|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 3, 2017 0:54:30 GMT -5
Well, I'm living here, as I have since before 9/11, and in fact have using that very bike path this week. I am not any more worried about another attack than I usually am on any given day, nor was I on Halloween night. Our Halloween parade happened, as spectacular as always. Our marathon will happen on Sunday. Fuck the terrorists. Those who live here are very aware that shit like this is going to happen from time to time -- we are the ideal terrorist target in any number of ways and that's the world we live in. We either accept that, or we move somewhere where it's less likely. New Yorkers don't have time to cower and freak out. Thank you for the 411 about 9/11. I was not aware you were the official spokeswoman for eight million New Yorkers though I said nothing about cowering or freaking out. So you've said more than once, but I reject the characterization. I'm not "going after" Vince. I'm responding to his remarks, which is what I was under the impression we are supposed to be doing here no matter who he's echoing. Well, from my observation, it seems non-New Yorkers have a damn good reason to be "freaked out" about some prick weaponizing a truck, plowing through bike riders and joggers and injuring kids after t-boning a school bus . In 2016, some 60 million visitors to NYC pumped $43 billion bucks into the city's cash registers, so you can sneer at the non-New Yorkers for being "freaked out" but let what happened this week happen again and again and again, and it won't be long before those freaked-out wussies take their trips and bucks somewhere else that isn't a magnet for deranged fucktards like Sayfullo Saipov. Six of the eight killed Tuesday were "non-New Yorkers" from Argentina and Belgium. Did they have time to "cower and freak out" before Saipov rolled over and crushed them?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 3, 2017 0:52:08 GMT -5
Brazile makes it sound like she was totally innocent in all of this. She wanted to put a thumb on the scales as much as anyone. LOL. Donna Brazile is a survivor and you can bet your ass had Hillary Clinton won, Brazile would be kissing hers for a job. That didn't happen, so here comes her oh-so-appropriately named book, Hacks, and she's giving Hillary the Big Kiss-Off. Not to anyone except Bernie Bros and Donna Brazile. On a personal note, I interviewed Brazile back in the day and found her politically savvy and quotable but egotistical and lacking candor and while quotable. Now I can add "disloyal opportunist" to the list. Thanks, Donna! You just confirmed the already-low opinion of I had of you. Enjoy the very brief turn in the media spin cycle. There's always another Washington "insider" with a tale to tell and a book to sale. Brazile is barely the Flavor of the Week and certainly not the month. I suspect before she fades back to Obscurity City, the pro-Clinton cabal in the press (yes, they do exist), will have their say as to what else might be motivating Brazile's backstabbing of Hillary. I still doubt I'll have gotten any fucks to give.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 2, 2017 23:19:01 GMT -5
As usual, some people can't help but latch on to any tragedy that promotes their own agenda, facts be damned. Same with there's a shooting and people call instantly for new gun laws which often wouldn't have done anything to prevent what happened. I notice you aren't criticizing President Pussygrabber for instantly demanding an end to the immigration policies which allowed Sayfullo Saipov to enter the country. I also notice you aren't criticizing President Pussygrabber for trashing America's laws, due process, and screwing up the prosecution case against Saipov by demanding he be given the death penalty. Some people can't help but latch on to any tragedy that promotes their own agenda. Some people can't help but to give those people a pass. Incidentally, Trump took time to froth at the mouth to blame NY Senator Chuck Schumer for the immigration policy, but he hasn't called NY Governor Cuomo or Mayor DiBlasio to offer support, sympathy or assistance. That would indicate Trump gave a shit about anything but politicizing this tragedy in a way he didn't with the Las Vegas massacre. You don't say? There's no other trucks tooling around NYC where some asshole could make a a quick right turn and wipe out a bunch of tourists or kids waiting for a school bus? The New York Marathon is this weekend and thousands will be participating as well as watching. There's no reason to really think there would be a 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th attack by a terror cell? Because what happened the day before we arrived wasn't on the scale of 9-11 is a reason to relax, chill and blow it off? Somebody tell my wife because she was really shook up over the attack on the bike trail. Hell, somebody tell the NYPD because they are out in force and for every cop I can see, I'm willing to bet there's a lot more I can't. Terrorists gonna terror. They may never wreak havoc on the city the way they did 16 years ago, but it's probably not due to a lack of plotting to repeat and top 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 2, 2017 17:38:28 GMT -5
Seuss. Adult version. Wow! That was a lot of effort for someone who doesn't give a fuck. Awesome Not really. Actually it was pretty easy. Giving no fucks about non-stories always is.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 2, 2017 15:26:07 GMT -5
The timing on this release is rather interesting, what with the Mueller - Manafort - Podesta thing going on. Or just a convenient coincident maybe? Hey! Didja know Donna Brazile has a book coming out and this is probably the most interesting tidbit to come out of it? Huh? Didja know that? Huh? For Bernie Bros and Hillary Haters THIS IS REALLY BIG NEWS. I mean, Donna B. was the replacement to Debbie Wasserman Schultz and everybody knew she was waving the pom-poms for Team Hillary in a big-ass way and ohmigerd this fucking confirms it. Bernie got screwed by the DNC and Donna B. is off Team Hillary and Bernie should totally demand a do-over of the 2016 Democratic Presidential primaries because even though Hillary beat his ass by THREE MILLION MOTHERFUCKING VOTES we know now the whole process was rigged. It was all fixed. Scammed. We got hoodwinked. Swindled. It was shenanigans, I tell ya! SHENANIGANS!!!!! There's only way to respond to this outrage! www.google.com/search?q=erika+jayne+how+many+fucks%3F&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecTozS3w8sc9YSmnSWtOXmO04eIKzsgvd80rySypFNLjYoOyVLgEpXj10_UNDZNzy_LK00tKNBik-LlQhXgA_ORQ5FAAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiew8DI0qDXAhXj64MKHR_ODQ8Q6RMIcTAL&biw=1366&bih=577This is about as meaningless a "story" as it gets. A party hack like Brazile has a book to sell and rats out the same candidate she fed debate answers to and what does it prove? Oooo..the Democrats schemed to keep a non-Democrat from winning their presidential nomination because they didn't want a cranky old Larry David lookalike with worse hair to pull a George McGovern and get both his ass and the whole damn party's other candidates smoked like sausage. Hillary Clinton won because more Democrats voted for her than him. How unfair. Boo. Hoo. After dispatching Sanders, a triumphant, but bloodied Clinton choked away the general election and Trump won. Had the nominee been Sanders instead of Clinton, Trump would have still won. I'm convinced of it. Why? Because Bernie Bros and Sanders Sistas are loud and proud, but they aren't a plurality of Democratic voters and 12 percent of them ended up voting for Trump. But so what and who cares? There are no do-overs. There's no relitigating the Democratic Primary. There was a winner and there was a loser and no matter how greasy the DNC's thumb was on the scale, it didn't tip the nomination from Sanders to Clinton. The only question is why a hardcore Clinton loyalist like Brazile is ratting out Hillary now? Silly goose, I told you already. She has a book to sell and I have no fucks to give.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 31, 2017 13:13:54 GMT -5
It's a pretty good trick to blame lousy ratings on a guy who hasn't played all season.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 31, 2017 4:09:13 GMT -5
Just to make it clear... THIS is not disrespectful to the national anthem or the flag. THIS is disrespectful to the flag. THIS is disrespectful to the national anthem. So is this. And this a toy cop going as "Colin Kaepernick" and a Racist for Halloween and that's just disrespectful all the way around. It also feeds disrespect for the police. Glad to be of help.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 31, 2017 3:24:55 GMT -5
I have not noticed Vince "deliberately" failing to use names, and indeed, since neither of us are in his brain, I'm not sure how either of us could say whether he is doing it "deliberately" or not. For my part, I never noticed a pattern of Vince failing to use names at all. For my part, I have. It's unnecessary to be Vince's brain when my eyes can go back through this thread as well as other threads where it has occurred. I've noticed it happen enough to suspect this may be by commission instead of omission. You not noticing the pattern does not mean the pattern does not exist. Then it's a good thing its right there in the title of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 30, 2017 21:18:24 GMT -5
While on the field, I expect the players to do their jobs on the field. On the sidelines, it's exploitative to use them as props for bullshit acts of faux patriotism designed by the NFL and the military. He's on the sidelines, but still in uniform and on the clock. So the NFL can impose standards for how he behaves. And yes, I understand that he did the knee thing because it was supposed to be better than not standing. Regardless, it's seen as making a statement, while sitting could be seen as just not wanting to participate.
I'm not saying the NFL should do that, but I think it would be reasonable to tell players if your within public view while in uniform, don't make any political statements. Stay in the locker room or just don't stand during the anthem. Your not telling them to do something, just not to. If he stayed in his seat, at this point, everyone would know why anyway. The NFL is in a no win scenario. If they force him to stand if he wants to play, they're infringing on his 1st amendment rights and seen as bullies like Trump. If they don't, a lot of people who are looking to be outraged over something will be outraged over this. We've had calls calling for us to not offer any NFL packages here because of this. (Not a lot, but still. And no, we're still offering.) I think, personally, most people are being stupid. If you disagree with him, fine. But people are dumb.
HE has a name. His name is Colin Rand Kaepernick and you are doing that same thing you do ALL THE TIME. You refuse to give the person you're bitching about the respect of even naming them and because you do so deliberately it is annoying as hell. Yes, Kaepernick did make a statement. It wasn't a statement about the national anthem or the fucking flag or any of these other distractions, sideshows and off-the-wall horseshit Trump, Jerrah Jones and these other White men are pissing and moaning about and blaming a shitty season on. What the statement was and is and has always been is about something neither Trump, nor Jones, nor you ever mention and that is the slaughtering of Black people like Philando Castile by trigger-happy cops who kill without restraint knowing they will get away with murder. I know Trump doesn't think killing Black people is bigger than football and I know Jones doesn't think killing Black people is bigger than football and I'm sure you'll say killing Black people is bigger than pro football, but the way you shut out the facts and deny or ignore the facts leaves the impression you really don't. Not that I want an answer because you don't owe me one. Not that it matters. Kaepernick is not going to play in the NFL. Not this season and likely not the next either. That's how blackballing works and with the season half-over and Kap still waiting for a call where his former team has now dumped Brian Hoyer and Matt Barkley, the two scrubs they brought in to replace him, and the rookie they drafted proved himself not ready for the big time. Today, the winless Niners traded a 2nd round-pick to the Patriots for Tom Brady's backup, Jimmy Garappolo. The Niners gave Hoyer a $4M signing bonus, $150,000 workout bonus, $2.95M guaranteed salary and he gave them four TDS, four interceptions for six losses and no wins. Money well spent. They are a dumpster fire trying not to go winless, hence a move that smacks less of inspiration and more of desperation. Garappolo will take one look at the barren roster and start weeping uncontrollably. He probably was hoping for a chance to start somewhere, but go to a winless team with virtually NO talent at most of the skill positions and Garappolo is well and truly FUCKED. But he's in the league and Hoyer will land somewhere else where he can stink up the joint. Just play, baby and anyone with a pulse can play quarterback in the NFL. Anyone not named Kaepernick.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 29, 2017 16:16:08 GMT -5
I'm looking at it as kneeling is taking an action. Sitting is not. A person may stay seated for a variety of reasons. Of course, here everyone knows his reasons. I don't think there should be any restriction on him for him making his reasons clear. Again, I'm not saying this solves the matter, but I think the NFL could make the case to prohibit kneeling during the anthem, but not force him to stand. You do know Colin Kaepernick modified his anthem protest after Nate Boyer, a former Seattle Seahawk and a Green Beret, talked to him and told Kap taking a knee was more respectful than sitting on the bench as he had been doing? You knew that, right? Boyer wasn't about to join Kaepernick in taking a knee, but he shaped his protest in a way that is more respectful. That is, if a former Green Beret doesn't have a problem with the method Kaepernick agreed upon, I don't know why you or President Bone Spurs should. So Vince is basically saying the players should try to avoid political statements. Kneeling is obviously making a political statement. Sitting may or may not be making a statement--the sitting player would have to explain why he was sitting in order for it to be political. I disagree. I think the player sitting would, in the climate of the NFL now, have to deny there was any intent to make a political statement by sitting. I agree with Cass that sitting is going to be seen as disrespectful, if not all of the time, then the vast majority of the time. So, both political AND disrespectful. I'm on Team Don - if you want to take the politics out, get rid of the anthem. From a business standpoint, that wouldn't make sense, especially now. The only reason NFL players stand for the anthem at all is based upon business. They could resolve the problem by going back to the previous position where players didn't even come out for the national anthem, but assholes like Trump and Jerry "ranking owner" Jones would lose their shit. Really? They want to sing a poorly-written, hard to sing, pro-slavery racist ass song? Tell me something, Vince? When you turn on a NFL game do you rise from your recliner, put your hand over your heart and sing this? Oh say can you see, By the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hailed, At the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, Through the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched, Were so gallantly streaming.
And thy rocket's red glare, Thy bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through thee night, That our flag was still there.
Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave, O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.What about this part? And where is that band who so vauntingly swore, That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion A home and a Country should leave us no more? Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave. The Star-Spangled Banner is a shit song and a shit national anthem. It's controversial when you realize who Francis Scott Key was and what message he tried to get across in his shitty song. The only reason nobody sings the third stanza is who wants to sing about slaves right before a predominantly Black group of players go out to knock the hell out of each other for three hours? While on the field, I expect the players to do their jobs on the field. On the sidelines, it's exploitative to use them as props for bullshit acts of faux patriotism designed by the NFL and the military.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 29, 2017 15:29:22 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, I'm still the Dread Pirate Roberts, ala "goodnight Colline Gate, I'll most likely pull the plug on you in the morning. Right now, everyone here should be really clear on this point. That said, from the beginning my hope has been to have a place to discuss politics--to argue about politics--and the like that allowed real arguments between people that came from most any pov. I can't speak for anyone else but I look forward to those arguments, arguments that make me think, challenge my perspective, even when they don't appear to change my mind in the least. So as to moderating, it's not surprising that I want to minimize it, right? Seriously, the rules are pretty lax in this regard and the one thing we really want to avoid is descending into an insult-fest. And frankly, everyone here is an adult and in control of what they post. So everyone here shouldn't have much of a problem recognizing when discussions are going off the rails (of course, that makes one wonder how discussions go off the rails). It would be best to have mods who were not participating in threads. But that's not going to happen as long as the numbers are what they currently are. So until that changes, we're going to generally keep things as they are. However, I think this is a perfectly reasonable and doable suggestion (other suggestions are perfectly reasonable to, though not as doable): At the very least, it would perfectly clear if the modding came in a separate post instead of the same one, IMHO. So, we'll go with that for now. That sounds perfectly sound and reasonable to me. Thanks, robeiae.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 28, 2017 21:17:32 GMT -5
I'm not going to defend my modding to you, except to say that I feel I've exhibited considerable restraint as a mod, despite some considerable provocation. I haven't attacked your modding, Cassandra, and I've been nothing but respectful to you in this thread, so I have no idea why you feel a need to be defensive. All I've done is ask a simple and politely stated question and one you have yet to answer directly. I hope you will because its a sincere attempt to understand how you view the matter. Displaying considerable restraint despite considerable provocation is a fine trait for a Moderator to exhibit and they are qualities to be admired as much as emulated. However, the flip side to your actions as a Moderator is as a Member you have been considerably provocative yourself with little prodding necessary to be so. It tends to enhance a debate at times, but it can chafe and grate on others the same way it does on you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 28, 2017 20:41:03 GMT -5
Because we are a forum with approximately 15 regularly active members, including mods, and the two most active members are mods. This is a wee little group. And we actually don't do all that much modding. Okay, there's that. But you and I have both said the same thing regarding the number of CG participants. That's not the question. The question was (with your qualified added), "If you don't actually do all that modding, when you do, why do you deem it fine to threaten banning members in a public post? Respectfully, beg to differ. Yes you put "MOD NOTE" in big bold letters, but often you do it within the same post where you're expressing yourself as a Member. It is very unclear when the message coming across is "I'm saying THIS as a Member, but I'm saying THAT as a Moderator and it is the same posting. At the very least, it would perfectly clear if the modding came in a separate post instead of the same one, IMHO. Okay, but are those "attacks" coming at you and robeiae as a member or a moderator? As a member you're going to take more flak than you would as a mod. As a moderator you're going to be deferred to more than you would as a member. At least that's how I perceive the differening power dynamic. As I am as well. I don't know if robeiae will disagree or agree with either of us, but this is why we're discussing it in a rational, reasoned and thoughtful manner instead of the typical taunting, insulting, belittling and being rude to each other manner. Which is what I kinda thought was what we were going for here.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 28, 2017 19:49:54 GMT -5
This thread has thirty people, only a dozen or so of whom regularly participate, and two mods. Rob and I are both going to be active participants in a lot of threads, probably most. Yes. I said as much, but that's not my issue. My issue is when a participant in a thread switches up and tries to moderate that same thread. It causes confusion and particularly when the Moderator is referencing remarks made between two Members and the Moderator was one of them. How could is not be confusing when you have to ask, " Am I arguing with you as another Member or a Moderator?" Respectfully, what might have happened on another board isn't relevant here at The Colline Gate. Another moderated forum might have three or four times as many members and moderators and handled equivalent situations in entirely different ways. On some boards, it's one strike and you're out. On another it might not come until there's a dozen strikes. There are certainly other boards with better and worse moderation and members, but The Colline Gate should aspire to be its own thing, not someone else's thing. Maybe so and maybe no, but even if it's "so" the question at issue remains germane. Is it a Member or a Moderator who is saying so and right now, it is not always clear. There needs to be some clarification as to which role is in play. Not at all. No more than you would dispute you have your own biases and at times those biases follow you into the forums the same as they do Amadan or Opty or Christine or Don. Let he or she without bias cast the first stone. Certainly you've argued for and against everyone here at some point and I've even joked the kids cry when Mommy Cassandra and Daddy robeiae go toe-to-toe. That speaks to your ability to perceive a weak or strong or convincing or unconvincing argument and respond accordingly. Kudos, but my initial post did not make this about you, Cassandra or single you out for criticism. I made an observation and a suggestion and the intention was to so in neutral language that fuels understanding, if not necessarily agreement. I feel confident I have accomplished that. I don't know how I could have posed the question any better unless I never mentioned you at all. Regretfully, I could not without insulting everyone's intelligence and them walking away saying, "Who is he kidding? We know who he's talking about." True as far as it goes, but post this is about moderation and membership and how the lines have been blurred on occasion, not ownership which was never in question. I must disagree with the characterization of Ms. Papworth's essay as "elaborate modding rules." There is a system in place right now for a Moderator to notify a misbehaving Member they have gone too far and going any further will result in negative consequences and sanctions. While no one has yet been banned in the board's first year, the threat to members of being banned has been made publicly several times. I contend that is not the best way to handle the process. It appears you disagree. May I inquire why? Do you think there is merit in cautioning a member in an open forum instead of a private message?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 28, 2017 18:02:56 GMT -5
There are small discussion boards and large discussion boards and specialized discussion boards and private discussions boards and moderated discussion boards and non-moderated discussion boards. They run the gamut and how each board handles its discussions is different and even unique at times. With 35 members The Colline Gate is a small discussion board. There are two Moderators and when you only have two it means wearing a lot of different hats. Two of the most prolific posters and thread starters are also handling the moderating chores as well. Therefore it is unrealistic to expect the Moderators to not be active participants on this board and I am not suggesting they should. What I am asking is how can a Moderator be objective in a thread they have already expressed a view as a participant in that thread? It opens them up to accusations of unfairness and bias. One cannot be a player at one minute and then a referee in the next. When there are only two Moderators, somebody has to police the thread. When there are disputes between Members that become heated and person, there needs to be a "good cop/bad cop" dynamic at play. The Member who is now Moderating should not be same the Member directly involved in the dispute. They are no longer a disinterested third party. They have become an active participant and as such their moderation may come off as intimidation and retaliation. I suggest there be a more distinct identifier for the Moderator when they are exercising their ability to intercede to end personal sniping between Members and to remind all parties to attack each other's argument instead of each other, such as when robeiae's Billy Jack avatar morphs into Anthony Hopkins when he is in CG Admin mode. Here is a suggestion from the " How to Moderate a Forum" blog written by Laurel Papworth, some which are already in place on The Colline Gate with other suggestions worth considering implementing. When robeiae shows up in a thread, as long as its not a personal attack, everything else about the actual topic or his response to it is fair game. When CG Admin shows up I know its because the kids have been running with scissors again and CG Admin is there to lay the smack down and put an end to the shenanigans. I would suggest the similar for Cassandra, a Moderator alter-ego that makes it clear she is now moderating the thread, not simply participating in it. I don't believe "Mod Note" placed within a post makes it clear which hat she is wearing. If anything it blurs the distinction and raises the question of whether Cassandra is mixing the roles and confusing the issue instead of clarifying it. Secondly, I do not agree with publicly taking a member to the woodshed. I reference Papworth again: One final point on the public threats of banning a member. There are many ways to consider this, but please take this in the spirit of a possibly helpful suggestion for a nascent discussion board and not as a challenge to anyone's authority or attempt to bruise someone's ego. Thank you for time and attention to this post.
|
|