Why lock?
 

Why lock the racism thread? Seems silly to me.

If this:
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, since yesterday evening, you have made 76 posts with the word "racist" in it. We get your point. Take the day off to digest my point.


[/ QUOTE ]
is the standard, can we do the same for people who have x number of posts with the words AC or Ron Paul in them? Of course he has a large number of posts with the word racism in them --- he created a thread about racism with "racism" in the title. I would expect as much.

Re: Why lock?
 

iron may be acting on orders, guidelines from higher ups on this site.

Re: Why lock?
 

Come on, no one really cares about Ron Paul, he has no chance to make it to POTUS.

I think Iron locked the thread because of the link about a major candidate that I had posted in the thread. (link) [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why lock the racism thread? Seems silly to me.

If this:
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, since yesterday evening, you have made 76 posts with the word "racist" in it. We get your point. Take the day off to digest my point.


[/ QUOTE ]
is the standard, can we do the same for people who have x number of posts with the words AC or Ron Paul in them? Of course he has a large number of posts with the word racism in them --- he created a thread about racism with "racism" in the title. I would expect as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

76 posts in one day is pretty ridiculous. Redbean is a reasonable guy on just about all topics except race. That thread needed to be locked, there was nothing productive left to say in it. Good judgement iron.

Re: Why lock?
 

It was my decision.

Redbean has a point about Paul. Even if some speechwriter wrote the article, we hold politicians accountable for the words of their speechwriters all the time. Most of what politicians say or write was originally penned by a speechwriter.

That said, no one gets to sledgehammer their point like Redbean did. He made is point in every Ron Paul thread he could find, including in a couple Legislation threads that got locked because of him. Another mod may have been justified in banning outside of forum just on the absolute spamminess of it all. I may unlock the thread after Redbean comes back, but for now everyone needs to settle down.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good judgement iron.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to wager a small amount of money iron was prodded to lock via PM, and his "judgment" merely involved capitulating to whichever Ron Paul acolyte PMed him about locking it and temp-banning RedBean.

Maybe adios is right that it came from the higher-ups, but I doubt it. Maybe it was it was completely of his own will, but I doubt that, too.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That said, no one gets to sledgehammer their point like Redbean did

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mind seeing this univerally applied [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good judgement iron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why lock?
 

It's a crusade by RedBean that borders on spamming?? I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.

Further, the title is quite misleading.

Re: Why lock?
 

It was not a speech writer, it was not a campaign manager. It was a newsletter during the period (12 years) he was out of office. Not sure how much difference it makes.

Once it was confined to one thread, I didn't care if RedBean made 1000 posts in a day about racism.

Re: Why lock?
 

Can we move this thread to ATF?

Why should only the politards have all the fun of discussing moderation decisions? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Once it was confined to one thread, I didn't care if RedBean made 1000 posts in a day about racism

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I thought that it was quite a reasonable suggestion to move it and am glad to see that Red Bean did so. I don't see where the thread needs to be locked. At most (and I disagree with this as well) the thread should be unlocked and Red Bean have a day off.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
At most ... the thread should be unlocked and Red Bean have a day off.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like this idea. Paul's alleged racism is a legitimate topic. My main problem was with the spamminess of the posting in multiple threads. I'll unlock it when he comes back.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because this is a standard the politics forum consistently adheres to?

The entire discussion was ludicrous, from RedBeans crusade to the ridiculous justifications some Paul supporters made, but I think it's obvious what happened: RedBean pissed off this forum, which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point, and one (or a few) of those pissed off Paul advocates probably PMed iron...and iron, who's mission in Politics mostly involves trying to satisfy the mob, did what he was told and brought the temp-ban hammer on RedBean. I may be completely wrong -- Iron says it was his decision -- but I doubt it. It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

Either way, "engaging in repetitive and fruitless discussions" and "hammering a point home" have never, ever been a moderating standard the Politics forum has been subject to. That it was applied here is, as I said, likely indicative of the fact that RedBean's form of crusading pissed off this forum's vocal, starry-eyed Paul supporting members.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because this is a standard the politics forum consistently adheres to?

The entire discussion was ludicrous, from RedBeans crusade to the ridiculous justifications some Paul supporters made, but I think it's obvious what happened: RedBean pissed off this forum, which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point, and one (or a few) of those pissed off Paul advocates probably PMed iron...and iron, who's mission in Politics mostly involves trying to satisfy the mob, did what he was told and brought the temp-ban hammer on RedBean. I may be completely wrong -- Iron says it was his decision -- but I doubt it. It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

Either way, "engaging in repetitive and fruitless discussions" and "hammering a point home" have never, ever been a moderating standard the Politics forum has been subject to. That it was applied here is, as I said, likely indicative of the fact that RedBean's form of crusading pissed off this forum's vocal, starry-eyed Paul supporting members.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the "Watch Out" thread, I saw RedBean's behavior as disingenuous.

Regardless of the myriad examples that were presented that demonstrated Dr. Paul's criticism of racism, RedBean seemed to always retort something to the effect of "but that doesn't change the fact that he's a racist."

That borders on taunting, IMO (much like referring to those with particular political beliefs as "starry-eyed" could be construed as taunting.)

And for the record, I didn't send any PM's to iron; I exercised my right to ignore RedBean once I realized that he was being unreasonable.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit to this much: I did push the "notify moderator" button (before anyone else!) in one of the other threads where RB responded to some post about RP with a simple, out of the blue "Ron Paul is a racist" with no additional comment. Note, this was probably the first time he used the word "racist" in that spree, and it had nothing to do with the point being discussed (and RB has been big on yelling at others to "stay on the topic at hand").

Also note, I'm not "angry" and I'm not particularly a Ron Paul supporter. I mean, if someone put a gun to my head and made me vote, I'd vote for him, but unless someone either does that or buys my vote, the smart money is on me staying home on election day.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit to this much: I did push the "notify moderator" button (before anyone else!) in one of the other threads where RB responded to some post about RP with a simple, out of the blue "Ron Paul is a racist" with no additional comment. Note, this was probably the first time he used the word "racist" in that spree, and it had nothing to do with the point being discussed (and RB has been big on yelling at others to "stay on the topic at hand").

Also note, I'm not "angry" and I'm not particularly a Ron Paul supporter. I mean, if someone put a gun to my head and made me vote, I'd vote for him, but unless someone either does that or buys my vote, the smart money is on me staying home on election day.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I gave you a dollar? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit to this much: I did push the "notify moderator" button (before anyone else!) in one of the other threads where RB responded to some post about RP with a simple, out of the blue "Ron Paul is a racist" with no additional comment. Note, this was probably the first time he used the word "racist" in that spree, and it had nothing to do with the point being discussed (and RB has been big on yelling at others to "stay on the topic at hand").

Also note, I'm not "angry" and I'm not particularly a Ron Paul supporter. I mean, if someone put a gun to my head and made me vote, I'd vote for him, but unless someone either does that or buys my vote, the smart money is on me staying home on election day.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I gave you a dollar? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd sell my vote for a dollar if YOU can go to the poll and vote it for me. If I actually have to drive over there and go through the rigamarole, and stand in line, it will have to exceed my opportunity cost. Copernicus claims to bill $500/hr, that sounds like a good number to start with.

Re: Why lock?
 

I don't care that racism was brought up 7498273489723 times. I do have a problem with the fact that RedBean, in all of his posts, did nothing but assert assert assert without answering the questions of those in opposition.

In the style of RedBean, I present the

FACTS:
<ul type="square">
RedBean found references to a newsletter attributed to Paul with questionable statements. This is evidence that Paul is "racist" even though none of the remarks proclaimed the inherent racial inferiority of anyone. Most of these would be more appropriately described as bigoted or prejudiced. Some were actually criticisms of the justice system, not of blacks.

Redbean found one article, published four years later claiming RP defended his "written commentaries" (which RedBean failed to show were even referring to the newsletter in question). The article also lacks an actual quote from Paul, instead relying on a reporter's summary.

RedBean found a statement Paul made five years later which said the newsletter remarks were written by a staffer who was then fired. RedBean characterizes this as Paul's admission that he had "lied" to his supporters. This is questionable given RedBean's failure to link the defensive statements to the actual newsletter. Without this link, there is no inconsistency in Paul's story.

Despite the questionable nature of his "evidence," RedBean repeatedly refused to answer any questions about the relevance of his sources (other than to re-assert their content) and the obvious discrepancy between the newsletter and the rest of RP's speeches, commentaries, and votes. These are legitimate concerns, and RedBean's argument would have been much more appropriate (let alone believable) had he addressed them.[/list]
In light of the above, I have to applaud Iron (who is by no means a shill for RP) for dealing with the situation as he did.
nh, sir.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, moderated by an Obama supporter. If the other candidates did anything remotely interesting they might be getting some support on here too.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, moderated by an Obama supporter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking over the front page of the forum shows numerous Ron Paul threads, and some of those without "Ron Paul" in the title likely contain various amounts of Ron Paul schilling. It looks 4 of the top 20 threads are various forms of Ron Paul propaganda (3 ways to help Ron Paul, Ron Paul videos, 'Watch Out For Ron Paul', Ron Paul Live Rally).

That iron (an Obama supporter) moderates the forum doesn't refute the notion that it's heavily populated by a substantial number of Ron Paul supporters and/or outright campaign workers and volunteers (Boro) who have set themselves towards converting the unbelievers.

Maybe I am overstating it, but I don't see what iron has to do with it. It's clear his political leanings aren't shared by a most of the forum, despite the fact he moderates it.

[ QUOTE ]
If the other candidates did anything remotely interesting they might be getting some support on here too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't use "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" as a metric for whether or not a candidate is doing something interesting.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't use "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" as a metric for whether or not a candidate is doing something interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the claim. That they wouldn't get support if they werem't interesting doesn't mean that if they were interesting they would get support--only that they could.

By the way, is any other candidate actually doing something interesting?

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't use "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" as a metric for whether or not a candidate is doing something interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the claim. That they wouldn't get support if they werem't interesting doesn't mean that if they were interesting they would get support--only that they could.

By the way, is any other candidate actually doing something interesting?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them are campaigning and issuing statements on a daily basis. The content of those speaches are interesting. I suspect you think Ron Paul's statements are "interesting" because you agree with them.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't use "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" as a metric for whether or not a candidate is doing something interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the claim. That they wouldn't get support if they werem't interesting doesn't mean that if they were interesting they would get support--only that they could.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand; whether or not candidates "could" get support on the 2p2 Politics forum is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a candidate is objectively doing something 'interesting': first and foremost, because the standard of 'interesting' is inherently subjective, but also, because even if 'interesting' was something we could measure objectively, "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" almost surely wouldn't be the standard we would use.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't use "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" as a metric for whether or not a candidate is doing something interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the claim. That they wouldn't get support if they werem't interesting doesn't mean that if they were interesting they would get support--only that they could.

By the way, is any other candidate actually doing something interesting?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them are campaigning and issuing statements on a daily basis. The content of those speaches are interesting. I suspect you think Ron Paul's statements are "interesting" because you agree with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll chime in here.

I agree that I find Dr. Paul's statements interesting because I agree with them.

What's wrong with that? Isn't the expression of ideas the whole reason for having a forum in the first place? (unless, of course, you're talking about NWP where turd-shots are the order of the day)

Re: Why lock?
 

Also, while I know of no polling that queries respondents on how 'interesting' they feeling the candidates are, we do have this tools to track favorable/unfavorable ratings; and while this doesn't exactly speak to whether or not Paul is 'interesting', more people view him unfavorably than favorably, with a negative difference that puts him close to the bottom of the candidate pool:

http://www.reliablepolitics.com/2007...rasmussen.html

Name/Fav/Unfav/% Dif

John Edwards: 51%/41% (NET 10%)
Barack Obama: 51%/43% (NET 8%)
Hillary Clinton: 52%/46% (NET 6%)
Fred Thompson: 43%/37% (NET 6%)
Rudy Giuliani: 49%/45% (NET 4%)
Mike Huckabee: 30%/28% (NET 2%)
Bill Richardson: 32%/32% (NET 0%)
John McCain: 40%/43% (NET -3%)
Mitt Romney: 40%/44% (NET -4%)
Duncan Hunter: 18%/24% (NET -6%)
Joe Biden: 31%/40% (NET -9%)
Chris Dodd: 26%/35% (NET -9%)
Dennis Kucinich: 27%/37% (NET -10%)
Ron Paul: 23%/34% (NET -11%)
Sam Brownback: 21%/36% (NET -15%)
Tom Tancredo: 16%/33% (NET -17%)
Mike Gravel: 13%/30% (NET -17%)


So yeah, like I said, the 2p2 Politics forum's ability to effectively gauge and predict popular opinion is in serious doubt. Then again, that would assume 'popular opinion' is even relevant to the question of whether or not a candidate is objectively 'interesting', which it likely isn't. This just gets us back to square one, namely that the entire exercise of propping up one candidate as especially "interesting" is nothing more than stating a personal preference, not some kind of empirical or objective quality.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't use "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" as a metric for whether or not a candidate is doing something interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

even if 'interesting' was something we could measure objectively, "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" almost surely wouldn't be the standard we would use.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That wasn't the claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll chime in here.

I agree that I find Dr. Paul's statements interesting because I agree with them.

What's wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. But that has nothing to do with the assertion (albeit an implicit one) that the reason Ron Paul dominates this site is because he is "interesting" and the other candidates are not.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the expression of ideas the whole reason for having a forum in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The reason for the existence of 2+2 is to make money. The existence of the politics forum in particular is to not piss off the politically averse in the other non-poker forums.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll chime in here.

I agree that I find Dr. Paul's statements interesting because I agree with them.

What's wrong with that? Isn't the expression of ideas the whole reason for having a forum in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't speak to why the forum exists, but I *think* what TomCollins was attempting to do is correlate "Ron Paul's extreme interesting-ness" to the level of support he receives on this forum; that might even be true - his support on this forum may be attributable to his ability to interest the people who post here. But it really says little about whether or not Ron Paul is objectively 'interesting'. So as I said -- and I think some of what I cited in my last post indicates -- the 2p2 Politics forum isn't exactly an effective bellwether for this kind of thing.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't use "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" as a metric for whether or not a candidate is doing something interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the claim. That they wouldn't get support if they werem't interesting doesn't mean that if they were interesting they would get support--only that they could.

By the way, is any other candidate actually doing something interesting?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them are campaigning and issuing statements on a daily basis. The content of those speaches are interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically?

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect you think Ron Paul's statements are "interesting" because you agree with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you at least a partial point there, but I also find Kusinich (sp?) interesting, yet don't agree with him much at all. If every other candidate was saying the same thing, Paul (and DK) would cease to stand out as interesting. The other candidates, however, are rather homogenic. The republicans all want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent... a couple support the FairTax, which is interesting... secure the borders...support the troops...wave the flag. The democrats want "better" healthcare and they didn't really support the war...

snore.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the expression of ideas the whole reason for having a forum in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The reason for the existence of 2+2 is to make money. The existence of the politics forum in particular is to not piss off the politically averse in the other non-poker forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tru dat.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll chime in here.

I agree that I find Dr. Paul's statements interesting because I agree with them.

What's wrong with that? Isn't the expression of ideas the whole reason for having a forum in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't speak to why the forum exists, but I *think* what TomCollins was attempting to do is correlate "Ron Paul's extreme interesting-ness" to the level of support he receives on this forum; that might even be true - his support on this forum may be attributable to his ability to interest the people who post here. But it really says little about whether or not Ron Paul is objectively 'interesting'. So as I said -- and I think some of what I cited in my last post indicates -- the 2p2 Politics forum isn't exactly an effective bellwether for this kind of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you that, although, in my opinion it is fairly obvious. This is, after all, a website whose primary purpose is to talk about gambling. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
objectively 'interesting'.

[/ QUOTE ]
.... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the expression of ideas the whole reason for having a forum in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The reason for the existence of 2+2 is to make money. The existence of the politics forum in particular is to not piss off the politically averse in the other non-poker forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tru dat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't necessarily talking about the existence of 2+2 itself...I was referring to the existence of a "forum", and the definition of such (that being a place to hold a discussion).

That Ron Paul is so popular among a bunch of gamblers should come as no surprise. Gamblers usually have the "Don't Tread on Me" mentality.

I would go even further to say that most good poker players possess above-average intelligence and are capable of sifting through layers and layers of bovine ejectus.

Given the statement above, it only makes sense, in light of the BS continually spewed by "mainstream" politicians, that Dr. Paul's message resonates with several participants in this forum.

Just sayin'.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
objectively 'interesting'.

[/ QUOTE ]
.... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't interpret your emoticon here.

If you're suggesting there's no such thing as "objectively interesting", then you're merely echoing what I've said all along.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't use "support on the 2p2 Politics forum" as a metric for whether or not a candidate is doing something interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the claim. That they wouldn't get support if they werem't interesting doesn't mean that if they were interesting they would get support--only that they could.

By the way, is any other candidate actually doing something interesting?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them are campaigning and issuing statements on a daily basis. The content of those speaches are interesting. I suspect you think Ron Paul's statements are "interesting" because you agree with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are interesting because they aren't vague as hell and meaningless (like Obama, Thompson, and Romney). Hillary has put a few "interesting" ideas forward, such as the baby bond that got a thread here. Rudy Guiliani gets some with his constant 9/11 harping, but really has proposed nothing of substance. Ron Paul is the only one (that I have seen) that has actually taken on meaningful stances on issues. It is true that I find him interesting, and I do agree with him, but this is not the cause. Hillary's baby bond issue was another interesting issue that was worth talking about too. But so far, besides Paul, this campaign has been extremely bland and vanilla.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because this is a standard the politics forum consistently adheres to?

The entire discussion was ludicrous, from RedBeans crusade to the ridiculous justifications some Paul supporters made, but I think it's obvious what happened: RedBean pissed off this forum, which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point, and one (or a few) of those pissed off Paul advocates probably PMed iron...and iron, who's mission in Politics mostly involves trying to satisfy the mob, did what he was told and brought the temp-ban hammer on RedBean. I may be completely wrong -- Iron says it was his decision -- but I doubt it. It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

[/ QUOTE ]



The fact that this forum leans libertarian has little to do with the decision to lock.

That said (independent of iron's decision), the fact that people get pissed off when PC drivel is used to discredit a person is not surprising.

The greatest thing about this forum is that a word like "racist" doesn't stop all meaningful conversation like it does in more conventional forums. That someone can make a post with valid, logical points to back up something like an anti-illegal immigration stance without getting labeled a xenophope or a racist is a small miracle in modern society. Don't expect that paradigm to be changed without a challenge from this forum's members.

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, "engaging in repetitive and fruitless discussions" and "hammering a point home" have never, ever been a moderating standard the Politics forum has been subject to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to use that out to the point of spamming, then go ahead. Meanwhile, I don't mind that we have a moderator who uses common sense. Needless to say, the mod's decision was not personally motivated.


[ QUOTE ]
That it was applied here is, as I said, likely indicative of the fact that RedBean's form of crusading pissed off this forum's vocal, starry-eyed Paul supporting members.

[/ QUOTE ]

That quote shows a basic misunderstanding of why people support Paul. Paul supporters, in general, don't get starstruck over people. If you want to hear starstruck, I'd suggest you tune in to the Sean Hannity show this afternoon.

Continuous ad hominem is not "hammering a point home," either.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paul supporters, in general, don't get starstruck over people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posit that the virtual orgasm-fest of the "OFFICIAL RON PAUL VIDEO THREAD" suggests otherwise.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That said, no one gets to sledgehammer their point like Redbean did

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mind seeing this univerally applied [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference between sledgehammering your point over the course of weeks or months and doing it over the course of hours.

Re: Why lock?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That said, no one gets to sledgehammer their point like Redbean did

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mind seeing this univerally applied [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference between sledgehammering your point over the course of weeks or months and doing it over the course of hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, though I think we disagree on which is more annoying [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]