I'll shoot the hostages

In reply to Grizz:

you may be right

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Do we need a code word like Canoe for political threads so they can be shut down ASAP. Say Jefferson, a presedentail name that's not likely to come up too often unlike Lincoln, Adams etc?

Lincoln? Seriously?

aircooled wrote: The Libya thread was a classic example of a Floundered thread. The discussion was not really political (in a US sense) until some asshat HAD to bring up elected officials. I agree with the ban ESPECIALLY for the next few months. Any discussion that involves (or devolves to) discussing political parties, or any elected official is just not going to end well (and is ultimately pointless anyway).

I'm right in the same boat with you there......that person probably did that on purpose as well, which is even more dissapointing.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Do we need a code word like Canoe for political threads so they can be shut down ASAP. Say Jefferson, a presedentail name that's not likely to come up too often unlike Lincoln, Adams etc?

Tricky Dick.......that makes sense on too many levels

Well I'm hardly the guy who does demographic research for the magazine, but I'd bet the constant nasty floundering has been putting off new readers, or at least new forum goers. Especially since GRM market the magazine to an international audience. If there had been so much ugly political laundry around here back when I first started checking the place out, I'm pretty sure I'd not have signed up.

As far as I'm concerned, it's been a long time coming. If you don't think you can have a lively discussion about something without being allowed to bring politics into it, well, you need to get out more.

yamaha wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Do we need a code word like Canoe for political threads so they can be shut down ASAP. Say Jefferson, a presedentail name that's not likely to come up too often unlike Lincoln, Adams etc?

Tricky Dick.......that makes sense on too many levels

How about Watergate? Easy to remember, topical, etc.

-Rob

Grizz wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: O rly? Last I heard it wasn't getting made.

I hope that is true.

Watch Caddyshack II instead. It stands as warning to sequel movie makers as Vlad Tepes 10000 impaled corpses of his own people stood to give pause to the Ottomans.

aircooled wrote: What about Bork? I don't imagine that would come up very often.

Hey now... I use that all the time. As a synonym for berkeley.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Grizz wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: O rly? Last I heard it wasn't getting made.

I hope that is true. Watch Caddyshack II instead. It stands as warning to sequel movie makers as Vlad Tepes 10000 impaled corpses of his own people stood to give pause to the Ottomans.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Grizz: you may be right

Maybe not, seems they were still hoping it'd get greenlight back in July, so there's still a chance.

OT: Maybe instead of banning and all that, how about the inevitable 5 or 6 people who respond to the flounder learn to just berkeleying ignore it? It's not that hard people, I do it all the time. Seriously, it's a simple as reading it and not responding to it.

Brought to you by the Coalition of Drunk Posters for not getting banned whilst E36 M3faced.

rob_lewis wrote:

yamaha wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Do we need a code word like Canoe for political threads so they can be shut down ASAP. Say Jefferson, a presedentail name that's not likely to come up too often unlike Lincoln, Adams etc?

Tricky Dick.......that makes sense on too many levels

How about Watergate? Easy to remember, topical, etc. -Rob

I think any thread containing the phrase "Something has to be done" or "I disagree" should just auto-lock.

That way no one's knickers will ever get in a bunch.

In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:

I never know if I want to see that or hope it gets destroyed before it makes the light of day.

Grizz wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Grizz: you may be right

Maybe not, seems they were still hoping it'd get greenlight back in July, so there's still a chance. OT: Maybe instead of banning and all that, how about the inevitable 5 or 6 people who respond to the flounder learn to just berkeleying ignore it? It's not that hard people, I do it all the time. Seriously, it's a simple as reading it and not responding to it. Brought to you by the Coalition of Drunk Posters for not getting banned whilst E36 M3faced.

See, and I'd say the people who don't like political threads (which many in here say that, yet post in them)......if you don't like it ignore it.

But I like it here as well and don't want to be banned, so I'll leave it at "agree to disagree."

I believe posting politics or trolling for political arguments will now be referred to as "watergating."

Actually, that is what we used the word Flounder for....

Per Schroeder wrote: Actually, that is what we used the word Flounder for....

watergating is just the political flounder

yamaha wrote:

Per Schroeder wrote: Actually, that is what we used the word Flounder for....

watergating is just the political flounder or a politically based topic

Ftfy

Thank you Tim, Margie, Per, David et al for providing this wonderful forum for people with great enthusiasm for the mechanically offbeat. I'm here for the incredible inventiveness, the crazy build threads, the frugal fixes and also getting a peek at what else these folks like to do when they're not wrenching on an obstinate piece of machinery. I even liked checking out all your spouses, though I'm sure that thread got some people in trouble at home.

Unfortunately, I visit this forum less and less, especially over the last couple of years. This forum lives more on its reputation as a good place to be rather than actually being one. It's being spoiled by folks who think politics is some kind of blood sport with a scoreboard. They aren't looking for solutions. They're looking for someone to blame. Real governing consists of the grinding compromise all of us practice in our lives every day. It's about people working together to solve problems, not ideological purity. My own Facebook page began to resemble a battleground so I posted this:

Me said: To all my Facebook friends: As a political moderate, I have seen my share of inflammatory political rhetoric from both the Right and the Left. I have had it up to here with all the baloney from both sides. All you people do is repost reposts of other people's reposts. Do you ever think for yourselves? Are your former teachers and college professors spinning in their graves? Here's the deal: If you write an original piece stating why you think your candidate is best for America, then I will read it. Remember, I am a moderate and facts are important to moderates so you better be able to back up what you say with facts. Sources and corroboration would be nice as well. Just like responsible, professional journalism. If you cannot do this because you are too lazy to put two thoughts of your own together and continue to repost pablum from ignorant loudmouths, fact-free blogs, or rags most of the country wouldn't wipe their collective ass with, then I will unfriend you. Why should my Facebook page become a reflection of the partisan ugliness now paralyzing Congress and the Senate? If that's the case, I'd rather look at pictures of kitties. At least they don't E36 M3 where they eat.

A couple of folks did not heed the warning so I offed 'em. One was a guy I've known since 1970. Why should opening my Facebook page or this forum produce the sphincter-tightening effect usually reserved for cleaning septic systems?

In the end, this forum is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. A very benevolent dictatorship but one nonetheless. We either follow the rules or get banned. This is not NASCAR. The rules are not here to be tested, probed, stretched or "interpreted." They are here to be followed. Manners and courtesy go a long way. To the gentleman who opined about rules and guidelines resulting in declining page views, please consider what would happen without them.

Were it me, I would lock potentially volatile threads the minute someone affixed blame to anyone or anything. No explanation needed or given. Sound draconian? Too bad. Those not disposed to agree with the moderator's desire for civility can start their own forum, perhaps called "Cars 'N Blame."

Sorry, guys. I'm just sick of the divisiveness in general destroying every decent institution we have.

Jerry for President!!!!!!

With all due respect to the staff, I am completely unaware of any restriction in the Off Topic Discussion section of this forum prohibiting political discussion.

I am aware that it usually annoys Margie, but that is only because I spend a lot of time here.

I personally find it some of the more intellectually stimulating political discussion on the internet, and I am sorry to see that it triggers knee jerk responses from the staff.

But I strongly recommend that if there is to be a limitation on this type of discussion, there should be a readily accessible guideline or forum rule that says so. Most forums that have a limitation on political discussion say so.

A stated guideline would be a much more professional approach than locking threads before there are any posts, getting pissed off, and threatening the participants with sticks, patios, and hostage shooting.

I have no problem with the idea that the staff has the right to make any guideline they want. I also have no problem following it. But there are better ways to handle things that frustrate you.

Thank you.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In before the lock!

I know you were kidding, but what makes you think posts have to stay in AFTER the lock? Or ever? This forum is way closer to talk radio than to journalism, meaning mods have ultimate control over the content.

And SVrex, I am not the only one who is annoyed by these threads. No need to call me out for performing a nuisance job that shouldn't be necessary. And don't be coy... there WAS a prohibition on political threads. You were among those that argued it was silly and unnecessary.

Which reminds me--off to repost that prohibition. Thanks for the reminder. (Oh, and edit--sorry GPS, accidentally deleted your comment when I went to copy it. Though it does kind of make the point, it was unintentional.)

Margie

I said potentially volatile threads. Your oil pump does not apply unless your oil has a high vaporization rate. Seriously, it's up to the moderators using whatever rules they want to create at that given moment. It's all fine with me. The forum is a privilege, not a right.

We doing some patio work down there?

In reply to z31maniac:

Actually, I agree with you, so you can't agree to disagree. Suck on that.

I largely leave political threads alone, I've got places where I go for that, this ain't one of them. It's simple, I fall into a very odd section of political thought, and I'm getting to the point of my life where I'm going to achieve hate nirvana and stop caring altogether about moronic political arguments from either side of the aisle. Ignorance isn't bliss, but ignoring is, so get happy goddamnit.

Now, back to the movie and sammich discussion.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

rob_lewis wrote:

yamaha wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Do we need a code word like Canoe for political threads so they can be shut down ASAP. Say Jefferson, a presedentail name that's not likely to come up too often unlike Lincoln, Adams etc?

Tricky Dick.......that makes sense on too many levels

How about Watergate? Easy to remember, topical, etc. -Rob

I think any thread containing the phrase "Something has to be done" or "I disagree" should just auto-lock. That way no one's knickers will ever get in a bunch.

I disagree and something has to be done about this.