phlux bboard - WHO are YOU going to vote for, and WHY?

Home : Message Boards : Topics Unrelated to PHLUX : WHO are YOU going to vote for, and WHY?

WHO are YOU going to vote for, and WHY?
Just a question to everyone out there. Presidential elections - who, why, and who sux the most (and why)...
posted by Cody Phipps on Oct 10, 2000 10:28AM

Are we getting political now? I wouldn't think it would matter who we vote for as long as vote. But personally I was thinking of checking a box next to the name of either Gore or Nader. But that's me today - tomorrow I could check other and write Mickey Mouse.
posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 10, 2000 04:47PM

I guess george w. bush jr. Don't me why. I might just vote for my dad. He would be a great president, and he has lived enough years. So, if you all needs someone to vote for, check and write Berthrand Saucier.
posted by Latricia Saucier on Oct 10, 2000 08:19PM

Sorry, about the previous reply. I agree with what I said, but forgive me for the grammatical errors. I apparently can't use correct grammar or spell tonight.
posted by Latricia Saucier on Oct 10, 2000 08:22PM

Are you serious??? Is this really a question on a band website??!! Damn the government, Damn the man!!!
posted by StU aRt on Oct 11, 2000 08:25AM

Anyone remember Pascacci's naughty song about Bill, Hillary and Monica?
I definitely won't vote for Gore--can't separate him from Clinton in my head.
posted by Ever Curious on Oct 11, 2000 11:09PM

Voting is confidential for a reason. Besides, there are more important things than which puppet you want to see dangling at the end of the strings.
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 12, 2000 12:13AM

Clint's damn right. As usual. My dad usually makes no secret for who he votes for while my mom has never once told who she's voting for. Which I totally respect. But my problem is


WHY THE FUCK ARE WE TALKING POLITICS ON A PHLUX SITE?

I mean wasn't it Cody himself who once told me "Thank god" when I mentioned how Phlux never sings politics, celebrities or brand names in their lyrics? Oh well.

posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 12, 2000 02:18AM

Amen people....AMEN!!!! Finally perhaps we can END this damn stupid "who are you gonna vote for" crap. So were YOU at the last show!!??
posted by StU aRt on Oct 12, 2000 08:32AM

By the way I move to dump this crappy questionaire into the "stupid shit" section. Even my 18 wheelers comments were more interesting than this filth! All in favor?.........AYE!
posted by StU aRt on Oct 12, 2000 08:36AM

Don't talk about voting for president on the phlux site, unless one of the Phipps brothers is running! Damn, that could be interresting. CLINT FOR PRES! and thats not short for CLINTon.
posted by -- on Oct 12, 2000 10:16AM

Actually I believe that The Big Monsta himself does share the full first name that of my grandfather and his son...Clinton but hey - that's the first name. :)

And NO I was not at the last damn show.

posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 12, 2000 11:35AM

And by the way Greg. I don't support the idea to move this whole thing to "stupid shit" section - I move it just gets banned for life from phluxnet. Who'll support that nomination? AYE!
posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 12, 2000 11:36AM

AYE AYE AYE AYE!!!!!!
posted by StU aRt on Oct 12, 2000 04:29PM

Well, before we trash it-
The "numbers" say that most eighteen to twenty-somethings will not go and put in your two cents at the booth.
I'd like to know...
How many of you are not going to vote and how will you justify it?
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 12, 2000 06:45PM

Dude....I REALLY wanna trash this one...this political bullshit sucks on our website...trash it and get rid of it or move it to the "stupid shit" pile. OR TRASH IT I WILL! I was so close to not answering your question, but I figure if it'll help trash it quicker....yes, I plan on putting in my vote. I dont think one vote makes a diff, but the problem is when everyone thinks that....thats alot of votes, and alot of votes DO make a difference. So dont be one of those ignorant people who says: "Im not gonna vote....whats one vote gonna do?" I give this bboard message until monday, and if its not moved to the "stupid shit" section of phlux.net.....I swear I will delete. So consider all of yourselves forwarned!
posted by StU aRt on Oct 13, 2000 10:33AM

Greg, what makes you think there is anything political about the question "will you vote"? Just because the original question may have been political? The right to vote is the right to excercise a privelege that most people in the world do not have. The second question asked goes to the issue of whether people understand and appreciate their freedom to think, speak, and act for themselves. The vote is the embodiment, the symbol of those freedoms. And that is definitely valid subject matter for this site because this band, as an entity, is an avid supporter of ANY form of free thought or free speech... it's one of the overriding factors that has prevented the deletion of any material viewable in the "stupid shit" section (speech, even though it may be free, can still be stupid).
So, I guess I'd like you to clarify: Are you saying that freedom is political? Or are you saying that freedom is stupid shit? Or are you saying that you want to censor any discourse on the subject?
That which made the original question political is, in my opinion, the "who" and to a lesser extent the "why". So lets talk about one of the more important issues that I alluded to in my earlier response: our freedom. And while doing that, let's leave out those fleeting names and faces that everyone gets completely obsessed with, for next year no one will give two shits about Ralph Nader, or George Bush, or Al Gore and what they think they stand for. They stand for what they think you want them to stand for. But next year we will all still live in a free country and we will all be able to speak freely, think freely, and vote freely. And we will all still take that for granted.
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 13, 2000 12:16PM

Clint is ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY right on this point. The idea of deleting this discouse and censoring it from the phlux web site on the grounds that it might be construed by the casual observer as "politically based" is poppycock, balderdash, and absolute horse sheit. The question "Should politics be freely discussed on the phlux web site?" It is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that deleting this discussion from the site would be censorship of the freedom of the displaying of thought, whether it be "good" thought or "bad" thought, "political" thought or "whatthefuckeverelse" thought (what is good or bad is only one's opinion, anyway). Anyone who thinks or acts otherwise is inadvertantly distroying a little piece of their own freedom, and, more tragically, probably not even knowing it.
posted by Cody Phipps on Oct 13, 2000 10:17PM

Censorship of any kind is wrong and I'll have no hand in it. Thank you.

Perhaps if we are to have a discussion on the freedoms of the people then perhaps a brand new post should be started and replies will go there. It seems a lot of us are confusing the original issue with this new one that Clint has started.

posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 14, 2000 02:56AM

Alright lawyer Clint, Business man Cody....Yes this question started off Political and my deletion of it is threat due to that fact that I can't move it to the Stupid shit pile myself which, yes, is where I think it belongs. I dont necessarily think it should just get trashed, but I will give until wed. for a couple more replies to these comments, then if its not moved....I will feel COMPELLED to trash it. As for the SLIGHT change of its discussion to freedom of speech, which, lawyer Clint, your learning the ropes of your profession well I assume. May I remind you that this is still PHLUX.NET, not the U.S. The bill of rights dont work here, the constitution either, none of that crap its all void here...and yes I call it crap because everything our government writes is written in such ambiguos language that people like lawyers can twist and turn it to get a killer off the hook, or for that matter put innocent people away for years, sometimes ever. This is PHLUX.NET and the only thing that rules here is phlux...not the U.S's customs, not the president, not our laws, nothing but phlux. This is all political bullshit....we are talking politics. From freedom of speech, to who are you gonna vote for, to everything in between. Womens right to vote was politics, getting freedom of speech was politics....I could go on and on. Abolishing slavery was politics...we dont call that stuff politics now because we have them and they are our everyday rights. But its still all politics....our government controls what the right and wrong things are that we do everything right down to our wonderful freedom of speech is controlled by the government and as far as im concerned anything to do with our or any government is political. So now I ask once again for all of you to help me refrain from deleting all this "SHIT" and have it moved to the "stupid shit" pile.
posted by StU aRt on Oct 16, 2000 08:52AM

Yeah. What Greg said. I gotta support Greg 100%.
posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 16, 2000 09:08AM

"May I remind you that this is still PHLUX.NET, not the U.S. The bill of rights dont work here, the constitution either, none of that crap its all void here..." -Greg
Hmmmmm, let me think about this for a second. PHLUX.net is NOT its own independent nation. It is not exempt from the constitution and the bill of rights. Phlux.net is owned, run, and operated within the boundaries of the good ol' US-of-A. So, if you really want to get all technical about it, we do have to allow that stuff to be posted on the website, as Clint previously stated. If you were to post a threatening message on this site, lets say a bomb threat of some type, when the fuzz comes a callin' you wouldnt say, "that was on Phlux.net, everything on there is exempt from the laws, the bill of rights and the constitution does not apply to Phlux.net" After have saying something like that, you would be worryin about the men in the white coats, not the police. A similiar type of example would be napster. Napster can't go and say "This is napster not the US, so the bill of rights and the constitution dont apply to us." If you live, work, own, and/or operate in the US, then you CANNOT just declare yourself exempt from the constitution and the bill of rights. Greg, quit while you're behind. Clint is right, it would be wrong to delete this topic. Damn, if this keeps up, we might just have to have a political debate at the parish hall, instead of a show. I will be on Clint's side, and we will call Jim Lehr to be the moderator.
posted by -- on Oct 16, 2000 10:19AM

You can't go into a supermarket and hold a placard saying "Supermarkets Destroy Communities" and showing it to everyone at the front door. A supermarket is private property, and freedoms you can expect when expressing yourself in a public area aren't guaranteed on private property.

phlux.net is essentially private property.

That said, I think this is an interesting discussion, and shouldn't be nuked just because it's unpleasant or controversial. Hell, the more controversial the better.

posted by Zach Beane on Oct 16, 2000 10:55AM

I think Greg was going for one point and people heard entirely another.
posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 16, 2000 11:11AM

More controversy is GREAT, yes....but not within the band. This is our bands website, and I just truly wish that OUR band and OUR music and what WE do was discussed rather than the state of our separated so called "United States." And it truly sucks that it was OUR band that had to bring this topic up in the damn first place. Unless Billy Joe or Dave Grohl is running for Pres. some day I think all this is a load of "stupid shit" and therefor should be moved appropriately, which is therefor why I feel so strongly, and honestly will feel compelled to delete if it is not done in the time I have alotted for it.
posted by StU aRt on Oct 16, 2000 11:19AM

Greet the world with an open mind... you just might learn something.
And how, may I ask, do labels, categorizations, genres, stereotypes, or generalizations help openmindedness? The problem with labels and generalities is that there is the tendency to just stick them everywhere without actually thinking about it. Is it hard rock or metal? Alternative or grunge? Is the issue of slavery really political or is it just moral? Isn't the napster controversy political?
As for the "political" label... Can't everything be construed as political? Daily interactions between people? Who's the best band in town? What about those 10,000 innocent people massacred in indonesia or china or whichever country that may have been/might someday be? Who's the coolest kid at school? Religion? And what about those damn taxes?
Shall we prevent ourselves from talking about the World Trade Organization made up of those mega conglomerate corporations that own the air you breathe and the lives you live? What about that Rage Against the Machine Concert that was held in protest of the WTO where the cops shot the audience with rubber bullets? I suppose we can never talk about anything the courts or the US Congress have ever done, like passing the Digital Home Recording Act or ruling on the MP3.com case cause that could possibly be termed "political".
A final note - Lawyers do bad things. Lawyers do good things. They try to put the bad guys away, they try to set them free. They help the rich, they help the poor.
Drummers on the other hand... Dey all krackmonkeys!!!!!
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 16, 2000 06:14PM

hahahaha
posted by Ever Curious on Oct 16, 2000 06:27PM

Ahhhh.....how one point spreads like a wildfire...aint it cool?
posted by StU aRt on Oct 17, 2000 10:38AM

Good point.
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 17, 2000 11:47AM

I happen to know for a fact that not all drummers are krackmonkeys. Some of them are lightweight drunks that can't remember the theme to Star Wars despite having to hum it for them 3000 times in one hour.
posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 17, 2000 01:21PM

OK - moving this to the stupid shit section, y'all wanna tell me who you think had a hand in that?
posted by Cody Phipps on Oct 17, 2000 01:45PM

Gee Golly....I'll give each and every single one of you only ONE guess....and then I'll tell ya. Perhaps we should change Phlux.net to Phlux.gov? Maybe that would make all this more relevant?
posted by StU aRt on Oct 17, 2000 04:32PM

I'd just like to point out: the Stupid Shit section now officially contains the topic the has had THE MOST RESPONSES of ANY topic on this site. It is also currently THE MOST ACTIVE topic on phlux.net. Congratulations to all of you that have posted to this section. Someone has now officially dubbed all of you: fucking stupid. And that apparently goes for all the stupid-assed material you've all contrubuted to this stupid-assed conversation too. Personally, in terms of how it pertains to everything I've written, it just gives me an incredible warm fuzzy feeling WAY down inside.
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 17, 2000 09:54PM

Gee-Whiz Clint. You say all that like it was a bad thing.
posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 18, 2000 06:44AM

Now Clint, I dont think the "unknown guy" stated at any one point that the people posting were, what was it now, "Fucking stupid?" No, no, no....it seems to me that the TOPIC DISCUSSION at hand was entirely what was, as you say, "Fucking stupid." I think it's quite underhanded to try and gain support like that. Especially when it seems as though support is 50/50 for both sides of the very ORIGIONAL argument. Do we sing songs that talk about our great president's quivering member being coated in saliva? No, I dont think so, let alone anything else that has to do with the "system."
posted by StU aRt on Oct 18, 2000 10:49AM

OK. I feel that I owe you all an apology. I may have been a bit hasty in my last post. I failed to make a critical distinction between an implicit and explicit labeling of people as fucking stupid. I was wrong, there was no excuse, and I apologize. Also I failed to adequately spell out how I logically arrived at the inclusion of people in the labeling of their written material as stupid. I was operating under the assumption that the people that took the time to put in the thought to create the posts were actually incorporating their personal ideologies and beliefs in their posts. On that issue I may have also been incorrect. I aplogize. In spite of this I take exception to the allegation that it may have been underhanded. How is pointing out a percieved consequence of an act underhanded? That is as far as I'll go here. My full rebuttal on this point is a conversation in and of itself and will not be posted.
As for the 50/50 point:
1) If it's truly divided half and half (which my math indicates may be a slightly skewed version of the truth), how do one justify ignoring precisely half of the constituency?
2) We are obviously beyond talking about the original point. The conversation has evolved and has become intrinsically tied with the thoughts, ideologies, perceptions, and subject matter of the band. This conversation IS about the band.
Pertaining to Chris's point: I would submit that it IS a bad thing, but again I could be wrong.
As for the last point, Greg, "In your land of milk and honey, who controls the cows and bees?"
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 18, 2000 12:28PM

Greg, come to think of it, the "Quivering Members" would not be a bad name for a band.
posted by Bert Phipps on Oct 18, 2000 02:16PM

Thank you, Bert!!
Lighten up, Phlux guys.
Then again, if y'all have issues, we could call this "Days of Our Phlux."
By the way, I have decided to vote for my brother. He's a good man, moral, just, and has only a small beer gut.
posted by Ever Curious on Oct 18, 2000 07:15PM

Want my opinion? No? Oh well. I think people should be political in whichever forum allows them to do so. We should exercise our democratic freedom (otherwise we don't really have any, get it?) It's all about grassroots movements, common people discussing truths with one another and taking stands! We ARE the people! Revolution! Damn the man! (damn the man is a political statement, I think). I'm submerged in accountin' learning, so I haven't been learning many new vocabulary words. But, I say A DEBIT TO REVOLUTION and a CREDIT TO OPPRESSION!!!
Privacy is cool, but social taboos bite the big one, so NADAR!
posted by Shannon -- on Oct 18, 2000 08:49PM

WOW! This has certainly attracted and received a lot of attention from a lot of different people, and has included many different points of view and many different topics, which is exactly what I like to see happening in the bulletin board! Lets keep these reactions going, shall we?
Phlux.net needs a lot of interation just like this. Its what its all about, I think. Bringing people together and getting them to talk about interesting things, which, of course include, but should not be limited to, the band. I am interested in the further outcomes of conversation and debates just like this. I think this topic has great relevance to the web site, the people who frequent the web site, the creator(s) of the web site, and the band that the site is about. So my only addition to the actual topic at hand is: CONTINUE!!!
posted by Cody Phipps on Oct 18, 2000 10:39PM

It was a sad sad day when all of a sudden phlux.net passed on....but everyone seemed joyous and gay because a new friend, flux.gov crept out of the shadows.
The End
posted by StU aRt on Oct 19, 2000 08:45AM

The thudwhomper agrees with Cody (who he takes to be one of the songwriters), and votes (or is that term too political) to CONTINUE the discussion. Why should this be THE END, as Stuart the Great suggests? It is not that "flux.gov" has crept out from the shadows, but rather that some useful insights into the minds and hearts of the folks who make up PHLUX have been coaxed into the light. This exchange has displayed amazing variety, and at times even intellectual virtuosity, and it is surprising to think it has arisen from a bunch of scruffy rock and rollers and their fans. The discussion has ranged from the heights of thoughtful idealism and what appears to be a genuine appreciation for the freedoms we are so fortunate to have inherited, all the way to the depths of paranoia, hate of the system, advocacy of censorship, and fear of involving PHLUX and its music in anything faintly relevant to the larger world. Thudwhomper thinks there is more to say, and a discussion such as this may very well lead back to the music by triggering a burst of musical and lyrical creativity which sends the band and its fans off in a whole new, more relevant, and perhaps more commercially viable direction. If there are more posts on this subject, the thudwhomper will undoubtedly find more to say.
posted by Thudy Cydides on Oct 19, 2000 05:26PM

Well, well, well... this is great, guys. I love it. I fall very nicely into the category LABELLED "18 to 20 somethings who will not go and put in my two cents at the booth." I have qualms about the whole system, and have considered abstaining from the vote. But since life itself is often reduced to its basest of forms- its political form- I've reconsidered. Something so pervasive ought not to be ignored. So... I've decided to vote for the cartoon character that is rumored to appear somewhere at the bottom of the ballot. Gore has an eerie 'wind-up key in the back' quality, and Bush has funny ears. No, seriously. I do not respect either man for various personal- not political, please take note- reasons. I do not respect the alarming ease with which The Man can morph into just exactly what it is he thinks that he must be. Do we generally hold in high regard those who's words and actions are inconstant? I do not respect the contest. I do not respect the show. I care for neither puppeteer nor puppet. (Many, many puppeteers- the little ones, the ants so deftly moving the invisible strings of the marionettes.) I have no interest in who is the better man, the bigger man, the more captivating. I think I'll leave the machine to go on as it does, the well-oiled machine of our country's democracy. More than two cents is required if one wants to change an engine, and until the current one does me any injustice I'm satisfied to let the mechanics choose their king. I find the whole thing, the campaign, the debates, the vote, to be quite amusing. It's interesting to watch, it brings out unexpected and often disturbing qualities in people, people that you think you know. You know what I mean- that stubborn indignance so far removed from objectivity that leads one to believe that one's ideals ought to dictate circumstance, situation, and outcome.
posted by Piper -- on Oct 20, 2000 11:55AM

WOW!
posted by StU aRt on Oct 23, 2000 08:39AM

I think that this quote from one of the greatest writers of all time applies to many of the messages posted about this topic,
"It's better to shut your mouth and appear stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
posted by -- on Oct 24, 2000 09:54AM

and, you could use that as a motto for the "Stupid Shit Section" as well.
posted by -- on Oct 24, 2000 09:57AM

It seems we've seen a slip from the confines of decorum. Let's not reduce ourselves to insult in a public setting.
posted by Piper -- on Oct 24, 2000 12:44PM

decorum in a public setting?
better keep your shirts on, boys.
posted by Ever Curious on Oct 24, 2000 05:35PM

What about the girls?
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 24, 2000 06:25PM

OK. I haven't weighed in for quite a while.
I must say that I'm impressed that we have someone writing to the site that will not vote and is in touch with reality enough and intelligent enough to be able to articulate why without resorting to weak labels and generalities like "politics suck" or motivations like "'cause it's stupid" or even "just 'cause". Welcome Piper (and I don't think the Mark Twain post was in response to your post, am I right Jason?). This may even things up a bit and make things more intellectual rather than emotional - a wonderful change in my opinion. ...Not to mention more interesting.
As for Jason's comment... I wholeheartedly agree. SOME responses have been pretty damn dumb and closed minded, though I'm rather picky about which ones would receive that designation. I think they're characterized by a blind buying into labels and slogans without understanding the concepts and situations that begot them. Take those blinders off y'all. Think for yourself.
**sigh** OK. I can't resist anymore: phlux.gov. OK, Everybody turn to their right. Now look over your LEFT shoulder at the FIELD that contains the address to this page… It's a bit shadowy so I guess I can see how one could make a mistake and think that it says .gov rather than .net, but to my eye, and I guess I'm looking pretty hard, it definitely still says .net. Tomorrow I will officially post my authoritative article on baseball.
If anybody has some half-baked idea that this discussion is even close to over, think again. There's so much more to talk about and I haven't even come close to my goals for the phlux.net media drive… I'm looking for no less than 100 posts on one topic. That's right people, we're halfway there, dial in, one of our operators will be standing by… heh heh. (evil laugh.)
By the way, I'm considering starting offshoots of this conversation cause there are a lot of issues that have come up that haven't gotten enough attention. What do you think, are you all up for that?
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 24, 2000 06:40PM

Yes Clint, you are right. I wasnt AT ALL posting that in response to Piper's post. I was refering to some of the stupid things that have been posted on this topic. I agree with you, some things posted on here have been pretty damn stupid. I think lots of people are saying things without thinking; they are saying things solely for something to say, with no serious thought whatsoever. Sorry Piper, I wasnt aiming that at you. I was aiming it partially at those people, who, as Clint stated, defend their opinions with statements such as "just cause" and "cause its stupid". I'm still for the Mark Twain quote becoming the motto of the "Stupid Shit Section"! All in favor, say aye!
posted by -- on Oct 24, 2000 07:28PM

Stuart just sent me this message,

Hey guy,
Your attempt at an insult was not directed towards me on your last two entries in the message board now was it? I would just like to make sure before I take any un-necessary action.

Your's Joyfully and with a gosh darn big ol' happy smile,

-- from StUaRt "The Great"

Well, I just got that note from Stu, and quite frankly I am astonished. I am very sorry, I meant no harm to anyone with that Mark Twain quote, I was just trying to add some humor to the board. Clint seems to be the only one who appreciates its value. I tried to be funny and already I have recieved 2 insults, one a threat. People seem to always think that they are the target, that they are the one being slammed. I almost added a "I'm not directing this at anyone in particular" line to my Mark Twain post, but I thought that it would be unnessesary, for everyone would realize that there was no harm in it. My mistake. And as for Greg, it's scary that he would threaten someone over that. He assumed that I was making fun of him, when I called messages that people were posting stupid. This either means that he knows what he posted was dumb, and he's mad that I have correctly pointed it out as such, or he's suffering from acute paranoia and thinks I'm out to get him. Either way I am not impressed. I thought that Greg recognized me as a friend, and knew that I am not a jerk to him. Well, to everyone else who might be thinking that I'm out to get them, IM NOT! And, IM SORRY, if I've offended anyone with my tidbit of humor.

posted by -- on Oct 24, 2000 08:11PM

A meta-note.

It's an extreme breach of etiquette to re-post a private message, no matter how relevant, in a public forum. It's only acceptable if you have the permission of the sender.

posted by Zach Beane on Oct 24, 2000 08:14PM

With that message from Greg, I have to say that I have lost all respect for his privacy in this matter. I am not going to miss a chance in defending myself, just because I need to think of Greg, and respect his privacy. Greg has made me angry and his needs and wishes are not #1 on my priority list. If he is as serious as he sounds, I'm sure he doesnt mind everyone else knowing what he said to me. Also, whatever "actions" he is talking about doing to me, would be public anyways. And even if he does mind me posting his message, it's of little concern to me. Also, I was unaware that a "Phlux Net Etiquette" existed. Maybe one should be posted, to protect the GUILTY in this case.
posted by -- on Oct 24, 2000 08:37PM

Your feelings about Greg are irrelevant. Your feelings about his feelings are irrelevant. Your feelings about his privacy are irrelevant. Your feelings about this line of discussion and his response to your response to his response are irrelevant.

It's an extreme breach of etiquette to re-post a private message in a public forum without the consent of the sender.

I refer you to RFC 1855, specifically section 2.2.1, paragraph four:

"If you are forwarding or re-posting a message you've recieved, do not change the wording. If the message was a personal message to you and you are re-posting to a group, you should ask permission first."

The entire document is well worth a thorough read. Though dated in parts, it's still quite helpful.

posted by Zach Beane on Oct 24, 2000 08:48PM

Again Zach, there is no "Phlux Net Etiquette". This link you posted goes to an ohio state server, and the document found there was written by someone who works for intel corp. obviously those rules do not apply to Phlux.net! Also found is this document is this statement, and I quote,

"This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

Those words speak for themselves. Hey buddy, you're the webmaster right? Why dont you just post some rules for the site. You really cannot get mad and say that I did something wrong. All you seem to be saying in your last post is that I broke someone else's etiquette, which would be IRRELEVENT in this matter.

posted by -- on Oct 24, 2000 09:01PM

Well, given that the status of this very controversial issue of "WHO are YOU going to vote for, and WHY?" has now risen to petty arguments...well..I decided to put in my two cents.
My sister did it..might as well follow suit.
Upon making this decision, I first scrolled through each posting and felt that veils were worn by the post-ees. Not by all, but by many. That isn't to say that these postings were ignorant. I feel that the term "ignorant" refers to something having been given no thought at all...and on a scale of one to ten, many of the postings are scored at five or six, by my calculations. [Though a few recurrent postings remain a 2.]
Off with the veils men, let's take the next step and try to put a foundation under our statements, shall we?
Ill-founded, well-founded...let's try and get something as support.
I wear no mask when I write. To wear such a mask would be..insincere? An understatement, "insincere" is an "open-ended word." Create your own definition.
Ill-founded opinions and statements make themselves known far too often, far, far too often and thankfully my sister and a few other visiters to this site have picked up on this and have successfully laid their foundations. Their points are standing...others should be too. We all need something to hold us up, don't we?
With that said, I am not writing this in agreement with Mr. Greene or my sister or Clint Phipps. I am simply putting my own observations into words. I am simply creating my foundation.
Off with the veils. Off with the masks. Write to write. Not to just write.
posted by Mia Silverthorne on Oct 24, 2000 09:03PM

Oh MIA, Oh My!
I must say this- I'm DAMN PROUD OF THAT GIRL!
posted by Piper -- on Oct 24, 2000 09:46PM

On this oh-so-sticky topic of 'labels and slogans' I would like to comment that labels and slogans are not wholly removed from soul or intellect. PEOPLE create the labels and the slogans, and not without thought. Kind of like stereotypes. Sometimes they just fit. It's the OVERUSE that renders a label (to use the word broadly-) ill-fitting. Stretching, it will eventually snap. What our obligation ought to perhaps be, then, as speakers and thinkers, is to CREATE 'labels' that better carve out directions for the true intent of our oh-so-carefully chosen words. Don't ya think?
posted by Piper -- on Oct 24, 2000 09:57PM

It's called common sense. I would suggest that generally people say things in private, where often there is a completely different context defined by nuances of the relationship that are not readily apparent to the rest of the world, with the expectation that those statements will be held in confidence and not posted in a public forum. While there may be no such context between Jason and Greg, it was probably an issue that should have been resolved personally as it does not concern any of us. Furthermore, it doesn't really add much to the conversation. Such a note does not require a reply in a public forum because none of the other participants had any actual knowledge of the exchange and therefore would have been blissfully ignorant of any conflict but for the fact that it was posted. A simple "Sorry, man" note to Greg would have done the trick rather than trying to get everyone to weigh in.
Anger is a great motivator, but can also be extremely damaging to lucid judgement. As I said earlier today, let's try to make things more intellectual as opposed to emotional. In my experience, immediate responses without consideration of consequences tend to hinder intellectual discourse and heighten emtional discourse. Have a look at my "fucking stupid" post and learn from my mistake. If you must, turn off the computer, go do something else, and come back in a day. We'll still be here. Everybody doesn't have to take issue with every point.
Zach is quite correct in stating that there are standards of etiquette that must be observed on this website, however I'm not sure that I want some guy from Intel Corporation telling us all what to say and how to say it. That is not to say that there are not some great ideas for standards in the Intel document, but I am not prepared to have them promulgated as the black letter law on this website without some serious analysis first.
In this instance I would say that there have been some definite overstepping of bounds... a breach of etiquette. However I also think that there have been steps to remedy that breach. I see an apology, in fact I see multiple apologies. Let's get back to the conversation.
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 24, 2000 10:19PM

Lucky me. My little post gets buried 16 messages later. This will teach me to check the Bboard more than once a day.

The website for the record is .net. If Cody,Clint,Stu,Laura,La,Pa,Piper, Mia, myself or Zach or anyone else decides to bring a little politics or even (god forbid) current events in that's okay. Because even I know there's not enough Phlux news in the world to keep a website jumping 24/7. So we need other things to talk about.

Netiquette. I have no problem with it. There should be some common sense rules (such as no reposting a private conversation w/o permission) however for there to be a set of rules on phlux.net -that would be like censorship I would think and plus it would be directly against what I believe Phlux to be about. Free speech, doing what you feel like and no boundries - ever (thats a bit exaggerated) and for there to be rules wouldn't make much sense.

Like Piper I also really liked Mia's post.

And I look forward to Clint's baseball string to come.

Also am looking forward to the Phlux show this Saturday at the Holy Name Parrish Hall in Machias @ 7pm. Maybe they'll actually play some tunes instead of arguing politics with all the phlux kids in the crowd. (Thats a joke kiddies).

Later.

posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 24, 2000 10:56PM

Plus I'd like to add in regards to a set of rules on phlux.net Zach himself has already said

phlux.net is essentially private property.

now why would/should there be rules on "private property"???

posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 24, 2000 10:58PM

It's early in the morning, and it brings to mind one morning in 96 when my sister dragged me out of bed at 6 to go vote. For the first time. Actually, I was pretty psyched.
I want to encourage all of you who are posting to go vote. It's a freedom I believe we should exercise. We have choices on the ballot. We can vote secretly. No one will shoot us if we make the "wrong choice." We can actually go and do it--we have this freedom.
I have seen first hand political turmoil in a third world country (Venezuela). I have been teargassed. I have been in a country involved in a coup d'etat --you couldn't even go out into the street. When all that passed and elections were held, it was a dangerous, riotous place.
So, please cast your vote in peace this November, and remember, things could be so much worse.
posted by Ever Curious on Oct 25, 2000 06:43AM

Just to clarify one point. There is no "wrong choice". As long people vote. It's all that matters.
posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 25, 2000 08:53AM

Actually, I think "none of the above" -- not voting -- is a valid form of political expression. And it's the form practiced by the majority of eligible voters in the US.

What would be more interesting is a binding none of the above...if the majority of people go to the polls and check "none of the above", a new election with different candidates is held.

posted by Zach Beane on Oct 25, 2000 09:23AM

I'm not old enough to vote, but if I were, I'd just write my own name on the ballot, because I can definitely play guitar better than any of the other candidates, and that's all that matters to me...
posted by Evan Ackley on Oct 25, 2000 08:51PM

Heh. Right on, man!
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 25, 2000 09:38PM

Well, back to the original topic, I personally would vote for Bush over Gore. Sadly, I miss the legal voting age by a month! DAMN! Anyways, Gore strikes me as being as fake as a wind-up doll. He was talking about that "poor" woman in the Winnebago at one of the debates. He said that he knew this woman that traveled all around the country in her Winnebago, collecting bottles to "survive". He said that she was barely making ends meet, yet she travels all around the country and owns a $50,000 RV! There is no way that you can pay for gas, afford to travel all over the U.S., on a "bottle collectors" salary. If this "poor", as he called her, woman is the kind of person that Gore is willing to give money to and give free stuff too, then there is no telling how much money he is going to waste if he becomes president. Oh, and heres a little bit of information that i thought was quite funny, (keep in mind i got this directly from http://www.algore.com) "The Gore tax cut will promote economic growth and encourage savings, and will fit within a responsible budget framework, one which ensures America is debt-free by 2012, saves Social Security, and strengthens Medicare." This dumb bastid thinks that he's going to COMPLETELY eliminate the national debt by 2012??? According to http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/, the current national debt is $5,649,626,178,879.61! And, this debt has been increasing an average of 66 million dollars per day since September of '99. In order to for Al Gore to elimate this debt by 2012, he would have to be making $513,602,379,898.146 PER YEAR! Which comes out to $1484.63 PER SECOND!! And that doesnt even take into account the 66 million more dollars that we are spending per day!!! So if Mr. Gore thinks that he is going to rid our country of this debt by 2012, then he must have followed that rainbow that I saw yesterday.
posted by -- on Oct 26, 2000 10:23AM

Woo Hoo! Real argument!
1) Anybody know how much a 1962 winnebago is worth nowadays?
2) Mr. Bush graduated from two ivy league schools, Havard undergrad and Yale law (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). Anybody know what his GPA was? And how many times did he sit for the bar?
3) Mr. Gore is a politician who wrote his OWN book. You get the gold star for the day if you can come up with another politician that did that (no ghostwriters now, I'm talking politicians that actually sat down at the computer and did the good ole hunt and peck).
4) Have you ever listened to Mr. Bush speak?
5) It is worthy to note that while our country is in debt it was undeniably the Republican controlled white house of the 1980's that put us there. Yay Reganomics. What about the budget DEFICIT?
6) Accepting arguendo: debt increased. How much did the GNP (not that it's even close to an accurate measurement, but then neither is debt) increase?
7) Next time you drive through your neighborhood look at all the pretty houses and the shiny cars. How many of the people that live in them and drive them actually own them free and clear?
8) Speaking of money, where does Mr. Bush get much of his support? (hint: it starts with a c.) Question 2 if you figured out that one: Why do you think that is?
9) and last. In this day and age true fakeness, the kind all that hard earned campaign money can buy, is undetectable. Remeber, they're professionals at looking the way that'll make you like them, and if they can't figure it out themselves they'll hire somebody that can. Ever see "Wag the Dog"? Even assuming Gore is fake (and I'm not denying that he probably is) do you honestly think that Bush is real because of it? Ha.

Just thought I'd offer an opposing spin on the conversation.

posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 26, 2000 10:58AM

Ok. Here is something serious to consider.
George W. Bush has a brother named Jeb.
posted by Piper -- on Oct 26, 2000 03:23PM

Wasn't Jeb the real name of Scout's brother in To Kill A Mockingbird?
posted by Chris Hancock on Oct 26, 2000 03:25PM

Was he a poor mountaineer who barely kept his family, um, feb?
posted by Zach Beane on Oct 26, 2000 03:25PM

See? I told you this was a valid point.
posted by Piper -- on Oct 26, 2000 03:37PM

It's raising discussion, prompting questions.
But I do have a real question. I just found out that Bush "favours elimination of the death tax." Now, I find this highly disturbing because although there are only two sure things in life, death and taxes, I was not aware that the latter could actually continue after the occurrence of the former.
posted by Piper -- on Oct 26, 2000 03:41PM

So, what's the story with this death tax thing? Enlighten me.
posted by Piper -- on Oct 26, 2000 03:42PM

Bush - Yale undergraduate degree, Harvard MBA.
posted by Thudy Cydides on Oct 26, 2000 04:40PM

Piper, the "death tax" they talk about is otherwise known as the "inheritance tax."
posted by Thudy Cydides on Oct 26, 2000 04:44PM

For Bush's GPA, you might do a "google" search on "bush gpa." Click on the third item, and a copy of his Yale transcript, with the somewhat droll title "The Transcript that Screams M O R O N" will appear. I see a 69 and lots of 70's.
posted by Thudy Cydides on Oct 26, 2000 04:59PM

Estate and gift tax. Here's one version of the truth: As you pass on into the great unknown your worldly possessions pass on into the hands of your heirs... sometimes also the great unknown. This results in some large transfers of wealth at times; at other times it doesn't. Essentially the government sees people passing on their wealth and they take a piece of it. That's putting it simply. This tax should only piss you off if you have lots of money left over when you bite the big one. For really poor people, a tax on nothing is nothing. However, the anti-death tax faction plays on the fact that the American Dream dictates that in our old age we'll all be millionaires and will have loads of cash to pass on to our kids.
...and the world was all sunshine and butterflies and everyone was rich and fat and happy in the land of the city on the hill...
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 26, 2000 05:09PM

The link to president moron.
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 26, 2000 05:29PM

OK, enough of with the republican bashing. Reagan was a great president. Arguably the greatest president of all time. He not only saved our country, but he saved the entire world. Reagan deafeated totalitarianism. He stood up to the communists, like nobody had before. He built up our military, and didnt let them have one inch. Yes, Reagan did spend loads of money, but it was the best money that our country has ever spent. He used it to build our military, he used it for weapons and scientific research. If Reagan had been a pushover and had not made the right moves at the right time, our world could be a communist mess right now. Totalitarianism is all but gone from the world now, and it is because of the things that Ronald Reagan did. Some of the best words spoken in the history of the world were spoken by Ronald Reagan. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" If it wasnt for the great visions and the courage of Ronald Reagan, our world may be very different today. And the next time you think about bashing Reagan for spending and blaming the national debt on him, think about where that money went. It was worth that money to put an end to totalitarianism. Don't you think it was worth it for our freedom? I would gladly spend twice that ammount, if it helped us to stand up to the communists and to stand up for what is right.
posted by -- on Oct 28, 2000 12:30AM

I almost hate to say this.....

OK.
I hope you--in a general sense..don't think that I sit here each day and analyze your postings...I don't, I just read.
Anyhow, okay, so some people like Bush...other people don't. Yeah, cool.
Okay, now let's get down to the nitty-gritty here. If you can't describe something you stand-up for with less than 90% opinion..umm..you're not really standing-up for it.
....Just something to say.
brought to you by..mia.

posted by Mia Silverthorne on Oct 29, 2000 02:45PM

I'm not sure if you were responding to my post or not. But just in case, I'm going to explain something. What i said in my post was actually about 90% FACT. Reagan did spend lots of money on the military; he did build up the military. And yes, he did increase the deficit. But what I was saying is that it was good money spent, for in the end it helped to defeat totalitarianism. Yes, it is an opinion to say that some of the best words in history were, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall." But I did support that opinion with facts. I'm sorry if that post wasnt aimed at me, but I figured I'd clear it up anyways, cause I may have been a little vague distinguishing my opinions from the facts.
posted by -- on Oct 29, 2000 05:42PM

Gore's Top 10 rejected slogans

The "Top 10" rejected Gore-Lieberman campaign slogans, as presented by Al Gore on "The Late Show with David Letterman" on Thursday:

10. Vote for me or I'll come to your home and explain my 191-page economic plan to you in excruciating detail.

9. Remember America, I gave you the Internet and I can take it away. Think about it.

8. Your vote automatically enters you in a drawing for the $123 billion surplus.

7. With Lieberman on the ticket, you get all kinds of fun new days off. Vote for us, we're going to work 24/6.

6. We know when the microphone is on.

5. Vote for me and I will take whatever steps are necessary to outlaw the term, "Whazzzup."

4. Gore-Lieberman: You don't have to worry about pork-barrel politics.

3. You'll thank us in four years when the escalator to the moon is finished.

2. If I can handle Letterman, I can handle Saddam Hussein.

1. I'll be twice as cool as that president guy in the "West Wing."

posted by Evan Ackley on Oct 29, 2000 09:39PM

Regan? Greatest president of all time? Surely you jest...
Iran contra affair. Star Wars defense. Budget deficit. Ahlzeimer's. Expansion of the cold war and anti-communism. Mutually assured destruction. Economic recession. Unemploment. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.
He might come somewhere in the middle if he's lucky. Certainly ahead of Nixon (sorry, man). As for famous words, the ones that I distinctly remember him saying went something like this, "Your Honor, I do not recall... Your Honor, I do not recall...."
Here are a few other names you might associate with true presidential greatness: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, JFK, Roosevelt...
And totalitarianism... yep defeated. Wiped completely off the face of the earth. Except for that little country of 1 billion people called China. And maybe Iraq. Oh yeah, and while we're at it, how 'bout Cuba? You can practically see their shore from Florida. The list is endless, really.
posted by Clint Phipps on Oct 29, 2000 10:47PM

Is China, Cuba, or Iraq a real threat to the world anymore? Reagan defeated the totalitarianism threat to the U.S. If the formet Soviet Union was allowed to keep on growing and growing, then the world very well could have been overrun by totalitarianism. Reagan stood up to them, and didnt let them push us around. As for the Iran-Contra "Affair", I believe that it was completely blown out of proportion by the liberal media in the United States. Undoubtedly, something covert and perhap according to the letter of the law, "illegal" occurred, but was it truly wrong? In my opinion no, but I'm sure not many will agree with me. I am a firm believer in the Reagan administration and Reagan's policies, whether on foreign or domestic affairs. Reagan bashing is really old.

posted by -- on Oct 30, 2000 10:02AM

Clint: I take some offense that you would note "Alzheimer's" as a reason that Reagan sucks. He could control a lot of stuff but not that. I am not mad really, I just wanted to point that out.
posted by Ever Curious on Oct 30, 2000 07:42PM

Ok, why isn't it fair to point out that Alzheimer's is a reason he sucks? If he was a private citizen, certainly it would be completely out of line to criticize him for a disease he doesn't have any control over. But when he's held up as a shining example of democratic leadership in the 20th century, I think it's fair to point out why he wasn't.

The decline of the Soviet state didn't introduce a glorious new era of freedom. It introduced the advent of 10 years of "democracy" under Boris Yeltsin and his hand-picked successor, Vladimir Putin. The glorious free market hasn't benefitted the majority of Russian citizens, but it's been a great boon to organized crime. Totalitarianism is no picnic, but it seems that one totalitarianism has been substituted for another, only this time the regime is militarily weak and relatively compliant with Western business interests and the internal control of rich criminal businessmen.

All US presidents seek to overthrow weaker regimes that do not comply with US business interests (say, by promoting the welfare of its people above international trade and commerce). Those countries are known as "rogue states", the government is corrupt and terrorist, and the rebels are "freedom fighters." For regimes that are in compliance with US business interests, the rebels are "terrorists," or it's an "internal matter" to be ignored. The U.N. is our ally only when it agrees with US policy; otherwise it's an anti-American body that should be worked around (through NATO and other means).

Reagan was a particularly gifted purveyor of this worldview, strongly supporting state terrorism in countries that were on "our side", and strongly supporting insurgent terrorism in countries that weren't. Sometimes this was done covertly, since the voting public can be an annoying barrier to implementing barbaric and illegal foreign policies. But he's not the exception; all administrations have done it to some degree or another. China is now compliant with our business interests, and it's our friend and soon-to-be normalized trade partner. Saudi Arabia is the most oppressive and fundamentalist Islamic regime in the Middle East, but its current dictatorship is friendly to Western business interests, so they're our friend. Israel is conducting an illegal occupation of Palestine, and uses lethal force, terrorism, and torture to suppress rebels there; since they're our safest military ally in the region, we paint the Palestinians as terrorists and the occupying Israeli army as "security forces".

Reagan wasn't the only president to promote this sort of stuff, but he was certainly one of the best.

posted by Zach Beane on Nov 01, 2000 11:01AM

Just a note: Reagan didnt have Alzheimers until after he left office. Which would make saying "he sucked as a presidnent because of alzheimers", a "wrong" statement.
posted by -- on Nov 01, 2000 03:51PM

Jason: We weren't TOLD that he had Ahlzeimer's 'till after he left office. He was 77 when he finished his final term; it's a degenerative disease...
Amity: True, Reagan (who's name I just noticed I've been spelling wrong for the last fifteen years) couldn't control the fact that he had Ahlzeimer's. I do not fault him for having the disease. However (and in saying this I fear that to some extent I may be reiterating what Zach said in his post), he could control the fact that he was in the highest position of power in the U.S. and commander in chief of the world's most powerful army while he had Ahlzeimer's. He was elected because the voting public had confidence that he was competent to handle the rigorous duties associated with the office. If he couldn't handle the job, yet still represented that he could, it's on par with a betrayal of trust. If he were insane the situation would be much the same in that he would have had no control over the onset of his insanity, but he would still be removable for lack of competence. I think that if a president, or for that matter anyone in an official position with power that has a social effect, is put in a Reagan-esqu position, honesty and integrity require him or her to surrender the office in the interest of the greater good of the country. The president's duty is to the people first, and his ambition and personal reputation should not pre-empt that.
posted by Clint Phipps on Nov 01, 2000 11:35PM

To imply the Reagan was incompetent during his time in office because of Alzheimers, is just about the most foolish thing that I have ever heard. Reagan talked to the public near the end of his term and after it was over. He made public appearances, wrote to the public many, many times shortly after he stepped down. From watching him and listening, it was obvious that Alzheimers was NOT affecting him durning that time. Yes, Alzheimers is a degenerative disease, but I could find out that I have it right now and It would have no noticable effect until a few months go by. Reagan was doing his duty to this country, and there was no reason why he should have stepped down.

Oh, and as for blaming the national debt on Reagan, that is also false. While liberals love to point to these deficits as definitive proof of the economic shortcomings of the Reagan administration, their memories seem to lapse in recalling the role of the House of Representatives (controlled by the liberal Democrats). The chart below shows the spending that Reagan proposed and whent the democratic congress actually spent.
Year Proposed Actual %Diff
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6
Totals 7,357.6 7,554.9 Avg 2.8

As you can see from this chart, Reagan's budget (proposed), was a lot less than congress' (actual) every year except for 1984. Even with Reagan's HUGE defense build-up, the Democrats were still able to outspend him. If Reagan's proposed budget had equalled the actual budget every year, then the debt would have been far less than the multi-trillion figure that was incurred. It was the Liberal, Democratic House that was responsible for this debt NOT Reagan.

Sources used to create this chart:
Budget Message of the President, FY's 81 to 89
Budget of the United States, FY 1993, Part 5, Table 1.3, page 5-18.
Proposed outlays for 1981 from 1981 FY 1982 Budget Revisions

posted by -- on Nov 03, 2000 10:46AM

There you have a typical conservative Republican view. Go here if you're interested in reading a rebuttal based on a liberal ideology.
Obviously I didn't write the subject matter at this link, and I'm not saying I would necessarily subscribe to this view. The government is extremely complicated (especially when it comes to money) and it's simply impossible to get a grasp on even one year's economical situation by just looking at a dozen unlabeled numbers and a bunch of decimal points. Some would say that it's good to understand both sides of an issue before you take a stand in an argument. Given the political motivations lurking behind each of the proposed perspectives, prudence would suggest that it would be folly to rely on either of these as gospel.
posted by Clint Phipps on Nov 03, 2000 01:06PM

This is a great website telling about the referendums and such. I recommend all check it out before the big vote on Tuesday. Some of you already got this.
posted by Chris Hancock on Nov 03, 2000 02:09PM

This topic is now closed due to the fact that the elections are over. Watch for forthcoming follow up topics. Also, look for topics tangentially related to this conversation; if you had something to say to one of the posts, but just didn't have a chance to get it in, your chance may still come. Don't forget the other topics that are still active. Thanks for all your responses it's been a great conversation and we've been extraordinarily impressed with the level of participation. Keep it up.
posted by Clint Phipps on Nov 09, 2000 04:30PM

This message is closed to replies