Thanks Moderators

[Leslie Sharp]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

With luck, perhaps EF commenters can go back to their mud-slinging, ironically under this "Thanks moderators" thread. 

Is Matthew Koch really banned? 

I thought Koch was more entertaining than Netflix, and free.

A variant of gonzo journalism, to dredge up an old phrase.

He should have avoided some situations and posts, to be sure. 

Oh well. The tedium is setting in? 

 

You've never read Thompson then.  

[Douglas Caddy]

It is official that the "56 years of history thread" is dead. RIP. It seems appropriate to post this here as it also deals with the historical dead:

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

I submit Mr. Koch is a trained alt-right provocateur. If my declarative statement is against forum rules, I’ll remove it, but I don’t retract.

You should retract this IMO; as its another egregious mis-characterisation. The person is not here to defend themselves, either. 
Not only that, let me ask you a question; do you desire that this thread and others go the same way as other threads that have turned septic? My continuing in the same vain you’ll almost certainly achieve the same outcome or potentially worse. 

I think this definition of madness originally comes from the bible; “People doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results.” 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

You should retract this IMO; as its another egregious mis-characterisation. The person is not here to defend themselves, either. 
Not only that, let me ask you a question; do you desire that this thread and others go the same way as other threads that have turned septic? My continuing in the same vain you’ll almost certainly achieve the same outcome or potentially worse. 

I think this definition of madness originally comes from the bible; “People doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results.” 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

 

Mr. Koch was very antagonistic towards me, and would not let up, even when I retracted some statements. I found his whole presentation mean spirited and only cooperative when someone gave him kudos. He wants to win, not share. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mr. Koch was very antagonistic towards me, and would not let up, even when I retracted some statements. I found his whole presentation mean spirited and only cooperative when someone gave him kudos. He wants to win, not share. 

Hey Paul, 

We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. IMO you jumped very quickly to the nuclear option using the R word, inappropriately, as well as the anti-S. i understand this was a reaction but, not proportionate or accurate, just intended to wound or disgrace. This has been happening regularly between other parties for sometimes years. They are not banned. Also, wanting to win is the main prerogative of a quartet people who identify as liberals here. It cannot be condoned or a blind eye turned when its them, and someone else vilified for it. 

I have been wronged in so many ways here, often called things I am not but, I am willing to forgive and put emotions aside. I am also willing to apologise for wronging others, even in retaliation. I see that was the way we move forward. At this rate, we are on a trajectory for more disharmony. 

 

[Matt Allison]

56 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I submit Mr. Koch is a trained alt-right provocateur.

Within a week of him joining, it was obvious to me what Koch wanted to do to that thread, which is why I put him on ignore shortly thereafter.

[Leslie Sharp]

52 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

You should retract this IMO; as its another egregious mis-characterisation. The person is not here to defend themselves, either. 
Not only that, let me ask you a question; do you desire that this thread and others go the same way as other threads that have turned septic? My continuing in the same vain you’ll almost certainly achieve the same outcome or potentially worse. 

I think this definition of madness originally comes from the bible; “People doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results.” 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

 

Having read more carefully Mark's explanation of how moderation works, I will modify it -- out of deference to you personally.

I too think this thread should remain focused on appreciation of the moderators' thankless task. However, at least one moderator commented that this is (paraphrasing) a debriefing or decompression, and a number of comments speak to the question of Mr. Koch's behavior so I felt it appropriate to acknowledge my role in the "imbroglio", and to also stand my ground that Mr. Koch's posts were without merit, lacking credibility, and clearly designed to trigger, ergo a conscious provocateur.

Deletion is forthcoming. ... make that modification is forthcoming.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

fel·low trav·el·er

[ˈˌfelō ˈtrav(ə)lər]

 

NOUN

fellow travellers (plural noun)

 

a person who is not a member of a particular group or political party (especially the Communist Party), but who sympathizes with the group's aims and policies:

"he was certainly a fellow traveller—in the political context of the Thirties this was unremarkable"

 

I didn't make up this definition. Fellow traveler Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

 

From Wikipedia: "In U.S. politics, during the 1940s and the 1950s, the term fellow traveller was a pejorative term for a person who was philosophically sympathetic to Communism, yet was not a formal, "card-carrying member" of the Communist Party USA. In political discourse, the term fellow traveler was applied to intellectuals, academics, and politicians who lent their names and prestige to Communist front organizations."

 

I didn't make up this Wikipedia entry, either. It is PLAINLY STATED that this "...was a pejorative term..." Which makes it an insult.

 

Which means thou protesteth too much, without doing the requisite research.

You’ve proved my point. The meaning of words change through time. One obvious example is the word “gay”.  Like the Oxford Dictionary, Merriam-Webster makes no reference to the term “fellow traveller” being currently pejorative or derogatory.

Nor does Wikipedia. It’s regrettable that you’ve cherrypicked the Wikipedia article to suit your denigratory (how ironic!) purpose, as is clear from the first two paragraphs quoted below. The operative sentence is the opening sentence, because it relates to the current meaning of the term.

You skipped over that first sentence and the whole first paragraph and selectively quoted the beginning of the second paragraph, which relates to “U.S. politics, during the 1940s and the 1950s”.

You remind me of the academics in Philip Roth’s novel The Human Stain who dug up an outdated definition of some word in order to portray a colleague as racist and “cancel” him.

For a busy moderator you’ve gone to great lengths to cobble together a half-arsed case against me that doesn’t stand up. As I said, desperate stuff.

Extract from Wikipedia article:

The term fellow traveller (also fellow traveler) identifies a person who is intellectually sympathetic to the ideology of a political organization, and who co-operates in the organization's politics, without being a formal member of that organization.^[1] In the early history of the Soviet Union, the Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet statesman Anatoly Lunacharsky coined the term poputchik ('one who travels the same path') and later it was popularized by Leon Trotsky to identify the vacillating intellectual supporters of the Bolshevik government.^[2] It was the political characterisation of the Russian intelligentsiya (writers, academics, and artists) who were philosophically sympathetic to the political, social, and economic goals of the Russian Revolution of 1917, but who did not join the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The usage of the term poputchik disappeared from political discourse in the Soviet Union during the Stalinist régime, but the Western world adopted the English term fellow traveller to identify people who sympathised with the Soviets and with Communism.^[1]

In U.S. politics, during the 1940s and the 1950s, the term fellow traveler was a pejorative term for a person who was philosophically sympathetic to Communism, yet was not a formal, "card-carrying member" of the Communist Party USA. In political discourse, the term fellow traveler was applied to intellectuals, academics, and politicians who lent their names and prestige to Communist front organizations.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller

Edited March 14, 2023 by John Cotter

[John Cotter]

45 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Within a week of him joining, it was obvious to me what Koch wanted to do to that thread, which is why I put him on ignore shortly thereafter.

So says Saint Matt Immaculatus Allison.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You've never read Thompson then.  

Well, I did, but back in the day....memories fade....

[Leslie Sharp]

1 minute ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, I did, but back in the day....memories fade....

Personally, I kinda think you're off the mark. 

Gonzo journalism is a style of journalism that is written without claims of objectivity, often including the reporter as part of the story using a first-person narrative.
If believe the member in question would argue he was quite objective and those who challenged him were whining lefties. Just my perception so no lectures solicited. It's a subjective observation.

 

Plus, Hunter was hilarious, in my opinion.

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Plus, Hunter was hilarious, in my opinion.

He not only was, he is, his work lives on.  The carpet is growing.

[Ron Bulman]

13 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Is it any wonder you and your fellow idealogues want the “56 years” thread deleted? The evidence of your obnoxious illogicality displayed in the thread is damning.

Edited 13 hours ago by John Cotter

Though I can only speak for myself.  We the people did not want the thread deleted.  If used for it's original intent.  JFK to now.  However, it was invaded by newer members it seems like bent on it's destruction, or maybe more.  As momma bear possibly alludes, Provocateurs' ?  

Any way.  Tuesday's almost gone in CST.

 

[John Cotter]

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Though I can only speak for myself.  We the people did not want the thread deleted.  If used for it's original intent.  JFK to now.  However, it was invaded by newer members it seems like bent on it's destruction, or maybe more.  As momma bear possibly alludes, Provocateurs' ?  

Any way.  Tuesday's almost gone in CST.

 

You seem mightily confused, Ron.

The purported reason why the “56 years” thread was consigned to oblivion is that, as Administrator Mark Knight put it, “NO ONE, it seems, can remain civil on this thread.”

That includes you and your longstanding fellow forum members. Or are you too having problems with the English language?

Edited March 15, 2023 by John Cotter

[Benjamin Cole]

Interesting question:

Would a civil but ardent Trump supporter be treated civilly in this forum? 

Taking bets....