Markle's banning

Wordslinger wrote:For Boards:

While I understand your sentiments completely, it does appear that Markle's banning is based on him voicing his fetid opinions and manufactured facts -- all of which constitute a political point of view, albeit one of corruption.

Please explain why you have banned him, and how long the ban applies.

Thanks

boards of FL wrote:Acorn, Shirley Sherrod, and now Planned Parenthood - and I'm sure I'm leaving others out.  These are stories that begin as heavily edited videos that purport to show something that didn't actually take place, then they are picked up by Markle-types and repeated as objective fact, then these organization lose funding, fold up, or the people involved lose their jobs, and after all of that we find out that the narrative in the videos was entirely fabricated and the creators are then indicted.  But it doesn't matter at that point because the damage has already been done.  Mission accomplished.

My point is that this type of bullshit has real-world consequences.  As I said, I can't in good conscience give a platform to a mouth breather who is going to repeat such bullshit as fact - particularly when we have already seen the story play out and the video creators indicted.  

I'd rather see those who propagate the bullshit lose their voice, rather than the Acorns, Planned Parenthoods, and Shirley Sherrods lose theirs.  And this is the case no matter the size of the forum membership.

Some of you make it sound as if Markle was a well informed poster who spoke in complete paragraphs that were chalk full of substance.  In reality, Markle was a guy who copy and pasted bullshit for optics.  There was never any intent to engage, to discuss issues, or anything of the sort.  Intellectually honesty did not exist in Markle-land, and that is why he's out.  And, trust me, I gave him ample warning.

SheWrites wrote:It's a public forum.  Are we not all able to decide what is crapola and what is not?  Many of you have had discussions with Markle in private and said he is a good person.  To ban someone for what they feel is truth, whether it is or not, is not a substantial reason.

Boards you are wrong.

This place will become boring and drop by the wayside without pro/con debaters - right or wrong.

gatorfan wrote:The hypocrisy of the "moderator" is astounding.

Bob wrote:Yes we know what hypocrisy is.  Hypocrisy is when the person who asks this question... "would you say that Markle's contribution there is an expression of opinion?...  is also the same person who continually posts this.  lol

Bob wrote:Yes we know what hypocrisy is.  Hypocrisy is when the person who asks this question... "would you say that Markle's contribution there is an expression of opinion?...  is also the same person who continually posts this.  lol

gatorfan wrote:

Agreed, and I do find it amusing to see the remarkable similarities in Sal's and BoF posts, you know - almost as if they were really the same person........

Salinsky wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

Agreed, and I do find it amusing to see the remarkable similarities in Sal's and BoF posts, you know - almost as if they were really the same person........

Thanks for the compliment, Hambone.

BTW, where's Flippy?

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:It's a public forum.  Are we not all able to decide what is crapola and what is not?  Many of you have had discussions with Markle in private and said he is a good person.  To ban someone for what they feel is truth, whether it is or not, is not a substantial reason.

Boards you are wrong.

This place will become boring and drop by the wayside without pro/con debaters - right or wrong.

I see.  So, as an example in the thread below, would you say that Markle's contribution there is an expression of opinion?  

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t21853-adp-employment-report-200000-jobs-added-to-the-economy-in-september

Salinsky wrote:I notice that there's not a mad rush to defend Markle's style of disseminating propaganda even among our more conservative posters.

I think that's because there's a general consensus that the lies he propagated are indefensible.

I'm not going to offer an opinion on Board's action regarding Markle, but it is an action based upon principles, of which Markle apparently had none.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Markle was "contained" on our forum. Nobody believed the BS he wrote about, but it sure made for great entertainment. He wasted a lot of time writing what he did and posting it here because there were few if any believers.

I think banning him here was extreme. He'll just go somewhere else to do his stuff.

SheWrites wrote:

OPINION IS OPINION.

Salinsky wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

OPINION IS OPINION.

Yes, but there are also objective facts and reality.

I don't think this has much of anything to do with sources.

It has to do with the repeated dissemination of demonstrably false narratives with the potential to inflict real harm, even after being warned to desist.

I haven't said whether I agree with Board's decision, but I understand how he arrived at it.

Salinsky wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

OPINION IS OPINION.

Yes, but there are also objective facts and reality.

I don't think this has much of anything to do with sources.

It has to do with the repeated dissemination of demonstrably false narratives with the potential to inflict real harm, even after being warned to desist.

I haven't said whether I agree with Board's decision, but I understand how he arrived at it.

SheWrites wrote:

Salinsky wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

OPINION IS OPINION.

Yes, but there are also objective facts and reality.

I don't think this has much of anything to do with sources.

It has to do with the repeated dissemination of demonstrably false narratives with the potential to inflict real harm, even after being warned to desist.

I haven't said whether I agree with Board's decision, but I understand how he arrived at it.

Where are the forum rules?  Shall we become legalistic over this?  Where does it say that if you don't back up your opinion with a proven authority you are off the forum?  Where does it say if you continually voice an opinion no one agrees with you are off the forum?  

Markle participates in his opinions politically but he also participates in the "general" section and has shown he is a caring person.  

Can we ban folks for being uncaring?  For being rude?  For using words that offend others?  For what some may call blasphemy?

I hope not.

No one deserves to be banned.  IF we all look, talk, walk, and think the same - pretty darn boring.

I'm failing to see where "real harm" has been inflicted.  Except maybe to babies who are aborted?

That was for Markle.  
Hang in there, guy.  Whether I agree with you or not you have a right to be here.