57% of Americans Think Bush Is Not Honest

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Dick Cheney and GWB are actively opposed to John Maclean's anti-torture legislation.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

But I am not.

[bevin]

That is an unambiguous and explicit point where we agree with each other and oppose a policy of GWB's.

I think that answers Neil's point about you always defending GWB - you certainly aren't doing so on this point.

/Bevin

[lazarus]

Shane said:

Quote:

---

[

it doesn't matter if I intended to offend them or not.

What matters is that they were offended so I need to make the change and not expect them to be less sensative or know my intentions.

---

I know you don't really mean what you posted!

If I say "you are wrong" and you are ofended you are not seriously saying I should amend my "you are wrong" statement. Some of the things people are ofended by are rediculous. There must be some objective means by which offenses are measured. I believe that already exists, there are moderators.

[lazarus]

Shane said:

Quote:

---

First, I know you are somewhat new here, but we try not to use inflamatory, emotionally-charged comments.

---

You're kidding right!!!!

What did I say that was inflamatory. Neo-con stands for New conservative (roughly). Its just a term that is used to describe those who are perhaps more aggressively conservative than perhaps the McCains of this world. I did not describe you as a neo-con. You describe yourself as in the middle, which is interesting in itself. Don't take offence.

There is no reason to get inflamed, emotional or charged!

I always play nice.

Quote:

---

Secondly, no lines have been redrawn in the middle east. That is what everyone is trying to avoid and what Saddam was trying to do.

---

No line have been withdrawn because the USA is stuck in this quagmire. An attempt at regime change is itself an attempt to redraw the political map. I'm surprised you missed that.

[lazarus]

Shane said:

Quote:

---

One will notice I have not defended him in regard to environmental issues, budget issues, space exploration, lack of healthcare reform or forgien relations with Mexico. I do not toe any party line. I side with the liberals on somethings and with the conservatives on other things.

---

This is exactly what Sean Vanity says. He gives a list of those things that he does not defend bush on. Usually they are not hot button issues....SPACE EXPLORATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, (oooops i'm shouting) foreign relations with Mexico!!!!!!!!!!!, environmental issues!!!!!!!!!

He will say something like....yeah Bush has not spent enough time dealing with the Deficit....but the Democrats blah blah blah. Hanity wil spend 1/100th of a second being critical of Bush and 2hours 59 mins, 59seconds and 99/100ths spewing mind-numbing, bizzare distortians about liberals and democrats.

Shane Shane Shane! what am I to do with you?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If I say "you are wrong" and you are ofended you are not seriously saying I should amend my "you are wrong" statement.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually we discussed this in great length and with the exception of a couple of members here, it was pretty much agreed that using the word "you" is an inflamatory emotionally-charged word.

All one has to do is remember we are discussing issues. We are not discussing members of the forum. Instead of saying, "you are wrong..." one can say, "that position has the followig errors..." That way the topic of the post is not "you" or another member, but rather "that position".

Again, we do have a couple of rebels that instist on using the word "you" but most of us find we can play better with each other by talking in the first and third person only.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

There must be some objective means by which offenses are measured. I believe that already exists, there are moderators.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I did suggest once that we make a list of offensive words so that we could all avoid using them. It was decided that we will let the offended person know when he or she is offended. So when someone tells us a certain word or phrase is offensive, we will know not to use it. That is called playing well with others.

There is no moderator of this forum so it behooves all of us to go the extra length to try and play well with others.

[Dr. Shane]

When used in nontext, neo-con does mean new conservative however it is controversial. A quick google search will reveal the controversy around it. That is something we don't need here.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The term "neocon," while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied. Others say it lacks any coherent definition, especially since many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane Shane Shane! what am I to do with you?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Now here is a good example. I am not the topic of this thread. (I am not Sean Hanity either <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> ) In fact I enjoy watching Hanity and Combs and I find myself seeing much more reason in Alan Combs than Sean Hanity. I wish Alan Combs got more air time but I know... it is all about ratings and Sean brings in the ratings better than Alan.

[lazarus]

"you" would be on the banned list of words?

I guess "your", "you're".......I guess I just like to imflame passions then becuase that I so wierd to me.

Now If I said "you are a Doofus", that would be wrong because I am insuting your person. If you shane said "Steve, Steve, Steve what am I to do with you?" I would laugh because it was mean to be silly, a joke, a light hearted interjection.

I guess if I said "you silly neocon you" that would be deemed inflmatory then!

"You cannot be serious" ooops...I did it again. What is the definiton of "you" anyway?

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:

it was pretty much agreed that using the word "you" is an inflamatory emotionally-charged word. ...

most of us find we can play better with each other by talking in the first and third person only....

when someone tells us a certain word or phrase is offensive, we will know not to use it. That is called playing well with others.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Nobody else here seems to be complaining about the words being used.

This reminds me of an old maxim from law school:

"When the facts are against you, argue the law.

When the law is against you, argue the facts.

When both the law and the facts are against you, just shout and pound the table."

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Actually we discussed this in great length and with the exception of a couple of members here, it was pretty much agreed that using the word "you" is an inflamatory emotionally-charged word.

---

I agree....we discussed this....That is all that I agree with in this paragraph. The rest of this is an outright lie.

For every person that agreed that the use of the word "you" there were an equal number who put forth arguements against it. As for a consenses among forum members [sp], there was none. It is pure fabrication that everyone agreed not to use the word 'you'...

Shane, I am offended that you are attempting to control this forum. Your status as moderator is a farce and the rest of us who disagree with your philosphical bents can not put you on "ignore". Your approach to control people here is shameful in itself and restrictive. It is counter productive to encouraging the exchange of ideas.

I will be sending a copy of what is happening to the administrative staff.

[Bravus]

OK, couple of quick things (not as a moderator, just one of the guys, with an interest in keeping the playground safe and fun):

1. Neil, please keep it relaxed: I can easily imagine rephrasing your post above with all the content and just as direct in its meaning but kinder and gentler and less confrontational. In fact, let me give it a try:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I agree... we discussed this... That is all that I agree with in this paragraph. For every person who agreed that there were problems with the use of the word "you" there were an equal number who put forth arguements against it. As for a consensus among forum members, there was none. It is not correct to state that everyone agreed not to use the word 'you'...

It seems to me that you are attempting to control this forum. Your status as moderator means that the rest of us who disagree with your philosphical bents can not put you on "ignore". Your approach in attempting to control people here is restrictive and unfortunate. It is counter productive to encouraging the exchange of ideas.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That's still a pretty strong statement, but it focuses (mostly) on the issue and avoids allegations of lying.

2. Shane, he does have a point to some extent. My understanding of the discussion of inflammatory language was that it was intended to 'clear the air' and help us to understand one another's perspectives, so that we could each, individually, voluntarily be careful in the words we chose and the way we expressed things in order to foster a safer environment. What's happened since is that you've started using it as a tool of argument, a way of closing down perspectives and approaches that you have a problem with, rather than as a way of moderating your own behaviour.

3. 'Neocon', as far as I'm concerned, is a descriptive label, nothing more. If it's used pejoratively against someone to whom it doesn't really apply, perhaps that's inappropriate, but to apply it to those who would proudly wear it themselves seems OK to me. It's a bit like 'Nazi', I guess (I'm not making a comparison between neocons and Nazis!!!!): to apply the term 'Nazi' to a Nazi is only descriptive. To apply it to someone else is pejorative. The fact that Nazis have brought infamy to the label by their actions is just a fact. The fact that, in the opinion of some, the neocons have brought infamy to that label by their actions, is at this stage in history a matter of opinion. But unless 'neocon' is used actively as a term of abuse, rather than as a simple description, I don't think it makes any more sense to ban its use than that of the label 'liberal'.

4. Finally, we can have all the rules and guidelines we like about avoiding inflammatory language - or, to phrase it positively, encouraging respectful language. But, in the end "From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks" (Matthew 12:34). If your heart is full of contempt for humanity (or for some segment of it with the 'wrong' political convictions), that will spill over into your posted words, no matter who carefully chosen. If your heart is full of respect for others, that too will show through in what you write.

[Neil D]

Appreciate the input, Bravus.

As for keeping it 'relaxed', dare I say that what is posted is relaxed compared to what I have edited/deleted!

I guess what bothers me the most about this exchange is that Shane is using this 'inflamatory tactic' against the newer memebers of this forum. Such behavior does not promote exchange of ideas/discussion. It does, in the long run, restrict it and even hijack the thread. I am all for the exchange of ideas,and even starting NEW threads, even if it is counter to my own. But such rudeness as demonstrated by Shane bothers the hell out of me. [Please excuse my absolute honesty, here.] It comes from attempting to protect the newer members from an 'old' member who may have skewed ideas as to the 'way things are supposed to be' by dictating the way things were [supposedly] discussed .

It is my understanding that the promoting of and exchanging of ideas needs to be encouraged...not negetively impacted, even in the politically charged relm of the World Affairs Forum.

Re:the issue and allegations of lying.

Shane needs to hear the charge as it does cause him to rethink from time to time that he does **possibly** skew the facts to his way of thinking. Generally speaking, It is one thing to believe them for oneself. It is totally something else when one perpetrates the mistatement(s) to others. Others know it as a lie. Please note, "perpetrating a mistatement" is the same as building upon the mistatement, aka, lying. To pass a mistatement is not necessarily building upon it. Therefore, it can not be known as a lie.

When Shane is using this tactic as a tool, it is the same as building upon the mistatement...therefore, I used the word "lie". Because Shane is building upon this mistatement, and because he is attempting to manipulate and control others in a forum that he is NOT a moderator in, I am asking the adminstration staff to concider removing Shane from moderatoral status. HIs conduct can be concidered an abuse of power, not representative of the fine moderatorial staff of ClubAdventist.

Please note, I am not asking for a removal of Shane from ClubAdventist. His contributions are adverse to conventional views and thus, I wrily admit, they do promote discussion...

[Bravus]

...or you could remain open to the fact that others actually and in all honesty perceive and remember things differently to the way you do. You might say that they're mistaken, but to call it lying is to impute to them that they know differently and are saying something they know not to be the case. I don't believe that's the case here at all: you and Shane took different perceptions away from the 'inflammatory language' thread, based on your different perspectives, and we're seeing those different perceptions played out by both of you, each under the impression that his understanding of the discussion is correct.

[Neil D]

Why do we continue to revisit this problem time and again , when , at each session, we hash this out? Like we are doing...again I knew that Shane had a different perspective, and I have explained that to him. I understand his perspective. I understand that each of us continue to persist in our views, but it seems to me that when those views clash with the goals of this forum, those views must give way to the goals of the forum or you leave.

We have visited this before, even after our views were stated...The goals of the forum were made plain as well.

Shane is an intelligent man. He can, on occassion, add 2 + 2. He can also figure out which of his views clash with the goals of the forum.

Since this subject has been visited before, and since these goals and views were clearly stated, I have to conclude that Shane is deliberately circumventing the goals of ClubAdventist for manipulation and controling the exchange of ideas for his own purposes.

This is offensive to me....in the extreme. IOWs, I take GREAT offense to violation/manipulation of the forums when curtailing ideas and opinions especially when it is done to new members.

Ok, I have said enough about Shane, Bravus. He is not the topic of this thread, and I have definately violated one of MY principles and went off topic. And since I know that I have placed you in an uncomfortable position, I will let you have the last word on this subject. [Assuming that you are attempting to cool my jets and placate me and all that other soothing type stuff .]

[Looking over at Shane] Yeah, Shane, I am ticked!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Nobody else here seems to be complaining about the words being used.

---

I try to make comments on the issues when they are small before people's feeling start getting hurt and the adminstrators are swamped with private messages. It is easier to swat a mosquito than a swarm of killer bees.

[Dr. Shane]

Recently in another thread, Brother Neil indicated that a word or phrase I used was inflamatory, emotionally-charged language. Instead of disputing his claim, I appoligized and indicated that was not my intent and then I changed my way of phrasing what I was writing so as to hopefully not be inflamatory.

I have very sensative to others when they indicate to me that I have used offensive or inflamatory language. Often times what is inflamatory to someoneelse, is just shop talk to me. So when they tell me it is inflamatory, I take them at their word and change my tone. I am not in a position to tell anyone else what pushes their buttons and what doesn't.