usvi-on-line
Doesn't anybody remember?
Gina - I have never accused anyone for hijacking my thread. Others have, but I haven't.
I was only referring to Sox, meaning that I intentionally started a political thread. It was not my intention. I thought about it before I posted it, and thought that it would be OK. That was a mistake. I should have known better. What I obviously did was starting it unintentionally.
But my intention was never to start a discussion about politics. I simply have no motive in doing so. I'm not really that interested in the US politics either.
MaggY.
I was only referring to Sox, meaning that I intentionally started a political thread. It was not my intention. I thought about it before I posted it, and thought that it would be OK. That was a mistake. I should have known better. What I obviously did was starting it unintentionally.
But my intention was never to start a discussion about politics. I simply have no motive in doing so. I'm not really that interested in the US politics either.
MaggY.
Maggy, I was trying to be careful so that you didn't think that I thought that was your intention. It is clear to me that you did not intend for your thread to turn political. I am only trying to say that it is a logical progression--and for others, not you, to call that hijacking and cry foul doesn't make sense to me.
Also Maggie, I know that you haven't said anyone hijacked your thread. My comments about the hijack weren't intended for you.
Iprof: I assume that I am being added since you comment followed my post? I think I have been respectful and if you see it otherwise--so be it.
Also Maggie, I know that you haven't said anyone hijacked your thread. My comments about the hijack weren't intended for you.
Iprof: I assume that I am being added since you comment followed my post? I think I have been respectful and if you see it otherwise--so be it.
I wrote my reply to Maggy and Linne after reading their posts. Where it fell on the thread just happened by magic of the "click".GinaXOXO wrote: Iprof: I assume that I am being added since you comment followed my post? I think I have been respectful and if you see it otherwise--so be it.
Thank you for your interest; I will be accepting no more questions... and making no more comments on the subject.
... no longer a stranger to paradise
OK, good. I don't think I will ever see her again in my life, so this won't be any problem in the future.GinaXOXO wrote:Maggy, I was trying to be careful so that you didn't think that I thought that was your intention. It is clear to me that you did not intend for your thread to turn political. I am only trying to say that it is a logical progression--and for others, not you, to call that hijacking and cry foul doesn't make sense to me.
Also Maggie, I know that you haven't said anyone hijacked your thread. My comments about the hijack weren't intended for you.
.
Maggie - my intent was certainly not to offend you, Lex, or JT. I was responding to this thread, where someone asked if we remember being asked by Anthony to abstain from talking politics.
Not talking politics means not talking politics. Mrs. Obama is a political figure (and a fairly controversial one at that), therefore, any discussion that lists her name in its title will eventually become "political" in its nature.
I do not care what people discuss, in fact, I welcome the political discussions (as you know). But if we are to follow Anthony's requests to a "T", then that's what we should do. It sounds, ridiculous on an off-topic forum, I know.
If I had started the thread saying that I saw Mrs. Obama, and I couldn't stand the sight of her, do you think that would've turned political? Even though my intent was not for it to turn political?
Maybe we should just have another section of the forum here for people to make comments, without the opportunity for anyone else to comment further.
But then, this wouldn't be a "discussion" forum, then would it?
It is the goal of a few on this board to control the discourse. That has become very clear.
And I'll betcha, those same people who wish to control the discourse think it's a-okay that the NFL will not allow Rush Limbaugh to become a minority owner in the St. Louis Rams.
Same people. Same personality type. Controlling. Censorship is allowable in this "remaking" of America.
Not talking politics means not talking politics. Mrs. Obama is a political figure (and a fairly controversial one at that), therefore, any discussion that lists her name in its title will eventually become "political" in its nature.
I do not care what people discuss, in fact, I welcome the political discussions (as you know). But if we are to follow Anthony's requests to a "T", then that's what we should do. It sounds, ridiculous on an off-topic forum, I know.
If I had started the thread saying that I saw Mrs. Obama, and I couldn't stand the sight of her, do you think that would've turned political? Even though my intent was not for it to turn political?
Maybe we should just have another section of the forum here for people to make comments, without the opportunity for anyone else to comment further.
But then, this wouldn't be a "discussion" forum, then would it?
It is the goal of a few on this board to control the discourse. That has become very clear.
And I'll betcha, those same people who wish to control the discourse think it's a-okay that the NFL will not allow Rush Limbaugh to become a minority owner in the St. Louis Rams.
Same people. Same personality type. Controlling. Censorship is allowable in this "remaking" of America.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
The Universe......whoa, dude, you are harshing my mellow!pipanale wrote:The very future of the known universe, of course.loria wrote:i guess i missed something
what exactly is at 'stake' ?????
Uh-Doy
It's a message board. One that we all come to VOLUNTARILY!
< leaving on the 22nd of march...but too lame to figure out the ticker thing again!>
[Edited to delete remarks that could be construed as a personal attack that, upon further review, are not necessary to get the point of the rest of my post across.]
I believe that most people are not blind to the fact that there are serious problems going on in the world, in the country, and in most cases, more locally than that.
Some people enjoy debating what the problems are, who's at fault, and how best to try and correct them.
Some don't.
Some do, and seek out forums where that kind of discourse is the main topic.
Some do and discuss them in forums not specifically set up for those discussions, but where they may (or may not) be allowed and/or welcome hoping to get others involved in the dialogue (ostensibly), or (possibly) to just have a wider audience to share their views with.
Here's how I feel:
As long as the site owner allows it (constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech does not apply on a privately owned message board), people can talk about whatever they wish.
I try to refrain from discussing politics, on message boards, and for the most part, in person. I've seen, heard, and participated in very few of these discussions that resulted in any party to them being convinced or informed, and precious few that ended with an amicable agreement to disagree. So I'll waste my time on something that I find more entertaining, thank you very much.
The OT forum was originally created so that our discussions of food, places other than the VI, our home lives, etc., could be held without crowding out the VI related posts where folks, particularly newbies could come and find answers to their STT/STJ/STX questions.
I'm not empowered to, nor would I be inclined to make political discourse taboo here, as that is obviously a subject near and dear to the hearts and minds of some of us.
Banning thread "hijacking" is silly, because due to the nature of conversation, it's perfectly natural for someone to comment on something in a post that may not have been the main subject of that post.
There are some topics however - religion and politics being the "big two", that by nature are always the most polarizing, most emotional, and by extension, become the most heated when discussed by people with opposing views.
Is it really that difficult, when commenting on an otherwise innocuous post about either of those subjects to say "let's take this topic to a new thread"?
That way the people that really do want to debate the corruption of the Chicago political system or how Obama dropped the ball on the Olympic bid can do so, and the ones that want to say "how cool that you saw Mrs. Obama" can do that, and neither one would have to be exposed to the venom/blather of the other if they didn't want to.
Too difficult?
Is it worth a try to keep people from staying away in droves?
I guess we'll see.
I believe that most people are not blind to the fact that there are serious problems going on in the world, in the country, and in most cases, more locally than that.
Some people enjoy debating what the problems are, who's at fault, and how best to try and correct them.
Some don't.
Some do, and seek out forums where that kind of discourse is the main topic.
Some do and discuss them in forums not specifically set up for those discussions, but where they may (or may not) be allowed and/or welcome hoping to get others involved in the dialogue (ostensibly), or (possibly) to just have a wider audience to share their views with.
Here's how I feel:
As long as the site owner allows it (constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech does not apply on a privately owned message board), people can talk about whatever they wish.
I try to refrain from discussing politics, on message boards, and for the most part, in person. I've seen, heard, and participated in very few of these discussions that resulted in any party to them being convinced or informed, and precious few that ended with an amicable agreement to disagree. So I'll waste my time on something that I find more entertaining, thank you very much.
The OT forum was originally created so that our discussions of food, places other than the VI, our home lives, etc., could be held without crowding out the VI related posts where folks, particularly newbies could come and find answers to their STT/STJ/STX questions.
I'm not empowered to, nor would I be inclined to make political discourse taboo here, as that is obviously a subject near and dear to the hearts and minds of some of us.
Banning thread "hijacking" is silly, because due to the nature of conversation, it's perfectly natural for someone to comment on something in a post that may not have been the main subject of that post.
There are some topics however - religion and politics being the "big two", that by nature are always the most polarizing, most emotional, and by extension, become the most heated when discussed by people with opposing views.
Is it really that difficult, when commenting on an otherwise innocuous post about either of those subjects to say "let's take this topic to a new thread"?
That way the people that really do want to debate the corruption of the Chicago political system or how Obama dropped the ball on the Olympic bid can do so, and the ones that want to say "how cool that you saw Mrs. Obama" can do that, and neither one would have to be exposed to the venom/blather of the other if they didn't want to.
Too difficult?
Is it worth a try to keep people from staying away in droves?
I guess we'll see.
Come see us!
Augie, I agree with 98% of your post. The 2% that I am in complete disagreement with you on:
1. You calling me "Hoss". This is not Ponderosa. But damn, I used to love that show. Reruns of course, as I am too young to have enjoyed it "live". Used to watch it when I came home from school with my Dad.
2. Your assertion that if we simply were to move our political comments from one thread to another, there would not be civil unrest on that new thread.
Like Pip and others have said, if you don't like it, don't read. Even on the threads that have been clearly politically motivated, the usual suspects who think I am the anti-Christ still find their way to the thread.
K, Hoss? Ha, kidding.
1. You calling me "Hoss". This is not Ponderosa. But damn, I used to love that show. Reruns of course, as I am too young to have enjoyed it "live". Used to watch it when I came home from school with my Dad.
2. Your assertion that if we simply were to move our political comments from one thread to another, there would not be civil unrest on that new thread.
Like Pip and others have said, if you don't like it, don't read. Even on the threads that have been clearly politically motivated, the usual suspects who think I am the anti-Christ still find their way to the thread.
K, Hoss? Ha, kidding.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
I removed the "Hoss" comment before i saw your post Little Joe. 
If I said or implied that there would not be civil unrest on the new thread, that was a mistake. Civil unrest is likely natural, intended or not, on "hot button" issues, they just wouldn't have to be tolerated by the folks that just wanted the "fluff" only.
And you (and pip) are correct - only read what you choose!
If I said or implied that there would not be civil unrest on the new thread, that was a mistake. Civil unrest is likely natural, intended or not, on "hot button" issues, they just wouldn't have to be tolerated by the folks that just wanted the "fluff" only.
And you (and pip) are correct - only read what you choose!
Come see us!
-
cypressgirl
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:42 pm
- Location: houston
If I had seen Laura Bush here in Denmark, I would have found it so exiting that I'm sure I immediately would have told it to the forum. Perhaps I would have written something like
“ I just saw Laura Bush to day, it was just fun to see her”.
Would such a thread be seen as
Political figure + natural conversation=politics
Linne
“ I just saw Laura Bush to day, it was just fun to see her”.
Would such a thread be seen as
Political figure + natural conversation=politics
Linne
-
StJohnRuth
- Posts: 1989
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:42 pm
- Location: St. John, VI
I would not be surprised it that is the course it took.linne wrote:If I had seen Laura Bush here in Denmark, I would have found it so exiting that I'm sure I immediately would have told it to the forum. Perhaps I would have written something like
“ I just saw Laura Bush to day, it was just fun to see her”.
Would such a thread be seen as
Political figure + natural conversation=politics
Linne
I am just sayin'
Gina