Government Death Panels

[hodad]

You know, I approached rock's comments here as an attack on political threads in general--which it certainly is--but I didn't really get what triggered all of this. I actually almost never look at the thread in question (yes, threads can be ignored!), so I took a quick glance one day & saw a comment that seemed to violate, if not the letter of the forum rules, then certainly the spirit. Utterly uncalled for, IMO. He tends to put "winning" above all else, and even though he is perfectly capable of making a good clean argument, that's not his style.

I don't know whether punishment was meted for what was said. I do think it should have been. Honestly? I have the offender on "ignore," so that I have to hit "show ignored content" in order to see what he's going on about. I've engaged with him enough to know what sort of "discussion" it's going to be--been there, done that--so I miss vast quantities of his maunderings.

Somehow, this discussion reminds me of a classic Simpsons moment:

 

[groselicain]

@AnalogPackrat I was looking forward to being the subject of one of your glib retort-posts—and for someone who likes to make inferences, it's telling to me that you read "seeing you show up" as some sort of invitation to a dick-measuring contest where we compare how long we've been here.

You threw out the phrase "no reason to justify or explain anything more than I already have" before talking about people I "defend." You, a publicly-anonymous member of a forum, decided it was warranted to take a discussion—already off the rails by many folks' standards—and reroute it into a public airing of grievances at the expense of another member. Now, I think if you took the time to give my post more than the disingenuous once-over it received—instead of scanning and making mental notes of where to interject with flippant comebacks—you might find I made no mention of defense. What you did was gross—saying that doesn't require any defense of DJH.

Now, I know this will be incredibly hard for you to believe, but just because I don't have your lived experience and superior grasp on what the real world and imperfect humans look like, I've yet to see any unicorns and only a handful of rainbows. As such, I don't even really go looking for them— but I do have a tendency to notice people who treat others badly. I wish those were more rare than unicorns, but I don't get to make the rules.

Whenever you feel like engaging on a more adult level, I'm sure any number of us are ready for conversation.

 

[groselicain]

Somehow, this discussion reminds me of a classic Simpsons moment:

If only the Paul Anka guarantee wasn't void here in Tennessee.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It's nice to be nice... try it.

JR

 

[Dreams]

It's nice to be nice... try it.

Watch out everyone, it's the tone police

 

[Dreams]

Seeing the brewery the past week or so has been truly disgusting. Anyone expecting it stays contained to this sub-forum is delusional. You might not see it directly but if you look closely there's things people never bothered to post all over this place

 

[Dreams]

It's pretty easy to skim past the encyclopedic semantics-argument replies by people with reading comprehension issues but the trick is knowing who they are in the first place; I don't envy the newcomers

 

[Dreams]

Really is a shame to see this place go down like this

 

[AnalogPackrat]

@AnalogPackrat I was looking forward to being the subject of one of your glib retort-posts—and for someone who likes to make inferences, it's telling to me that you read "seeing you show up" as some sort of invitation to a dick-measuring contest where we compare how long we've been here.

You read that wrong. I saw one or two other iterations of certain behavior (followed by thread deletion) by the same person back in those days. I was simply pointing out that you may not have the same information.

You threw out the phrase "no reason to justify or explain anything more than I already have" before talking about people I "defend." You, a publicly-anonymous member of a forum, decided it was warranted to take a discussion—already off the rails by many folks' standards—and reroute it into a public airing of grievances at the expense of another member. Now, I think if you took the time to give my post more than the disingenuous once-over it received—instead of scanning and making mental notes of where to interject with flippant comebacks—you might find I made no mention of defense. What you did was gross—saying that doesn't require any defense of DJH.

I guess I disagree.

Now, I know this will be incredibly hard for you to believe, but just because I don't have your lived experience and superior grasp on what the real world and imperfect humans look like, I've yet to see any unicorns and only a handful of rainbows. As such, I don't even really go looking for them— but I do have a tendency to notice people who treat others badly. I wish those were more rare than unicorns, but I don't get to make the rules.

I haven't stolen property or flaked out on my obligations to others (financial or otherwise). I also don't rant with expletive-filled posts. But I'm the bad guy.

Whenever you feel like engaging on a more adult level, I'm sure any number of us are ready for conversation.

I'm here. You may not like what I have to say at times, but that's life.

 

[hodad]

You may not like what I have to say

I'm really not sure there's a win in having a discussion with you. You strike me as one of those "apologies are a sign of weakness" types, in addition to grossly overestimating your own rectitude. Your ad hominem attack was ugly. For my part, I'm well aware of the saga: I remember when it happened, I've seen JDH discuss it right here in the past. I was also around for (and greatly appreciated) his contributions here in the early days. I've known enough folks who've gone through dark times (and I'm certainly not perfect myself) that I'm open to forgiveness and redemption.

And it's nice to see that you've learned nothing, and come here to double down on your attacks.

It's really simple, man. 2 sentences: "I was wrong." "I'm sorry." Forgiveness might come your way as well if you would simply acknowledge that you went over the line.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You still haven't understood that you are part of a group that is creating a climate here which leads to problems in the whole forum. You are not the only one, rather a follower who likes to aggravate discussions and fuel the fire for entertainment.

The community then pays the bill.

I would like to answer your questions with a counter question:

When was the last time you contributed anything positive to this community? I mean in the original sense, audio gear DIY?

Do you believe this rant is positive for the community

Is this the spin of the week, or the spin of the day?

If the right abolishes the right to abortion, it's the left's fault? With that kind of distortion of the facts, we'll never get anywhere.

I propose we change the name "brewery" to "John's private spin corner"...

I would appreciate less personal attacks.

SCOTUS decided that there was no constitutional "right" to abortion. There is right to life so the remaining question to be resolved is when does an unborn child's right to life exceed the mother's right to kill her unborn child. I don't have an uterus in this fight so will leave it to others to decide.

Watch out everyone, it's the tone police

cute... but civil discourse is in the rules, for participation on this forum.

It's disgusting, in a way. You can only interpret actions like these can only stem from the belief of infallibility. Like Jews, who consider themselves the "chosen people", these Texans seem to believe they are better than anyone else...

What's even more disgusting is people trying to derail any meaningful discussion here by injecting whatever drivel they can think of. I'm starting to feel personally insulted. If your emotional intelligence is so low you can't even sympathise for a brief moment with the victim, please stay out of it. There's nothing funny about what conservative monsters are doing again and again. Turning back time doesn't work.

Wasn't it you, John, who spoke about democrats using the justice department to derail those great republicans? This is a clear example how the same republicans do not care at all if it's the people who are victimised by law. As long as the republican's fat butts are safe, it's OK to them. Sad.

yes, it appears that the US DOJ is prosecuting laws asymmetrically. "Give me the man and I will give you the case against him"....

Guys, apparently you really have problems with reading! I've clearly explained that the ignore function or avoiding the brewery doesn't change the fact that there is an incredible amount of negative energy spilling over from this section into the rest of the forum.

That's a fact and I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

I have no intention of convincing you in any way, I know who I'm talking to. Most (not all) of you are part of the problem, I'm not surprised who is speaking out against me here. That was to be expected.

you against the world?

On the subject of approaching the owner directly, you smart guys, it's not that easy. I have asked about this several times, and such posts were often deleted. Nobody seems to know that, not even the mods, if they are telling the truth.

The only person who is recognizably part of the company is John Roberts, as he performs disciplinary functions, which clearly positions him legally. Whether money flows or not for this job is irrelevant. Only the current owner can have given him this power.

You have an odd concept of recognization. I am a moderator working voluntarily, and not feeling very appreciated. Certainly not compensated, I'd notice if I was.

I recognize your screed as attacking me personally (against the rules), and disruptive to the operation of this forum. I take disciplinary action when appropriate.

There are a handful of individuals with the power to delete posts and/or ban members. I generally give warning and notice before I do so. That is yet another thing I have been falsely accused of.

Otherwise there are no clearly recognizable ownership structures. It should be clear to most people here why such things are concealed.

the answer I still get is that Ethan owns this forum but he has been ghosting me for over 2 years now.

As far as I know, Angie is working on behalf of the owner, within a paid external service company. But that could also be different...

a fair guess... but not acknowledged.

JR

 

[fallout]

Not saying who's wrong or right here but if you're expecting AP to give an apology, I think JDH should also consider an apology as well.

The way I saw I go down in 'real time' was that AP questioned something WOB claimed to be met with "How dare you fucking question me, who the fuck do you think you are.. blah blah blah. If you have a problem then just say it" (I'm paraphrasing, since the posts were deleted). AP then stated what his problem was. Personally, if someone came at me like that in public, you can bet your ass I'm going to fire back.

Yes, anyone who has been here since the beginning (or before) knows JDH's story (rather, stories). Yes, no one is perfect and deserves forgiveness and redemption. That said, it's hard to NOT question someone when the statement that was questioned was directly related to their 'past'. It's not like this magically came out of thin air or unprovoked.

For the record, besides differences in opinion with a few, I have absolutely no issues on a personal level with anyone on this forum (this includes said folks with differing opinions). I also acknowledge I can be a bit of an asshole at times (just as much as others here. Yes, I'm looking at YOU!) when discussing certain subjects. No one is perfect.

Of course the usual suspects will disagree.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I'm really not sure there's a win in having a discussion with you. You strike me as one of those "apologies are a sign of weakness" types, in addition to grossly overestimating your own rectitude.

Not at all. Apologies are good. But when (as reported by others) tens of thousands in losses are involved, I don't think it's enough. And due to the magnitude and repetitive nature of the situation, trust is lost.

Your ad hominem attack was ugly.

What ad hominem? The one where I was called an MFer multiple times?

For my part, I'm well aware of the saga: I remember when it happened, I've seen JDH discuss it right here in the past. I was also around for (and greatly appreciated) his contributions here in the early days. I've known enough folks who've gone through dark times (and I'm certainly not perfect myself) that I'm open to forgiveness and redemption.

I sincerely wish the man well and hope he can resolve things. That's up to him. He's got plenty of talent which makes all of it harder to fathom. I've had dealings with a handful of people with deep-seated problems. Not my first rodeo.

And it's nice to see that you've learned nothing, and come here to double down on your attacks.

I haven't attacked anyone. Questioned? Yes. Reiterated past actions? Yes.

It's really simple, man. 2 sentences: "I was wrong." "I'm sorry." Forgiveness might come your way as well if you would simply acknowledge that you went over the line.

I'm sure there were other ways to handle it. I considered many (including ignoring it) during the few days between my responses. Obviously several of you disagree with what I said and/or how I said it. So be it.

 

[pucho812]

Can we go back to discussing the death panels of the op?
If not ok. Remember many a member decided to leave and pull their contributions. It wasn’t always the brewery discussions that did it either.
Let’s all just have an egg nog as it is the season. Breath. Repeat. There now we can all be friends again.

 

[rock soderstrom]

Do you believe this rant is positive for the community

In fact, some people from the community have contacted me who more or less share my views. So yes, I think I've addressed an important issue and clearly pointed out the shortcomings. That free speech is a problem for you is well known.

you against the world?

Nonsense, of course not. I'm against everything I haven't liked here recently and its consequences. I think I've made my perspective very clear. It was clear to me and intentional that there would be resistance from the usual suspects. I'm not alone, there are people who think similarly.

You have an odd concept of recognization. I am a moderator working voluntarily, and not feeling very appreciated. Certainly not compensated, I'd notice if I was.

You are the only one who has openly communicated your disciplinary authority here. That and your appearance under your real name gives you a special position in a commercial environment that disguises its owners. If you don't earn money for this, then I really feel sorry for you. I'm serious.

There are a handful of individuals with the power to delete posts and/or ban members.

But you are the only one who has communicated this openly here, as far as I could research.

I recognize your screed as attacking me personally (against the rules), and disruptive to the operation of this forum. I take disciplinary action when appropriate.

You have been threatening to kick me out of groupdiy with some regularity for about 1.5 years. Your reasons vary, but in my view they are untenable and arbitrary.

This culminates in statements like, "I can kick you out if I feel like it". That's not acceptable to me and I've told you that more than once. Who gives you the right to arbitrarily kick out long-standing community members depending on your mood?

With what justification. I have never insulted you or threatened you personally. My statements are covered by freedom of speech or are intended to be humorous (e.g. "Peavey"). It seems to me that you are better at giving it out than taking it. Boxing isn't just about punching.
My statements are in no way "disruptive to the operation of this forum", how did you come up with that? Because I'm asking about the current owner, is it a crime here?

Guys, I'm out of the thread, being a part time "revolutionary" and "freedom fighter" is very stressful and time consuming . I think we'll see us again on this topic elsewhere. Have fun!

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am tempted to mention another major benefit of "federalism" when dealing with contentious issues (like abortion).

Each state can pursue somewhat different approaches based on local public sentiment. Citizens of states who don't agree with their local laws can venue shop to different states to get a result they prefer. Over time the experience of the different states, for better and/or worse can instruct federal laws, or not.

We are still in the state experimenting/learning stage but I expect the partisan operatives to paint opposing sides with hyperbolic extreme positions, to win votes next year.

So caveat lector.

JR

 

[pucho812]

Guys, I'm out of the thread, being a part time "revolutionary" and "freedom fighter" is very stressful and time consuming . I think we'll see us again on this topic elsewhere. Have fun!

This isn’t the airport or a train depot. There is no need to announce your departure.

 

[rock soderstrom]

 

[hodad]

Citizens of states who don't agree with their local laws can venue shop to different states to get a result they prefer.

The woman in the story way up top could do so, but there's an excellent chance that she's reasonably financially secure. "Venue shopping," as you call it, is not an option for lots and lots of folks. And in a state the size of Texas, getting to someplace with less restrictive laws is not simple. Even where I live, getting to a state with differing laws is getting harder and harder. Sadly, this case is not all that uncommon. Of course, in this case, a woman wanted to terminate a dangerous pregnancy destined to lead to the death of the infant (if it made it past the fetus stage at all) in order to increase the likelihood that she could have a successful pregnancy in the future. I mean, aren't conservatives all about making more White Babies? Isn't that why they buy into nonsense like the Great Replacement Theory? Or is this really about men subjugating women, and making sure they know who's really in charge?

I appreciated pucho's comments about Texas's arrogance based on their former nationhood, but neither he nor you bother with the real question: Is what Texas is doing right? Is it moral? Ethical? Are you and your fellow conservatives suddenly cool with having the govt. dictate people's healthcare choices? As I noted, that's not where the GOP stood when Obama was president. It's okay as long as Republicans run the death panels?

 

[pucho812]

Death panels are never ok, it doesn’t matter who proposes it.
But this does propose a bigger question
Since I am sure we can agree that killing innocent people is wrong, at what point do you consider a group of cells a person?