Jump to content
Paulding.com

gpatt0n

Admin
  • Content Count

    27,413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gpatt0n

  • Rank
    Super Icon
  • Birthday 10/23/1950

Previous Fields

  • Place of Residence
    Dallas City

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

19,581 profile views
  1. You're welcome caped. Just trying to do the job. gpatton
  2. Here is a picture of Rev. Voyles from the attached release with his late wife Pauline, who died last year. gpatton
  3. National vs. local politics apparently is a meme on pcom. I apparently irritated the new owners with expressed concerns over a draft Executive Order that was leaked that promises, in the words of gizmodo - a tech site, not a political site - that the proposal would give the administration in power under these kinds of rules the ability to censor, with a political slant, all posts on the internet. The trick is that it redefines what is meant by the legal immunity offered sites called section 230(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1996. My explanation of that was removed because apparently I crossed the line into national politics because I localized it to its potential impact on pcom. As someone who has a degree in political science and who has played in the arena in various role, I subscribe to the notion that 'All politics are local" So, here is a RedState article (link) that explores the entomology of the phrase, commonly attributed to former Speaker Tip O'Neil, with the author asserting, as an expert on the American lexicon, that it was the head of censorship in the US in WWII, that was the actual person to coin the phrase. Seems fitting, doesn't it.
  4. Not a funny ... but a real story. It appears our great leader is wanting to transform the Internet so that the FTC and FCC can stop large sites that discriminate against all the conservative posters who know that hate speech is really not hate speech, it is conservatism and conservatism is the only truth. Link Do I exaggerate? gpatton PS: The effort seems to come from an Executive order (Kings edict) and it will effect the way the government interprets section 230 of the DMCA to limit the right of website owners to moderate sites that accept user content. Gizmodo, (source of the link) says if the draft EO is adopted, it will 'break the internet' ... making for a new test of the concept that anything Donald touches dies. Heck, there is a book about that. and you can get as a free audiobook
  5. Far from universal truth, CC. There was a time in our history - maybe ancient history - when none of those professions existed and yet, trust was even more fleeting than now. I recognize your intent was to provide a meaningless quip in hopes others would find it funny, or fitting but I fear that distrust is so rampant, not because of the lawyer, politician, insurance salesman, used car salesman or door-to-door vacuum salesman, but because of their bosses who threaten them with their job if they don't produce not only their daily bread but a thousand loaves for the owner. gpatton
  6. I think the real problem is the folks taking the lead on this (not me) are having fun finding things in the ACP. I know it is a total remake for me but for those with limited experience, it can be tough. I did wiggle in and think I fixed it so let me say Trump and see if the name transmorphs into the office 'magically' ... See... fixed.
  7. In another topic I suggested that folks could use the blog-entry area to talk politics (or any other subject for that matter) instead of directing people to a specific forum. The belief is that blogs give individuals greater control over their writing and the commentary associated with it. This post tests a small aspect of this potential use. gpatton
  8. Because I know generally where the new owners want to go, let me suggest this 'alternative' ... Members should use the 'blog' function associated with their accounts and make their political posts in individual blogs ... Moderators, if they see political commentary sneaking into the posts either edit the post to remove it and/or promote the post to the users blog; obviously removing the content from the general forums. Those who wish to engage with the individual members on political grounds can reply to blog posts of those they choose. Blog owners naturally have higher levels of control over their blogs including the ability to moderate replies (or even disallow them.) I don't know if this will be adequate to solve the issue but it does remove the national political forum(s) from the equation which apparently is an issue in regard to advertisers. The experiment will either work or it won't. There are further options or alternatives with the new board features including its, as yet unexplored (by pcom) 'club' function. That is a really cool approach that would allow a club to even collect dues (paypal payments are paid straight to the club 'owners' accounts with a percent off the top sent to the new paulding.com for the administration of the online 'club' meeting place. I just really don't think we need to look at this as anything other than an adjustment on the part of users to assert their right over their bought and paid-for blog post area. gpatton
  9. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  10. The problem with free speech these days is that one group of folks have found that if they ignore the element of truth - i.e. they say any damn thing they want - the soon discover if they say something untrue often enough, a lot of people will be fooled or otherwise bum-fuddled. I mean, manipulators - who are quite specialized and effective - have realized since the days of Mark Twain that " A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes " The real point here is that we are charged with maintaining a democratic form for our governing institutions but we can clearly identify a group of folks whose whole existence is dedicated to those institutions being destroyed. I mean, believe him when Steve Bannon says he wants to tear the world order apart. Some folks around here seem intent on helping him do so through their manipulation of conversations. Others find such bull in the china shop antics totally undesirable and worthy of repudiation. The question posed to the owners is whether they should take pains to repudiate the statements they know are lies or whether they just deny some of those folks the ability to speak. Obviously, in the past, and much to the chagrin of many who prefer less conflict to more, the tactic of repudiation is proving problematic. It is also a pain in the ass as the repudiation is by definition a reactive approach as the idiots spout their lies leaving the rest of us to put on our shoes and then chase the lies ... in some cases never catching them. Abandoning the field of battle to the manipulators is also not an option leaving the formal STFU (censorship) option. We see this with the Russian operatives sending to meme-ville videos of white women complaining/ranting about a hispanic taco truck parked close to their neighborhood ... hoping that the insults hurled at the Hispanics will cause them to over-react violently on tape, creating a rallying point for the white nationalists to point to as they are sent into the streets with their assault rifle to teach those Hispanics 'bout 'merica ... The good news in this is that the national tribalism/partisanship really has very little to do with the local interactions during most times meaning there is plenty to talk about on pcom. The bottom line, though, is that the right wing conservatives of the world believe our society is a 'zero-sum' game of monopoly and they think, somehow, they are not only destined to win, but this is an existential conflict and hence, there are ultimately no rules. We, as a society, understood that about the philosophy of Nazism. The question is whether Trumpism is any different in its reliance on zero-sum economics and the existential realities of living in PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of America's world. gpatton '
  11. Apparently it has been moved to the 'fastread' forum at the very top of the 'forums' page. gpatton
  12. First, paulding.com has always featured limits on speech. Moderation has been lighter than many want and heavier than others want but given the protections offered by section 230c of the DMCA, pcom has always asserted its right to moderate. That moderation begins with the word filter routines that change words from profanity to something else and include the attitudes of those 'in charge.' Fortunately, I'm no longer in control and the folks that are, are insisting on kinder/gentler pcom. I would encourage them to focus on local news and local commerce, but most of all, on things that engage folks on the site in fun actions and activities. gpatton
  13. The new board took the user name and display name fields from the old board and, when told we had to choose only one for the upgrade, I chose for people to keep their signon name. The display name is no longer an option. I do think the signon name will use either the name that is now displayed for your account or the email that you used to register on paulding.com Admittedly, different from before but we had to make a choice as procrastination - insulating the community from change - could no longer continue. gpatton
  14. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  15. Yep, we're having fun :)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.