I lifted these from the General forum....I wonder if that's legal. Kinda like an attempt at cross pollination of posts between forums. I know if the cross pollination was reversed, Political to General, one of the gleeful, political forum critics would remind us that they won the "subscription" argument and with prompt dispatch, would drop a dime on the administrators to report their outrage. I feel comfortable being sarcastic because surely they would not enter this offensive forum whose ignoble demise they encouraged. "Demise"...., I agree that term is arguable which is why I am posting now. As an aside, I am a hardcore, offshore, bluewater fisherman....I am conversant with "baits" and "baiting" in case you were wondering.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

What if you had a big party at your home and a fairly large number of the attendees entered into a loud political discussion in the kitchen and it became heated at times. Then some of the other guests started to complain to you that it was straining their enjoyment. What would you do?

Originally Posted by cabo35

I would tell them to stay out of the kitchen. Anyone offended by comments in political, entered by choice and read what offended them of their own volition. No one told them to enter and read. It was a matter of choice. Their kinda like the people who complain about all the sex, violence and nudity in "R" rated movies but keep viewing them so they can report how offensive the content is. Or.....the man who reported lewd, lascivious conduct to the police. He stated that his neighbors had sex every night in their pool for three weeks. He had set up a step ladder by his fence and watched them every evening. The couple in the pool was offended and filed a counter complaint for invasion of privacy....there goes the neighborhood. This did not happen in the Villages.

My observation and personal opinion is that the partisan breakdown of the Political Forum, roughly mirrors the ideological persuasion of Villagers as reflected in voting trends in this area.

In the 2008 Sumter County presidential election where The Villages makes up a major portion of the electorate, it is interesting to note the result was overwhelmingly (63.01%) for McCain. Obama received only 36.04% of the vote. 82% of eligible voters went to the polls.

30,866 Sumter residents voted for McCain
17,655 voted for Obama

While I do not suggest that all the advocates for silencing political debate in an open forum are of a persuasion that tilts to the left....a compelling argument can be made to validate that claim. I will not elaborate because I will surely be censored for hijacking a thread in a general forum for political talk....even though I didn't start it.

It initially occurred to me that the banishment of the Political forum to the basement of TOTV was based on the sensitivity and/or bias of partisans who were distressed by hardball rhetoric that was inconsistent with their own views. I suspected and speculated that the administrators were being hoodwinked by those with alternate political motivations...like silencing powerful opposing views because logic and common sense precluded them from winning honest debate in an open forum. Pressure for censorship is easier in the private sector.

Before you hit the delete button....I no longer believe that was the case. I took some time off from posting...to the pleasure of some....but must confess to a little lurking to see which way the winds would blow. This thread gives abundant insight. I have seen the administrators make a sincere effort to support the Political Forum with ads, posts and other road maps to the forum. I congratulate them on that effort. True to form, the political forum bashers and critics revert to form and continue to criticize posters from the Political Forum....from a venue outside that evil forum. Weird irony. "Racists"?

I still believe an "opt out" switch would have been fairer and greatly reduced the suspicions about motivations and the "spanking" of political forum contributors. I believe the administrators when they state that opting out was a technically impossible alternative.

A tip of the hat to Bucco, BTK, rshoffer, JimJoe, Muncle and zcaveman (for making the most profound contribution by accident or design ROTFLMAO), et al for standing your ground. Thanks to Tony and Talkhost for having the courage to start and contribute to a "hot" thread. It's getting dark....I'm going to jump in the pool with my wife now.

After lurking without posting in my favorite forum since the banishment, it occurred to me that the zest, challenge, intellectual stimulation and fun of once reasonably unbridled political talk has diminished. Please post if you have a different opinion.

A fair amount of time has passed since Political was unceremoniously uprooted and transplanted to the obvious, articulated pleasure of its critics. By now, measurable trends should start to become apparent and an honest although futile review of consequences would be interesting and informative to many. I would like to know if an empirical look at the numbers would support or dispute diminished interest. I originally stumbled on the forum while exploring the site. It seems a bit harder to "stumble" into Political now that the boo birds have had their way. I wonder how many potential posters the forum has lost. I know the administrators have honestly tried to shore Political up as indicated in the above posts. That in itself tells me there is at least a minor concern about the import of the "subscription" issue. I also recognize how time consuming the policing of an active political forum can be. Did things occasionally get out of hand? For certain. However, some of the worst examples of inappropriate context on this site that I have ever seen came out of the General forum. Once again, without resurrecting old ghosts, the administration did yeoman work in cleaning it up.

The bottom line is.....do you feel the same about the political forum post "subscription" as you did before? Has it changed? For the better?

As always, your thoughtful and valued observations are appreciated.

For all the good efforts put forth to guide visitors to the fact that a political forum exists, there is no doubt many that do not read the adverts will not know about it.

The other very notable change is the chronic sniping and reveling about the change to the political forum in the other forums....which are for the most part baited posts....drawing the expected moths to the "flame".

Other than that all we can hope for is that the newbies who have an interest will eventually find their way.

I guess we will get a really good handle during the election years when much more huffing and puffing comes from all sides.

Time is supposed to be the salve that heals....we just need a period of time when there is no picking at the scab.

btk

The administrators are very pleased with the current tenor of the political forum. Those who found it too difficult to make two mouse clicks have apparently decided to go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

The administrators are very pleased with the current tenor of the political forum. Those who found it too difficult to make two mouse clicks have apparently decided to go elsewhere.

The issue cannot cavalierly be dismissed by suggesting it is rooted in "two mouse clicks". That is either colossally disingenuous or a calculated insult to those who harbor sincere opinions that conflict with your own. It is hard to believe anyone is critical of the simple process you implemented to make transition to subscription transparent. I believe you know that....which is why it makes your response even more puzzling. You own the ballpark and can do with it what you wish. That is clearly understood. The New York Times owns the paper but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their editorial agenda....not that I believe you have an agenda as sinister as the New York Times.

I am sure you are pleased with the diluted "tenor" of the forum. Tenor being the active word, your word, not mine. More than one poster has acknowledged the distilled "tenor" you yourself acknowledge by your choice of that word. Why not say the 'Political forum has more posts and views than ever before'? It has exceeded our expectations with snappy dialogue and stimulating debate.' How about taking a shot at answering the questions in my original post with empirical objectivity (numbers) instead of subjective "wisecracking". Somehow I expected more from the administration. Controversy and debate can coexist with civility.

I did not start this thread to debate your decision. In fact, if you read it carefully, I gave attribution on several occasions to your efforts and thoughtful initiatives to support the new forum. I expressed empathy with and agreement for your exclusive right and decision to create a subscription venue for the political forum. The other side of that coin is that you created a talk forum presumably for the exchange of ideas, open debate and discussion.

I have never walked away from a righteous hip shot without returning a calculated volley. I suspect you haven't either. Of course I mean this in the literary context not in the behind the OK Corral setting. I hope this constructive effort is taken for its intent and does not meet with an editorial axe or worse. If you make an executive decision to relegate this thread, post and/or the poster to the recycle bin....I will understand....but respectfully disagree with the action.

It just got awful dark and quiet...."Hello out there?" "Am I in the recycle bin?"

you're still here. Good post(s).

I agree, Cabo. I use to really look forward to the political forum. It has lost its zing. I miss Keedy.

Excellent post, Cabo. Seems to have lost some of it's luster.

The "political forum" (which by the way I started) is here for anybody who wishes to use it. It's easy to use, two mouse clicks and you are here. Not too difficult for most.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

The "political forum" (which by the way I started) is here for anybody who wishes to use it. It's easy to use, two mouse clicks and you are here. Not too difficult for most.

.....but would members get to read your most recent informative (above) post in the Political Forum by clicking on the Political Talk link,, oops...they can't see it.....only those who have already subscribed receive the benefit of its subtle but profound context......maybe under recent posts that reflect and acknowledge the existence of the forum....whoa....I forgot...its blocked unless you subscribe. Sooo....the above post from you is really wasted on those that already have heard the sermon. Kinda like preaching to the choir as only those that have "two clicked" can read it. I guess the word "superfluous" would apply.

Two small mouse clicks buried in the fine print have accomplished the change in tenor and participation you desired.....and it almost silenced the critics who still on occasion take pot shots at Political Forum participants from the safety of the General Forum you also sanction. Remember the recent "racists" comment among others.

Notwithstanding the wisecracks in kind....I know you have tried to restore political to its former dynamic standard without distressing members who are intimidated by it or sought its removal in furtherance of an agenda. I also am not oblivious to business considerations that may be part of the equation. I understand that mediating between competing interests is a thankless, time consuming job....but....that's why you get the big bucks....right. Speaking of big bucks, Tony and dklassen deserve a raise and flak jackets for their stellar work. If only there was an opt out option instead of an opt in option. Would you even consider that alternative?

That's about it from my end.....unless your having fun and want to play.

Thank you again for providing the forum and TOTV. There are a lot more positive aspects than suggested by these sidebar excursions.

I don't understand why people who didn't like, or weren't interested, in the political forum clicked into it. If they thought it was so terirble why not just stay out of it?? They kept reading it and then complained!!

What bothered me about this entire fiasco was NOT the setting up a special area, but the allowing and assistance in personal attacks on those who post here, which I thought was the main reason for the move.

I did not, and do not, understand the very intense dislike for posters from political ESPECIALLY after it was moved to a "private" area...it just continued and was fostered.

I do see some new names on here and that is a good sign !!!

I'm sorry but I'm lost on the importance of whether the Political Forum is op out or in. This transition didn't bother me at all. Why is everything such a drama???

And why do you think it suddenly lacks luster? Because Keedy is gone??? Wow! That's a joke! Most of the same other people are here.

My suspicion is that a lot of people just like to hear themselves talk (or post) and show the world just how brilliant they THINK they are.

I think the admins made the right decision. People are sick and tired of bravado and quite frankly, Keedy took it to a new level. He might have pumped up the right extremists, but to most, I fear he sounded offensive or just plain wacky! Just guessing on that from other members I talked to.

So, really, other than the "spotlight" nothing has changed. Those who want to debate or read the debates can easily find this Political Thread.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I'm sorry but I'm lost on the importance of whether the Political Forum is op out or in. This transition didn't bother me at all. Why is everything such a drama???

And why do you think it suddenly lacks luster? Because Keedy is gone??? Wow! That's a joke! Most of the same other people are here.

My suspicion is that a lot of people just like to hear themselves talk (or post) and show the world just how brilliant they THINK they are.

I think the admins made the right decision. People are sick and tired of bravado and quite frankly, Keedy took it to a new level. He might have pumped up the right extremists, but to most, I fear he sounded offensive or just plain wacky! Just guessing on that from other members I talked to.

So, really, other than the "spotlight" nothing has changed. Those who want to debate or read the debates can easily find this Political Thread.

To whom are you talking ?

I think most agreed with the change..I did and said so.

My question and many others were basically as to WHY and then even after that why the personal attacks generally on anyone who posts here ?

And of course you comment about a poster who is not here as being offensive is a bit ironic dont you think ?

Why are you able to blow smoke at anyone you please...I would suspect that anyone who agreed with your political philosphy would never be subject to your verbal "shots" !

Originally Posted by chelsea24

My suspicion is that a lot of people just like to hear themselves talk (or post) and show the world just how brilliant they THINK they are. .

Uhhhh....news flash.....Talk of the Villages is a talk forum the last time I checked. The whole idea requires talking through posting to offer opinions, debate, exchange ideas, have fun and exercise the mind. How do you operate a talk board without talk? Why would you have a suspicion about what motivates people to post on a board that requires people to post for the board to exist? Who cares about why people post? It would appear a little presumptuous on your part to speculate on why people post...ya think.

Why do you post?

Why the name calling and personal attack on Keedy? He's obviously not around to defend himself.

Thanks for sharing your enlightened suspicions.

Good post Bucco even though we have a rare divergence of opinion about the "change" to subscription.

What are the two mouse clicks that get you to political