Al is right that people are using book pics to get past the no politics policy of WBF. Book pics would have been fine if an all out discussion was allowed. Now someone can give out a message, but it is not allowed to discuss or respond to him. Half methods are worse. Btw, "book burning" is a very daily mail headline. Shock the reader without addressing the subject
What's Everyone Reading
- Thread starter steve williams
- Start date
Al is right that people are using book pics to get past the no politics policy of WBF. Book pics would have been fine if an all out discussion was allowed. Now someone can give out a message, but it is not allowed to discuss or respond to him. Half methods are worse. Btw, "book burning" is a very daily mail headline. Shock the reader without addressing the subject
So you cannot accept the idea that someone is actually reading a book that might interest them or others. Secret subtext everywhere booga booga. And you want to set the conditions for a picture? Thank goodness Steve and Ron are more enlightened.
No that is not the point at all. You are possibly purposefully side stepping the point and deflecting to the book
Don't come whining to me about people's motives.
If you cannot accept the policy, talk to the forum owners.
Ked said it perfectly in his answer to this somewhat condescending post of yours above.
No one's whining, you keep making posts about whining, book burning, to make the post you are replying to sound like that. You don't address the main point of censorship at all. The book pic should be deleted, or replies to it allowed. But of course since the book is to yours and Ron's political bias, this selective censorship suits you.
Ked is right. Half methods are worse.
Ron, I remember when there once was a thread about Covid I think (it might have been another topic) , and you made an exception about political themes when it came to the constitution and constitutional law. That exception did not work out at all as it was taken as license to discuss politics in general anyway, and the thread ended in chaos and disaster -- at least from a WBF political rule standpoint.
No half measures please. No politics is no politics.
Not allowing political book covers on WBF has nothing to do with "book burning". It is no more censorship than the censorship that does not allow for political discussions in the first place.
I'll tell you right now, the owners will not waiver on this. We do not discuss politics on this board. Period.
Tom
I just finished reading Operation Mincemeat! It was very interesting.
This is the book, which is thoroughly recommended.
Thank you for letting me know Mr. MacIntyre is on YT. I'll be sure to look for him.
Last edited:
No one said you should. The issue is that you are allowing political posts in terms of book pics
After digesting response to request for clarity on a removed post.
One element I neglected to post late yesterday evening is presented below.
Don't half bang a drum.
A book pic is not inherently political even if the book is. It is a statement of what that person is reading and as long as that reader makes no political comments about it (saying he likes the book is not political either) then it is not a political post. This should be obvious but there are always those who are triggered and can’t help but give a political opinion, which should be deleted.
Nothing I said was political, I was very specific in my wording. I would have posted the same commentary if someone posted a book by Rachel Maddow. If you want to learn about history, politics or civics, read a book written by an person in acidemia; not a political pundit that yells and screams on the airwaves.
Now if you want this thread to be about the posting of a picture of a book with no commentary, then please set those rules and I will be sure to abide by them.
Hi Howie,
What are you disagreeing with?
Our bright line rule is that mere photos of the covers of political books may be posted.
Or am I misunderstanding you?
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree with your thesis. Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that WBF has always allowed the posting of the photos of covers of all books, including political books.
The only thing that has changed, as far as I can tell, are some members' reactions merely to setting eyes on the cover of the photo of a book.
The only thing that went wrong here, as far as I can tell, is that we inadvertently allowed a political discussion to commence when we did not delete immediately the post soliciting comment and review of a political book whose cover photo had been posted.
Last edited:
Half measure as Ked and I said.
The political book covers will continue to elicit political discussion until you will modify your policy of not allowing political book pics in the first place.
You cannot have it both ways, Ron.
Last edited by a moderator:
I just do not see this as being intuitively obvious. It is not at all clear to me why one necessarily follows from the other. What is the organic source of certainty for you on this point? Please explain your thinking underlying this view.
Fortunately the rule allowing the posting of the photos of the covers of all books is a bright line rule. Unfortunately enforcing the ban on political discussion is subjective and requires judgment.
The former is objective; we promise to do our best on the latter.
That is where we are trying to get back to. Thank you.
But it seems over-broad to prohibit the posting of brief commentary on non-political books on this thread. For example, if someone posts the photo of a cover of a cooking book, another member may reasonably want to mention that he/she cooked a recipe from the book and liked it.
Do you think we simply should prohibit on this thread the posting of any comment of any kind on any book? Or should we prohibit on this thread the posting of comments only on political books?
Just wait until that bright line rule is invalidated by the inevitable responses that follow such posts.That's going to be fun.
You are trying to make rules that are impossible to follow, Ron, because they artificially disregard human nature. We are humans, not robots.
