AOAP ??  What is that ?
How about AEO (at every opportunity)?

 

LOL... Now THAT made me chuckle aloud !!

I left back in 2008 for similar reasons.  It was beyond absurd how lopsided and nasty it was there.  I was constantly under attack, for no reason other than having a liberal viewpoint, but I was expected to have a higher standard of behavior than those RWnutz who were non-stop attacking me.  Mongo expected victimized folks to suck it up regardless of how nasty or hateful it got and demonized any LWers who fought back.  

Screw that.  I left the board.  Then Donatello asked me to join his team on Old Blue, so I did.  Best move I ever made.


 

Poppet wrote:

Siagiah wrote:

 There's a distinct double standard there.  RWers can do anything they want.  LWers were constantly mistreated. 

This was the precise thing that engendered my permanent departure.: the blatant double standard. Mondo and I forged a truce a long time ago (after a feud that was starting to get dangerous, off-board), and we'd both done a good job of honoring it, with cordial posts for years. I didn't post a lot there because the board is mostly politics, but I did post. But after he banned greenman while simultaneously not only allowing but actively encouraging posters like TEXRA to post no less aggressive things, I objected to the hypocrisy and satated I'd take a time out equal to greenman's. Of course, Mondo reacted like a spoiled 12-year-old, spewing inane insults and hilariously revisionist history, removing my (gold-lettered!) name from the welcome list, and generally throwing a tantrum. That disappointing (but predictable) reaction ensured I'll never return. It sounds like there's nothing of the remotest interest left there anyway...

That's what set me off.  Mongo INVITED me back, and I expected some hostility - after all, it was a predominately right-wing board - but hoped that I'd at least be treated fairly, and that the host wouldn't have his thumb on the scale.  No such luck.

And while I too often allowed myself to be baited into angry responses, I was constantly the target of not only Mongo AND his sockpuppets, but the nastier of his crew (Deanna, Ted, and TEXRA) as well.  And not simply disagreeing or debating, but attempting to shout me down and smear me and my POV. 

Bottom line, it wasn't any sort of 'discussion board,' and certainly not 'Civilized.'  As much as I might like to pay off some debts, I'd never go back to that place.

Trish aka Loresinger wrote:

He's bored. There's no good conflict for him to throw up all over on his anymore. 

Ironic, isn't it?  And he was the one SO anxious to clear out anyone who dared question his politics or the way he ran his board.

Now he's got them all to himself - TEXRA, Ted, Deanna, and GOG.  As you say - no wonder he's bored! 
 

Actually, Ken doesn't believe that it's mongo.  It has nothing to do with overlooking mongo or what he does.  I know this because I already asked Ken about it.

I've been practicing for January over at Woodbine's 'Creation and Evolution' board.  That's where Bauer's hanging out these days, and I thought I'd drop in and provide a little moral support to Woodbine, who's been wrangling with jb's inane rants about NDE and the Baha'i faith.

So if anyone wants to argue with Bauer, that's the place to be...

I stopped posting on Woodbine's board when mongo and jb went over there.
The LAST thing I'm interested in is dealing with either one of them.  So NOT worth the bother to me.
 

Pikes Peak 14115 wrote:

I won't tolerate Mondo in my presence.

Is he at R&E under an alias? Likely. Hard to prove.
In January when he returns to R&E, I will post until he appears. 
From then on, it's up to him. The moment he engages me,
can't resist temptation, I will notify Ken of my intent to leave and why. 

Yes, I  occasionally skimmed CPD to kind of measure activity.
Really is like a Hutt's palace with chirping little Kowakian monkey lizards
looking for partly digested fat scraps Mondo occasionally vomits. 
There are some very stupid Trumpeons who live in Colorado. 
Deanna is exemplary. 
 

I'd bet money he's there as 'Asking,' and possibly others such as 'Zorro.'  Ken turns a blind eye, either because he posts on Mongo's board or because he doesn't believe they're Mongo.  If you ask me, he doesn't WANT to know.

SES and DFM are bad enough without having to put up with a Mongo sockpuppet, too.  One is all Trump, all the time, and the other divides his time between boosting Israel and talking down climate change.  Ridiculous.

Poppet wrote:

I decided to take my leave over at R&E for a while, even before the bans expire. It's become 90% politics there (again), which I've always opposed for that forum. There are countless explicitly political boards, so unless unambiguously ethics-related, I think political posts should be disallowed on R&E. I've always advocated for that...for years and years.

To succeed, that may require a massive turnover of participants. 

Its like a neighborhood into which some kind of undesirable moves. As the adage of a good apple unable to cure rot in others is true, and a rotten apple will spread rot to the rest, newcomers bring their sins. It applies to us. For example Colorado was overrun by Californians fleeing the urban congestion, overpopulation, loving the wilderness to death via weekend warrior disease, so now we have the same problems. Brought them with them they did. Congestion, overpopulation, loving the wilderness to death and hordes of weekend warriors out there. Impact is huge. The "trail" from the Monte Cristo trailhead on Quandary now is a braided eight lane jeep road. from trail head to the merge on the ridge 500 feet above timberline. From the trailhead to summit is a conga line of weekend warriors. Westbound Friday and Saturday traffic on I-70 west of Denver, and US24 west of Colorado Springs is bumper to bumper for up to 50 miles. Coming back, Sunday evening and night is the same. 

So politics creeps into R&E. 

To counter that, WE must post non political items permeated with controversy or intrigue. I posted a piece on easy music. Another on model of health care after education with establishment of health care districts to facilitate in the public option. Not from a political position, but an ethical one. This isn't about which candidate beats what drum. Its about the concept itself, apolitically, and not about any candidate behind it. If we have the capability, do we also have an ethical responsibility to implement it? 

Can't wait for somebody else to do it. Launch a religious or ethical idea and see where it goes. I'll do the same. 
 

Last edited by Pikes Peak 14115 (11/22/2019 12:56 pm)

Yeah, I saw..and decided to post a response to something, specifically because Ken's making an effort to rein in the constant political inanity.

Oh, and I popped in at Woodbines. Holy crap...Bauer's somehow managed to become even less rational than previously seen. Posting gems like "it's impossible that I am wrong," constantly "shouting" in all-caps, etc. What a mess.

Poppet wrote:

Yeah, I saw..and decided to post a response to something, specifically because Ken's making an effort to rein in the constant political inanity.

Oh, and I popped in at Woodbines. Holy crap...Bauer's somehow managed to become even less rational than previously seen. Posting gems like "it's impossible that I am wrong," constantly "shouting" in all-caps, etc. What a mess.

The thing with Woodbine's board is that there are some SUPER CRAZY posters there already, who absolutely LOVE to tweak folks and to post goofy things, so jb would fit in well.  I'm guessing that because I left the day that he and mongo showed up.  I'd been giving it serious thought anyway because of the crazy peeps who'd say the nuttiest things to serious issues and go on the attack on others.  I just don't have the energy to try to sort out the personalities or to deal with insincere and trolling idjits.  It's just not worth my time.  Now, with those two there, just FORGET IT.

Apparently, there's also another "wild west" board where several of the worst White Whiners post.  I stumbled across it a couple of months ago.  I read a little, and deliberately lost the link.  It's INSANE.  It's the White Whine board on steroids.
 

Siagiah wrote:

Poppet wrote:

I decided to take my leave over at R&E for a while, even before the bans expire. It's become 90% politics there (again), which I've always opposed for that forum. There are countless explicitly political boards, so unless unambiguously ethics-related, I think political posts should be disallowed on R&E. I've always advocated for that...for years and years.

I never, ever, ever introduce political posts on R&E anymore.  Not in a good long time, simply because Ken merely TOLERATES political posts and doesn't want them, so I feel like I'm taking advantage of his generosity in even tolerating them...  But more so because so many others already introduce them, well beyond what they are allowed even, that I feel like my added posts would just make things even worse for those who go there to get AWAY from politics.

It's a Religion & Ethics board for crissakes !!  Folks whom we don't allow on Blue as well as our fellow Blue board members CAN post on the White Whine Board or a multitude of other political boards, so WHY take advantage of Ken by doing it there too ??   I just don't get it.

I also don't get why Ken tolerates it AT ALL.  Particularly since he's had to remind folks many times.  Perhaps he's worried about losing members or activity ??  IDK.


 

I would actually take Ken's side on this one, and say that if your board is (half) about ethics, you HAVE to permit some political posting.  Politics is one area where matters of ethics literally come up every day, as we're seeing right now in regard to Trump and the impeachment process.  His actions in Ukraine were ALL about ethics (or lack of them).

The kind of posts which need to be taken down are ones like SES' idiotic, blurbling cries of joy over how Trump is now supposedly improving in the polls, and 'ain't it a-gonna be funny when he's re-elected, derp, derp!'  And just slandering of the other side, insults directed at politicians, parties, and participants, that sort of garbage.  I agree that holding people to a single political post (or two) per page is a good thing, but I'd further announce the rule I just cited.  Political ETHICS only.

FWIW

greenman wrote:

Bauer claims that, due to 'tremors' and a bad keyboard, he HAS to post in all-caps.  I just said, 'Sure, OK' because I suppose it MIGHT be true, but as you note, his 'shouting' approach to debate looks even worse than before. 

That claim is pure BUPKIS.  If someone has a keyboard problem, then they have a keyboard problem.  Using all caps changes NOTHING about the keyboard.  It only changes how the letters appear on a screen.  A "bad" keyboard or "tremors" are NOT "fixed" by using all caps either. 

If that's the entirety of his excuse, then he's BSing completely and there's nothing to "buy into".  If he makes a gazillion typos, that might be tremors, a sticky keyboard, or vision issues. 
 

Siagiah wrote:

greenman wrote:

I would actually take Ken's side on this one, and say that if your board is (half) about ethics, you HAVE to permit some political posting.  Politics is one area where matters of ethics literally come up every day, as we're seeing right now in regard to Trump and the impeachment process.  His actions in Ukraine were ALL about ethics (or lack of them).

The kind of posts which need to be taken down are ones like SES' idiotic, blurbling cries of joy over how Trump is now supposedly improving in the polls, and 'ain't it a-gonna be funny when he's re-elected, derp, derp!'  And just slandering of the other side, insults directed at politicians, parties, and participants, that sort of garbage.  I agree that holding people to a single political post (or two) per page is a good thing, but I'd further announce the rule I just cited.  Political ETHICS only.
FWIW

I don't disagree about ethical political posts.  Poppet had already mentioned that, so I was presuming that my comment about politics meant "pure politics".  That's pretty much what I said on R&E, that if the political post wasn't directly related to ETHICS or RELIGION then it didn't belong.  Of course, it's entirely up to him and his call.

Ken seems to have a huge concern for folks being unable to "rebut" things, so doesn't want to lock threads and cites that as a reason for not allowing discussions that include anyone banned because then he'd have to let them rebut.  On its face, that's silly IMHO. 
 

Yeah, I've heard that nonsense of his about 'having to allow rebuttals' by banned posters.  It's absurd.