SR did you ever admit to being wrong?

[BRUTALITOPS]

Dear SR,

I read your incredibly biased post to immie on the boards.

First lets get some facts straight.. i messaged BRENT first.. not dixie. When I messaged brent, i wasn't serious. But THEN brent and DIXIE set things up behind my back for real and THEN I joined them for FUN. I was NEVER the driving force. Tiana will attest to that, and I think brent and dixie would too. Yes I was involved but I wasn't the "puppet master" that you claim me to be.

Dixie was WAY more involved than I EVER was.

Secondly, and this is the most important, the thread of which you finally banned me for, I laid out a solid case. I do believe you were lying. But lets just stipulate for arguments sake that you weren't lying. At the very least you were flat out WRONG about the admin's ability to read u2u's in version 1.9.2. I am just wondering, how come you never admitted to being incorrect in that thread?

Face it, the real reason you banned me was because I schooled you in that thread, and you simply couldn't take it anymore. At that time you still had to have Adam come and back you up. I can't imagine the look on your face when you realized how owned you were.

For someone that is continually posting about how I 'desire to be the smart one', you sure are doing a shitty job at knowing the facts.

- Grind

[BRUTALITOPS]

3:1 odds that sr's following response will contain an absurd and retarded analogy.

[SR_]

Dear SR,

I read your incredibly biased post to immie on the boards.

First lets get some facts straight.. i messaged BRENT first.. not dixie. When I messaged brent, i wasn't serious. But THEN brent and DIXIE set things up behind my back for real and THEN I joined them for FUN. I was NEVER the driving force. Tiana will attest to that, and I think brent and dixie would too. Yes I was involved but I wasn't the "puppet master" that you claim me to be.

Dixie was WAY more involved than I EVER was.

Secondly, and this is the most important, the thread of which you finally banned me for, I laid out a solid case. I do believe you were lying. But lets just stipulate for arguments sake that you weren't lying. At the very least you were flat out WRONG about the admin's ability to read u2u's in version 1.9.2. I am just wondering, how come you never admitted to being incorrect in that thread?

Face it, the real reason you banned me was because I schooled you in that thread, and you simply couldn't take it anymore. At that time you still had to have Adam come and back you up. I can't imagine the look on your face when you realized how owned you were.

For someone that is continually posting about how I 'desire to be the smart one', you sure are doing a shitty job at knowing the facts.

- Grind

grind youre never getting back on fp.com, im not sure why you still feel the need to lie. ALL of the people over here dont care one way or the other. No need to keep cowering and lying.

I made it no secret that i knew and know nothing about the coding or all the abilities of xmb, i even posted where i didnt know how to install it. When I spoke of the ability in the older version I truly had never seen any features for such and represented it as such. Yes, i was incorrect, big deal, i responded to your "case" with honesty in that I didnt know enough to address it one way or the other.

I didnt have Adam come back me up, I asked him if the old board had the feature he said that it did. That was the end of it. ? Im not sure if he feels it would embarrass me or something if he told you guys just how ignorant of the system i am, but thats his call. I ask him if something is possible, he says yes, and then a few hours later he tells me its done and, and gives me a link and directions. i give the vision, he makes it happen.

I posted why you got banned, it was the truth we both know it no matter how much you cower like a pussy. You arent ever going to post over there again, why not just act like a man and take account for your ignorance?

I feel sorry for Damo that he's forced to have you continue your little tirades on his new board. Its pathetic.

SR

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie was WAY more involved than I EVER was.

Grind? Dude? It sounds to me like you are trying to grovel your way back into SiR's good graces by throwing me under the bus. We were ALL involved equally. I was the one who spoke the loudest on the board, and I might have originated the master plan, but you were the one who came up with Brent, and I was not real hot on that idea, as you'll recall. It actually took Tiana supporting him, to convince me to go along with it, and even then I was reluctant.

It doesn't really matter now anyway, what's done is done. You were banned by the King because you dared to reveal his lies. I have enormous respect for you in doing that, and others do as well, because you helped to open some eyes as to what kind of megalomaniac SiR really was, which is something I could have never done alone. For god's sake, Immie is still over there slobbering around trying to give him the benefit of the doubt! Some people just don't see, no matter what you do to show them, but that is not our problem.

SiR will lie about it from now on, you can count on that! He has no intention of ever being "proven wrong" about any damn thing, he thinks he is perfect in every way, and that is fine, let him go on thinking that, as he sits at his dead board, wondering how he fucked it up so badly. I plan to move on with my life, his ego problem is not worth me losing sleep over, to be honest. I just hate to see you acting like Immie about it. You did the right thing, I did the right thing, Tiana did the right thing... SiR was the one who fucked up and blew any credibility he had. He will have to live with that, and that is plenty good enough for me.

[BRUTALITOPS]

"I didnt know enough to address it one way or the other."

But you did just that in thread of which I quoted. You spoke with authority and conviction trying to convince the board members that the reason you didn't know about it was that it was a new feature. The funny thing is, I stated it was an old feature in my first thread discussing u2u's.

You could have easily googled, or checked the forums as well. You did none of that. You also never admitted to being wrong.


Secondly SR, I am confronting you right here, and right now, he'll I just started this thread addressing you.

It must be easy being at fullpolitics and making statements about me without having to worry about me schooling you again and again.

And thirdly, I will post there again. I'll wait a little bit, get a new proxy, and sign up a new account. Of course, I wont admit to who I am...but I'll be there.

Or, you can just start banning everyone who you THINK might be me, lol.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Dixie was WAY more involved than I EVER was.

Grind? Dude? It sounds to me like you are trying to grovel your way back into SiR's good graces by throwing me under the bus. We were ALL involved equally. I was the one who spoke the loudest on the board, and I might have originated the master plan, but you were the one who came up with Brent, and I was not real hot on that idea, as you'll recall. It actually took Tiana supporting him, to convince me to go along with it, and even then I was reluctant.

It doesn't really matter now anyway, what's done is done. You were banned by the King because you dared to reveal his lies. I have enormous respect for you in doing that, and others do as well, because you helped to open some eyes as to what kind of megalomaniac SiR really was, which is something I could have never done alone. For god's sake, Immie is still over there slobbering around trying to give him the benefit of the doubt! Some people just don't see, no matter what you do to show them, but that is not our problem.

SiR will lie about it from now on, you can count on that! He has no intention of ever being "proven wrong" about any damn thing, he thinks he is perfect in every way, and that is fine, let him go on thinking that, as he sits at his dead board, wondering how he fucked it up so badly. I plan to move on with my life, his ego problem is not worth me losing sleep over, to be honest. I just hate to see you acting like Immie about it. You did the right thing, I did the right thing, Tiana did the right thing... SiR was the one who fucked up and blew any credibility he had. He will have to live with that, and that is plenty good enough for me.


I am sorry dixie, I didn't mean to 'throw' you under the bus. I meant to say that you were the most passionate about the whole security council thing.

But we all know I wasn't the ringleading puppet master like sr likes to pretend. That was my point really.

[SR_]

"I didnt know enough to address it one way or the other."

But you did just that in thread of which I quoted. You spoke with authority and conviction trying to convince the board members that the reason you didn't know about it was that it was a new feature. The funny thing is, I stated it was an old feature in my first thread discussing u2u's.

You could have easily googled, or checked the forums as well. You did none of that. You also never admitted to being wrong.


Secondly SR, I am confronting you right here, and right now, he'll I just started this thread addressing you.

It must be easy being at fullpolitics and making statements about me without having to worry about me schooling you again and again.

And thirdly, I will post there again. I'll wait a little bit, get a new proxy, and sign up a new account. Of course, I wont admit to who I am...but I'll be there.

Or, you can just start banning everyone who you THINK might be me, lol.

Why wouldnt I speak with conviction and authority? I had never read anyone's u2u, i had never seen the features you spoke about, I didnt know if what had been installed was what you were referring too. I didnt ask adam whether or not the old version from xmb had it, I asked him if what was on my server included it. Why would i need to google something I "knew" was the truth (it turned out I was mistaken).

Not everyone is like you grind, not everyone lies all the time. Your infatuation with me isnt healthy, all the effort and time you spent to attack me should give you pause, especially working with brent on it? Might need to ask yourself if being my bitch is worth it?

This new board of Damo doesnt need to be used to further your intent on trying against all odds to prove youre better than me. Its a pathetic display man.

I can completely understand why you'd like to throw dixie in front of the train, to try and deflect the blame, but come on... he's over here by choice, you dont need to try and pull him down on your level so its not so lonely.

SR

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce
Special orders don't upset us...
All we ask is that you let us
Serve it your way...

Have it youuuuuur way.
Have it your way
Have it youuuuuur way
At Burger King.

[maineman]

but these guys protesteth WAY too loudly - all of them - that they were NOT involved in any conspiracy whatsoever.

They are all three of them liars...

[BRUTALITOPS]

you keep saying I 'lie all the time' but the only thing you have is my comments denying any involvment which I posted KNOWING that you were reading through my u2u's at that very moment. It was me having fun, bluffing, with nothing. I knew you were minutes away from posting my u2u's. There was never any huge massive coverup.

The evidence I presented, (screenshots, detailed analysis of the boards functions, you saying the feature was 2 weeks old) all turned out to be true. All of it.

You're excuse is that you were so convinced you were telling the truth that you didn't need to check your facts..so it's ok that you were wrong. If that's how your psychotic mind operates, perhaps you should question whether your delusional ego is ONCE AGAIN getting in the way. (Hint: it is).

I am not bringing dixie down. I already told you, I wasn't the main one in charge. You are being willfully ignorant in this matter. It is convienent for you to call me the puppet master because that gives you the best excuse for banning me, even though the real reason I was banned was because I proved you wrong.

Say it with me - the straw that broke the camels back was me proving you wrong. It's not any more complicated than that. You made a claim, I shot you down with undeniable proof.

[SR_]

you keep saying I 'lie all the time' but the only thing you have is my comments denying any involvment which I posted KNOWING that you were reading through my u2u's at that very moment. It was me having fun, bluffing, with nothing. I knew you were minutes away from posting my u2u's. There was never any huge massive coverup.

The evidence I presented, (screenshots, detailed analysis of the boards functions, you saying the feature was 2 weeks old) all turned out to be true. All of it.

You're excuse is that you were so convinced you were telling the truth that you didn't need to check your facts..so it's ok that you were wrong. If that's how your psychotic mind operates, perhaps you should question whether your delusional ego is ONCE AGAIN getting in the way. (Hint: it is).

I am not bringing dixie down. I already told you, I wasn't the main one in charge. You are being willfully ignorant in this matter. It is convienent for you to call me the puppet master because that gives you the best excuse for banning me, even though the real reason I was banned was because I proved you wrong.

Say it with me - the straw that broke the camels back was me proving you wrong. It's not any more complicated than that. You made a claim, I shot you down with undeniable proof.


Grind I get proven wrong all the time, hardly any reason to ban anyone.

Think about it dude. You took the time to get dixie on board with ruining a message board feature (which failed). I mean a message board feature. You put in the effort to get others involved. lol You then put forth the effort to attack each of them to the others after you were bluffed out. THEN you put forth the effort to try and make people believe I read their u2u's (which failed). ALL THE WHILE LYING LIKE A BITCH. Then after I explained that I couldnt and why, YOU PUT FORTH MORE EFFORT to try and make people believe that I was lying (which failed again).

Youre infatuation with me and my stuff is unhealthy grind. What kind of yahoo puts that much effort into things, i mean, taking the time to do such things demonstrates to everyone that you have a problem. I dont know if its your self esteem or that you never follow through on things and so when others do it reminds you of what a failure you are.... I mean i dont know but its pathetic.

And now you come to this board and STILL WONT LET IT GO.

geez man, move on...

SR

[BRUTALITOPS]

sr, you know VERY WELL that dixie was talking publically about how he was going to obstruct your SC WAYYY before I EVER messaged him. Check the dates. Sorry, that excuse wont fly.

Secondly, I told you, I NEVER CARED about the SC, I just like sticking it to you because I like to see you whine like a little bitch. If the SC was fully implemented in your original vision it would not have never bothered me the slightest.

Also, my first post was concerning proving that you COULD read u2u messages. You stipulated this yourself in your thread to immie on your own messageboard. I never once mentioned in that thread that you had for a fact read our u2u's. I merely released the knoweldge. Because I released this knowledge, you removed this feature. I bet if I mentioned it to you you would have told me to fuck off.

And now you've chased away a good deal of your prime members, or at least put them on edge:

dano
mbl
tiana
dixie
care4all
string is uneasy
watermark is uneasy

rev is asking for me to come back
immie wanted me to be reinstated at some point

etc.

Your delusional.

[tianabautre]

:gives:

You banned him for exposing you and utilizing the failed system you designed. The system failed because it was designed poorly and in your hissy fit for exposure you banned him, smeared all of our names, posted private u2u's, made racist slurs about me, became a message board nazi, and quite frankly I don't give a shit. We've got a place to post now with a principled Admin and don't need you anymore. You don't want us there, we don't want to be there. So why don't you move along......buh bye now.

[tianabautre]

Grind, its pointless. He showed his ass and everyone knows how low he will stoop and now we have a new site.

[BRUTALITOPS]

He is clearly lying now suggesting I came up with the idea to obstruct before dixie did. Dixie was talking about this for a month.

The reason I was banned is because he got proved wrong. SR isn't worried about dixie, but he is worried about me and how I'll continue to own him if I stayed there.

To tell you the truth, all my favorite people are here, I like vbull better than xmb, and if this place just didn't have sr, it would be perfect.

[tianabautre]

He's a racist, lying, hypocrite. Remember when I started that post about him banning people and EVERYONE came to his defense saying that he'd never ban anyone and he even went so far as to say:

"yes, this is realistic.

lets take a vote.

who here thinks i will pull the plug on the site or your ID?

SR "

And then he threaten to take away my priveledges for posting your messages. He's a lying sack of shit.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You took the time to get dixie on board with ruining a message board feature

Another SiR lie. Actually two... he went for a double! Grind didn't take time to get me on board, I was already firing up the engines, and no one ever intended to "ruin" your "feature" as you call it. In fact, we were counting on your feature to work exactly as you designed it, so our plan would work. I'm also seeing people spout off about how we were "conspiring to bring down the board" or some such nonsense. As I have repeatedly asked... For what purpose would we want to bring down a board we posted to daily? Stupidity?

SiR proclaimed me a liar before he supposedly read my U2U's, when I denied any such conspiracy to destroy his property. He didn't say he thought I might not be telling the truth, he flat out called me a liar. I even challenged him to show me proof, and he continued to insist that he KNEW that I was lying. This is what prompted Brent to speculate that he might have read U2U's, because how else could he have been so sure of himself?

Grind and Brent busted SiR in a lie about not having that ability, and then it was one lie after another to cover himself. Now, he's got about half his cronies still believing he was the victim of this "coup" attempt to bring down his glorious board!

There was never anything "covert" about our intentions, although with the continued threats of banishment, we were forced to conduct ourselves in a clandestine manner. It should say something that this was a coalition of Dixie, Grind, Tiana, Brent, and others. Think about that combo for a sec.? Doesn't it strike you as a bit ODD that WE should form a coalition together? Do any of you really think that ME or GRIND have that kind of "mind control" ability? There was no "puppet master" or anything nefarious in what we were doing. It was people who had the same ultimate objectives, forming an alliance and making a plan of action. Nothing in that plan of action or objective was a violation of any law, rule, or guideline of SiR's or ANY freaking web site! NOTHING! It didn't damage tangible property, it didn't damage intellectual property, nor would it have.

All anyone ever really wanted, was HONESTY out of SiR, and he literally burned his house down to avoid giving us that. So be it.

[Immanuel]

For god's sake, Immie is still over there slobbering around trying to give him the benefit of the doubt! Some people just don't see, no matter what you do to show them, but that is not our problem.

Dixie... you slobber. I don't. You slobbered for days about the travesty of the Security Council. My God the way you whined one would have thought SR had hired Osama bin Ladin or worse yet John Kerry as an administrator. You didn't even give the SC a damned chance. It was you and your ego that tried (and may have succeeded in doing) to destroy SR's site. The SC may well have failed. If it did, so what? SR would have tried something else. But, you were not happy with that. You did your damnedest to destroy not the council innitiative, but the whole damned site.

And now you are attacking everyone who did not play your little game. Whose ego are we talking about here? Yours or SR's?

I wonder why you were so deadset against even giving it a chance. Perhaps because it was not your idea? Maybe you felt others would ban you or declare you to be a troll? How foolish of you. There was no chance you would have been banned or declared a troll. Maybe because you were afraid you would not be elected King of FullPolitics.com?

Today, I asked SR a simple question and expected a simple answer. I simply asked if the ban was permanent or temporary. SR responded with a full explanation as to what happened. I'm glad he did, because so many of the threads were deleted and so much has transpired. I agree with some of the things he said and others I thought he was wrong on, but he did give his side of the story.

I respect you and Grind. I was angry when I came onto the site after the banning and found out about it. I'd like to see you both back or to see you here. I did nothing but open a door for him to say that at the moment it was a temporary ban.

As for not seeing, I see enough. I don't like the fact that SR posted those U2U's. What's done is done and there is nothing I can do about it. As for reading other's U2U's, I always (and Care will back me up on this) suspected that it was possible for him to do it. I hoped he was ethical enough not to. Regardless, I didn't post things that I would have had a problem with him seeing. Anyone that posted things that they did not want others to see in the U2U system was a fool. You had to know that it was possible for an administrator to see those messages.

Is it possible that SR did not know about it? Yes it is. I have taught myself how to program in several languages and also use different software packages. I start by skimming through the manual then trying different things that interest me. I can go for months working with a system and then need to do something and have to go find the manual to see if it is possible. Was the feature available to SR? Yes. Did he know about it? He says no. I'll take his word for it because only liberals call everyone that they don't agree with "liars"

As for ethics, I wonder if you have any. You see, I believe you made it your goal to destroy SR's site when he would not play your game. That is kind of sad. SR gave us a place to go when politics.com died. You have thrown him "under the bus" after he gave us all what we wanted. The funny thing is someone went digging through some of the old treads and found one started by you thanking SR for giving us the site. My how times have changed. So, I think you have stabbed SR in the back simply because he would not play your game. The ego problem is yours as well as SR's.


I plan to move on with my life, his ego problem is not worth me losing sleep over, to be honest. I just hate to see you acting like Immie about it. You did the right thing, I did the right thing, Tiana did the right thing... SiR was the one who fucked up and blew any credibility he had. He will have to live with that, and that is plenty good enough for me.

What about your ego problem? Do you lose sleep when people don't pay attention to you as much as you think they should?

I have not left fullpolitics.com. I don't know that I will nor do I know if I will stay. It really depends on which site remains active with the people with whom I enjoy conversing. Until we see what happens, I'm not leaving either site.

SR has hinted at some interesting changes. I'd like to see if he implements them. If the site continues and people I enjoy posting with stay at fullpolitics.com, I will probably stay. If it dies as you tried to kill it then I will leave.

Immie

[BRUTALITOPS]

You took the time to get dixie on board with ruining a message board feature

Another SiR lie. Actually two... he went for a double! Grind didn't take time to get me on board, I was already firing up the engines,

There you have it sr, douchebag.

You KNOW dixie was talking about that stuff for a MONTH.

(dixie I am not pinning anything on you, it's just that sr is trying to find the best reason for banning me, so he wants to pretend that i started all the shit.. which we know isn't the case).

[tianabautre]

Immy, at best the entire ordeal would have exploited a weakness in SR's construct. An obvious one that which he refused to acknowledge. There was no destroying about it. The entire concept of "destroying" the site is one that SR and his ass kissers have fallaciously perpetuated.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Also at this time, for the record I wish to just bring to everyone's attention that this thread is taking place in the equivalent of an off topic forum.

[tianabautre]

Oh, and there was nothing secretive about my intentions. I quite openly stated anyone who nominated CK for troll would get my vote. The hell if I cared what your political ideology was.

[SR_]

Immy, at best the entire ordeal would have exploited a weakness in SR's construct. An obvious one that which he refused to acknowledge. There was no destroying about it. The entire concept of "destroying" the site is one that SR and his ass kissers have fallaciously perpetuated.

Tiana,

It doesnt matter what system anyone puts in. We could have had an at large election and the top five vote getters could have won, and ALL of them may have intended to make sure the feature was ruined. thats what seems to be over your head.

Obviously youre a scumbag, but at the time some people may not have thought you were, and had someone come to you and said "hey, im running for the SC and I intend to provide gridlock", you may have looked at that and said to yourself that you really didnt want someone like that on the council, that you wanted to give it a chance, that you were a member of the forum and wanted it to work. I dont know you may have been the opposite, as a scumbag its completely possible that you would have. I just dont know.

However, I dont think you knew thats what the purpose was. I think you were willing to do anything to get CK nominated as a troll, maybe they offered you some watermelon, hell I dont know, what I do know is that I cant design a system that would keep people from being assholes. It doesnt matter how you elect them, if they have a desire to be decietful and to do harm then theres nothing you can do to stop them.

You seem to think that if we elected members differently than somehow that would prevent ANYONE from doing the exact same thing.

Thats why I said numerous times that it takes a little faith in the member base that they would take pride in the forum and want to actually be involved in the administration of it. I was wrong for placing that faith in people.

SR

[SR_]

There you have it sr, douchebag.

You KNOW dixie was talking about that stuff for a MONTH.

(dixie I am not pinning anything on you, it's just that sr is trying to find the best reason for banning me, so he wants to pretend that i started all the shit.. which we know isn't the case).


Grind, dixie wasnt talking about that stuff for a month. Hell I didnt even start to change anything until a few weeks ago.

Before that I was in Tulsa for a month, i wasnt even checking in but maybe a few times in that entire month.

why are you still lying?

SR

[BRUTALITOPS]

sr... you know for a fact that dixie has been against this security council for a LONG ASS time, and he mentioned on the board multiple times about how he was going to obstruct. This was before any type of 'underground' was ever set up.

Again, you have the dates. You are the one lying, as usual.

[tianabautre]

Tiana,
However, I dont think you knew thats what the purpose was. I think you were willing to do anything to get CK nominated as a troll, maybe they offered you some watermelon, hell I dont know, what I do know is that I cant design a system that would keep people from being assholes. It doesnt matter how you elect them, if they have a desire to be decietful and to do harm then theres nothing you can do to stop them.SR

LOL, you know, you may think your watermelon and fried chicken comments get to me, but in reality, they expose you as racist jackass I've always known your were. And you little hitleresque running of the board, also proved my point that over the last few months, you have been losing it. Where did you learn such hateful rhetoric SR? Your grandfather?

Let's tally up:
I was right about the Iraq War
I was right about your little failed experiment
I was also right about your propensity to ban members in an unprincipaled manner.

In closing, you can kiss my natural black ass.

[SR_]

sr... you know for a fact that dixie has been against this security council for a LONG ASS time, and he mentioned on the board multiple times about how he was going to obstruct. This was before any type of 'underground' was ever set up.

Again, you have the dates. You are the one lying, as usual.


you may believe this, I have no way of knowing. But i mentioned the council a few times in the last few months, and I never had any neverending debates with Dixie about the council until a week and half ago.

maybe he shared his intentions with you, but he never did with me. I hadnt even started to modify things until a few weeks ago.

SR

[Immanuel]

Immy, at best the entire ordeal would have exploited a weakness in SR's construct. An obvious one that which he refused to acknowledge. There was no destroying about it. The entire concept of "destroying" the site is one that SR and his ass kissers have fallaciously perpetuated.

Lady T,

I realize that. Nothing you guys threatened to do would have hurt the site. In fact, it simply would have made things more interesting. That is not what I am talking about.

Dixie began bad mouthing SR when SR would not bow down to him and believe me people began to feel the tension and I would not be surprised if some had not left the site because of it. It went on for quite some time and then Grind came up with the possibility of reading our U2U's. As far as I was concerned Grind made a good case for it. But things were pushed too far. SR said he had not read our U2U's and did not know how to, then Grind showed us all that it could be done, then SR posted those U2U's. He never should have done that. A simple admission that he was wrong and that yes it was possible would have been better.

I didn't care about your little conspiracy to get someone elected to the SC. That was interesting drama. Could you do it? Would you succeed? Would some dark knight come in at the last minute to defeat you? It was very interesting to me. I told Care that if it looked like the council was going to be able to vote to ban individuals and that it looked like Dixie might be banned, I would run to stop that.

I don't think this started out as an attempt to destroy SR's site. I do, however, believe that Dixie got pissed and decided to show the world who was boss.

Immie

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What about your ego problem? Do you lose sleep when people don't pay attention to you as much as you think they should?

OMG, I doooo Immie! I swear... If I think I haven't gotten enough attention, I might get up in the middle of the night and write a long-ass post about it, just so I can get a little rest! It consumes me to the point that I am nearly suicidal sometimes! That's what I really loved about SiR, he was always so concerned with giving me attention and making me happy! He literally would kiss my ass in front of you all, and I know that made you so jealous, but hey... I was getting my attention, so wtf? right?

You fucking dufuss! Get your head out of your ass for once and wake up! I don't know what the hell I ever did to you for you to just despise me so much, maybe it stems from when you were jealous of me talking to Care on Yahoo? Beats me! I've always kind of liked you, because you didn't seem to be as stupid as most pinheads, and we could actually have intelligent convo's. Here lately, you're a whiny liberal ass kiss, and that's about it, unless you're busy blowing SiR or trying to get people to sing Kumbaya with the kiddie diddlers! I think you must have talked to Care so long you turned into a Jackass! Beware, you need to change your Group Affiliation before the King locks you in! Run along now!!

[SR_]

LOL, you know, you may think your watermelon and fried chicken comments get to me, but in reality, they expose you as racist jackass I've always known your were. And you little hitleresque running of the board, also proved my point that over the last few months, you have been losing it. Where did you learn such hateful rhetoric SR? Your grandfather?

Let's tally up:
I was right about the Iraq War
I was right about your little failed experiment
I was also right about your propensity to ban members in an unprincipaled manner.

In closing, you can kiss my natural black ass.


I explained why grind was banned, and it was all based on principle, the principle that private property is not open for vandalism, that personal attacks on the ability of anyone to succeed with their own ventures using such private property should not be tolerated.

What principle were you using for supporting your decietful behavior? That you dont agree with someone and feel they shouldnt have the same opportunities or rights you have? How KKK of you.

SR

[tianabautre]

I explained why grind was banned, and it was all based on principle, the principle that private property is not open for vandalism, that personal attacks on the ability of anyone to succeed with their own ventures using such private property should not be tolerated.

What principle were you using for supporting your decietful behavior? That you dont agree with someone and feel they shouldnt have the same opportunities or rights you have? How KKK of you.

SR

Is that best you got? :readit:
"How KKK of You" Goooooooood one. You really put me in my proverbial place. Man, I'm going to log off and cry now.

[BRUTALITOPS]

You banned me because I proved you wrong SR.

By the way, maybe you should tell the board you were wrong?

[tianabautre]

:cof1:

Still crying.

[Immanuel]

What about your ego problem? Do you lose sleep when people don't pay attention to you as much as you think they should?

OMG, I doooo Immie! I swear... If I think I haven't gotten enough attention, I might get up in the middle of the night and write a long-ass post about it, just so I can get a little rest! It consumes me to the point that I am nearly suicidal sometimes! That's what I really loved about SiR, he was always so concerned with giving me attention and making me happy! He literally would kiss my ass in front of you all, and I know that made you so jealous, but hey... I was getting my attention, so wtf? right?

You fucking dufuss! Get your head out of your ass for once and wake up! I don't know what the hell I ever did to you for you to just despise me so much, maybe it stems from when you were jealous of me talking to Care on Yahoo? Beats me! I've always kind of liked you, because you didn't seem to be as stupid as most pinheads, and we could actually have intelligent convo's. Here lately, you're a whiny liberal ass kiss, and that's about it, unless you're busy blowing SiR or trying to get people to sing Kumbaya with the kiddie diddlers! I think you must have talked to Care so long you turned into a Jackass! Beware, you need to change your Group Affiliation before the King locks you in! Run along now!!







What is the matter, Dixie? People don't bow down to your sorry fucking ass and you have to attack them? It is getting to be a habit with your insecure little ass. It is what happened at Fullpolitics.com. SR didn't bow down and kiss your sorry little ass so you run away crying. Have you told your mommy yet? Did she coddle you? Give you a cookie to make you feel better?

Despise you? No way. I have always liked you and still do. I do, however, think you are a crybaby.

Immie

[Immanuel]

Hey, there is an edit feature! Maybe I should edit my last post? Remove the F Word. Who typed that anyway? :)

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Grind, dixie wasnt talking about that stuff for a month. Hell I didnt even start to change anything until a few weeks ago....Before that I was in Tulsa for a month, i wasnt even checking in but maybe a few times in that entire month.

you may believe this, I have no way of knowing. But i mentioned the council a few times in the last few months, and I never had any neverending debates with Dixie about the council until a week and half ago.

Is this not something that SiR thinks is obvious to the reader? I don't get it! Seems to me, he is directly contradicting himself in the same post. SiR, seriously dude... I really think you need to take a break for a while buddy.

To clarify, and for the Official Record... I never have stated that I was opposed to A "security council" ...it was always about the structure of it for me. Perhaps it was just a fundamental ideological disagreement, I don't know, but I could not sit quietly by and allow a debacle like what SiR proposed, to be forced upon the members of the board against their will, and sold with complete false advertising in the process. It wasn't a "feature" because a "feature" entails some benefit, and there simply is no benefit to the board in having a partisan UN-style council of ideologues who would never be able to reach a unanimous vote. It was a joke, and it involved all of the individuals who take their time daily to post in SiR's forum.

There is a fundamental flaw in establishing four groups of two, and splitting the board up into representative groups, and it is a major flaw that needed to be exposed, and thanks to what we did, it was. SiR is still too stubborn to fix it, because he just can't bring himself to admit his errors. But he will eventually see what I told him to start with was true, you can't control people, you can't expect people to declare an honest ideology by force, and there is simply no benefit in splitting the board up into ideological groupings to elect fair and impartial board members. You open an ideological headache you just don't need. Your posters are always going to be the best judge of who is fair and impartial, if that's the choice they are given, but if their choice is who will best represent their "group" it might be a horse of a very different color, as we also proved with our little movement.

SiR's only reasoning or rationale for having to do it this way, was to "avoid the appearances of partisanship" in decisions the board made, when the board was not ultimately going to actually MAKE real decisions, that was SiR's job. But nevertheless, what the fuck if it did give a partisan impression? We're talking about people who are trolls! We're talking about credible and legitimate concerns facing the board! If the board is 98% Liberal, maybe Liberals should be addressing those concerns? Why the hell should Authoritarians and Greens be determining 25% of any damn thing? The whole ideological structuring was whacked from the start, and that was what I opposed, and still oppose. I think the best council is the one the whole board votes on, regardless of ideology, and based on integrity.

SiR can say we never debated this, and that is a lie too. As soon as he announced what was going on, I questioned him about it, and it escalated with each conversation, into a full blown mega-disaster. He would have been so much better off if he had formed a "blue ribbon panel" and held open Q&A as to how to implement such a change. Or just a "Hey guys? What do you think?" Thread! Some sort of acknowledgement of our input and advice.. but he didn't do that. He chose to Do It His Way! It was His Property! The almighty King of Message Board Empires!

I guess some people just like bending over and taking it up the wazoo, and pretending it feels good. (sorry rob) I just couldn't do it, and that's why I did what I did, and you know what... I am damn proud of it.

[SR_]

"To clarify, and for the Official Record... I never have stated that I was opposed to A "security council" ...it was always about the structure of it for me. Perhaps it was just a fundamental ideological disagreement, I don't know, but I could not sit quietly by and allow a debacle like what SiR proposed, to be forced upon the members of the board against their will, and sold with complete false advertising in the process."

lol , well lets just skip the fact that as an owner of my own property i can impose whatever i want, you arent entitled to anything no matter how badly you didnt want it.

But the larger point is that we started debating this a little over a week ago correct? It wasnt over a month was it.

"here is a fundamental flaw in establishing four groups of two, and splitting the board up into representative groups, and it is a major flaw that needed to be exposed, and thanks to what we did, it was. SiR is still too stubborn to fix it, because he just can't bring himself to admit his errors. But he will eventually see what I told him to start with was true, you can't control people, you can't expect people to declare an honest ideology by force, and there is simply no benefit in splitting the board up into ideological groupings to elect fair and impartial board members. You open an ideological headache you just don't need. Your posters are always going to be the best judge of who is fair and impartial, if that's the choice they are given, but if their choice is who will best represent their "group" it might be a horse of a very different color, as we also proved with our little movement. "

yada yada ydad, you hadnt been bitching about this for a month then right? since the system of the voting blocs wasnt installed yet? correct?


SR

[Immanuel]

Dixie,

I agree there was a fundamental flaw, but so what?

Even if the venture failed and your little conspiracy worked it would only have been an interesting outcome to the experiment. It would not have hurt the board in any way. I fail to see why you think you have to be the "white knight" to save all of us.

I don't need you to save me and no one else on the site needed it as well. Well, maybe from my liberal slide, but I don't need you to protect me on the site.

Immie

[BRUTALITOPS]

Dixie,

I agree there was a fundamental flaw, but so what?

Even if the venture failed and your little conspiracy worked it would only have been an interesting outcome to the experiment. It would not have hurt the board in any way. I fail to see why you think you have to be the "white knight" to save all of us.

I don't need you to save me and no one else on the site needed it as well. Well, maybe from my liberal slide, but I don't need you to protect me on the site.

Immie

truth be told I don't think we ever would have gotten a unamious vote for anything, ANYWAY.

[tianabautre]

"To clarify, and for the Official Record... I never have stated that I was opposed to A "security council" ...it was always about the structure of it for me. Perhaps it was just a fundamental ideological disagreement, I don't know, but I could not sit quietly by and allow a debacle like what SiR proposed, to be forced upon the members of the board against their will, and sold with complete false advertising in the process."

lol , well lets just skip the fact that as an owner of my own property i can impose whatever i want, you arent entitled to anything no matter how badly you didnt want it.

But the larger point is that we started debating this a little over a week ago correct? It wasnt over a month was it.

"here is a fundamental flaw in establishing four groups of two, and splitting the board up into representative groups, and it is a major flaw that needed to be exposed, and thanks to what we did, it was. SiR is still too stubborn to fix it, because he just can't bring himself to admit his errors. But he will eventually see what I told him to start with was true, you can't control people, you can't expect people to declare an honest ideology by force, and there is simply no benefit in splitting the board up into ideological groupings to elect fair and impartial board members. You open an ideological headache you just don't need. Your posters are always going to be the best judge of who is fair and impartial, if that's the choice they are given, but if their choice is who will best represent their "group" it might be a horse of a very different color, as we also proved with our little movement. "

yada yada ydad, you hadnt been bitching about this for a month then right? since the system of the voting blocs wasnt installed yet? correct?


SR

OMG SR! :eek: Someone just started a thread on basket weaving in the Politics section of your board. You better get over there and ban them. We can't have that now can we?

[Immanuel]

truth be told I don't think we ever would have gotten a unamious vote for anything, ANYWAY.

I agree. I said that from the very first time SR mentioned it.

But, I don't think it would have hurt the board. I suppose the only way that the board would have been hurt is if the SC banned together and banned all of us regular posters.

Immie

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie,

I agree there was a fundamental flaw, but so what?

Even if the venture failed and your little conspiracy worked it would only have been an interesting outcome to the experiment. It would not have hurt the board in any way. I fail to see why you think you have to be the "white knight" to save all of us.

I don't need you to save me and no one else on the site needed it as well. Well, maybe from my liberal slide, but I don't need you to protect me on the site.

Immie

Immie, you must be one of those type people who lives for what you get out of things. You simply can't understand doing something for the principle, unless it also involves something beneficial to yourself. This was not about me "saving you" or being your "White Knight" dumbass. It was about principle. There was no "conspiracy" except to effect change. I think we accomplished our goal in that regard. There has definitely been change.

I've always had this problem with standing on my principles when I am right, and I don't back down, it doesn't really matter about personal gain, or being liked. If it mattered to me about being liked, like it apparently does for you, I would have probably not chosen "Dixie" as my moniker. I am a defiant, hard-nosed, never-say-die rebel who refuses to back down. If the cause is worth it, I'll die fighting it, because that is just how I am. I think I might have been born that way, I don't know.

I've had a long history of standing up for what I believe in, and I am very accustomed to resistance, and at-home with being attacked for my opinions. It really doesn't bother me in the least, which is why I think it's funny that you are so wrapped up in my "obvious need for attention" or whatever. I think YOU are the one who seeks attention. You weren't over here 5 minutes until you were bugging Damo to fix this and do that... while you bounced back over to kiss on SiR some more and make nice with him too..... heaven knows, wouldn't want anyone mad at Immie!

[Immanuel]

Immie, you must be one of those type people who lives for what you get out of things. You simply can't understand doing something for the principle, unless it also involves something beneficial to yourself. This was not about me "saving you" or being your "White Knight" dumbass. It was about principle. There was no "conspiracy" except to effect change. I think we accomplished our goal in that regard. There has definitely been change.

I've always had this problem with standing on my principles when I am right, and I don't back down, it doesn't really matter about personal gain, or being liked. If it mattered to me about being liked, like it apparently does for you, I would have probably not chosen "Dixie" as my moniker. I am a defiant, hard-nosed, never-say-die rebel who refuses to back down. If the cause is worth it, I'll die fighting it, because that is just how I am. I think I might have been born that way, I don't know.

I've had a long history of standing up for what I believe in, and I am very accustomed to resistance, and at-home with being attacked for my opinions. It really doesn't bother me in the least, which is why I think it's funny that you are so wrapped up in my "obvious need for attention" or whatever. I think YOU are the one who seeks attention. You weren't over here 5 minutes until you were bugging Damo to fix this and do that... while you bounced back over to kiss on SiR some more and make nice with him too..... heaven knows, wouldn't want anyone mad at Immie!

Whatever whiner. Did your mommy get you those cookies?

You pick some dumbassed causes to fight for.

[SR_]

I agree. I said that from the very first time SR mentioned it.

But, I don't think it would have hurt the board. I suppose the only way that the board would have been hurt is if the SC banned together and banned all of us regular posters.

Immie


you miss the point.

if no one agreed then that would have been great. I mean if we had no trolls that would have been perfect. At least the debate and representation would have honestly worked to stop that. I think everyone would have agreed on taking out personal info.

BUT debating the merits wasnt important to a scumbag who JUST WANTED IT CHANGED OR REMOVED.

This isnt complicated. If members of the council didnt agree then thats one thing. If a member was only looking at which way to vote TO MAKE SURE that it never worked thats another.

Do you see the difference?

Why do you think it had to be done in secret? Why would people vote for someone to the council who had no intention other than to make sure it always was gridlocked, no matter what issue, no matter what thats the only goal.

How come congressmen dont campaign on the platform that they want to take bribes? because who would elect someone who's only intention is for malicious purposes?

Thats the point. I honestly DID NOT WANT a lot of actions to be taken, that was the point, it had to be something really really bad for EVERYONE from all sides to agree. But it wouldnt even have been given a chance to work if someone is going to be deceitful and vote in dissent for the sheer purpose of making certain it doesnt work.

And ill tell you what. IT wouldnt have mattered how we elect them, if its in a persons heart to do such things than it is, there is no system to prevent people from being assholes.

SR

[Immanuel]

Oh and one more thing Dixie, I registered before you did and the only thing I commented on the first night was that Damo's avatar looked like skin and bones, no, just bones. Get your facts straight.

Immie

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh and one more thing Dixie, I registered before you did and the only thing I commented on the first night was that Damo's avatar looked like skin and bones, no, just bones. Get your facts straight.

Immie

yahayaah waahyaaa yaa. I wegisterd b4 yeeeewwwwww... nanan nana boo booo....

So ya did, Ims, so ya did.
:gives:

[BRUTALITOPS]

To SR:



. I was the one who spoke the loudest on the board, and I might have originated the master plan,



So again.. I'm banned and he isn't becaauuuse . . .?

Not that I want dixie banned, I am just saying...it's pretty evident I got banned because I took you to school.

[SR_]

To SR:



So again.. I'm banned and he isn't becaauuuse . . .?

Not that I want dixie banned, I am just saying...it's pretty evident I got banned because I took you to school.

you can think whatever you like. It doesnt really matter to me, whats done is done, ive explained it all i can.

maybe if you werent so infatuated with me or my forum you might have been able to control yourself a little better, hell i cant make excuses for you.

SR

[Immanuel]

you miss the point.

if no one agreed then that would have been great. I mean if we had no trolls that would have been perfect. At least the debate and representation would have honestly worked to stop that. I think everyone would have agreed on taking out personal info.

BUT debating the merits wasnt important to a scumbag who JUST WANTED IT CHANGED OR REMOVED.

This isnt complicated. If members of the council didnt agree then thats one thing. If a member was only looking at which way to vote TO MAKE SURE that it never worked thats another.

Do you see the difference?

Why do you think it had to be done in secret? Why would people vote for someone to the council who had no intention other than to make sure it always was gridlocked, no matter what issue, no matter what thats the only goal.

How come congressmen dont campaign on the platform that they want to take bribes? because who would elect someone who's only intention is for malicious purposes?

Thats the point. I honestly DID NOT WANT a lot of actions to be taken, that was the point, it had to be something really really bad for EVERYONE from all sides to agree. But it wouldnt even have been given a chance to work if someone is going to be deceitful and vote in dissent for the sheer purpose of making certain it doesnt work.

And ill tell you what. IT wouldnt have mattered how we elect them, if its in a persons heart to do such things than it is, there is no system to prevent people from being assholes.

SR

That is all well and good. And you promised a new vote every 4 months I think you said. So, if it didn't work the first time then the offender (and his mates) could have been voted off and life would have gone on.

Yes, the "conspiracy" was active. So what? And so what if they had won? I thought and still do that they were playing games with it at first. I mean Lady T registering as a conservative? We talked on site about people registering as one party or another to affect a vote in a primary election. Big deal.

I'm sorry that I don't see your experiment as having a major effect on the site and if a conspirator won and blocked all actions then it was your fault for requiring an unanimous vote. I said that from the beginning. I respected your wishes and moved on. I have lobbied for an individual ignore feature for a long time. You vetoed it at every attempt. I respected your wishes and waited for another opportunity. I do not understand everything you are attempting to accomplish with the SC. I don't care. I took a wait and see attitude from the very beginning.

Maybe I don't see the full picture you are looking to accomplish, but I don't find it to be a major roadblock in any manner whatsoever.

You call them scumbags. I don't see it that way. I saw them as attempting to accomplish a set of goals by following the rules. You set up the parameters and when this all started they were trying to follow your rules. You didn't like their motives. I didn't think they were out to hurt you at first, at all. Later I felt they got pissed and began to attack you.

Maybe, I am missing something, but I don't find your SC to be all that powerful or all that important.

Immie

[Immanuel]

yahayaah waahyaaa yaa. I wegisterd b4 yeeeewwwwww... nanan nana boo booo....

So ya did, Ims, so ya did.
:gives:

Obviosly you did.

Immie

[SR_]

did you ever just stop and think, ya know, this board isnt mine, its just a message forum its not worth all this effort to try and prove that im better than SR?

i mean just a little self restraint grind. I know that you wish that everyone thought i was some evil unethical monster reading everyones u2u's, i guess that might make you feel better about yourself, i just dont know, i mean you put so much time and energy into it not to mention the energy you put into ruining the board features. you have friends here that support you, they think youre a stand up guy... but i think me and you know differently.

All i know is that you can do so on your own time and not on my dime.

SR

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Why do you think it had to be done in secret?

Hmmm, could it have had anything to do with your continued threats to ban anyone who dared to "destroy your property" in that way?

Uhmm, I think I speak for everyone who remained incognito, it was because of your insipid behavior and unreasonable attitude, that we chose to discuss the matter privately. Nothing that would have or could have been done, would have been any violation of your system in any way, as it was established. There was nothing in your rules to prevent what we were doing, in fact, it was your own system that enabled us to do it.

That's where your problems began. You should have thanked me for showing you how your little "factional divisions" were exploitable given a common purpose amongst your membership, and made the proper changes, but instead, you decided to become defensive and arrogant and insisted on selling the board this lie about how we wanted to destroy you.

I am shocked you carried it to the extreme you did, but it was clearly of your own accord. I didn't make you choose the paths you took in breaking your own rules, while banning people who never came close to breaking your rules. I wasn't parading around the board calling people idiots and morons because they didn't agree with me. Despite the spectacle that you made of yourself, there are still SiR Ass Monkeys out there, singing your tune... feeding your ego... creating boogie men out of me! Ownership has it's rewards, I suppose.

Life goes on.

[SR_]

immie,

your approach was all i expected from anyone. Dont be fooled dude, there was no ethical reason to try and do what they did. It was all for malicious purposes, if it wasnt why not come out and say "elect brent, hes gonna provide gridlock on the council so we can change it". Thats what people with principles do immie, come on anything thats thats justifiable based on principles need not be done in secret.

thats why dixie wasnt banned. I established that anyone who trying to change the board by destroying the feature would be banned. In my estimation that was enough for him to abandon it, grind just couldnt accept that and he took it too far. If 8 honest people got elected and it just didnt work i wouldve changed it. But in order to fix something thats broken it needs an honest opportunity to work. Its like your friend telling you that you need to go fix your brand new car, you ask him why, and he walks over and takes a baseball bat to the windshield and says "because something is wrong with your windsheild".

SR

[SR_]

"Hmmm, could it have had anything to do with your continued threats to ban anyone who dared to "destroy your property" in that way?"

yeah dixie, i guess in order to inspire you not to be a scumbag you needed to be aware of what would happen.

whats your point?

'That's where your problems began. You should have thanked me for showing you how your little "factional divisions" were exploitable given a common purpose amongst your membership, and made the proper changes, but instead, you decided to become defensive and arrogant and insisted on selling the board this lie about how we wanted to destroy you."

everything is exploitable if people want to act without ethics and be scumbags. you demonstrated that with you little tirade involving desh and the US constitution.

SR

[Damocles]

For me the entire thing is a practice in micropolitics.

In actual politics there are factions of people that will work together to gain representation as well, especially on a strong city board... Those people will work to get in position to block legislation from an opponent constantly. There was nothing out of the ordinary. And they even did what you described, SR, stating that they would U2U and work a campaign to get elected, etc...

Their agenda was outside what you expected, but it was all in the framework of what you had set up. I was fascinated, and still am by the SC and want to see it in play. Especially when you made changes to a Majority vote over unanimity. I wouldn't have gone quite to that extreme. In micropolitics those people who work against the very system itself can only win one or two seats otherwise, like any other representative society, it will fail. A supermajority vote would be enough. I'd go for a 9 member Council and require a vote of 6 or 7 to change it if I were implementing such a system.

Of course I'm not...

[Immanuel]

immie,

your approach was all i expected from anyone. Dont be fooled dude, there was no ethical reason to try and do what they did. It was all for malicious purposes, if it wasnt why not come out and say "elect brent, hes gonna provide gridlock on the council so we can change it". Thats what people with principles do immie, come on anything thats thats justifiable based on principles need not be done in secret.

thats why dixie wasnt banned. I established that anyone who trying to change the board by destroying the feature would be banned. In my estimation that was enough for him to abandon it, grind just couldnt accept that and he took it too far. If 8 honest people got elected and it just didnt work i wouldve changed it. But in order to fix something thats broken it needs an honest opportunity to work. Its like your friend telling you that you need to go fix your brand new car, you ask him why, and he walks over and takes a baseball bat to the windshield and says "because something is wrong with your windsheild".

SR

First off, they acted in "secret" because that was the only method to converse on a one on one basis. How would you have suggested they discuss the issue and the solutions together? They were working for a "so-called" cause. Was that a crime?

Our politicians meet behind closed doors everyday to strategize even to get particular individuals elected. Is that a crime? Is that corrupt?

I have absolutely no problem with them meeting behind closed doors. Would you have had a problem if I had met with 4 others, behind closed doors, to support you and counter their plans? How about if I had attempted to infiltrate their little group and to sabotage it? It was all politics and I found it fasinating.

However, I think their personal attacks on you were uncalled for. I can understand your anger in that and I can understand you taking action if it were not abated. It got out of hand. I don't know who started it and I don't really care. This battle got out of hand over a silly little thing.

Immie

[Immanuel]

For me the entire thing is a practice in micropolitics.

In actual politics there are factions of people that will work together to gain representation as well, especially on a strong city board... Those people will work to get in position to block legislation from an opponent constantly. There was nothing out of the ordinary. And they even did what you described, SR, stating that they would U2U and work a campaign to get elected, etc...

Their agenda was outside what you expected, but it was all in the framework of what you had set up. I was fascinated, and still am by the SC and want to see it in play. Especially when you made changes to a Majority vote over unanimity. I wouldn't have gone quite to that extreme. In micropolitics those people who work against the very system itself can only win one or two seats otherwise, like any other representative society, it will fail. A supermajority vote would be enough. I'd go for a 9 member Council and require a vote of 6 or 7 to change it if I were implementing such a system.

Of course I'm not...

Exactly how I looked at it.

Immie

[SR_]

For me the entire thing is a practice in micropolitics.

In actual politics there are factions of people that will work together to gain representation as well, especially on a strong city board... Those people will work to get in position to block legislation from an opponent constantly. There was nothing out of the ordinary. And they even did what you described, SR, stating that they would U2U and work a campaign to get elected, etc...

Their agenda was outside what you expected, but it was all in the framework of what you had set up. I was fascinated, and still am by the SC and want to see it in play. Especially when you made changes to a Majority vote over unanimity. I wouldn't have gone quite to that extreme. In micropolitics those people who work against the very system itself can only win one or two seats otherwise, like any other representative society, it will fail. A supermajority vote would be enough. I'd go for a 9 member Council and require a vote of 6 or 7 to change it if I were implementing such a system.

Of course I'm not...

I understand what youre saying damo, and maybe im not explaining myself properly. We had an instance here in Texas where Democrats who had lost the majority did not want to accept the fact that texas was going to be redistricted. So their response was to leave the state, which is to say, they would rather forsake their duties in order to try and demand something that they had no right to demand. Now this isnt exactly the same, but the point is to show that the positions that people are elected too come with certain code and come with certain expectations.

In all honesty it wouldnt matter how we elected people or how we really voted, if people who are elected desire not to pay any attention to why they were elected, or hide their true intentions there is nothing that can be done to stop them, other than to provide disincentives for such behavior.

The SC for fp.com was meant to serve the interests of the board, people of integrity are in every voting bloc, but some felt like they needed to be elected for their own interests, that being their own satisfaction or whatever it doesnt matter. Thats why it had to be done in secret, and that was wrong.

The framework wouldnt have mattered, none of that matters to people who forsake ethics for personal gain. The faction that was working, wasnt working as a faction to block legislation, it would be paramount to a faction in the executive secretly working to change the dynamic of how congress worked for their own personal desires. Its not up to the executive to demand or try to force change in institutions that they have no purview over for personal desires. Its unethical. In this case it was a feature on someone elses private property. It would be like me doing taking advantage of the posting ability here to post 50 threads every five minutes that say "nigger, nigger, nigger". Obviously I have that ability damo as posting new threads is in the system, and if my motivation was to get you to change something with this board, then you'd be looking at a situation where a member is causing damage to you and offering you a choice "do what i say or Ill ruin this place".

SR

[SR_]

"First off, they acted in "secret" because that was the only method to converse on a one on one basis. How would you have suggested they discuss the issue and the solutions together? They were working for a "so-called" cause. Was that a crime?"

if its a malicious cause i can see why. But if you were wanting to run for the SC and wanted your ignore feature, why not go onto the board and say "VOTE FOR IMMIE and I will work to convince SR we need an ignore feature". Thats my point, the cause for someone to be elected should be known, UNLESS its scummy or not supportable. Hell people told me after the fact that they were contacting them to vote for brent, and never once did they mention their "cause" immie.

"Our politicians meet behind closed doors everyday to strategize even to get particular individuals elected. Is that a crime? Is that corrupt?
"

of course not, but the cause isnt also the strategy. getting brent elected involved strategy, not telling anyone their goal is decietful. is it okay for a democrat to strategize on how to win an election? yes Is it okay for that democrats purpose for getting elected is to take bribes or some other malicious purpose that they dont tell anyone? i would think not

SR

[Damocles]

I understand what youre saying damo, and maybe im not explaining myself properly. We had an instance here in Texas where Democrats who had lost the majority did not want to accept the fact that texas was going to be redistricted. So their response was to leave the state, which is to say, they would rather forsake their duties in order to try and demand something that they had no right to demand. Now this isnt exactly the same, but the point is to show that the positions that people are elected too come with certain code and come with certain expectations.

In all honesty it wouldnt matter how we elected people or how we really voted, if people who are elected desire not to pay any attention to why they were elected, or hide their true intentions there is nothing that can be done to stop them, other than to provide disincentives for such behavior.

The SC for fp.com was meant to serve the interests of the board, people of integrity are in every voting bloc, but some felt like they needed to be elected for their own interests, that being their own satisfaction or whatever it doesnt matter. Thats why it had to be done in secret, and that was wrong.

The framework wouldnt have mattered, none of that matters to people who forsake ethics for personal gain. The faction that was working, wasnt working as a faction to block legislation, it would be paramount to a faction in the executive secretly working to change the dynamic of how congress worked for their own personal desires. Its not up to the executive to demand or try to force change in institutions that they have no purview over for personal desires. Its unethical. In this case it was a feature on someone elses private property. It would be like me doing taking advantage of the posting ability here to post 50 threads every five minutes that say "nigger, nigger, nigger". Obviously I have that ability damo as posting new threads is in the system, and if my motivation was to get you to change something with this board, then you'd be looking at a situation where a member is causing damage to you and offering you a choice "do what i say or Ill ruin this place".

SR
Okay, the feature on somebody else's property was specifically designed to draw out the politics. People were supposed to get others to vote for them. In your descriptions you were talking about people using U2U to contact others to convince them to vote for them and running campaigns. Dixie wasn't even in secret. Shoot there was a thread with over 200 posts talking about "Join Him"...

It was politics, plain and simple. They were working within the system you had built to enact what they wanted, even when it was against the Executive of the board...

It was a play I foresaw and informed you that a simple change to supermajority would end, they couldn't win more than one, and if they were lucky, two seats... This would make it so such a vote would not ruin the system at all and their weak position would make it likely they would never be voted in again.

[Immanuel]

SR,

Unless I am mistaken there had not been any real campaigning. Their so called strategy sessions were simply to prepare a campaign strategy to begin with.

With five of them, I am not sure but they may very well have had a lock on the fringe group. I don't see that as being their fault. It was simply an issue with how you set up the rules. Had I wanted a seat, I might have contacted Care and a few others that I thought trusted me and begun to "campaign" for a seat.

I'm sorry but I don't see a problem with their "meetings". And their cause, which appears to have been to affect change, seems to have been an issue with only you.

You are assuming that they never would have told others what their goal was. Maybe they wouldn't have.

Did George Bush tell America that his goal was to go to war with Iraq? Assuming as Desh likes to point out that it was. Do you really think that anyone running a campaign is honest about what their ultimate goal really is? For Lady T it was obvious. She wanted Canadiankid and Toby "trollized". Was that wrong of her? Dixie didn't hide his motives either. He came right out and told everyone that he didn't think it would work and that his way was better.

I don't think they were hiding their goals. If they were then they did a shitty job of it.

Immie

[SR_]

Okay, the feature on somebody else's property was specifically designed to draw out the politics. People were supposed to get others to vote for them. In your descriptions you were talking about people using U2U to contact others to convince them to vote for them and running campaigns. Dixie wasn't even in secret. Shoot there was a thread with over 200 posts talking about "Join Him"...

It was politics, plain and simple. They were working within the system you had built to enact what they wanted, even when it was against the Executive of the board...

It was a play I foresaw and informed you that a simple change to supermajority would end, they couldn't win more than one, and if they were lucky, two seats... This would make it so such a vote would not ruin the system at all and their weak position would make it likely they would never be voted in again.


no, dixie wasnt running. there was little support for him in that endeavor, had he chosen to acutally run on the merits of his campaign i highly doubt he would have succeeded, and if he had i woulve banned him. are you starting the see the necessity for the clandestine operation?

They had no public position. If i had never been tipped off to it, and they had accomplished their goal, they STILL wouldnt have told anyone. It just would have been a defunct feature, attacked on purpose for no other reason than he wanted it changed.

This is your board Damo, i dont feel i have the right to use the features on YOUR board to FORCE YOU to change things or use them against you. This isnt public property, this is private property. There is no "Damo do what I say with your property or else". Or do you disagree?

SR

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

SiR, you can explain it until you're blue in the face over here, there was nothing "malicious" in our intent whatsoever. Why would some of your most prolific regular posters be intent on destroying your property?

For me, it was Fundamental, not Malicious. There is no malice in civil disobedience, and that's what you saw happen, whether it's what you want to admit to people or not. Nothing we did was really a big secret, except on the board, because you threatened to ban the dissident traitors and such. In essence, just like the Desh Constitution episode, you were the one who blew it up into a big stink, not me. You decided it was better for you to appease your pinheaded whiners by turning me into a pariah, and creating this huge controversial drama by closing down the board and making the changes to keep me from NOT breaking your rule!

You are just a piece of work, SiR. Simply amazing.

[Damocles]

no, dixie wasnt running. there was little support for him in that endeavor, had he chosen to acutally run on the merits of his campaign i highly doubt he would have succeeded, and if he had i woulve banned him. are you starting the see the necessity for the clandestine operation?

They had no public position. If i had never been tipped off to it, and they had accomplished their goal, they STILL wouldnt have told anyone. It just would have been a defunct feature, attacked on purpose for no other reason than he wanted it changed.

This is your board Damo, i dont feel i have the right to use the features on YOUR board to FORCE YOU to change things or use them against you. This isnt public property, this is private property. There is no "Damo do what I say with your property or else". Or do you disagree?

SR

The only reason their "or else" could work is because of your insistence on Unanimity. This gave each seat on the SC sole veto power for any and all resolutions. It isn't destroying a feature if you are using it as it was designed. Trying to get elected as a RINO or a DINO in a largely R or D community is an age-old political move. They weren't even subtle about it.

I disagree they were saying "do what I say" with your property. They were saying, "These are the conditions in which I have to work, this is what I'll do then!"

It wasn't destruction of a feature, it was usage of the feature exactly as you had designed it. You somehow expected every person to agree with the necessity and work towards your goal rather than to have some other agenda.

Now they would have almost no power at all on a security council. They would have to win a majority of the council over multiple groups.. They have no power other than what you give them.

[SR_]

"Unless I am mistaken there had not been any real campaigning. Their so called strategy sessions were simply to prepare a campaign strategy to begin with.

With five of them, I am not sure but they may very well have had a lock on the fringe group. I don't see that as being their fault. It was simply an issue with how you set up the rules. Had I wanted a seat, I might have contacted Care and a few others that I thought trusted me and begun to "campaign" for a seat."

immie, that was the campaign. you may contact others and ask for votes, but would you lie to them about what your cause was in order to get them to vote for you. meaning, would you hide the fact that you wanted to destroy the feature? If im going to run for a position to serve the interests of the people electing me, thats fine, i campaign on those issues. The only reason to hide intentions is because those intentions would lead people not to vote for you.

If you want a seat in congress so that you can get rich of bribes would you tell anyone that? If you didnt tell them your sole purpose to act in an unethical manner, then what does it matter the process in how you get elected?

"Did George Bush tell America that his goal was to go to war with Iraq? Assuming as Desh likes to point out that it was. Do you really think that anyone running a campaign is honest about what their ultimate goal really is? For Lady T it was obvious. She wanted Canadiankid and Toby "trollized". Was that wrong of her? Dixie didn't hide his motives either. He came right out and told everyone that he didn't think it would work and that his way was better.

I don't think they were hiding their goals. If they were then they did a shitty job of it."

If that was the case in the scenario with Bush, then he needs to be impeached. Thats what i dont get, sure people lie when they campaign, but those that lie about a desire to do harm or behave unethically should be removed. I stated as much in that anyone elected who did harm to the board would be banned. This was the consequence, just as taking bribes comes with a consequence, and that deterred some from desring to continue on with their unethical behavior.

Dixe made it clear what he wanted, but he refused to run. he knew that no one would elect him to destroy the council, too many people thought it would be neat to at least try, the others didnt care.

Can we as a society stop someone who will take bribes from getting elected? no, it doesnt matter what system we use to elect them. Can we provide consequences and disincentives to such behavior? yes. Does that stop it? NO

SR

[SR_]

"I disagree they were saying "do what I say" with your property. They were saying, "These are the conditions in which I have to work, this is what I'll do then!"

Damo. to what end?

this is a simple question. TO WHAT END? You disagree, you seem to believe that they were just working within the conditions, and im asking you what you truly believe they were working towards accomplishing?

SR

[Damocles]

"I disagree they were saying "do what I say" with your property. They were saying, "These are the conditions in which I have to work, this is what I'll do then!"

Damo. to what end?

this is a simple question. TO WHAT END? You disagree, you seem to believe that they were just working within the conditions, and im asking you what you truly believe they were working towards accomplishing?

SR

To what end? They didn't want the change. You gave each position veto power. I even told you that somebody would try this if you insisted on unanimity in all decisions that it would largely be a figurehead because almost certainly one person would be against any action...

[Damocles]

To what end? They didn't want the change. You gave each position veto power. I even told you that somebody would try this if you insisted on unanimity in all decisions that it would largely be a figurehead because almost certainly one person would be against any action...

The simplest fix would have been to change it to a supermajority which would insure a large consistent choice throughout all the "parties" on the board at the same time as taking power from the one or two dissenters that might get elected.

[SR_]

To what end? They didn't want the change. You gave each position veto power. I even told you that somebody would try this if you insisted on unanimity in all decisions that it would largely be a figurehead because almost certainly one person would be against any action...


ok damo, not wanting the change isnt accomplishing anything, you do something in order to accomplish something.

tell me what operating within the conditions, obviously to get someone elected, for what purpose.

What was to be accomplished.

SR

[SR_]

The simplest fix would have been to change it to a supermajority which would insure a large consistent choice throughout all the "parties" on the board at the same time as taking power from the one or two dissenters that might get elected.

thats what the plan is.

SR

[Damocles]

ok damo, not wanting the change isnt accomplishing anything, you do something in order to accomplish something.

tell me what operating within the conditions, obviously to get someone elected, for what purpose.

What was to be accomplished.

SR

Once again, the ultimate Conservative position. To deter change. That is a purpose.

[Damocles]

thats what the plan is.

SR

Only after 7000 posts on how it was destroying your property to use the system as you designed it, then the banning of two members from a site that promised at the beginning not to moderate at all except to delete threads with personal information...

Like I said, I can see both sides. However I foresaw the issues you would have, but you insisted on the unanimity until it simply got to where you had to relent to take the power from the few that were dissenting...

I found it fascinating, and directly representational of regular politics in the US...

[SR_]

Once again, the ultimate Conservative position. To deter change. That is a purpose.


so how is this different than me saying "do what I say" with your property or else.

If what you say is what you believe they were working towards either not having the feature at all (again your private property), or changing the way it worked (again your property).

You just decided that you would allow trolls that resemble other peoples names. If i took it upon myself to not desire such a change, and decided that i would BLAST this board with nigger threads, until you capitulated, what would be the difference?

SR

[Damocles]

I also find it fascinating that we end up talking politics on the Whatever Goes thread, even when it appeared we weren't...

:D

Goodnight, SR. I plan on keeping my membership at your site. I am now a member of 3 poli sites including this one....

[SR_]

I also find it fascinating that we end up talking politics on the Whatever Goes thread, even when it appeared we weren't...

:D

Goodnight, SR. I plan on keeping my membership at your site. I am now a member of 3 poli sites including this one....

nite man, enjoyed it.

SR

[Damocles]

so how is this different than me saying "do what I say" with your property or else.

If what you say is what you believe they were working towards either not having the feature at all (again your private property), or changing the way it worked (again your property).

You just decided that you would allow trolls that resemble other peoples names. If i took it upon myself to not desire such a change, and decided that i would BLAST this board with nigger threads, until you capitulated, what would be the difference?

SR
The difference is you handed them the tool and said they had the power if people could get elected. They were working on a grass roots campaign...

I have a rule against mutiple threads on the same subject, you stated that they could run campaigns. They were within the framework of what you designed you are without... Notice the difference? I do.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

no, dixie wasnt running. there was little support for him in that endeavor

LMAO... yeah, we discussed this very thing in private, and it was pretty much a concensus that I was too hated to garner much outside support. That is the main reason I did the mouth running instead of others, I was already 'damaged goods' so to speak. We weren't being clandestine to be sinister, we were doing as Damo suggests, and working within the system you set up for us. Maybe that's the part that drove you insane?

It was a play I foresaw and informed you that a simple change to supermajority would end, they couldn't win more than one, and if they were lucky, two seats...

I can certainly find more merit in effectiveness as a council by supermajority, but I still disagree with the ideological grouping thing. The way I see it, most "normal" folk are going to fall in the Conservative group, a few might trickle into Libertarian or Independent, but the vast majority of the other 3 groups are the nuts. So, now you'll have a council made of 75% ideological nuts and 25% normal people. And a Supermajority prevails. That should be interesting, huh?

My point all along has been, integrity is what you are seeking, not ideological values. In the experiment thread, I demonstrated how the psychology of this works, and you can clearly see, people cast a different vote based on what they have as a choice. If they are asked to choose someone of integrity and honesty, they often pick someone they see as fair an unbiased... but if they are confined to chose a representative of their ideological viewpoint, it's a completely different story. They will pick a clear ideologue, because it's what they were asked for.

[SR_]

The difference is you handed them the tool and said they had the power if people could get elected. They were working on a grass roots campaign...

I have a rule against mutiple threads on the same subject, you stated that they could run campaigns. They were within the framework of what you designed you are without... Notice the difference? I do.


no, i dont notice the difference. You offer me the framwork to post as many threads as i want, i can change a letter here or there, but the system is in place for me to take advantage of it. I could then change to posting with enormous fonts, etc.. i mean come on Damo, being disruptive to the point where YOUR members would not desire this place is availabe in almost every feature the board depends on.

But its your property. Its not a publicly owned entity. I have no entitlement to demand anyting from you, or use these features to inspire you to capitulate to my demands.

SR

[Immanuel]

immie, that was the campaign. you may contact others and ask for votes, but would you lie to them about what your cause was in order to get them to vote for you. meaning, would you hide the fact that you wanted to destroy the feature? If im going to run for a position to serve the interests of the people electing me, thats fine, i campaign on those issues. The only reason to hide intentions is because those intentions would lead people not to vote for you.

It seems to me that you were one of the few who did not understand their goals. They were not being secret about it. Their goals were not even the same. Lady T wanted Toby declared a troll. Several people promised it. Lady T said she'd vote for each of them. Dixie felt your system was flawed. He wanted to fix it for you.

Just because you did not like their goals does not make them wrong. You can't control the council and how it votes if you want it to have any kind of true meaning.



If you want a seat in congress so that you can get rich of bribes would you tell anyone that? If you didnt tell them your sole purpose to act in an unethical manner, then what does it matter the process in how you get elected?

Heck no, I wouldn't tell them that. I'd want to be elected. But it is politics and they are not going to tell you the truth.



If that was the case in the scenario with Bush, then he needs to be impeached.

You said it not me.




Thats what i dont get, sure people lie when they campaign, but those that lie about a desire to do harm or behave unethically should be removed. I stated as much in that anyone elected who did harm to the board would be banned.

But, you didn't even give them a chance to act. They have done nothing. This is similar to arresting and convicting a person because you think they will someday murder the man down the street.

I'm not talking about Grind here. The issue with Grind is different. I disagree with you, but that is not what we are talking about here.



Can we as a society stop someone who will take bribes from getting elected? no, it doesnt matter what system we use to elect them. Can we provide consequences and disincentives to such behavior? yes. Does that stop it? NO



There are consequences for "breaking the rules". You laid them out, but were any rules broken? Dixie's group made it plain and clear what their platform would be. The votes weren't even cast yet. Maybe you think the rest of us are stupid, but most of us saw what Dixie and his group were doing. Some approved others didn't. The vote would have decided the issue. Fairly, I might add.

The way it appears to me is that you had a problem with it and therefore you got offended. They did not break one single rule. No one had been elected yet. The council did not exist. Until it did they had not interfered with your objectives.

If you are going to get offended at the council's actions then why have a council?

Immie

[SR_]

We weren't being clandestine to be sinister, we were doing as Damo suggests, and working within the system you set up for us.

again, working within the system is in no way sinister, ITS WHAT YOURE WORKING FOR.

I can certainly find more merit in effectiveness as a council by supermajority, but I still disagree with the ideological grouping thing. The way I see it, most "normal" folk are going to fall in the Conservative group, a few might trickle into Libertarian or Independent, but the vast majority of the other 3 groups are the nuts. So, now you'll have a council made of 75% ideological nuts and 25% normal people. And a Supermajority prevails. That should be interesting, huh?

They dont view themselves as nuts, only we view them that way.

My point all along has been, integrity is what you are seeking, not ideological values. In the experiment thread, I demonstrated how the psychology of this works, and you can clearly see, people cast a different vote based on what they have as a choice. If they are asked to choose someone of integrity and honesty, they often pick someone they see as fair an unbiased... but if they are confined to chose a representative of their ideological viewpoint, it's a completely different story. They will pick a clear ideologue, because it's what they were asked for.

the ideology is nothing more than a district in a state, within a board context its how we are split. You dont get to vote for the representative in New York even though you may think they have a lot of integriety IF YOU LIVE IN ALABAMA. its no different in the way i set up the counci districts. Hell you even get to choose what district your in.

SR

[SR_]

Dixie felt your system was flawed. He wanted to fix it for you.

FINALLY. and why does dixie get to fix a flaw by MAKING THE FLAW. How come your friend is entitled to fix your windshield for you by breaking it? What sense does it make to fix a problem and so you need to create one?

Just because you did not like their goals does not make them wrong. You can't control the council and how it votes if you want it to have any kind of true meaning.

Their goal was to ruin the council to get it changed to what they desired. Do I have the right to break your lawn mower because i want to change the way you mow your lawn?

But, you didn't even give them a chance to act. They have done nothing. This is similar to arresting and convicting a person because you think they will someday murder the man down the street.

I DIDNT WANT TO BAN THEM.

There are consequences for "breaking the rules". You laid them out, but were any rules broken? Dixie's group made it plain and clear what their platform would be. The votes weren't even cast yet. Maybe you think the rest of us are stupid, but most of us saw what Dixie and his group were doing. Some approved others didn't. The vote would have decided the issue. Fairly, I might add.

The way it appears to me is that you had a problem with it and therefore you got offended. They did not break one single rule. No one had been elected yet. The council did not exist. Until it did they had not interfered with your objectives.

youre right, they stopped. and i wrote several times. just stop, walk away, no one is in trouble, no action will be taken, nothing. Thats why DIXIE ISNT BANNED. wtf immie?


If you are going to get offended at the council's actions then why have a council?

I wasnt offended by the councils actions, i wasnt really offended one way or the other, other than i was given a choice, "do what i say or else". I guess a person tends to get offended when someone else tells them what to do with their own property or else.

SR

[Cancel7]

Dixie... you slobber. I don't. You slobbered for days about the travesty of the Security Council. My God the way you whined one would have thought SR had hired Osama bin Ladin or worse yet John Kerry as an administrator. You didn't even give the SC a damned chance. It was you and your ego that tried (and may have succeeded in doing) to destroy SR's site. The SC may well have failed. If it did, so what? SR would have tried something else. But, you were not happy with that. You did your damnedest to destroy not the council innitiative, but the whole damned site.

And now you are attacking everyone who did not play your little game. Whose ego are we talking about here? Yours or SR's?

I wonder why you were so deadset against even giving it a chance. Perhaps because it was not your idea? Maybe you felt others would ban you or declare you to be a troll? How foolish of you. There was no chance you would have been banned or declared a troll. Maybe because you were afraid you would not be elected King of FullPolitics.com?

Today, I asked SR a simple question and expected a simple answer. I simply asked if the ban was permanent or temporary. SR responded with a full explanation as to what happened. I'm glad he did, because so many of the threads were deleted and so much has transpired. I agree with some of the things he said and others I thought he was wrong on, but he did give his side of the story.

I respect you and Grind. I was angry when I came onto the site after the banning and found out about it. I'd like to see you both back or to see you here. I did nothing but open a door for him to say that at the moment it was a temporary ban.

As for not seeing, I see enough. I don't like the fact that SR posted those U2U's. What's done is done and there is nothing I can do about it. As for reading other's U2U's, I always (and Care will back me up on this) suspected that it was possible for him to do it. I hoped he was ethical enough not to. Regardless, I didn't post things that I would have had a problem with him seeing. Anyone that posted things that they did not want others to see in the U2U system was a fool. You had to know that it was possible for an administrator to see those messages.

Is it possible that SR did not know about it? Yes it is. I have taught myself how to program in several languages and also use different software packages. I start by skimming through the manual then trying different things that interest me. I can go for months working with a system and then need to do something and have to go find the manual to see if it is possible. Was the feature available to SR? Yes. Did he know about it? He says no. I'll take his word for it because only liberals call everyone that they don't agree with "liars"

As for ethics, I wonder if you have any. You see, I believe you made it your goal to destroy SR's site when he would not play your game. That is kind of sad. SR gave us a place to go when politics.com died. You have thrown him "under the bus" after he gave us all what we wanted. The funny thing is someone went digging through some of the old treads and found one started by you thanking SR for giving us the site. My how times have changed. So, I think you have stabbed SR in the back simply because he would not play your game. The ego problem is yours as well as SR's.



What about your ego problem? Do you lose sleep when people don't pay attention to you as much as you think they should?

I have not left fullpolitics.com. I don't know that I will nor do I know if I will stay. It really depends on which site remains active with the people with whom I enjoy conversing. Until we see what happens, I'm not leaving either site.

SR has hinted at some interesting changes. I'd like to see if he implements them. If the site continues and people I enjoy posting with stay at fullpolitics.com, I will probably stay. If it dies as you tried to kill it then I will leave.

Immie

Immie, I just want to tell you one thing, but not completely directed at you because i see others saying it. You say "anyone who put anything in their u2u's they didn't want anyone else to see is a fool." Well, I admit I am a fool about computers and I have no idea what an adminstrator's capabilities are. I did though assume that they might be able to get in there. Here is what I never even thought of, ever. I never thought that even if I deleted them as I sent and received them, nearly immediately, that the administrator could have them saved to some kind of hard drive and still read them at their leisure. See, that I didn't know and am just beginning to understand from some things I have read.

I had my netscape email account hacked by conservative witches on another board. They read things between my real life boyfriend and me, and then they posted some of them from what I heard, I left before it got to that point. And do you know what people said? They said if you had a firewall, if this if that, it wouldn't have happened. It sounds to me a lot like, if you weren't wearing that skirt he never would have noticed you and followed you into the parking lot, you know what I mean? So I don't like that.

All of that given, I've learned for a second time that nothing is private in cyberspace and I really need for someone to smack that into my head. lol. Not that I think he was reading mine, I don't. He'd have to be pretty bored to be reading my stupid u2us. But I just wanted to point out that not everyone is as savy as you guys are about what can and can't be hacked or looked at. That doesn't mean they have it coming. That's all.

As for all the rest of this, I wasn't here when it was happening, wasn't here for very long before it happened, and really don't have a position on it one way or the other and I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea about that.

[Damocles]

no, i dont notice the difference. You offer me the framwork to post as many threads as i want, i can change a letter here or there, but the system is in place for me to take advantage of it. I could then change to posting with enormous fonts, etc.. i mean come on Damo, being disruptive to the point where YOUR members would not desire this place is availabe in almost every feature the board depends on.

But its your property. Its not a publicly owned entity. I have no entitlement to demand anyting from you, or use these features to inspire you to capitulate to my demands.

SR

However, I do not specifically tell you that you are allowed to spam my board, in fact quite the opposite, while you did tell them that they were allowed to run for office, and to even use U2U to do it. You gave them the tool, and told them how to use it, trained them in its use, then got upset when they began to use it in an easily foreseen manner that was easily taken from them by a simple change, one easy change that would have rendered this group powerless from the beginning.

[maineman]

one easy change that would have rendered this group powerless from the beginning.

hindsight is 20/20

[Damocles]

one easy change that would have rendered this group powerless from the beginning.

hindsight is 20/20

I presented that idea to him the very first time he mentioned the SC, I told him that a Unanimous requirement would render the SC useless as all it would take is one dissenter to be elected, which was pretty much certain in such an environment....

That wasn't hindsight it was foresight. With that one change threads and threads of argument about running a campaign to get elected would have also been rendered moot.... on and on... U2Us would still be believed to be private...

[maineman]

my point: don't you think that, knowing what he knows now, SR would not go back and change that?

[Damocles]

I'm hoping that we can get this out of our system soonly... so we can get back to the business of actual debate. The SC will get elected and we can see how it works now that there is no unanimity requirement there is no need for dissenters to work so hard to gain that one seat.

[maineman]

I agree.... this group hissy fit needs to end

[LadyT]

I presented that idea to him the very first time he mentioned the SC, I told him that a Unanimous requirement would render the SC useless as all it would take is one dissenter to be elected, which was pretty much certain in such an environment....

That wasn't hindsight it was foresight. With that one change threads and threads of argument about running a campaign to get elected would have also been rendered moot.... on and on... U2Us would still be believed to be private...

This is very true. I told him this on numerous occassions.

[Cancel7]

I'm hoping that we can get this out of our system soonly... so we can get back to the business of actual debate. The SC will get elected and we can see how it works now that there is no unanimity requirement there is no need for dissenters to work so hard to gain that one seat.

Can I ask you something Damo? Because this is something I've been wondering about. I suppose I think that Tiana never would have given a crap about any of this in the first place if CK hadn't been following her around making racist and harrassing comments.

Now, if someone followed me around saying "hey can you s my" whatever, you know, sexual harrassment, it would get to me after a while. It's harrassment. So is the racial harrassment she was putting up with.

And we all bemoan boards where you can even ssay the f word without getting your post pulled, God knows I do, I'm very free with the language. On the other hand, no one can follow you around on those boards calling you a "n" word, or a jew, or a whore, etc... So, something is lost and something is gained right?

So where is that line drawn, so that a board can be as enjoyable and NON-threatening to everyone as possible?

And if SR read this I'd also like to hear his opinion of allowing someone to follow someone around and harrass them due to their race. I mean, aren't there some things so obviously wrong, that the person can just be banned, without a big "free speech" discussion, or crying over the loss of a so-called unmonitored message board? Isn't the one thing SR might have learned that, you can't have one that is too unmonitored?

[Damocles]

Can I ask you something Damo? Because this is something I've been wondering about. I suppose I think that Tiana never would have given a crap about any of this in the first place if CK hadn't been following her around making racist and harrassing comments.


Probably not. The ignore feature is a good one for that.



Now, if someone followed me around saying "hey can you s my" whatever, you know, sexual harrassment, it would get to me after a while. It's harrassment. So is the racial harrassment she was putting up with.


The rules are specific on lawbreaking. It is illegal to stalk somebody online as it is in RL. If I allowed a user to break the laws, threatening and stalking another with no effort to end it I would be making myself open to lawsuits... I know it is only a message board, but breaking a law is breaking a law. I prefer the site to be as free and open as possible, hence the ignore feature is enabled and will remain so on this board. Stalkers have lost their power here.



And we all bemoan boards where you can even ssay the f word without getting your post pulled, God knows I do, I'm very free with the language. On the other hand, no one can follow you around on those boards calling you a "n" word, or a jew, or a whore, etc... So, something is lost and something is gained right?


True, this is an adult format, and some opinions are likely to be offensive to some, even me. I hate racism. It baffles me. Pigmentation is simply not a large enough difference to cause all this consternation IMO. It is a primal urge to dislike the "different"...




So where is that line drawn, so that a board can be as enjoyable and NON-threatening to everyone as possible?


For me the line is drawn at the point of personal liability, as I have described above.



And if SR read this I'd also like to hear his opinion of allowing someone to follow someone around and harrass them due to their race. I mean, aren't there some things so obviously wrong, that the person can just be banned, without a big "free speech" discussion, or crying over the loss of a so-called unmonitored message board? Isn't the one thing SR might have learned that, you can't have one that is too unmonitored?

I'm open to ideas...

[LadyT]

Can I ask you something Damo? Because this is something I've been wondering about. I suppose I think that Tiana never would have given a crap about any of this in the first place if CK hadn't been following her around making racist and harrassing comments.

Now, if someone followed me around saying "hey can you s my" whatever, you know, sexual harrassment, it would get to me after a while. It's harrassment. So is the racial harrassment she was putting up with.

And we all bemoan boards where you can even ssay the f word without getting your post pulled, God knows I do, I'm very free with the language. On the other hand, no one can follow you around on those boards calling you a "n" word, or a jew, or a whore, etc... So, something is lost and something is gained right?

So where is that line drawn, so that a board can be as enjoyable and NON-threatening to everyone as possible?

And if SR read this I'd also like to hear his opinion of allowing someone to follow someone around and harrass them due to their race. I mean, aren't there some things so obviously wrong, that the person can just be banned, without a big "free speech" discussion, or crying over the loss of a so-called unmonitored message board? Isn't the one thing SR might have learned that, you can't have one that is too unmonitored?

Oh, but you see, SR harasses me about my race. Do a Control-f on watermelon and fried chicken in this very thread. he really is a scumbag so thinking he would give a shit about someone having to endure racist remarks probably wouldn't bother him in the least. You can also do a search on his very forum for the same things I mentioned earlier and you will see he's just as bad as CK is. And you're right I wouldn't have given a $hit if it weren't for CK.

[Cancel7]

Well, online stalking is illegal you're right. Very difficult to prosecute and it rarely is. The only times I have ever heard of it being prosecuted is when a woman's name and address have been put up on dating sites and men have come to her home. This has happened at least twice in my state, and that is only that I know of. Both were prosecuted.

I'm talking about something a little more nebulous. No one is going to prosecute CK for following Tianna around and making racial slurs constantly. Let's be realistic right?

But why shouldn't the little puke be banned for it? See that's my question. I agree that the ignore function does help.

[Cancel7]

Oh, but you see, SR harasses me about my race. Do a Control-f on watermelon and fried chicken in this very thread. he really is a scumbag so thinking he would give a shit about someone having to endure racist remarks probably wouldn't bother him in the least. You can also do a search on his very forum for the same things I mentioned earlier and you will see he's just as bad as CK is. And you're right I wouldn't have given a $hit if it weren't for CK.

Oh I haven't seen that. Sorry. I don't know what to say then.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the ideology is nothing more than a district in a state, within a board context its how we are split. You dont get to vote for the representative in New York even though you may think they have a lot of integriety IF YOU LIVE IN ALABAMA. its no different in the way i set up the counci districts. Hell you even get to choose what district your in.

No, ideology is ideology, not a district or state. If you had established the groupings based on our regional locations, it would have had a completely different meaning. You intentionally and purposefully designed partisan ideology within your system, which introduces an element that doesn't really need to be included in picking the people you trust and think will be fair.

It was almost as if you have this bigoted view, that someones ideology is always going to be a mitigating factor in decisions requiring integrity and honesty. I happen to disagree with that, and I think a lot of people disagree with that. The people I would most trust to serve on an impartial and fair council, would likely not be the partisan ideologues from my own political spectrum. In all honesty, I would feel their partisanship would cause more of a potential problem in making fair and unbiased judgements. In that regard, it would seem that moderates or independents would be much more desirable for a council, people who are not confined to a particular faction or way of thinking. Ironically, the concept I am supporting would not benefit conservatives, or myself, in any way. It would have indeed helped the Libertarian group, as they have quite a few people who are admired from the left and right, as being fair and honest people of integrity.

The point is, the council produced is quite different, depending on what choice you are giving those who choose the council. What you have constructed, will yield pairs of people who will "take sides", a pair who will try to keep the peace between opposing sides, and a pair who will just not give a shit what the rest think. In other words, a complete cluster fuck. This is mainly why the idea of a unanimous vote was so laughable, it just wouldn't ever happen under such a system, there is too much partisan partitioning. Subsequently, a council comprised of the 8 most trusted people of integrity, who were voted on by the entire board (regardless of size), will always be the 8 most trusted people of integrity voted on by the entire board, and would make legitimate and valid determinations based on their integrity and honesty rather than ideological concerns. Such a group might very well be able to reach unanimous consent, because the barriers of ideology are not in play.

As you can see, these are very important principles, and the concerns are totally justified. Nothing in what I have articulated is malicious in intent, or bent on destroying anything of yours, in fact, it was just the opposite. My intent was to improve the council, not destroy the feature. I respected your rules, your system, and even the way you had constructed the thing to work. I had no problems working within the rules and system in place, it was you who couldn't abide by your own system and rules, and decided to become obstinant, unreasonable and defensive about it.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I guess a person tends to get offended when someone else tells them what to do with their own property

And one more time... the PEOPLE are not your property. Those of us who spend our time posting to your forum, telling our friends about your forum, making your forum the very special place it (was), do not belong to SiR! I don't know what has to happen for you to get that through your head, I've repeated it over and over again, and you continue to insist on taking this "my property" view, that frankly doesn't make a lick of sense.

Surely you understand, a software program and server are completely worthless without PEOPLE posting to your forum daily. In that regard, it is OUR property, each and every participant in the forum. We collectively make up the community which is really the only thing of legitimate value here. I guess people tend to get offended when someone proclaims ownership to their views and opinions, or treats them as property.

[maineman]

I don't recall SR ever claiming ownership of anyone's views or opinions. He set up a system to deal with administrative issues. Maybe it wasn't the best system.... maybe the unanimity issue made it practically unworkable...

but in the final analysis, it would not have impacted anyone's "views or opinions" A thread about Iraq would still have been a thread about Iraq. A thread about tax policy would still have been about tax policy and the views and opinions of the posters on those POLITICAL issues were never SR's property, nor did he ever claim they were.

[SR_]

No, ideology is ideology, not a district or state. If you had established the groupings based on our regional locations, it would have had a completely different meaning. You intentionally and purposefully designed partisan ideology within your system, which introduces an element that doesn't really need to be included in picking the people you trust and think will be fair.

context is always lost on a fool, and i cant explain it any clearer.

And one more time... the PEOPLE are not your property.

dixie,

im convined that youre just being retarded on purpose. no one could be this ignorant and still be alive.

SR

[SR_]

However, I do not specifically tell you that you are allowed to spam my board, in fact quite the opposite, while you did tell them that they were allowed to run for office, and to even use U2U to do it. You gave them the tool, and told them how to use it, trained them in its use, then got upset when they began to use it in an easily foreseen manner that was easily taken from them by a simple change, one easy change that would have rendered this group powerless from the beginning.

damo, are you saying that you specifically tell people when they come here to post?

Youre dodging the obvious and being facecious and i dont appreciate it one single bit. Either debate honestly with me or dont waste my time.

SR

[Damocles]

damo, are you saying that you specifically tell people when they come here to post?

Youre dodging the obvious and being facecious and i dont appreciate it one single bit. Either debate honestly with me or dont waste my time.

SR
No, you are being deliberately obtuse here. You put forward a new idea, told people to run and insure they were represented, even told them to use U2U to campaign while waxing rhapsodic about your new idea...

While I have put a rule specifically against spam. These are two totally different things. One is encouraged, the other is specifically forbidden. If you cannot see the difference between the two then it must be purposefully...

These people worked within the expected, and announced, framework, you suggest going outside of that framework. The two are not analogous.

[LadyT]

Please note on the "secretive" issue, I on several threads offered my vote to anyone that would put CK up for troll - which is why I was approached in the first place. Try again SR

[DigitalDave]

I think you were willing to do anything to get CK nominated as a troll, maybe they offered you some watermelon, hell I dont know, what I do know is that I cant design a system that would keep people from being assholes.

Wow, what a racist asshole you are making yourself out to be!



Thats why I said numerous times that it takes a little faith in the member base that they would take pride in the forum and want to actually be involved in the administration of it. I was wrong for placing that faith in people.

For the record, I was running AGAINST Dixie and his little 'underground' that he had going on. I purposely chose 'No Label' so that I could be part of that group, and try and put a thorn in the side of his 'movement'. You made it harder for me to do that by being retarded and posting u2u's. At first, I thought they were funny, but then it got so out of hand that you had to ban people because you thought they were making you look bad. Most of us were just laughing at everything that was going on, it was like a soap opera. That isn't really 'destroying' your board, its bringing in more activity. I couldn't resist! Maybe you should have had faith in your board members, because some of them were doing what they could to make sure things went as planned, but now I see how you discount that and have no faith in us. Thanks!

[SR_]

No, you are being deliberately obtuse here. You put forward a new idea, told people to run and insure they were represented, even told them to use U2U to campaign while waxing rhapsodic about your new idea...

While I have put a rule specifically against spam. These are two totally different things. One is encouraged, the other is specifically forbidden. If you cannot see the difference between the two then it must be purposefully...

These people worked within the expected, and announced, framework, you suggest going outside of that framework. The two are not analogous.

Damo, this is a message forum. People come here to post messages. You have a rule about posting the same subject thread. You have NO RULE against USING the "POST NEW TOPIC" or "POST REPLY" features as much as you want. And Im not the one being obtuse, I put forward a new idea and told people to run, you created a new message board...im guessing you need to tell people to post? or are we supposed to stare at it? Its meant to be used for posting Damo, and I can utilize that feature a million different ways to shit on this place if wanted too. You then going to act like you didnt ask me to post here? That offering me the ability to register my own account, on a message board, and offering "post new topic" and "post reply" to me isnt inviting, IF NOT insisting that I do just that?

Is this against the rules?

I dont see it posted anywhere, you have offered me this option as a feature damo. Are you saying that posting on a message board isnt encouraged by yourself?

Youre not being honest.

What if every post was done in this manner?

be honest, i could post like this in every thread you or anyone else ever decided to post on. There is no rule against it, the features are available, and people normally dont create their own message boards without encouraging posting by default. I could also post long documents that I feel are relevant in every thread, or create my own if I desired. None of that is against your rules damo.

do you get it now?

SR

[Damocles]

be honest, i could post like this in every thread you or anyone else ever decided to post on. There is no rule against it, the features are available, and people normally dont create their own message boards without encouraging posting by default. I could also post long documents that I feel are relevant in every thread, or create my own if I desired. None of that is against your rules damo.

do you get it now?

SR
I, however, have not ENCOURAGED this activity (which I have consistently mentioned that you did encourage them). You did encourage them to run for office and even suggested U2U as a part of their campaigns. Then when they used U2U to set up a campaign run you suddenly didn't like it. That they were running as a FINO wasn't anything new to a campaign in politics, it happens. You opened up the site to true site politics and they used the tools you gave them and suggested....

I do get it. However you suggested posting the word n*gger over and over... Which was a violation. And if you insisted on doing this consistently I would have to put forward a new rule. The only reason that I will add to the rules list is when I find, or remember, an issue with another board or have an issue with a poster...

[Immanuel]

Dixie felt your system was flawed. He wanted to fix it for you.

FINALLY. and why does dixie get to fix a flaw by MAKING THE FLAW. How come your friend is entitled to fix your windshield for you by breaking it? What sense does it make to fix a problem and so you need to create one?

Where did I say he got to fix anything? I don't think I did. The point was that he was working within your rules to affect a change. He didn't hurt anything except maybe your pride.



Their goal was to ruin the council to get it changed to what they desired. Do I have the right to break your lawn mower because i want to change the way you mow your lawn?

Ruin the council? Well, maybe you think it would have ruined the council but no one else does. Most of us think that you screwed it up by requiring an unanimous decision. Again, your pride is the only thing that got in the way.

Immie

[SR_]

I, however, have not ENCOURAGED this activity (which I have consistently mentioned that you did encourage them). You did encourage them to run for office and even suggested U2U as a part of their campaigns. Then when they used U2U to set up a campaign run you suddenly didn't like it. That they were running as a FINO wasn't anything new to a campaign in politics, it happens. You opened up the site to true site politics and they used the tools you gave them and suggested....

I did not encourage them to try and gridlock the council Damo. There were plenty of people that were going to run, and use the u2u, using the u2u wasnt a problem at all. I dont care what they use to run or campaign, IT WAS THE ENERGY SPENT TO BREAK IT that bothered me.

And again, if youre going to be obtuse theres no sense in wasting my time. You ENCOURAGE people to post here damo, if not why is it all designed for people to post messages here? How come the WYSIWYG manager is at the top of the reply interface if you arent encouraging us to use them?

Are you saying because you havent said "Use the bold and sizing feature and collor feature" that you arent encouraging us to use them?

I do get it. However you suggested posting the word n*gger over and over... Which was a violation. And if you insisted on doing this consistently I would have to put forward a new rule. The only reason that I will add to the rules list is when I find, or remember, an issue with another board or have an issue with a poster...

Creating new threads, thats whats posted anyway 3. Please do not flood the board with multiple same-subject Threads. I can post hower well within the rules.

You can keep posting new rules as they come, and I did no different. I said that anyone trying to ruin the features will be banned. I did not encourage anyone to ruin the features.

Obviously if you were being honest you would recognize that this dance could be done over and over until members just say "sorry damo, this place just sucks with all the crap here, im leaving", and you would have decision. Either capitulate to my demands and i would stop, or ban me and fix what i have used FULLY offered to me within this framework.

again, this is your property Damo, its not up to me to decide for you how it will work and how it wont.

SR

[SR_]

Where did I say he got to fix anything? I don't think I did. The point was that he was working within your rules to affect a change. He didn't hurt anything except maybe your pride.

immie, again im talking with damo about the same thing. read up.

Ruin the council? Well, maybe you think it would have ruined the council but no one else does. Most of us think that you screwed it up by requiring an unanimous decision. Again, your pride is the only thing that got in the way.

yes the stated goal was to ruin the council in order to change it.

if you feel like its someone pride that allows them to be offended when others try to dictate what you will do with your own property, i guess thats fine, it doesnt really matter what the motivation is. If youre going to support the validity of allowing someone to tell you what you will do with your own property, then i can only say, get ready your life will be hard.

I however dont agree with immie.

SR

[Damocles]

I, however, have not ENCOURAGED this activity (which I have consistently mentioned that you did encourage them). You did encourage them to run for office and even suggested U2U as a part of their campaigns. Then when they used U2U to set up a campaign run you suddenly didn't like it. That they were running as a FINO wasn't anything new to a campaign in politics, it happens. You opened up the site to true site politics and they used the tools you gave them and suggested....

I did not encourage them to try and gridlock the council Damo. There were plenty of people that were going to run, and use the u2u, using the u2u wasnt a problem at all. I dont care what they use to run or campaign, IT WAS THE ENERGY SPENT TO BREAK IT that bothered me.

And again, if youre going to be obtuse theres no sense in wasting my time. You ENCOURAGE people to post here damo, if not why is it all designed for people to post messages here? How come the WYSIWYG manager is at the top of the reply interface if you arent encouraging us to use them?

Are you saying because you havent said "Use the bold and sizing feature and collor feature" that you arent encouraging us to use them?

I do get it. However you suggested posting the word n*gger over and over... Which was a violation. And if you insisted on doing this consistently I would have to put forward a new rule. The only reason that I will add to the rules list is when I find, or remember, an issue with another board or have an issue with a poster...

Creating new threads, thats whats posted anyway 3. Please do not flood the board with multiple same-subject Threads. I can post hower well within the rules.

You can keep posting new rules as they come, and I did no different. I said that anyone trying to ruin the features will be banned. I did not encourage anyone to ruin the features.

Obviously if you were being honest you would recognize that this dance could be done over and over until members just say "sorry damo, this place just sucks with all the crap here, im leaving", and you would have decision. Either capitulate to my demands and i would stop, or ban me and fix what i have used FULLY offered to me within this framework.

again, this is your property Damo, its not up to me to decide for you how it will work and how it wont.

SR

I honestly liked the idea of the council. I thought it unique and can't wait to see it in implementation. Look. The whole myriad of long debate was caused because you gave the power of veto to every member of the council, they realized it and recognized it and attempted to use the tools you gave them to effect the change they wanted. They were encouraged to run and be a part of that council. Then they were told that every council decision was essentially a suggestion rather than had any force whatsoever. I supported it fully, was going to run...

The whole debate is really over. You created and implemented a new rule for the site. Just as I would do... You also took power from the minority by making it majority rather than unanimous votes...

I think you should run your site as you see fit, and supported it from the beginning. I am just stunned you are surprised by those who wanted to do exactly as I predicted would happen. Gridlock the council...

[SR_]

The whole myriad of long debate was caused because you gave the power of veto to every member of the council, they realized it and recognized it and attempted to use the tools you gave them to effect the change they wanted.

FINALLY and little honesty.

This was my problem, the purpose of the council was and is not for personal gain, but these people decided that to satisfy their own personal desires, they would ruin it in order to change it.


I think you should run your site as you see fit, and supported it from the beginning. I am just stunned you are surprised by those who wanted to do exactly as I predicted would happen. Gridlock the council...

And as a site owner now you should recognize that what you see fit, may not be "fit" for me as a member, and I should not feel obligated to tell you "change to what I see fit, or else".


all message boards, all systems, offer the ability for users to be disruptive and in effect destructive. I just feel like this board is your property and I nor anyone else is entitled to use the features here to cause it harm in order TO MY WAY. This is your property, not mine, it doesnt matter how much I may feel like the other members support me or how badly i may think its right, its still your decision.

SR

[Damocles]

FINALLY and little honesty.


Finally? I have been honest and upfront throughout. I stated that they wanted to put forward their own agenda using the framework you created from the beginning.



This was my problem, the purpose of the council was and is not for personal gain, but these people decided that to satisfy their own personal desires, they would ruin it in order to change it.


Right, and you created a new rule and enforced it...



And as a site owner now you should recognize that what you see fit, may not be "fit" for me as a member, and I should not feel obligated to tell you "change to what I see fit, or else".


I have recognized that from the beginning. I know I can't please everyone. I'm not even going to try.

[Immanuel]

Maybe you should look at it like this, SR, other people saw flaws in your system. They attempted to tell you what those flaws were. Your pride kept you from listening to what they had to say and you ignored them. They then took the initiative to show you what would happen with your system under your very rules.

They were not out to run (run not ruin) your site. They were simply attempting to demonstrate to you the problems with your council.

Your attitude towards their suggestions was a slap in the face for them.

I supported and support your efforts at FP.com. As Damo, I too hope to see it implemented and wish to participate. I'm looking forward to it, but I do not fault Dixie and gang for working within your system to affect change. Eventually, you would have seen the need for change anyway.

Immie

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, ideology is ideology, not a district or state. If you had established the groupings based on our regional locations, it would have had a completely different meaning. You intentionally and purposefully designed partisan ideology within your system, which introduces an element that doesn't really need to be included in picking the people you trust and think will be fair.

context is always lost on a fool, and i cant explain it any clearer.

And one more time... the PEOPLE are not your property.

dixie,

im convined that youre just being retarded on purpose. no one could be this ignorant and still be alive.

SR

Why is it, whenever someone makes a valid and legitimate point you can't refute, you immediately go to the Bag of Labels on them? Can you explain why I am a "fool" who context is lost on? Can you explain why I am "retarded" or "ignorant" in what I stated? Or are you just unable to refute what I stated with anything substanative?

[SR_]

Finally? I have been honest and upfront throughout. I stated that they wanted to put forward their own agenda using the framework you created from the beginning.

asked you last nite to what end, what they were trying to accomplish and you wouldnt come out and say "TO CHANGE IT TO WHAT THEY WANTED". instead you went into some deal about conservative ideology to restrict change or something.

SR

[Damocles]

Finally? I have been honest and upfront throughout. I stated that they wanted to put forward their own agenda using the framework you created from the beginning.

asked you last nite to what end, what they were trying to accomplish and you wouldnt come out and say "TO CHANGE IT TO WHAT THEY WANTED". instead you went into some deal about conservative ideology to restrict change or something.

SR

Right, they didn't like the change their agenda was to create gridlock to restrict the change. It is the ultimate in conservative response... Read back through the thread. It was an agenda, they worked toward it. They worked within the framework that you gave them...

I have been honest throughout and direct. That you don't like my interpretation doesn't change that.

[Beefy]

Finally? I have been honest and upfront throughout. I stated that they wanted to put forward their own agenda using the framework you created from the beginning.

asked you last nite to what end, what they were trying to accomplish and you wouldnt come out and say "TO CHANGE IT TO WHAT THEY WANTED". instead you went into some deal about conservative ideology to restrict change or something.

SR


Come on SR. You're splitting hairs again to make it appears as though you are winning some sort of battle of ideas here. Damo has not been dishonest in the least, and you know it. You just like to be antagonistic all the time.

[SR_]

Why is it, whenever someone makes a valid and legitimate point you can't refute, you immediately go to the Bag of Labels on them? Can you explain why I am a "fool" who context is lost on? Can you explain why I am "retarded" or "ignorant" in what I stated? Or are you just unable to refute what I stated with anything substanative?


sure. the government set up for the United States is representative of people who LIVE IN STATES. Thats why its called the United States, and we choose our representation based on that context. It servers the interests of the states, some of whom are industrial, some are agricultural, some live where there are hurricanes, some live where there are wild fires. The system is set up to address this. That is the context.

On a message board we're all anonymous, our interests lie in our ideologies, that is the context in which we come to debate. We agree with most of our own ideology most of the time, and disagree with other ideologies most of the time, it is the context in which we are split. Our ideologies are our natural states, it where we "choose" to reside in the aspect of a political message forum context.

When having a body that sits as an executive over a message forum, it would be nice to reflect the context of that message forum accurately. And really most people accept the natural split as being forced. meaning i dont ever you whining that you cant vote for the guy of integrity running in New York, you live in Alabama and have accepted the fact that maybe no one worth a spit is running in alabama but youre still forced to vote for one, or not at all.

The same is true for SC at FP.com, we are split into districts based on the context of why we're there and who we're electing to serve for those districts. Not everyone can vote outside their district. You whine because your forced into a district by choice, but i never hear you complain about being forced into a district to vote for by moving to a certain district or state when voting for any politician.

I guess the reason for this is that you just never thought about it, or have and just didnt understand it.

SR

You dont comprehend that because its too complicated for you.

[SR_]

Right, they didn't like the change their agenda was to create gridlock to restrict the change. It is the ultimate in conservative response... Read back through the thread. It was an agenda, they worked toward it. They worked within the framework that you gave them...

I have been honest throughout and direct. That you don't like my interpretation doesn't change that.


you just wrote a few mintues ago they realized it and recognized it and attempted to use the tools you gave them to effect the change they wanted. Dixie is on the record saying as much.

its like youre saying that they worked for change, and that change was that they did not want change, so its somehow different. ITS NOT DIFFERENT.

come on damo. I just demonstrated how the features of this board are used to affect change, at some point you have to decide that this is either your property and you dont have to submit to the disruptive actions of any member USING THE ESTABLISHED framework or else, or you youre saying that you dont have a right to do as you wish with your own property.

As I just said, you made a new rule yesterday whereas members cannot pose as other members. I may not like that change, I may decide to post all of my post in the largest boldest font in the color yellow giving everyone a headache and making the threads hard to follow. Im just using the framework, yet i dont feel its right to use that framework to change something I DONT OWN.

SR

[SR_]

Come on SR. You're splitting hairs again to make it appears as though you are winning some sort of battle of ideas here. Damo has not been dishonest in the least, and you know it. You just like to be antagonistic all the time.


peanut man, the grown ups are talking, dont you have a poker thread to start or something?

:)

SR

[SR_]

Maybe you should look at it like this, SR, other people saw flaws in your system. They attempted to tell you what those flaws were. Your pride kept you from listening to what they had to say and you ignored them. They then took the initiative to show you what would happen with your system under your very rules.

They were not out to run (run not ruin) your site. They were simply attempting to demonstrate to you the problems with your council.

Your attitude towards their suggestions was a slap in the face for them.

I supported and support your efforts at FP.com. As Damo, I too hope to see it implemented and wish to participate. I'm looking forward to it, but I do not fault Dixie and gang for working within your system to affect change. Eventually, you would have seen the need for change anyway.

Immie

ok lets say they were demonstrating the problems of the council. What problem would there be. If people didnt agree on any issues, i see no problem. If we never labled anyone a troll, i see no problem. If we never did anything I see no problem.

I do see a problem if the elected member CHOSE to always vote in the negative no matter what. now this isnt an action of the council, this is a reflection of the elected member. In essense the member is the problem, not the council.

what i see you saying is that no problem exists, until a member creates the problem and thus it is demonstrated. I fail to see how this is defensable. You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?

SR

[Beefy]

peanut man, the grown ups are talking, dont you have a poker thread to start or something?

:)

SR

All my secrets are already on your site. Anyhow, I was simply pointing out that your insinuation that Damocles has been dishonest was in and of itself dishonest. Your retort is a typical SR style non-sequitur. Another for of dishonesty. And shouldn't it be "peanut boy" if I'm not yet a grown up?

[SR_]

All my secrets are already on your site. Anyhow, I was simply pointing out that your insinuation that Damocles has been dishonest was in and of itself dishonest. Your retort is a typical SR style non-sequitur. Another for of dishonesty. And shouldn't it be "peanut boy" if I'm not yet a grown up?


youre right i apologize. sorry... peanut boy.

And I feel like damo is trying to avoid the obvious, which is to say that a few members wanted to change something and basically gave me an option. Change this or else. He then denied they wanted to change anything, and first said that they were just operating within the conditions. Then he changed to say that they wanted no change. They he changed to say that they wanted to restrict change. And finally he said they were working to affect change.

SR

[Beefy]

youre right i apologize. sorry... peanut boy.

And I feel like damo is trying to avoid the obvious, which is to say that a few members wanted to change something and basically gave me an option. Change this or else. He then denied they wanted to change anything, and first said that they were just operating within the conditions. Then he changed to say that they wanted to change. They he changed to say that they wanted to restrict change. And finally he said they were working to affect change.

SR


Why was Grind banned? And who else did you ban? I haven't been given a straight answer. Was it because he wanted to affect change?

peanut boy

[SR_]

Why was Grind banned? And who else did you ban? I haven't been given a straight answer. Was it because he wanted to affect change?

peanut boy


Grind and brent were banned.

http://fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=20459

they are the only two.

SR

[Damocles]

you just wrote a few mintues ago they realized it and recognized it and attempted to use the tools you gave them to effect the change they wanted. Dixie is on the record saying as much.

its like youre saying that they worked for change, and that change was that they did not want change, so its somehow different. ITS NOT DIFFERENT.

come on damo. I just demonstrated how the features of this board are used to affect change, at some point you have to decide that this is either your property and you dont have to submit to the disruptive actions of any member USING THE ESTABLISHED framework or else, or you youre saying that you dont have a right to do as you wish with your own property.


Strawman Alert! WhOOOP! WhOOOP! I have never stated that you have done anything wrong. Only that I was stunned when you seemed surprise that people did this....



As I just said, you made a new rule yesterday whereas members cannot pose as other members. I may not like that change, I may decide to post all of my post in the largest boldest font in the color yellow giving everyone a headache and making the threads hard to follow. Im just using the framework, yet i dont feel its right to use that framework to change something I DONT OWN.

SR
However the only option you had left was to make a rule and enforce it. Which you did. I have never stated that it was wrong to do so. Only suggested that I have been stunned throughout at the shock you showed when they did it...

I have stated:

1. That I predicted it.
2. That you could have forseen it as I stated what would happen before you ever implemented anything at all.
3. That you insisted it wouldn't happen, then when it did you were shocked.
4. That in every case it was within the framework of what you proposed and even encouraged. That they were only running a campaign so that they too would have representation on the council...

I have not stated (nor will):

1. That you were wrong for doing what you did.
2. That you could not make rules as you saw fit.
3. That they were right or wrong in their campaign....

All of the last are strawmen, that I have not stated at all. This is a defensive attitude that should not exist...

I have also stated:

1. That you have implemented a wise move (majority vote rather than unanimity)...
2. That I would have made it Supermajority to insure the most support with the least possibility of a minority group creating the havoc they did create...

[SR_]

Strawman Alert! WhOOOP! WhOOOP! I have never stated that you have done anything wrong. Only that I was stunned when you seemed surprise that people did this....

yeah ill admit that, i didnt think members would work to harm something on the board. a little too much faith i guess.

but thats not really what i was speaking too.

There is a debate in which these members felt they were entitled to do such, to demand change or else that is. Hell Dixie STILL feels like he's entitled to it. And what I was speaking to was more along the lines of property rights, not really whether or not the possibility existed for members to do harm, I have openly admitted that and argued that EVERY feature can be used for that, and demonstrated it using the features you make available to us here.

I guess, what Im saying is that just because you provide the framework it doesnt entitle anyone here to use them to force you to capitulate.

I think its obvious that these members desired to force me to capitulate through personal attack and an effort to do harm to the board. The principle of doing such action to demand change to someone else's property is wrong and indefensible yet some continue to defend the action.

That was my point. In order to correctly debate it you have to accept the fact that A) the framework is not the issue, as I demonstrated you offer a framework that can be condusive to abuse, its the actual members motivation and actions that are at issue, not the system. and B) anyone should have the ability to do as they please with their own property without the threat from others to do harm to said property in order to get their way.

SR

[LadyT]

"And so they found Tiana, who naturally willingly joined. HOWEVER they didnt tell her what the true motivation was. She honestly didnt know, and I believe her in that respect. A few other members have contacted me since and said they were approached, and again all given phoney reasons to join in."

They told me what their motivation was. I just didn't give a rats a$$. I had my agenda they had theirs.

[Immanuel]

ok lets say they were demonstrating the problems of the council. What problem would there be. If people didnt agree on any issues, i see no problem. If we never labled anyone a troll, i see no problem. If we never did anything I see no problem.

I do see a problem if the elected member CHOSE to always vote in the negative no matter what. now this isnt an action of the council, this is a reflection of the elected member. In essense the member is the problem, not the council.

SR

No, the problem existed in the way the council was set up in the first place. You effectively set it up so that one person could veto all actions of the council in much the same way as the UN Security Council can be blocked by a single rogue nation.

This has been explained to you time and time again yet you refused to change your bull-headed ways. You had a vision. One that you came up with without (it appears) any input from outside sources. When you presented it to the board others foresaw problems with it and your friends (Dixie and Grind) attempted to give you input. You didn't like what they said and turned on them. Others also saw issues with the whole idea and you didn't like their ideas either so you dug in your heals and turned many of them against you. A good leader listens to those below him and acts. He doesn't ignore their input without first weighing their insights.

That is about the size of it.

Immie

[SR_]

"And so they found Tiana, who naturally willingly joined. HOWEVER they didnt tell her what the true motivation was. She honestly didnt know, and I believe her in that respect. A few other members have contacted me since and said they were approached, and again all given phoney reasons to join in."

They told me what their motivation was. I just didn't give a rats a$$. I had my agenda they had theirs.

i understand, thats why you werent banned.

following fools is not malicious tiana.

SR

[Beefy]

No, the problem existed in the way the council was set up in the first place. You effectively set it up so that one person could veto all actions of the council in much the same way as the UN Security Council can be blocked by a single rogue nation.

This has been explained to you time and time again yet you refused to change your bull-headed ways. You had a vision. One that you came up with without (it appears) any input from outside sources. When you presented it to the board others foresaw problems with it and your friends (Dixie and Grind) attempted to give you input. You didn't like what they said and turned on them. Others also saw issues with the whole idea and you didn't like their ideas either so you dug in your heals and turned many of them against you. A good leader listens to those below him and acts. He doesn't ignore their input without first weighing their insights.

That is about the size of it.

Immie

You GO girl!

[SR_]

No, the problem existed in the way the council was set up in the first place. You effectively set it up so that one person could veto all actions of the council in much the same way as the UN Security Council can be blocked by a single rogue nation.

again immie, what system is there that prevents the desires of one person to act in a malicious manner?

how come you keep avoiding my questions?

SR

[SR_]

When you presented it to the board others foresaw problems with it and your friends (Dixie and Grind) attempted to give you input. You didn't like what they said and turned on them.

so youre saying I should embrace them and their ideas?

again, i must do what others say or else? is that it?

SR

[LadyT]

No, the problem existed in the way the council was set up in the first place. You effectively set it up so that one person could veto all actions of the council in much the same way as the UN Security Council can be blocked by a single rogue nation.

This has been explained to you time and time again yet you refused to change your bull-headed ways. You had a vision. One that you came up with without (it appears) any input from outside sources. When you presented it to the board others foresaw problems with it and your friends (Dixie and Grind) attempted to give you input. You didn't like what they said and turned on them. Others also saw issues with the whole idea and you didn't like their ideas either so you dug in your heals and turned many of them against you. A good leader listens to those below him and acts. He doesn't ignore their input without first weighing their insights.

That is about the size of it.

Immie


Scathing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:readit:

[LadyT]

When you presented it to the board others foresaw problems with it and your friends (Dixie and Grind) attempted to give you input. You didn't like what they said and turned on them.

so youre saying I should embrace them and their ideas?

again, i must do what others say or else? is that it?

SR

No dip$hit. No one has said you HAVE to do anything. If you wanted to keep all of your members, it would have been for you go about things completely differently, but being the stubborn control freak that you are, you didn't and you've been exposed for being the slanderous sack of $hit that you are. You are seriously the king of all Strawmen.

[Care4all]

When you presented it to the board others foresaw problems with it and your friends (Dixie and Grind) attempted to give you input. You didn't like what they said and turned on them.

so youre saying I should embrace them and their ideas?

again, i must do what others say or else? is that it?

SR


no, that's not it.

again! strawman ALERT!!! sr

you don't have to do a damn thing, you reap what you sow....or don't sow for that matter!


a WISE man listens.... that's the lesson of the day!

you can do WHATEVER you want, and NO ONE is arguing that issue.

your members were ACTUALLY TRYING to help you sr.... your ego appears to have gotten in the ''way'' of that... and paranoia that we are all ''out to get ya'', because we are not!

[SR_]

no, that's not it.

again! strawman ALERT!!! sr

you don't have to do a damn thing, you reap what you sow....or don't sow for that matter!


a WISE man listens.... that's the lesson of the day!

you can do WHATEVER you want, and NO ONE is arguing that issue.

your members were ACTUALLY TRYING to help you sr.... your ego appears to have gotten in the ''way'' of that... and paranoia that we are all ''out to get ya'', because we are not!


i see. so my members decide they need to ruin features to help me.

well i appreciate the help guys. next time you need help burning down your house, you can count me in. until then, ill respect the fact the your house is your property, and my input about what you should do with your property in no way entitles me to DO anything to "help" you.

SR

[tinfoil]

why is SR even posting here? Go post at your fantasy site where political deabte reigns supreme. Where the great debater Deshbot never tires and the security council protects the innocent from malicious trolls! LOL

[SR_]

***Chapter Two--Conservative Debate Handbook***
The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms


Synopsis
The right to keep & bear arms, inherent to the human condition--hence unalienable--founded on the same philosophic moral basis (individual responsibility) as free enterprise and freedom of conscience. While morally unassailable, it (like free enterprise and free market) is thoroughly practical and utilitarian, conferring numerous benefits. The ultimate benefit is as the linchpin of a free society--that which secures all other freedoms.


The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of the republic.--Mr. Justice Joseph Story.


Overview


For two centuries, political exponents of man as an individual have fallen into two ideological camps; those who premised their position on Natural Law and moral philosophy, and those who premised their position on Utilitarian considerations. American Conservatives since the Founding Fathers, seeing Government as merely the agency of a social compact between the governed and the State--or between the rulers and the ruled--have viewed the issue as primarily a moral question. Respect for individual Liberty was respect for God's Creation.



From Magna Carta, through Locke and Jefferson, it was the State's respect for this social compact which provided the basis for the individual to respect the authority of the State: for his voluntary submission to its laws, for the duty to serve its needs and defend its interests. Under this concept, the ideological basis for the American Republics, the individual retained his basic natural rights; rights deemed unalienable, coming not from Society (or the State as the political manifestation of Society); but bestowed by the Almighty as inherent to the very nature of man.



These rights included personal freedom in relation to economic endeavor, free access to the market and a right to retain the fruits of one's labor--rewards usually determined by the market, which became the property of one endeavoring, to be passed on to his family and heirs;--together with freedom of personal conscience, limited only by one's obligations to that social compact; and together (by obvious implication) with the right to defend what was one's own.



Jefferson put it thus in the Declaration Of Independence:



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men....are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



That Jefferson changed the "life, liberty and property," of the older exponents of Natural Law, was in no respect a trivialization of the essential justice or moral foundation for private property. Jefferson was land rich--but often cash poor (not infrequently the landowner's problem)--and believed in a society of free holders. But the Declaration was an exposition of the moral, Creation derived, basis for human society; and it recognized that the unalienable rights of man included the right to pursue happiness not only via economic or utilitarian pursuits, but via art, philosophy, devotion, reflection and whimsy. The Fathers understood that for many there were things more important than the worldly or material.



While the document defines the moral rather than utilitarian basis for the early American adherence to maximum individual freedom, it clearly implies both the right of a free people to keep and bear arms--else how indeed could they alter or abolish an errant Government--and the utility of an armed population. (We will return to this in more detail.)



The principle that armed free men could and should legally rise against a Government that violated the social compact was at least 561 years old when Jefferson penned the Declaration. The Magna Carta (1215) provided in part (Chapters 60 & 61, Magna Carta Commission Translation, 1964):



60 All the customs and liberties aforesaid, which We have granted to be enjoyed, as far as in Us lies, by Our people throughout Our kingdom, let all Our subjects, whether clerks or laymen, observe, as far as in them lies, toward their dependents.



61 Whereas We, for the honor of God and the amendment of Our realm, and in order the better to allay the discord arisen between Us and Our barons, have granted all these things aforesaid, We, willing that they be forever enjoyed wholly..., do give and grant to Our subjects the following security, to wit, that the barons shall elect any twenty-five barons of the kingdom..., who shall ... keep, hold, and cause to be kept the peace and liberties which We have granted unto them... so that if We, Our Justiciary, bailiffs, or any of Our ministers offend in any respect against any man, or shall transgress any of these articles ..., and the offense be brought before four of the said twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come before Us, ...declaring the offense, and shall demand speedy amends for the same. If we ... fail to afford redress within the space of forty days from the time the case was brought before Us ..., the aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who together with the commonalty of the whole country, shall distrain and distress Us to the utmost of their power, to wit, by capture of Our castles, lands, and possessions and by all other possible means, until compensation be made....etc..



The Utilitarian argument for individual liberty is quite different. It is premised not on compact or on what is right, but on what confers the greatest benefit to the greatest number. The motivation is the interest of the collective, the economy or society, rather than an acceptance of the Nature of God's Creation or a concern for establishing a moral basis for the individual's duty towards society. Jeremy Bentham, the definer of this approach, put it more simply: The sole object of government ought to be the greatest happiness of the greatest possible number of the community.



While this collectivist perspective is offensive to most American Conservatives--your correspondent among them--because it reverses basic priorities; the realities of man's nature render the debate largely academic as it pertains to most purely economic decisions facing the modern State. (The distinctions are of course vital to many other questions.) America recognized and respected the individuality of man, because it was morally right. But having accepted the freedoms which flowed from that recognition, America demonstrated to the entire world, the utilitarian benefits of a free society.



For the first 150 years of Independence, we put the individual on his own mettle to determine his material position in life. And the resulting free, market driven economy, proved so much more utilitarian than any of the more regimented societies overseas, that those who came here--from infinitely varied backgrounds--all did better here than their ancestral cousins had ever done in their ancestral homelands: For all the vast range of ethnic types, the same experiment, the same result.



The dynamics were not hard to fathom; although they had escaped much of the old world throughout the ages. By making the motivater not the prescriptions of the theorist, but the self-directed, self-interest of the participant, we unlocked the energy (both mental and physical) of the whole people; each aspiring participant driven to find what he or she could do on which the free market put the greatest value. Communism collapsed because fear and coercion could not bring out the same effective level of individual involvement. It simply could not compete. Today, even the Socialist Governments of Western Europe are engaged in denationalizing industry, and pinning their future plans on market economics and private enterprise, precisely because of that utility; although in other respects many preserve their studied contempt for man as an individual.



It is clearly morally right--inherent to the human situation--that free men be allowed to obtain and possess the arms needed to protect themselves and their families--including the fruits of their and their forebears' labor. There is surely no point in the historic compact, where anyone gave up the right to self-protection on the promise of political protection. The right to exact punishment for crime is a different matter. There, there is reasonable consideration, a "trade off." The State assumed the function of punishment, subject to the rights of a fair trial, etc.. We gave up the right to take private vengeance on the promise of a fairly administered system of Justice. There, there is time for deliberation.

cornelius, this is what most of us use this board for. theres plenty political debate on the other board.

this is the off topic forum isnt it?

SR

[Immanuel]

No, the problem existed in the way the council was set up in the first place. You effectively set it up so that one person could veto all actions of the council in much the same way as the UN Security Council can be blocked by a single rogue nation.

again immie, what system is there that prevents the desires of one person to act in a malicious manner?

how come you keep avoiding my questions?

SR

Haven't seen your question. Where did you ask it before?

The only system I can think of that prevents a single representative to act in a malicious manner is yours. The UN Security Council allows it. Our own Congress allows it. Yours is the only system that prevents it by direct rule of the king.

What it appears is that you wanted a puppet governing body to do your bidding. Any deliberate free will was strickly and clearly forbidden.

Immie

[Cornelius]

cornelius, this is what most of us use this board for. theres plenty political debate on the other board.

this is the off topic forum isnt it?

SR

I thought Whatever Goes here

[Immanuel]

When you presented it to the board others foresaw problems with it and your friends (Dixie and Grind) attempted to give you input. You didn't like what they said and turned on them.

so youre saying I should embrace them and their ideas?

again, i must do what others say or else? is that it?

SR

Only a fool totally ignores the input of friends.

Embrace? No, hear and weigh their input yes. Not slap your friends in the face when all they are trying to do is help.

Immie

[Damocles]

I thought Whatever Goes here

You have been issued a temporary ban... repetitive violation of rules 5 and 14...

[SR_]

Only a fool totally ignores the input of friends.

Embrace? No, hear and weigh their input yes. Not slap your friends in the face when all they are trying to do is help.

Immie

immie,

I listened and debated with them for HUNDREDS OF POSTS.

HUNDREDS!!!!

over and over and over and over....

dont you remember that?

SR

[SR_]

Haven't seen your question. Where did you ask it before?

The only system I can think of that prevents a single representative to act in a malicious manner is yours. The UN Security Council allows it. Our own Congress allows it. Yours is the only system that prevents it by direct rule of the king.

What it appears is that you wanted a puppet governing body to do your bidding. Any deliberate free will was strickly and clearly forbidden.

Immie

ok lets say they were demonstrating the problems of the council. What problem would there be. If people didnt agree on any issues, i see no problem. If we never labled anyone a troll, i see no problem. If we never did anything I see no problem.

I do see a problem if the elected member CHOSE to always vote in the negative no matter what. now this isnt an action of the council, this is a reflection of the elected member. In essense the member is the problem, not the council.

what i see you saying is that no problem exists, until a member creates the problem and thus it is demonstrated. I fail to see how this is defensable. You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?

SR"

[Care4all]

now, exactly , how does the IGNORE BUTTON WORK on this site?

;)

care

p.s. SR, nothing was destroyed on your site, at least not yet.

and I admire you for coming over here and trying to settle this debate, once and for all....you're a tough cookie, much tougher than me, that's for certain...but personally I think that male testosterone is getting in your way of thinking straight.

Destroying your site would ruin my life, why would I want to see it damaged? :pke:

Same with many of the others, though they may not be willing to admit it, Dixie made mention to this in a previous post, paraphrased, "why would I want to ruin a site I spend half my time on?"

Please take a step back for a couple of days and think about all that was said. And said to help your SITE, not to harm it. You can't squash human beings from thinking outside of the box, you need to start predicting it and also doing it yourself....that's my humble advice.

And when you return from this cease fire, maybe you will be willing to compromise with your members, as a company owner may compromise with his workers, who technically, as you think, he owes nothing to....yet still does it, for the long term benefit of his company goals.

Basically, I HOPE, that cooler heads prevail and insight is miraculously given to you! :)

care

[Immanuel]

ok lets say they were demonstrating the problems of the council. What problem would there be. If people didnt agree on any issues, i see no problem. If we never labled anyone a troll, i see no problem. If we never did anything I see no problem.

I do see a problem if the elected member CHOSE to always vote in the negative no matter what. now this isnt an action of the council, this is a reflection of the elected member. In essense the member is the problem, not the council.

what i see you saying is that no problem exists, until a member creates the problem and thus it is demonstrated. I fail to see how this is defensable. You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?

SR"

They did nothing at all to your site. The only harm they caused was to your precious ego. They out-thought you at your own game.

You told us you knew what was best in this petty game of yours. They showed you that you didn't know shit and you won't forgive them for that.

Immie

PS, I will now accept my ban from FP.com. It is obviously coming. ;)

[SR_]

They did nothing at all to your site. The only harm they caused was to your precious ego. They out-thought you at your own game.

You told us you knew what was best in this petty game of yours. They showed you that you didn't know shit and you won't forgive them for that.

Immie


again, the personal attacks accomplish nothing immie. They did nothing to the "feature" which is apart of the site because I threatened to ban them and they others informed me of what was going on.

You seem to forget that they didnt do anything because I stopped them.

And you keep refering to them helping me.

Why dont you answer my questions?

SR

[Immanuel]

How many damned times are you going to ask, "why don't you answer my questions?" That seems to be the only question I I have not answered.

Immie

[Immanuel]

again, the personal attacks accomplish nothing immie. They did nothing to the "feature" which is apart of the site because I threatened to ban them and they others informed me of what was going on.

You seem to forget that they didnt do anything because I stopped them.

And you keep refering to them helping me.

Why dont you answer my questions?

SR

And you my friend have no grounds to speak about personal attacks. You are only surpassed by Dixie in that realm.

Immie

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

sure. the government set up for the United States is representative of people who LIVE IN STATES. Thats why its called the United States, and we choose our representation based on that context. It servers the interests of the states, some of whom are industrial, some are agricultural, some live where there are hurricanes, some live where there are wild fires. The system is set up to address this. That is the context.

Yes, context of regional divisions. I see no inherent problems with establishing a security council based on our regional divisions. Ideological divisions are completely out of the context of regional divisions, and it is you who the concept of context seems to be lost on, not me. If your only choices were Democratic candidates because you happen to live in a Blue State, or Republican candidates because you happen to live in a Red State, it would be the same context you have established for your security council. Essentially, that is what you are saying, that we have no choice except within our own predetermined ideological box.

The most obvious problem with this is, you have no way of knowing what a person's true ideology is, or whether they are being completely honest about it. I know quite a few liberals who claim to be "moderate" and they are simply not, it's just what they call themselves.

When having a body that sits as an executive over a message forum, it would be nice to reflect the context of that message forum accurately.

Ideological context is far less important than integrity, honor and trust. Besides, a 4-way split between Cons, Libs, Mods, and Kooks, is not an accurate representation of our board, or any board for that matter, nor will it ever be, in a constantly changing environment. If you have 75% Liberals, 10% Conservatives, 12% Moderates, and 3% Kooks, how is your system equally representative in any way? It's not! However, if your council is comprised of the 8 people who the entire board trusts the most and finds the most integrity in, the ideological viewpoints are not a factor. Perhaps that means the majority would be more Liberal or Libertarian, but if that was who the entire board selected, there would be no question of partisanship, as the choice to seat them was not made on partisan basis.

[Immanuel]

"You seem to forget that they didnt do anything because I stopped them."

1) you have not stopped them. You simply have not instituted the program.

2) nothing they would have done would have cause a lick of trouble to your site. In fact, seeing what they tried to do and your counter measures would have been very interesting.

Immie

[SR_]

Please take a step back for a couple of days and think about all that was said. And said to help your SITE, not to harm it. You can't squash human beings from thinking outside of the box, you need to start predicting it and also doing it yourself....that's my humble advice.

And when you return from this cease fire, maybe you will be willing to compromise with your members, as a company owner may compromise with his workers, who technically, as you think, he owes nothing to....yet still does it, for the long term benefit of his company goals.

care,

Lets say that I did listen to them and just held an election at large for the top five getters. Lets just for arguments sake say that I did that.

And lets just say that Cypress felt like that would not be good for the site. Regardless of his reasoning, it just felt it wouldnt be good. And so he said "SR, Im going to post 150 threads a day that have porn in them, and Im going to post HAHHAHAH a million times in each thread that anyone else creates, until you listen to me and do what i say"

now, Ive already changed the system to what other members wanted under the threat of holding it in gridlock, in effect rendering it useless.

now, Ive got another member threatening to use the features i make available to all members, the abiliy to post in any thread, and the ability to create new threads.

What should I do? Both are trying to "help" me, both are using the features that I offer them to affect change?

SR

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

p.s. SR, nothing was destroyed on your site, at least not yet.


And nothing would have been "destroyed" on his site. That is the dirty little secret. Any action we discussed or planned, was not in violation of any rule, was not destructive to any property owned by SR, and was within the very guidelines he established himself. There was no "malicious" intent, there was no "secret plot to bring down the board" or any other such nonsense, that was SR's paranoia kicking in.

[Immanuel]

SR,

Did you mean those rhetorical pissant questions?

Now, on to the discussion and your reply to Care.

How about if you simply listened and maybe adopted the valid changes (if there were any) and then said that after the system was implemented and running for a little while you would re-evaluate the issues addressed and any problems that might arise? That seems to me like an intelligent alternative to attacking those that were only voicing their opinions on a political message board.

Immie

[SR_]

Ideological divisions are completely out of the context of regional divisions, and it is you who the concept of context seems to be lost on, not me. If your only choices were Democratic candidates because you happen to live in a Blue State, or Republican candidates because you happen to live in a Red State, it would be the same context you have established for your security council. Essentially, that is what you are saying, that we have no choice except within our own predetermined ideological box.

Dixie, again, youre confused. On an anonymous message forum the only interests are that of good debate and fairness in moderation. For example you live in Alabama, it doesnt matter whether its red or blue, its a coastal state that will be hit by hurricanes. No matter what EVERYONE living in alabama shares this. Now out of no fault of anyone, just nature, people living in South Dakota do not share this issue of hurricanes with you. You choose to live in Alabama, they choose to live in south dakota.

On fp.com you choose to be a conservative or you choose to be no label, but we are all naturally split into ideologies. that is the natural context of a political debate site. You think we need less taxes, others think we need more taxes, THAT IS the natural formation of the districts. Ultimately we agree on certain things, as states agree on certain things, but for the most part a liberal we always see it this way, and a conservative will always see it another and that split provides the actual content for the site. Without disagreement we have hardly any content.

Thats why the natural district on a political message board is your ideology, and that was what context provides you with the ability to be represented on a governering body.

The most obvious problem with this is, you have no way of knowing what a person's true ideology is, or whether they are being completely honest about it. I know quite a few liberals who claim to be "moderate" and they are simply not, it's just what they call themselves.

I agree, but you at least acknowledge that they are liberal. the party labels are just options for you as a member, whether you choose moderate, or fiscal or whatever doesnt really matter. And youre right people could lie, I cant stop people from being liars.

Ideological context is far less important than integrity, honor and trust. Besides, a 4-way split between Cons, Libs, Mods, and Kooks, is not an accurate representation of our board, or any board for that matter, nor will it ever be, in a constantly changing environment.

I dont know they seem pretty even. And Id like new members to notice the equality and not be turned off by the appearance that there on huge super majority over another?

If you have 75% Liberals, 10% Conservatives, 12% Moderates, and 3% Kooks, how is your system equally representative in any way?

Its equal in terms of power. Just because you have more than another shouldnt mean that the majority has more say than anyone else. At least not in executive terms. The US has the most powerful military in the world and the most money, yet we only have one vote on the UN SC.

However, if your council is comprised of the 8 people who the entire board trusts the most and finds the most integrity in, the ideological viewpoints are not a factor. Perhaps that means the majority would be more Liberal or Libertarian, but if that was who the entire board selected, there would be no question of partisanship, as the choice to seat them was not made on partisan basis.

Nothing suggests that we dont have conservatives with integrity, or liberals with integrity, or kooks with integrity. And there would be no reflection of non-partisan agreement if a majority was elected by a majority of one ideology.

SR

[SR_]

Did you mean those rhetorical pissant questions?

my pissant question is the same one youre asking me. i keep answering it, and you refuse too.

You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?

]I have a new feature, Dixie says theres something wrong with it. I ask what is wrong with it? Dixie gets brent elected and holds the council hostage through purposefully providing gridlock. Dixie says the problem is that the council is always in gridlock because thats the problem im creating. Do I feel like Dixie was helping me with a problem in the council?

its the same thing. The problem only occurs when someone purposefully CREATES THE PROBLEM.

SR

[Immanuel]

Did you mean those rhetorical pissant questions?

my pissant question is the same one youre asking me. i keep answering it, and you refuse too.

You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?

]I have a new feature, Dixie says theres something wrong with it. I ask what is wrong with it? Dixie gets brent elected and holds the council hostage through purposefully providing gridlock. Dixie says the problem is that the council is always in gridlock because thats the problem im creating. Do I feel like Dixie was helping me with a problem in the council?

its the same thing. The problem only occurs when someone purposefully CREATES THE PROBLEM.

SR

No, it is not the same thing. He did not break anything of yours nor would he have. He simply would have displayed the problems with your way of thinking.

Imme

[SR_]

No, it is not the same thing. He did not break anything of yours nor would he have. He simply would have displayed the problems with your way of thinking.

Imme

immie, a council that has a member who only looks to vote the opposite of others in order to render it useless, in essence breaks the feature from serving the purpose it was designed for.

It is creating a problem because the feature no longer works as it should.

Dixie has not denied that this was his goal, to ruin the SC, to make it useless, so i would change it. Had he not decided that creating such a problem was vital to demonstrating the problem than who's to say that people would just not be honest and vote on issues they felt were important to them. Those issues are issues that arise on the board, not the issue of the council itself.

It is the same thing, both create damage that must be addressed and fixed.

SR

[Immanuel]

The only damage that was created, SR, was to your feelings. You just could not accept that everyone didn't think this was a fabulous idea without any flaws.

Sorry to tell you this but the only one who did not see the flaws in your system was you which is why you should have taken the time to listen to the input of others.

Immie

[maineman]

in retrospect, the only flaw was unanimity in lieu of a supermajority..... imho

[SR_]

The only damage that was created, SR, was to your feelings. You just could not accept that everyone didn't think this was a fabulous idea without any flaws.

Sorry to tell you this but the only one who did not see the flaws in your system was you which is why you should have taken the time to listen to the input of others.

Immie

immie,

your opinion of how i feel and my own personal thoughts is of no relevance to me, or do you think i should listen to you and feel the way you keep projecting i feel in order to keep you happy?

lol

why people argue and try to convince others of what others think or feel makes little sense. Its like me telling you that you feel like a woman and thus you act like one. Well i have no way of proving how you feel, but im going to continue to argue with you and insist that I know how you feel.

come on immie, this is something not worth debating. I debated the merits with everyone over and over and over and over for hudreds of posts. And I specifically said, "hey if you dont like it, you dont have to be involved, you dont have to participate in anyway".

My goal wasnt to please everyone as that is impossible.

And i have changed it to majority on some issues, super majority on others, and unanimous on others.

SR

[Immanuel]

in retrospect, the only flaw was unanimity in lieu of a supermajority..... imho

There are two that I thought of one is the unanimity requirement which I mentioned very early on, the grouping into "parties" when there was no reason for one to belong to a party and the number of members.

Again, it was SR's system and he had the right to set it up however he wanted, but unless he did simply want a puppet governing body he should have let things flow as they would. To use the old cliche, he should have simply "let the chips lie where the fell."

Neither one of these flaws made itsy bitsy bit of difference to the functionality of the board.

The damage done to the board was caused by the personal attacks on the administration.

Immie

[Immanuel]

immie,

your opinion of how i feel and my own personal thoughts is of no relevance to me, or do you think i should listen to you and feel the way you keep projecting i feel in order to keep you happy?



Tell me you don't want an answer to that stupid question.

Immie

PS Hell yes you should listen to how I feel to keep me happy. :)

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, again, youre confused. On an anonymous message forum the only interests are that of good debate and fairness in moderation.

No, I am not confused, nor have I ever been confused about this issue, other than being confused as to why you wanted to make it so difficult for yourself. I really do resent your continued 'backhanding'. If the only interests are that of good debate and fairness, why does ideological viewpoint have a thing to do with how a council should be selected?

I don't need irrelevant analogies to regional divisions and concerns, because we are not talking about dividing the board by regions, rather partisan ideology. For the record, I consider myself Conservative because of my strong fiscal conservative economic convictions, and really nothing more. In other areas, I might have a Libertarian ideology, or my views might be considered moderate to some conservatives, and some things I am quite radical and unorthodox. I don't think you can really confine anyone to a particular ideology across the board, unless they are simply partisan ideologues. Perhaps you are one of those type people, and just can't understand the concept of being open-minded? I don't know. What I do know is, if you establish a body based on ideological viewpoints as opposed to integrity and honesty of character, that is what you are most likely going to have, a group of partisan ideologues.

[SR_]

Dixie, again, youre confused. On an anonymous message forum the only interests are that of good debate and fairness in moderation.

No, I am not confused, nor have I ever been confused about this issue, other than being confused as to why you wanted to make it so difficult for yourself. I really do resent your continued 'backhanding'. If the only interests are that of good debate and fairness, why does ideological viewpoint have a thing to do with how a council should be selected?

I don't need irrelevant analogies to regional divisions and concerns, because we are not talking about dividing the board by regions, rather partisan ideology. For the record, I consider myself Conservative because of my strong fiscal conservative economic convictions, and really nothing more. In other areas, I might have a Libertarian ideology, or my views might be considered moderate to some conservatives, and some things I am quite radical and unorthodox. I don't think you can really confine anyone to a particular ideology across the board, unless they are simply partisan ideologues. Perhaps you are one of those type people, and just can't understand the concept of being open-minded? I don't know. What I do know is, if you establish a body based on ideological viewpoints as opposed to integrity and honesty of character, that is what you are most likely going to have, a group of partisan ideologues.

well in terms of debate partisan ideologues would be great as there is nothing to debate with people who are all of the same bend. Then it wouldnt be a debate site, it would be more like what DU is, a group of people to come together and reassure each other how right they are.

And yes, you are a conservative and should be proud to be so. Taking a different side on certain issues in no way makes you "less" conservative, so im not sure why it would matter to you what bloc you were in.

but, you have a no label option available to you.

i dont have desire for fp.com to be "free" from partisan ideology. If I offer the elections at large, than one ideology could represent the board on council, i dont want that, if i offered no ideology, then why really have a political debate forum if you want to escape partisan arguments?

SR

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If I offer the elections at large, than one ideology could represent the board on council, i dont want that, if i offered no ideology, then why really have a political debate forum if you want to escape partisan arguments?

Why would you fear one ideology representing the board on council, if that is who the board felt was the most qualified people of honor, trust, integrity and fairness? Why do you continue to assume such a person's political ideology would play any role at all in their objectivity and impartiality on a council? And even more importantly, what difference does it really make anyway, if the council isn't going to have the final say? It seems to me, any questioning of partisanship will be directed at the person responsible for the final decision, not the council which merely suggested action. So, you are going to all these great lengths to have a SC appear fair and impartial from an ideological standpoint, yet in the end, any charges of impartiality will be directed toward you and your own partisan ideology. You can't avoid that, if someone wants to make the charge.

Let's look at an example here... say you have a "Josef" troll appear one day, and he is clearly a right-wing religious zealot, and he has been skirting the edge with regard to posting personal info on the board, so he has been brought before the council for recommendation. Let's say that I am on the council. Everyone would consider me to be as close to Josef's ideological group than anyone on the council, but if the evidence showed he had violated the rule, I would have to vote to take action, and my personal ideological views, or how closely they matched Josef's, would never be a consideration. Subsequently, let's say the Libertarian bloc had elected a representative with deep-rooted Libertarian views, and because of his partisan ideological views on personal freedom, he didn't want to take action against Josef. Here you have a perfect example of what I am trying to say, strong ideological views are not always condusive to fairness and impartiality. Ethics, morals, integrity, honesty, and honor, have a far greater significance in the process. This is the criteria you should establish for candidates to serve on a council, and it should have absolutely nothing to do with what the person's politics are, that is completely irrelevant.

I get where you are coming from, I understand what you are trying to do, but I fundamentally disagree with your assumptions and I think you are making a grave mistake in judgement. You've gone out of your way to prove, you can most certainly do whatever the hell you want to do and you don't have to listen to me or anyone else. In the end, you will be the one to deal with the consequences of your actions, not me, so it really doesn't matter one way or the other to me, at this point.

[SR_]

Why would you fear one ideology representing the board on council, if that is who the board felt was the most qualified people of honor, trust, integrity and fairness? Why do you continue to assume such a person's political ideology would play any role at all in their objectivity and impartiality on a council?

This is a good question answered several times previously.

I dont fear one ideology representing the board on the council at all. I feel that having a political debate forum shouldnt appear to be "governed" by one ideology or the other. Thats just an appearance desire, I dont want new members to get the impression that if the entire council was liberal that this was somehow a liberal board. That defeats the purposes im trying to make. In addition any fully partisan council composed of one ideology would allow if not encourage accusations of impropriety. As we've seen, the mere accusation of wrong doing isnt good for the board.

Their ideology doesnt play any role per se in the council, and Ive mentioned several times that there are people of integrity in every group. Their ideology only goes to decide what district they are in, and that their ideology has a place on the governing body. Its not in the interests of conservatives to have ZERO conservatives on the council, etc... It doesnt mean that conservative ideology helps or hinders them in deciding whether or not a thread should be deleted, as most all issues before the council are not formed in terms of an ideological debate, but its how we're split and the fringies having two members enables them to have the same representation as the cons, or libs, regardless of member totals.

Let's look at an example here... say you have a "Josef" troll appear one day, and he is clearly a right-wing religious zealot, and he has been skirting the edge with regard to posting personal info on the board, so he has been brought before the council for recommendation. Let's say that I am on the council. Everyone would consider me to be as close to Josef's ideological group than anyone on the council, but if the evidence showed he had violated the rule, I would have to vote to take action, and my personal ideological views, or how closely they matched Josef's, would never be a consideration.

perfect example: If you were to vote to take action upon Josef, there would be no possibility of him/her accussing the council of anything. Why? Because even a fellow conservative voted for it.

Subsequently, let's say the Libertarian bloc had elected a representative with deep-rooted Libertarian views, and because of his partisan ideological views on personal freedom, he didn't want to take action against Josef. Here you have a perfect example of what I am trying to say, strong ideological views are not always condusive to fairness and impartiality.

yes, but if that person was elected, then thats what the libertarians wanted. However, their ideological view doesnt pertain to the charge and charter of the council, it just allows them representation as their district. If that libertarian was elected at large it still wouldnt change anything.

Ethics, morals, integrity, honesty, and honor, have a far greater significance in the process. This is the criteria you should establish for candidates to serve on a council, and it should have absolutely nothing to do with what the person's politics are, that is completely irrelevant.

I understand this dixie, and i believe there are people of ethics, morals, and integirty in every bloc. having established what the duties are for the council members, it only allows for equal representation upon the designated districts which are split based on ideology. members choose which "district" best describes them, and they operate within that district. conservatives are represented by conservatives in the council, and are represented by two for the whole board.

I get where you are coming from, I understand what you are trying to do, but I fundamentally disagree with your assumptions and I think you are making a grave mistake in judgement. You've gone out of your way to prove, you can most certainly do whatever the hell you want to do and you don't have to listen to me or anyone else. In the end, you will be the one to deal with the consequences of your actions, not me, so it really doesn't matter one way or the other to me, at this point.

yes this is true. You may think that not doing what you ask is not listening, but this is the hundredth time we've discussed this, obviously you are being listened too, just not agreed with. They are not the same no matter how badly you wish they were.

There is no grave result to come from a conservative coming to fp.com and registering as a conservative, voting for conservatives to the council and being labeled as a conservative on a political debate forum. You may think there is grave reprecussions but there isnt.

Those members that have integrity, that dont campaign for sinister goals in secret, but are members of ethics are in every bloc, and will do a good job on the council, representing not only the other members of their ideology but being an offical representative of the entire board. meanwhile, every member has someone on the council that is of the same affiliation, and the board is protected from partisan accusations of impropriety.

Now, I have listened to you, I do not intend on installing the system you prefer. I am making a decision based on the fact that i believe the current method is the best route to take.

SR

[Immanuel]

"Now, I have listened to you, I do not intend on installing the system you prefer. I am making a decision based on the fact that i believe the current method is the best route to take."

Fine and good luck.

I am actually looking forward to it and no, not because I want to see it fail.

Do you have any idea when you expect it to be installed?

Immie

[SR_]

"Now, I have listened to you, I do not intend on installing the system you prefer. I am making a decision based on the fact that i believe the current method is the best route to take."

Fine and good luck.

I am actually looking forward to it and no, not because I want to see it fail.

Do you have any idea when you expect it to be installed?

Immie

i think it will be soon, we're working pretty hard on it.

SR

[Damocles]

i think it will be soon, we're working pretty hard on it.

SR

Cool. I can't wait to see it.

[Immanuel]

i think it will be soon, we're working pretty hard on it.

SR

Are those other features coming soon too?

I'm really looking forward to the voting for the bills in the house and the Senate. That is probably the most interesting to me. I wish I could go back and see how I would have voted when I first joined politics.com to the (some say liberal) monster I have become.

Immie

[BRUTALITOPS]

[B]Dixie felt your system was flawed. He wanted to fix it for

youre right, they stopped. and i wrote several times. just stop, walk away, no one is in trouble, no action will be taken, nothing. Thats why DIXIE ISNT BANNED. wtf immie?



You can't be serious SR. After you posted our u2u's, our plans were ruined. Everything was dead in the water. Nothing was happening from that point forward.

You are saying you banned me because I was continuing to undermine the council? Dixie was right on those threads that I posted blasting you...I simply started them. My threads had NOTHING to do with the council.. My threads never MENTIONED the council.

My threads regarding u2u's, and the council, are 100% UNRELATED, other than the fact that you read our plans through u2u's.

[BRUTALITOPS]

"And so they found Tiana, who naturally willingly joined.
They told me what their motivation was. I just didn't give a rats a$$. I had my agenda they had theirs.

QFT.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Haven't seen your question. Where did you ask it before?
What it appears is that you wanted a puppet governing body to do your bidding. Any deliberate free will was strickly and clearly forbidden.

Immie

+6

[BRUTALITOPS]

They did nothing at all to your site. The only harm they caused was to your precious ego. They out-thought you at your own game.

You told us you knew what was best in this petty game of yours. They showed you that you didn't know shit and you won't forgive them for that.

Immie



+10 megabomb.

immie is a grind points god.

[BRUTALITOPS]

You know what the funniest thing about all of this is? I 100% agree with SR's plan regarding dividing everyone up into categories. That made a lot of sense. Dixie obviously 100% disagrees with me. Just goes to show what a mixed bag we had.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Did you mean those rhetorical pissant questions?

my pissant question is the same one youre asking me. i keep answering it, and you refuse too.

You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?

]I have a new feature, Dixie says theres something wrong with it. I ask what is wrong with it? Dixie gets brent elected and holds the council hostage through purposefully providing gridlock. Dixie says the problem is that the council is always in gridlock because thats the problem im creating. Do I feel like Dixie was helping me with a problem in the council?

its the same thing. The problem only occurs when someone purposefully CREATES THE PROBLEM.

SR


Ever heard of gray and white hat hackers? They often will hack into systems find the vulnerabilities, and then point out said vulnerabilities to the respected parties so that they can be fixied and better improved.

Your analogy sucks ass by the way, it should be more in line with something such as your hanging a hamock up, and dixie says,

"hey sr, the way you hung that hammock doesn't seem to be able to support a lot of weight"

Then you would say, "Fuck off dixie, I know what I am doing"

Then dixie would go, oh yeah? *Sits down* --- hammock colapses.

[BRUTALITOPS]

The only damage that was created, SR, was to your feelings.

+3

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

SR did you ever admit to being wrong?

So... In summary, after setting an early record for the longest thread on the newly created board, SR still refuses to admit fault! ...Oh well, at least he didn't start banning people this time... Doh... I forgot... He can't! lol

[Beefy]

Its just a damned shame. SR made a great board, one of the best I've seen, ever, it was on its way up until last week. This is what ego does to an otherwise good guy.

[LadyT]

Dixie was WAY more involved than I EVER was.

Grind? Dude? It sounds to me like you are trying to grovel your way back into SiR's good graces by throwing me under the bus. We were ALL involved equally. I was the one who spoke the loudest on the board, and I might have originated the master plan, but you were the one who came up with Brent, and I was not real hot on that idea, as you'll recall. It actually took Tiana supporting him, to convince me to go along with it, and even then I was reluctant.

It doesn't really matter now anyway, what's done is done. You were banned by the King because you dared to reveal his lies. I have enormous respect for you in doing that, and others do as well, because you helped to open some eyes as to what kind of megalomaniac SiR really was, which is something I could have never done alone. For god's sake, Immie is still over there slobbering around trying to give him the benefit of the doubt! Some people just don't see, no matter what you do to show them, but that is not our problem.

SiR will lie about it from now on, you can count on that! He has no intention of ever being "proven wrong" about any damn thing, he thinks he is perfect in every way, and that is fine, let him go on thinking that, as he sits at his dead board, wondering how he fucked it up so badly. I plan to move on with my life, his ego problem is not worth me losing sleep over, to be honest. I just hate to see you acting like Immie about it. You did the right thing, I did the right thing, Tiana did the right thing... SiR was the one who fucked up and blew any credibility he had. He will have to live with that, and that is plenty good enough for me.

LMAO.....I can't believe we were all in cahouts! "The underground".....Man, those were some hilarious PMs.

Remember when Dixie Accused me of selling out the 'undeground'? LOL

[Damocles]

LMAO.....I can't believe we were all in cahouts! "The underground".....Man, those were some hilarious PMs.

Remember when Dixie Accused me of selling out the 'undeground'? LOL
How much money did you get?

[uscitizen]

Hey Damo we need one of those council thingys.

[BRUTALITOPS]

uscitizen we already do have one but it's secret O_O

[Damocles]

uscitizen we already do have one but it's secret O_O
We call them "The Illuminated."

[BRUTALITOPS]

btw this is the thread where dixie stopped liking me.

[uscitizen]

We call them "The Illuminated."


OHH NOOZ!

Does asshat know?

[BRUTALITOPS]

asshat is a member. what a hypocrite!

[BRUTALITOPS]

also everyones donations to the site have gone to buy ladyt pairs of shoes.

sorry damo im letting the secrets out of the bag O_O

[uscitizen]

asshat is a member. what a hypocrite!

figures, he buys Chinese stuff too.

[LadyT]

also everyones donations to the site have gone to buy ladyt pairs of shoes.

sorry damo im letting the secrets out of the bag O_O

They better be Jimmy Choos or I'm kicking someone's ass.

[Damocles]

They better be Jimmy Choos or I'm kicking someone's ass.
Why would you want Jimmy's shoes? His are all ragitty and falling apart and stuff. I saw him coloring in the stripes with a sharpie the other day...

[BRUTALITOPS]

They better be Jimmy Choos or I'm kicking someone's ass.

wearing what? inferior shoes?

[LadyT]

wearing what? inferior shoes?


You've gone too far.

[Minister of Truth]

grind youre never getting back on fp.com

So, will the old site be coming back, then?



Oh, and everybody check out this link. Take note of the who the ONLY person is making entries!!! :lol:

http://fullpolitics.com/category/political-commentary/

[LadyT]

So, will the old site be coming back, then?



Oh, and everybody check out this link. Take note of the who the ONLY person is making entries!!! :lol:

http://fullpolitics.com/category/political-commentary/

LMAO, that's pretty fucking funny.

[uscitizen]

The Midcan universe.

[LadyT]

Hmmmm, Hey Damo, you mind blocking this site from everyone else for a while so that I can stretch out and post whatever I want without any lip from anyone. Maybe I can get a "Like This" button on all my entries like Facebook. Definitely not a "Don't Like This" button though.

[Mott the Hoople]

asshat is a member. what a hypocrite!
Aww, give Asshat a bowl of pudding and a plastic spoon to eat it with and he'll put up with anything. Damned Zombie! LOL

[Minister of Truth]

Dixie was WAY more involved than I EVER was.

Grind? Dude? It sounds to me like you are trying to grovel your way back into SiR's good graces by throwing me under the bus. We were ALL involved equally. I was the one who spoke the loudest on the board, and I might have originated the master plan, but you were the one who came up with Brent, and I was not real hot on that idea, as you'll recall. It actually took Tiana supporting him, to convince me to go along with it, and even then I was reluctant.

It doesn't really matter now anyway, what's done is done. You were banned by the King because you dared to reveal his lies. I have enormous respect for you in doing that, and others do as well, because you helped to open some eyes as to what kind of megalomaniac SiR really was, which is something I could have never done alone. For god's sake, Immie is still over there slobbering around trying to give him the benefit of the doubt! Some people just don't see, no matter what you do to show them, but that is not our problem.

SiR will lie about it from now on, you can count on that! He has no intention of ever being "proven wrong" about any damn thing, he thinks he is perfect in every way, and that is fine, let him go on thinking that, as he sits at his dead board, wondering how he fucked it up so badly. I plan to move on with my life, his ego problem is not worth me losing sleep over, to be honest. I just hate to see you acting like Immie about it. You did the right thing, I did the right thing, Tiana did the right thing... SiR was the one who fucked up and blew any credibility he had. He will have to live with that, and that is plenty good enough for me.

Grind FAIL.

Grind, didn't you recently negrep me for underplaying your role in the FP meltdown? Fuck you.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Grind FAIL.

Grind, didn't you recently negrep me for underplaying your role in the FP meltdown? Fuck you.

do not go against grind, the consequences are dire.....

and seriously....pulling this thread up..... :pke: