host

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;
My response to this is.....what is your support for your opinions that
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
,,,,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:
....and my response <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2205831&postcount=86">-link-</a> to the above "example" post:
My points in the preceding response were a rebuttal of the following:
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, 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 ?

Cynthetiq

I post if I have relevant opinions, I try to back up my opinions by some sort of facts/evidence, but sometimes it's just an opinion formed from wherever. It does not diminish it whatsoever.

I do try to pay attention in here to read what I can and understand so that I can get a better understanding as to my motivations and how my opinions are formed.

IMO the goal here is to provide a forum to "discuss" politics for some that discussion may be as simple as espousing an opinion to a complex debate involving multiple citations and counter citations and refutations and counter refutations. If that distills down into "chat" then that is a fine label for me.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

aceventura3

Host,

There is a difference between my approach to a subject and yours. I understand your approach, and that is o.k. because it is grounded in the way people are taught in school.

Often, your research and citations have major fallacious arguments and disconnects with logic and reason. My approach is socratic and doesn't lend itself to blindly reporting the opinions and views of so-called experts or anyone for that matter.

When you post statistics on hunger, I generally start questioning the basis of that information and try to reconcile it to real world experience. When I discuss the economy with you - you tend to debate the marginal issues and ignore the foundational issues. It is like me saying it is not raining, and telling you to look out the window. I generally think it a waste of effort to try to present a scientific case for it not raining when you won't look out the window.

On the Libby issue - I simply gave my opinion. I acknowledge that I don't have a detailed understanding of the issue, nor am I going to take the time to get one. Living life and being exposed to the media means I have had exposure to the issue, just like I have had exposure to Anna Nichole. I have an opinion on her as well, but no reasearch. Guess what - I have an opinion on American Idol too, no research. I have an opinion on the Cubs chances this year - no research. I have an opinion of Jennifer Love Hewitt's underwear commercial, witch I have reasearched thoroughly, to the point of having my wife throw a pillow at me.

Occasionally I come here just to clear my mind for a few moments. I ain't trying to change the world on this forum.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Bill O'Rights

Huh...well whadda ya know...I agree with Ace on something. Someone write that down, will ya?

I'm not in college anymore. I'm not working on a thesis. I don't post research papers here. The opinions expresed, by me, are my own. I did not dig down, and disect every possible nuance, of every single issue. I have...a life. Like Ace, I tend to form my opinions based solely upon my own experience. I've been walking this planet for 44 years now. I've had the time to develop my own thoughts, my own views, and my own opinions.

Oh...and I also agree, with Ace, on the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear ad.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Elphaba

BoR, I think there is a difference in that you make clear that you are expressing an opinion versus a fact. I try to do the same, but when I fail to make that distinction and I'm challenged on a statement, I feel obligated to respond. Being challenged forces me to look carefully at what I am saying and assess why I believe it to be true. I come to this forum to test my beliefs rather than force my beliefs upon others.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Bill O'Rights

Fair enough.

But...

Then is it a fact that the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear ads are hot? Or...is that only my opinion?
In the end, I guess it just depends upon who's reading the posted statement.

If citation is needed to support that position, then I'm certain that I could find any number of sources out there to back up my assertation.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

jorgelito

Can you please post a source for the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear ad? Better yet, multiple sources and visual aids so we know what you are talking about and also from a good mix of liberal and conservative sources so that your "facts/opinions" will be well-backed and balanced.

No need to use the "hide" function either. Feel free to bold or highlight areas of "interest" or if you think we can't read the articles for ourselves or if you just want to selectively highlight text that supports your reasonong behind why the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear ad is great and thus take it out of context and don't forget to cite some previous threads or posts and while you're at it you can quote UsTwo also just to make sure all your bases are covered.

desal75

Host, I do agree with you on a number of levels when it comes to this. The only thing I disagree on is that often, when people find a source to back up their opinion, it often seems to be the opinion of someone else. The only difference being that the person from the article has the benefit of being published on the internet. Sometimes it seems like people Google a topic until they find just the article or blog that suits them. That is why I don't feel it necessarily wrong for people to state their opinions and support them with their own ideas.

Of course, when relevent and concrete evidence is available it should be utilized.

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

Elphaba

Who is Jennifer Love Hewitt? I need facts, dammit.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

smooth

What do you mean by your method being the Socratic method?
What do you do?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Elphaba

^^^ Oh, this should be good.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Lady Sage

Host, love your opening post! The title actually got me to venture into this forum.. which is a very scary place to me.

Thanks.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

boatin

People are, for the most part, incapable of admitting they are wrong. That leads to all sorts of tap dancing, and ultimately less posts. I'm struck by the parallel to Stephen Colbert's shtick about "truthiness" and "thinking from the gut, not the head" as I read some of these posts. The conversation about hunger is a good example of that. It doesn't matter what stats are quoted, what examples are used or what many people see themselves, some people FEEL that hunger is not a problem in the USA, and that opinion is never going to change.

The irony is thick: the whole 'mushy-headed-liberal-that-thinks-with-his-heart' has been stood on it's head.

Supple Cow

host, I think it's just as fair to challenge somebody to support a claim as it is to challenge somebody who systematically interacts with the board using very long, intimidating posts to try to be more 'user-friendly'. I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this because I know it's off-topic, but I've seen a lot of (direct and indirect) mud-slinging all over the TFP about you and your posts. Here's my opinion prefaced by some of my personal background that is relevant to my opinion.

When I was a kid, I was really good at Scrabble... for a kid. My big sister played with me all the time, but as I got a little older, she stopped wanting to play with me because I just beat her all the time. In fact, nobody ever wanted to play Scrabble with me more than once (or twice if they were very bored one day) because I beat them so handily that it just wasn't fun for them anymore. Then I got to college and met some people who could wipe the floor with me in a game of Scrabble. My first reaction was to stop seeking games with them. It wasn't fun to get utterly demolished, and with so little effort from my opponent. Of course, later I decided that it was better to play a monster of an opponent and get demolished than it was to altogether give up on a game I love. Heck, it just gives me a chance to get better at it.

Not everyone I know deals with this kind of thing the same way I did. In fact, most people I know chose the opposite response to the same stimulus - they stopped playing with me, as I said. What I learned is that I can have two approaches: I can demolish everyone I play with by maintaining a killer spirit while I play Scrabble and not have many (or any) playmates, or I can find constructive ways to bring people to the table and play with me. Since I've decided that I want to have playmates, I've learned a lot of ways to get people to play with me AND make it fun for everyone involved. The most successful one I've used is to give my opponent tips to improve their game, which also happens to make my lead seem less daunting. My skill at Scrabble isn't diminished when I do this.

The moral is that you clearly play the politics-forum-discussion game a lot better than most people around here. In fact, maybe you are winning the argument 100% of the time! (I really have no idea because I have a very hard time digesting or even getting through your average post.) Whether people are able to converse with you is a separate issue. In my limited experience so far, I have seen only one person go to bat for you - that's roachboy, who has stated that you post well-researched, quality information and suggested that the rest of us should maybe grow up a little and start appreciating it for what it is... or at least not knock it down.

Sure, people shouldn't knock you for it, but when that's the only defense for continuing your course unchanged, it's hard for anybody else to stick around. When somebody says, "you shouldn't tell me to play weaker words - you should just be better" then the people who are struggling won't want to play anymore. I honestly think you would have more of a leg to stand on (and more people to talk to) if you put a little more effort into giving others a place at the table. Enabling constructive discussion is possible without having to sacrifice the quality of your posts. I think the quality would even be enhanced.

Elphaba

Supple, I so appreciate your post and would hope that you spend more time here. I perceive you as one who is able to clearly communicate a position from which a discussion is possible. That is all I hope for in this forum.

That said, Host has a number of admirer's beyond roachboy, myself included. He has significantly altered his approach to posting here, but those who don't like 'details' have yet to recognize it. I come here to learn rather than to participate in some 'yo mamma' childhood taunts. Host brings information to the discussion and I value that.

Please, hang out here awhile and discuss with us the important issues that concern you. I think you will find that the Politics reputation is more myth than reality.

Pen

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

raveneye

I left at about the time that various Bush supporters were saying that torture is fine, we should be doing more of it, which to me is as vile as advocating child abuse. Rather than pretending "respect" (forum rule) I decided to simply be honest with myself.

Nothing to do with providing references, which is trivial. That's it in a nutshell

highthief

Have just come to the conclusion that no one ever changes their mind around here. People to the far left think that everything is a Bush-inspired conspiracy, and people to the far right seem to believe that turning the middle-east into a sheet of glass is the only solution.

The only reasonable people here are the people in the middle, who don't get listened to anyway.

Addtionally, internal US politics are of no interest to me, which is the majority of the discussion. Plame? Libby? I could care less, it has no impact on me.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

pig

host,

in answer to your questions: no. i personally just haven't seen much in the threads that's really interested me much. probably a cyclical thing. i have no problem reading through your posts or the posts of others (although that hide thing might be a good idea, but this is an old conversation and apparently its anathema to suggest such), nor am i particularly worried about being challenged for proof. as you know, i agree with what supple posted above, but i don't think this is all about you or any other poster in particular. i think a lot of people are just bored with politics for a bit.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

aceventura3

You are good. I have wasted about 10 minutes trying to phrase a response in the form of a subtle question. But it looks like you have trumped me into the basic question. Did you do that on purpose?

Don't let my wife see this.

http://www.adjab.com/2005/06/07/jenn...-hanes-on-her/

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

JustJess

Many of the threads just seem repetitive, and even when they're not, they quickly devolve into the same crap that's posted in every other thread. I think HOST has changed his methods a bit - at least attempting to be more brief... but every post, whether it's about Iraq etc or not... you tend to jump in and *make* it about the same issues as all the other Bush vs. the World threads. Besides, I think less people disagree with you in general now - perhaps in the details, but more people are saying, "yep, he screwed it up." ... Makes it a short discussion.

And really, I think the point of THIS thread is... You miss USTWO. Just admit it, it's okay. He's a pain in the ass, but he never let you off easy and gave you plenty to argue about. It's like Batman with no Joker - it's just not right.
:*

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Bill O'Rights

My pleasure...

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

pig

Now THAT's a discussion I can get behind. Well played sir, well played indeed.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

host

raveneye ! It was worth the time spent to create this thread, to "see" a post from you, again. I hope that you are doing well.

jorgelito

I'm sorry but all of your posts are waaaaayyy to short: The are not enough articles, sources from multiple media outlets that accurately reflect the liberal and conservative sides to this issue to back up your claims which you would find that all can agree on the general "hotness" of the Jennifer Love Hewitt underwear commercials. Is one ad or one video enough of a fact-checking data extrapolation to substantiate any of your claims that the Jennifer Love Hewitt commercials are indeed as you say, "hot"? If so, where is your proof? Where are the "facts" to back up your "opinion"?

Please see posts #1,2,3,4,6, and 7 to review the initial claims and arguments to support those claims. Can any of you refute those assertions? Where do the underwear experts weigh in on this issue? TFP's own bobby, resident underwear/porn expert is a good source and credible too. Perhaps you could interview him to solicit an expert opinion to back up your claim. Just make sure you post the entire transcript and BOLD the key sentences out of context for us.

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/galle...anties-heaven/

Or how about here: This is a good analysis on the efficacy of utilizing Hewitt to sell their product and her market appeal.

http://www.adjab.com/2005/06/07/jenn...-hanes-on-her/

This article offers a feminist view that takes issue with Jennifer Love Hewitt perpetuating gender stereotyping and sexist attitudes.

http://www.adrants.com/2005/06/jenni...ells-hanes.php


Or how about this: Truth in Advertising? Hewitt buys rival bran's product, credibility in question?

http://thesuperficial.com/2006/02/je...buys_ling.html

I don't have much time so this will have to do for now, but I will be back with more sources to back up the claims.

Lady Sage

Back to the OP, I think Host has been reading my journal entries. *giggle*

As for undies? Youve seen one chick in panties youve seen them all... the Vickies Secret models look better than that chick!

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

aceventura3

Some of us like that "girl next door look eventhough the girl next door doesn't look like that". It is like the old debate Ginger or Maryann, I was always a Maryann guy. I want my women in Hanes not Victoria Secret.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

MSD

I found a while back that one one hand arguments had become too nitpicky, that the line-by-line dissections had become too focused on sniffing out miniscule mistakes and attacking them rather than disputing the other 95% of the post that was completely valid, and on the other hand, certain people had become overly emotional and others decreasingly rational while arguing heated issues.

Facts started to give way to blind ideology, small groups and individuals were shouted down by larger groups, and those with less popular opinions were backed into a corner where they had no choice but to back out of the argument or lash out at those who were trying to overpower them. People would find anything that sounded authoritative and agreed with them and wave it at others, regardless of veracity or rationality.

Long story short, it degraded into the kind of place where arguing replacecd debate and went from my favorite forum to somewhere that I had very little interest in participating.

nofnway

Of any post the preceding post most closely echoes my sentiments about the politics threads.

Hopefully that doesn't reflect poorly on its author.

__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci

Halx

I feel that some people are a little bit too cutthroat about politics debate. I personally find the method of quoting someone's post and inserting responses to each invididual line to be vicious. I guess that just goes hand in hand with how I portray my own thoughts. The thought that someone is looking at my individual sentences for weaknesses in my point tells me that they are not paying attention to my message, but more to my words themselves. It gives the idea that if you cannot deliver a post like you've got your own speech writer, you shouldn't even step up to the plate.

Too many people stop just short of understanding their fellow man. It's not that they take words out of context, or even see them through a different lens; they just want to be right. The end result is frustration for those who have valid opinions, but don't know the rulebook by heart. They say things, but it falls on deaf ears because the reader doesn't want to think any further than the period at the end of the sentence.

This is from my own point of view. Obviously, I'm defending my style of delivery. For every word written, there are 10 more unseen before the next. Many would respond with, "HELP me understand." My retort is, "Make me feel like it's possible."

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

ubertuber

I'm with Supple and MSD.

There are only a few conversation styles that happen here anymore, and I'm not interested in them.

There's the one where people do line by line quote and reply posts to each other - where it's apparent that they are searching for ways to "zing" each other and declare "gotcha points". This is just tedious.

There's the one where the vast majority of posters agree with each other and slap each other on the back. This behavior is broken up only for the occasional chance to gang-rape the hapless soul who disagrees. Here I say hapless not because they don't have facts (which sometimes they don't), but because it's pointless to carry on a debate that is 1 on 23.

Then there's the thing where nearly every thread ends up as the same conversation. I'm sure somewhere in the realm of politics there is a topic that doesn't come down to "Bush sucks", but you wouldn't know it from reading this forum. This doesn't bother me because I like Bush, it bothers me because it is tedious, repetitive, and smacks more of an agenda than a discussion.

And then...I'm going to be blunt here...I felt choked by trying to read your posts host. I was really making the effort for a while, but so many of your articles were not relevant to the topic or were selectively quoted (so as to be inaccurate in the context of the discussion here). There was more emphasis on volume of material than there was on relevance or quality. Wading through all that material was a waste of time more often than not, and it kept me out of discussions because I was reading and digesting every word of previous posts in good faith before I contributed. I'm getting the impression that things have changed in this regard and I keep meaning to come back and give you guys a shot again, but this won't happen until after tax season is over and my job calms down.

I see little evidence that most posters in this forum are actually interested in discussing things with people who don't already agree with them. No one learns from the other side - they only try to find ways to shut them down. Things have been like that for a while here, and I don't think it is a positive thing at all.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

jorgelito

*sigh* It looks like my satire was completely missed. Oh well...

dc_dux

To Halx's and Uber's observation about responding line by line, I would suggest it is to highlight a line that is factually incorrect or unsupportable. At least, that is my intent when I reply in such a fashion.

Uber, I would also suggest it is same for ganging up on a "hapless" minonrity voice....again, when that voice is factually incorrect. One example? An often posted argument to the effect that the Dems who voted for the Iraq war had the same pre-war intelligence as Bush. That is just factually incorrect, no matter how often it may be repeated by hapless, but well-meaning supporters of the war. It is not ganging up to correct that misconception every time it appears.

I appreciate Supple Cow's observations as welll. I would only respond that constructive discussion, at least for me, requires more than stating an opinion that you can not back up with facts, as is often the case here. There is very little added to one's knowledge base by simply trading opinions and I personally dont find it very entertaining or enlightening. It is through the supporting information (and links - that should be judged for credibility) that knowledge is shared.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Bill O'Rights

Now ya know how host feels when nobody reads his novellas.

I did, however, appreciate your due diligence.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

jorgelito

Haha BOR, but we do, but we do. We do read his posts. Otherwise I wouldn't bother replying. See what I mean?

dc_dux

For the record, I read most of Host's links...I have learned something new from many and I have challenged him on the credibility of others.

I really wasnt interested in reading about Jennifer Love Hewitt.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

uber, I have to disagree with your description of the "dynamic" here, because, if results from these recent, and a year ago poll that I authored, are any persuasion, (I admit that it is a small sample vote, in each case, but it is data that is an authentic "pulse" from this forum), there is no atmosphere of "ganging up". There was consistent, although sometimes narrowly so, disagreement with the crux of my OP opinion, gleaned from these poll results:

Poll results: 5 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 8 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=113978

Poll results: 20 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 5 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109821

Poll results: 8 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 29 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=112677

Poll results: 9 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 3 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=112281

Poll results: 18 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 17 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/poll.ph...ts&pollid=1541

....and the more recent poll results, above, aren't much different from exactly a year ago:

Poll results: 13 dissenting votes vs.POV of thread OP, 10 votes for the thread OP POV
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/poll.ph...ts&pollid=1482

I see nothing in these poll results that would dissuade anyone from participating....posting an opinion. To the contrary, I would expect that these poll results would encourage participation. The poll results are frequently in disagreement with my POV....more incentive for me to "try harder".

I post quite a bit on this forum, uber....it should not have been difficult for you to find and post an example to support your criticism of me, especially because of the credibility that you have established for yourself with the management and the members here at tfp. I'm disappointed that you did not offer me the opportunity of "specifics", similarly to the examples I afforded in my criticism of ace and of ustwo in the OP.

I am at a disadvantage to defend against your criticism, or to admit that I misled or misinformed other readers, (an apologize to them, if appropriate) in my previous posts. I do post quite a bit, and it isn't an excuse, if I am indeed guilty of doing the things that you claim that I have done, the offenses that you mention, they are at most, a tiny percentage of my posting content.

and....dc_dux, I think that you've hit the nail on the head. All points of fact do not have equal standing/validity. IMO, this forum won't "work", as a "politics" forum, if we can not "stipulate" that certain foundational assumptions, are "points of fact", for purposes of discussion. For a long time, here, and it even cropped up again, long after most thought we could stipulate to it, was the issue of whether Saddam had WMD and WMD making capability, to any degree that resembled what US authorities described as justification for invading Iraq.

If no discussion of any substance can take place on a political issue or controversy, until most of us are willing to stipulate to a key "point of fact", the discussion won't progress past that point. How could it, and be worth participating in? The more recent impasse, has to do with whether or not Scooter Libby did anything illegal, and whether there was a basis for a CIA requested, criminal investigation, concerning the leaking of the name and the CIA employment of Valerie Plame to the media.

A curious thing about these delayed stipulations, is that the folks who rely on multiple, news reports from professional press correspondents, for their information, and who end up being correct (examples...no WMD found in Iraq, and Scooter Libby convicted on four felony charges) enjoy no advantage that I can recognize, when it comes to persuading any other participants here who harbor an opposite POV, shaped from sources that they won't, can't, or refuse to share....or when they do share a source, they can not defend it against criticism of it's integrity and conflicts of interest.

All ideas and opinions are beholden to the information sources that establish and influence them. They are not all in synch with the most likely explanation for why a given "point of fact", is or isn't, so. Sometimes, a false or misleading conclusion can be agreed upon by all, as a point of fact, yet this still does not always make it, so.

A challenge to an opinion that anyone posts, is not an attack on that poster, it is a challenge to defend and support that opinion, or ideally, if that defense is not possible, to concede that other interpretations of the issue, enjoy a greater weight of evidence in their favor, than yours does. When that happens, if only temporarily, until we know more....or do more research, we can agree to disagree.

....but as dc_dux posted, it did not advance the discussion here, to continue to claim that democrats in congress who "voted for the war", had access to all of the intelligence information that the president had access to, before they voted to support responding militarily to his claims that Iraq was an "imminent threat".

My "style" of posting is to support/foster agreement of as many "points of fact" as I anticipate that it will take to have an "in depth", political discussion.
I try to persuade that my POV is well founded. I don't see others having more success, and most of the time, not even as much, supporting what they have to say, using other means and methods than I'm using.

If I do, and I'm always looking, I'll latch on to those methods, and I'll come by my future posts here, much easier, and more quickly, than I can, now!

ubertuber

Host:

This thread is an example of a time in which you and I actually went back and forth on the very issue I am bringing up. I am surprised you do not remember it:

Failing to learn from history

I have found the experience I had in that thread over and over when reading your content. That is simply the only time I engaged you directly on the issue. In terms of posting lists of examples - it's not going to happen, at least not right now. I've got to go to work. However, to do this I'd have to read tens if not hundreds of pages of content and apparently analyze it more thoroughly than you did and again, that's a waste of my time.

Regarding your polls, I think they support my view more than yours - people are happy to vote out of the "accepted message" because they are anonymous. However, take a look at the recent "heated debate" thread. A topic about the way we converse turned into Ace vs. about 4 or 5 people on 3 different topics.

Both of these are merely striking illustrations. There are many more. You asked why some of us don't post here anymore (although I have never declared this to be the case until now) and offered up a lame and condescending explanation which I don't feel represents my lack of motivation. It isn't "being confronted with facts" that pushes me a way - I like that. It's the low ratio of reward to time spent that discourages me from hanging around much.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

host

uber, yes....I remember that thread well....and our exchange began <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97941&page=2">here</a>, in post #61:
....and your example(s), from an exchange that was a result of what seemed like a request from you, when it took place ten months ago, influenced you to post these comments, yesterday, on this thread?:
....again, uber....your a mod, and you have "cred" here, independent of that status. I posted frequently before our May, 2006 exchange, and certainly since....

.....at least 40 percent of the linked excerpts I posted, from post #61 on, in the example that you linked, are no longer available to be viewed where they were linked to, last May.....

......In our May 2006 exchange, smooth posted last, with questions for you that you never replied to. Had I known that you would later use that exchange as an example of my deficiencies, I would not have waited for you to reply there, to respond to your criticism....

.....I regarded your skepticism about Bush and Cheney intentionally linking Saddam's Iraq to directly supporting the 9/11 attacks, as a state of mind that, coming on the heels, as it did, of Cheney vehemently lying in a broadcast video, to Gloria Borger....denying his earlier "well confirmed" statement in reference to the Atta meeting in Prague........even though that statement, was, and still is....contained in a whitehouse.gov web page, similarly to the way that I regard any political point that would reasonably be stipulated to, as fact, by parties in a political discussion where the point is relevant to the possibility of a discussion.

I anticipated that, either you were "toying" with me, or you really did require, as you later stated....quotes from Mr. Bush or Cheney that included words similar to.."the 9/11 attacks? Yeah....we know for a fact that Saddam was bin Laden's partner...." to be persuaded that the two "leaders" set out to, and had succeeded in convincing a majority (including 2/3 or more of our military, serving in Iraq...) that the US invaded Iraq, because of it's involvement in 9/11.

I responded to your skepticism by displaying, along side of your posts, my "presentation" of why I was (am) convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the effect of the Cheney/Bush Iraq propaganda, combined with the perception it implanted into the minds of the majority, at the time of the Iraq invasion, was as they intended.

I set out to create an impression that it was reasonable to conclude that Bush and Cheney knew exactly what they were doing in painting Saddam/Iraq with 9/11. I think that I did that. I think that the context of my presentation, the sheer numbers of reports and their details, was as important as the links and "one sentence" snippets that you claimed would have sufficed.

You may not think so, but I try to confine my "content rich" posts to breaking stories, and to countering opinions that "fly in the face" of the overwhelming majority of existing news reporting, if a political "incident" or situation has developed to a level, as the Cheney/Bush "iraq/9-11" linkage, certainly had...

That leaves us disagreeing about how to present, on this forum, our opinions and what influences them. We could leave it at that, but you chose to use that as an example to justify your criticism...

I stand by what I do here...what I post. I still think that your criticism of me
here, "matters", hence the detailed response. Unfortunately, I think that you have painted my "contribution" to the politics forum in a somewhat less favorable light than is warranted. I already faced challenges in making credible arguments, despite my best effort. I put my best effort into our exchange last May....and I think that you took a little bit away from my reputation, then, and a little bit more, away, here.

It was interesting to read the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97941">first page</a> of that thread (exempting the OP, of course). After I did, it gave me the confidence to write this post, and to assert that, when it comes to writing sincere, relevant, accurate, and informative posts in this forum, I'm right up there with the best of them....

ubertuber

host:

I'll take as a compliment that you say that my comments "matter", and that I have cred here other than staff status. Credibility as a contributing person matters much more than a staff title - and I speak only for myself in this thread.

Still, I think you are making more out of what I am saying than you should. You ask why some people don't post here anymore and speculate that they are afraid of being confronted with facts. I used to come here to learn - and I would post and debate with people I disagreed with to elicit more of their point of view. There was a streak where I was able to get a lot from the posters here that way. I'm merely saying that for me, the rewards I get for the time I spend here have fallen dramatically. I'm just not into putting lots of time into things that aren't rewarding or fun anymore. A part of that is that I became very frustrated reading your posts (I'm speaking of 8+ months ago when I was more active) and find that they are heavy on content and light on analysis and, at times, relevance. I linked the thread I did, because it was striking in that we danced around that very issue. That thread is but an example, and frankly, I'm not gonna go read 30 pages of links and quotes to be able to give a list of threads here that illustrate what I'm talking about. I don't suspect it would change anything, and I'm not trying to get into a war of attrition by drowning each other in paragraphs. Besides that, it isn't the point of your question. I'm telling you one reason I haven't been posting.

Despite what you suspect, I don't toy with people. Not ever, not anyone, not here, and not in real life. I am direct and honest, and expect the same of others in return. I am also skeptical, and trust my own judgment. This is why I really did want you to post examples of what you claimed happened...happening. In understanding what is going on around me, I'm looking for causation to go with correlation. This is the heart of effective analysis. Smooth made this exact point in his last post, which I unfortunately forgot about until this morning when I dug that thread up. I've been thinking about his questions regarding correlation as evidence, and I haven't decided where I draw the line yet.

I guess we do disagree about how to present our opinions here. And that's ok - I don't make the law here, and I don't try to stop people from doing things I disagree with. Just don't paint me in with those you feel are afraid of "truthiness". That's what I have to say here in public. I'll shoot you a pm with more, since I also don't believe in turning threads into private conversations.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

shakran

I don't think any reasonable person is going to ask you to cite sources for your opinions. However, if you claim "Bush did A and then he did B and that's why I think he's a bad president" you should have something to back up the notion that he did those things.

I've seen so much crap on here about both parties with wild accusations of things they absolutely did not do (Bush engineered 9/11, Kerry didn't do the heroic things he's credited with when he was on the swiftboat, etc), and it could all be alleviated if people would bother to check their facts before forming an opinion on them.

But instead they see some bizarre email forward that has some inane bullshit that wouldn't even fly on the paranoia board, they take it as gospel, presumably because it's on the internet and therefore must be 100% true, and then come in here and post opinions based on those lies. What's worse is that they're spreading those lies, and others who are just as lazy as they are about fact checking might (and often do) start believing them as well.

Opine all you want, but if you claim something as fact, back it up.

And while we're on the subject, let's all learn what a good source is shall we? If it's a known-biased source, like Bill O'Reilly, it's not a valid source. In my opinion, Al Franken is right on the money with many of the points and facts in his books, but you don't see me citing him because he's left biased.

Another good hint is that if it appears only in one place, especially if that place is not a recognized, respected media outlet, there's a good chance it's bullshit. If you cite the Washington Post as a source, it's probably valid. If you cite the Washington Times as a source, it's probably a load of crap.