Red Box Rules 101 - Humor

RBR for this article.

There are none.

Do we actually need any?

Didn't think so....

But agreed, if your going to claim RBR control,

RULE 1!

You need to say what the rules are first.

I thought a red box was for keeping bread from getting stale. 

Oh, a RED box!!! Never mind.

I object to you posting this without Red Box Rules!

I almost never use them. I hope that the actions of some members don't make them a requirement. I think that some people write them so tight that they could post an article on trees, but create RBR's that forbid discussing leaves and roots. Many, many, many articles, IMHO, are posted just like that now.

Ahhhh, but I did Randy...there are none, it's an empty red box.

Ahhhh, but I did Randy...there are none, it's an empty red box.

I plead guilty...sigh....(hanging my head)...I didn't see the invisible Red Box Rules when I know sometimes the are posted...invisibly.

Test

Hold on Dean, I'm checking to see if testing is off topic.

Nope, your good to go.

this whole seed is off topic to news and politics.  It is meta.  

I object! It's news to me!

I'll tell you what XX. I'll move it to ''humor'', since your comments are pretty funny.

Your welcome.

Doesn't changing it to humor violate the Red Box...er...I forgot....never mind....

On the issue of imposing RED BOX RULES to deter attacking "information" sources/seeds, etc., and for the deceptive purpose of arbitrarily and capriciously keeping comments allegedly "on-topic" …

Whether in journalism, law or life itself, sources of information matter; journalistic ethics are breached when a source presents opinion/editorial commentary/dogma as if they were facts. Consider such sources as being subject to the tenets of the satisfaction of the "Burden of Proof" and "Witness Credibility." Whenever a source fails to meet such criteria, to make addressing that fact "off-limits," thwarts a necessary and inherent need for latitude in discussion. 

In terms of maintaining decorum, precluding personal insults and comments that are OBJECTIVELY "OFF-TOPIC," then absolutely impose such RED BOX RULES (and generally). But let them NOT be imposed in an arbitrary, all-purpose manner; that is, in a manner that disingenuously declares anything and everything not aligned with the flawed content/source and/or the seeder's agenda/ideology … as "off-topic."

Further, content that is foisted upon us as "fact" when objectively it is opinion/editorial/false and/or dogmatic -- is deception -- be it inadvertent or intentional.

And those who abet the abusers of ethical "journalism," of discourse and just plain good give-and-take dialogue, who attack rational criticism and those who level it …

… make some days on NT a crap hole.

Trini  Lopez lives !

Except when sources are so disreputable as to be banned from other discussion sites, then the burden is on the submitter as to why they have to rely on click bait spam sources for supposed news. Real news stories can be found on legitimate sites, not on crazy ass left wing spam sites that even the daily kos holds it's nose up at. 

Keep using spam sites and I'll keep pointing it out. There are plenty of far left sites with actual credibility. Ask me and I'll be happy to point anyone in the direction of honest left wing work that is worth refuting on the merits. 

It's says all you need to know about a submitter that he or she gets his or news from a spam site that is specifically designed to appeal to the stereotypes of the least educated and most ignorant portion of the loony left.  It's a business model designed to exploit ignorant left wingers who can't handle any news that might challenge them  and to keep coming back to stories that pander to their prejudices.The "stories" are not designed to inform.There designed to incite the less educated left winger with hyper partisan headlines that the body of the text doesn't support. T 

99% of sources at least try to be honest. Spam sites designed to generate clicks and make no attempt  to honestly report news. addictinginfo has been exposed by its fellow left wing site the Dailykos for completely making up "stories" about the misdeeds of right wingers to generate clicks and money. It's not worth reading or rewarding with attention. They are the simply the cesspool of the internet and represent everything that is wrong with political discussion today.  

If you use  addictinginfo as a source, I assume you are the type of simpleton  who buys tabloids at the grocery store and believes Elvis works at a gas station in Cleveland. 

Are you addressing anyone specifically Sean?

Yes. Amac.

hit the wrong button.

Yes. Amac.

hit the wrong button.

You've gotten my response, Sean.

 not on crazy ass left wing spam sites …

Unlike those of you who use the crazy-ass right wing sites, when I repudiate a source/site I give the whos, whats, whens and whys … THEN ADDRESS THE CONTENT SPECIFICALLY AND DEBUNK/CORRECT IT.

There's a distinct difference in protocol.

And unlike your cohort, there's no thumbs down piling on … particularly when the thumbs down is on something irrefutably logical or truthful.

And what's most annoying are those, who, when the content they post HAS BEEN DEBUNKED/CORRECTED, not only do not acknowledge being corrected, but instead, bring on the personal gang-bangers and double down on the same crap that's been refuted.

And as the quote above and other examples herein illustrate, there is a cadre of partisans who just can't seem to express disagreement without noting that "all liberals" say and think and do the things that brought on the disagreement.

And many an empty-rhetorical comment from that corner calls those with whom they disagree … "liars," and, without citing any verifiable examples, further claim that the "liars" have an endless history of doing so.

Maybe I'll start compiling these and bring out the list from time-to-time.

That's fine. I don't hide behind Red Box Rules so attack any source I use. 

There's a difference between news sites (including hyper partisan ones like alternet, Salon etc..)  and spam sites that are usually banned on forums like this.  If someone uses a legitimate news site, then the story deserves a response on the merits. Spam sources do not. 

A large percentage of my seeds come from left leaning sources, so if you want to attack the bias of the New York Times or the Washington Post, go right ahead. 

There's a difference between news sites (including hyper partisan ones like alternet, Salon etc..)  and spam sites that are usually banned on forums like this.  If someone uses a legitimate news site, then the story deserves a response on the merits. Spam sources do not. 

A large percentage of my seeds come from left leaning sources, so if you want to attack the bias of the New York Times or the Washington Post, go right ahead. 

Go look at the articles on the American Thinker or any given day … virtually every article is an opinion/editorial and likely to be racist, sexist, conspiracy-paranoid, and appealing to fact-challenged know-nothings who can't express a political opinion without at least one sentence containing a noun, verb and something to the effect that " liberalism  is the  root  of all  evil ," and that  Jesus Christ  personally hand-delivered the  U.S. Constitution  to the  founding fathers ."

You accuse me of "buying tabloids at a grocery store," yet any time I attack a source and debunk a lie, I provide SPECIFICS -- not epithets and pronouncements … not one-liners, not personal attacks (unless retaliating after having first been attacked). If FACTS, rather than innuendo, pure demagoguery and unfiltered vitriol are to be cited from a generally partisan source, then they are FACTS nevertheless. 

Look around you, Sean … look at the living-examples here on NT … the one-dimensional off-handed dismissive bunch whose idea of an argument is to call me a typical liberal who lies, etc. . No point-counter-point, just bluster without backing.

Going forward, when anyone on NT posts a seeded article or original discussion that is strictly OPINION/EDITORIAL/DOGMA, I'd like one of those terms to appear in ALL CAPS IN THE HEADLINE. And when an opinion is refuted with either facts-to-the-contrary, or, a counter-opinion, if the one refuting hasn't denigrated the author/seeder of the opinion, he or she should not be denigrated merely for disagreeing! 

Basic common sense and courtesy.

The American thinker, from what I've seen, contains original editorials that are signed by the author. If you don't like the arguments contained therein, fine, but it doesn't make up stories like addictinginfo. Addictinginfo was caught editing a wikipedia page and then publishing an article blaming "Right wingers" for the editing. That's categorically different than what you accuse the American think of. Addictinginfo is dishonest spam. 

 You accuse me of "buying tabloids at a grocery store,"

 Do you use addictinginfo as a source? That's what I think of people who cite addcitinginfo or weekly world news as sources for anything. I haven't seen you use additctinginfo as a site.  My impression is that your sources are better than that

Donald Trump was named liar of the year, not for one lie , but for a parade of lies.

He is the overwhelming choice right now among GOP candidates, doubling the closest challenger. That tells us what right wingers think of veracity.

XX uses American Thinker constantly. Here are current memes associated with the twitter account of Daniel J Sobieski , a prolific writer of articles for American Thinker and other right wing sites like Tea Party Nation that XX and Six and others constantly use.

This is exactly the level of intelligence and evidence we get from right wing news sites. Perpetual stories about imagined conspiracies , tyranny, and socialism.

Find a source in a mainstream site that says Clinton will be indicted. You can't. But there are hundreds of such right wing "sources".

And people wonder why we talk about the sources.

-

The Red Box Rules are a joke, and really a detriment to this site imo.