Who's on your ignore list?

[The Dowager Mod]

quite short.

twenty42
hofoid

Bagel was on it until a few months ago

The first one got banned so now you have just one.

[Ban my account ffs!]

AdamT.  Though I often still read his posts so I should probably take him off.  His approach to arguments bothers me so that’s why I did it.

[Mr. Smith]

1. The Conflict
2. Landslide Lyndon
3. Badger
4. MAINEiac4434
5. Ghost of Ruin
6. Yank 2133
7. sjoyce
8. ProudModerate2
9. Justice Blair
10. SWE
11. Figs
12. 136or142
13. Shameless Bernie Hack
14. Doctor Imperialism
15. Ator Boltox
16. Republicans for Nelson
17. Jalaketu West
18. here2view
19. peenie weenie
20. cookiedamage
21. Cruz Will Win 👁
22. New Frontier
23. Hooog
24. The Materialist

Given how this forum is, I would not be surprised if I am compelled to add more individuals to this list.

Thats like, 1/2 of the forum's active users. Whats the point of being on a forum if you have most on ignore?

The people on this list do not deserve to be on this website, as I've made plain before. They are rude, they are hyperpartisan, and they are inconsiderate. It is not a requirement for me to listen to this people; that is what the ignore option is there for. If it were up to me, I would ban all of them.

Because you're so "moderate" and "reasonable"

Well, I worked with moderates, I knew moderates, moderates were friends of mine....Calthrina, you're no moderate.

And since I just gave my list a cleanout, I think a new it's time for a new entry.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

quite short.

twenty42
hofoid

Bagel was on it until a few months ago

The first one got banned so now you have just one.

twenty42 was banned?

[Calthrina950]

1. The Conflict
2. Landslide Lyndon
3. Badger
4. MAINEiac4434
5. Ghost of Ruin
6. Yank2133
7. sjoyce
8. ProudModerate2
9. Justice Blair
10. SWE
11. Figs
12. 136or142
13. Shameless Bernie Hack
14. Doctor Imperialism
15. Ator Boltox
16. Republicans for Nelson
17. Jalaketu West
18. here2view
19. peenie weenie
20. cookiedamage
21. Cruz Will Win 👁
22. New Frontier
23. Hooog
24. The Materialist

Given how this forum is, I would not be surprised if I am compelled to add more individuals to this list.

Famous Mortimer is a racist and a rape apologist, but you don't have him on ignore because "nice guy FF?"

He's not someone who's engaged in ad hominem attacks or insults against other posters, and certainly not towards me. Most of the left-leaning posters on here have engaged in those kinds of attacks, in one form or another.

[Calthrina950]

1. The Conflict
2. Landslide Lyndon
3. Badger
4. MAINEiac4434
5. Ghost of Ruin
6. Yank 2133
7. sjoyce
8. ProudModerate2
9. Justice Blair
10. SWE
11. Figs
12. 136or142
13. Shameless Bernie Hack
14. Doctor Imperialism
15. Ator Boltox
16. Republicans for Nelson
17. Jalaketu West
18. here2view
19. peenie weenie
20. cookiedamage
21. Cruz Will Win 👁
22. New Frontier
23. Hooog
24. The Materialist

Given how this forum is, I would not be surprised if I am compelled to add more individuals to this list.

Thats like, 1/2 of the forum's active users. Whats the point of being on a forum if you have most on ignore?

The people on this list do not deserve to be on this website, as I've made plain before. They are rude, they are hyperpartisan, and they are inconsiderate. It is not a requirement for me to listen to this people; that is what the ignore option is there for. If it were up to me, I would ban all of them.

Because you're so "moderate" and "reasonable"

Well, I worked with moderates, I knew moderates, moderates were friends of mine....Calthrina, you're no moderate.

And since I just gave my list a cleanout, I think a new it's time for a new entry.

Trying to use a Lloyd Bentsen quote against me here? My views are genuinely in the middle of the spectrum, and I am voting for candidates from both parties this year. So your characterization is inaccurate. And I am reciprocating by placing you on my list, since you're not someone who seems interested in respectful debate.

[wesmoorenerd]

Zero people. Ignoring people is how you create an echo chamber.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

1. The Conflict
2. Landslide Lyndon
3. Badger
4. MAINEiac4434
5. Ghost of Ruin
6. Yank2133
7. sjoyce
8. ProudModerate2
9. Justice Blair
10. SWE
11. Figs
12. 136or142
13. Shameless Bernie Hack
14. Doctor Imperialism
15. Ator Boltox
16. Republicans for Nelson
17. Jalaketu West
18. here2view
19. peenie weenie
20. cookiedamage
21. Cruz Will Win 👁
22. New Frontier
23. Hooog
24. The Materialist

Given how this forum is, I would not be surprised if I am compelled to add more individuals to this list.

Famous Mortimer is a racist and a rape apologist, but you don't have him on ignore because "nice guy FF?"

He's not someone who's engaged in ad hominem attacks or insults against other posters, and certainly not towards me. Most of the left-leaning posters on here have engaged in those kinds of attacks, in one form or another.

So being a racist and a rape apologist is fine as long as you don't engage in ad hominem attacks.  Wow.

[Calthrina950]

1. The Conflict
2. Landslide Lyndon
3. Badger
4. MAINEiac4434
5. Ghost of Ruin
6. Yank2133
7. sjoyce
8. ProudModerate2
9. Justice Blair
10. SWE
11. Figs
12. 136or142
13. Shameless Bernie Hack
14. Doctor Imperialism
15. Ator Boltox
16. Republicans for Nelson
17. Jalaketu West
18. here2view
19. peenie weenie
20. cookiedamage
21. Cruz Will Win 👁
22. New Frontier
23. Hooog
24. The Materialist

Given how this forum is, I would not be surprised if I am compelled to add more individuals to this list.

Famous Mortimer is a racist and a rape apologist, but you don't have him on ignore because "nice guy FF?"

He's not someone who's engaged in ad hominem attacks or insults against other posters, and certainly not towards me. Most of the left-leaning posters on here have engaged in those kinds of attacks, in one form or another.

So being a racist and a rape apologist is fine as long as you don't engage in ad hominem attacks.  Wow.

A racist and a rape apologist? Neither of those things are acceptable, but I fail to see how Famous Mortimer falls within those categories. Unless you say that taking a more conservative position on immigration makes someone a full-blown racist.

And the kinds of comments that you are making here are the kinds that I don't condone.

[Calthrina950]

1. The Conflict
2. Landslide Lyndon
3. Badger
4. MAINEiac4434
5. Ghost of Ruin
6. Yank2133
7. sjoyce
8. ProudModerate2
9. Justice Blair
10. SWE
11. Figs
12. 136or142
13. Shameless Bernie Hack
14. Doctor Imperialism
15. Ator Boltox
16. Republicans for Nelson
17. Jalaketu West
18. here2view
19. peenie weenie
20. cookiedamage
21. Cruz Will Win 👁
22. New Frontier
23. Hooog
24. The Materialist

Given how this forum is, I would not be surprised if I am compelled to add more individuals to this list.

Famous Mortimer is a racist and a rape apologist, but you don't have him on ignore because "nice guy FF?"

He's not someone who's engaged in ad hominem attacks or insults against other posters, and certainly not towards me. Most of the left-leaning posters on here have engaged in those kinds of attacks, in one form or another.

So being a racist and a rape apologist is fine as long as you don't engage in ad hominem attacks.  Wow.

A racist and a rape apologist? Neither of those things are acceptable, but I fail to see how Famous Mortimer falls within those categories. Unless you say that taking a more conservative position on immigration makes someone a full-blown racist.

And the kinds of comments that you are making here are the kinds that I don't condone.

You're an idiot.  There's another one for your ignore list.

This is unfortunate, but given your tone towards other individuals on this board, it's not surprising. Moreover, I am reporting your post.

[Calthrina950]

My updated ignore list:

1. The Conflict
2. Landslide Lyndon
3. Badger
4. MAINEiac4434
5. Ghost of Ruin
6. Yank2133
7. sjoyce
8. ProudModerate2
9. Justice Blair
10. SWE
11. Figs
12. 136or142
13. Figueira
14. Shameless Bernie Hack
15. Doctor Imperialism
16. Scott🦋
17. AtorBoltox
18. Republicans for Nelson
19. Jalaketu West
20. here2view
21. peenie weenie
22. cookiedamage
23. HCP
24. Cruz Will Win 👁
25. New Frontier
26. Hooog
27. The Materialist

[CookieDamage]

Santa wishes he had a naughty list like Calthrina.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

[RINO Tom]

Used to be Limo, PittsburghSteel and Bagel, but I made the mistake of taking them all off again

You just couldn't resist their high quality content for too long, huh?

Anyway, I've never ignored a single person in my 5+ years here. Except accidentally, which I fix if/when I notice.

Haha, this x100.  Also, LOL at the OP's list ... makes one feel kind of left out to be excluded from such a group.

[Hammy]

Used to be Limo, PittsburghSteel and Bagel, but I made the mistake of taking them all off again

You just couldn't resist their high quality content for too long, huh?

Anyway, I've never ignored a single person in my 5+ years here. Except accidentally, which I fix if/when I notice.

Haha, this x100.  Also, LOL at the OP's list ... makes one feel kind of left out to be excluded from such a group.

I noticed I'm on there lol. Seems like he ignored anyone who isn't an unquestioning Dem hack.

[YE]

Guys just chill the f**k out. If someone wishes to put someone on ignore so be it. With that said, Calthrina, with all due respect and I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to debate, but you need to develop a thicker skin towards criticisms in regards to both yourself and ones directed towards a party.

[Calthrina950]

Guys just chill the f**k out. If someone wishes to put someone on ignore so be it. With that said, Calthrina, with all due respect and I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to debate, but you need to develop a thicker skin towards criticisms in regards to both yourself and ones directed towards a party.

But why I should have to tolerate personal attacks? In my view, such attacks cross a clear and definite line, particularly when they are tinged with insulting other users. Just look at the responses from Scott and cookiedamage. Their comments should be construed as clear violations of the Terms of Service, and they should be banned for them.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Guys just chill the f**k out. If someone wishes to put someone on ignore so be it. With that said, Calthrina, with all due respect and I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to debate, but you need to develop a thicker skin towards criticisms in regards to both yourself and ones directed towards a party.

But why I should have to tolerate personal attacks? In my view, such attacks cross a clear and definite line, particularly when they are tinged with insulting other users. Just look at the responses from Scott and cookiedamage. Their comments should be construed as clear violations of the Terms of Service, and they should be banned for them.

Good to see you're self-aware enough not to question the factual accuracy of their statements

[Calthrina950]

Guys just chill the f**k out. If someone wishes to put someone on ignore so be it. With that said, Calthrina, with all due respect and I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to debate, but you need to develop a thicker skin towards criticisms in regards to both yourself and ones directed towards a party.

But why I should have to tolerate personal attacks? In my view, such attacks cross a clear and definite line, particularly when they are tinged with insulting other users. Just look at the responses from Scott and cookiedamage. Their comments should be construed as clear violations of the Terms of Service, and they should be banned for them.

Good to see you're self-aware enough not to question the factual accuracy of their statements

My comments are in response to the ones that they make. Are you presuming to say that I shouldn't expect at least a basic standard of respect from posters on here? That I should tolerate the insults that get thrown at many from so many directions? I dare not think so, and I will not converse with anyone who is not willing to abide by that standard.

[YE]

Guys just chill the f**k out. If someone wishes to put someone on ignore so be it. With that said, Calthrina, with all due respect and I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to debate, but you need to develop a thicker skin towards criticisms in regards to both yourself and ones directed towards a party.

But why I should have to tolerate personal attacks? In my view, such attacks cross a clear and definite line, particularly when they are tinged with insulting other users. Just look at the responses from Scott and cookiedamage. Their comments should be construed as clear violations of the Terms of Service, and they should be banned for them.

If there is a personal attack the post should be quietly reported but that's largely beside my point. My point was that you need to get better at responding to criticisms. If someone finds you a moderate hero (in LD's Smiths case I don't think he's found of your bipartisanship because in his view both parties are right wing if I had to guess), so be it and no need to make a scene and get overly defensive.

[Calthrina950]

Guys just chill the f**k out. If someone wishes to put someone on ignore so be it. With that said, Calthrina, with all due respect and I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to debate, but you need to develop a thicker skin towards criticisms in regards to both yourself and ones directed towards a party.

But why I should have to tolerate personal attacks? In my view, such attacks cross a clear and definite line, particularly when they are tinged with insulting other users. Just look at the responses from Scott and cookiedamage. Their comments should be construed as clear violations of the Terms of Service, and they should be banned for them.

If there is a personal attack the post should be quietly reported but that's largely beside my point. My point was that you need to get better at responding to criticisms. If someone finds you a moderate hero (in LD's Smiths case I don't think he's found of your bipartisanship because in his view both parties are right wing if I had to guess), so be it and no need to make a scene and get overly defensive.

My response to personal attacks is to place people on my ignore list. Hence, why I say that I don't converse with anyone who is not capable of adhering to a basic standard of respect. Such people have shown that they have nothing but contempt for those who "aren't like them", and consequently, shouldn't be worth a decent poster's time.

[Torie]

To tack a bit from this exercise in who hates whom, and/or holds them in contempt, and not that I will (or can as a Mod) accommodate it, but I am kind of curious as to who might want me to put them on my ignore list. 

[Zaybay]

Guys just chill the f**k out. If someone wishes to put someone on ignore so be it. With that said, Calthrina, with all due respect and I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to debate, but you need to develop a thicker skin towards criticisms in regards to both yourself and ones directed towards a party.

But why I should have to tolerate personal attacks? In my view, such attacks cross a clear and definite line, particularly when they are tinged with insulting other users. Just look at the responses from Scott and cookiedamage. Their comments should be construed as clear violations of the Terms of Service, and they should be banned for them.

If there is a personal attack the post should be quietly reported but that's largely beside my point. My point was that you need to get better at responding to criticisms. If someone finds you a moderate hero (in LD's Smiths case I don't think he's found of your bipartisanship because in his view both parties are right wing if I had to guess), so be it and no need to make a scene and get overly defensive.

My response to personal attacks is to place people on my ignore list. Hence, why I say that I don't converse with anyone who is not capable of adhering to a basic standard of respect. Such people have shown that they have nothing but contempt for those who "aren't like them", and consequently, shouldn't be worth a decent poster's time.

Catherina, may I see one of these personal attacks from one of the posters I mentioned? Just to see if they truly are jerks, or if, as YE is implying, you are not responding to criticism well. I shall stand as an impartial judge.

[Calthrina950]

Guys just chill the f**k out. If someone wishes to put someone on ignore so be it. With that said, Calthrina, with all due respect and I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to debate, but you need to develop a thicker skin towards criticisms in regards to both yourself and ones directed towards a party.

But why I should have to tolerate personal attacks? In my view, such attacks cross a clear and definite line, particularly when they are tinged with insulting other users. Just look at the responses from Scott and cookiedamage. Their comments should be construed as clear violations of the Terms of Service, and they should be banned for them.

If there is a personal attack the post should be quietly reported but that's largely beside my point. My point was that you need to get better at responding to criticisms. If someone finds you a moderate hero (in LD's Smiths case I don't think he's found of your bipartisanship because in his view both parties are right wing if I had to guess), so be it and no need to make a scene and get overly defensive.

My response to personal attacks is to place people on my ignore list. Hence, why I say that I don't converse with anyone who is not capable of adhering to a basic standard of respect. Such people have shown that they have nothing but contempt for those who "aren't like them", and consequently, shouldn't be worth a decent poster's time.

Catherina, may I see one of these personal attacks from one of the posters I mentioned? Just to see if they truly are jerks, or if, as YE is implying, you are not responding to criticism well. I shall stand as an impartial judge.

Some of the more offensive posts made by maineac4434 have since been deleted. As for New Frontier:

F**k Kenneth Starr.

Why would you say this? I'm not defending Starr, but Hillary Clinton shouldn't be help up as some paragon of morality, either. This is yet another example of why she should not (and will never be) have become President.

I reiterate "F**k Ken Starr!"

That is your opinion. But it still doesn't detract from what I said about Hillary Clinton, in particular.

Are you mocking my post? I don't take such insults too kindly.

Are you a baby or something? Get tougher skin.

Also, like other posters have said, you're not a real moderate.

Well you have just earned the newest spot on my ignore list. I thought you were one of the reasonable posters here, but these comments of yours demonstrate that you are no different from any of the people with whom I've interacted here.

[Blair]

I believe I got on Nixons Caltrina’s list for this...

You must be logged in to read this quote.