24 hours without

[kc7jty]

Went without alcohol for 24 hours due to a required increase in pain & antibiotic meds. Broke the fast with a couple glasses of Pinot Grigio paired with some Rigatoni Alfredo. God it's nice to be back home.

http://foodiedani.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/alfredi.jpeghttp://www.usdrinkco.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/cc1109w.jpg

[KG4CGC]

Congrats but, I'm a Rigaannie fan meseff.

[kc7jty]

Is that a girl? What pairs best with her?

[KG4CGC]

Is that a girl? What pairs best with her?
If I were to answer that question there would be Hell to pay. Hell. To. Pay.

[ki4itv]

Two weeks.
No alcohol.
I'm fine. Really.

[kc7jty]

Two weeks.
No alcohol.
I'm fine. Really.

Yeah Right! I can feel the shakes from here.

[NQ6U]

Haven't had a drink in months. This is SOP for me, so it does't faze me at all. In fact, it really lets me appreciate it when I do have a drink.

[kc7jty]

Haven't had a drink in months. This is SOP for me, so it does't faze me at all. In fact, it really lets me appreciate it when I do have a drink.

a nice dry Pinot Grigio goes very well with pasta and Alfredo sauce.

[W3MIV]

Never touch the stuff, m'self.






:roll:

[kc7jty]

Albi's nose is 3 inches long and gettin longer... :liar:

This gal I knew from Montana would always say:
"Liar liar, pants on fire!"

[KG4CGC]

Albi's nose is 3 inches long and gettin longer... :liar:

This gal I knew from Montana would always say:
"Liar liar, pants on fire!"I bet you simply ADORE Judge Judy!

[kc7jty]

I bet you simply ADORE Judge Judy!

funny you should mention, a friend watches her all the time...me, never.

[w2amr]

Every Christmas eve I have my annual can of beer. This year I thought I might break from tradition and have 2.

[kc7jty]

what'd ya do with the other 4?

[W3MIV]

Albi's nose is 3 inches long and gettin longer... :liar:

This gal I knew from Montana would always say:
"Liar liar, pants on fire!"

Now, fellas, um lahk Jemmy Cahtah, y'all know ah'd nevah lah t'y'all. Ah'd nevah put de devil in mah moath.

[w2amr]

what'd ya do with the other 4?I hand them out to the neighbors kids.

[ki4itv]

Now, fellas, um lahk Jemmy Cahtah, y'all know ah'd nevah lah t'y'all. Ah'd nevah put de devil in mah moath.

Those types seem to spend a lot of time shaking hands in the package store 'on the other side of the tracks'.
It's funny who you meet around out of the way package stores in small town America.
Self described teetotalli must find more safety in having their hooch passed through the slot in bullet proof glass, than they do pulling it from the shelf in the purveyor down the street from their house.

[NQ6U]

I had to look it up--package store is not a term I'm familiar with. Turns out it to what we here on the Left Coast call a liquor store.

[KG4CGC]

Those types seem to spend a lot of time shaking hands in the package store 'on the other side of the tracks'.
It's funny who you meet around out of the way package stores in small town America.
Self described teetotalli must find more safety in having their hooch passed through the slot in bullet proof glass, than they do pulling it from the shelf in the purveyor down the street from their house.
Do you know the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist? They Methodists will say Hello to each other at the liquor store.

[w2amr]

I had to look it up--package store is not a term I'm familiar with. Turns out it to what we here on the Left Coast call a liquor store.Over in PA they are called State stores.

[ki4itv]

In the deep and rural South they really mean it when they say liquor should not pass your lips.
So they call them package stores just in case the actual word was included in that directive. :lol:

...everything has to be bagged in public, even though the bags are rather distinctive in size, shape, and often type of paper. You only find them in liquor stores.
Obvious is still obvious. :roll:

[KU0DM]

I hand them out to the neighbors kids.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[KG4CGC]

Also, and not to be left out, Dot Store (for the 3 dots distinguishing the store type)
ABC store (for the letters in Alcoholic Beverage Control as well as the letters ABC beside or somewhere near the 3 dots)
As recently as 1973, many bars here required you to Brown Bag it. This means that you brought your package with you and gave it to the bartender. For a price, the bartender would in turn serve you your drink to your specifications from your bottle and your bottle only. Restaurants were required to do the same thing by law but only with a single bottle of wine. The alcoholic content of all beer was limited to 3.2%.
When the Liquor by the Drink Law was passed, you could buy a drink at a bar. You were sold a premeasured portion, mini-bottle, that was opened and served on location. Eventually, Liquor by the Drink began to apply to restaurants but they could not decide what to do with wine. Thus, industry heads got together with SC lawmakers and the 8 oz wine bottle was born. Before then, any remaining wine was required to be poured out but they were afraid that the staff would just drink it while working.
Alcohol was forbidden to be sold on certain days of the week including election day and national holidays. Eventually Private Clubs emerged via approval of lawmakers and you could buy a drink on any day of the week that the club was open. They were also often offered extended hours of sales past the midnight cut off for most counties ... but not always. Often these things were passed in the statehouse and then passed on a county by county vote, sometimes restricted to certain city limits within a county.

What we have today are Sunday sales in stores in certain counties and only limited to those who pay a fee which is something that started out at $150 per Sunday per store with the provision that the fee is subject to change at the whims of the state legislators. One example is on South Pleasentburg Drive in Greenville county. There are numerous stores, gas stations and other retail businesses but only one store pays the fee for Sunday sales and Sunday sales from a retailer only covers beer and wine. Liquor sales are still restricted to private clubs and restaurants that pay the Sunday sales permit that are located inside the city limits of Greenville County. Beer and wine are considered a separate category from liquor so there are separate laws and fees that apply to Sunday liquor sales in eateries and bistros. I think that in the case of restaurants, the beer and wine and liquor guidelines will be combined into one single paragraph.

Meanwhile here in Pickens County, they are still arguing whether a restaurant with and outdoor cafe or any tables visible from the street may or may not serve alcohol in plain sight of the public. So far it is still no and when the question comes up to vote every couple of years, there are ugly protests in the streets in front of cafes and bistros that stand to benefit from the change in the specifics of this law. at the same time, the question is also put on the ballot to further restrict sales of alcohol to the pre LBJ days.
Meanwhile, if you purchase that nice bottle of single malt, about 50% of the cost is in state tax alone before you even factor in inflation. Somehow, even with all the laws and strict enforcement on the streets and highways, we still have a pretty high rate of DUI, teenage pregnancy and alcohol fueled violence.

[kc7jty]

Those Christians there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.
HOLY!...HOLY!...HOLY!...

BRING BACK PROHIBITION

[kf0rt]

I remember traveling to a place in rural NW Mississippi once about 10-12 years ago on business. It was culture shock in a number of ways. Spent a bunch of time with our customer there who insisted we stay for dinner. "Bet you boys would like a beer, wouldn't you?" Well, YEAH. I got elected to go with him to procure said beer (Budweiser, right?). He drove about 15 minutes to a liquor store that couldn't have been 10 feet inside the next county. I carried the case of Bud out to the truck -- went to put it in the bed of the truck and he stopped me; said to put it in the back seat (crew cab, right?). We'd "have us one" on the way back to the house. Get back in the truck -- it's got a console with about four drink holders in it, and they're all full. As he's pulling out of the parking lot (spitting gravel), he rolls the window down and starts pitching the empties from the console out the window. Yeah, we had a beer on the way back to his house (in a dry county). Get there, and two of the several guests were the mayor and one of the local cops. Both helped with that case of beer.

I still laugh recalling that. You'd NEVER see anyone litter like that in Colorado. :rofl:

Anyway, CO has common sense liquor laws. Restaurants and bars buy a license and serve. Liquor stores are privately owned, licensed and open 7 days a week. You can't buy liquor of any sort anywhere between 2AM and 6AM. Grocery and C-stores can sell 3.2 beer and low-alcohol wine-cooler type stuff. If you're inside a grocery store, you're within walking distance of a liquor store. Get a DUI and you're fucked. 20 years ago, the law closed all liquor sales on election day and on Sundays, but that's been changed recently.

[NQ6U]

Sheesh, that's insane.

In in CA, about the only restrictions are no alcohol sales allowed between 2 AM and 6 AM. You are also not allowed to take a partial bottle of wine from a restaurant unless they have an off-site sales license (few do). Pretty much anything else goes, however, and you can buy anything anywhere--assuming they have an off-site sales license--seven days a week. Alcoholism and DUI rates are about average here.

Oregon has state liquor stores, although they allow sales of beer and wine elsewhere and they allow you to take home a partial bottle of wine purchased at a restaurant.

[kf0rt]

There have been quibbles here about things like letting grocery stores sell everything. The debate is always about what it would do to the little family-owned liquor stores. The grocery stores would love it, but it'd kill a lot of liquor stores. When they allowed liquor stores to open on Sunday, the debate was about losing Sunday as family-time for all the little liquor stores (and honestly, a lot of these are really small stores that are family-run -- I've been in more than one where the owner was babysitting). The "little liquor store" people must be a vocal bunch.

[KG4CGC]

The "little liquor store" people must be a vocal bunch. A lot of tax money passes through their hands in SC.

[kf0rt]

A lot of tax money passes through their hands in SC.

Interesting tax table:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html

You guys have a pretty high alcohol tax, but it looks like the lowest cigarette tax anywhere. Tobakky lobby?

[ki4itv]

I remember traveling to a place in rural NW Mississippi once about 10-12 years ago on business. It was culture shock in a number of ways. Spent a bunch of time with our customer there who insisted we stay for dinner. "Bet you boys would like a beer, wouldn't you?" Well, YEAH. I got elected to go with him to procure said beer (Budweiser, right?). He drove about 15 minutes to a liquor store that couldn't have been 10 feet inside the next county. I carried the case of Bud out to the truck -- went to put it in the bed of the truck and he stopped me; said to put it in the back seat (crew cab, right?). We'd "have us one" on the way back to the house. Get back in the truck -- it's got a console with about four drink holders in it, and they're all full. As he's pulling out of the parking lot (spitting gravel), he rolls the window down and starts pitching the empties from the console out the window. Yeah, we had a beer on the way back to his house (in a dry county). Get there, and two of the several guests were the mayor and one of the local cops. Both helped with that case of beer.

I still laugh recalling that. You'd NEVER see anyone litter like that in Colorado. :rofl:


:lol::lol:
I can see where that would be shocking if you're not from the area.

We still keep property in NE Mississippi (Pickwick Lake area/ Bear Creek) and it remains to this day, a dry county. We can drive 30 or 40 minutes by car and get anything we wish, but usually we bring it with us, and later take the boat to TN or AL to do the same thing.

BTW- believe it or not, throwing the can out the window was probably helping to feed somebody, a sort of can by can economic stimulus if you will. I can almost guarantee that is was not there for long. The locals know which roads lead to the beer stores and hunt them daily.

There are hardly words to describe the poverty hidden away in the hills of northern MS. Typical trash is another story, but a can...that's money in someones pocket. If he threw his empty bag o' backy out, then he's an ass.

[KG4CGC]

I think the tax table if off. The tax is by the unit, bottle, not gallon, etc.

[W3MIV]

Do you know the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist?

A Methodist is a Baptist who can read.*





















*Courtesy of Norman McLean.

[KG4CGC]

A Methodist is a Baptist who can read.
Ever make a Presbyterian? One part Windsor Canadian and two parts ginger ale.

[kc7jty]

Their stance on alcohol would be as smart as banning all obese people in public in a hope of reducing future obesity among the current child population.

[al2n]

Their stance on alcohol would be as smart as banning all obese people in public in a hope of reducing future obesity among the current child population.

And your stance on Christians having their genitals removed should get you a weeks vacation. Say nothing of your antisemitic jabs.

I am getting tired of this kind of shit from assholes like you. Show a little restraint in your comments or I will restrain them for you. You take a crap on the beach then play victim when someone complains about the smell.

[W3MIV]

I am getting tired of this kind of shit from assholes like you. Show a little restraint in your comments or I will restrain them for you. You take a crap on the beach then play victim when someone complains about the smell.

I don't believe this to be a temperate comment on the part of an administrator. I feel that your sensitivity on the topic of fundamentalist religion is as over-the-top as some of his comments on ethnicity or race. There is a serious difference between saying "fundamentalist Christians are assholes" and "you are an asshole." In this case, I feel you are guilty of the ad hominem, and for an administrator I believe that is a serious charge.

While I don't share JTY's sentiments on many topics, I do believe in the full freedom of expression. I am very seriously disappointed in the response of this board in this case. In my view, you have shown yourself to be no different, surely no better, than the asshats on QRZ who permit their personal feeling to over-ride good judgment.

[al2n]

I don't believe this to be a temperate comment on the part of an administrator. I feel that your sensitivity on the topic of fundamentalist religion is as over-the-top as some of his comments on ethnicity or race. There is a serious difference between saying "fundamentalist Christians are assholes" and "you are an asshole." In this case, I feel you are guilty of the ad hominem, and for an administrator I believe that is a serious charge.

While I don't share JTY's sentiments on many topics, I do believe in the full freedom of expression. I am very seriously disappointed in the response of this board in this case. In my view, you have shown yourself to be no different, surely no better, than the asshats on QRZ who permit their personal feeling to over-ride good judgment.

I apologize for the name calling, that was out of line and I should have used a better choice of words.

I have tried the gentle prodding in the past with no effect. Sorry for lowering myself to that level, but it seems that is the only kind of message that some folks will understand.

As to my faith and my reaction, if I were as sensitive as you suggest, I would be banning folks left and right for comments made around here. I actually agree with many of the criticisms voiced by others. This particular case is the result of a pattern of behavior that has not changed despite the prodding of both moderators and fellow forum members.

[W3MIV]

This particular case is the result of a pattern of behavior that has not changed despite the prodding of both moderators and fellow forum members.

I find the attitude that we must regulate speech we find to be offensive more offensive than the offense, if you are capable of following that. I do not hold with censorship; I find your actions to be repugnant to my sense of free speech; because any of us may disapprove of what is being said, so long as it is not an actual ad hominem attack -- i.e. actually calling you an asshole for your views as opposed to saying that all believers or fundies are assholes -- I believe that you over-stepped the bounds of what I consider acceptable moderation.

Despite the apology, I still put your action on a par with those of the QRZ moderators who are so often the butt of outrage and derision on this forum.

[w2amr]

And your stance on Christians having their genitals removed should get you a weeks vacation. Say nothing of your antisemitic jabs.

I am getting tired of this kind of shit from assholes like you.Very Nice. Nothing like leading by example.:roll:
You should give yourself a time out.

[ki4itv]

Despite the apology, I still put your action on a par with those of the QRZ moderators who are so often the butt of outrage and derision on this forum.

Ironic on the surface, but I feel comfortable in believing there are many differences we may never, and probably shouldn't know about.

It is plainly visible that our mod didn't ban him and then take the time to compose a slanderous, chest beating post against a now defenseless member who could no longer post a rebuttal. I'm pretty certain this has been going on for some time behind the scenes, most probably involving more mods, not just Mike.
To me, such torturous slog makes this quite a bit different from the beginning.

Everybody has a bad day (the personal insult) and I hardly see that as a trend.
The trend I did notice was that Bill was becoming more emboldened, combative, and expressive in his effort to relay his rather unpopular message. Recently to the point of directly challenging and daring other members to take him on.
His free speech was about to turn into a real shit slinger, and he made no bones about not caring who or how many his personal war effected.

Would I have handled it differently? Hopefully... mostly I tend to handle stuff like this fairly well, but I have totally lost my shit and completely understand how something like this happens.

The Zed gets what it does because its policy sucks, and their consistent inconsistency is legendary. Not to mention the official (and very regular) belittling of its membership.

[W1GUH]

'MIV said:


There is a serious difference between saying "fundamentalist Christians are assholes" and "you are an asshole."

IMHO, (but I'm very receptive to modify my thinking) that might be too fine a hair-split for general consumption. It seems to me that saying "people who do (or are or think) XYZ are assholes" when in a group where it is known that some people in that group "do (or are or think) XYZ" is, basically, saying to that select group, "you are all assholes."

Just my 2 cents.

[W3MIV]

IMHO, (but I'm very receptive to modify my thinking) that might be too fine a hair-split for general consumption. It seems to me that saying "people who do (or are or think) XYZ are assholes" when in a group where it is known that some people in that group "do (or are or think) XYZ" is, basically, saying to that select group, "you are all assholes."

I see a distinction, but more importantly feel that we should be able to shoulder such burdens without letting ego come into the issue, which is what I believe happened here. I feel that it is evident that a campaign has been taking place behind the scenes. This is a case in which moderation has been anything but moderate, in my view. We now have an Island DHS to deal with instead of being free to post virtually anything however repugnant it may be to some.

[n2ize]

I apologize for the name calling, that was out of line and I should have used a better choice of words.

I have tried the gentle prodding in the past with no effect. Sorry for lowering myself to that level, but it seems that is the only kind of message that some folks will understand.

As to my faith and my reaction, if I were as sensitive as you suggest, I would be banning folks left and right for comments made around here. I actually agree with many of the criticisms voiced by others. This particular case is the result of a pattern of behavior that has not changed despite the prodding of both moderators and fellow forum members.

So then why not set strict rules as to exactly what will or won;t be tolerated here, particularly with respect to religion ? I think the banning in this case was uncalled for.

[KG4CGC]

I find myself aligned with Albie's and George's words.
While I often disagree with both Mike and Bill, I will defend their right to voice their opinions. Voicing however, does not include a pummeling with the Ban Hammer.
I have found that during my time on the Island, I have had to become more careful as to what I say. While this does help me hone my skill set to serve as a diplomatic mediator when my asshole neighbors start yelling at my other neighbors, my understanding from the beginning was that we are able to be ourselves to a much greater degree than is afforded on QRZ as long as the personal attacks remain holstered.

As much as an attack on Christianity may be taken personally, (and I'm sure I've made many many such attacks which are more like simple observations to me) we become compelled, almost forced of our own volition, to break it down word by word and unfortunately have to resort to this question: Did he say they or you? If it was you, was it prefaced in some manner as to indicate it not be taken personally?
If the answer to the first question is they, then we need not ask the second question. However, I don't believe this really addresses this issue if you get down to the true heart of the matter. You want to know what the true heart of the matter is?

Mike got pissed off at Bill and used his power to do away with him.

OK, so this kind of shit happens. We're human. Shake hands, let it go and move forward. With Bill here.

[W3MIV]

Mike got pissed off at Bill and used his power to do away with him.

That is precisely what happened. And it ranks us with QRZ by any measure I can imagine. I believe that Bill is due not only for a reprieve, but an apology. If one desires to profess Christianity, one should learn to practice it.

[ad4mg]

Just a brief note to all you guys ...

There is a fine line between common decency, and blatant disrespect. That line is different for everyone, and we're working on defining it as it applies to this matter before us. Most of the time, our job here is pretty easy ... we normally let things just roll. It appears we need to further examine this one.

There is no campaign behind the scenes, no effort to steer the ship in any other direction. We remain focused on providing a place where everyone can have their say, within reasonable bounds of civility. This guarantees that most everyone will be offended at some point in time. All we can do is minimize the impact when it happens.

We're not going to even think about the petty bullshit moderating style that exists elsewhere ... it just ain't going to happen here. All of you that know me know damn well I won't allow it. We have a set of rules, which I will see is posted in the most conspicuous place available, for all to consider, since they were cast adrift in the software upgrade. No tip toeing around is necessary, because those will be the rules set forth.

Opinions as to how the rules are enforced are inevitable, but our track record here shows this to be the exception. I won't elaborate on this specific issue any more at this time, but, as always, I will bring back a full explanation when consensus is reached among the staff. These things I promise, and all I have to offer here is my good word.

Put away the panic button for now, and sharpen your wits for your replies to my next comments ... I expect no less from you guys!

Thanks,
Luke

[NQ6U]

I've been trying to stay out of this thing because I was more or less in the middle of the brouhaha but I think that the crux of Bill's banning lies not in the thread we're posting in now but rather in this one (http://forums.hamisland.net/showthread.php?14874-He-probably-discovered-he-had-aids). I challenged one of Bill's remarks and told him I thought it was based on an underlying antisemitism, he got personal and threatened to start up a pissing match. I'll admit that I was pretty blunt, but he did go somewhat overboard in his response.

That said, I'm not sure a ban was necessary and I hope it's only a time out, not a permanent one.

[W1GUH]

I see a distinction, but more importantly feel that we should be able to shoulder such burdens without letting ego come into the issue, which is what I believe happened here. I feel that it is evident that a campaign has been taking place behind the scenes. This is a case in which moderation has been anything but moderate, in my view. We now have an Island DHS to deal with instead of being free to post virtually anything however repugnant it may be to some.

Very cool, Albi.

[KJ3N]

While I don't share JTY's sentiments on many topics, I do believe in the full freedom of expression. I am very seriously disappointed in the response of this board in this case. In my view, you have shown yourself to be no different, surely no better, than the asshats on QRZ who permit their personal feeling to over-ride good judgment.


I find the attitude that we must regulate speech we find to be offensive more offensive than the offense, if you are capable of following that. I do not hold with censorship; I find your actions to be repugnant to my sense of free speech; because any of us may disapprove of what is being said, so long as it is not an actual ad hominem attack -- i.e. actually calling you an asshole for your views as opposed to saying that all believers or fundies are assholes -- I believe that you over-stepped the bounds of what I consider acceptable moderation.

Where was this "outrage" when I got kicked out of the Religion forum? Or, are some forms of moderation more acceptable than others? :chin:


I find myself aligned with Albie's and George's words.
While I often disagree with both Mike and Bill, I will defend their right to voice their opinions. Voicing however, does not include a pummeling with the Ban Hammer.

As much as an attack on Christianity may be taken personally, (and I'm sure I've made many many such attacks which are more like simple observations to me) we become compelled, almost forced of our own volition, to break it down word by word and unfortunately have to resort to this question: Did he say they or you? If it was you, was it prefaced in some manner as to indicate it not be taken personally?
If the answer to the first question is they, then we need not ask the second question. However, I don't believe this really addresses this issue if you get down to the true heart of the matter. You want to know what the true heart of the matter is?

Mike got pissed off at Bill and used his power to do away with him.

While it wasn't Mike in my case, this sounds vaguely familiar to me for some reason....... :chin:


That is precisely what happened. And it ranks us with QRZ by any measure I can imagine. I believe that Bill is due not only for a reprieve, but an apology. If one desires to profess Christianity, one should learn to practice it.

Having experienced a similar situation (although not to the same degree) as Bill, you'll pardon me while my Irony Meter sits here and spins away. :roll:

[NQ6U]

Where was this "outrage" when I got kicked out of the Religion forum? Or, are some forms of moderation more acceptable than others?

Until now, I never realized you had been kicked out of the Religion forum.

[KJ3N]

Until now, I never realized you had been kicked out of the Religion forum.

Apparently, when you keep suggesting that religious people believe in what amounts to a fairy tale, you're "mocking". :roll:

[NQ6U]

Apparently, when you keep suggesting that religious people believe in what amounts to a fairy tale, you're "mocking". :roll:

Well, it is. Of course, some things deserve to be mocked.

[KJ3N]

Well, it is. Of course, some things deserve to be mocked.

Which brings me back to this line:


You think Darwin’s theory of evolution is a loony fairy tale, and mankind actually began with two naked teenagers, a magic apple and a talking snake.

From this post:

http://forums.hamisland.net/showthread.php?14701-You-might-be-a-republican-if&p=291031&viewfull=1#post291031

;)

[W3MIV]

I've been trying to stay out of this thing because I was more or less in the middle of the brouhaha but I think that the crux of Bill's banning lies not in the thread we're posting in now but rather in this one (http://forums.hamisland.net/showthread.php?14874-He-probably-discovered-he-had-aids). I challenged one of Bill's remarks and told him I thought it was based on an underlying antisemitism, he got personal and threatened to start up a pissing match. I'll admit that I was pretty blunt, but he did go somewhat overboard in his response.

That said, I'm not sure a ban was necessary and I hope it's only a time out, not a permanent one.

The issue is not really Bill, or anti-semitism, or anti- or pro- any other ism. The issue is opinion among a group of very opinionated people. I read your comments in the referenced thread, and I felt that you were intentionally inciting Bill, all the while acting the picador. Does that show you in a better light than Bill?

If we are to engage in rigorous debate on topics each of us holds closely, there are going to be times when posts go over the top. At that point, failing a retrenchment or olive branch by the offending party, a moderator should intervene. In the case at hand, however, it was the moderator who went out of the trench. To my thinking, that makes this instance different than most; it makes it far more serious, for who is to moderate the moderators?

This is not the first time this issue has arisen here. One prays it may be the last.

[ad4mg]

Until now, I never realized you had been kicked out of the Religion forum.
I believe that moderator is no longer with us, and we did away with that forum for a while. It has since been brought back.

Of all the things that puzzle me about forums in general, is people's inability to strongly disagree with an opposing opinion without resorting to becoming a complete asshole. I, and many of us, fall prey to this weakness occasionally, but it seems that some people just get off on being as anal as possible at every opportunity.

I'll never say anything I wouldn't say to a man face to face, but Bill's comment in this thread was pretty shocking, and there is no justification for making such an offensive, blanket statement. Bill has publicly stated that he intended to "push the envelope" a couple of times, so his intent was clear.

We haven't worked this out yet, but we will soon enough.

My personal thoughts on this tell me that some civility is expected here, no matter who you are. Put simply, when we act like adults, we will be treated as such. It's a two way street, and when people insist on going "total asshole" on each other, we're going to step in and do something about it. None of this makes our job any easier.

More on all of this later.

[ki4itv]

At the time, I got the impression Carl was playing Bill's game for a minute just to see what he was made of, Albi.
Could be wrong though.

[n2ize]

.

I'll never say anything I wouldn't say to a man face to face, but Bill's comment in this thread was pretty shocking, and there is no justification for making such an offensive, blanket statement.


I didn't see anything that was particularly shocking or offensive ? Can anyone point me to the comment that he made that was so earth shattering ?

[W3MIV]

I didn't see anything that was particularly shocking or offensive ? Can anyone point me to the comment that he made that was so earth shattering ?

Post #24. I don't find it particularly shocking or offensive, either. I do, however, find the response to it both offensive and shocking.

[NQ6U]

Well, Albi, I was asking Bill to tell me that his remarks were not based on an underlying antisemitism. If that's incitement, then I am guilty as charged; I feel I was fairly civil, if rather blunt, in my comments. In any case, I will not allow what I see as bigotry go unchallenged since that would only encourage more of it.

[NA4BH]

Post #24. I don't find it particularly shocking or offensive, either. I do, however, find the response to it both offensive and shocking.

So, in post #24, if Christians was substituted with any of the following: Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Gays or what have you. That would not be offensive?

[al2n]

Take Bills comment and change a word. How would the reaction be then?


Those Christians there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.

Those Gays there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.

Those Jews there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.

Those Mexicans there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.

Those Blacks there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.

Those Japs there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.

Get the point?

If we allow one, should we not allow them all?

[W3MIV]

Carlo, stating a question once or twice is asking. You were inciting; be honest about it. You were pushing harder and harder to get the response that you sought. I do not indict you, for I don't particularly see anything wrong with pushing hard when in a debate.

We are all very highly opinionated people, else none of us would be here posting as we do. The points to keep in mind, in my considered opinion, are the degree to which we need cleave to the margins. If you are of such soft and brittle feeling, you should not participate -- let alone be a moderator.

[W3MIV]

Take Bills comment and change a word. How would the reaction be then?
Get the point?

If we allow one, should we not allow them all?

I have no particular problem with allowing any or all. If you cannot challenge his opinions with reason instead of anger and vengeance you should not be here posting.

[KG4CGC]

So, in post #24, if Christians was substituted with any of the following: Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Gays or what have you. That would not be offensive?
The way Bill put it is correct because the laws in question were originally handed down to us from Puritan standards in what has become Fundamental Evangelical Christian Law. He applied a response that was in complete context to the situation as I described it.
I could take this a step further and tie Christian Law to Sharia Law simply by highlighting the similarities in prohibitions and the severity of enforcement and asking if Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity is perhaps sliding into the same territory as Sharia Law.

My point being that Bill's response was in context to my post. None of our Blue Laws have a basis in anything except Christian Doctrine. For Bill to put Blacks or Jews into the equation does not fall into the context of my post. If the laws were in place due to a different group of people, I'm sure a response with correlation to that group would have followed. While I do not agree with cutting off their pee pees, I certainly understood that the intent was figurative and not literal.

[NA4BH]

The statement as it stands is offensive, whether it be in context to a previous post or not.

Fajita

[KG4CGC]

The statement as it stands is offensive, whether it be in context to a previous post or not.

Fajita
And as an offensive statement, what is being enforced with a ban? An ideology or a forum rule?

[al2n]

The way Bill put it is correct because the laws in question were originally handed down to us from Puritan standards in what has become Fundamental Evangelical Christian Law. He applied a response that was in complete context to the situation as I described it.
I could take this a step further and tie Christian Law to Sharia Law simply by highlighting the similarities in prohibitions and the severity of enforcement and asking if Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity is perhaps sliding into the same territory as Sharia Law.

My point being that Bill's response was in context to my post. None of our Blue Laws have a basis in anything except Christian Doctrine. For Bill to put Blacks or Jews into the equation does not fall into the context of my post. If the laws were in place due to a different group of people, I'm sure a response with correlation to that group would have followed. While I do not agree with cutting off their pee pees, I certainly understood that the intent was figurative and not literal.

The call for hacking off pee pees is what got the vacation, not the jab at Christians.

I was wrong to call him an asshole. But that does not make right what was said on his behalf.

[NA4BH]

I don't see the Food and Beverage Forum calling for castration a place to post such. Unless it is dealing with a recipe for Mountain Oysters. A more appropriate Forum might have yielded a different outcome. Just my opinion. What happened was like watching a bus wreck in slow motion.

[KG4CGC]

The call for hacking off pee pees is what got the vacation, not the jab at Christians.

<snipped>
Mike, I feel that it was probably more along the lines of being The Icing On the Cake and not actually the root cause. That is of course my opinion. These things usually erupt after having a chance to build up. I'm certainly guilty of that on my end.

[W3MIV]

This thread is descending into small-minded bullshit.

[al2n]

Mike, I feel that it was probably more along the lines of being The Icing On the Cake and not actually the root cause. That is of course my opinion. These things usually erupt after having a chance to build up. I'm certainly guilty of that on my end.

The staff are busy debating my actions and we will decide if I abused my position or if the time out was justified. We all agree that the way in which I did it displayed a total lack of class and restraint on my part. I should have never stooped to name calling and for that I freely admit I was in the wrong.

[n2ize]

Post #24. I don't find it particularly shocking or offensive, either. I do, however, find the response to it both offensive and shocking.

Huh ?? What ??? Uhhhh ??? That was the shocking and offensive post ? I thought it was funny. it's a joke. I can't believe anyone took that seriously much less found it offensive.

[NQ6U]

This thread is descending into small-minded bullshit.

I resent that, asshole. Fuck off!

(For the humor impaired: that was a joke)

[n2ize]

Take Bills comment and change a word. How would the reaction be then?








Get the point?

If we allow one, should we not allow them all?

Why not allow them all ? They are all equally comedy de l'absurd. It might be offensive maybe if he said, "All persons born or raised of identified as _____________ are stupid. But this was obviously a comic reaction to the absurdity of the alcohol laws being discussed in the context of the thread. As a religious person it doesn't offend me in the least.

[W3MIV]

I resent that, asshole.

I resent it, too.

[ad4mg]

Bill is no longer banned. The decision to return is his to make ... an email was sent to him explaining all of this. It came with a blunt, honest warning that he needs to tone down his act a notch.

Surely, some kvetching about the warning is to follow, we don't have an issue with that. Everyone may have their say, that's why the site is here. Criticism is fine, a request is made by us to keep it civil.

That will be the only "official" statement from the staff. There is little left to tell, most everything has been covered ad nauseam here in this thread.

----

Personally, I sincerely appreciate all of the PM's sent to me on this issue. There were quite a few, and I haven't answered all of them, but I will shortly. I don't have any problem with blunt, or even harsh criticism, but what did disturb me is all this foolishness about some vast conspiracy taking place behind the scenes. The site wanders through different phases, and the people running it are human. We will make mistakes, and we will correct them whenever possible. Compared to other sites similar to this one, the moderation here is infrequent, and as far as we can determine, pretty fair.

Our goal is, and always has been to provide a place to hang out where you don't feel like you're looking over your shoulder all the time. I challenge anyone to find a better forum in this regard, that isn't a free-for-all. We (the staff) don't work long hours, and none of us feels compelled to be here at any particular time, but some of us have invested quite a bit of time and money in the site. Along with your member donations, we have managed to keep the site up and running on a first class server for quite a while. No small feat when you consider the site was started on a dare issued by a QRZ staff member.

There will be some moderation of the forums, and no doubt, there will be some grumbling about that, but those are the terms you agreed to when you joined the site. The basic theme of the site is that if you act like an adult, you'll be treated as one. These things are not going to change. If the agreement you accepted when you registered for this forum no longer suits you, seek a suitable alternative, and if you find one, come back and share it with us.

Jeff and I talked by phone last night, and the one point that stood out from the others was our wish for this to pass so that we, too, can enjoy the forums.

That's it, thanks for reading the rant. Carry on!

73,
Luke

[W3MIV]

Thank you for the clarification of both air and rules. Nothing really new in either, and that is something about which to be happy. I speak only for myself, but I feel that this is generally a well managed forum; it is also one that is well (if inadvertently) named.

Having once had "an issue" with moderation in the past, I may have been more sensitive (you all know how ssssssenssssitive I can be) about this instance than was necessary. Still in all, moderators must remain something greater than human or give up the post. Unfair? Perhaps.

Let the games resume.

Deo gratias.

[kc7jty]

Take Bills comment and change a word. How would the reaction be then?

Those Christians there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.
Those Gays there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.
Those Jews there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.
Those Mexicans there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.
Those Blacks there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.
Those Japs there should have their genitals removed surgically and replaced by a little hole to pee with.
Get the point?

If we allow one, should we not allow them all?

My dear mister Wood:

People can't chose the ethnicity given them when they enter this world, nor is sexual orientation an option. Religion however is not only chosen but continuously recommitted to.

Your chicken shit attempt at fortifying your superior position is a fail, but as to be expected from a pompous, self righteous, IQ of 175 (or whatever the hell it is) asshole like yourself. I shall now apologize for calling you an asshole which in my mind makes us even.

You people talk about being adult. Being called racist by some here really takes the cake.

[ad4mg]

I'm locking this thread before it regains momentum. I'd rather hear some bitching about locking it than deal with the consequences later.

Anyone that wants to piss and moan about it can shoot me a PM.

How in the hell did a thread go sour like this one in "Food and Beverages". Baffling.


As promised earlier, forum rules re-posted in conspicuous location:


http://forums.hamisland.net/showthread.php?14918-HamIsland-Forum-Rules