Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

[Rajiv]

I have just observed, that all of Political Football Fan's posts have been replaced by "----nm----"

If this is how the new "rules of civility" are being practiced -- this goes beyond censorship and into the realm of "book burning" because somebody's ideology is not up to some arbitrary standards

Tell me that this is not so!

[WDCRob]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Rajiv, it seems as though PFF deleted his own posts. They show as 'edited' by him and NM could mean 'nevermind.'

Regardless... it's not an 'ideology' to spread easily debunked lies.

[Scot]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

I have just observed, that all of Political Football Fan's posts have been replaced by "----nm----"

If this is how the new "rules of civility" are being practiced -- this goes beyond censorship and into the realm of "book burning" because somebody's ideology is not up to some arbitrary standards

Tell me that this is not so!

He did it himself.

Welcome to the chilling effects of speech codes.

[Rajiv]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Well it seems that he deleted all the post he had written -- all 167 of them -- if this was done by him, and not itulip -- that is not good either! -- for it shows what impact intolerance on part of some can have on others.

I for one am sorry to see that happen to any member of this community -- no matter how much I may happen to disagree with that person.

[WDCRob]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Is confronting someone for spreading pernicious lies really a 'disagreement.'

[we_are_toast]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Well it seems that he deleted all the post he had written -- all 167 of them -- if this was done by him, and not itulip -- that is not good either! -- for it shows what impact intolerance on part of some can have on others.

I for one am sorry to see that happen to any member of this community -- no matter how much I may happen to disagree with that person.

We all have differences of opinion. The way we resolve those differences is to present factual information, well reasoned arguments, or quote knowledgeable sources in support of those opinions. If enough evidence is presented, we concede our point, or at least seriously consider those with strong supporting evidence or well reasoned arguments.

If we present as evidence, rants, or previously debunked data, or clearly identified misinformation, it not only becomes more difficult to reach a well reasoned conclusion, it becomes more difficult to even carry on a conversation. If the members of the community demonstrate the sources of information are not just incorrect, but deliberately misleading, and I continue to aggressively present similar sources as factual, the entire conversation breaks down.

All bodies that expect to have a reasoned discussion need to have rules of debate. There are plenty of web forums that have few or no rules of discussion. They tend not to be sources of reliable information. I'm guessing the members of iTulip are looking for quality information, and without rules for reasoned discussion, iTulip will break down into just another name calling, ranting, fact less web forum.

[metalman]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

He did it himself.

Welcome to the chilling effects of speech codes.

opposite is true. already with less brow beating, chest thumping, and crackpot quoting, we're hearing less from a few who non know-it-alls and more from more from others who not only have opinions but... are listening to others' too.

and... pff was the first to applaud the move to enforce the existing rules. who knows why he deleted his posts. maybe he went back and read them and realized he was quoting too many whackos and had an epiphany?

[jtabeb]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

and... pff was the first to applaud the move to enforce the existing rules. who knows why he deleted his posts. maybe he went back and read them and realized he was quoting too many whackos and had an epiphany?

Whoaaa, spreading the fertalizer a bit thick there aren't ya?

As for PFF and his ideas, well I think he has given me an epiphany.

I was mistakenly thinking that the powers that are/desired to fix the problems with the economy etc. I didn't realize that they actually want to sustain this collapse. Don't agree with me, look at the policy responses and tell me that it is just incompetence with a straight face. Fact is from the moth of Itulip, "A sustained deflation is only possible though a series of policy blunders OR as a delibrate policy objective". Yes I pharaphrased that quote, but if Fred or EJ think I butchered it, we'll then they will correct me.

Point is, what I'm seeing right now is a "deliberate policy objective of sustained deflation", policy is not movinge the system OUT of crisis, it is keeping it in crisis.



----nm---- (Hat tip to PFF)

[metalman]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Whoaaa, spreading the fertalizer a bit thick there aren't ya?

As for PFF and his ideas, well I think he has given me an epiphany.

I was mistakenly thinking that the powers that are/desired to fix the problems with the economy etc. I didn't realize that they actually want to sustain this collapse. Don't agree with me, look at the policy responses and tell me that it is just incompetence with a straight face. Fact is from the moth of Itulip, "A sustained deflation is only possible though a series of policy blunders OR as a delibrate policy objective". Yes I pharaphrased that quote, but if Fred or EJ think I butchered it, we'll then they will correct me.

Point is, what I'm seeing right now is a "deliberate policy objective of sustained deflation", policy is not movinge the system OUT of crisis, it is keeping it in crisis.



----nm---- (Hat tip to PFF)

here's my read on what ej has said for years... and i don't know to agree or not... that deflation is the result, not the intention. the intention is to not write off debt, because as hudson says that is the creditor's savings. just as in the 1930s. the guys with all the money... the creditors... the guys with the savings... hoarded it as gold in those days... they didn't want the usa off the gold standard the way the french and other nations did, to inflate. so deflation went on and on in the usa... until fdr came along and gave them an inflation haircut...



same deal today. ka-poom theory says eventually the savers get another inflation haircut... but for now, and no one knows for how long... deflation increases the purchasing power of those with savings... the creditor class, so to speak.

[Guest]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

opposite is true. already with less brow beating, chest thumping, and crackpot quoting, we're hearing less from a few who non know-it-alls and more from more from others who not only have opinions but... are listening to others' too.

and... pff was the first to applaud the move to enforce the existing rules. who knows why he deleted his posts. maybe he went back and read them and realized he was quoting too many whackos and had an epiphany?

Metal-fatigue -

Don't know if any of the above clucking and spluttering was intended indirectly for me, but if so, my impression of this comment is it sounds a bit like a "clucking granny". You've already expressed glowing appreciation for having a bouncer protect your sensibilities.

I see you reiterating it in two or three different posts in one way or another this morning. OK, OK. Your message has been broadcast sufficiently. "We" - "are hearing less from" - expressed with satisfaction bordering upon the smug, while you go on a posting spree ( I'm reading your opinions everywhere, on practically everything today ) is somewhat of a flag.

What you mean presumably is "I want to post more, and I want this other guy to post less". I feel for your bruised sensibilities Metalman. Please note however that you do have a long history of depositing brusque (translates as openly offensive) remarks of your own frequently, up to and including schatological ones addressed to individual other members quite pointedly?

Speaking for mysefl, I have always felt extremely liberally towards your right to do so, as I explain to Rajiv below - what strikes me here is that you are going around clucking about the constructive value of the "policeman" (aka. marvel comics bouncer) while your "enthusiasms" on this might find a better starting point by quietly contemplating your own record instead.

If it's your wish to put a salve on your bruised sensibilities, that you hear less from me and concomitantly that you ensure everyone hears more from you, please have at it. This may be a fine tonic for your mood. You seem to be firing on all editorial cylinders today Metalguy. BTW, do you have, like, a day job?

Rajiv -

I've spoken out clearly for the rights of everyone here to post whatever they like - and I take the notion of "post freely" to a further extent tha some others. And frankly I don't like the self appointed "troll-police" nor the self presumed "infallible" troll-policing editors here doing this at all. I think it is a practice ripe for abuse by their employing cozy, clubby and likely increasingly self congratulatory subjective standards and I'm flat against it.

So I completely support your complaint that Politicalfootballfan be free to post whatever he wants. I only differ in that I think this place should be free for people to post caustic remarks if they think someone else is full of it. The wonderful model for this is the early British houses of parliament, where political lampooning and satire added the most wonderful, culturally rich layer of sophistication to their debating process.

I loathe political correctness, and the "policed" policy where one has to "launder out" carefully the traces of irony or pointed comment from one's remarks in order to "protect" those of thin skin. Because actually, those of thin skin very often tend to dump quite opinionated comments belying their delicate sensibilities! I find Fred's approach to this subtlety a little "clunky" actually and I think if he practices it to it's fullest he's going to wind up stepping into increasingly clunky editorial interventions, either that or he'll render iTulip into a far blander environment. Or both.

I don't think for an instant however that PFF's posts were in any way deleted, edited or tampered with by iTulip. What it is, instead, is Political football fan going on a frenzy of self-deleting to voice his violent protest against being "unfairly criticized" I actively support his right to post whatever he likes and invite him to do so. If he feels particularly affronted by my comments I'll refrain from making any further in his regard.

I'm 100% in the free speech camp here, and that should be evident from my votes on that in the past. I only suggest this: anyone here who posts very hard-boiled (means opinionated or extreme) views on ANY topic, should be prepared to "take some heat". If you like to make opinionated comments, I for one enjoy all of them. But such people are playing double standards if they then go complaining to "mama-Fred" or the delectable "bouncer" - that their feelings are getting injured by acerbic replies.

It's a 100% free forum ideally, where people can and should post controversial ideas. But you have to have at least the beginnings of thick skin if you want to post controversial opinions. This is areally really simple concept. If you have a thin skin and you want people to like you or treat you always kindly and deferentially, then just refrain from posting peremptory, controversial or opinionated posts. Easy, and actually quite democratic. For the rest of it, PFF deleted all HIS OWN posts, because his feelings are badly bruised and he wants to "protest".

If he's reading this, I wish to be the first to cordially invite him to return, post anything outrageous or bland that he may choose, and know that I support his right to do so. Politicalfootballfan - get used to the censure. I've had that Fred character summarily delete entire threads where I voiced objections that were to noisy, persistent, or possibly well argued such that I put someone else into a debating box. The flip side is that I'm completely accustomed to some people loathing me, or roasting me at any and every opportunity.

So what? Who gives a s**t what people think about you here? Your freedom to find ways to speak your mind is worth much more. And no-one here is taking it away from you. You just have to be more thick skinned.

[metalman]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Metal-fatigue -

Don't know if any of the above clucking and spluttering was intended indirectly for me, but if so, my impression of this comment is it sounds a bit like a "clucking granny". You've already expressed glowing appreciation for having a bouncer protect your sensibilities. etc., etc., etc.

not my sensibilities, the golden rule here... respect. your. fellow. members.

that means, do not call them names.

that means do not comment on them but on their ideas.

i already said i have in the past not always lived up to this myself. i agree with these principles... and appreciate their importance here... and i don't want to get thrown out... you either.

[Guest]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Metalman - you don't get the hint. You have been one of the foremost ignorers of polite discourse, for years. Remember Metalman's School for Drawing Room Manners? Where did that come from? I personally have found your trenchant and caustic (and occasionally schatological) contributions wonderful. But now ... now you sound like a born again teetotaler pointing to a bottle of booze and calling down the Lord's fulminations upon it... [ :rolleyes: ] except you were a good friend to it. It would be more seemly to scale down the vocal endorsements and leave them to those who've had an exemplary record of being infallibly diplomatic, like that GRG guy for instance. Methinks the lady doth protest (the new diplomatic bloomers to be worn) a wee bit too much.

the golden rule here... respect. your. fellow. members.

[metalman]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Metalman - you don't get the hint. You have been one of the foremost ignorers of polite discourse, for years. Remember Metalman's School for Drawing Room Manners? Where did that come from? I personally have found your trenchant and caustic (and occasionally schatological) contributions wonderful. But now ... now you sound like a born again teetotaler pointing to a bottle of booze and calling down the Lord's fulminations upon it... [ :rolleyes: ] except you were a good friend to it. It would be more seemly to scale down the vocal endorsements and leave them to those who've had an exemplary record of being infallibly diplomatic, like that GRG guy for instance. Methinks the lady doth protest (the new diplomatic bloomers to be worn) a wee bit too much.

find one... single... instance... where my caustic sense of humor was ever directed at another member.

i reserve my hostility to those who have earned it... wall street, corrupt pols, shill economists, journalistic hacks, etc.

[Guest]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Ahh! Yes of course.

find one... single... instance... where my caustic sense of humor was ever directed at another member.

i reserve my hostility to those who have earned it... wall street, corrupt pols, shill economists, journalistic hacks, etc.

[metalman]

Re: Has Itulip just practiced Book political book burning?

Ahh! Yes of course.

wow! such a short reply. i'm honored.