[Ira]

Ahhh... I see... That's why I have been called stupid, a racist, a bigot etc. etc. ad infinitum by the lefties here. Thank you for clarifying the point.

You know, in another thread you asked whether I had ever taken or posted a photograph and ended it with a snide comment. If you're going to have a go at someone then I'd suggest you take the time to at least be able to do it intelligently and with a little research behind it. Had you expended the tiniest amount of effort you'd find I've posted a couple of dozen pictures in the short time I have been here. You'd also note that I've lived in the USA for 22 years. I also refer you to your comment I quoted first and suggest you take your own advice. Now trot along, there's a good chap.

Trot along? What kind of superior person do you think you are?

Do you believe you have the intellectual superiority to dismiss my voicings by just wishing it to be so?

Unfortunately, arrogance is no substitute for reason, of which you have none.

You just have arrogance. Arrogance squared.

[Phil1]

LOL!!! Pro abortion catholic Pelosi asking for Catholic Church cooperation has to be the dumbest thing yet she has done. The Catholic Church out west is a haven for illegals, they encourage them and want more to expand the deminishing numbers. You can call them law breakers if you want too. What an efn joke. She might as well enlist La Raza and Calderon's help. These a$$ hats have to go.

[Rupert]

Next time you quote me and reply specifically to something I say, please take the time to read the words and understand the meaning behind them. This has nothing to do with parenting. At all. I was comparing the behavior of certain argumentative members of these forums to children who refuse to change a behavior until the other one does. The example was for illustrative purposes only.

If you do not understand what I am saying or how it relates to the situation, please feel free to ask and I will be happy to clarify.

Well I certainly do not understand your hostility here.....there was not a thing in my reply that could be found offensive, unless you were looking in that direction, and even then it would be difficult.
The idea of your post was well understood, and I did address it in the earlier reply that "mysteriously disappeared". It was also non-offensive. As for "having nothing to do with parenting", I think I am required to remind you that you wrote....

I have 10-year old twins. Cleaning their room is ever an issue.
"I'm not cleaning unless he cleans!"
"Well I'M not cleaning unless HE cleans!!"

And on and on and around and around it goes. Endlessly.

Etc throughout your post. Now I found nothing offensive about a word you said, but I do find your response to me to be out of line and unnecessary, Moderator or not. If you are in some sort of "Protected Zone" where a simple and inoffensive reply as mine was here to be grounds for getting upset, I think we need to know so, and avoid Moderator contact altogether......
Best Regards

[Peter Zack]

Rupert, Mel's point, that you completely missed was that in a few posts after the OP, these threads degenerate into childish name calling and completely stray from the point.

George posted something that probably could be debated on it's face but then the regulars in this forum start calling each other names and sending insults back and forth. Completely getting away from the OP.

Instead of taking Mel's point and trying to actually debate each other with some intelligence, you try to bait her with comments like she in a "protected zone" which none of the moderators are. We are just volunteer members that try to keep things on track and civil.

What she was saying and what we would all hope, is some intelligent debate of the topic. Not this constant and very childish name calling. Can you and a few others actually debate a topic without trying to cut down the person that posted just above? Everyone has a right to voice an opinion in a calm and rational way. So why do these threads recently go down this path of name calling? What's the point?

[shooz]

I got it!
It's the sound of one wing flapping..........

[Rupert]

Rupert, Mel's point, that you completely missed was that in a few posts after the OP, these threads degenerate into childish name calling and completely stray from the point.

George posted something that probably could be debated on it's face but then the regulars in this forum start calling each other names and sending insults back and forth. Completely getting away from the OP.

Instead of taking Mel's point and trying to actually debate each other with some intelligence, you try to bait her with comments like she in a "protected zone" which none of the moderators are. We are just volunteer members that try to keep things on track and civil.

What she was saying and what we would all hope, is some intelligent debate of the topic. Not this constant and very childish name calling. Can you and a few others actually debate a topic without trying to cut down the person that posted just above? Everyone has a right to voice an opinion in a calm and rational way. So why do these threads recently go down this path of name calling? What's the point?

I don't disagree with you much here, but let's be serious, almost all threads drift after a while, and sometimes a little light hearted drifting might be a good thing when a thread has become overheated? I don't think my response to Mel was any stronger than hers to me.......and I still do not see where such a reply to me was warranted? It was certainly not diplomatic as in "Rupert, I appreciate your lesson on child raising, but I think you might have missed my point......etc" It would have beat "Next time you quote me...." which is to infer that somehow I should not quote her, or I should tiptoe carefully if I do.
I am not looking for trouble here, but if Moderators are playing by a different set of standards, I would like to know it? I can play by most any rules, or choose not to play at all, but I would like to know that there is some balance in how we interact....Moderators included.
Best Regards

[Nesster]

On the other hand, what's interesting is Rupert's drifting into sadomasochistic fantasy, or expressing the hope of such, by furthering Mel's point - via a safe 'parenting style' aside - with a plead for female spanking of unruly board participants (the 'kids').

Forgive me if this is too OOT, I thought it funny, and I do hope Rupert sees this as joshing and not something else.


---

The meandering nature of some of the discussion is one of the pleasures of this section, you never know what turn things may take. But if we have to keep to the OP, I suppose that's what we have to do.

The name calling, and the reflexive conservative/liberal baiting does get old, like a pile of junk you have to wade through to get to some intelligence. And I'm constantly amazed how hot people's tempers can get. It helps to read people's comments with the voice of Jimmy Stewart.

But then, on the camera/lens side, there's a good amount of what amounts the same: strongly held opinions that sometimes are the result of experience and reflection, but often seem like repeats of third hand info, but strongly held perhaps due to that. Oh well, whatever makes people happy with what they got, or at least happy dreaming about what they should have.

Again I've gone OOT, reflecting on the moderator inserts...

what was the OT anyway? something about separation?

[mel]

The meandering nature of some of the discussion is one of the pleasures of this section, you never know what turn things may take. But if we have to keep to the OP, I suppose that's what we have to do.

The name calling, and the reflexive conservative/liberal baiting does get old, like a pile of junk you have to wade through to get to some intelligence. And I'm constantly amazed how hot people's tempers can get. It helps to read people's comments with the voice of Jimmy Stewart.

Meandering off on tangents was never the issue. Where the problem lies, is when a thread is hijacked by two or three individuals who turn it into their own personal slapfest venue. Those that are interested in discussing the topic or one of the related meanderings, are unable to do so as they are shut down by the slapfesters. Pleas to stop the behavior are met with replies to the effect of "I'll stop if he/she stops." So none of it stops. The thread is then closed and any discussion at all is stifled.

I've been guilty of a meander or three myself. Your Jimmy Stewart idea is a good one.

[Peter Zack]

I don't disagree with you much here, but let's be serious, almost all threads drift after a while, and sometimes a little light hearted drifting might be a good thing when a thread has become overheated? I don't think my response to Mel was any stronger than hers to me.......and I still do not see where such a reply to me was warranted? It was certainly not diplomatic as in "Rupert, I appreciate your lesson on child raising, but I think you might have missed my point......etc" It would have beat "Next time you quote me...." which is to infer that somehow I should not quote her, or I should tiptoe carefully if I do.
I am not looking for trouble here, but if Moderators are playing by a different set of standards, I would like to know it? I can play by most any rules, or choose not to play at all, but I would like to know that there is some balance in how we interact....Moderators included.
Best Regards

Threads drifting is fine and very normal. Nothing wrong with that in any way. Debate and discussion will always go that way and makes the topic interesting. The hijacking I refer to is posts that just become name calling and nothing to do with any topic. I never said, nor intended that we have to rigidly stick to the OP topic. Start the debate and see where it goes, just keep the baiting and personal attacks to yourselves. They serve no useful purpose.

Rupert, in the post quoted above and in other posts, you act as though you are on a white horse. Mel replies to a post (in the same way I would have) to clarify the analogy and you feign offense, then drag the point out with each subsequent post. Nothing she said was offensive IMO.

Then the comments about mods having a different set of rules that you have repeated several times. It's BS and you know it. In fact we self moderate all the time, considering that we try to set some positive example with our actions.

So don't pretend to be somehow offended when you post much more caustic stuff yourself. Unless you are such a delicate flower that we can't respond for fear of hurting your feelings. Glass houses my friend, glass houses...

Mods don't get a free pass, far from it. In fact if I were to 'go off the rails', I'd have 6 mods sending me messages to cool it in a matter of minutes. Anything I say, reflects on them as a group.

I think the point has been made, repeatedly and we just want things to be civil. I like these debates and have participated in a number of them. But there's no point if everyone in the room is yelling with their ears plugged. Just have a look around the net at other photo forums. This is the only one that allows this type of discussion. I visit a number of other sites and all have the same rule. Political, religious etc discussion is forbidden and can be cause for banning.

Consider that we are fortunate to have this little spot as a diversion. It should be considered valuable and treated as such. If future threads just become shouting matches, then we may as well shut it down. Also consider that those who hold a different point of view are also valuable. If you are alone in a room, talking to yourself, it gets boring fast. So their different points of view make the thread interesting and worth coming back to. Respond with facts, opinions, prognostications from your ouija board, whatever. Just drop the personal attacks which are a waste of time and reflect poorly on the one that posted it.

Lets return to the debate, whatever that was....

The name calling, and the reflexive conservative/liberal baiting does get old, like a pile of junk you have to wade through to get to some intelligence. And I'm constantly amazed how hot people's tempers can get. It helps to read people's comments with the voice of Jimmy Stewart.


Again I've gone OOT, reflecting on the moderator inserts...

what was the OT anyway? something about separation?

Are you hearing those voices again?

[Rupert]

So don't pretend to be somehow offended when you post much more caustic stuff yourself. Unless you are such a delicate flower that we can't respond for fear of hurting your feelings. Glass houses my friend, glass houses...

My gosh Zack, you are absolutely right! I thought about this, and pulled off my boots to have a look, and sure enough I have ten toes beginning to
"Twinkle". It has to be all the Soft Music and Pretty Colors I am seeing over here that have caused this mutation? With that in mind, and now having shown my condition to the entire Forum, I can only hope that the Members here will "Be Easy" with me and not step on my little tender toes! With all the compassionate souls I see here, that should be a request easy to honor....right? LOL!
Best Regards!

[Peter Zack]

Back to your regularly schedulled debates.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 10:52 AM ----------

Back to the OP. Can anyone tell me what she said? I listened to 2 minutes of dribble and have no idea what the point was. Was this some lame attempt at 'love thy brother'? Sure does seem clear though that they have no clue what to do about immigration and illegals.

To George's point, it would seem to have crossed that line of church and state. Asking any church to direct their sermons in any way seems somehow odious to me.

[Rupert]

Back to your regularly schedulled debates.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 10:52 AM ----------

Back to the OP. Can anyone tell me what she said? I listened to 2 minutes of dribble and have no idea what the point was. Was this some lame attempt at 'love thy brother'? Sure does seem clear though that they have no clue what to do about immigration and illegals.

To George's point, it would seem to have crossed that line of church and state. Asking any church to direct their sermons in any way seems somehow odious to me.

Can anyone tell me what she said?

Come on Mr Zack! We debate and such here ( A lot of "such") , we are not Miracle Workers able to translate gibberish from Nancy. Of course no one can tell you what she said, she has no idea herself, but loves to hear the sounds she can make while looking like a deer in the headlights. Although I am not, and have never been a Nancy Fan, I do have to admit that anytime she is behind a podium, it is a treat as good as Letterman or Leno....
Regards!

Back to your regularly schedulled debates.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 10:52 AM ----------

Back to the OP. Can anyone tell me what she said? I listened to 2 minutes of dribble and have no idea what the point was. Was this some lame attempt at 'love thy brother'? Sure does seem clear though that they have no clue what to do about immigration and illegals.

To George's point, it would seem to have crossed that line of church and state. Asking any church to direct their sermons in any way seems somehow odious to me.

Peter, there are other things afoot that would pretty much dictate what the preacher can preach from the pulpit also. If they didn't they would lose their exempt status.

[mel]

Peter, there are other things afoot that would pretty much dictate what the preacher can preach from the pulpit also. If they didn't they would lose their exempt status.

Such as? (not at all a challenge, I know nothing about this but want to)