View Full Version : what's gotten into dh- radio programs?
DH spends a lot of time in the car making his rounds and apparently has been listening to some of these weird talk shows, in particular Alex Jones. All I can say is that over time, it seems to be creeping into his head because occasionally he talks like a paranoiac (is that a word?) thinking there might be bad things in the food, water or that the government is out to get us. I have asked him to think logically about what is said on these programs but I'm afraid this radio shyster may be winning him over. It really p's me off that programs like this exist as there are a lot of people out there who can't analyze the information. I have asked him to listen to music more...we'll see.
Creeping curmudgeonliness. I know a lot of men coming down with it. I think it's part the economy, part age and the perceived loss of virility, and part personality. Drives me crazy.
rosarugosa
6-10-11, 8:48pm
Yeah, my DH listens to some talk radio that isn't good for him either - must be a guy thing. I have also recommended more music and less talk. He'll also get all agitated and then annoyed with me because I'm not upset too. I try to explain that even if terroristic illegal aliens will someday shoot me for not wearing a burkha in public, that I just can't get worked up about it right now, and me getting angry and upset about something that will probably never happen doesn't do any good for anyone.
I've always thought that the ability to tune out one's spouse/SO when the situation warrants, never gets enough mention as an important couples' survival skill :)
been there. Hubby is currently obsessed with the "rapture" stuff. Always trying to warn me about how events in the news or the crazy weather is a sign of the "end times." I always tell him, I hope so, I'm tired. But, yes, the ability to tune them out grows easier with each year of marriage.
Ditto here. I have refused to listen to, talk about, hear about anything to do with conservative nasty radio talk shows. It starts to come out in hubby's speach and I call him on it.
jennipurrr
6-10-11, 11:57pm
My husband listens to Paul Finebaum, a sports call in show, nearly every day. Its ridiculous but at least the conspiracy theories are regulated to college football, haha.
I second Anne Lee's Creeping Curmugeoness. Like the husband that slowly takes up residency in the basement- whittling, loading ammunition, or building odd projects for the house that aren't needed. So glad my husband hasn't reached that stage yet! :)
I tease dh when he gets on a rant that he must have been listening to angry middle-aged white male radio again. Glad to hear it is somewhat normal - the loss of virility is an interesting angle.
iris lily
6-11-11, 10:02am
We listen to a lot of talk radio in this house, exlcusively talk. I am bored by music stations.
That maniac Tom Ashbrook is always whipping up lather about social and political issues. And Diane Rhem, what a rabble rouser! Her listeners scare me, they are rabid! And then there are those guys from Harvard Square who have an entire program devoted to repairing stuff, they certainly appeal to the crazed basement dwellers who are whittling and loading ammo. Probably they are all plotting the overthrow of the Obama regime.
Gosh I wish the gooberment would crack down on that particular talk radio station.
leslieann
6-11-11, 10:27am
Oh, Iris Lily. You always manage to make me laugh.
There are bad things in the food and water.
loosechickens
6-11-11, 3:01pm
There are always people more than willing to make a buck ginning up peoples' anxieties, fears, feelings of powerlessness, etc. But in recent years, it does seem to have reached a fever pitch. I expect times of financial insecurity, recession, racial fears, political axes to grind, etc., brings them right out of the woodwork, and there are plenty of vulnerable listeners just waiting to have their fears and anxieties validated in some way.
It's sad, but they suck in a lot of people, mostly white, middle-aged males of lower middle and middle-class who have been feeling threatened in these times of rising unemployment, age discrimination, fears of becoming a minority in "their own country" (as though those "others" haven't considered this their country, too). I don't know what the answer is, because that demographic is slipping in income, potential, sometimes virility and feeling powerless, so anger, particularly if it is stoked by rabble rousers is a tempting outlet for those feelings and fears.
I'm not sure what I'd do if my husband started to listen to extremo talk radio (left OR right) and parrot it back to me. The thought gives me chills of horror. I like to think that he would be intelligent enough to realize he's grasping at -- as LC so accurately puts it -- "a tempting outlet for those feelings and fears," and find a more constructive outlet.
Durn, you all make me glad that I have only a houseful of teenagers to deal with.....:~)
We listen to a lot of talk radio in this house, exlcusively talk. I am bored by music stations.
That maniac Tom Ashbrook is always whipping up lather about social and political issues. And Diane Rhem, what a rabble rouser! Her listeners scare me, they are rabid! And then there are those guys from Harvard Square who have an entire program devoted to repairing stuff, they certainly appeal to the crazed basement dwellers who are whittling and loading ammo. Probably they are all plotting the overthrow of the Obama regime.
Gosh I wish the gooberment would crack down on that particular talk radio station.
Iris, I must listen to the same station! The worst though is that guy and his sidekick who do a puzzle every sunday with a caller. They try to dress it up as just a casual game, but I'm quite certain they're sending out secret subversive messages. Sort of a modern day Madame Defarge and her knitting... If only I could ever crack the code and be the caller-in one day I'd get it all figured out.
Stuff like this makes me grateful for my own husband! I think if he started listening to talk radio garbage I would be pushed over the edge. :(
What's the difference between talk radio and a public discussion forum such as this?
What's the difference between talk radio and a public discussion forum such as this?
We're not trying to make money off of it?
Talk radio isn't a discussion at least how I understand discussion. There's simply not enough opportunity for back and forth.
So, a host initiating a discussion point, much like a poster starting a thread, and callers interacting with the host, much like member responses to a thread, are not the same thing?
As far as money, let's remember that the last iteration of this forum closed it's doors because it no longer supported it's host, and it's current iteration depends upon donations to support itself as well.
Both talk radio and internet discussion forums seem very much like the same thing to me.
The thing I pointed out to dh about these radio shows is that they raise a fearful topic, discuss it to death and then mysteriously have a product to help solve the problem. Even the very helpful ones like Dave Ramsey spend a great deal of time selling you products about issues discussed.
There's a rabid environmentalist radio station that thinks the government is out to get us? :cool:
What station? :~)
To Alan; I think the difference is that in a written forum like this, everyone gets to say as much or as little as they wish. They may be vehemently disagreed with or even ignored, but they're welcome to make their point, civilly, and it's there in writing for all to read, they haven't been drowned out by a louder shouter. The dialogue is not scripted or edited here, it's what people think and wish to express. All we ever ask is a line on personal attack. The thing that probably riled me more about Rush than anything else was the complete muzzling of counter opinion as he blustered on and on, leaping false premises in a single bound with no one putting up a hand to question his assertions.
If talk radio is like public discussion forums, I wish the moderators would get off their duffs and do their job :-)
This is the weirdest discussion I've seen yet! Half the respondents are missing the sarcasm of the other half.
For what it's worth, we're a couple of incessant NPR radio listeners, although we do turn it off when we're tuning in the short-wave to get various Canadian, French, and British stations. Then, for comic relief, we enjoy The Colbert Report and The Daily Show. Hey, it's fun when it isn't too depressing. What's wrong with trying to get the facts? They're essential to a democracy. Not that I think this one can be fixed. But one can always hope.
To Alan; I think the difference is that in a written forum like this, everyone gets to say as much or as little as they wish. They may be vehemently disagreed with or even ignored, but they're welcome to make their point, civilly, and it's there in writing for all to read, they haven't been drowned out by a louder shouter. The dialogue is not scripted or edited here, it's what people think and wish to express. All we ever ask is a line on personal attack.
A little advance defensiveness?
The thing that probably riled me more about Rush than anything else was the
complete muzzling of counter opinion as he blustered on and on, leaping false
premises in a single bound with no one putting up a hand to question his
assertions.
Yep, that never happens in discussion forums. >8)
This is the weirdest discussion I've seen yet! Half the respondents are missing the sarcasm of the other half.
That's how it works when it's done correctly.!thumbsup!
There's a rabid environmentalist radio station that thinks the government is out to get us? :cool:
What station? :~)
Couldn't tell you. The market is so small they have trouble keeping a consistent host.
flowerseverywhere
6-18-11, 2:45pm
What is crazy about these radio programs is the same thing as those e-mails that keep circulating. Lots of false information that people don't check into and continue to spread around. You know, the ones that say that our elected officials have a special social security program, or that they get free health care for themselves and family members for life, or my favorite, the ones that misquote the constitution then add prayers or God talk to them.
I have a friend whose husband loves to watch and listen to these extremist shows and some of the stuff she comes out with floors me. Last year we had a huge health insurance increase, per her it was due to Obamacare. I am not sure what she blames all the previous years when people have gotten increases on. And the housing mortgage crisis, you guessed it, Obama, although he wasn't president when the loans were made. And by the way, he wasn't born in this country per her and is Muslim. Between the illegal immigrants, non christians and Obama she is convinced it is all a big plot to take away her rights, but I honestly think it is because he is not white. I suspect that they are burying their money in a coffee can in the yard and stockpiling guns and food but I don't get close enough to them to find out. Very creepy and scary paranoid life.
ApatheticNoMore
6-18-11, 3:00pm
What's the difference between talk radio and a public discussion forum such as this?
It's like asking what the difference is between youtube and NBC? It's the difference between a forum relatively open to all comers versus one very hierarchically controlled. This doesn't even require idealizing youtube, maybe youtube censors some videos or whatever (that's subtle and dangerous power, but those who understand the internet are plenty aware of the dangers of hidden power), but still for all those caveats, joe schmoe still instinctively senses the difference in making his funny idea into a youtube video versus launching a sitcom on NBC.
ApatheticNoMore
6-18-11, 3:14pm
I have a friend whose husband loves to watch and listen to these extremist shows and some of the stuff she comes out with floors me. Last year we had a huge health insurance increase, per her it was due to Obamacare. I am not sure what she blames all the previous years when people have gotten increases on. And the housing mortgage crisis, you guessed it, Obama, although he wasn't president when the loans were made.
The thing is statements like this can't be declared ridiculous just on the face of them. They are very broad abstractions and vague statements so it depends on the arguments used to support them and the point that is really being argued. The mortgage issues for instance definitely didn't start under the Obama administration, but enough laws favorable to the banks were passed under Obama (and very little at all was done to bail out homeowners). So if that is someone's real gripe, they aren't wrong about the Obama administration.
It's like saying that there are poisons being put in our food and water is automatically absurd. So what exactly are we arguing here? The corruption of the food supply ala Micheal Pollan? That is a really really strong argument. It is what is happening in my view. Or are we arguing the CIA deliberately poisoning the water supply or something? (ok this possible, but where is the proof?).
yeah, the Obama bashers are way out of hand. Most of this stuff they say about him is just a substitute for racial slurring which would be to obvious. I don't mind hearing ideas that would solve our problems, but how may do you hear? Not many, just the Obama bashing, talking about the "socialist agenda", etc.
yeah, the Obama bashers are way out of hand. Most of this stuff they say about him is just a substitute for racial slurring which would be to obvious. I don't mind hearing ideas that would solve our problems, but how may do you hear? Not many, just the Obama bashing, talking about the "socialist agenda", etc.
It's illogical to assume racism in any philosophical disagreement, although I do understand the path of least resistance thing.
Just curious, were you on this forum during the Bush years?
flowerseverywhere
6-19-11, 4:41am
The thing is statements like this can't be declared ridiculous just on the face of them. They are very broad abstractions and vague statements so it depends on the arguments used to support them and the point that is really being argued. The mortgage issues for instance definitely didn't start under the Obama administration, but enough laws favorable to the banks were passed under Obama (and very little at all was done to bail out homeowners). So if that is someone's real gripe, they aren't wrong about the Obama administration.
It's like saying that there are poisons being put in our food and water is automatically absurd. So what exactly are we arguing here? The corruption of the food supply ala Micheal Pollan? That is a really really strong argument. It is what is happening in my view. Or are we arguing the CIA deliberately poisoning the water supply or something? (ok this possible, but where is the proof?). It's hard in a quick post to convey the attitude that someone has. She frequently mentions certain radio hosts by name and quotes them. Of course I would be crazy to say everything this administration has done has been right or beneficial, but it is the tone of what she says and how she says it. I can see your point about the corruption of food for instance, but it is a certain level of discomfort that I feel when I speak with her that goes way beyond the normal educated and healthy suspicion one would expect.
For instance I try to grow my own food, or go organic and meatless whenever possible, however I don't feel like it is a government plot. I think our current food supply is all about money and who gets it. Big greedy companies vs. the small farmer, but you certainly can't blame it on Bush or Obama or any other specific person.
I guess that I have to keep perspective in all things or I will be crazy. I can't start stockpiling guns and food and hoard gold ready to shoot anyone who approaches my canned bean supply and I definitely get this attitude from the woman I mentioned.
A little advance defensiveness?
Yep, that never happens in discussion forums. >8)
Ok, I'm a little under the weather these days, sorry if I missed the :moon:.
I'm serious about my assertions, though. The only time a discussion has ever been locked down is if the participants get too out of control ugly with each other. Content is up to you guys, citing of reference is encouraged. Leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions is challenged often and well. - and where is Bae these days? :~) I often find myself creating posts that no one responds to, which is cool - I got to say what I wanted to say. :devil:
ApatheticNoMore, I agree with you. There's definitely a line between ""THEY" are in cahoots to get us" - the fodder of rabid talk radio, and ""THEY" are doing things [for profit or otherwise] that are detrimental to the rest of us" which seems to be a truth most people agree with. Not conspiracy, simply a concentration of power that makes the situation ongoing. The question for all sides, I guess, is who are "THEY". - greenies? corporations? fundamentalists? socialists? politicians? My vote is for multinationals.
One thing that almost never gets talked about directly is that the U.S. is 35 years into economic decline.
A number of things in our culture come out of people seeking answers while maintaining active denial of this core issue.
1. The huge paranoid streaks in religion and popular culture--everything from "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" to "Bohemian Grove", and the resulting scapegoating of enemies within the country.
2. The perfection of propaganda (cable TV news, talk radio, patriotic images) and popular entertainment (celebrity, reality TV, etc.) to maintain calm through this decline. It's not just Fox News.
3. The near-obsolescence of men in the office workplace in the U.S., and the lack of manufacturing or trade jobs for men to enter.
4. The likelihood that the current generation of American children will be less educated than their parents, and that those who become educated will not be able to pay off (or default on) student loans during their lifetimes.
Greed. Greed that resulted in power, centuries or perhaps millennia ago. That power divided, regrouped, distilled and multiplied over time. I feel we've reached a point where the power of multinational corporations has hit a tipping point - the drive for profit / power has become so great that they are killing the geese that lay their golden eggs (the general population of the earth.) "Killing" to mean taking so much opportunity away and skewing the economic position so badly that the average person is faced with bills they can't pay because there are no jobs to earn the money, bills that are totally out of scale with their personal earnings. "Killing" to mean sending us to war to secure their own interests. "Killing" to mean sucking the resources out of the environment to the point where it may be permanently broken. Yes, we're at each other's throats, and also eager for the panacea of mindless entertainment and reassurance, probably because MCs are such a nebulous and powerful enemy. Within a society that respects the law, how do you stop something so powerful that it has the power to create laws that profit itself and overturn the ones that don't?
Ok, I'm a little under the weather these days, sorry if I missed the :moon:.
I'm serious about my assertions, though. The only time a discussion has ever been locked down is if the participants get too out of control ugly with each other. Content is up to you guys, citing of reference is encouraged. Leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions is challenged often and well. - and where is Bae these days? :~)
Since you asked, he hasn't returned yet after completing his banishment for challenging the wrong conclusions. It's sort of like talk radio putting your number on the blocked list long enough for you to stop calling.
Since you asked, he hasn't returned yet after completing his banishment for challenging the wrong conclusions. It's sort of like talk radio putting your number on the blocked list long enough for you to stop calling.
mmm, sorry. I've been en absentia for a while, didn't know about this so can't comment, sorry I brought it up. :|(
The thing is statements like this can't be declared ridiculous just on the face of them.
But deliberately outrageous and, to the vast majority, unbelievable statements have a purpose in propaganda, and are no accident. They move the boundary of what is reasonable or responsible, making statements that would otherwise be out of bounds acceptable. The term for this is "moving the Overton window". The Republican party has used this process with incredible skill over the past 30 years.
http://www.relationship-economy.com/?p=10805
I believe that my political views have not moved much over 30 years, but in that time their label in the political system has moved from conservative Democrat to almost left enough to be outside the Democratic party.
loosechickens
6-19-11, 3:04pm
"Since you asked, he hasn't returned yet after completing his banishment for challenging the wrong conclusions. It's sort of like talk radio putting your number on the blocked list long enough for you to stop calling." (alan)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. He's here. Bae is just is choosing not to comment. There was only a very short period of days when he was not able to post. Which is certainly up to him. He's done this before. At some point, he won't be able to resist........it happens to all of us.
Almost daily, I decide that I'm just NOT going to bother to discuss stuff on the Public Policy boards, as it just ends up taking up too much of my internet time, and nobody ever changes their minds anyway, so it's kind of kabuki theater, but despite that, first thing I know......there I am, wading in.
I admire bae's ability to read the forums every day and resist adding his comments. I wish I had that ability myself, ;-) Of course, HE may look at it as "depriving" us of his comments, who knows? Certainly not me.
loosechickens
6-19-11, 3:09pm
"But deliberately outrageous and, to the vast majority, unbelievable statements have a purpose in propaganda, and are no accident. They move the boundary of what is reasonable or responsible, making statements that would otherwise be out of bounds acceptable. The term for this is "moving the Overton window". The Republican party has used this process with incredible skill over the past 30 years.
http://www.relationship-economy.com/?p=10805
I believe that my political views have not moved much over 30 years, but in that time their label in the political system has moved from conservative Democrat to almost left enough to be outside the Democratic party." (Bronx Boy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's really interesting, because that's exactly what has happened to me. I haven't changed my attitudes, outlook, etc., since I was a moderate Republican way back when.....it's just that the Republican Party moved right, right out from under me, and left me behind.
I find myself now, a Democrat, and not even a particularly conservative one. What used to be the real "left" is gone completely, and what is considered "left" now was moderate not that many years ago.
When you think that people like Richard Nixon advocated for a universal health care plan, it makes your mind boggle. If Barry Goldwater were to come back today, he would be way too liberal for the Republican Party, as he said himself before he died.
Yet, Senator Joesph McCarthy, reviled as he may have been at some periods, would feel right at home in today's Republican Party. Just LISTEN to some of the stuff that was said at the Republican leadership conference. Mind boggling how far right this country has drifted in the past thirty years or so.
To some, that's a blessing, and to others, we see that with horror. But it is true, for sure.
You mean that bae was banned? WTF. I didn't know this. But I guess it's ok if it's only "for a very short period of days."
This place really has jumped the shark. I predict it will be gone by next year.Hey, and it's not that I didn't try myself to keep the thing afloat.
"...At some point, he won't be able to resist...it happens to all of us.
...Of course, HE may look at it as "depriving" us of his comments, who knows? Certainly not me.
There you are, taunting again. Tiresome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. He's here. Bae is just is choosing not to comment. There was only a very short period of days when he was not able to post. Which is certainly up to him. He's done this before. At some point, he won't be able to resist........it happens to all of us.
......
I admire bae's ability to read the forums every day and resist adding his comments. I wish I had that ability myself, ;-)
I hope you're right, I miss his perspective and his ability to provide balance to what would sometimes be some seriously one-sided discussions. But, that's what got him where he is now, so I can completely understand any reluctance to get back into the fray, if there is any at all.
I know that in my household, my wife (who introduced me to these forums some years ago and was an active poster for several years) checks in several times a week to read, although she never posts. She just doesn't want to participate in a group who would take away her logon simply for sharing her spouse's IP address. Actions always have consequences and principles shouldn't be taken lightly.
loosechickens
6-19-11, 4:54pm
Ah, Iris Lily......you are so predictable. If you'd noticed, during the few days that bae was not on the boards, every post he had posted had "banned" on his logo, just as yours says "Senior Member". It wasn't something that anyone couldn't see. Perhaps you didn't notice, but it was there, and not any kind of private knowledge. And went away when the prescribed number of days was up.
someone asked where he was and it was ALAN who made the comment that he was banned and hadn't come back to the forums. All I did was clarify that his "time out" was for quite a brief period and that he's back. Whether or not a member chooses to participate and post is really up to them, not anyone else.
Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Alan commented that bae had been blocked for so long that he finally gave up and didn't come back, something that simply is not true.
I have no idea why bae visits the boards, yet is not posting. I suspect that he's feeling that he doesn't want to. Isn't that his right? And my feeling that eventually he will decide to participate is based on several other occasions when this happened, with him, with others, and with myself.
We all like to complain about these boards, some, like you, prognosticate the demise of the boards regularly, but people keep coming, people keep participating, many get upset, leave for a bit, but most of them come back. Why? Because we are a good community, there is a lot of useful information and opportunities to learn here, plus, it's kind of addictive.
How many times have YOU decided that you just weren't going to spend much time here? If you're anything like me, probably often. Almost every week, I determine that I'm spending way too much time here, getting way too involved, and start setting my timer to limit my time on the boards, and every time, I end up ignoring it.
Please.....don't ALWAYS be trying to start stuff.......you're a smart lady, and can be far more profitably occupied here doing other stuff than stirring the pot.
Please note....no mod comment here...just ordinary member, and speculating on whether other members are doing what they've done in the past, and what I do myself, and probably so do you. that's all. I was simply answering Alan's misleading and inaccurate comment.
loosechickens
6-19-11, 4:58pm
Alan, I hope that bae decides to post again as well. While we've had our differences, and IMHO, he brings some stuff on himself, he has some valuable insights, knowledge and great wit, and every one of us is a mixture of great and not so great characteristics, so hate to lose his good stuff along with the sometimes "toeing right up to the line and sometimes over" that he might be prone to do.
Every one of our voices here is useful, and every one of them is welcome. When forum guidelines are breached, there are consequences. But that doesn't mean that the person is not welcomed back when they choose to restrain their posts to stay within guidelines.
It would be a boring world without differences of opinion. I, for one, hope that bae ends his self imposed silence and returns. But, if he doesn't, that is certainly his choice.
If bae isn't posting, don't know how I'm supposed to see the public notice of his banishment attached to his posts that he is not posting. But whatever.
I'm waiting for the 2nd quarter balance sheet to come out for this site.That will tell the tale of support, I think.
Gosh, you'd think I kicked him off for some unknown time and then monitored his daily activites after that time was over. Last time I checked, I didn't have that power.
Edited to add:
Loosechickens, I see that you have now edited out 2 or 3 of the previous 5 or 6 accusations against me for answering Kib's question. Now my reply doesn't make quite as much sense as it originally did, but thanks for taking away at least some of the mis-direct.
loosechickens
6-19-11, 5:11pm
Iris Lily.....if, by chance, you were "banned" for a period of time, all your previous posts would show "banned" where it shows "senior member" for the period of time of the banning. I don't know why it does that, it's just the way the system works. Then when the period is over, all of a sudden the area to the left of the posts where it notes your name, number of posts, etc., all of a sudden goes back to saying "senior member" or whatever else it said before.
If you'd happened to read posts where bae had posted recently before, during the short period of non access, you'd have seen it.
And if you go to the membership list and click on someone's profile, you can see it there as well.
And when the brief period of banishment ends, all goes back to normal, just as it was before.
I suspect that when money is needed to support the site, we members will make sure that enough is donated to keep the site alive. You may feel that it's failing, but we are gaining members daily, few have left, many are participating, and most seem quite satisfied with how the forums are going.
If the forums need more support in this next quarter, they can count on me to pony up, and I'm sure many others will, as well. Don't worry about it.
loosechickens
6-19-11, 5:21pm
"Gosh, you'd think I kicked him off for some unknown time and then monitored his daily activites after that time was over. Last time I checked, I didn't have that power." (Alan)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan, can you go to Community at the top of the page, click on member list and go to the member list page? when you do so, can you click on a member's name and go to their profile? Or click on a member's name at the left of any of their posts and go to their profile?
And if you can do that, can you look down on the left side of their profile page and see when they last visited the boards?
I've just assumed that everyone can do that, but it's possible that I can do that and see, because I'm a moderator, and you can't. Try it and see, because I'd be interested to know.
I was very surprised myself when bae had his brief period of non-access, to see that on the left of all his previous posts, where it normally says "senior member" or something similar, it said "banned", and then I noticed a few days later, that had disappeared, and it was back to saying what it normally said. It seemed to be something that the operating system did automatically.
Folks are always completely welcome to post their viewpoints, their viewpoints can be in the majority or the minority, or something that others find completely ridiculous. They must, however, remain within guidelines for the board. If a member posts and calls another member something like "you racist, bigoted moron" they WILL find themselves in a bit of a cooling off period. But please don't act as though it happens just from having an unpopular opinion about something. Because that simply does not happen.
ApatheticNoMore
6-19-11, 5:25pm
But deliberately outrageous and, to the vast majority, unbelievable statements have a purpose in propaganda, and are no accident. They move the boundary of what is reasonable or responsible, making statements that would otherwise be out of bounds acceptable. The term for this is "moving the Overton window". The Republican party has used this process with incredible skill over the past 30 years.
That may be their purpose in propaganda, but you know I actually kinda believe in radical freedom of thought. Think anything, think absolutely anything! Because honestly I never have been able to make a rule for distinguishing good "outside the mainstream", thought from bad "outside the mainstream" thought. Clearly if your non-mainstream thoughts have you thinking of gas chambers something has gone very very very wrong somewhere along the way (psychologically and socially something has probably gone very wrong as well - and though we are nowhere near so extreme in our society I think there are some instances where psychological and social influences are going very wrong), but I myself love a good radical argument of the better variety so ......
Disbeliefs:
- I don't of course believe people should be allowed to *do* anything, yea think about committing murder umkay, but actually commit it and wind up in the slammer.
- I don't believe that people should go around believing things for long periods of time without applying any critical thinking to it. Yea a period of suspension of disbelief may be necessary to even be open to new ideas. But you know eventually you might want to actually look into whether you have any evidence of say birtherism and so on :~)
- I don't believe in the MSM and concentrated powerful hierarchical distribution of information. Oh and I do believe in always asking "who benefits?" from positions being pushed especially by the MSM (ie learn to analyze money and power - without being able to do this there is no real media literacy), whose interests are being served?
I think the guilty parties are the large corporations in bed with the government until it's nearly indistinguishable which is which.
BTW, I don't know what is up with all the banning on this forum or what started it. Without knowing this I can't say much, but I don't think we should be banning except in very extreme cases, which I rather doubt were happening.
loosechickens
6-19-11, 5:31pm
"BTW, I don't know what is up with all the banning on this forum or what started it. Without knowing this I can't say much, but I don't think we should be banning except in very extreme cases, which I rather doubt were happening." (ApatheticNoMore)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It happens very seldom....in the several years I've been a moderator, it's only happened perhaps three or four times, always for egregious stepping over of forum guidelines, and for only a short period of a "time-out".
One poster I remember being banned for continually proselytizing religion, being warned repeatedly by moderators, yet unable or unwilling to stop doing it.
One or two for name calling, refusal to be moderated for it, and refusing to edit a post that was clearly outside the forum guidelines.
I only remember one long term banning, for continual moderator bashing, etc., but even that member was allowed to return and has been a useful member of the forums ever since.
It is not something that happens often, is done by collective vote of the moderators after much discussion, is never done without attempting to discuss with the member, and is something that need not be feared, because, as I say, it's only happened a few times, and even then the period of "banishment" was more of a "getting your attention by a time out" sort of thing.
Much is made of it, little is accurate. Not to worry.
...If you'd happened to read posts where bae had posted recently before, during the short period of non access, you'd have seen it. ...
"the short period of non-access"
you mean BANISHMENT.
"Gosh, you'd think I kicked him off for some unknown time and then monitored his daily activites after that time was over. Last time I checked, I didn't have that power." (Alan)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan, can you go to Community at the top of the page, click on member list and go to the member list page? when you do so, can you click on a member's name and go to their profile? Or click on a member's name at the left of any of their posts and go to their profile?
And if you can do that, can you look down on the left side of their profile page and see when they last visited the boards?
I've just assumed that everyone can do that, but it's possible that I can do that and see, because I'm a moderator, and you can't. Try it and see, because I'd be interested to know.
OK, tried it and it does have a spot for "Last Activity" and a date attached. I don't know what "Activity" means, I would think a post, but not sure.
In doing so, I noticed that there have been 926 views of my profile page, and that you are one of the last ten. 926 views since this forum was created just 6 months ago? I don't know if I should feel honored or somewhat creeped out.
Do we have that many members?
"BTW, I don't know what is up with all the banning on this forum or what started it. Without knowing this I can't say much, but I don't think we should be banning except in very extreme cases, which I rather doubt were happening." (ApatheticNoMore)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It happens very seldom....in the several years I've been a moderator, it's only happened perhaps three or four times, always for egregious stepping over of forum guidelines, and for only a short period of a "time-out".
One poster I remember being banned for continually proselytizing religion, being warned repeatedly by moderators, yet unable or unwilling to stop doing it.
One or two for name calling, refusal to be moderated for it, and refusing to edit a post that was clearly outside the forum guidelines.
I only remember one long term banning, for continual moderator bashing, etc., but even that member was allowed to return and has been a useful member of the forums ever since.
It is not something that happens often, is done by collective vote of the moderators after much discussion, is never done without attempting to discuss with the member, and is something that need not be feared, because, as I say, it's only happened a few times, and even then the period of "banishment" was more of a "getting your attention by a time out" sort of thing.
Much is made of it, little is accurate. Not to worry.
Not to worry? You are incorrect since I have a lot to worry about should I wish to retain my active membership on this board.
I had thought that rampant moderator banishing activity stayed with the old boards with the old management. I can see that my idea of those bad old days of unreasonable banishment is a fantasy. I think you made a serious mistake.
loosechickens
6-19-11, 7:35pm
Alan, can you go to Community at the top of the page, click on member list and go to the member list page? when you do so, can you click on a member's name and go to their profile? Or click on a member's name at the left of any of their posts and go to their profile?
And if you can do that, can you look down on the left side of their profile page and see when they last visited the boards?
I've just assumed that everyone can do that, but it's possible that I can do that and see, because I'm a moderator, and you can't. Try it and see, because I'd be interested to know. (LooseChickens)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, tried it and it does have a spot for "Last Activity" and a date attached. I don't know what "Activity" means, I would think a post, but not sure.
In doing so, I noticed that there have been 926 views of my profile page, and that you are one of the last ten. 926 views since this forum was created just 6 months ago? I don't know if I should feel honored or somewhat creeped out.
Do we have that many members? (Alan)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Alan, and I guess that means that you see what I see, with no difference between moderators and regular members without moderator access. That date of "last activity" will tell you if the person has visited the boards,. and when the last date/time they visited. So, for example, if you haven't seen posts by someone for awhile and wonder about them, you can go to their profile page, and see the date of their last activity on the board, so you know if they really DID go away and haven't come back to read posts, or if they have been here, but just not chosen to post.
And, I don't know why so many people look at your profile page.....don't feel badly....I just looked at mine after reading your post, and mine says that there have been 1,245 views of my profile page.
So I suspect, if people want to know if a person is on the forums, they go to that person's page and see when their last activity was, or perhaps when someone posts, members are curious as to whether or not they have information about themselves on their profile page.
I keep meaning to put something on my profile page about being an RVer, info about myself, etc., but have never gotten around to it. So if 1,245 different times someone has been interested, I'm sorry to have disappointed them, hahahaha.
Much appreciated. After I posted, all of a sudden I thought, "well, I can see it on the person's profile page and know if they've been to the boards, but perhaps someone without moderator access can't". But it looks as though it's just available information.
Thanks very much. LC
loosechickens
6-19-11, 7:46pm
"Not to worry? You are incorrect since I have a lot to worry about should I wish to retain my active membership on this board.
I had thought that rampant moderator banishing activity stayed with the old boards with the old management. I can see that my idea of those bad old days of unreasonable banishment is a fantasy. I think you made a serious mistake." (Iris Lily)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, Iris, "rampant moderator banishing activity"? PULEEZE. In about six months of the new boards, one poster is given a week's time out for namecalling and breach of forum guidelines and that translates to you to "rampant moderator banishing"?
Even on the old boards, for at least the several years I was moderator, I could count the number of people "banished" (given time outs) for breach of forum guidelines, on the fingers of one hand. And it was NEVER done without a great deal of discussion, both among the moderators, with the person in danger of getting a time out, and opportunity given to edit or delete posts that violated guidelines, etc.
I can't think of a single case where there was EVER "unreasonable" banishment, unless you want to call permanently banning posters who turn out to be spammers. Certainly not regular members. Especially since every one of the few was a long talked over, discussed with the person under scrutiny and an action not taken lightly. In even the very worst case, of a poster banned for the longest time, even THAT poster was allowed to return, and has been a useful member, helpful in many ways, since.
If you are feeling endangered, I think your perception of risk and actual risk are two very different things. Just my own, personal opinion, but I think what you're saying sounds a bit paranoid, given the facts, and the actual number of people ever banned or given time outs.
But, if you want to feel that the moderators are out to get people, plot to try to ban people, etc., instead of people with busy, regular lives who donate time as a community service to this board because they believe in it, and in the information it makes available to people........then feel free. Nothing I will say will change your mind.
edited for yet another danged typo.......why, oh why can't I see them when I re-read my post before posting it? Do they HIDE??????
In even the very worst case, of a poster banned for the longest time, even THAT poster was allowed to return, and has been a useful member, helpful in many ways, since.
Just in case anyone is wondering, that's me she's talking about. What isn't said is that there was a time here, on the old forums and under a mostly different administration, when anyone expressing an unpopular viewpoint would routinely be labeled as "trolls" and certain members, including a moderator or two, would celebrate their supposed outing with ice cream parties. Although I recall that tradition starting as a result of obvious spammers coming onto the site, it quickly denigrated to the label and celebration being applied to simply anyone a few favored members disagreed with.
After noticing this, I started a thread entitled "Trolls, born or created", which I was asked to remove. When I respectfully declined, I was banned. Strangely enough, the ice cream parties and un-due labeling stopped at that time.
When I returned, the forum still operated in such a way that there was a lot of very selective moderation. Certain people were heavily moderated while others, guilty of the same behavior, were not. After 4 or 500 posts I criticized a moderator for the censure of one of those heavily moderated posters for saying that John Edwards was a scumbag. I thought it was interesting that this particular moderator had just come off several posts denigrating Cindy McCain. While both had technically violated guidelines, only one was called on it. I was banned again for pointing it out. I can tell you from that experience that it really isn't always necessary to be warned and have moderators deliberate on what action to take, as I was banned within minutes of my post without any contact from the moderators or administrator involved.
The good thing about that one was that those double standards seemed to disappear as well. I guess it just goes to show that while one person's constructive criticism is another persons guideline violation, making the point is always the right thing to do. I haven't come back as a changed person, I've come back to a changed, for the most part, environment.
Thanks Loosechickens for giving me the lead-in to share that.
Originally posted by Alan.
She just doesn't want to participate in a group who would take away her logon simply for sharing her spouse's IP address.Could you be so kind as to further elaborate what you mean by this Alan? I'm getting the sense that your wife doesn't feel wanted (some way) and that bothers me.
Just in case anyone is wondering, that's me she's talking about. What isn't said is that there was a time here, on the old forums and under a mostly different administration, when anyone expressing an unpopular viewpoint would routinely be labeled as "trolls" and certain members, including a moderator or two, would celebrate their supposed outing with ice cream parties. Although I recall that tradition starting as a result of obvious spammers coming onto the site, it quickly denigrated to the label and celebration being applied to simply anyone a few favored members disagreed with.
After noticing this, I started a thread entitled "Trolls, born or created", which I was asked to remove. When I respectfully declined, I was banned. Strangely enough, the ice cream parties and un-due labeling stopped at that time.
When I returned, the forum still operated in such a way that there was a lot of very selective moderation. Certain people were heavily moderated while others, guilty of the same behavior, were not. After 4 or 500 posts I criticized a moderator for the censure of one of those heavily moderated posters for saying that John Edwards was a scumbag. I thought it was interesting that this particular moderator had just come off several posts denigrating Cindy McCain. While both had technically violated guidelines, only one was called on it. I was banned again for pointing it out. I can tell you from that experience that it really isn't always necessary to be warned and have moderators deliberate on what action to take, as I was banned within minutes of my post without any contact from the moderators or administrator involved.
The good thing about that one was that those double standards seemed to disappear as well. I guess it just goes to show that while one person's constructive criticism is another persons guideline violation, making the point is always the right thing to do. I haven't come back as a changed person, I've come back to a changed, for the most part, environment.
Thanks Loosechickens for giving me the lead-in to share that.
I hope you got over your trauma, Alan. I can not understand why anyone would be so upset about these or the former SLN forums. What would be the purpose?
I think most everyone that visits this forum is far more interested in living frugally than anything political. IMO, the forum is mostly occupied by ladies of all shapes and sizes. There are the regular guys that participate like myself and you but for the most part is all about the ladies!! I think that is a good thing. I will never get over my infatuation with the female species......pleasure is their game.
Peace
loosechickens
6-19-11, 9:20pm
You're welcome, Alan. Although I should probably correct an inaccuracy. When a person has been banned from the forums, yet keeps attempting to come back under different names, using proxy ISPs, etc., sometimes they are able to post for awhile before moderators "catch on" to that fact, and once they do, that person's account would be closed.
And sometimes, after awhile of this, and after the poster has been gone for awhile, he or she comes back in again, under yet another user name, and from yet another ISP, and is recognized, after a time, by moderators, but discussion ensues that the person now seems able to post within guidelines, not stir the pot by constant moderator bashing, so the collective decision is to let the person stay.
There is one school of thought that thinks any of these things shouldn't even be discussed, and another that believes that the sunshine of open discussion is good for everybody.......politicians, internet forums, ordinary people in real life, etc.
NO ONE is banned from these boards because they have a certain political philosophy, or a particular religious philosophy, or whether they are prickly, or obtuse, or just love to stir things up. They are banned or given time outs (and as I said, there have been precious few of those) because of repeated breaches of forum guidelines, or if account is closed without extensive discussion with the person, because they are under banishment, and are returning under different user names, and different ISP addresses.
Folks.......none of this happens as any sort of "regular" activity, and believe me, the moderators hate having to deal with upsets, having to moderate, etc., just as much as anyone else. Do any of you think that I actually LIKE to have to spend time on these kind of things, or other moderators, either? Believe me, I have a full and interesting real life, and like it best when things are going smoothly here on the boards, and we have little to no moderating to do.
We are happy that ALL of you are here, hope that ALL of you continue to keep your adults on top, engage in interesting and stimulating discussion, and avoid all the dramas. THAT would please moderators, members and just people who stumble on the place and enjoy reading the threads.
I think we've managed to beat this dead horse to a standstill at this point, and I'm off to make some supper. Thanks to you, Alan, for giving me the lead-in to share that......as you say.
peace.......LC
Could you be so kind as to further elaborate what you mean by this Alan? I'm getting the sense that your wife doesn't feel wanted (some way) and that bothers me.
After I was banned for something I've just elaborated on in another post, she found that her login had been suspended as well. It seems that there are different criteria a forum administrator can use to ban a person. It can typically be by username, e-mail address, ISP, IP address or a combination of all the above. I'm assuming that she was banned because we shared the same IP address and it would be possible for me to post under her account.
It's not that she doesn't feel wanted, it's more that she see's no value in participating in a venue where she can be arbitrarily forbidden from continuing due to circumstances beyond her control.
Originally posted by Alan.
It's not that she doesn't feel wanted, it's more that she see's no value in participating in a venue where she can be arbitrarily forbidden from continuing due to circumstances beyond her control. What a shame that is..... I'll bet she'd bring some really great content to the forum and would make for a wonderful SL friend.
I hope you got over your trauma, Alan. I can not understand why anyone would be so upset about these or the former SLN forums. What would be the purpose?
Thanks for your concern Ziggy, but there's no trauma. This is just one of those issues that's been referenced more than a few times over the years and I thought the perspective of the person being discussed was in order. I also thought that highlighting the positive aspects of speaking up on issues that affect all members would be a good thing to do.
I think Crystal, in her position as Administrator, has probably been the driving force in helping to achieve those positive results that most of us can now take for granted. I'm happy that she seemed to be listening with an open mind while all the drama of the past was going on.
What a shame that is..... I'll bet she'd bring some really great content to the forum and would make for a wonderful SL friend.
Thanks Mrs M, she's certainly been my best friend and moral compass for the past 35 years. I'm sure you'd love her as much as I do.
And then there are those guys from Harvard Square who have an entire program devoted to repairing stuff, they certainly appeal to the crazed basement dwellers who are whittling and loading ammo.
Hey, I LOVE Cartalk! And my DH cannot stand it. They are hilarious, really.
Alan, when I said the "Obama bashers", I was refering to some of the talk radio shows and not our forums, and, yes I was here during the Bush years. I do really think some of the comments made on the talk radio shows are racially motivated, just not admitted to as such. They take the "socialist agenda" route instead. Equally sad are the comments made about Michelle Obama's appearance and the clothes she wears. Don't know how much progress we can make if race is still such an issue.
Alan, when I said the "Obama bashers", I was refering to some of the talk radio shows and not our forums, and, yes I was here during the Bush years. I do really think some of the comments made on the talk radio shows are racially motivated, just not admitted to as such. They take the "socialist agenda" route instead. Equally sad are the comments made about Michelle Obama's appearance and the clothes she wears. Don't know how much progress we can make if race is still such an issue.
Yes, I know you were refering specifically to talk radio, it's just that I see a lot of similarities between talk radio and public discussion forums. Both typically promote specific viewpoints and are outlets for everyday people to publicly express their ideologies, their concerns and their frustrations.
As for the racial aspect of communications mediums, I'm always saddened to see race or sex or class be used as a weapon against anyone with an opposing viewpoint. In my view, more often than not, it's used to stop conversations in their tracks and demonize the perceived opposition. I believe it happens less in talk radio than it does in forums such as this because honestly, we see it here all the time. We're just not as likely to notice if it fits in with our own biases.
After I was banned for something I've just elaborated on in another post, she found that her login had been suspended as well. It seems that there are different criteria a forum administrator can use to ban a person. It can typically be by username, e-mail address, ISP, IP address or a combination of all the above. I'm assuming that she was banned because we shared the same IP address and it would be possible for me to post under her account.
It's not that she doesn't feel wanted, it's more that she see's no value in participating in a venue where she can be arbitrarily forbidden from continuing due to circumstances beyond her control.
I suppose the 'circumstance beyond her control' was sitting across the dinner table from her. ;)
I can see, if you were banned, how the moderators would assume she was you, especially if you tried to come back under different names. You really can't blame them for that.
As far as people looking at your profile, I don't think there is a conspiracy there. It's probably due to the fact that you were thinking of starting your own forum and folks just wanted to check you out. A very reasonable thing to do, don't you think?
Of course, now I'm wondering who you were in the old forum. I was never very good at recognizing people like that. You weren't, by any chance, :moon: ? :D
I suppose the 'circumstance beyond her control' was sitting across the dinner table from her. ;)
I can see, if you were banned, how the moderators would assume she was you, especially if you tried to come back under different names. You really can't blame them for that.
I agree. That's why there was no blame attached, just a passing comment on the unintended consequences of radical actions.
Of course, now I'm wondering who you were in the old forum. I was never very good at recognizing people like that. You weren't, by any chance, :moon: ? :D
Was I a smiling ass? Well, I suppose that depends upon who you ask. >8)
You would probably remember me as JayGee, a name created from my oldest grandson's initials, but Loosechickens and several other Moderators/Administrators always called me Alan since they always knew who I was. It was more of an open arrangement than you might be led to believe.
It seems as though the original topic here was the O.P.'s discomfort with the effects talk radio (which is almost always extreme, one way or another) was having on her husband, whose communications were also starting to reflect this one-sided thinking.
I find extremist thinking -- whether it's Al Qaeda, extreme Christian churches, far-far-far left Liberals -- a big warning sign that someone is losing their sense of balance and succumbing to "my way or the highway" thinking.
Here on the forum, I'm pleased to see people of all different opinions exploring different ways to think, communicate, act. I've learned as much from bae as I have from loosechickens. That's simply not a trait of talk radio, which plays to a niche market of extremists, all of whom seem to love the sound of their own voice.
Granted, there are people here who love the sound of their own voice too, and who love to argue for arguing's sake. In a place that celebrates simplicity (which requires listening and learning) I'm grateful that they are the minority here, and not the majority.
I sometimes wonder how we would all get along or not if we sat around the dinner table together. I think the anonymity (sp?) of forums and talk radio allow us to be much ruder to each other than if we gathered in person. There are certain posters here that come across as bullies but I never know if it is intentional or what. I guess this sort of behavior is just one of many new normals out there.
Agreed, pinkytoe. My husband and I are finding more and more that we don't want to spend much time around people stuck on the fringes. Those are the ones who have a whole attitude that "My________ (insert belief: religion, political stance, lifestyle, etc) is the only legitimate one, and I'm going to constantly try to convince you why that's true." Or the ones that have to argue about everything in their belief structure, always trying to prove that they're right. So tiresome, and life's just too short to waste much energy on people like that. It would be swell to have some system where they could all live in one place, Planet Extremo, so they could all just argue with each other all day. Win-win.
Oh lets move them all to South Dakota. We're not using that state anyway, are we? ;)
I remember you now Alan, and you're right I remember they called you Allen. I guess we all get a little passionate when discussing our beliefs. I know I do :|(
You are very helpful with computer stuff and I do appreciate that, and you do have some interesting, (if wrong ;)) ideas on politics. You do always make me think, even if I don't admit it. In fact, most posters here make me think and often I find myself pondering something someone said far into the day as I go about my business.
I must say though, the kinds of discussions i really like here are the ones where we can step back from the down and dirty ideology and just ponder interesting ideas. Like the whole rights verses privileges discussion, which I found exceedingly interesting and thought provoking. I'm still thinking about that one.
As far as talk radio goes, recently I spent a lot of time in another town and to pass the time I wandered through a very large flea market/junk store/antique kind of place. Took me two days to go through it all. But both times I went, the lady who ran it had Rush Limbaugh on the radio, loud, so his voice was heard throughout the whole place.
His show was a constant barrage of liberals bad/ democrats hate America/ democrats love terrorist/ Obama is trying to ruin everything you hold good and right and holy, and on and on. It was a constant, almost monotone monologue of this demonizing and dehumanizing of democrats/liberals. Constant. And I thought to myself, no wonder it's gotten to what it is. No wonder the right has moved so far to the right, and the hate for anything democrat/liberal/Obama has not only come to the surface, but is held up and legitimized by even our so called republican leaders. And this message is reinforced by Fox News, just in case we didn't get it, or need another dose of the hate. And it is hate. It's hate.
And it's brain washing. This is the essence of brain washing. A constant constant constant monologue of 'the message'. Over and over again his listeners are told how evil, not just wrong politically, but evil liberals/democrats are. To his listeners we aren't even Americans. It isn't our country, or our values, or our government. They keep talking about 'taking back the country' as if liberals/democrats were foreign invaders and the majority of Americans didn't elect this administration.
It was this kind of nasty, dehumanizing rhetoric that allowed genocide in Rwanda. The Hutus began a concentrated effort to portray the Tutsis as less than human, evil and anti Rwandan and convinced a nation they should be wiped out. The government, the media, everyone listened to this constant drumbeat of anti Tutsis and believed it. Neighbors turned on neighbors and suddenly, these vermin (Tutsis) were a plague to be eliminated, to 'take back the country from'.
The monologue type talk radio programs, Rush, Beck, others I'm sure, are brainwashing.
And you don't see the flip side of that here?
rodeosweetheart
6-20-11, 4:11pm
Pug, I love the idea of Planet Extremo--sort of like Bizarro World.
I also wish things were more civil, and that so many people I encountered each day, including in my own family, did not seem to intent on telling others "the truth" about things.
I guess many people are feeling very unheard and unappreciated these days. It's a rough economy, and lots of losses on many levels for many people. It's hard not to get bitter when you have many losses. I also think it is getting older, as I love talking to my grown kids, who at 30 years younger than I, are still open minded and positive individuals!!:)
Sounds like you raised 'em up right, rodeosweetheart! Way to go! :)
I think too that it's a personality type issue. The introvert/extrovert, sensing/feeling, judgmental/nonjudgmental differences between us all. Some people, by their nature, are just super judgmental about everything from vegetables to veterans' benefits, and if they're also extroverted (or on a safe space like a discussion forum), they'll want you to know all about it, and prove why you're wrong if you don't agree. Guess we're all just different.
Still not booking my ticket to Planet Extremo any time soon! :P
And you don't see the flip side of that here?
On this forum? No not really. Not at all. On those talk radio programs it is one voice, and one message only. And it's a constant same message, over and over and over.
On this forum, no one is really talked over. Sure, if someone says something truly goofy, folks will call them on it. You've done that yourself, we all have. But for the most part, even when the rhetoric gets hot, it's still many voices with a variety of messages/ideas. And, being print, unless you go back and delete your posts, they are out there for everyone to read and re-read. How many times has someone misunderstood something and came back and said 'after re-reading the post, I realized I misunderstood'. That's the beauty of forums, and this forum in particular. We get into some heavy discussions, but over all everyone stays civil.
As I said, there are many posts that make me think, and many more discussions i don't participate in but 'listen' to. I always gain something. Always. And I'm always amazed at the diversity of opinion. Just when I think I 'know' someone, they will say something that totally surprises me. You don't have that on a one voice/ one message talk radio. I can tell you what Limbaugh's message was yesterday, today and tomorrow.
So I guess the biggest difference between talk radio and this forum is, when we talk here, everyone and anyone can come back and comment, and actual discussions are carried on. The discussions are in print so anyone can comment well into next week and beyond, after they have thought on it a bit, and if they want to add just one more thing, they can add that too, with more commenting on their one more thing.
Talk radio has no back and forth, no diversity of thought or discussion beyond whatever message that host wants to get across. It's not in print and you can't think about it and come back with your opinion later on.
OH, and I happen to think the members of this forum are absolutely intelligent, witty, wise, and incredibly good looking. :D
OH, and I happen to think the members of this forum are absolutely intelligent, witty, wise, and incredibly good looking. :D
:D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.