The Barry-cades were an order from the White House

[Excel]

You were the one speaking like Osama bin Laden. Be more moderate.

 

See how that works?

Then you need to step down as a moderator.

 

I'm serious, you need to be done as a moderator in this forum.

 

 

There are many reasons one might support such a campaign but Knapp having opinions isn't one of them.

[walksalone]

This bickering is asinine. If you people won't stop digging deeper trenches around your party affiliation you will never ever see what's really going on here.

 

This country is playing Russian roulette with its economy for no other reason than party politics. And the electorate is supporting them.

 

This crap in this thread is exactly why we're in this mess. Just keep supporting your party forever, damn the consequences. No matter how far they stray from what you originally believed in, just vote R or D whenever you get to the polls, and BY GOD do not even think to question what they tell you - you might not like the answers you get.

[rawhide]

You were the one speaking like Osama bin Laden. Be more moderate.

 

See how that works?

 

Then you need to step down as a moderator, because you have completely let your bias interfere with your ability to effectively police this forum.

 

Me advocating a legislative strategy that has been indisputably used by both parties to great effect is the same as Osama bin Laden advocating suicide bombing? Absurd.

 

Sexual slurs and wishes of death against conservatives? Ignored.

 

I'm serious, you need to be done as a moderator in this forum.

I do believe that any Admin(the bastages) will tell the rank and file that a moderator has the right to engage in debate just like other members. Other than selling our stock options, our 8 week Learjet packages or our Monte Carlo timeshares, we be just like y'all. Forgetting about the power, prestige and world renown esteem we humbly endure. We're still human. Well, most of us

[Excel]

You were the one speaking like Osama bin Laden. Be more moderate.

 

See how that works?

 

Then you need to step down as a moderator, because you have completely let your bias interfere with your ability to effectively police this forum.

 

Me advocating a legislative strategy that has been indisputably used by both parties to great effect is the same as Osama bin Laden advocating suicide bombing? Absurd.

 

Sexual slurs and wishes of death against conservatives? Ignored.

 

I'm serious, you need to be done as a moderator in this forum.

I do believe that any Admin(the bastages) will tell the rank and file that a moderator has the right to engage in debate just like other members. Other than selling our stock options, our 8 week Learjet packages or our Monte Carlo timeshares, we be just like y'all. Forgetting about the power, prestige and world renown esteem we humbly endure. We're still human. Well, most of us

 

So that's what they'll tell us? That seems to imply that none of it is true. I'm going with mine and HuskerLuke's theory: Mods are corrupt and abusive cyborgs trained by the Stasi.

[HuskerLuke]

 

 

There are many reasons one might support such a campaign but Knapp having opinions isn't one of them.

 

I do believe that any Admin(the bastages) will tell the rank and file that a moderator has the right to engage in debate just like other members. Other than selling our stock options, our 8 week Learjet packages or our Monte Carlo timeshares, we be just like y'all. Forgetting about the power, prestige and world renown esteem we humbly endure. We're still human. Well, most of us

 

I have no problem at all with moderators engaging in debate and having opinions. I do have a problem with moderators flaming, getting called on it, and doubling down. It's also pretty distressing that there's been no effort on his part to curb the out of control rhetoric coming from the posters I linked above. There should be no place for slurs on this forum, nor should posters get away with wishing for the death of political opponents. A moderator's responsibility is to put a stop to this sort of behavior, not pile on.

 

I have nothing against knapplc as a person, I enjoy his posts on other areas of the forum, but if he can't see what's wrong with comparing me to America's #1 enemy of the last decade over a fairly mundane disagreement on legislative strategy.......that's a pretty big problem for a moderator to have.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

 

There are many reasons one might support such a campaign but Knapp having opinions isn't one of them.

 

I do believe that any Admin(the bastages) will tell the rank and file that a moderator has the right to engage in debate just like other members. Other than selling our stock options, our 8 week Learjet packages or our Monte Carlo timeshares, we be just like y'all. Forgetting about the power, prestige and world renown esteem we humbly endure. We're still human. Well, most of us

 

I have no problem at all with moderators engaging in debate and having opinions. I do have a problem with moderators flaming, getting called on it, and doubling down. It's also pretty distressing that there's been no effort on his part to curb the out of control rhetoric coming from the posters I linked above. There should be no place for slurs on this forum, nor should posters get away with wishing for the death of political opponents. A moderator's responsibility is to put a stop to this sort of behavior, not pile on.

 

I have nothing against knapplc as a person, I enjoy his posts on other areas of the forum, but if he can't see what's wrong with comparing me to America's #1 enemy of the last decade over a fairly mundane disagreement on legislative strategy.......that's a pretty big problem for a moderator to have.

 

You're missing an extremely critical point. A moderator's job is to put a stop to the rhetoric that the moderator views as over the top and unnecessary. What might be over the top to some is not over the top to others.

 

If knapp hasn't been called on it by another mod or an admin, then the problem is more yours than his.

[Excel]

@Luke, PM me after you get suspended and then we'll talk about moderator abuse or rant about it in the shed and I'll join because I agree that they often aren't perfect. I'm just not sure that griping about it in a public thread unrelated to the issue is the best approach. It damages your reputation with the regular members as well as the Mods, you may not care if you don't plan on staying so have at it in that case I guess...

[JJ Husker]

You were the one speaking like Osama bin Laden. Be more moderate.

 

See how that works?

 

Then you need to step down as a moderator, because you have completely let your bias interfere with your ability to effectively police this forum.

 

Me advocating a legislative strategy that has been indisputably used by both parties to great effect is the same as Osama bin Laden advocating suicide bombing? Absurd.

 

Sexual slurs and wishes of death against conservatives? Ignored.

 

I'm serious, you need to be done as a moderator in this forum.

 

Luke, we seem to be somewhat aligned on political ideology but I must disagree with this. Knapp is usually very fair and reasonable even when he may be involved deeply in the discussion at hand. He and all mods should be able to have and share their opinion and views. At times it may seem unfair or favorable to your detriment but, if you step back and look at it, I think you'll find Knapp is one of the most level headed and fair posters around. And, if you want to claim sexual slurs or death threats are being ignored, please have much better examples than those weak links indicate.

[HuskerLuke]

I don't believe I ever accused knapp of abusing his position. I expressed concern that his political leanings were compromising his ability to be a fair moderator on this (political) sub-forum. That may have been an overreaction on my part, I don't know, I've pretty clearly laid out what I think the problem is, and I'll look forward to hearing what he has to say tomorrow.

 

Luke, we seem to be somewhat aligned on political ideology but I must disagree with this. Knapp is usually very fair and reasonable even when he may be involved deeply in the discussion at hand. He and all mods should be able to have and share their opinion and views. At times it may seem unfair or favorable to your detriment but, if you step back and look at it, I think you'll find Knapp is one of the most level headed and fair posters around. And, if you want to claim sexual slurs or death threats are being ignored, please have much better examples than those weak links indicate.

 

Like I said earlier, I do not take issue with most of his posts. I never said anyone made death threats, "I'm going to kill x," is different from "I hope x gets hit by a car." They're both pretty awful things to say. "Teabagger" is absolutely a sexual slur and it shouldn't be allowed on this forum. But you're right, neither are a big deal --- until he bizarrely called me out as a person who needed to behave better. If he explains why something I said was out of bounds, fine, but I've never been warned or sanctioned by a moderator before on any forum I've been a member of and in light of the conversations we had today, the fact that I was the one called out makes it look to me like a politically-motivated double standard.

[walksalone]

I don't believe I ever accused knapp of abusing his position. I expressed concern that his political leanings were compromising his ability to be a fair moderator on this (political) sub-forum. That may have been an overreaction on my part, I don't know, I've pretty clearly laid out what I think the problem is, and I'll look forward to hearing what he has to say tomorrow.

 

Luke, we seem to be somewhat aligned on political ideology but I must disagree with this. Knapp is usually very fair and reasonable even when he may be involved deeply in the discussion at hand. He and all mods should be able to have and share their opinion and views. At times it may seem unfair or favorable to your detriment but, if you step back and look at it, I think you'll find Knapp is one of the most level headed and fair posters around. And, if you want to claim sexual slurs or death threats are being ignored, please have much better examples than those weak links indicate.

 

Like I said earlier, I do not take issue with most of his posts. I never said anyone made death threats, "I'm going to kill x," is different from "I hope x gets hit by a car." They're both pretty awful things to say. "Teabagger" is absolutely a sexual slur and it shouldn't be allowed on this forum. But you're right, neither are a big deal --- until he bizarrely called me out as a person who needed to behave better. If he explains why something I said was out of bounds, fine, but I've never been warned or sanctioned by a moderator before on any forum I've been a member of and in light of the conversations we had today, the fact that I was the one called out makes it look to me like a politically-motivated double standard.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

Then you need to step down as a moderator, because you have completely let your bias interfere with your ability to effectively police this forum.

 

Me advocating a legislative strategy that has been indisputably used by both parties to great effect is the same as Osama bin Laden advocating suicide bombing? Absurd.

 

Sexual slurs and wishes of death against conservatives? Ignored.

 

I'm serious, you need to be done as a moderator in this forum.

 

I’m also serious – it’s not your decision. Further, impugning a moderator is something I will not tolerate.

 

If you or anyone has a problem with a moderator, PM the moderator and begin a dialog. If that doesn’t prove satisfactory, then contact an Admin. Derailing a thread because you got your feelings hurt or you want your standards applied doesn’t cut it.

 

As for your complaint, knapplc used an analogy to demonstrate that your position on the shutdown was extreme. That’s all. That certainly doesn’t violate our rules or standards. Whether you consider it absurd is irrelevant. Whether you agree with those rules or standards is irrelevant. Concerning the “sexual slurs” and “death wishes” – neither of those posts violated our rules or standards. Again, whether you agree with those standards is irrelevant. If you don’t agree with them, then start a thread in the Feedback forum suggesting what should be changed and why. If we believe they have merit, we’ll change them – we’ve done so numerous times over the years.

 

So, let’s summarize. You accused knapplc of being unable to effectively police the forum. You cited a grand total of three examples – none of which violated our rules or standards, and none of which demonstrated any inability of knapplc to effectively police this forum. You were wrong.

 

I have no problem at all with moderators engaging in debate and having opinions. I do have a problem with moderators flaming, getting called on it, and doubling down. It's also pretty distressing that there's been no effort on his part to curb the out of control rhetoric coming from the posters I linked above. There should be no place for slurs on this forum, nor should posters get away with wishing for the death of political opponents. A moderator's responsibility is to put a stop to this sort of behavior, not pile on.

 

I have nothing against knapplc as a person, I enjoy his posts on other areas of the forum, but if he can't see what's wrong with comparing me to America's #1 enemy of the last decade over a fairly mundane disagreement on legislative strategy.......that's a pretty big problem for a moderator to have.

 

The role of the moderators is whatever we decide. Further, it should be clear to anyone bothering to read the posts in this forum since its creation that slurs against parties have been tossed about, and against, both parties. That should be more than enough for anyone to realize that doing so doesn’t violate the board’s rules or standards. Therefore, you opinion of the lack of effort to curb the “out of control rhetoric” is patently wrong. But that's not your real issue, is it? It's your last sentence. See below as to that.

 

I don't believe I ever accused knapp of abusing his position. I expressed concern that his political leanings were compromising his ability to be a fair moderator on this (political) sub-forum. That may have been an overreaction on my part, I don't know, I've pretty clearly laid out what I think the problem is, and I'll look forward to hearing what he has to say tomorrow.

 

Like I said earlier, I do not take issue with most of his posts. I never said anyone made death threats, "I'm going to kill x," is different from "I hope x gets hit by a car." They're both pretty awful things to say. "Teabagger" is absolutely a sexual slur and it shouldn't be allowed on this forum. But you're right, neither are a big deal --- until he bizarrely called me out as a person who needed to behave better. If he explains why something I said was out of bounds, fine, but I've never been warned or sanctioned by a moderator before on any forum I've been a member of and in light of the conversations we had today, the fact that I was the one called out makes it look to me like a politically-motivated double standard.

 

Ah, so we get to the crux of the matter. The so-called “sexual slurs” and “death wishes” are not a big deal, and not an issue – which, again, is obvious to anyone that has read more than a handful of the posts in this forum over the years. What bothers you is that knapplc used an analogy that hurt your feelings.

 

And let’s be clear – knapplc didn’t “call you out” as a person needing to behave better. Even a causal reading of the exchange makes that clear. Here it is:

 

Show a modicum of concern for the WIC program and we'll talk.

I hope this shutdown is resolved before innocent people suffer undue hardship.

Do you consider people being forced to miss work and not get paid an undue hardship? I do, so too late for that.

I can't wave a wand and end the shutdown. If people are suffering because of Congress' dysfunction, that is unfortunate. I'm not sure what else you want from me.

Moderation. Same thing I want from everyone.

 

Now, since you chose to take your hurt feelings public, and since you chose to derail this thread (which IS a violation of the rules), I’ve addressed your concerns about knapplc in public. Had you decided to do so in an adult manner, my response would been considerably different in tone. Regardless, you’ve complained, I’ve responded, and this matter is closed. If you want to argue further, too bad. If you can’t control the urge to argue further, I’ll take that for what it is – that you disagree with the board’s standards and policies, and I’ll act accordingly with a ban.

[walksalone]

[VectorVictor]

I didn't see this posted, but I figured it pretty much sums up why the monuments are closed, as for points already illustrated by Bucky, but by Jon Jarvis, the Director for the National Parks Service:

 

And finally to the national parks. In total, 401 park service sites have been closed due to the government shutdown, ranging from Yellowstone and Yosemite to Civil War battlefields and the Statue of Liberty. And the many memorials along the National Mall here in Washington are barricaded: Lincoln, Jefferson, World War II. The director of the National Park Service, Jon Jarvis, told me even sites like those that may not seem to require park service supervision do.

 

 

JON JARVIS: There are employees that pick up the trash. There are employees that clean the restrooms. There are employees that provide protection against vandalism. Some of these sites are potential targets for vandalism or terrorism. And so I've had to furlough most of those employees. I furloughed, as a result of no appropriation, 21,000 employees of the National Park Service. And so we are down to just a - essentially a skeleton crew of enforcement officers that provide just the very basics of security. But I can't leave them open and accept that kind of impact. That's - that violates my responsibilities to the American people as the steward of these places.

 

BLOCK: Wouldn't there be times when you would go, say, to a memorial on the National Mall and there wouldn't be staff in the middle of the night? I mean, it would be open and largely unprotected.

 

JARVIS: That is completely incorrect.

 

BLOCK: Really?

 

JARVIS: Yeah. I guarantee you, you may not notice them, but they are there.

 

And let's be honest folks--based on prior actions...if any of these monuments were vandalized or defaced while being left open and unattended during the shutdown, we'd be hearing about Government incompetence from our Tea Party 'friends'. :-|

 

Source: http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=228551352

[Junior]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/02/fox-uses-routine-park-service-disruption-to-acc/196227

 

National parks are not closed because of political games, but because the shutdown mandates that nonessential employees be furloughed, including park personnel. According to the National Park Service'scontingency plan, the shutdown requires the suspension of "all activities except for those that are essential to respond to emergencies involving the safety of human life of the protection of property":

• Effective immediately upon a lapse in appropriations, the National Park Service will take all necessary steps to close and secure national park facilities and grounds in order to suspend all activities except for those that are essential to respond to emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.
  

​

The Congressional Research Service reported that the National Park Service was also closed during the 1996 government shutdown, losing millions of visitors as a result:

• Closure of 368 National Park Service sites (loss of 7 million visitors) reportedly occurred, with loss of tourism revenues to local communities; and closure of national museums and monuments (reportedly with an estimated loss of 2 million visitors) occurred.

 

BUT OBAMA!!!!

[HuskerLuke]

And let’s be clear – knapplc didn’t “call you out” as a person needing to behave better. Even a causal reading of the exchange makes that clear. Here it is:

 

I interpreted his call for "moderation" and describing how I was speaking - reminiscent of OBL - as directed toward my behavior (something mods are tasked to control), not a particular belief set. Since nobody else read it that way, I'll assume my interpretation was wrong, and I apologize for dragging his moderator status into it.