An open "letter" to the US Government, et al

Jimmy, Indeed. If they fail to agglomerate their excrescence, I may recommend summoning another Talking Heads daemon: Psychokiller, qu'est que c'est?


Paul

Put it in rice. Absorbs the water. LOL

A question I ponder daily

He said,. and I paraphrase:

If they don't get their shit together, I may recommend summoning another Talking Heads deamon: Psychokiller, qu'est que c'est? (believe he's refering to "Burning down the house" by OTHER Talking Heads deamon, maybe not, they're close)

David, Inside the quotes. Not the most intuitive rule, but there it is...

Not the way it's taught at U of M.

It's also normally taught that there is no comma before the "and" in a series and that is technically very incorrect - and provably so. That structure was seen in news so often that people started thinking it was right. (news originally did it to make stuff fit the columns). You can get away with it about anywhere but in a formal dissertation, though, because people have no clue what difference it makes. Leaving out the comma is a very, very intricate usage for the purposes of biasing the thoughts of the reader though.

As you can see..........that doesn't guarantee agreement, either.

I concur - the hostility is the CRUX of the matter starting from WHY politics is taboo in the first place - When they get shut down it is almost always because someone is drawing blood - that whole hostile environment is offensive and people will complain - THAT is why they get nuked.

The whole issue is so inflammatory what with 'how things are' and then if people morph into pit bulls, well it's just ugly. We should be able to disagree without 'shooting the messenger' or shaming someone because they don't agree with us.

Exactly what is the point in having a forum rule that expressly forbids something, but then says it might be ok if it's construed as satire, tongue-in-cheek, or gentle ribbing. Why spend the time composing a new thread if you have absolutely no way of knowing whether it will be accepted or not. I've seen so many threads taken down, not because they turned into slanging matches, but simply because they contained political references . . . whether witty or serious, and however little the reference.

I stand by what I said. If anyone else had posted this thread it would have been removed instantly. I'd like to be a fly on the wall next to the Mods if anyone else ventures forth with a thread lampooning the US Government, and assorted factions.

And on that note I'm going to leave you to it as the Main Forum is calling. Was going to retire to bed but the wife said "If it's after 2am, don't disturb me". She's never wrong either.


@waterotter

I hope that tequila goes down well. I've got milk.

HD, "Always" is a bit of an overstatement. As has been noted, more of them are staying up longer these days, due to the increased level of civility in the discussions. There's also the matter of the different perspectives of each moderator in regard to where that line should be drawn. We have generally found it preferable to leave some flex in the system, rather than going to absolutist measures, which are the only way one gets to near-perfect consistency.

That's not really relevant to the OP, which didn't mention anything about politics, or even point to a specific issue. But, you raised the question, so...

Tell you a little open secret, HD. I personally would rather delete a thread than let it slide into a discussion that will result in a member being banned, even if it's only temporary. Other mods hold to the belief that it's better to let the discussions go and ban the folks who cross the lines, leaving everyone else to talk freely.

There are valid points on both sides, I think. Enough so that I use the second approach in some other parts of the forum. In here, I think it's better to have people pissed at me over policy than angry at each other because of overzealous attacks on someone for their personal beliefs. "Agreeing with Paul" has never been a requirement for unmolested participation in this forum. Never. A certain minimum level of civility has, along with staying within the rules and not attacking the forum or its members.

Disagreeing with the policies and then acting in ways that contravene them, or which the mod handling an issue believes is destructive, can get you banned, yes. That's not a question of personal ego, though. It's a matter of the moderators doing what we're supposed to do. You aren't paying as much attention as would seem required to make that kind of statement. It is not accurate. If you would like evidence, there are plenty of threads that are far more political than that cartoon which are still viewable in this section.

This is sort of like the claim that we (the mods) delete all negative reviews in the WSO section. It sounds to some folks like it means something, right up until they actually look at what's right there in front of them.

I don't know why your thread was deleted. I don't recall having even seen it. That said, I'm pretty confident the mod who removed it, assuming we even knew who that was, could enunciate a clear and sensible reason for the deletion.

Tim, Have I told you lately? Have I? Huh?

Consider yourself told.


Paul

It's a wise person who doesn't underestimate my ability to overlook the obvious.