|
Post by Admin on May 12, 2018 7:42:08 GMT -5
The Inauguration was a milestone for Jackie. I'm not deleting this Board. Rule # 3 The Inauguration Board has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with Jackie singing The Star Spangled Banner. Some may not agree with me. Oh well. The Star Spangled Banner is the National Anthem for all Americans of every political persuasion.
|
|
|
Post by Willyiam on May 12, 2018 8:54:52 GMT -5
The Inauguration Board has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with Jackie singing The Star Spangled Banner. Some may not agree with me. Oh well. The Star Spangled Banner is the National Anthem for all Americans of every political persuasion. "The teenager defended her decision on Good Morning America saying, "I have a lot of positivity from my family and that's really what matters to me. All of my true fans have been there for me and supportive and that's really all I need, so I'm sticking to it." www.nickiswift.com/37772/things-didnt-know-performers-trumps-inauguration/The fact that Jackie was chosen to sing the National Anthem at the Inauguration has nothing to do with politics. and everything to do with PR! For Jackie and Team E, it was a business decision. It has been leaked that some Inauguration performers received hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'm sure Jackie's bank account did not suffer from this gig! Also, the PR she received on national television was priceless! Those who think that providing a service to anyone means that you side with that persons ideology, do not understand the business of entertainment! Jackie herself has voiced several times her disinterest in politics and backed this up by shying away from anything political. The Inauguration Board is a tribute to Jackie for her accomplishment and should remain as an historical event! She sang a song at a gig. Period!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 9:26:17 GMT -5
The Inauguration Board has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with Jackie singing The Star Spangled Banner. Some may not agree with me. Oh well. The Star Spangled Banner is the National Anthem for all Americans of every political persuasion. So why would anyone want to delete it ? Again, I ask why ? Of the 700 + threads why chose this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 0:35:49 GMT -5
I said why in the post;
"...It's been over a year with very little input. Time to make it go away."
It's basically a dead thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 9:30:45 GMT -5
I said why in the post; "...It's been over a year with very little input. Time to make it go away." It's basically a dead thread. Just checked the thread. You are right it hasn't been used for THREE WEEKS> WOW Guess who was the last poster. YOU Just to criticize Rob and Me for not using the proper spelling of a word. You need to come clean. It is definitely not activity. There are 24 topics that has not been used since 2016. Some as obscure as her videos, her social media, and Jackie News. Why not delete her You Tubes of the Christmas tree lighting or her signing at the National Prayer Breakfast. Just admit it you can't stand it. I made an obvious error for you to pounce on.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on May 13, 2018 11:01:36 GMT -5
I said why in the post; "...It's been over a year with very little input. Time to make it go away." It's basically a dead thread. Just checked the thread. You are right it hasn't been used for THREE WEEKS> WOW Guess who was the last poster. YOU Just to criticize Rob and Me for not using the proper spelling of a word. You need to come clean. It is definitely not activity. There are 24 topics that has not been used since 2016. Some as obscure as her videos, her social media, and Jackie News. Why not delete her You Tubes of the Christmas tree lighting or her signing at the National Prayer Breakfast. Just admit it you can't stand it. I made an obvious error for you to pounce on. Everette Cox(catmando) is a political junkie and official pot stirrer. 😕
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 15:21:44 GMT -5
Just checked the thread. You are right it hasn't been used for THREE WEEKS> WOW Guess who was the last poster. YOU Just to criticize Rob and Me for not using the proper spelling of a word. You need to come clean. It is definitely not activity. There are 24 topics that has not been used since 2016. Some as obscure as her videos, her social media, and Jackie News. Why not delete her You Tubes of the Christmas tree lighting or her signing at the National Prayer Breakfast. Just admit it you can't stand it. I made an obvious error for you to pounce on. Everette Cox(catmando) is a political junkie and official pot stirrer. 😕 ....and a radical lefty political junkie to boot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 3:14:49 GMT -5
^^^Guilty as charged and proud of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2018 12:23:30 GMT -5
There are a half dozen concerts on the board that can be moved to "Past concerts", Ocean City and Bremerton to Redding, if that's appropriate yet.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 27, 2018 13:01:03 GMT -5
There are a half dozen concerts on the board that can be moved to "Past concerts", Ocean City and Bremerton to Redding, if that's appropriate yet. Taken care of. Thanks for the suggestion. I forget to do this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 23:00:48 GMT -5
Everette Cox(catmando) is a political junkie and official pot stirrer. 😕 ....and a radical lefty political junkie to boot. I plead guilty to all those accusations and wear them as a badge of honor. Better Blue than Red(Russia).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 21:52:03 GMT -5
Cat......you do realize that if your post were to appear somehow in CNN then there likely would be a 3AM WH post declaring more Fakenews.
But ……. I would still read it and believe it to be non National Enquirer truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 16:49:30 GMT -5
Rule #1 (There will be no personal insults of Jackie, her parents, her siblings, her people, or other members allowed.)
Definition of insult: speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse (contempt):
Note: I don't understand the meaning of "personal" insult as opposed to an impersonal one. Unless, it means "direct", which is unrealistic when referring to Jackie or her family since neither is here to take anything personally. Some here will speak on their behalf for that reason in defense of what is perceived an "indirect" insult (by definition, "to treat with disrespect...").
To the point, I think there needs to be greater clarification here of what constitutes an insult. It seems open to varied and subjective interpretations that often excuse what I perceive to be disrespectful or contemptuous remarks being flung on both sides of disagreement. To me disrespect is not hard to define or to recognize, and neither is contempt. Apparently, however, in the context of a forum they fall within the spectrum of free speech and are therefore rather undefined and acceptable to some degree. To what degree is the question, and when may they be excused or not excused? In my opinion, the definition of "insult" in this context requires closer examination and a more descriptive explanation.
For what it's worth I think the matter ought to be pondered in the interest of finding, in part, a resolution in mitigating conflict, unless of course the status quo is acceptable to the majority and needs no further consideration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 19:48:03 GMT -5
Rule #1 (There will be no personal insults of Jackie, her parents, her siblings, her people, or other members allowed.) Definition of insult: speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse (contempt): Note: I don't understand the meaning of "personal" insult as opposed to an impersonal one. Unless, it means "direct", which is unrealistic when referring to Jackie or her family since neither is here to take anything personally. Some here will speak on their behalf for that reason in defense of what is perceived an "indirect" insult (by definition, "to treat with disrespect..."). To the point, I think there needs to be greater clarification here of what constitutes an insult. It seems open to varied and subjective interpretations that often excuse what I perceive to be disrespectful or contemptuous remarks being flung on both sides of disagreement. To me disrespect is not hard to define or to recognize, and neither is contempt. Apparently, however, in the context of a forum they fall within the spectrum of free speech and are therefore rather undefined and acceptable to some degree. To what degree is the question, and when may they be excused or not excused? In my opinion, the definition of "insult" in this context requires closer examination and a more descriptive explanation. For what it's worth I think the matter ought to be pondered in the interest of finding, in part, a resolution in mitigating conflict, unless of course the status quo is acceptable to the majority and needs no further consideration. The problem as I see it is that the 1st Amendment trumps Rule #1 and it should not do so on a privately administered Forum that has rules of conduct. One must realize that in most cases, mine included, our identities are kept private, and there can violate the rule with impunity and even to the point of texting hate posts. I believe in the Golden Rule --- those that have the gold --- rule. Here in this forum the Admins have the gold and keeping in mind the 1st Amendment, they must with prudence overrule the 1st Amendment when there is clear violation of Forum Rule #1 including hate texting. In many cases this will be subjective but rightly a judgement call on the part of the Admins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 19:59:13 GMT -5
Rule #1 (There will be no personal insults of Jackie, her parents, her siblings, her people, or other members allowed.) Definition of insult: speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse (contempt): Note: I don't understand the meaning of "personal" insult as opposed to an impersonal one. Unless, it means "direct", which is unrealistic when referring to Jackie or her family since neither is here to take anything personally. Some here will speak on their behalf for that reason in defense of what is perceived an "indirect" insult (by definition, "to treat with disrespect..."). To the point, I think there needs to be greater clarification here of what constitutes an insult. It seems open to varied and subjective interpretations that often excuse what I perceive to be disrespectful or contemptuous remarks being flung on both sides of disagreement. To me disrespect is not hard to define or to recognize, and neither is contempt. Apparently, however, in the context of a forum they fall within the spectrum of free speech and are therefore rather undefined and acceptable to some degree. To what degree is the question, and when may they be excused or not excused? In my opinion, the definition of "insult" in this context requires closer examination and a more descriptive explanation. For what it's worth I think the matter ought to be pondered in the interest of finding, in part, a resolution in mitigating conflict, unless of course the status quo is acceptable to the majority and needs no further consideration. Let me give you a blunt example of a personal insult. Calling someone a evil hateful troll is a personal insult. Someone saying I don't like one of Jackie's songs isn't a personal insult or being even more blunt that the song sucks isn't one as well.... I prefer the milder way of saying it by the way.
|
|