First off, I do not blame anyone for Steve's departure.
Secondly, I said we should all be respectful, I would hope you would agree.
Thirdly, to see if we are being respectful I SUGGESTED we examine ourselves.(Introspection)

Summation: I don't think there has been any person who caused Steve's departure, but the division between the "left" and the "right" has definitely increased. If you are that confused about what increase of division has occurred across ALL forums, then I don't know what to tell you. I try to learn something from every person I meet. That may be a good example or a poor example lesson I receive. If you don't see anything to learn here, then disregard as it wouldn't apply to you.

I hope that answers your questions.

bbauska wrote:First off, I do not blame anyone for Steve's departure.
Secondly, I said we should all be respectful, I would hope you would agree.
Thirdly, to see if we are being respectful I SUGGESTED we examine ourselves.(Introspection)

My point is simply that the "First off" renders the "Secondly" and the "Thirdly" (although unquestionably admirable suggestions) utterly irrelevant to the subject of Steve's departure. Hence my original confusion with your original suggestion that Steve's departure "will be a lesson to treat all with respect on the boards...". If you can understand why that original statement would confuse me, particularly in light of your most recent three statements, then I think we're quite done.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:There's a lot of things that could say now, but in the interest of trying not to cause even more contempt for each other, I'd simply like to ask that we all have an ounce of respect for each other.

I don't see anything so bad in this thread, surely no "contempt." Sure it didn't go well for Steve's argument, but that happens, and not usually to Steve, I should say. We all have better things to do with our time than spend it trolling these boards. My expectation is that this may have been the "straw that broke the camel's back" and he's attending to other things.

If he doesn't show up here soon, I'm sure to reach out and try and get him to come back, won't be the same without him here.

He's still on the RBL waitlist. We don't talk politics over there... and thank god for that with Tez, Mach, George, and Bauska in the mix.

Probably just needs a break.

bbauska wrote:I will wear Steve's avatar in memorial of our "Dearly Departed". This will be until the end of May.

Good idea.

Sassenach wrote:It's a shame that Steve decided to disappear and I'd like him back, but ultimately I have little sympathy for his complaints. He was extremely provocative in his own comments and didn't have many qualms about wilfully misinterpreting people in order to make cheap shots, so to flounce off playing the victim card was pretty ridiculous. I'd welcome him back but I don't think he deserves any kind of apology.

Perhaps I went a little further than most, but I don't think this was much different from any other thread where Steve and I have disagreed. The difference this time appears to have been that he had little back up from those who more often agree with him.

I'm not sure whether I should apologise for pointing out the holes in his argument, or for reacting when he attacked me for it. I do apologise if anyone else was offended, though.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:I will wear Steve's avatar in memorial of our "Dearly Departed". This will be until the end of May.

Good idea.

Can't find an emoticon for :return hug:

A few points:

1. I didn't "ragequit." I rationally determined that my capacity to have an impact on the debates here was disproportionately small compared to my time invested.

2. I was a bit frustrated by the bluster in this particular forum and perhaps that was my fault. I posted this in the political forum on purpose. My goal, even though I entitled it "The Religion of the President" was not to question his religion (because in our postmodern age anyone who calls himself a Christian is deemed to be one), but his judgment. In this case, with his history (attending the bombastic Wright's church for 20 years), I would have thought his choice of a church would have been more carefully screened. I know, I know--the unbelievers among us think it is no big deal. Fine. All I can tell you is it would be a bit like a recovering alcoholic President (can you think of one?) hanging out in a bar. Or, imagine a Republican with even remote connections to the Klan (2nd cousin twice removed) going to a church where some mention of white supremacist thinking was made. Would everyone casually say "Well, that's just part of that stream of theology?" Yet, that was exactly the defense of the Easter "sermon."

3. I would note that at least one person in this debate, and in most of the debates in which he appears, seems to have only one purpose: to be disputer-in-chief. He sometimes adds substance--in other words, something that requires actual thought or research--however, his primary self-assigned role is that of gadfly. He is the proverbial smoke-producer: there may be an actual fire somewhere but its source is indiscernible.

4. I'm not saying I'll never be back. I have fought the minor urge to post new topics here. I just don't see the point. Maybe that will change over time.

5. For those who still doubt (after Wright, the Prof. Gates incident, his consistent pitting of one group against another) he's tone-deaf on race, read this:

White House partisans will no doubt argue that poetry and art is supposed to push boundaries by confronting controversial topics. But cop killing and interracial marriage seem to be settled matters with the vast majority of Americans.

6. Thanks for the kind messages sent to me from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

Yeah, Steve is back!
While I agree with him most of the time (I didn't quite agree 100% in this particular thread) I would yell "Yeah" even if say Tez came back (whom I seldom agreed with). Good to see he's taking a break is all.

Now, don't do that to us again Steve, we all love you man!

Regardless of the fact that he is one of the few conservatives around here (contrary to the assertions of the local liberals who feel like fish out of water when there are perceived to be in the majority),

Yet again this rather bizarre assertion rears its head. I find it fascinating because the exact same pattern of behaviour you ascribe to the liberals here is being displayed by yourself. We're a fairly small community here in the politics forum so it should be quite easy to classify all of our regulars to see which group is predominant. Shall we give it a try ? Here's how I'd do it:

Definite conservatives:
Steve
Ruffhaus
BBauska
Tom
Archduke Russ
Machiavelli

Definite 'liberals':
Danivon
Ricky
Freeman

Right-leaning libertarians:
Vince
Guapo
Pigmalia

Centrist or difficult to classify:
MinX
Me
Faxmonkey
Ray Jay
Slappy
Geojanes
Sloterp

I'd say that pretty much covers all of our regulars, but if I've missed anybody then feel free to point them out. I didn't bother to include the likes of Rewind and Chad, both of whom are fairly liberal I suppose, because they almost never post here. I'd say that makes for a fairly balanced board with a bit of a conservative slant, especially since almost all of our confirmed conservatives are among the most heavily active posters here (albeit offset by Ricky and Danivon's activity levels to some degree).

I think you forgot to place yourself in the Definite Lib also.

bbauska is a let them die in the gutters right-libertarian if I ever saw one; ergo; the problem with such a list.

I think Danivon did the best labelwise when he called me a contrarian.

<Saluting Neal> Yes Sir! Reporting for duty!

Definite Conservative here but as I have posted several times before, I am nowhere near as Conservative as most would think. I get labeled here as far right and that's not the case in the least.

Pro Choice, for gun controls, favoring social health more and more, while i am against gay marriage I am for equal rights including adoption and civil unions, my position on gays in the military is to leave it up to the military and not the courts. Not exactly your raging right wing lunatic I get labeled now am I?

Sassenach wrote:

Regardless of the fact that he is one of the few conservatives around here (contrary to the assertions of the local liberals who feel like fish out of water when there are perceived to be in the majority),

Yet again this rather bizarre assertion rears its head. I find it fascinating because the exact same pattern of behaviour you ascribe to the liberals here is being displayed by yourself. We're a fairly small community here in the politics forum so it should be quite easy to classify all of our regulars to see which group is predominant. Shall we give it a try ? Here's how I'd do it:

Definite conservatives:
Steve
Ruffhaus
BBauska
Tom
Archduke Russ
Machiavelli

Definite 'liberals':
Danivon
Ricky
Freeman

Right-leaning libertarians:
Vince
Guapo
Pigmalia

Centrist or difficult to classify:
MinX
Me
Faxmonkey
Ray Jay
Slappy
Geojanes
Sloterp

I'd say that pretty much covers all of our regulars, but if I've missed anybody then feel free to point them out. I didn't bother to include the likes of Rewind and Chad, both of whom are fairly liberal I suppose, because they almost never post here. I'd say that makes for a fairly balanced board with a bit of a conservative slant, especially since almost all of our confirmed conservatives are among the most heavily active posters here (albeit offset by Ricky and Danivon's activity levels to some degree).

I'm sure there will be quibbles here and there, but overall, I think this is an excellent and fair description. By the way, Danivon hates being called liberal and prefers socialist. He must be off the grid if he hasn't commented.

RJ

GMTom wrote:Definite Conservative here but as I have posted several times before, I am nowhere near as Conservative as most would think. I get labeled here as far right and that's not the case in the least.

Pro Choice, for gun controls, favoring social health more and more, while i am against gay marriage I am for equal rights including adoption and civil unions, my position on gays in the military is to leave it up to the military and not the courts. Not exactly your raging right wing lunatic I get labeled now am I?

somehow "raging right of center lunatic" doesn't have the same ring to it.