Writer Beat Constitution

Having seen the tumult raised by discordant views among varying members among us, it appears that a Writer Beat Constitution is appropriate, to ensure happiness and tranquility, and preserve peace, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

This Constitution should rely upon laws that are ancient, and not feelings that are temporary.  As such, it should have rules that are shown for every new member to clearly see.  These rules will minimize needless contention, ensure debates are orderly and productive, get rid of people who have nothing to say, and ensure lies are eliminated and truth promoted.

 

Clause 1)  Profanity is not allowed.  If adults can't speak without profanity, their opinions are not worth  hearing.  Profanity is the sign of a weak argument or a weak mind and sometimes both.  Two warnings will be given, and after the third offense, the offender will be banned from WB for 1 day.  After they are readmitted, and reoffend, they will be banned for one week.  After readmittance and another third strike, they will be banned for a month.  Also, it is up to the discretion of the site administrator to institute a one year ban on egregious offenders.  This also includes a ban on salacious, lascivious, lustful content.  Explicit sexual details will be banned as well.  This is not a porn site and D.H. Lawrence would not be welcome here with his Lady Chatterley's lover

 

Clause 2)  Post only after your latest post has dropped out of the top 20 in recommendations.  This ensures one writer does not flood the site with articles.  If your ideas are so profound, then time is the greatest test.

 

Clause 3) Lying is not permissible.  If a writers assertions are proven false, with the site administrator and chosen surrogates confirming this, and they refuse to correct their lies, then their comments or posts will be deleted.  On the third offense, they will be banned for a week.  After readmittance, and recommission of lies, the third strike will earn a month ban.  After readmittance, and recommission of lies, the third strike will earn a 3 month ban.  After readmittance, and recommission of lies, the third strike will earn a year a 6 month ban.  After readmittance, and recommission of lies, the third strike will earn a 1 year ban.  This one year ban will be reinstituted upon further offenses by said party.

 

 

 

These three clauses should lead to increased harmony and prosperity here.

 

Autumn has done a good job bringing together a motley crew of people to share ideas.  She has done a great job ensuring freedom of speech, and has resisted ceaseless liberal demands to silence dissent, and should be highly commended for this, as not many can do this.  However, freedom of speech was instituted by Founders who valued virtue, and never intended this freedom to be used to justify perversion, licentiousness, prurience, lasciviousness, profanity, and other offenses against decency.

 

This site has the potential to be the leading writers gathering place on the internet.  But greatness requires discipline, and if the above three clauses cannot be adhered to, then WB must be resigned to mediocrity.  Steam is pretty worthless until it is confined in pipes, and when this is done, steam moves 560 feet long submarines through the ocean at speeds from 25-50 mph.  And so here, when discipline is instituted, an environment will be created that will facilitate greatness in all, and ideas that will last long after our short lifetimes.

 

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.

George Washington

 

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

 

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

Robert Winthrop

 

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Benjamin Rush

 

The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible

 

Noah Webster

 

Either this site is build on a foundation of stone, or of sand.  One will last forever, one will easily be destroyed by the storms of time. 

Comments

MJ Added Mar 6, 2017 - 1:49pm
Ryan, I like your rules but you are too lenient with your punishment!
Janie Smith Added Mar 6, 2017 - 1:51pm
Its a good proposal, Ryan
Donna Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:04pm
Ryan, we finally agree on something. Good proposal.
Dino Manalis Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:11pm
Who would enforce the constitution?  I agree, words can be powerful and should be used and selected carefully!
Tom C. Purcell Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:26pm
Conceptually, this proposal is just fine.  Clause 3 is too subjective and needs refinement.  I see where you are going with it, but I don't know if God or the Pope is available to decipher truths from lies and fabrications.  Ya know?
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:31pm
Thank you, MJ!  They can be revised and toughened as necessary.  Most adults, when warned of rules initially, will take care to follow them.  For the lawless there can be an Article 134 equivalent of the Uniform Code of Military justice, where one person with a lot of wisdom, administers random justice as they see fit.  I would volunteer to be that arbiter, and have been extraordinarily fair with all.  Thank you Janie, and Donna.  I would, Dino, as would Autumn.
 
Only those in favor of lying, profanity, or licentiousness would object to my being the administrator.  Offenses could be e-mailed to me for review,and justice would be meted out daily, if not hourly.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:33pm
I would be the arbiter of it, and no one on here can accuse me of having accused anyone on here of lying without absolute proof.  Of course, many liberals don't understand lies and truth, but that will be dealt with.  
 
Truth is objective and is judged by dispassionate sources who do not allow their subjective views or personal faults and flaws to interfere with justice.
Billy Roper Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:39pm
That sounds reasonable to me, Ryan.
MJ Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:43pm
Ryan, I would be totally happy with you as arbiter!
jon vonn Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:44pm
I am going to disagree.  For some of the same reasons as you posted.  We also need to help others express themselves effectively.  Profanity by itself is counter productive in getting an idea across. However, in a novel it expresses a lot. 
     I suggest  seeing if it is possible to get discounts of manuals of writing and style and have the post/writer redo their work to conform to acceptable English.   I do not think any writer has written  something that at the time was in the writers mind, ok .  Yet ,upon reflection, was badly written.   We all make mistakes.  Some time we say thing wrong.  It is being human. 
   There are times when vulgarity is more in line than a medically correct version to achieve communication.  There are exceptions for the Frisian "to thrust violently" four letter word that is tonal and can have opposite meanings.  The reason is because it is tonal the reader is left in the dark.
 
     I do question "This also includes a ban on salacious, lascivious, lustful content.  Explicit sexual details will be banned as well.  This is not a porn site and D.H. Lawrence would not be welcome here with his Lady Chatterley's lover.  Or Anais Nin,Henry Miller ,etc
   In the description of Writer's beat is the sentence:"
Please note; Writer Beat has no political affiliation or content specialty. As a result, we hope to display an eclectic array of work and have no interest in dictating what is featured on our home page.
   In your "rules" that is nullified.
 
     I want to learn to write better although my main interest is world economics.   I might want to try my hand at something else.
     In the conclusion:  In my opinion the proposal is too much a barrier to the authors.  I understand we all have different values for myself Puritanism is not one I embrace.
wsucram15 Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:47pm
Of course but I would like the definition of "lying".  I know that definition but I have refuted opinion or ideals with factual data on so many occasions I cant even count them only to be rebutted with the larger opinion of the alt right swing on this page.  Which is ridiculous.
I dont utlize most news sources, if you want a bibliography on everything I write, you are going to have to read background data. Something that Im sure Ryan will be the only to do.  
Also if such a decision exists, as one of the older members on this site, with a 40+ legal and research background, I wish to be in that decision making process.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:49pm
I understand we all have different values for myself Puritanism is not one I embrace.
 
Exactly!
Bill Kamps Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:49pm
I have a problem with the lying clause, because it can be interpreted many different ways.  While I am no liberal, the fact that you say  Of course, many liberals don't understand lies and truth, but that will be dealt with.   implies the "truth" will be as you see it.
 
Lies and truth are a funny thing.  There is the lie, where a person says the sun rises in the west, and there are the lies where a person says that the Trump Tower was bugged ( or not ) during the last election, or the lie where people say that 9/11 was fabricated by the Jews ( or not ), or that 6,000,000 or 1,000 Jews were killed in the holocaust, if it even existed.  Just having you decide what is a lie, seems a bit arbitrary.
 
If we are critical a lot of articles and responses are filled with lies, because people are largely ignorant, so if we start expelling people for saying things that may not be true, it will turn into a a great deal of censorship.
 
I dont have a big problem with there being no rules, I dont like personal attacks and name calling, but interestingly you dont outlaw that.  I dont have a problem with profanity one way or the other, but then again are crap and damn profanities ? so we have to use Sunday School language ?
 
The biggest problem with making rules is that they can always be rather vague, and subject to interpretation but the person doing the judging.  No offense, but I prefer no rules, to this sort of thing.
 
 
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:52pm
Thank you Billy, and MJ,and I would be honored to serve as admin.  Autumn and her brother willing.
 
Novels with profanity are largely not worth reading, Jon Vonn, and before 1900, were practically nonexistent in America.  We were far happier, and morally better, notwithstanding the fact that the cancer of segregation was  not yet gotten rid of.  
 
Also, 3 warnings to avoid profanity ought to be plenty, and the discipline is hardly draconian.  
 
And as for salacious content, if people have to have their crude,lewd, lasciviousness then go places where that is valued.  America's Founders despised it, and so do the great minds of  history.  Our nation became great because it was founded upon the Judeo Christian concept.  
 
Also, there is no great breakthrough in any field without virtue first preceding it.  Secularists are fond of pointing to the tech breakthrough's of recent years but they forget the innovators who came up with these ideas weren't raised in debauchery, as many propose we welcome here.  
 
"[T]here is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists . . . an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness."
George Washington

 
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

 
"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."
George Washington

 
Virtue means getting rid of profanity.  Without virtue no undertaking can succeed long term.  
wsucram15 Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:53pm
Interpretation is my question..not rules.  I have no problem with rules.
 
Nancy Rexford Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:53pm
Ryan  on the whole I agree with number  one and like the idea of limits  to posting of your second idea.
 
I am not sure about number 3 as I have always researched and provided back up documentation for information I posted.
Why would anyone not tell the truth? This site is not about works of fiction. It is supposed to be an honest dialog on many controversial topics. 
I grant you some of the topics are not ones I would have chosen or truthfully know enough about to have an oponion.
I would ban for life anyone who spread lies. But, then I am a hard a** conservative woman.
 
I do hope that the loss of Autumn does not affect the site detrimentally. If it does I will blame her brother -who apparently upset her enough so she is leaving. 
 
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:54pm
The great thing about this, is WB's problems are a microcosm of our society at large.  If we can show how virtue leads to excellence here, then this will reverberate, and as a drop of water sends ripples that reach the farthest reaches of a pond, so this will have a butterfly effect which will touch lives yet unborn, and people we have never met.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:57pm
Novels with profanity are largely not worth reading,
 
In your opinion !  Ryan if you want to make your own website, by all means go ahead, but dont hijack someone else's to show how virtue leads to excellence
 
That is not why I come here.
Shane Dean Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:05pm
I agree with pretty much all of this, except not sure exactly what your guidelines might be for what is considered a lie.  Something that is a philosophical "truth" may not be really true.  
 
This is definitely a good place to start making WB salvageable.  I especially concur with the idea that profanity is not necessary.  Mainly because its use seems to be directing hateful comments purely to demean someone.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:08pm
on occasions you have also acted as an arbiter
 
Sending them off sarcastically is a far cry from censoring or banning them MJ, I am simply dismissing them from my concern. BIG difference. 
 
Were I arbiter I'd do the same thing Autumn did. 
Shane Laing Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:10pm
Ryan it's good of you to make a start with regard to a constitution.  I would say that for it to work all members need to sign up to it and I don't think all would in its present form. Some amendments may need to be made.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:12pm
You've never had a single comment deleted by me Jeanne, so you have nothing to fear.  We've disagreed mightily, but your right to speak was never infringed upon.  
 
Lying: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.  Most people speak what they believe, but when proven to be wrong and failing to retract it, then that is where problems develop.
 
Objective: true outside one's mind.
 
Subjective: true only in one's mind.
 
Also, to, "I understand we all have different values for myself Puritanism is not one I embrace.".  
 
Truth is not subjective and values aren't either.  So, though others may have different opinions, this site will go on those that have worked, and will not be subject to debate.  Puritanism is not being advocated for, virtue, that was prized by greeks, Romans, and nearly every American great, IS.  
 
Self control and virtue are the main engines of any great undertaking in history, so why not imitate that pattern here.  If there are those who do not wish to have self control, then why do we wish to hear from them?  If they cannot control themselves, what can they possibly offer to others?  For one cannot give, what one first does not have.  Self control leads to dignity and a love of oneself, without which, one cannot love others.  
 
I understand your fears Bill, but can you, after having seen me for over a year, show me where one liberal was accused of lying without sufficient proof?  I accused many, but none falsely.  
 
When I say lies, I am referring to lies, not matters of opinion.  Personal attacks and name calling, if done without profanity, can be rather entertaining, and sometimes are called for, if done with restraint.  I use it myself at times, and it does make the site lively at times.  Besides if one has the truth, one should be able to hold up against all attacks.
 
I would never use crap and damn myself, unless if it were to say to damn someone to hell, or some other format, but the profanity clause is aimed at the obvious infractions, and is not trying to become a grammar nazi at all.  It's sad this is even being debated, because in 1900 and earlier, no one even dreamed of using profanity in public forums in America.  So this is a necessary reformation to a happier time, and it will have salutary effects upon all.  
 
Rules are what we live by where ever we go, or we have anarchy.  We have a Constitution here so that we can all have freedom, and these rules will lead to increased freedom as well.  Freedom is not about those who are slaves to self being able to spread their slavery, which is all vice is.  It is about those who have mastered self, having the right to speak and do what they wish without being tyrannically suppressed.  
 
Of course not all have mastered self, and they are free to live in a society where all have equal opportunity, but equal outcomes are guaranteed to none.   We reap what we sow.  Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:16pm
I just exercised one of my rules on Expat,and I thank him for giving an excellent demonstration of what will not be tolerated.  And its nothing unexpected.  The rules showed what would be tolerated, and Expat has been knowing my stance on things, but he is incorrigible, and insists on his freedom to act as a child.  He can do that anywhere but on my post,and, if we all see the necessity of virtue, on this site.  
 
Of course Expat does not like these rules, as he lives his life in the pursuit of pleasure, and discipline and order are things he has an allergy to.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:17pm
Shane the reasons there  are no rules is that Autumn wisely understood that once one headed down the path of rules, it would get complicated, as this article demonstrates.  At first blush rules may seem attractive, but everyone has a different spin on the rules they would want, and there is the problem.
 
It is very unlikely we will get agreement and enforcement without a great deal of arbitrariness.  Ryan's morals and wishes, may not correspond with others morals and wishes, and therefore the likelihood that we will all agree on ANY set of rules is remote.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:17pm
Thank you Nancy, as for the lies, it would not be an arbitrary thing at all.  but it would ensure people can't come and just repeat propaganda, without being challenged and corrected.  That is the intent.  To have a site where truth is taken seriously, and lies are addressed.  If a site cannot be said to have punishments for lying, than how can it be taken seriously.  
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:21pm
Bill, you have a strange idea of virtue.  But if the pursuit of filth is that important to you, that is your business.  It does not promote excellence anywhere, and in 500 years all the smutty novels will have long been forgotten.  They are worthless trash, which I refuse to peruse.
 
Amen, Shane D,and thank you.  I've noticed some pretty painful obscene and profane exchanges between writers and it did nothing but demean and degrade them and the site.
 
And thank you as well, Shane L.  I guarantee all members won't assent to it,but I think a majority would.  Some will leave if this Constitution were instituted, but such is life.  Not everyone likes successful principles.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:24pm
Bill K, you are right, but it should not be a democracy.  Democracies are doomed because the most wrongheaded people often are the best at organizing others, and they lead civilizations straight to doom.  
Our Founders hated a Democracy, because they realized there were always going to be troublemakers like Thomas Paine around to make a fuss, and this could be dangerous.  Those elements are on WB as well.  
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:24pm
When so-called rules emphasize punishment tyranny is implicit.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:30pm
re "Lying is not permissible.  If a writers assertions are proven false, with the site administrator and chosen surrogates confirming this, and they refuse to correct their lies, then their comments or posts will be deleted. "
 
This one sounds a little RED to me. How about the loss of credibility that has always plagued liars being enough?
Bill Kamps Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:31pm
Ryan, I dont know what you mean by "you have a strange idea of virtue".    You stated one of your goals is to show how virtue leads to excellence.  However, that is not necessarily my goal, or the goal of this website.  If it were, then by all means you can be the leader.
 
Im not pursuing filth, but at the same time I dont think that you should be my judge for what I can write here, or what others can write here.  We arent necessarily visiting this site in a pursuit of virtue. 
 
I dont have time to research when you have accused liberals of lying.  I can say there is a lot of lying on both political sides, so whether it is lying, spinning, spreading of rumors, who will decide, you ?  
Bill Kamps Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:38pm
Ryan, you are correct a pure democracy wont work, but then again we arent creating a government.  Society without any government wont work, however, websites without a government can work.  Its not the same thing.
 
The question is first whether we even need rules, and if we we do, should they be Ryan's rules ? 
 
Autumn resisted having rules, because she wisely knew that with the rules came a lot of baggage.  A lot of judging for one thing.  Most of us who have been here a while realized the same thing.  So we put up with the name calling, and the idiots, to avoid having the writing police.  This article points out some of the problems with rules, who will create them, and enforce them, and do we want to be judged by this person ?
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:40pm
LOL, Doug, none of your posts would be deleted, even the Holocaust Denying ones, or denying the moon landing.  I'm not addressing that stuff.  Normally a loss of credibility does plague liars, and I'm only really addressing blatant and egregious lies, as rarely does anyone say anything they truly know is false.  
 
If we want a site devoted to literary excellence, and that is an attribute which has deteriorated markedly ever since the television came along, then I'd posit it's wise to adhere to the standards that great writers like Dickens, Hugo, Dumas, Tolstoy, the Bronte's, Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell, Bruce Catton, Abraham Lincoln, and thousands of other literary greats adhered to.  I'm really not interested in most of the lascivious and profane nonsensical garbage that hedonistic writers have produced in the last 60 years.  Very little will last.  And I've read considerable amounts of it as well.  
 
The problem is when individual personal liberties interfere with excellence.  Why we are discussing avoiding smut and profanity does show a lot about you.  Because you are telling about yourself.  A person who has self control has no objections to these tenets.  
 
I can decide on the lying, but it will only be with a very thorough investigation, and it will be non partisan.  
 
What is wrong with setting high standards for people to live up to?  Great expectations never hurt anyone.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 3:44pm
You judged to get out of bed, and go to work every day, Bill, when and if you still work,and when you did, you came across red lights.  You judged it was good to stop at those red lights.  That sounds pretty judgemental to me. LOL.  Why were you so judgemental, Bill?  Because if you didn't, there was consequences.  Well, same  here.  There are consequences when people use foul language and bring explicit sexuality  here, or sexuality period, for that matter.  Now just because some people refuse to acknowledge the consequences, does not mean they go away.  
 
So, peace and tranquility will be upheld if we simply uphold rules that were taken for granted early on in America, and no one complained about it.  Why deterioriating morality should be worshiped and deified, I have no idea.
Shane Dean Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:11pm
Thanks for the reminder, David.  I can say that I don't think these things got enforced vary often
wsucram15 Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:14pm
I understand your fears Bill, but can you, after having seen me for over a year, show me where one liberal was accused of lying without sufficient proof?  I accused many, but none falsely.  
Ryan..I cant disagree but this statement in itself is from your pov. I have argued with you repeatedly on several issues that neither one ever came to a conclusion or perhaps we each felt that we made our point.  That perhaps, there really is no right or wrong. This is my concern. 
I agree that we each (somehow) have a different perspective, but TRUTH is not perspective, it can be argued but truth is factual.  Which brings us to the issues that divide this nation currently.
If we on here can come to an accord, holy cow..I have hope for the nation.  I really do.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:36pm
Well, Jeanne, we disagreed as strong as we could, and we can still speak civilly to each other and none of our comments were deleted.  No harm, no foul.  That is what a writers site should have.  I never deleted any of your comments. 
 
I do believe truth is absolute, and that the more we learn, the closer we come to it.  Though I think the search for truth is a lifelong endeavor.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:38pm
Also, I'm not demanding, asking, requiring, advocating for, or expecting to be the administrator.  I am volunteering to serve in that capacity, and if the good people, in their wisdom, see that I am fit, that is fine, and if they do not, I shall be just as happy.
 
It must be a site of, by, and for the people.  But, the people will never have leaders greater than their own values.
Shane Dean Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:45pm
I would kind of agree with you, David.  This is what I was getting at with the whole "lie" bit.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:45pm
Ryan, I guess we agree to disagree here.
 
Yes of course I was judged when I was employed by someone, they were paying me, and therefore had some right to expect certain behavior.  We also agreed on this behavior before I went to work for them, so both sides had similar expectations. 
 
We are also judged by the readers here in WB.  People have a choice to value what we say, read what we write, or not.  People are free to express their opinion on what we write, and in general you and I have had respectful conversations even if we did not agree, including this one.  That is not the same thing as either of us setting up rules the other has to abide. 
 
However, while I agree you have the right to your pov, you dont have the right to impose that pov on me.  Its as simple as that.  When you tell me I am immoral, or say  that people with TVs are going to hell ( slight exaggeration ), I just let it go, because you and I do not share a pov. 
 
I dont debate  you when we disagree about your core beliefs, because you have yours, and I have mine.  In general I avoid disagreeing with people about their core beliefs,  what is the point?   I dont share all of your religious or moral beliefs, so why should I agree to your rules, or agree to have my writing judged by you ?
 
 
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:46pm
David, I've never come across you, but your sense of judgement is off.  First off, I've never slandered anyone.  Second, personal attacks are employed only when the foundation for why a person thinks the way they do needs to be explored, and I've rarely ever been wrong.  As for abusive, hateful, offensive language or material, that is only something a social justice warrior would accuse me of, and since their view of history is hopelessly brainwashed, their opinions are not worth paying attention to.
 
As for homosexuality,  you have never read a book opposing it in your life, your views make that clear.  But we've been sabotaged, and just because I'm willing to address it does not make me a bad person.  
 
 
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:54pm
Calling people names or disrespecting different points of view was done strongly, but arguments forcefully made never make for a dull environment, and if you can't handle it, maybe go play with the children?  This is not a safe space.  Shane and I have vehemently disagreed on much, but we still can talk to each other, people like you have a problem with facts and debate.   
 
The comments on women are no different from what has historically worked, and I don't regret having learned the past and it's lessons,and I am offended that you have the temerity to accuse me of wrongdoing for simply learning things you are too lazy to learn.   
 
And do you use mind altering drugs or porn?  Because if so, you are a moral degenerate, and have no business lecturing others on what is fraudulent or not.  Besides, who are you to tell most of us anything? Name 10 Founders?  You can't because you don't know much about the past, besides regurgitating school  nonsense, and media rubbish.  Knowing nearly nothing of the past, you are just like the kids of Communist Russia, and China long ago, you are easy to brainwash with propaganda, and you are at it right now, trying to get me to go along with your groupthink.
 
Well, I'm not buying it, and you shouldn't either.  You are intellectually lazy, and unfit to judge much of anything.  That we listen to you is the height of respect your uninformed opinions are due.  Long ago they put kids in corners and had them wear dunce caps, so they would learn to be wise, well, you need to go to the WB corner, and put on your dunce cap, because your opinions reflect you don't know you have two ears and one mouth for a reason, and that a wise man has something to say, and a fool has to say something.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:56pm
Is it just me or does the Ryan candidacy have the same chance the Clinton campaign had? 
 
Hey hey hey! 
 
I'm just askin'!
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 4:57pm
Your opinions have never been interfered with Bill, and your freedom to express them have not been either.  To insist on truth and avoiding profanity or debauchery is enlightening, uplifting, and inspiring.  To fail to do so is to bring us all down to the gutter, which it is depressing to be in.  I've read some of the profane attacks on people and it's depressing, uncalled for, and demonstrates a total lack of self control.  
 
My POV is not being forced on you.  Not one of your comments or posts are endangered by the above Constitution.
EXPAT Added Mar 6, 2017 - 5:00pm
DELETE THIS YOU MORON!
Ryan lives a life without sex, without drinking, without friends in the belief that when he is dead, GOD will give him eternal happiness.
If he wants to live a life of deprivation for Pie in the sky, and the sweet bye and bye, that's his choice.
 
But he wants to FORCE everyone else to live the same kind of masochistic lifestyle. That is why I call him a Moron. Because he cannot accept the life GOD has provided for him.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 6, 2017 - 5:06pm
Ryan, we have co-existed fine while both of us have been here.
 
That is not the same thing, as agreeing to abide by your rules, even if most of the time I do anyway.  You just kind of miss that point, that it is the principal of the thing. 
 
I dont agree with this statement, for example:  To insist on truth and avoiding profanity or debauchery is enlightening, uplifting, and inspiring.  To fail to do so is to bring us all down to the gutter, which it is depressing to be in.  
 
I do agree with this one:   I've read some of the profane attacks on people and it's depressing, uncalled for, and demonstrates a total lack of self control.
 
 
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 5:12pm
You didn't use profanity, Expat, so why would I delete it?  As for being called names, I don't mind.  I have thousands of friends, all over the world, so I'm not sure where you get that from, but whatever floats your boat.  More important, I want to have one friend when I die, and that's my conscience.  With that friend all will be well: without him, and with millions of friends, no man can be happy, or can fail to be miserable.  
 
And besides profanity and the lecherous and debauched lasciviousness you are prone to indulge in, all your other writing is perfectly fine.  If these standards are adopted, no one is forcing you to stay, and there will be no penalty for leaving.  The standards are no different from those around in 1800.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 5:19pm
The problem with your liberal education, and the media, combined with the idiot box, is you have been brainwashed to think what I have said is morally objectionable, David, when any person with a passing knowledge of history knows it is absolutely true.
 
You are going to have objections, because you don't know 10 Founders who wrote our Constitution which gave us our greatest nation on earth that we have today, and as such, you object to similar standards being employed.
 
You are what happens when communists get a hold of the media and schools,and completely indoctrinate humans with complete garbage and rubbish.  In Russia and in China, people like you were unrestrained by the Constitution our Founders gave us, and you were given power, and you went out and you murdered over 100 million people.
 
As Goethe said, "There is nothing so frightening as ignorance in action".  Your ignorance is dangerous too.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 5:20pm
Bill K, it's not like there are truth nazi's that will censor every last bit of questionable details.  There were only a few people whose lies I deleted, and Marilyn French was the major offender.
Bill H. Added Mar 6, 2017 - 5:40pm
Ryan - you state: "First off, I've never slandered anyone."
I disagree. You have slandered me and many others out here before.
The following certainly applies to the printed word:
Definition from Merriam Webster:

the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation

2 :  a false and defamatory oral statement about a person


 
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 5:53pm
David, save it for someone who does not know the ideology you have been brainwashed with.  
 
1) Where did I claim I don't know you.  I know you better than you know you.
 
2) Those assumptions are based on your belief's.  You don't understand when you talk you are telling me your biography.  Read Sherlock Holmes and you'll understand how to do it.  A few facts tell me what you do and what you believe.  I don't give away the vast amounts of information I had to go through to be able to tell these things, but they are true, and that's why you don't refute my assertions, but weakly say, "But you don't know me".  
 
3) Peace and tranquility are only based upon truth.  You have a loose grasp on the latter, and don't even know the truth about yourself, and so are incapable of having the former on your own.
 
4) We see what we are.  When people are blind, they have to be shown who they are so they can see.  Some people still remain blind.
 
5) Homosexuality is a mental disorder, and you just don't know it's history. 
 
6) the women in the women's march do revel in filthy debauchery.  No debating that, though you've probably never used the word debauchery in your life before, and are hardly a good judge of where it applies in your own life, much less in anyone elses.
 
7) You don't know squat about the Bible but want to judge me by a book you don't live by, and don't know.  LOL.  Go learn it first, and then start lecturing me on what a good Christian ought to be.  Jesus advocated individuals and churches help the poor and disenfranchised not nations.  Before 1912 there wasn't even an income tax, but then we are continually banging up against your historical ignorance.  As long as you stay historically clueless you buy the communist propaganda, so they make sure you stay stupid.  
 
Please don't call me a fraud, when you are a dimwit and haven't the faintest clue about how to rule yourself or anything else.  Kindly head to your local library and educate that addled brain of yours.  
 
I've never heard of you, and anyone clueless enough to listen to you, deserves to have the garbage environment your ignorance always leads to.  
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 5:53pm
Name one Bill H.
EXPAT Added Mar 6, 2017 - 5:56pm
Ryan is a flat out liar!
"You didn't use profanity, Expat, so why would I delete it? "
I copy/pasted the comment he deleted. You can see for yourself on my post
Ryan for King of WB, there was no profanity. He deleted it because I mocked him!
I will save this comment also, to repost when he deletes it!
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 6:43pm
Expat you are now lying about my being a liar.
 
No wonder why you strongly object to this Constitution, you violate the two  main laws on this very post, and don't even know you do it.
 
You both used profanity and lied.  So sad.  You need to learn how to judge yourself, before you start judging others.

Here is your comment, with your expletive deleted.
 
"Ha Ha Ha, The guy who got kicked off  Facebook and LinkedIn, and who knows where else, wants to Proctor this site. You have an Insurance Agency, and spend all your time on the Internet. Why don't you make the cote family an offer and then you can turn WB into a sex free, TV free boring tribute to the Bible.
 
It looks like Elvis has left the building!
Autumn just threw her hands in the air and walked away!
And the people who destroyed this site are the one's who want to save it the most. Because they are unacceptable anywhere true discourse and civility are demanded.
There is a lot of talk about free speech here, and it is a crock of s***!"
wsucram15 Added Mar 6, 2017 - 7:05pm
I agree..I dont know how I agree, but I do.
Everyone you have got to stop arguing. This is insane and the reason Autumn cant do this anymore. Seriously!
Look at these posts....
You dont have to agree, but you dont need to attack.  
Expat..
What is wrong with you? You are one of the most intelligent people on here?   I say that today with a huge grain of salt since you have done nothing but insult myself and people in my family you dont even know. But with that said, calm down.
Why are you being like this...? This is the PRIME REASON she is stopping participation.  You of all people should be the voice of reason...because you always have been.
 
We have ALL got to find a way to get along. WE are who we are...its a dysfunctional family, but we are fighting right now because we love this site. Therefore in our OWN WEIRD DISTANT WAY LOVE EACH OTHER ...YEAH!  TAKE THAT!
GET OVER IT ...work as a team...
 
Bill H. Added Mar 6, 2017 - 7:06pm
I'm not going to wade thru your hundreds and hundreds of comments, but you have called many out here liars, idiots,  pornographers, drug users, an such over time, which qualifies as slander.
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 7:11pm
I can get along with people just fine, but there should be standards and avoiding profanity and lying are two easy ones that Expat apparently hates.  
 
Expat has some profound insights, but in the end, his pleasure and stubbornness is his God, and anyone threatening either is public enemy number one to him.  
 
Find me one unwarranted assertion Bill.  Whatever I said, had a reason behind it, and as long as you don't take it out of context is completely reasonable.  But you have shown little care for being reasonable, so the reasonability of it, doesn't seem to matter much to you.  YOu are in the habit of just repeating propaganda and vilifying anyone who disagrees with you as a bad, mean,nasty, deplorable person.  Standard liberal.  
 
Not one assertion is slander.  That is a lie, but you have lied many times, and I'll let it pass this time.
Dawn Foss Added Mar 6, 2017 - 8:18pm
Great idea, Ryan!  But I also agree with MJ that they may be a bit lenient.  We're adults; if someone keeps breaking the rules that many times, they're doing it on purpose and making a mockery of the site.  I agree when there is dirty talk and lies and swears, it diminishes not only the site, but every author on the site, that we would associate with such speech.  It's one thing to debate intelligently various ideas, but to start swearing at one another and acting like high schoolers is immature and petty.  Let's keep it honorable, even when we disagree, and respect one another as we express ourselves.   
Ryan Messano Added Mar 6, 2017 - 8:37pm
Yes, you and MJ are right, if accepted, it will be revised.
 
I agree, little good can come from a site where lying and swearing are allowed.  Those who engage in it are very disruptive.
Dawn Foss Added Mar 6, 2017 - 8:46pm
Yes, and as I quoted in another post, 
“Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect.”- Eleanor Roosevelt.
 
 
EXPAT Added Mar 6, 2017 - 9:42pm
crock of shit
More politely known as "a pile of poo", the term "a crock of shit" derives from an ancient Roman custom that coincidentally took place in Roman times. It referred literally to a pot into which people would excrete if they were particularly bored by whichever freelance philosoper happened to be talking rubbish at the time. The Roman empire employed crock-monitors who were each assigned to a philosopher, and it was their job to monitor the pot (or crock). Should the crock become full, it would be presented to the philospher, who was obliged, by law, to announce that it bore a remarkable resembence to himself, thus proclaiming he was full of crap and was, in fact, talking a crock of shit.
"I am talking a crock of shit", Socretes 429 BC
EXPAT Added Mar 6, 2017 - 9:44pm
Meaning of “a crock (of shit)” in the English Dictionary



british dictionary


British







name="aTabEntrybritish_original">Britishname="aTabEntrybritish">British







"a crock (of shit)" in British English

 See all translations





 

a crock (of shit)
US offensive

something that is not true:
"I'm really sorry!" "What a crock - you are not."










(Definition of “a crock (of shit)” from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)


EXPAT Added Mar 6, 2017 - 9:50pm
Grow up Ryan!
 
Origin and Etymology of shit

Middle English *shit, from Old English scite; akin to Old English -scītan to defecate

First Known Use: circa 1526
Bill H. Added Mar 6, 2017 - 10:32pm
 
You best read up on what qualifies as slander.
When you call people "liars", "drug users", "prostitutes", or "devil worshippers" as an example without proof, you have slandered them.
The same laws apply to internet posts as they do to speech.
And no, you are not the only one out here that I have seen commit defamation as in slander and libel.
You probably feel safe behind your keyboard throwing rocks, but one must remember that there are a lot of crazies all over on the internet, and being as public as you are with your profile, you might just trigger the wrong person who would waste not time in tracking you down and at the very least, cause you some major legal problems.
 
Dave Volek Added Mar 7, 2017 - 12:39am
Here's an idea. If WB is to be a moderated discussion group, why not create more than one version of it? In this way, the moderator(s) of each version will create their own culture by whatever rules they deem appropriate. And that culture will flourish or flounder based on the rules and enforcement of the rules of that culture. 
 
In this way, we can still keep the free-for-all version, which we have now. Ryan can have his own version. Maybe there will be others willing to step in and offer a differently moderated version of WB.
 
Everyone has a free choice to participate in whatever version they want! People will find the version they prefer. Win-win-win-win!
 
And we don't have to argue who is right about the kind of moderation (or lack thereof) WB really needs. Just create a version and go for it. The number of active followers will prove who has the better set of rules.
 
P.S. I don't want to be one of those moderators. But I would like to be part of discussion group where differing opinions can raised with points and counter points being challenged.
 
 
 
Shane Dean Added Mar 7, 2017 - 1:51am
Really good thoughts, Dave!  Perhaps there needs to be smaller groups within WB that moves stuff up to the larger whole.
Mircea Negres Added Mar 7, 2017 - 2:04am
Ryan, I hear you. Good ideas here, and they generally sound workable. The problem will be how to define lying as opposed to merely believing something incorrect is the truth, because I've made mistakes more than once. For example, I was once wrong (but certain I was right) about a Glock pistol model and after finding out my mistake, apologized to the guy next time I saw him. Even though I proofread all my articles, mistakes slip through, such as in my latest, "Beyond Frequency And Amplitude"- yet again, I realized the mistakes made, declared them and apologized. The problem is what happens when a writer makes a mistake and is called a liar before he or she has a chance to see it. Ain't none of us a Supreme Court judge and I'm willing to bet a lot of people will get lynched.
 
Oddly enough, at least three of my posts ("The darkness under the brightly shining sun", "The long short story" and "Beyond frequency and amplitude") contain profanity. That wasn't done to sound hip or cool, but because a)it actually happened that way, and b)there's no army in the world without cussing troops. This is tricky. Perhaps the best we can do at the moment is to agree that resorting to personal attacks and name-calling is not wanted on this site, then take it from there, but one thing is clear- we can talk till we're blue in the face, but what will matter is how Autumn and her brother respond to our ideas, then what they will do to enforce rules if any are eventually set out. Still, thank you for weighing in, your points made sense to me and much like any treaty, it all begins with people talking and exchanging ideas.
jon vonn Added Mar 7, 2017 - 2:38am
I agree with you. 
Doug Plumb Added Mar 10, 2017 - 12:04pm
The basic problems with censorship is that its possibility creates endless debate and unresolveable issues. It requires a power structure and they tend to grow with editions of new rules and re-interpretations of old ones.
Frederick Meekins Added Mar 10, 2017 - 6:44pm
Good to see you back :-)
Ryan Messano Added Mar 10, 2017 - 6:57pm
Thank you Frederick:), likewise it's good to see and read your posts.
 
Doug, holding people accountable to tell the truth and avoid profanity and lewdness worked just fine for America in the 1940's.  
 
Thank you Jon.
 
Thank you Mircea, and the lying is going to be blatant lying.  Like people saying other people are homosexual with no evidence, or calling other people racist with no evidence, and other nonsense, generally engaged in by liberal parrots.  
 
As for profanity, it adds little to nothing, IMO, and we are better off without it.  The greatest literature in history is generally free from it.
WarHammerRadio Added Mar 12, 2017 - 11:58am
Oh FFS, the Constitution of the USA does not eliminate profanity and the right to speak freely, including writing with profanity, which is subjective, and determined by the author.  If profanity offends your sensibilities, do not read it.  If an author feels it is fucking needed to make a fucking point, even though there are other words to use, because they are a cunning linguist and master debater, it is the authors choice, not the overlords of speech. 
 
Live free or urinate off does not have the same ring to it as live free or piss off. 
 
Where do these limp wristed, beta male, God Complex, simpletons come from?  Rhetorical question:  Parents met on Ancestry.com
 
jon vonn Added Mar 12, 2017 - 2:14pm
Virtue is what ever that particular society(people with power and or wealth) say it is.  It is not constant.    That mean it is personal and of no general value.
    Sex and sexual activity is of interest.  It is part of enjoying life for many. 
    You do admit that it s your personal opinion (and bias).  I read lots of books of different genre.  Expression of emotions in the 21st century are markedly different that the writing in the West of Edwardian and Victorian ages.  It is a class difference.  For the Nobles of those eras were hardly unfamiliar with the enjoyment of the game of sex.
     The Romans had very wild sex lives and they also had birth control. IMO you have been seduced by the facade of the Empire not the reality.   There is nothing wrong to arousing sexual desire. 
     Quoting Jonathan Irons: " People don’t want freedom. They want boundaries, rules. Protection. From invaders and from themselves. People need a leader who could give them both the support and the constraints to keep chaos at bay.  "*
   Yes, some people are like that.  Most are not in this individualistic culture.   We decide for ourselves. 
* http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/canada24s-club/articles/250487/title/top-ten-jonathan-irons-quotes-call-duty
Jeff Michka Added Mar 21, 2017 - 6:44pm
Seems ol Ryan is having an energy crisis: he needs more power.  Interesting who is willing to sell out to whom and their lack of reasons for it.