userque wrote:Billionair's responded immediately with name calling. That's inappropriate, regardless my position.
Aitrus wrote:Ineffective in an argument, perhaps, but he is free to have opinions as well as state them. And it's apparent that he has opinions regarding you and your motivations.
Once again. I never had a problem with his opinion.
Please show where I had a problem with him having an opposing opinion.
userque wrote:I post articles for information. People are free to read them, and be informed. Or not read them.
If they want to know how I feel, they can ask.
Aitrus wrote:I think that the tone of the articles you post - which tend to be very one-sided - give evidence to how you feel. If they didn't, then you have an interesting way of informing us about how you feel. I would think that if you are wanting to provide both sides of an issue, that you would be doing so. Normally, when people post articles that show only one side of an issue, it's because they support that side of the argument. This is not an unreasonable assumption when the poster fails to otherwise disclose his/her stance.
Those articles are what they are. Someone's free speech. This is the anything goes forum. If someone has a problem with political articles that others might post, they should avoid the forum. As has been advised by you in the past to others.
People post what they post. Everyone won't like it. That's a given everywhere in the world, online and in real life. We are not entitled to become uncivil when we don't like someone's lawful free speech.
The goal is to remain civil regardless of what is posted, not to try to force others to post as you, or someone else, thinks they should post.
When we have a Democratic President, and you and Billionaire are trashing them; trust me, I won't become unhinged. Nor will I try to stifle your speech.
It has also just come to my attention about the friend and foe feature. Anyone that doesn't want to see my posts, can use that feature, instead of trashing the website. Maybe you, as moderator, should advocate that instead of trying to convince others to post more like you would post.
userque wrote:Freedom to speak also includes the freedom to not speak. Sometimes I have more to say. Sometimes I don't.
Right now, we can decide for ourselves whether we want to add our own commentary to news articles we post, financial or otherwise.
Aitrus wrote:Quite true. So why act so confused when questioned or when someone asserts you hold certain values. A more appropriate response on your part could be "I don't do X, my intent is Y" instead of asking "Where did I ever say X?" Instead of addressing the apparent motivation behind your post, you continue to leave readers wondering and guessing as to your intended purpose behind posting one-sided information.
You respond the way you do, and that's fine for
you.
My response is to first require someone to support their allegations with facts, if I don't agree with them. (Who knows, maybe they saw something I didn't. I won't assume to know what they're talking about.) Once they've done that, we can address that alleged fact.
It's not acting confused.
This is how it's done in formal debates and in tribunals...because that's the logical approach.
userque wrote:If there is now a rule that everyone must now include their personal thoughts when posting news articles, I'll continue to decide for myself whether I want to add my own opinion to news articles that I post.
Aitrus wrote:There is not such a rule. I'm trying to help you communicate your intent in a clearer manner.
LOL. Good one.
Thanks.
userque wrote:No. He called me out of my name, in violation of the rules. You seem to want to gloss over that part.
Aitrus wrote:I stated several months ago (it was in May 2019) that I was getting tired of policing every little dustup happening in the forums. I asked that it all be moved to the Anything Goes section of the forum. I plan on having an in-depth discussion with MJ on what the posting rules are and how they are enforced going forward.
http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.p ... 098#p77098
I have more on this, but I can say here that there'd likely be fewer dust-ups with proper enforcement. And in the anything goes thread, there can be very few subject matter dust ups, as most anything goes. You'd only have to enforce blatant disregards for the rules ... such as name calling. Unless, you want to make that legal. Actually, I'm good either way, as long as things are consistent.