"I even got the Unitarians mad at me once. They burned a question mark on my front lawn"

LOL <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> An oldie, but goodie.

In fairness, and as a practicing Episcopalian: Why don't Episcopalians like orgies? All the thank-you notes. <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

OK, now that THAT's out of the way....... As one who contributed to the <What Do You Mean, "Not A 'Survivalist' Site?"> page, let me weigh in on all this: To answer your question as to why, well, we like our civility here. All we ask that everyone play by the rules. And Chris and Doug work diligently to keep things civil. We stay focused on the subject that brings us to ETS. It's keeps us coming back. We are all different, and I would suppose that we could all find things about each other that we would find annoying, disagreeable, henious, and contributing to the end of the world as we know it.

Chris and I may not agree on Presidential candidates; others may disagree with my take on this issue or that. Here at ETS, that is not our focus. Want ot argue US Foreign Policy? Try 'Equipped to Diplomat'.

I have alerted Chris to halt threads that seem to be going off topic and into the realm of name calling and invective - even when I have agreed with the argument of the name callers. If one can not be civil, you will be asked to leave. When my son is rude and ill-manered to his sister at the dinner table, he is asked to leave until such time as he can play bythe rules.

My. $.02.

.....CLIFF

< I even got the Unitarians mad at me once. They burned a question mark on my front lawn>

However, we Pantheists accept you as a natural manifestation in the order of things.

Thankyou notes? My Vicar never covered this in Sunday School 'sex education for young anglicans.' <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

And yet, even though I've never used the term 'PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.' in this forum, isn't it a pretty good shorthand for many who go through their daily lives with no thought for the geography, the location of the nearest fire exit, the way food gets to the supermarket?

Paul,

I can't agree with you. You are condemning a whole category of rhetoric we all use in everyday life. Your very post is itself "judgemental [sic], derogatory, and insulting to some" in its condemnation of this kind of speech.

When circumstances warrant it, cynical criticism is appropriate and justified. Such terms as "PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.," "PRK," and "Kalifornia" are incisive indictments of the syndromes they designate. For instance, I recently used the expression "PRK" to delineate the excessive regulatory behavior of California in foolishly and arbitrarily determining differently the legality of two variations of the M-1 Carbine depending on which stock the gun had. The gun in both forms has been readily available as World War II surplus until California's 2001 when one of the state's many restrictive gun laws took effect. Before 2001, both variation of the gun were equally innocent under the law. After 2000, someone who for any reason failed to register his military surplus folding stock model was felon. Legally he would lose all of his civil right as a felon. That's arbitrary, draconian, and just plain wrong. California's excessive regulatory zeal appears to be unlimited. Do you have some ostensibly benevolent public purpose, the California legislature will pass a law to support it, put it's adversaries out of business, or tax it's users to death. Soft drinks make people fat, just impose an excise tax. No scheme is too crazy for California.

As I understand it, you're saying "PRK" and "Kalifornia" are derogatory? Nonetheless, you describe yourself as being from "Porkopolis!" Porkopolis??? It's too ironic to be scolded by a man from "Porkopolis." Putting "Porkopolis" below your identifying user name is itself judgmental, derogatory and insulting. The term appears to deride the political appropriation of funds to unwarranted projects for the political gain of the politicians involved. Even if it designates a voluntarily chosen municipal nickname, it is demeaning and shows poor self-esteem, and therefore is politically incorrect and unacceptable. Your home description is undermining your argument.

In looking at some of your recent posts (July 2, 2005), I see you use the metaphor "Keystone Cops" to designate TSA officials. I am not going to criticize your rhetoric because you obviously chose that colorful expression to convey your assessment of the TSA's performance. But that language does not fit the standards you have proclaimed.

Colorful, emotional language is integral to our communication. Your own verbal behavior does not fit the standards you have announced. In my opinion, it's the unrealistic standards which are the problem.

Paul, I don't have any animosity towards you, but I'm not going to sit quietly back and take being censured wrongfully. I look forward to hearing from you on this matter. I hope we can discuss it amicably.

John

Chris

I, too, want to thank you for great job you do in gently and in amazingly humorously moderating this forum. It's a pleasant and civil environment.

I also want to thank Doug for making this forum available to us.

John

Until I got to the line about them burning the question mark, I was going to say, how the heck did you [censored] off the UUs? I don't even get them pissed off, and I'm by far the most vocal beliver in "Standard Religion" and right wing in the local UU church

Well Chris, I will jump on the bandwagon as well, "Thank you."
And I will also send a check in to Doug to show my appreciation for a job well done.

Well John, I don't think you really read my thread. As I said, there are plenty of other places where you can discuss issues in the terms you like to use. Chris and Doug have just made it clear that this is not one of them. I am not censoring or censuring you, just trying to take some weight off of Chris' keyboard. I have no power here to censor anyone. Frankly I coud care less what you say or how you say it, but a member asked why the words were verboten.

I totally agree with you about the way our government is passing laws that outlaw objects instead of behavior and how those turn innocent people into criminals. My point was that sticking to the issues usually is more effective than name calling. Once you have labeled your opposition they become less human, and they will label you in return. This rarely produces results.

You know nothing about Porkopolis. It is not derogatory or demeaning and doesn't indicate a low self esteem, but rather a sense of humor. I live in Cincinnati, a town that is historically known for trade in animals meant for human consumption. The downtown area used to be full of stockyards and one of the city's nicknames was and is Porkopolis. We have the Flying Pig Marathon every year. While other cities put up fiberglass bulls, horses, bears, etc. my city put decorated fiberglass pigs all over the city. I suppose I could have put "The River City" or "The Queen City" for a location, but there are other cities that have those nicknames too. As far as I know there is no other city known as Porkopolis. I like it. It is funny (too me anyway). BTW I never scolded you or anyone else.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to search for my old posts. I may have used the term Keystone Cops. Maybe somebody should have pointed out that it was inappropriate. I'm human. I also admitted to freely using the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. term, but that doesn't make it right.

In the future I'll let Chris K. answer his own questions I guess.

There have been some thoughtful posts on this topic -- on both sides of the fence. But, when it's all said and done, can't lose sight of the fact that this forum is Chris/Doug's sandbox. As such, IMO, when we come to "play," we've implied a willingness to abide by their rules, as they interpret them.