Whats the deal!

[KJUN]

I am sorry if I have said anything that has made anyone feel bad about being here.

Except for KJ, he is always upset about something.

...and THAT makes me happy. It is such a conundrum.

 

[jazzgeek]

I do Dale, but it's got a life of it's own today because I trimmed the fringe and side layers a bit. When I go back to my lovely hairdresser he'll tell me off again for ruining his vision of what my hair should be like. I keep explaining that it's always been random and mad and his job is to help to keep it in check without too much fuss.

"A life of its own" STILL trumps no hair.


Dale

 

[KJUN]

She hasn't apologized or given one sign that she doesn't truly feel that President Obama "is a terrorist...and that he should be lynched".

If we forget the race comments perceived by some that might or might not have been her intend, she has no reason to appologize. If she believes he is a terrorist, then that is her belief. Goodness knows he's given us aenough enough to support that belief!

Second, didn't she say the lynching might be warranted in the future as if he gets bad enough to deserve it? That's like saying, "If you kill someone, you should get the chair." IF...THEN...statements shouldn't be that hard to comprehend.

Correct me if I remember incorrectly: did he say he should be hung NOW or did she say he would need if it if did something to warrant it?

 

[LBoz]

She hasn't apologized or given one sign that she doesn't truly feel that President Obama "is a terrorist...and that he should be lynched". She's stuck by those comments and even dragged God into the mix as well. To me that's wrong,

I'm sorry...but who the *bleep* are YOU to demand an apology from her or anyone?

 

[Drizzt80]

I'm sorry...but who the *bleep* are YOU to demand an apology from her or anyone?

That's Ricky. Maybe you haven't met him yet. He's smarter and knows more than than all of us . . . combined!

Seriously. Just ask him. His "brother" will tell you.

D80

 

[jazzgeek]

I'm sorry...but who the *bleep* are YOU to demand an apology from her or anyone?

Giving up on "Fluffy" so soon? I really thought it would become a meme.

If Susan truly thinks BHO is a terrorist who needs to be lynched, she need not apologize. That's her stance. Conversely, if others think likewise, that's their stance, and they need not apologize.

However, if a claim was made, the burden of proof is on s/he who makes the assertion.

IMHO, Susan has done a wonderful job of avoiding making a direct claim by stating (and I paraphrase), "BHO may very well be a terrorist and the anti-Christ".

And *I* may very well be "Shmabltzfk", your Alien Overlord. (Not that I have to prove it, thanks to my weasel-wording.*)

Bow before me, y'all.


Dale


*In journalism and broadcast media, this is known as "pulling a Cavuto".

 

[medusacoils]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

:roflmao:

Wayne

 

[wade]

Personally I think the mods do an excellent job and this site is as easy to navigate as any I've been to. To me though this has nothing to do with Susan having to lead by example as it does with Susan keeping her "racially insensitive" comments to herself. She only speaks for herself, not Dean, or Rich, or anybody else. She hasn't apologized or given one sign that she doesn't truly feel that President Obama "is a terrorist...and that he should be lynched". She's stuck by those comments and even dragged God into the mix as well. To me that's wrong, but I also see how it's unfair to make Dean or Rich go through the process of fitting a punishment.

Personally I feel the shame and lack of respect she's feeling from members is as judicial as it gets, and she won't walk away from this thread with the same dignity she may have had beforehand. Lesson learned and I hope this makes her realize the affect those claims and statements have!.

This whole freedom of speech thing is difficult for you isn’t it Ricky. Let me help you a little. Susan is entitled to believe anything she wants and she is free to express those beliefs. Now is that wild or what. Imagine a world where people are free to speak their mind.

The rules do not say that she needs to agree with you on any topic. Nor do they say she needs to apologize for not agreeing with you. She can even believe in GOD.

If you don’t like what she says, don’t listen too her. Or get mad and tell her what you think. You have rights too.

You sir are a piece of work. You amaze me almost every day.

 

[Michael823]

I just checked up on this thread last night, and it still took another half an hour to get to the end part. I had more answers when I first read this thread, but now I'm left wondering "what's the deal?".

 

[Roy Munson]

I wouldn't want Susan to apologize if she doesn't feel apologetic. Sometimes I think that's part of the reason society's such a mess-- we expect and respect empty apologies.

I WILL praise Ricky for touching on a difficult subject. Mods modding mods is more problematic than most may realize. Susan and I have clashed in the past, but somewhere along the way I'd like to think that we developed what I consider to be a profound respect for each other-- maybe even fondness. People praise the community atmosphere we have here on this little forum, but they want their Barney Fifes to load their single bullets and gun each other down for driving 38mph in a 35mph zone. I can't do it just to appease the sensitive, especially when we routinely allow others to drive 72mph. And I don't have a magic decoder ring that can interpret intent from standard English. The "n" word is non-standard, but even interpreting the use of that word can be problematic without analyzing the source(s) who may use it. I don't want to get into the issue of who's "allowed" to use certain words. I understand the arguments. Supporting usage of one term by one group, and denying usage to another may actually seem rational and supportable, but it doesn't do much to eliminate differences and get us all together.

 

[Roy Munson]

And *I* may very well be "Shmabltzfk", your Alien Overlord. (Not that I have to prove it, thanks to my weasel-wording.*)

Bow before me, y'all.


Dale


*In journalism and broadcast media, this is known as "pulling a Cavuto".

You've finally revealed yourself, Shmabltzfk. Xenu preserve you in our ascendancy! *all praise*

 

[Nova_C]

This whole freedom of speech thing is difficult for you isn’t it Ricky. Let me help you a little. Susan is entitled to believe anything she wants and she is free to express those beliefs. Now is that wild or what. Imagine a world where people are free to speak their mind.

The rules do not say that she needs to agree with you on any topic. Nor do they say she needs to apologize for not agreeing with you. She can even believe in GOD.

If you don’t like what she says, don’t listen too her. Or get mad and tell her what you think. You have rights too.

You sir are a piece of work. You amaze me almost every day.

Freedom of speech isn't really applicable on a private message board. While Richy isn't the authority here, the site Admin is under no obligation to provide people with a forum and can restrict opinions as they see fit.

Also, freedom of speech isn't limitless. It's illegal to yell 'Fire' in a movie theater, it's illegal to promote violence against an ethnic group, it's illegal to incite riots. I'm sure there are more restrictions on 'free speech' that I am not remembering.

Also, Wade, the rules do not say that Richy can't criticize another forumer, nor do they forbid demanding apologies from other forumers. I do believe Richy was exercising his right to free speech.

 

[glenhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

:roflmao:

Wayne

And here's another...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

 

[Michael823]

This whole freedom of speech thing is difficult for you isn’t it Ricky. Let me help you a little. Susan is entitled to believe anything she wants and she is free to express those beliefs. Now is that wild or what. Imagine a world where people are free to speak their mind.

Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Is Ricky not entitled to say what he said either? Some folks here will always come out of the wood works whenever Ricky or myself make a post, but remained hidden for most of this thread. Always the same people too, which really kind of puts a snooze on the shock value.
Most of this thread has been side stepping, scapegoating, and backpedaling. It has even turned into a mod debate, where freedom of speech has been exclusive to some, contradicted by others, and then finally concluded to be free at last. I'll agree that Dean may have stepped the line on profanity, but I'll take straight talk over those who take weak little jabs here and there.

 

[tricksterpup]

Giving up on "Fluffy" so soon? I really thought it would become a meme.

Oh Fluffy is over here.

 

[dave partington]

Trickster, I clicked on your USARK link
I read their mission statement
I wrote them an email

Thanks for giving me something new to think about
dave

 

[wade]

Freedom of speech isn't really applicable on a private message board. While Richy isn't the authority here, the site Admin is under no obligation to provide people with a forum and can restrict opinions as they see fit.

Also, freedom of speech isn't limitless. It's illegal to yell 'Fire' in a movie theater, it's illegal to promote violence against an ethnic group, it's illegal to incite riots. I'm sure there are more restrictions on 'free speech' that I am not remembering.

Also, Wade, the rules do not say that Richy can't criticize another forumer, nor do they forbid demanding apologies from other forumers. I do believe Richy was exercising his right to free speech.

Nova C, Sir, Man of No Name, Hidden behind the mask. How kind of you to enlighten me on what I said. You are right, freedom of speech is not limitless. I would bet between the two of us we could come up with hundreds of scenarios that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. But thank for pointing them out to me just the same. It is also true that Rich does not need to allow us to speak at all, but the fact is he does within the guidelines he has set.

I did not in any way say that Ricky could not criticize other "forumers". Nor would I. In fact I explicitly told Ricky that he is entitled to disagree with anything Susan says. He has rights too.

If you had read what I had written before you started to spout, you would have seen that what I took exception to was Ricky’s demand that Susan should apologize for feeling that President Obama "is a terrorist...and that he should be lynched". That is something Susan is entitled to feel and express on this forum. She is also allowed under Rich’s rules to “drag God into the mix as well.”

But thanks for your input Mr. Nova C.

Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Is Ricky not entitled to say what he said either? Some folks here will always come out of the wood works whenever Ricky or myself make a post, but remained hidden for most of this thread. Always the same people too, which really kind of puts a snooze on the shock value.
Most of this thread has been side stepping, scapegoating, and backpedaling. It has even turned into a mod debate, where freedom of speech has been exclusive to some, contradicted by others, and then finally concluded to be free at last. I'll agree that Dean may have stepped the line on profanity, but I'll take straight talk over those who take weak little jabs here and there.

Mikey baby, we have talked about this before. You have to read the words so you will have some idea of what you are talking about. If you had you would have seen that I have been very active on this thread. In fact, much more so that you or your brother. So take a look at the wood work around you.

Hypocrisy is a big word. Did I say that Ricky is not entitled to say what he thinks? Quite the contrary.

If you don’t like what she says, don’t listen too her. Or get mad and tell her what you think. You have rights too.

Those are my words Mikey. They may be a weak jab, but they are truly the words that were spoken, from my heart. It’s hard to mount a good argument when you have to restrict yourself to reality.

 

[danielle]

Dave, Your just plain rude, but you are free to be so

 

[dave partington]

Danielle, I like you 37% of the time. I can't stand you and you make my blood positively broil over 36% of the time. I love you 12% of the time. I am undecided the rest of the remaining factor. I also understand that the fast quick replies (of every person) are often emotionally driven, rather than absorbed, and thought over, applying something called "Logic", before the reply is posted. And thank you for keeping me on my toes. That is the job of a First Officer.

 

[dave partington]

Looks like I need to apply for a job as their webmaster...

but then I wouldn't be around thease hear parts anymore, to bring some spice and exsightment to your lives.


Ps Danielle, it's "you're", not "Your" in your #598