The Political Forum is now just another forum.

So trolling is OK, as long as it's trolling.

Got it.

Feel free to interpret the guidelines any way you would like. Be cognizant that the Staff’s interpretation of the guidelines is what matters in the end.

Pretty easy to find accounts of Al Sharpton addressing Twitler’s racism, since that’s what you seem most sensitive to.

Here are a couple ... from foreign media no less.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8386556.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20171019-...harlottesville

Here’s one from the right leaning Washington Times, hardly a fan of Sharpton.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-trump-racism/

These are all you get TWK.

Again, I ask you to pull back on your hostility. I have pointed out your broad brush stroke approach to the national debate and it apparently has flipped some kind of switch.

No offense, man. But if you’re going to label people and circumstances as “either or” or “black and white” with terms like EVERYONE and ALL and THEY, then you’re doing yourself and your viewpoint a disservice.

If you’re going to do that, my fellow Patriot, then then remember ALL men are created equal. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

what part of "well before" Trump ran for the office of President wasn't clear? my mistake! i should have given you a time frame .. like minimum 5 years before? how 'bout 10?

i'll let you re-submit your homework since it appears the test question was too vague on what "well before" means.

Word games again.

Word games again. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

ducking the question. again.

Word games again.

ducking the question. again. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

duck, duck, duck, daaaa duck!


LOL!

No thanks. Originally Posted by Wakeup

Ok, then don't issue points but shame them publicly by posting their rtms and explaining why the posts they whined about are not infractions.

You did say you want to educate us...

Often times you will find directions, footnotes, or other guidance from staff... for the purpose of educating the readers of what is and what is not acceptable as well as informing others about how these issues have been dealt with. Originally Posted by Wakeup

Ok, then don't issue points but shame them publicly by posting their rtms... Originally Posted by lustylad

No thanks.

I’m fact, I removed the two stickies here that pertained to the old forum...this forum is no different than the rest now.

P.S.-You conveniently edited out a very important part of that guideline...if I edit a post, you will see an explanation of why I edited it...as you’ve already seen here...

P.S.-You conveniently edited out a very important part of that guideline...if I edit a post, you will see an explanation of why I edited it...as you’ve already seen here... Originally Posted by Wakeup

Ok, here is the full guideline quote. Why limit your schooling about how the guidelines work to posts? It would be equally edifying, if not more illuminating, to show us - and explain the basis for - rejected rtm complaints.

Often times you will find directions, footnotes, or other guidance from staff edited INTO posts which draw our attention. These are for the purpose of educating the readers of what is and what is not acceptable as well as informing others about how these issues have been dealt with. Originally Posted by Wakeup

No thanks.

I’m fact, I removed the two stickies here that pertained to the old forum...this forum is no different than the rest now.

P.S.-You conveniently edited out a very important part of that guideline...if I edit a post, you will see an explanation of why I edited it...as you’ve already seen here... Originally Posted by Wakeup

i noticed that as well. so there are no "conflicting" directives and the title of this thread is confirmed .. as if that wasn't clear already.


The Political Forum is now just another forum.

i will miss Chica's rather humorous RTM sticky but the staff was never under any obligation to post that to begin with. but it was funny!

It would be equally edifying, if not more illuminating, to show us - and explain the basis for - rejected rtm complaints. Originally Posted by lustylad

You’re incorrect. I’m here to educate you on what is a violation, not what isn’t. When I see those violations, I let the individual know exactly what guideline they violated. The great thing about this forum is that y’all are intelligent, and you know it’s a violation when you post it, so very little explanation by me is needed in the infraction.

So far the point totals have been small for individual infractions, but as Staff instructions are ignored though, the point totals increase, and pretty soon people will be hovering very close to 25 points...at that time we’ll see how well the education has taken hold.

The great thing about this forum is that y’all are intelligent, and you know it’s a violation when you post it, so very little explanation by me is needed in the infraction. Originally Posted by Wakeup

I guess I'm not intelligent then. Yssup suggested that posts #109 and #110 were rules violations. I say nonsense. What say you?

Staff does not comment on infractions given to members outside of edited posts...y’all are free to discuss your own infractions though...

Staff does not comment on infractions given to members outside of edited posts...y’all are free to discuss your own infractions though... Originally Posted by Wakeup

Got it.

Waco, did you get pointed for post #109?

Hotrod, did you get pointed for post #110?

Intelligent inquiring minds want to know!

my prediction: lol!

109 - no

110 - no


didn't see anything insulting in those 2 posts.


btw, I did get pointed in another thread. lol!