Time out for JeffS, please
 

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr.../019123-2.html

This Flyertalker is one of a small group of narrowminded posters who are forcing their ideology of hate upon the rest of Flyertalk. Public shamings by the OMNI moderator (see the above) don't seem to be doing anything. He needs a permanent vacation from being able to spread his vitrol.

JeffS has been warned per the OMNI rules.

I'd suggest you keep merrily posting away tonight because your account is about 14 hours away from being removed.

------------------
Sean
aka: skofarrell
Moderator, OMNI & American Express

timeout for (public) timeout-requests?
http://www.flyertalk.com/forumcgi/search.cgi

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000890.html

thank you attorney

[This message has been edited by Rudi (edited Jan 19, 2004).]

I see no reason for a time out here. It seems certain folks are bent on turning OMNI into a circle-jerk, a la democraticunderground.com, part 2. As such, I might advocate closing OMNI. Or ban political/religious debates, as it's apparent now that if you don't support the hate-America, hate-Bush, hate-Jews crowd, it's pointless to participate there.

Uhhhhhhhhh, Ohhhhhhhhh. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Quote by SE94583:
as it's apparent now that if you don't support the hate-America, hate-Bush, hate-Jews crowd, it's pointless to participate there.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Don't forget the gay lobby;they are here in force to promote gay marriage and keep creating threads on the subject.

I visit one other message board, a basketball message board. There, they had something similar to Omni, called "Hangout". People started to get into arguments about politics and religion and that carried over to the other forums. What they did was to create a separate forum called "Hangout: Debate and Discussion" - the regular "Hangout" forum is reserved for non-controversial issues and anything that might be controversial needs to be put into the Debate and Discussion forum. There, people can argue as much as they want (it still needs to be civilized). If people bring their arguments from there to other forums, they get banned pretty quickly. It worked very well over there. That message board is similar in size to this one. Also, there, they shut down new registrations for some time now, in order to clean up double user names, etc. The quality of posts has gone up considerably. What they did there was also to make it a requirement to be registered to even read the board. That way, they most probably have less traffic, but offenders can be shut out completely. If they lose their registration, they cannot even read anymore. It seems like people are more cautious because of that.

You know, I also visit other message boards. This board is so tame in comparison. There may be biases, but most other boards with interesting discussions get really brutal at times. You who complain about other members should expose yourselves to really no-holds-barred, take-the-gloves-off threads in larger, unmoderated boards, then you'd appreciate the civility on FT.

Feeling that way more and more....

and you can add if you are
pro-life
pro-family

Let's see...I am an American Army vet, Jewish, served in the Israeli Army reserves, am Republican, and tend towards the pro-life position.

It is a darned good thing that I am divorced or I probably would have been shot a long time ago!

I'll buy you that shot the next time you are in Atlanta!
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

FWIW, I agree completely.

hahahah... fantasy and creative false advertising is so funny. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

I cannot see anything wrong with JeffS's contribution as a whole to Omni. I don't agree with some of his views and/or the assumptions on which he rests his arguments, but to call for everyone's elimination from OMNI is ridiculous. Omni is a place for us to have some political fun while not making it personally offensive.

However, the fun does end when there is an argument being made that is bigoted in its approach and/or assumptions and/or attacks other FTers or whole groups of peoples not for their words, but merely for who they are. But JeffS approach to Omni is healthy and reasonably fair.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

But who defines "bigot"? (And this, inter alia, is one of the problems with the current state of affairs in OMNI) In OMNI, I've seen others (and have myself) been called bigots (obvious TOS violations that went unsanctioned, BTW) by folks who disagree with the notion that Islam is the womb of terrorism, and poses a direct and credible threat to the US, notwithstanding other Islamics who claim to be "peaceful." Others call folks who disagree with the notion of gay marriage "bigots." Now, some people who advocate either or both of those positions may indeed be bigots in the classical sense, but others may have rational reasons for holding those viewpoints. To immediately form a reaction based on a cariacture stiffles true discussion and just fans the flame-wars.

While you may disagree with a poster, it does not automatically make them a bigot by their taking the non-PC viewpoint. Isn't that what "diversity" is all about?

Well, if someone holds bigoted views against some group, then that does make them a bigot in that context. Is there something wrong with calling a spade a spade? I don't know. Most bigots are proud of being bigots vis-a-vis the "group" they dislike profoundly and probably wear the term proudly (when there are no consequences).

Omni is a 2 out of 10 on the brutality scale compared to other boards.

Most? I am curious. How do you know this?

It's easy to figure this out. Draw a diagram and divide the set into "proud bigots" and "not-proud bigots". Then further break down these subsets anyway you wish. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

It's "most", because the remainder of the set are bigots who don't know they are bigots and eventually drop out when educated or when reason strikes. Bigots who know they are bigots (and publicly are proud of such or who are closet bigots) would change their mind if they were not so proud to think themselves right in their bigotry. So by extension, most bigots are proud of being bigots or they would set aside their bigotry once they examined the numbers and extended their empathy toward all human beings. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Look at the KKK... they will march with their hoods... but I doubt they will wear it to work. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 22, 2004).]

But what of the anti-semitic bigots cloaking their hatred in some innane Israeli-"Palestinian" debate? Or the anti-Christian zealots cloaking their bigotry in some "seperation of church and state" debate?

Well there may be some of the former, but I see a lot more attempts to confuse criticism of a state's actions with bigotry against people of one religion than to realize what I will point out in my next sentence or two. When people criticize Israel, some want to label them as being anti-Jewish; but when people criticize the states of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, I have yet to see someone say that is bigotry against Muslims. Criticizing a state is not a criticism of a religion or the practioners of said religions; and, as such, when one criticizes Israel or Saudi Arabia, it's not bigotry against a people based on religion; it's mostly an appropriate criticism based on state action/inaction.

In regards to the presence of anti-Christian sentiment on FT, that is a near complete cannard (or at least I have missed seeing it). Separation of church and state is fundamental to the United States and stands true to the Constitution and the prinicples of the Founding Fathers. If that, in and of itself, is considered anti-Christian bigotry, then I cannot help but http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif .

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 22, 2004).]