Ok, someone is being ridiculous.
i am putting the blog on moderation for the time being.
You may think you are cute, but you are spoiling things for everyone that is trying to participate in the blog.
You may post as usual, ill just have to approve them before they are posted.
Which should I do, not allow anonymous posts or put all posts on moderated status?
BOTH!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe blog does have a personality all its own when not moderated! Thats not all bad and neither is anonymous!
ReplyDeleteBut, like most things a few want to ruin things for the rest!
Welcome to 2010!
Yes, and i like that personality, even when i dont agree with it.
ReplyDeleteim hoping ive ticked off the idiot and he or she will go away, and we can return to normal.
here is an idea.
ReplyDeletei can have "subscribers" or a list of fellow moderators.
those people could post without moderation.
but, it would mean that i would have to know for sure who you are, and i would have to have your real email address. the anonymous thing could be worked out. i would not give out who you are without your permission, but you would have to have a screen name,
then anyone who is not a member would be on moderated status...
we would be giving up a classless society though.
what do you all think
JJ,
ReplyDeleteHere's an off topic subject!
There are rumblings amoung various people and groups that 2012 has a significant place in history! Some are prediciting specific events and that there are radical groups that see it a critical point in which they must proceed with their agenda!
I think there is some sense amoung the general population that there are people in the World today that see their mission is to disrupt the General well being and prevent "PEACE"!
Maybe to stop a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT?
Maybe to bring back their Deity?
Are we accelrating and/or racing to some sort of Climax?
What say you?
Interesting topic. Ill write a response late tonight.
ReplyDeleteI need moderator power please, I am not one to cast stones at others unless they do not agree with me, so this can clear up allot of issues
ReplyDeleteJJ showed up at Cownet chat yesterday...was it you ?
ReplyDeleteno, was not me
ReplyDeleteJJ,
ReplyDeleteYou should go to CNN.com and read Roland Martin's article entitled "Were the Confederate Soldiers Terroist?"
I think its Martins response to the Governor of Viginia who wants to celebrate the Lives of the Confederate Soldiers!
Its interesting to read the reponses to his article! (almost 3,000 last I looked)
Some have suggested it was as much a war about States Rights as it was about Slavery!
And
Others say it was a War between the Whites!
While
Others said it took the Republicans to free the Slaves!
Then other
People have responded that the Confederates didn't pilage the North when they invaded it - but the South got destroyed by the Union Soldiers after the War!
Talk about getting people FIRED UP!
What's your take on that as a Southerner?
It was the war of norther aggression :)
ReplyDeleteSlavery was the hot button issue, but to southerners, it was not about slavery.
it was about states rights and unfair taxation.
Really, after the war, northern reconstruction programs did more to damage race relations than anything.
One thing to realize
there are two groups out there .. and im not sure i have their names right.
one group that honors the confederacy is concerned about history and positive things.
while the other group is more racist in nature
Slavery was becoming something that was no longer economically feasable. I really think it would have died out without the war.
There were not many, but there were some black slave owners, particularly in Charleston, South Carolina.
It was a very bad time in our nations history, but i really think it was made worse by reconstruction policies after the war.
It has been interesting living in another part of the country for several years. There is definitely a different mindset.
Maybe ill post more on this later. But i have been stereotyped a few times since being here. There are many southerners who hate racism - including me.
In my experience, i think there are just as many racists here by population, as there are in the south.
From Another Good Article on CNN.com today:
ReplyDeleteThe shorthand for it was "the Bonus Army."
In the spring and summer of 1932, with the Great Depression gripping the country, tens of thousands of World War I veterans and their families gathered in Washington to demand what they felt they had been promised. They set up shantytowns, and vowed to stay put until their entreaties were met.
The federal government had, in 1924, issued service certificates -- redeemable for bonuses -- to the soldiers who had returned from World War I. The certificates were intended to reward the veterans for the time they had spent fighting for their country. They were like long-term bonds -- they could not be redeemed until 1945.
But something happened between 1924 and 1932: The economy collapsed. Poverty and joblessness were everywhere. The veterans, many of them hungry and destitute, came to Washington asking Congress to allow them to collect their bonuses early.
It didn't happen. The U.S. Senate voted down the bill.
So there were the military veterans, amassed in the nation's capital. Out of money, out of luck, almost out of hope, they refused to leave. The government ordered their evacuation. Many of the veterans resisted; the police shot and killed two of them.
With that, the president of the United States, Herbert Hoover, fearing that radicals had infiltrated the veterans, ordered the Army to take over the involuntary evacuation.
And this country was confronted with the news that the Army was moving against the old soldiers.
At the highest level of the Army assigned to the task were men who would later become extraordinarily famous. Gen. Douglas MacArthur was in command; Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the go-between with the local police force; Maj. George Patton was in charge of the cavalry.
Bayonets were drawn; tanks and soldiers on horseback advanced into the crowds; acrid gas was unleashed on the protesting veterans; the makeshift camps were torn down. Even though President Hoover didn't want it to happen, MacArthur sent his troops across a bridge to the site of the veterans' main living quarters. A fire broke out; it was never determined with certainty who set it, but there it was: the American veterans' cobbled-together homes in flames, as the Army drove them out.
There was no television back then; it is almost impossible to fathom what would have happened if the country had been able to see, live, the military moving relentlessly against former members of the military who were asking for the means to survive.
As rugged as the economy is now -- and as difficult a time as some veterans are having as they look for work in a dismal hiring environment -- no one foresees a day when soldiers will again be ordered to roust former soldiers and their families.
Later in their lives, MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton all lamented, with varying degrees of emotion, having had to play a role in driving the Bonus Army out of Washington. Their commander in chief had decreed that it must be done, so they carried out his orders.
We've come a long way since then; no president with an eye toward his legacy would order the Army to do such a thing, and it's hard to believe that military officials would not, behind closed doors, try everything in their power to avoid having to use American troops that way.
But as much as things have changed, certain truths haven't. We ask our soldiers, in times of war, to cross the oceans and fight in our name. When they come home -- those who do come home alive -- we tell them, in bad economic times, that the jobs for them are just not there.
If our soldiers want to work, we owe it to them to make it easier for that to happen. There may never again, we should hope, be a Bonus Army camped in the streets of Washington, pleading for help. The best way to prevent such a sight is to provide the help before the despair of the unemployed veterans reaches that breaking point. You might call it our patriotic duty.