Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Teddy, you are not the board moderator. sm

Posted By: Brunson on 2007-02-26
In Reply to: Gee, thought this was the lberal board. Guess not!! - Teddy

And liberals are posting on the conservative board and do you see us ordering them off?  You really have no tolerance.  And by the way, the little article about dissention in the ranks, it seems all isn't what it appears to be.  Shocker there.


http://newsbusters.org/


 




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Thanks Teddy :-)

I appreciate that and I hope someone can respond to the questions I raised.


Teddy

News Releases


For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337


HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology



Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).


“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”


In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.


In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.


According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.


Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.


Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on “Interpretation and Education (Director’s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the “history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”

“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,” Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”


Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred


See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation


8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship…Questions often arise round the presentation of geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events. (Emphasis added)


Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew


Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of “Faith-Based Parks”


Teddy...sm
I've been on break from the board too. Seems the older I get the less patience for time for ad nauseum reposts. Life is too precious.
Teddy...
You don't have to change anything unless, of course, you want to. This is the liberral board and you can post anything (except of course, anything derogatory about W). I meant to post this yesterday but just did not get around to it. It is difficult to be in the middle of a barrage of slams. I know I will try to answer a post, then get 2 more posts that are going on about something else and then I try to answer those and then they are telling me I never answered their posts, and then they talk about you to each other on the board and say **you didn't answer my question. That is what the left does.**It is hard to keep up and keep a civil tongue (keyboard) when you are alone amongst the opposition. However, do not give up or leave. Sometimes I find it necessary to take some time away from here, but at the very least I can say I kept up with them....rather than **I'm done with you. You are delusional. I am not talking to you any more.** I get a lot of that. You are not alone here.
Why Teddy...did not know you were such a fan...
why didn't you post what those posts were in REPLY to? Talk about your selective posting. LOL.
Whatever, Teddy, whatever...
you trot out the condescending prattle, I get really tired. Bottom line, I don't believe you. If you think that means I am calling you a liar, that is your problem. Why you cannot get a simple explanation is beyond me. Do you think if a person lies about one thing, that makes a person a liar? I save the term "liar" for a person I know lies continuously. Every one of us on this board has lied at one time about something. Does that mean we are all liars?? Get a grip.
Maybe Sam IS the moderator....

Are you the Moderator?
.
MODERATOR
That post you just deleted was reported to the FBI. It needs to stay on. I agree it is an awful post but you need to at least report the poster to the FBI tips line. It is not fair to let them say things like that and get away with it!
According to the moderator...
This message from the moderator can be found on the Company forum. The quote relevant to the above post is as follows:

"Not one single poster here has any knowledge or information on who is really posting so stop posting like you do. Each one of you enjoy an anonymous privilege.

Disagreements are one thing but this tit-for-tat cyberbullying will stop. It is cyberbullying when you try to make other posters believe you have some type of knowledge or insight as to who is posting."

There is more than one liberal poster on this forum, so please stop accusing us of being the same person.
According to the moderator...
This message from the moderator can be found on the Company forum. The quote relevant to the above post is as follows:

"Not one single poster here has any knowledge or information on who is really posting so stop posting like you do. Each one of you enjoy an anonymous privilege.

Disagreements are one thing but this tit-for-tat cyberbullying will stop. It is cyberbullying when you try to make other posters believe you have some type of knowledge or insight as to who is posting."

There is more than one liberal poster on this forum, so please stop accusing us of being the same person.
Tired Teddy....
You need to get a new shtick. The condescending has passed onto obnoxious...in other words, its gettin' tired, Teddy.

Yep...believe it or not, I really do know there is a written record of all posts. I just don't know how I am going to sleep at night worrying about how you feel about my posts. <--that last sentence was meant to be facetious, just to help you recognize it.

If you are trying to come across as snooty, you nailed it.

Have a good night.
Pardon me, Teddy....
but just because someone posts here what they do, does not mean they do it. And if I do not choose to blow my own horn and brag about all the wonderful things I do, please do not interpret that to mean that I do not do something. I am retired and therefore can no longer serve, that does not mean I have never served or if I was able to serve I would not be right there. Please do not preach to me about involvement. And please to answer my question. Why do you not take this peacenik talk to the people who threaten the peace? Unless of course you are a terrorist apologist who thinks the United States is the big bad wolf who causes all the problems. If you believe that, then you should be on the first plane out.

Last time I looked, I and no other American had flown a plane into a building and killed 3000 people in one day. Last time I looked, I or any other American had not bombed embassies, bombed the Cole, downed the plane over Lockerbie, bombed the World Trade Center the first time...you are sooo typical of the angry liberal...and so typical...*my boyfriend says* *Michael Moore says* *Lurker says* Have you ever, my friend, had an independent thought while your butt is sitting there comfy in in YOUR chair??

And please to do the research...there are a great many in Congress who have children serving right now. I know people personally who are serving right now or have children serving right now. You might want to jump back down off that high horse and check out your rancid statements.

As long as we are on butts...you make mine hurt.

Have a good day!!
Dear Teddy....
you are So very angry, because you are so frustrated. And the way you post is far from *sassy.* I will leave it at that.
I am going to go out on a limb here, Teddy....
We both believe what we say, even though total opposition. We are both convinced we are *right.* We are both worried about the future of the country. You get frustrated, I get frustrated. You can't imagine why I believe what I believe, I can't imagine why you believe what you believe....and so it goes. You get frustrated and lash out and I become the enemy. I get frustrated and bite my knuckles.

Let me try to make you understand where I am coming from on Bush and on the military. First let me say...I give due respect to anyone holding the office of the Presidency while they are in office, and I will until they disgrace it...like Nixon did by breaking the law, like Clinton did by breaking the law. I condemn both and let neither slide. The point being...now Bush is President. Congress authorized use of force and he did it. We have soldiers fighting as we speak. I support our military. I support our military no matter WHO is President. I supported our military during Nam and we had a Dem President also during that time, and when John Kennedy sent more troops to Nam I supported him. It is not necessary that the President not be a Democrat for me to support decisions. Understand this about me if you do not understand anything else...even if I did not think Congress was correct to authorize use of force, even if I did not think Bush was correct to exercise that right and send troops, the fact remains, THEY ARE THERE, and I will support them AND their mission until they come home, because their morale and their safety and their ability to win is more important than my personal opinion of the Congress or the President, whoever he (or she) might be.

I hope this somewhat clarifies where I come from at least on that issue.
No it doesn't Teddy. sm
I can see examples of not agreeing on the very first page and they are still there. 
Bye, Teddy....until the next time....
you do a drive-by attack.  Wish I could say it was good to see you again.    You have a GOOD day now!
What are you the moderator or something. Are you tracking IP's...sm
Are you attempting to intimidate people from posting. Is it against forum rules to post under more than one moniker (not that I do - I'm always Democrat). But what sense does it make turning people in to the FBI for their posts on a politics board. Good grief. I would think the people posting here would be the least of Bush's worries.

Are you tapping my phone calls? Whooaaa I'm paranoid. Do you know my first and last name? Do you have a life? Geeze Louise.
The moderator said not to bash.
She did not say that people with opposing viewpoints could not post. 
Brunson was a moderator??
Well, that sure explains a lot, doesn't it...
To Moderator (please see message)

Thank you very much for editing my post, removing the portions you felt were inappropriate but keeping the majority of my post intact.


When I first heard the candidate make the statement, I, too, felt the language was "aggressive" and "strange."


Why do you feel sorry for the moderator?
You object to my post or think the moderator should? Just curious.
MODERATOR: Please see message.
Could we please have a separate political board to discuss important issues without the constant barrage of posts by the person who calls herself sam? Let sam and her followers have their own board to monopolize. Give the rest of us another board where we can discuss important political issues in a respectful adult manner. Many of us are reluctant to partake in the political forum nightmare that sam has created, and a lot of good posters and important issues are being kept from the board due to the unrelenting attacks by sam. All we ask is that you provide a political forum that is off limits to sam, so the rest of us can discuss the real issues. Thank you for your consideration.

I agree too. Thank you moderator. nm
nm
Again, I apologize, Moderator.
Thank you for deleting the offensive word; thereby letting me know that it was inappropriate. I will be more careful in the future. Thank you for your patience and understanding!
You need to notify the moderator so that
x
No, I do not think the moderator should remove...sm
this post. I think that everyone no matter what party should be aware that racism is alive and well in the good old USA.
Yes,, scream MODERATOR when you don't
what you want but other posters have sat here and read one racist post after another made by you and others. You think you're the only person with a thought? I am referring to an audio out there from Harlem, right out of the horses' mouths. The audio said nothing racist, so why do you think it is racist? You live in Harlem? If you did, you would know what is going on then. I have several friends who live in and around Harlem and know exactly what I am talking about and they wouldn't perceive this as racist, so why do you?
MODERATOR..someone named Mrs. M
nm
You're a class act, Teddy.
I hope you decide to stay. 
Excellent post, Teddy!
Thank you for your eloquent post. Hopefully, the trolls won't come out to tell you that you are guilty of treason and should leave the country because YOU are not willing to avert your eyes and do not pretend we do not commit atrocities.

You are in good company:
*Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere* Martin Luther King

*The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it* Albert Einstein
Another wonderful post, Teddy.

Obviously, no human being on earth can say with any degree of credibility that agnostics call out to Jesus when the time is near.  Nobody can possibly know what every other person on earth calls out, if anything. 


For some, peace comes from religion.  Others are able to find peace within themselves.  Some never find it.  Each person must follow their heart and brain and find the niche that works best for them. 


I guess Islamic fascists aren't the only ones who try to force their religion on everyone else.  The difference is that the United States isn't supposed to favor one religion over another.  We're supposed to be a nation that has religious freedom. 


This is especially dangerous during a time when war with religious fanatics is involved.  To pledge undying, unquestioning loyalty and support of Israel in political matters (even if some feel they have acted badly) soley for personal religious reasons (to insure one's place in heaven) is very dangerous to the United States and the rest of the world.  This is why politics and religion don't mix, and this is why the United States is becoming such a scary place.   :-(


You started the condescending, Teddy...
read your post again. It was very condescending. You talked down to me, and I thought it might be fun to respond from down there where you put me. You talked down to me and you were rude. You know it and I know it. I was just giving it back to you. Now that we are past the kid stuff, could you please answer my question, and enlighten me as to what the *big picture* was that I missed and leave the condescending attitude out of it. As to being a dumb condescending Polack...your words, and not mine...it is so hilarious to me the parallels. My guy is of Polack/German ancestry and he is standing behind me as I type, and we are enjoying a good laugh, so thank you from this Choctaw/Cherokee/Irish gal and her dumb Polack guy. LOL. We are looking forward to the *big picture* point, though.
Sorry....I meant for the above to post under Teddy's...
post below titled Viet Nam and WWII...sorry.
Teddy, give it a rest already. sm
We have, through the years, LONG before you were posting here, made a distinct difference between liberals and leftists. If you would actually read the posts, instead of reading Ann Coulter, which for some reason you feel a Clockwork Orangish type of inescapability to read, you would see that.  But instead in post after post after post you go on and on with a litany of wrongs against the poor liberals on the conservative board.  Give it a rest already.  As far as your assertion that Vietnam and Korea were civil wars, well, I am not quite sure how to address that gigantic historial distortion.  I won't even try.
And Teddy Roosevelt is turning over in his sm
grave about the so-called Republicans nowdays...
If anyone knows who Lifelong Democrat is, Teddy...
it would certainly be YOU. Funny how the posts and attitude are so SIMILAR. If anyone cares to, they can go back and compare. The alter egos all like to do the same thing....hide behind different monikers and take pot shots. It is easy to tell, looking at all the postings here, what is going on. As to sarcasm, accusation and putdown...anyone who reads my initial post and then those of LLD and now this one can tell who is the queen of that mode. I would invite anyone to check out the LLD and Teddy posts, among others, and they will know the truth. Most of the posters here on the Liberal board are not of that mindset.

I never said all the posters on the liberal board were one person, and I did not say it last night. Funny how when it was mentioned *Teddy* showed up. I know its you and you know its you. Most of the other posters know its you. And for some reason you have a real problem with me and love to swoop in and attack, and the posts are always the same. Condescending, holier-than-thou....it's like a signature. Methinks she doth protest too much.
For the record, Teddy/Taiga....
the rest of the post said when it wasn't in response to what had been thrown at me first. Methinks you are very guilty of what you always accuse me of....cutting and pasting out of context. Teddy is taking over again.
Yes, I did, Teddy....read the whole post.
I said show some that were not responses to baits or barbs thrown at me by piglet primarily. That is exactly what I said. Again, out of context.

As to Teddy/Taiga...I knew you only as Teddy (and a few other monikers by style of posting), and I do lean back toward that moniker when the posts lean in that direction, because under that moniker is when you were more likely to bait, demean, and ridicule. In short, "Teddy" seemed to be more "cranky" more often than does "Taiga."

As to posting as Observer....I don't know about that. No one was posting as Observer when I started posting using that moniker. Which has been quite some time now.

As to when someone does it first, why respond in kind? For a long time I did not. But I guess, like you, after a prolonged period of being baited, demeaned, and ridiculed, I got "cranky" too and responded in kind. So I guess we have that in common. Like I said...I am learning at the feet of the masters.

Some who post here tho, do not appear to be "cranky." Baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing seem to be in their nature (hence the Ann Coulter of the liberal board comment). I don't appreciate Ann Coulter's brand of humor either, by the way. I don't find baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing amusing. By anyone, on any side of any aisle.
Brunson...remember Teddy?
Teddy and Taiga are one in the same, though she adamantly denied it until she tripped herself up and finally had to admit it. However, the truth eventually catches up and she just had to be her...if you know what I mean. Would not surprise me if she was the one hounding you. The Teddy side of the personality definitely has/had a mean streak.
Not even close Teddy/Taiga....
not EVEN close. lol.
Maybe because she is not Teddy Roosevelt and it isn't 1900?

How Obama is like Teddy Roosevelt.
1. Attended both Harvard and Columbia.
2. Shared interest in and promotion of civil service.
3. As an author: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors "Not since Theodore Roosevelt has an American politician this close to the pinnacle of power produced such a sustained, highly personal work of literary merit before being definitively swept up by the tides of political ambition."
4. Candidate of change/reform. http://obama4usa.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/major-endorsements-for-barack-obama/October 19, 2008, Bryan College Station Texas Eagle newspaper endorsement: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan — these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be. Barack Obama is such a leader.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/331720/barack_obama_following_the_foot_steps.html?page=2&cat=8 "Barack Obama Following the Foot Steps of Theodore Roosevelt Who was a Reformer"
5. Champion of worker's rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_endorsements#Labor_unions to check out Labor union and union leadership endorsements. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/obama_wrights.cfm to find a nifty summary of Obama's initiatives and policies on worker's rights.
6. Advocate of "ordinary citizen." Obama's appeal to the middle class is legendary and the current bone of contention on the McCain Joe the Plumber campaign trail. 'Nuff said.
7. Obama on Trustbusting: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/files/aai-%20Presidential%20campaign%20-%20Obama%209-07_092720071759.pdf
8. On corporate corruption: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
9. On regulation: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-27-economy-speech_N.htm "Fix Markets Regulations." Specifically relative to interstate commerce, the following are bills either sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama: Senate Bill (SB) 767 and SB 768 on fuel economy, SB 1306 on product safety and hazardous materials, SB 2132 on product safety prohibiting lead content . Regulation in E-commerce, credit card, banking, mortgage lending sectors.
10. Universal health care and national health insurance. Well known support, as is his support for conservation and the environment.
11. Judicial reform that would restore integrity of judicial discretion.

Teddy wrote books about something other than himself!
You can hardly compare Obama's narcissistic biographies with Teddy's books where he researched and wrote about something other than himself!

I will support whatever the moderator decides.
I only ask that the moderator review the politics forum and make an objective decision based on the findings. It is my personal opinion that the forum has spun way out of control due to one poster in particular, making it impossible for others to participate.
The Moderator has an excellent idea.
Use the Golden Rule. Just ignore the crude postings and move on. Once she has no one to spew at, she'll quit soon enough.
We were told by moderator -no more attacks on
nm
Moderator is watching but you are incorrect.
The OP is not advocating but entertaining a valid thought about a past medical condition.

Moderator
Sorry, Moderator...I will be more careful in the future.
Thank you for deleting it, thereby letting me know it was inappropriate. Again, I apologize.
the moderator asked them to look at and speak to each other -
it was not done to be intimidating - he was actually trying to follow the directions he was given.
Funny that the moderator disagrees
personally attacked.