err I meant to say, if you just put a generalized code of conduct expectations then you basically reserve the right to examine any members contribution. As seen previously, when you start writing out "what you can't do" rules people start picking them apart. Childish or not (and it is adolescent as hell) you will get bogged down in a discussion of the minutae of regulations when in actuality it may just be that a member isn't well suited to be participating in the sift community. Immature people can call that autocracy and wail about censorship all they want - codes of civil discourse aren't hard to understand and one shouldn't have to defend (overly) realistic expectations of civility.

The arguments I've read here are repugnant, from both poles. Why is it so hard for people to have civil discourse anymore? I think the disintegration of logical debate is the catalyst for creation of networks like Fox News. Why would Fox be number one, unless it has all of the traits demanded by post September 11th consumers--illogical anger, trust issues, fearful consternation and ADD-style banners?

Hendomatic is correct on one assumption--Fox has opinion shows with news programs interspersed within its time frame. However, the misstep of Fox is allowing the opinion shows to devolve into shouting matches between frustrated guests and hosts who shout down anybody who refuses to pander to their particular viewpoint. They berate anybody who would disagree with them, even if that guest has a valid opinion.

People like QM can argue their point about liberal this-and-that until they're blue in the face, and I applaud them for stating their opinion, but ad hominem attacks and slander certainly don't make for pleasant and fruitful discussion.

But whom am I kidding? Nobody wants to engage in polite debate anymore, and that's a shame.

Sigh. You guys are putting way too much effort into this, but I appreciate it.

If you wish to read on, here are my thoughts:

First things first, I write what I feel like. I try not to attack anyone personally, but as I'm human, it sometimes happens. I don't consider anything I've written to be "troll-worthy" because unlike a real troll, I'm ready to defend what I say.

When I perceive insults to my God, my country, the military that protects me (and that I served in honorably) my President (if not the man, at least the Office) my Whatever, I become angry. My reactions, contrary to the undeniable vibe of PC Thoughtcrime Patrol around here, are healthy and normal.

Anyone who wants to drop me a line is welcome to. I've had civil discourse with many of you and have found common ground more times than I would've guessed. I upvote anything and everything I've found delightful even if it's posted by someone who "hates" me.

All I've done here is express opinions. MY opinions. Hate is a waste of time. I understand that VS is or can be a profit-making venture and that my continued input around here depends on not breaking certain rules. But arbitrary limits on free speech (excluding the obvious like threats and pure ad hominem attacks) aren't my bag.

Posting my authentic values, beliefs and opinions is what I do. That includes the occasional joke. Even in poor taste.


A special note: there's no sane way to discuss "race" any more. I'm not going to play anyone's game about who is racist and why. What offends me is when others who have used racist language at some point in their past, made racist assumptions and made decisions based on race, have the GAUL to single out others for the same "crime" they themselves commit. We are ALL guilty of having been prejudiced now or then, but prejudice is an event, not a person. You can be just as offended by Chris Rock saying n*gger as Archie Bunker. I know this little speech of mine won't stop anyone from branding others (me)with the label--it's too damned easy--but, for the children, I implore you, come up with something better if you want to throw down, because the average leftist who patronizes minorities and treats them like children is just as bad as the klan guy.

Another note: yes, I give "leftists" a lot of crap, but I get it right back. I do understand that each of you is not a robot, that you're real people with political opinions on a wide variety of topics that can and do vary wildly. I'm guilty of generalizing "and shit" but so is everyone. We all have a shorthand opinions and we all can overdo it. Try not to take it all too seriously.

A THIRD special note: at times theo47 has gone above and beyond in attacking me personally, and it appears he sometimes annoys others as well. I would request that he not be singled out for harsh treatment any more than me, and certainly don't ban him.

And the Muslim thing: historical evidence has shown that Islam has had an "us or them" mentality for centuries. Even the "moderates" do not tolerate other religions and beliefs and in every country where Muslims become a majority, they start trouble. I will NOT apologize for criticizing what I deem to be a legitimate worldwide threat to advanced free societies by fanatics who have distorted their OWN faith beyond recognition. Islam needs serious reform, my guess is they won't do in 10 or 30 years what they haven't done in centuries, and so, delenda est. As needed.

Have a good night and pleasant tomorrow,

Q to the M

I'm glad you agree. The problem in many areas of martial arts is the incorrect assumption that sports and cultural phenomenon can be described as "superior" or even applicable in the real application of harm. I am really passionate about realism and not getting into a mindset that any one system is the true way. Bruce Lee was a great martial artist because he rejected tradition, and blended styles, thus creating greatness through acceptance and knowledge, not resistance and physicality.

I have tried to be very open minded in my learning processes when aproaching martial arts, and I often get a bit testy when confronted with dogmatic Martial arts thinking, and in so doing I can be a tad surly. I apologise for any misunderstandings, but I cannot be less than blunt in my opinions. That said, I think civil discourse is beneficial in molding perceptions, which leads to understanding and acceptance of that which works. Ultimately the goal is to avoid actual confrontation, with the true goal being confidence in ones ability to act when required.

In reply to your comment:
“HAHAH! You are right about that big guys in carpet armor! They told me that i couldnt do the it because the use Japanese 15century ERA weaponry was against the rules. I was niave at the time to think that doing the SCA would further my Martial Arts Experience. So I spent most of my time watching the guys with the real armor, and swords do agility drills.

Real weapons eh? I saw some idiots out side my Last apartment practicing Ninjutsu, were one had a live weapon, and the other had a Iaito. That was a clear show of ego, and I wish that I had it on video, it would have been on for the darwin awards, because the the one with the real sword cut the other guy.

Look up MASS, or MCBS those are interesting styles of blade fighting akin to Baji Quan, and the stick figthing in the Philipines.”