Whatever Happened to Steve(n) Scott...

[Another side]

I don't know whether I'm considered a "political ranter" around here but either way, I support leaving the forum as it is. People like me, who read and often participate in political discussions, also like the off-beat topics and the current events threads.

I'd also argue the political threads and political "ranters" (whoever they are)are getting a bad rap.

I agree that once the dopey oneupmanship and childish tat-a-tat-tat starts it can be hard to stomach, and that's usually when I stop reading the thread. But it's only a handful of posters who do that sort of thing, and with a couple of exceptions, not even THEY could be considered "political ranters." They're simply attention whores who seek the limelight in any thread possible, whether it's titled "Pailn Opposes Domesticating Elk" or "10-key Adding Machine or Calculator? Discuss."

And how would "political threads" be identified?

Would, for instance, Ruguen's often spirited defense of Public Education be considered "political"?

How about the current debate over bailouts for the auto-makers -- is that "political"?

When Spike defends oil company profits or a host of posters scream for the death penalty for an accused rapist and murderer ... is that "political"?

A couple of other observations:

*With the exception of the Weather folks, splitting Medialine in to seperate forums hasn't proven real successful. I believed seperating out the sports topics was a good idea ... I was wrong. Look at the result. Same for the journalism Topics forum -- rarely is there more than two or three new entries each day.

*Some of the posters in THIS thread clamoring for politics to be culled, also POST in political threads. They clearly do not consider themselves "ranters." Maybe we're far enough along in the conversation to identify the term, and maybe even the practioners, so we can judge their entire body of work before we saddle them with all the ills, real or imagined, on Medialine.

*I wasn't here when Steve Scott was a frequent contributor, so I'll take his word on the reasons why he stopped. But upandown stopped contributing immediately after he and his photog had a run-in with the law at a shoot, and his hysterical behavior was the subject of a Medialine thread.

And as far as Vulcan, we haven't heard much from him since he unexpectantly lost his job with the Red Cross, and moreover Vulcan was a valuable contributor to the "political" threads.

And AF Wifey took a hiatus only after she was exposed for the racist she is ... even her supporters conceded the point.

*I agree we've lost some valuable posters and their thoughtful words, however they were expressed, or entertaining posts/remarks. But I believe (at least in the examples given) it was more because they believed their badges had been tarnished, their reputations sullied, moreso than an indication they were unhappy with the political threads.

AND, it's not like we don't have currently active contributors who have taken up the slack -- I'm tempted to list a few but I won't; I'm frequently misunderstood around here because I don't always express myself clearly, and I don't want an accidental omission to be construed as disapproval.

*If Steve Smith or anyone else is looking for a website in which contributors to political discussions don't take pot-shots at each other, don't criticize one another, don't sometimes resort to name calling and character assassination, then he's going to spend an inordinate amount of time on Google and probably come up empty. If Steve Smith, or anyone else, is looking only for Journalism discussions by professional journalists, then Medialine moderators previously went to the trouble to offer him that choice. It exists today.

*My bottom line is this: the problem isn't political threads; the problem centers on four or five posters who turn inward ANY thread and who believe their mindless exchange of grade-school-level one-liners in an effort to "poon" one another is somehow entertaining to the masses.

And the moderators have permitted it. If there are any changes to be made, my suggestion would be to leave the forums and unidentified, unspecified political "rants" and "ranters" alone and deal with the four or five posters who are causing the real problems.

It's not like most people don't know who they are.

[Brain Cramp]

I'd like to point out what should be obvious. Five hours after this thread was posted asking where Steve Scott was, Steve Scott replied. Five hours. Steve said he doesn't come around much any more. What does that mean exactly? Instead of checking in every hour he now only checks in every five hours? And because of that a mob of people with torches and clubs want to create new forums and segregate posters and ban childish behavior? Really? What a bunch of reactionaries. What a bunch of malcontents. Or as Bugs might say, What a bunch of maroons.

[Another side]

While I agree with your overall point, I have to admit ... it never occurred to me to support chidlish behavior.

[HushHush]

How difficult is it for people to click on a link to a sub forum? Have you not participated in other Message Forums on the internets?

[Bureau Chief]

Originally Posted by Another side

*
*My bottom line is this: the problem isn't political threads; the problem centers on four or five posters who turn inward ANY thread and who believe their mindless exchange of grade-school-level one-liners in an effort to "poon" one another is somehow entertaining to the masses.

And the moderators have permitted it. If there are any changes to be made, my suggestion would be to leave the forums and unidentified, unspecified political "rants" and "ranters" alone and deal with the four or five posters who are causing the real problems.

It's not like most people don't know who they are.

Agreed. BUT why is political discussion even showing up here at all? If I wanted to debate Obamma versus McCain, I would look for a board where real politics were discussed. I dont go to a message board for home improvement ideas to discuss space travel, why would I go to a media board to discuss politics? If they would keep the political bickering over in the openline area, then there would be less trouble in honest to God useful threads but these 4 or 5 attention whores have to take EVERY thread down with them and no one does a thing about it.
Its not just political talk either, the "gang of 5" as I call them, jump into every thread here in an effort to have everyone notice them. I guess it helps with their pathetically empty lives.
My suggestions:

Give the original poster the right to delete their threads when it runs OT.
Issue a blanket once only warning to the individuals involved and then its history when they step across the line again. (and they will eventually)
And keep political crap in Openline where it doesnt belong and OUT of other peoples threads.

[Bureau Chief]

Originally Posted by Brain Cramp

I'd like to point out what should be obvious. Five hours after this thread was posted asking where Steve Scott was, Steve Scott replied. Five hours. Steve said he doesn't come around much any more. What does that mean exactly? Instead of checking in every hour he now only checks in every five hours? And because of that a mob of people with torches and clubs want to create new forums and segregate posters and ban childish behavior? Really? What a bunch of reactionaries. What a bunch of malcontents. Or as Bugs might say, What a bunch of maroons.

Its my understanding that he was alerted to the thread by AFwifey. Apparently they have a long distance leg fetish going!

[ShakAttack]

Originally Posted by Another side

I don't know whether I'm considered a "political ranter" around here but either way, I support leaving the forum as it is. People like me, who read and often participate in political discussions, also like the off-beat topics and the current events threads.

I'd also argue the political threads and political "ranters" (whoever they are)are getting a bad rap.

I agree that once the dopey oneupmanship and childish tat-a-tat-tat starts it can be hard to stomach, and that's usually when I stop reading the thread. But it's only a handful of posters who do that sort of thing, and with a couple of exceptions, not even THEY could be considered "political ranters." They're simply attention whores who seek the limelight in any thread possible, whether it's titled "Pailn Opposes Domesticating Elk" or "10-key Adding Machine or Calculator? Discuss."

And how would "political threads" be identified?

Would, for instance, Ruguen's often spirited defense of Public Education be considered "political"?

How about the current debate over bailouts for the auto-makers -- is that "political"?

When Spike defends oil company profits or a host of posters scream for the death penalty for an accused rapist and murderer ... is that "political"?

A couple of other observations:

*With the exception of the Weather folks, splitting Medialine in to seperate forums hasn't proven real successful. I believed seperating out the sports topics was a good idea ... I was wrong. Look at the result. Same for the journalism Topics forum -- rarely is there more than two or three new entries each day.

*Some of the posters in THIS thread clamoring for politics to be culled, also POST in political threads. They clearly do not consider themselves "ranters." Maybe we're far enough along in the conversation to identify the term, and maybe even the practioners, so we can judge their entire body of work before we saddle them with all the ills, real or imagined, on Medialine.

*I wasn't here when Steve Scott was a frequent contributor, so I'll take his word on the reasons why he stopped. But upandown stopped contributing immediately after he and his photog had a run-in with the law at a shoot, and his hysterical behavior was the subject of a Medialine thread.

And as far as Vulcan, we haven't heard much from him since he unexpectantly lost his job with the Red Cross, and moreover Vulcan was a valuable contributor to the "political" threads.

And AF Wifey took a hiatus only after she was exposed for the racist she is ... even her supporters conceded the point.

*I agree we've lost some valuable posters and their thoughtful words, however they were expressed, or entertaining posts/remarks. But I believe (at least in the examples given) it was more because they believed their badges had been tarnished, their reputations sullied, moreso than an indication they were unhappy with the political threads.

AND, it's not like we don't have currently active contributors who have taken up the slack -- I'm tempted to list a few but I won't; I'm frequently misunderstood around here because I don't always express myself clearly, and I don't want an accidental omission to be construed as disapproval.

*If Steve Smith or anyone else is looking for a website in which contributors to political discussions don't take pot-shots at each other, don't criticize one another, don't sometimes resort to name calling and character assassination, then he's going to spend an inordinate amount of time on Google and probably come up empty. If Steve Smith, or anyone else, is looking only for Journalism discussions by professional journalists, then Medialine moderators previously went to the trouble to offer him that choice. It exists today.

*My bottom line is this: the problem isn't political threads; the problem centers on four or five posters who turn inward ANY thread and who believe their mindless exchange of grade-school-level one-liners in an effort to "poon" one another is somehow entertaining to the masses.

And the moderators have permitted it. If there are any changes to be made, my suggestion would be to leave the forums and unidentified, unspecified political "rants" and "ranters" alone and deal with the four or five posters who are causing the real problems.

It's not like most people don't know who they are.

AS, thank you for a very well-written post. I agree with almost everything you articulated, except the fact that I actually enjoy some of the juvenile and sophomoric humor on this forum.

Also, AF Wifey is a racist? Whatta shame.

[Murphy Brown 2003]

Originally Posted by Bureau Chief

Agreed. BUT why is political discussion even showing up here at all? If I wanted to debate Obamma versus McCain, I would look for a board where real politics were discussed. I dont go to a message board for home improvement ideas to discuss space travel, why would I go to a media board to discuss politics?

I don't really think media and politics are mutually exclusive. Journalism is about current events. At this time, the biggest current event story revolves around politics -- the economy. Media, in general, isn't all about politics, but politics really is all about media and especially after the historic campaign season we just had, I think it's natural for journalists to be discussing politics.

[Spike]

Originally Posted by Desert Rat

That's exactly why I think it would solve the problem...

If you set up a seperate board, only those who are truly interested in seeing the infighting and name calling will go there. If it dies, then it says something about how many people really care about other people's political opinions.

For the vast majority who don't care, less posts to wade through..

Except that it doesn't work that way. The last time a political forum was attempted, it died very quickly. Did that mean the political fools got the message, and political threads died out on the main board also? No. When the people who wanted everyone to read their political rants realized nobody was reading them on the political board, they ran right back to Open Line and continued to hijack threads with their political stupidity just as before. A post about layoffs or stations merging would turn into "Bush Bush Bush!" and "But Clinton Clinton Clinton!" There was simply too much of it for the moderators to handle.

It's not that these people want to discuss politics. It's that they want you to read their opinions on politics even when it isn't relevant to the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by AF Wifey

I wonder how many folks have stayed away from this board for the same reason I did...'too many idiots, too little time.'

Oh, the irony.

[adam & doctor drew]

Originally Posted by Another side

*If Steve Smith or anyone else is looking for a website in which contributors to political discussions don't take pot-shots at each other, don't criticize one another, don't sometimes resort to name calling and character assassination, then he's going to spend an inordinate amount of time on Google and probably come up empty. If Steve Smith, or anyone else, is looking only for Journalism discussions by professional journalists, then Medialine moderators previously went to the trouble to offer him that choice. It exists today.

his name is Steve Scott.

[Another side]

True. Thanks for the correction.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Originally Posted by AF Wifey

I wonder how many folks have stayed away from
this board for the same reason I did...'too many idiots, too little time.'

AF Wifey stayed away because of the idiots??

Quick! Somebody find us some more idiots!!!!

[Delta Dawn]

Originally Posted by Spike

Oh, the irony.

I don't believe Wifey stayed away because of "idiots".

She couldn't defend her uber-conservative views and became frustrated at hearing a sensible argument to things she'd never before considered. Rather than listen further, she did what all conservatives do, ignore the information and turn the channel.

[Kace]

What we need is for this topic to become political. That'll learn 'em.

[s'news]

Originally Posted by adam & doctor drew

his name is Steve Scott.

Could be Steve Smith, former Houston anchor at KHOU.

[Diggin' Bear]

Originally Posted by Delta Dawn

...she did what all conservatives do, ignore the information and turn the channel.

Uh, no. That's just over the line. ALL conservatives? I don't think so.

There are a lot of people here who are generally middle of the road or conservative, and they have the ability to debate the point without running away or losing sight of their own philosophy.

[Desert Rat]

Originally Posted by Spike

Except that it doesn't work that way. The last time a political forum was attempted, it died very quickly. Did that mean the political fools got the message, and political threads died out on the main board also? No. When the people who wanted everyone to read their political rants realized nobody was reading them on the political board, they ran right back to Open Line and continued to hijack threads with their political stupidity just as before. A post about layoffs or stations merging would turn into "Bush Bush Bush!" and "But Clinton Clinton Clinton!" There was simply too much of it for the moderators to handle.

It's not that these people want to discuss politics. It's that they want you to read their opinions on politics even when it isn't relevant to the topic at hand.

Agreed Spike...

The solution is simple then. Move all political threads in Openline to the Political forum and do it EVERY single time.

Problem would solve itself quickly if that took place.

[Spike]

Originally Posted by Desert Rat

The solution is simple then. Move all political threads in Openline to the Political forum and do it EVERY single time.

Still won't work. The political idiots don't just post in political threads. They'll post in any thread. Somebody asks about resume tape formats, next thing you know some fool is posting links to Barack Obama on YouTube (it happened). You end up whacking legitimate threads, and the trolls will intentionally continue to hijack these legitimate threads just to get them dumped into the political board.

[Murphy Brown 2003]

Spike, if I was a newbie, from the tone of your posts, I'd assume you never contributed to any political threads.

[Spike]

Originally Posted by Murphy Brown 2003

Spike, if I was a newbie, from the tone of your posts, I'd assume you never contributed to any political threads.

Generally to make fun of people who continued to whine about their candidate losing for months after it was a done deal.

Post: "Anybody know anything about WXYZ? I hear they have positions open."

Response: "I don't know about WXYZ, but BOO HOO THE COUNTRY'S GOING TO HELL BECAUSE HILLARY LOST!!!"

Me: "Get over it."

[AF Wifey]

Originally Posted by Another side

And AF Wifey took a hiatus only after she was exposed for the racist she is ... even her supporters conceded the point.

Are you out of your mind? What would motivate you to try and slander me on here? SHOW ME and everyone else! Otherwise keep your ridiculous baseless opinions to yourself.

[ewink]

Originally Posted by AF Wifey

Are you out of your mind? What would motivate you to try and slander me on here? SHOW ME and everyone else! Otherwise keep your ridiculous baseless opinions to yourself.

Actually, it's written, so it's libel.

[Another side]

Originally Posted by AF Wifey

Are you out of your mind? What would motivate you to try and slander me on here? SHOW ME and everyone else! Otherwise keep your ridiculous baseless opinions to yourself.

Oh, please. It was in a thread about illegal immigration a good while back, when even some of the more conservative folks here joined in and spanked you for your clearly racist remarks. And that led to your extended absence. Ah, the good ol' days.

Am I now going to spend time searching the archives looking for that immigration thread? No. If you want it, you find it.

And I'll offer a ridiculous baseless opinion whenever I want, just as I'll offer factual information from days gone by, as I did when I said you were exposed for the racist you are.

[Another side]

Originally Posted by ewink

Actually, it's written, so it's libel.

It's only libel if it's untrue.

[Sparky]

I well remember the thread where Wifey displayed her ignorant racist views. It was in 2006 when a student was repeatedly tasered by police for not showing his ID at a UCLA library. His name was Mostafa Tabatabainejad. It didn't matter that he was an American citizen. It mattered that his name was Mostafa Tabatabainejad. That immediately made him suspect and it made the police right in tasing him in Wifey's eyes. And yes, Wifey, you did leave soon after you blathered all your hateful nonsense. You may recall it differently. I believe I remember it correctly.