Happy 50th Birthday

OK, you must expect me to have a goooood imagination.[image]
  Sort of like me saying I used to be a model.

-confused

Yeah, and I'm still a virgin, just ask my KIDS!

RINO, have at it with your idiotic threats, but neither I nor the Anderson Independent has any explaining to do to you or anybody else. Your confidentiality has been breached only by your own arrogance, not by anything or anybody beyond you.

Having said that, here's how I got that information - and it wasn't from Nick, or Lefora or anybody affiliated with the AIM.

If you'll look to the right of this screen, you'll see a green box that says "Recently Online." There are nine boxes there with the names of the nine most-recently online members. Some of those boxes will have a green dot in them. That, at least in theory, indicates somebody who is online right now or, at least, who was online the last time the screen was refreshed.

Many posters have complained that innocent posts are getting buried by a flurry of thumbs downs, and they're right. Citizen is the most recent victim (although I think that is more than just one poster's response to what he has to say.) Prior to that, posts by people like IBVirginia, PAPPY, The Queen, Wyatt (before you and he made peace), SSHM, Hankey and others were getting buried in a flurry of thumbs downs.

I started watching, RINO. Late at night, I would log down recent posts over the newest six or eight threads, noting what posts had what rating. Then I would see you log on (again, through that PUBLIC "recently online" feature that's accessible to you. The thumbs down totals on those you had recently had disputes with, or threatened would suddenly increase.

When RINO logged off, Honkeydonkey would log on. Your thumbs up total would increase, the thumbs down count on the aforementioned posters - regardless of how innocent the post was - would also increase. Honkeydonkey would log off, and Dadsgrl would show up. Same trend. Then Dadsgrl would log off and Sexythang would log on.

By the time it was over, innocent posts would have four thumbs downs, your own posts would have three or four thumbs ups, and you had made a mockery of community moderation. Now, you aren't the only one guilty of that, by the way, but you're certainly the most obvious one.

And that, RINO, is how I figured you out. Worthless, childish threats of legal action against me, NICK and AIM represent just one of many reasons why you're now permanently banned. You were given a chance after August 26 to clean up your act, grow up and be a part of the community again. Your foot-stomping and holding your breath until you turn blue until you get your way just don't fly anymore.

Zn decided he couldn't follow rules, and he hasn't been back. You, Hankey and Prevail cut a deal with Nick and had your posting rights restored. Prevail and Hankey have (mostly) kept their end of the bargain, but you just couldn't do it. You still can't do it.

Accept moderation, or don't accept moderation. There will be moderation here, or this forum will die, just as StraightTalk died (at the hands of some of the same people who are trying to turn this one into their own private bitchfest.)

And, Wyatt, that moderation will not be done by one person. Nick chose two people who lean left (IBVirginia and PAPPY) and two who lean right (Merrymacsc and me.) He might have chosen five to avoid tie votes, but ties aren't always bad, you know.

ALL OF US ARE FIRM BELIEVERS IN FREE SPEECH, and I totally agree with PAPPY that nobody should be banned simply for expressing an opinion.

But all of us recognize there is a time and a place for everything - there is a line that cannot be crossed in a community forum like this one. Asking for civility among posters is not unreasonable, nor is asking that those who post here do their best to keep it out of the gutter.

The beauty of team moderation is that all of us have a somewhat different idea of where that line is. But I suspect there will be times when all four of us will agree that it has been crossed.

I personally think that whenever one member is threatened by another, either directly or indirectly, it will qualify as one of those times.

Wyatt, I do not run this board, nor do I control its content. And if you think PAPPY and I are in lockstep, you don't know either me or him. Same with IBVirginia. We disagree politically on most things, but were were chosen - as was Merrymac - because we understand the concept of civility (even if we don't always practice it -and moderators can be warned or suspended just like any other member if we cross that line.)

That's all I have to say about RINO or anything else regarding moderation at the moment.

OK, JD. As usual I'm confused.  Am I Rino? If I am I must have forgotten what I wrote.  But why would it matter? I will say I am JD if it helps.

Don't ask me, Confused. I'm confused, so I don't have any idea who you are. You can be JD next week if you want to be, though.

OK, but I like being a woman and think I do a prettty good job of it.  So I think I'll stick to what I do best, plus my husband will be happier,    hopefulllly. 

JD, I just was trying to not have you all be so serious = once again.   I know how these forums can get and it's not worth it.

And, Wyatt, that moderation will not be done by one person. Nick chose two people who lean left (IBVirginia and PAPPY) and two who lean right (Merrymacsc and me.) ALL OF US ARE FIRM BELIEVERS IN FREE SPEECH, and I totally agree with PAPPY that nobody should be banned simply for expressing an opinion.

But all of recognize there is a time and a place for everything - there is a line that cannot be crossed in a community forum like this one. Asking for civility among posters is not unreasonable, nor is asking that those who post here do their best to keep it out of the gutter.

The beauty of team moderation is that all of us have a somewhat different idea of where that line is. But I suspect there will be times when all four of us will agree that it has been crossed.

I personally think that whenever one member is threatened by another, either directly or indirectly, it will qualify as one of those times.

Wyatt, I do not run this board, nor do I control its content. And if you think PAPPY and I are in lockstep, you don't know either me or him. Same with IBVirginia. We disagree politically on most things, but were were chosen - as was Merrymac - because we understand the concept of civility (even if we don't always practice it -and moderators can be warned or suspended just like any other member if we cross that line.)

That's all I have to say about RINO or anything else regarding moderation at the moment.

-jdtippett

Well jee whiz JD, now that you're throwing me into the mix, lemme add my OWN freedom of speech. At least while I still CAN.

1)  Your saying that civility is existent here is simply bullsh*t.  There is several who take insults and negative commentary daily from bloggers here, and by name have been shut out and let back and go about as free as they please.  From your post above, you already control this forum. Maybe not the content, yet.  It's getting there And by the by,  the panel should be composed of more than far lefters and far righters. Where's the neutrality ( like Art K.)  and where's the insanity ( like MYSELF for example? Not that I'd play well with others...)  that makes it fair?  It should be a panel of FIVE, with someone being the tiebreaker vote. Only because you have the inside scoop with AIM makes you the "logical" choice?  Didn't see any posts asking for volunteers or suggestions for membership. Not saying you can't do the job, just not FAIRLY and equally. Not saying Pappy won't be fair, just he is ...willing to agree with you three before an outsider. ( Still love ya Pappy, but really you do go along with JD way too often)  Maybe Mrs. Pappy would be the tie-breaker?  Just throwing ideas out there.

2)  Bitchfest eh?  I presume that is also directed at myself too..  So posting against rednecks, racists, haters, incompetent moms and social malcontents is bitching and not acceptable?  Oh damn, three swear words in one paragraph!  Another strike against me.  So by warning anyone, whats the consequence?  Because if warnings are being passed out like playing cards, I place you on double-secret Delta House probation for playing favorites and excluding/including at will.  Don't include me with ST riff-raff who still run their mouths on  http://tellit.lefora.com/forum/  even though the accused players are not playing any more. Nor are they "invited" to play in their personal sand boxes as ST was to them. I find this social oustracizing very disturbing.

3) Shutting off the debate about moderation shows how likely this new process will work. Do as I say or be deleted.  This MUST be open to debate, by all involved ( good, bad or like me, ug-leeee). Turning this into a private session will only insure this will have the same ten mebers as the http://tellit.lefora.com/forum/ site has.  Is that what you're looking for, a group of ten compliant soldiers?  Best of luck with the blog then guys & gals.

JD, I wish that I could be as complacant and indifferent as you're looking for. I ain't that character.  I harbor NO ILL WILL towards you at all.  I met you dude, and feel a small level of respect for your efforts to bring change ( oh my gawd, he's Obama!!!) It's just your reluctance to allow free expression by those not from here, or from repressed backgrounds, or such reserved thought processes.  Am curious how long it will take for members to be blocked.......

W and JD, how do you have the energy to write all of the looong mess that u do?  I can suggest better uses for the energy and am glad my husband doesn't post here.

Alright, Wyatt, let's go point by point on your post. And, contrary to what you may think, I do believe this discussion is both useful and necessary.

1. There is some civility here, but not everybody understands the concept. That's what moderation is about. When it becomes a personal pissing contest (See, Wyatt - I can cuss, too) between members or when one members is constantly threatening or challenging another member, it is NOT civility. Which bring me to,

2. PAPPY and are NOT always willing to agree, but, yes, he and I have backed down in debates against one another over the years. There's a reason for that. See, take the issue of the City of Anderson double-charging non-city residents for their water. I happen to agree that cities should have the right to charge a premium for water to non-city dwellers ... BUT, in this case, it directly affects PAPPY's bottom line (and Anderson is GOUGING in my opinion and abusing its rights.) I do not engage in debates with PAPPY because neither one of us is going to change, but we respect each other enough not to undermine each other. Same things on discussions regarding the War in Iraq. I generally avoid them, but occasionally I'll jump in. PAPPY has backed down in the past because, at the time, he knew I had a son in combat and was viewing the issue in PRACTICAL, REAL terms and not in philosophical or theoretical terms.  That never meant we agree on those issues. That simply means he and I have a lot of respect for one another and practices CIVILITY in our dealings. (There's that word again. Strange, huh?)

3. I'm sure Art was considered as a moderator, but if you'll notice, Art doesn't post here much lately. I wish he'd post as often as he once did, but the format change and other issues have apparently discouraged him. Perhaps he will become involved again. I hope.

4. I didn't throw you into the conversation with Honkeydonkey. You put yourself in it.I just followed up.

5. Nobody is "shutting off the debate" through moderation. Ron White (you may not know him, but he's a redneck/cowboy comedian) said when he was on the high school debate team, he once got so mad in a debate that he looked at his opponent and said, "Yeah, well, f*** you." He said, "I didn't know you couldn't do that ... shut him up though." Well, Wyatt and Ron, you can't do that. Moderation simply reminds everybody of that in the middle of a good debate.

6. You continue to blame everybody but yourself for the demise of StraightTalk. I never posted there, but I read it often. I know what happened. Be a man. Take part of the blame for a change - both over there, and over here.

7. Thanks for having some measure of respect for you. I also have considerable respect for you and your community activities. (And, by the way, I never, ever insulted or said anything negative about Angel. That isn't me, and if I did insult her somehow it was not intentional. You, on the other hand, I may have called just about anything in the heat of the moment.) Nobody has any intention of shutting off ideas or opinions, but I think most members really do want to avoid totally offensive words and ideas. The f-bomb may not shock some on here, but the n-bomb would shock almost everybody. Let me ask you this, Wyatt: If somebody from the KKK suddenly signed onto the board and started using that, would that be free speech and freedom of expression of the type you think should be totally protected, or would you think there should be a limit on that person? How about if somebody came on here and physically threatened somebody, giving information about where that person lived? Yeah, there are laws against that. That's moderation, Wyatt. Accept it.

8. How long before somebody is blocked?  have no idea. But I will tell you this. There are at least three of us (PAPPY, Virginia, and me) who aren't personally offended by much of anything in an appropriate setting (I do not know about Merrymacsc, but I can't believe there are words out there she hasn't heard before.) But not that "appropriate setting" bit. Wyatt, if you and I and our lovely wives were sitting around the table playing cards and pouring down a brew or two, I seriously doubt you could say anything that would shock or offend me. If, on the other hand, I'm in the grocery store with my 86-year-old mother, run into you and you throw an f-bomb, I'm probably going to be totally offended at your lack of respect for others whom you don't know. And that's the difference you don't seem to have any concept of. It's possible to engage in lively debates all day without being totally offensive to anybody who may drop by to read about Anderson politics. I agree with PAPPY again here. An occasional expletive to make a point or to emphasize an emotion is just fine and dandy. Profanity for the sake of profanity is a totally different animal.

9. As far as social ostracizing, I have no problem at all with RINO posting here as RINO as long as he doesn't threaten people or get into personal pissing contests with other members. Same with you. Same with anybody. RINO knew that when he was banned the first time. He apparently forgot. But I'd be willing to bet the panel of four moderators, including me, would be more than happy to restore his posting rights - if he'll behave.

10. I have no "inside track" at the AIM. I have no idea where anybody got that idea. Yes, I worked there for almost five years. I have worked there in more than 27 years other than a little bit of freelance stuff two or three years ago. The only person still there now who there when I left in 1981 (as far as I know) is Phil Batson. Give it up, Wyatt. They may like some of my posts that defend them, but I'l guarantee I've posted things that have had them pulling their hair out.

11. I am not "complacent and indifferent." I am every bit as much of a fighter as you are. I just prefer not to burn as many bridges behind me as you do. I might want to go back someday, and even though I'm a certified scuba diver, I'm not really a strong swimmer.

10. And let me close with something here that doesn't directly apply to anything you said in your post. It involves Saturday's blog luncheon where only The Queen and Noeline showed up. As I posted earlier, I said on August 31 that I wouldn't be there (perhaps I wasn't as direct with that as I should have been, but I did say it.) There was a reason, at that time, that I had decided to skip this one. The infamous "sin bin" incident happened in mid-August. By August 31, I was already being accused of singlehandedly having people thrown off here (I took partial responsibility when I re-posted one of my posts from that day, but I wasn't alone in objecting to what was going on.) RINO was already back and planning to attend the next luncheon (and reveal his police record, whooppeeee!), and you, Wyatt, were still ticked over the banning. Now,nether JDTippett nor I have ever backed down to any fear of personal harm, but at that time I already considered that my presence may have been disruptive. I would not have done that to bloggers who attended that luncheon. (Civility, remember?) Little did I realize that so many others, either through conflicting schedules of through having made the same decision I did, would bail on that one. So you and RINO.did accomplish something, I suppose, although I don't think either one of you intended that result.

Finally, Wyatt, I don't want to silence anyone or even change anyone. I just want everybody to respect each other and to respect all the members here and all of those non-members who stop by to see what's going on. Nobody wants to be subjected to what StraightTalk became. Nobody needs to be subjected to the hatred that shows on the AIM news sites that comes from some of the same people who have attempted to trash this site (and, Wyatt, I'm NOT including you in that group.)

In fact, Wyatt, I don't even care if I'm one of the moderators or not. I could send you a copy of an e-mail to Nick where I told him I'd be happy to do the job, but he should consider whether I may be too controversial to be accepted as a fair-minded moderator. That's part of the reason I'm posting this now. There were more than four people considered for the role. I have no idea who turned it down, for whatever reasons, or for that matter who it was even offered to. But I do know Nick has made the choice, and he has done it with an eye toward allowing this forum to survive.

All I can do at this point is ask that you give moderation a chance without mocking it, refusing to go along, or determining there's no way you can debate and be civil at thel same time. You can do it. We can all do it.

. 

And, Wyatt, one other note. I have no problem with those who "aren't from around here." My first wife was from Springfield, Illinois. My second wife was from Indianapolis, Indiana.

If either one of them had learned to sweeten the tea and NOT sweeten the cornbread, I wouldn't have had to find myself a third wife - this one a wonderful lady from Salem, South Carolina, who understands these things.

Furthermore, as I've said here, I lived in Charleston for almost three years back in the mid-1980s. I know you aren't going to believe this, but the difference in "culture" between upstate South Carolina and Charleston is darned near as stark as the difference between here and California, or here and Massachusetts. I mean, people from Summerville, for cryin' out loud, were told in Charleston, "You're not from around here, are you?"

Took me a year before I could even understand what our Geechie editor was saying, but once I learned to translate into comprehensible English - and once I learned not to ask dumb questions about why Charleston is segregated into THREE distinct sub-cultures (black, white and white with old money) - I got along with 'em just fine.

Pappy, JD, etc...  Yes, some had indicated here they were not coming, but had privately emailed me to say they would be there.  But that is not the issue.  The luncheon issue is not two women being ticked.  That is middle schoolish.   I am way too old to fret over that nonsense. Bottom line is BUSINESS.

It is hard to find a place that will book a room for no charge.  By having the room tied up, it cost the restaurant potential business.  That was not fair.  Mama Penn's charges a refundable deposit for their meeting room and now I understand why.