Peter Brown - 1 Minute (2 Day)

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

I don't think I've ever described VDH as my "enemy", nor for that matter any number of pundits on various propaganda channels. That doesn't mean that I remotely agree with them or think they add positive value to the world, but the "enemy" word caught my attention.

I don't know who you think "lavish praise and admiration on HCR" is, but seems to me she's quite thorough in her research and analysis, something I think VDH lacks at times. On the other hand, VDH puts on quite the show of scholarship...but, IMO, it just doesn't hand together.

Of course, you're free to disagree...and we can discuss such...civilly...or not.

[Peter Brown]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Don't worry, you'll be back in time to gloat about the November red wave.
2000 sounds a bit like a cross between you and Joe...

Coincidentally(?), 2000 joined the forum the same day has Joe received his last penalty. Same reluctance to engage with facts/logic/info on any topics other than a couple in the women's lax area (solid there). In the politics area just chastising others for "group think", but not engaging with facts/logic/info, his or others. Difference, so far, is that 2000 hasn't resorted to all caps shouting etc.

But he posted yesterday a response re Gavin Newsom as a potential candidate positioning himself for 2024 that was quintessential "Petey". Exact same style, indeed his writing style is more akin to yours than Joe's, but less of the exaggerated nonsense and, so far, no outright disinformation.

Rest well, Pete.
I think you will get at least most of your wishes in November...a couple not so much...

[Kismet]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Maybe try SCOTUS Petey.............
Clarence Thomas covers appeals from Florida.

[Peter Brown]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Maybe try SCOTUS Petey.............
Clarence Thomas covers appeals from Florida.

Thomas is a strict constitutionalist; he’d probably rule against me.

I’d prefer Ginny. She knows what’s up.

[Peter Brown]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Don't worry, you'll be back in time to gloat about the November red wave.
2000 sounds a bit like a cross between you and Joe...

Coincidentally(?), 2000 joined the forum the same day has Joe received his last penalty. Same reluctance to engage with facts/logic/info on any topics other than a couple in the women's lax area (solid there). In the politics area just chastising others for "group think", but not engaging with facts/logic/info, his or others. Difference, so far, is that 2000 hasn't resorted to all caps shouting etc.

But he posted yesterday a response re Gavin Newsom as a potential candidate positioning himself for 2024 that was quintessential "Petey". Exact same style, indeed his writing style is more akin to yours than Joe's, but less of the exaggerated nonsense and, so far, no outright disinformation.

Rest well, Pete.
I think you will get at least most of your wishes in November...a couple not so much...

Technically my suspension will expire well past the election. Maybe Matt will offer some hardship pardons and commutations?

[MDlaxfan76]

RE Ginny,
now that's indeed funny!
Kudos, Pete.

[cradleandshoot]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

I don't think I've ever described VDH as my "enemy", nor for that matter any number of pundits on various propaganda channels. That doesn't mean that I remotely agree with them or think they add positive value to the world, but the "enemy" word caught my attention.

I don't know who you think "lavish praise and admiration on HCR" is, but seems to me she's quite thorough in her research and analysis, something I think VDH lacks at times. On the other hand, VDH puts on quite the show of scholarship...but, IMO, it just doesn't hand together.

Of course, you're free to disagree...and we can discuss such...civilly...or not.

I believed I criticized an article by HCR by not reading it because I had read a number of her articles posted on this forum. I believe you chastized me for not reading it. The main point sailed right over your head. I have read countless posts by posters on this forum savaging VDH and his point of view much in line with OS. If you want to find criticism of the opinions of HCR.. you will be hard pressed to find them on this forum. That is what the contradiction is all about. The chosen few on this forum idolize the opinions of some and ridicule the opinions of those people they disagree with.
In a nutshell it can be said that on this forum that HCR is brilliant and always spot on correct and that VDH is dumb and ignorant and of course.. always wrong in his opinions.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

I don't think I've ever described VDH as my "enemy", nor for that matter any number of pundits on various propaganda channels. That doesn't mean that I remotely agree with them or think they add positive value to the world, but the "enemy" word caught my attention.

I don't know who you think "lavish praise and admiration on HCR" is, but seems to me she's quite thorough in her research and analysis, something I think VDH lacks at times. On the other hand, VDH puts on quite the show of scholarship...but, IMO, it just doesn't hand together.

Of course, you're free to disagree...and we can discuss such...civilly...or not.

I believed I criticized an article by HCR by not reading it because I had read a number of her articles posted on this forum. I believe you chastized me for not reading it. The main point sailed right over your head. I have read countless posts by posters on this forum savaging VDH and his point of view much in line with OS. If you want to find criticism of the opinions of HCR.. you will be hard pressed to find them on this forum. That is what the contradiction is all about. The chosen few on this forum idolize the opinions of some and ridicule the opinions of those people they disagree with.
In a nutshell it can be said that on this forum that HCR is brilliant and always spot on correct and that VDH is dumb and ignorant and of course.. always wrong in his opinions.

mmm, I don't recall purposely not reading a VDH article posted by Salty...indeed, the discussion that ensues, while certainly recognizing exactly who the author is and his biases, then deals with the specific points, logic etc made...and what's been missed.

I don't have an issue with someone thinking HCR (or VDH) has her/his own point of view and biases; just engage with her/his logic and information presented, don't simply ignore them altogether.

Yes, I do think HCR is way, way more fair and thorough in her analysis of various issues than is VDH. I'm certainly impressed with her degree of thoughtfulness and detailed information. But that's certainly not "idolize". And I certainly don't think VDH is "dumb and ignorant". Quite the contrary, he's a very smart fellow. I just think he's frequently not 'honest' in his analysis, shaping to fit his preferred biases and desired conclusions. But that doesn't mean he's "always wrong" nor that there isn't truth in parts of his analysis.

[cradleandshoot]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

I don't think I've ever described VDH as my "enemy", nor for that matter any number of pundits on various propaganda channels. That doesn't mean that I remotely agree with them or think they add positive value to the world, but the "enemy" word caught my attention.

I don't know who you think "lavish praise and admiration on HCR" is, but seems to me she's quite thorough in her research and analysis, something I think VDH lacks at times. On the other hand, VDH puts on quite the show of scholarship...but, IMO, it just doesn't hand together.

Of course, you're free to disagree...and we can discuss such...civilly...or not.

I believed I criticized an article by HCR by not reading it because I had read a number of her articles posted on this forum. I believe you chastized me for not reading it. The main point sailed right over your head. I have read countless posts by posters on this forum savaging VDH and his point of view much in line with OS. If you want to find criticism of the opinions of HCR.. you will be hard pressed to find them on this forum. That is what the contradiction is all about. The chosen few on this forum idolize the opinions of some and ridicule the opinions of those people they disagree with.
In a nutshell it can be said that on this forum that HCR is brilliant and always spot on correct and that VDH is dumb and ignorant and of course.. always wrong in his opinions.

mmm, I don't recall purposely not reading a VDH article posted by Salty...indeed, the discussion that ensues, while certainly recognizing exactly who the author is and his biases, then deals with the specific points, logic etc made...and what's been missed.

I don't have an issue with someone thinking HCR (or VDH) has her/his own point of view and biases; just engage with her/his logic and information presented, don't simply ignore them altogether.

Yes, I do think HCR is way, way more fair and thorough in her analysis of various issues than is VDH. I'm certainly impressed with her degree of thoughtfulness and detailed information. But that's certainly not "idolize". And I certainly don't think VDH is "dumb and ignorant". Quite the contrary, he's a very smart fellow. I just think he's frequently not 'honest' in his analysis, shaping to fit his preferred biases and desired conclusions. But that doesn't mean he's "always wrong" nor that there isn't truth in parts of his analysis.

I've read enough of the articles posted on this forum by HCR to know that i need read no more. She has her own FLP slant that our forum members admire. I try and read the VDH articles that OS posts. If VDH is guilty of anything it is not knowing when to stop writing. They are both very smart people. They both look at the world through a perspective based more out of political ideology than just expressing their opinion. I have reached a stage in life when reading these articles bores me to death. That includes both HCR and VDH. They are both good writers but will never be in William Safires league. Now there is a name most posters on this forum will love to hate. The NY Times has never been the same without his opinion pieces.

[LaxFan2000]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Don't worry, you'll be back in time to gloat about the November red wave.
2000 sounds a bit like a cross between you and Joe...

Coincidentally(?), 2000 joined the forum the same day has Joe received his last penalty. Same reluctance to engage with facts/logic/info on any topics other than a couple in the women's lax area (solid there). In the politics area just chastising others for "group think", but not engaging with facts/logic/info, his or others. Difference, so far, is that 2000 hasn't resorted to all caps shouting etc.

But he posted yesterday a response re Gavin Newsom as a potential candidate positioning himself for 2024 that was quintessential "Petey". Exact same style, indeed his writing style is more akin to yours than Joe's, but less of the exaggerated nonsense and, so far, no outright disinformation.

Rest well, Pete.
I think you will get at least most of your wishes in November...a couple not so much...

Stop trying to be a detective. I'm neither PB or Joe. Just a regular old schmo. You really can't help yourself can you? Constantly being the moral police of this site must be exhausting.

[PizzaSnake]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Don't worry, you'll be back in time to gloat about the November red wave.
2000 sounds a bit like a cross between you and Joe...

Coincidentally(?), 2000 joined the forum the same day has Joe received his last penalty. Same reluctance to engage with facts/logic/info on any topics other than a couple in the women's lax area (solid there). In the politics area just chastising others for "group think", but not engaging with facts/logic/info, his or others. Difference, so far, is that 2000 hasn't resorted to all caps shouting etc.

But he posted yesterday a response re Gavin Newsom as a potential candidate positioning himself for 2024 that was quintessential "Petey". Exact same style, indeed his writing style is more akin to yours than Joe's, but less of the exaggerated nonsense and, so far, no outright disinformation.

Rest well, Pete.
I think you will get at least most of your wishes in November...a couple not so much...

Reading from the same script.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Don't worry, you'll be back in time to gloat about the November red wave.
2000 sounds a bit like a cross between you and Joe...

Coincidentally(?), 2000 joined the forum the same day has Joe received his last penalty. Same reluctance to engage with facts/logic/info on any topics other than a couple in the women's lax area (solid there). In the politics area just chastising others for "group think", but not engaging with facts/logic/info, his or others. Difference, so far, is that 2000 hasn't resorted to all caps shouting etc.

But he posted yesterday a response re Gavin Newsom as a potential candidate positioning himself for 2024 that was quintessential "Petey". Exact same style, indeed his writing style is more akin to yours than Joe's, but less of the exaggerated nonsense and, so far, no outright disinformation.

Rest well, Pete.
I think you will get at least most of your wishes in November...a couple not so much...

Reading from the same script.

That could explain it...

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Don't worry, you'll be back in time to gloat about the November red wave.
2000 sounds a bit like a cross between you and Joe...

Coincidentally(?), 2000 joined the forum the same day has Joe received his last penalty. Same reluctance to engage with facts/logic/info on any topics other than a couple in the women's lax area (solid there). In the politics area just chastising others for "group think", but not engaging with facts/logic/info, his or others. Difference, so far, is that 2000 hasn't resorted to all caps shouting etc.

But he posted yesterday a response re Gavin Newsom as a potential candidate positioning himself for 2024 that was quintessential "Petey". Exact same style, indeed his writing style is more akin to yours than Joe's, but less of the exaggerated nonsense and, so far, no outright disinformation.

Rest well, Pete.
I think you will get at least most of your wishes in November...a couple not so much...

Stop trying to be a detective. I'm neither PB or Joe. Just a regular old schmo. You really can't help yourself can you? Constantly being the moral police of this site must be exhausting.

"moral police"???
How so?

So, it's entirely a coincidence?
Doesn't really matter, it's just strikingly similar....coincidentally...

[LaxFan2000]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Don't worry, you'll be back in time to gloat about the November red wave.
2000 sounds a bit like a cross between you and Joe...

Coincidentally(?), 2000 joined the forum the same day has Joe received his last penalty. Same reluctance to engage with facts/logic/info on any topics other than a couple in the women's lax area (solid there). In the politics area just chastising others for "group think", but not engaging with facts/logic/info, his or others. Difference, so far, is that 2000 hasn't resorted to all caps shouting etc.

But he posted yesterday a response re Gavin Newsom as a potential candidate positioning himself for 2024 that was quintessential "Petey". Exact same style, indeed his writing style is more akin to yours than Joe's, but less of the exaggerated nonsense and, so far, no outright disinformation.

Rest well, Pete.
I think you will get at least most of your wishes in November...a couple not so much...

Stop trying to be a detective. I'm neither PB or Joe. Just a regular old schmo. You really can't help yourself can you? Constantly being the moral police of this site must be exhausting.

"moral police"???
How so?

So, it's entirely a coincidence?
Doesn't really matter, it's just strikingly similar....coincidentally...

MD,

I think you know exactly how so. Keep feigning stupidity...

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I don't know the real identity of LaxFan2000. To me it's irrelevant. What has been written by LF2k in this thread about how things can be on this forum is right on. I've experienced it more times than I could count myself in my 3-1/2 years on this site. It isn't only that some members will engage you on an issue where there are differing opinions. Nothing wrong with that. It's the insults and snotty more-educated-than-thou/holier-than-thou attitude; the self-deluded moral and intellectual superiority that is flaunted by certain members that provokes others when they can't convince the other of their perspective. If they can't convince you with their logic then they'll insult you.

I don't know, or know of, one human being who enjoys being talked down to in the condescending, pedantic way that certain members address you with when you disagree with them or post an opinion that they disagree with. For all the higher learning and obvious intelligence and knowledge of these finger-wagging members--it's childish what they resort to when frustrated. I can't convince you that I'm right and you're wrong so now I'll insult you and laugh at you with emoji and talk down to you like the under-educated, uninformed, lesser than person that you are. I am fully within my right to insult you and make fun of you because you brought it on yourself by holding to your opinion and not agreeing with me.

Speaking as one member who has experienced these things here, that's my testimony--and THAT is what LF2k (and others) are saying and have said over the years. And THAT is what should be taken to heart and pondered.

(You watch--guarantee that what follows this post will be insults and attacks on what I wrote and how I wrote it and the inconsistencies therein, and what's really behind it and what my true ulterior motives are, along with my character and history on this site--all to discredit and dismiss not only what I've written here--but what LF2k and others have written. Wait for it...)

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting as always, LandM.

I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.

The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...

Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?

That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe ...).

Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...

We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.

so, when this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.

Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.

This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...

Do you really not know why the number of posters remains small? It's because a small number of posters go out of their way to try and control the conversation to fit their narrative. There's very little actual discussion being had. It's more admonishing others who don't fall in line. Only been this way recently. If you can't see that it tells me you are one of the worst offenders...

But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
Unless of course a guy like VDH posts an article. Then the objectivity from the FLP folks on this forum that lavish praise and admiration on HCR and then eviscerate VDH. No bias or prejudice from the FLP folks in that regard is there?? These are the same FLP folks always lecturing us of the need to be "open minded" and respecting of opposing points of view. There is a hot steaming load of horsechit for all to contemplate. It might be helpful if some of you folks actually read what you post??? When you avail yourself of that opportunity and look up the definition of what a hypocrite is.. you might be surprised...

Very good post Cradle.

Miss you!

Laxfan is of course correct, hence the stirred-up ’s.

I don’t know how to file an appeal here. I’m trying to find the portal but don’t see much.

Don't worry, you'll be back in time to gloat about the November red wave.
2000 sounds a bit like a cross between you and Joe...

Coincidentally(?), 2000 joined the forum the same day has Joe received his last penalty. Same reluctance to engage with facts/logic/info on any topics other than a couple in the women's lax area (solid there). In the politics area just chastising others for "group think", but not engaging with facts/logic/info, his or others. Difference, so far, is that 2000 hasn't resorted to all caps shouting etc.

But he posted yesterday a response re Gavin Newsom as a potential candidate positioning himself for 2024 that was quintessential "Petey". Exact same style, indeed his writing style is more akin to yours than Joe's, but less of the exaggerated nonsense and, so far, no outright disinformation.

Rest well, Pete.
I think you will get at least most of your wishes in November...a couple not so much...

Stop trying to be a detective. I'm neither PB or Joe. Just a regular old schmo. You really can't help yourself can you? Constantly being the moral police of this site must be exhausting.

"moral police"???
How so?

So, it's entirely a coincidence?
Doesn't really matter, it's just strikingly similar....coincidentally...

MD,

I think you know exactly how so. Keep feigning stupidity...

I am neither stupid, nor feigning so.

You did not answer either question.
Just followed one personal attack with another.

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't know the real identity of LaxFan2000. To me it's irrelevant. What has been written by LF2k in this thread about how things can be on this forum is right on. I've experienced it more times than I could count myself in my 3-1/2 years on this site. It isn't only that some members will engage you on an issue where there are differing opinions. Nothing wrong with that. It's the insults and snotty more-educated-than-thou/holier-than-thou attitude; the self-deluded moral and intellectual superiority that is flaunted by certain members that provokes others when they can't convince the other of their perspective. If they can't convince you with their logic then they'll insult you.

I don't know, or know of, one human being who enjoys being talked down to in the condescending, pedantic way that certain members address you with when you disagree with them or post an opinion that they disagree with. For all the higher learning and obvious intelligence and knowledge of these finger-wagging members--it's childish what they resort to when frustrated. I can't convince you that I'm right and you're wrong so now I'll insult you and laugh at you with emoji and talk down to you like the under-educated, uninformed, lesser than person that you are. I am fully within my right to insult you and make fun of you because you brought it on yourself by holding to your opinion and not agreeing with me.

Speaking as one member who has experienced these things here, that's my testimony--and THAT is what LF2k (and others) are saying and have said over the years. And THAT is what should be taken to heart and pondered.

(You watch--guarantee that what follows this post will be insults and attacks on what I wrote and how I wrote it and the inconsistencies therein, and what's really behind it and what my true ulterior motives are, along with my character and history on this site--all to discredit and dismiss not only what I've written here--but what LF2k and others have written. Wait for it...)

I've previously expressed that I think many of your posts add value, information, etc.

I think what's already been expressed by those most bothered by your many posts (in the women's lax area) is fully explanatory of their views.
As someone without any particular dog in that hunt, and having read many, many of these exchanges now, the pattern I see is that you instigate the controversy and then have a thin skin when being pushed back upon.

Your post above predicting pushback is right in pattern. The way you frame the pushback and your fellow posters above is clearly intended to be insulting and inflammatory.

On the other hand, I think some of the prior pushback is unproductive as well; fellow posters have long memories...and have short fuses. And there's a long history.

Seems like you are limiting yourself to a single thread now of your opinions. Interesting idea. Hope that works.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

(You watch--guarantee that what follows this post will be insults and attacks on what I wrote and how I wrote it and the inconsistencies therein, and what's really behind it and what my true ulterior motives are, along with my character and history on this site--all to discredit and dismiss not only what I've written here--but what LF2k and others have written. Wait for it...)

I've previously expressed that I think many of your posts add value, information, etc.

I think what's already been expressed by those most bothered by your many posts (in the women's lax area) is fully explanatory of their views.
As someone without any particular dog in that hunt, and having read many, many of these exchanges now, the pattern I see is that you instigate the controversy and then have a thin skin when being pushed back upon.

Your post above predicting pushback is right in pattern. The way you frame the pushback and your fellow posters above is clearly intended to be insulting and inflammatory.

On the other hand, I think some of the prior pushback is unproductive as well; fellow posters have long memories...and have short fuses. And there's a long history.

Seems like you are limiting yourself to a single thread now of your opinions. Interesting idea. Hope that works.

[MDlaxfan76]

(You watch--guarantee that what follows this post will be insults and attacks on what I wrote and how I wrote it and the inconsistencies therein, and what's really behind it and what my true ulterior motives are, along with my character and history on this site--all to discredit and dismiss not only what I've written here--but what LF2k and others have written. Wait for it...)

I've previously expressed that I think many of your posts add value, information, etc.

I think what's already been expressed by those most bothered by your many posts (in the women's lax area) is fully explanatory of their views.
As someone without any particular dog in that hunt, and having read many, many of these exchanges now, the pattern I see is that you instigate the controversy and then have a thin skin when being pushed back upon.

Your post above predicting pushback is right in pattern. The way you frame the pushback and your fellow posters above is clearly intended to be insulting and inflammatory.

On the other hand, I think some of the prior pushback is unproductive as well; fellow posters have long memories...and have short fuses. And there's a long history.

Seems like you are limiting yourself to a single thread now of your opinions. Interesting idea. Hope that works.

yup; you get a response when you post.
Not sure why that would bother you, much less validate your sensitivities.

It's not this prediction:

It's the insults and snotty more-educated-than-thou/holier-than-thou attitude; the self-deluded moral and intellectual superiority that is flaunted by certain members that provokes others when they can't convince the other of their perspective. If they can't convince you with their logic then they'll insult you.