Removed from dying AM radio

[JeffM]

That's another great thing about you conservadroids. You insist everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, but you're always right. And where did that supposed quote box come from? Not me!

 

[CTListener]

That's another great thing about you conservadroids. You insist everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, but you're always right. And where did that supposed quote box come from? Not me!

I hesitate to jump into this, but even though I'm closer to you than Avid or Ravens politically, Jeff, you ARE wrong about the old Dixiecrats. All but Thurmond did stay with the Democratic Party. Stennis, McClellan, Eastland, Talmadge -- all of them, Southern Democrats throughout their political careers.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I'm "on the run" today so it will be tonight before I can go back and digest the link to the NY Times article (which I see was written in 2006 which makes it an "ancient writing" in today's fast moving world and the Sun Times article.

This whole discussion of ours will seem totally off-course to some forum participants, but it does serve a good purpose. One of the recurring themes in this discussion on AM radio is that AM radio needs an audience to survive and thrive. And to build and keep an audience, the broadcaster needs to understand his/her community.

What the current tangential discussion about Southern politics demonstrates is that we as a group are highly infected by our anemic understanding of the today's politics. I snicker at all these posts that are 'splainin' how politics and particularly SOUTHERN politics works. What universe do some of you folks live in?

It is possible that Democrats in the South... in 1964 and every year since then... are driven less by racial issues than they are by 'Conservative Evangelical church' issues. When people of the South are highly influenced/driven by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, Robert Jeffress (1st Baptist, Dallas, TX), Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, the issues today have little to do with classic Civil Rights of the LBJ era but have much more to do with abortion and Gay Rights. Not subjects that Democrats of the South can look into their history and figure out who they want to be when they grow up.

During that period about a decade ago when I searched about to see if their was some AM radio station in a Southern town that had my name on it, I walked away from a couple of possible deals because I looked at the political and religious element of the community and realized that any effort to involved the station in community affairs would likely create chaos because the community was not ready for mature discussion.

 

[Ravens]

That's another great thing about you conservadroids. You insist everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, but you're always right. And where did that supposed quote box come from? Not me!

The quote came from the article. Which you'd know if you'd read it.

And no one said I'm always right. But I'm right this time. And you're wrong. You're just too stubborn to admit it. You took a fun joke and turned it into rotten name calling.

 

[Ravens]

I hesitate to jump into this, but even though I'm closer to you than Avid or Ravens politically, Jeff, you ARE wrong about the old Dixiecrats. All but Thurmond did stay with the Democratic Party. Stennis, McClellan, Eastland, Talmadge -- all of them, Southern Democrats throughout their political careers.

Of course he's wrong. As soon as the words "Southern Strategy" left his unenlightened fingertips, he proved he's just a hack with absolutely no knowledge of history.

 

[CTListener]

Of course he's wrong. As soon as the words "Southern Strategy" left his unenlightened fingertips, he proved he's just a hack with absolutely no knowledge of history.

Still, succeeding generations of Southern politicians with views similar to those folks -- Jeff Sessions of Alabama, for example -- have been Republicans. I can't think of a single current Senate Democrat from any state whose stands on the issues correlate to Sessions'. And among the rank-and-file voters of Alabama, I would think that the vast majority of the children and grandchildren of parents who were big supporters of Dixiecrats and who continue to adhere to the old Dixiecrat philosophy are now either registered Republican voters or independents who vote Republican in all but ultra-local elections,

 

[Avid Listener]

I hesitate to jump into this, but even though I'm closer to you than Avid or Ravens politically, Jeff, you ARE wrong about the old Dixiecrats. All but Thurmond did stay with the Democratic Party. Stennis, McClellan, Eastland, Talmadge -- all of them, Southern Democrats throughout their political careers.

The issue is not so much the Dixiecrat candidates as it is the Dixiecrat voters. It was the voters who abandoned the Democrat Party and became Republicans.

 

[JeffM]

Still, succeeding generations of Southern politicians with views similar to those folks -- Jeff Sessions of Alabama, for example -- have been Republicans. I can't think of a single current Senate Democrat from any state whose stands on the issues correlate to Sessions'. And among the rank-and-file voters of Alabama, I would think that the vast majority of the children and grandchildren of parents who were big supporters of Dixiecrats and who continue to adhere to the old Dixiecrat philosophy are now either registered Republican voters or independents who vote Republican in all but ultra-local elections,

I can only agree, and while some of the old Dixiecrats may have called themselves Democrats (they could call themselves the Flying Zucchini Brothers for all I care) they undoubtedly did not vote with their "own" party on most issues in the 60's, and voted as Republicans regardless of their "official" designation. I believe the term then was "boll weevils," though if conservaclones applied their usual hivethink; they would probably be called DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) and would be as welcome as RINOs are shunned.

PS: Unenlightened fingertips?? You gotta admit, when it comes to pointless snark, at least that's somewhat original. Who has enlightened fingertips, anyway? Those who have taken the Mavis Beacon Speed Typing Course?

 

[Avid Listener]

And Avid's remark that I quoted his words exactly and still got it wrong is a new classic. Spin, spin, spin.

It was your paraphrase/summary of what I wrote that was clearly and obviously dead wrong, you ****** of ******.

 

[Avid Listener]

I'd prefer you not pretend to self-censor. You will set a precedent and we will begin to see more of the same, which defeats the purpose of not swearing at all. Understood?

No. The standards of what is and is not acceptable are vague and ambiguous. There are some participants in here who get the vapors over terms as harsh as "heck" or "darn". The standards of what is considered over-the-top regarding acceptable words changes over time. When Clark Gable said, "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn", that was as shocking as some of what the Free Speech Movement came out with in the 1960's. "Hell" and "Damn" are commonly heard on broadcast TV or radio, and no one blinks an eye, not even CBS. I will be happy to comply with clear and unambiguous standards of what can and cannot be used, as soon as I see them.

 

[Avid Listener]

Can we please get off the political bandwagon and, instead, get back to the original "Dying AM Radio" topic or simply end the thread. Some of the posters, and I am not pointing any fingers, has engaged in political mudslinging resulting in name calling and insults. Once insults begin being lashed out, the argument is no longer a valid argument. Thank you.

If you want a thread to get back on topic, instead of whining about what other people are posting, why not try posting something on-topic yourself? Anyone can whine about what other people post. If you want the thread to move in another direction, post something pertinent. That's simple common sense. Anyone who participates in forums like this should know that. It's not some special secret that only moderators are able to reveal.

 

[JeffM]

If you want a thread to get back on topic, instead of whining about what other people are posting, why not try posting something on-topic yourself? Anyone can whine about what other people post. If you want the thread to move in another direction, post something pertinent. That's simple common sense. Anyone who participates in forums like this should know that. It's not some special secret that only moderators are able to reveal.

Speaking of whining, the text block I quoted from your earlier comment was neither paraphrased, summarized, nor edited or changed in any way. They're your own words, just as you yourself wrote them. (My fingertips aren't "enlightened" enough to do any differently...)

 

[FredLeonard]

If you want a thread to get back on topic, instead of whining about what other people are posting, why not try posting something on-topic yourself? Anyone can whine about what other people post. If you want the thread to move in another direction, post something pertinent. That's simple common sense. Anyone who participates in forums like this should know that. It's not some special secret that only moderators are able to reveal.

True.

But there's nothing left to say. This topic was already beaten to death long before this thread was started. Maybe that's why the topic so quickly turned.

 

[Avid Listener]

True.

But there's nothing left to say. This topic was already beaten to death long before this thread was started. Maybe that's why the topic so quickly turned.

Yet you keep posting. Go figure!

Threads die when people stop posting in them. Duh! That's another obvious truth about forums like this that anyone with a lick of sense understands. You don't need to be someone with a position of authority to point out what should be clearly obvious. If you want a thread to die, you don't have to whine to management like a snot-nosed little kid. You just stop posting in it.

 

[AbsalomWasADemocrat]

I'd prefer you not pretend to self-censor. You will set a precedent and we will begin to see more of the same, which defeats the purpose of not swearing at all. Understood?

Clearly, he does not understand. Look Boz, yesterday you finally did the right thing on the Houston board, just like you were finally forced to do with a certain thread on the Philadelphia board several months ago. Thank you. How long will it be until you do the same regarding certain other participants within this thread and elsewhere?

I'm sorry, Boz. We've talked privately about these situations before. I chose to spend some time away. I made the choice to come back, though frankly, until you see fit to do something more than wrist slap malcontents like Avid, I see little reason to participate in any meaningful way. Snark can be fun. I kind of like taking a shot at the occasional RD blowhard. But I also know that it adds nothing.

The reality is that you have an established group of valued professionals who contribute daily to this site. You have a group of passionate enthusiasts doing the same. And then you have the few who choose to outrage, toss some attitude and the occasional bit of cursive language, argue anything in anyway, and do so with little or no logic or fact to support their position.

Those individuals do nothing to contribute to this site. Nothing. They blindly mock professionals and enthusiasts alike. They have no interest in learning. Why should they? They already know it all. They refuse to listen to any opposing view, although they have no real personal viewpoint, no real contribution to the dialogue. They get their kicks from derailing conversation. They drag whatever topic they choose into the gutter.

Their attitude is one of "I'm never wrong." They care nothing for what is proper in social discourse. Their "scorched earth" attitude does nothing for growth of this site. You owe nothing to those individuals. They're truly that toothless old lion that sits at the edge of the pride, offering an occasional roar but in reality only taking and never giving. This site and its users will all be better off without individuals like that.

You owe the professionals and enthusiasts who come here truly looking to participate in a reasoned discussion of radio. You owe them the respect that gives them a place to exchange ideas without the disruption of a few loud mouthed malcontents. Loud mouths, unhappy about life and unhappy about themselves. As such, there comes a time to shut down a thread. One participant insists that it's about simply not posting. His goal is obvious. Don't like the thread, then don't stand up for yourself. Shout down a few, and feed your weak ego by getting that last word.

So fine. Let him have the last word. Then shut this thread and him down. Nothing will be missed. That the conversation has been allowed to devolve into what it now is, is a corporate insult to every pro and enthusiast who comes here. Users who log into RD, not to shout "hey look at me," but to offer a diverse group of viewpoints in a social context that respects the other user.

And hey, isn't that what the big yellow block at the top of the page is all about?

 

[Ravens]

Dr. Tillery is a recognized member of the media brokerage and appraisal community and is highly regarded. He posts with his real name, unlike you.

I hate to be the one defending the potty mouth, but there is some value in some people being anonymous here. We've seen the more unscrupulous members try to get those still employed in the business in trouble for thing they've posted here. Some poor schmoe in Mississippi shouldn't have to worry about his job because he likes a different kind of radio than some Internet troll with too much time on his hands.

 

[brettbutlerisok]

It was your paraphrase/summary of what I wrote that was clearly and obviously dead wrong, you ****** of ******.

So are we supposed to count the stars?

Boxcar of Whores? Or do the stars just represent words of any size, you cream of wheat.

 

[Avid Listener]

Dr. Tillery is a recognized member of the media brokerage and appraisal community and is highly regarded. He posts with his real name, unlike you.

Then why doesn't he have anything to add to the discussion besides whining?

 

[Avid Listener]

So are we supposed to count the stars?

Boxcar of Whores? Or do the stars just represent words of any size, you cream of wheat.

It's to make the point that peoples' dirty imaginations can come up with far more nasty thoughts of what wasn't typed that what I would have actually typed. There's a whole thread about that on the National TV forum.

I'm also amused at the accusations that somewhat "salty" language indicates a lack of good arguments, yet when those people who make that accusation are losing the argument, that's when they run to the censor to tattle.

 

[Avid Listener]

Clearly, he does not understand. Look Boz, yesterday you finally did the right thing on the Houston board, just like you were finally forced to do with a certain thread on the Philadelphia board several months ago. Thank you. How long will it be until you do the same regarding certain other participants within this thread and elsewhere?

I'm sorry, Boz. We've talked privately about these situations before. I chose to spend some time away. I made the choice to come back, though frankly, until you see fit to do something more than wrist slap malcontents like Avid, I see little reason to participate in any meaningful way. Snark can be fun. I kind of like taking a shot at the occasional RD blowhard. But I also know that it adds nothing.

The reality is that you have an established group of valued professionals who contribute daily to this site. You have a group of passionate enthusiasts doing the same. And then you have the few who choose to outrage, toss some attitude and the occasional bit of cursive language, argue anything in anyway, and do so with little or no logic or fact to support their position.

Those individuals do nothing to contribute to this site. Nothing. They blindly mock professionals and enthusiasts alike. They have no interest in learning. Why should they? They already know it all. They refuse to listen to any opposing view, although they have no real personal viewpoint, no real contribution to the dialogue. They get their kicks from derailing conversation. They drag whatever topic they choose into the gutter.

Their attitude is one of "I'm never wrong." They care nothing for what is proper in social discourse. Their "scorched earth" attitude does nothing for growth of this site. You owe nothing to those individuals. They're truly that toothless old lion that sits at the edge of the pride, offering an occasional roar but in reality only taking and never giving. This site and its users will all be better off without individuals like that.

You owe the professionals and enthusiasts who come here truly looking to participate in a reasoned discussion of radio. You owe them the respect that gives them a place to exchange ideas without the disruption of a few loud mouthed malcontents. Loud mouths, unhappy about life and unhappy about themselves. As such, there comes a time to shut down a thread. One participant insists that it's about simply not posting. His goal is obvious. Don't like the thread, then don't stand up for yourself. Shout down a few, and feed your weak ego by getting that last word.

So fine. Let him have the last word. Then shut this thread and him down. Nothing will be missed. That the conversation has been allowed to devolve into what it now is, is a corporate insult to every pro and enthusiast who comes here. Users who log into RD, not to shout "hey look at me," but to offer a diverse group of viewpoints in a social context that respects the other user.

And hey, isn't that what the big yellow block at the top of the page is all about?

You're sure opinionated for someone who only joined a few weeks ago, and who has only made 14 posts so far.