[stockfire]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

I'm still waiting to see a poster reprimanded for saying something vicious about George Bush. That is done regularly around here, to all-around applause. But if you say anything negative about "environmentalists," God forbid!!! That's not tolerated.

I'm surprised that you were joining in on the applause and vicious attacks on our saviour, G-dub. Shocking, really. How absurd.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by hoojacks

basketballforum.com is whats wrong with America.

I hear that basketballforum.com not only hates "America", but they shipped our jobs out of the country..and all live in plush mansions in New Jersey.

[blazerboy30]

Talkhard is correct about the double standard here.

The rule-of-thumb here has always been that you can attack an idea, candidates, etc..., but not individual posters.

I believe there is a topic titled: "Good Lord She's Delusional". How is that different?

He didn't attack any posters, and then there were personal attacks thrown at him. His topic was changed, the personal attack was allowed.

I guess that's how it goes here at bbb.net

[Dan]

I'd guess some of it is that I don't have the history of baiting posters like Talkhard does. I don't know why this one was changed, outside of the fact it was done to inflame the masses. Mine wasn't done for that reason, but to point out that Clinton (remember, the one that conservatives hated before they found Obama to hate) was delusional.

I don't think his should have been edited, but it's not for me to say. It probably would have gotten more negative responses though, vs what this one was edited to (although it did not make much sense).

The victim complex thing gets old though.

[stockfire]

Originally Posted by Hap

I hear that basketballforum.com not only hates "America", but they shipped our jobs out of the country..and all live in plush mansions in New Jersey.

Let's just say i've never seen basketballforum.com wear a flag on it's lapel. It's obviously muslim and marxist.

[stockfire]

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

Talkhard is correct about the double standard here.

Just because you want it to be a double-standard (and trust me, you and TH want it to be. you want to feel like you are fighting the oppression of the "liberal" mods, IMHO) doesn't make it true.

The only times I've ever gotten PMs from Mods is when I've replied to one of TH's barely cognitive arguments. I've been infuriated numerous times about the number of baiting and inflammatory posts, fear mongering, and subtle personal attacks that he slides into each repetitive topic. Yet, I've gotten told off and his posts continue to exist. It is what it is, someone is always going to be upset, but you don't see me complaining about the "conservative mods" and their agenda.

[hasoos]

Actually I agree with the title Talkhard gave it. Those are environmental whackos, they are no where near main stream. Just remember, because some scientist do crummy work, that doesn't mean the rest of them do. On the other side of the coin, there is always a chance a bunch of them are wrong. But it doesn't mean we don't have a global warming problem, or the extent of it may be much different than they envisioned in their scientific models. Really when it comes down to it, you have to weigh the logic and make your own decision. Its ok to suport it. It's ok to not support it. It's ok to think both sides have lost their minds and are extreme. All I would ask is that if you post about a subject, you actually post something useful than a quick blurb about some folks who were wrong in the past. It is simple.

If you have a view about global warming, and have something to back it up, post it. We can discuss it and all gain from it. I welcome more open discussion of said topics, I studied atmospheric chemistry while in college for a short while, and realized how complex it is.

[crandc]

Since Talkhard disagrees with every environmentalist, what is the point of this thread? It's like "Extra Extra! Dog Bites Man!"

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by stockfire

Just because you want it to be a double-standard (and trust me, you and TH want it to be. you want to feel like you are fighting the oppression of the "liberal" mods, IMHO) doesn't make it true.

You're right, I should "trust" you to tell me what I want.

I don't care how "liberal" or "conservative" the mods are. As long as there is no double standard, we're all fine here.

I have no reason to wish for a double standard. I just like reasonable conversation, and you clearly aren't capable of leaving out the personal attacks on posters.

I love opinions of people with differing ideas, unless they rely on attacks.

[hasoos]

Originally Posted by hoojacks

basketballforum.com is whats wrong with America.

Better call in "Team America". I can almost hear the theme music going in the background. "Team America F yea!"

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by hasoos

All I would ask is that if you post about a subject, you actually post something useful than a quick blurb about some folks who were wrong in the past.

Gee, I thought the point was obvious. Let me spell it out: Be very careful about swallowing a prediction from an environmentalist, because they often end up being wrong. Is that not a valid point and a subject worth discussing? The examples of faulty predictions and slipshod thinking that I provided are exactly what people are always asking for whenever challenges are made to popular environmental thinking.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by stockfire

Just because you want it to be a double-standard (and trust me, you and TH want it to be . . .

Give me a break. You think I enjoy getting singled out by the mods? Please, let somene else do the psychoanalytic mumbo-jumbo about what I really "want."

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Dornado

To be fair, I think if your thread was titled "Hilarious: Scientists make terrible predictions" or something of the like it would have been left alone. The name calling kind of puts it in a different category...

Yet Hap's thread title about a "delusional" Hillary Clinton is allowed to stand. How do you explain that?