Was none of that thread worth saving?
Quite agree. Perfect excuse wasted for a few sarcastic quips about the Epoch Times, if you ask me.
Is none of that thread worth saving?
Can we at least have the stuff about Muti killings made into a thread?
There could be a discussion about it without the inflammatory racism explicit in the subject line, yes. The bigger story is certain North Koreans eating babies as a result of extreme poverty as reported by the BBC and others - latest report was yesterday on BBC World TV I think.
Ahh. You just miss lizi.
In all seriousness, we should develop a policy where it concerns one act ponies posting only or mainly FLG propeganda. Essentially, if that’s all a poster comes here to do, s/he should get the boot. Even though it may be fun to toy with them, as an organization, they get a lot of mileage out of conflict, crisis and from creating the perception that they are being repressed. While we may think we’re taking them to task, we are, in fact, forwarding their agenda on this site by engaging FLG aligned posters.
FLG posts, links to their mouthpiece organizations and such should be treated as malicious spam and dealt with as such.
[quote=“Stimpy”]In all seriousness, we should develop a policy where it concerns one act ponies posting only or mainly FLG propeganda. Essentially, if that’s all a poster comes here to do, s/he should get the boot. Even though it may be fun to toy with them, as an organization, they get a lot of mileage out of conflict, crisis and from creating the perception that they are being repressed. While we may think we’re taking them to task, we are, in fact, forwarding their agenda on this site by engaging FLG aligned posters.
FLG posts, links to their mouthpiece organizations and such should be treated as malicious spam and dealt with as such.[/quote]
Should this exclusionary attitude also then be applied to other groups?
PETA advocates? Greenpeacers? ALFer? any number of links to ‘religious’ informational sources?
Then perhaps any political driven info source should be subjected to the approval of a “council” of guidance before allowing ,inks to their web sites and referenced articles.
With that tenor set…then we can scrutinize with news sites pass muster to be linked to. Only “approved” sites allowed?
Once we reach this state of group approval then we can start on reducing the posts allowed to ‘certain’ posters. Maybe their posts and linked info is ‘subversive’ to the council approved message for this site.
I think I get the drift of where this could be heading. Seems to me the “Star Chamber” was dissolved to stop the slid in this direction.
I moved it back to Open, but it’s a pretty useless OP. Next magazine quoting the Epoch times or the other way around isn’t really news. It’s tabloid fodder. It’s the Asian equivalent of “Elvis is reincarnated in my pet pig Lulu!” as reported by the National Enquirer.
[quote=“Stimpy”]In all seriousness, we should develop a policy where it concerns one act ponies posting only or mainly FLG propeganda. Essentially, if that’s all a poster comes here to do, s/he should get the boot. Even though it may be fun to toy with them, as an organization, they get a lot of mileage out of conflict, crisis and from creating the perception that they are being repressed. While we may think we’re taking them to task, we are, in fact, forwarding their agenda on this site by engaging FLG aligned posters.
FLG posts, links to their mouthpiece organizations and such should be treated as malicious spam and dealt with as such.[/quote]Stop the perception that they’re being repressed by repressing their posts? Sorry, Stimpy, I know you mean well, but I’m with Tainan Cowboy on this.
[quote=“joesax”][quote=“Stimpy”]In all seriousness, we should develop a policy where it concerns one act ponies posting only or mainly FLG propeganda. Essentially, if that’s all a poster comes here to do, s/he should get the boot. Even though it may be fun to toy with them, as an organization, they get a lot of mileage out of conflict, crisis and from creating the perception that they are being repressed. While we may think we’re taking them to task, we are, in fact, forwarding their agenda on this site by engaging FLG aligned posters.
FLG posts, links to their mouthpiece organizations and such should be treated as malicious spam and dealt with as such.[/quote]Stop the perception that they’re being repressed by repressing their posts? Sorry, Stimpy, I know you mean well, but I’m with Tainan Cowboy on this.[/quote]
No, I mean stop giving them the forums as a publicity tool. Engaging their posts, even in ridicule, only serves their purposes on this site. FLG isn’t simply a group of people doing qigong. It is a manipulative cult, with a meglomaniac at its head, which uses mass media to aggressively expand. FLG posters are not posting here as constructive members of this community. For this reason, we ought to deal with rubish as exactly that, rubish.
[quote=“Stimpy”][quote=“joesax”][quote=“Stimpy”]In all seriousness, we should develop a policy where it concerns one act ponies posting only or mainly FLG propeganda. Essentially, if that’s all a poster comes here to do, s/he should get the boot. Even though it may be fun to toy with them, as an organization, they get a lot of mileage out of conflict, crisis and from creating the perception that they are being repressed. While we may think we’re taking them to task, we are, in fact, forwarding their agenda on this site by engaging FLG aligned posters.
FLG posts, links to their mouthpiece organizations and such should be treated as malicious spam and dealt with as such.[/quote]Stop the perception that they’re being repressed by repressing their posts? Sorry, Stimpy, I know you mean well, but I’m with Tainan Cowboy on this.[/quote]
No, I mean stop giving them the forums as a publicity tool. Engaging their posts, even in ridicule, only serves their purposes on this site. FLG isn’t simply a group of people doing qigong. It is a manipulative cult, with a meglomaniac at its head, which uses mass media to aggressively expand. FLG posters are not posting here as constructive members of this community. For this reason, we ought to deal with rubish as exactly that, rubish.[/quote]You know what? Many of the posters on the politics forums seem to believe that the posters on the “other side” are not posting as constructive members of the community.
I wouldn’t join FLG. But that’s not the point. TC’s absolutely right that there’s a problem of where to draw the line, and who draws it. Much better to let opinions be expressed. If you disagree, post if you think it will do any good, and don’t if you think it won’t.
This isn’t a valid comparison. A cult posting their propeganda isn’t anologous to posters with differing political points of views. We wouldn’t allow neonazis to post their rhetoric here; the same should be true for FLG (and if you think my comparison is extreme, read Li Hongzhi’s views on mixed marriages and mixed race children).
i’M WITH YOU oops sorry just came from the Open Forum…
I’m with you Stimpy, but the FLG feed on propaganda. They hate to be laughed at. I want them to post here. We could set up an FLG forum I suppose.
Yes I realise there’s a sinister side, but they’re an almost completely spent force now. They’re not going to be doing much more damage, except in San Francisco, where everyone’s half mad anyway.
This isn’t a valid comparison. A cult posting their propeganda isn’t anologous to posters with differing political points of views. We wouldn’t allow neonazis to post their rhetoric here; the same should be true for FLG (and if you think my comparison is extreme, read Li Hongzhi’s views on mixed marriages and mixed race children).[/quote]What makes you think I haven’t read all that?
I imagine that if anyone from anywhere made posts advocating racism on the forums themselves, that person would be suspended and/or banned, as others have been before. Personally I’m not sure about that. Sometimes I think it might be better to let rational argument win the day. But I can see various good practical reasons for removing racist posts and suspending the posters.
Are the FLG advocates directly advocating racism here? I haven’t seen it, if so. What they think, but don’t post, is their own business, I believe. We can’t go pre-emptively banning people because we think they’re going to use the forums to advocate racism in the future.
We just going to have to agree to disagree. I’m in favour of freedom of political and religious speech wherever possible. Doesn’t mean I have to like what people are saying. I understand that you have a different viewpoint, though, and to be honest I can’t be bothered to carry on talking about it. I doubt I’ll change your opinion or that you’ll change mine.
That’s a little unfair Stimpy. Why, some of those FLG nutters are even doctors, or so I’ve heard. They’re not ALL ignorant rubes.
That’s a little unfair Stimpy. Why, some of those FLG nutters are even doctors, or so I’ve heard. They’re not ALL ignorant rubes.[/quote]
As the Reverend Doctor Himself would surely attest.
I agree with TC on this. No matter what our opinions are of wackos, cowardly ABCs, brainwashed FLG, extremists, whatever, it’s a slippery slope when the mods start putting up exclusionary lists. Who shall judge, and who shall judge the judges?
The best we can do is ignore them, and eventually they’ll go away. either that or taunt them incessantly until they go away.
[quote=“Jack Burton”]The best we can do is ignore them, and eventually they’ll go away. either that or taunt them incessantly until they go away.[/quote]I think you’ll have a long wait if you expect taunting to work that way! Seems to me that it only gets them more entrenched in their views and determined to “spread the word”. But I guess maybe you were just being ironic.