53 replies to this topic

[ShamuLovesMe]

did you know that WW's Dad was a highly decorated war hero?

I don't think her signature line is political at all; it just shows a support of our armed forces

No, I did not know that, but I'm proud for her, and thankful for his service and that of all service members. Again, that's not the point. It's about consistency. If they're going to enforce a zero-tolerance policy with regard to political content, then they need to be consistent about it, both in terms of the content itself, and in terms of who posts such content (i.e. what's good for the goose is good for the gander).

Her signature line is very political. I have no problem with it whatsoever, and agree 110% with its content. But my point is that it violates the very policy she is so set on enforcing. I hope I've made my point clear enough.

Shamu,

I've read your post, and I'm confused as to why you think her signature line is political?

Please explain!!

I can't imagine anyone who has any respect for our military, any appreciation for their sacrifice, any knowledge of history and belief or grasp of reality would see Kamala's signature as anything but admirable and truthful.

Richard, take a wee little moment to actually read what I wrote, please? Here are my exact words: "I have no problem with it whatsoever, and agree 110% with its content." Now, please, let's stick to the point, jeez.

[finGrabber]

did you know that WW's Dad was a highly decorated war hero?

I don't think her signature line is political at all; it just shows a support of our armed forces

No, I did not know that, but I'm proud for her, and thankful for his service and that of all service members. Again, that's not the point. It's about consistency. If they're going to enforce a zero-tolerance policy with regard to political content, then they need to be consistent about it, both in terms of the content itself, and in terms of who posts such content (i.e. what's good for the goose is good for the gander).

Her signature line is very political. I have no problem with it whatsoever, and agree 110% with its content. But my point is that it violates the very policy she is so set on enforcing. I hope I've made my point clear enough.

Shamu,

I've read your post, and I'm confused as to why you think her signature line is political?

Please explain!!

I can't imagine anyone who has any respect for our military, any appreciation for their sacrifice, any knowledge of history and belief or grasp of reality would see Kamala's signature as anything but admirable and truthful.

Richard, take a wee little moment to actually read what I wrote, please? Here are my exact words: "I have no problem with it whatsoever, and agree 110% with its content." Now, please, let's stick to the point, jeez.

Shamu,

I'm glad you agree 110% with her signature line, but, please explain how it is political?

[drdiver]

I can't imagine anyone who has any respect for our military, any appreciation for their sacrifice, any knowledge of history and belief or grasp of reality would see Kamala's signature as anything but admirable and truthful.

If you were an opponent of the Baathist party in 1985 Iraq, you might have a very different view of the situation. Unfortunately, and I pray this will never happen here, soldiers have been the instrument of oppression for millions (or perhaps) billions of people world wide. What the armed forces represent is raw, naked obedient force to their p******** masters. At the moment, for the citizens of Iraq and Afganistan, our brave men and women of the armed forces are indeed their best hope, their shining light for a better future for themselves or their children. I admire their sacrifice. But there is no doubt that our civil liberties are threatened by the same masters that those brave people serve.

[RichardB]

did you know that WW's Dad was a highly decorated war hero?

I don't think her signature line is political at all; it just shows a support of our armed forces

No, I did not know that, but I'm proud for her, and thankful for his service and that of all service members. Again, that's not the point. It's about consistency. If they're going to enforce a zero-tolerance policy with regard to political content, then they need to be consistent about it, both in terms of the content itself, and in terms of who posts such content (i.e. what's good for the goose is good for the gander).

Her signature line is very political. I have no problem with it whatsoever, and agree 110% with its content. But my point is that it violates the very policy she is so set on enforcing. I hope I've made my point clear enough.

Shamu,

I've read your post, and I'm confused as to why you think her signature line is political?

Please explain!!

I can't imagine anyone who has any respect for our military, any appreciation for their sacrifice, any knowledge of history and belief or grasp of reality would see Kamala's signature as anything but admirable and truthful.

Richard, take a wee little moment to actually read what I wrote, please? Here are my exact words: "I have no problem with it whatsoever, and agree 110% with its content." Now, please, let's stick to the point, jeez.

The point appears to be how incredibly thin skinned some reported "adults" can be...especially those that are supposed to be professionals. So you got edited. You're feelings got hurt. Big deal! Be a man. You broke a rule and it happens. Jextract and I were both edited last year for jokes about the presidents' opponent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we sure didn't go all over the board with a whiney attitude about it. We are men enough to recognize our innocent mistakes and laugh it off.

Rules are rules. It's that simple. We can like, hate, love or despise them. But rules are rules. Accept them or move elsewhere. This isn't a "free speech" site. It's a privately owned enterprise. We're in Kamala's house, and while here we should follow her rules or have the good graces to leave. To publicly continue the pity fest is, at best, rude, inconsiderate and brash. Did I mention immature? Or does that go without saying? Gee, such "intelligent" behavior from "educated" would be men!

For the record, I don't agree with some of the the rules either. I would love to do some real bleeding heart whiner liberal bashing, but I won't...there's a rule that prevents it. I won't be an immature brat and whine about it either. I've been edited also. But I broke the rule. To whine and cry and call foul is childish at best. Perhaps WWW.WHINERDIVERS.COM would let you post there?

[BamaGal]

Oh my! This looked like a friendly place to talk about diving. Should I even be here? This looks like an old fashioned cat fight. Is this normal around here?

Edited by BamaGal, 04 May 2005 - 06:03 PM.

[chinacat46]

Not really but it's starting to get interesting. I guess they will have to make up a new rule that says you can't whine about having your posts pulled.

[ShamuLovesMe]

Richard, I really don't see the need to get personal about all of this. All along, I have tried to make my points rationally and clearly, with of course a little levity thrown in. I don't see the need for you to make such a personal attack, but I won't be "immature" by responding to it in kind. That's why political discussions go downhill anyway, because people like you take it down to a personal level.

Fingrabber, I don't have the time to grab a dictionary definition of "politics," but her signature line is taking a political stand with regard to constitutional rights, who's responsible for all of us enjoying them, and so on. Again, I fully agree with the statement, but I just think if none of us can talk politics, then shouldn't the moderators be held to the same rule? Richard makes a valid point that it's her "house," so if she wants to make herself an exception, she's of course entitled to do so. But I haven't ever believed that "do as I say, not as I do" is a good example to lead by.

[triggerfish]

bamagirl....
don't worry, sweetie, crap like this flairs up every once in a while. then it dies down and everyone goes back to talking about diving.

it's still a fun place. the good thing is you can pick and choose what interests you. if a particular thread is not to your liking, there are a zillion more to choose from.

don't get scared off. there's lots of humor and lots of info, so stick around.

(oh...and i'm sure someone will not like that i referred to this intense discussion as "crap". oh well)

Edited by triggerfish, 04 May 2005 - 06:08 PM.

[WreckWench]

Oh my!   This looked like a friendly place to talk about diving.  Should I even be here?  This looks like an old fashioned cat fight.  Is this normal around here?

Bamagirl pls accept our apologies. This is the very reason that we have disallowed the discussion of politics on the site...it has nothing to do with diving nor is it a fun subject.

This discussion has gone on long enough and I think before too many more 'verbal' punches are thrown, it is time to end it. I will therefore close the thread and any attempts to reopen this discussion will also be closed.

The content will be allowed to remain however it is time to simply end this discussion before it detracts even further from the focus of our site. -ww

Thank you all for your understanding in this matter. I do not wish to see this get any more personal than it is.


The following apology was sent to me by ShamuLovesMe and was asked to be posted:

To Kamala and other members of the site:

Please accept my apologies; I did not intend for tempers to flare. Apparently, discussions of political discussions are as risky as political discussions themselves. Regardless of what points were made, which questions were left unanswered, or how I may still feel about the issue, I should have let it go sooner than I did. I apologize for any ruffled feathers or offense taken.

Let's go diving!

Regards,
Mike aka ShamuLovesMe

Edited by WreckWench, 04 May 2005 - 08:02 PM.