[Campaigns-l] OT: Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006

[Stephen Abbott]

Sorry, but I know of five other political sites that host nasty debates
among people who strongly disagree with one another, and this shouldn't be
YET another one.

Frankly, you're demand that this become a debate over partisan politics -
rather than one that seeks to OVERCOME the hateful, pathetic partisanship
your "list" represented - is what's off-topic.

And yes, I think it's inappropriate on the wiki, too, not just here on the
list *about* the wiki.

I think you need to think about the difference between what you call
"political issues" and "political METHODS." They are wildly different
things. My opinion is that we should be here talking about the latter, not
the former.

It's too bad the rules weren't explained fully (or even created) on the wiki
so this confusion wouldn't have happened.

Stephen A.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Slije" <slije at comcast.net>
To: <campaigns-l at wikia.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Campaigns-l] OT: Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006


> Actually, this is a good example of what is NOT working in politics.  From
my
> perspective, you are terribly bent out of shape because someone posted
> information with which you disagree (this is abundantly apparent from the
> language you are using).  More importantly, rather than calmly stating
your
> own view and giving others theirs, you are seeking to stop discussion of
it.
> You are seeking to make the sharing of information itself wrong, not
merely
> its content.  You use the off-topic premise as an excuse, but you didn't
get
> this bent out of shape about other newsy items being discussed on the
list.
> You just don't like the content now because it is "left" in your view (a
> dirty word).
>
> Have you noticed how difficult it is for you to tolerate information being
> circulated with which you disagree, and how you attack its circulation?
This
> is a very common trend in modern politics, and is a form of censorship.
>
> Give others their views, and share your own.  No, people may not agree
with
> you, and the tides may turn in a direction that you disagree with, putting
> you in a minority.  Lots of us are in the minority on a lot of things.  It
> doesn't mean you're wrong or doomed.  Why do you fear it so?
>
> > This is a politically charged list, pushing one side of a political
agenda,
> > and it's going to polarize, not bring people together. Period. It's as
> > biased as much as a list of "Anti-Christian news stories" would be, if
it
> > was put out by Pat Robertson's supporters.
>
> If we can't even discuss current political issues on a list about
political
> methods without getting all torn up over bias, we won't get far.  It does
not
> polarize the list if someone shares a view of the left.  What would
polarize
> the list is if someone attempted to make sure only certain types of views
are
> acceptable - exactly what you are doing.
>
>
> On Thu July 13 2006 7:48pm, Stephen Abbott wrote:
> > Is this a media wiki, or a politics wiki? Yeah, they overlap, but mostly
> > because the list plays politics with the media.
> >
> > This is a politically charged list, pushing one side of a political
agenda,
> > and it's going to polarize, not bring people together. Period. It's as
> > biased as much as a list of "Anti-Christian news stories" would be, if
it
> > was put out by Pat Robertson's supporters.
> >
> > Both lists may have some valid points (and some pretty bizarre points)
but
> > is that what we want to debate here?
> >
> > Stephen A.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l