user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : I don't care
LOL
As best as I can. People often take things personally or as directed at them when they are not. I do this too. It is human nature to be a little self-centered and to feel this is what is happening. Most of the time I have found that things I felt were directed at me personally really were not. We all do it though and it is no big deal.
Voted : As best as I'm able to
This is why i avoid all the serious political stuff, i don't have any facts on that except what i read/seee/hear, lol
I'm guessing this ballot may be about me. I'll say that a recent ballot you may have interpreted as being directed at you was not. I had been thinking of making it for weeks.
As far as challenging users I will say this: If someone posts something that appears to be dubious or biased, I will either find the actual site they got it from or where similar things are being said. Usually I will find the actual site. This is nothing different from what cranky does with some of Herzog's ballots. Often the part they post is out of context as steelhamster did on one of his ballots recently. If someone posts dubious claims, I will find where these claims are being made and point that out as well. I will do the exact same thing with quotes. I am equal opportunity on this matter. I have done this for a number of users, left, right or whatever. When I post responses to fake claims or ballots that make various assertions, quotes or statements, I will usually try to make sure that I get this information from unbiased sources not one such as prison planet or the like. I will try to avoid using sources that might be interpreted by others as having even a little bit of bias. Usually this will be a mainstream source. If I show where I found info a user posts such as on goggle, I will not pick random ones that support me, but just the first few. I expect others to do the same with me. This is why I try to pick the least biased source I can. However with all of this, I am not perfect, I make mistakes as do all of us.
Anyways, don't take it personal. I don't view you as an automaton, maybe a little misguided or not doing enough research, but certainly not like some users on the Holocaust ballots who directly cut and paste from neo-Nazi sites and have no qualms about doing so.
You have to expect that when claims are made they will be challenged, especially if they seem dubious.
Thanks for your input FFLSD.
No, (That song by Mariah Carey comes to mind) the ballot is not directed at you (though it is spawned by a remark made by Socrates).
I see this happening a lot on B&W and interjected the *you know who you are* as a joke, to lighten any tension (Uh huh, that's it, nice cover. Uh oh, I don't think they're buying it).
What I see My Friend, is a lot of indirect insinuations that people you're responding to fill some prejudiced criteria being Neo Nazis or Conspiracy Theorists, because some sites, in your OPINION, are Neo Nazi or Conspiracy Theorist.
Now you are intitled to those OPINIONS, but that doesn't mean that people who find something on those sights bares truth, adhere to the FFLSD doctrine of wearing a tin hat.
If I disagree with your perspective, method or opinion, that don't mean I'm a Neo Nazi or a Nut. You often respond to creditablity issues with racist comments (more a reverse racism tactic) and condescending prose. That's wrong, my friend.
Reverse racism: Citing references to racial sensitivities to gain leverage in debate.
Just mentioning Neo Nazi in a rebuttal when the subject dosn't pretain to Neo Nazism, is reverse racism. It's a low manner in which to slander and debase your opponent.
So knock it off. 
Voted : As best as I'm able to
It's an obligation that comes with the name.
At least what people say here doesn't affect you in real life, so try not to focus on critics here too much. I personally try not to go too far in criticizing individuals, although I'm as opinionated as any.
i always answer honestly, i think sugarcoating is wrong. and when i have proof, i provide it, and in exchange i get denial and insults.
funny how all your examples are things that have been said about ken....
" If I disagree with your perspective, method or opinion, that don't mean I'm a Neo Nazi or a Nut."
I never said that. It isn't racism or reverse racism to point out what the comment or news source is. I've seen users post comments that when I look the comment up it is obviously a forgery (usually a one attributed to or about Jews). Of course it is relevant when I find it is a forgery and when often find unbiased sources saying things like: Although this is a forgery it still retains some currency on websites like stormfront. Where did they get it from then?
So when I find a user posting info that is primarily found on racist sites I will point that out. The reason? Most of the stuff on those sites is bullshit, forgeries, and hate material. I also find it really odd of you to seem not concerned that some of the info you post is found on those sites. That would certainly concern me more than "reverse racism". I'd be shocked. Do you care if the stuff you post appears to come from these types of sites?
"Just mentioning Neo Nazi in a rebuttal when the subject doesn't pretain to Neo Nazism," It should pertain or at least bother you if the comments or quotes you use appear to come from a site like that. It should concern you. I can tell you this, it would bother the hell out of me. I'm not saying you are a neo-Nazi, I'm just a little puzzled why you don't say something like "I didn't realize it came from sites like that, I'll be more careful next time". Unless you don't care. I check my sources all the time with stuff I quote from. I'll search it to see if this is mainstream."
Also, if you are going to post stuff from what you describe as "Tin Foil Hat" sites you should be prepared to defend that opinion. "Tin Foil Hat" sites sometimes contain relevant information that is useful in a debate. It isn't necessarily "nuts". It is going to make users question you if that is the only source that they can find that uses the same or similar info. Like I said earlier especially with stuff you find on "Tin Foil Hat" sites you would be better served to find more mainstream sources that make the same or similar articles.
If you consider this condescending then fine. I can't do anything about that. But you should expect that other users will start questioning you if these types of sites appear to be the primary sites you use.
"because some sites, in your OPINION, are Neo Nazi or Conspiracy Theorist." IF the site it appears to come from prison planet, it is a conspiracy site. A conspiracy site is not necessarily "bad". There are lots out there with useful info like stuff on JFK's assassination. However, sites like storm front and the national alliance ARE neo-Nazi and hate sites. That is simply stating a fact. They aren't ashamed to be called "Nazis".
Fiddle, I completely understand the legitimacy of your disapproval with the content of sites you mentioned. That's not the subject of debate here.
In simplest terms:
The subject is the content of the ballot in question.
Though I obtained the content from a site you consider to have queationable credibility, with the exception of the Adam Pearlmen: The Fake Terrorist, which I couldn't validate, the remaining information is valid.
The Mossad, The MI5 double agent and The British saboteers, were legitimate news articles recently aired on mainstream networks, that were being discussed on the source website.
My use of the information for the purpose of the ballot was appropriate. The source of the infomation should not have been of issue because the information was legitimate.
However, you criticized and discounted the ballot content solely on the basis of the source, refering to it in derogatory terms; A fringe conspiracy site, comparing it to the National Vanguard - a neo-Nazi website and several similar and dubious sites.
This reference is invalid to the ballot content (which is legitimate), and using this form in debate is reverse racism (explained above).
In the course of your rebuttal, you proceed to criticize me for posting the ballot, deeming it as dubious propaganda because of the source website, though the information and the ballot are both valid controversal issues, Quote :
...,use your brain...Are you channeling ken_from_dublin?...(you) post ultra right-wing and neo-Nazi, conspiracy nonsense.
Again, the ballot content is valid and this reference to me is irrelevent, durogatory slander constituting reverse racism.
You state: The story is 5 years old, though the British Saboteers incident just occurred last september.
Then in your next post, in an attempt to discredit the ballot content, you list the sites that you *googled* containing a references to the ballot content, and you deemed that as *evidence* that the ballot content is false. I followed up on the veracity of the information and found two creditable sources:
The Washington Post and Dahr Jamail's MidEast Dispatches in Iraq.
The following are remarks you made that I consider condescending, self rightous and arrogant:
Yeah, I give these a lot of credibility. Come on passiveson, use your brain. You have been posting a number of these dubious propaganda pieces. Are you channeling ken_from_dublin? The story is 5 years old as well. And, don't do a "notify" on me for this. This is dead news.
and
And... passiveson your story is FIVE years old. Hardly a news flash
Again, the British saboteer incident is less them 6 month out. Your comments are irrelevent to the ballot question, critical of my intellect, accusatory of my character and deliberately debasing. They're irrelevent rants, all because mty ballot reflects poorly on the US policy on terrorism.
Look objectively at my point FFLSD. I like you, I like most of your pewrspectives, but if you treat you'r peers opinions with this form and disrespect, you will not be respected (or liked) and it makes you appear arrogant and self exhalting. I don't think your better than anyone else on this site and this form makes me respect you less. Thank you for your audience, I appreciate your input and hope we can continue being friends.
Voted : I don't care
^ I really don't, most of the time...
** karma **
^ Yeah, permaban~ so go back to the scat factory and finish you dinner.
truth hurts doesn't it? and as usual, all i need to do is get you emotional and your defenses will drop, revealing your identity, in this case by reverting to your old cowardly tactic of blocking anything that proves you wrong. yet another karma abuse by ken.
repost:
that confirms my theory. this is just another ken. after dublin, lovely, daughter, tank, and at least 2 more that i know of, that makes.... let's see..... carry the one... oh yeah, permaban.
|
|
