usvi-on-line
Bye Sox
"Argue nicely", know one and I mean know one, did that better than Sox. Giving Sox a "timeout" is as childish as it gets.pipanale wrote:2 points:XOXO wrote: Apparently the masses only want to have conversations with like minded people. When someone voices a different opinion there is a lot of whining about delivery and tone.
1: Hello potential advertisers. The preceding was not real; but rather a play that's been played out in 47-million acts since the mid 2000's.
2: There's some merit to that point. There are a lot of people who don't want to be disagreed with. It makes them feel uncomfortable to have a differing opinion presented. But, as I said last week, when it devolves into what used to happen in the backseat of my parents' s cars in the mid 1980's "He's touching me!!!", nobody wins. Argue nicely and we can all get along.
Remember folks, we can all rally together when we need to. We've shown that we can. The puppies on St John know that we can. Play nice and share your toys
augie wrote: sox often used the most tenuous and/or contrived connections to turn non-political discussions into his personal soapbox.
Augie, I have seen this complaint before. I don't think that is how it is at all. What you see as non-political can trigger something political in others. I don't think Sox is trying to ignite anyone or jump on his own personal soapbox. I really do believe the core of this discord stems from intolerance to differing views. Not the delivery,or the tone, but blatant intolerance. I just wish there were as much levity and consistency given to the right as there is to the left.
Gina
DaveS007 wrote:"Argue nicely", know one and I mean know one, did that better than Sox. Giving Sox a "timeout" is as childish as it gets.
See...I disagree. Here's why.
Intentionally pushing buttons to get a rise out of people, at times, can be considered not nice.
And yes, I see the delightful irony in me, of all people, saying that.
I always got the feeling that it was 20% "show my side of the issue" and 80% "piss them off as much as possible" Flip that around and you've got a model that can be worked with...especially if you end every post with...
come on...you all know how it goes...
And on the lighter side 
A political advertisement that tells the truth
that's why I do the Friday jokes (Embezzled from Ruth)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_foalav ... r_embedded
A political advertisement that tells the truth
that's why I do the Friday jokes (Embezzled from Ruth)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_foalav ... r_embedded
pipanale wrote:Intentionally pushing buttons to get a rise out of people, at times, can be considered not nice.
And yes, I see the delightful irony in me, of all people, saying that.
Pip, even when I don't agree with your POV you still always make me laugh.
You and I disagree on Sox, his intentions, and certainly the percentages--20/80%?? Really, I have said it before, and here I am saying it again. I think the reason that some people on our forum get so bent out of shape, specifically referencing Soxfan, is twofold. First, they disagree. Second, Soxfan is able to backup his opinion with facts and research and intelligent debate. And that pisses people off. JMO.
This isn't my fight. I just don't like what I am seeing. Clearly, I am not leaving. I love this forum and really do wish there were more consistent dealing with the left and right. That's all.
And just when we get Jorge back!! Darn it!
Gina
But why "keep it up" if you know (and he had to know this was coming) it's coming? There's more than one way to skin a cat. You don't need to whack it against a fence post over and over and over and over and over again to do it.SJfromNJ wrote:Gina - You are spot on with the reason why people don't like Soxy. He puts a lot of work into his posts and research to back them up. People who disagree with him usually start with the personal attacks, which are just as childish as giving him a "time out."
That's my point. I rarely disagreed with the scamp's point; I did disagree with the delivery method. And so did the audience. That was the downfall.
-
cypressgirl
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:42 pm
- Location: houston
That is the million dollar question, cypress. I am curious, there seem to be a few people embracing the decision, can any of them explain what Sox did to deserve being banned?cypressgirl wrote:I've been gone a while. What was the final "straw" that got Sox booted? I know he was wildly unpopular, but I'll miss him.
Xoxo
It’s probably reasonable to assume that whatever your take on this, your preconceived notions are well earned and justifiable.
Yes, some don’t want to take him on because of his superior political acumen and salesmanship. Others might admire his ability to copy and paste from other sources. Like a pitch sequence in baseball, one post of his just sets up another. Nobody else here comes close to doing what he does.
Indeed, what he says and how he says it may NOT seem inflammatory to those that think that the tone and tenor of current talk radio and TV political talk shows is what passes for normal discourse these days.
But it’s also not unreasonable to assume that style of debate may alienate some, and that others refuse to enable it here by no longer replying to those kinds of posts, and actively avoid discussing anything that could be politicized. And as Pip points out, Sox may undermine himself and others that might even agree with him with that style.
It was only after the 08 elections that opportunities were seized to politicize almost any current event issue here. A safe assumption can be made about who was most responsible for that trend. Some folks are OK with that, others may resent or take exception to it.
But the owner of this sandbox gets to set and enforce the rules, and as arbitrary as that might seem to some, others may think it was a long time coming. Regardless of which side you fall on, his decision shouldn’t be disrespected.
Yes, some don’t want to take him on because of his superior political acumen and salesmanship. Others might admire his ability to copy and paste from other sources. Like a pitch sequence in baseball, one post of his just sets up another. Nobody else here comes close to doing what he does.
Indeed, what he says and how he says it may NOT seem inflammatory to those that think that the tone and tenor of current talk radio and TV political talk shows is what passes for normal discourse these days.
But it’s also not unreasonable to assume that style of debate may alienate some, and that others refuse to enable it here by no longer replying to those kinds of posts, and actively avoid discussing anything that could be politicized. And as Pip points out, Sox may undermine himself and others that might even agree with him with that style.
It was only after the 08 elections that opportunities were seized to politicize almost any current event issue here. A safe assumption can be made about who was most responsible for that trend. Some folks are OK with that, others may resent or take exception to it.
But the owner of this sandbox gets to set and enforce the rules, and as arbitrary as that might seem to some, others may think it was a long time coming. Regardless of which side you fall on, his decision shouldn’t be disrespected.
When we come to place where the sea and the sky collide
Throw me over the edge and let my spirit glide
Throw me over the edge and let my spirit glide
SJfromNJ wrote: Soxy is not the type of person who is going to color within the lines. Anyone who did not like his style had the choice to read it or not.
If he had limited his diatribes to threads that were clearly political in nature this would be true.
Lack of self control is a childish characteristic.
Maybe after his time out he'll have enough self control to keep his political opinions out of threads where people want to discuss other things.
Come see us!
-
landlocked
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:59 pm