«

»

Tennessee Family Home Burns While Firefighters Watch

I just copied and pasted the title of this thread from the article I’m using to introduce the topic. The title seems to me to imply a leaning by the author against the decision not to fight the fire. I am purposely refraining from saying whether or not I share that leaning for the time being. I would prefer to see the facts as presented discussed/debated before I give my take.

For the record, I happen to know that this is not the first story of its kind to come out of the South Fulton area of Tennessee. Last September, an almost identical story got quite a bit of news, forum and blog coverage, and I participated in quite a bit of the banter on another very busy forum. That’s the main reason I don’t want to give my take as of now. I feel I have kind of a head start in thinking about the issues at hand as they relate to government responsibilities/authorities, personal responsibilities and conservatism. I am hoping this will spark discussions similar to that one, where many folks ended up seeing it differently than their initial reactions dictated. For me, it was a good “test” of sorts of my beliefs, ideology and instincts, and my ability to adhere to them, and/or justify them within myself.

Also for the record, I happen to live in a jurisdiction served exclusively by a volunteer fire department. If you don’t live in such a jurisdiction, and never have, it might be hard for you to understand how they are funded, which varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. South Fulton, TN has what I perceive to be a rare form of funding in that residents outside the City Limits “subscribe” to the service for an annual fee of $75. No “subscription fee” paid, equals no fires at your home being fought, with one important caveat; the fire department will save lives within fairly standardized policies of risk to themselves, but once people are out of danger, the structure is left to burn. However, though the subscription scheme may be rare, volunteer fire departments are almost always funded by residents of the response-area, whether in the form of donations, local property taxes, bake sales, community garage sales or some combination thereof.

I also live right on the line between two counties. There is a large city-operated fire station about 1/4 mile from where I’m sitting right now, but that city is in the county I don’t live in. Our volunteer department is only about a mile away, staffed entirely by volunteers (no paid positions at all, but supervised and trained by paid officials who work in the County Seat, about 12 miles away), so response times are still very low to our neighborhood. But it’s no exaggeration to say that the staff at the city-operated station just up the road would literally be able to see the flames and smell the smoke if my house was on fire, but would not be able to respond. Point being, in jurisdictions across this country, there are limits imposed on firefighters concerning what locations and people get the benefit of their expertise and equipment, and close-in proximity to a given fire is not a mitigating factor to those limitations. Just something to consider. I’m still not saying how I feel about that circumstance though.

CC

66 comments

No ping yet

  1. HARLEY says:

    $75 for one year, of coverage. If the slack jawed inbred fuck could not afford that, then let the fucking trailer burn.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Xetrov says:

    Here’s the MW discussion from the 2010 situation.

    I still maintain the same opinion as I did then.

    The Firemen should carry a contract with them for such an occasion, where the homeowner signs, promising to pay for the cost of putting out the fire +fees, +promise not to sue, etc. The dumbass pays more for not keeping up with the fees, and doesn’t lose his house. Win-Win.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. CM says:

    Yep, what I said. In the first post (after the opening). Which you agreed with and slightly expanded on.

    As much as I like to watch the purdy fire burn…..ah, so purdy…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  4. HARLEY says:

    xetrov, if i recall correctly one of the Roman emperors got started this way by running a fire department for hire.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. CzarChasm says:

    Xetrov said:
    Here’s the MW discussion from the 2010 situation.

    I still maintain the same opinion as I did then.

    The Firemen should carry a contract with them for such an occasion, where the homeowner signs, promising to pay for the cost of putting out the fire +fees, +promise not to sue, etc. The dumbass pays more for not keeping up with the fees, and doesn’t lose his house. Win-Win.

    I’d forgotten it was discussed on MW. Similar suggestions were offered at the forum I referred to in the OP, and many agreed it was a good idea. Some thought that any “out” would result in less sign-ups for the $75 “insurance” premium, with residents basically betting that they would never have to pay the higher on-the-spot fees.

    I have no idea if South Fulton considered that possibility when they wrote the subscription scheme, but I found merit in the analysis either way. I also found merit in yours and the others at the forum’s suggestion Xetrov. That’s why I think it’s an interesting subject. On its face, it seems like an easy call, but every way you go, there are valid challenges to the logic.

    CC

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. CM says:

    It may tell us how far people are prepared to go “on principle” or because they hold a certain ideology.
    I try to go by what I consider common sense on a case by case basis.

    In this case I would say the amount they could charge at the time could be in the thousands. The percentage of times that would be preferably to losing everything has got to be close to 100%. As I said in the MW forum thread, it could generate more money than they’d get otherwise (i.e. they charge far more than it costs). Really though, how often is this likely to happen?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  7. Mississippi Yankee says:

    In this case I would say the amount they could charge at the time could be in the thousands.

    But if they couldn’t or wouldn’t pay the original $75.00 fee how do suppose the County FD will collect thousands using y’alls Utopian scheme?

    Really though, how often is this likely to happen?

    This is the 2nd time in one year THIS County FD has been in this very same predicament.

    It may tell us how far people are prepared to go “on principle” or because they hold a certain ideology.

    BULLSHIT is such a common word butt…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  8. CM says:

    But if they couldn’t or wouldn’t pay the original $75.00 fee how do suppose the County FD will collect thousands using y’alls Utopian scheme?

    There has got to be a way. E.g. make them sign something which states that if they don’t pay the, say $1700 within 1 month, the ownership of the dwelling (whatever is left) passes to the fire department.

    How do hospitals collect the thousands they are owed?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  9. Mississippi Yankee says:

    How do hospitals collect the thousands they are owed?

    Hospitals don’t foreclose on houses. However they do raise hospital bills for paying customers.

    And please don’t suggest the Fire Dept. raise everyone else’s rate to say $85.00. The lady involved admitted that she did not pay the fee because she never thought she’s have a fire. Life is hard. And sometimes stupid hurts.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  10. HARLEY says:

    CM, the hospital that my wife works eats, over a million dollars a year in services that are not paid for. That is the person provided the service never pays, and the Hospital has either no legal recourse or simply can not contact the persons in question, and this is a small local hospital.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Retluocc1 says:

    Some thought that any “out” would result in less sign-ups for the $75 “insurance” premium, with residents basically betting that they would never have to pay the higher on-the-spot fees.

    Can’t find a citation, but this is essential what the system USED to be for these resident outside of South Fulton: a “fee for service” program. But the SFFD found that only about 25% of people every paid one red cent of the fees charged. With that kind of shitty repayment rate, you can’t continue to maintain equipment or facilities, so the SFFD went to the current subscriber system which guarantees a more predictable stream of funding. In the old system, people would bet that they’d never have a fire, but the FD would still show up to fight it and attempt to save the property. At least with the new system, it’s explicit that the FD will let your shit burn if you didn’t subscribe.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  12. JimK says:

    The Firemen should carry a contract with them for such an occasion, where the homeowner signs, promising to pay for the cost of putting out the fire +fees, +promise not to sue, etc. The dumbass pays more for not keeping up with the fees, and doesn’t lose his house. Win-Win.

    IANAL, but couldn’t a legal argument be made later that this contract was signed under duress? I wouldn’t think it would be too hard to convince a sympathetic judge/jury that the poor homeowner was “just about forced to sign or watch their entire lives burn to the ground. I ask you, how is this not duress?”

    Not saying I agree with the legality of the argument…just saying it seems like any lawyer would be able to make the argument and get somewhere with it.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  13. CzarChasm says:

    When this subject came up last year, I discussed it on another forum. The same lines were drawn in the sand that are going on there right now, e.g: moral responsibility vs. financial considerations vs. personal responsibility vs. government bailing out non-payers. That forum is extremely busy and runs on a shoe-string budget, so to save server space and costs, they only archive a year back. I looked, but couldn’t go back far enough to quote what I said about the first case there, so I settled for what I said on MooreWatch that Xetrov linked to, as I still feel the same way. I found it easily analogous to some current events, and posted the following about the story.

    On 06 October, 2010, BluesStringer said:
    To me, this is the perfect metaphor for what’s wrong with the pre-existing-conditions provisions of ObamaCare. Hear me out.

    No health insurance company can deny coverage to anyone under ObamaCare once it is fully implemented. As it is now, that only applies to children if I recall correctly, but even at that, the example still applies.

    You refuse to pay your premiums knowing that you cannot be denied coverage. The fines are cheaper than the coverage, and the coverage can’t be denied once you get sick or injured, so why would anyone pay the more expensive premiums before they get sick or injured? Simple, they wouldn’t and won’t, with few exceptions IMHO. But as soon as one switches from being a fine-payer to being a premium-payer, they’ll still get treated, which is the only real difference in the scenario in this story.

    I feel terrible for the Cranicks. They seem like nice and hard-working folks. Mr. Cranick explains in the video below that paying the fee just slipped his mind, that he had paid it every year previous but it just slipped through the cracks this year. In the analogy to ObamaCare, his request to pay on the spot would’ve been honored and his home saved, but as it stands, the closer analogy, which is also in our future if ObamaCare stands, is that the City Manager is set up as the autocratic head of the county residents’ Death Panel, only he’s deciding whose homes stand or fall as opposed to who lives or dies. Still, it’s an economic and financial equation. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism or “watching out for the little guy.”

    If you’re conservative, libertarian or a Tea Party activist, you’d have to be OK with the way this went down if you oppose(d) ObamaCare. I was one who went to D.C. to protest the passage of ObamaCare. One of my main reasons was the insane pre-existing conditions provisions. They are intended to drive insurance companies out of business, which will in turn drive the need for the “public option” (read: complete and total takeover and perpetual control over health care by the government) to be implemented. This scenario is no different. In a state that doesn’t have any income tax (TN), funding for some services (maybe all, not sure about that) must be pre-paid in order to keep the services solvent. Make a house-fire akin to a pre-existing condition and go ahead and put out the fire anyway, and you drive the state towards the need for an income tax, or some other form of over-taxation, or more expensive fees for those who have already been following the law and paying on time. You can’t have it both ways.

    I do feel bad for the Cranicks, but even they seem rather acquiescent to the fact that it was their mistake. At the end of the above video, Mrs. Cranick says she doesn’t blame the fire department and she’s not mad at ‘em. Neither am I.

    Blues

    Truth be told, I have a lot more sympathy for the Cranicks than I do for the current “victims” of Obian County’s subscription fee structure. They took responsibility for their mistake. They made several attempts in the press to understand the firefighters’ dilemma, and never once blamed them. These current “victims” seem to me to be the quintessential government-teat sucklings that we almost universally condemn for the same reasons we almost universally condemn ObamaCare and its supporters. The People of Obian County spoke. The fire department of South Fulton simply tried to compromise between the law and their desire to help people who are within reach of their services. Compromising that compromise would defeat its purpose altogether and no one in the county areas would be served. It seems so simple to me. I really don’t get any condemnation of the fire department at all. Not in this case or the Cranick’s case a year ago, even though the latter were very sympathetic figures.

    CC

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  14. blameme says:

    I have to say, that if they show up with a contract while the house is burning two things will happen:

    1. A judge will agree that signing the contract was under duress rendering it null and void
    2. People signing up will vastly drop as they know they will always have an “out” and the odds of a house fire are extremely small.

    Only two ways this works to cover people outside the city limits:
    1. Force them to pay – no more voluntary sign ups
    2. Let their damn house burn down

    Anything other than this puts the risk on the fire department. The risk should be on the HOME OWNER.

    As they say, the time to worry is before you roll the dice, not after. If homeowners want to risk it, then by all means, let their damn house burn down if they don’t sign up.

    Typical Americans these days – let me HAVE MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE, but please, if it doesn’t work out for me, SAVE MY ASS FROM MYSELF.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  15. Xetrov says:

    The duress argument would have to be taken to court – there’s no precedent even close to the proposed situation that I can find. The contract signing would not be done under threat of some form of violence by one party, which is what most court cases have centered on.

    If someone did successfully sue for duress under such a situation, then fine, let the house burn, provided they willfully disregarded the fee, which appears to be what happend in this situation.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. Manwhore says:

    Typical Americans these days – let me HAVE MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE, but please, if it doesn’t work out for me, SAVE MY ASS FROM MYSELF.

    This is where being a “rugged individualist” bites you in the ass. I’m actually not ok with this development, for the reason that the Fire Department ultimately showed up for the neighbor–this can make a controllable fire an inferno.

    I’d be interested to see how the city can tackle such issues as townhouses and condominiums. After thinking about it for quite a bit, they can’t. If someone decides not to pay up for the Townhouse (unless an HOA requires it [again, against Libertarian ideals]) the fire department would be forced with the decision to let one place burn, and hope they could catch it before it takes the whole structure with it? What about a duplex?

    The article alleges that the family offered to pay whatever the cost as their home was burning, and I think that’s probably the best solution. I’ve heard that Australia has a private fire department that you can opt not to pay for as well. They will still come and save your house but stick you for the full cost of mobilizing the fire department to do so. If we’re making medical insurance analogies, this would be equivalent to going to the ER I suppose.

    Would everyone pay it? Doubtful, but then again, wouldn’t that be the case no matter what? We need a fire department as a society. That’s how we avoid disasters like we saw the turn of the last century with cities or entire structures going up in flames.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  17. CzarChasm says:

    Bottom line Manwhore, there can be no personal liberty without personal responsibility being the consequence for bad decisions. You’re either free to make your own decisions, or you’re dependent on government to protect you from yourself. Stupidity hurts, and it should.

    CC

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  18. CM says:

    That’s an excellent point Manwhore, and one I had forgotten that I also made in the MW thread:

    If I were a paid-up neighbour, I’d much rather they go put out that fire as soon as they can, rather than wait for it to start endangering my land/buildings. Seems like a hell of a risk.

    This is yet another example where someone not exercising “personal responsibilty” can easily have adverse effects on other people (who did the right thing). “Stupidity hurts” is a lovely “bottom line” principle, but why would anyone support a system where stupidty hurts people who did the right thing? I don’t see why the principle is so important that it trumps the flaws in the reality.

    And what has govt got to do with this? The FD could be non-government and the same logic would apply.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  19. CzarChasm says:

    …why would anyone support a system where stupidty hurts people who did the right thing?

    You’re constructing straw man hypotheticals that are not supported by the facts of either event. Why should anyone respond to made-up circumstances? In fact, exactly the opposite is what happened last year. The firemen only responded when the field the video showed them parked in caught fire. That was the neighbor’s field, and the neighbor paid the subscription fee. Only a small piece of the edge of their field was scorched, so they weren’t hurt by the Cranick’s mistake at all in any quantifiable economic sense. The facts actually knock your straw man down, so why should I go any further?

    I don’t see why the principle is so important that it trumps the flaws in the reality.

    It is clearly you who is disregarding reality. The principle is upheld by the paying neighbors’ property getting exactly what they paid for; protection from fire. You’re building straw men on top of straw men.

    And what has govt got to do with this? The FD could be non-government and the same logic would apply.

    Again, stick to the facts. The firefighters in question are employees of the City of South Fulton. They are government employees, period. What they “could” be has nothing to do with anything, though even at that, I’ve never heard of ANY fire department that wasn’t a government entity in the strictest sense of the word, even the volunteer departments. However, these were not volunteers anyway, they were South Fulton paid employees.

    As I said in my OP, a lot of folks went off on a knee-jerk fashion with last year’s and the current stories. People refused then, and continue to refuse now, to do even a cursory investigation into what actually happened here. The subscription plan in Obian County is tantamount to purchasing insurance. The following list of questions should put the issue in proper perspective:

    Do you also think that people should not have to pay for life insurance until they are dying?

    Do you think that people should not have to pay for auto insurance until they have wrecked the car?

    Do you think they should not have to pay for health insurance until they are sick?

    Do you think that people should not quit smoking until they get cancer?

    Do you think that people should not get vaccinated until they get the disease?

    Do you think that people should not pay their mortgage until they get a foreclosure notice?

    Of course, ObamaCare answers in the affirmative for many of those questions, which is why I used the analogy.

    Aside from the obvious implication of those questions, what those on CM’s side of the argument are either blissfully ignorant of, or just simply ignoring, is that the citizens of Obian County voted in the subscription plan in direct opposition to a proposed tax plan that would’ve funded South Fulton’s response to the entire area affected by the current plan. The current plan was the choice of the county residents, preferred by them over a tax scheme that would’ve given access to the department for everyone, no questions asked, with immediate response to every call, provided of course, the department wasn’t tied up with a City Limits call at the time, because that is their actual jurisdiction after all.

    Neither the Cranicks nor the current couple lost their homes to cold-hearted firefighters. They lost them to democracy in action. Freedom ain’t free, and stupidity hurts, as it should.

    CC

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  20. HARLEY says:

    hmm, this might be the time and place for another Niven quote.
    “Think of it as evolution in action.”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  21. sahrab says:

    What happened to the post from CM and My reply, about the e-mail he recieved?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. CzarChasm says:

    CM, the hospital that my wife works eats, over a million dollars a year in services that are not paid for. That is the person provided the service never pays, and the Hospital has either no legal recourse or simply can not contact the persons in question, and this is a small local hospital.

    This is a good point. A cursory search on “hospital closings” or something similar will reveal that the internet is awash in studies that document the economic challenges facing hospitals, and the results of those who can’t meet those challenges. The South Fulton FD is no different.

    While I have no problem with the FD handling the two events the way they did due to the system they had in place at the time, I don’t think it’s the best possible system to have. If I lived there, I would have not only voted for a tax to fund excursions into the county areas by the FD, but I would’ve lobbied my neighbors to vote the same way as hard as I could. Having lost that vote though, I sure as Hell wouldn’t refuse (or forget) to pay the alternate subscription fee, and then bitch and moan when I have a fire that they can’t put out because of MY fuck-up. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of abdication of one’s responsibilities as a citizen, which is I see as the stock in trade of the left.

    CC

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  23. JimK says:

    What happened to the post from CM and My reply, about the e-mail he recieved?

    That’s a good goddamned question, because *I* didn’t delete any comments. I saw the one you;re referring to.

    CM, did you request deletion from the system? Or did another mod/author delete it? If it’s the second thing, we have a serious fucking problem, because we don’t do that here. We delete troll shit sometimes, or spam, but we do not delete things that we just don’t like or might embarrass us.

    If we did, CM would have what, 4 comments total? ;)

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  24. Tripper says:

    It might be a bug, I noticed a comment of mine (different thread) go missing overnight.
    I was always a big fan of the way stuff was handled like this on the old MW site and glad to see, mishaps not withstanding, that it’s still going on over here. Keep up the good work JimK

    EDIT: Never mind, it’s showing up now. Perhaps the glitch is in my brain.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. sahrab says:

    CM, did you request deletion from the system?

    But would CM requesting a deletion, also delete my post? Now that we’ve gotten off the nested comments, isnt each post independent of each other?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. Manwhore says:

    Bottom line Manwhore, there can be no personal liberty without personal responsibility being the consequence for bad decisions. You’re either free to make your own decisions, or you’re dependent on government to protect you from yourself. Stupidity hurts, and it should.

    A sentiment many would sympathize with in theory, for sure. However, this isn’t a blanket statement for practice, which is why society was driven to have things like fire departments as a public service. There are simply too many variables here for this to sit right in my head.

    I understand you don’t seem to want to wax hypotheticals of why this is bad practice, preferring to stick to the instance at hand. Sure, the house burned down and all the finger pointers got to say “nyup, nope…nyuh uh.” Ok, so what is the net effect for this practice on the local government, and the state?

    I see you trying to string this into Obamacare, but do realize that the thread that binds our current system together is the practice of not denying anyone medical care at the door. A few tear jerking stories of people denied entry into the ER (or as the news article says, outrage over denial of service when the house is burning) and here you have fodder for an election result that you might not like.

    There are lots of hypotheticals for why this practice would not work. In this very instance though, the city, county and state have lost quite a bit of taxable income by standing and watching the house burn while saying “Nuh Uh” to the owners.

    It’s a pedantic reaction if you really think about it. I think the best reaction would be “alright, here’s your chance to pay the 75 dollars plus a penalty” and then be done with it. It’s quite sadistic to simply let the house burn for 75 clams, and again, the article makes no inference that money was the issue here. This is a top to bottom grudge fuck, IMO.

    The owner seems to have made no bones about paying the fee, just that he simply forgot. Ok, stupid to forget something, but come-the-fuck-on. He wasn’t opposed to the fee at all. He didn’t say “hey, I’m a scrappy and rugged individualist, and I’ll put out any structure fire with God and a garden hose! Fuck you, state. Don’t tread on me!!” At least, that’s not what I got from the family’s account.

    I would posit that this is a poor example of individual liberty with consequence attached. It’s just a vindictive and sadistic entity that wanted to prove a point to anyone who didn’t pay up, almost like having mafia protection (which is probably why the FD is now an arm of the government with accountability attached).

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  27. CzarChasm says:

    Manwhore, this is my mistake, but the family in the current story that I originally posted about did not forget to pay the fee, they actively refused to pay it, opting instead to gamble that they would never have a fire and it would be a net savings to them. The story with the video attached about the forgetful Cranicks is a repost from last year on MooreWatch. Sorry for the confusion. I realize though that confusing the two stories doesn’t really change or challenge your take. That’s fine with me.

    As I said in my last post, I don’t believe that the subscription fee system is a great way of funding the area’s access to the FD. But it’s the system that the voters chose over the alternative system of a purpose-specific tax (not sure if it was a sales tax or property tax, probably property, but…) that would’ve guaranteed total coverage to the same areas. Should the government step in and override a legitimate vote? The current plan dictates that crews will deploy to save any lives that are in danger, even if the lives are of those who haven’t paid the fees. I fail to see how or why the voters should be overridden over the potential loss of stuff. My stuff is not the government’s responsibility if I refuse to participate in their subscription program, and your stuff is not my responsibility as a voter or a participant in the subscription program if you’re not paying your share.

    The system is what it is there. It won’t surprise me at all to see the voters take another bite at the apple now that two events have garnered rather negative nationwide press in just one year. In fact, it will surprise me if they don’t reconsider and accept a full-on tax to fund either the South Fulton FD, or organize and equip a volunteer station in their area. But I’m OK with leaving it up to them, whatever they decide, and seriously hope that no government, whether county, city, state or beyond, steps in to override the will of the voters there. Does that seem like an extreme position to you?

    CC

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  28. Manwhore says:

    . I realize though that confusing the two stories doesn’t really change or challenge your take.

    There is a distinction in theory, but not in practice. That’s where I draw the line. Look, if someone is too stupid to realize that a fire department is beneficial to the welfare of society enough to refuse to pay for it, shame on them. However, creating a system where some idiot can just be a scofflaw about it is the problem, not the moron who says “Fuck dat sheeot, I ain’t payin dem democrats.” I mean, this might be some ivory tower for an idiot, but the practical man knows that a FD is a practical gain for society. Therefore, we have one. I’ve written chapters on nerfing the pay of these individuals, and not allowing them to unionize, but that’s not the debate at hand.

    Look, I have family retired in Tennessee, and I have family in Florida, and I reside in California. I see the flaws from every direction, but I would not like to see my grandmother’s house burned down because an 80 year old man (who is teetering on senile) forgot to pay a FD fee. Fuck that.

    I also don’t want a fire department that denies you service because they’re union and will strike if they don’t make 100K a year, as they do here in CA. I don’t like either situation. A public service like the one we had in the 50s-70s is best where you worked not for a huge salary but for the benefits (my grandfather worked for the FDOT for his entire life–not a rich man).

    The major problem, to me, about the cost of our services has been Union intervention. I don’t disagree that a civilized and “moral” society needs to be compassionate and provide the services we have, but we shouldn’t allow these services to be hijacked so that we’re forced to bend over so some fire fighter can make 500K a year (trust me, it happens here in CA).

    That’s my take on it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. Manwhore says:

    But I’m OK with leaving it up to them, whatever they decide, and seriously hope that no government, whether county, city, state or beyond, steps in to override the will of the voters there. Does that seem like an extreme position to you?

    I don’t think your views are extreme (I know rich has tried to make a bonfire out of that), I just think that this instance is impractical. Unfortunately, there are some instances where a government must step in (if it’s on the right side).

    Civil Rights in the south was an example of such an event. Liberty and democracy work when everyone has a level playing field. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case. There are flaws in our system. We, as a people (if you do believe in a God as you say) are morally obligated to look at even a democratic decision and decide if it is morally correct.

    The society we created is democratic. The populous is moral. the dichotomy is what makes us great.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  30. CM says:

    Czar is now deleting posts at will. Obviously this makes the whole thing pointless.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  31. CM says:

    (BTW: If anyone wants to know what has happened, and you haven’t done so already, please feel free to PM me and fill you in – clearly The Czar won’t let me discuss it here)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  32. Kimpost says:

    So, I’ll just go ahead and ask straight out. CzarChasm, are you actually using your moderating powers as it’s being suggested here? JimK, have you discussed this with CzarChasm?

    Might I suggest that we should leave that kind of moderating to JimK? I mean this doesn’t look good. Regardless if CC feels that CM has gone off-topic, or whatever, he really shouldn’t be the one acting on it, given their history. He should call for someone else to check it out. As it stands I can’t shake the feeling that this could be about CC using his moderating powers for shutting CM up.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  33. JimK says:

    If ANYONE is deleting someone else’s comments that shit better fucking stop RIGHT. FUCKING. NOW.

    Pretty much only the author of a comment and I get to do that, and I don’t *do* that. So if someone else has taken it upon themselves to remove comments, they need to stop doing that immediately. If I have to paw through the database logs and see if someone did it, that person will earn themselves an instant ban. If it happened, it ends now.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  34. CM says:

    Thanks JimK. Hopefully that will be sufficient to stop it. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to be banned. I just don’t want to waste my time writing something that gets deleted just because someone woke up grumpy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  35. CzarChasm says:

    Umm….Jim, check your PMs. Thanks.

    CC

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. sahrab says:

    Umm….Jim, check your PMs. Thanks.

    Fuck that, you deleted* my post as well.

    And, unlike your pussy actions, i’ll be straight and put out that i PM’d Jim about this. I had hoped, sincerly, it was Jim that deleted it, based on there being some kind of personal information in my quote, that i wasnt aware of.

    There wasnt any, it was an e-mail from you to CM, ranting about him questioning your posts and then telling him not to bother replying because you blocked his address. But i was giving Jim the benefit of the doubt.

    But now we find out you deleted that post, my reply, and the subsequent posts, merely because CM disagreed with you. Yet another example of your “Strict Constitutionalist” actions (yes i know its not the government, but you acting like a bitch is no different).

    *Note, if it wasnt you that deleted the posts then ignore this post

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  37. blameme says:

    Can someone let the blog members know what the hell is going on?

    I agree with CC on a lot of things, but if he did this, he needs to not be allowed to post. Period.

    Although I can only ask as a member, Jim, can you let us know what happened? I think we all are deserving to know if this is a glitch or a member who has gone too far in censoring someone.

    Whether CC thinks CM is a troll or not, it is not up to CC to decide to take matters into his own hands. I *hope* CC this is not what happened as I enjoy your posts.

    Even though this is just a message board and not controlled by the government, freedom to speak and disagree is a cornerstone of freedom. We cannot afford to have on RTFTLC someone who espouses those constitutional rights then acts exactly opposite of those rights.

    It is important to the members to know for two reasons:
    1. So we do not doubt the validity of the blog
    2. So we can make proper decisions as to whether to read anything CC posts in the future or not.

    Thanks.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  38. Tripper says:

    I agree with CC on a lot of things, but if he did this, he needs to not be allowed to post. Period

    Or, if that is what happened, we could just say, mistakes were made, lessons were hopefully learned, and everybody now knows the rules as far as this sort of thing in the future.
    And then move on.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  39. CM says:

    Czar has deleted/stopped at least five posts (that I know of) from the ‘Marxist in Chief’ thread, three of which are mine. None of my three were of any great consequence, and certainly not contrary to any rules. The last of mine was a decent length and a response to you but presumably because I included a reference to my other posts being deleted, it was also deleted. That’s particularly annoying because I thought I’d articulated myself better than normal. Czar is therefore not only trying to keep his threads ‘clean’, but is also trying to delete any reference to posts being deleted. Unfortunately he’s failed to consider the fact that he can’t be sitting in front of his pc for 24 hours every day, so someone is bound to see a post referring to deletions before he has a chance to delete it. Which is what has happened – sahrab has had his post(s) deleted because he askd what was happening.

    I should also add that Czar emailed me after holding back my first post and said that he’d reached his limit with me and he’ll continue to delete my posts as he sees fit. He also said he’d blocked my email account from his so that I couldn’t respond, because he wasn’t interested.

    Again, the first two of my posts were completely normal posts. I am also unsure which other (previous) posts of mine pushed him to this apparent ‘limit’, which was then breached by my recent posts. I certainly never received any indications that I was close to having posts deleted. It’s probably also important to know that Czar (or BluesStringer as he was previously called) I and have a long history (it’s just that up until just recently we did not have power over each other).

    (I’m saving this post elsewhere in case it gets deleted, so I can PM or email it if needed to anyone interested)

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

      
  40. Seattle Outcast says:

    How do hospitals collect the thousands they are owed?

    They don’t. So they charge higher rates all around to cover the losses.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. JimK says:

    Okay, so what happened was CM left a comment that Czar felt was not much more than a personal attack. Czar then took the one step he should not have taken, which was to delete the comments. Obviously everyone saw my feelings on the matter. Not a fan of doing that.

    I didn’t exactly know what to do about it since Czar fessed up without my needing to go look up who did what in the database. To me it’s kind of a big deal to remove not just some asshole’s comment, but all the comments referring to the original comment. But then, he also said that he’s probably not cut out for author role here and asked me to bump him back down to reader/commenter. And so I have. Which saves me from having to make a decision.

    His reasoning for the deletion, albeit flawed IMHO, was logical: CM’s comment served mainly as an irritant designed to get Czar to respond so CM could go on a 56,674 comment posting spree and play aggrieved victim/linkbot. I think we all know how I feel about CM’s modus operandi around here.

    However…I feel more strongly about the idea that asshole speech should be either ignored or defeated with more speech. There are lines one shouldn’t cross, and I think we’re all smart enough to know that kiddie porn, posting someone’s name and address, attacking a deceased friend etc. are off limits. Mostly, though, it’s the God-damned Thunderdome, so buckle the fuck up, you know what I mean?

    Czar, I get what you did, and there are certainly blogs at which that would be totally business as usual. I hold no grudge and I’m over it. Don’t be a stranger in the comments.

    CM and sahrab, I apologize that you had stuff deleted without cause. I can’t promise it will never happen ever again, but I want you and everyone to know it’s not policy. I may not like most of what you do, CM, but I appreciate your passion and sometimes we even agree. Rarely. Couple times a year. Maybe. :)

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  42. CzarChasm says:

    Yes, I deleted a handful of posts. I PM’ed JimK after seeing his post above in this thread and reiterated for the second time since getting author status that it was a mistake for me to have that status. I also told him before he gave it to me that I had a long history with some of the people around here that was hardly enjoyable for any of us, and if he thought it a bad idea to proceed with author status, fine with me, no hard feelings. Finally, I asked him in no uncertain terms to flip the switch back off of author status. It obviously isn’t working out to the benefit of the board, the individuals who don’t like me, or for me, because there are people here whom I can’t stand to share even cyber space with. Not for anyone. If he wants to make it a complete ban instead, that’s fine, but for some inexplicable reason, he has ignored my request altogether. If I knew how to delete my profile here, I would do it myself, but I’ve looked and can’t find a way to do it. So I wait and try to carry on normal conversations until the switch is either flipped or CM and sahrab let it go, apparently neither of which is going to happen.

    I explained my rationale to JimK for the deleted posts. I also explained it to CM privately, and figured he’d be pissed. I told him not to contact me, thinking he might have the requisite couth to contact JimK about it and it would get hashed out in private without causing the uproar it has. He chose to make a public spectacle out of it instead. So be it, but I owe no one else any explanations. I didn’t even owe CM one, but thought it the courteous thing to do. I do owe JimK explanations, and have given all I’m going to give. So flip the switch or ban me or let the goddamn thing blow over, doesn’t matter to me, but allowing incessant whining to go on endlessly about a handful of fuckin’ meaningless off-topic drivel and trolling posts on the internet is hurting this blog a helluva lot more than the absence here of anything I deleted. And in fact, I did not delete them anyway, I “unapproved” them, meaning that they were “Pending” last time I saw them. They have since been deleted by someone else. Perhaps another author or Jim agreed with my initial assessment of the posts in question? Don’t know, and don’t care, but that’s all the explanation anyone but JimK is either getting or is entitled to.

    CC

    Hot! Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

      
  43. CzarChasm says:

    Obviously I was writing the above as Jim was writing his. Thanks for honoring my request Jim. Hope there’s enough reclaimed water in New Zealand and wherever sahrab lives to clean up the shit-storm in their underwear that my actions caused. If not, I can’t really say I give a fuck. Welcome to Thunderdome. It’s not like I don’t know how to navigate my way through it, I just don’t enjoy it at all, so stranger I may well become. We’ll see. Later.

    CC

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

      
  44. Manwhore says:

    go on endlessly about a handful of fuckin’ meaningless off-topic drivel and trolling posts on the internet is hurting this blog a helluva lot more than the absence here of anything I deleted.

    Actually this has probably been the most entertaining couple of daysI’ve seen here in years. Prolly because I don’t know any of you from MW, but I found the drama to actually have injected some excitement here.

    I kind of make the analogy of a couple of old men sitting on a dirt road in he country. It’s nothing, nothing, nothing, and then…….ZOOOOOOOOOOOM! A dust cloud at a 100mph zooms on past and the two old men flop outta their chairs wafting dust outta their faces and hacking.

    Then they speculate on “what the fuck was that!?” until the next time it goes by.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  45. CM says:

    Classic stuff indeed. No shit in my pants I’m afraid, I’ve been too intrigued by what the hell you thought you were doing, and how it could possible have been a smart idea. My posts were most certainly not a personal attack, off-topic or trolling, despite what you would have others believe.
    But yeah, let’s all move on…..

    CM and sahrab, I apologize that you had stuff deleted without cause. I can’t promise it will never happen ever again, but I want you and everyone to know it’s not policy. I may not like most of what you do, CM, but I appreciate your passion and sometimes we even agree. Rarely. Couple times a year. Maybe. :)

    Sweet, no worries. I don’t believe you have any need to apologise to me, but thanks anyway. I appreciate it. And it’s good to know that you take a strong stand against abuses-of-power.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

      
  46. blameme says:

    So be it, but I owe no one else any explanations.

    BULLSHIT.

    As a reader and someone who thinks this blog has an important place to keep speech flowing so we can discuss openly contentious issues, I think I damn sure am owed an explanation.

    I enjoy your posts. I enjoy your responses and thoughts and agree with you more often than not. But really, if you think you should be able to censor at your leisure and not give a damn about what the peasants think, I am happy you no longer are an author. And, for what it is worth (probably not much to you with that sanctimonious attitude) your level of respect in my eyes went waaaaaaaaaaaaay down.

    Whether CM is a troll or not, I expect the authors of this site and CONSERVATIVES of this site to hold themselves to a higher standard. You failed to do that CC. You may think it was just some random messages on a board you censored, but it was your very own morals you censored and your ability to debate honestly.

    Flame on, but I was an admirer of what you wrote before this. Now, you will just be another paragraph to stroll past.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      
  47. blameme says:

    Jim, you fucking rock. I keep coming back here because I believe that you honestly try to do the right thing every time.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  48. ryansparx says:

    I sat back and watched the whole thing unfold when it was happening, and it kinda left a bad taste in my mouth. Glad it’s over though.

    C’mon, people, doesn’t anyone ever stop and ask “What would Leesus do?” anymore?

    Even sarcasm fails me. Somebody hand me my rape whistle.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  49. sahrab says:

    sahrab, I apologize that you had stuff deleted

    Jim thanks but totally uneccessary, its your Blog do whatever you want with it. I had no issue if it was you that deleted the posts, we play here at your whim.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  50. sahrab says:

    So I wait and try to carry on normal conversations until the switch is either flipped or CM and sahrab let it go, apparently neither of which is going to happen.

    Hope there’s enough reclaimed water in New Zealand and wherever sahrab lives to clean up the shit-storm in their underwear that my actions caused.

    You cant stop being a fucking ass can you? You deleted my posts for no reason other than you didnt agree with them. This is not the first time it happened, but in the past i chalked it up to the previous forum formatting we had, this was just the most blatant and i watched them getting deleted as i was on the site.

    Then you get called out on it, and instead of fessing up to it, blame CM and myself for not letting it drop. Fucking dick moove. Before you try to portray yourself as the rightous victim (which you did in your December 10, 2011 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm (UTC -5) post) you didnt come clean UNTIL Jim got involved. If you truly wanted it to drop, you would have fessed up to it when i first questioned where my post went. You posted three times after my querry, and nary a peep until Jim expressed his … indignation.. at what you did on this board. This leads one to believe you were hoping it would drop so you could continue to get away with it, obviously not as contrite as you try to make yourself out to be.

    And yet, even after your “CM was mean to me so i deleted his comments” post, you still felt it necessary to get your jab in at CM and me for the bullshit YOU committed.

    Fuck you and fuck off

    *Jim i apologize for dragging this on, but his left handed “apology” was crap.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  51. CzarChasm says:

    …obviously not as contrite as you try to make yourself out to be.

    …but his left handed “apology” was crap.

    I realize there’s little point to this, but your inability to read and understand English rears its ugly head yet again. I made, nor do I offer now, any apology to you at all. I didn’t write to Jim to apologize either. I wrote to explain my rationale, which he said he understood the logic of, but which was/is still unacceptable to him. That’s fine, I have no hard feeling towards Jim at all, and do not consider myself a victim of him or anyone else. My author privileges weren’t yanked, my request to disable them was simply honored. And it wasn’t the first request I made either. It was apparent to me fairly early on that I wasn’t going to fit in here well. The first request was more than 2 months ago. Jim either didn’t take the request seriously, or thought I didn’t mean what I said to him in the way I said it. No biggie, misunderstandings and/or attempts to give folks a cooling off period are not things I hold against Jim or anyone else, but the fact remains, I did ask before, it wasn’t honored, and I did ask right after seeing his first reply in this thread, and it took more than a full day before he acknowledged and honored the request in his post dated Dec. 10 at 3:32 pm.

    In any case, I did not and never will apologize to you sahrab. I never apologize for silencing people that get in my face and use vulgarity and call me a pussy and whatnot, whether they’re doing it standing in front of me, or on an internet forum or blog if I have the ability to spank the childish behavior, especially when the crap is over something that is none of your damned business to begin with. If anyone is crying “victim” here, it is clearly you, because someone had the gall to not allow you to enter and carry on incessantly about a dispute that should’ve stayed private. Personally, I see no value at all in the kinds of posts that are your stock in trade, but your “right” to feign injury over having vulgar rants deleted trumps my measured discernment over being over-exposed to it. So be it. I get it. I accept it. But more rants of the same ilk will never extract an apology from me. Live with it hotrod.

    CC

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

      
  52. Xetrov says:

    http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/30/128987729164035213.jpg

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  53. Kimpost says:

    This is too funny! :)

    I can’t fucking believe that you just don’t apologize and move on, CC? It’s impossible for me to comprehend that you can’t seem to understand how it would be wrong for you to use your moderating powers to protect yourself from perceived attacks on you. Pretty much always! And especially so in this instance when the initial “attack” really weren’t much of one at all. Unless of course, you are super thin skinned, which we generally aren’t around here. Fuck, you’ve been around, you should now how things work.

    The truth is that CM’s post merely annoyed you. You couldn’t take that, and acted like a dick. Seriously. Not just according to me, but objectively. Step back from the screen, take a deep breath and just admit it already. You’re an adult – just do it!

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      
  54. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Unless everyone can put this BS episode to bed this blog will spiral down the drain.

    Petulance, on both sides, is driving folks away. This isn’t a Thunderdome moment it’s become a Sand-box rant.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  55. CM says:

    This began because you deleted a post of mine that was neither “in your face”, abusive, or vulgar. I know you’re referring to sahrab above, but I just wanted to be clear. You just decided that it took the thread somewhere you didn’t want to go. Which is understandable up to a point, but your opening post clearly wasn’t anything of substance (WTF has Marxism got to do with anything? How does any of what you say logically follow?). I certainly consider that the post you deleted:
    (a) was relevant, and
    (b) was of greater interest and had greater potential for discussion than your opening post.

    In your response (also deleted) you were offended that I had accused you of being a Gingrich supporter. My response to that (pointing out that I had done no such thing) was the point at which you threw your toys out of the cot and deleted all three, and informed me via email that no correspondence would be entered into about what you’d done.

    a dispute that should’ve stayed private

    I completely disagreed (and still do). For a number of reasons.

    There’s a lot more I could say in response to what you have posted but I won’t.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

      
  56. CM says:

    Unless everyone can put this BS episode to bed this blog will spiral down the drain.

    Petulance, on both sides, is driving folks away. This isn’t a Thunderdome moment it’s become a Sand-box rant.

    Yep, I’m personally happy to say no more about it. The specific incident has been resolved. People can obviously factor in what they wish about the actions of the relevant posters moving forward.

    I would also add that I would hope that Czar sticks around as I think he adds value (surely the more ‘flavours’ there are, the better the place is) and is comments are usually entertaining.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

      
  57. CzarChasm says:

    This began because you deleted a post of mine that was neither “in your face”, abusive, or vulgar. I know you’re referring to sahrab above, but I just wanted to be clear.

    This is 100% accurate, and I am clear on that, which is precisely why I addressed my post to sahrab.

    You just decided that it took the thread somewhere you didn’t want to go.

    I liked Jim’s characterization much better, but generally-speaking, this too is accurate.

    Which is understandable up to a point, but your opening post clearly wasn’t anything of substance

    Not your call. But basically what you’re saying is that your post that I deleted was intended to do the exact reverse to my opening post of what I did to yours. You were going to SPAM the board with so much off-topic blather until there was no visible relation to my opening post left in the thread. Just exactly what Jim said, and he read my rationale and expounded on it quite perceptively and accurately. Thanks for confirming it so forthrightly, both for me and the board.

    I certainly consider that the post you deleted:
    (a) was relevant, and

    You are wrong. It had absolutely no bearing on anything I said in the OP, and had I continued debating it with you, like I said, there would be nothing left of the OP in any subsequent posts, just exactly like the direction this thread here has gone ONLY because of YOU. You are a master at that CM, and everyone, even your fans, have to admit it or else suffer the hit to their credibility and ability to see and recognize truth when they read it.

    (b) was of greater interest and had greater potential for discussion than your opening post.

    Again, you confirm your intentions. Maybe Jim will give you author status now that you have proven how far superior your interests and beliefs are to those he chose himself for the job. But I doubt it.

    However, again, as a non-author, it shouldn’t be your call to decide that an author’s topic is only made worthy of consideration after you’ve SPAMMED it with tens of thousands of words of your off-topic blather under the phony premise of free speech or the “free exchange of ideas” or whatever. If my opening post wasn’t worthy of consideration, fine, leave it alone, and if you were right, everyone else would’ve left it alone too and it would’ve disappeared into the bowels of RTFTLC uncommented upon, which I’m here to tell you, would’ve been more embarrassing to me than the flak I’ve gotten for deleting your posts. But for some reason, like I said to sahrab, your “rights” trumps my authority to have a modicum of control over the direction and content of a thread I created. That is Jim’s call, so here we are, but only the most dishonest, shallow, self-serving, over-inflated-egotistical fool would suggest that my problem with your first post was that I was simply offended over one minor, though correct, assertion I made about your meaning in what you posted when I (mistakenly) responded to it.

    a dispute that should’ve stayed private

    I completely disagreed (and still do). For a number of reasons.

    And I’m not surprised. For the first time since I first became aware of your internet persona some 7 or 8 (or more?) years ago, people are universally on your side of an argument. If not for my actions, you would never have known how that feels. You should thank me.

    CC

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  58. CzarChasm says:

    But for some reason, like I said to sahrab, your “rights” trumps my authority to have a modicum of control over the direction and content of a thread I created.

    To JimK,

    I thought about the above line after running out of time to edit it, and want to substitute one word for another. If I had it to type over again, I would change the word “authority” to “ability.” I realize I never had the *authority* to do what I did, and didn’t want you to infer from my mistaken use of that word that I thought I did.

    CC

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  59. ilovecress says:

    This whole episode is pretty fucked. Not like how things generally go down on this blog. But then JimK strolls into the Thunderdome and sorts it out. Which is very RTFTLC.

    If someone’s being a dickhead, then let everyone else see it – and they get weeded out. Darwinian in it’s simplicity.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  60. CM says:

    I liked Jim’s characterization much better, but generally-speaking, this too is accurate.

    Well we can all judge for ourselves now, as the deleted posts in that thread have all re-appeared (thanks to whoever did that). Where ‘you didn’t want it to go, in my opinion, was critiquing the premise behind your opening post. If that’s off-topic, I’m not sure what on-topic is, short of repeating what you already said word for word.

    Not your call.

    It was most certainly ‘my call’ to post something that I deemed to be relevant and moved the thread on. And let’s not forget, because this is important, it was actually my second post. In first post I corrected the question (it was crucial that the question be seen in the context of an attack from Republican candidates). I then asked a very relevant and obvious question about your logic, and asked politely if you could expand on it. I then asked about how his answer made anything ‘transparent’. And lastly I asked “One has to wonder what the accusations about appeasement would be if he hadn’t taken out Bin Laden and been responsible for policy decisions which took out the others. What would those accusations look like?”

    Your stated rationale for deleting my post was that I’d reached your ‘limit’ (and I was warned not to test them any further). Where was this apparent unknown threshold approached, and what indications had you given that this was happening? Surely it wasn’t that first post, paraphrased above?

    But basically what you’re saying is that your post that I deleted was intended to do the exact reverse to my opening post of what I did to yours.

    You deleted my post (and then posts). There is no ‘reverse’ to that, exact or otherwise, no matter how much you want to try and spin the situation.
    I repeat my opinion that your opening post was nothing of substance. In the heading and then again in the main body you call Obama a Marxist for no relevant reason other than seemingly to write it for the 875th time, and then you try to suggest that an entire foreign policy is summarised accurately by a single response to a press conference question while misrepresenting the question. You then concluded you single paragraph post with a non-sequitor: “Obama can’t wait for the destruction of this country. It’s his #1 goal”.
    How is that anything of substance? In any event, giving you benefit of the doubt that you just failed to explain yourself well enough, the questions in my first post gave you the opportunity to clarify and expand.

    You were going to SPAM the board with so much off-topic blather until there was no visible relation to my opening post left in the thread.

    If anyone was going to delete a post, the appropriate time to do it would be FOLLOWING the spamming of the borad with off-topic blather. But even then, as I say, how was my second post off-topic? It was a brief enough quote about the dangers of ideological policies aimed at “defeating radical Islamism”. Precisely what you were offering via your contorted assessment of Obama’s partial answer to a campaign two-part question. So again, can you please tell me why you deem it to be spam, or off-topic. You keep repeating the charge but where is the substance of the accusation?

    Just exactly what Jim said, and he read my rationale and expounded on it quite perceptively and accurately. Thanks for confirming it so forthrightly, both for me and the board.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And Jim’s opinion is worth more than anyone else’s here, for obvious reasons.

    You are wrong. It had absolutely no bearing on anything I said in the OP, and had I continued debating it with you, like I said, there would be nothing left of the OP in any subsequent posts, just exactly like the direction this thread here has gone ONLY because of YOU.

    Well, again, that’s repeating the same claim with no explanation of how or why. I’ve explained why I considered it to be relevant. You wouldn’t have to ‘debate it’ with me if you’d just ignored it, just as you subsequently did with all the other posts (and questions raised in them about your opening post) in the thread.
    It’s really very strange that you would complain about the hypothetical direction of the thread, considering that SAME THREAD then went on just fine without you, and I found common ground in disagreeing with your analysis with a conservative. You can’t logically defend pre-emptive actions on the basis of hypotheticals when the hard evidence is there and illustrates the exact opposite.

    You are a master at that CM, and everyone, even your fans, have to admit it or else suffer the hit to their credibility and ability to see and recognize truth when they read it.

    I’m aware of the meme, but unfortunately the evidence says you’re the boy who cried wolf this time. If it was me, I’d play that card sparingly so at least there is a chance it has meaning.

    However, again, as a non-author, it shouldn’t be your call to decide that an author’s topic is only made worthy of consideration after you’ve SPAMMED it with tens of thousands of words of your off-topic blather under the phony premise of free speech or the “free exchange of ideas” or whatever.

    You’re really going to hang your hat on speculation now (and when the remaining evidence suggests the opposite)? That’s seriously weak.
    Additionally, and again, your revisionism misses the fact that I’d already written a initial post that not even you could surely pretend was off-topic. The fact that you haven’t said it was off-topic suggests that even you agree that it was.

    If my opening post wasn’t worthy of consideration, fine, leave it alone, and if you were right, everyone else would’ve left it alone too and it would’ve disappeared into the bowels of RTFTLC uncommented upon, which I’m here to tell you, would’ve been more embarrassing to me than the flak I’ve gotten for deleting your posts.

    I thought it was worthy of consideration. Hence my opening post, which was heavy on specifics and specifically sought to clarify logical steps in your thoughts. My second post was about the relevant issues in wider terms.
    But let me get this straight: Although you apparently didn’t want to me spam the thread with tens of thousands of words (which could only potentially happen if someone engaged with me) you decided to engage with me in the post which you deemed off-topic, ignoring the one that was unarguably on-topic.

    but only the most dishonest, shallow, self-serving, over-inflated-egotistical fool would suggest that my problem with your first post was that I was simply offended over one minor, though correct, assertion I made about your meaning in what you posted when I (mistakenly) responded to it.

    You were offended, partly, by my apparent assertion that most conservatives support Gingrich. Last time I heard, he was the preferred candidate, so even if I had inferred such a thing, it would only be untrue if you interpreted “most” to mean over 50%. But yes, the other part of your offense related to that fact that you considered the post to be off-topic. As I say, I don’t see how that is the case. It’s very much on-topic. Unless you define ‘topic’ as something that bears little relationship to its usual meaning.

    And again, it followed my first post. That is very relevant I think. You would have a slightly stronger, although in my view still very weak, argument if I’d led with that second post.

    And I’m not surprised. For the first time since I first became aware of your internet persona some 7 or 8 (or more?) years ago, people are universally on your side of an argument. If not for my actions, you would never have known how that feels. You should thank me.

    LOL. I have been in agreement with others many times on MW forums, and even in the short time I’ve been here. As for universal agreement, that’s pretty difficult for anyone to achieve, so your poison isn’t as poisonous as you perhaps hoped. I would probably point to the time on MW forums when your No. 1 fan crichton paraphrased and misrepresented a private message of mine in the large climate change thread. Everyone, universally if I remember, came down really hard on him then. And then if you check out the exact thread we are referring to here (ah the irony) you’ll see that on the actual subject matter nobody agreed with you, and blameme and I were in agreement for the most part.
    If you’re going to actively attempt to use poison, you really should make sure it’s actually poison.
    But I assume you’ll now say it was a joke (and my response shows that I’m thin-skinned, or similar). C’est la vie.

    The other obvious point to make is that if wanted universal approval, I’d frequent a blog/forum full of people that hold the same opinions as me. But I’m not really interested in that because when I’ve visited those places on occasion I see too much danger in confirmation bias, a lack of ability to consider other points of view, and people re-justifying their existing beliefs. I’d much rather be in a minority of opinion and be privvy to more people that hold other views (where arguments and evidence I might not have known about is constantly brought to the table). I learn considerable amounts by being part of conservative blogs/forums, and have made some pretty good friends too (who I discuss things with elsewhere).

    Anyway, I really wasn’t intending on writing any more on this, and I was a little surprised to see that you did, but there it is. We’ve been able to move on and co-exist before after dust-ups, I don’t see any reason that we can’t do it again.

    Hot! Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

      
  61. CM says:

    If someone’s being a dickhead, then let everyone else see it – and they get weeded out. Darwinian in it’s simplicity.

    Yep, and the posts are there now. The only modification to one of mine appears to be in the one starting “I agree. Possibly it didn’t help that he had a second, entirely unrelated….”. In the second paragragh my sentence “In one of my comments I quoted some discussion about the importance of dealing with the different Middle East components on their own terms” has been altered slightly, so that now I don’t complain about the comment being deleted. Makes sense.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  62. JimK says:

    OKAY EVERYONE’S DICKS HAVE BEEN MEASURED. WE CAN PUT THEM AWAY NOW.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  63. balthazar says:

    Every post CM puts up that is longer than a paragraph gets a tl;dr IMHO, I’m positive that I am not alone in this either.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  64. sahrab says:

    OKAY EVERYONE’S DICKS HAVE BEEN MEASURED. WE CAN PUT THEM AWAY NOW

    Yes but which one of us can write shakespeare with the stream?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  65. blameme says:

    OKAY EVERYONE’S DICKS HAVE BEEN MEASURED. WE CAN PUT THEM AWAY NOW.

    I just got out of the pool!!! I swear!!!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  66. Manwhore says:

    OMG..My Dick Is Huge (Ode to Post Deletions)
    by Manwhore

    Oh My God, my dick is huge
    Larger than your average
    Big is an undersatement

    It’s huge

    Are you staring at my bulge?
    Jealous, just a little?
    I know it hurts not to have a dick this huge
    I try to stay humble

    But it’s huge

    It was hard
    the ridiculing names like
    “Long Cock Silver”
    and
    “teh Whopper”

    How does a boy go home at night?
    Face his mother
    and say…
    “Mom, this penis of mine…”
    I’t’s HUGE and everyone’s jealous!”

    Did you measure me?
    My embarrassment?
    This huge thing betwixt my legs?

    The reason I don’t run track.
    My eyes are up here, ya’ know.

    I logged in and
    my posts were deleted, but
    Somehow, me and my huge penis

    Will Survive :)

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.