"Fixed your post" smack is so last Tuesday. The problem is, it's so easy to do. For example See how easy that was? Really not much of a challenge at all. But here's a little parting gift: if you don't like what goes on here, DON'T COME HERE. Idiot.
Big Soccer guidelines are merely suggestions, BD19. The BigSoccer TOS might as well be amended with the disclaimer: Warning: Some forums are actually completely unmoderated, in order to cater to the particular citizens of that forum. Some moderators ignore the guidelines altogether, some actually follow the guidelines. This forum is of the former persuasion. Anarchy is far easier to maintain than actual order (i.e. actually enforcing the rules), apparently. Welcome to MLS Rivalries Forum, Part Deux, BD19. Civility and maturity completely optional.
my last word on my last visit to the crew militia forum: i don't remember spewing obscenities at anyone or (tee hee) threatening anyone with violence - i do, however, remember making a valid point which has yet to draw an adult response... oh well, cry away...
I wouldn't necessarily stay away. When the citizens of this forum aren't acting like prehistoric cavemen or wannabe hooligans, they can offer up tremendous soccer insight. As long as you remember the forum moderating style has NOTHING to do with enforcing the TOS, you'll do ok I shrug off the obscentities and threats all the time. Just little men at their keyboards, so desperate to impress the rest of the ape-clan, with their insults and petty comments. I just feel sorry for them. You should do the same.
How to tell when you're absolutely right: When Andy disagrees with you. How to tell somebody is an imbecile: When Andy agrees with them. Sorry, Andy, your "Make me a Moderator" campaign makes Dennis Kucinich look like a winner. But I'm certain the mods here welcome your constructive input.
The Crew mods are very aware of my opinion regarding the moderating of this forum. My comments in the past 24 hours aren't a news flash to them.
You have my respect for that. But don't ever forget about the support personnel that stay stateside. There are a lot of people in this country that are directly involved with this war that never leave to fight. It is because they have a job to do here --- and without them doing their job here, the most effective YOU could be when dropping bombs is to try and not piss in the wind in order to keep your pants clean. Have you ever asked yourself "Who makes everything possible in order for me to complete my job?" If bd19 is still here, Andy is only part right. I seem to remember a discussion awile back where the conclusion was: "This is the Crew forum. However, it is nice to get Crew fans' opinions on other topics. Therefore, we can have NCR, or not-Crew-related, topics on these boards." I think the mods of this forum hold that up very well. The only problems come into effect when things shift from meaningful topics into namecalling.
09-11-99 Gorge Amphitheatre, George, WA 1: Tube > Funky Bitch > Limb by Limb, Dogs Stole Things, Punch You in the Eye, Billy Breathes, Heavy Things*, Guyute, Free (1:09) 2: Wolfman's Brother -> Sand*, Meatstick, Maze, Prince Caspian, Harry Hood (1:24) E: When the Circus Comes (0:05)
"show me a young person who is a conservative and i'll show you a person with no soul. show me an older person who is a liberal and i'll show you a person without any money." anybody name that quote?
Seems that Al Franken said the above quote. Too bad he can't get it right. He stole, then changed the original text from the great Winston Churchill. "He started off his comedy bit by saying "Winston Churchill once said, 'Show me a young man who's a conservative, I'll show you a man with no heart. Show me an old man who's a liberal, I'll show you a man with no money." I nearly retched right there and got so mad I turned off the tv, but not without throwing a shoe at it first. That, of course was NOT Churchill's quote. He did not describe an old liberal as a man with no money, but, instead, he said an old man who was a liberal was a man "with no BRAIN". Apparently decrying the cranial capacity of a liberal hit a little too close to home for Al, so he softened up Mr. Churchill's judgement of liberals, while keeping his judgement of conservatives as harsh as the original. I would think that qualifies as a lie. Not only a lie, but a whopper of one. " And of course, the original text is as follows: "Show me a man younger than 25 who is not a liberal, and I'll show you a man with no heart. Show me a man that is older than 35 that is not a Conservative, and I'll show you a man with no brains". Winston Churchil
Ah but you have to realise Liberals only lie or critisize, they never come up with solution, oh and they try to further stereotypes (see: Liberal=poor, then look at the contributions made to Liberal candidates and who made them, then look at how much the candidates are worth. Doesn't quite fit!). My personal favorites in CA are Slick Willy saying that Davis shouldn't be recalled for making "a tough decision," when he didn't make any which is why their is such a defecit, and Davis saying that they "tried to impeach Clinton and failed." Davis apparently needs to do some studying...Clinton was impeached!
I was all set to respond in kind here, but when somebody quotes Al Franken to make a point (whatever the hell the point was) my argument has already been made. And Kaiser Bill has beaten me to the fact that Ol' Al, who calls other people liars, is a little factually challenged himself. As for the rest, people can agree or disagree with me as the choose. NBD either way. The one person in the world I have the most respect for is myolder brother, who was a PBK, Summa grad at Pitt, decorated Vietnam Era Naval Oficer, edited the Law Review at Chicago and is Senior Council at a (very) major US Corporation. He is also someplace to the left of Robert LaFollete. He was arrested and briefly jailed in Selma Alabama for a demonstration with MLK at the Peace Bridge. He was a State Coordinator for Eugene McCarthy and was gassed by Daley's goos at the 1968 Democratic Convention. He has served, among other things, as a Nationl Political Coordinator for Tom Harkin, who to me is a dangerous Socialist Demagogue. We talk and argue endlessly about politics. We agre on virtually nothing. Our wives have forbiddenus to speak of politics at family gatherings or we will both die. But he never says stupid stuff, never gives the cheap propaganda answer, always backs up his opinions with real, actual facts and doesn't get his info from total buffoons like Al Franken. My only "bandwagon" is the one where people who gather some knowledge before shooting thier mouths off ride. The kiddie cars are in the back of the line, pal.
1. Why is Churchill said like it is a bad word? The man single handedly saved the free world for 18 or so months. Ever read of the Battle for Britian? 2. I was young once. Now, I am 35. When I was young and stupid I wanted to change the world. Who can look at a starving person and walk away? You will be hard pressed to find even some evil conservative that can do that. However, the difference is that a conservative wants you and me to fix the problem, not big government. I saw a problem with the homeless and got my church to start weekly feedings. We now feed 300 homeless on a Sunday morning for less than 60 cents each. (Sack lunch with a cold coke.) Now, if we had some government agency doing this we would spend 20 times that amount mostly to pay the bloated staff. (Some PHD or advanced degree to figure out that people are hungry and what to feed them.) 3. Usually the biggest difference between a liberal and conservative is their belief on education. Case in point. I want teachers to be well paid. I do not want the bloated support staff. My home town took a VERY qualified English teacher out of the classroom and has now paid her $80K to "determine" which books should be read in the public school system. So, now instead of Huck Finn, we get Mya Angelou. You tell me if the $80K is well spent. But I digress from the main point of this and that is 9-11. Conservatives have the ability to see evil and call it what it is. Saddam's Iraq was EVIL. We got rid of that evil. Churchill saw Hitler as EVIL seven years before the rest of the free world. Now that is a visionary.
If you think you already know what propaganda is and don't need any formal definition, that's OK with me. However, there have been numerous attempts made to distinguish propaganda from, say, 'information' or 'advertising' or 'public relations', so I'll take a look at a few of them here. If you want to skip them, fine. Here's a definition provided by Qualter: Propaganda is ... the deliberate attempt by some individual or group to form, control, or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of instruments of communication, with the intention that in any given situation the reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist. Qualter (1962) in Taylor (1979) The reference to 'instruments of communication' may, however, be too limiting, as Taylor (1979) points out, if that is taken to refer solely to the mass media. It would exclude statues, coinage, naming streets or special days after people and so on and would also exclude the interpersonal communication of wearing a badge or uniform, giving a particular form of greeting etc. The kind of thing which Taylor is talking about can readily be found in Britain: Waterloo Station, Trafalgar Square etc. the statue to 'Bomber' Harris (in charge of British bomber raids on German cities) the statue of Churchill outside Parliament the Queen's head on coins and banknotes Wellington on banknotes the 'imperial' architecture and statues of central London the State Opening of Parliament the Changing of the Guard the Imperial War Museum the royal coat of arms in courts of justice Taylor emphasizes that propaganda operates through the transmission of ideas and values. It may be possible for those in power to achieve the behaviour they want through the use of rewards and punishments - higher office for some, a beating up for others - and certainly behaviourist learning theory shows that that can be highly effective and certainly these two elements were used by the Nazis and the Soviets: the order of Lenin for the ideologically sound and Siberia for the suspect. Indeed, even Siberia for some of the ideologically sound on a fairly random basis, just to encourage everyone to shut up and keep their heads down. However, although such methods may have helped those régimes to achieve their desired ends, the study of propaganda is not primarily concerned with them. Taylor (1979) offers the following from Fraser (1957) to underline the distinction: The central element in propagandist inducements, as opposed to compulsion on the one side and payment, or bribery on the other, is that they depend on 'communication' rather than concrete penalties or rewards. To affect a donkey's behaviour by whipping it is not propaganda, nor i plying it with carrots. But if its owner shouts at it in a threatening manner, or tries to coax it with winning words or noises, then the word begins to become appropriate. To summarize, propaganda is deliberate aims to control or alter people's attitudes aims to produce predictable behaviour by those who have had their attitudes controlled or altered does not depend on violence or bribery This may strike you as missing the important issue of bias. You may consider that propaganda necessarily presents a biased view of reality and that government propaganda is therefore something restricted to Iraq, Cuba, North Korea and so on. I think certainly that the issue of bias is an important one (though it is fraught with difficulty as soon as one attempts to distinguish 'real' reality from represented reality), but consider the way, for example, that the British government introduced the Poll Tax. They attempted to encourage public acceptance by press releases, circulars to local councils and newspapers, a barrage of television appearances by government ministers, leaflets to every household in the land. All of these attempted to explain why the Poll Tax would be a 'fairer' system. The Register of Electors could be used to trace defaulters, with the result that the only sure way to avoid the Poll Tax was to forfeit the right to vote. Massive state coercion was used against those who refused to pay: court summonses, seizure of property, fines, imprisonment. Public expressions of anger were met with the 'repressive state apparatus' in the form of riot police. So, even, if we insist that a definition of propaganda must include bias, it is clearly not absent from our own government communications. Indeed, it is perhaps a tribute to the success of democratic governments' propaganda that we naturally tend to associate propaganda with totalitarian regimes. How does propaganda work? In what follows we shall be considering the media of the III Reich as the prime example of successful political propaganda in this century. However in your research into propaganda you should not restrict yourself to the consideration of media content only. You will need also to consider such factors as social influence, Hovland's research into persuasion generally etc. and I have provided links to such subjects at the foot of each page. In the meantime you might like to bear in mind the basic principles suggested by Cartwright if a campaign is to change behaviour: the message must be received by those who are to be influenced by it the message must be accepted by the receiver as a constituent part of her cognitive structure. If the message does not correspond to the pre-existing cognitive structure, it will either be rejected or changed in such a way that it does correspond, or there will be a change in the cognitive structure the behaviours which one wishes to encourage in the receiver must be recognized by her as a means of achieving an aim which is in her own interests to bring about a specific behaviour the receiver's behavioural patterns must controlled by an adequate motivational system, which, at the decisive moment, leads the receiver to the intended behaviour Cartwright (1949) http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html
A Definition of Propaganda Propaganda is a sustained effort by an institution to manage public opinion. sustained effort: a campaign, not a single communication institution: not an individual; could be an • organization (CPI, VOA) or a • movement (an anti-war movement) or • society as a whole (sociological propaganda) manage: not (necessarily) reason with not interact with (monologue) includes reinforcement, conversion, etc. public: mass audience (though it might be narrowly targeted) opinion: expression of belief or attitude Notes: The definition avoids value judgments--applies to American Lung Association campaigns (white propaganda) and to Philip Morris (Altria) campaigns. The definition is conventional. It does not try to identify the essential character of some thing, but says in effect, "Let's agree to use the word 'propaganda' to mean the following...." http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/Definition.html i'd say you're batting .1000
Wow, this thread quickly devolved into a "Battle of the Sterotypes!" Liberals ALWAYS criticize, Conservatives have NO HEART. Too bad. Even as someone who leans a bit more left than right, I can't imagine using Michael Moore or Al Franken as the heart of an argument. They are entertainers, in the same way as Coulter and O'Reily are.
Would someone, please, ANYBODY (other than Mr Cut-and-Paste) PLEASE explain what British Monuments and long incredibly boring thesis on the broadest possible definition of the word "propaganda" (which seems to equate Joseph Goebbels drumming up phony Polish atrocities with England memorializing Lord Nelson) has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING AT ALL HERE? Signed, Just Wondering