Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

More on Foley

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: More on Foley

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Well I know he's resigned.

    But I think the page who rec'd the IM's that were really bad was 18.
    UB, seriously, you need to stop defending this guy. You're better than this.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: More on Foley

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Well I know he's resigned.

      But I think the page who rec'd the IM's that were really bad was 18.
      I would agree his recently published sex and booze talk IM's were with an 18-year-old. I pointed that out in another thread last night.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: More on Foley

        Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
        I'm close to putting the entire politics board on ignore.

        Instead of stirring discussion among PD members, its become nothing more than a series of ideological rants and partisan shouts, with thinly-veiled insults given to those of us that see right through the lies and propoganda from each side (and, thus, lose interest quickly in the large number of inflammatory articles that are posted.)
        Jay, I have a problem with your post, and after thinking about it off and on over the afternoon want to comment, not in anger but after some reflection. First, the pretense that there are "those of us that see right through the lies and propaganda from each side" is just a bit much.

        Maybe this isn't a topic you care much about, but I have never noticed that you ever hesitate to weigh in on topics you do care about, and that you often do so vigorously and aggressively depending on the strength of your sentiments. But nothing in your prior posts suggests that you are ever a neutral referee who doesn't have his own point of view, much less that you are able to see through all us inferior posters' "lies and propaganda." I don't expect you to agree that some of my posts are other than propaganda, which I would dispute, but at least I can see you thinking that of my arguments.

        However, I defy you to show a single post I have ever made in which I have "lied." And while I disagree strongly with many of the other posters on this and the other Foley thread -- indeed, I often disagree very strongly with many posters on any topic on the political pages of PD, and am usually on the other side of any issue from that of McClintic Sphere, 3Ball, Los Angeles, and lots of other (misguided ) Leftys -- I do nonetheless understand that our disputes are ideological and genuine and heart felt, and I can't say that any of my most vociferous opponents have ever lied either.

        And so I await your response and explanation for this charge, and hope and suspect that it was simply an improvident claim that you made in a moment of anger, but if so I would suggest that you are guilty of exactly the same type of inflammatory posting that your post pretends to abhor. In other words, while complaining of others ranting, you have gone on your own little rant, but unlike our genuine disagreements -- admittedly strong disagreements between posters who have dramatically different world views -- you have characterized our arguments as including "lies." In so doing, you have crossed over the line in a way none of us who are arguing our beliefs have done, and unless you have examples you would defend where any of us have lied, I think you owe us all an apology.

        Second, I would also note the rather hypocritical harrumphing of your post from travmil and 3Ball, both of whom (like the similarly hypocritical and hypersensitive LA) had their fair share of posting on this topic back in its early hour, on a different thread (opened by LA), when it was confined to how horrible the Republicans are, and the Dems' curious (and growing curiouser by the hour) role in the Foley story was not yet under scrutiny. But that rather illustrates my whole point to begin with: there is a great deal of hypocrisy on this subject, and I continue to contend it isn't coming from my side of the aisle.

        So, you and travmil and other bell ringers are sick and tired of this discussion? Fine, go ahead and ignore it (or do like travmil and 3Ball and post on it on another thread, and then come to this one and pretend the discussion is now beneath you). I don't know what you think the rules should be for open discussion of topics, but I will tell you that at least I do not understand them to be that one side gets to say whatever they wish, and the other cannot respond.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: More on Foley

          Originally posted by skyfire View Post




          lols, Fox you so crazeh.
          Well, skyfire, maybe it was an honest mistake. You really can't blame them for thinking Foley was a Dem:

          Who Knew Congressman Foley Was A Closeted Democrat?
          October 4, 2006


          At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.

          The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

          Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a “witch hunt.” He didn't whine that he was a put-upon “gay American.” He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was “saving the Constitution.” (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

          In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a “mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults.”

          When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds — not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men — defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office SIX more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: “It's the outfit, stupid.”)

          Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as “a brief consenting homosexual relationship” and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a “witch hunt” against gays: “New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life.”

          Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

          No one demanded to know why the Democrat Speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

          But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

          Let's run this past the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy — and a credit check, too!

          When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

          But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

          The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

          On Fox News' “Hannity and Colmes” Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. “If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed,” Beckel said, “then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

          Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times “ethicist” Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scout masters was “the ethical thing to do.” The “ethicist” explained: “Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals.”

          We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
          Boy Scouts — As gay as you want to be.
          Priests — No gays!
          Democrat politicians -Proud gay Americans.
          Republican politicians - Presumed guilty.
          White House Press Corps - No gays, unless they hate Bush.
          Active Duty U.S. Military - As gay as possible.
          Men Who Date Liza Minelli - Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

          This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

          Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.
          http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

          Okay okay, I admit that one by Coulter is way over the top -- I want to know if its true that Democrats have no sense of humor.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: More on Foley

            Originally posted by travmil View Post
            UB, seriously, you need to stop defending this guy. You're better than this.
            I AM NOT DEFENDING THE GUY. He is a sicko. But the attack on the republican leadership is way off base

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: More on Foley

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Well I know he's resigned.

              But I think the page who rec'd the IM's that were really bad was 18.

              The fact is, this is a powerful Congressman seducing a Page who idolizes him. It makes it slightly better, in the same way it's slightly better to rape someone than to molest a child.

              Regardless, only one of his targets was 18, so there's really no firm footing with this defense, and it's a little shocking that you'd continue to defend him.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: More on Foley

                Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                Well, skyfire, maybe it was an honest mistake. You really can't blame them for thinking Foley was a Dem:


                http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

                Okay okay, I admit that one by Coulter is way over the top -- I want to know if its true that Democrats have no sense of humor.
                Yep, I'm done. Welcome to my Ignore List.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: More on Foley

                  Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                  The fact is, this is a powerful Congressman seducing a Page who idolizes him. It makes it slightly better, in the same way it's slightly better to rape someone than to molest a child.

                  Regardless, only one of his targets was 18, so there's really no firm footing with this defense, and it's a little shocking that you'd continue to defend him.

                  I guess I need to repeat myself.

                  I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM. He is a sicko and he should be prosecuted if he broke any laws.

                  I am arguing with the democrats who for 4 days now have been saying what makes this so bad is the kid is 16, well if it's 18 then I guess that changes a lot of things.

                  I AM NOT DEFENDING FOLEY, HE IS DISGUSTING

                  AND PLEASE STOP TELLING ME TO STOP DEFENDING THE GUY, because I have never defended the guy

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: More on Foley

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I guess I need to repeat myself.

                    I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM. He is a sicko and he should be prosecuted if he broke any laws.

                    I am arguing with the democrats who for 4 days now have been saying what makes this so bad is the kid is 16, well if it's 18 then I guess that changes a lot of things.

                    I AM NOT DEFENDING FOLEY, HE IS DISGUSTING

                    AND PLEASE STOP TELLING ME TO STOP DEFENDING THE GUY, because I have never defended the guy
                    Does it change the possibility that he's a sexual predator who used his position to coere a subordinate into having sex with him?

                    Does it change the ages of the other people he's harrassed?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: More on Foley

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I AM NOT DEFENDING THE GUY. He is a sicko. But the attack on the republican leadership is way off base
                      Republican leadership enabled this guy you call a "sicko" every step of the way. They knew what he was. Taking campaign money from him, allowing him to lead a double life, putting him out as an icon of virtue, etc. I don't need to repeat the story. I'd imagine the American people will figure out the Republican House leadership deserves every bit of ire it is getting.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: More on Foley

                        What the dude 18 or 16? I keep hearing/reading different ages. Doesn't one know for sure? Then I can base an opinion.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: More on Foley

                          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                          Does it change the possibility that he's a sexual predator who used his position to coere a subordinate into having sex with him?

                          Does it change the ages of the other people he's harrassed?
                          No and I never said it did any of those things. But it does other aspects of this if the one page was 18.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: More on Foley

                            Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                            Republican leadership enabled this guy you call a "sicko" every step of the way. They knew what he was. Taking campaign money from him, allowing him to lead a double life, putting him out as an icon of virtue, etc. I don't need to repeat the story. I'd imagine the American people will figure out the Republican House leadership deserves every bit of ire it is getting.

                            OK, I just hope the dems live up to half the standard that you are setting up here. And if they do good for them.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: More on Foley

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                              The fact is, this is a powerful Congressman seducing a Page who idolizes him. It makes it slightly better, in the same way it's slightly better to rape someone than to molest a child.

                              Regardless, only one of his targets was 18, so there's really no firm footing with this defense, and it's a little shocking that you'd continue to defend him.
                              Eindar, I know subtle distinctions are difficult for you, but you have to try. As much as it pains you to have to think about, conduct between an adult and an 18-year old is treated differently than conduct between an adult and children. Your claim that rape is better than child molestation is a very foolish and thoughtless comparison -- analogizing two abhorrent crimes to communications, which were not acted on, between two people of majority age -- is offensive and illogical. How would you like it if you walked up to a woman in a bar, both of you young adults, and said "can I take you to bed?" only to have someone else characterize your conduct as similar to rape and child molestation? Your vulgar conduct in that example probably happens a hundred or more times a night by other young people in college bars the world over, and no one compares it to brutal sex crimes.

                              If the relative power of the political official matters, does this now mean that you no longer defend Clinton's sex with Lewinsky? After all, he was the most powerful man on earth seducing an intern who idolized him. If the relative power roles in the relationship matter as much as you stress in Foley's case (the disclosure of which we're continuing to learn was a carefully executed political hit job by political partisans) does that mean you at long last agree that what Clinton did was wrong? If a powerful Congressman merely IM'd suggestive messages with an 18-year-old, how is that worse than Gerry Studds actually having sex with 16 ad 17 year old pages and getting to keep his office (indeed, getting reelected 5 more times)? Again, since you seem to want to make such fine distinctions, why is Foley's (if they were actually all his, which is now in question) rude IM'ing -- even with "targets" who are younger -- but which was not acted upon worse than others -- Clinton, Studds -- who did act upon their impulse and did have sex with teenage interns?

                              This gets us back to the whole point of this discussion: hypocrisy. The only difference between Foley's alleged (sorry folks, I am not defending him, but again still unfolding news is suggesting he did not even write some of the IMs -- see http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/20...setup-part-vi/) is that he is a Republican and the examples above involve Democrats.

                              I am not defending any of the sexual conduct by political figures in any of these examples. But I am still awaiting an explanation that identical conduct by members of different parties must be treated differently. I am still awaiting an explanation why Democrats have standing as the guardians of personal probity when in every single example cited -- Studds, Mel Reynolds, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit -- Dems insisted that these were private matters in which others ought not to intrude.

                              Originally posted by Eindar
                              Does it change the possibility that he's a sexual predator who used his position to coerce a subordinate into having sex with him?

                              Does it change the ages of the other people he's harrassed?
                              Does "the possibility" that he is a sexual predator? You tell us. Answer the questions above, about why it is okay for Dems -- including "possible" sexual predators such as Clinton, Studds and Reynolds, to name a few -- who (unlike Foley, based on what is presently known) did actually coerce young subordinates into having sex with them, and then we will move on to why talking about it but not actually doing it, and talking about it with interns of majority age, is somehow worse.

                              For those like Eindar, LA and others who refuse to deal with these questions, you are confirming Republicans' suspicions that you don't really care about the conduct as you claim here, your really care about the political opportunism that follows. It is amusing that you refuse to deal with these hard questions, yet you labor to falsely characterize UB as defending Foley, despite his multiple condemnations of Foley and his repeated claims that Foley is a creep. The refusal to address the real issues, while repeatedly putting forth false issues, is telling.

                              Originally posted by Eindar
                              Yep, I'm done. Welcome to my Ignore List.
                              Golly, I'll miss you, and your wonderful and deep analyses such as comparing mere come-ons to an 18 year old rather than a 16 year old as the difference between rape and child molestation. But thanks for confirming that, if not all Dems, at least you have "no sense of humor."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: More on Foley

                                Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                                Republican leadership enabled this guy you call a "sicko" every step of the way. They knew what he was. Taking campaign money from him, allowing him to lead a double life, putting him out as an icon of virtue, etc. I don't need to repeat the story. I'd imagine the American people will figure out the Republican House leadership deserves every bit of ire it is getting.
                                Wow. It was "Republican leadership" that enabled this guy. They "allowed him to lead a double life" dontcha know. Okay, now you officially qualify to comment on Ann Coulter's tongue-in-cheek article posted above:
                                But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

                                Let's run this past the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET!
                                That's right folks, Dems condemn eavesdropping on al Qaeda calls to conspirators in the US, but condemn Republicans for not surveilling and paying more attention to and ultimately outing a guy who was repeatedly reelected by his Florida constituents despite common knowledge that he was gay.

                                Good grief sixthman -- are you serious? Can you imagine what would happen if your example were followed, and Republicans refused Foley's participation in politics and fundraising and committee appointments because they know he is gay? You'd have Andrew Sullivan on Chris Matthews every night talking about the inherent bigotry of Republicans, and how unfairly treated Foley was. After all, like Barney Frank, Studds and a host of other Democrat elected officials, the good people of Florida elected him knowing his sexual orientation, it was no secret, yet his party was not hospitable.

                                And here is the real question for you. If that had actually happened, and Foley had switched parties and become a Democrat, would he now be getting hammered by Democrats for this conduct? After all, the Dems allowed far worse sexual conduct with younger pages by Studds to go unpunished. Tell the truth sixthman, and if you are being honest you will have put your finger on what is really bothering some of us about this whole escapade. (And keep following the unfolding news on this -- and the growing revelations that this was a political hit job, including the establishment of a bogus sexual preditors website for the purpose of carrying out this hit -- and you will understand why Republicans are skeptical of and combative about this apparent October Surprise).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X