Uh oh . . .

[Snowparrot]

I'M going to leave you guys to your arguing...
It certainly is OT.

[pbans]

[Longboardn' ASEL&S]

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.

There are other BNers that start threads regularly that state their disatisfaction with the current administration?
This is not the Bush NOT site, it is the Buffett News site.

[alphabits]

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?

I thought I presented it quite clearly.
Let ME try again.
I believe that as long as a poster abides by the forum rules, there is no reason for me to object to their posts.
I'm not refusing to debate .... there's nothing to debate.
I didn't "challenge you to leave"; I merely stated that if the forum rules are NOT to your liking then perhaps this is not the forum for you.
It's not necessary for me to say anything regarding your suggestions or convince you of anything. This isn't my forum; I didn't make the rules, but I don't have a problem abiding by them nor do I have a problem with anyone else as long as they abide by them.
It's as simple as that. So if that makes me "simplistic", so be it.
And with that, I'm done here.

[alphabits]

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.

There are other BNers that start threads regularly that state their disatisfaction with the current administration?
This is not the Bush NOT site, it is the Buffett News site.

Are you really that dense? Or do I need to put it in words that even you can understand that "the same offense" did not apply exclusively to threads that express dissatisfaction with the current administration. And for that matter, my response was directed at Penny yet you felt it necessary to intervene with your unsolicited nonsense.

Thanks for clearing up that whole confusion regarding what site this was. Maybe you can consult a dictionary to figure out what "Off Topic" means. Or maybe you can just write directly to phjim and tell him how he ought to run his site.

[Big Phan]

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?

Sometimes we have to open our ears to hear what the other person is saying (or eyes to read, in the case of a written forum).

[Longboardn' ASEL&S]

Are you really that dense? Or do I need to put it in words that even you can understand that "the same offense" did not apply exclusively to threads that express dissatisfaction with the current administration.

Oh, I thought you liked the rules and were fine with them.
Something about personal attacks?
As I said, you have still offered nothing to this discussion.

[alphabits]

Are you really that dense? Or do I need to put it in words that even you can understand that "the same offense" did not apply exclusively to threads that express dissatisfaction with the current administration.

Oh, I thought you liked the rules and were fine with them.
Something about personal attacks?
As I said, you have still offered nothing to this discussion.

This from the person who said "Are you really that simplistic?"

There is no discussion .... you're just delivering a monologue. I made my point - you're either unwilling or unable to understand or accept it.

[Longboardn' ASEL&S]

There is no discussion .... you're just delivering a monologue. I made my point - you're either unwilling or unable to understand or accept it.

Then I take it your point is that someone should be allowed to join the group, start a daily thread of partisan politics, never post otherwise, and be permitted to stay, since phjim had never anticipated someone doing so.

Mine is that if that ever came up, the rules should be changed to prevent that scenario.

I won't leave the group if that happens and the rules are not changed.

Will you be so upset as to leave if the rules are modified to prevent that?

[alphabits]

There is no discussion .... you're just delivering a monologue. I made my point - you're either unwilling or unable to understand or accept it.

Then I take it your point is that someone should be allowed to join the group, start a daily thread of partisan politics, never post otherwise, and be permitted to stay, since phjim had never anticipated someone doing so.

Mine is that if that ever came up, the rules should be changed to prevent that scenario.

I won't leave the group if that happens and the rules are not changed.

Will you be so upset as to leave if the rules are modified to prevent that?

Nope.
If someone did that, I wouldn't bother to read their posts.
If the rules were changed to prevent it, I wouldn't care because I wasn't reading those posts anyway.
Either way, no direct effect on me.