53 replies to this topic

[drdiver]

I can see Mike's point of view. I saw the dodo before it was yanked and thought it was funny. I've had posts yanked which I thought were okay as well. It's your site and you have the right to pull anything you wish. I may not agree with it but in the big scheme of things it just seems like such a stupid thing to argue about.

Well said!!! So what's the best certifying agency? (ducking the masks and snorkels being thrown in my direction) LOL

[ShamuLovesMe]

And FYI, I was truly out of the loop, have no idea what this is all in relation to

To restate the facts of what happened, so everyone can see how silly this all is......

In a thread about endangered species, I posted a one-liner that said something like "Hey, they also spotted a dodo, previously thought to be extinct! Click here." The link brought up an unflattering (but hilarious) photo of President Bush.

Walter deleted my post almost immediately. After a few PMs exchanged without reaching any kind of consensus, I reposted my joke with a disclaimer that essentially said "This is an innocent joke not meant to cause any offense. I support (and voted for) President Bush. I'm just having some fun."

Walter deleted this second post almost immediately also, and sent me a PM that told me I couldn't repost my joke, even with a full disclaimer, until he and I "came to an agreement."

That's pretty much the extent of it. If I left anything out or misrepresented anything, Walter can correct me. As I've repeated several times, there was no political "discussion." It was a little joke, nothing more, and I highly doubt anyone would have thought I was seriously bashing the president. The few people who saw the post before Walter deleted it said they thought it was funny.

The only reason I'm beating this dead horse is because I think the mods went way overboard with this one. Like Nicolle says, it's mostly a thankless job, and I generally appreciate what they do. But in this instance, I think they are exercising anything but "moderation."

[drdiver]

The only reason I'm beating this dead horse is because I think the mods went way overboard with this one. Like Nicolle says, it's mostly a thankless job, and I generally appreciate what they do. But in this instance, I think they are exercising anything but "moderation."

I tend to agree. The moderators were immoderate.

But it's not a perfect world, everybody makes mistakes, and as the Germans say, "Leben und leben gleich" (Live and let live)

Maybe if we work at we could get militarism added to the list of banned items.

[rkohler1]

Did someone say 'SEX', Yes, please, I'll have some of that.....


Being retired Military and understanding our freedoms very clearly. I feel that I gave 20 years of my life defending ShamuLovesMe's right to say anything he wants about anything. I don't have to like it or agree with it (though the Bush pic was funny, and I voted for him too). We have to be careful what we edit and why. Just because we can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean we should do it. I will agree that certain topics are just off limits, when it comes to children, violence. Making fun of a politician, its done every day and night on television. Heck, even the presidents wife made fun of him. She didn't get edited.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Sophia]

subject matter typically found to be offensive i.e. rape, incest, violence, politics etc. 

This list looks like one of those puzzles, "which one of these doesn't belong?" I don't know what it says about the moderators or the membership at large that the topic of politics is considered as inflammatory as rape and incest, but something certainly seems wrong with that.

I have to agree with the moderators. Some people take differing political views very personally. Before my grandfather died, politics was the one verboten subject. I would have discussed my last sexual encounter, in detail, with him before talking politics because the family was seriously concerned he'd have a heart attack. Before I stopped going to the ScubaBoard I remember the Reagan thread right after he died. It got very ugly, very quickly and was probably one reason I stopped going.

[rkohler1]

Theodore Roosevelt said

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

[chinacat46]

Theodore Roosevelt said

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Hey did he say that in his first or second term? If it's the second then it ain't 100 years old yet.

[drdiver]

I think he said it when he was running on the Bull Moose Party ticket. When he split the Republicans and Woodrow Wilson got in--considerably less than 100 years ago.

On second thought, I think he said it about Woodrow Wilson, maybe during WWI.

[chinacat46]

Then since it ain't 100 years old it must be political. I wonder when it will get the heave ho.

[drdiver]

Guess we're waiting.......

[ShamuLovesMe]

Before I stopped going to the ScubaBoard I remember the Reagan thread right after he died. It got very ugly, very quickly and was probably one reason I stopped going.

Sophia, I think political discussions that get ugly like that are exactly what the mods want to rightly avoid. My point is not that I think it should be "anything goes" with politics, but rather that I think the mods overreact when they delete harmless little jokes.

If, for example, someone had taken offense at my joke, or reported it, or if it had generated a political discussion, then yes, that would be the time to step in and rein things in. I think it's overreaching to be so preemptive and restricting.

But again, that's just my worthless two pennies.

[ShamuLovesMe]

Guess we're waiting.......

DrDiver, I think your signature line might soon become a target also, LOL....

Now that I think about it, Kamala's signature line is very political....

[chinacat46]

I think his quote makes it under the 100 year rule. Barely.

[drdiver]

Nope, I googled it.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Which makes it 87 years old.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds"

[chinacat46]

I was talking about the quote in your sig. It's over 100 years old. I guess we will have to see if the 100 year rule stands up. Seems like way overkill to me.