Akin to a Ruckman boy street preacher...

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:If Boards bolts from the forum, I vote that the admin rights be given to poster SheWries. She has a great outlook and does not belong to either of the left side/right side lunatic fringe.

SheWrites wrote:I've been thinking.  If you live in Pensacola, or have ever visited, then you may be aware of the "Ruckman Boys" who street preach.  Mind you, their street preaching is on busy traffic corners where they yell to the top of their lungs to vehicles with their ac on and their windows, of course, rolled up.  (rolled up - funny from the days before power windows)  They keep proclaiming the same message over and over and no one listens.

So, is the continued banter of those who "preach" the same mantra day after day on the forum in the same category of the "Ruckman boys?"  

Yes.

For the love of Pete, offer your own thoughts and discussions.  When the topic is at an impasse, move on.  

We've argued - as a country - morality issues for as long as I can remember in my 55 years.  

In the end you are only accountable for your own actions.  

I will not read 50 posts on how bad people perceive President Obama to be based on speculation and conclusions to fit a preconceived thought.

I will not read 50 posts on abortion.

I will not read 50 posts on climate change being a hoax.

Getting the idea of where I stand?  Does it matter?  Probably not.

Conversation - the art of listening and returning thoughts you have formulated and considered from others.  Disagreements?  Yes.  Backing up the argument from the thoughts of others does not make either side the correct side.  Consensus stands for a lot.  Of course then when we don't agree with the consensus we dismiss it and see the onslaught of ridiculous postings from off the wall sources.

It goes awry.  And it doesn't do one thing to move forward the process of learning.

So, scream at people who are not listening or attempt intellectual conversation?

That should be the choice.  

othershoe1030 wrote:

SheWrites wrote:I've been thinking.  If you live in Pensacola, or have ever visited, then you may be aware of the "Ruckman Boys" who street preach.  Mind you, their street preaching is on busy traffic corners where they yell to the top of their lungs to vehicles with their ac on and their windows, of course, rolled up.  (rolled up - funny from the days before power windows)  They keep proclaiming the same message over and over and no one listens.

So, is the continued banter of those who "preach" the same mantra day after day on the forum in the same category of the "Ruckman boys?"  

Yes.

For the love of Pete, offer your own thoughts and discussions.  When the topic is at an impasse, move on.  

We've argued - as a country - morality issues for as long as I can remember in my 55 years.  

In the end you are only accountable for your own actions.  

I will not read 50 posts on how bad people perceive President Obama to be based on speculation and conclusions to fit a preconceived thought.

I will not read 50 posts on abortion.

I will not read 50 posts on climate change being a hoax.

Getting the idea of where I stand?  Does it matter?  Probably not.

Conversation - the art of listening and returning thoughts you have formulated and considered from others.  Disagreements?  Yes.  Backing up the argument from the thoughts of others does not make either side the correct side.  Consensus stands for a lot.  Of course then when we don't agree with the consensus we dismiss it and see the onslaught of ridiculous postings from off the wall sources.

It goes awry.  And it doesn't do one thing to move forward the process of learning.

So, scream at people who are not listening or attempt intellectual conversation?

That should be the choice.  

I agree with the approach of conversation. What I would like to get from posting and reading here is a view into other's positions and methods of reasoning, reasons for taking one position over another.

It is an educational sharing that, to me, is of great benefit. I don't think many minds are changed and that is not my mission. I just like to see how people choose their positions.

Floridatexan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

SheWrites wrote:I've been thinking.  If you live in Pensacola, or have ever visited, then you may be aware of the "Ruckman Boys" who street preach.  Mind you, their street preaching is on busy traffic corners where they yell to the top of their lungs to vehicles with their ac on and their windows, of course, rolled up.  (rolled up - funny from the days before power windows)  They keep proclaiming the same message over and over and no one listens.

So, is the continued banter of those who "preach" the same mantra day after day on the forum in the same category of the "Ruckman boys?"  

Yes.

For the love of Pete, offer your own thoughts and discussions.  When the topic is at an impasse, move on.  

We've argued - as a country - morality issues for as long as I can remember in my 55 years.  

In the end you are only accountable for your own actions.  

I will not read 50 posts on how bad people perceive President Obama to be based on speculation and conclusions to fit a preconceived thought.

I will not read 50 posts on abortion.

I will not read 50 posts on climate change being a hoax.

Getting the idea of where I stand?  Does it matter?  Probably not.

Conversation - the art of listening and returning thoughts you have formulated and considered from others.  Disagreements?  Yes.  Backing up the argument from the thoughts of others does not make either side the correct side.  Consensus stands for a lot.  Of course then when we don't agree with the consensus we dismiss it and see the onslaught of ridiculous postings from off the wall sources.

It goes awry.  And it doesn't do one thing to move forward the process of learning.

So, scream at people who are not listening or attempt intellectual conversation?

That should be the choice.  

I agree with the approach of conversation. What I would like to get from posting and reading here is a view into other's positions and methods of reasoning, reasons for taking one position over another.

It is an educational sharing that, to me, is of great benefit. I don't think many minds are changed and that is not my mission. I just like to see how people choose their positions.

You're both right.  What's happened instead is an attempt to derail any rational discussion, and much of that originates with Markle, as much as he would like to deny it.

SheWrites wrote: Markle could you just step up and not be so annoying with the same old, same old.

Markle wrote:Thank you all for your support and convincing BoardofFL of the error of his ways.

BoardsofFL cannot lose graciously.  It galls him, and some of the others here, that while they claim I am lying, I always post the source and link and challenge whoever to post a reliable source refuting what I posted.

Almost without exception, no one has been able to post credible information disproving my post.

Again, I appreciate the support from all of you.  I am certain that were we to be able to meet, we would become close friends.  We would probably agree to disagree on politics and avoid that topic.

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote: Markle could you just step up and not be so annoying with the same old, same old.

Believe me, I tried that.  I gave Markle a temporary ban last October when he was posting over-the-top BS that was irrefutably false.  I sent him a PM when the ban was lifted effectively stating that spam-posting the type of things that he was posting at the time - things that anyone can clearly verify are false - will not be tolerated.  Opinions are great, but you can't simply post complete and utter BS while calling others liars for pointing out the BS - which is Markle's MO.

Several months later, he was back at it - this time proclaiming that the narrative from the Planned Parenthood videos was perfectly sound - even though the videos were investigated and no wrongdoing had been found - and proclaiming that he had provided proof that PP was in fact a business that sells fetal tissue for profit.  Anyone can verify that this is false.  Being it the case that PP was losing funding for that very type of narrative, I banned him - permanently.  

But then everyone pitched a fit!  And what was Markle's first post upon being unbanned?  Was he less annoying?  Did he come back and say "Listen, everyone, perhaps I'm a little extreme at times.  I'll do my best to engage with others and will no longer post things that are verifiably false."  

Of course not!  This was Markle's first post back.   He came right back and proclaimed the PP videos as fact!

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote: Markle could you just step up and not be so annoying with the same old, same old.

Believe me, I tried that.  I gave Markle a temporary ban last October when he was posting over-the-top BS that was irrefutably false.  I sent him a PM when the ban was lifted effectively stating that spam-posting the type of things that he was posting at the time - things that anyone can clearly verify are false - will not be tolerated.  Opinions are great, but you can't simply post complete and utter BS while calling others liars for pointing out the BS - which is Markle's MO.

Several months later, he was back at it - this time proclaiming that the narrative from the Planned Parenthood videos was perfectly sound - even though the videos were investigated and no wrongdoing had been found - and proclaiming that he had provided proof that PP was in fact a business that sells fetal tissue for profit.  Anyone can verify that this is false.  Being it the case that PP was losing funding for that very type of narrative, I banned him - permanently.  

But then everyone pitched a fit!  And what was Markle's first post upon being unbanned?  Was he less annoying?  Did he come back and say "Listen, everyone, perhaps I'm a little extreme at times.  I'll do my best to engage with others and will no longer post things that are verifiably false."  

Of course not!  This was Markle's first post back.   He came right back and proclaimed the PP videos as fact!

Yet flatex continually copy pastes huge leftist opinion propaganda pieces... wordslinger starts thread after thread of anti-religion diatribe that don't make any new or unique points... all with no apparent notice from you. Double standards or bias?

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote: Markle could you just step up and not be so annoying with the same old, same old.

Believe me, I tried that.  I gave Markle a temporary ban last October when he was posting over-the-top BS that was irrefutably false.  I sent him a PM when the ban was lifted effectively stating that spam-posting the type of things that he was posting at the time - things that anyone can clearly verify are false - will not be tolerated.  Opinions are great, but you can't simply post complete and utter BS while calling others liars for pointing out the BS - which is Markle's MO.

Several months later, he was back at it - this time proclaiming that the narrative from the Planned Parenthood videos was perfectly sound - even though the videos were investigated and no wrongdoing had been found - and proclaiming that he had provided proof that PP was in fact a business that sells fetal tissue for profit.  Anyone can verify that this is false.  Being it the case that PP was losing funding for that very type of narrative, I banned him - permanently.  

But then everyone pitched a fit!  And what was Markle's first post upon being unbanned?  Was he less annoying?  Did he come back and say "Listen, everyone, perhaps I'm a little extreme at times.  I'll do my best to engage with others and will no longer post things that are verifiably false."  

Of course not!  This was Markle's first post back.   He came right back and proclaimed the PP videos as fact!

Markle wrote:Thank you all for your support and convincing BoardofFL of the error of his ways.

BoardsofFL cannot lose graciously.  It galls him, and some of the others here, that while they claim I am lying, I always post the source and link and challenge whoever to post a reliable source refuting what I posted.

Almost without exception, no one has been able to post credible information disproving my post.

Again, I appreciate the support from all of you.  I am certain that were we to be able to meet, we would become close friends.  We would probably agree to disagree on politics and avoid that topic.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote: Markle could you just step up and not be so annoying with the same old, same old.

Believe me, I tried that.  I gave Markle a temporary ban last October when he was posting over-the-top BS that was irrefutably false.  I sent him a PM when the ban was lifted effectively stating that spam-posting the type of things that he was posting at the time - things that anyone can clearly verify are false - will not be tolerated.  Opinions are great, but you can't simply post complete and utter BS while calling others liars for pointing out the BS - which is Markle's MO.

Several months later, he was back at it - this time proclaiming that the narrative from the Planned Parenthood videos was perfectly sound - even though the videos were investigated and no wrongdoing had been found - and proclaiming that he had provided proof that PP was in fact a business that sells fetal tissue for profit.  Anyone can verify that this is false.  Being it the case that PP was losing funding for that very type of narrative, I banned him - permanently.  

But then everyone pitched a fit!  And what was Markle's first post upon being unbanned?  Was he less annoying?  Did he come back and say "Listen, everyone, perhaps I'm a little extreme at times.  I'll do my best to engage with others and will no longer post things that are verifiably false."  

Of course not!  This was Markle's first post back.   He came right back and proclaimed the PP videos as fact!

Yet flatex continually copy pastes huge leftist opinion propaganda pieces... wordslinger starts thread after thread of anti-religion diatribe that don't make any new or unique points... all with no apparent notice from you. Double standards or bias?

Do you honestly not understand the difference between posting an opinion and an objectively false statement?

othershoe1030 wrote:I think the question that should be answered is what positive input does Markle contribute?

Bob wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:I think the question that should be answered is what positive input does Markle contribute?

Even though Markle resides in Tallahassee,  Markle's ideas represent the ideas of a great many people who live in the Florida panhandle.
To know this,  all you need do is turn on any local talk radio.  For example,  I'll be turning on WEBY in about 5 minutes from now.
What you will hear is the same obsessive and constant Obama hating.

So we can ban Markle and be in denial that he represents this point of view.  But since the rest of you don't listen to talk radio,  you'll stay ignorant about how this point of view permeates the local area.
And frankly,  I see no virtue in being ignorant.  Just as I see no value in some internet message board that does nothing else but preach to the choir
Especially since in this case,  the choir is not the voice of this community as a whole..



 

Vikingwoman wrote:

So you're saying because the voice of this community is ignorant and propagates false rhetoric the forum should allow the status quo? Why do you listen to such ignorance? I would think in time you would be brainwashed by this?

Vikingwoman wrote:I'm just curious as to why you listen to that extreme rhetoric, that's all. Considering how the brain absorbs messages it would stand to reason that it would eventually rub off. I hope you do listen to an equally opposite viewpoint so you can maintain your middle of the road status informatively.