|
|
Post by floyd on Dec 31, 2008 13:04:27 GMT -8
You guys are like the Jesse Jacksons of the WGPF. Hank is a liberal. Hank is an atheist. Fine. Whatever. He has a genuine problem with the flaming, bashing, name-calling, et al. on the PF. And all of a sudden the right-leaning crowd cries, "It's because we're conservative! If we were liberals like you, you wouldn't have a problem with it!" As a left-leaner, I can genuinely say that there were attacks coming from both sides. Whether or not Hank saw it that way was his business. But there was some real hate coming off of the right side, and Hank did what he saw fit. Not necessarily because the cons of the forum were cons. Because the cons of the forum were being not a very nice persons. Did Hank ignore the lib not a very nice persons? He didn't ban any of them, but I'm sure he saw the problems coming from the left as well. I for one wasn't comfortable with some of JON's and eriekayaker's posts. But of course, I'm not Hank. You guys can keep on believing what you believe is the truth. I just think that Hank took all the measures he could. Closing the PF was an overreaching act, but it looks like everyone here hated the PF anyway. So what was lost? tsk tsk tsk ... There isnt a person here that didnt love the PF! if you spent anytime reading the forums, you would know the truth! An Evil Right Winger! |
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Dec 31, 2008 14:00:49 GMT -8
You guys are like the Jesse Jacksons of the WGPF. Hank is a liberal. Hank is an atheist. Fine. Whatever. He has a genuine problem with the flaming, bashing, name-calling, et al. on the PF. And all of a sudden the right-leaning crowd cries, "It's because we're conservative! If we were liberals like you, you wouldn't have a problem with it!" As a left-leaner, I can genuinely say that there were attacks coming from both sides. Whether or not Hank saw it that way was his business. But there was some real hate coming off of the right side, and Hank did what he saw fit. Not necessarily because the cons of the forum were cons. Because the cons of the forum were being not a very nice persons. Did Hank ignore the lib not a very nice persons? He didn't ban any of them, but I'm sure he saw the problems coming from the left as well. I for one wasn't comfortable with some of JON's and eriekayaker's posts. But of course, I'm not Hank. You guys can keep on believing what you believe is the truth. I just think that Hank took all the measures he could. Closing the PF was an overreaching act, but it looks like everyone here hated the PF anyway. So what was lost? Appearances are all that are needed for people to draw conclusions that in another time would never have even been noticed. I really, really doubt Hank had any real animosity towards "the right" on the PF in general. But you've provided several FACTS in the above that when taken together do not paint a picture of fairness on his part. Maybe the timing was just unfortunate. It really doesn't matter though at this point. I'll be the first to admit the end was uglier than anything I ever intended. But once the capper of pushing the PF - not only off the board but - into an arrangement (pay-to-play) that would have effectively killed it anyway, there was no stopping it. What did those of us who enjoyed the PF have to lose? I tried early on to ensure EVERYONE got to play by the SAME RULES. I never even got a response. And the lack of a response led me to believe it was the MESSAGE, as opposed to the way the message was delivered, that was the problem. So from there - in my mind - there wasn't much more I could do aside from demonstrating my displeasure. Be that as it may, there's no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. |
|
richard
Republican
Bacon!
Posts: 1,412
|
Post by richard on Jan 2, 2009 5:15:26 GMT -8
As a left-leaner, I can genuinely say that there were attacks coming from both sides. Whether or not Hank saw it that way was his business. But there was some real hate coming off of the right side, and Hank did what he saw fit. Not necessarily because the cons of the forum were cons. Because the cons of the forum were being not a very nice persons. When is asking questions and expecting answers "hate"? When is questioning the motives of a certain someone considered "hate"? You lefties need to figure out the definitions of some words...hate, racism, etc. You guys fell all over yourselves to kiss Hank's rear, then you have the cajones to come in here and accuse us of "hate". But...why am I not surprised? |
|
|
|
Post by floyd on Jan 2, 2009 5:58:20 GMT -8
As a left-leaner, I can genuinely say that there were attacks coming from both sides. Whether or not Hank saw it that way was his business. But there was some real hate coming off of the right side, and Hank did what he saw fit. Not necessarily because the cons of the forum were cons. Because the cons of the forum were being not a very nice persons. When is asking questions and expecting answers "hate"? When is questioning the motives of a certain someone considered "hate"? You lefties need to figure out the definitions of some words...hate, racism, etc. You guys fell all over yourselves to kiss Hank's rear, then you have the cajones to come in here and accuse us of "hate". But...why am I not surprised? I think the libs just confuse the truth with hate! |
|
|
|
Post by disasterchick on Jan 2, 2009 10:00:23 GMT -8
When is asking questions and expecting answers "hate"? When is questioning the motives of a certain someone considered "hate"? You lefties need to figure out the definitions of some words...hate, racism, etc. You guys fell all over yourselves to kiss Hank's rear, then you have the cajones to come in here and accuse us of "hate". But...why am I not surprised?
hate - to feel great hostility or animosity
racism - to feel hate from others because of your skin color
etc. - other unspecified things of the same class; and so forth 
|
|
richard
Republican
Bacon!
Posts: 1,412
|
Post by richard on Jan 2, 2009 10:02:34 GMT -8
Racism isn't a feeling.
|
|
|
|
Post by disasterchick on Jan 2, 2009 10:15:43 GMT -8
I know with sexual harrassement if you FEEL uncomfortable about jokes or situations - it is harrassment.
When I was in college I could possibly claim racism. Was anything done to me? No. However, I was a minority on my floor and was treated differently from my fellow students because I was not of their skin color. There was definately a dividing line between the black girls on my floor and the white girls on my floor. This was my freshman year in 1996 and I had thought we moved beyond skin color - apparently not. I left the dorm after 3 months and moved home, because my family moved closer to the university I attended.
I guess I am naieve because I try to get the know the person and not judge someone on their looks - but on their personality, thoughts, ideas, and if I enjoy being around the person.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackjohnflint on Jan 2, 2009 12:05:08 GMT -8
When is asking questions and expecting answers "hate"? When is questioning the motives of a certain someone considered "hate"? You lefties need to figure out the definitions of some words...hate, racism, etc. You guys fell all over yourselves to kiss Hank's rear, then you have the cajones to come in here and accuse us of "hate". But...why am I not surprised?
hate - to feel great hostility or animosity
racism - to feel hate from others because of your skin color
etc. - other unspecified things of the same class; and so forth
I'd change those definitions from passive to active. To feel hate FOR someone due to whatever. I have no control over how you perceive what I do or say. The sexual harassment laws which define harassment on the basis of how the "offended" interprets the actions of the "offender" are asinine. Some people are offended by everything, some by nothing. There needs to be a standard of reasonableness. Laws and rules should deal with actions, not the motivation behind those actions or the subjective interpretation of those actions by the victims or by those decide to declare themselves victims of those actions. Hate is not illegal. I'm free to hate whomever I want for whatever reason I want. If I beat you I should be punished. If I beat you because you're Latvian or if I beat you because I want your money, or don't like your shoes, or your Yankees shirt, the penalty should be the same. |
|
|
|
Post by seeingeyelobster on Jan 2, 2009 12:17:48 GMT -8
Hate is not illegal. I'm free to hate whomever I want for whatever reason I want. If I beat you I should be punished. If I beat you because you're Latvian or if I beat you because I want your money, or don't like your shoes, or your Yankees shirt, the penalty should be the same. Hey BJF, Enough is enough. Latvians, shoes, and money I understand. But Yankee shirts? The penalty for beating someone wearing a Yankee shirt should be double, or maybe even triple of the other offenses. I mean, c'mon. After all, they are 26 time World Champions  |
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Jan 2, 2009 12:54:42 GMT -8
Hey BJF, Enough is enough. Latvians, shoes, and money I understand. But Yankee shirts? The penalty for beating someone wearing a Yankee shirt should be double, or maybe even triple of the other offenses. I mean, c'mon. After all, they are 26 time World Champions In a good Democrat city like Philadelphia you can probably get a street named after you by beating the snot out of a Yankee fan. Many crimes of passion go uninvestigated/unpunished because quick thinking perps simply slip a Yankee shirt (or Mets or Cowboys or NY Giants or Redskins) onto the still warm corpse. |
|
|
|
Post by disasterchick on Jan 2, 2009 13:05:53 GMT -8
To feel hate FOR someone due to whatever.
I have no control over how you perceive what I do or say.
To an certain extent. There are times as humans we know we are hitting below the belt with our comments. Or what we do is inappropriate like smacking someone's butt when they are walking up the stairs. But it is the responsbility of the person to say they are uncomfortable and if behavior continues then they have a right to have something done.
The sexual harassment laws which define harassment on the basis of how the "offended" interprets the actions of the "offender" are asinine. Some people are offended by everything, some by nothing. There needs to be a standard of reasonableness.
I know the defination of threat is suppose to be there. I also know you must say at some time that you are uncomfortable with the situation and take it up the chain of command. I also believe you should look at the actions causing the harrassment - are you wearing too short of skirts or your tops a bit too revealing? That should change as you feel "threatened".
Laws and rules should deal with actions, not the motivation behind those actions or the subjective interpretation of those actions by the victims or by those decide to declare themselves victims of those actions.
I agree to a certain extent. However, being the subject of hurtful actions on something you cannot change isn't right. We can change our clothing - but we cannot change our current economic status, our race, our gender, etc. Usually actions don't start violent, but it escalates as it is discovered the "victim" isn't or can't strike back.
Hate is not illegal. I'm free to hate whomever I want for whatever reason I want. If I beat you I should be punished. If I beat you because you're Latvian or if I beat you because I want your money, or don't like your shoes, or your Yankees shirt, the penalty should be the same.
I know hate is not illegal. I see it nearly every day in my community with "God Hates America". It seems like the group doing this is very well protected and they know how to work the law in their favor. When I do hear people complain I will stand up for them to a certain extent - we are giving the freedom of speech. We can go out with our signs expressing our beliefs too, it if just that we are rarely as dedicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabbage on Jan 4, 2009 4:25:08 GMT -8
You guys are like the Jesse Jacksons of the WGPF. Hank is a liberal. Hank is an atheist. Fine. Whatever. He has a genuine problem with the flaming, bashing, name-calling, et al. on the PF. And all of a sudden the right-leaning crowd cries, "It's because we're conservative! If we were liberals like you, you wouldn't have a problem with it!" As a left-leaner, I can genuinely say that there were attacks coming from both sides. Whether or not Hank saw it that way was his business. But there was some real hate coming off of the right side, and Hank did what he saw fit. Not necessarily because the cons of the forum were cons. Because the cons of the forum were being not a very nice persons. Did Hank ignore the lib not a very nice persons? He didn't ban any of them, but I'm sure he saw the problems coming from the left as well. I for one wasn't comfortable with some of JON's and eriekayaker's posts. But of course, I'm not Hank. You guys can keep on believing what you believe is the truth. I just think that Hank took all the measures he could. Closing the PF was an overreaching act, but it looks like everyone here hated the PF anyway. So what was lost? I liked the PF. Whenever the jokers on the right said something my commitment to the common sense position of being firmly in the center was reinforced. |
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Jan 4, 2009 15:54:31 GMT -8
You guys are like the Jesse Jacksons of the WGPF. Hank is a liberal. Hank is an atheist. Fine. Whatever. He has a genuine problem with the flaming, bashing, name-calling, et al. on the PF. And all of a sudden the right-leaning crowd cries, "It's because we're conservative! If we were liberals like you, you wouldn't have a problem with it!" As a left-leaner, I can genuinely say that there were attacks coming from both sides. Whether or not Hank saw it that way was his business. But there was some real hate coming off of the right side, and Hank did what he saw fit. Not necessarily because the cons of the forum were cons. Because the cons of the forum were being not a very nice persons. Did Hank ignore the lib not a very nice persons? He didn't ban any of them, but I'm sure he saw the problems coming from the left as well. I for one wasn't comfortable with some of JON's and eriekayaker's posts. But of course, I'm not Hank. You guys can keep on believing what you believe is the truth. I just think that Hank took all the measures he could. Closing the PF was an overreaching act, but it looks like everyone here hated the PF anyway. So what was lost? tsk tsk tsk ... There isnt a person here that didnt love the PF! if you spent anytime reading the forums, you would know the truth! An Evil Right Winger! I had a great deal of fun and learned alot during my 3+ years in the PF. I was ready to re-up my FOG and would have paid the $20 extra for the PF. But, the guy in charge has bitten off more than he can chew apparently and shut the PF down in the pique of a 12 year old girl who has just been told she can't go on a sleepover or a Hannibal Montana concert. joe |
|
|
|
Post by SpeedRacer on Jan 4, 2009 21:12:32 GMT -8
The PF was fine until Hank came in with his own views. That's when the problems started.
|
|
richard
Republican
Bacon!
Posts: 1,412
|
Post by richard on Jan 5, 2009 8:16:54 GMT -8
The PF was fine until Hank came in with his own views. That's when the problems started. And it began to tank when he decided to wield his Power of Banishment at those who dared to question his views. |
|
