What am I missing here?

[Doreen Peri]

This is about banning? This "or else" statement? Is that so, Deb?

Hey, I only banned ONE person on this site and we've been online for 5 years! Sure I banned him something like 25 times or something. LOL! I can go back and check for all the names but I'm too tired and that would be ridiculous. Why did I ban him? Oh his insults were way worse than yours have been! And repeated!

But he's here now and being a fine citizen, contributing his humor and poetry and voice and that's just fine.

I can tell you, "I'm censoring you and everybody else! Stop calling each other names!" But basically it doesn't mean anything more than STOP CALLING EACH OTHER NAMES... This is my site... this is my home.. and I don't like it when people call other people names in my home. It doesn't mean... "or else I'll ban you."

Obviously, I've said this over and over and some people still call each other names and they're all still here posting so... whatever. I'm no power freak. I just wanted to create a place on the net where people could explore and share their arts and hearts.

With respect. Please. That's all.

peace 'n' love

[whimsicaldeb]

This is about banning? This "or else" statement? Is that so, Deb?

Naw ... I meant or else I'll continue to be badgered until I finally give in and "do it!" (apologize)

[Doreen Peri]

Ohhhh.... OK.

I'm sorry.



I misunderstood.

[mnaz]

It might be my comments she's talking about, eg. "We're still waitin' on your apology", etc... And honestly, at this point I wish I'd just let it go.

I don't know. Thing is, I've seen her bully and harass others on this board over the past couple of years, not just the three in question. Like mousey said, it seems to be a recurring pattern of sorts with her (at times- not always)... basically, treat other(s) like shit to some degree until they yell 'uncle'. And the smug deafness and denial afterward is galling. Until now I never spoke up, but I did this time.

Some of it is selfish motivation on my part. I value Deb's contributions and her knowledge and activism, etc., and she's probably a better citizen than I am, overall. Yes, I get all that. More power to her. But if she insists on blowing into town every so often and turning these discussions into highly personal browbeating sessions, the opportunity for growth can be poisoned fairly quickly.

Anyway... In reflection, my 2 cents. Yet again!

[hester_prynne]

I am so totally with Mousey...everything she wrote, (so well I might add), I'm there. Not putting up with it with her, or anyone. And i'm not in any kind of vindictive spirit either, it's just got to be done, no matter who it is, not just Deb. Hell set me straight anytime, I welcome it.
Zero tolerance of bigotry, name calling, overruning threads and twisting them into garbage.
I like to think we can keep a two-way mirror thing going here...I mean that's what makes it such a fine place here at studio eight. Bein real, and always bein civil.
And by the way Deb, apology or no, either one is already accepted.
So you screwed up. You've an opportunity to learn something of real value to your growth potential. It is a lesson for you specifically from the cosmos, from the well. Look beyond us messengers here.
I hope you learn it soon.
H

[stilltrucking]

Interesting expression "badger me"
A badger is one of the most vicious animals there is. And they always go for your balls they say.

Ratel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Ratel (Mellivora capensis), also known as the Honey Badger, ... Its ferocious reputation extends to attacks on animals much larger than itself. Several African tribes report that the honey badger attacks the scrotum of larger mammals if provoked and has even castrated humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratel -

Jimbo you don't think much of the quakers but they are were most christian like group of people I have met. They have their foibles I know but who don't. I joined them Jim. I did not just attend meetings. I gave my heart over to them. I decided to make non violence my walk.


Interesting how they got their name. "quake in the presence of the lord"

I wonder if they got the shakes too.
I used to think I was a coward because I used to get the shakes so bad before a fight but a trucker buddy of mine (vietnam and korea) told me it was the the adrenalin.

I have left a trail of blood from from baltimore to astoria, most of it my own, practically all of it my own. Maybe all of it my own. Except for something that happened sixty years ago. My memory is spotty, so much repression going on, I been trying to push back as far as I can in my memory. I am trying to remember the face of my mother before I was born.

I used to attack my brothers. In school I was always the first one to pick up a weapon, a brick, a stick, whatever was handy. There is a psycho bable word called abreaction. On november 22 1963 I had one of those thingies and attacked my mother.

I am one sorry excuse for a human being. I always had one intent when I had a fight, and that was to kill. But when push came to shove I could not do it. But I have given it some serious thought a couple of times

Maybe I have pre ptsd. I don't know.

But you tripped my trigger. I suppose I should be grateful for that.

You talk about my self Depreciating humor, how I attack people and then shuck and grin
I don’t know what you mean when you say I slipshot you.

I don’t know why you called me a racist.





Mousey1 says I misunderstand you.
I suppose it is my paranoia that makes me think I got you pretty good.








This thread has been so hijacked I suppose this ramble don’t matter.

I would have been out of this thread long ago
but you kept bringing me back into it.

I am sorry doreen. Going to exile myself for a while until i evolve into something better.

Deb I like this juxtaposition of two things you said on this thread.
first you quoted the staple singers

If you disrespect anybody that you run in to
how in the world do you think anybody's s'posed to respect you?

Then you said this to Hester.

What where you thinking? That talking about things you don't know anything about and have no genuine interest in would make you ... what? ... intelligent? popular? fun? interesting?

I ask you
What were you thinking?

[mnaz]

I think if one did a poll, most would agree that that last quote from Deb was unnecessarily aggressive and personal. So in that sense I don't regret all this endless extra time we've spent on this thread.

But to be fair (I always at least try for that), I do see where Deb was coming from as well. In googling and reviewing Imus' most notorious statements I agree that some of that shit really should go away at some point. I just tried to factor into my thinking everything else I knew about the man and about the "shock entertainment" culture in general that's gotten so big. I think we all tried to do that. Plus, issues of somewhat arbitrary state/corporate censorship (barely touched in this long ass thread) are of no small concern. If we're all deemed "blind" in some way on this issue then I won't completely deny that. But it's not as if any one of us are completely without our blind spots. Seriously. You should tell me; I should know. But please don't attack me, especially if you don't know me, that's all. I really don't think that's an unreasonable request. Seems fairly self-evident.

[Doreen Peri]

mnaz said

Plus, issues of somewhat arbitrary state/corporate censorship (barely touched in this long ass thread) are of no small concern.

Yes!

It's true we didn't get a chance to really discuss the implications of the issue. Unfortunately, the thread veered off onto a deadend ramp.

I tried to sway it back on course by posting Youtube videos but that didn't work because people were all still pissed off about the no apology thing.

Oh well. I hope we all learned something from this thread. If nothing else, maybe we'll learn how to better communicate in the future.

[whimsicaldeb]

Okay. (imo) Enough of the other stuff. I'm moving on.

Imus update

Hannity & Colmes Focuses Sharpton/Imus Producer Debate On Sharpton Rather Than Imus, Race Relations Or Broadcast Standards
Reported by Ellen - May 12, 2007

Hannity & Colmes spent its entire hour last night (5/11/07) on a debate between Rev. Al Sharpton and Don Imus’ former producer, Bernard McGuirk. While Sean Hannity promised at the outset that the discussion would be “dealing with issues of free speech, dealing with issues of what’s acceptable on the public airwaves,” the discussion was almost entirely devoted to debating what’s acceptable from Al Sharpton.

I’m sorry, but it’s hard for me to get worked up over the “injustice” of the firing of a couple of overpaid shock jocks while millions of lesser-paid Americans, probably with far less financial cushioning than Imus and McGuirk, are dismissed due to outsourcing or other reasons unrelated to their job performance.

While it’s understandable that Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes would feel more sympathetic to their colleague than I would, what I don’t understand is why they can’t have a real discussion about the real issues underlying Imus’ firing rather than repeatedly harping on the Sharpton factor. Unfortunately, Sharpton, himself, allowed that misplaced focus to continue through most of last night’s show. At the end, Colmes lamented – not for the first time – that Imus’ firing prevented him from holding a real dialogue on the issue of race and broadcasting. But there was his producer with all the opportunity in the world to do just that on Hannity & Colmes and he showed no such inclination. Instead, he repeatedly attacked Sharpton. And neither host seemed to mind.

Three parts of the debate are currently available on FOXNews.com.

Source:
http://www.newshounds.us/

Also at News Hound...

Big Story outrage at radio comments about Mrs. Bush, Dr. Rice
Reported by Chrish - May 12, 2007

How's this for a fair and balanced panel: Bo Dietl, Rich Lowry, and John Gibson? These three men discussed the repugnant comments from Opie and Anthony and their sidekick Charlie on an XM satellite radio show, today 5/11/07 on The Big Story. The radio pervs apologized on-air for their crude "jokes" about raping Laura Bush, Condaleezza Rice, and the Queen of England; the BS panel discussed if there should be punishment or other repercussions.
With video.

Keep in mind that the Big Story airs at 5 Eastern, 4 Central. At the beginning of the segment they not only aired the audio of the comments (bleeping the offending words) but also put the words on screen, using lots of *** to cleverly disguise "f**k that b**ch." The words were offensive second time around too, for those of us who happily missed the initial airing. The News Hound's video omits the vile comments altogether.

Bo Dietl, although he likes Anthony and Opie "very, very much," was concerned that his daughters, females, could hear the description of women being held down and raped; later on he added that his son also could have his ears violated should he turn on the satellite radio, so we should have Congressional regulation and FCC oversight of satellite radio.

Lowry believes that there should be a distinction in regulation between terrestrial radio and satellite. Just seconds after saying that "there's no place for people who talk like this on TV, terrestrial or satellite radio", he blamed Don Imus' firng on PC cops and people on the liberal media bandwagon. (Flip.) Moments after that he declared that he's kind of "old-fashioned; this isn't a political correctness issue, it's just good taste and the way you respect people." (Flop.)

Lowry politicized it further by saying that if it had been a liberal Democrat "Al Sharpton and his gang would have a lynch mob." (Gibson named Hillary and Pelosi, while Dietl chimed in with Obama.) Unfortunately, the "people who can rally are the likes of Al Sharpton, and he's not going to stand up for Condaleezza Rice."

Dietl wants an apology and a promise that it won't happen again, and fears what's next if there's not regulation - maybe a live rape in the studio! Gibson added his hope that "someone" will step in, and the segment ended with a promo of Al Sharpton on H&C later tonight.

Comment: They can't have it both ways, try as they might. The people who rallied and had a part in Imus' firing are "PC cops" and on the liberal bandwagon, but Lowry is "old-fashioned" and has good taste and respect for the victims of the ugly "joke."

It's interesting to hear cable news commentators, vehemently opposed to bringing back the Fairness Doctrine even for broadcast TV and radio only, endorsing censorious regulation (albeit limited) for their radio equivalent.

I say bring back the Fairness Document

[mousey1]

May I remind you Deb that your actions here in this thread ostensibly support Imus. So while I support your right to contribute to this thread may I point out that your stance against Imus is hypocritical. How can you honestly expect us to flutter around listening to you as you continually hammer at someone for using similar verbal tools that you employ quite liberally? Seriously? I'm not going to croak along with your hypocrisy. Show us you actually believe what you're saying by actually living it in the words you speak. Otherwise your opinion holds no weight or interest for me imo.

You have shit in your own backyard and ours too and it reeks to high heaven and yet we are now supposed to ignore the smell and listen to your heady insights. Puhlease.

[whimsicaldeb]

Here's another article re: that most recent debate ...

Imus Producer: Sharpton a 'Race-Baiter'
(05-12) 04:20 PDT NEW YORK, (AP) --

Don Imus' former producer on Friday called Rev. Al Sharpton a "race-baiter" who was looking for attention when he led a campaign to fire the radio host, while Sharpton said Imus and his producer got what they deserved for making a racist, sexist remark on the air.

Bernard McGuirk and Sharpton appeared together for a combative debate on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" show. The producer was fired last month for his part in an exchange on the "Imus in the Morning" program in which the members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team were called "nappy-headed hos."

MSNBC took Imus' show off the air on April 11 and CBS fired him from his syndicated radio program a day later for the slur. McGuirk, a 20-year producer and on-air jester for the show that originated on WFAN-AM in New York, called the team "hardcore hos" in the April 4 exchange with Imus. Sharpton held protests and lobbied both networks to fire Imus.

McGuirk called Sharpton a "crude ... opportunist, a race-baiter" who campaigned against Imus to help his own career and raise his profile.

While McGuirk acknowledged that "these words did hurt these girls," he added, "until you, Reverend Al, got involved, they probably never would have heard of it. They would have probably never, quote unquote, got scarred for life until you got involved for your own self-serving interests."

Sharpton said he wasn't looking for more attention — "if you have any recollection at all, I had been in the papers all year," he said. He said Imus and McGuirk may have apologized for the remark, but "forgiveness is not the point. The question is the penalty."

"Consumers have the right to say to advertisers, are your standards going to be where people are attacked based on your gender and race?" Sharpton said.

McGuirk countered that Sharpton "terrorized these spineless, thumbsucking executives" into taking Imus off the air. In an earlier appearance on "Hannity & Colmes," he said the executives "were in a fetal position under their desks sucking their thumbs on their BlackBerrys, trying to coordinate their response."

Sharpton responded: "What he is saying is we want to apologize and we want to decide what the penalty is." He said that most people wanted Imus fired, including a minister who arranged Imus' meeting with the Rutgers team, and many NBC employees.

"Is Al Roker one of these guys hiding under the desk with a BlackBerry?" Sharpton asked.

McGuirk said that Imus "made one small mistake. He ran a red light" and shouldn't have been fired.

He asked Sharpton. "Who elected you the PC police chief? Who elected you to anything?"

Imus has not spoken publicly since his dismissal, but his lawyer has said he intends to sue CBS for $120 million, and said that the network encouraged irreverent, off-color comments on the program.

My understanding is the girls themselves have already forgiven him, and have moved on and that what's left is to be talking about "what next" How do we handle all these 'shock' statements/events that seem to have become epidemic?

But this important subject seems to continually get sidetracked by those with a need to continue to "fight about everything/anything else but this topic."

Sad...
A waste of time and effort is right.

...adding a PS...
Well, maybe it's not a waste. Like Doreen said ...

If nothing else, maybe we'll learn how to better communicate in the future.

I think that's accurate. Hope so anyway.

[Doreen Peri]

For the record, I agree with mousey1's posts.

Part of what I meant by saying that I hope we all learn to communicate better was directed toward you. I hope you can figure out how to communicate without name calling.

It is true that you have done the exact same thing in this thread which you are saying you abhor.

Given that fact, it really is difficult to get back into talking about the issue with you.

If you stated that you understood that judging people here is very similar to Imus' insults (minus his intended humor), it might be easier to continue the discussion.

From one of the articles you posted

this isn't a political correctness issue, it's just good taste and the way you respect people

[whimsicaldeb]

Mousey1 ... I want to say, to tell you, that I've read your postings/opinions about me, to let you know I'm not snubbing you or ignoring you or thoughts.

Same with mnaz and jack ...

So while my non-reply can be taking as me snubbing, ignoring etc., it's not my intent, though I know I'm accused of this.

It's fair that both of us, all of us, have had our say ... that hasn't been taken away.

But ... we've also 'had our say'
And have been heard.

So, it seems reasonable to me then, to begin that next step/phase/part.

I've taken Doreen's many comments to heart and have coupled those along with my own, which the main one now I think it's best to move on, move forward into having conversations so that's why I've posted what I have, in the way I have.

No offense to anyone was intended.

Just wanted to make that as clear as possible.

...adding a ps...

Doreen, you posted when I was writing my response, just wanted to note I've read your reply and that this reply works with your comments as well. (imo).

[Doreen Peri]

OK. Good. Glad you read other people's comments about how you talk to people and glad you've listened. I'm the only person who you've said you've taken my comments to heart so at least that's one of us. Why just me? I hope you also take all the comments people have made to you to heart.

Moving on is a good idea. I suggest that you at least acknowledge that calling people names on here is.... broadcasting... the same thing Imus did in his show. It's just a different media with a smaller audience. But it IS the worldwide web meaning the entire world could look in. It might be hard for some of us to move forward to discuss the issue with you without hearing that acknowledgment.

But I repeat myself.

I'm sorry.

It's Sunday and yesterday I got attacked by mosquitos. My left eye is almost swollen closed. Gotta get off this machine. Cya.

[mousey1]

Au contraire, Deb, my point conforms perfectly with the shape of this discussion, fits neatly into this entire issue, it is all interrelated. I don't see how you can't see that.

Yes, it's lovely to move along with the discussion, with the next phase. Does that mean we forget about the past phase? I deemed it important that you realize that I, for one, and Doreen possibly also, will have a difficult time taking what you say at face value given the circumstances and events that have taken place in this thread. I wanted you to know that your hypocrisy is so glaring that I am really kinda just trying to choke down what you're saying as best I can without vomiting a little. It's unfortunate that that is the situation but there you have it.

It's not that I don't want to move on, clean slate and all, but the slate's pretty mucky. So it's a bit of a catch 22 if you see what I mean.

I appreciate that you read what we all have said. I'm still not sure you quite heard it though. You don't sound like you see the conflict between your words and your supposed stance.

I shall silencio though and see if others can better handle this dilemma. I am not trying to be mean.