***Official PSF Moderation Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[sho nuff]

Help me out...so pigeon pictures caused a problem here? Seriously ?

Who said that?

O stated (factually) how they were used.

Its an example of something that may not cross the line but isn’t what the moderators here want.

 

[squistion]

Sure it was funny but the purpose was to annoy squis?  Correct?

That was the one and only purpose.

 

[John Blutarsky]

Yeah.  They were all in good fun but one guy complained until they got banned.   Sho isn't remembering that the pigeon poop emoji started in the cstu thread.  I don't think the moderator created that to troll Squistion

Wait....so pictures of pigeons triggered someone enough and now they are banned?

 

[Slapdash]

I agree with this. If David asks my opinion (he hasn't), I'd say he should acknowledge that he was too quick to accept certain claims about Pizzagate and Seth Rich on insufficient evidence.

But constantly bringing those things up in unrelated contexts is really tired and not conducive to good discussion.

Also, while explicitly acknowledging past errors is quite admirable, I think expecting others to do so usually means holding them to higher standards than we hold ourselves. I mean, in most cases, it seems to be a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of thing. I think we should mostly focus on the planks in our own eyes first.

The last time I posted about Dodds he threatened to permaban me and then deleted all the political threads, so I'm not making this comment lightly:

When he posts here, even recently, he posts obscure conspiracy theories and links to unreliable sources.  There is an aspect where people ride him for what he posted about Pizzagate.  But there is also a big aspect where he continues to make similarly poor judgement and shows little/no recognition of it.  I think it is fair for people to point out how that reflects upon the business as a whole.  Particularly since it is a large PITA to try and use your or Bloom's projections in the VBD or Draft Dominator app instead of his.

 

[squistion]

That was the name of the little emoticon.  But it was based on stuff they found in squis’s twitter.  The avatars were about him.

100% true.  CSTU had nothing to do with pigeons or birds of any kind.

 

[Slapdash]

Yeah.  They were all in good fun but one guy complained until they got banned.   Sho isn't remembering that the pigeon poop emoji started in the cstu thread.  I don't think the moderator created that to troll Squistion

The moderator didn't create it to troll Squisition, but you and other posters were using it that way.  Don't be disingenuous.  

 

[[scooter]]

I don’t understand why it’s necessary to crucify Dodds for anything when it’s usually coming from posters in here that have jumped all over conspiracy theory A-Z as long as it’s anti-Trump. I honestly don’t see how that is tolerated or allowed to any extent especially directed at an owner. 

I think it should be fair game to criticize anyone who posts conspiracy theories of any sort.

And it should be fair game to criticize anyone who posts fabricated claims about child porn.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

The moderator didn't create it to troll Squisition, but you and other posters were using it that way.  Don't be disingenuous.  

The avatar was funny and not trolling.  It was a pigeon wearing a GT football helmet.   You're correct many of us used the pigeon pooping emoji as a response to nonsense posted by both Squistion and others.  I didn't claim otherwise though.

 

[[scooter]]

Help me out...so pigeons pictures caused a problem here? Seriously ?

Yeah.  They were all in good fun but one guy complained until they got banned.   Sho isn't remembering that the pigeon poop emoji started in the cstu thread.  I don't think the moderator created that to troll Squistion

It wasn't all in good fun.

That's not to say that you didn't think it was funny. I'm sure you did.

But when the target of the joke doesn't think that it's funny, then it's not really "all in good fun", is it?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Yeah.  They were all in good fun but one guy complained until they got banned.   Sho isn't remembering that the pigeon poop emoji started in the cstu thread.  I don't think the moderator created that to troll Squistion

Lets be honest - the whole pigeon shtick started when someone found Squis' twitter account in the CSTU debacle.  Lots of people poked fun at Squis for his interest in pigeons.

Much like Pizza-gate, it became overblown, and probably offensive - in the sense that squis could reasonably take the mocking as mean-spirited, even if individual posters did not mean it that way.  It was overkill.

 

[GoBirds]

I think it should be fair game to criticize anyone who posts conspiracy theories of any sort.

And it should be fair game to criticize anyone who posts fabricated claims about child porn.

Let me know when you get this approved, there’s 31 pages of great material in here we could have a field day on. I’m all for it if it works both ways, just don’t feel onto Dodds getting crucified is fair. 

 

[John Blutarsky]

Why are pictures of pigeons offensive?

 

[Slapdash]

The avatar was funny and not trolling.  It was a pigeon wearing a GT football helmet.   You're correct many of us used the pigeon pooping emoji as a response to nonsense posted by both Squistion and others.  I didn't claim otherwise though.

Fair enough.  The pigeon dating game live stream (with hags drinking Welch's) was one of the high points on here.

 

[GoBirds]

Lets be honest - the whole pigeon shtick started when someone found Squis' twitter account in the CSTU debacle.  Lots of people poked fun at Squis for his interest in pigeons.

Much like Pizza-gate, it became overblown, and probably offensive - in the sense that squis could reasonably take the mocking as mean-spirited, even if individual posters did not mean it that way.  It was overkill.

Is this really what happened? How did anyone find his twitter and were there that many pigeons? 

 

[squistion]

The avatar was funny and not trolling.  It was a pigeon wearing a GT football helmet.   You're correct many of us used the pigeon pooping emoji as a response to nonsense posted by both Squistion and others.  I didn't claim otherwise though.

I did not find it and 20+ other related avatars funny and I found it trolling. It got so bad even Eminence (of all people) said "You guys have gone too far and this is cyber-bullying."

I will say to your credit that you were one of the first to voluntarily relinquish the mocking avatar as a show of good faith, and I will give you props for that.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Why are pictures of pigeons offensive?

when the intent, or the effect, was to mock someone posting here who happens to like Pigeons.

We mock what we do not understand and many of us did not understand a fascination with pigeons.  It was juvenile humor that eventually got out of control.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Fair enough.  The pigeon dating game live stream (with hags drinking Welch's) was one of the high points on here.

Oh my I had forgotten about that.  I only watched once but it was awesome

 

[Slapdash]

Oh my I had forgotten about that.  I only watched once but it was awesome

I was there live.  It was amazing.  Not sure how Squiz's pigeon thing got wrapped up in it, but man that CSTU guy was a scumbag for welching on all of those bets.

 

[John Blutarsky]

when the intent, or the effect, was to mock someone posting here who happens to like Pigeons.

We mock what we do not understand and many of us did not understand a fascination with pigeons.  It was juvenile humor that eventually got out of control.

Who has a fascination with pigeons?

 

[The Commish]

Yeah.  They were all in good fun but one guy complained until they got banned.   Sho isn't remembering that the pigeon poop emoji started in the cstu thread.  I don't think the moderator created that to troll Squistion

This is correct, but that's what it ended up being used for.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Who has a fascination with pigeons?

Its been answered a few times in this thread.  Its also not important now.  Move onward and upward.

 

[GoBirds]

Who has a fascination with pigeons?

Mike Tyson?

 

[The General]

That was the name of the little emoticon.  But it was based on stuff they found in squis’s twitter.  The avatars were about him.

Gotcha. I didn’t realize that. 

 

[The General]

You don't want to know.

Not sure what you did to rile these people up but I have seen them giving you all kinds of weird crap. Never really got what was going. You always seemed to handle it well.

 

[urbanhack]

Looks like everyone is having a great friday night.  lol

 

[Slapdash]

Looks like everyone is having a great friday night.  lol

Pretty great one over here.  Went out for a couple happy hour drinks with my workmates and then took the wife to dinner at her favorite place in town.  Hope everything is well for you!   

 

[squistion]

Not sure what you did to rile these people up but I have seen them giving you all kinds of weird crap. Never really got what was going. You always seemed to handle it well.

Thanks, I did the best I could with harassment on a daily basis that literally went on for months and reached almost demented proportions. I stuck it out because I decided that they weren't going to get their way and drive me from this site. 

Finally a few people (some who were critics of my politics and posting style) came forward and said "Enough is enough" and that this wasn't funny anymore (if it ever was). At that point Joe stepped in and killed the pigeon pooping emoji and the avatars gradually disappeared (whether voluntarily or involuntarily I can't say).

Anyway, I survived and lived to post tweets and other cool stuff for another day. 

 

[Binky The Doormat]

I seen too much bias to be convinced it does not exist.   But I believe eliminating bias is a near impossible task.   Similar to what MT mentioned above, things that get under my skin may not even register as offensive to mods.  I don't like it when posters flat out make up stuff I never said which attempts to make me look dumb or racist.  Hyperboles which I find offensive, do not register as offensive.

My posts are reflective of the posts I respond to.  If they are respectful, so are mine.  If they are snarky and personal, I usually point it out.  And if they continue, I get snarky back.   The difference is, my post gets reported 8 times.   It is frustrating when I endure multiple snarky attacks, but then I get singled out by the mods.   

There was an incident just last week where a mod was clearly being bias against me.   A poster made a vulgar attack against me.  Instead of a timeout or even a warning,  the vulgar part was removed by a mod without any trace of the edit and the post which still contained an offensive personal attack remained.   The posters just pretended it never happened, but Joe did stop by and properly addressed and corrected things.   I can mention a half dozen other cases.   

i seen it too man.  

 

[Don't Noonan]

Why are pictures of pigeons offensive?

Many of them weren't wearing clothes

 

[jon_mx]

Speaking of "trolling," one of the first changes I'd implement as queen is to bring the hammer down on the out-of-control use of that word to apply to nearly any instance of disagreement.  To me, more broadly speaking, the single most important change that could be made is to deal with those who spend more of their time talking about other people than they do about issues.  I hate boff sidez-ing it, but this is an area where I see plenty of egregious behavior from both sides of the aisle. Joe started a thread calling out two posters on that, and although I don't find the two he named even to be the worst offenders, I'm glad that someone acknowledged the issue. 

This is one of the biggest contention I have with the moderation.   I would guess I am the biggest recipient of personsl attacks on this forum.  When I try to simply point out this terrible tactic as I have done a thousand times, I get called a whiner eight thousand times, even by mods and Joe.  As you can see a couple posts above a more creative example of the typical response of implying I am some kind of whining idiot.  Maybe it will be addressed by the mods.  But yes the personalization of discussions is almost always where discussions fall off the cliff.   I am guilty of getting drawn into those, but one would be hard pressed to find one where I instigated it.  Typical sequence.  I try to discuss topics albeit with alternative/controversial viewpoint from the majority.   I get drawn into the mud by several snarky personal comments.  The mods single me out as the main culprit.  IMHO, the root cause is those who make the discussion personal.  

 

[HellToupee]

Anyway, I survived and lived to post tweets and other cool stuff for another day

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Who has a fascination with pigeons?

Things only heard at FBG PSF.

 

[Juxtatarot]

This is one of the biggest contention I have with the moderation.   I would guess I am the biggest recipient of personsl attacks on this forum.  When I try to simply point out this terrible tactic as I have done a thousand times, I get called a whiner eight thousand times, even by mods and Joe.  As you can see a couple posts above a more creative example of the typical response of implying I am some kind of whining idiot.  Maybe it will be addressed by the mods.  But yes the personalization of discussions is almost always where discussions fall off the cliff.   I am guilty of getting drawn into those, but one would be hard pressed to find one where I instigated it.  Typical sequence.  I try to discuss topics albeit with alternative/controversial viewpoint from the majority.   I get drawn into the mud by several snarky personal comments.  The mods single me out as the main culprit.  IMHO, the root cause is those who make the discussion personal.  

I wanted to provide an example of the bolded.  Not to attack you or argue with you though.  Maurile had an interesting post yesterday that mentioned how difficult it can be to realize personal bias.  I think we all struggle with that including me and including you. My hope is you'll try to keep this in mind when posting and responding to posts of others.

One of the things that I think frequently gets you in trouble is you post something that you think is a true statement or, even, just an opinion without realizing the effects it will have on others.  Others predictably get defensive, reply back to you in a similar way (or worse) and things go off the rails from there.

My example is this post.  For anyone following, I suggest reading the whole page so there can be an understanding  of context and the events that  occured after the post. You wrote:

This forum is openly hostile toward right-leaning ideas/posters.   Many are intimidated from posting.  

I think you will agree that nobody goaded you into posting this.  This post started everything that happened on that page and eventually resulted in Joe calling you out on the next page.

My guess is you think this is an innocent statement.  That it is your opinion that has plenty of support behind it.  My guess is also that you felt unfairly attacked after making it and were unfairly called out by Joe.

Let's consider how the left leaning majority of posters as well as FBG staff might feel when they read this.  Many will view it as an attack on the majority of the board and might immediately get defensive.  They will  think:  Who is "openly hostile"?  Not me!  Not the majority of posters I enjoy reading posts from!  I always try to be respectful when I engage with conservatives. The moderators try to be fair!  The right-leaning posters can be openly hostile too!

It's highly predictable that someone will respond to your criticism.  And, feeling attacked, probably not in the nicest of ways.  And, of course, that's exactly what happened.

Now, I'd like to give you credit.  I don't think you meant that the board as a whole is openly hostile.  You didn't mean that the majority of posters act that way.  You didn't mean that FBG staff condone open hostility.  I think you may have just meant that a small group of liberal posters can be hostile to conservative posters from time to time.

My recommendation when you feel you are being attacked is to step back.  Try to think about how they may have interpreted what you wrote differently than you intended.  Then try to rephrase what you wrote to provide a clearer understanding. 

 

[jon_mx]

My recommendation when you feel you are being attacked is to step back.  Try to think about how they may have interpreted what you wrote differently than you intended.  Then try to rephrase what you wrote to provide a clearer understanding. 

I appreciate the well thought out and respectful post.  The post in your example was not directed at any individual poster, it was a statement of how non-trump hating posters see this forum.  Meant as an honest criticism of the forum in hopes of maybe some improvement. 

If I were to poll just the non-Trump-hating posters, there would be near unanimous agreement that they see this forum as hostile towards them.   Of course most of the other posters would disagree.  I see no reasons why my post should have been called out.  Posts directed at a person specifically and with malice are much more offensive.  Mocking posts and those which belittle posters are the real problem, IMHO.  Sure most posters are not hostile and don't mock others, but most all posters see the attacks and seem more concern with me pointing out the attacks than the actual attacks themselves.  And that includes the mods.   

 

[krista4]

I appreciate the well thought out and respectful post.  The post in your example was not directed at any individual poster, it was a statement of how non-trump hating posters see this forum.  Meant as an honest criticism of the forum in hopes of maybe some improvement. 

If I were to poll just the non-Trump-hating posters, there would be near unanimous agreement that they see this forum as hostile towards them.   Of course most of the other posters would disagree.  I see no reasons why my post should have been called out.  Posts directed at a person specifically and with malice are much more offensive.  Mocking posts and those which belittle posters are the real problem, IMHO.  Sure most posters are not hostile and don't mock others, but most all posters see the attacks and seem more concern with me pointing out the attacks than the actual attacks themselves.  And that includes the mods.   

I enjoy your posts when you're posting on substance.  You're smart, and you have an interesting perspective that I'm interested in hearing, even if I disagree with it the majority of the time.

My sense is that you've shifted from meaningful posts to having more of them being about how you're treated.  I'm not alleging that you don't have any reason to feel attacked or slighted.  Hell, I've done it to you at least once.  But I wonder how to reset the conversation so that we can move on and get back to the more interesting stuff.  Is it a matter of having people acknowledge the mistreatment and trying to do better?  I'm willing to acknowledge it - not just directed at you but at Trump supporters, and vice versa from those folks to the anti-Trump side.  In terms of "doing better," I fear that even if people are 90% kinder you're so set in this "martyrdom" (I put that in quotes because it's not exactly what I mean but a simple way to get across a more complex concept) that you'll still focus on the other 10% in your posting.  Can we acknowledge that it's not going to be perfect, but that we (almost?) all have a goal of more civility and productive discourse and will each try harder in that regard?  If it gets much better, will that be enough to refocus the conversation?

I think a lot would be helped if each of the "sides" called out their brethren on their own side for going over the line.  I hate seeing someone posting an insult or something completely meant to offend, and then a bunch of people "like" it, and I'm sure I'm guilty of having done it, too.  I don't want to call out "my side" publicly, but I'd be open to ways to try to rein ourselves in and help those with whom we agree be more positive in their interactions.  I've sent a few "are you doing OK today because you're seeming like a jerk" PMs to people whose views I generally share.  Maybe I'll just utilize Maurile's idea of marking the "sad" emoticon every time I see it.     Sounds silly but might gently make the point.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I've sent a few "are you doing OK today because you're seeming like a jerk" PMs to people whose views I generally share.

#NotaJerk  (or #kristadoesntcareenoughtocomment)



But seriously - I agree with krista and MT, and Joe, and others who really just want this divisive subject to be a bit less personal and a little more substantive.

I get that sometimes instincts take over, and the need to get a zinger in overwhelms the best of us.  

I am not here to change anyone's mind on any topic - at least not directly.  I am happy to engage in conversation/debate, but really, I am here to be informed - I love learning/reading - I am here to be entertained (I have a great, albeit warped, sense of humor).  I hope that in exchange that I am informative - both in my actual comments and in any interesting articles I find and link. I hope that I am engaging, and  I hope that on some level I am entertaining - I know that I can be a smart-###, just take comfort in knowing  that I am also a smart-### in real-life - its not an act.

 

[The Commish]

But I wonder how to reset the conversation so that we can move on and get back to the more interesting stuff

First step would be reading what people are actually typing in lieu of intentionally mischaracterizing and then attacking that mischaracterization. If it's not clear ask for clarification. I'd they tell you if seems like you're misunderstanding listen more carefully and let go of the preconceived notion. If they don't and keep up the false premise move on. 

 

[krista4]

First step would be reading what people are actually typing in lieu of intentionally mischaracterizing and then attacking that mischaracterization. If it's not clear ask for clarification. I'd they tell you if seems like you're misunderstanding listen more carefully and let go of the preconceived notion. If they don't and keep up the false premise move on. 

Great points in here, and something that happens frequently.  I agree with all of it but particularly appreciate those last two words:  "move on."  So many of us seem to be hellbent on proving we are "right" that we won't do this when the discussion is obviously futile.  And by the way, move on without feeling the need to announce "welcome to ignore" or whatever.  I keep a carefully cultivated but very healthy ignore list, but don't understand the impulse to announce to someone they're on it.  Just move on.

 

[Don't Noonan]

I hate seeing someone posting an insult or something completely meant to offend, and then a bunch of people "like" it, and I'm sure I'm guilty of having done it, too.  

You have liked people doing this to me in the past as I remember being surprised you would stoop so low.  However, thanks for acknowledging your mistake.

 

[krista4]

You have liked people doing this to me in the past as I remember being surprised you would stoop so low.  However, thanks for acknowledging your mistake.

I'm sorry about that.  Sincerely.

 

[Don't Noonan]

I'm sorry about that.  Sincerely.

Thank you.  I only remember it because you have always been a great poster.

I am sure I have done the same things to others.

 

[The Commish]

Great points in here, and something that happens frequently.  I agree with all of it but particularly appreciate those last two words:  "move on."  So many of us seem to be hellbent on proving we are "right" that we won't do this when the discussion is obviously futile.  And by the way, move on without feeling the need to announce "welcome to ignore" or whatever.  I keep a carefully cultivated but very healthy ignore list, but don't understand the impulse to announce to someone they're on it.  Just move on.

Responding to my post means i haven't yet hit the list!!!!!!

I was one of what you describe. The change away from it has been liberating. I'm good with a lot of people here being of the opposite opinion from me. 

 

[jon_mx]

Most everything you said I am in total agreement with and I thought was a very excellent post.  The one disagreement I have is that I immediately change if the way I am treated does.  I don't hold grudges, probably because my memory sucks.   In fact I think the last few weeks have seen a vast improvement in the tone from posters and response from the mods with only one real bad example recently.   There have been months in the past where it seemed like 100 percent snarkiness.  Kavanaugh time frame was pretty heated for instance.  Now there has been a bit of an upswing in the number of regular conservative posters, vastly less snarkiness and personal stuff, and better overall discussions.   As long as people are trying to be better, I am good and can tolerate an occasional toolish post.  

 

[adonis]

I'm not sure I've made a post in here before, but I generally avoid this topic as it just seems to be a place to whine, point fingers, self-justify, and attack the mods who do ridiculous work to make this a reasonable place to engage.

Anyhow, reading the past several pages I want to say that I appreciate the thought and consideration that goes into moderating this site.  And also folks who love the site, providing helpful feedback, and folks looking to themselves to see what they could do better rather than dumping all the need for change on the admins.

It's not perfect, and maybe it's less enjoyable/fruitful in terms of discussions than it once was, but this is still a great place to come and kick ideas around, engage with other smart folks, and discuss things.  

The political toxicity in our society has certainly spilled over onto these forums, and it's a shame but impossible to avoid and actually represent a cross-section of the public and a variety of opinions.  Even if some of these opinions from folks we disagree with run contrary to our values, intellect, etc...they still represent a significant portion of the public, and I appreciate being able to see them here because I'm better prepared to deal with them in the "real world" of family and friends, where I'm surrounded by similar folks, but don't have the freedom to interact with them and their ideas in ways that are unlikely to damage relationships.

Anyway, thanks for putting up with all this, for continuing to try to be fair, listen to feedback, put up with a bunch of childish adults, but at the same time advocate for a forum/open space where ideas can be shared and challenged, and folks like myself can find value and a small piece of online community.  The work allows people's lives to be changed for the better for having been able to engage here...I'm certainly one of those folks.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Challenge accepted.

I mentioned in another thread that some people have a hard time distinguishing between “isn’t smart” and “doesn't agree with me.”

Many people also have a hard time distinguishing between “doesn’t engage honestly on substance” and “doesn’t agree with me.” Based on your list, I don’t think making that distinction is one of your strengths. (Which, if my assessment is correct, puts you in good company; you’re definitely far from alone. I believe I often struggle with it as well.)

 

[[scooter]]

I don’t really remember this being an issue either way but yes if someone just blurts out Pizzagate for no reason, no context, yes I agree that’s very lame.

However I can also see if a discussion is bordering some conspiracy stuff it can be touched on.

So it is fair to say that the Russia conspiracy thread is your pizzagate?

We've been over this.

The Russia story resulted in multiple indictments and convictions and determined that Russia DID indeed attempt to interfere with our election.

The Pizzagate story DID NOT result in multiple indictments or convictions, and DID NOT determine that there was a child sex ring being operated out of the back room of a pizza parlor.

In order for the comparison to be valid, then you would need ONE of the following things to be true:

1. the Russia story led to zero indictments or convictions (and/or, the Russia story did not confirm that the Russian government attempted to interfere with our election).

OR

2. the pizzagate story led to multiple indictments and convictions (and/or, it was determined that there WAS a child sex ring being operated out of the back room of a pizza parlor)

But since neither of the above is true, then the comparison isn't valid.

P.S. let the record show that I am not the one who brought up Pizzagate and I am only responding because Bozeman specifically accused me of not engaging honestly.

 

[The General]

So it is fair to say that the Russia conspiracy thread is your pizzagate?

No. It is a problem that these two things are considered even remotely the same.

 

[Snorkelson]

 I don’t make any lists 

 

[The Commish]

The post in your example was not directed at any individual poster, it was a statement of how non-trump hating posters see this forum.  Meant as an honest criticism of the forum in hopes of maybe some improvement. 

I struggle to reconcile this claim when what you say here is completely different from 

This forum is openly hostile toward right-leaning ideas/posters.   Many are intimidated from posting.  

These two are NOT the same thing.  There are PLENTY of right leaning people who also hate Trump.  This, in a nutshell, is my issue with you and was my issue with Tim for a really long time.  You make a vague, all encompassing post that generalizes in an unacceptable way.  You're then called on it, and attempt to walk it back with a "that's not what I meant.." statement COMPLETELY different than what you said initially.

I appreciate the need for post clarification....I have to do it a lot and am happy to do so as long as honest discussion is going on, but this isn't simply that.  I will continue to reject the notion that right leaning ideas/posters are singled out.  Are the extreme right?  Yep.  Are Trump supporters?  Yep.  It occurs to me, though that's not as controversial stated that way.  That's something everyone would agree on.

 

[jon_mx]

I will continue to reject the notion that right leaning ideas/posters are singled out.  Are the extreme right?  Yep.  Are Trump supporters?  Yep.  It occurs to me, though that's not as controversial stated that way.  That's something everyone would agree on.

Seems like we agree, but you want to imply an 'all' and took offense.  My language could have definitely been a bit more concise.  It is never easy when you talk in generalities especially when you talk left and right because everyone has a different concept what that means. 

I am not sure I would agree with some of the people you call right-leaning.  I would put IK for instance in the moderate camp as he has as many left-leaning positions as he does right-leaning.  I would also content that my statement was mostly true.  Generalizations are never 100 percent true.  It was true enough where it should not have been offensive.  If it needed a little parsing, say so.  I am not sure why it was reported.  There was no malice in my words. 

I have felt singled out over the years, but I am neither a Trump supporter nor far-right.   I would suggest my positions on most issues including things like spending, taxes, immigration, climate change are more moderate than they are right.  But my positions get intentionally distorted quite frequently.  Things put in quotes which are contrary to what I actually said.  That is becoming a pet peeve.  Just quote what I say, don't make stuff up.