If you've stopped posting on this forum, but you still lurk here, if you've posted that you've stopped posting, but you still post to explain why....or, if you just post less, than you used to.......this question is for you......
....is a major reason why you are participating less, or not at all, here, because you have been challenged.....with increasing frequency, to provide support.....in other words....to back up the opinions....the statements that you've posted?
example: (not trying to "single you out", ace....it's just that your post was the most recent one I've replied to....)
With regard to the recent guilty verdict in the Scooter Libby perjury trial;
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Host,
I did not follow this trial and really have no interest in doing a lot of research on it. On the surface it appears as if Libby was cooperating with the investigation and after the investigators found no crime was commited, they proceeded to take Libby to court regarding inconsistant statements - that on the surface seem trivial......
|
My response to this is.....what is your support for your opinions that
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
.....Libby was cooperating with the investigation and after the investigators found no crime was commited, they proceeded to take Libby to court regarding inconsistant statements - that on the surface seem trivial.....
|
I've found nothing in main stream news reporting, nor in the comments by the POTUS, nor in the statements or actions of former #2 at DOJ, James Comey, in his appointment of special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, given authority to investigate the leak of classified CIA information, nor in Fitzgerald's comments and actions, nor in the comments and actions of the judge in the case, Fed. District Court Judge Walton, nor in the Libby trial record, nor in the jury verdict, nor in the comments of a juror, after the verdict, <b>that would lead me to agree that, "on the surface"</b>.....what has happened in the "Libby case". resembles anything similar to ace's
Quote:
|
.......after the investigators found no crime was commited, they proceeded to take Libby to court regarding inconsistant statements - that on the surface seem trivial.....
|
,,,,so.....my question is....in a politics forum, is it unreasonable to challenge and rebut...several times....even....if no detailed response is initially forthcoming, opinions and statements made by other posters, but especially opinions and statements that come out of "left field".....out of a consistent record and chain of events, statements, and actions, such as I detailed in my reaction to the example of the reported events in the investigation, trial, and verdict, detailed above?
example: From a former prolific poster who stopped by , the other day, to post several times as to why he stopped posting on this forum.....<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2205355&postcount=78">Link</a> to the following post, excerpted as follows:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
While I don't think there was much 'unacceptable' in my last month, after having been called every name in the book on this forum including cock sucker for my beliefs I can't say I really care if any liberals think I was flaming them.......
......Over my years posting here, I've had a number of PM's from people thanking me for posting or showing them there is another side of the debate. I was glad to know at least someone was gaining something from my efforts but such education wasn't worth having to deal with the rest. There was SOME good debate, but it gets buried in a mountain of over the top biased articles, communist pseudo-intellectual drivel, and cut and paste insanity which was once controlled a bit by the mods and no longer was (art was the best at this and he wasn't any easier on me). .......
|
....and my response <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2205831&postcount=86">-link-</a> to the above "example" post:
Quote:
....speaking of empathy.....let's hop in the "way back" machine, for a sec...
Seaver in this post on Aug. 12, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=53
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Ustwo, we agree on most views... but you're carrying this too far.
You're beginning to reflect Host in his potrayal of you as a government agent.
|
Post #15, on this thread:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Really? Are you serious?
The reason I stopped posting is because everytime I did I was declared Racist, Imperialist, Ignorant, Ultra-Religious (trying to bring on the Apocolypse), and hundreds of other things hurled left and right. Though because they described it as "the right" it was not an insult and nothing was done.
Now there are conservative posters here that did flame, <b>the last month of Ustwo's posts here I agree were pretty unacceptable.</b> But to play the "pity us" card is equally unacceptable.
|
From post #78, on this thread:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
While I don't think there was much 'unacceptable' in my last month, after having been called every name in the book on this forum including cock sucker for my beliefs I can't say I really care if any liberals think I was flaming them. .....
|
....a re-run...in a "drive-by", from a "conversation" that took place, last august?:
In this post http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=204
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...40#post2106840
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
08-16-2006, 04:33 AM
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
While arguing about what should be posted and how on politics has nothing to do with the decline of TFP I'd like to point out that politics has never been a place for original thought.
Before the 2004 election, I posted I thought Bush would win, and what the democrat reaction would be. I was almost right on the money as it turned out. It was something original, no links, just my opinion based on my knowledge of politics. Rather than discussing it, or telling me I was wrong, I was called a troll, in fact one long time poster told me to get Karl Roves cock out of my mouth (thats a quote)......
|
It is appropriate to observe that the second anniversary of the episode that you described will occur in three weeks. You received what seems to be a <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1393112&postcount=53">sincere, public, apology,</a> from the member who directed those disturbing comments at you.
<b>The event that you described, happened 101 weeks ago, and you received a sincere apology,</b> yet your memory of what happened is still clear in your mind, and you posted about it, just yesterday.
I'd like to know how what happened here, just the other day:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=107387&page=2 ......
.....seems to you now, in hindsight, after you read what I posted here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=128 |
....and now....it's more than 130 weeks since the "offense" took place....he received an apology.....while I'm still waiting for one....silently....but for the subject being dredged up, again....
|
My points in the preceding response were a rebuttal of the following:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
While I don't think there was much 'unacceptable' in my last month, after having been called every name in the book on this forum including cock sucker for my beliefs I can't say I really care if any liberals think I was flaming them.......
...... There was SOME good debate, but it gets buried in a mountain of over the top biased articles, communist pseudo-intellectual drivel, and cut and paste insanity. .......
|
I showed, with supporting links, that the recently complaining and historically offended, former frequent poster, had received an apology from the author of the "oral sex" slur leveled against him in 2004, and I supported my claim, with supporting link, that I had posted to show him, when the offense he posted the other day to complain about......was only 101 weeks in the past....and he had complained about the memory of it then....last summer...that he had received a timely, posted apology from the offender, shortly after the offense against him, back in 2004.
I also supported with a link, that there was jutification for what Seaver had posted,
Quote:
|
<b>the last month of Ustwo's posts here I agree were pretty unacceptable.</b>
|
So, with the two examples above, in mind....and with addition of any that anyone else would like to follow up with, <b>do you think that the "problem" on this forum, that is driving people away from participation, is more about people who think that it is acceptable to post things like,</b> "Saddam did have WMD when the US invaded Iraq, and they are hidden in Syria, and buried in undisclosed and still undiscovered locations in Iraq, and I want to base my argument that the US invasion of Iraq was a sincere and legal act by president Bush because of those "facts"......
......or....the Bush admin. had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and must have ordered US air defense to "Stand down" on the morning of 9/11, or they hampered the readiness of NORAD by staging multiple pre-planned wargames, so it is a given that Bush and Cheney let 9/11 happen, as an excuse to consolidate their own official power and provide an excuse to remove some of our constitutional rights, and invade Iraq.....
or...is the greater "problem" that some here challenge every poster to support their opinions and statements, and rebut th support that they do provide, in response to the challenges.....
....and, what is the goal here? Is it to "chat" about current events and trade political opinions and ideologies, or is it more to refine discussions so that they approach a higher level than posting opinions such as "I feel that Saddam had WMD, but he was hiding them", or "I feel that the Bush admin. was "in on" the 9/11 attacks"....while expecting that they will hold equal weight to opposing opinions that withstand repeated challenges because the posters of them share links and citations that speak to the strengths, consistancy, and reliability of the contents of their posts ?