The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election

June 28, 2004

| Setting The Record Straight

I am extraordinarily tired of people accusing me of intentionally running the Command Post as a blog “heavily biased toward the right” (i.e. Lakhim, in comments to this post). Everyone out there who is too muddle-headed to have figured this out by now, or too foggy-eyed to have seen it the first 47 times I’ve written it:

I AM NOT AN ARCH CONSERVATIVE. NEITHER IS MICHELE. (Although, by her own admission, she is more to the right than she was prior to 9/11). OUR VOTING RECORDS MIGHT VERY WELL SURPRISE YOU. NEITHER SHE NOR I SELECT NEWS ITEMS FOR POSTING ON THIS SITE BASED ON OUR OWN POLITICAL BIASES. WE HAVE, FROM THE BEGINNING, ATTEMPTED TO RUN THE COMMAND POST NEWS PAGES AS STRAIGHT NEWS ONLY, WITH ANY EDITORILIZING LIMITED TO OUR OP-ED PAGE. YES, MANY OF OUR CONTRIBUTORS ARE FROM THE RIGHT. MANY, ALSO, ARE FROM THE CENTER AND LEFT. THE SYSTEM IS NOT PERFECT … AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK, WE HAVE TO EDIT A POST, DELETE A POST, OR REMIND A CONTRIBUTOR ABOUT EDITORILIZING ON THE NEWS PAGES AS A RESULT OF OUR COMITTMENT TO KEEP THEM AS STRAIGHT AS POSSIBLE.

The caps are intentional. I am shouting.

Here’s some casual evidence of what I type: so far this year, we have TURNED DOWN advertising revenue from three congressional candidates, because we don’t want to “officially” endorse a particular political point of view (all three, incidentally, were conservatives). We have TURNED DOWN advertising revenue from four different companies wanting to sell trinkets (T-shirts, mugs, etc.) because we thought they were offensive to people holding a particular point of view (all four, incidentally, were conservative-aligned and made fun of liberals).

I get even more annoyed by comments like this, from “Get Real,” in the same comment thread:

When did Alan or Michele post ANYTHING positive about Kerry?
IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

Well, first, there are 119 people with contributor permissions to the 2004 page, and Michele and I are not the only ones who post items here (although, God knows we try to police those who do). But “When was the last time you posted anything positive about Kerry?” Well, given that my posting methodology is to post what’s in the news, I guess the answer is “the last time Kerry had positive press,” which is quite recently.

See … this question from Get Real illustrates the issue: the misguided perception that Michele and I are sitting here thinking “OK, now … what can I post that is positive about Kerry / Bush or negative about Kerry / Bush,” when what we’re doing is trolling news items, thinking “what’s newsworthy / what’s not newsworthy.”

So let’s set the record straight, Get Real … please read through the past year’s worth of 2004 archives … the month-by-month breakdown is over there in the left-hand column … to see the full history of my posts to the 2004 page. Mine are the ones that say “Posted by Alan.” Then tell me where my “anti-Kerry” bias is. And as a direct answer to your question of “when was the last time you posted anything positive about Kerry,” I’ll submit the following posts from April-June (note that my last news post on 2004 was June 15th, due to travel):

Kerry Pushes Bush On Stem Cell Research
Kerry the Realist: “This year’s presidential election so far offers a choice in foreign policy, between a neo-Wilsonian who has made the promotion of democracy and human rights a central tenet and an old-school realist who believes it more sensible to focus on managing concrete threats to U.S. security. But here’s the hook: Sounds familiar: Only the realist is not a hard-nosed Republican standing up to a fuzzy-headed Democrat, but John F. Kerry challenging George W. Bush.”

Kerry Leads In Minnesota

Kerry: U.S. As Optimists: “The State.com / AP report that a new flight of Kerry campaign ads “deliver the upbeat message that the United States is ‘a country of optimists,’” and that this is a contrast to Bush’s ads that primarily criticize Kerry.”

Unity Among Democrats: “CBS News reports that in addition to record spending and intensity, this year’s campaign may also have something else: an “unheard of” levels of unity and cooperation among Democrats.”

Battleground Polls Give Electoral College to Kerry

Poll: Kerry Leading In Battlegrounds

Latest Poll: Kerry Leads (By A Hair)

Now, are there stories I posted in the same time frame unflattering to Kerry? Of course there are, because there were unflattering stories in the press. But do the following posts also count, or in reading them, will you accuse me of a strong left-wing bias?

Dutch & Dubya: A link to a LA Times comparison of the Reagan and Bush management styles unflattering to Bush.
Set of Retired Diplomats and Military Officials Oppose Bush

Bush Push May Cost Churches Tax Breaks

Bush May Need Broader Campaign

WaPo: Bush Campaign Has “Unprecedented Negativity”

Soft-Money Group Promotes Ties to GOP Leaders Despite Warnings

Bush Approval Rating At All Time Low

GW And The Texas Press: Is The Honeymoon Over?

Bush’s Approval Rating at All-Time Low (again)

Dick Morris: “Dubya In Trouble”

Now, we have some contributors that use the 2004 page to push their agenda. And that’s something Michele and I are trying to deal with, and we will.

But in the meantime, why don’t we ask the critics to put some skin in the game: Lakhim and Get Real, I am offering you both contributor positions at Command Post. You’ll have full posting privileges for all the pages. The only condition: you have to abide by our terms and conditions for use, same as everyone else (which, BTW, are simply legal limitations of liability and use, and the admonishment to keep personal biases on the Op-Ed page or one’s home blog).

So … interested in signing up? Or is your preference to simply sit on the sidelines and criticize?

Posted by Alan at June 28, 2004 08:22 AM | TrackBack

Comments

I don’t believe that you are INTENTIONALLY trying to bias the site to the right, but your readership seems to be primarily from the right. Given that, your contributors are likely to be biased to the right as well.

I do see some subtle bias in all of the sections, mostly in the little comments posted in Arial at the end of the entries (as opposed to the quotes in Times New Roman). I’ll try to point them out to you off-line as they happen, so that you can see how they are perceived from a moderate to liberal point of view.

Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2004 08:46 AM

Mark, once again, you’re presuming I’m not a moderate or a liberal.

Posted by: Alan at June 28, 2004 08:48 AM

Alan,

Ya’ll run a good site. Excellent is a better word.

There are folks who will gripe you are too right-wing until you start deleteing conservative posts and banning them from the site. I have seen people claim NBC is a conservative tool.

I remember people used to write to dear abby/ann landers (I am not sure which one) and claim (in all seriousness) that they believed she was really a man who was biased against women.

Aside from being funny, this little story is presented to show you will never please some people.

Quality shows.

Thanks for this site.

Posted by: jones at June 28, 2004 08:49 AM

Alan and Michele,

I’m very appreciative of your site. I’m conservative on somethings, liberal on others, and I find your mix refreshing. It’s not anybody-but-Bush, and it’s not Kerry-or-bust.

Keep us the good work!

Posted by: Mona B. at June 28, 2004 09:36 AM

..Alan,its good to see your passion.There are those who are leaders and those that are followers.Some are of the mindset any thing that puts limits on ones actions or views is obstructionist by design.So they spew what ever they think will change the tide but in this is their down fall this nation was founded on values.This they wish to push aside;sooo kill`m with kindness…and “go quitely into that good night”…lol..

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 28, 2004 09:40 AM

I am a conservative.

I like the site because it does not tilt to the left. I also like the quality and diversity of the sources presented — news from everywhere, in one place, both from traditional and non-traditional sources.

This is not to say it is a conservative site. Posters definitely tend to the right, I’d say something like 65%-35% conservative. The liberals make up for in volume what they lack in numbers.

I also like the comments and posts from people — you get some good arguments here. Sometimes it descends to name calling. But sometimes its fascinating — the battle over Vietnam has been particularly interesting of late.

I think that conservatives tend to listen to talk radio and seek news from the internet because the “establishment media” as represented by the NYT, WaPo, LaTimes, ABC, NBC, and CBS all tilt left, some more heavily than others. These are powerful megaphones that share the same point of view, which is a coastal, “blue state” view. Conservatives like me feel that the conservative view is not even discussed in these places — it is merely dismissed out of hand.

Hence the growth of the bloggers and talk radio, spread by word of mouth and hyperlinks.

Posted by: dwc at June 28, 2004 09:51 AM

It is sad that you feel compelled to defend yourselves.

For myself I have always countered any whining about content here with a simple response: it’s a private enterprise not a public utility.

To me, you are under no obligation to provide either fairness or balance. This site is YOURS and the content decisions are yours to make.

So the people who drove you over the edge, Lakhim and Get Real, are free to start their own site, with their own content. What they are NOT FREE to do is complain about how you run your website.

Shame on them for whining, that’s like complaining about a free meal. These complainers are illustrative of the problem with the left: nothing is ever going to be good enough.

Posted by: skip at June 28, 2004 09:57 AM

Everything Alan said comes from myself as well.

Well I tend to be conservative when it comes to defense, I’m quite moderate on other issues. I could spend the time picking out NEWS articles I posted that were not very good news in relation to the coalition, the war on terror, and other subject where I tent to support President Bush. I post the news as it comes up. If I have an opinion, I put it in the OpEd section.

Like Alan said, we have many contributors here at TCP. Neither Alan nor I do the bulk of the posting here, and most of what you see is straight news taken from about 200 news sources world wide. We report what’s out there.

I hope both Lakhim and Get Real take Alan up on his offer. We strive to have all walks of political life represented at TCP, especially in the OpEd section, and we would welcome a liberal point of view.

Alan: Thank you.

Posted by: michele at June 28, 2004 09:57 AM

No problem, pards. And I, too, hope Lakhim and GR take us up on the offer.

Posted by: Alan at June 28, 2004 10:02 AM

Alan

I would also like to express my thanks for this blog. It must be a real PITA at times. The fact that you can have a left or right leaning view, at most times, without getting yelled at is definately a plus. Many notably left leaning sites are very exclusionary of any different ideas, which I don’t see here in any official way. Again, thanks for all the effort.

Chads

Posted by: chads at June 28, 2004 10:22 AM

You guys do a great job. As for any ‘readership bias’ crap…does it really suprise anyone that more conservatives (might) read a site like this? Why would a liberal bother? They’ve got the NYT, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, etc, etc, etc.

Without a doubt, you do a great job here of trolling for news and culling the crap. I thank you for it. I have made you my home page thanks to your broad range of articles linked to and your lack of popups. Thank you on both counts.

Posted by: Tom at June 28, 2004 10:29 AM

Dear Alan and Michele,

I first came here many moons back.
I was delighted by the right wing bias and the left wing counter attacks. The open and unbiased cut and thrust of enpassioned debate.
As with many others I have moved on Ubique has calmed into Max. The Command post has continued however to achieve it’s stated aims. There are two folk who do not have to apologise at all for what they have created, they are yourselves.

You have no need to apologise, your child is standing proud and unbowed. It breaks the news 24 hours a day from around the world, the good and the bad. It allows comments from the left and right. It encourages debate from all the corners of the world.
It breaks the barriers of race, creed ,colour and politics. People wait to hear the comments of Cap’n Doc, Johny Mozart, Grim and Texas Gal.

As a left wing idiot with strong fascist tendencies, don’t you dare change a thing. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Congratulations.
Your obedient servant,

Max

Posted by: Max at June 28, 2004 11:01 AM

“Lakhim and Get Real, I am offering you both contributor positions at Command Post.”

If that isnt “put up or shut up” i dont know what is. Theyll either chicken out or this will be a news disaster. How many links to DemUndie ‘news’ can we stomach?

Posted by: Ronin at June 28, 2004 11:02 AM

as many as they post, which won’t be many. They know by now that DU articles won’t impress anyone here. This isn’t the place for rousing the coir. If there is anything to their positions that will stand up to the light of day they will post that. We would probably see liberal think tanks quoted more in the op-eds, and a slight shift in the news on the other pages to include more variety. If they don’t have anythign worth posting they won’t take Alan and Michelle up on their offer.

Posted by: CCR at June 28, 2004 11:25 AM

Though I read Command Post every day, I rarely post a comment. In fact, this may actually be my first because I cannot remember doing it before. Anyway, I felt I had to say something about this, so here goes: “Alan and Michelle, you are doing a great job!”

Posted by: grumpy at June 28, 2004 11:58 AM

Dear Alan,

I’m a Green and I’m writing to defend you. There are at least 10 good articles providing Nader or Green Party news on the front page here today. Command Post’s balanced, contextual delivery of news about these campaigns is as good or better than many so-called progressive news outlets and are a welcome source of information.

Unfortunately, trying to use reason against the irrational rants of insecure partisans who are more at ease with ignorant self-disclosure than politican discourse is as futile as trying to shoe away a swarm of gnats. Twas ever thus. Like HST once said, “If you can’t stand the heat…”

Keep up the good work,

Scott

Posted by: Scott Beckman at June 28, 2004 12:05 PM

Telling, isn’t it, all the sniping at Alan and Michele this weekend. Lakhim and GetReal aren’t the only ones. Sad but true, and like so much else, it speaks for itself.

This is a great site and we’re all lucky to have it. I’d keep an eye on those first few posts, though. Just till they get the hang of it. ;)

Posted by: marymcl at June 28, 2004 12:13 PM

Alan,

I wasn’t sniping at you - in fact I didn’t make ANY assumptions about individuals in my comment.

My note was just feedback - take it as a gift and either cherish it or stick it in the closet (or re-gift!).

Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2004 12:31 PM

Happy for any feedback, Mark. I do toss a snarky aside from time to time, but it’s usually media-directed … email away, I’m glad to have it.

Posted by: Alan at June 28, 2004 12:38 PM

I’ve always felt that if i havent pissed off at least one liberal and one conservative, it’s been a wasted day.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at June 28, 2004 12:58 PM

I don’t understand why you want to deny your inner soul the right tro your own beliefs and opinions. Why even have a mind and an opinion if you don’t have a right to express it? Especially in America, especially since this is your own website; the fruit of your dreams and labors.

I used to think like you for the first 5 or so years, I didn’t want to advocate for my conservative views because I was a teacher, and wanted to reflect “academic neutrality”. That is until I went by the classrooms of many outspoken liberal teachers and heard their unabashed advocay and proselytizing, recruiting for all their liberal causes; abortion (in the name of “choice”, of course), environmenal radicalism, pro-homosexual agenda, ridicule of christian or conservative viewpoiints, etc. I soon realized that the public schols are the domain of liberal thought; their ivory towers. From that time on, I have taken up the mantle and haven’t been ashamed to promote my views, because they are the views of most rationall American people, and someone has to say it. If I don’t, then the uninformed and unsophisticated will also come to accept the usual liberal hogwash about “the system”, etc.
So I advise you, don’t dip your sails; as long as you let people know where you are coming from, and don’t pretend to a non-existant “neutrality” that no liberal strives for, people will also respect you and accept your views for wht you really stand for. They can always go to CNN. Good luck and God bless.

Posted by: Richard from East LA at June 28, 2004 01:02 PM

Posted by: Richard from East LA at June 28, 2004 01:03 PM

My sincere congratulations to Alan & Michelle. I can’t imagine how you do all this and have a REAL life at the same time. Thank you… Thank you.

Command Post is a largely unbiased fish in a cesspool sea of managed, left-wing news. Ok, ok, maybe it’s not ‘managed’ by design; let’s give it the benefit of the doubt, just for laughs.

But its managers, reporters, and anchorpersons are biased. That carries over into their reporting. So, it’s ‘managed’ by proxy, if you will. It naturally follows from this, that an unbiased site will appear to be biased to the right, -but it’s not.

To be sure, the majority of the posters here are right-leaning. Again, this follows naturally. When sorting through that sea of crap, it’s nice to be able to visit a site that doesn’t parrot the lefty party line. It’s a niche service for which there’s great demand!… Can I buy some stock in this operation? ;-))

I’ve also noticed that between the right/left posters, it’s almost universally true that the rude, crude name calling always starts with the Lefties. Not all of them, (there are some decent, thoughtful left-leaners here who, sadly, get whacked more than they deserve by other posters). But just review the posts; every stink-bomb gets tossed by the opposition. The simple fact that you tolerate this at all, unlike the lefty-sites, says a great deal about how this site is run.

And actions speak louder than words.

Don’t let the rascals rattle you.

Stay the course.

Steady as she goes…

Best Wishes,

Posted by: PonderingPundit at June 28, 2004 01:41 PM

Hey, quit feedin’ the trolls.. :)

Posted by: Jeff B at June 28, 2004 02:47 PM

Dear Folks, sorry you felt the need to shout. You shouldn’t let people get under your skin in that manner. You seem to have conservative tendancies in the things I read, but no one is a purest in anything. That’s the beauty of being human. Every experience is viewed with our personal, ever-changing filter … like Janice with her big round glasses during her Big Brother days.

Relax, folks. Write and post whatever you please. No one’s categorization of your views matters. Period.

Posted by: Clyde at June 28, 2004 03:11 PM

You are free to run this site as you see fit. But if you think this site is not wholly right biased then you are delusional.

Posted by: byebyebush at June 28, 2004 05:30 PM

How nice of Bye Bye to grant you the freedom to carry on. Isn’t that just so generous of him?

Posted by: skip at June 28, 2004 05:37 PM

Anybody that selects the name ‘byebyebush’ is allowing their emotion to overwhelm their good judgement. While the polls may show it as neck in neck, Las Vagas has a different line altogether.

Posted by: ableiter at June 28, 2004 05:53 PM

I’ve asked before and never got an answer, so I’ll ask again. Why is ‘biased’ used in a negative and derogatory manner? Maybe it’s just me putting my slant on things, but it seems like the word is used in an accusatory manner. As if there was something wrong with being biased. I don’t see it. Favoring one thing over another is natural and I’ll bet every human does it to some extent. What is wrong is trying to hide a bias, especially by pretending to not have one. Can anyone correct me on this?

Posted by: ableiter at June 28, 2004 06:02 PM

First off- My original post on this topic was not a statement to the fact that the CP leans right is a bad thing (I’ve been a member of many right-wing message boards, so I am used to it), just that it is pointless to create a poll that serves no purpose and has a flawed sample, and to point out reasons for the lean towards Bush which is out of step with the rest of the nation.

As to your offer, Alan in all honesty I would love to, but I don’t think that I would be able to provide the time or have the experiance needed to help keep this site up to date and maintain the quality of posts that our other bloggers have, however, I am sure that there are other center-leftists on the board who would be willing to take up your offer.

Posted by: Lakhim at June 28, 2004 06:44 PM

Lakhim, I am confused by your comment

it is pointless to create a poll that serves no purpose and has a flawed sample

concerning the Presidential election poll at The Command Post. The poll serves the purpose of showing the political preferences of the people who visit The Command Post. Unless another blog or message board of some sort has tried to hijack this poll by sending their readers over only to vote in the poll, this poll should represent a decent sample of readers of The Command Post. The people who maintain this site make no other claims for this poll. Furthermore, because you allude to an implication of the poll results, viz., the fairly large number of readers of this site who support Bush, you do, indirectly, acknowledge that the poll is serving a useful service. All of these points seem blindingly obvious to me, yet the quote above makes it appear as if you do not understand them. So here is my confusion. Are you really, truly unable to grasp the points that I have just made? Are you offended by evidence that, just as many knowledgable people will vote for Kerry, there are also many knowledgable people who will vote for Bush? Perhaps you just mis-spoke in the heat of typing.

Posted by: Average Joe at June 28, 2004 07:51 PM

If you were listening, this is not the first such poll run on this site (but the worthiness of the others is in doubt due to such possible tampering) about this topic, and yes, I was referring to a value outside of that which I stated, my apologies. This web site is primarily a news web site (with only a small subsection for commentary) but does not have the membership base/proper mix to allow for a poll be of any use in representing the United States populous.

Posted by: Lakhim at June 28, 2004 08:30 PM

since when is the primary purpose of a poll to represent the us population?

does it matter who women favor as president? southeners? minorities? news junkies? after all, these groups may not reflect the us population because they aren’t the us population. it is, however, a fine statistical measure of how a group that you belong to, tcp readers that take initiative when it comes to participating in voluntary polls, will lean in the upcoming election. if the sample population can be repeated, you have a baseline from which you can see how events change voting intention. (your tampering comment is true as noted, but that isn’t your main point, and what is the alternative- not ever take a poll because it may be tampered with?)

a poll, any poll, on the internet will never, i mean never, be representative of the whole u.s. except by accident. if it still bothers you that the poll does not mirror the general population, do yourself a favor and don’t participate.

Posted by: wafflestomper at June 29, 2004 01:47 PM

Pathetic….babbling losers! Who cares what you think…post the stories and shut up already!

Posted by: John Hart at June 29, 2004 03:43 PM

Get Real (AKA: NNTK),

To preface, this is my FINAL attempt to address you not only somewhat civilly, but to address you period (I know Cap’n, jones, etc…DON’T FEED THE TROLLS…but for the sake of ALL…and, ALL THAT’S HOLY…I MUST! ). That said…

Given your repetitive demonstration of your deficiency in comprehension (I prefaced by somewhat!), I will try to keep this both simple, and succinct for your benefit. In addition to your reprehensible and palpable glee at every US/Coalition setback, mortality, etcetera…what I personallyabhor the most is the fact that you present absolutely NO factual substantiation FOR your opinions. To repeat in more simple terms in order to stress, it is NOT (necessarily!) your opinion that I have such a problem with, it is your atrocious lack of facts, sources, AND/OR alternative solutions to back them up! One CANNOT argue/DEBATE another individuals opinion/beliefs, one CAN however argue/DEBATE the premises on which those conclusions are based.

Couple that with the fact that nearly every single comment you post could be used as a TEXT BOOK example of a logical fallacies (take your pick, they are ALL there!), and you will begin to understand the animosity that has festered out of simple frustration!!! There are SEVERAL parts to an effective (and PERSUASIVE!) argument. Whilst I certainly realize that this is a blog rather than a debating society, it is PARAMOUNT to a sincere desire to convey your views to others in at LEAST a simple, deductive argument. As I am certain that you still have absolutely NO idea of what I am speaking, therefore I will offer the following links for the sake of everyone here at TCP, including myself AND you (these offer some of the most simplistic descriptions I have found)!:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

What I readily see in you especially, as well as many (if not MOST!) of the other “left leaning posters”, is nothing more than ‘the cornered animal syndrome’, and therefore why most threads degenerate into pissing contests which would make some nuns cuss like sailors, and some sailors blush like nuns!!! You feel that you are “attacked” here because of your beliefs, and that it is your “conclusions” (i.e. OPINIONS!) in which people take issue to. What you fail to understand, despite repeated attempts, it is ONLY because there has been nothing else PRESENTED with which TO ARGUE! Hence, why debate here on TCP more closely resembles the game ‘Whack-a-mole’!

There ARE (yes, definitely save THIS in the Congressional Record!) some intelligent “left-leaning” (again, being civil!) posters here, some of which have been around from the very beginning. Despite this “obvious” intelligence, I am constantly AMAZED at their illogical, and mostly fallacious reasoning! In fact, I have in earnest tried to figure out the root cause of these repetitive series of events over the last year and have reached the following foregone conclusion: It is the inherit differences in our makeup between the left and the right. While I am not going to BEGIN to debate the entire nature –vs- nurture issues with you at this juncture, PLEASE prove my conclusion/opinion/belief wrong by demonstrating that a liberal IS capable of constructing a factual, AND LOGICAL argument.

Disregarding your previous track record of ‘accepting gentlemanly challenges’, PLEASE consider this one in earnest as it is my sincere desire to engage in serious, and MEANINGFUL debate on this forum. We have an INCREDIBLE opportunity here, for both sides to engage each other honestly and openly, and as stated there is a considerable wealth of knowledge on BOTH sides. HOWEVER there must stated, nonnegotiable ground rules/framework for it to even remotely work:

(1) If you want to COMMENT on a news article/thread, please do so. A COMMENT would take the form: “Man, that sucks that someone bombed a convoy”…OR, “I am really sorry to hear that PFC Maupin was killed”. ABSOLUTELY, no opinion/commentary/conclusions as to the cause (i.e. “resistance”, “minutemen”, “insurgence”, etc.), the implications (i.e.: “quagmire”, “terrorists” etc.), ETC.!!! Even from simple COMMENTS, it is helpful to understand the psyche and perspective of others.

(2) Should you choose TO state your opinion/conclusions/etc. on an article/thread, PLEASE DO SO (THIS is the most constructive AND conducive to reach common ground, and god forbid, solutions!)! A OPINION/BELIEF/CONCLUSION would take the form: “This occupation is a disaster”…OR, “The civil war continues”. HOWEVER, it must be presented in a logical manner, INCLUDING supporting premises (i.e. FACTS!), and therefore it allows the INFERENCES of said premises to be debated, rather than the conclusions/opinions themselves!

SO, if you are TRULY interested in an honest debate…PLEASE see the web pages I suggested. Read them. Then, read them again. Practice a little (PERHAPS even examine some of your PREVIOUS posts to see if you can find any ‘errors’ in logic!).

THEN, present a reasoned, logical argument. If you do not present a reasoned, logical argument at that point, then you have demonstrated once and for all that you have nothing to offer and therefore you CONSENT AND DESERVE to be banned from this site.

FURTHER, you can choose to simply post COMMENTS as outlined above ONLY.

IF you choose the former, you HAVE MY WORD that I will address you in a “civil & respectful manner”. FURTHER, I will consider your opinions/belief/conclusion IN EARNEST, and will respond ONLY with a reasoned logical argument. If I do not, I will READILY accept being banned for life.

I ask you now, ONCE AND FOR ALL...are you man enough to accept this truce and gentlemanly challenge?!

Posted by: American_Defender at June 29, 2004 05:15 PM

To Alan & Michele:

I know that you are faced with the seemingly insurmountable task of balancing freedom of discussion, and yet having compliance with the posting policies in order to have “fruitful conversations”. As I have been here since nearly Day 1, I too have seen the ups & downs, highs & lows. In fact, I have been personally involved in many of each, and for some of the latter I hereby, duly, and HUMBLY apologize! The only two things that (unfortunately!) initiate a guttural, invective response from me are (1) disrespect for our fallen (for I have seen FAR too many with my own eyes, including some right in front of me), and (2) exactly what I have outlined above.

Further, as I know that I am certainly not free of all of these transgressions myself (see above!), I offer my challenge to Get Real as both explanation AND as additional fodder for your consideration. I TOO would rather be involved with meaningful debate, and I do not even ‘have a horse in this race’ as you both do. What I am suggesting is that as part of your ‘terms and conditions’ for posting comments, you add the framework/criteria above. I honestly believe that it would go a long way to fostering “civil and respectful discourse”! You could still utilize the same ‘three strike policy’, however it MUST include something akin to these suggestions for it to be even remotely fair and productive! Even the most reasonable, evenhanded, affable, and pacifistic amongst us (and NO, myself certainly NOT included!), grows weary of these issues over & over, resulting in the ‘Whack-a-mole’ previously alluded to!!! When faced with a logical argument, one can more readily reciprocate in kind. While such discussions certainly will not be totally devoid of the same strong emotions, in this context the ideas (OR ideals!) can be discussed and debated, rather than simply the emotions themselves.

When faced with nothing BUT illogical BS, unfortunately that is the only response left in which TO reciprocate.

Even AEB has stated that there is a difference in saying “You are an idiot.” –vs- “You are an idiot because…”. This is exactly what I am saying…although he did so in much fewer words. For individuals to continually get by with instigating such diatribe is one of the main tribulations you both face. It is my humble suggestion that in addition to “fighting the fires” of nothing but Ad Hominem attacks, you ALSO address the underlying cause. If posters are NOT allowed to simply state unsubstantiated opinion and/or make sweeping conclusions (for a PERFECT example, the comments the initiated THIS very thread!), then there would BE no Ad Hominem attacks! Simply give posters a recourse to “call” someone (through emailing you guys/gals!) on their BS rather than resort to verbal vitriol and therefore avoid receiving said “strike” themselves. It would be YOUR call (obviously!) as to whether such post met this criteria and thereby warranted a “strike”.

My humble 2¢…

Respectfully,

American Defender

Posted by: American_Defender at June 29, 2004 05:17 PM