LOOK EVERYONE JUST STOP! I AM TIRED OF THE BULLSHIT AT HOME AND I DONT WANT IT HERE> DIANE LEAVE FORNITS ALONE! IS THERE NOT ONE PLACE I CAN GO TO BE RID OF THE PATRONIZING!!!!
Just so you know... it appears it's not Dianne (see my last message above). There is a troll on this board who likes to take whatever side isn't being argued. In a sense he plays devil's advocate (though he is often indistinguishable from the real deal). In that sense, I respect him as he's good at what he does, but on the other hand, he's completely insensitive, and for that I must apologize on his behalf.
For better or worse... he's like a cancerous boil on the butt of this forum. Can't get rid of him so you just have to learn to live with him. I've learned to look on the bright side of things. When he's not around, it's a little too boring, for one, and secondly, although it might not be his intent, he does get people to think about why they believe what they believe, which is always a good thing.
Jesus christ! I cant even write without trolls and others taking either side. DONT TAKE SIDES> ITS NOT ABOUT THAT! i am merely defending myself.
SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR MANKIND! This is not about blmae its about relaity. Please, if you cant say anything nice dont open your mouth. i cant stand it anymore!
Well. It's sort of the nature of an unmoderated forum. It can't really be avoided. The CAN section of the forum *is* moderated but at the same time it tends to be less active as there is less freedom in terms of what can be said (for example: no anon posting, meaning people can't express an unpopular view anonymously), and thus there is less controversy.
On the surface, it might seem that this forum thrives on controversy and drama. While there might be some truth in that, I like to think of it as a necessary function of a thinking society... open commerce of ideas... a think tank... In the words of a supreme court justice:
"The First Amendment was designed "to invite dispute," to induce "a condition of unrest," to "create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are," and even to stir "people to anger." The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are "offensive" to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. ... The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to "offensive" as well as to "staid" people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard "offensive" gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court's opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment - and solely because of it - speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be "offensive" to some."In other words, while it might not be popular in a program (where you think what they want you to think), it's also the fundamental basis on which a free society matures and grows. If everybody agrees and nobody is free to disagree, nothing ever changes... nothing ever evolves... "drama" as some might call it, is a necessary thing.