A proposition...

Well, if Markle goes, I go too. What's the point of a forum about politics of opposite views are censored? That smacks of Communist Russia. If you people want that sort of forum, well you'll get it. There are many more forums across the WWW which are led by people who value free speech. The owner of this one does not. Praise God Boards really has no power per the government.

What? wrote:Well, if Markle goes, I go too. What's the point of a forum about politics of opposite views are censored? That smacks of Communist Russia. If you people want that sort of forum, well you'll get it.  There are many more forums across the WWW which are led by people who value free speech. The owner of this one does not. Praise God Boards really has no power per the government.

Perhaps we should start a thread or message each other our contact informstion. Just in case Boards wants to pull the plug in order to get his way.

Joanimaroni wrote:

What? wrote:Well, if Markle goes, I go too. What's the point of a forum about politics of opposite views are censored? That smacks of Communist Russia. If you people want that sort of forum, well you'll get it.  There are many more forums across the WWW which are led by people who value free speech. The owner of this one does not. Praise God Boards really has no power per the government.

Perhaps we should start a thread or message each other our contact informstion. Just in case Boards wants to pull the plug in order to get his way.

I certainly won't participate in the politics section where my opinion could easily separate me from my friends.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I haven't voted.

It is ridiculous to pit forum members against one another as this vote does.

I agree 100%.

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Congratulations... you have just imprisoned the anti-war journalists... sent german-americans and japanese-americans to interment camps... roughed up and tear gassed anti-war activists... sent the national guard onto college campuses.

Oh, please spare us the over-the-top hyperbole.

I admit it's taken to the extreme... but it clearly follows the same line of reason and rational. Boards used the reasoning that markle's position here on the forum about planned parenthood caused harm and cost people their jobs.

Was that true?

PkrBum wrote:The constitution doesn't exist to protect free speech that everyone agrees with... that doesn't demonstrate any enlightenment or tolerance at all... much less liberty or freedom. It's there to ensure our right to dissent and free expression.

No one is suggesting censorship or restraint of free speech.   Markle is not going to be put in jail and is perfectly free to spew his destructive venom; Boards just doesn't want to see it done on his forum, and I don't blame him for a minute.  

If I had a neighbor like Markle he could rant and rave and picket and demonstrate all he wanted, but that doesn't mean I'd have to invite him into my living room.

And no, this forum is NOT my personal living room, but it IS (or at least should be) a place where people can meet for the free exchange of ideas along with some level of social cyber-contact, and if the discussion in the room keeps getting polluted and roughed up and overwhelmed by an unreasonable, ultra-biased hard-head, am I wrong for wishing him gone to some other room?*  But most especially, is Boards wrong, who surely feels a sense of proprietary responsibility for what goes on in his created space here?  I think not.  I think he has a right not to want to tacitly sponsor mind-numbingly negative B.S. day in and day out.

Remember, Boards could pull the plug on this entire forum at any time, and he should get some credit for not having shut it down despite probably devoutly wishing he could do so on more than one occasion.    

*(And you'll note I'm at least not suggesting that Markle "move to another country if you don't like this one," as is the typical conservative response to strong complaint. So much for eschewing censorship whenever that frequent exhortation rears its ugly head.  Ask yourselves honestly how often you've used it.  And yeah, I digress.)

As for putting Markle on ignore, that may help some individual posters but it doesn't change things for Boards, who no longer wishes to sponsor a space with Markle in it.  And that's what this is all about.

knothead wrote:As always you have a particularly able ability to articulate your views Linda and this one cuts to the chase so honestly and in a straight forward manner. No one here, I believe, wants censorship but it is fatiguing to me to see the non-stop cut and paste hate and vitriol which I refuse to accept is what our country has evolved into . . . . there are substantive differences, of course, but when it has been reduced to the low of lows well . . . . it is of no value to me . . . . . I rarely even read this person's posts and won't miss him if he gets the boot . . . . thank you Linda . . . we are very like minded!  

Thank YOU, knot, for being a stand-up guy. It's a comfort.  As for your later compromise to simply put Markle on ignore, that's your prerogative, of course, but IMHO it doesn't solve the underlying problem here, which, simply put, is that Boards can't stand it any longer and no longer wants to be the sponsor of a forum with Markle's posts on it.   I totally understand his position and defend absolutely his right to take that stance.

Joanimaroni wrote:One more comment.. Markle's prayers and support for others on this forum should not be of concern to you since you are a religious doubter by choice.

(And you are a believer by choice; let's have that agreed upon, at least. Deciding to believe something or not to believe something doesn't make it objectively true or not true. There is simply no way to know.)

But here's the thing, Joani:  I will call out hypocrisy wherever I see it.  A man who supposedly prays for me one minute and the next minute attacks me with insults and untruths about my character is inviting the hypocrite label big time.

But you're right, I should've simply told Markle to leave ME out of those phony prayers.

Didn't realize he prayed for you, what a nice gesture. Why do you care if he includes members in his prayers, for goodness sakes what is wrong with you?

Boards offered this space to a group that had participated with each other for years... with the caveat that "anything goes". Most of us had developed some form of friendliness and enjoyed each other even while disagreeing and arguing.

His moderation has become arbitrary and capricious... focused entirely on those he disagrees with... period.

Markle caused no harm... boards implied that out of frustration. Then he stomped off when rebuked by our reason.

Now it appears he will get his way by injecting emotion and making it personal... your average hissy fit tantrum.

Did you vote to ban/censor markle last time? Nope... but this time you have. Why? What's changed except the framing?

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Congratulations... you have just imprisoned the anti-war journalists... sent german-americans and japanese-americans to interment camps... roughed up and tear gassed anti-war activists... sent the national guard onto college campuses.

Oh, please spare us the over-the-top hyperbole.

Nothing over the top, just saying it as it is.

Also flagrantly boasting that a few of the Progressives cannot compete with the facts so, like the DailyKOS, they simply ban any opposing views.

PkrBum wrote:I think it should be an open vote to include the names... stand up and be proud of your intolerance.

Well, I've stood up and stood behind my vote, and have asked others to do so.

But I find it quite amazing that someone defending the rights of a poster with views such as Markle's should be crying "intolerance."   Think about it.

Joanimaroni wrote:Didn't realize he prayed for you, what a nice gesture. Why do you care if he includes members in his prayers, for goodness sakes what is wrong with you?

If you didn't realize it, maybe you don't read Markle's posts yourself.  He said this week that he prays for all of us daily, "even those who hate me."

Nothing is wrong with me, Joani, and you'll note elsewhere on this thread I have clarified that I myself don't wish to be included in his prayers, as I consider him a hypocrite.  He, of course, can do as he wishes in that regard, and others may welcome his prayers, but don't ask me to feel any gratitude for his "nice gesture" towards me one minute and his insults the next.

[quote="PkrBum"]Boards offered this space to a group that had participated with each other for years... with the caveat that "anything goes". Most of us had developed some form of friendliness and enjoyed each other even while disagreeing and arguing./quote]

Yes, I know, as I was a long time poster on the PNJ forums (actually from the very outset after Ivan until it was all shut down), mostly in the Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze community forums, though sometimes in others.  Seaoat and I were frequently either at great odds or in complete agreement, not much in between, and I remain grateful for his defense of me against the always-angry "surf," who hated beach people.

PkrBum wrote:His moderation has become arbitrary and capricious... focused entirely on those he disagrees with... period.

I guess I haven't been back here long enough to judge whether or not that's true -- but presuming I take your word for it, is it or is it not Boards' right to change his mind entirely on the rationale and direction of this forum?

PkrBum wrote:Markle caused no harm... boards implied that out of frustration. Then he stomped off when rebuked by our reason.

Now it appears he will get his way by injecting emotion and making it personal... your average hissy fit tantrum.

Did you vote to ban/censor markle last time? Nope... but this time you have. Why? What's changed except the framing?

We could also say that Boards relented and came back last time because certain other posters injected emotion -- saying Markle's presence was needed as a source of information on prostate cancer.  How was Boards supposed to keep Markle banned after that, without looking like a monster?  

But now he's obviously at the end of his rope with this guy, cancer or no cancer.

Whom are you addressing with your question about banning Markle the last time, and how/why do you pretend to know what another person's vote was?  Or are you perhaps just fishing?

Well, with boards he might not have a forum soon

RealLindaL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Didn't realize he prayed for you, what a nice gesture. Why do you care if he includes members in his prayers, for goodness sakes what is wrong with you?

If you didn't realize it, maybe you don't read Markle's posts yourself.  He said this week that he prays for all of us daily, "even those who hate me."

Nothing is wrong with me, Joani, and you'll note elsewhere on this thread I have clarified that I myself don't wish to be included in his prayers, as I consider him a hypocrite.  He, of course, can do as he wishes in that regard, and others may welcome his prayers, but don't ask me to feel any gratitude for his "nice gesture" towards me one minute and his insults the next.

Actually I don't read all of his posts. I tend to avoid most of the political BS or let it roll, including your comment that I must be brainwashed by Fox News...a station I do not watch.

If you do not believe in prayers then his prayers are just useless words. Let it go rather than trying to humiliate and call him names.

I believe members should be able to post their view points even if they are not in step with Boards. To stifle those posts is censorship. Suppose all of your posts were deleted or you were banned for having a different opinion on basketball than me or Seaoat. Or your restaurant reviews were disliked. Would that be censorship?

Boards and about how many others? To remain? He needs to change the name because what is discussed here surely doesn't represent Pcola

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Markle caused no harm... boards implied that out of frustration. Then he stomped off when rebuked by our reason.

Now it appears he will get his way by injecting emotion and making it personal... your average hissy fit tantrum.

Did you vote to ban/censor markle last time? Nope... but this time you have. Why? What's changed except the framing?

We could also say that Boards relented and came back last time because certain other posters injected emotion -- saying Markle's presence was needed as a source of information on prostate cancer.  How was Boards supposed to keep Markle banned after that, without looking like a monster?  

But now he's obviously at the end of his rope with this guy, cancer or no cancer.

Whom are you addressing with your question about banning Markle the last time, and how/why do you pretend to know what another person's vote was?  Or are you perhaps just fishing?

Oh please, you obviously know nothing about Boards.

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:His moderation has become arbitrary and capricious... focused entirely on those he disagrees with... period.

I guess I haven't been back here long enough to judge whether or not that's true -- but presuming I take your word for it, is it or is it not Boards' right to change his mind entirely on the rationale and direction of this forum?

It's not. WE (all of us) have a relationship. We came here to continue that relationship under the guise of open dialogue. When he began to act as a despot he agreed to a vote to choose the moderator... he lost fairly and soundly... then welched on the deal. (notice a pattern?). I highly doubt that if he lost this vote that he would live up to his word... that hasn't been the case yet. If you really think about the contribution of boards vs markle... which of them provide and stimulate the most dialogue? Which of them often contributes advice to the personal issues posts from others in the general section? Offers others support or condolence during their personal problems? The only interest you'll find from boards is in himself and his issues... no empathy for others... no friendly exchanges... no nothing... except vitriol and derision if you question or challenge him. You can attribute a similar response from markle... but it's no where near the level of boards. So now you and I are forced to choose between the two... for no apparent quantifiable reason... just board's subjective whim and will. I don't honestly know why you or anyone would humor and appease his childish ultimatum... but my guess is that his parents usually did. It would probably be good for him if you stepped back from his emotional demand and just considered the situation objectively.

Agreed

This is his fiefdom and he wants to be the king. He's the king of nothing.

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Markle caused no harm... boards implied that out of frustration. Then he stomped off when rebuked by our reason.

Now it appears he will get his way by injecting emotion and making it personal... your average hissy fit tantrum.

Did you vote to ban/censor markle last time? Nope... but this time you have. Why? What's changed except the framing?

We could also say that Boards relented and came back last time because certain other posters injected emotion -- saying Markle's presence was needed as a source of information on prostate cancer.  How was Boards supposed to keep Markle banned after that, without looking like a monster?  

But now he's obviously at the end of his rope with this guy, cancer or no cancer.

Whom are you addressing with your question about banning Markle the last time, and how/why do you pretend to know what another person's vote was?  Or are you perhaps just fishing?

There were only two people that voted to support board's ban of markle. Himself obviously... and flatex said she agreed.

So here we have another vote because he didn't get his way. The only difference being that he injected emotion.