Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I don't find WE to be hostile at all. Sure people are very opinionated, but the disagreements are political, not personal. Some of Beau's posts make me crazy, but I think he is probably a pretty interesting person that I wouldn't mind sitting down and having a beer with. I actually find many of the WDW: General threads to be much more volatile. If you go against the prevailing point of view there things can get pretty heated. In WE I expect the discussion to be heated so it doesn't bother me; in WDW: General I don't so it is sometimes a bit of a shock.>> LOL
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ The post you LOL'ed was posted in August 2004. You and your comrades have really cranked up the hostility level lately. It no longer applies.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The hostility in WE comes from both sides and mirrors what is happening in real life today. It should surprise no one. And, I will agree with Beau that some of the more volatile discussion I've been involved with were outside the boundary of WE.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy RT, if anything I am much softer in my tone compared to 2004. You have mood swings, I don't. A section talking religion and politics is going to be rough if people are allowed to talk and be honest and political correctness doesn't muzzle people from giving their real opinions. ( Which kills the section as we saw the last few weeks )
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT, if anything I am much softer in my tone compared to 2004. >> I think most WE participants would disagree with that, but it's not worth arguing about.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I think most WE particiapnts are set in their ways and gt feisty when they are pinned down on issue after issue so they claim they are being personally attacked and then announce to the world they are leaving forever only to come back the NEXT DAY.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I have decided that the internet as a whole is like well....satan. It appears beautiful, enchanting, lovely, and appealing...but underneath it's a beast that seeks to kill, steal, and destroy...and all that sort of thing. I am quitting before I am consumed. Good-bye virtual world!
Originally Posted By chickendumpling Get back here!!! Well, maybe not "here" in this thread but don't you even think of leaving LP. I would wither up and die.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Beau... here is one of your posts from 2004. I didn't have to dig for it looking for a 'nice' one. It was the first post I pulled up. You were a die-hard conservative then too, but you were civil. No "libs hate America". No "libs have no ideas and that's why they always lose." None of the stuff that has become your trademark lately. 10/19/2004 In this election, more than any other I have experienced, the concept of being "undecided" two weeks before the vote is impossible to understand. We are a nation at war. We have an intelligent, capable and well-funded enemy in Islamic terrorism -- an enemy that has pledged to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. This enemy is actively soliciting and seeking chemical and biological weapons. They're even looking for access to nuclear materials and hope to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. Their culture is one of death and destruction. They feel compelled by their God to kill, and they have the capability to do so in spectacular fashion. There is a stark difference between the two presidential candidates. George Bush, for all his shortcomings, is absolutely dedicated to the cause of searching out these Islamic terrorists and destroying them, along with the governments who harbor, encourage and arm them. George Bush takes seriously the oath he took when he was sworn in, an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." To protect the Constitution is to protect our country. George Bush believes that the Constitution and his oath of office is all the permission he needs to defend America. John Kerry needs more. He needs the rest of the world to give him a passing grade on some sort of a "global test" before he stands up to our enemies. Since 9/11 George Bush has wavered not one inch. While Bush stands resolute, Kerry first votes for the war, then refuses to vote to fund the materials our men and women in action need to pursue that war. He tells Americans that if he is elected he will manage to bring more allies to the cause by convincing them to put the lives of their citizens on the line for what he calls the "wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." Yeah, that should work. Do you remember in 1991 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait? The world believed that his next target was his hated enemy, Saudi Arabia. John Kerry voted against repelling Saddam's invasion? Where would we be today if Kerry had won the day with his vote? It is quite possible that Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, and would be controlling the entire Middle Eastern oil supply. I can guarantee you that if Saddam was running the oil show right now Democrats like John Kerry would be blaming George Bush the First for not taking care of him in 1991 when he had a chance. Islamic terrorists want to kill us. Bush is resolute, Kerry wavers ... and there are voters out there who cannot figure this thing out? Deep down I think the undecideds on here know Bush is the right choice.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 But RT, Beaumandy has a point, IMO the build up to the 2004 elections was the time that WE really let loose with put downs, slams, and personal attacks. It was crazy, compared to 2004, WE these days is like the PlayPen forum.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ I guess I don't remember that. I remember heated debates, but not the personal put downs that have occurred lately. I could be wrong...
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Not trying to blame the "victim" but alot of these problems come from the "casual" WE posters. The ones who time and time again, post here, "get offended" and then run off to Community and cry about a personal attack and how WE needs to get removed etc etc. I don't have the time to do the research but I remember the same names now calling for something to be done about WE, were the same names 2 years ago asking for the same thing. Honestly, if one portion of LP makes you this angry or upset, don't go there, there are 40 other forums on LP you can chat on. Now before I get slammed, I am not talking about ReadingMom, she had a legit complaint. I am talking about a few others who may or may not know who they are. I am currently looking at the 2004 postings seeing if I can find a quick example of this.
Originally Posted By Moderation Personally, I find most of the so called debates we have here as harmless but pointless. Kinda a cross between Monty Python's arguement clinic and a torrets syndrome ward, with a levening of wilfull blindness on both the left and the right (well, a little more on the right).
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I personally would never want to see WE removed from the boards. I think that's silly. I think heated debate is healthy. I'd just like to see the Community Standards enforced consistently and I believe there should at some point be a counter or disciplinary steps that if you can't play by the roads - you are gone.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 if you can't play by the roads - you are gone.<< Man, no playing by the roads, now you have gone too far Lisann
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Not trying to blame the "victim" but alot of these problems come from the "casual" WE posters. The ones who time and time again, post here, "get offended" and then run off to Community and cry about a personal attack and how WE needs to get removed etc etc. I don't have the time to do the research but I remember the same names now calling for something to be done about WE, were the same names 2 years ago asking for the same thing. Honestly, if one portion of LP makes you this angry or upset, don't go there, there are 40 other forums on LP you can chat on. Now before I get slammed, I am not talking about ReadingMom, she had a legit complaint. I am talking about a few others who may or may not know who they are. I am currently looking at the 2004 postings seeing if I can find a quick example of this.<< I wasn't here in 2004. I wasn't even here a year ago. I can tell you as a semi-newbie that I wandered onto LP, found it seemed like a welcoming place where people shared laughs and interesting discussions, wandered into WE, posted a few times and got flamed, much to my surprise and dismay. Yes, the long-time posters in WE know who each other are and know how to push each others' buttons, and they all know what to expect when they post here, but if you want WE to be a vital community, you need to allow for the possibility of new voices with different opinions. It seems to me that over the nine months or so that I've been active on LP, there are fewer and fewer posters in WE, mostly saying the same things over and over again. I would also like to remind all of the LP posters once again that this is *supposed* to be a kid-friendly site.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I would also like to remind all of the LP posters once again that this is *supposed* to be a kid-friendly site.<< Would you really allow your "kids" to participate in such topics such as Abortion, Rapes and torture in Iraq, etc etc. Your argument bears no merit, sure LP is a kid friendly site, but WE is not to an extent. Of course we can't go cussing up a storm, but honestly, the mods have been far more lenient in WE than in other portions of LP. I sincerely doubt many kids read let alone post what is on WE.
