The answers are in the first econ 101 textbook you open in your life.

More predictable blather. So you have no point after all?

Ok... lets get to the point... I have been since your first post upon this thread attempting to get you to feasably debate a topic.... any topic.... yet all you insist upon doing is denying evidence, evincing doubt by portraying me as a blathering idiot, misdirecting the original point through bait posts and out of context quotes, amongst many other tactics that you have shown not only within the confines of this thread but every other one you post upon.... as Peter has so endearingly mirrored the last few days......

yet in the end we come down to this......

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that your only reason for being here is to evince hostility and disrupt any and every thread you post within.....
if I was maybe the only person to think this I would perhaps give you the benefit of the doubt """In fact I have given you the benefit of the doubt""" yet this is not only I who views your posting style as one fueled by the need to create a hostile environment...... which in some cases can be fine if a point is being made.... yet in your case the only point being made is your hostile, mannerless, and demeaning tone......

At this point we shall end our communication unless I am forced to end some sort of strife here within this Forum.....

I think my point has been made... perhaps not to you..... yet that was never in contention......

dgg9, do you REALLY mean to say that all economic theory is as simple as the basic law of supply in demand taught in grade school? I've taken a (boring) basic micro-economics course before, and some of the formulae was actually reasonably complicated.

Of course not ALL. All we're talking about IS supply and demand.

Yawn. Your routine -- adversarial snideness, then sudden shift into indignant victim -- is getting tiresome. You are incapable of separating rejection of your arguments with hostility towards you.

This is, of course, nonsense. ALL political forums of ALL Internet boards are adversarial. The tone is always combative. Cordiality and restraint are almost never in evidence. Certainly the Politics forum of DF is no different. I'm hard pressed to find a single thread without outright disdain of one camp for the other. The hostility goes both ways and is constant.

And since you are an active poster, you are part of this. Don't pretend to detachment and bland courtesy that you yourself have not shown.

These are the facts of every political forum: people get angry at each other. Constant disrespect is a given. And it's always a mistake for moderators to join in, as they are no better than anyone else, and indeed worse, since inevitably they can't resist the urge to use their status to give threats.

Quite simply, the politics forum of DF should be different. While there is confrontation, discussion is possible with the majority of people who frequent the politics forum. In fact, discussion was rewarding. You however, and RedHawk and Lawson / JLB are interested in nothing but trolling. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this (although at one point I thought perhaps you would discuss things reasonably, I was however worried that when Lawson / JLB and RedHawk started getting banned, you'd react and become a troll just as bad, apparantly I was right, although I'm not sure if you just use each others accounts either).

So what do we have?, we have a majority who can discuss things with each other and enjoy it, and we have a small minority of three or more members who are just trolls who claim to be silly ages and make preposterous claims which are obviously and provably untrue (especially Lawson / JLB).

The simple solution would be to work for the majority and ban the smallest number of people to solve the problem.

Now, watch this, I think that Dyshade has made a mistake in what he is doing now, I think he should have banned you lot long long ago. The longer he leaves it, the more out of proportion the problem will become in the eyes of DF users. Now, Dyshade (if he isn't in a particularly silly mood) won't say that view is a non-sequitur, or leftist because he disagrees with it, he'll put forward his view and then we'll discuss the common ground we have.

There is no common ground with yourself and cohorts, because you don't want there to be any, it makes trolling more difficult (not that your actually that good a troll, i could do way better, the fact that its effective is more due to Dyshades kindness than your own ability).

Before I forget, non sequitur!

I have made a mistake. Yet through experimentation I have come to the conclusion we need a new set of Rules which I have termed the Politic Forum Rules Of Engagement. They are stickyed above and will be firmly expressed and hopefully followed.

dgg9 I do apologize if I am viewing your actions in the wrong light and yet with the actions I have taken here and the reactions you have shown I can come to no other conclusion. I am in no way a stupid man. What I did had a reason behind it.


I hope the problem we face here within this forum does not seem to grow any more out of proportion to its actual size anymore in the eyes of the members here. I am hoping the engagement rules I have set forth will cause this place to be a little more conducive to actual debate rather than senseless back and forth hostile rhetoric.

dgg9 just because other places may be hostile and allow for insults and off topic threats does not mean we have to mirror that behaviour here. That is akin to saying that just because the rest of the world is a hotbed of violence it gives me the right to shoot whoever I want because the actions over there justify the actions here.

I have never made any threats within any of these posts nor would I ever threaten anyone here. A threat implies hostile action and if I take any actions they would be unbiased and in accordance with the body of rules set forth in this forum. It would not be my fault that someone decided to not follow these rules. They are and would be in full responsibility for thier actions. I am no mans puppeteer.

Beyond being a Moderator here I am also a Member and enjoy discussion and debate and will readily join any topic I find interesting. If I feel insulted I have always asked another Moderator to look at the discussion and let me know what they think and ask them for a ruling. I have been here for almost 4 years and have always taken care of things in this manner. I always defer to the other Moderator in problems such as that.


In answer to Peter he should know by now that I never take the simplest solution to a problem because I know that a better option is always available though it may take some thought and effort on my part. The simplest solution is often not the best possible answer. The Political Forum here at DF is considerably younger than some of our other forums and has always had a bit of contention within it. I am hoping that I have finally found a body of rules which will satisfy everyone and give us a springboard with which to have healthy and reasonable discussions and debate without having to worry about personal persecution and attacks and/or threats.

That's because most of them are in basic political agreement. Naturally, if the majority all agree that Bush is Hitler and the war was for a pipeline, and so on down the party line, there will be harmony.

Translation: our political POV is different than yours. That's the bottom line.

Indeed, a fair observer looking at your output recently would conclude YOU were trolling. You can call "disagreement with a fair amount of heat" trolling. Fine. But that goes both ways. But apparently you are unable to see that the adversarial nature went both ways. Any neutral observer can easily read through these threads and see the abuse coming from your side too.

For you to paint this as one-sided trolling is to lose any real credibility.

No, what we really have here are a majority who enjoy the fact that they basically agree with each other, and want to use the banning mechanism to stifle dissent. Of course, that's the moderators' privilege, but don't pretend for one second it would be anything other than that.

Just as I said: you can't handle substantive disagreement, so you clamor for the moderators to ban.

Dyshade,

Your post is well said. If this becomes the first-ever non-hostile political forum on the planet, I won't be the first to ruin it.

One can always hope.

Hostility toward an ideal should in no way detract from a debate. I am firmly against hostility toward a person though. Everyone should recognize responsibility including me. Including the participants of every discussion here.

It is human nature to answer unfounded statements bluntly and without debate. Yet that closes the door on any future speculation and/or discussion. Assertions tend to sometimes add to a debate though if not followed up or contested by another with a direct refutation it can in the end detract by spawning one sentence denials.

Respect and responsibility by all participants may be too much to ask and yet I would hope that it is not. In the end most of those arguing within this Forum should at the least use thier common sense and understand that just because someone disagrees does not make them a monster or a dullard.

Thanks dgg9.

dgg9, can you honestly read Lawson's posts and say that his problem is merely 'disagreeing' with other members?

I can disagree with someone while accepting their opinion as valid, when its their opinion, I have no idea what your opinions are, political or otherwise, you're a troll, you could be doing it for a laugh (like I was in my parody).Yes, a fair observer would say that, because I was running a parody of your posts, which are all trolls (lately anyway, I remember I did have a decent debate with you before you started the trolling proper, but then Lawson and RedHawk were starting to actually have action taken against them, so you started trolling). Yes it was one-sided trolling until I did the same.

We don't all agree with each other, however, we aren't trolls, so we don't just dismiss each others arguements by saying 'non sequitur' or saying its leftist even when it involves no statement that could be said to be even on that scale, let alone actually left-leaning. Since I don't actually know your political views because your trolling, I can't honestly say if I'd agree or not, I'm sure we could find some common ground if you weren't so busy making sure there isn't any.Actually, that's the first time you said it to me. However 'non sequitur' and 'leftist' along with 'nonsense' and 'fallacy' are not substansive disagreements. Its trolling, trolling is against the rules, you've been granted leniency.

Can you honestly read them and find his style substantially different or more baiting than Corporate Pig's?

And can you honestly say that the level of hostility is for just that reason and nothing more? Time and again in these threads, I see tha people personalize their politics, and differences in political POV lead directly to raised blood pressure, which leads to bile.

Your post is 100% nonsense, but in the spirit of the new "Organian Peace Treaty," I will let it all slide.

100% nonsense?, even the bits where we agree?

I never knew that one person being a troll was dependent on another person's trolling. And yes, his style IS substantially different, in that Corporate Pig uses evidence THEN states WHY that evidence is important, instead of post article, 'see, Bush is right.'