no more internet freedom.

#104
#104
utvolpj said:
still acting like you have a clue what's going on huh?
Click to expand...

Here's an idea: how bout since you started in on the second post and have pretty much attacked the OP since the beginning you take a second to collect yourself and become a Moderator with some class and dignity. This thread might of had a decent chance of open dialogue if you had of left it alone.
 
#106
#106
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
Here's an idea: how bout since you started in on the second post and have pretty much attacked the OP since the beginning you take a second to collect yourself and become a Moderator with some class and dignity. This thread might of had a decent chance of open dialogue if you had of left it alone.
Click to expand...

I think he did a great job as a moderator.

In debate, a moderator is one who keeps the talking points on point, and with truth and accuracy.

How is allowing random, untruthful and misinterpretation of events to continue keeping in such a standard as a moderator of debate?
 
#107
#107
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
Here's an idea: how bout since you started in on the second post and have pretty much attacked the OP since the beginning you take a second to collect yourself and become a Moderator with some class and dignity. This thread might of had a decent chance of open dialogue if you had of left it alone.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find any emoticons related to crying, or else I would have posted gratuitous amounts of them in response to this post.
 
#108
#108
I managed to get a close up of Joe last weekend:



















cover.jpg
 
#109
#109
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
Here's an idea: how bout since you started in on the second post and have pretty much attacked the OP since the beginning you take a second to collect yourself and become a Moderator with some class and dignity. This thread might of had a decent chance of open dialogue if you had of left it alone.
Click to expand...

here's an idea, you should realize I'm a poster on this site and mod title does not affect that. You seem to have a very hard time with that concept. From the beginning I have simply asked if the OP actually knew what this was about since there were legit concerns about that when it was compared to the move by Chavez. There is plenty of dialogue in this thread and I see no issues pointing out fallacies presented by posters. IMO it helps when things like that are squashed. I actually got called out for an example I made but I see you ignored that one.
 
#112
#112
I suppose there can be a modicum of credibility given to the idea that once the federal government gets it's claws into something there isn't exactly a glorious history of "let's just stop here before we start insinuating ourselves too far into things".

Still, there should be some measure of reason for where and to what extent one starts extrapolating. I'm not going to go running off to grab my copy of The Stand for ideas on what to do in case I get sneezed on during flu season. If and when real wording for actual legislation directly involving internet access in regards to content comes into being I have little doubt there'll be uproar o'plenty. (as it should be)
 
#113
#113
utvolpj said:
here's an idea, you should realize I'm a poster on this site and mod title does not affect that. You seem to have a very hard time with that concept. From the beginning I have simply asked if the OP actually knew what this was about since there were legit concerns about that when it was compared to the move by Chavez. There is plenty of dialogue in this thread and I see no issues pointing out fallacies presented by posters. IMO it helps when things like that are squashed. I actually got called out for an example I made but I see you ignored that one.
Click to expand...

The reality is if you had of asked a genuine question like how to do view this as a take-over we may have had actual pages of real debate here. Instead you attacked him through a question which is childish. He may have been wrong in his view of how the government was taking over but on the other hand the government still has no place controlling throttling levels or anything on the internet. If this gets to the Supreme court, it will be blown apart. The FCC does not have any jurisdiction here.
 
#115
#115
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
The reality is if you had of asked a genuine question like how to do view this as a take-over we may have had actual pages of real debate here. Instead you attacked him through a question which is childish. He may have been wrong in his view of how the government was taking over but on the other hand the government still has no place controlling throttling levels or anything on the internet. If this gets to the Supreme court, it will be blown apart. The FCC does not have any jurisdiction here.
Click to expand...

of good grief, how is this not a legit question based on what he posted in the OP?

utvolpj said:
do you even understand what this is about? It is pretty different than what is being done by Chavez
Click to expand...

it's pretty clear that he posted a thread where he knew nothing about the subject except what he got from some blog

and if you've spent anytime in this forum you would realize there's no such thing as a real debate

he's stuck with the same line the whole thread that this is the same as the fairness doctrine/Chavez move in Venezuela and is about limiting free speech. If you would take the time to read the thread and realize this then we wouldn't be having this discussion

as for the rest, if you believe the internet should remain free and accessible to all then they do have a role
 
#117
#117
utvolpj said:
of good grief, how is this not a legit question based on what he posted in the OP?



it's pretty clear that he posted a thread where he knew nothing about the subject except what he got from some blog

and if you've spent anytime in this forum you would realize there's no such thing as a real debate

he's stuck with the same line the whole thread that this is the same as the fairness doctrine/Chavez move in Venezuela and is about limiting free speech. If you would take the time to read the thread and realize this then we wouldn't be having this discussion

as for the rest, if you believe the internet should remain free and accessible to all then they do have a role
Click to expand...

The problem with government is that they pass bills that are "intended" in the publics eyes to do one thing that end up doing something totally different. The Fairness Doctorine looks to the average citizen who is getting their news by means of 20 seconds sound bites like an ok thing but in reality it has some really dark underbelly ideas. I personally don't see anything wrong with this bill YET and have only read enough to make sure its not going to screw me over personally regarding my dialers as I run on T1 lines.
 
#118
#118
JayVols said:
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Nice!..and accurate.
Click to expand...

NETNeutrality.jpg


Joe is a bit more accurate than you guys give him
credit for, what y'all did to him in the DADT thread
was very close to what I would call gang rape.

He'll never win the award for being the most
endowed with social graces though, he reminds
me of Mr. T.

6a00e54ee3afea8833013110088cad970c-800wi


Funny insert, I took my children to Sunday School
one morning and a church lady type starts going
off to me on Mr T, when she finished I interjected
that the real life guy behind the TV character was
a very devout professing Christian who put his money
where his mouth was by funding several soup kitchens
that served meals to the poor and homeless for free,
maybe it would be a good idea if she quit judging other
people and started doing more to further Christ's
Kingdom herself.

That pretty much ended that conversation.
 
#119
#119
gsvol said:
NETNeutrality.jpg


Joe is a bit more accurate than you guys give him
credit for, what y'all did to him in the DADT thread
was very close to what I would call gang rape.

He'll never win the award for being the most
endowed with social graces though, he reminds
me of Mr. T.

6a00e54ee3afea8833013110088cad970c-800wi


Funny insert, I took my children to Sunday School
one morning and a church lady type starts going
off to me on Mr T, when she finished I interjected
that the real life guy behind the TV character was
a very devout professing Christian who put his money
where his mouth was by funding several soup kitchens
that served meals to the poor and homeless for free,
maybe it would be a good idea if she quit judging other
people and started doing more to further Christ's
Kingdom herself.

That pretty much ended that conversation.
Click to expand...

I really dont mean this to be political in any way. I would have done the same thing regardless of party. But, this reminds me of something that happened to me.

I was at a festival during election time a few years ago when a cheery bubbling lady came to me and asked if I would like a sticker supporting a candidate for state senate that was a known adulterer several times over. I asked her if she was a conservative family values Christian Republican. She emphatically replied that she AND the candidate was as well. I asked her another question, I said, don't you think it's a wee bit hyppocritical to be supporting and campaigning for a known adulterer. That ended the converversation very abruptly.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#120
#120
The problem is no one ever knows who they are truly voting for. Most of the voters go by sound bites and feelings. Most politicians are bred and have their appearance crafted by the machine. It is why 3rd party candidates normally get blown away. Too much crap.

You're talking about Mark Foley? Aka textual chocolate.
 
#121
#121
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
The problem is no one ever knows who they are truly voting for. Most of the voters go by sound bites and feelings. Most politicians are bred and have their appearance crafted by the machine. It is why 3rd party candidates normally get blown away. Too much crap.

You're talking about Mark Foley? Aka textual chocolate.
Click to expand...

No. A TN state Senate candidate.

No party has a monopoly on lying manipulative candidates. They are politicians. Lying is in their DNA.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#122
#122
JayVols said:
No. A TN state Senate candidate.

No party has a monopoly on lying manipulative candidates. They are politicians. Lying is in their DNA.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

People in roles of leadership are normally their because they are able to manipulate. They can set themselves apart and raise themselves in a room. This goes for tv preachers, politicians, public speakers. Problem is ultimate power ultimately corrupts.
 
#125
#125
Seems difficult to really follow the developments of this thread, so I'll just ask. What are you warning us against, joey320? Government to eradicate or set regulations against net neutrality?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top