RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/5/2012 11:16:22 AM)

[image]http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/428365_376290689048582_114517875225866_1423047_412826095_n.jpg[/image]



SternSkipper -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/5/2012 11:32:02 AM)

quote:

Don Imus lost his morning televison program after calling out in jest the Ladies' Basketball team of Rutgers (New Jersey) University as "nappy headed hoes." [one had to be aware of Don's brand of humor] There was a great kerfluffle and Don supported his abject apologies with actions, meeting with Black leaders, etc. Still, the sponsors fled. And rightly. These on air personalities have a duty to their sponsors and a higher duty to the maintain the civility of public discourse. They cannot hide behind the facade of humor as both Imus and Limbaugh have tried to do. Parody is not a defense in either case. I too hope she sues his ass. She will probably have to show malicious intent because she had become a public figure. The jury will have to decide but I think malice is obvious.



My Friend (and probably my next CEO when this campaign commitment winds down) is a minority entrepreneur about to blaze some new paths in tourism in the northeast. He was also a pro football player who basically had his career end due to injuries early on. When Imus got the boot I remembered him saying "That's Imus' humor, he came up through the ranks with a lot of brothers and I think he's more comfortable with a vernacular he doesn't belong in than he should be. But with that said, I don't think he should have been dismissed and he's certainly not a racist. You want a racist, tune in RKO lunch time".
You'll never guess who's on WRKO at noon time in our area.



VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/5/2012 1:56:31 PM)

Fast reply

I have pulled some posts that were violations. I have also had to pull the posts that quoted or replied to them, the ones that quoted or replied to them, and the dominos fell. If you did not receive mail, and would like a copy of your post, please contact me.

Thank you for being a part of CollarMe,
VideoAdminGamma



Owner59 -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 6:07:56 AM)

Just heard a 2nd radio station...... has dropped his show......IMHO,his apologies are NOT sincere.......if he wasn`t losing money.....he wouldn`t be.

~~~~~~~~~~~

A Cyst On The Ass Of Progress

America's Anal Cyst gave a nasty rebuke
That would about make a billy goat puke
But his sponsors let him know
When they canceled his show
That Rush should have avoided Sandra Fluke!

When Rush's verbal reign of terror finally ends
And he finds that he's utterly without friends
New sponsors arrive
That have helped keep him alive
Meta-Meds, Enzyte, Preparation H, and Depends!
______________________
Charles Ulysses Feney



SilverBoat -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 6:26:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminGamma
Fast reply
I have pulled some posts that were violations. I have also had to pull the posts that quoted or replied to them, the ones that quoted or replied to them, and the dominos fell. If you did not receive mail, and would like a copy of your post, please contact me.
Thank you for being a part of CollarMe,
VideoAdminGamma


Perhaps there should be some clearer guidelines about what exactly constitutes a violation:

Apparently it's totally okay for certain posters to directly attack others' character, such as repeatedly posting things like "You hate ...  You hate ... based upon what I've seen, you would fit in with the "Party of the People (that hate).

However, it's apparently not okay at all for other posters to suggest that some rightwingers somewhere might be somewhat lunatic because they post extremist rhetoric against not only the leftish posters here but against the moderates here and in public office.

Would VAG care to explain what the precise criteria for TOS violations are in those cases?



Owner59 -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 7:14:01 AM)

It`s not that deep.

You can`t personally insult members.....


You can kick the shit out of the people they admire though.


Not every TOS violation gets picked up, noticed or acted upon but that isn`t on purpose or for a reason.



SilverBoat -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 7:46:35 AM)

There was no personal attack in the deleted post, only an 'if the shoe fits' description.

But other direct attacks by some people in this same thread weren't deleted.




tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 7:54:42 AM)

Some posts are deleted because they quoted a post that contained a violation. Instead of posting this on the boards, send Gamma a mail and she can explain further.



SilverBoat -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 8:06:32 AM)

That wasn't the case either, and even if it was, the post quoted wasn't deleted.
It's still in this thread.



Moonhead -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 8:24:56 AM)

That happens a lot, sadly. Maybe if you report the post in question?



VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 8:58:38 AM)

I encourage all members to report posts they actual believe is a violation. We cannot read all posts in all sections, and someone messaged me to let me know about this one (meaning the comment quoted below).

Thanks for being a part of CollarMe,
VideoAdminGamma


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminGamma
Fast reply
I have pulled some posts that were violations. I have also had to pull the posts that quoted or replied to them, the ones that quoted or replied to them, and the dominos fell. If you did not receive mail, and would like a copy of your post, please contact me.
Thank you for being a part of CollarMe,
VideoAdminGamma


Perhaps there should be some clearer guidelines about what exactly constitutes a violation:

Apparently it's totally okay for certain posters to directly attack others' character, such as repeatedly posting things like "You hate ...  You hate ... based upon what I've seen, you would fit in with the "Party of the People (that hate).

However, it's apparently not okay at all for other posters to suggest that some rightwingers somewhere might be somewhat lunatic because they post extremist rhetoric against not only the leftish posters here but against the moderates here and in public office.

Would VAG care to explain what the precise criteria for TOS violations are in those cases?




Owner59 -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 9:04:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

That wasn't the case either, and even if it was, the post quoted wasn't deleted.
It's still in this thread.

TOS



gman992 -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 12:32:46 PM)

I don't know what the problem is....her boyfriend should just drop her $20 for a condoms. Rush should've just told her to have her boyfriend fuck her in the ass.....at least that would loosen her up...



Edwynn -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 1:06:42 PM)


That last particular stratagem certainly seems to have worked on you.





Yachtie -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 2:46:46 PM)

Stephen Colbert does a number on Rush. Being skewered does not do justice to what Colbert does to him.



kalikshama -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 2:56:24 PM)

quote:

Rush should've just told her to have her boyfriend fuck her in the ass.....at least that would loosen her up...


[sm=jerry.gif]



kalikshama -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 2:58:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

That wasn't the case either, and even if it was, the post quoted wasn't deleted.
It's still in this thread.

TOS


We can disallow something without it specifically being mentioned in the Terms of Service, as the TOS cannot cover every single example of what is not allowed.

(Thanks Gamma! Now I see how to do direct links :)







VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 3:17:36 PM)

I believe this is the link you were look for http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4052557


quote:

ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne

We do not allow comments regarding someone needing medications or other indicators of mental illness, unless the person is asking for this information. We can disallow something without it specifically being mentioned in the Terms of Service, as the TOS cannot cover every single example of what is not allowed.

This thread seems to have run its course.




Thank you for your contribution to the forums,
VideoAdminGamma



Edwynn -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 3:38:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Stephen Colbert does a number on Rush. Being skewered does not do justice to what Colbert does to him.



Thanks for that. I was wondering when he was going to chime in.

It would suit me if this affair had the effect of toning things down across the board on these talk shows and political comedy TV shows. I'm tired of the coarseness and all the basically puerile ranting which relegates any serious subject to either a unilateral shouting match or participatory laugh fest.

The ones I find actually funny on occasion are the those relying least (or not at all) on foul language or amplified harshness.





SilverBoat -> RE: Rush Limbaugh, must be so proud of himself... (3/6/2012 7:41:42 PM)

FR: To nobody in particular:

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminGamma
I encourage all members to report posts they actual believe is a violation. We cannot read all posts in all sections, and someone messaged me to let me know about this one (meaning the comment quoted below).
Thanks for being a part of CollarMe,
VideoAdminGamma
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat
quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminGamma
Fast reply
I have pulled some posts that were violations. I have also had to pull the posts that quoted or replied to them, the ones that quoted or replied to them, and the dominos fell. If you did not receive mail, and would like a copy of your post, please contact me.
Thank you for being a part of CollarMe,
VideoAdminGamma

Perhaps there should be some clearer guidelines about what exactly constitutes a violation:
Apparently it's totally okay for certain posters to directly attack others' character, such as repeatedly posting things like "You hate ...  You hate ... based upon what I've seen, you would fit in with the "Party of the People (that hate).
However, it's apparently not okay at all for other posters to suggest that some rightwingers somewhere might be somewhat lunatic because they post extremist rhetoric against not only the leftish posters here but against the moderates here and in public office.
Would VAG care to explain what the precise criteria for TOS violations are in those cases?



The guideline described should be reasonable to any reasonable person when consistently reported and enforced. However, in this case the deleted post did not accuse any poster to these forums of anything at all. It merely laid out specific critique as applied to a general description of a political demographic. Perhaps in this case somebody apparently decided that it applied too unflatteringly or perhaps too inconveniently to themself.

Disclaimer, the following is a general statement about people in general, and is only intended to apply to society or groups in general:

Frankly, I'd expect that any person who considered or protrayed themselves as 'dominant' should be able to address conflicts of opinions or differences of reasoning, by responding in an egalitarian or better manner, including engaging in direct and civil discussion with the persons with whom they'd disagreed, instead of resorting to situational scheming and leverage. YMMV of course, but to some extent that could parallel in some ways how Limbaugh's rhetorical abuses and subsequent responses evolved during recent events. (And that should, politely, return dialogue towards the OP's topic of this thread.)




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125