Ummm, This worries me.

Reminds me of the Ari Fleischer's "Americans need to watch what they say" statement.

Bush is deeming that it's proper to put people in the line of danger against the beleifs of the international community (minus the U.K.). I disagree with his desicion but I will not try to opress/supress anybody with a different view than my own.

It is bothersome (to say the least) that people can say that politicans should not be critized by those who disagree with them and their actions.

People made jokes of Clinton his entire time in office. True for Bush, Nixon and Carter as well - the net just wasn't the mode for such communication.

Jokes are one thing but to allow political affilation to intrude into the individual communication of individual with the same political affilation is disturbing.

Grocuho - You must have seen Duck Soup? You starred in it

A leader who cannot be questioned is a dictator. Everybody has the right to disagree with those who are their leaders. Anything less is a violation of Human Rights.

If by "had a point" you mean that the topic in and of itself was valid, then I might well agree. I could say that about most of his topics. It's not the topic that's that problem, it's the presentation that is insulting and done in such a manner so as to incite the reader. We've got several very good members who regularly post from the liberal point of view and do so without coming across as a troll. By the same token, we have some conservative members who are pressing the limits.

I will respond to some of the comments here even though it is against my better judgment.


X, Feels that my thread was “an obvious troll thread in his opinion” As he puts it General content: The general content consists of a pdf file of a civil complaint filed against George W. Bush. One of the allegations in the complaint was the George Bush Raped the Plaintiff. I obtained the .pdf file from the Office of the County Clerk in Fort Bend County, Texas. The same copy as well as the other pleadings in that case can be found there.
http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us
My comment “I will be the first to state that the person that filed this complaint sounds a little wacky” was my opinion of the complaint when I read it. Because the person may be a little wacky doesn’t mean the allegations shouldn’t be discussed. I thought Broadderick’s allegations were a little wacky when I found out she attended a Clinton fundraiser after the time she said Clinton raped her, but that doesn’t keep me or anyone else from discussing it.
The reaction it was created to elicit and the reason it was posted Apparently X thinks he has some direct insight into my mind. I have nothing to hide here are the reactions sought: 1 We have had an ongoing debate in a couple of the political threads on if it is appropriate to assume that a mere accusation is fact. Specifically, we have been talking about the allegation leveled by Juanita Broadderick against Bill Clinton. Some of the conservatives in those threads felt it was Clinton’s obligation to refute the charges. I was attempting to show them if they apply the same standard to this allegation then by their own standards Bush is a rapist until he provides conclusive evidence otherwise. 2. The second part of my thread and what I think is the more serious issue was posted to launch a debate on why the so called liberal media will report a 20 year-old mere allegation, but when presented with the hard fact that a civil complaint has been filed they won’t touch it with a 10 foot poll. That is a double standard.
how I would handle an equivalently titled post with so little substance concerning anybody else
These have been pruned, but there were quite a few threads in here discussing the Juanita Broadderick allegation. Why weren’t those threads deleted when posted?

X’s logic seems to because I posted “This woman says George Bush raped her” in a title that is some how offensive and forbidden. If you read the complaint the woman does allege that George Bush raped her. If I follow his logic there is no way that this story could be posted by anyone because the title would be too offensive. Furthermore, following the logic offered in this thread it would have been perfectly acceptable for me to post in any political thread:
and I wouldn’t even have to offer any proof of what I was alleging. I am sorry kick me out or whatever that is a double standard. If X didn’t like the title of my thread it could have been edited. He or another administrator often edits my thread titles to include the phrase “for his own pleasure.” If he could edit those thread’s titles to belittle me why not edit this one he found offensive. I feel I have the right to speak to X’s intent with regards to the edits of my thread titles because he feels that he can speak to what motivates me.
I can abide by the rules here, but the trouble I have is that the rules aren’t enforced in an evenhanded fashion. Yes I think moderators should be able to participate in discussion, but when they cross the line and belittle another member that sets a bad tone for the rest of the members. It sends a message that is ok to belittle or poke fun at this particular member.
Well I have said my peace and I hope that Geoff reviews this thread and takes whatever action he feels is appropriate. I would just suggest if there are going to be rules for political threads maybe those rules should be enforced by someone that doesn’t have a dog in the hunt so to speak.

Best Wishes,
Goop

Dead,

The problem as I see it is any post that is critical of a Republican in this forum is considered by a lot of people in here insulting and done in such a manner so as to incite the reader.

As a Democrat before I started posting myself I was incited and insulted by the manner and presentation of many of the political posts in this forum. Just a few examples:

Controversy:People Mag Pictures CHELSEA CLINTON In 'Aroused' state.....


Some of the presentation offered in that thread:
Posted by moderator Andy Capps:
In response to that last quote Moderator JustinS posted this:
Implying she serviced her dad if I am not mistaken
This went on for 5 pages. At no time did any moderator close the thread and suggest some of the posters were trolling.

In this thread
Clintons want taxpayers to reimburse Whitewater bills

You find this presentation
Here is another thread with great presentation
I guess you are right. It is all a matter of how one presents himself. I could go on but frankly there were so many comments like the ones above I grew tired of it. I note none of these threads were closed for these comments and at no time did a moderator accuse a poster of trolling.

A mod that is not political? Truly, the issue I see, is that you will perceive anyone that disagrees with you, as having a political bias. Can we only allow bfrank to handle your posts?

The larger issue, is no different than the extreme left seeing a right wing bias in the media, and the extreme right seeing a left wing bias. You both can't be correct, but neither sides sees that their perceptions are colored.

FWIW, I am not sure anymore where I stand politically. I don't fit much of either party now. I even tend to stay out of political threads, because I think they are boring. I have replied to your posts a few times, only because I am a fan of logic and I hate seeing it ignored.

It is not trolling to make jokes. Even if they are offensive. Humor has it's own value. This is not consent that anything goes, but an acknowlegment that people make jokes of public people.

I recall a lot of people making jokes about Bush's daughter also. No big deal.

I take it then you find logically consistency in that my thread was closed for trolling, but yet the threads I just posted were not.

Again with the logic problem and assumptions.

I have not read that thread.

The problem is a lot of people in those posts above weren’t joking.

Does this rule not apply to George Bush?

opps

Well, we will disagree about the jokes. I see a number of them in your quotes. Perhaps that is the downside of being extreme, you lose your sense of humor. I find jokes about the right about the same I as I find jokes about the left.

And personally, I don't joke about someone's daughter. It's offensive to me. But that does not make it against forum rules.

While in some of those posts above it obvious the poster is joking in the majority of them it is quite clear the poster had a serious intent. I can live with the Clinton bashing, but the problem I have is if you post a negative story or joke about Bush the assumption (including by some of the adminstrightors here) is that you are trolling. The thread I started was a link to a pleading where George Bush was being sued

Here it is if you haven’t read it
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=269940

I just don’t see the logic in that it is appropriate to call the Clintons “skanks”, “pigs” and “trailer park trash” until you are blue in the face, but it is not appropriate to offer up a document obtained from a court for discussion.

Again, bfrank apparently took no offense to my post as he posted right under it. I understand everyone including moderators have a bias. I know some on this forum consider my positions extreme, and that I am extremely biased. In my mind X is just as biased as I am only from the opposite side. What I was suggesting was that perhaps moderators that have less or a more neutral political bias moderate the political threads.

Okay, I did read the thread that was closed and the linked PDF, and did some searching around for info on Margie Schoendinger.

Wow, kinda fascinating.

Goop, I do see a big difference here in regards to *this* news story. As most rational people can see, including the news agencies, this person is a wackjob. Did you read it all? She is her own legal counsel. The suit was rambling, incoherent, and full of bizarre statements.

And I can now see why it would be seen as trolling. It's a non-story and you are hanging an entire logical basis on this tiny point. Some nutcase files her own suit alleging that Bush raped her, and probably her husband and a lot of other bad things happened to her...etc. And you make some logical leaps about conservatives and Clinton's past and the media.

The reality is, it's not much of a story, beyond The National Enquirer.

I understand your point, but there are not many mods that are neutral, and I still think that those on either side of the extreme, work hard to be impartial, regardless of how you see it.

The other problem, is that the less political mods are the ones not reading your posts. This would include me.

However, feel free to use the Report This Post to a Moderator button. Does not mean we will agree, but it draws our attention to problem threads and we can work to have balance. I know not everyone will be happy no matter what. But there is discussion in the mod forums about what is right and what we may have done wrong. I welcome that kind of discussion, as I am sure Geoff does also.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as beating a dead horse. You have made your point. You and I have discussed some previous threads/posts of your's that were a trolling problem (calling the Republican party a party of rapists for example), so you created your own history that may and probably will color people's perceptions when you start a new thread.

Intentional?

I agree she is probably a wack job and I stated so in my post. My point is was she any more of a wack job than Juanita Broadderick? Some people here at DVD Talk are of the mindset that because Juanita Broadderick accused Bill Clinton of Rape it is the undeniable truth that Bill Clinton raped her. And it is news when the President of the United States is being taken to court for allegedly raping someone.
I note the court appears to be taking it seriously they assigned it to mediation. Randy with all due respect I think you are engaging in some fancy footwork here. We can have 100s of threads about the Broadderick accusation, but not one thread when someone accuses Bush of Rape? We can post gossip photos of the Clinton’s daughter and caller her trailer trash and that is newsworthy, but posting the story about the undeniable fact that Bush is being sued for Rape is not newsworthy? That just isn't logical. I am not making logical leaps about conservatives just a couple of days ago a couple of conservatives in this forum told me that it was up to Clinton to prove he was innocent, and address the Broadderick accusations.

I think I am done goop. Now it's my fancy footwork that is going to stop me from dancing with you. We will both end up hot and bothered and leave unsatisfied.

Well I appreciate your desire to address my concerns.

Good Night

goop, I think one reason that people are treating you the way they are is that your posting style is very one-note. It seems to me like 99-100% of your posts are in political threads. Your tone can be pretty outrageous a lot of times, as well. This is how a lot of us have encountered trolls online... they're one-note, "gimmick" posters who make outrageous statements to stir crap up and start fights.

Other posters may make outrageous political statements as well, but they also participate in some of the goofier, non-political threads as well, so they feel like more of a part of the "community" of Other. But with you, people see your name and think "great, more of the same from goop."

I'm not telling you what threads to participate in or not. I'm just saying that I can see how the threads you choose to participate in and start and the manner in which you post can easily lead people to label you a troll.

Exactly, you are imagining a problem that does not exist. There is no problem with being critical of either political party. There is no problem being critical of individual party leaders. The problem is how you build your commentary and how you direct it toward others.

You made a wonderful list that demonstrated *zero* commentary toward other members here. None of those comments were designed to belittle other members or their beliefs. In fact, none of these are aimed at liberals or democrats in general, let alone the member group that would identify themselves with liberals or democrats. I'm have little doubt that you can see the extreme difference in the comments you listed here and those that you generally like to use when starting a thread.

And, if you take the time to do some more searching, you'll find amazingly similar comment about the Bush girls and their love of drink. You'll also notice that those threads were not closed and no one was chastised by the administrators or moderators for poking fun at the girls or their parents.

If you want comments belittling a member or a particular member here are a few:

These first three were directed at me:
Does that not sound like someone is attempting to belittle me?

Was it not implied that I was stubborn and close-minded ?

Was the final implication that the person that posted this had confirmed that I was stubborn and close-minded?

Thread titles calling anyone on the left anti-American or implying that they are:
On war with Iraq, the left has chosen the anti-American side" Was this posted to inflame me since I am on the left? If you apply the same logic that was used on my thread it was.

Peace Activists: I don't get it

A couple of selected quotes directed at people on the left/Democrats in general:

All of those quotes above were just from one recent thread. Would you also say that none of those comments were designed to belittle other members or their beliefs? Would you also say that none of them were aimed at liberals or democrats in general? Did I make generalizations like these?

Here are some more quotes aimed at Liberals/Democrats in another recent thread called “Todays Anti War Movement”
I love this next quote: The poster is talking about a war against Iraq there are quite a few of us that think it has nothing to do with terrorism.
Directed at me:
Again all of these comments were from two recent threads some of them were directed at people on the left/Democrats in general and some of them were directed at me personally. You know what I don’t have a problem with them. What I have a problem with is that these types of comments are acceptable, but when I make a comment (which was much softer than most of these) that is directed towards some conservatives I am being unduly nasty or hateful.

Goop, I don't know what your deal is here, but you are full of crap.

You pick and choose the parts of people's statements that support your "case" and don't listen to explanations. You previously tried out the "poor little me" act in a thread and you were shot down. So now you distort the quotes even further hoping for sympathy. Pathetic.

For reference, here's the previous exchange containing my entire statements that you quoted where you tried to garner sympathy. You didn't include your statements and I'm not going to bother going back to fill them in:
_________________________________________________

Of course X did the same thing a while back. (Calling names by implication)



And here is my previous explanation to you since I thought you might have the slighest amount of credibility and integrity so I gave you the benefit of the doubt:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...an#post3151773

Man, I thought being a mod was easy.

You know what those additions do not change or soften the comments you directed at me. You are right I brought this up before, and as you put it I didn’t receive any sympathy for it. The point was not for me to get sympathy, but rather show your history of bias towards me. I don’t expect the other DVD Talk mods and admins to back me up. In fact I expect them to take your side. But now I see that I am “full of crap” “pathetic” and don’t have any credibility.