quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Sorry Firm thats not how I read any of those,nor Treasure's either...when someone suggests that it is impossible to have a conversation,or a debate with me,I make certain assumptions about how they feel about what I am bringing to the table.When you mischaracterize my position where the religious right is concerned(that post is still up,go back and read it) twisting my actual position to such a degree as to present a caricature of what I truly feel....I take offence...as a matter of fact I take great offence.
Particularly when the folks making such distortion claim to be holders of values that they somehow lead them to think puts them in possession of some sort of moral high ground.Keep laying claim to being above your own biases while your party moves towards ,if not nominating,sending Santurom to the convention in a position to demand editing and tweaking of your parties platform/

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Sorry Firm thats not how I read any of those,nor Treasure's either...when someone suggests that it is impossible to have a conversation,or a debate with me,I make certain assumptions about how they feel about what I am bringing to the table.When you mischaracterize my position where the religious right is concerned(that post is still up,go back and read it) twisting my actual position to such a degree as to present a caricature of what I truly feel....I take offence...as a matter of fact I take great offence.
Particularly when the folks making such distortion claim to be holders of values that they somehow lead them to think puts them in possession of some sort of moral high ground.Keep laying claim to being above your own biases while your party moves towards ,if not nominating,sending Santurom to the convention in a position to demand editing and tweaking of your parties platform/

Mike... unfortunately, my posts to you were removed because they quoted your own.  However, my point then and now is not to say you are incapable of debate; merely that by stooping to the level of suggesting that proper medication for mental health issues is missing, you appear to be following with the seemingly large crowd of posters here who would rather insult and denigrate than actually debate. 

The OP asks why no one from the right here wants to debate.  I gave an answer.  It appears you didn't like that answer. 

If you believe I mis-characterized the more prolific of the left leaning posters here, and erringly placed you in that category, then I invite you to present your position as to how I am wrong.  That you chose to insult Firm rather than address his points will be a hard issue to overcome, however. 

My question is, can you defend your actions?  Were you right to say what you did?  Did you attempt to debate on an intelligent level?  Did you try to defend your position with facts or reason? 

Or did you simply refuse to debate and dismiss Firm's position with insinuations that he has a mental illness?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I'm not even going to read the rest of this prior to firing off a reply,I never meant to imply Firm wasn't recieving the right meds for a MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE.....I never knew Firm had a mental health issue.
With that said,and understanding that this is how you all saw it.....allow me to offer my heartfelt apologies.
I knew Firm had "health" issues,nothing more that that...and I was asking an honest question because I felt Firms response to me was a little off from what I know of Firm.
I do hope You,and He believe me on this matter.....I would never,I repeat never have done anything so damm low,and certanly would never do it in a malicious manner....as a matter of fact I am sorry you thought I could have done that and known all that perhaps I should have.
It just never would have occurred to me to do so,that just aint me Treasue.....seriously,that ain't me

quote:

There isn't much reason to debate any more

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

By the way,just a general note...why any of those posts were pulled is beyond me,were there disagreements contained therein...shit yeah,but it was adult disagreements conducted in an adult manner on an adult web site.....how any of them violated any tenet of the TOS is far,far beyond me.
Just my 2 cents

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminDelta

This is a reminder that if your post quoted a post that had to be removed, your post has to be removed as well.

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

Considering how many posts wound up deleted from this thread, would it or would it not fall beyond the TOS to speculate as to whether anticipating/provoking that sort of action by the Mods was another tactic in which certain posters engaged?

And after considering the matrix of posts that were/weren't removed that did/didn't quote/requote posts that were removed ... Hrmm ...

There may be another reason entirely why the 'debates' here go as they do ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well,I have publicly apologized,I have administered 40 lashes,if only figuratively allow me to re-visit for a moment one of the comments that drove me t my silliness.
Firm,you asserted that I hold the view that any man of faith is/or should be disqualified( I am paraphrasing here,I have nothing else to go on save my imperfect memory)from public office.
This is a patently false assertion,I voted for Obama,and will undoubtedly do so for re-election,Does this not,all by itself put false that assertion ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Part of the problem is that some people are very good at cruising just below the radar, and dancing around the lines of the TOS with great skill.  In particular, there are several posters who are quite "skilled" in the passive-aggressive category of insinuating dastardly things about other posters, but who then vociferously claim innocence if called on it.

They poison the pool, but it would likely take more moderation that is healthy or available in order to do something about it.

Realistically, the best option is that the culture of all the other posters together to frown on such things.  In other words, we ourselves have to refrain from doing such things, and "shun" (in a sense) those posters who do, rather than feeding them praise.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Part of the problem is that some people are very good at cruising just below the radar, and dancing around the lines of the TOS with great skill.  In particular, there are several posters who are quite "skilled" in the passive-aggressive category of insinuating dastardly things about other posters, but who then vociferously claim innocence if called on it.

They poison the pool, but it would likely take more moderation that is healthy or available in order to do something about it.

Realistically, the best option is that the culture of all the other posters together to frown on such things.  In other words, we ourselves have to refrain from doing such things, and "shun" (in a sense) those posters who do, rather than feeding them praise.

Firm

Yes, and imo, some of them are trying to provoke an insult war in an effort to get the other poster(s) to lose control and break the TOS and get themselves banned while they are not.. jmo

I dont bother with the offensive posters or respond to their posts, they can be as snarky and insulting as they want.. they just show people what they are all about, imo..

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I don't know what profit there would be in that tonight Firm,I'm tired and my ass is dragging....perhaps another time,but I will tell you emphatically I do not believe faith in and of itself should be used as a reason to exclude someone from public life.I do believe that the attempt to impose that faith,even if just the morality of any given faith,is indeed reason for removal.

I hope that clarifies things between us,even if just a little bit.

p.s. honest,I can't recall the discussion you are referencing

Palin Attended Church Event With Samurai Sword Ceremony

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

Considering how many posts wound up deleted from this thread, would it or would it not fall beyond the TOS to speculate as to whether anticipating/provoking that sort of action by the Mods was another tactic in which certain posters engaged?

And after considering the matrix of posts that were/weren't removed that did/didn't quote/requote posts that were removed ... Hrmm ...

There may be another reason entirely why the 'debates' here go as they do ...

...