Frank Speaker Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Well there went another one (Political avatars). Whats up with that? That one seemed very civil with a good exchange of views and no one got hostile. Klipsch is sending mixed messages here. I thought Political was OK as long as its polite. I guess no politics is wanted here. It would be nice to know whats allowed so we dont invest intellectual energy in a thread that is doomed from the opening.
dgb Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Unless Klipsch is paying by the message, I can't see what the harm is in a little politics, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
Allan Songer Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 This is where we should go for politics. The "Outside Asylum" over at Audio Asylum is a great place for slinging mud--all they ask is that you don't make any PERSONAL attacks! http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/outside/bbs.html
Olorin Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Political posts were banned some time ago when a few members demonstrated an inability to work and play well with others. It was getting to the point where political posts were just inherently inflammatory. Now we have a similar situation with political avatars. It should be obvious that a political avatar is a political post, and the logical conclusion and consequence should be equally obvious.
dgb Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 The Christian Science Monitor used to have a terrific forum. There were posters from all over the world, including Islamic fanatics, Israeli Jews, Palistinians, French, Germans, just about anyone. You talk about an eye opening experience... Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be around anymore, at least not where it used to be.
Frank Speaker Posted September 8, 2004 Author Posted September 8, 2004 ---------------- On 9/8/2004 1:55:50 PM Olorin wrote: Political posts were banned some time ago when a few members demonstrated an inability to work and play well with others. It was getting to the point where political posts were just inherently inflammatory. Now we have a similar situation with political avatars. It should be obvious that a political avatar is a political post, and the logical conclusion and consequence should be equally obvious. ---------------- Olorin: I think most of us remember that, but I thought the point was to get rid of the flame wars and no flaming occurred in the "political avatars" thread. Amy seemed to indicate that the important thing is to be civil. I thought the only reason political threads were deleted is to stop the meanness. I can live with no politics here, it would just be nice to know what exactly is allowed.
Zeke_in_KC Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 ---------------- On 9/8/2004 1:55:50 PM Olorin wrote: It should be obvious that a political avatar is a political post, and the logical conclusion and consequence should be equally obvious. ---------------- "Concur." Thanks,
m00n Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 ---------------- On 9/8/2004 2:06:43 PM Zeke_in_KC wrote: ---------------- On 9/8/2004 1:55:50 PM Olorin wrote: It should be obvious that a political avatar is a political post, and the logical conclusion and consequence should be equally obvious. ---------------- "Concur." Thanks, ---------------- Give it up.
Olorin Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Hi Frank, Amy was of the opinion that the political threads always became mean. She have been right or she may have been wrong, but there was a fair amount of evidence to support her theory. She banned political threads entirely at that time. Again, she may have been right or she may have been wrong, but that was her decision to make. So, in roundabout answer to your question, a lot of things are allowed, but political threads are not among them. O
neo33 Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Oh Great Wizard Master, I seek your words of wisdom. Political aside, should any avatar that is deemed offesive to me also be banned? For instance, such as your? Oh Great Wizard Master, please tell me so!
dkp Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 I can understand why the thread was removed. There were too many instances of flaming either the canditates or one's opinion of the candidates. I do not mind the political avatars nor a good political debate. It is, however, a bit tiresome to read the flaming, which is what Amy was seeking to avoid on this forum. I am convinced that political, religious and many other topics would be fair game on this forum, as long as we play by the rules and actually debate-minus the name calling, etc. David
Tom Adams Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 "I can understand why the thread was removed. There were too many instances of flaming either the canditates or one's opinion of the candidates. I do not mind the political avatars nor a good political debate. It is, however, a bit tiresome to read the flaming, which is what Amy was seeking to avoid on this forum. I am convinced that political, religious and many other topics would be fair game on this forum, as long as we play by the rules and actually debate-minus the name calling, etc." (insert Cowardly Lion voice) Ain't it the truth....ain't it the truth. Tom
RickB Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 ---------------- On 9/8/2004 1:51:47 PM Allan Songer wrote: This is where we should go for politics. The "Outside Asylum" over at Audio Asylum is a great place for slinging mud--all they ask is that you don't make any PERSONAL attacks! http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/outside/bbs.html ---------------- Another good one to check out is the forum at Bill Mahers website. Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO is the best political show on TV. Nothin's sacred, everything and everybody are fair game. But you need an open mind to enjoy it. I've just recently started checking out the forum over there, it shows real promise.
m00n Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 ---------------- On 9/8/2004 3:37:55 PM tubelover wrote: They pulled the thread ---------------- Ha... Yeah. I have to say, I think that was the fastest growing thread I've ever seen here on this forum. Grew like a wild fire.
xcjago Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Perhaps it was removed because of the pornographic images that were posted. Unless, small pictures of hundreds of asshol*s is not considered pornographic.
m00n Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Well, if GW is an Ahole, then we need a picture like that of a bunch whiney little baby, hypocritical, media opportunistic, wishy washy, stand for nothing but GW Bashing images for John Kerry. That Really is all JK is about. Nothing. Anything the man says is pure lip service.
Recommended Posts