http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArti cle%2FShowFull

Herbert Milhous

Howard Dean said a long time ago that Iran could not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Of course, you'd never know because the news channels were too busy re-playing the Dean scream...

Andrew

Well, Andrew, you don't expect the inside-the-Beltway news media to actually do any work, do you? It's much easier to follow cliches, like Democrats are too wimpy to care about national security ... (eyes rolling upwards)

However, the Democrats idea of stopping Iran's nuclear momentum will be a totally ignored UN resolution.

Given their track record on defense, I'm afraid you might be right, Deane.

I sure hope not.

When it comes to Iran and nukes, IRAN has given us two choices:

We either
(1). Appease or

(2). Help our allies, [Including Israel if western Europe is too wimpy], to take em' out.

Herb

I've said all along Iran was the country we should have invaded when we went into Iraq. THAT would have been waging war on terroism. THAT would have been going after weapons of mass destruction. THAT would have been freeing people of a repressive government, PLUS we just owe them for taking our Americans hostage in 1979. President redneck and the neocons didn't see it that way however and now we are in a quagmire that hasn't got a damn thing to do with most of the things I stated above. Then conservatives can't figure out why I call them all stupid. Barney Frank said one of the biggest lies of mankind was saying "I hate to say I told you so". He's right and.......

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is where you want some sort of diplomatic relationship, if only to quietly pass on meaningful threats about how we expect them to act (aka the Reagan/Bush I/James Baker school of international diplomacy).

This is also where you want some sort of competent person as Commander-in-Chief, so that you can count on having American forces ready to go for actions in our national interest.

Unlike the situation we have in Washington, DC, and Iraq right now, that is.

Herb,

This comes as a surprise to you because you allow your image of a Liberal to be formed by the likes of Faux News.

Yeah, Herb. Clinton wasn't the one who traded weapons to the Ayatollah, appeased Saddam Hussein while he gassed his own people, or cut and ran from Beirut in 1983 after America was attacked. When you think "appeasement" think "Reagan" not "Democrats."

Andrew

C'mon guys.

Mr. Bush may not be Mr. Nixon, but neither can you say that Jimmy Carter or Mr. Clinton acted like FDR.

Herb

Stop, Herb. You bring up "appeasement" over and over again, pretending that Democrats have appeased dictators when, in fact, Republicans like Ronald Reagan are the ones who actually appeased dictators and terrorists. Why can't you at least be honest about this? Or did you think Teddy Kennedy ordered the Marines to retreat after America was attacked in Beirut in 1983? Do you think Michael Dukakis sat back and did nothing while Saddam gassed his own people? Or when Saddam gassed Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war using intelligence provided by the United States?

Your bringing up "appeasement" over and over again would be like me constantly reminding you how immoral Republicans are because Bill Frist lied to the American people about the affair he was having. Stop being Fox News who switched the party from "Republican" to "Democrat" when displaying Mark Foley's name on the screen.

Andrew

>>>:Stop, Herb. You bring up "appeasement" over and over again, pretending that Democrats have appeased dictators when, in fact, Republicans like Ronald Reagan are the ones who actually appeased dictators and terrorists. Why can't you at least be honest about this?"

Ya, Herb, can't you understand Clinton never appeased the little twirp from North Korea. Heck, he never gave them our nuke stuff to get him to promise to be a good little boy. Never happened.

"Or did you think Teddy Kennedy ordered the Marines to retreat after America was attacked in Beirut in 1983?"

If I were a democrat, the last person I would bring up would be a politician from my party who has blood of the young, innocent Mary Jo Kopechne on his hands.

And he's someone who is qualified to sit in judge of others?

That's how I feel.

Herb

Nice dodge, Herb! Don't worry, that's what I expected - not a direct answer. Perhaps you really do believe Reagan wasn't in office while Saddam was gassing his own people so that's why think the Democrats are the "appeasers" not Reagan.

As for Clinton: as I recall, the North Koreans re-started their weapons programs and threw the weapons inspectors out AFTER Bush came into office. Bush's approach (whatever it is - basically do nothing) has sure worked wonders, hasn't it?

Andrew

YOU bring up a guy from YOUR party responsible for an innocent young girl's death.

And I'M supposed to ignore it.

Then when his record is noted, I'M the bad guy?

Oh, I forgot.

He's OK because he's YOUR guy.

You can't make this stuff up.

Spin on.

Herb

Herb, stop trying to change the subject to Teddy Kennedy (I was using any Random Democrat for my example, could have been Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, Any Democrat). Be a man for a change and address this straight up: why oh why do you repeatedly bring up "appeasement" by Democrats when most of the "appeasement" in the last 25 years has been by Republicans? If like Deane you think Clinton appeased North Korea, why can't you be honest and admit that Reagan and Bush appeased terrorists and dictators at least as much (if not much more) than Clinton and Carter did?

If you are not a real man, Herb, too chicken to answer a direct question because you know you can't backup your position or simply lack the courage of your convictions, then just shut up! It's rather hard to respect someone who won't answer a direct question honestly.

Andrew

Herb...
Where did DRUNK Ted come into the picture here???

Andrew....
You can't expect neo-CONers to blame Reagan for anything for crying out loud. He couldn't even remember his own name by the time he's 6th year started....

>>>"As for Clinton: as I recall, the North Koreans re-started their weapons programs and threw the weapons inspectors out AFTER Bush came into office."

Thanks for clarifying this. I didn't realize Clinton gave away our nuke stuff for a promise to be good only until he left office. Somehow that went unreported.

"Reagan and Bush appeased terrorists and dictators at least as much (if not much more) than Clinton and Carter did?"

There you go again.

Point of fact: Mr. Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire. He's the one who stated "Mr. Gorbachev, take down that wall." Hardly appeasing dictators.

Point of fact: Mr. Bush took out Saddam Hussein, an evil dictator. Hardly appeasing dictators.

You're 0 for 2, Andrew.

And your point is?

Herbert Milhous

A picture is worth a thousand words...

http://www.unknownnews.net/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

>>>"A picture is worth a thousand words... "

That photo is 23 years old. Anything newer, or is that it?

Both are gone.

How about a few photos of Mr. Clinton declassifying our secret missile technology?

Herb

Last time, Herb: you have repeatedly used Saddam's gassing of his own people as a primary moral reason for invading Iraq. Can you name the American president who KNEW IT WAS HAPPENING while he was in office and did *NOTHING* about it? (Hint: not Clinton, and not Dukakis.)

Can you name the president who pulled out after America was attacked in Beirut in 1983 with hundreds of dead Americans?

Can you name the president who negotiated with terrorists (after promising never to do so) and traded arms to the Ayatollah?

If you can't answer these questions directly without spinning or changing the subject, after repeatingly bringing up "appeasement," then you are a coward and a hypocrite.

If you want bring up Clinton and N. Korea and Somalia, you also must acknowledge that Republicans did equally bad things while in office; otherwise you are nothing more than a partisan hypocrite, not worth wasting any more time on.

Andrew

You've made a grave error in logic.

I never said Republicans were perfect. And there's a difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and appeasement.

I'm also not aware that our country knew of Saddam's civil rights abuses as they were happening. When those facts became known, we took action.

Sure, Mr. Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand WHILE WE WERE AT WAR WITH IRAN. THEY TOOK OUR COUNTRY HOSTAGE REMEMBER?

And who got Saddam out of power?

Thank goodness you won't be writing the history books in the years to come. Your hatred has blinded you to all the good that our conservative presidents have accomplished.

Herbert M.

herb sez: "And who got Saddam out of power?"

me: We went to iraq to get wmds. where are the WMDs? thank goodness YOU won't be writing history books.

Herb writes:
I never said Republicans were perfect. And there's a difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and appeasement.

No, but you consistently criticize Democrats for doing the same types of things Republicans have actually done. Why the hypocrisy? If you want to criticize a behavior (showing weakness in Somalia as well as Lebanon), why not admit in the same breath that both parties are guilty of it? Why the intellectual dishonesty and the blind partisanship?

I'm also not aware that our country knew of Saddam's civil rights abuses as they were happening. When those facts became known, we took action.

Well, Herb, maybe you ought to do a little reading on that beyond listening to the Sean Hannity show. It is documented FACT that the Reagan administration knew about Saddam's gassing of his own people. This is not just spin. Here's just one source:

http://hnn.us/articles/862.html

That should refute completely your assertion that we took "action" as soon as we knew about Saddam's human rights abuses. The truth is, we did nothing at all until 1991, and even after ending the first Gulf War, the Bush administration with our own troops in Iraq and WATCHED the Iraqis slaughter their own people and did NOTHING. Many members of the US Military were disgusted by their orders to stand down and let Iraqi helicopter gunships murder thousands of innocent people in 1991.

So it's complete bunk that the US took "action" under Reagan or Bush I to combat Saddam's human rights abuses before or after the Gulf War. How about being honest and admitting that fact?

iSure, Mr. Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand WHILE WE WERE AT WAR WITH IRAN. THEY TOOK OUR COUNTRY HOSTAGE REMEMBER?

Don't remember the US going to war with Iran, Herb. I remember that after the first hostage crisis, the US helped Iraq in its war against Iran but in the mid-80s Reagan had no problem negotiating with the terrorists who had kidnapped more Americans in Lebanon and even sold weapons to Iran! And you think it was OK to sell weapons to a country we were at "war" with? Can you imagine if FDR had secretly sold weapons to Hitler or Tojo???

I'm still trying to figure out, Herb, if you are really this naive, blindly partisan, or just pulling my leg with this act.

Andrew

How about a few photos of Mr. Nixon listening to ILLEGAL wiretaps????

"That photo is 23 years old. Anything newer, or is that it?"

OK.. fair enough.

At what point does something that happend in the past become irrelevant?

Chappaquiddick was 38 years ago.

Clinton's BJ was almost 10 years ago.

The more aggregious the act, the more it remains relevant.

Mr. Clinton's impeachment remains relevant.
Mr. Kennedy's manslaughter involvement remains relevant.

Mr. Nixon listening to wiretaps is precisely what JFK and LBJ did whilst they were in office. It also did not involve perjury or the death of an innocent human being.

You wanna go after Mr. Nixon? Then you better go after JFK and LBJ, too.

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

"The more aggregious the act, the more it remains relevant."

Is the death of Mary Jo Kopechne 38 years ago more relevant than the hundreds or perhaps thousands killed by Saddam 23 years ago?

If you believe it is, does that NOT constitute Moral relativism?

Mr. Bush shut down the rape rooms.

Uday, Quesay and Saddam are history.

Democrats want to blame the guy who stopped the killing of innocents.

That's what's relevant.

Herb

herb sez: "Mr. Bush shut down the rape rooms. Uday, Quesay and Saddam are history."

Folks, as herb has shown again and again, he's a troll, not someone engaging in meaningful debate. Andrew, you're being manipulated by a top-notched troll.

Andrews a big boy. He can judge for himself. We don't need the "troll" accusations again.

Deane, the name-calling comes out whenever these guys can't get their agenda across.

Anyone who doesn't grasp how meaningful it is to defeat an evil and oppressive dictator like Saddam is so partisan as to be laughable.

Herb

"Is the death of Mary Jo Kopechne 38 years ago more relevant than the hundreds or perhaps thousands killed by Saddam 23 years ago?"

I don't consider Herb a troll because I've met people like him who actually believe as he does - I don't think he's faking it. That's one of the reasons I engage him on this board - to show how foolish his point of view really is. It's perfectly legitimate to say Democratic presidents have made bad foreign policy mistakes (Clinton in Solalia, etc.). It's NOT fair to criticize Democratic presidents for the same things Republicans have done too, in spades, pretend that your side almost never does wrong and the other side is always wrong, and have a different standard of judgement for one and not the other. That would be called "hypocrisy" and "blind partisanship."

Again, people actually believe that way and Herb seems to be the perfect example. I don't claim to be completely unbiased (no one is), but I think I am fair in seeing more than one point of view, even if I don't agree with it. Some people can only see one side.

Andrew

Deane, Herb IS a troll. There is no doubt about it. He would be called out for violating basic debating rules on a jr high team. His attempt to distract us with off point emotional pleas underlines the work of a troll or somebody woefully undereducated. The troll knows exactly what he's doing and needs no help from you.

"His attempt to distract us with off point emotional pleas underlines the work of a troll or somebody woefully undereducated."

Oh please.

As if democrats on this board are never off point.

As if democrats on this board never use emotional pleas.

As if democrats on this board are so better educated.

Again.

Your hyper-partisan view blinds you to any but your own view.

I freely admit conservative mistakes.

Big tobacco is absolutely wrong.
HMO's are generally wrong.
NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO are generally wrong.

Republicans should distance themselves from the above groups.

However, when it comes to liberal mistakes, like partial birth abortion, you are either silent or support it.

Herb

Herb writes:
I freely admit conservative mistakes.

LOL!!!! I've yet to hear you acknowledge that Reagan sat by and did nothing while Saddam gassed his own people or while Bush I sat by and did nothing while American troops watched Saddam's goons murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians just after Gulf War I. Yet you bring up these actions as a reason for removing Saddam in 2003, (hint: 1988-1991 would probably have been slightly more helpful time to act for the now-dead) - and then you criticize Democrats for wanting to "appease" Saddam!!!! How much more blatantly hypocritical could you be????

Far from freely admitting a conservative mistake - you are either highly delusional or plain lying. Why not be honest about something that is so blatantly obvious to everyone else?

Andrew

Herb said>>>
Republicans should distance themselves from the above groups.

Republicans should distance themselves from ULTRA-RIGHT neo-CONers like yourself. America doesn't believe the same as you and that's being shown everyday around Americas. YOUR way to EXTREME for good hard working America. You want to be extreme??? Try Cuba... You and Castro would get along just fine.

Castro?

Ever hear of Bay of Pigs?

That was a democrat fiasco.

Better check your history.

Herb

"On March 17, 1960 the Eisenhower administration agreed to a recommendation from the CIA to equip and drill Cuban exiles for action against the new Castro government.[1] Eisenhower stated that it was the policy of the U.S. government to aid anti-Castro guerilla forces. The CIA began to recruit and train anti-Castro forces in the Sierra Madre mountains on the Pacific coast of Guatemala.[1] Vice President Richard Nixon, not Eisenhower, reportedly pushed the plan forward."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_invasion

But then The Bay of Pigs invasion took place 46 years ago.

Is it really relevant?

Herb, I was talking about one troll, YOU. Not republicans (or democrats), just YOU!

I disagree with Andrew's assessment although concede that he is correct that lot of people are exactly as he describes.

You on the other hand know exactly what you're doing here. You squeezed all the mileage out of Wayne and left him to hang by his own noose. You had opportunity to rein Wayne in just enough to keep him from hanging himself yet you cheered him on as he climbed the ladder and eventually jumped.

The payoff was worth it to you because wayne disrupted this forum far better than you could have ever hoped to do by yourself without getting banned.

I already broke this guy down a couple weeks ago. He's definitely troll. Hell, he didn't even have a quantifiable defense when I broke him down. He just thanked me for recognizing Nixon as a person with a beating heart. Which was pretty easy, since he lived, ergo his heart actually worked at some point.

It's not name calling in this instance. He knows what he's doing and he knows it's not about actual debate or exchange of ideas and viewpoints. It's trolling. It's not an insult or a derailment or an unfair label being applied. It's factual statement. It's not stunting discussion or being "unfair," it's the opposite in fact. It's encouraging ACTUAL discussion by fairly appraising the situation for what it is.

A man that does nothing but reductionist absurdity, to the nth degree, constantly labeling people and viewpoints with the efficiency of an office labelmaker, COMPLAINING about being LABELED? It would be ironic if it wasn't so tired and predictable coming from a trolling standpoint.

Again, not to present some false "argument of authority" but if people ventured outside this board onto more populated discussion areas more than "every now and again" they'd recognize these same traits in more than a few people, and all these people are what we know as FORUM TROLLS. It's a very basic playbook. He's running it in a barely adequate fashion. He feeds off your optimism and naivete, and exploits it for his own personal reasons, whatever they may be. Whatever they are, it has nothing to do with actual debate or exchange of ideas. There's a personal need that trolling this board fulfills.

It'd be nice if he spilled just what that was.

Have fun with Castro Herbaroni......

IMHO, the problem with this discussion is framing it in binary terms: fight or appease.

War is not the only answer to everything.

"A man that does nothing but reductionist absurdity, to the nth degree, constantly labeling people and viewpoints with the efficiency of an office labelmaker, COMPLAINING about being LABELED?"

You have no credibility given Trixter's posts. Yet he gets a pass because of his PC views.

Herb

But my job is not to be safeguarding the entire board, so whether I note Trixters own annoying habits in posting on the political side or not DOES NOT MAKE what I type about you any less correct, insightful and pointed. I don't understand how that makes any sense in your head.

Mostly because I'm pretty sure you know it DOESN'T make any sense, it's yet another empty deflection. Trixter doesn't get a "Pass" one way or the other, and you're not being crucified or persecuted, so pulling that blanket over your shoulders and dampening it with alligator tears might be what you think is a "Shrewd move" but it carries absolutely no weight in what we call reality.

I like to call your move there "admission by deflection."

You have all the time in the world to rebut effectively, you sit and muse on the response, and yet you elect NOT to try and disavow anyone of the notions I've put forth. Instead you point at some OTHER person like a 2nd grade tattle tale and whine that "BUT THEY DO IT TOO!"

Or maybe you don't realize that by complaining about OTHER people doing it and they don't get yelled at, you're ADMITTING that you do EXACTLY what I say you do, thus leaving yourself wide open to be just as marginalized and rhetorically obsolete as say, Cindy Sheehan.

At least Cindy Sheehan gets press.

You get about 6 people on a Portland Radio messageboard.

My credibility is JUST fine, because lucky for us, your self-appointed role as arbiter of integrity is funny like "Borat."

"...Trixter doesn't get a "Pass" one way or the other."

Right.

Hmmm...You only attack conservatives. Gee, could that be just coincidence?

Spin on, Bush-bashing, Wayne-hating, Herb-trasher.

Herb

You're not as clever as you apparently think you are, whatever your actual name is

I don't "only attack conservatives." In just the last few weeks, I've propped up a conservative poster here (Deane) railed on a liberal figurehead (Sheehan) and if you look even FARTHER back in the post-history, you'll see I called out Trixter a couple times, the current whiny sticking point you're trying to use as some sort of shield or whatever.

Gee, could your faux-condescending tone of authority be any more tired?

Yes, actually, it could.

I'd also like to point out this is now TWO STRAIGHT posts where you've decided NOT to take the opportunity to deny the appraisal I've made of your intentions and your posting style, and instead, you've AFFIRMED my read of your "persona" here on the boards by posting EXACTLY as I say you do.

If this is supposed to be some sort of slick exercise proving how well you TRAPPED me, you fucking suck at it.

Jesus, I could do what you do, but better, I just recognize there's absolutely no mentally nutritional value in it. It's messageboard masturbation, and I see no need to ejaculate all over the faces of the people reading. You do.

Get a rag and mop up your chin, for god's sake.

Nothing new here.

Classic democrat strategy.

When there's no argument, resort to personal attacks.

Your vulgarity is only surpassed by your venom.

You make my case far better than I could.

Herb

My argument IS a personal attack. I'm discussing YOU, not your asinine simplifications of issues being paid grave injustice by your charade of "weighing in" of them. The whole point of my weighing in was to further dissect YOU. I'm not off-track one iota here by going after you, that's the ENTIRE POINT. It's not a DEMOCRAT STRATEGY (says mr I don't Label People wah wait yes I do but others do it too don't ruin my fun by pointing out the retardation inherent in my favorite pastime) It's basic communication. I'm good at it. You aren't.

If your entire posting style--the double spacing, the signing, the silly pseudonym that changes based on the "sincerity" of the "message" you relayed previous--wasn't enough of a hint, then you trying to USE MY POSTS and my posting style against me in a sort of warped funhouse mirror image of what I'm doing to you? That seriously shows you are vacuous and stupid beyond what most have expected of you. You're a pale imitation of betters who have gone before you.

If you HAD a case to make, of course I'd make it better than you could, I'm better at this than you are. You're not telling me, or anyone else, anything we all don't know.

Here, while I've got your attention, why don't you answer this small questionnaire I have for you

1) What is your overall purpose in posting almost solely on the political forums at a small messageboard devoted to Portland Radio and Radio History?

2) What is the function of constantly flouting accepted internet etiquette by double-spacing every sentence you type and signing your posts as if your name isn't already very visible in the header? You have to consciously make the decision to do that, What is it you think you're DOING by continuing the practice?

3) What is the major motivation you post with? Every post is very confrontational, condescending, domineering and simplistic, and yet you simultaneously play the victim card as you victimize the entire board with your tenor and post-style. What drives you to continue in such a counterproductive manner?

4) Is there any sort of benefit you gain from "interacting" with people here in such a counterproductive manner? What is your immediate feeling after reeling off yet another empty, circular, double spaced and signed bit of antagonizing rhetoric? Satisfaction? Bemusement? Anticipation?

5) What other boards do you post at, and do you do the same things there, or do you save this routine just for this board and the 6 or 7 posters on this side that respond to you? Does it give you pause to consider that you spend a considerable amount of time online for the sole purpose of antagonizing 6 or 7 people you'll never meet on a messageboard devoted to Radio? Or does this realization never cross your mind?

Honest answers to these questions would probably allow us to all frame your "personality" and "quirks" in a much more understanding light.

Or you could deflect and point fingers and feign "offense" at honest human interaction while sticking up your nose as if it's not buried under a mountain of your own bullshit.

Wow.

Herb = pWned.

WOW!
Herb must think of himself as perfect.....

NIXON
NIXON
ABORTION
NIXON
NIXON
neo-FACIST EXTREME RIGHT wingers do everything right...
GOD!
GOD!

Damn! Herb is right.... EXTREME RIGHT!

"Every post is very confrontational, condescending, domineering and simplistic..."

Ever read your own posts?

You can't make this stuff up!

Herb

"Here, while I've got your attention, why don't you answer this small questionnaire I have for you

1) What is your overall purpose in posting almost solely on the political forums at a small messageboard devoted to Portland Radio and Radio History?

2) What is the function of constantly flouting accepted internet etiquette by double-spacing every sentence you type and signing your posts as if your name isn't already very visible in the header? You have to consciously make the decision to do that, What is it you think you're DOING by continuing the practice?

3) What is the major motivation you post with? Every post is very confrontational, condescending, domineering and simplistic, and yet you simultaneously play the victim card as you victimize the entire board with your tenor and post-style. What drives you to continue in such a counterproductive manner?

4) Is there any sort of benefit you gain from "interacting" with people here in such a counterproductive manner? What is your immediate feeling after reeling off yet another empty, circular, double spaced and signed bit of antagonizing rhetoric? Satisfaction? Bemusement? Anticipation?

5) What other boards do you post at, and do you do the same things there, or do you save this routine just for this board and the 6 or 7 posters on this side that respond to you? Does it give you pause to consider that you spend a considerable amount of time online for the sole purpose of antagonizing 6 or 7 people you'll never meet on a messageboard devoted to Radio? Or does this realization never cross your mind?

Honest answers to these questions would probably allow us to all frame your "personality" and "quirks" in a much more understanding light.

Or you could deflect and point fingers and feign "offense" at honest human interaction while sticking up your nose as if it's not buried under a mountain of your own bullshit."

Please answer the questions, "Herb." Thanks.

Given your past vitriol, who would want what you call 'honest human interaction?' Besides, that's precisely how the 'progressives' on this board berated Wayne. They'd bait the poor guy, then wail on him whenever he'd respond.

A little civility goes a long way. It might even keep you from getting banned from this board, as others have discovered.

Herb

Herb....
Maybe you'll be the next to be banned??? You could follow in Wayers footsteps....

KEEP IT UP!

Herb doesn't answer questions - he dodges them. He says he isn't afraid to admit conservative mistakes but when confronted with them (especially about Nixon), he bobs and weaves and dodges...hey, but what about Teddy Kennedy and Clinton's affair with Monica, did you hear about that?

I say again, I think there are many people who think and argue just like Herb in real life; that's one of the reasons I have wasted my responding to him in the past (maybe not so much in the future - getting tired of having the same arguments over and over again...)

Andrew

Well,

That was totally unexpected.

Herb has NEVER answered questions given to him....
It's all about Nixon and Abrotion.....
Oh, and how Clinton was such a bad Prez....

Brianl: Yep, that's a *plonk*.

Andrew: There are! I happen to live near one of them! (maybe it's Herb?)

Look.

Who STARTED this thread? It's a COMPLIMENT to your cause:

"If democrats keep this up, I may become a fan."

Talk about no good turn going unpunished.

You guys don't like it? Then begin a different one.

Together, you're all pretty cocksure. I'd like to see any one of you wade into a conservative-dominated board and even TRY to hold your own.

You want to keep up with your 'progressive' group think? Go right ahead.

With rare exception, around here it's all liberal, all the time. So much for diversity of thought.

But then again, why should we be surprised. Most 'progressives' on this board are only about squashing any difference of opinion...unless it's PC enough to fit your agenda.

Herb

Herb:

You make it sound like we're ALL a bunch of unabashed bed-wetters who hold hands and sing Kum-Bay-Uh ... maybe it's because you are the most conservative person in here.

I don't think that most people in here have as much of an issue with your "difference of opinion" or your conservative views as much as they have a problem with HOW you present it. Fatboy is pointing THAT out more than the straight content of your posts.

Deane is one who thinks right alongside you on many fronts, yet Deane seems to use reason at times, and not be just holding up the Conservative banner.

You are quick to point out that Bush "put an end to rape rooms and torture chambers" in Iraq. The question is right now, who has more Iraqi blood on their hands - Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush? I bet the death totals directly tied to the two men are pretty close, and it took Saddam some 20 years to get the numbers Bush has in less than four. I just don't see how you can justify and embrace 600,000+ Iraqi and 3000+ US deaths on the watch of George W. Bush, as if that is better than the death and torture that Saddam Hussein caused.

This is but ONE example where you keep spitting out the same rhetoric despite facts to say otherwise are staring at you right in the face.

Please, don't go Wayne on us. I'm afraid this is where it's going.

"A little civility goes a long way"

Well, good then. I'm glad we agree on that point. You can show some basic civility then and answer the questions I've asked of you in an honest manner in an effort to further make yourself more understandable and relatable to the audience you're proselytizing to.

keep in mind, this isn't a partisan thing, this isn't a political debate--unless "raging asshole" became a political party and nobody told me. This is about you, as a person, and what you're putting yourself out there as, publically.

Here, I'll repost said questions for you:

"1) What is your overall purpose in posting almost solely on the political forums at a small messageboard devoted to Portland Radio and Radio History?

2) What is the function of constantly flouting accepted internet etiquette by double-spacing every sentence you type and signing your posts as if your name isn't already very visible in the header? You have to consciously make the decision to do that, What is it you think you're DOING by continuing the practice?

3) What is the major motivation you post with? Every post is very confrontational, condescending, domineering and simplistic, and yet you simultaneously play the victim card as you victimize the entire board with your tenor and post-style. What drives you to continue in such a counterproductive manner?

4) Is there any sort of benefit you gain from "interacting" with people here in such a counterproductive manner? What is your immediate feeling after reeling off yet another empty, circular, double spaced and signed bit of antagonizing rhetoric? Satisfaction? Bemusement? Anticipation?

5) What other boards do you post at, and do you do the same things there, or do you save this routine just for this board and the 6 or 7 posters on this side that respond to you? Does it give you pause to consider that you spend a considerable amount of time online for the sole purpose of antagonizing 6 or 7 people you'll never meet on a messageboard devoted to Radio? Or does this realization never cross your mind?"

Your questions are leading and loaded with incorrect assumptions. Here is an attempt to wade through your list:

'What is your overall purpose in posting almost solely on the political forums at a small messageboard devoted to Portland Radio and Radio History?'

I like political discourse. I like conservative views to be represented. I like Radio.

'What is the function of constantly flouting accepted internet etiquette by double-spacing every sentence you type and signing your posts as if your name isn't already very visible in the header?'

Not everyone reads the header. Big groups of sentences run together, are harder to read and tie-in with unrelated thoughts.

'What is the major motivation you post with?'

Providing a view that is valid and under-represented here. In case you haven't noticed, this place is filled with PC syncophants.

'Is there any sort of benefit you gain from "interacting" with people here...'

Discourse that is civil.

'What other boards do you post at, and do you do the same things there...'

Sure once you everyone else on this board does the same.

Herb

"Here's an attempt to pick and choose the safest routes available through your list."

Please, when answering, be honest with your responses, as your previous tack of obfuscating and picking and choosing is what got you to this point in the first place. Continuing down that path benefits you not one iota.

If you like Radio, how come you almost NEVER post in the radio section? In fact, you've posted over there more than ever in the two weeks since I called you out for never posting there. If you like political discourse, why don't you actually practice it, or practice it at a website where more than 6 people post? Would the greater number of savvy posters and debaters scare you from reverting back to your natural troll state? Would it be considered a "hostile" environment compared to the mildly "hostile" environment you've cultivated here?

"Not everyone reads the header."

Yes. They do. That's why it's there. If someone cares enough to respond to your comment, they're paying attention to who said it. Signing your posts is bad form and is largely considered not just superflouous, but pretentious and disrespectful, as is adopting an annoying and pointless posting style, especially for the reasons you cite--which basically boil down to "You're all too stupid for me to trust you with paragraphs" Again, subtly adding condescension and pretension to every word you type. It's a conscious decision you make, you have to know the implications when you make it, right?

I don't buy your motivation. If it's to "clear the room" of "PC Syncophants (sic)" then why are you so bad at the self-appointed job? Long ago you must have realized you were doomed to failure at the charge you'd given yourself, so if that was the real motivation, you would have moved on long ago.

If you're simply casting yourself in a role for your own self-satisfaction, that'd be one thing, it'd be a selfish, self-involved, almost sociopathic bit of reasoning, but on the internet, that's not too far gone. However, if you're going to maintain that you're honestly here to provide "Valid" views, then the question naturally follows:

How do you reconcile your utter failure at doing the simple job you've set out for yourself with the almost diametrically opposite result you keep coming up with? Do you simply blame everyone else for your failings at communication?

"Sure once you everyone else on this board does the same."

Did you blow a fuse there? That's not even real english. I don't know how to make sense of that, but like most of your misguided empty posts, I'll do all the heavy lifting to inject meaning into it so I at least have something to bounce off of

What you MEANT to say was "I'll tell you what other boards I post at and whether this is all one huge trolling act I pull for my own personal enjoyment the day everyone else here does the same thing."

Which also loosely translates into "I adore my anonymity because it gives me the strength to be the cartoonish jackass I long to be. Without that shield of anonymity I might have to actually be held responsible for the mindless bullshit I waste so many hours of my life spouting into the void-- only to be googled, by me alone, at a future date to remind myself of my self-percieved greatness."

You wanting to share with the people here shouldn't be conditional on everyone else doing it first. If you're as altruistic as you keep claiming you are, if the self-portrait you're showing off is as open and interested in civil discourse, openness and valid viewpoints, you should have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER in opening up.

Of course, I understand perfectly if there's absolutely NOTHING THERE once you open up, because this whole "Herb" persona is total horseshit. I'd just appreciate it if you finally came clean about that.

Now, if you could try answering these questions AGAIN, but honestly and completely, I think everyone here would be quite grateful for the time you've spent and the peek into your mind they enjoyed.

Thanks again. For your convienience, I'll just re-post the set of questions again for easier quoting. Please refrain from signing your posts and doublespacing each answer and cherry picking the PARTS of questions you feel "Safe" answering.

""1) What is your overall purpose in posting almost solely on the political forums at a small messageboard devoted to Portland Radio and Radio History?

2) What is the function of constantly flouting accepted internet etiquette by double-spacing every sentence you type and signing your posts as if your name isn't already very visible in the header? You have to consciously make the decision to do that, What is it you think you're DOING by continuing the practice?

3) What is the major motivation you post with? Every post is very confrontational, condescending, domineering and simplistic, and yet you simultaneously play the victim card as you victimize the entire board with your tenor and post-style. What drives you to continue in such a counterproductive manner?

4) Is there any sort of benefit you gain from "interacting" with people here in such a counterproductive manner? What is your immediate feeling after reeling off yet another empty, circular, double spaced and signed bit of antagonizing rhetoric? Satisfaction? Bemusement? Anticipation?

5) What other boards do you post at, and do you do the same things there, or do you save this routine just for this board and the 6 or 7 posters on this side that respond to you? Does it give you pause to consider that you spend a considerable amount of time online for the sole purpose of antagonizing 6 or 7 people you'll never meet on a messageboard devoted to Radio? Or does this realization never cross your mind?"

Talk about 'blowing a fuse.'

My answer to your questions were indeed sincere and you can continue to psychoanalyze anyone you want. But unless you hold a medical degree, your efforts are not likely to be seen as valid or accurate.

Yet you sure spent a lot of time and thread space with such an 'insignificant poster.'

You might consider why you're so enthralled with someone whom you consider to be such an 'utter failure.' What's YOUR time worth?

Such commentary only underlines the reality that this board has become: a haven exclusively reserved for 'progressive' thought. Shine a little light on this board and watch 'em scatter...or feign indignance.

Herbert M.

That's not blowing a fuse at all. If you wanna look at it as anything, look at it as an example of what you can do with the written word as opposed to the simple antagonizing double-spaced emptiness you seem satisfied with.

Your answers were not sincere, as nothing you DO here is sincere so long as you continue posting in the same "voice" with the same "Tricks" and the same stupid "Signature" at the end of all your intellectually dishonest posts. I'm HONESTLY trying to get at some of that sincerity, and you obviously don't want that for whatever reason. you posting at cross-purposes with what you SAY you want isn't out of the ordinary, I guess.

And again, your attempts to twist this into a partisan thing, to frame it as a "i'm being beat up because I like Richard Nixon" is disingenuous. Unless "Dickhead" became a political party, this has nothing to do with politics.

I'm enthralled with you and your weird, almost inexplicable need to be hated, to play a character on the internet to the bitter end, because it's so fascinating. I want to peek into that mindset and see how it works, why it's chosen, why people cling to it even though it almost always ends in loneliness and ill will.

While you can try and frame this as a "loss of time" question, as I've done to you, consider that my "loss of time" is maybe a total of 2 or 3 days, while your "loss of time" is running on about a year or two straight now. That you can continue to pull this off for YEARS at a time and not change a SINGLE thing, not LEARN a single thing, not change your approach to succeed at your self-set goals ONE IOTA.

You gotta admit, that's fuckin fascinating.

So anyway, you know the drill:

"1) What is your overall purpose in posting almost solely on the political forums at a small messageboard devoted to Portland Radio and Radio History?

2) What is the function of constantly flouting accepted internet etiquette by double-spacing every sentence you type and signing your posts as if your name isn't already very visible in the header? You have to consciously make the decision to do that, What is it you think you're DOING by continuing the practice?

3) What is the major motivation you post with? Every post is very confrontational, condescending, domineering and simplistic, and yet you simultaneously play the victim card as you victimize the entire board with your tenor and post-style. What drives you to continue in such a counterproductive manner?

4) Is there any sort of benefit you gain from "interacting" with people here in such a counterproductive manner? What is your immediate feeling after reeling off yet another empty, circular, double spaced and signed bit of antagonizing rhetoric? Satisfaction? Bemusement? Anticipation?

5) What other boards do you post at, and do you do the same things there, or do you save this routine just for this board and the 6 or 7 posters on this side that respond to you? Does it give you pause to consider that you spend a considerable amount of time online for the sole purpose of antagonizing 6 or 7 people you'll never meet on a messageboard devoted to Radio? Or does this realization never cross your mind?"

Thanks again. I look forward to you being honest, insightful and considerate towards sharing like an Honest-to-God Human Being for once.

WOW
Fatboy gets the *PLONK*

Look.

I'm happy to work harder at being "... honest, insightful and considerate.."

But again. Unlike countless others here, I've not lied, nor have I sworn at anyone on this board. Called someone a lefty or liberal? Sure.

Insightful? Fine, I'll take that critique. Pro-Nixon? Throw that in, too.

But you continually shove a 5-section questionaire like it's a homework assignment. You want others to give you homework?

As for your dislike of any unconventional posting habits: If it's not political with you, how about giving a litmus test to others here with disparate political views who use ALL CAPS, plenty of exclamation marks!!!!!!, or name-call?

Given the 'progressives' disturbing treatment of The Waynester on this board, let's just say that he's taught me to be careful how much one discloses when amidst others who personally attack those with whom they disagree. You got a problem with someone? Go after their IDEAS, NOT THEM PERSONALLY.

Read your very own earlier posts. Do you actually believe they engender trust?

Like you, I can push back hard when affronted. Treat conservatives nice and you'll usually get the same in return.

Herb

GIVE ME THE TEST HERB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DAMN IT!

You answer the questions and I won't keep shoving it at you.

Stop dodging and answer the questions. They're up there. you know what they are.

Thanks for not double-spacing that post, by the way. But you're still signing em--that's moronic. Knock it off.

If you want to engender trust, prove that all my statements, assumptions and accusations as to your true nature and your true reason for posting here are all WRONG--and answer the questions honestly, down the line.

Don't forget--this isn't about politics. This is about YOU. I don't want to go after your ideas because I have a hard time believing a) they're your ideas and b) you actually believe them. I'm not getting caught in that weird circling of the drain.

But YOU? That's a whole different story. There's meat on that bone.

Answer the questions, please. Thank you.

Please answer why anyone should feel compelled to answer your questionaire. Are you on some kind of a judgement kick?

Are we supposed to pass the fatboyroberts quiz in order to be worthy to post here? Is kissing your ring next?

Seriously. You must admit that your persistence on this is a bit scary.

Herb

Not at all. It's just persistence. If it scares you, that probably says more about you than it does me. Of course, it'd probably lessen considerably if you'd simply answer the questions honestly.

I don't think ANYONE should answer my questionnaire. Just you, since it's geared specifically TO you. The circumstances that led to the questions didn't just happen in a vaccuum. You weren't picked randomly. There's a reason you're under this microscope, and again--it has nothing to do with your politics, no matter how much you're trying to use that to wriggle out from under the microscope.

That's what all the 'progressive' posters here said about Wayne.

Now, he's gone.

Pardon my caution.

Herbert M.

I gotta side with Herb on this one. I think Herb answered Fatboy's initial questions from about as an honest place you can come from.

I'm trying to figure why the continual battering of a dead subject.

Herb and I are almost on complete opposite sides of most issues here. But I will stand next to him on this line of questioning.

Now, he's gone.

No, he's gone because he was outed as an empty troll with nothing to offer but discord and a poor parody of actual discourse.

Yunno, just like what I did with you.

See, the thing is, your effectiveness as a poster here is ALREADY DEAD. Whether you realize it or not. You're looking at this wrong. Your caution is misplaced.

Answering the questions isn't going to get you BANNED. At this point, answering the questions is your ONLY way to prove to everyone here you aren't exactly what I've pointed out you are. I'm giving you an OUT.

The questions are your gateway BACK to being a poster that people (for whatever inexplicable reason, like Chris here) have taken at face value.

It's their mistake, but you can make good on that mistake and stop playing these people for fools. Or you can continue to string people along with the "persona" they've bitten off on, but your effectiveness at that is gonna be pretty lessened, what with me breaking your feeble ass down to it's minutest compound.

So you can either answer em, or accept the diminished effect of the role you keep playing until you slowly realize that after this little dust-up, you (with a little help from me) have killed whatever modicum of credibility you once thought you had.

All they have to do is read.

Where is my test Herbaroni....

Herb sez: "Now, he's gone."

You had a big hand in that.


I'm trying to see things from Chris's point of view, but like it or not, Herb can't easily dismiss Fatboy's challenges as "left wing politics" because Fatboy hasn't posted enough political comments for Herb to use against him.

Now I'm not sure if this is the way to go about things, but one thing for sure, Herb is now standing completely naked before us and is unable to offer an explaination for his nudity.

This can be a turning point. Herb can put his labels away or he can quietly go off the radar.

For me it's not about how bad I want to make someone look, most people, self included, can do that on our own.

What is ultimately the goal of this line of questioning? To put Herb in his place in a public forum?

I think Herb is far to black and white in his thinking on many issues particularly the bible, but to try and make a man stand naked and shoot him down for his opinions.... I guess I don't have that kind of blood running threw my veins.

Thank you Chris for putting some intelligent perspective on this unnecessary nonsense.

"unnecessary nonsense."

You mean "herb's" existence on the board, I'm guessing. You're too smart for that to mean anything else otherwise.

I dunno--the perspective seems skewed by the erroneous idea that "herb" is really "Herb" and in view of the utter lack of evidence he's interested in doing ANYTHING but being a troll, then the line of questioning is intended to force the man to SHED the trollish practices and get down to being an honest-to-goodness POSTER, not a garbage cliche full of shit and empty soundbyte rhetoric at best.

I'm NOT SHOOTING HIM DOWN FOR HIS OPINIONS. It's not that hard to grasp. The comprehension level has been lowered and the statement has been repeated more than enough times that this has jack shit to do with his ideologies. This has to do with the disruptive, pointless way he expresses them, the emptiness he posts them with, and the total lack of objective beyond "Fuck you" that he posts anything with.

I can't make it any clearer. The questions are designed to get him to KNOCK ALL THAT SHIT OFF and be something that aspires to an endeavor beyond "Being an annoying asshole on a messageboard."

If you want intelligent perspective all you gotta do is re-read my posts. If you tire of the repetitiveness in this one single thread I gotta wonder how you could put up with the monotony of the guy's posting style for a COUPLE OF YEARS and not notice a thing.

Maybe that's asking too much?

Oh, and in case nobody noticed--it seems to be working.

You've consistently shown yourself to be venomous and uncivil.

Now in saying I swear at others, you're simply a liar.

Unless you become civil, consider your sad, pathetic act ignored.

Herb

LOL.

You're right. We're done.

Herb should take a little of his own medicine...

"I guess I don't have that kind of blood running threw my veins."

I sat back and read this with interest.

If ones views and actions are defensible, there is no shame in standing naked before others. In this, I strongly agree with fats approach. It's brutal, but it's also real.

Fatboyroberts, we recently had a poster permanently removed for getting far too aggressive with another member. Are you sure you even want to start down that sort of pathway?

Fats did nothing wrong.

We had people not allowed to post because they were devaluing the forum on a longer term basis. Aggression was a factor, but only in that it crossed the line to threats.

There is no threat in this, only a challenge to provide support for ones actions. This is perfectly reasonable.

Again, if ones actions here are defensible, there is zero reason to withhold said support.

>>>"I can't make it any clearer. The questions are designed to get him to KNOCK ALL THAT SHIT OFF and be something that aspires to an endeavor beyond "Being an annoying asshole on a messageboard."

Obviously posted with great reverence.

Obviously.

There is something deeper here that's been nagging at me for quite some time. (years, not just as of late)

There is no shame in being naked before others if you are, in general, defensible. We have enough unknown things to permit a fairly wide range of ideology and action that is supportable.

So, if there is shame, then there is something at work that is less than honest. IMHO, these all boil down to core flaws of character --or perhaps just a lack of personal strength.

Exposing ones own self in conversation, in an honest way, does also open the door for change. It is not really possible to have one without the other. A recent example for me was the matter of theism -vs- athesim. Edslnr posted some ideas that, after some consideration, shifted some of my own core ideals. Essentially, the whole mess is a matter of faith. (I used to differentiate the two in this way, today I do not.)

The ramifications of that idea are still working their way through me, sometimes with surprising results! IMHO, it takes considerable strength of person to engage in this way.

Getting back to this topic, I find myself wondering why this line of inquiry is an issue. At the end of the day, is his actions here defensible?

IMHO, it's a completely valid question. Given the issues of strength and character involved in the answer, pushing it hard is all part of the exchange.

We are having two way conversations right?

If we are not, why?

"Obviously posted with great reverence."

Yes, because reverence is often used in messageboard debates about forum trolls.

C'mon, Deane. "Reverence?" where does that EVER apply when it comes to debate between peers? You don't REVERE your peers, and nobody here should EVER revere "Herb." Or me, or you. Appreciate, maybe. Enjoy, maybe. But the idea that one has to REVERE the person they disagree with is silly at best.

Besides which, the question you quoted to snark at isn't a meritless question. None of my questions are. The fact that he refuses to defend his tactics, his positions, or to do anything besides stick to his tired schtick and misconstrue and purposefully misinterpret and misunderstand in order to deflect deflect deflect says almost as much about him as answering my questions would.

It says I'm RIGHT.

Missing has summed up the reasoning and the purpose behind the questions and the insight PERFECTLY. All I'm doing his holding him responsible for his words and actions and asking him to defend those actions.

And he can't. Or worse, he won't.

"Exposing ones own self in conversation, in an honest way, does also open the door for change."

I think that's the crux right there.

That's a scary door to open.

kskd says:"Edslnr posted some ideas that, after some consideration, shifted some of my own core ideals."

Is that me? Golly! The power of discourse...!


Likewise, I get a charge out of a few of these threads (just a few - most are inane drivel - sorry), such as Fatboy's recent exploration of issues with Wayne. It was interesting to watch Fatboy set the terms of the "debate", for Wayne to try and pull the discussion to his side of the table, then for Fatboy to set the final terms. It was a bit raw, revealing of both parties, and a worthwhile/relevant exercise for all involved.

It is a bit disheartening that so much time and effort needs to be spent debating about debating, or posting about posting. But then again, it is a skill that so few people have today, either by lack of experience, example or desire.

Yep. For some reason, I can never remember the correct spelling of your user name. Maybe I'll type it a few times: Edselehr, Edselehr, Edselehr.. we shall see.

The power of discourse indeed.

I've a long standing issue with people not willing to bring support to the table for their views. It's not difficult --unless there really isn't any solid support, then we have a different issue; namely, willful ignorance.

Actually, in my view, I'm ok with that, given one is honest about it. There is far less shame in simply stating one is not willing to change in some regard. Others can then at least deal or not as they see fit. Afterall, we are all human and have our issues. Honesty in discussion does not have to be one of them.

So then, where is the line between simple ignorance and willful ignorance?

Dodging in the form of fallacies repeated over and over, mis-direction, re-introduction of surrendered points, and general manupulation is less than honest and devalues the forum as a whole, when done in anything less than moderation.

(We all are gonna pull this from time to time, no biggie.)

For what it's worth, I actually am quite interested in said support. It's valuable in many ways that should be obvious. Without this, there is no potential for growth and that makes the whole affair quite futile for anything other than theraputic purposes.

After having watched this go on here, for quite some time, I've come to the realization that not all people have the strength required to make such candid admissions. However, we should at least be honest in this regard.

Maybe surrendering a particular point has too many deep personal implications. Ok that's a matter of strength and we all don't have what it takes all of the time. So why not just put that on the table and interact from there?

I suspect the implication of not being able then to press some points home in the future is the culprit.

Seems to me, when put into a position where another party has the clear upper hand on a point of discussion, one can:

surrender their position for lack of support, thus reaching mutual agreement on the matter in general,

defer the conversation on various grounds including: more time to better articulate one side or the other, personal duress, or perhaps just not reach agreement, etc...

expand / narrow the scope of discussion.

There are probably others. The point being that all parties can know the state of the conversation and act accordingly.

Again, for some issues, this can be difficult, both personally and mentally. Understandable.

So, why is this so difficult? All that is really required is to put these things on the table, then for people to act accordingly. These things have implications, like not being able to make some points having admitted bias or personal issues. But these are far less of an issue, and additionally, can be addressed at essentially any time, compared to the implications associated with dodges mentioned in this thread and many others...

Those implications then strike at character, credence and matters of candor in general. (The three C's!)

Undoing those is considerably more difficult, IMHO.

For me, that's a no brainer. I would much rather strive to be honest, face who I am and grow accordingly or not as I see fit, than I would be known to be not so honest and run the risk of denying my own self in the process...

Wow. Holy SHIT is he seriously overplaying his persona right now.

What's that cuba thing all about? Wholly manufactured. And for what?

Last gasp.

ABR

Anything But Reality