[y66]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-03, 13:35, said:

please get out of this thread. go here.

Who says civility is dead?

[jjbrr]

barmar, could i offer a compromise so that you don't have to make any controversial moderating decisions but at the same time preserve "free speech" AND make the majority happy? confine ldrews' posts to a dedicated ldrews politics posts thread.

that way he can spew his nonsense and troll as much as he wants, but he cant derail threads for the rest of us. he clearly doesn't understand forum etiquette.

anyone who wishes to engage him in discussion is free to do so. he can post whatever he wants with impunity. it's win-win for everyone.

would you at least consider it?

[RedSpawn]

y66, on 2018-January-03, 15:54, said:

Who says civility is dead?

We should be more concerned about our growing attention deficit disorder than our national deficit.

It's sucking out all of the oxygen and civility in argumentation and political discussions.

How can we fellowship and relate to one another as brothers when a lot of the nation has the attention span of a gnat?

President Trump marketed heavily to a low attention span base and won the Executive Office for understanding his customers.

[hrothgar]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-03, 18:25, said:

barmar, could i offer a compromise so that you don't have to make any controversial moderating decisions but at the same time preserve "free speech" AND make the majority happy? confine ldrews' posts to a dedicated ldrews politics posts thread.

that way he can spew his nonsense and troll as much as he wants, but he cant derail threads for the rest of us. he clearly doesn't understand forum etiquette.

anyone who wishes to engage him in discussion is free to do so. he can post whatever he wants with impunity. it's win-win for everyone.

would you at least consider it?

I think that he should also be allowed to post on bridge related topics

[helene_t]

Why don't you just put him on ignore? I don't know if ldrews is a troll but those of you who think he is really should stop feeding him.

[jjbrr]

hrothgar, on 2018-January-03, 18:37, said:

I think that he should also be allowed to post on bridge related topics

i strictly meant water cooler (or more preferably politics-specific WC). of course he should be free in the bridge topics

[jjbrr]

helene_t, on 2018-January-03, 18:56, said:

Why don't you just put him on ignore? I don't know if ldrews is a troll but those of you who think he is really should stop feeding him.

because ignore doesn't really ignore posts. they still show up. it's a terrible feature.

[helene_t]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-03, 19:31, said:

because ignore doesn't really ignore posts. they still show up. it's a terrible feature.

Yes I get this thread on top of "view new posts" and then I don't know if anyone other than those I ignore have provided new content. And sometimes I see text from ignored users through quotes from other people. It's annoying.

But you don't have to respond to them, do you?

[jjbrr]

helene_t, on 2018-January-03, 19:41, said:

Yes I get this thread on top of "view new posts" and then I don't know if anyone other than those I ignore have provided new content. And sometimes I see text from ignored users through quotes from other people. It's annoying.

But you don't have to respond to them, do you?

No one has to post here at all, if that's what you're trying to ask. We're a very small community, and I suspect we all sort of know each other pretty well. I don't think it's fair to suggest that everyone ignore some posts, given how little traffic there is.

Yes, you're probably right. But it doesn't really work that way in practice.

[helene_t]

Well if ldrews had been one of my inlaws or w/e then I would feel a pressure to form an opinion about whatever he says. As it is he's just one of 7 billion people whose opinion I don't care about. He might be as clever as Arend or as funny as Csaba or jjbr or as opinionated as hrothgar or as annoying as Al. I don't know. I don't recall ever having read anything he wrote. I might have but obviously it didn't leave a lasting impression.

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-03, 18:25, said:

barmar, could i offer a compromise so that you don't have to make any controversial moderating decisions but at the same time preserve "free speech" AND make the majority happy? confine ldrews' posts to a dedicated ldrews politics posts thread.

that way he can spew his nonsense and troll as much as he wants, but he cant derail threads for the rest of us. he clearly doesn't understand forum etiquette.

anyone who wishes to engage him in discussion is free to do so. he can post whatever he wants with impunity. it's win-win for everyone.

would you at least consider it?

Apparently some have forgotten the rules regarding this forum:

Quote

This is meant to be a place to engage in dialogue, share your views and perspectives on global events, anything that can't fit into the other forums. However, we'll still follow some basic rules:

1) No personal attacks. Insults are a No-No. You can have issues with someone else's opinion and attack that (in a civilised manner hopefully), but don't go after anyone personally.

2) No advertising, no spam.

3) No obscenities.

Posters who engage in hateful, vulgar, threatening, knowingly illegal and inaccurate posts may be suspended not just from forums, but also our related websites.

In general, please follow this rule of thumb (which is a good rule I've picked up from another forum): If you aren't comfortable emailing a post to your grandmother/mother/colleague, then it probably shouldn't be posted here.

By posting in this forum, you have also agreed to the terms stated here.

Ok?

Whew!

Lets keep the posts flowing. On Behalf of BBO and BBF, Thanks!
"More and more these days I find myself pondering how to reconcile my net income with my gross habits."

John Nelson.

If I have violated any of these rules please let me know and I will correct my behavior. I believe that my posts are civil, do not use profanity, do not contain personal attacks, and are on-topic.

Otherwise, jjbrr, you are just attempting to shut down someone you don't agree with or for various reasons don't like their postings. I am not surprised, it is a tactic often used by the liberal/left to silence opposition.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on 2018-January-03, 20:43, said:

Well if ldrews had been one of my inlaws or w/e then I would feel a pressure to form an opinion about whatever he says. As it is he's just one of 7 billion people whose opinion I don't care about. He might be as clever as Arend or as funny as Csaba or jjbr or as opinionated as hrothgar or as annoying as Al. I don't know. I don't recall ever having read anything he wrote. I might have but obviously it didn't leave a lasting impression.

This is pretty much my stance on most libertarians. An ideology based on unrealistic assumptions has no value in discussions of real-world problems and solutions.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-03, 21:14, said:

This is pretty much my stance on most libertarians. An ideology based on unrealistic assumptions has no value in discussions of real-world problems and solutions.

Same could be said of almost any religious/moral code of behavior. The Golden Rule, for example.

You must be enjoying Trump's approach to government: business-like solutions without regard to existing sensibilities or unrealistic assumptions.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-January-03, 21:29, said:

You must be enjoying Trump's approach to government: business-like solutions without regard to existing sensibilities or unrealistic assumptions.

I (personally) find the concept of a government applying "business like" solutions completely horrific

Businesses (typically) have a fiduciary responsibility to engage in profit maximization.
You really don't want an entity with the power of a government trying to maximize its profits.

Businesses are able to discharge their debts through bankruptcy.
Really bad things happen when governments do so. If the US were to do so, the results would be catastrophic.

Businesses and governments (should) have very different time horizons.

(I can go on like this for quite some time. The two types of organizations are very very different)

FWIW, I do agree that Trump is ignoring existing sensibilities.
In doing so, he is doing enormous and lasting damage to the long term reputation of the United States.

Other than "Brown people are inferior" and "Jews are good with money" its pretty damn hard to figure out what kind of "assumptions" Trump bases his policies on.
Mostly he is just twisting in the wind, boasting about stuff that he had little or nothing to do with, and acting like a disgrace on Twitter.

[barmar]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-03, 18:25, said:

barmar, could i offer a compromise so that you don't have to make any controversial moderating decisions but at the same time preserve "free speech" AND make the majority happy? confine ldrews' posts to a dedicated ldrews politics posts thread.

Regardless of whether I think this is a good idea, I don't think I have any tools in the forum to do this automatically. I can restrict which forums someone can post in, but there are no thread-level restrictions.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2018-January-04, 09:45, said:

Regardless of whether I think this is a good idea, I don't think I have any tools in the forum to do this automatically. I can restrict which forums someone can post in, but there are no thread-level restrictions.

Transparent attempt at distraction

Just create a forum for Drews and block him from the Watercooler...
I recommend moving Al-U-Card over there as well so he has some company

[jjbrr]

barmar, on 2018-January-04, 09:45, said:

Regardless of whether I think this is a good idea, I don't think I have any tools in the forum to do this automatically. I can restrict which forums someone can post in, but there are no thread-level restrictions.

Barmar, the forum is self-policing. Create a thread for ldrews to post in. Everyone else will flag posts if he posts outside of his thread. What automatic tools do you need?

Why is this so difficult to understand?

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-04, 10:51, said:

Barmar, the forum is self-policing. Create a thread for ldrews to post in. Everyone else will flag posts if he posts outside of his thread. What automatic tools do you need?

Why is this so difficult to understand?

So much for free speech! The police state arrives on the suppression of posters you don't like or agree with.

barmar, if you do indeed succumb to this pressure, please be sure to include a statement in the rules that govern the situation. Future posters should be forewarned.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-January-04, 11:28, said:

So much for free speech! The police state arrives on the suppression of posters you don't like or agree with.

Drews, Drews, Drews...

The first amendment applies to the government, not private institutions.

And, oh, BTW, if you actually cared about free speech in real life, why did you run off to Mexico which is hardly a bastion of free speech?

Oh, that's right, because while you like to portray yourself as a Libertarian, the only thing that you actually seem to care much about are your taxes.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-January-04, 12:08, said:

Drews, Drews, Drews...

The first amendment applies to the government, not private institutions.

And, oh, BTW, if you actually cared about free speech in real life, why did you run off to Mexico which is hardly a bastion of free speech?

Oh, that's right, because while you like to portray yourself as a Libertarian, the only thing that you actually seem to care much about are your taxes.

Nice try. Keep throwing *****. Maybe someday something will stick, who knows? Meanwhile the Trumptards keep winning! Too bad.