The Meeting In The Middle (of the Mud Pit) Thread (1 Viewer)

[Dadsdream]

A while back, a Liberal friend of mine . . . ok, stop laughing . . . and I started having a bit of side conversations via chat.

A few excerpts:

- At least we have a discourse going. So, let's start with that and see if we can agree on something.

- This is an Internet opinion board and we are free to choose to participate or not participate. On that, I think we can agree.

- I'll stop being condescending if you stop being presumptuous and insulting enough to say I'm behaving like a child.

- We are at different life stages, with differing knowledge, experience and education levels, so that's to be expected and I accept that.

- Einstein called it RELATIVITY. Perhaps you've heard the term? See? If one does not take care, words can thoughtlessly take on a highly sarcastic tone.

- If you want truth, go down the hall to the Philosophy class. Here, we deal in Facts.

- See, that's the problem. You seem to want to speak for everybody else and silence anybody who disagrees with you.

At that point, my newfound "friend" suggested it might be fun to continue the conversation as a thread here in the Mud Pit.

So, here we are, giving it a shot!

 

[insidejob]

Whatever. You're a fraud.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

A while back, a Liberal friend of mine . . . ok, stop laughing . . . and I started having a bit of side conversations via chat.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm chuckling a little as well.

A few excerpts:

- At least we have a discourse going. So, let's start with that and see if we can agree on something.

I still agree.

- This is an Internet opinion board and we are free to choose to participate or not participate. On that, I think we can agree.

I still agree, with the same caveat as before. Anyone that is unable to fully contribute- someone that is prevented in some way from answering questions, for example- should consider whether their participation is helping or hindering conversation.

If a new poster named InternFan69 joins and participates, then refuses to answer questions because it might reveal classified information, we should all be able to PM that person (who is totally not Bill Clinton) and tell him that it is better for the board if people can participate fully and cite their sources as opposed to expecting people to take it on faith, then hiding behind excuses when answering might put him in a corner from which he can't escape.

- I'll stop being condescending if you stop being presumptuous and insulting enough to say I'm behaving like a child.

Given our desire to participate here in an effort to facilitate change, I think we can assume this will end.

- We are at different life stages, with differing knowledge, experience and education levels, so that's to be expected and I accept that.

To put this in full context: You said this after I pointed out something that was factually correct. I will recap it here for everyone. People were talking about how Trump specifically profits from his office by taking trips to properties he owns, then having those properties charge the federal government for things like room rentals, food, golf carts, etc.

You said that many presidents did things like that while in office. When pressed for examples, you said Taft needed a bigger bathtub and the Navy spent money on a state of the art birthing suite for Jackie Kennedy.

When it was pointed out that these are not the same because Taft and Kennedy (as well as other examples given) were not examples of those presidents making a personal profit by using taxpayer money to financially benefit their personal businesses.

Quite frankly, your comment was far more insulting than anything I've ever lobbed at you.

- Einstein called it RELATIVITY. Perhaps you've heard the term? See? If one does not take care, words can thoughtlessly take on a highly sarcastic tone.

This was part of a larger response designed to deflect rather than engage.

- If you want truth, go down the hall to the Philosophy class. Here, we deal in Facts.

Same as above, after I again attempted to engage you in an exercise to reevaluate our own opinions.

- See, that's the problem. You seem to want to speak for everybody else and silence anybody who disagrees with you.

I have done nothing of the sort, and in fact have said more than once that I am trying to speak only for myself. However, now that this is here, I hope that as many people as possible will weigh in.

At that point, my newfound "friend" suggested it might be fun to continue the conversation as a thread here in the Mud Pit.

So, here we are, giving it a shot!

I hope this picks up traction and becomes a legitimate chance for people to air grievances and come together.

Either that, or I'm just going to smack talk the ever loving hell out of you until you run home to cry into your pillow. I haven't decided yet.

 

[RegularChuck]

You two exhibitionist love birds need to get a room. You could draw out some demons people are trying to surpress.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You two exhibitionist love birds need to get a room. You could draw out some demons people are trying to surpress.

We had one, but DD kept hinting at a kinky side, so here we are.

 

[Dadsdream]

Either that, or I'm just going to smack talk the ever loving hell out of you until you run home to cry into your pillow. I haven't decided yet.

My favorite Geena Davis scene ever:

 

[RegularChuck]

I want to turn away but I can’t stop watching.

 

[Dadsdream]

I want to turn away but I can’t stop watching.

Ever hear of spoonerism? That's where you take the first letter or combination of letters of a word and the first letter or combination of letters of a following word and swap them.
A "Handsome Prince" becomes a "Pransome Hence."
A "RegularChuck" becomes a "ChegularRuck."
A "Cuddlemonkey" becomes a "Muddlecunkey"
A "Dadsdream" becomes . . . uhhh . . . hmm . . .
Hey! Let's talk about Tronald Dump and Boe Jiden . . . Pancy Nelosi and Serney Banders!

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Ever hear of spoonerism? That's where you take the first letter or combination of letters of a word and the first letter or combination of letters of a following word and swap them.
A "Handsome Prince" becomes a "Pransome Hence."
A "RegularChuck" becomes a "ChegularRuck."
A "Cuddlemonkey" becomes a "Muddlecunkey"
A "Dadsdream" becomes . . . uhhh . . . hmm . . .
Hey! Let's talk about Tronald Dump and Boe Jiden . . . Pancy Nelosi and Serney Banders!

I'm disappointed that there was no mention of Buck Fama.

Edit: Didn't mean to post. Meant to add that I'm more disappointed that you ignored the premise of the thread. There are some legitimate things to address.

 

[Dadsdream]

The premise of the thread? OK.

Can we agree that copying and pasting and/or compiling comments from other websites and presenting it as original thought, with no attribution to the source(s), is something we shouldn't do?

Can we agree that posting canned responses that are emailed out to political operatives to post onto any and all available message boards is something we shouldn't do?

Can we agree that paid political operatives should identify themselves as such?

 

[RegularChuck]

Can we agree that copying and pasting and/or compiling comments from other websites and presenting it as original thought, with no attribution to the source(s), is something we shouldn't do?

Sounds like a fair request.

Can we agree that posting canned responses that are emailed out to political operatives to post onto any and all available message boards is something we shouldn't do?

If the message fits into the discussion, I don’t see what the problem is. How are you to know the difference if someone just reworded the canned response versus coincidental coming up with a similar idea? Should we form a bipartisan committee to review posters’ posts and compare it to each parties’ talking points?

Can we agree that paid political operatives should identify themselves as such?

I don’t see why it matters since the arguments should speak for themselves, but for the interest of transparency, sure.

Im curious how you guys got to talking about this subject.

 

[Dadsdream]

Sounds like a fair request.
If the message fits into the discussion, I don’t see what the problem is. How are you to know the difference if someone just reworded the canned response versus coincidental coming up with a similar idea? Should we form a bipartisan committee to review posters’ posts and compare it to each parties’ talking points?

If you see the same thing posted on Rush Limbaugh, or Counterpunch, or Media Matters, etc., etc . . . then you have the discourse being dictated and directed by people who are not members of the website. What is supposed to be a message board for members to share their own personal thoughts, ideas and impressions becomes nothing more than SPAM.

I don’t see why it matters since the arguments should speak for themselves, but for the interest of transparency, sure.

Im curious how you guys got to talking about this subject.

Back in the day, I had a daughter in college who was paid by a political action committee to post canned political messages on every website comment section and every bulletin board she could find, every day. Easy money for her, SPAM for the websites and message boards.

Of course, if too much gets copied and pasted without attribution and it's copyrighted material, the holder of the copyright can raise legal objections and nobody wants that to happen.

 

[RegularChuck]

If you see the same thing posted on Rush Limbaugh, or Counterpunch, or Media Matters, etc., etc . . . then you have the discourse being dictated and directed by people who are not members of the website. What is supposed to be a message board for members to share their own personal thoughts, ideas and impressions becomes nothing more than SPAM.



Back in the day, I had a daughter in college who was paid by a political action committee to post canned political messages on every website comment section and every bulletin board she could find, every day. Easy money for her, SPAM for the websites and message boards.

Of course, if too much gets copied and pasted without attribution and it's copyrighted material, the holder of the copyright can raise legal objections and nobody wants that to happen.

Unless it's a straight copy and paste, who's going to be the judge of where someone got their ideas?

I think a lot of people get their ideas from the news sources they consume. I don't think they're necessarily taking orders to go repeat what they hear.

I guess I'm still not understanding where this is coming from. Is it some hypothetical or is there an example of this occurring here?

 

[Dadsdream]

Unless it's a straight copy and paste, who's going to be the judge of where someone got their ideas?

I think a lot of people get their ideas from the news sources they consume. I don't think they're necessarily taking orders to go repeat what they hear.

I guess I'm still not understanding where this is coming from. Is it some hypothetical or is there an example of this occurring here?

See my avatar? Go with it and treat it as a hypothetical.

 

[RegularChuck]

What if someone prefaced it with something like "i'm not so good with words, but check out these words that were written by Mr. Propaganda that express my thoughts so much better than I could have"?

 

[Dadsdream]

What if someone prefaced it with something like "i'm not so good with words, but check out these words that were written by Mr. Propaganda that express my thoughts so much better than I could have"?

Plus a link? Sure.
You have to be careful not to paste too much of the other guy's writing, because if it's copyrighted, then somebody's going to end up having to pay for the posting.
Then too, if it's some sort of political manifesto mailed out by a Political Action Committee with 100% free circulation, you can post the whole blessed thing, but who's actually going to read it?
So, you post your disclaimer, add a few lines from the manifesto and post a link.
Of course that raises issues of click bait SPAM.
Nobody likes a spammer either, I think we can agree.

 

[RegularChuck]

Plus a link? Sure.

Not sure what we just accomplished, but nice speaking with you today DoubleD.

 

[brandon]

This shirt is way too civil for the mud pit.
Take this garbage to the MCB.