Glenn Beck

[thewanderingjew]

Again, you put words into my mouth and attack my language rather than my message.

Why ridicule my example when I said it was extreme myself? You know I did not mean I felt any physical threat from posting, but you chose to ridicule my use of of the word and practically insinuate that I am ridiculous when you say "this is getting ridiculous".

Why tell me to post on a disabled thread? I have never suggested that anyone  not be allowed to respond although moderator's have done that when they objected to certain posters.

However, on second thought, I would consider that comment a bit threatening, to me, but not in the extreme sense of the way you chose to define its meaning, when I used it, which was not in fact the way I used it and I think that was fairly obvious. Are you suggesting to me that I should not post, because of the way I feel, unless I create my own thread? In fact, I know you aren't, but certainly, I could create an implication here, as you did about me, if I so chose.

Why are you attacking me and not addressing my message instead?  Again, it is not the disagreement that I object to, in the replies, but the way the disagreement is presented and your post to me, in reply, is a perfect example of what I mean. You didn't address my message, you addressed me!

If I offend you, I am sorry, but don't you think some of your comments to me are a bit off center? I could go through lots of posts with terminology far worse than I used, which you have chosen to ridicule, at this time, but you have let the others slide. I ask again, why attack the messenger for the message?

---

Jon_B wrote:

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

---

Feeling threatened by the atmosphere that is created, is different than feeling free to post. (This is a bit extreme for an example, but the protestors in Iran were free to protest when they were gunned down.)

---

But you still have not explained what in the world is actually "threatening".

Refering to the protesters in Iran being gunned is not just "a bit extreme" it is absolutely absurd in the context of this discussion! You make vague remarks about how you "feel" your posts are not welcome but that doesn't mean that there is anything in reality that is actually threatening you in any way whatsoever.  Nothing bad is going to happen to you as a result of your posts here other than some people might disagree with you.  There is no need to make references to being "threatened" or to protesters being gunned down or anything like that.  This is getting ridiculous. 

If you just want to be able to post your opinions without anyone being able to disagree with you, which in all honesty is what it seems like you want, then I suggest you start a blog and disable comments.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 06-30-2009 09:16 AM

---

[Jon_B]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

Why ridicule my example when I said it was extreme myself?

---

So why did you post that example at all?  What, exactly, was the purpose in bringing up Iranian protestors being shot in this discussion?  I wasn't attempting to ridicule you, I'm honestly wondering why you would even say such things.  

The reason I refer to your language is because you say things like "Again, it is not the disagreement that I object to, in the replies, but the way the disagreement is presented " so you are saying that your problem is not that people disagree with you but with the way they say it.   And yet when others have the same issue with the way you say things - which is exactly the complaint you are making right now - you complain about being "attacked". 

Do you really think it's fair that you complain at such length about how others' "disagreement is presented" and yet when someone addressed the way disagreement is presented in your post, you claim it's an "attack" or "ridicule"?

Message Edited by Jon_B on 06-30-2009 11:37 AM

[RTA]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

How is it that you found no issue with this post by RTA yet you found mine so offensive when I asked about the silence of politics?
"Just so I am absolutely clear, I don't mean for my remark to act as a mere "implication" of my position.  I mean for it to state outright and explicitly that I think Glenn Beck a fear-monger who willfully distorts "facts" to serve his own agenda.  I would never pretend that such a clearly dishonest approach to journalism deserves any sort of careful response from those who value responsible discourse on complex issues.  He's a fraud, a charlatan, a con, and the only purpose he serves, from my perspective, is for pointing and laughing". 

It certainly sounds like I am being told by the poster that I do not value any responsible discourse on complex issues. I think she is absolutely entitled to her opinion and I am making it quite clear that I am not questioning her right to it. I am just questioning your reaction to my statement vs. hers.

Thank you for your effort to respond to my concerns.

---

Uh...wow.  O.K.  Since, evidently, it wasn't crystal clear in my post, when I referred to Glenn Beck specifically by name--when I wrote "I think Glenn Beck..."--that the subject of my post was Glenn Beck.  And my never, ever referencing TWJ in my post...apparently that caused confusion about whether or not I was speaking of TWJ.  So let me now be clear, in referring to Glenn Beck, and not ever referring to TWJ, my criticism above is directed at Glenn Beck and not, at all, directed at TWJ, whom I never, ever referenced in that or any other post on this thread. 

Likewise, my post was not directed at Julie Andrews, whom I also never referenced in the post.  Now, admittedly, the woman has made some poor choices on the latter end of her career, but still I would never classify her as a fraud or a charlatan.  In fact, it's safe to assume that if I mean to criticize a person in my posts, that person will be named in the post containing the criticism.

[debbook]

Oh RTA, will this feud between you and Julie Andrews never end?

Seriously, it could be worse people, we could be on the NYS senate.

[debbook]

---

Jon_B wrote:

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

Why ridicule my example when I said it was extreme myself?

---

So why did you post that example at all?  What, exactly, was the purpose in bringing up Iranian protestors being shot in this discussion?  I wasn't attempting to ridicule you, I'm honestly wondering why you would even say such things.  

The reason I refer to your language is because you say things like "Again, it is not the disagreement that I object to, in the replies, but the way the disagreement is presented " so you are saying that your problem is not that people disagree with you but with the way they say it.   And yet when others have the same issue with the way you say things - which is exactly the complaint you are making right now - you complain about being "attacked". 

Do you really think it's fair that you complain at such length about how others' "disagreement is presented" and yet when someone addressed the way disagreement is presented in your post, you claim it's an "attack" or "ridicule"?

---

Jon, you definitely hit the nail on the head.  This is the same argument that comes up every so often, but you have stated it clearly.  I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but I mind the tone and insinuations that come with it.

[Jon_B]

All of my posts are about Julie Andrews.

[KathyS]

---

Choisya wrote:

Current Events are usually by their very nature political and politics are divisive because people largely support one party's viewpoint/ideology over another.  We are not discussing novels of a bygone age here or fiction, we are often discussing things which people care about very deeply and which they have usually taken a 'stand' about long before they come onto the CE boards - abortion for instance.   If there are a majority in favour of one particular thing, it is only natural that they form alliances of some sort about the things they care about, whether they are on the 'right' or the 'left'.   Would I form an alliance with or 'reward' an avid anti-socialist, would TWJ reward an avid anti-semite, Ryan ally with a homophobe?  It is unrealistic to expect non-partisanship on subjects which are inherently partisan. 

I agree that the Laurels system has not made CE any more divisive than it was originally - it is the subjects discussed which make it divisive and it will be ever thus until we become inhabitants of a Utopia.             

---

Jon_B wrote:

Here's the thing:  the laurels are used in every board in this community, in fact they are used much more frequently in some other boards like First Look, Fantasy, and Paranormal than they are here in Current Events, and they are used fairly often across the rest of the boards as well.  But this supposed divisiveness they cause only shows up in Current Events.  Which was divisive well before laurels even existed.  And in fact discussions of current events were divisive back when they occured in the Community Room. And discussions of current events tend to be somewhat divisive everywhere else the occur as well, and it's certainly rather true of our country as a whole.

Quite frankly, there are several posters who have, over the time they have been here, developed long-standing friendships and grudges with one another and this had led to some amount of divisiveness in discussions well before we even started talking about Current Events here.   That's really a natural part of any community that develops over a period of years, and it has both positive and negative aspects.  But I certainly don't think laurels or any other aspect of the site's system is whats behind it - whats behind it is people and their emotions.  I don't think removing the ability to view who laurelled someone's post would change that, since it was here before we had that feature.  And I really don't see the reason to remove an element of a feature like that when it clearly isn't causing any divisiveness in the majority of places where it's used, and the only place where people do point to it as being divisive is a place that already was divisive and, due to its nature, to some extent always will be.  

---

---

I don't disagree with either you, Choisya, or Jon...There will always be devisiveness, especially when emotions are involved.  The Laurel System is just one pebble in this B&N pond...I personally ignore them...except when the laurel conversation keeps poping up ....and as I've said, just a personal perspective on my part as to how that pebble causes ripples.  I do have another suggestion, but it would, no doubt, cause a tidal wave.  I'll end my part in this conversation, forever.   It exhausts me.

[vivico1]

May I say something here while I am room hopping between clubs starting up? I have read several posts in here and I am not even really sure about what started all this but I would like to say something. First, I agree with anyone in here who says, that the CE thread can be adversarial by nature. Lets face it folks, if you are talking religion or politics, its going to get heated after a bit! It is the nature of the beast! Second, I have found in these clubs, i.e. other Barnes and Nobles clubs, not just the CE one, and in many online forums that its ok to joke about Republicans and call certain ones anything you want and attack their kids too, but you had better not say anything about Obama or the democrats. Even a lot of comedians steer clear of that and gee I wonder why? Look, I didn't vote for the man, I am worried about his positions and our country, but he is my president now and I will pray for him and my country as I always have. I do not wish to see our country fail no matter who is at the helm. But I also do not wish to have people rag on my party or me for being a part of it and scowl at me if I do the same. So yeah, things in here can get divisive because the party lines will show in here. It happens, we just need to try as best we can to be more courteous about our debates and be very grateful we live in a country where we CAN voice our differences!

Having said that tho, I would like to add something I think I am seeing about what thewanderingjew is saying. And to not do what I see seems to be happening, when you come into a thread and just start reading, and have not been a part of it, sometimes you actually get a feeling about how things are going when you see them all at once. So, I will not say...thewanderingjew is saying this, or you are saying that or they said this, you all know what you said or feel and if you think feelings don't play into this, your wrong.

TWJ, what i say now, is not trying to tell anyone what you are saying or tell you what you are saying, so please do not feel that I am, but allow me, if I may, say what I am hearing you say, and if I am wrong, you can tell me so, but this is what I am hearing you say and it is also what I have felt myself in some clubs in here. Jon, when you say, you are not actually being threatened, nothing bad is going to happen to you, I can tell you as a fellow reader and poster, that is not how we are made to feel at times. The "threat" or the "bad thing" that can happen to us, is that we can get everything we say edited and warned to stop, or we can even get banned from a thread or a club, or even all of B&N. We can lose our club life and hey, for some of us, that is no small thing when this is your outlet and you can't just go out and find a new one, as I can not. But there have been times I have been warned and threatened with being banned. So yes there is a real feeling of threat and something bad happening at times. What makes this feel even more real is when moderators not only man the boards, post threads, pose questions, watch for bad language, watch for abuse of others, but also take part in the discussions turned debates, turned to nearly arguments as any other poster would because then they become a poster with power. And it can be quite intimidating then to say anything back to the moderators if something they said as a poster really gets to you, because who watches the moderators if the moderators take sides of an issue or a fight? Do you see what I mean? I accuse no one in particular of this ok, but I have seen more of it recently. This is the threat and bad thing to me, I think it is also what TWJ is saying, but TWJ, if I am wrong, I apologize because I have no right to speak for you, nor does anyone else and I have seen that in here until it has come to this point where both sides are picking apart each line of each other's posts to argue about and for that to include moderators, bothers me, worries me.

I personally think that some cooling down is in order and if you guys just aren't getting what the other is saying, rather than tearing apart each other's posts and telling each other what they are saying, or calling their posts ridiculous or absurd or even some forms of just saying its downright dumb and meaningless, just let it go then if you can not come to an understanding. You don't have to agree to agree, like that is going to happen in CE LOL, but try to understand at least, what feelings are being expressed in the posts and not ridicule them. Debate for heaven's sake but don't demean! And please mods, you do a great job of keeping these boards up and going and things happening for us, please take care to not take sides and become one of us lowly posters , because yeah, that can be quite intimidating, the idea of really hacking off a mod! It is a very different thing that getting each other's goat.

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

Again, you put words into my mouth and attack my language rather than my message.

Why ridicule my example when I said it was extreme myself? You know I did not mean I felt any physical threat from posting, but you chose to ridicule my use of of the word and practically insinuate that I am ridiculous when you say "this is getting ridiculous".

Why tell me to post on a disabled thread? I have never suggested that anyone not be allowed to respond although moderator's have done that when they objected to certain posters.

However, on second thought, I would consider that comment a bit threatening, to me, but not in the extreme sense of the way you chose to define its meaning, when I used it, which was not in fact the way I used it and I think that was fairly obvious. Are you suggesting to me that I should not post, because of the way I feel, unless I create my own thread? In fact, I know you aren't, but certainly, I could create an implication here, as you did about me, if I so chose.

Why are you attacking me and not addressing my message instead? Again, it is not the disagreement that I object to, in the replies, but the way the disagreement is presented and your post to me, in reply, is a perfect example of what I mean. You didn't address my message, you addressed me!

If I offend you, I am sorry, but don't you think some of your comments to me are a bit off center? I could go through lots of posts with terminology far worse than I used, which you have chosen to ridicule, at this time, but you have let the others slide. I ask again, why attack the messenger for the message?

---

Jon_B wrote:

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

---

Feeling threatened by the atmosphere that is created, is different than feeling free to post. (This is a bit extreme for an example, but the protestors in Iran were free to protest when they were gunned down.)

---

But you still have not explained what in the world is actually "threatening".

Referring to the protesters in Iran being gunned is not just "a bit extreme" it is absolutely absurd in the context of this discussion! You make vague remarks about how you "feel" your posts are not welcome but that doesn't mean that there is anything in reality that is actually threatening you in any way whatsoever. Nothing bad is going to happen to you as a result of your posts here other than some people might disagree with you. There is no need to make references to being "threatened" or to protesters being gunned down or anything like that. This is getting ridiculous.

If you just want to be able to post your opinions without anyone being able to disagree with you, which in all honesty is what it seems like you want, then I suggest you start a blog and disable comments.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 06-30-2009 09:16 AM

---

---

[RTA]

---

vivico1 wrote:

...but you had better not say anything about Obama or the democrats.

---

This post here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here...(I could go on) kind of invalidates this claim.  And that's just randomly over the last three months. 

---

What makes this feel even more real is when moderators not only man the boards, post threads, pose questions, watch for bad language, watch for abuse of others, but also take part in the discussions turned debates, turned to nearly arguments as any other poster would because then they become a poster with power.

---

In contrast to all the discouragement directed at admins and mods for posting their positions on these discussions, let me heartily voice my encouragement.  I don't understand the fear of those who feel that admins and mods shouldn't be freely voicing their opinions.  I don't understand what justifies asking admins/mods to keep their voices silent.  What is the purpose of a current events board, if it is not to freely voice our opinions?  And, rather than discourage participation, as a member of this forum, I'd like to vocally encourage participation from any admins/mods, whatever their political leanings.  B&N seems to do a rather exemplary job of hiring, and I've yet to come across an admin/mod who, when she chooses to contribute, doesn't add something substantial to the discussion.  So, for my part, let me state: "keep on a-postin."  In fact, post more!

Seriously, anyone can posture as a victim, it doesn't make the claim actually valid.

[Ryan_G]

Since when don't moderators have opinions of their own, especially on the CE board?  I don't think I would want a "neutral" moderator on this board.  It would be rather dull to have a moderator that didn't take part in the "debate"  And I know that anytime anyone on my side of the aisle says a statement along the lines I'm about to say we are called either liars or someother such word but I will anyway.  I would not care if it was someone who disagreed with everything I ever believed in.  For all I could care it could be someone as diametrically oppossed to everything I believe as Sara Palin and I would still never tell them they are not allowed to post their opinions just because they are the moderator. 

Overall I think Monty has done a good job moderating this playground and I think he should be given props for it.  Now have I agreed with every decesion he has made in the way the board is run, no I haven't it.  And he has heard from me when I have disagreed with him. 

As far as the comment concerning that people on here are not allowed to say anything negative about Obama I think that someone was not paying close attention to what has been posted on this board in the past. Quite a few of us on this board who voted for the man have voiced our concerns about several policies we have serious issues with.  He is not perfect and I have already disagreed with him on varoius issues.   This being said I still support him and still believe I made the right choice when I voted last Nov.

The criticism of Obama that has been questioned on these boards, the criticism that should be questioned is those comment that question his patriotism, his American birth, his religion, the fact that he is a secret terrorist, and my favorite that fact that he is in fact the anitchrist.

What I have not heard on this board is a "fan" of Sarah Palin, John Mcain, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Lou Dobbs, Newt Gingrich, or anyother person on the right is a criticism of their actions or statements.  No one on this board, to my knowledge and please point out to me any examples if they have happened,  who self identifies as a "conservative" criticize those on their side of the aisle.

So as far as the left vs. right double standard argument on this board I think it's full of crap and not based in reality.

My final comment on this is if you don't want your opinion or beliefs challenged, don't post them.  Keep them to yourself or to those who think like you do and you won't have to feel that you are being "attacked".  If you choose to put your opinions out there quit whining and crying when they are challenged.

[vivico1]

I would love to know that admins and mods can voice their opinions or side with whoever or whatever they want...under a name, as a poster that we don't know is someone of authority. Why can't they do that? They can have two names so they can both participate and be what their job is. Maybe their job description does not say that they can not voice their own opinions but I still believe that makes them posters with power and yes, that can be a threat to those who post and get into it with them, whether a real threat or perceived. It would be like letting a referee play on one of the football teams sides. Now if they are going to referee too, you are going to be really careful about hitting them. It is the nature of a job of authority. I don't want to see even their rights to say what they think done away with but as with many jobs, you just can't do that with those you are over. Hopefully I am expressing this in a way of how it could be hard for others to "feel safe". Understand, that I am not dissing them at all, they do a great job for us, but it really is a fine line. I am not looking for a fight, or trying to get into it with anyone here. I am saying what I am seeing happening, on both sides in here, and other places sometimes. It is a concern.

---

RTA wrote:

---

vivico1 wrote:

...but you had better not say anything about Obama or the democrats.

---

This post here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here...(I could go on) kind of invalidates this claim. And that's just randomly over the last three months.

---

What makes this feel even more real is when moderators not only man the boards, post threads, pose questions, watch for bad language, watch for abuse of others, but also take part in the discussions turned debates, turned to nearly arguments as any other poster would because then they become a poster with power.

---

In contrast to all the discouragement directed at admins and mods for posting their positions on these discussions, let me heartily voice my encouragement. I don't understand the fear of those who feel that admins and mods shouldn't be freely voicing their opinions. I don't understand what justifies asking admins/mods to keep their voices silent. What is the purpose of a current events board, if it is not to freely voice our opinions? And, rather than discourage participation, as a member of this forum, I'd like to vocally encourage participation from any admins/mods, whatever their political leanings. B&N seems to do a rather exemplary job of hiring, and I've yet to come across an admin/mod who, when she chooses to contribute, doesn't add something substantial to the discussion. So, for my part, let me state: "keep on a-postin." In fact, post more!

Seriously, anyone can posture as a victim, it doesn't make the claim actually valid.

---

[vivico1]

Ok, here ya go, I have already said I am a conservative and my party affiliation so you will know this is not just pulling it out of the air...Rush Limbaugh is an egotistical, arrogant idiot and I wished he was not affiliating himself with republicans at all. Look, I don't even listen to those talking heads, they have their agendas too. I get my news from "news" not from commentators who "say" they are presenting the real facts. I wouldn't for either side of the aisle. So there you have it, someone from this side saying what an idiot some of these guys are.

---

Ryan_G wrote:

.

What I have not heard on this board is a "fan" of Sarah Palin, John Mcain, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Lou Dobbs, Newt Gingrich, or anyother person on the right is a criticism of their actions or statements. No one on this board, to my knowledge and please point out to me any examples if they have happened, who self identifies as a "conservative" criticize those on their side of the aisle.

So as far as the left vs. right double standard argument on this board I think it's full of crap and not based in reality.

---

[debbook]

Finally!! Anytime I criticize one of the "talking heads" I am asked why I don't criticize the others. I don't listen to them!! But sometimes some of them are unavoidable and I have to say something. Some people think that by criticizing one person you are condoning others. Not true, usually just talking about that specific person, ie Glenn Beck. I don't care what party someone is affiliated with, just what kind of person they are. I would like that same respect.

---

vivico1 wrote:

Ok, here ya go, I have already said I am a conservative and my party affiliation so you will know this is not just pulling it out of the air...Rush Limbaugh is an egotistical, arrogant idiot and I wished he was not affiliating himself with republicans at all. Look, I don't even listen to those talking heads, they have their agendas too. I get my news from "news" not from commentators who "say" they are presenting the real facts. I wouldn't for either side of the aisle. So there you have it, someone from this side saying what an idiot some of these guys are.

---

Ryan_G wrote:

.

What I have not heard on this board is a "fan" of Sarah Palin, John Mcain, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Lou Dobbs, Newt Gingrich, or anyother person on the right is a criticism of their actions or statements. No one on this board, to my knowledge and please point out to me any examples if they have happened, who self identifies as a "conservative" criticize those on their side of the aisle.

So as far as the left vs. right double standard argument on this board I think it's full of crap and not based in reality.

---

---

[Choisya]

When I came onto the BN boards in 2003 there were very few voices raised against the war in Iraq or against George Bush and Democrats here were 'out on a limb'.  Many harsh things were posted about the Democrats, especially about the Clintons but criticising Bush & Co brought calumny upon posters' heads.   Gradually as more information began to be disseminated in the media about the absence of WMDs, Guantanamo, Abu Graib, rendition etc the tide of opinion changed. Gradually these boards  began to represent the change of political opinion which was taking place in the US and which resulted in a change of President.  This is only to be expected because these boards represent a cross section of the American public and the views of that public have changed over a period of 5 years.   Dissatisfaction is now beginning to be expressed about President Obama's policies both here and in the public arena and I have no doubt that within another couple of years the tide of opinion will once more swing toward the Republicans (just as in the UK it is swinging towards the Conservatives afer a decade of Labour rule).  Those who now feel 'out on a limb' (as I did in 2003) will again come into the fold.  Nil desperandum - politics is a moving feast!  

---

RTA wrote:

---

vivico1 wrote:

...but you had better not say anything about Obama or the democrats.

---

This post here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here...(I could go on) kind of invalidates this claim.  And that's just randomly over the last three months.