Ya....you mean liberals out there!!!!

mom

OK Matthew, I totally respect you so I will abide. But, uh, what am I abiding to? I really like the things I read here. Especially calling out the trolls, other NB'ers are better than I am 'cause I'm still a newbie, but I don't see anything really nasty (unless they deserve it!). I'll abibe by the rules but is there something that we are doing that is wrong?? I'll follow the rules to a tee but I really don't see anyone beinig overboard. Is there a particular exchange! I probably missed it. I try to be understandable (is that a word?) when possibe as everyone else here. We are all respectful as far as I see. I guess I'm missing a point somewhere. Respect is the point as far as I can see. If I (we) are missing the point somewhere then I am sure we can apapt. I'm speaking for myself, but, I feel that everyone I have read here are very respectful folks! Yes, there are some trolls that set some off, but that is reasonable. I think I may be confused, if I am then forgive me. Just wonderin'...

"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"

Sorry, Matt. I don't get it either. Can you please expand for those of us who aren't quite on the same level intellectually?

the people whom are not of the same opinion as most of those on here. It is obvious that some come here to try and incite a silly argument. It is best to ignore the blatant attempts to engage in childish arguments with them. It just means they have gotten through to you and it makes them feel more powerful.

The main reason I come to this fantastic site is to get myself more informed and aware and glad that I am not alone in many of my beliefs.

If the cussing and name calling continues, this site will become indistinguishable from most of the left leaning blogs out there.

I am all for keeping this one civil and intelligent.

Just my 2cents

The 2ND Amendment exists to secure the rest

I have no idea what Matt is talking about...I must have missed something.

Isn't that sort of thing what the woodshed is for?

Okay, having read the comments to this point, let's see if I have this figured out:

Matt doesn't seem to have a problem with troll flambe. Responding to arguments is not prohibited. Ad hominems are bad, m'kay? I can agree with that. As much as you might want to call someone being purposely obtuse a "chowderhead," or even an "a$$hole," nothing is accomplished by such, and it just reflects poorly on us all.

Plus, it seems that the incident which spurred this little request was between two long-time, non-troll members. I have a guess as to at least one of them, but that's irrelevant. Suffice to say I've been sometimes amazed at the venom on display here occasionally. It can get pretty ugly between certain posters.

In short, I think true trolls are still fair game, within reason. But instead of more... "colorful"... language, maybe we need to stick to "not very smart," or "misinformed," or other less inflammatory labels. Leave the invective to HuffPo and the Koskids.

So Chowderhead is out?

What about Pinhead?

Blazer, I share your sentiments. Sometimes the need arises
to call a spade a spade and a dullard a dullard. However, my point was that it
should not be done HERE, at Newsbusters.

The distinction, I believe, can be found in the location.
When Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid lie in their rhetoric (as is their
predilection) Republicans leaders should expose them for what they are, and
decorum be damned if necessary. By comparison, when Code Pink or the 9/11
conspiracy theorists interrupt a Republican's speech, or our National
Convention, to recognize them is to validate them. We as conservatives base our
policy of isolating state-sponsors-of-terrorism on a similar rationale.

When Al Gore lies he does so for profit. When Barack Obama,
Howard Dean and other DNC charlatans lie they do so for power. When possible we
should stand in the way of these people and what they want to gain by way of
these lies. But when people come here their only intention is to poke the bear.
Don't give them what they want.

Furthermore, in the national discussion there is a limited
amount of airtime. On Newsbusters, on the other hand, an entire wall can
quickly become monopolized by the interminable exchanges that are sure to
follow by the simple act of recognizing them. That discourages other members
from adding their 2 cents about the story above, and that's why we're here.

Anyways, that was just MY 2 cents. I'll come down off my soap box now...

My mother used to call me a Boob.

"Well,what the hell were you thinkin' ya boob?"---Mom Struggler

Shmuck is over the line? Are we going to have a tribunal established?

It's your site, so you can do what you want, but treating your community like Sister Ignacious' 2nd grade class at St. Mary's School is BS.

NB is THE most civil place on the web among political blogs. With rare exception, adversaries go back and forth with little or no bile. A quick visit to a certain presidential candidate's blog area reveals name-calling and hatred orders of magnitude beyond what can be found at NB even on a bad day. 

A few suggestions:

1) dilute your news items to less-inflaming subjects. The reporting is just too good, apparently, and gets everyone too worked up on both sides. Maybe more puppy/kitten got adopted stories.

2) dole out individual warnings for offenses not conforming to the new standards. Ban offenders on an individual basis. Don't use blanket threats like this.

3) Set up a link to provide us an area showcasing some examples of recent posts that are reflective of the 'bad form' you spoke of.

I saw somewhere you guys were in the midst of a site redesign; didn't realize it included a philosophical redesign also.

as I understand it we have to surch the thesaurus and find other words for Schmuck and A$$hole aka money hole?

I get it

I don't know how to make the stupid little smilie face but if I did it would have been placed right after where I wrote...I get it

Get it?

Matt,

Don't you think Colbert I. King's head blowing off is maybe over the top?

http://newsbusters.o...