View Full Version : Suggested Revision to "Da Rules"
Wayne_Zitkus
06-13-2006, 07:44 PM
It would really help the discussions if people would refrain from using terms that are closely associated with Rush Limbaugh - things like "feminazi", "Algore" (one word), and "drive-by media". They don't add to the conversation - in fact, they can be a real turn-off to those of us who recognize their source.
Just a suggestion...
You've got to be kidding. What's next? Banning articles from news sources that certain members don't like?
Echoes
06-13-2006, 07:52 PM
I would also like to suggest that something be written in about hijacking threads. Sometimes people go off topic for pages and it gets scattered in with all the serious responses. It makes a thread very hard to follow. I know some people do this to threads they don't like, but others of us may indeed be interested in the topic.
ScreamingChicken
06-13-2006, 07:54 PM
Can we stop this now, Wayne, please? This is nothing short of insane how you and HFC are carrying on. The two of you don't like each other. It's well established, OK? Take it to PM's or move on.
Sandie S-R
06-13-2006, 07:55 PM
It would really help the discussions if people would refrain from using terms that are closely associated with Rush Limbaugh - things like "feminazi", "Algore" (one word), and "drive-by media". They don't add to the conversation - in fact, they can be a real turn-off to those of us who recognize their source.
Just a suggestion...
Wayne...
I do not think that banning specific words (regardless of how inflamitory they may be to one side or the other) is the way to go. You are going to want "certain" words banned, and HFC will want "certain" words banned. Then everyone will be chiming in on which words they want banned, etc.
Da rules as they are, are pretty even, and fair.
Wayne...
I do not think that banning specific words (regardless of how inflamitory they may be to one side or the other) is the way to go. You are going to want "certain" words banned, and HFC will want "certain" words banned. Then everyone will be chiming in on which words they want banned, etc.
Da rules as they are, are pretty even, and fair.
I agree. But I think Echoes' suggestion about a rule against hijacking threads is definitely worth discussing.
Wayne_Zitkus
06-13-2006, 08:00 PM
Wayne...
I do not think that banning specific words (regardless of how inflamitory they may be to one side or the other) is the way to go. You are going to want "certain" words banned, and HFC will want "certain" words banned. Then everyone will be chiming in on which words they want banned, etc.
Da rules as they are, are pretty even, and fair.
OK, I understand. But I didn't ask for any words to be banned, per se. I just asked that people refrain from using words they know will get a rise out of others.
rainyday
06-13-2006, 08:01 PM
I think the requirement that everyone must post only in their underwear is a rule both sides could get behind. Especially if one's opponents have laugh-inducing critters printed on their shorts.
rainyday
06-13-2006, 08:04 PM
OK, I understand. But I didn't ask for any words to be banned, per se. I just asked that people refrain from using words they know will get a rise out of others.
Like, "I made three boxes of Kraft mac and cheese for dinner and ate every bite AND I have pics"?
Santaclear
06-13-2006, 08:04 PM
I find the term "Zitkus" offensive and demeaning, especially to those of us who recognize it. ;)
I think the requirement that everyone must post only in their underwear is a rule both sides could get behind. Especially if one's opponents have laugh-inducing critters printed on their shorts.
I was going to suggest posters have to be willing to make out with anyone to whom they are responding via a post. Something to think about.
Sandie S-R
06-13-2006, 08:05 PM
OK, I understand. But I didn't ask for any words to be banned, per se. I just asked that people refrain from using words they know will get a rise out of others.
Wayne...
There is just obviously no way for us to enforce something like that. I think you are going to have to let go of this one.
FreeThinker
06-13-2006, 08:06 PM
I was going to suggest posters have to be willing to make out with anyone to whom they are responding via a post. Something to think about.I agree!
Or disagree.
In any case, I'm responding!
Chimpi
06-13-2006, 08:08 PM
I would also like to suggest that something be written in about hijacking threads. Sometimes people go off topic for pages and it gets scattered in with all the serious responses. It makes a thread very hard to follow. I know some people do this to threads they don't like, but others of us may indeed be interested in the topic.
I agree. As is evident here.
/My Opinion
Santaclear
06-13-2006, 08:15 PM
I was going to suggest posters have to be willing to make out with anyone to whom they are responding via a post. Something to think about.
Interesting idea, Jes, but hard to enforce. To test it I tried making out with everyone I spoke to today but it was pretty weird.
OK, I understand. But I didn't ask for any words to be banned, per se. I just asked that people refrain from using words they know will get a rise out of others.
But this apparently only applied to words that are "closely associated with" a certain political commentator/radio show host.
Sandie_Zitkus
06-13-2006, 08:21 PM
But this apparently only applied to words that are "closely associated with" a certain political commentator/radio show host.
Ryan is this a discussion you really want to keep going or even enflame? Can you just drop it?
It would really help the discussions if people would refrain from using terms that are closely associated with Rush Limbaugh - things like "feminazi", "Algore" (one word), and "drive-by media". They don't add to the conversation - in fact, they can be a real turn-off to those of us who recognize their source.
Just a suggestion...
I consider the original source, then consider the unimaginative source that parrots those words. Instantly discounted, and out of my brain one second later; it deserves no more thought than that, I figure.
It would really help the discussions if people would refrain from using terms that are closely associated with Rush Limbaugh - things like "feminazi", "Algore" (one word), and "drive-by media". They don't add to the conversation - in fact, they can be a real turn-off to those of us who recognize their source.
Just a suggestion...Your kidding.. Who cares??
Jack Skellington
06-13-2006, 09:20 PM
Here's my list of words I'd like to see people not use.
fagaceous
querulent
echopraxia
zeigarnik
vaginismus
cacozelia
paleaceous
I just think they sound icky.
NYEmtEsq
06-13-2006, 09:22 PM
It would really help the discussions if people would refrain from using terms that are closely associated with Rush Limbaugh - things like "feminazi", "Algore" (one word), and "drive-by media". They don't add to the conversation - in fact, they can be a real turn-off to those of us who recognize their source.
Just a suggestion...
"There he goes again...." (Ronald Wilson Reagan, c.1980).
(May I quote Reagan, or is that too Limbaughesque for this forum?)
Sandie S-R
06-14-2006, 08:52 AM
closing this thread
Webmaster
06-14-2006, 09:02 AM
OK, I understand. But I didn't ask for any words to be banned, per se. I just asked that people refrain from using words they know will get a rise out of others.
Almost everyone knows my views on the matter: Use common sense. Don't do stuff that you wouldn't like to have done to yourself. Act adult. Don't take things so seriously. Makes perfect sense to me, but at times, apparently, some degree of direction is needed.
In our community of people who are brought together, we should celebrate our commonalities and interests, help each other understanding our preferences and dealing with our pain.
Just because, say, Al Franken publishes a book called "Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot" and Limbaugh responds in kind does not mean that we, too, should sink to such levels. We have better things to do.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.