|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 15, 2004 8:08:13 GMT -5
Why can't we post on the CE board?
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 15, 2004 8:57:38 GMT -5
It's working now, Chris. Try logging out and back in if you still can't post.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 15, 2004 9:08:37 GMT -5
The post count is now off and the page numbers aren't listed until you go to the thread. It throws you to the first page. The same thing happened to the Coffee Shop a few days ago. I'll see if I can find out anything. The "fix board" function does nothing.
I'll also be addressing a few other items soon, such as anonymous multiple usernames. I'm encouraging public and private input on the matter. Send me a private message if desired.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 15, 2004 9:16:00 GMT -5
IT's not working for me. I tried logging out and back in, no luck. On that board (but no other) the reply button does not show up for me -- nor do the "modify" "delete" and "quote" buttons in posts.
RE multiple poster names ... if people are going to go into an uproar over it banning them as happened in the first incident, then I say just create a board where multiple names are posted, so that everyone is on equal footing knowing that X is also Y and Z. If there's no hiding, then there's no appeal to multiple names, is there?
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jul 15, 2004 9:25:22 GMT -5
JLLM is clearly JohnOatesDog?
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 15, 2004 9:25:48 GMT -5
It's up . . . only, there is no "REPLY" option . . .only the "Notify" option.
Bring it back, strat-0!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 15, 2004 9:26:29 GMT -5
JLLM is clearly JohnOatesDog? Well duh! The similarities in their names is a dead giveaway there.  |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jul 15, 2004 9:31:48 GMT -5
Oh and I'm pretty sure both of them are ultimately responsible for fucking up CE. It wasn't enough to fuck up his own board, so now JesusLooksLikeJohnOates has taken over yet another.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 15, 2004 10:06:06 GMT -5
Yup, going to page one, like the Coffeeshoppe was....
Along with the 'jokers'(ramrod, H Himmler...)maybe there's been attempts to hack something into those boards....
And I just checked and saw that, yup, the 'reply' doesn't show up...
- interestingly, I distinctly remember ProudIll's post about Barak Obama(which I never understood WHO he was referring it to, in the context of what was written there)Democratic Illinois Senate candidate....I remember it being somewhere down through the middle of that page...now it's the first one at the top....seems that a good number of posts/text musta been deleted....somewhere...
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 15, 2004 10:32:31 GMT -5
I never understood that Obama post either Doc. There was no context for it. There's some fishy shit going on. Suspicious characters have shown up, and then that bullshit that H. Himmler posted at Friends and Family. I don't know what's going on...
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 15, 2004 10:55:34 GMT -5
Well since CE is broken, I'll just post this here for now ...
Last night I watched The War Room on IFC. I'd wanted to see it for a long time, and never got around to it, so I was excited to finally see it, and really enjoyed it. It was entertaining to see Carville with hair, and to see many of the things in the movie with 12 years worth of hindsight. But it was interesting -- I was watching it the entire time going back and forth between thinking that James Carville is one of the most brillant political minds ever, and thinking that he singlehandedly screwed up the political system forever. Over and over and over in the movie, he's faced with a tough question about Clinton, and questions the motivation behind the question so strongly that he never has to answer the question, and no one ever notices. He created this atmosphere where journalists are embarassed into not really investigating anything. Brillant, but it sucks at the same time.
But I really did enjoy the movie. I liked it a lot better than Journeys with George, which is along the same lines, but has a lot more commentary, where this one is far more observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 15, 2004 11:25:31 GMT -5
The War Room is a great movie. I've always hated Carville. I have to give him credit though...he's a snake, but he's a brilliant snake. A real political animal, that guy is.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 15, 2004 11:28:30 GMT -5
I also couldn't help but wonder as I watched Carville and Stephanopolus interact just how much the two of them like and respect each other, or if they both looked at the other thinking "I can't believe Clinton brought this nimrod on board"
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jul 15, 2004 14:38:10 GMT -5
Doc, I have to say, just when I think you can't defend, deflect, apologize, excuse, distort, hypothesis, and generally fuddle any criticism whatsoever about Bush into something that's not based in reality whatsoever, you still continue to amaze me. It's beyond kneejerk, it's something resembling brainwashing now.
Yes. I expected the President to sprout 4 extra arms and use his laser vision to defeat the terrorists.
Actually, no. I just would have preferred he get up and do something. Instead of sit there. For seven minutes. Staring.
("convinced" myself that's what I saw? has doc seen the movie? hmmmm...*cough*)
Would he have been able to have actually done anything to stop anything? Maybe, maybe not. But if that's not the reaction of a man I can trust. No one knew at the time what difference those 7 minutes of waiting would have made, but this much we know, there were seven minutes.
Hindsight is 20/20, but that day, the only thing that footage could tell us is that our President was not able to grasp the seriousness of the situation he was in. Great if you're working out at the gym. Bad if you're the leader of the free world.
You, however, are quite comfortable holding this man you apparently plan on voting for to the lowest possible expectation. He can't fail if you don't have any expectations for him, and thus everything is excused. And yet you compare his reaction to yours, somehow suggesting that your situation that morning was anywhere near his, which, of course, is the point I raised that you had conveniently missed.
I actually HAD information being fed to me.
Clearly your scenario compares! You had seen the PDB one month earlier. You had the authority to shoot down commercial jets. You had your finger on the little red button. You must be married to a CIA agent to be getting such workable information. Plame, perhaps?
But since the suggestion was to compare assuming that your scenario was EXACTLY the same as his, President Roc Doc so to speak, now I find that if you were President, you too would have sat stonefaced for seven minutes. Remind me not to ever vote for you on anything. Decisive you ain't. Protect us you won't.
"Aw, but the gravity of the situation was too much for any man to handle! C'mon, cut 'em some slack!"
Chester, if the way I've acted in personal emergencies has any weight (anecdotal evidence! beware!), I'd have been out of that chair in less than seven seconds, let alone minutes. And that's really really disappointing to realize. Because all I ask is that a President have the guts to stand up and act.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 15, 2004 14:48:10 GMT -5
Doc, I have to say, just when I think you can't defend, deflect, apologize, excuse, distort, hypothesis, and generally fuddle any criticism whatsoever about Bush into something that's not based in reality whatsoever, you still continue to amaze me. It's beyond kneejerk, it's something resembling brainwashing now.
Hold on here ... how on earth can ANYone criticize a defense of Bush as being not based in reality whatsoever, being beyond kneejerk, and being brainwashing when the CRITICISM ITSELF is not based in reality, kneejerk, and brainwashing? Please do not lose sight of what the criticism is here! We're talking about Michael Moore saying "look at the look on his face ... you can tell he's not decisive". And you are buying into it! You're not stepping back to say "wait a minute, we can't read his mind. How do I know what he's thinking about". you're basing it on some look in his eyes? But you're not saying "Wait a minute, this is the guy who has been written off as having stupid confused looks on his face since he stepped on the national stage. Perhaps that's just the look that is always on his face, regardless of what thoughts are going through his mind". Honestly, this is one of the stupidest criticisms / arguments about a criticism I've ever seen regarding Bush ... perhaps regarding anyone. There is no sense comparing this to the reactions of any other leader, given that there's never been an event of this magnitude where we could watch the public reaction of a world leader finding out about it. So with nothing to compare it to, how exactly do any of us know that the reaction wasn't similair (or totally different) than that of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Churchill, etc when faced with similair news? WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING!!!!!!! Those who hate Bush are going to see it as "oh yeah, Moore makes a great point, look at the visual". Those who support Bush are going to say "That's a bunch of hogwash". And NEITHER side has any basis for their response. I can't think of a better example of their being three sides to every story ... the Bush haters, the Bush supporters AND THE TRUTH. And if the name calling and debating continues, then you're ALL a bunch of assholes! |
|
