For all you Michele Bachman fans out there.

[witness23]

The reason I am posting this, is because a lot of what she has said in the public arena are the things that we regularly see repeated here in the soapbox, conservative radio and Fox News. These are pretty important issues she speaks about and continually rates no higher than a False rating.

Link: PolitiFact | The Truth-O-Meter report card on Michele Bachmann

By Louis Jacobson
Published on Tuesday, September 21st, 2010 at 11:28 a.m.


"Speaker Pelosi ... has been busy sticking the taxpayer with her $100,000 bar tab for alcohol on the military jets that she's flying."
Michele Bachmann, Friday, September 17th, 2010.

“Social Security, like I told you, is out of money. This year it is borrowing from the general treasury.”
Michele Bachmann, Friday, June 11th, 2010.

"The New England Journal of Medicine released a survey the week that President Obama signed Obamacare stating that over 30 percent of American physicians would leave the profession if the government took over health care."
Michele Bachmann, Sunday, March 28th, 2010.

"President Obama's bill won't bring down the costs (of health care) for average Americans -- or really for very few Americans, if any."
Michele Bachmann, Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010.

 

[Doggie Daddy]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[cheri1122]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Perfect example of the rude and childish comments that serve only to discourage folks from participating.

 

[Doggie Daddy]

Perfect example of the rude and childish comments that serve only to discourage folks from participating.

Would you be one of those folks ?

 

[cheri1122]

I would be one of the folks about to give up on the prospect of real dialogue in this forum, because of the lack of maturity and/or civility on display.
I can't help but wonder whether those who contribute mostly snide comments [here and on other forums] aren't actually hoping to drive new folks away and drag EO down, because that's exactly what they're doing.
If you've got some issues with Witness23, perhaps you could take it private, instead of belittling what he posts with the reply above, or calling him 'Sudsy', as you have several times. Neither of which is in any way an intelligent comment.

 

[Doggie Daddy]

I would be one of the folks about to give up on the prospect of real dialogue in this forum, because of the lack of maturity and/or civility on display.
I can't help but wonder whether those who contribute mostly snide comments [here and on other forums] aren't actually hoping to drive new folks away and drag EO down, because that's exactly what they're doing.
If you've got some issues with Witness23, perhaps you could take it private, instead of belittling what he posts with the reply above, or calling him 'Sudsy', as you have several times. Neither of which is in any way an intelligent comment.

Please feel free to put me on ignore, and as always,thanks for your commentary.

 

[cheri1122]

Please feel free to put me on ignore, and as always,thanks for your commentary.

'Ignore' being the cyber equivalent of putting one's head in the sand, I regret that I am incapable of accommodating your suggestion.
Nor can I reconcile the request to be ignored, with the act of posting on a public forum. Honorable folks are prepared to defend their words, and reply to questions - it's how intelligent adults communicate.
We may never achieve harmony on the Soapbox, but we really need to try for maturity and civility, at least. To that end, I will continue to point out comments that are neither.

 

[Doggie Daddy]

'Ignore' being the cyber equivalent of putting one's head in the sand, I regret that I am incapable of accommodating your suggestion.
Nor can I reconcile the request to be ignored, with the act of posting on a public forum. Honorable folks are prepared to defend their words, and reply to questions - it's how intelligent adults communicate.
We may never achieve harmony on the Soapbox, but we really need to try for maturity and civility, at least. To that end, I will continue to point out comments that are neither.

Again all good stuff and we should all strive to be as honorable as you, BRAVO.

 

[witness23]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I know, I know, facts with references (if you click on the link) are so boring.

 

[cheri1122]

I know, I know, facts with references (if you click on the link) are so boring.

No, they aren't - they just require effort, and it's so much easier to be snide, sarcastic, and childish instead.
Appreciate the effort to introduce something other than the usual here.

 

[Doggie Daddy]

I know, I know, facts with references (if you click on the link) are so boring.

Gotta admit,I didn't click on the link. But it has been my finding that if you search hard enough that there is always a site that will back up any claim that you wanna make.

"The ice is melting,we are all going to drown"

 

[dieseldiva]

I would be one of the folks about to give up on the prospect of real dialogue in this forum, because of the lack of maturity and/or civility on display.
I can't help but wonder whether those who contribute mostly snide comments [here and on other forums] aren't actually hoping to drive new folks away and drag EO down, because that's exactly what they're doing.
If you've got some issues with Witness23, perhaps you could take it private, instead of belittling what he posts with the reply above, or calling him 'Sudsy', as you have several times. Neither of which is in any way an intelligent comment.

I wasn't going to interject myself into your ****ing match with Doggie but this post brings up a question and I think, a valid one.

If your concern is truly for the good of the site/forum, are you an equal opportunity "spoiler" of the posts of others (those that you are in agreement with) when they post such immature and uncivil comments to the membership?? Happens regularly, maybe you missed it??

I could post their names but I'm sure it isn't necessary, you know of whom I speak. If you're going to remain fair and balanced here and you truly want peace between all of us (which would be a good thing IMHO) then I'll ask you to go back through your posts and give us a link to your words of criticism toward the others that I refer to.

 

[cheri1122]

I wasn't going to interject myself into your ****ing match with Doggie but this post brings up a question and I think, a valid one.

If your concern is truly for the good of the site/forum, are you an equal opportunity "spoiler" of the posts of others (those that you are in agreement with) when they post such immature and uncivil comments to the membership?? Happens regularly, maybe you missed it??

I could post their names but I'm sure it isn't necessary, you know of whom I speak. If you're going to remain fair and balanced here and you truly want peace between all of us (which would be a good thing IMHO) then I'll ask you to go back through your posts and give us a link to your words of criticism toward the others that I refer to.

What I know is that sometimes, folks are provoked into a rash and/or rude response, in which case, it's understandable. I'm taking baby steps, in responding to unprovoked rudeness here. [Particularly repeated and unprovoked, which is the case with DD vs Witness23, IMO.]
If you can provide examples of the posts to which you refer, I'll try to defend them.

 

[dieseldiva]

What I know is that sometimes, folks are provoked into a rash and/or rude response, in which case, it's understandable. I'm taking baby steps, in responding to unprovoked rudeness here. [Particularly repeated and unprovoked, which is the case with DD vs Witness23, IMO.]
If you can provide examples of the posts to which you refer, I'll try to defend them.

I see....so your "official" stance is that rash, rude, immature, and uncivil responses are acceptable if one has been "provoked"? Isn't that neglecting taking personal responsibility for what one says??

Whether or not DD has ever/never been provoked by witness23 would take research for me as I don't honestly keep track. He, though, could probably answer that, if he chooses, in a heartbeat.

I won't be providing any of the posts to which you refer. You were the one making the original accusations of immaturity and lack of civility, I merely challenged you to show us where you had the same problem with posts of similar nature that were made by those that you ordinarily and regularly agree with. The burden of proof, it would seem, is on you.

 

[cheri1122]

I see....so your "official" stance is that rash, rude, immature, and uncivil responses are acceptable if one has been "provoked"? Isn't that neglecting taking personal responsibility for what one says??
It's accepting that provocation explains the motive for some remarks, and its' absence is remarkable, and I so remarked.

Whether or not DD has ever/never been provoked by witness23 would take research for me as I don't honestly keep track. He, though, could probably answer that, if he chooses, in a heartbeat.
Perhaps he could - but as he doesn't, maybe not.

I won't be providing any of the posts to which you refer. You were the one making the original accusations of immaturity and lack of civility,
And the posts to which I refer remain right in front of our eyes.
I merely challenged you to show us where you had the same problem with posts of similar nature that were made by those that you ordinarily and regularly agree with. The burden of proof, it would seem, is on you.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. If you claim I did it, it's up to you to provide evidence of my guilt. Until you do, I remain innocent of the charge.
I'm ready when you are......

 

[Doggie Daddy]

The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. If you claim I did it, it's up to you to provide evidence of my guilt. Until you do, I remain innocent of the charge.
I'm ready when you are......

There would not be a post to find,as the absence of a post is you giving your buddies a free pass. Guilty as charged.

 

[dieseldiva]

Ok, I'll post one, but just one. My most recent example would be this latest debacle concerning one member calling another a name. I realize that there's much more to the story than what I'm quoting but the quote is dealing with what you and I are discussing in this thread.

Where was your cry of foul when this instance of name-calling took place?

And where was your defense of me when I was accused of having multiple screen names and held up for ridicule, after all, the accusation was unsubstantiated.

Were these two examples immature, uncivil, rude, etc.?? Or were the crickets chirping because the author happens to be a good buddy of yours?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieseldiva
Either way, will you be apologizing publicly for calling aristotle "a dick"??

Turtle's respone:

The man posted contents of a PM in public. I never apologize for the truth.

You gonna apologize to the EO members for using multiple screen names - again?

And then getting busted by such a rookie mistake. BBWWWAAAHHHAAAA
God, how pathetic.

 

[cheri1122]

Turtle's response to Aristotle was after several requests from Turtle and myself went unanswered - but the posting of confidential information, followed by a mudslinging campaign certainly qualifies Aristotle for the appellation, IMO. Unprovoked, it would have been a different kettle of fish.
As far as the allegations of your creating multiple usernames, I have no idea whether it's true or not, so have stayed out of it. If the accusation is false, you need to pursue it - but not with me.

 

[cheri1122]

There would not be a post to find,as the absence of a post is you giving your buddies a free pass. Guilty as charged.

Rather telling, how you [and your other half] have turned it around to be about me, but can't back up the charges.
Whereas I've provided several examples of your targeting Witness, without provocation, and you haven't apologized.
Turtle was provoked, repeatedly and seriously - what's your excuse?

 

[dieseldiva]

Turtle's response to Aristotle was after several requests from Turtle and myself went unanswered - but the posting of confidential information, followed by a mudslinging campaign certainly qualifies Aristotle for the appellation, IMO. Unprovoked, it would have been a different kettle of fish.

So, you're still going on that provoked/unprovoked thing. I guess we just don't think the same. Why are you able to see that the posting of confidential information was wrong, and against forum rules, and you cannot see the same thing about name calling, which is also wrong and against forum rules.

This takes me back to my original question to you......why do you defend the name calling, etc., in the name of so-called provocation, when it's one of your "buddies"? Seems to me that wrong is wrong, no matter who is involved......but maybe we just don't think the same.