Really? I only say because I think what I did was pretty spot-on. Of course, I didn't suspect that you'd like what I had to say, and that's alright. It's not uncommon to have three or four Obama threads on the front page at any time, so I think that having four similarly-topiced (not a word, but whatever), albeit very silly threads on the forum all at once was a pretty good quick simulation of the kind of annoyance that it is to wade through a single spammed topic to get to the threads that interest you. And that's what the topic spamming rule is all about; not stifling speech, but extending a common courtesy to your fellow members. Frankly, if we can't even do that, then we're no better than a collection of boardhogs. I like to think that we are better than that.

Not to impair anyone's FoS but we have a rule about topic spamming:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq...._item_language

We are not shutting down anyone's discussion, but these similar topics belong in the same thread.

And you're so full of yourself you didn't even notice that I didn't advocate this, I merely pointed out that there was only one way it could work if it was done. I don't think it's a good idea, but you couldn't see that.

The problem is that you don't post issues, you post attacks. You don't discuss issues, you preach one-sided holier-than-thou arrogance, and can't even see yourself doing it. You only have one agenda, and it has nothing to do with Subsim, or even General Topics. You hate Obama. We get it. What you don't get is that your same diatribe over and over gets old. You may not sink quite to the level of trolling, but you do sound like a broken record.

I suggest that Neal implement a new censor that changes "Obama" into "Our Reptillian Overlord"

An Obama "master thread" would be completely useless. It would amount to a single thread covering every US political subject that the President might weigh in on. It would be overcrowded, cacophonous, and impossible to have a discussion on because of all the overlap from issue to issue.

Put another way, just because many topics degenerate into Obama-bashing does not mean that they are not separate topics.

I also do not think that one single massive Obama (or Islam, or whatever) thread would accomplish much.

That said, Tak's point is quite valid and I agree with him that the spamming of particular topics is getting rather old. Particularly considering that the odds of changing anyone's opinions seem to be around nil here, no matter how solid the counter argument, or how thoroughly the original argument is ripped to shreds. This is one reason why I do not bother commenting on all the posts I disagree with, as I think it is largely a total waste of time on my part.

Anyhow I guess I shall have to get a bit more aggressive regarding the topic spamming rule. So I would suggest that people lay off the topic spamming, as I will eventually get annoyed with merging threads, and will start handing out infractions to repeat offenders. This doesn't limit your freedom to discuss (rant is probably the better word), but it does mean you should try to find a topic that is related to what you want to talk about in the first few pages of the forum before starting a new one.

Topic spamming, imo, when I see 4 or more threads on the same subject on the same page. I don't read all the Obama basjing threads, no more than I read all the Bush bashing threads. But if the same guy makes multiple posts on the same topic, in a short span of time, he is abusing the forum, and the topics can be merged. It's simple common sense.

And I think issue a warning or better yet one of these:

http://www.theoffside.com/files/2010/11/red-card.jpg

My .02 :yep:

short answer time......I do post issues, want a discussion, the trolls come in and it often degenerates.I do hate Obama, with good reason.I do not post the same thing over and over but I do often respond to various posts, my opinions don't change thread to thread, sorry.Yea I can be a little arrogant but does not bother me.

I did take it as you advocating locking threads.....which made me go :damn: misunderstanding on that part.

I've heard it said that one should never discuss politics or religion in polite company; I think that a corollary to that is that people will speak until they've heard everything they want to say.

I admire the community here on several levels, not the least of which has been the ability for it to remain, on the whole, functional and fairly tolerant despite the widely varying differences of opinion on widely disparate topics.

That said, I've also thumped my head on my desk in frustration when I see the same old chestnuts being dragged through the same old fires time and time again. It doesn't help when attitudes turn condescending and patronizing from one side or the other - that demonstrates a lack of respect for the other guy, and, in my opinion, is antithetical to how this community operates.

For the most part, I've felt comfortable here; I've had discussions in public and private with members whose opinions diverged from mine, only to find the differences weren't quite so vast as they initially appeared - but that can only happen when there's a willingness on both parts to meet somewhere on the bridge and talk it over. When condescension and arrogance move in, reasoned discourse moves out.

Rather than address the multitude of similar topics, I would respectfully suggest we all stop and take a look at what we're posting from how it may appear to the guy at the other end of the 'Net. I'm not suggesting self-censorship, but perhaps a little self-reflection.