Tacky and desperate.

Heisenberg wrote:

Science Chic wrote: Hey, it's not like the being offensive is wanted or encouraged; if you have any ideas on how to improve it without turning it into a heavily moderated site, I'm all ears. I think we'd have a lot more enlightening, interesting, diverse conversations with a bigger more active group of posters if people would stick to picking apart issues and providing their opinion on events, and actions and statements by our representatives rather than picking on each other here.

I agree 100%. But you know SC, it's just like going to a party where one guy takes a dump in the punch bowl. I've tried over the years to have civil constructive debates in the courthouse (kinda like what is allowed in an actual courthouse) but have been told by both sides that it's just not possible. It is possible for me, but I've accepted this atmosphere of name calling and blanket generalizations. Don't ask me why I stick around... I can't explain that any other way than Einstien's definition of insanity.

You must notice that we rarely ever get any new voices in here right? I mean, how many members do you have total and how many those are willing to jump into the mudpit? The Ring is a great idea but comments worthy of the ring stay here for the most part. You don't have to have a heavily moderated site, but you could easliy have one little section for people who want to discuss the issues and the mudslingers could get flushed with one click of your mouse. JMO.

Yes, we rarely get new voices in the Courthouse, but there's a lot more to this site than just the CH, and politics doesn't interest everyone (and it finally got to the point this week where we had to jump in and moderate more ). But one of our new members just jumped right into the Science Lab and Leisure Lounge and asked some really good questions, and that's why I'm glad we're here - because we have something for everyone and we're a true community site that doesn't stifle dissenting opinions, doesn't delete your posts or whole threads just because the mods don't agree with them (or *horror* you've dared question the mods!), and doesn't lock threads and prevent discussion just because we don't want to take the time to handle topics that are hot-button issues and create lots of effort to monitor (like the Park County horse threads or Park County deputies or Park County politics...hmm, sensing a theme here...). lol

CinnamonGirl wrote: Easy way to fix it... Only respond to posts that appeal to you and don't respond on the ones you feel are not going to discuss.

Heisenberg wrote: If you want new people to join serious discussions, you won't get any when the first thing they see is "teabaggin neo-nazi nuckledragger!" That stuff should have been worn out by high school, yet it's the norm around here.

I agree, but I disagree that it's the norm, it's just what you notice the most so it seems more prevalent than it really is. It's a minority of the poster's opinions, and is easily ignored by not responding to it if you truly wished to do so (and, as you said, you don't have to put them on Ignore to do it). The problem is, it's tantalizing and emotionally satisfying to respond to that kind of post, easy to lob back something equally labeling, rather than reply to something that takes longer to read and requires more time to reply. Don't get me wrong, I love to lob back the biting quips as well (and there's nothing wrong with that if it's done moderately), but there's no reason it can't be done in a questioning, straight forward manner without passing judgment on the poster, and there's no reason for it to be done with almost every post.

BearMtnHIB wrote: It's compromise that got this country into the mess we are in now- bipartisanship got us in this trouble. You can have a country that believes in free market values- or you can have a socialist country.

I disagree, as does Clinton. The part of his speech that I liked most was his point that diverse people who are focused on finding solutions don't have to check their "brains", ie their ideologies and beliefs, at the door. Compromise is not a weakness, it is a strength, and it's not either/or, black and white. Nor is this country into free market values, hasn't been in a long time, or our government wouldn't have been subsidizing energy costs for over 100 years now, among many other things. I'd be willing to bet you that there's very few products on the market that isn't in some way dependent upon government support or didn't come to being without some sort of government support, whether ours or another nation's; our economies are all entangled now. And if you try to cold-turkey remove that government support, you're going to plummet us right into a world-wide Depression, so the solution is going to require bipartisan compromise.

Nobody that matters wrote: There are only two boxes. I'm standing in one of them. It's labelled "Right". Everyone else is in the other box. It's labelled "Wrong".

It's nice to keep it simple

Why are you standing in a box???