Does it bother you that Greg the Dogsitter is posting dumb threads while he should be working?

[Greg the dogsitter]

kj wrote:
Seriously, it does bother me due to the mocking nature of it. He doesn't like Swampy's opinion, so he buries it in a flurry of childish crap. I think it's amazingly cowardly, and I'm fine with any "flaming" that's on the way because I think it makes this side of the forum inhospitable to diversity in viewpoints. kj.

But does it bother you that Madoff is a Democrat?

[mattkime]

>>He doesn't like Swampy's opinion, so he buries it in a flurry of childish crap.

some questions aren't responding to. swampy's question was one of them.

[Greg the dogsitter]

mattkime wrote:
>>He doesn't like Swampy's opinion, so he buries it in a flurry of childish crap.

some questions aren't responding to. swampy's question was one of them.

It's not about Swampy the person, or about Swampy the conservative.

It's that the question assumes that the reader is either monstrously partisan, or just a fool...whatever the difference may be. That's what I heavily resent.

[Gutenberg]

In the thread below, the one that started all this, I don't see any comment by Greg that is anything but courteous. Will you point out the post to which you object, kj?

[kj]

>>some questions aren't responding to. swampy's question was one of them.

That's a heck of a way not to respond to it. How many new threads, snarky comments in other threads, does it take not to respond to it?

>>>It's not about Swampy the person, or about Swampy the conservative.

You've done the same thing many times, as have others. Not once has it been done to anything but a conservative post.

>>It's that the question assumes that the reader is either monstrously partisan, or just a fool...whatever the difference may be. That's what I heavily resent.

Nothing wrong with resenting it. I was talking about the way that you resent it. There seems to be this idea that what Swampy (or insert Spearmint, Beerman, or Dakota, etc) said is sufficiently "wrong" that _anything_ said or done back is justified. I see it as an attempt to show they're not welcome here, thinly veiled as "humor". I want to see a variety of viewpoints here, whether they assume we're fools, contain logical fallacies, appear ignorant, etc. It's not interesting if it's just one "clique". And beyond that, it's not your responsibility to purge this forum of people who don't meet your standards. If you don't like the way they operate, DON'T RESPOND.

>>In the thread below, the one that started all this, I don't see any comment by Greg that is anything but courteous. Will you point out the post to which you object, kj?

I'm referring to the many threads mocking the swampy post you refer to. "Just kidding" doesn't get it for me. The same thing's been done repeatedly, and the only conservative people who would continue to stay here with that kind of treatment are the ones who like to fight. It actually is that irritating. I've only seen conservatives gang up on someone once here, and people went nuts about how awful it was. kj.

[mattkime]

>>I want to see a variety of viewpoints here

there are a variety of viewpoints here BUT not ALL viewpoints are valid!

I'm sick and tired of public discourse being one well thought out idea contrasted with wacko ideas and the general conclusion you're supposed to draw is that the truth lies somewhere in between.

thats lazy and damaging to public discourse.

---

>>and the only conservative people who would continue to stay here with that kind of treatment are the ones who like to fight.

if they're conservative in the vein of the thread that inspired all this, then i won't miss them. there is no value in making room for the drivel.

[Gutenberg]

And it is directed at swampy, who has gone out of her way to deserve it. I think just about all of us on this side have had it to here with birth certificates and Bill Ayers. I think the lesson for both sides of the aisle is, if you are going to be repetitively annoying, and if you are going to pick and pick and pick at people, expect some blowback.

[davester]

Swampy was picked on because he/she was trolling. Trying to inject partisan political baiting into a completely nonpolitical subject seems to me to have nothing to do with "public discourse" and everything to do with Rush Limbaugh style "riling things up".

[kj]

I completely agree with you on the first part of it. The second, not so much. The reason is that I think it's horribly wrong headed for any one person, or set of people to decide one person's opinion isn't worth allowing here. Plus, when that person's gone, it's on to the next. And the solution is simple: don't read or respond. I want to emphasize that it's not just about swampy, and it's not just about one thread. Before this thread, it was a different thread. Before swampy, it was someone else.

mattkime wrote:
>>I want to see a variety of viewpoints here

there are a variety of viewpoints here BUT not ALL viewpoints are valid!

I'm sick and tired of public discourse being one well thought out idea contrasted with wacko ideas and the general conclusion you're supposed to draw is that the truth lies somewhere in between.

thats lazy and damaging to public discourse.

---

>>and the only conservative people who would continue to stay here with that kind of treatment are the ones who like to fight.

if they're conservative in the vein of the thread that inspired all this, then i won't miss them. there is no value in making room for the drivel.

[kj]

Gutenberg wrote:
And it is directed at swampy, who has gone out of her way to deserve it. I think just about all of us on this side have had it to here with birth certificates and Bill Ayers. I think the lesson for both sides of the aisle is, if you are going to be repetitively annoying, and if you are going to pick and pick and pick at people, expect some blowback.

It's not just swampy, as I've said above. Ok, I've about had it with the mocking, so should I now start posting childish repetitive B.S.? I think you guys deserve it. And as Davester notes, it has nothing to do with public discourse, and it even resembles the snarky nastiness of Al Franken, so I'm justified. kj.