Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway
Well it didn't take long for the crackdown on speech in the political forum to happen.
|
It's amusing to see a couple of you jackwagons whine repeatedly about having your free speech rights infringed when anyone opines that your nonstop nuisance forum-hogging is getting a bit old. It's as though you feel that the First Amendment is somehow being tossed aside or trampled on. This is a private forum and the site owners may impose any rules they see fit. If you want to spam forums to your heart's content, you're free to start your own site!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway
To be fair, it seems that Pro Obama threads should be allowed a 2x factor over the anti Obama threads - based on my observations.
|
Huh??
The screeching threads started by you (and to a lesser extent Barleycorn) have drowned out the pro-Obama threads for some time. Looks like you need to sharpen your observational skills a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway
Maybe it isn't a forum rule (equally applied) but just arbitrary enforcement by a Mod against people/opinions he doesn't like.
That is how liberals roll.
|
How liberals roll? Let me tell you something, Whirlaway, just in case you didn't know. I ain't a liberal. And I'm far from an Obama supporter. In fact, I think he's a terrible president, and completely unserious about much of anything other than talking, campaigning, and fund raising. But aside from a small number of people in your hellelujah chorus, everyone on this site regards you with utter contempt. You rarely post anything involving any insight or reasoned argument of your own. A perfect example is the new thread you started today just to post a careless gaffe by Michelle Obama. Typical. Who the fuck cares?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
It shouldn't be hard to come up with a workable anti-spam rule. How about this? Any time you start a thread that fails to generate at least 5 replies or 50 views within 72 hours, you get banned from starting any new threads for a week.
|
I like the general idea. The only problem as I see it is that the thread-starter's hallelujah chorus would probably conspire to take turns bumping the thread and return to it often enough to boost the view count, even if it's a completly pointless or repeticious thread, as almost all of Whirlaway's are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Who the hell cares? If you don't want to read a post, or a thread, DON'T!
|
Says the man who has started 1,896 threads. Yes,
1,896! (And I'd bet that more than 95% of them are political.)
You're certainly a fine one to speak to this issue, aren't you, professor?
But at least I'll give you this: Although you used to come in here and start at least a half-dozen or so fatuous threads every night, you've cooled it in recent months.
There are probably a lot of people on this site, new or otherwise, who pop into the Political Forum now and then. When they take a glance at some of the threads started by Whirlaway and Barleycorn, they probably think, "What the hell is up with these fucking idiots?" -- and then refrain from entering the discussions of topical issues.
A few people here remember the Houston Political Forum on ASPD. I visited it occasionally, but didn't keep up with it on a regular basis. The mods finally got tired of this sort of crap and imposed some fairly strict caps on activity. You guys please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they restricted posters to something like 4 total posts per day, and only one thread-start
per week. Although I wouldn't support something that draconian, in my view it would still be better than the current junk-filled forum.
But no one would ever even suggest such a thing if a couple of you buffoons would knock off all the ridiculous crap.
If somebody wants to post
20 times a day in existing threads, I couldn't care less -- and I'm not sure many others would, either. All the silly, pointless, redundant threads are what junk up the forum.
