What happened....

friarwolf · Post by **friarwolf** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:39 am

To the faculty thread???? I was so looking forward to a stimulating debate today regarding the pros and cons of Keynesian demand side economics versus Friedman's supply side economics vis a vis the two political parties..............

smupony94 · Post by **smupony94** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:49 pm

Lost to the Black Horseshoe brigade

The Q · Post by **The Q** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:03 pm

You had to know it was coming (OK, going). The thread abandoned any relevance to SMU and got political.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:28 am

The Q wrote:You had to know it was coming (OK, going). The thread abandoned any relevance to SMU and got political.

Exactly how do you remove politics from a discussion about a proposed library at SMU that is wholly political? This research facility is to be used for political research, and is completely relevant to SMU and the discussion. The fact that some idiots cannot conduct a civil political discourse is the sole reason that these threads get whacked.

And, so, in that spirit, here's the latest from Iraq. Per Coach Dubya, the heavily favored US is currently tied with the insurgents:

"We're not winning, we're not losing," Mr. Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... a5f01.html

DiamondM · Post by **DiamondM** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:52 pm

And since its the "general" board, why does it matter whether it is a discussion of politics?

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:54 pm

jtstang wrote:
The Q wrote:You had to know it was coming (OK, going). The thread abandoned any relevance to SMU and got political.
Exactly how do you remove politics from a discussion about a proposed library at SMU that is wholly political? This research facility is to be used for political research, and is completely relevant to SMU and the discussion. The fact that some idiots cannot conduct a civil political discourse is the sole reason that these threads get whacked.

And, so, in that spirit, here's the latest from Iraq. Per Coach Dubya, the heavily favored US is currently tied with the insurgents:
"We're not winning, we're not losing," Mr. Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... a5f01.html

Come on jt. I made the same statements during the Rice game.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:17 pm

mrydel wrote:Come on jt. I made the same statements during the Rice game.

You crack me up mrydel. Plus, SMU was not heavily favored.

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:37 pm

jtstang wrote:
mrydel wrote:Come on jt. I made the same statements during the Rice game.
You crack me up mrydel. Plus, SMU was not heavily favored.

Yeah but Rice had WMD. (Weapon a Man named Dillard).

MustangStealth · Post by **MustangStealth** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:40 pm

mrydel wrote: Yeah but Rice had WMD. (Weapon a Man named Dillard).

And we had a hard time getting our hands on him.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:40 pm

DiamondM wrote:And since its the "general" board, why does it matter whether it is a discussion of politics?

You can look forward to an great new year with unlimitied possiblities when DiamondM and jtstang are on the exact same page.

PK · Post by PK » Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:16 pm

DiamondM wrote:And since its the "general" board, why does it matter whether it is a discussion of politics?

It is really pretty simple...since this is not NPR or any other talk radio type organization, the owners of this site have the perogative to limit the areas of discussion as they see fit. It is apparent to me they want to limit the discussions to SMU athletics and general SMU related goings on...exclusive of politics. If you want to talk politics and beat each other up, phone into a political talk show and have at it. This site is not goverment sponsored, uses no tax dollars and has not billed you for use of the site...therefore, there are no entitlements or privileges involved here, i.e., you are not entitled to talk about whatever you want to on this site. See how simple that is.

friarwolf · Post by **friarwolf** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:36 pm

"Thank you sir, may I have another"........."Thank you sir may I have another".........

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:22 pm

PK wrote:
DiamondM wrote:And since its the "general" board, why does it matter whether it is a discussion of politics?
It is really pretty simple...since this is not NPR or any other talk radio type organization, the owners of this site have the perogative to limit the areas of discussion as they see fit. It is apparent to me they want to limit the discussions to SMU athletics and general SMU related goings on...exclusive of politics. If you want to talk politics and beat each other up, phone into a political talk show and have at it. This site is not goverment sponsored, uses no tax dollars and has not billed you for use of the site...therefore, there are no entitlements or privileges involved here, i.e., you are not entitled to talk about whatever you want to on this site. See how simple that is.

Many presumptions in there, PK, which you, as a non-owner of any pecuniary interest in this site, are really not qualified to state as fact, including but not limited to what the posting rules are.

PK · Post by PK » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:54 pm

jtstang wrote: Many presumptions in there, PK, which you, as a non-owner of any pecuniary interest in this site, are really not qualified to state as fact, including but not limited to what the posting rules are.

since this is not NPR or any other talk radio type organization, the owners of this site have the perogative to limit the areas of discussion as they see fit.

fact...not presumption.

It is apparent to me they want to limit the discussions to SMU athletics and general SMU related goings on...exclusive of politics.

Have you not been paying attention? Not only does it seem pretty obvious to me...but they have stated as much in their posts.

This site is not goverment sponsored, uses no tax dollars and has not billed you for use of the site

OK...wild guess on my part...do you have any information to refute this?

...there are no entitlements or privileges involved here, i.e., you are not entitled to talk about whatever you want to on this site.

I don't think that is being presumptious...however, to think otherwise would strike me as being very much so.

So, what was your point again?

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:23 pm

You're taking law correspondence courses aren't you. Good rebuttal, however I shall continue to flaunt the rules as I must.