Depoliticize, please!

While I have been unfairly accused of peddling my political views in the guise Chaplin discussion, this overt political banter on the group is, indeed, a politicization of AMC.

Discussions of the Clinton scandals do not belong here...either side.

I am asking those with whom I tend to agree philosophically and politically to drop the subject.

I request that someone on other side of the question, perhaps Connie, do

Nope! It's your turn to be accused of 'trying to control the group,' George. Though somehow, since those accusations always come from a specific clique, I don't think that's likely to happen.

But I do notice that you are careful to push me onto 'the other side of the question,' which is typical of those who tend to polarize discussion here. The only 'side' I belong to on this issue is that of the mainstream, nationwide and worldwide.

As for the other 'side,' once again it appears to be that of vocal extremism.

Connie K.

I did. Ever since I made the request, the off-topic politicizing has ceased.

Unfortunately, you didn't have the guts or the honor to do the same.

Gobble, gobble!!!!!

Since the politicization has ceased, why should I need to make any request. It *was* your mess, and you cleaned it up.

Thank you!

And now, to eumlate Doug's inimitable wit and charm, SHUT UP!!!!!!

Connie K.

It was instigated equally by 'CC4Fun' and you stood mute as he carried on with it.

For someone who has been known to throw a tantrum at the tiniest analogy to any Clinton issues here, it was a predictably hypocritical posture on your part. From hereon, I regard your credibility on this issue as zero.

No it was not. Lou brought it up (of course), and CC4 responded. There can be only one instigator, George.

And I have no influence whatsoever over CC4.

I have about as much concern for your estimate of my credibility as you claim you have for my estimate of your intelligence.

You and Lou, I note, are rather poor judges of credibility.

Connie K.

Thanks for the dictionary lesson, but you're wrong again, Dr. Facts. Here is the exchange that kicked off the discussion. (The original topic was Joan Collins.)

Your attempts to discredit me are pathetic, George. Lou wrote on November 20:

Actually, I think I've become the resident Ken Starr of the group. I've been demonized, as is the typical leftist approach to winning arguments. Yet when all is said and done, I think I have a bit of good solid facts & information about CC that back my claims & tends to promote self-destruction among my critics.

And as Starr, I tend to have my disputes with the likes of uhm, let's say Hillary.....and uhm let's say David

When both of you desist from posting on me.

And I'll talk about what I want to talk about...as long as it is a 'legitimate tangent,' per your own statement about the purpose of the group:

<<However, the charter specifies that all matters related to Chaplin, directly or indirectly, may be discussed on this group. There is therefore a wide latitude for discussion, and I hope no one will feel unduly constrained in bringing up legitimate tangents.>>

Discrediting you has become institutionalized around here.

<<Actually, I think I've become the resident Ken Starr of the group. I've been demonized, as is the typical leftist approach to winning arguments. Yet when all is said and done, I think I have a bit of good solid facts & information about CC that back my claims & tends to promote self-destruction among my critics.

And as Starr, I tend to have my disputes with the likes of uhm, let's say Hillary.....and uhm let's say David

I'm glad you said this, George.

I recognize that you enjoy discussing Chaplin's political beliefs and circumstances regarding his exile perhaps more than, say, picking out continuity errors in 'The Count.' To each his own. It's still all Chaplin and still perfectly appropriate for this group.