I was banned from ABC News!

[rdamurphy]

Cool! :p I posted a reply to this story (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5302756&page=1), and apparently, my comment was "inappropriate" and was deleted. :eek: Got a warning email that if I continued to post "offensive and demeaning" comments, I'd be banned permanently. :rolleyes:

Too much! :D

Robert

[rpicardi1]

Only liberals need reply. All others are banned.

[muskokaandtahoe]

You sound surprised. You shouldn't be. You always post offensive and demeaning comments here.

[Vince]

Cool! :p I posted a reply to this story (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5302756&page=1), and apparently, my comment was "inappropriate" and was deleted. :eek: Got a warning email that if I continued to post "offensive and demeaning" comments, I'd be banned permanently. :rolleyes:
Too much! :D
Robert

Well, I'm NOT a Liberial, only a neo-Constitutional American, but I'll respond anyway Ron.

ABC News is not a hard left wing orginazation, left center maybe but not as hard left as, for instance FoxNews being the the other direction, very hard right wing.
So you're suprised a moderate orginazation called your BS for what it was. Verbel Feces, was it?

And you're suprised? :eek:
Snicker, snicker, gufaw! This frequently happens to one such as you whose digestive system is running in reverse.

As is readily apparent by you posting this gem, you really dont have a clue, do you? :rolleyes:

[rdamurphy]

Gosh, Vince, you're really good with the ad homenims, have you ever posted anything that wasn't either an attack on someone's person, an appeal to ridicule, or some other kind of logical fallacy? Fox, hard right? Wow, Vince, showing your ignorance early this morning!

And Dave, really, gosh, it's funny how someone is "offensive and demeaning" just for disagreeing with you! I guess you could say I was the "anti-Liberal." I love how Liberals squeal and complain when their own tactics are used against them....

It's also fascinating how both you leapt to a conclusion without even knowing what I posted!

Robert

[Vince]

Gosh, Vince, you're really good with the ad homenims, have you ever posted anything that wasn't either an attack on someone's person, an appeal to ridicule, or some other kind of logical fallacy? Fox, hard right? Wow, Vince, showing your ignorance early this morning!
And Dave, really, gosh, it's funny how someone is "offensive and demeaning" just for disagreeing with you! I guess you could say I was the "anti-Liberal." I love how Liberals squeal and complain when their own tactics are used against them....
It's also fascinating how both you leapt to a conclusion without even knowing what I posted!
Robert

Sorry Robert, the old ad homenims dog wont hunt. I didn't attack you personally. Never would stoop to that level.

All I posted was a response to a post that YOU made calling attention to yourself, that others (ABC News in this case), independent of this board, have now verified what many others that have seen and made the exact same observations.

Just stating some rather obvious observational truths is not a personal attack as much as you'd like it to appear. Thats just called 'Inconvienient truths' sir.

IOW, it's obvious from the trash you post here is being (has now been)verified but other independent sources, and hey, thanks to you for posting independant verification of what many here already suspected or knew. :rolleyes:

And yes, we certainly do not know what you posted to the ABC News orginazation but if the calibre of your posts here and on other boards is any example, their labeling your post as "inappropriate" and "offensive and demeaning" is probably right on the mark. And no, I have no connection with ABC News.

So you see Robert, you have yet again let the entire world see you for what you are. Sad really, when someone puts neo-conservative values above being a good American citizen. :(

[muskokaandtahoe]

And Dave, really, gosh, it's funny how someone is "offensive and demeaning" just for disagreeing with you!

My low opinion of you was formed w/o regard to whether we agreed or disagreed on any specific topic.

I guess you could say I was the "anti-Liberal." I love how Liberals squeal and complain when their own tactics are used against them....

"the anti-liberal"? Don't make me laugh. And are you calling me a liberal? Now I will laugh.

Anything and anybody with whom you disagree is immediately categorized (e.g., liberal) and then viciously smeared. It is your modus operandi and it stains the whole forum.

Is that really what you want people to think of you?

[Paul1953]

#6000001 on the "Persons of Interest" list

See ya in Gitmo, Robert.

[rdamurphy]

Sorry Robert, the old ad homenims dog wont hunt. I didn't attack you personally. Never would stoop to that level.

"This frequently happens to one such as you whose digestive system is running in reverse."

"I know you're not stupid but are you just a fat little troll?" (Bold yours)

"Listen close cement head:"

I could go on for a while, but I think that illustrates my point. Oh, wait, perhaps you don't know what ad hominems are? Or what an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy looks like? Is that it? Or do you just not read what you wrote either?

Robert

[rdamurphy]

My low opinion of you was formed w/o regard to whether we agreed or disagreed on any specific topic.



"the anti-liberal"? Don't make me laugh. And are you calling me a liberal? Now I will laugh.

Anything and anybody with whom you disagree is immediately categorized (e.g., liberal) and then viciously smeared. It is your modus operandi and it stains the whole forum.

Is that really what you want people to think of you?

Actually, I wasn't referring to you, as far as your "low opinion," well, sorry about that, but I'm not going to stand around and let idiotic statments, and detrimental remarks, and liberal myths go unchallenged. That's how we got to the point we have in our history, with the media trumpeting perversions as completely normal, while the following is removed from a mainstream media website post as being offensive:


Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


As far as liberals are concerned, "by their fruits you will know them..."

Robert

[Paul1953]

Screeching inversions everywhere!

[jtr1962]

While I wouldn't consider that post offensive in the least (and I'm about as non-religious as they come), I would probably at the same time think it adds little of value to the discussion of the topic (perhaps the reason it was removed). Frankly, it's a Bible lesson. Nothing wrong with that given the proper audience but ABC News is obviously the worst possible place for stuff like that. Just understand that most of the world doesn't share the version of faith put forth in the Bible. There are many other faiths. There is also the option of none of the above. Absense of religion doesn't automatically predispose one to immoral, harmful acts, nor does being very religious prevent such acts. It's more about the character of the person than their religion. I'm personally not a big fan of homosexuality myself, but more from a biological perspective. The ultimate purpose of sex is to procreate. That is utterly impossible with same sex relations. I also think there is something inherently wrong with a person who defines themselves mainly by their sexuality as many homosexuals do. They just seem too one-dimensional for my tastes. They are a lot more interesting facets to one's personality than whom they choose to have sex with.

I'll also echo what some of the others have said about you. It's not so much what you say as how you've said it. The thing with Vinny and the penguins was a perfect example. While it was humorous at times, it was also plainly obvious to everyone else you were busting his chops for your own amusement.

[Paul1953]

The post is edited , of course, so we cant know what he said that got ABC's attention. Regardless, the Bible lesson does not aid his cause.

I do wonder about all this desire for attention tho'. While twice in one week isnt anything to write home about, the tenor of both threads is spinning off into territory full of "unintended consequences".

FAIC, live by the sword, die by the sword.

[rdamurphy]

While it was humorous at times, it was also plainly obvious to everyone else you were busting his chops for your own amusement.

Actually, it proved a point. He didn't read what I wrote. If he had, he would have seen the silliness of the penguin comment, just as everyone else did. I actually throw stuff out there to add a small slice of humour to stuff to take some of the edge off, I never expected what happened to actually happen.

But again, if Vince would actually READ the post, he would have spared himself some significant embarrassment, and amusement at his behalf.

To give an example, some of you know I finished my BS degree (a real one, seriously!) last year at the age of 45. When I took a Poli Sci course, one of the guys in the class threw out the "Bush is stupid" line, and I confronted him head on. The Prof, mildy amused, allowed the discussion to continue unabated, and it stayed very polite, with the other individual finally admitting to the fact that Bush really isn't stupid, he just didn't like him. (The basis of BDS). At the end of the course, after much discussion about Government and politics, the other gentleman and I became friends, ended up working together on a group project in our next class, and he became quite conservative in his leanings.

You see, the one positive cure to liberalism is: education.

Yes. I take the high moral ground, simply because liberals have given up any form of morality or ethical behavior as simply being "old fashioned" or "against nature" or "unpreventable because of raging hormones" or a dozen other lame excuses.

The funny thing is that the Bible talks quite a lot about about the foolishness of believing in your own morality, and encourages people to think and make the correct choices. Which is totally opposite of "if it feels good, do it!" liberal "thought." Jesus taught that there really are only two commandments. Love God, and love each other, and all of the law and prophets hang on those two individual priorities. Which is why Conservatives are more generous with their charity, more compassionate towards other, and believe in the greatness humankind, instead of the depressing slump of atheistic liberalism that depends on everyone else to solve their problems for them.

Paul is right, there are no Classical Liberals here, by definition, but modern American Liberalism has nothing to do with classical liberalism or anything else. It's closer to paganism than anything else...

Robert

[muskokaandtahoe]

It was moralizing. I'm not the least surprised it was pulled. Had he written something along the lines of "I don't believe anyone who is at such extreme odds with their own body -- to mutilate it so -- is likely to ever become a good parent" there'd have been no problem. That's an opinion that can be discussed. What part of that bible quote is going to lead to discussion under that news story? None; To use it that way is a moralizing condemnation used to close debate. It may be different in content from what's often posted here, but not in style.

[rgarber]

Given Bob's youthful exuberance in being thrown off a forum, he showered no one here with an insult. Examine for yourself, the first two posts are by Bob and Ron. Then you, Dave, came in with your belittling post without validation or substance attached. So where's you justification within the context of the Yard's rules that you felt so compelled to attack someone that probably has not offended you? For the most part, while Bob and Ron confront Liberal beliefs, I can't recall an originating post where he or Ron ever threw an insult directed at anyone here. Further, in subsequent posts, usually the originators of stone throwing are others and at him.

I one time hurled a gesture towards Ron's direction if for no other reason to stop provoking the many non-Liberals here who feel compelled to continually defend Liberal beliefs though Paul W insists there are none here that so subscribe.

I think the question here is, if you know what Bob is going to post and it is going to aggitate you, why read them? There's an old saying so applicable to so many of you who just can't resist the opportunity to pontificate and it goes something like this, whose the more foolish? The one who is the fool or the one who follows the fool?

In this case, many declare as Bob such and then continually wait with baited breath for his next post/response? Seems to me the truth is you guys are having fun doing this. So don't bemoan his existance here if you intend to continaully "come out and play" with him.

Seems to me you guys could play together much nicer if you debated him on substance (since you continually 'play') rather than get all huffy and hurl insults. Maybe a little moralizing is good after all?

:)

[muskokaandtahoe]

> For the most part, while Bob and Ron confront Liberal beliefs, I can't recall an originating post where he or Ron ever threw an insult directed
> at anyone here.

Rich, do an experiment. Dig up a handful of his posts and whereever the word liberal appears, subsitute the phrase "parishoners of Richs' church" and wherever the word conservatives appear, subsitute "parishoners of Roberts' church". Does it still read like a civil conversation? Does it give you the feeling you -- or anybody else -- can freely comment on topics here w/o being dragged into the mud? Or does it feel more like cheap, uniformed smears and attacks? A forum just as well avoided as anything?

> if you know what Bob is going to post and it is going to aggitate you, why read them?

If the software would let me suppress from my own viewing any specific poster, I would use it. But it doesn't.

My typical solution to that problem is to neither read or post here. I imagine I'm not the only one who takes that course. But on occasion, like now when my work PC is down for the count, boredom gets the better of me and I read... see the same old diatribes, get irritated, and if I'm particularly foolish, wade into the slime that is this forum on a typical day and make a comment or two.

So Rich, I do want to express my thanks for helping me get my priorities straight: rather than waste any more time here with the silly thought that this forum can ever be redeemed, I think instead I'll go find something useful to do.

[rgarber]

Like I said Dave, in originating threads like this one, Rob doesn't usually cast the first stone throw in any one particular in general, except at Libs. Now you know my position, I think the provacation is divisive. I don't agree with it. But nobody is stopping on my account so the best we can do sometimes, is to act as 'unwanted' referees.

And I absolutely agree with you Dave, we all could be doing much better things in here than going out of our way to make each other mad. We're all guilty of this. It's best if we can lower the volume and leave the name calling to people we don't know than people we do.

That's all I'm saying. Nothing personal directed at you or anybody else. Pretty soon we'll all be getting a new train sim to play with and I think we all be better served if we didn't go into it with bloodied noses.

This world will go on despite liberals and conservatives. We don't have to bring the war-room mentality in our own backyard just cause folks can't get along elsewhere.

There wasn't a tighter group in any community I can recall than us route builders. Let's stay that way.

[Hawk]

If the software would let me suppress from my own viewing any specific poster, I would use it. But it doesn't.
Have you considered adding specific persons to your 'Ignore List'? In that way you can not read their posts until you remove them from the list.
This forum software does offer that option.

[agentatascadero]

Cool! :p I posted a reply to this story (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5302756&page=1), and apparently, my comment was "inappropriate" and was deleted. :eek: Got a warning email that if I continued to post "offensive and demeaning" comments, I'd be banned permanently. :rolleyes:

Too much! :D

Robert

Had Mr Murphy actually posted his comments to ABC News, there might be something to discuss here. As it is, there is only Mr Murphy's ongoing commentary here to discuss. Outside of attacks on all things not him, all those things being "liberal" to him, well, there IS nothing outside that. It will be a more pleasant place here during his "disappearance". AA

[rdamurphy]

Oddly enough, I agree. I feel the same way about liberals. I would love it if they would just disappear off the planet. Especially since they, as you have sOoooo aptly illustrated, feel that way towards all things not liberals, and all those things being "conservative" to them. The world WAS a much more pleasant place before the advent of what we refer to liberalism's advent in the sixties. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, we were much better off without abortion, without epedimic proportions of teenage pregnancies, a pandemic of STD's among teenagers, Keynesian Ecomics, and a war on "poverty" that has left far more people in poverty than when it started, has left us with a $6 Trillion deficit, and almost bankrupted us.

Not to mention obstructive energy policies, Y2K, the Global warming silliness, and all of the other pablum coming out of the Democrat Party these days.

It will be a more pleasant place in the US after liberalism finally disappears. And taking into consideration the Roe Effect, that should be in another couple of decades...

Robert

[maiatcat]

text deleted

[Paul1953]

Liberalism's advent in the sixties? LOL!!!

I knew the Me Generation had a stilted sense of history, but thats frickin hilarious!