PN-G bamatex

The first poster I would nominate is Big girl. I think she fully demonstrates the criteria under (1), (2) and (4).

In recent weeks, there have been repeated warnings from moderators and administrators on this site about the state of discourse in this particular forum. Certain posters in particular have been repeatedly warned about their incendiary, intentionally provocative posts aimed at specific members, which typically serve no legitimate purpose and do not add anything to our discussions. It has also been stated that if such behavior does not cease, this board will be deleted and political discussion on SETXSports will come to a halt altogether.   To me, this would be a gross overreaction, and one that thankfully has yet to come to fruition. To the site's personnel, however, it must seem perfectly reasonable, given the number of times things have gotten out of hand in this particular forum. In fact, to some, I'm sure this seems to be the only reasonable solution that the moderators can implement. That does not, however, mean it is the only solution.   I think it's time that the individual posters on this board took some measure of responsibility for the board's condition. Thus, I'm proposing an officially unofficial "troll list," or, more explicitly, a list of posters who we, the individual users of this site and not its administrators, have collectively chosen not to respond to, because we feel that further discussion with them does nothing to further legitimate discourse on this board.   Several individual posters have already implemented this system to some degree for themselves. The different threads on this board have numerous posts indicating that their posters have made a personal vow not to respond to or hold communication with a given username. However, individuals doing this individually, and not collectively, effectively renders the vow useless. The posters we don't wish to continue communication with still find several others willing to further their petty exchanges and give them more than enough ammunition to troll with. The only way to ensure that the "trolls" truly feel the consequences of their actions in any substantive way is to implement our bans at a collective level, and not on an individual basis.   To be perfectly fair, we can't allow this to be a McCarthy style blacklist we can turn to any time we get tired of a particular poster, or a particular group of posters, or something we can use to enforce unfair punishments for slight infractions. This needs to be a list of last resort, designed for only the most ignorant, abrasive and offensive of posters, who have committed just enough transgressions to significantly detract from the board's condition, but not quite enough to warrant a ban by moderators. Therefore, I would like to set out some objective criteria. Posters nominated for this list must demonstrate:   (1) repeated offensive, accusatory or inflammatory behavior, commensurate of what would generally be considered "trolling" by typical internet standards, (2) total disregard for the demonstrated veracity of another user's posts, (3) behavior intended to sow discord among other posters, or manipulate other posters into an emotionally compromised position, (4) repeated use of extraneous and irrelevant information in threads with the intention of moving the thread off topic, or (5) a stubborn commitment to or refusal to discontinue behavior generally considered disruptive by others, regardless of the intentions behind said behavior.   To identify said posters, all a user would need to do is nominate someone they believe to be guilty of one of the above criteria under this thread. We could discuss it and, if everyone is agreeable, add that poster to a list of trolls kept below.   Posters Identified as Trolls:

[Hidden Content]   I can't find any reports about this from a more well known news source, which makes me skeptical. But the seriousness of the situation also makes it something I can't entirely ignore, either.

  That's a good point. Maybe that's something we need to discuss on the state level.

It's on the SEC Network.

Game was called early due to lightening. Ironically, it poured at the stadium and there hasn't been a drop at my apartment a mile away. 41-0 Alabama (F)

You mean a Longhorn game isn't on the Longhorn Network?

Believe it or not, my apartment in Tuscaloosa actually gets the Longhorn Network, so I'll be watching this.

  Man, first y'all wanted our coach, and now y'all want one of our players? Is burnt orange the new color for envy?  ;)   To his credit, Coker seems to have have settled down some in the second half. But there are still issues.

I think it's obvious who will be the starting QB. I only stuck around for the first half, but Coker needs to work on his arm. Very mobile, though.

  Exactly.   The states are caught in a catch-22. Every time they stand up and do something to deal with the immigration crisis and its numerous consequences, this administration comes in claiming it's a federal responsibility (which is true) and that it should be left to the feds to enforce the law (which is arguably half true). But when the states leave it alone, the fed does nothing, and occasionally even does worse than nothing by picking and choosing which laws it will and will not enforce or loosening its policies to open up major holes in the system.   I personally think the Democrats want it that way. Ronald Reagan was onto something when he said that Hispanics are really Republicans deep down and just don't know it yet. When you look at polls regarding the individual issues, Hispanics almost always side overwhelmingly with what would generally be identified as the Republican side. They don't like taxes, they don't like abortion, they generally don't like regulations, they don't like big government and they're generally pro-business. The single issue where they side overwhelmingly with Democrats is immigration, and that one issue is so influential in the Hispanic community that it almost singlehandedly keeps the Hispanic vote in the Democrat column. If we dealt with that issue, the Democrats would almost assuredly lose that vote, and they are scared to death of that. Thus, keeping the system broken, and keeping immigration a headline issue, becomes the politically logical thing for the Democrats to do.

[Hidden Content]

  You are absolutely right. And that's one mistake I won't be making again.

  Call you an idiot that's now officially beneath contempt. That's what.   Your comparison of Hawaii and Ukraine is bogus. End of conversation.

  Did you actually just accuse me of lying?   [Hidden Content]         Further reading will reveal to you that it was not until the following presidential administration that Hawaii's annexation became a serious possibility, and that President Cleveland, who was a friend of the Hawaiian queen's, wanted nothing to do with it. The first democratic, pro-American reform in Hawaii took place in 1887, a full decade before territorial annexation would be granted.   Most importantly, however, is that US military forces never invaded Hawaii prior to their democratic revolution, unlike in the Ukraine, where Putin's forces had invaded Crimea before the election took place.

  As I said, you didn't take the course I thought you were going to. Although this one is arguably equally as asinine.   It's hard to argue we didn't give them a choice when we initially refused to annex Hawaii because the queen had been overthrown. I'm no expert in Hawaiian history, but it seems pretty clear after glancing through the Wikipedia page that much of what happened in Hawaii was an internal struggle over the country's monarchy and constitution that America spent about a decade trying to stay out of.   It takes an awful lot of spinning to try and liken that to the situation in Ukraine.

  Posts like this are why this site shouldn't have a limit on how many likes you can give in a single day.

  You would have seen that patience wear very, very thin if she had gone where I thought she was going.

  Maybe it's different because US military forces didn't invade Hawaii first and then have the people decide if they wanted to be an American territory?

I realize it's very early in the season to say this, but I think this game may decide the SEC East. South Carolina will want redemption from the A&M game and it's at home, but Georgia has two weeks to prepare. I think Georgia keeps their roll alive and wins by 10+.

  Fair enough.

  I'm glad someone admits that. Props.   I personally am very optimistic about Strong. UT picked a good coach. But he has more to overcome than I think any first year head coach in UT history ever has, especially in the recruiting game. A&M, Baylor and even Tech all have a lot more clout than they used to, and there's even more competition from out of state now that the SEC is represented in Texas.

You know, sometimes I really just have to sit back and wonder if the UT fans realize how much the rest of the country's fanbases have been laughing at them over the Longhorn network, its unintended consequences, the demise of Mack Brown and the shell of a conference they now play in for the past three years.   And I say that as someone who hopes to be in Austin wearing burnt orange next year.

  Check your PMs.       :D   That's actually kind of how we got Alaska.

  Why don't you elaborate on that? I'm afraid I don't follow your analogy.