Uh oh . . .

[SMLCHNG]

Does Flyboy have a decidedly left-leaning opinion on most issues? Yes .... and so what. There are plenty of posters on this board who are pro-Bush/anti-left and make that very clear. And again I say, so what.

I don't need anyone who clearly views themself as intellectually superior and possessing the only opinion that matters deciding what should be posted.

I'm not saying thank you to Alan regarding his left/right post - but that FlyBoy55 seems to post nothing but politcal threads - nothing Social, nothing but political in OT, nothing JB, or any other threads but political in OT. That is all.

[horseyparrot]

I find it highly interesting that almost this exact same topic of discussion is going on over on a horsie forum I go to. I can learn way more from reading these various postings than on the stupid mainstream media. Frankly, I'm glad people care about the issue. So many are apathetic.

Guess I'm not missing much w/out TV!

[Longboardn' ASEL&S]

Thank you, Alan.

With all due respect, I say "No thank you".



I don't need anyone who clearly views themself as intellectually superior and possessing the only opinion that matters deciding what should be posted.

Question for you Bits:

If a BNer posts that JB earned only 8.5 million last year, and states that that is well documented, would a moderator be viewing themselves as being of superior inteligence than the poster, or merely be acting within their designated role if they were to delete the obviously fraudulant stat.

Flyboys accusation is easily debuked as an inflammatory leftist lie.
His opinions are welcome, but he is creating ridiculous "facts", and trying to pull the wool over BNers eyes.

There is a difference between someone posting a racist , anti-semetic, or anti Zionist remark or comment, and someone claiming to have documented proof of an absurd "fact".

[alphabits]

Does Flyboy have a decidedly left-leaning opinion on most issues? Yes .... and so what. There are plenty of posters on this board who are pro-Bush/anti-left and make that very clear. And again I say, so what.

I don't need anyone who clearly views themself as intellectually superior and possessing the only opinion that matters deciding what should be posted.

I'm not saying thank you to Alan regarding his left/right post - but that FlyBoy55 seems to post nothing but politcal threads - nothing Social, nothing but political in OT, nothing JB, or any other threads but political in OT. That is all.

Oh c'mon Penny, that's just not true! Yes, he does post mostly in OT but so do a lot of people. And to say "nothing but political threads" is just nonsense. A quick check of his latest posts shows that.

For the record, I post virtually nothing JB related. In fact, most of what I post is nonsense. So are we gonna come up with changes to the TOS that dictate that posters must demonstrate a certain level of variety in their posting patterns?

[flyboy55]

Hmmm . . .

I may state my views on occasion, and they may not be popular, and while I may occasionally abuse well-known politicians and celebrities (who seem to be fair game here) I do go out of my way to avoid subjecting fellow BNers to abuse, name calling, etc., or applauding and congratulating those that do so.

Such behavior, aside from being impolite, is clearly contrary to the accepted rules here at BN. It could be grounds for banishment, if I understand the rules correctly.

Alan (if I may call you that) I think we may have to agree to disagree. But I stand by everything I've said.

[alphabits]

Question for you Bits:

If a BNer posts that JB earned only 8.5 million last year, and states that that is well documented, would a moderator be viewing themselves as being of superior inteligence than the poster, or merely be acting within their designated role if they were to delete the obviously fraudulant stat.

There are virtually thousands of statements of "fact" made on this board. I don't expect the moderators (or anyone else for that matter) to verify their validity. Let the readers decide for themselves.

Flyboys accusation is easily debuked as an inflammatory leftist lie.
His opinions are welcome, but he is creating ridiculous "facts", and trying to pull the wool over BNers eyes.

He says "well documented", you say "easily debunked". Is he spouting "inflammatory leftist lies" or are you just repeating "standard pro-Israel propaganda"? I'll let the two of you present evidence to back up your statements.

There is a difference between someone posting a racist , anti-semetic, or anti Zionist remark or comment, and someone claiming to have documented proof of an absurd "fact".

Likewise, there is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion and claiming to have proof that their facts are "absurd".


For the record, I AM a centrist. Show me the (unbiased) documentation to support your contention and I'll accept it.

[Wino you know]

Hmmm . . .

I may state my views on occasion, and they may not be popular, and while I may occasionally abuse well-known politicians and celebrities (who seem to be fair game here) I do go out of my way to avoid subjecting fellow BNers to abuse, name calling, etc., or applauding and congratulating those that do so.

Such behavior, aside from being impolite, is clearly contrary to the accepted rules here at BN. It could be grounds for banishment, if I understand the rules correctly.

Alan (if I may call you that) I think we may have to agree to disagree. But I stand by everything I've said.

Since nobody asked my opinion, I'll be GLAD to offer it.

Flyboy-
As long as I've been here I don't remember you ever attacking any B.N.er personally or calling anyone any names (unlike SOME people who have NOT been banned).
Post where you want WHEN you want. If people don't like it, they don't have to read it.
It's not like you're the ONLY one here who only posts in one specific topic.
Anybody want me to name names?

I didn't think so.

[Longboardn' ASEL&S]

Oh c'mon Penny, that's just not true! Yes, he does post mostly in OT but so do a lot of people. And to say "nothing but political threads" is just nonsense. A quick check of his latest posts shows that.

"Nothing" was of course an exageration.
I did better than a quick check, and un-scientifically I would say that greater than 75% of Flyboy's posts reflect a clear leftist agenda.
If a person were to craft political threads, and post the identicle stuff on over a thousand discussion sites not related to anything political, would you consider them a spammer or a legit member?
When someone is a thread starter of political point of view, we have to question what their motives are.

For the record, I post virtually nothing JB related. In fact, most of what I post is nonsense. So are we gonna come up with changes to the TOS that dictate that posters must demonstrate a certain level of variety in their posting patterns?

Yes, there should be some semblance of variety.
Again, if a new member turned up ar BN, and started a right-wing thread daily, never posting anything lite-social or Buffett, how long would you want the person hanging around?
The real question is just how much to tolerate.
I'm relatively new here, and enjoy reading what everyone has to say, but if there were a very active 100% political partisan poster with nothing else to add, I would like to see them go.
Flyboy is of course nowhere near that type of abuser, but he does try to sway opinion with less than hard facts.
I believe that there is room for censorship of a repeat offender.
Not Flyboy, he seems legit.
All I was suggesting is that this should not be a forum for posting half-truths as facts when it comes to polarizing issues.

[mjeischen]

And for what its worth tomorrow is Friday and that by god is a good thing in most any country!

[jonesbeach10]

Question for you Bits:

If a BNer posts that JB earned only 8.5 million last year, and states that that is well documented, would a moderator be viewing themselves as being of superior inteligence than the poster, or merely be acting within their designated role if they were to delete the obviously fraudulant stat.

There are virtually thousands of statements of "fact" made on this board. I don't expect the moderators (or anyone else for that matter) to verify their validity. Let the readers decide for themselves.

Flyboys accusation is easily debuked as an inflammatory leftist lie.
His opinions are welcome, but he is creating ridiculous "facts", and trying to pull the wool over BNers eyes.

He says "well documented", you say "easily debunked". Is he spouting "inflammatory leftist lies" or are you just repeating "standard pro-Israel propaganda"? I'll let the two of you present evidence to back up your statements.

There is a difference between someone posting a racist , anti-semetic, or anti Zionist remark or comment, and someone claiming to have documented proof of an absurd "fact".

Likewise, there is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion and claiming to have proof that their facts are "absurd".


For the record, I AM a centrist. Show me the (unbiased) documentation to support your contention and I'll accept it.

Amen Bits and Wino.

Apparently, I (and flyboy) missed the rule that says a certain percentage of your posts have to be in each forum. Do I always agree with Flyboy? Usually not. Do his posts tend to annoy me a lot of the time? Yeah.
Do I respect his right to say it???
HELL YES!!!

[SMLCHNG]

Well, I have an opinion - and I posted it. But I guess others right to their opinion is more valuable to the conversation?? I dunno.

Y'all missed my point. I never said there were rules about posting where/what. I simply observed and commented that I had noticed that Flyboy has never STARTED a thread on BuffettNews.com that was anything but controversial, which usually, but not always, means political. I just find it odd, IMHO.


Carry on.

[Longboardn' ASEL&S]

So let me get this straight.
We're not discussing Flyboy, myself, the Middle East, or politics anymore, but the right to post opinions un-censored in this forum.
So far the comments lead me to believe that this group should allow anything to be posted provided they are not personal attacks or vulgar in nature.
So, if a web site titled "Buffett News" has a discussion forum available, if a person joins and daily submits pro-life or pro-choice new topic posts, and never joins in on anything else, they should be left to be because the members will decide for themselves whether or not to read their stuff?
As the years drone on, and the member continues to start new threads daily, we allow it to go on forever in the name of free speech and censor-free web posting?
There is never a need to restrict the membership or censor the postings?
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!
A racist can post vile hatred of an ethnic group and as long as there is never a personal attack on a member it will always be O.K.?
I like to think of myself as open minded, but not so wide open that my brains start to fall out!
You guy's have got to be kidding!
Anything goes as long as it is not a personal attack etc.?
I am not equating Flyboy's comments with any of this, but you guys seem to me to be saying that there should be no restrictions on what a poster says EVER! I'm really surprised at the idea that if a member says it , it's O.K. with you.
What if I were to start a new thread everyday stating that the current administration in the U.S. is insane.
Everyday a new thread, and never posting in anything else.
Also, a search would show that I do this in 500 groups a day.
In the name of un-censored free speech, you guys would be for my right to continue?
Seriously, I'm just asking. I'm not a big web user, and am used to the censorship voluntary and mandated that the conventional media afford.
You guys would like a totaly unmoderated except for personal attack JB site?
Not me.

[Snowparrot]

chill, dear, it's Friday, after all....

[alphabits]

So let me get this straight.
We're not discussing Flyboy, myself, the Middle East, or politics anymore, but the right to post opinions un-censored in this forum.
So far the comments lead me to believe that this group should allow anything to be posted provided they are not personal attacks or vulgar in nature.
So, if a web site titled "Buffett News" has a discussion forum available, if a person joins and daily submits pro-life or pro-choice new topic posts, and never joins in on anything else, they should be left to be because the members will decide for themselves whether or not to read their stuff?
As the years drone on, and the member continues to start new threads daily, we allow it to go on forever in the name of free speech and censor-free web posting?
There is never a need to restrict the membership or censor the postings?
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!
A racist can post vile hatred of an ethnic group and as long as there is never a personal attack on a member it will always be O.K.?
I like to think of myself as open minded, but not so wide open that my brains start to fall out!
You guy's have got to be kidding!
Anything goes as long as it is not a personal attack etc.?
I am not equating Flyboy's comments with any of this, but you guys seem to me to be saying that there should be no restrictions on what a poster says EVER! I'm really surprised at the idea that if a member says it , it's O.K. with you.
What if I were to start a new thread everyday stating that the current administration in the U.S. is insane.
Everyday a new thread, and never posting in anything else.
Also, a search would show that I do this in 500 groups a day.
In the name of un-censored free speech, you guys would be for my right to continue?
Seriously, I'm just asking. I'm not a big web user, and am used to the censorship voluntary and mandated that the conventional media afford.
You guys would like a totaly unmoderated except for personal attack JB site?
Not me.

Let ME make it clear. What I'm saying is this: as long as the post conforms to the forum rules (see the link below), I don't have a problem with it.

http://www.buffettnews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16617

My point was that I do NOT expect the moderators to be "fact" checkers. If the forum rules are not to your liking then perhaps you should start your own board with rules that fit your narrow definition of appropriate posting etiquette.

[Snowparrot]

chill, dear, it's Friday, after all....

you too, Bits

[Longboardn' ASEL&S]

My point was that I do NOT expect the moderators to be "fact" checkers. If the forum rules are not to your liking then perhaps you should start your own board with rules that fit your narrow definition of appropriate posting etiquette.

Narrow?
Re-read my post that you quoted in it's entirety.
Narrow?

[Longboardn' ASEL&S]

chill, dear, it's Friday, after all....

This is how I chill, Snow! ....Must be a guy thing.
Then again, Golda and Maggie knew how to chill as well

[alphabits]

My point was that I do NOT expect the moderators to be "fact" checkers. If the forum rules are not to your liking then perhaps you should start your own board with rules that fit your narrow definition of appropriate posting etiquette.

Narrow?
Re-read my post that you quoted in it's entirety.
Narrow?

You know what .... at this point I don't even know what the heck it is that you DO want. So maybe you can expound on a set of rules that would satisfy you.

[alphabits]

Well, I have an opinion - and I posted it. But I guess others right to their opinion is more valuable to the conversation?? I dunno.

Y'all missed my point. I never said there were rules about posting where/what. I simply observed and commented that I had noticed that Flyboy has never STARTED a thread on BuffettNews.com that was anything but controversial, which usually, but not always, means political. I just find it odd, IMHO.


Carry on.

And you missed my point ..... which was that it's unfair to single out one person when there are plenty who are "guilty" of the same offense.

[Longboardn' ASEL&S]

You know what .... at this point I don't even know what the heck it is that you DO want. So maybe you can expound on a set of rules that would satisfy you.

I thought I presented it clear enough.
Let me try again.
I believe that there should be moderation that does exclude a political spammer from using this site for nothing other than a forum to espouse their beliefs.
You sounded as if nobody should be censored.
So far all I have seen from you in this discussion is a refusal to debate the issue, instead challanging me to leave or found my own group.
You have nothing to say regarding my suggestions?
You might convince me of my shortcomings of insight, but again,
YOU HAVE SAID NOTHING!!!!!!!!
Love it or leave it, nothing to offer to defend your position?
Are you really that simplistic?