Stormborn posted:

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

 

To make this an intellectual forum for discussion, I would argue that the posters have to abide by two fundamental truths. One, they have to reveal their professional identity. Two , admin should include their professional affiliations so that the posters are aware of the person’s intellectual affiliation and professional affiliation. A case in point: TK has openly done so in the past, but the responders, who continue to remain anonymous, can pollute and infiltrate the threads with nonsensical responses for a variety of reasons (party affiliation, impending elections, etc.). This is the only way that sanity can be brought to this place and it is the only way you can encourage reliable and dependable discourse. There is no other way….regardless of the historical evidence you cited above. Furthermore, if I am going to debate an issue, I want to know about the person’s professional background. If I am asking TK a question about economics I know I can get a reliable response, rather than asking a similar question to someone else. This will also week out some of the more contentious contributions from posters whose intentions are questionable.    

I participate in a few more specialized  forum and everyone is an alias ( even if most are known.It is not the alias or the seemingly anonymity that caused people to misbehave.  They act according who they are. You cannot function without standards.  Since it is egalitarian, there is no necessity to show credentials....only good sense. 

BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity. I used to write here with my real identity. That was so long ago that probably only one or two remember my name.

This is all theoretical...regardless of your experience.

The standard should be for everyone to bare their credentials...it is about fairness, equity and full disclosure....

On other forums where meaningful discussions take place, posters my use a "handle" but others are fully aware of who they are. 

In fact, I would argue that it is grossly unfair for some posters to reveal themselves as to who they are, like TK (to me this is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty if they dont), rather than acting like a "Peeping Tom". It only adds to the GUESSING GAME and imputes motive.

So DrugB can call an established professor WE ALL KNOW a "dunce" but we have no clue as to who DrubG is.... I will submit also, that if WE know who DrugB is, he will refrain from these types of statements and the intellectual discussion can continue without these intervening infractions and distractions.

Here is another issue you raised which contributes to my point:

   "BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity."

Once posters get into this type of logic to second guess who the posters are, it then defeats the purpose, and its a distraction from what they are saying... 

VishMahabir posted:

Drugb posted:

VishMahabir posted:

If I am asking TK a question about economics I know I can get a reliable response, rather than asking a similar question to someone else. This will also week out some of the more contentious contributions from posters whose intentions are questionable.    

TK is/was a dunce, not sure how you came up with the claim that he is reliable. Same with the other self proclaimed pundits. 

This is symptomatic of the very problem I described before....and why this is not a good forum for intellectual discourse...

TK is a professor at a university in Florida (I did my research) and contributes a column in SN.

TK is an educated educator.  I’ve agreed and disagreed with him on some political positions.  He’s not a dunce nor is he shallow!

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

 

To make this an intellectual forum for discussion, I would argue that the posters have to abide by two fundamental truths. One, they have to reveal their professional identity. Two , admin should include their professional affiliations so that the posters are aware of the person’s intellectual affiliation and professional affiliation. A case in point: TK has openly done so in the past, but the responders, who continue to remain anonymous, can pollute and infiltrate the threads with nonsensical responses for a variety of reasons (party affiliation, impending elections, etc.). This is the only way that sanity can be brought to this place and it is the only way you can encourage reliable and dependable discourse. There is no other way….regardless of the historical evidence you cited above. Furthermore, if I am going to debate an issue, I want to know about the person’s professional background. If I am asking TK a question about economics I know I can get a reliable response, rather than asking a similar question to someone else. This will also week out some of the more contentious contributions from posters whose intentions are questionable.    

I participate in a few more specialized  forum and everyone is an alias ( even if most are known.It is not the alias or the seemingly anonymity that caused people to misbehave.  They act according who they are. You cannot function without standards.  Since it is egalitarian, there is no necessity to show credentials....only good sense. 

BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity. I used to write here with my real identity. That was so long ago that probably only one or two remember my name.

This is all theoretical...regardless of your experience.

The standard should be for everyone to bare their credentials...it is about fairness, equity and full disclosure....

On other forums where meaningful discussions take place, posters my use a "handle" but others are fully aware of who they are. 

In fact, I would argue that it is grossly unfair for some posters to reveal themselves as to who they are, like TK (to me this is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty if they dont), rather than acting like a "Peeping Tom". It only adds to the GUESSING GAME and imputes motive.

So DrugB can call an established professor WE ALL KNOW a "dunce" but we have no clue as to who DrubG is.... I will submit also, that if WE know who DrugB is, he will refrain from these types of statements and the intellectual discussion can continue without these intervening infractions and distractions.

Here is another issue you raised which contributes to my point:

   "BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity."

Once posters get into this type of logic to second guess who the posters are, it then defeats the purpose, and its a distraction from what they are saying... 

 

I would that full disclosure will eliminate the silly comments that people make...the sandbox mentality...because they will not be able to make meaningful contributions to the discussions and they will not be tempted to hide behind the handles of their faker names.

If any Admin who is considering taking on this task, they should seriously consider having members make full disclosure, even if they use a handle...

I am sure this will contribute to a reduction of the willy nilly contributions and abuse of this privilege. It will reduce contributors, but the site can reflect one that even if a person is not willing to contribute, they can at least become educated about the discourse and debates they are reading about. 

Things have progressed and changed since 20 years ago...

Leonora posted:

Stormborn posted:

why is it not a forum for intellectual discourse? I have seen many of the people you see on the Guyanese news come here to test their views. Everyone from Hinds to Randy to TK to Batoram to Gampat, to Ruel to Dhanpaul etc. Many of these people left because the low life contingency usually begin a cussing spree. I know one very good scholar, from San Diego who contributed a lot here at one time. I was introduced to many Muslim philosopher through him. I would never even care to discuss them had he not come here.   The PPP even deployed an army of paid personnel to post their position daily. Elections is coming and this is the place where many will come to air their views If people needs to express their inner conflicts or reveal t heir inner demons the admin has a avenues for that. There is the social forum, religious forum etc. where 

I remember them all. GNI was superhot with talent. Don't forget Dr. Singh from Edmonton (Bushy), a tenured Professor who knew each bone in the body and its function, published many articles, etc. He messed with you because a Guyanese criminal had the same name. 

San Diego Professor told me they came here during class breaks to unwind.   

We had a strong PPP team headed by Tiger and a strong PNC team headed by Rabid. Everyone put up a great fight for his team! Rabid lived in our area and was a great cricketer. 

Now...this information reflects the problem here also...it may be a serious conversation for some of you who know who "Bushy" is and what his intellectual prowess and expertise is all about...but for others who dont know these people and who see them as mere contributors.

for the rest of us who are not provilege to this type of information....this sounds like gossip...

Stormborn posted:

Leonora posted:

We had a strong PP

BTW, How is Erroll?  I hope he is making good use of his retirement. 

He has mellowed and is slimmer. He's enjoying the grandkids and learning to cook. 

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

 

To make this an intellectual forum for discussion, I would argue that the posters have to abide by two fundamental truths. One, they have to reveal their professional identity. Two , admin should include their professional affiliations so that the posters are aware of the person’s intellectual affiliation and professional affiliation. A case in point: TK has openly done so in the past, but the responders, who continue to remain anonymous, can pollute and infiltrate the threads with nonsensical responses for a variety of reasons (party affiliation, impending elections, etc.). This is the only way that sanity can be brought to this place and it is the only way you can encourage reliable and dependable discourse. There is no other way….regardless of the historical evidence you cited above. Furthermore, if I am going to debate an issue, I want to know about the person’s professional background. If I am asking TK a question about economics I know I can get a reliable response, rather than asking a similar question to someone else. This will also week out some of the more contentious contributions from posters whose intentions are questionable.    

I participate in a few more specialized  forum and everyone is an alias ( even if most are known.It is not the alias or the seemingly anonymity that caused people to misbehave.  They act according who they are. You cannot function without standards.  Since it is egalitarian, there is no necessity to show credentials....only good sense. 

BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity. I used to write here with my real identity. That was so long ago that probably only one or two remember my name.

This is all theoretical...regardless of your experience.

The standard should be for everyone to bare their credentials...it is about fairness, equity and full disclosure....

On other forums where meaningful discussions take place, posters my use a "handle" but others are fully aware of who they are. 

In fact, I would argue that it is grossly unfair for some posters to reveal themselves as to who they are, like TK (to me this is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty if they dont), rather than acting like a "Peeping Tom". It only adds to the GUESSING GAME and imputes motive.

So DrugB can call an established professor WE ALL KNOW a "dunce" but we have no clue as to who DrubG is.... I will submit also, that if WE know who DrugB is, he will refrain from these types of statements and the intellectual discussion can continue without these intervening infractions and distractions.

Here is another issue you raised which contributes to my point:

   "BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity."

Once posters get into this type of logic to second guess who the posters are, it then defeats the purpose, and its a distraction from what they are saying... 

 

I am sure everyone here knows almost everyone else, drugb included. Most of the long time posters really dont care. And the nits usually measure their worth in terms of their supposed "mansions" and stock portfolio. If you were paying attention you would see one of those supposedly with wall street credentials talking economic nonsense yesterday by using a phrase in the completely wrong way. I did not care to comment on it. There is no premium to show credentials. If you have any it will come out in your post and that is where it matters. 

If the moderator was on the job he would have sanctioned drugb. He is obliged to show TK is a dunce not simply calling him a dunce. I am sure there are areas of study that he will know better than TK but I am quite certain where economics is concerned Drugb is the dunce. 

Leonora posted:

Stormborn posted:

Leonora posted:

We had a strong PP

BTW, How is Erroll?  I hope he is making good use of his retirement. 

He has mellowed and is slimmer. He's enjoying the grandkids and learning to cook. 

I should call him. I can send him my library of  E-cookbooks or invite him over. I guess he is close to seventy now. He is one of the nicest Guyanese I met. My wife also seem to like him a lot. She talked to him more than I did. 

I do not think he has option to get too thin. He was already skinny.

Stormborn posted:

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

VishMahabir posted:

 

I participate in a few more specialized  forum and everyone is an alias ( even if most are known.It is not the alias or the seemingly anonymity that caused people to misbehave.  They act according who they are. You cannot function without standards.  Since it is egalitarian, there is no necessity to show credentials....only good sense. 

BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity. I used to write here with my real identity. That was so long ago that probably only one or two remember my name.

This is all theoretical...regardless of your experience.

The standard should be for everyone to bare their credentials...it is about fairness, equity and full disclosure....

On other forums where meaningful discussions take place, posters my use a "handle" but others are fully aware of who they are. 

In fact, I would argue that it is grossly unfair for some posters to reveal themselves as to who they are, like TK (to me this is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty if they dont), rather than acting like a "Peeping Tom". It only adds to the GUESSING GAME and imputes motive.

So DrugB can call an established professor WE ALL KNOW a "dunce" but we have no clue as to who DrubG is.... I will submit also, that if WE know who DrugB is, he will refrain from these types of statements and the intellectual discussion can continue without these intervening infractions and distractions.

Here is another issue you raised which contributes to my point:

   "BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity."

Once posters get into this type of logic to second guess who the posters are, it then defeats the purpose, and its a distraction from what they are saying... 

 

I am sure everyone here knows almost everyone else, drugb included. Most of the long time posters really dont care. And the nits usually measure their worth in terms of their supposed "mansions" and stock portfolio. If you were paying attention you would see one of those supposedly with wall street credentials talking economic nonsense yesterday by using a phrase in the completely wrong way. I did not care to comment on it. There is no premium to show credentials. If you have any it will come out in your post and that is where it matters. 

If the moderator was on the job he would have sanctioned drugb. He is obliged to show TK is a dunce not simply calling him a dunce. I am sure there are areas of study that he will know better than TK but I am quite certain where economics is concerned Drugb is the dunce. 

I agree. I believe Druggy did do a nice write up on Blockchain a while back!

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

 

To make this an intellectual forum for discussion, I would argue that the posters have to abide by two fundamental truths. One, they have to reveal their professional identity. Two , admin should include their professional affiliations so that the posters are aware of the person’s intellectual affiliation and professional affiliation. A case in point: TK has openly done so in the past, but the responders, who continue to remain anonymous, can pollute and infiltrate the threads with nonsensical responses for a variety of reasons (party affiliation, impending elections, etc.). This is the only way that sanity can be brought to this place and it is the only way you can encourage reliable and dependable discourse. There is no other way….regardless of the historical evidence you cited above. Furthermore, if I am going to debate an issue, I want to know about the person’s professional background. If I am asking TK a question about economics I know I can get a reliable response, rather than asking a similar question to someone else. This will also week out some of the more contentious contributions from posters whose intentions are questionable.    

I participate in a few more specialized  forum and everyone is an alias ( even if most are known.It is not the alias or the seemingly anonymity that caused people to misbehave.  They act according who they are. You cannot function without standards.  Since it is egalitarian, there is no necessity to show credentials....only good sense. 

BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity. I used to write here with my real identity. That was so long ago that probably only one or two remember my name.

This is all theoretical...regardless of your experience.

The standard should be for everyone to bare their credentials...it is about fairness, equity and full disclosure....

On other forums where meaningful discussions take place, posters my use a "handle" but others are fully aware of who they are. 

In fact, I would argue that it is grossly unfair for some posters to reveal themselves as to who they are, like TK (to me this is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty if they dont), rather than acting like a "Peeping Tom". It only adds to the GUESSING GAME and imputes motive.

So DrugB can call an established professor WE ALL KNOW a "dunce" but we have no clue as to who DrubG is.... I will submit also, that if WE know who DrugB is, he will refrain from these types of statements and the intellectual discussion can continue without these intervening infractions and distractions.

Here is another issue you raised which contributes to my point:

   "BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity."

Once posters get into this type of logic to second guess who the posters are, it then defeats the purpose, and its a distraction from what they are saying... 

So, is VishMahabir your real name?  

Are you a real long time student?

Is GNI truly your teaching place on Guyana?

Baseman posted

Stormborn posted:

If the moderator was on the job he would have sanctioned drugb. He is obliged to show TK is a dunce not simply calling him a dunce. I am sure there are areas of study that he will know better than TK but I am quite certain where economics is concerned Drugb is the dunce. 

I agree. I believe Druggy did do a nice write up on Blockchain a while back!

Most wasn't his work, he was plagiarizing without quoting the Sources. I exposed him on the topic.

Django posted:

Baseman posted

Stormborn posted:

If the moderator was on the job he would have sanctioned drugb. He is obliged to show TK is a dunce not simply calling him a dunce. I am sure there are areas of study that he will know better than TK but I am quite certain where economics is concerned Drugb is the dunce. 

I agree. I believe Druggy did do a nice write up on Blockchain a while back!

Most wasn't his work, he was plagiarizing without quoting the Sources. I exposed him on the topic.

That banna gun come and want to fite. 

Django posted:

Baseman posted

Stormborn posted:

If the moderator was on the job he would have sanctioned drugb. He is obliged to show TK is a dunce not simply calling him a dunce. I am sure there are areas of study that he will know better than TK but I am quite certain where economics is concerned Drugb is the dunce. 

I agree. I believe Druggy did do a nice write up on Blockchain a while back!

Most wasn't his work, he was plagiarizing without quoting the Sources. I exposed him on the topic.

I think I believe I remember something to that effect!!!!!!!!

Baseman posted:

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

 

To make this an intellectual forum for discussion, I would argue that the posters have to abide by two fundamental truths. One, they have to reveal their professional identity. Two , admin should include their professional affiliations so that the posters are aware of the person’s intellectual affiliation and professional affiliation. A case in point: TK has openly done so in the past, but the responders, who continue to remain anonymous, can pollute and infiltrate the threads with nonsensical responses for a variety of reasons (party affiliation, impending elections, etc.). This is the only way that sanity can be brought to this place and it is the only way you can encourage reliable and dependable discourse. There is no other way….regardless of the historical evidence you cited above. Furthermore, if I am going to debate an issue, I want to know about the person’s professional background. If I am asking TK a question about economics I know I can get a reliable response, rather than asking a similar question to someone else. This will also week out some of the more contentious contributions from posters whose intentions are questionable.    

I participate in a few more specialized  forum and everyone is an alias ( even if most are known.It is not the alias or the seemingly anonymity that caused people to misbehave.  They act according who they are. You cannot function without standards.  Since it is egalitarian, there is no necessity to show credentials....only good sense. 

BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity. I used to write here with my real identity. That was so long ago that probably only one or two remember my name.

This is all theoretical...regardless of your experience.

The standard should be for everyone to bare their credentials...it is about fairness, equity and full disclosure....

On other forums where meaningful discussions take place, posters my use a "handle" but others are fully aware of who they are. 

In fact, I would argue that it is grossly unfair for some posters to reveal themselves as to who they are, like TK (to me this is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty if they dont), rather than acting like a "Peeping Tom". It only adds to the GUESSING GAME and imputes motive.

So DrugB can call an established professor WE ALL KNOW a "dunce" but we have no clue as to who DrubG is.... I will submit also, that if WE know who DrugB is, he will refrain from these types of statements and the intellectual discussion can continue without these intervening infractions and distractions.

Here is another issue you raised which contributes to my point:

   "BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity."

Once posters get into this type of logic to second guess who the posters are, it then defeats the purpose, and its a distraction from what they are saying... 

So, is VishMahabir your real name?  

Are you a real long time student?

Is GNI truly your teaching place on Guyana?

Yes to the first 2. 

GNI has stimulated my interest in Guyana.

But the fact that you can even ask this question is a case in point...proving what I said.

You are more concerned about the messenger, not the message.

VishMahabir posted:

Baseman posted:

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

VishMahabir posted:

Stormborn posted:

 

To make this an intellectual forum for discussion, I would argue that the posters have to abide by two fundamental truths. One, they have to reveal their professional identity. Two , admin should include their professional affiliations so that the posters are aware of the person’s intellectual affiliation and professional affiliation. A case in point: TK has openly done so in the past, but the responders, who continue to remain anonymous, can pollute and infiltrate the threads with nonsensical responses for a variety of reasons (party affiliation, impending elections, etc.). This is the only way that sanity can be brought to this place and it is the only way you can encourage reliable and dependable discourse. There is no other way….regardless of the historical evidence you cited above. Furthermore, if I am going to debate an issue, I want to know about the person’s professional background. If I am asking TK a question about economics I know I can get a reliable response, rather than asking a similar question to someone else. This will also week out some of the more contentious contributions from posters whose intentions are questionable.    

I participate in a few more specialized  forum and everyone is an alias ( even if most are known.It is not the alias or the seemingly anonymity that caused people to misbehave.  They act according who they are. You cannot function without standards.  Since it is egalitarian, there is no necessity to show credentials....only good sense. 

BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity. I used to write here with my real identity. That was so long ago that probably only one or two remember my name.

This is all theoretical...regardless of your experience.

The standard should be for everyone to bare their credentials...it is about fairness, equity and full disclosure....

On other forums where meaningful discussions take place, posters my use a "handle" but others are fully aware of who they are. 

In fact, I would argue that it is grossly unfair for some posters to reveal themselves as to who they are, like TK (to me this is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty if they dont), rather than acting like a "Peeping Tom". It only adds to the GUESSING GAME and imputes motive.

So DrugB can call an established professor WE ALL KNOW a "dunce" but we have no clue as to who DrubG is.... I will submit also, that if WE know who DrugB is, he will refrain from these types of statements and the intellectual discussion can continue without these intervening infractions and distractions.

Here is another issue you raised which contributes to my point:

   "BTW no one here is anonymous. That is a myth. Everyone here leaves a trail of crumbs that one can follow to their identity."

Once posters get into this type of logic to second guess who the posters are, it then defeats the purpose, and its a distraction from what they are saying... 

So, is VishMahabir your real name?  

Are you a real long time student?

Is GNI truly your teaching place on Guyana?

Yes to the first 2. 

GNI has stimulated my interest in Guyana.

But the fact that you can even ask this question is a case in point...proving what I said.

You are more concerned about the messenger, not the message.

Just a value question, do onto others as you would like them do onto you!

You are passing judgment but you doing exactly what you criticizing! 

Become the change you wish to see!

Thats all I’m saying!

Say what you please about DrugB. He is a hard-hitter and a painful thorn in the sides of many of you who consider yourselves an authority on politics and economics. DrugB is constantly being demeaned by some posters who resort to personal attacks whenever he counters their arguments. 

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

Say what you please about DrugB. He is a hard-hitter and a painful thorn in the sides of many of you who consider yourselves an authority on politics and economics.

DrugB is constantly being demeaned by some posters who resort to personal attacks whenever he counters their arguments. 

With what ??  your other sentence need some thorough examination.

@VishMahabir

You are using a sledgehammer to kill a flea with all this "full disclosure" bullshit. No one is calling for "intellectual" discourse. The challenge is for civil discourse. I'm not a politician or well connected politically. I think most who post here are the same. You don't need a Phd to conduct yourself properly. The problem here arises from the gutter snipe lowlives who know little to nothing about Guyana other than "we is PPP people" and will "cuss" those who are not.

Secondly, there is a lack of moderation. Yet to see Mitwah's offensive post as Raymond promised yesterday. The admins are both busy, but more than that they have their favorites and friends, so like anything Guyanese is "who yuh kno".

And who cares who used to post here? I don't know who Leonora is talking about, nor do I care. That gentleman does not affect what I read or how I interact here. He is just a part of this place's history. Why does that bother you so much?

Django posted:

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

Say what you please about DrugB. He is a hard-hitter and a painful thorn in the sides of many of you who consider yourselves an authority on politics and economics.

DrugB is constantly being demeaned by some posters who resort to personal attacks whenever he counters their arguments. 

With what ??  your other sentence need some thorough examination.

Django,

Your defense of the PNC here is similar that of Neil Boston's dotish arguments at the CCJ.  DrugB has hammered the best of the best on this forum, including our resident idiot of GNI, as the PNC posters used to call him. 

Iggy

Mits made this post without any provocation whatsoever:

"Hypocrite, how many handles do you have? We know you use Druggy's nick to talk porn about sucking. You're the biggest culprit dragging the site down and talking about posters children. You seem to have a special relations with Admin; allowing you to get away with your personal attacks.

get lost dummy. "

I could understand posters going after each other with some name calling etc...I let it slide to an extent. He is accusing someone of using someone else nick to talk porn etc. He has no proof of this.

Iguana posted:

@VishMahabir

You are using a sledgehammer to kill a flea with all this "full disclosure" bullshit. No one is calling for "intellectual" discourse. The challenge is for civil discourse. I'm not a politician or well connected politically. I think most who post here are the same. You don't need a Phd to conduct yourself properly. The problem here arises from the gutter snipe lowlives who know little to nothing about Guyana other than "we is PPP people" and will "cuss" those who are not.

Secondly, there is a lack of moderation. Yet to see Mitwah's offensive post as Raymond promised yesterday. The admins are both busy, but more than that they have their favorites and friends, so like anything Guyanese is "who yuh kno".

And who cares who used to post here? I don't know who Leonora is talking about, nor do I care. That gentleman does not affect what I read or how I interact here. He is just a part of this place's history. Why does that bother you so much?

I don't care about people's personal lives.  I am here to read about what is happening in Guyana. I am interested in the viewpoints of all political parties and individuals. That's why I never wanted anyone to be banned for expressing their political point of view. The only way we would know what people are concerned about is to let them speak their minds. You may want to argue that free speech is not absolute and I do agree with that.  If a poster uses language out of bounds to wound people emotionally or goad others into racial hate and violence then that person should be reprimanded and even banned.  

Django posted:

Dave posted:

Provocation is what causes members to react, no one will stay calm when they are cuss out.

Interesting observation, who are the regular provocateurs and who are the victims ?

Genetic racists like Dave, Nehru, Skeldon Klansman, Yuji etc are provoked by any criticism of the PPP. Or any post that is odds with their narrow, barefoot primitive worldview.

Lacking the requisite qualities to rebut someone or prove their position, these village louts (as Stormborn calls them) resort to what they know best. Nasty cussdowns, buggery themes and if we were in person I'm sure some good chopping up would take place. That's what you're dealing with here with these low class people from Guyana.

VishMahabir posted:

Leonora posted:

Stormborn posted:

why is it not a forum for intellectual discourse? I have seen many of the people you see on the Guyanese news come here to test their views. Everyone from Hinds to Randy to TK to Batoram to Gampat, to Ruel to Dhanpaul etc. Many of these people left because the low life contingency usually begin a cussing spree. I know one very good scholar, from San Diego who contributed a lot here at one time. I was introduced to many Muslim philosopher through him. I would never even care to discuss them had he not come here.   The PPP even deployed an army of paid personnel to post their position daily. Elections is coming and this is the place where many will come to air their views If people needs to express their inner conflicts or reveal t heir inner demons the admin has a avenues for that. There is the social forum, religious forum etc. where 

I remember them all. GNI was superhot with talent. Don't forget Dr. Singh from Edmonton (Bushy), a tenured Professor who knew each bone in the body and its function, published many articles, etc. He messed with you because a Guyanese criminal had the same name. 

San Diego Professor told me they came here during class breaks to unwind.   

We had a strong PPP team headed by Tiger and a strong PNC team headed by Rabid. Everyone put up a great fight for his team! Rabid lived in our area and was a great cricketer. 

Now...this information reflects the problem here also...it may be a serious conversation for some of you who know who "Bushy" is and what his intellectual prowess and expertise is all about...but for others who dont know these people and who see them as mere contributors.

for the rest of us who are not provilege to this type of information....this sounds like gossip...

 

doubt anyone here does not know bushy. He was a pathologist and taught gross anatomy and neurology at University of Alberta. He also had lots of published research background into brain cells.  He was a die hard PPPite and mean as a skunk. He did not get along with me especially since he deemed my criticisms of the PPP as heretical and something he could not abide with. His cousin also posted here and they did not get along too much. 

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

Django posted:

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

Say what you please about DrugB. He is a hard-hitter and a painful thorn in the sides of many of you who consider yourselves an authority on politics and economics.

DrugB is constantly being demeaned by some posters who resort to personal attacks whenever he counters their arguments. 

With what ??  your other sentence need some thorough examination.

Django,

Your defense of the PNC here is similar that of Neil Boston's dotish arguments at the CCJ.

DrugB has hammered the best of the best on this forum, including our resident idiot of GNI, as the PNC posters used to call him. 

Your true color showing, Boston argument is on the Article 156 of the Constitution.I posted the article from 1980 Constitution and the amendment, you should study it  and tell where his arguments are dotish.

Pull some topics where Drugb hammered the best on this forum, let us do some analysis.

Ray posted:

Iggy

Mits made this post without any provocation whatsoever:

When will he be released?

Ray posted:

Iggy

Mits made this post without any provocation whatsoever:

"Hypocrite, how many handles do you have? We know you use Druggy's nick to talk porn about sucking. You're the biggest culprit dragging the site down and talking about posters children. You seem to have a special relations with Admin; allowing you to get away with your personal attacks.

get lost dummy. "

I could understand posters going after each other with some name calling etc...I let it slide to an extent. He is accusing someone of using someone else nick to talk porn etc. He has no proof of this.

Bibi has been provocative with her posts for well over a week. I have my fights with Baseman at times, but now I can tell you in detail about the man's ex wife, children, what he did, how he walks and a number of other personal details. His children have also been maligned by her as drug users etc.

I hold no brief for Baseman or Mitwah. But how in God's name can you sanction Mitwah and miss over a week of this shit with Bibi? The preference given her is remarkable. 

I cannot recall her being suspended even once, yet she is far more  nasty than many folks who post here, provocation or not.

Django posted:

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

Django posted:

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

Say what you please about DrugB. He is a hard-hitter and a painful thorn in the sides of many of you who consider yourselves an authority on politics and economics.

DrugB is constantly being demeaned by some posters who resort to personal attacks whenever he counters their arguments. 

With what ??  your other sentence need some thorough examination.

Django,

Your defense of the PNC here is similar that of Neil Boston's dotish arguments at the CCJ.

DrugB has hammered the best of the best on this forum, including our resident idiot of GNI, as the PNC posters used to call him. 

Your true color showing, Boston argument is on the Article 156 of the Constitution.I posted the article from 1980 Constitution and the amendment, you should study it  and tell where his arguments are dotish.

Pull some topics where Drugb hammered the best on this forum, let us do some analysis.

You are like the PNC - Always claim to have won when you have lost sorely.

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

Iguana posted:

@VishMahabir

You are using a sledgehammer to kill a flea with all this "full disclosure" bullshit. No one is calling for "intellectual" discourse. The challenge is for civil discourse. I'm not a politician or well connected politically. I think most who post here are the same. You don't need a Phd to conduct yourself properly. The problem here arises from the gutter snipe lowlives who know little to nothing about Guyana other than "we is PPP people" and will "cuss" those who are not.

Secondly, there is a lack of moderation. Yet to see Mitwah's offensive post as Raymond promised yesterday. The admins are both busy, but more than that they have their favorites and friends, so like anything Guyanese is "who yuh kno".

And who cares who used to post here? I don't know who Leonora is talking about, nor do I care. That gentleman does not affect what I read or how I interact here. He is just a part of this place's history. Why does that bother you so much?

I don't care about people's personal lives.  I am here to read about what is happening in Guyana. I am interested in the viewpoints of all political parties and individuals. That's why I never wanted anyone to be banned for expressing their political point of view. The only way we would know what people are concerned about is to let them speak their minds. You may want to argue that free speech is not absolute and I do agree with that.  If a poster uses language out of bounds to wound people emotionally or goad others into racial hate and violence then that person should be reprimanded and even banned.  

We are not asking for "personal" information...simply who the posters are and their professional affiliation.

VishMahabir posted:

We are not asking for "personal" information...simply who the posters are and their professional affiliation.

 

Banna, sometimes when I read wha shite you write I duz wish you could be restricted to reading only.

You fellows are abusing the quote feature. Delete up to the post you are responding to. It takes too long scrolling through the same mess over and over. Additionally, Amral has a data quota. 

Iguana posted:

Ray posted:

Iggy

Mits made this post without any provocation whatsoever:

"Hypocrite, how many handles do you have? We know you use Druggy's nick to talk porn about sucking. You're the biggest culprit dragging the site down and talking about posters children. You seem to have a special relations with Admin; allowing you to get away with your personal attacks.

get lost dummy. "

I could understand posters going after each other with some name calling etc...I let it slide to an extent. He is accusing someone of using someone else nick to talk porn etc. He has no proof of this.

Bibi has been provocative with her posts for well over a week. I have my fights with Baseman at times, but now I can tell you in detail about the man's ex wife, children, what he did, how he walks and a number of other personal details. His children have also been maligned by her as drug users etc.

I hold no brief for Baseman or Mitwah. But how in God's name can you sanction Mitwah and miss over a week of this shit with Bibi? The preference given her is remarkable. 

I cannot recall her being suspended even once, yet she is far more  nasty than many folks who post here, provocation or not.

They have both been suspended in the past, and Bibi and Base got their own stuff going on...Mits should stay out of their business instead of going after Bibi.

What exactly is he talking about when he accuses her of talking about porn and sucking, when he has no proof of this?

@Former Member

Bibi likewise has posted things she has no proof of. Ray, I'm not defending Mitwah. I am saying to you there are actions from posters here that are far worse than Mitwah's. Yet you and Amral let it slide. There needs to be fairness in your moderation. That is not the case, and the excuse that you can't "see everything" is worn out. You somehow manage to see every post that attacks Bibi!

@Former Member

An example is Ksazma's overt racism for over a week and dozens if not a hundred posts. No sanction from you. Posting of monkey pictures to represent black people from Dave, you finally acted. But Dave got the impression that was fine because Amral did it! You all need to get your shit together!

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

You are like the PNC - Always claim to have won when you have lost sorely.

I am aware the PNC didn't win any elections from 1968.Burnham out smart Cheddi with the support he was getting. Thankfully Democracy was restored in 1992, lot more could have been done to make the country more Democratic. 2015 ushered in a new Coalition Government which is far better than 23 yrs Elected Dictatorship.

We will see what the future beholds for continuous democracy, i prefer rotating governments,  no political party should be anchored in for lengthy periods,hopefully the electorate will decide the fate of parties to form the government.

Ray posted:

Iguana posted:

Ray posted:

Iggy

Mits made this post without any provocation whatsoever:

"Hypocrite, how many handles do you have? We know you use Druggy's nick to talk porn about sucking. You're the biggest culprit dragging the site down and talking about posters children. You seem to have a special relations with Admin; allowing you to get away with your personal attacks.

get lost dummy. "

I could understand posters going after each other with some name calling etc...I let it slide to an extent. He is accusing someone of using someone else nick to talk porn etc. He has no proof of this.

Bibi has been provocative with her posts for well over a week. I have my fights with Baseman at times, but now I can tell you in detail about the man's ex wife, children, what he did, how he walks and a number of other personal details. His children have also been maligned by her as drug users etc.

I hold no brief for Baseman or Mitwah. But how in God's name can you sanction Mitwah and miss over a week of this shit with Bibi? The preference given her is remarkable. 

I cannot recall her being suspended even once, yet she is far more  nasty than many folks who post here, provocation or not.

They have both been suspended in the past, and Bibi and Base got their own stuff going on...Mits should stay out of their business instead of going after Bibi.

What exactly is he talking about when he accuses her of talking about porn and sucking, when he has no proof of this?

You are a bold face bloody liar just like those you protect.  She was suspended for making a vulgar reference to Sachin.  I was suspended for responding to provocative remarks by her to me at an event.  I never reference any family Of her.  I would have understood better if we both got suspended!

You are no admin, stop your pretense.   I wanted nothing to do with this site and quit.  Why did I return?  Don’t tell me you already forgot!

Even now, I would not reference, but those who point a finger have three pointing back.

Because of the way you and Amral operate, the board have become lethal and dangerous and dirty and I blame admin.  You dropped all standards and pretense at moderation!

I remember when she cussed out my extended family over the charity, I had to request deletion of those threads.  Admin allowed it and none of them are posters here!

OI Base, you make a good target, is probably brightly coloured suits you does wear

dude...both you and Bibi need to keep your personal shit off the board...

BTW, where did I lie?

Ray posted:

dude...both you and Bibi need to keep your personal shit off the board...

If i were you, those threads should be deleted from the inception.

Django posted:

Ray posted:

dude...both you and Bibi need to keep your personal shit off the board...

If i were you those threads should be deleted from the inception.

are they little children who need to find their respective corners, or they grown adults and should act their age?

Ray posted:

dude...both you and Bibi need to keep your personal shit off the board...

Stop your bloody shameless pretense!