Watch this one get deleted...

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Ok I can understand what you are saying abou the funds being refused to New Orleans...and as we see now that was a mistake. But my point is how could he have KNOWN what was to happen!?!

BECAUSE FEMA HAS BEEN REFERRING TO IT AS ONE OF THE "THREE MOST LIKELY U.S. DISASTERS" FOR YEARS.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

My major point is that Cindy has turned into a lying, media whore who will now make any rediculous statement against the president to gain her some attention...is it even about her son anymore?

Classy. Care to inform me about what lies she's told? I can guarantee you that if she did, they're in no way comparable to the sheer number of lies Shrub has told.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I'm hoping Guza and Pratt are fired soon as head writers of GH! I mean don't get me wrong Carly used to be my fav. character, and I suppose she still is...but now all of her world is wrapped up in SONNY SONNY SONNY!

ABC DAYTIME GET WITH IT!

I'd rather have dinner with Bush than watch ABC soaps. Not really, but you get my drift.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

It's easy to say "he should've given more money" - but sadly the government's pockets aren't bottomless. And frankly it's doubtful that any amount of money could have made New Orleans come out of this OK.



Yes, there would be more national guardsmen don't there if it weren't for the war. However, the lack of then did not "cause" devastation. Katrina did. And there's no getting around that, no matter how hard some try to turn this into a partisan talking point.

Thanks Nancy,

You are wise! haha

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by Sugar

The problem is that it seemed to be spilling into a lot of threads; not just ones that were evident by the thread name and not just on the Chit chat forum. It wasn't as easy as just "avoiding the offending threads."

That was why I said people should avoid what they consider the offensive posts. I realize that they are in various threads and sometimes pop up out of the blue, but I still think people can ignore them.

...If your mother asked you to watch your language because she didn't want your 13 year old cousin who was in the next room to hear it, would you be this outraged?

No, since it's my family and all, but I would be very annoyed. I don't like to censor my language for anyone's sake usually, but then again I don't hang around kids very often. I'm very willing to self-moderate in a classroom or professional setting, of course. But I guess that goes without saying.

But then again this isn't really for me. I'm saying this because it's something I want, but not for my own use, if that makes sense. I don't know of very many sexually explicit things to say. I am a self-professed virgin (I'm thinking that's probably irrelevant but there it is) and I can say that I never talk like a lot of the people on this board talk. I don't have it in me. But I feel that they should be able to do so.

I know that a lot of people want to eliminate all the sex on TV, in movies, and in video games for the sake of young people but I just disagree. I think the U.S. is far too rigid about sex; I think that contributes to some of our rampant homophobia, too. I find it bizarre that we watch sexual content so closely when there is so much violence on TV, in movies, etc. that is out there for kids to see. I find that more disturbing. JMO.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

And I totally see your point.

Guess we can always use those millions the celebs have given...oh wait...they haven't...hmmm

Actually, several celebrities are already donating money to the relief effort, and telethons are in the works to help raise more money.

Beyond that, though, I don't see why it should be left up to celebrities to help clean up this mess. They're not running the government. They're not making the policies that effect our lives. They're not denying critical funding to our communities. They're not spending billions of dollars on a war that's nothing more than an ego trip.
They're just celebrities.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

It's easy to say "he should've given more money" - but sadly the government's pockets aren't bottomless.

Tell that to Don Vito Two in the White House.

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Yes, there would be more national guardsmen don't there if it weren't for the war. However, the lack of then did not "cause" devastation. Katrina did. And there's no getting around that, no matter how hard some try to turn this into a partisan talking point.

More guardsmen there wouldn't have curbed some of the devastation? I disagree. If there were more guardsmen there, New Orleans wouldn't be nearly as chaotic and devastated as it is right now by gangs, looters, and crooks. More guardsmen would have equated more help, which would have equated less devastation caused by such chaos. No one in their right mind is arguing that the lack of guardsmen resulted in more devastation from the hurricane itself, certainly not Cindy. That's absurd.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Actually, several celebrities are already donating money to the relief effort, and telethons are in the works to help raise more money.

Beyond that, though, I don't see why it should be left up to celebrities to help clean up this mess. They're not running the government. They're not making the policies that effect our lives. They're not denying critical funding to our communities. They're not spending billions of dollars on a war that's nothing more than an ego trip.
They're just celebrities.

Im glad that some are putting efforts together to help...I hadn't heard anything yet so I didn't know.

I also agree with you about the celebs...it is not up to them. The only reason I brought it up is because they were so quick to throw their money into the Tsunami relief effort...which was wonderful because it was needed...but I just hadn't seen the same thing happen here yet...but thanks for clearing it up for me.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

And I totally see your point.

Guess we can always use those millions the celebs have given...oh wait...they haven't...hmmm

I find it tacky for celebrities to tout their charitable donations, but that's just me. Don't assume that none of them haven't donated anything simply because they had enough class not to put out a press release.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Tell that to Don Vito Two in the White House.



More guardsmen there wouldn't have curbed some of the devastation? I disagree. If there were more guardsmen there, New Orleans wouldn't be nearly as chaotic and devastated as it is right now by gangs, looters, and crooks. More guardsmen would have equated more help, which would have equated less devastation caused by such chaos. No one in their right mind is arguing that the lack of guardsmen resulted in more devastation from the hurricane itself, certainly not Cindy. That's absurd.

That seems self evident to me. I'm watching the news right now, and the leaders of the state are talking about the slow response, and the lack of national guardsmen. It seem ludicrous to say "well, but people being gone at the war didn't cause Katrina" - of course it didn't - it's just contributing heavily to the amount of chaos and carnage, for the reasons Diss just said.
More people to help = more help. pretty simple.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Too bad I missed most of this thread..the point is we are spending roughly $1000 per second in Iraq..that could be used many different and better places here IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. Sure, the government's wallets have their limits so to speak---but it's about spending wisely, and that they have not. They cut important programs, to keep money pouring into the big mistake of Bush's presidency-Iraq.
And there's nothing to show for the money. For the most part Iraq is not at all safer than even when Saddam was in power, and terrorism is on the rise, why? Is the $1000 a second not doing a damned thing? That's right , it's not. So no people aren't blaming natural disasters on the president, but when you see poverty here in our own country and people doing without, especially in these terribles situations like Katrina--it's natural to think where all the money is going. It's going to an effort the majority of Americans no longer support, an endless effort leading to nowhere. So I think we have every right to blame every lack of money on President Bush.

Chris

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

That was why I said people should avoid what they consider the offensive posts. I realize that they are in various threads and sometimes pop up out of the blue, but I still think people can ignore them.

No, since it's my family and all, but I would be very annoyed. I don't like to censor my language for anyone's sake usually, but then again I don't hang around kids very often. I'm very willing to self-moderate in a classroom or professional setting, of course. But I guess that goes without saying.

But then again this isn't really for me. I'm saying this because it's something I want, but not for my own use, if that makes sense. I don't know of very many sexually explicit things to say. I am a self-professed virgin (I'm thinking that's probably irrelevant but there it is) and I can say that I never talk like a lot of the people on this board talk. I don't have it in me. But I feel that they should be able to do so.

I know that a lot of people want to eliminate all the sex on TV, in movies, and in video games for the sake of young people but I just disagree. I think the U.S. is far too rigid about sex; I think that contributes to some of our rampant homophobia, too. I find it bizarre that we watch sexual content so closely when there is so much violence on TV, in movies, etc. that is out there for kids to see. I find that more disturbing. JMO.
[/COLOR]

You make good points, and I tend to agree that our country is far too preoccupied with censoring sexual material and far too permissive when it comes to violence.

However, this board doesn't come with it's own little TV-MA rating. Instead, we have rules in place to insure that this is a welcoming forum for ALL ages and sensibilities.
Some will feel we're too strict, others will feel we're too lenient. We'll never please everyone no matter how hard we try, but we do need to "get back to basics" where our forum rules are concerned.

One can still be flirty and a little "naughty" from time to time, without going over the line. We used to do it before, there's no reason we can't do it again.
And if there's something more explicit that one wishes to say to a friend, there are always private messaging systems, including the one here on the Ledge.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Not really.


The Indigo Girls Official Site BBS was once a thriving, living, breathing thing with all different kinds of people and all different kinds of discussions. Things around there were almost self-moderated. A new moderator took over and started deleting threads. Pretty soon it led to people being banned, for various reasons. Soon there were direct complaints to the artists' management about how much fan support the band was losing because of the board moderation. Over there, there was a lot of grass roots "street team" support of the IG's concerts, releases and appearances- large groups of fans would literally follow them along for long stretches of their tours.

Because of the moderation of that board, the majority of the core supporters left. The artists intervened and altered things a bit, but it was too late. The board was poisoned and it died. There's only little bits and scraps there now- a burnt-out shell of its former self.

Deleting threads and posts that border on censorship (in my opinion) are not a good harbinger for the life of any forum. We are all grown up enough around here (even the Ledgies under 18 are wise enough as far as I'm concerned) to handle "baiting" or "flaming" or whatever you want to call it. There have been many instances in the past where I have seen certain people go too far and, for the most part, those affected have weathered through it. I'd rather have the forum be too challenging then not challenging at all.

Sadly, people are being driven off the Ledge too. We have lost many long term members over the years and it seems like people just become accustomed to the constant turnover of posters. A few core people remain, mostly cliques of people who band together and support each other. The fact that alot of articulate, knowledgable fans who happened to have differing opinions from the masses (or moderators) have been upset enough to leave altogether really saddens me. One of my all time favorite posters, someone who was deeply knowledgable and very articulate, was driven off because she felt no one listened to her opinions because they differed from the stronger board members. (one or two people always ganged up on her and rarely listed to her with an open mind) The sad part was she was really right on with so much of what she said. Unfortunately, she did not share the common views. Another of my closest friends feels totally disheartened by the tone around here lately and has pretty much decided to move on. We are all adults, we should be able to take care of ourselves and we should also be responsible for what we say to one another. Marty and Lis own the board and they can have any rules they want and the rules seem fair enough to me. If the sexual content is too much for some and you are asked to tone it down, so what?? You are not being asked to stop it completely, just tone it down because you do not own this board and the owners requested you to. It is a matter of respect. You are entitled to your free speech but we all have bounderies and rules in life and this board is no different. I could care less about the sexual talk, I am pretty non uptight and it usually makes me laugh but I understand that some people are uncomfortable with it. I accept that and respect the owners enough to just play by the very limited rules. I think sometimes it goes overboard and personally, I do not come to this board to read about people's sexual desires, feelings, conquests, etc but this board has a chit chat section and we are free to discuss whatever we want as along as it doesn't violate any rules. When it spills over into the Stevie forum, I either read it or not, depending on who the poster is and what they are talking about. Certain people seem kind of preoccupied by sex......
Anyhoo, I don't even know why I posted this stuff...I predict some people will say that "it was their decisions to leave the board, they decided to do that on their own, no one forced them off". That is all true but maybe some people will think about how they have treated others around here. Is it really necessary to be so haughty?? Is it really necessary to come after a specific poster with guns blazing because they say certain things about Stevie that you may not like, even if these things might be true? It is really necessary to use the rolling eyes emoticon so much? Are threads really being deleted for valid reasons or are personal opinions influencing that decision? (I am not accusing, I am asking..I really do not know) I can be snarky, too but hopefully I have never run valuable posters completely off the board.
Fire away.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Sadly, people are being driven off the Ledge too. We have lost many long term members over the years and it seems like people just become accustomed to the constant turnover of posters. A few core people remain, mostly cliques of people who band together and support each other. The fact that alot of articulate, knowledgable fans who happened to have differing opinions from the masses (or moderators) have been upset enough to leave altogether really saddens me. One of my all time favorite posters, someone who was deeply knowledgable and very articulate, was driven off because she felt no one listened to her opinions because they differed from the stronger board members. (one or two people always ganged up on her and rarely listed to her with an open mind) The sad part was she was really right on with so much of what she said. Unfortunately, she did not share the common views. Another of my closest friends feels totally disheartened by the tone around here lately and has pretty much decided to move on. We are all adults, we should be able to take care of ourselves and we should also be responsible for what we say to one another. Marty and Lis own the board and they can have any rules they want and the rules seem fair enough to me. If the sexual content is too much for some and you are asked to tone it down, so what?? You are not being asked to stop it completely, just tone it down because you do not own this board and the owners requested you to. It is a matter of respect. You are entitled to your free speech but we all have bounderies and rules in life and this board is no different. I could care less about the sexual talk, I am pretty non uptight and it usually makes me laugh but I understand that some people are uncomfortable with it. I accept that and respect the owners enough to just play by the very limited rules. I think sometimes it goes overboard and personally, I do not come to this board to read about people's sexual desires, feelings, conquests, etc but this board has a chit chat section and we are free to discuss whatever we want as along as it doesn't violate any rules. When it spills over into the Stevie forum, I either read it or not, depending on who the poster is and what they are talking about. Certain people seem kind of preoccupied by sex......
Anyhoo, I don't even know why I posted this stuff...I predict some people will say that "it was their decisions to leave the board, they decided to do that on their own, no one forced them off". That is all true but maybe some people will think about how they have treated others around here. Is it really necessary to be so haughty?? Is it really necessary to come after a specific poster with guns blazing because they say certain things about Stevie that you may not like, even if these things might be true? It is really necessary to use the rolling eyes emoticon so much? Are threads really being deleted for valid reasons or are personal opinions influencing that decision? (I am not accusing, I am asking..I really do not know) I can be snarky, too but hopefully I have never run valuable posters completely off the board.
Fire away.

Great post, Kelly.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Hey, I've seen in my own family what the death of child does to a person. If her rage, anger, and grief are half of what they've been for my relatives, it's honestly easy for me to see why she's acting this way. In her situation, there is no logic, just basic, raw, primal emotions. See it for what it REALLY is. It's much easier to understand it than to be critical of it. Is it inhumane to challenge her statements? Yes. Not because of her feelings, but because of what it says about us. I'd like to think we're better than that.

Calling her a crazy lady is out of line to me for the reasons you stated above, it is a low blow. Everything I read on that site that was linked made me sick, literally. This is probably due to a "liberal bias". So be it. I did not delete the thread nor would I have but I do know why Chris did and I stand behind her decision to do it. It was going to open up a can of worms, we've been down that road before with folks deliberately stirring things up.

Obviously no one was very interested in debating the actual issue at hand and was more interested in pointing fingers as in "you have this belief" and "you have that belief" and nit picking and a whole lot of other BS. If you want to debate the Sheehan issue then debate it. All of this finger pointing is giving me an ulcer and I'm tired of it. Let's talk about the issue, if you are so concerned about it. Please stop making this about personalities and get back to the topic.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Calling her a crazy lady is out of line to me for the reasons you stated above, it is a low blow. Everything I read on that site that was linked made me sick, literally. This is probably due to a "liberal bias". So be it. I did not delete the thread nor would I have but I do know why Chris did and I stand behind her decision to do it. It was going to open up a can of worms, we've been down that road before with folks deliberately stirring things up.

Yes, we have been down that road plenty of times, but Brandon was not trying to stir things up. He really did just want to discuss it.

If the link was deleted because it was a message board; I'll say as others have said that it isn't a message board. But I don't want to keep harping on it.

Obviously no one was very interested in debating the actual issue at hand and was more interested in pointing fingers as in "you have this belief" and "you have that belief" and nit picking and a whole lot of other BS. If you want to debate the Sheehan issue then debate it. All of this finger pointing is giving me an ulcer and I'm tired of it. Let's talk about the issue, if you are so concerned about it. Please stop making this about personalities and get back to the topic.

I don't see that. I saw Josh, Brian, Brandon, and others actually discussing the issue. Steve had a point when he said that talk of homosexuality can easily turn into a bad situation on this board, but that doesn't enter into this.

But I am really sorry that this is upsetting you. I really don't want you to be. I would be the same way but so many other things on this board have upset me to the point of being miserable that I just don't have it in me any longer.

[hayley]

While this thread may be dying a slow death, I still feel the need to dredge it all up again because of how incensed I've gotten reading it.

It seems like so far people in this thread are upset with the changes in Ledge moderation for two reasons: A) Free speech, yadda yadda; or B) Feeling that gldstwmn is showing a liberal bias in her moderation and squelching conservative discussion.

My problem has nothing to do with either of these (tired) arguments. It's the absolute disregard Chris seems to be approaching people with. Deleting threads right and left, with moderators contradicting themselves on the reasoning, and then responding to questioning with rude responses IS my problem.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I have the RIGHT to demand an explination about why my post was deleted.

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Actually, you don't.

That kind of attitude is ridiculous and blows my mind. And is unspeakably rude to all of the people who have made this their Internet home, some of whom spend their own dollars to help support it.

Sure, there may have been problems with language and all the sex talk and whatever else, due to the laissez-faire moderation that's been going on here for a couple of years. Trying to quelch it by going opposite and killing discussion and treating members like five year olds who need to have their mouths washed out with soap isn't going to help. It will kill this board.

Obviously, most of the moderators are new, and are getting their footing with all of this. I just don't like where it's started off at. It's just a level of sheer gravitas that astounds me to treat posters like that, and to act as if there should be no accountability when multiple threads, including those asking what just happened, are deleted. I, for one, hope that this 'delete first, make up reasons why later' trend is one that doesn't last much longer.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archi...a-bushs-fault/

Btw, I find this article appallingly disgusting, sloppy, and full of distortion. But this BLOG is no more one-sided or distorted than many of the lberal-slanted articles and blogs posted in other threads.