Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

The forum rules have been updated to discourage the use of subtle third-party insults. Please take note of the following:

INSULTS

Avoid using abbreviated terms such as "Cons" or "Libs" that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best and official abbreviations are acceptable.

Do not use diminutives or character substitutions in proper names that are not recognized by the original person to whom the reference is being made. For example, Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not identify himself as Stevie therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Stevie. Likewise, Paul Martin does not identify himself as Mr. Dithers, therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Mr. Dithers.

In the discussion forums, such infractions will be considered as third-party insults.
forum rules
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is ok to insult people by saying "you racist piece of garbage": Reporting and ignoring was unsuccessful in this instance.  

I have contributed to that thread, here.  Anyway, why would it matter if I'd contributed nothing?  That's irrelevant. Oh, BS.  The rules on this forum are that personal insults and comments are

His opinipn  is based on subjective, selective standards as to who the poster is he feels is doing the insulting and that is evident on the kind of comments allowed on this forum with some but not oth

Are we really outawing colloquial language and expressions on an internet discussion forum? :blink:
Occasionally, the colloquialisms are purely used to inflame discussions and the intention is to avoid such incidents. That is all.

Higgly,

My posting privileges have been suspended last year already in the discussion forums, eh?

That quotation in my signature which YOU present as an insult was very well defended and explained, in my opinion. It is not presented as a cheap, drive-by insult nor as a joke. It is a profound statement of opinion on Canadian culture which transcends politics and I honestly believe it is accurate.

Edited by Charles Anthony
completed with "eh?"
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

I, for one, am supportive of the rule. To add to the list, I get tired of reading about "Billary," "Osama Obama," "Lieberals," "Repugs," etc. I don't think terms like that do anything to "promote intelligent discussion," which is the purpose of this board. And I appreciate that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try my best to abide the rules but I honestly think they are stupid, and unnecessary. The more rules and censorship you add the more dull and boring this forum will become. I like watching the die hard partisans freak out when something offends them, it adds comic relief. I mean is it really all that insulting to a conservative to be refered to as a con, a liberal as a lib or us NDPers as dippers? I guess I am just not easily offended. It just all seems rather silly to make a big deal about short forms of party names. Even calling steven harper stevie, or paul martin paulie, is a pretty far cry from insulting in my opinion. I guess a year from now the board can just write our replies for us and email our pre-approved statements to us for posting at our liesure. What I'd like to know is what kind of whiney little pussies are complaining enough to cause a rule change? Whose bitching has caused this restriction on our freedom of expression? I'll bet whoever it is they are to afraid to identify their cowardly self in this thread.

If this is just the forum owners decision I wish they would reconsider limiting our free speech this way.

Sticks and stones and all that crap ya know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll try my best to abide the rules but I honestly think they are stupid, and unnecessary. The more rules and censorship you add the more dull and boring this forum will become. I like watching the die hard partisans freak out when something offends them, it adds comic relief. I mean is it really all that insulting to a conservative to be refered to as a con, a liberal as a lib or us NDPers as dippers? I guess I am just not easily offended. It just all seems rather silly to make a big deal about short forms of party names. Even calling steven harper stevie, or paul martin paulie, is a pretty far cry from insulting in my opinion. I guess a year from now the board can just write our replies for us and email our pre-approved statements to us for posting at our liesure. What I'd like to know is what kind of whiney little pussies are complaining enough to cause a rule change? Whose bitching has caused this restriction on our freedom of expression? I'll bet whoever it is they are to afraid to identify their cowardly self in this thread.

If this is just the forum owners decision I wish they would reconsider limiting our free speech this way.

Sticks and stones and all that crap ya know?

From what I have seen the ones that whine the loudest are some of the ones that originally got caught taking it too far.

I get a kick out of seeing a few certain posters quote rules that they themselves broke with regularity before they went overboard and had to be talked to. You all know who you are. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had a choice, and I dont, the names, stevie , paulie libs cons would be cool.

However the smiley face , laughing face, roll the eyes icon and all the others would be sent packing.I say better to mock the leader (stevie-paulie-dithers) than mock the poster, which is exactly why they are put in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
However the smiley face , laughing face, roll the eyes icon and all the others would be sent packing.I say better to mock the leader (stevie-paulie-dithers) than mock the poster, which is exactly why they are put in there.

:lol::lol:

No They're not :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll try my best to abide the rules but I honestly think they are stupid, and unnecessary. The more rules and censorship you add the more dull and boring this forum will become. I like watching the die hard partisans freak out when something offends them, it adds comic relief. I mean is it really all that insulting to a conservative to be refered to as a con, a liberal as a lib or us NDPers as dippers? I guess I am just not easily offended. It just all seems rather silly to make a big deal about short forms of party names. Even calling steven harper stevie, or paul martin paulie, is a pretty far cry from insulting in my opinion. I guess a year from now the board can just write our replies for us and email our pre-approved statements to us for posting at our liesure. What I'd like to know is what kind of whiney little pussies are complaining enough to cause a rule change? Whose bitching has caused this restriction on our freedom of expression? I'll bet whoever it is they are to afraid to identify their cowardly self in this thread.

If this is just the forum owners decision I wish they would reconsider limiting our free speech this way.

Sticks and stones and all that crap ya know?

What he said... ;)

And quite well I might add... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
I agree with it, if there isn't some control the forum wouldn't be worth reading.

Me too. I remember one guy even had some bizarre signature line about Liberals causing discomfort in one's shorts. I didn't have a clue what he meant, but it was probably supposed to be insulting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Me too. I remember one guy even had some bizarre signature line about Liberals causing discomfort in one's shorts. I didn't have a clue what he meant, but it was probably supposed to be insulting.

LOL - sure you know what it means, it's hardly a third party insult... Grits is just an old party name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that. But what does that have to do with people's shorts? I honestly don't get it.

Did you catch the use of the name Stephanie Dion?

Interesting indeed, in light of the posters position here

scriblett:

I agree with it, if there isn't some control the forum wouldn't be worth reading.

also of note the sam eposter claims it is the "left" that censors and yet here she is advocating for censorship.

t :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that. But what does that have to do with people's shorts? I honestly don't get it.

Honest? Grits are/is also a food, so too many grits could affect your ahem digestive system :)- hence the necessity to adjust your shorts... heck guess you had to be there LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Oh, okay. Now I get it. heh.

Speaking of signature lines, I don't quite follow what meaning you are trying to convey. Since you are generally a liberal, I don't see you as being a fan of someone like Merle. Is the line used as humour?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of signature lines, I don't quite follow what meaning you are trying to convey. Since you are generally a liberal, I don't see you as being a fan of someone like Merle. Is the line used as humour?

The idea of liberty transcends liberal and conservative ideology. Merle, like me, feels that prohibition prohibits true freedom. And though I'm generally a liberal, I'm more interested in what makes us same than what makes us different.

And "Mama Tried" is a damn good song.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...