: This is the umpteenth article with "Read the Original" attached to it by this site's most prolific, if unimaginative, spambot. I'm speaking of course of 'Frenchy.' For the love of all that's holy, can y'all implement some sort of policy or guideline wherein people posting to "The Debating Room" are actually interested in a debate and not merely spamming excerpts from the Miami Herald et al? I realize that in his fevered imagination, he thinks he has you over the 'free speech' barrel with his sophmoric taunts. You should rise above that and insist upon something resembling content. There are a great many excellent posters, raising interesting points and linking to articles in support of the points they raise... and while comrade Lenin did remark that "Quantity has a quality all its own," he also coined the expression, "Better fewer, but better," so I am quite confident that in the matter of Frenchy's mental masterbation fewer spurts would indeed be better.
: Now let's see if McSpotlight lets that through... you miserable git. --K
$$$$$$$$$$$$Yeah, I hear that all the time from Liberal/Socialist/Communist/Green defenders. If you don't agree with their premises, if you don't agree with their definitions, if you don't agree with their interpretation of history, why that can only mean that your a 'reactionary' or some other silly and meaningless non-entity, according to the Marxist lexicon.
And meanwhile the world sails on, slowly but surely leaving the refuse of Communism in it's wake.
PS, I wonder if your own web site is so quiet because you practice censorship there? I've seen other Leftist web sites that were equally depopulated, the content being nothing more than the preacher preaching to the choir.
Remember the vacuity of Tass? That's what censored Leftist web sites look like.
: McSpotlight: To be perfectly honest, it's mildly annoying, but we cannot cut them without going beyond our remit as moderators. If someone selects an article from a mass publication as exactly representative of their views, then it is part of the debate to try and counter that article as well; even though deus ex machina is frequently used to bolster a flagging argument by a debater.
: We would prefer that all posters contributed their own thoughts; not verbatim copies of other peoples'; but we cannot in all conscience cut them out.
: After all, Frenchy is not the first or the last person here to cite outside authorities as effective gospel; are we to cut them all out as being 'unoriginal'?
: One general request, though, people; if you are going to post other peoples' writings to the DR, try to read around the subject enough to know whether your selected source is credible. Don't just select a source because they agree with you and then try to support their statements if their field is one with which you are unfamiliar. You'll invariably end up making a fool of yourself in public. If you want to make statements on a subject, try doing a bit of background reading on it first.
^^^^^^^^^^^Good idea McSpotlight, but many of us don't agree with simple definitions. How do you get a debate to progess if one person believes that 'surpus value' is a legitimate phenomena and another denies it's existence?