn’t mean it that way you should be more careful.

[tonydead 4,733]

3 hours ago, randall146 said:

He probably thought that’s what you were saying because that is the clear meaning of the words you used. 

If you didn’t mean it that way you should be more careful.

Disagree.  Might I suggest you take Henry's advise here?

First - Context is everything.  If you, or Clayton, were watching the debate it should have been obvious that when eoMMan said, "Let's hear more from the ladies." he wasn't referring to Warren since she had fielded a large portion of the questions up to that point.  I was just reinforcing that.

Second - The term used was "ladies".  You claim to understand the meaning of that word, however, you must be unfamiliar with it's use as polite form of reference.  To jump to the conclusion that it is was being used as a synonym to gender is completely wrong, and frankly, insulting in of itself.

Edited July 3 by tonydead

[Politician Spock 5,153]

[jon_mx 7,222]

Come on folks, this is the 21st century.  We should not presume the gender of anyone.  That is a private and personal descion.  We need to talk in gender neutral terms unless someone specifically identifies themself that way.  

[randall146 3,948]

3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Come on folks, this is the 21st century.  We should not presume the gender of anyone.  That is a private and personal descion.  We need to talk in gender neutral terms unless someone specifically identifies themself that way.  

Good to see you agree that tony was jokingly questioning Warren’s gender

[jon_mx 7,222]

7 minutes ago, randall146 said:

Good to see you agree that tony was jokingly questioning Warren’s gender

Can we get back to questioning her Native American heritage?  

[timschochet 23,805]

4 minutes ago, randall146 said:

Good to see you agree that tony was jokingly questioning Warren’s gender

Suppose he had? 

I want to propose a change in the rules around here. It won’t be accepted but what the heck I’m going to propose it anyhow: 

We should never be allowed to insult or disrespect each other. We should always show each other the greatest amount of courtesy and be excellent at all times. Similarly, we should never make generalizations about large groups of people (all Democrats are socialists, most Trump supporters are racist,etc.) 

But we SHOULD  be allowed to insult, denigrate, make fun of, mock, politicians of all stripes. And nobody should be offended by that. 

[Joe Bryant 6,381]

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

 

But we SHOULD  be allowed to insult, denigrate, make fun of, mock, politicians of all stripes. And nobody should be offended by that. 

You're right. Will never happen here as long as I'm here. Politicians are people. 

We're all in this together. 

[timschochet 23,805]

2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

You're right. Will never happen here as long as I'm here. Politicians are people. 

We're all in this together. 

OK. Well I tried. 

[Ditkaless Wonders 14,857]

2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

You're right. Will never happen here as long as I'm here. Politicians are people. 

We're all in this together. 

Checking my internal taxonomies, adjusting the same to comport with this direction.

[tonydead 4,733]

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Suppose he had? 

I want to propose a change in the rules around here. It won’t be accepted but what the heck I’m going to propose it anyhow: 

We should never be allowed to insult or disrespect each other. We should always show each other the greatest amount of courtesy and be excellent at all times. Similarly, we should never make generalizations about large groups of people (all Democrats are socialists, most Trump supporters are racist,etc.) 

But we SHOULD  be allowed to insult, denigrate, make fun of, mock, politicians of all stripes. And nobody should be offended by that. 

Tim, you can PM (or email) me all the names you'd like to call Trump if it makes you feel better.

[timschochet 23,805]

1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Checking my internal taxonomies, adjusting the same to comport with this direction.

Is your spine still in place? Do you have a moral compass? 

(Just kidding Joe). 

Edited July 3 by timschochet

[Ditkaless Wonders 14,857]

11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Is your spine still in place? Do you have a moral compass? 

(Just kidding Joe). 

Being an attorney I sort of appreciate you presuming that I might have either. Thank you.

[randall146 3,948]

19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Suppose he had? 

I want to propose a change in the rules around here. It won’t be accepted but what the heck I’m going to propose it anyhow: 

We should never be allowed to insult or disrespect each other. We should always show each other the greatest amount of courtesy and be excellent at all times. Similarly, we should never make generalizations about large groups of people (all Democrats are socialists, most Trump supporters are racist,etc.) 

But we SHOULD  be allowed to insult, denigrate, make fun of, mock, politicians of all stripes. And nobody should be offended by that. 

I don’t disagree, but it’s not my board, and I don’t have an issue with how the board is run  

To me it’s obvious what tony meant, but also obvious he was joking. My issue is with him now parsing words to pretend something different. 

[Don't Noonan 4,118]

11 minutes ago, randall146 said:

I don’t disagree, but it’s not my board, and I don’t have an issue with how the board is run  

To me it’s obvious what tony meant, but also obvious he was joking. My issue is with him now parsing words to pretend something different. 

I think you are dead wrong on this. To each his own.

[tonydead 4,733]

1 hour ago, randall146 said:

I don’t disagree, but it’s not my board, and I don’t have an issue with how the board is run  

To me it’s obvious what tony meant, but also obvious he was joking. My issue is with him now parsing words to pretend something different. 

Were you reading the thread while watching the debate?

[Ghost Rider 4,428]

2 hours ago, timschochet said:

Suppose he had? 

I want to propose a change in the rules around here. It won’t be accepted but what the heck I’m going to propose it anyhow: 

We should never be allowed to insult or disrespect each other. We should always show each other the greatest amount of courtesy and be excellent at all times. Similarly, we should never make generalizations about large groups of people (all Democrats are socialists, most Trump supporters are racist,etc.) 

But we SHOULD  be allowed to insult, denigrate, make fun of, mock, politicians of all stripes. And nobody should be offended by that. 

Aren’t you the same guy who called another poster a liar in another thread today? Yes, you ate. 

Nice grandstanding here in the mods thread in an attempt to look pure. 

[randall146 3,948]

1 hour ago, tonydead said:

Were you reading the thread while watching the debate?

For context?  The context was someone said the women should get more questions. You agreed and said Warren should get less. The context of agreeing, immediately followed by saying warren should get less, shows your meaning. 

If you meant what you claim, you’d have said, “agreed, but Warren should get less” or “agreed, except for Warren.”

It’s frustrating having to explain how plain English works to folks in this forum. 

[HellToupee 11,747]

16 minutes ago, randall146 said:

t’s frustrating having to explain how plain English works to folks in this forum

Do you often get frustrated with people who aren’t fluent in English?

[randall146 3,948]

2 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Do you often get frustrated with people who aren’t fluent in English?

Not at all. Just people that are selectively obtuse. 

[dkp993 3,375]

47 minutes ago, randall146 said:

Not at all. Just people that are selectively obtuse. 

 You must be frustrated a lot around here 

[timschochet 23,805]

2 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

Aren’t you the same guy who called another poster a liar in another thread today? Yes, you ate. 

Nice grandstanding here in the mods thread in an attempt to look pure. 

Last night. I affirmed it today.

Again I have no idea whether or not Don't Noonan is a liar in real life. But I DO know that the majority of his posts in this subforum are filled with falsehoods and dishonesty. That's really not debatable at this point.

[Ramblin Wreck 11,413]

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Last night. I affirmed it today.

Again I have no idea whether or not Don't Noonan is a liar in real life. But I DO know that the majority of his posts in this subforum are filled with falsehoods and dishonesty. That's really not debatable at this point.

Not even in the top 10 posters with falsehoods

[timschochet 23,805]

12 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Not even in the top 10 posters with falsehoods

Well I wasn’t keeping a list. I guess it’s nice to know somebody is. 

[Ramblin Wreck 11,413]

7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Well I wasn’t keeping a list. I guess it’s nice to know somebody is. 

Everyone here knows you have a top 100

[tonydead 4,733]

1 hour ago, randall146 said:

For context?  The context was someone said the women should get more questions. You agreed and said Warren should get less. The context of agreeing, immediately followed by saying warren should get less, shows your meaning. 

If you meant what you claim, you’d have said, “agreed, but Warren should get less” or “agreed, except for Warren.”

It’s frustrating having to explain how plain English works to folks in this forum. 

If you think that's frustrating you should try it out when people completely ignore the context explained to them.  One simple "but" after the comma would have cleared it all up for you huh?  And it's telling that you used your own version of what EoMMan said.