Please remove coachx's post

[TroyMcClure]

I really don't think biased, uniformed, multi-paragraph political talk is allowed here, is it? Diesel made a comment. Writing a novel about politics is not even in the same league. I understand why we don't talk politics here. Others, especially someone who has been here as long as coachx, should know that we don't give a damn about his views on the political scene and commenting on it could only bring negative results for the whole board. Let's keep it in context. Everyone may say something political off the cuff, but to do what coachx did is totally against what this site is about.

[Admin]

I really don't think biased, uniformed, multi-paragraph political talk is allowed here, is it? Diesel made a comment. Writing a novel about politics is not even in the same league. I understand why we don't talk politics here. Others, especially someone who has been here as long as coachx, should know that we don't give a damn about his views on the political scene and commenting on it could only bring negative results for the whole board. Let's keep it in context. Everyone may say something political off the cuff, but to do what coachx did is totally against what this site is about.

I understand how you feel but I have never deleted anyone's post before (unless they made a mistake with it) and I don't intend to start now. The thread is locked and it will eventually drop off the 1st page. If I were to delete his post then I'd have to go and delete every post that talked about politics and religion to be fair and I really don't want to do that nor do I think it needs to be done. I prefer to leave posts in place when they are locked or when a member is banned so that people that see those threads can see why they were locked or why the member was banned.

[DrReality]

Dol,

Think you do a hell of a job. Glad your commited to it.

[Admin]

Dol,

Think you do a hell of a job. Glad your commited to it.

Thank you DrR I appreciate that!

[TroyMcClure]

Good point about leaving it to show why it was locked. My problem is with it being up there, full of accusations and non truths, with no allowance for a rebuttal. But I do understand.

I second the doc. Without you, we wouldn't have this. Thanks again.

[AHF]

Good point about leaving it to show why it was locked. My problem is with it being up there, full of accusations and non truths, with no allowance for a rebuttal. But I do understand.

I second the doc. Without you, we wouldn't have this. Thanks again.

I think Dolf's approach is fine but also share your frustration with the misinformation in that post. I will leave it at that.

[Admin]

Good point about leaving it to show why it was locked. My problem is with it being up there, full of accusations and non truths, with no allowance for a rebuttal. But I do understand.

I second the doc. Without you, we wouldn't have this. Thanks again.

Troy if you'd like to have a rebuttal then feel free to PM coach (and this goes for anyone) and debate it through there. If the real issue is that you feel the things he said were non truths and that you just want to clear that up then that shouldn't be a problem. I just don't want to glamorize these debates and have them be out in the open.

I appreciate you guys understanding!

[Eddielives]

The problem with political debates on hawksquawk, in my opinion, is that posters just wind up getting way too emotional and personal. There is really no way to moderate them because if you do, as an admin, you're going to be accused of picking a side. You have more important things to do, I'm sure, than to worry about an out of control political/religious thread on this site. For instance, aside from coachx's horrendous spelling, I personally think he made valid points in a NON-INSULTING WAY TO ANY OTHER HAWKSQUAWK POSTER. But it seems that having an opposing opinion on this site makes certain others feel as if you have personally insulted THEM. This is childish. If the thread were allowed to go on, I am absolutely positive that the next opposing post would just say something to the effect of you're uninformed, ignorant, biased, lying, untruthful and then launch into a rebuttal that would not address his points specifically. In fact, this very thread starts out with an accusation of those very things! Instead of just saying remove the post because no rebuttal is allowed and that is not fair, coachx is labeled as being biased, uninformed, bringing negativity, etc. Unfortunately, all debate of this sort should be stomped out as soon as it starts. Just my opinion. And I also don't envy the frustration as an admin. you guys must go through when having to deal with stuff like this. Kudos to the efforts in treating each case professionally so far.

[TroyMcClure]

The problem with political debates on hawksquawk, in my opinion, is that posters just wind up getting way too emotional and personal. There is really no way to moderate them because if you do, as an admin, you're going to be accused of picking a side. You have more important things to do, I'm sure, than to worry about an out of control political/religious thread on this site. For instance, aside from coachx's horrendous spelling, I personally think he made valid points in a NON-INSULTING WAY TO ANY OTHER HAWKSQUAWK POSTER. But it seems that having an opposing opinion on this site makes certain others feel as if you have personally insulted THEM. This is childish. If the thread were allowed to go on, I am absolutely positive that the next opposing post would just say something to the effect of you're uninformed, ignorant, biased, lying, untruthful and then launch into a rebuttal that would not address his points specifically. In fact, this very thread starts out with an accusation of those very things! Instead of just saying remove the post because no rebuttal is allowed and that is not fair, coachx is labeled as being biased, uninformed, bringing negativity, etc. Unfortunately, all debate of this sort should be stomped out as soon as it starts. Just my opinion. And I also don't envy the frustration as an admin. you guys must go through when having to deal with stuff like this. Kudos to the efforts in treating each case professionally so far.

You are totally wrong. There were several uninformed, non truths that he represented as fact. That is the problem. There was not a single well thought out point. Just political talking points and rhetoric.

And again, he wrote a novel, dude. How does that compare with an off the cuff coment like Diesel's?

[Eddielives]

You are totally wrong. There were several uninformed, non truths that he represented as fact. That is the problem. There was not a single well thought out point. Just political talking points and rhetoric.

And again, he wrote a novel, dude. How does that compare with an off the cuff coment like Diesel's?

Okay, let me take this step by step. First off, I am not defending coachx's statement as far as it applies to hawksquawk rules on threads of a political nature. He obviously took Diesel's statement as an opportunity to say well, if he's gonna break the rules then I am too. Two wrongs do not make a right and he was wrong to antagonize just like Diesel was. Furthermore, Diesel's statement was no less antagonistic than was his no matter how lenghty either was. In that respect, they're both the same. I was using coachx's statement to make the point of how a typical hawksquawk political or religious thread turns into what the admins, I believe, want to avoid.....personal attacks and emotional bickering.

I have to say however, that your reaction is clearly making my point. You took coachx's comments and instead of just saying he shouldn't have done that or we all should have had the opportunity to rebut, you get emotional and take his opinions as assertions of fact. They were just his opinions yet in your disagreement you pass judgement on his political statements rather than the real issue which is breaking site rules. My response to Diesel's comments in the other thread were not laden with accusations of me disapproving of what he said politically, but rather that he was breaking the rule set forth by this site and he should apologize for it. I'll accept that I was probably out of line for saying if he were a man, he should apologize but I still think he was doing this site an injustice by breaking the rules and he should, for lack of a better way of stating it, man up and admit he was wrong. And as for cheap shots taken by people of what may be deemed a right-wing nature, I don't read every thread on the site and didn't see those. You or Diesel can choose to take that as truth or choose to believe I am lying but i am telling the truth. Still, I was accused of picking favorites....a personal attack. And above with your statement, you can't let go of the emotion of your disagreement with his political statements. You take his opinion personally. Why? You say he didn't have one well thought out point. Dude, pardon me but that could be considered a bit arrogant. They were probably quite well thought out by him. But because you disagree with them, they're not well thought out! Doesn't make sense.

[Diesel]

I'll happily apologize for starting the mess with my off the cuff statement. Mine was not to focus on the politics, I was just using the situation of the moment (in the news) to relate to Marvin. It wasn't even meant to be political.

My point was that Marvin was "untouchable" on this forum.

It wasn't about inexperience. It was about political viewpoint. It was about the fact that he is the most polarizing subject on this forum. (Period). I was probably wrong also to farther explain(after reading your post) that the reason that there's a ban on politics in the first place is because people get too emotionally involved and want to lay out their political beliefs and stand on soap boxes and make speeches and to hell with basketball. And Coach cued up right there. My thought is that my intent and Coach's intent are two different intents. I'm just being humorous. He's being fanatical. It's like if I were to use the statement "lipstick on a pig..." in talking about bringing back Woody as a coach and Sund as a GM or calling Smoove a PF. Is that now a political phrase? IS that the type of Phrase that should be banned... AND then should Obama followers get all riled up and start spewing the Democratic Platform because I was talking about their guy?

:offtopic2:

I appreciate the fact that there is a political ban. And I appreciate our mods!

[Eddielives]

I'll happily apologize for starting the mess with my off the cuff statement. Mine was not to focus on the politics, I was just using the situation of the moment (in the news) to relate to Marvin. It wasn't even meant to be political.

My point was that Marvin was "untouchable" on this forum.

It wasn't about inexperience. It was about political viewpoint. It was about the fact that he is the most polarizing subject on this forum. (Period). I was probably wrong also to farther explain(after reading your post) that the reason that there's a ban on politics in the first place is because people get too emotionally involved and want to lay out their political beliefs and stand on soap boxes and make speeches and to hell with basketball. And Coach cued up right there. My thought is that my intent and Coach's intent are two different intents. I'm just being humorous. He's being fanatical. It's like if I were to use the statement "lipstick on a pig..." in talking about bringing back Woody as a coach and Sund as a GM or calling Smoove a PF. Is that now a political phrase? IS that the type of Phrase that should be banned... AND then should Obama followers get all riled up and start spewing the Democratic Platform because I was talking about their guy?

:offtopic2:

I appreciate the fact that there is a political ban. And I appreciate our mods!

You're right to apologize and while I agree the real point of your argument was to express how you think many react to critical Marvin posts, the clearly political jab by using Palin(more qualified people, she's done nothing special) is as obvious as a runny, p*ssy zit on a teenagers forehead. Just because it was intended to be humorous doesn't negate the political angle of it which is against this site's rules. Using that logic, we can still talk politics or religion all day long here...just think of a clever and humorous way to insert it into other topics. So how can you logically say your statement is not fanatical as well? IT'S THE SAME THING! Once again, one opinion is taken personally while the other is just a little joke. This, is what I call a double standard.

[Swatguy]

Dolfan can you just put some lipstick on this pig. :rolleyes:

[Popeye]

I just read that post, wow! That guy is full of sh!t, i bet he thinks high of Bush too. Bush=Mcain.

sorry Dolfan i just had to say that.

[Eddielives]

Please keep posts like the previous two coming. You're only making my point. I have shown 100% civility in my statements. And if anyone here can get Dolfan or any other admins to call me out for anything I've said that is out of line, I BEG you to get their support in doing so. You may find yourself under the radar though if you really examine who's being constructive with their statements and who is trying to instigate personal attacks.