I have gone back and reviewed a number of past pages on political talk and find political talk works best when members have a reasoned and unemotional response and most importantly stays on message concerning the thread's topic.

As many of you know the political forum was closed when a few posters got out of hand.

A few years later TOTV decided that enough members spoke to the fat that they issued the political forum.

TOTV then re-instituted Political Talk with a template that 1) has given every poster the name "Guest"2) removed the personal message option 3) id not allow editing nor deleting.

While some of these limitation are annoying they apparently were right because we still have among us members who just don't understand the benefit of rational debate.

Long ago I suggested we ignore those type of post and posters, most agreed and indeed it can be difficult at times to ignore them.

So I am going to make a reaffirmation to myself to stay only on point and counter point only to reasonable comments.

Another way of looking at this is I am not going to waste my time swatting at flies when I can metaphorically leave the room

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

I have gone back and reviewed a number of past pages on political talk and find political talk works best when members have a reasoned and unemotional response and most importantly stays on message concerning the thread's topic.

As many of you know the political forum was closed when a few posters got out of hand.

A few years later TOTV decided that enough members spoke to the fat that they issued the political forum.

TOTV then re-instituted Political Talk with a template that 1) has given every poster the name "Guest"2) removed the personal message option 3) id not allow editing nor deleting.

While some of these limitation are annoying they apparently were right because we still have among us members who just don't understand the benefit of rational debate.

Long ago I suggested we ignore those type of post and posters, most agreed and indeed it can be difficult at times to ignore them.

So I am going to make a reaffirmation to myself to stay only on point and counter point only to reasonable comments.

Another way of looking at this is I am not going to waste my time swatting at flies when I can metaphorically leave the room

Personal Best Regards:

You are correct of course, and I am one of the worst offenders on here in responding to the stupidity of the trolls.

I will try but just will add a few things...

The trolls today are for the most part the VERY SAME PEOPLE who destroyed the old political forum....the VERY same. yet they post on the standard forum as if they are a big part of this community.

I will try and control myself but when these trolls mock other posters who make a sincere effort to share how they feel, it just goes right through me.

But you are correct, and I will give my best effort on this.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are correct of course, and I am one of the worst offenders on here in responding to the stupidity of the trolls.

I will try but just will add a few things...

The trolls today are for the most part the VERY SAME PEOPLE who destroyed the old political forum....the VERY same. yet they post on the standard forum as if they are a big part of this community.

I will try and control myself but when these trolls mock other posters who make a sincere effort to share how they feel, it just goes right through me.

But you are correct, and I will give my best effort on this.

Dear Guest: I agree and if the past is prologue to the future then if members acknowledge their rants they win the attention they seek....and losers shouldn't win or even think they have won

Further they bring nothing of value to the table and they don't bring anything of value because they don't have the emotional, perhaps even intelligent capacity to do so.

so let them rant but let them rant in isolation

Their at it again on TOPIX.

I moved here knowing I was going into a republican town. Is that a bad thing? I would like to see a application submitted before your approved to live here.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are correct of course, and I am one of the worst offenders on here in responding to the stupidity of the trolls.

I will try but just will add a few things...

The trolls today are for the most part the VERY SAME PEOPLE who destroyed the old political forum....the VERY same. yet they post on the standard forum as if they are a big part of this community.

I will try and control myself but when these trolls mock other posters who make a sincere effort to share how they feel, it just goes right through me.

But you are correct, and I will give my best effort on this.

I'm relatively new to the Villages and did not take part in the "old one". I do see too much opinion based on emotion instead of facts. I notice the word troll thrown around rather liberally but often because someone didn't agree with someone else's post regardless of facts. This is very evident when Obama, Iraq, government spending, etc are discussed (what passes as discussed). The facts are ignored and emotions rule.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm relatively new to the Villages and did not take part in the "old one". I do see too much opinion based on emotion instead of facts. I notice the word troll thrown around rather liberally but often because someone didn't agree with someone else's post regardless of facts. This is very evident when Obama, Iraq, government spending, etc are discussed (what passes as discussed). The facts are ignored and emotions rule.

Well said, and very true.

Grandfinch

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm relatively new to the Villages and did not take part in the "old one". I do see too much opinion based on emotion instead of facts. I notice the word troll thrown around rather liberally but often because someone didn't agree with someone else's post regardless of facts. This is very evident when Obama, Iraq, government spending, etc are discussed (what passes as discussed). The facts are ignored and emotions rule.

Your point is well grounded. I try to give links to what I say to avoid doubters on facts, and find that so many just do not read what is presented.

I give kudos to some of the earliest members of political back in 2008, and even before that in the political forum predecessor. While I had many disagreements with some very liberal posters, it was never even close to anyone trolling. They READ and then responded in kind with backup and posts filled with information.

I can honestly say, as a conservative,I learned a lot from those folks, and while we surely jousters, never was I done in JUST that manner and the little asides were done with the understanding that I read your post, did not agree, and here is why..followed by substance instead of mockery.

The unfinished sentence of "Political Talk Works Best When" could have "say only in writing what you would say face to face to the person or group of persons about whom you are talking".

That way we would not see posts about gays being a perversion nor an entire class of Americans "procreating like gerbils". Those may be personal beliefs but would you actually say them in a Rainbow Club meeting or at lunch at the Wildwood Soup Kitchen?

Originally Posted by Guest

The unfinished sentence of "Political Talk Works Best When" could have "say only in writing what you would say face to face to the person or group of persons about whom you are talking".

That way we would not see posts about gays being a perversion nor an entire class of Americans "procreating like gerbils". Those may be personal beliefs but would you actually say them in a Rainbow Club meeting or at lunch at the Wildwood Soup Kitchen?

I KNOW I am responding to one of the trolls, but....

First, you first sentence is dead on...absolute.

I wanted to speak to your next sentence and in a manner of discussion.

Gays are a perversion to many religious sects. Acceptance of gays is a new headline on the social map.

I suggest you read more about the book I posted on. This morning the gay movement and gay marriage was used as an example on the Morning Joe program. On gay marriage was this point.....why does someone who for their entire life, and still, who believe in a marriage between a man and a woman and have for years and years be ostracized for believing that. Why are they bad for believing that. The point is, your point of view cannot be thrown out and if anyone disagrees, they are bigoted or racist. I hope you understand the point I am making. I am not discussing that issue.....gay marriage, but the attitude that people bring to the debate. Why mock those who do not believe in gay marriage ?

I also hate the comment on procreating like gerbils although it was not aimed at any particular race or anything, it is deragatory. The point of it not aimed at any particular group was cleared up after the post was reviewed.

BIG Point is the one about judging those who do not agree with you on, especially social issues. Having things thrown in your face, and then called names because you do not conform to the "new liberal" thinking is not fair at all. I have said I am sick and tired of being called racist for all of the wrong reasons and that term is used much too freely. I am not a bigot, yet I, as you know, have been called a old man bigot. Why was I called that ? Because I have different views on the law, work ethic, etc. I am using this next as JUST AN EXAMPLE. The jump to judgment in Ferguson Mo. calling everyone within 24 hours racists, and bigots and turning that city into a nightmare was inexcusable, yet....we had reasons.

I am just saying.....you cannot force your beliefs on others by jumping on them and calling them names. I am very defensive any more, and you do not know me, but I think I can say with no fear of contradiction have done more for racial equality over the last 60 + years than you or most in The Villages. Not because I am a better person, but because I was thrust into that position as a very young man and it became my life. YET, I am called a bigot, not because I said anything bad about a race, but because I do not agree with our President, who happens to be black, or because I believe this country is of the law first and there are ways to do things. That makes me a bigot or a racist....I disagree.

Thanks for reading if you actually did......just understand on these social issues, you cannot shove them on people and call them names because they do not accept it. 13 years ago, it was illegal to engage sodomy, and today almost 40 % of the countries of the world consider it to be illegal. Judism and Catholicism still consider it un natural acts...two of the worlds largest religions. I am not making a case either way here, just trying to tell you that attacking people is just not fair because they feel differently than you.

Originally Posted by Guest

First, you first sentence is dead on...absolute.

I wanted to speak to your next sentence and in a manner of discussion.

Gays are a perversion to many religious sects. Acceptance of gays is a new headline on the social map.

Why mock those who do not believe in gay marriage ?

I also hate the comment on procreating like gerbils although it was not aimed at any particular race or anything, it is deragatory. The point of it not aimed at any particular group was cleared up after the post was reviewed.

I am not making a case either way here, just trying to tell you that attacking people is just not fair because they feel differently than you.

Very well written and thought out on your part.

I did write that a person may have those personal beliefs that gays are a pervertion or that a class of people (let's call them poor people on welfare - as I am assuming (dangerous, I know) that is what the poster meant - do have a lot of children for the welfare benefits. Even if someone has those personal beliefs, they ARE NOT going to be saying them face to face to those examples I gave as The Rainbow Coalition or The Wildwood Soup Kitchen. So, they are not statements that belong on the forum. They can be said, maybe in somewhat of a softened way such as: I do not believe in gay marriage as it is taught in my church to be a sin. If a person does not accept gays or gay marriage, that is their personal right - just as it the right of other to do so. I am not mocking anyone.

You do have to admit a lot of the language regarding Ferguson was racist in nature. Both sides went a little crazy and off topic many times. Should not have done that.

I am very glad to hear you are not racist at all. That is how we all should strive to be in the 21st century.

Maybe we all can be a little kinder and gentler. Have a good evening.

Oh, we are having a warm and fuzzy moment? Grow a pair and get on with real political discussions.

Originally Posted by Guest

Very well written and thought out on your part.

I did write that a person may have those personal beliefs that gays are a pervertion or that a class of people (let's call them poor people on welfare - as I am assuming (dangerous, I know) that is what the poster meant - do have a lot of children for the welfare benefits. Even if someone has those personal beliefs, they ARE NOT going to be saying them face to face to those examples I gave as The Rainbow Coalition or The Wildwood Soup Kitchen. So, they are not statements that belong on the forum. They can be said, maybe in somewhat of a softened way such as: I do not believe in gay marriage as it is taught in my church to be a sin. If a person does not accept gays or gay marriage, that is their personal right - just as it the right of other to do so. I am not mocking anyone.

You do have to admit a lot of the language regarding Ferguson was racist in nature. Both sides went a little crazy and off topic many times. Should not have done that.

I am very glad to hear you are not racist at all. That is how we all should strive to be in the 21st century.

Maybe we all can be a little kinder and gentler. Have a good evening.

Dear Guest: I began this thread and based on comments such as yours believe perhaps I failed in my communication. First what you and other members are commenting about is called "political correctness" that is not what I define as a troll.

A troll to me is a poster who's clear and only intent is create chaos by making outrageous comments that are irrational and have no value to the topic at hand.

Back to your points. Political correctness is wrong because civil discourse is not allowed to continue. Free speech by its nature is going to offend someone and what I believe is that liberals do not understand or ignore the limits to nature. So addressing one's believe as to sex, God is not trolling. You may disagree and you may be offended but it is not trolling

So you would demand that gay marriage means that people must accept that two people of the same sex have the legal right to marry. Yet you would deny a claim by others that gay marriage is an oxymoron and that it is by nature scientifically an impossibility.

Having said that if you pursue a conversation with an opponent ,you will find that what many traditionalist want is a preservation of the meaning of a man and a woman. The LGBT by its very being intends to destroy it. I am not against gay unions to preserve their constitutional rights. I would not be that presumptious . However I am against the Supreme Court, this country redefining the civilized worlds definition of marriage since the beginnning of time to be anything but a union between one man one woman. Because once that definition is breached you are going to have irrational people making claim to all sort of sexual rights.


Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest: I began this thread and based on comments such as yours believe perhaps I failed in my communication. First what you and other members are commenting about is called "political correctness" that is not what I define as a troll.

A troll to me is a poster who's clear and only intent is create chaos by making outrageous comments that are irrational and have no value to the topic at hand.

Back to your points. Political correctness is wrong because civil discourse is not allowed to continue. Free speech by its nature is going to offend someone and what I believe is that liberals do not understand or ignore the limits to nature. So addressing one's believe as to sex, God is not trolling. You may disagree and you may be offended but it is not trolling

So you would demand that gay marriage means that people must accept that two people of the same sex have the legal right to marry. Yet you would deny a claim by others that gay marriage is an oxymoron and that it is by nature scientifically an impossibility.

Having said that if you pursue a conversation with an opponent ,you will find that what many traditionalist want is a preservation of the meaning of a man and a woman. The LGBT by its very being intends to destroy it. I am not against gay unions to preserve their constitutional rights. I would not be that presumptious . However I am against the Supreme Court, this country redefining the civilized worlds definition of marriage since the beginnning of time to be anything but a union between one man one woman. Because once that definition is breached you are going to have irrational people making claim to all sort of sexual rights.


Personal Best Regards:

I think you missed the point of what I wrote. I stated a person has a right to whatever personal belief on gays they have. However, express those views on the forum as you would in a face to face conversation to someone who is gay. I do not think you would, as a decent person, tell a gay person to his face that they are a perversion, would you? Saying you are against legalized gay marriage is fine but calling it a perversion to a gay person's face would be very hurtful.

The entire post was on posting on a forum as if it were face to face communication.

The face to face thing sounds like the only way a reasonable person would do any forum posting. If I would not say a statement to your (or a group) I would not post it on a public forum even though the names are anonymous.