Your Attention Please [Breaking News and WoD Flamewars]

[Admin Moderator]

Since my last vanity announcement on keywords went so swimmingly (it ended up with something like 5000 keywords added to it) I thought a great idea would be to throw some propane on some other fires with a vanity.

Breaking news is being abused again, big time. This goes in cycles, with sometimes people being responsible, but other times people not being very responsible.

We are in one of the not-very time periods.

Please, do not post something in Breaking News because you think it is something you want people to see. Place something in Breaking News only if it is

1. Something the networks would interrupt their programming to say,
2. The networks would interrupt their programming to say if they weren't overwhelmingly liberal,
3. Something that honestly would (not should, would) be of interest to majority of self-described conservatives
4. Official chapter announcements

Or things along those lines. Don't consider that a list of rules, but of guidelines. But act as if the guidelines matter, please. And flame the heck out of people that don't. And provide appropriate feedback to people who don't.

Some things that are never breaking news: Stories that have been posted before, stories that are over a day old, opinion vanities, freep this poll, or anything from the op-ed section of any newspaper.

Now, on to the WoD [War on Drugs] flamewars. There are a few problems with them. The flaming on them is tremendous. It is wrong for several reasons, and it should stop and the first thing we are going to do to try to get them to stop is to make a request for them to stop. If you feel the need to flame someone for something they say on one of these threads, do this (and yes, it involves a lot more work than just hitting reply, but such is life):

1. Post a copy of the article to the Smokey Backroom
2. Ping your flamee to that copy.
3. Go to town over there and keep the crap off the main forum.

Instead of hitting abuse on someone on a WoD thread right away (unless it is extremely bad), please just advise them to do what I am saying here- take it to the backroom. Link them to this if need be. And if you don't want to get into a flamewar, leave it at that. If you do, then join them in the backroom and have at it. The WoD flamewars overwhelm the latest posts page with a neverending sequence of posts that are just mindless insults. Please, spare us, and don't try to put it on the moderators to determine who fired the first shot. There are rarely clean hands here, and no matter what we do one side or another is going to complain.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Freeping. I expect no fewer than 500 taunts at us in the keywords here before this is over. Thank you, and God Bless. ;-)

[Roscoe]

Your law is wrong. Your facts are wrong.

Your sources, cites, authorities and evidence are nonexistent.

[jayef]

Flawed logic and a sorry attempt at silencing the debate. Similar to NARALs tactics and to Roe v Wade. That debate did not end with the Supreme Court, and neither will this one.

[jayef]

Actually Roscoe, all of the facts have been presented to you ad nauseum. I have no desire to rehash them for your satisfaction.

[CWOJackson]

Morning Roscoe. I see the no more flame war thread flame war is still going on.

[Eagle Eye]

AdMod still hasn't answered. Probably still thinking it over.

[Roscoe]

p.o.s.

One side has facts, the other flames. A thousand more threads promoting drug legalization would just follow that same inevitable pattern, I'm afraid.

Perhaps all drug legalization threads should automatically go to the backroom.

[Roscoe]

Think I'll go watch the grass grow.

[CWOJackson]

LOL! I do believe the folks have put on a good show for anyone wanting to check the thread out. Take care.

[tpaine]

Take your 'unconstitutional' spin to the backroom.
-- The WOD's is clearly affecting our constitutional rights. __________________________________


"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago. The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all. " Jim Robinson, 5/9/01 155

[robertpaulsen]

Very good. The author even used one of my arguments:

"It's easier to focus on, slander, and turn public opinion against individual justices or individual nominees to the federal bench than it is to convince the 535 members of Congress to change the law."

Ain't that the truth! And ain't that the strategery of the dopers?

[Admin Moderator]

C'est la vie.

[Admin Moderator]

Have you ever seen the Conan O'Brien show?

Do you know the bit he does "If they mated..."?

There you go.

[CWOJackson]

Exactly how can I copy this over to the smokey backroom and send a response to someone? I understand the concept but don't know the mechanics.

[Constitution Day]

I do believe that was written by a Freeper.

[babaloo999]

I think he's implying that you somehow benefit monetarily from the WOD. Maybe he's not.
However, there are a few LEO's and their departments who benefit greatly from the drug wars. As in getting to keep siezed "contraband", not that it's always wrong.
I just wonder about the WOD apologists, but I wonder more about some of the libertarians I see here.

Flame suit on. Go.

[Admin Moderator]

And ain't that the strategery of the dopers?

Baiting, five yards, repeat second down.

Yes, I have missed other flags on this thread, but this thread is a good example of a non-debate posing as a debate. There is some humor to be found in that it is happening on a thread about the fact that these non-debates always happen and bore people to tears, but maybe one last hurrah is good for the soul.

Same point can be made without using the 'dopers' line. Things just degenerate rapidly when both sides start throwing the names at each other.

Sorry for picking your post at to use as an example. Cheers, AM

[Eagle Eye]

One side has facts, the other flames

Thank you for finally admitting it. I've tired of unjustly being called a druggie, pro druggie, drug pusher, pedophile, warlock, etc by those named in the above post. There is nothing in opposing the WoD that equates to promoting drug use/abuse. Nothing. Total lies. But that doesn't matter. Smears are what you and your crowd know best.

Some of us have the brains and guts to know that the government isn't always right and doesn't always deserve unqualified support. The government and the Constitution are not the same thing.

OTOH, the comments and posts made by your crowd epitomize Statism and the cold-hearted bloodthirstiness that goes along with it, all under the guise of the State acting in an individual's best interest without his consent.

As in your case, Evil presents itself as the promoter of Virtue.

I simply find anyone or anything that unjustly takes away a citizen's freedom vile and disgusting.

[Admin Moderator]

Well, you would click that link I gave before (or better, right click to open in a new window).

In the article section, I would then put the article in question (in this case, it would be everything from "Since my..." through "God Bless". I would put the source URL to be the original thread.

Then I would reply to that thread, to the person you are getting into it with, with the reply you want to make. Obviously, to have it make some sort of sense, you would probably want to quote liberally their reply that you are answering.

Not really elegant or easy, but doable. Thanks, AM

[CWOJackson]

Darn. It's getting harder and harder to call someone a doped up libertarian.

Thanks.