Shortly after TOTV opened it became apparent that not all participants wanted to engage in civil discourse. So I authored a topic which essentially said ignore the trolls and perhaps they will go away.

A look back at various topics demonstrates that it is not working. So perhaps an re-affirmation is in order.

The majority of us simply want to engage in civil discourse. Perhaps the creation and adherence of a mission statement will assist us in reaching that goal. I'll make a first attempt and look forward for some guidance from more gifted members

Where as it is beneficial to the exchange of ideas
and said ideas are best express by good faith intent
we as members will engage in civil discourse
to promote fair and balanced understanding of issues
and to respect the rights and feeling of others

If the majority reject this idea as unnecessary let's at least all make an effort to ignore the malcontents because honestly it is just taking away the joy and benefit of Political Talk. And for those of us on TOTV for sometime the limited range of topics in other categories on this forum don't leave much. I mean how many times can you talk about round-a-bouts, eateries, multi-modal paths or speeders etc. Respectively Submitted

Personal Best Regards:

The intention is noteable. However, I fear will have little effect of those whose only objective is to aggrivate and irritate.

I know I personally ignore a lot of the purposeful disrupting dialogue. However there are some personal attacks and just wrong statements I find I am unable to ignore, knowing full well the response has zero effect on the perpetrator.

Perhaps your mission is somewhat accomplished by the very fact it is presented.
And in spirit I 100% support.

I believe there are two lines of thought regarding handling of petulant, disruptive and unruly children:

Ignore them and hope they settle down because they are not getting the attention they seek.

Or,

Chastise them for their bad manners such as name calling, and disrespect and hope that they are satisfied with the embarrassment of the negative attention that they obtained.

The problem with your goal is anyone that doesn't agree with you is a malcontent. The worse thing that you could bring up is "fair and balance". Given the current state of politics, where the parties are so far apart on everything, nothing is fair or balanced.

Concerning this board, the probation scene from Animal House is prefect. Delta House is the Democratic party. The verdict was in before the hearing even started. The Democratic here are the ones being told to sit down, and shut up. That is passes for "fair and balanced" here.

Respectfully submitted, Douglas Niedermeyer, Sargent At Arms.

The fact of the matter is most people here don't want to hear from anyone that remotely doesn't agree with them.

A distinct disadvantage of the "guest" assignation for all is not having any reference to, how many.

I sometimes get the impression there are about a dozen of us in total with one to three that have no respect for opposing opinions.

Not that knowing would change the behavior, but it sure would help (or disappoint maybe) to know the profile of the forum at any given point in time.

Originally Posted by Guest

The problem with your goal is anyone that doesn't agree with you is a malcontent. The worse thing that you could bring up is "fair and balance". Given the current state of politics, where the parties are so far apart on everything, nothing is fair or balanced.

Concerning this board, the probation scene from Animal House is prefect. Delta House is the Democratic party. The verdict was in before the hearing even started. The Democratic here are the ones being told to sit down, and shut up. That is passes for "fair and balanced" here.

Respectfully submitted, Douglas Niedermeyer, Sargent At Arms.

The fact of the matter is most people here don't want to hear from anyone that remotely doesn't agree with them.

I believe there is a difference between disagreement and abusive name calling. One is civil and the other is lack of manners. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Guest

The problem with your goal is anyone that doesn't agree with you is a malcontent. The worse thing that you could bring up is "fair and balance". Given the current state of politics, where the parties are so far apart on everything, nothing is fair or balanced.

Concerning this board, the probation scene from Animal House is prefect. Delta House is the Democratic party. The verdict was in before the hearing even started. The Democratic here are the ones being told to sit down, and shut up. That is passes for "fair and balanced" here.

Respectfully submitted, Douglas Niedermeyer, Sargent At Arms.

The fact of the matter is most people here don't want to hear from anyone that remotely doesn't agree with them.

I don't agree with your last statement highlighted above, but I respect your opinion and hope that you continue to opine on this forum. I say that because it appears that you do so in a respectful fashion and I think that is all that anyone wants, instead of the infantile name-calling and party one-liners only intended to be used as a put down and to inflame. Those are the posts one should ignore (note to self!), not posts like yours above.

I think the key words in the OP's post are "civil discourse". There have been some moments on here where that has happened and it is refreshing to see. Even if one does not agree with another's way of thinking, it doesn't mean you can't learn something from that person. I think that is what most of us hope to achieve on this forum. Just getting "high fives" and agreement on every post we make can be equally as boring as the trolling, so please carry on with your civil discourse.

Btw.....I do agree with the lack of fair and balanced no matter the party. See we can agree on some things!

For some agreeing to disagree is not an option, hence the problem.

Originally Posted by Guest

For some agreeing to disagree is not an option, hence the problem.