Kiss Your Right To Own Firearms Goodby

eunoia · Post by **eunoia** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:46 pm

AmEv wrote:Who, exactly, are you talking to, Eunoia?

Are you unable to deduce this from what I wrote, or was that a rhetorical?

Post by **evasive** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:09 am

gentlemen, this thread is on watch... we want a clean fight...

eunoia · Post by **eunoia** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:57 am

evasive wrote:gentlemen, this thread is on watch... we want a clean fight...

Fight? What fight? There aren’t even any ideas or opinions here to debate, it's just parroting.

Also: Are you suggesting this forum might be moderated?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tolemac Nov. 12, 2005

“If a topic exists already and a new thread covering the same topic is started, IT WILL BE DELETED. Instead of starting numerous different threads covering the same topic under a different title, just continue on with the existing thread.”

(cannot post URL)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark’s threads:

Nov. 26, 2009 Joe The Plumber Meets Obama
amusing .jpg

Nov. 26, 2009 Media In Obama's Back Pocket
amusing .jpg

Nov. 25, 2009 The Real Obama
amusing .jpg

Nov. 25, 2009 ObamaCare
amusing .jpg

Sep. 15, 2009 Kiss Your Right To Own Firearms Goodby
copy/paste

Sep. 8, 2009 Obama Uncovered
amusing .jpg

Sep. 8, 2009 Obama ---The Vote Is In
amusing .jpg

Sep. 8, 2009 Obama & Socialism
amusing .jpg

Sep. 5, 2009 Kennedy (Up-Dated)
copy/paste

Aug. 7, 2009 Obama Not Even Born In America
copy/paste

June 5, 2009 Obama - One Shady Character
copy/paste

June 5, 2009 Michelle Obama - What A Gal
copy/paste

May 2, 2009 Interesting News
copy/paste

Jan. 22, 2009 Now Read This
copy/paste

Jul. 6, 2009 The Real Obama
amusing .jpg

June 5, 2009 Another Change Is a Coming From Obama
copy/paste

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the “topic” can be broadly interpreted to be “I’m on a U.S. right-wing mailing list and this is what I received today, nothing to add, just passing it along,” than I humbly submit these are all covering the same topic under a different title.

Your rules not mine.

AmEv · Post by **AmEv** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:30 pm

Whoa, whoa.
Let's all calm down here.

I ask because "you" is a vague term. Unless you point out someone in particular, it could be one or many (like here, I'm saying "you" to all)

eunoia · Post by **eunoia** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:36 pm

Dude, I don't know where you're reading anyone's not perfectly calm either. No caps, no exclamation point, perhaps fewer commas than you would have used, but that's neither here nor there.

Just read what's there and try to understand it (without letting your imagination get overexcited and add things that aren't there) and we'll all get along fine.

Here's today's spam:
Nov. 28, 2009 The Fundamental Transformation of America
copy/paste

Yet no reply in this thread. Spambot?

AmEv · Post by **AmEv** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:06 pm

Actually, he's a living person. Look at the "Vote is in" replies.

eunoia · Post by **eunoia** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:29 pm

O.K. there is one in there that passes the Turing test, thanks. Must have missed it. My apologies to Spark for suggesting a spambot.

My original query still stands though: Why is this person allowed to continue posting erroneous information without debating it, and creating new threads all of which follow the same modus operandi and are about the same subject? If not deleted as per the posted rules, shouldn't all these threads at least be merged?

Roach412 · Post by **Roach412** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:59 am

eunoia wrote:My original query still stands though: Why is this person allowed to continue posting erroneous information without debating it, and creating new threads all of which follow the same modus operandi and are about the same subject? If not deleted as per the posted rules, shouldn't all these threads at least be merged?

free speech is still allowed here - people can post similar-threaded posts, and the Mods will move or lock them if they see the need. as they have not been locked, nor moved, and people have been (as you were questioning) debating and commenting on them - so, they seem to be operating as distinct threads of conversation...

if it's erroneous information, please do post corrective links/facts. that's kind of the point of the "reply" button. but remember, debate cannot start without an original post/opinion...

just because opinions and posts, whether one or many, aren't in-line with your own doesn't mean that they cannot exist. that's one of the very points which they've brought up in one of their posts.

-Roach

eunoia · Post by **eunoia** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:04 pm

Roach412 wrote: free speech is still allowed here - people can post similar-threaded posts, and the Mods will move or lock them if they see the need. as they have not been locked, nor moved, and people have been (as you were questioning) debating and commenting on them - so, they seem to be operating as distinct threads of conversation...

if it's erroneous information, please do post corrective links/facts. that's kind of the point of the "reply" button. but remember, debate cannot start without an original post/opinion...

just because opinions and posts, whether one or many, aren't in-line with your own doesn't mean that they cannot exist. that's one of the very points which they've brought up in one of their posts.

-Roach

You're missing my point. This isn't a free speech issue, it's a truth issue and a spam issue. I'm curious to know why they haven't been deleted (or merged, as I suggested) after I demonstrated they were against the board rules and also disagree that people have been commenting/debating these, or that they are in any way distinct topics.

Is it not certain that these posts are against the rules? I'm not sure I can explain any more clearly.

If I posted twenty threads repeating some anonymous source's spurious opinions on zither strings without linking or adding anything else would I not draw heat?

Now that I have the minimum posts to be allowed to post links, here's the one specific link debunking the premise in this OP. It was quite easily searched from the information I gave, but not further debated or commented on:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp

Will anyone refute this specific example?

I agree fully with the first sentence of your last paragraph but resent the implication that I wouldn't allow people to disagree with me or that I'm following a party line. However, simply repeating grand talk has nothing to do with debate of opinions, unless the opinion being stated is "I agree with this cartoon."

And if that's the opinion being stated, it's clearly just one thread, not twenty.

Roach412 · Post by **Roach412** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:29 pm

eunoia wrote:You're missing my point. This isn't a free speech issue, it's a truth issue and a spam issue. I'm curious to know why they haven't been deleted (or merged, as I suggested) after I demonstrated they were against the board rules and also disagree that people have been commenting/debating these, or that they are in any way distinct topics.

i think you're missing my point: nobody really cares. if the mods do, then they'll deal with it...but until it causes some kind of uproar of the forum population, i have a feeling it's really not worth their time to scour the board. seriously, is it that offensive to you?

eunoia wrote: Is it not certain that these posts are against the rules? I'm not sure I can explain any more clearly.

the rules are (as-always) at the discretion of the moderators. they make the rules, they enforce the rules...if they don't feel like enforcing the rules, then the rules don't get enforced. i'm not sure i can explain any more clearly either.

eunoia wrote: If I posted twenty threads repeating some anonymous source's spurious opinions on zither strings without linking or adding anything else would I not draw heat?

no...probably not, unless it's the exact same link(s). there's multiple occurances of this happening.

eunoia wrote: Now that I have the minimum posts to be allowed to post links, here's the one specific link debunking the premise in this OP. It was quite easily searched from the information I gave, but not further debated or commented on:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp

why are you even wasting time on this anyways? i had already commented:

Roach412 wrote:Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:14 pm
from what i was seeing this bill hasn't got enough support to even get out of the committee...?
-Roach

eunoia wrote: I agree fully with the first sentence of your last paragraph but resent the implication that I wouldn't allow people to disagree with me or that I'm following a party line. However, simply repeating grand talk has nothing to do with debate of opinions, unless the opinion being stated is "I agree with this cartoon."

i'm sorry you resent my implication, but both your written tone as well as your written words implicate yourself...it's not hard to read. i figured that you understood your own position - apparently i was incorrect.

also, how is "i agree with this cartoon" NOT an opinion? it doesn't matter if you post a thousand political cartoons, or do your dissertation on marxism/socialism and it's relation to obama. it is still an opinion...it will still generate some sort of response or provoke a thought to those that view it. and that, simply, is the point of it.

i'm going to bet that honestly, nobody cares that there's a lot of individual posts which are somewhat interrelated. it's not worth the time to find and merge them all nor to enforce it, unless (as i said before) it gets rediculous or malicious in its intent (i.e. spam).

maybe if you wanted to help out the mods you could identify all the posts which could be merged together and provide them to the mods? i'll think you'll soon find why it's not worth the time. there's really no positive net cost/gain benefit.

-Roach