We need clarity on what can be discussed.

ddk · Mar 26, 2014

Steve Williams said:
David

your agenda was not the thread topic. It seems that whenever something remotely involves health care you are leaping in with all guns loaded to discuss what you have done here all too commonly in threads. In fact it was shortly after you joined, if you recall, your very first thread as a member was one on the same things you are posting now.I sent you several private warnings to this effect and suggested you back off a bit, and yet there seems to be two rules, the TOS by which all members abide , or your own rules which allow you to continually post against warnings.

WBF is not a political or a religious board, nor do I espouse a closed formation of a subforum on politics and/or religion and I agree with Amir's proposal as to what should be allowed which then brings me back to the notion of threads being moderated with appropriate posts being deleted for political or religious content

I jump in a lot of different topics here Steve and this thread was discussing ACA, was it not open to everyone? What I'm missing and unclear about is where you're setting the boundaries. That thread was already somewhere else when I joined the conversation, I didn't direct to there. The last comment there was my attempt to bring the discussion back to ACA by defining it and away from general healthcare discussion that it had become. I'm sorry if I'm not reading you correctly on this, and that's what this is about.

david

ddk · Mar 26, 2014

amirm said:
Again, I have not read the thread and don't know what your reference means. To the extent these threads create tension, our only fallback option would be to have none of it. That would be a shame.

Of course it will Amir, but so will a discussion on power cords. Politics, religion, guns, race, etc. have always been hot topics and will always be, you either have it or you don't and that's what you need to decide on. But to limit the conversation when its on the table? hmmm, what's point of starting it in the first place?

david

Phelonious Ponk · Mar 26, 2014

ddk said:
ACA has a direct impact on 300 million people, its the most decisive policy from the most divisive government probably in the history of the nation, you don't think that its important enough to allow some discussion on the subject? Its your choice, its either the Best of Everything Forum or Best of Audio Forum.

david

A perfect example of where a civil discussion veers into the weeds. If people could avoid ideological hyperbole, we'd all be able to talk politics. They can't.

Tim

mep · Mar 26, 2014

That thread was a train wreck waiting to happen which is why I didn't post on it. I tried to take a different angle with another thread but was quickly discouraged and I asked to have it removed. Political threads seem to bring the worst out of some people that you ordinarily would never expect to see that from.

es347 · Mar 26, 2014

Phelonious Ponk said:
A perfect example of where a civil discussion veers into the weeds. If people could avoid ideological hyperbole, we'd all be able to talk politics. They can't.

Tim

I'll keep my reply civil Steve...how can anyone argue regarding the divisive nature of the ACA? Look what it's done here on WBF and I submit that we're a microcosm of the country..

mep · Mar 26, 2014

I think this thread is starting to be a continuation of the thread that was closed. Get your digs in quick before this thread is closed too.

Steve Williams · Mar 26, 2014

I agree Mark

Let the Admin team discuss it and hopefully our decision will be satisfactory to all

Search

Search

We need clarity on what can be discussed.

ddk

Well-Known Member

ddk

Well-Known Member

Phelonious Ponk

New Member

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

es347

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator

Similar threads

Members online