Questions for wellcookedfetus

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HOWARDSTERN

HOWARDSTERN has logged out....
Registered Senior Member
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40635
quote by wellcookedfetus: Because this is propaganda and no actual evidence proving the documents were forged, or by who was presented: I'm going to close it. Next time post links and evidence and avoid flashy images that provide no proof but only incriminate by appealing to imagery.

Last edited by WellCookedFetus : Today at 07:18 PM.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought that I was asking a rhetorical question, to start a discussion about the scandalous actions of CBS, and then expressing my opinion:
post by HOWARDSTERN: Possible imprisonment for CBS execs & employees, for breaking several Federal laws?

Could be! Falsifying government documents to defraud or injure....The FEDS get more than a little irrate about those kinds of things. I think it's going to be a hoot if Dan Rather gets to be the cell mate of Martha Stewart, especially after CBS made such a big thing over Martha's just trying to cover her ass. Don't bend over in the shower Dan, to pick up the soap ! ! !
Click to expand...
As far as the "flashy" images, I was not aware that it is against forum rules to POST PICS.

As far as "PROPAGANDA", I LOOKED CLOSELY at the political forum rules and found no reference to the word at all! And again, if my post was about propaganda, then what about the statements made by the other members that I picked randomly & listed, wellcookedfetus? If those are not propaganda, then what is?
Political Forum Rules
C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous. How can anyone back up their opinion with any more evidence than their opinion itself? Besides, if everyone had to back up their "opinions" with evidence before posting, there would be no one posting at the political forum.
As far as valid arguments go, there hardly are any at all!


I have looked through just a few of the other recent posts by the members and have seen countless statements made that were not substantiated with any evidence, referrals to evidence, or links to prove their statements. These are just a few examples:


whitewolf
nyam nyam. (1,221 posts) Yesterday, 09:15 PM
report | reply
In my class, there was this girl, who said her roommate was from Florida. The roommate said that indeed many African Americans were not allowed to vote, for various reasons; ex: some were told they weren't registered. My prof responded by saying that whoever is witheld from voting may go to a judge who will review the paperwork. I thought all of that business was bull, but apparently there are witnesses. The roommate also related that many African Americans are now threatened into voting for Bush.

Is there anybody from Florida who can tell what took place?
Click to expand...
Really? What evidence does this member have to even begin to prove that such a thing has ever happened?

Norman
Atta Boy (541 posts) 09-02-04, 09:05 PM
report | reply
Bush should be impeached for pushing america into a war that cannot be won and for lying to the american people about WMD! Impeach Bush!

Yob Atta
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence to show that this statement is true ?

Insanely Elite
Questions authority. (109 posts) 09-07-04, 07:51 PM
report | reply
The gop run both houses of congress. In the senate the ruling party sets the agenda, there will be no impeachment. A great many educated folk agree that Bush's actions have risen to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. But trying him in a republican held congress will never happen. Vote Kerry 2004, and pretend you are impeaching him.

If Bush is elected again, the system is irredeemably broken. There will be no more America.
Is that a fact or an opinion? where is the evidence to support that?

top mosker
Choicepoint, hired by Katherine Harris, identified 94,000 "felons" to be purged from the voting rolls. Less than 3,000 had an actual criminal record and some of them even had voting rights. Almost everyone on the purged roll was black or hispanic.
( http://www.guerrillanews.com/corpor...me/doc5224.html )
Click to expand...

I checked that site & it is an opinion expressed by Greg Palast, the writer of the piece. He himself has provided NO evidence.
These examples are just a tiny fraction that I found on the recent posts.

quote by wellcookedfetus: Because this is propaganda and no actual evidence proving the documents were forged, or by who was presented: I'm going to close it.
Click to expand...

You want evidence about the forged documents, wellcookedfetus? Turn on a radio or television ! ! ! IT'S EVERYWHERE! I didn't think it was necessary to post links to something that is obviously everywhere.

Apparently, it is you who has the biased political opinion and you are pushing that forward by allowing only the posts that you agree with personally. In doing that, wellcookedfetus, you are supplying the propaganda.

My post asks a rhetorical question about the CBS scandal, adds in my opinion, and finds the humor in regard to the current political environment, in the form of a few pictures. If anyone (including you) cannot see the difference then you should question your own judgement as well as your ability to moderate the political forum.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think I answer this already in this thread:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40510&page=5
Please don't cross-posts.

I was not against your opinion howard, but your post was lacking in evidence, and it’s format was provoking at the very least. You should have notices goofyfish and I close many threads that start off as provocative as yours, the subject are greatly varying and are not limited to moderator political beliefs. I'm sorry if you presume I'm being unfair to you.

if you want examples of my "unfairness" please observe:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40312
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40299

This Howard is more like it:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40644
Click to expand...

If I stopped everyone for rule 1C most of the post on that sub-forum would not exist. Your post not only violated 1C but also 4, the subject was presented in a provoking manner. As you mention my job is to prevent flaming and try to maintain some intellectual quality on those sub-forums, and your post was lacking in both those areas. I also provide an example of a post on the very same subject of much greater quality:
Click to expand...

madanthonywayne said:
The claims of forgery have been denied not refuted. This controversy is far from settled. The guy who supposedly wrote the memos is, convieniently, dead but his family says he didn't have any private files and that they certainly didn't give any to CBS. The whole thing stinks and is going to blow up in Kerry's face if it's traced back to anyone affiliated with his campaign (other than CBS, of course).

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/598wfpet.asp

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/10/110927.shtml
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_05.php#003462
It goes beyond the memos as this quote shows:
I thought on Wednesday that it was scandalous for "60 Minutes" to turn over a good deal of its time on Wednesday night to one Ben Barnes, a one-time Texas political powerhouse who now claims he got George W. Bush into the National Guard.

The problem is not, as some would have it, that Barnes has raised half a million dollars for Kerry. The problem is that Barnes has already lied about this on videotape, and I use the word "lied" without difficulty, where he says he pulled strings for Bush when "I was lieutenant governor of Texas."

The thing is that George W. Bush was sworn into the National Guard in May 1968. Ben Barnes didn't become lieutenant governor until 1969.

From the lies of Ben Barnes to the apparent forgeries of who-knows-who-did-it — why has "60 Minutes" exposed itself in this way?
This was from:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28276.htm
another article points out that Mr Barnes own daughter says he's lying as he told her point blank that he did not pull any strings for Bush.
http://www.wbap.com/listingsentryheadline.asp?ID=239369&PT=wbaptopstories

CBS should really be running one of those, "I'm John Kerry, and I approve of this message" deals since they are obviously nothing but a branch of his campaign.
Click to expand...
 
I think I answer this already in this thread:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40510&page=5
Please don't cross-posts.
Click to expand...

I did not cross post, wellcookedfetus. I posted this thread first, then I voted in the thread to remove you from moderator status. After that, I posted my opinions (at that thread) regarding your abilities. Once again, you are making false assumptions.

Evidence: This thread was started by me :Yesterday, 09:32 PM
edit | reply

Evidence: My comments at the removal (wellcookedfetus) thread was at: Yesterday, 10:23 PM
edit | reply

In fact it is you who has cross posted, wellcookedfetus. You really shouldn't do that.

If you need evidence of this, then you should have looked at the post times, where you will see that this thread was started first.

Please show me where you think that I have Cross Posted. You really should provide some evidence.
 
Last edited:
actually crossing post usually means replicating the same post on many threads, or at least hte same subject and you did this, you started this thread then complained about the very same thing on another.

By the way have you observed how opinion threads are started on politics sub-forum? Notice that very few of them get away with a style like yours in fact I can find one yet.
 
No wellcooked fetus, I did not. I posted the following:
Anyone who moderates the political forum should be as light or heavy handed equally, in regard to how they enforce the forum rules on the posters.

Being strict against only those who hold an opinion that a moderator does not like, while conveniently overlooking the violations of the others is just plain wrong.

wellcookedfetus seems to be either unwilling or unable to be equally fair to all and is doing basically the same thing that the liberal media is doing.

God (and everybody else) knows that I am not perfect, but then again I am not a moderator (and don't want the job).

Surely, there should be someone at Sciforums who could fill the job without shutting down the views of one group of members, while allowing the other side to run rampant with their views and propaganda.

I really am sorry to write this wellcookedfetus. I hold no anger toward you personally, but you are being really unfair about your political moderation and I did vote that you should step down, sir.

ps...If you do step down as moderator, then you would be free to express your views at the political forum, like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Now what I just did might be considered cross posting, but I only did it to show you why you are wrong.

Everything after that is only my response to your unending fault finding with my posts ! ! ! Am I supposed to not respond to your false accusations, wellcooked fetus?
 
Then you could have made a post on that other thread with a link to here rather that stating the subject over again.

I'm sorry if you disagree with me or my reasoning, perhaps we could ask the other moderators what they think.
 
What the hell are you talking about guy? Why would I want to post a link to here? For what purpose? That would be more like trying to redirect others to read this post to increase it's popularity. And doing that is against the forum rules, wellcookedfetus. You should try reading them, since you are still a moderator.

I have done absolutely nothing wrong or improper at all, in posting this thread, wellcookedfetus. Yet you are determined to show that I am.

I have not stated the subject over again, wellcooked fetus. You have. You should have replied to me here at the very beginning, rather than taking your argument over to the other thread, where they want to remove you. I was just agreeing with those that do.
 
How is it against the rules?

Well I feel you have done something wrong and improper and I state plenty of evidence why, which you have ignored.

How was I suppose to known this thread existed dedicated to this subject? Maybe you should have posted a link then. You had to wait until I check this forum or the new posts, and by then it was way to late.
 
How was I suppose to known this thread existed dedicated to this subject? Maybe you should have posted a link then. You had to wait until I check this forum or the new posts, and by then it was way to late.
Click to expand...
WellCookedFetus, all you had to do was look. This thread was near the top of the list since 9:32 PM (cdt). I clearly titled it:
"Questions for wellcookedfetus"

How could you miss that? I also sent a copy of it to you first in a PM and advised you that I was going to post it here, because that I believed that a Private Message would probably be useless.

Well I feel you have done something wrong and improper and I state plenty of evidence why, which you have ignored.
Click to expand...
WellCookedFetus, I haven't ignored your attempt to pass off all that as evidence. I just don't think that it is. And a great many others feel the same way. Sorry.
 
Sorry but I was not checking SFOG I was checking my sub-forums and my subscriptions.

I don't have time to read everything especially when I’m working on the sub-forums and trying to deal with multiple tasks at the same time.

Really I don't see a poll on if your thread was rightly removed or not? Are you assuming because there is a impeachment poll that what ever action I take must be questioned as wrong?
 
Sorry but I was not checking SFOG I was checking my sub-forums and my subscriptions.
Click to expand...
I don't know what SFOG is, but I know that you responded to my PM by telling me to take it up with goofyfish.

I don't have time to read everything especially when I’m working on the sub-forums and trying to deal with multiple tasks at the same time.
Click to expand...
I don't dispute that, WellCookedFetus. I know the job is not easy.

Really I don't see a poll on if your thread was rightly removed or not?
Click to expand...
Was my thread removed? I haven't checked back to see if it has. If it has, then you decided that locking it off was not enough, so you just deleted it out completely, is that right?

Are you assuming because there is a impeachment poll that what ever action I take must be questioned as wrong?
Click to expand...
No, WellCookedFetus. I am not. I came to the open government forum to do what everyone else does, when they are frustrated with the way that our leaders have decided that we will march to the beat of their drums (such as yours), or else ! ! !
 
Last edited:
SFOG = SciForums Open Goverment.

yes if you disagree with me then appeal to the other moderator(s) for the thread to be opened, it usually quicker to get you result then doing this.

site feedback would have been better unless you wanted to vote on if it was correct to "Close" your thread. If you wanted to simply complain then site feedback would have been better.
 
SFOG = SciForums Open Goverment.
Click to expand...
Ok, Sciforums Open Government. Thanks.

site feedback would have been better unless you wanted to vote on if it was correct to "Close" your thread. If you wanted to simply complain then site feedback would have been better
Click to expand...
I did consider making a complaint at Site Feedback, but in doing that I would have been asking Dave to intervene directly. And I really wanted to discuss this openly with you and others. Believe it or not, I was & still am hopeful that this type of misunderstanding can be resolved through open discussion.

I gotta get some sleep, wellcooked. But I would lastly like to say that I understand that there have got to be some rules at that forum & that I know all too well that things can get out of hand very quickly.

I applaud you for trying to maintain a level of civility in such a place. I just think that you should wait for someone to start slinging insults/flaming and react to that after it has happened.

Yes, I agree that there would have been many that would have begun to attack my position and/or me personally, but that's what I expected & yes hoped for. In that way, I would have shown them as being the kind of people that I know there really are: the kind of people who are guided by their emotions & not by their intellect. In locking off the thread, you have actually protected them and their political positions, while illegitimizing mine.

Besides all that, wellcookedfetus, they aren't being forced by anyone to read my threads or posts.

Anyhow........good night wellcookedfetus.
 
I voted for you to become a moderator fetus, and I voted no on the thread to strip you of your moderating position.
But a few recent posts in WE has lead me to believe you really are crazy. First you shut down a thread because it happened to be about russia, saying "there is already a thread on this subject". There's already a thread or 2 on the subject of iraq as well in case you haven't noticed, care to delete all but one or maybe merge them all together?
Also what does "metaphors are just that" even mean? You'll find thats a really bizarre way to point out that someone just used a metaphor. Are you trying to say metaphors are bad or just thought you'd point out the obvious?
I really don't know. People usually put "are just that" on words like fantasies or whatever, NOT metaphors. It doesn't make any sense.
Also no one strayed off topic :confused:
I think you just didn't like the way the discussion was going because it conflicted with your view.
I honestly think you disagreed with my opinion and thought you'd use your moderator status to threateningly suggest I refrain from making such cuttingly accurate metaphors in the future.
Which I might add, is totally unacceptable behaviour from a moderator. Your job doesn't involve censoring discussion which conflicts with your view and allowing discussion that promotes it, as appealing as that may be.
 
How was I suppose to known this thread existed dedicated to this subject? Maybe you should have posted a link then. You had to wait until I check this forum or the new posts, and by then it was way to late.
Click to expand...

You look, maybe?

You posted in this thread about 40 minutes after it was opened how were you too late? Is there a time limit to posting now? Who cares if you also answered in the other thread? You answered here and then began a dialog with Howard about his problem in particular.

Plus the fact that he PM'd you.

You getting oddball, Fetus. Have you been studying diversionary tactics now or something? Doesn't seem to be working well for you. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Slippery Slope or Ad Hominem To Quoque. Or even a Red Herring.

Sorry but I was not checking SFOG I was checking my sub-forums and my subscriptions.
Click to expand...

And yet somehow you manage to find your way here. Wow. It must have been an act of God or something that somehow magically diverted you attention that is so focused on only performing your moderator duties because we all know that that is how you spend ALL your time here. You never go trolling in other threads or forums. It's all about WE&P for the mighty saggy-teated Fetus.

Are you assuming because there is a impeachment poll that what ever action I take must be questioned as wrong?
Click to expand...

Howard has a problem with a specific thing you've done to one of his threads, but you think that his questioning it and your arguments in this thread dealing with that problem are brought on only because of your impeachment thread? What wonderful logic you have, my dear. :rolleyes:

site feedback would have been better unless you wanted to vote on if it was correct to "Close" your thread. If you wanted to simply complain then site feedback would have been better.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but Howard's counterargument is interesting. I never considered that Site Feedback is more of a directed question to Porfiry. He has a point.




Heh. Howard clearly has no need of my help in this thread, but I just couldn't let these oddball arguments go by without commenting on them. This is just too much. You're losing it, bud. Or something.
 
Dr Lou Natic,

You would not believe the amount of crap I had to delete cause by you metaphor. People were saying you where the reincarnate of Hitler. And the fact the you started a flaming discusion about killing off the all muslium on a thread dedicated to the situation Fallujah was off topic, so I deleted most of the crap, and told people to stop giving you crap (its just a metaphor) next time I should not defend you then?

There were 4 thread dedicated to the Russian school hostage event at once.

If I did not like howards thread because it conflicted with my views, then why you I let another thread expressing the same opinion exist?
 
Well, frankly, no. Don't defend me. Now I don't know how to insult them because I don't know exactly what they said. Also your "A metaphor is a metaphor" appeared to be aimed at me because you deleted their posts and I couldn't see a problem. See the confusion it causes?
Being compared to hitler can't even be considered an insult anymore. Anyone who would use hitler's name in such a way is only hurting themself and I personally would prefer it if you let people embarrass themselves. No forum could be much fun without that.
 
WCF:

nd the fact the you started a flaming discusion about killing off the all muslium on a thread dedicated to the situation Fallujah was off topic, so I deleted most of the crap, and told people to stop giving you crap (its just a metaphor) next time I should not defend you then?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't give anyone special treatment. It will only lead to problems.

There were 4 thread dedicated to the Russian school hostage event at once.
Click to expand...

You should merge threads, unless it's about new information. You should do what I did: Put a +1 in the title of the thread everytime you merge something into it. That way people know that multiple threads have been merged together. Also, mark in the first post of the thread that's being merged, that it's the first post of a merged thread. As to end confusion and keep proper documentation.
 
Merging threads is great, because it serves to move thoughts and discussions forward, as opposed to continually "re-inventing the wheel". It might be worthwhile to have a protocol whereby general members suggest a merge simply by referencing an earlier thread in a post.

One limitation is in how long a thread is practical for review. For an interesting thread that does grow quite long (but continues to develop and remain topical) a summary post now and then might be useful, on a voluntary basis from various perspectives. So far as mod workload, some participatory system providing mods with pointers to mergeable threads could be useful in helping to collaboratively organize thoughtstreams. As for myself, whenever I reference an old thread, I would be satisfied with its merging/editing, and deletion (with or without archiving) of the original.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top