The MSM has tried to make the case that internet news pages and bloggers are not actual news sources.  At one point several lawmakers were considering some sort of legislation to "license" or accredit what they felt were legitimate news sources.

 The MSM for years enjoyed being able to control the daily narrative and "filter" whatever they wanted from the POTUS.  Social Media has now changed that dynamic and the MSM doesn't like that.

Well, my ban on POA was lifted today and I was finally able to read the message that the mods sent me regarding my ban and the statement below is what got me banned.

"I just find the whole thing bizarre. Her claiming she is part Native American to gain personal and political advantage and Trump calling her Pocahontas in a derisively bigoted manner. I just don’t get it. And it has nothing to do with either one’s political affiliation."

And here is the rule they say I violated.

"Political/Religious discussions are prohibited. This includes any language or discussion deemed to be political or politically charged in nature as well as any religious speech or text. This language is exceedingly destructive to the cohesion of the community and as such will not be tolerated."

So I guess saying that two politicians ,one from each side, are being stupid is deemed as being political.  And here I thought I was being nonpartisan.

Does she only have a land line? Did a tree just take down the line to her house? 

You can look up her property, look up the owners of her neighbors, try to find their info and try to call them.

http://gis.guilfordcountync.gov/guilfordjs/

Do you mean like [...keyboard diarrhea...]

I think we need to put together a moderator budget to purchase participation trophies for those who, through no fault of our own, weren’t chosen to be Supreme Leaders of the Galaxy (a/k/a “moderators”) yet still need to be validated as being important and valued members of this board.

• Telling the Future for Dummies® - An in-depth analysis of why announcing moderators on an unmoderated forum might cause unrest
• Circling the Wagons - Why it has no place on the moderation team
• Transparency - Not just for windows

Back
Description
Product description
Something has been going wrong on many college campuses in the last few years. Speakers are shouted down. Students and professors say they are walking on eggshells and are afraid to speak honestly. Rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide are rising—on campus as well as nationally. How did this happen?

First Amendment expert Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt show how the new problems on campus have their origins in three terrible ideas that have become increasingly woven into American childhood and education: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; always trust your feelings; and life is a battle between good people and evil people. These three Great Untruths contradict basic psychological principles about well-being and ancient wisdom from many cultures.  Embracing these untruths—and the resulting culture of safetyism—interferes with young people’s social, emotional, and intellectual development. It makes it harder for them to become autonomous adults who are able to navigate the bumpy road of life.

Lukianoff and Haidt investigate the many social trends that have intersected to promote the spread of these untruths. They explore changes in childhood such as the rise of fearful parenting, the decline of unsupervised, child-directed play, and the new world of social media that has engulfed teenagers in the last decade. They examine changes on campus, including the corporatization of universities and the emergence of new ideas about identity and justice. They situate the conflicts on campus within the context of America’s rapidly rising political polarization and dysfunction.

This is a book for anyone who is confused by what is happening on college campuses today, or has children, or is concerned about the growing inability of Americans to live, work, and cooperate across party lines.