PDA

View Full Version : You really shouldn't stir sleeping Dragons



Dragonamant
09-11-2009, 12:29 PM
Interesting.. Once again the voices proved too much. Ban someone, lock an obviously popular thread, delete some posts ...

Did any one notice the missing posts from the thread that is now locked? Did anyone besides daBaroness and Ysobell feel that the conversation had become too heated for adults wenches or rogues to decide whether we were interested in discussing, debating and venting anymore? Did anyone notice the purposeful bomb dropped and then the holy crap, lock it down, lock it down, and the sidewise I'm sorry, please don't respond?

I have said very little here since my defense of Capt. Stamina. I know this is your board and, as a rogue, I am a guest, but the posting stirred the still waters and refired my anger and sadness at all of this, as it apparently did with several of you.

I would never have researched this had not the crap been brought out again. That's how I know the thread was modified. The posting that led me to a method to find the Capt's postings has been removed. All the people supporting the Capt's ban screech about the terrible things he posted. Well, judge for yourselves, here are his last posts These represent the totallity of his postings for from 9/15/08 to his ban on 11/10/08. The links to his attributions did not copy in my quotes, but they exist in the orginal post if you follow the links see the contexts and the posts to which he was replying. At least they do today.


Early reports coming in is that there was some damage around the TRF area, no exact word on the faire itself or the booths since communications with the people in the area is limited. Hoping to get some word in the next couple of days and will pass it on.

Here's just the thing to show you hate her special needs child as well.
Just stay classy.


Article here

<snip>
Many scary stories have been written about the dangers of catastrophic global warming, allegedly due to increased atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of fossil fuels. But is the world really catastrophically warming? NO. And is the warming primarily caused by humans? NO.

Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared! This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979.

Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, is spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.

Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year.

<snip>

Uh-huh. So Gore was wrong huh?


Well lets just look at your teeth


Ok, statistics and politics aside.

If you honestly accept that GW, GC, or what every it's called now, is influence by man, then I would like to know who has actually calculated their carbon footprint and paid out money to offset it. I donít want to hear about all the things that youíve done or are going to do, I want to know who actually put up money to offset their footprint and if youíre going to do it for the rest of your life?


It was just a question, and was not meant to be insulting. I just brought it up since I had someone jump all over me for my stance on this issues. And when I pressed back asking for specifics, he really wasnít doing all that much, didnít know what his carbon footprint was, and no he wasnít going to pay for offsetting his footprint because that was something the Ďrichí people should be doing for him. So I summed it up for him; basically heís someone who wants others to sacrifice and pay for his beliefs, be able to speak his mind, and be able to chastise anyone that doesnít believe the way that he does with out repercussion or discussion.

His cheeks turned to an interesting color of red, was told I had no idea what I was talking about, and it was the first time I actually had someone spit as they called me a Ďnazií before storming away. Which led me to post the question on the board.


Since you want to be nasty about it, I'll tell you. He carries the recycle bins to the curb. His wife is the one that loads them. And at work, everything recyclable or not ends up in his trash can, not the designated recycle bin.

Since you have no idea what I do or don't do in terms recycling or conservation, its nice to know you don't judge others. I guess I'm just the exception, huh?


Again another false story to maligne the reputation of someone. Funny how the originator can perform a fact check everyone else's posts and call them out when their wrong, but doesn't do it for herself nor does she come back and state she was wrong. I guess being the 'moderator' means you can do what ever you want and not be held accountable.

It's so pathetic that the success of one woman has turned a bunch of people into liars and rumor mongers bent on distroying the repution of one woman, rather than people that look for the truth about what's going on.

article here

<snip>

The charge stems from a May 22, 2000 article in the local Wasilla paper The Frontiersman and has been spun from a comment made by the Wasilla Police Chief. This comment was somehow made into a Sarah Palin policy. Evidence of the incident, though, shows no involvement by Palin at all. Still, many Old Media outlets continue to keep illegitimately linking this rape kit billing claim to Sarah Palin, even though the truth is easily discovered.

As mentioned first up was The Frontiersman story from 2000. In that story Police Chief Fannon was quoted as standing against legislation that would force local municipalities to pick up the costs of rape kits being performed. In the interview Fannon said that, upon conviction, he favored the criminals being charged for the costs.

The story mentions that Fannon claimed that at the time Wasilla did have a policy that rape victims' insurance would be charged for the kits being performed but there was no mention that victims themselves were charged and no claim that any ever were. It should be pointed out that The Frontiersman is the local Wasilla paper, so, consequently, the story did not mention what the policy was in any other Alaskan city outside the area the paper covers other than to say that "most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams." This last phrase has been focused on by Palin's detractors and spun from "some municipalities" into "all" (except Wasilla) and presented as some sort of proof that she hates rape victims.

After Palin was picked to be VP, on September 8, a blog called Americablog found the old story and brought it up as evidence of "a rather nasty window into Sarah Palin." Americablog is run by a man named John Aravosis, a Democratic strategist, sometimes gay activist, and Washington D.C. lawyer who once worked for Alaska Senator Ted Steven before he, Aravosis, formally switching to the Democratic Party.

Later that day The Daily Kos also picked it up and from here it began to morph even further adding false claims to the story. In one of those additions to the story, Kos blogger Steven R claimed that Palin hired Police Chief Fannon because he was in favor of charging rape victims for rape kits. Steven R said he was "Pro-Charging Rape Victims for their OWN TESTS!!!" (bold in original). I cannot find this claim anywhere prior to the meme being picked up by the Old Media echoing this Kos diarist.

According to the Uniform Crime Reports for Wasilla, up until 2000 only one rape had been reported to police in Wasilla. The Kos diarist tried to claim that one rape reported equalled one rape conviction alleging that all the "other" rapes were not convicted. But the report clearly says that it was one rape reported not one rape convicted. The Daily Kos Diarist was trying to make it seem as if there were all sorts of rapes going on that weren't being reported and, presumably, all sorts of victims being charged for rape kits.

<snip>


For those who booked hotels, double check your reservation. I know one Rogue who had his room canceled because of Ike.

For anyone that wants to camp, PM me for a phone number so you can find us and let us know how much room you need at the site for your tent and stuff.


No, but threatening or hinting at prosecution for exercising your right to free speech I would consider fascist. His lawyers have already sent threatening letters over NRA ads. Thereís been the appeal to the Justice Department over the Ayers ad.

Seems to be a pattern forming here. Critize the big '0' and get threatened with prosecution. It worked in Chicago, must work across the rest of the country right?


Not to worry, karma will eventually balance everything out again. Unless you're a beliver of the rule of threes.


I could care less what it's call, both sides have them, but as far I can tell only one side is threating people with leagal actions.

Like I said, there's a pattern emerging. And believe me; I don't like McCain either and if it were him doing this, I'd be posting it as well. I happen to enjoy my freedoms and I'll be damn sure to fight for them from any politician. We all going to get the shaft no mater who gets elected this time. Now it just a matter of voting for the one you thing is going to be the least painful to you.

Article here

<snip>
NOT ALL COUNTRIES guarantee their citizens the right to virtually unbridled freedom of speech. The United States does. Would someone please tell the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama? And the dozing guardians of liberty at the University of Mary Washington?

Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to speak at a rally at the university today. The public is invited to this forum, on property it, the public, owns. However, signs and banners will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus officials. Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of politicos. Why does an Obama rally--or a McCain rally or a Nader rally--justify taking a little off the top of Americans' most fundamental rights?

<snip>


Sorry, but since I got a new work assignment, I canít always get back to the boards as often as I used to or would like. But if it bothers you that much, why bother responding in the first place?

And it would be nice to actually be able to debate on a topic, but the art of debating is lost on this board. Topics get twisted to becoming anti-something or other and can never stay on topic.


It's time to get the tar, feathers, poles and ropes together. Need to run some congresspeople out of town once and for all.


Extended Prognostication for opening weekend:

Friday: Mostly Cloudy, Hi: 84 Low: 67, Precip: 10%
Sat: Scattered T-storms Hi: 81, Low: 63, Precip: 40%
Sun: Scattered T-storms Hi: 75, Low: 57, Precip: 60%


Iím surprised that it hasnít happened in the US yet. But when it does, it will most likely be in a state that disavows discrimination against Ďsexual orientationí. Figure that someone will hire a lawyer and challenge that his/her rights are being violated because their Ďsexual orientationí involves minors. Normally such a claim would be thrown out, but since there are too many judges that interpret law based on public opinion and feel the need to impose Ďsocial justiceí as they see it, the claim just might stand.


No I'm not. What I am stating is there can be a difference when providing an interpretation of 'sexual orientation'. The original intent may have been directed to protecting homosexuals, but that's not what's written. The laws read 'sexual orientation' and that can be turned and twisted to mean a whole lot of different things.

As far as a teacher and student having sex, my personal opinion is its wrong regardless of the student's age; and that includes college students and their professors.


Article here.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Circuit City Stores has filed for bankruptcy about a week after it said it would close 20 percent of its stores.

The Richmond, Virginia-based electronics retailer has been struggling as nervous consumers spend less and credit has become tighter. It filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday.

Chapter 11 protection typically allows a company to hold off creditors and operate as normal while it develops a financial reorganization plan.

Circuit City says it has more than $1 billion in assets and more than $1 billion in liabilities. Courts do not require companies to provide more specific figures in filings.


Wonder if this is the change that was being talked about. Everything you earn along with savings is going to be the governments to take and distribute as they see fit.

Article here.

<snip>
RALEIGH ‚ÄĒ Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers‚Äô personal retirement accounts ‚ÄĒ including 401(k)s and IRAs ‚ÄĒ and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on ‚ÄúThe Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers‚Äô Retirement Security,‚ÄĚ blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will ‚Äústrengthen and protect Americans‚Äô 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans‚ÄĚ and the ‚ÄúDemocratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.‚ÄĚ

<snip>


The rumors I have heard, but have yet to verify are:

1. Government is going to take over all 401ks and IRAs.
2. Company contributions are no longer going to be applied
3. The Government is going to ensure the accounts and supply at 3% interest.

Assuming that any of this is valid; I do not need the Government to take over any of my money, period. I donít need them turning my accounts into a savings account earning a lousy 3% interest rate. And last but not least, if they have control over the accounts then a few years from now theyíll just find some way to confiscate the whole thing and take it all to Ďspread the wealth aroundí.

I think anyone in office even contemplating this idea should be tarred and feathered.


I just posted a link to an article, posted what rumors I had heard, and said I haven't varified the information. It may or may not come to pass. But judging from the wonderful track record of Congress, it wouldn't surprise me if they did do this. There's been a big push to have the government take more and more control over individual liberties; everything from retirement, to healthcare, to child care, to property rights, etc.

I just don't like the idea of trusting my health, money, and liberties to people who can't ballance their own personal budget let alone the countries budget.


I seem to recall a whole series of threads concerning a certain female politician that just were founded on a bunch of half truths and lies. That didnít seem to bother anyone and people went off and looked into it. What I did isnít any different. I posted something and people are free to look into it further or not. If youíre not concerned, then donít worry about it.


Believe it or not, not everyone on the boards thinks the way you do. While there are many that believe in socialism and I can identify one fascist; there are several here that are conservatives. Now as hard as it may be for your liberal ego to take, you werenít the intended audience of the information.

And since youíre new to the boards the usual and predictable responses to my threads go along the following lines:

First: My data/information is tainted or not unreliable,
Second: I donít have a clue as to what Iím talking about,
Third: threat of some sort (on occasion)
Finally: Name calling

Itís an old and tiring pattern and I just donít fell like going through the BS anymore. You donít like my posts, then donít read them.


Needless to say, I havenít read anything past the first posting of the Webmistress nor do I intend to. I will say I was very surprised to read her posting and have now spent many hours contemplating over this. It was only after remembering a particular thread posted a while back from one of the Rogues that clarity set in and I now saw what was going on. This has nothing to do with my views, the postings Iíve made, or what I have written; itís about fear.

The thread concerned about what had happened to the boards. It was at one time a fun place to go, to discuss ideas and issues, and have playful banter. Itís been twisted and perverted into a myopic view of the world. The boards over the years have been hijacked by a small set of like minded individuals who have basically bullied and intimidated people that donít agree with them to either get off the boards or just lurk. And as of late people have begun to question and argue as to why only a certain viewpoint is acceptable and they are afraid that they are losing their control on the little world that they created.

As for me, I never gave in to their intimidation. I continued to post my views in spite of the snarky remarks, the name calling, the twist of my words and statements, and the obscenities. Iíve had better than the likes of this ilk try to intimidate me and they werenít successful either. Since I refused to cower, they went to the Webmistress and complained and complained and complained. I guess it was a final act of desperation to maintain their control to get the Webmistress to demand that I either get off the boards or be thrown off.

I donít envy the Webmistressí position in this at all. If Iím allowed to stay, she will continue to be pounded by posts from this minority on how mean and nasty I am. If she does throw me off then a dangerous precedent has then been set. The small minority can then complain about anyone else they donít like and have they banished from the boards as well. Once it starts, at what point do you stop? Itís not a nice position to be in.

What this all basically boils down to is what is it that Wenches want? Do you want to leave things as they are, the public view of the Wenches guild being that of a small minority? Or are you willing to stand up to a bunch of bullies and take back the boards? Itís your individual call; I canít do it for you. If youíre happy with the way things are, then sit back and enjoy, if you want to take the boards back, all I can tell you is not to take the attacks that you will get personally, stand by your convictions, and have the grace to apologize when proven wrong. I wish you all the best of luck.

I want to thank those that have posted to me privately for their support and well wishes. I do have many friends that are still on the boards, so I will have an ear as to whatís going on. There may be some tough times ahead so keep in touch with each other and give each other support as needed; youíll all be fine.


Does anything here warrant banning from the site? Which posting was the straw that broke the camel's back? How many posters in the Issues section have not felt as strongly about some things.

I know we all have our opinions and that some of you will never like the Capt. That's fine. But my problem is when the decision to read a thread or to post a reply or to ignore a thread or a user is removed from the members of the board. If I told you what you could read and say as wenches, you'd have my balls in a sling. I don't know why you stand for it here.

My 2 cents.

Ysobelle
09-11-2009, 12:43 PM
Wow.

You have a problem with his banning, you take it up with Snipe. This entire conversation is over. It was over last night. Stop stirring shit up again.

And I removed nothing. I locked the threads. Like I'm about to do now.