by LB 112 Replies latest jw friends
Me thinks TJ is suffering from LB withdrawls already hehehehe. -- Ven
Because he speaks his mind gumby. Seems to me he was just kidding around with someone he considers a friend. -- Brummie
Thanks guys. I have a lot of respect for the man, that's all, and am highly offended that he up and left over a minor difference of opinion. And yeah... I *still* think he's being a drama queen. So THERE LB!
LB,
It's been nice knowing you. I feel the same way lately about some of the stuff on this board and am taking a leave of absence. I just wanted you to know you're not the only one who feels the way you do.
Pat
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, noooooooooooooooooooooooo you don't Patio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What WILL we do without you?
You can take a break, -----most of us do that-------but you CANNOT leave. And I can say that. I'm your sister.
Perhaps some of us just need some breathing room? Isn't that quite natural?
Take care y'all!
waiting
Hey Gumby!
So you don't like peoples attitude with the war scenario. Why do these differences matter more than the religious differences you've encountered here?
As you know al.........everybody thinks different and we all have to live and accept that.....we just don't have to like it. - gumby
This is such a GREAT point! This whole board is about discussing/arguing/joking/slamming others views - generally jw religious. But, nonetheless, an emotional issue.
Now, there's another emotional issue - and we all have differences........."we all have to live and accept that."
So you don't like peoples attitude with the war scenario. Why do these differences matter more than the religious differences you've encountered here?
just a complete guess here, but it could have to do with bias being shown on the war issue in particular. i know thats been an issue for some.
aa
just a complete guess here, but it could have to do with bias being shown on the war issue in particular. i know thats been an issue for some.
If by "bias" you mean I don't allow carte-blanche pro-war posts to be made without people being allowed to answer then yes ... I am biased.
There have been plenty of pro-war topics made and names called. It is right and fair that people are allowed to answer them and also to post their own topics.
If I was locking or deleting threads from one side and not others and such like then you could accuse us of bias but as it is, I think it's a flimsy claim. Both sides have to debate the issues and if one side finds it hard to do ... well, it does not mean things are biased.
simon-
thats not what i was talking about, but i have witnessed a few things in the past week that could possibly be construed as biased by some. a couple examples for you, and you can take it for what its worth.
the yellow ribbon issue........
first, you come on and say that it takes up too much space. then you decide that the real reason you dont want the yellow ribbon on every post is that itll give the other side reasons to retaliate with their symbols, and you show with links that the yellow ribbon is indeed prowar, showing complete support for bush, etc, and could be very insulting to other posters...and besides, its just a worthless token of support anyhow..................then, we get someone putting up a peace sign flag, to which you basically say "you see, this is what i meant, now we have a war of symbols.....but really, i cant see why the peace sign flag should offend anyone." again, this could be construed as biased reasoning, but in the end you did ask both sides to refrain, so i suppose that gets you off the "bias" hook for that one, technically.......just the way you went about it was a bit suspect, imo.
another quick example......i noticed an antibush/antiwar joke come up on a thread, to which you chimed in with a quick laugh and comment.....shortly after that, an antisaddam/prowar joke pops up, and is immediately locked. upon further review, it is unlocked, but the poster is quickly reminded of a couple of "rule" threads regarding too many war threads, and keeping the threads to a "topic of discussion", etc. this is something that might be construed as biased, but since neither thread was locked, once again youre technically off the hook.
really, i dont blame you personally for acting somewhat biased on such an intense and emotional subject, so hopefully you dont feel im attacking you personally here. its natural, and it would happed with anyone. taking care of this board and staying completely unbiased in your actions has got to be hard work, and i commend you for all you do here. im not an ungrateful poster calling for simons head, just someone making a few observations.
aa
umm guys, I thought we were trying to get LB to stay!!!!
Ven
LB,
Obviously, I've missed some "heated discussions" that took place over the last little while. But I've gotta tell ya that I will sorely miss your level-headedness and your dead-on quips, LB. I certainly hope you stop back in from time to time to satisfy our prurient interest in your diving (oh, and the rest of your life, too.)
Take care,
out
P.S. -- Maybe if the avatar/icon function were again available people could make their statements anti/pro -war/-peace, -Red Wings/-Stars, -Britney/-J Lo, -Packers/-Giants, etc., etc. there?
first, you come on and say that it takes up too much space. then you decide that the real reason you dont want the yellow ribbon on every post is that itll give the other side reasons to retaliate with their symbols, and you show with links that the yellow ribbon is indeed prowar, showing complete support for bush, etc, and could be very insulting to other posters...and besides, its just a worthless token of support anyhow..................then, we get someone putting up a peace sign flag, to which you basically say "you see, this is what i meant, now we have a war of symbols.....but really, i cant see why the peace sign flag should offend anyone." again, this could be construed as biased reasoning, but in the end you did ask both sides to refrain, so i suppose that gets you off the "bias" hook for that one, technically.......just the way you went about it was a bit suspect, imo.
Wrong. I said it took up too much space and did I ever then turn round and say "no, actually .. it doesn't ..." NO !. I do not have to keep repeating the same thing ad-nauseum ... or do I ? The reasons I put were clearly explained and you can go back and read them instead of misrepresenting what happened.
YELLOW RIBBON : Show your support!
Instead of just clamping down and making a decision such as blocking the ribbon which I could easily do, we spent a lot of time and effort explaining what we did and why. In return we got insulted and accused of acting like 'elders' and being back at the KH.
In the end, it was one of the vocal pro-war supporters that proved the point we were making who got offended because of a USA flag / peace symbol being posted so it was finally accepted (begrudgingly I think) that not allowing either sidfe to post symbols that could offend others was the best thing to do.
another quick example......i noticed an antibush/antiwar joke come up on a thread, to which you chimed in with a quick laugh and comment.....shortly after that, an antisaddam/prowar joke pops up, and is immediately locked. upon further review, it is unlocked, but the poster is quickly reminded of a couple of "rule" threads regarding too many war threads, and keeping the threads to a "topic of discussion", etc. this is something that might be construed as biased, but since neither thread was locked, once again youre technically off the hook.
Do not accuse me of bias. I've allowed some pretty insulting threads to go that have been made BY pro-war people. Calling us "Saddam Lovers", "supporters of child turture and rape" etc... I laugh if things are funny. Posting things like "nuke Iraq" is not funny and I don't laugh. The 'further review' that you talk about was about 10 seconds (literally) so don't try and make out it was some big deal.
I edited the picture initially because I misread it but put it back after I realised my mistake. It is there for all to see (because the edit log always shows up).
Personally, I think we should have fewer war topics and posted this suggestion.
really, i dont blame you personally for acting somewhat biased on such an intense and emotional subject, so hopefully you dont feel im attacking you personally here. its natural, and it would happed with anyone. taking care of this board and staying completely unbiased in your actions has got to be hard work, and i commend you for all you do here. im not an ungrateful poster calling for simons head, just someone making a few observations.
I think you are so biased in your opinions and beliefs that you believe that 'centre ground' is some compaign against you. I have allowed both sides and allow all to have their say. It would be wrong to allow pro-war people to get away with posting insulting rubbish and brow-beat people who may have differing views even though I have allowed plenty of very pro-war posts. Equally, while I personally lean towards the 'anti-war' sentiment, I do not allow people to insult and post anything they like and have, actually, edited or removed *more* anti-war stuff than pro-war in an effort to be fair.
The bottom line is, don't accuse me of being 'biased' if your arguments are biased themselves and not instantly accepted.
The best proof that I am not biased? Well ... you are here posting and I'm answering you aren't I? Try going into the search and looking for "Iraq" threads and see how many have been locked, how many are "pro" and how many are "anti".
You have to accept the fact that just as there are a lot of people in the world who do not agree with the USA and UK on this issue, there will be a lot of people on the board who also feel the same. Allowing them their say is not being biased.
BTW: For the record (again). Being dritical of the USA and the UK does not make me "Anti" American or "Anti" British ! It simply means that I disagree with what they are doing and do not believe all that they say. This does not make me at all unique.
