Cleveland Nightlife Forum Index
    
Calendar

Post new topic   Reply to topic New permissions & complaints
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Cleveland Nightlife Forum Index : Suggestions, Support, and Bug Reports
View previous topic : View next topic
Posted by: Tymezup Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:11 am
Joined: 01 Feb 2004  Posts: 5295
 Post Post subject: New permissions & complaints

Location: Cleveland, OH
Back to top


We reached our limit, over 50 gigs of traffic this month on the site. Much of which is due to googlebot searching the site almost daily. Due to this, I had to make it so you MUST BE LOGGED IN to view all forums except events.

Additionally, I've gotten a lot of comments lately about excessive stupidity going on in the events threads. I'm gonna ask again that all the inside jokes be kept out of them.

I am considering making the event reviews section MUST BE LOGGED IN TO VIEW as I would imagine that is the one getting the most traffic.


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number

Posted by: Tymezup Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 8:49 am
Joined: 01 Feb 2004  Posts: 5295
 Post Post subject:

Location: Cleveland, OH
Back to top


Disregad, I'm putting it back. Our admin just tripled our traffic.


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number

Posted by: Archived Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 9:52 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 2638
 Post Post subject: Re: New permissions & complaints

Location: Omnipresence, Ohio
Back to top


Doug Burkhart wrote:
Additionally, I've gotten a lot of comments lately about excessive stupidity going on in the events threads. I'm gonna ask again that all the inside jokes be kept out of them.


maybe you should contact the offenders via PM.


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: Tymezup Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 9:54 am
Joined: 01 Feb 2004  Posts: 5295
 Post Post subject: Re: New permissions & complaints

Location: Cleveland, OH
Back to top


Mark Strauss wrote:
Doug Burkhart wrote:
Additionally, I've gotten a lot of comments lately about excessive stupidity going on in the events threads. I'm gonna ask again that all the inside jokes be kept out of them.


maybe you should contact the offenders via PM.


Probably so. Wish you could do mass PM's Wink


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number

Posted by: Jamie Tyler Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:08 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 4477
 Post Post subject: Re: New permissions & complaints

Location: sagamore hills
Back to top


Doug Burkhart wrote:
Additionally, I've gotten a lot of comments lately about excessive stupidity going on in the events threads. I'm gonna ask again that all the inside jokes be kept out of them.


qualify 'excessive stupidity'.

The only way you're going to eliminate 'stupidity' is limit access to the threads.


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: Random(seed) Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Level 3 Dungeon Master
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:31 am
Joined: 05 Feb 2006  Posts: 3606
 Post Post subject: Re: New permissions & complaints

Location: Cleveland
Back to top


Jamie Tyler wrote:
Doug Burkhart wrote:
Additionally, I've gotten a lot of comments lately about excessive stupidity going on in the events threads. I'm gonna ask again that all the inside jokes be kept out of them.


qualify 'excessive stupidity'.

The only way you're going to eliminate 'stupidity' is limit access to the threads.


Witch in turn is elitest (who judges stupidity) which in turn makes this all non-pub which in turn makes the whole system pointless. Whitch still wont teach me how to really spell witch.

Seriously just cause I KNOW people love to bitch about me and Im sure Ive been an offender I'll settle down but if something is public NO ONE has a right to bitch about the content it contains, else if become something altogether different.

_________________
Tek-Know? Website

Re(Vision)
Every Weds @ Annabell's [Ak]

"Minimal house-no is the shit"


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Posted by: Random(seed) Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Level 3 Dungeon Master
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:55 am
Joined: 05 Feb 2006  Posts: 3606
 Post Post subject:

Location: Cleveland
Back to top


And I wonder the motivations of the complainers?
Do I smell censorship?
Elitism?
Cry baby-ism?
Makes ya think a bit if you stand back and ponder.

By the way dougie fresh, Im glad this forum is here even if most peoples avoid it because of the "scenesterism" it kinda promotes, thats not its fault, its ours.

_________________
Tek-Know? Website

Re(Vision)
Every Weds @ Annabell's [Ak]

"Minimal house-no is the shit"


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Posted by: Tymezup Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:57 am
Joined: 01 Feb 2004  Posts: 5295
 Post Post subject: Re: New permissions & complaints

Location: Cleveland, OH
Back to top


Random(seed) wrote:

if something is public NO ONE has a right to bitch about the content it contains, else if become something altogether different.


If the purpose of said public forum (events announcements) is to announce and offer a place for people to ask public questions; off topic discussion is counterproductive to its purpose. We are all guilty of it, and as cliques develop and people get to know each other better and become more comfortable we tend to not see the bigger picture. Opinion is a touchy subject. No one needs to shit on someone else's art just because they are not into it. Arguements about "criticism" being productive will come up; and I agree, however when it comes to things based PURELY in matter of taste that is not criticism unless that criticism takes matters of taste into consideration.

That was confusing Razz


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number

Posted by: Avalon Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Nightlife Goddess
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:00 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 1922
 Post Post subject:

Location: Cleveland
Back to top


I wouldn't read half the event threads if there weren't some of the jokes and silliness in them. It makes them that much more interesting. If it's promoters...I can understand some complaints about too much stupid criticism but the jokes and banter sometimes give their events more attention/hits/etc....that they otherwise would not have. If I wasn't reading what friends, etc... wrote in some threads I'd never bother looking in all the threads.

Just my 2 cents. (Man I sound like Jamie)

But hey....if there's to be no banter...there should just be a calendar, and only promoters should be able to update with relevant info. Or something in which vital "information" timeslots, directions, etc...always stays at the top of the thread.

Maybe something where promoters can choose to allow commentary or not allow commentary with their events listings....like it's either all or nothing?


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Posted by: Random(seed) Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Level 3 Dungeon Master
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:06 am
Joined: 05 Feb 2006  Posts: 3606
 Post Post subject: Re: New permissions & complaints

Location: Cleveland
Back to top


Doug Burkhart wrote:
Random(seed) wrote:

if something is public NO ONE has a right to bitch about the content it contains, else if become something altogether different.


If the purpose of said public forum (events announcements) is to announce and offer a place for people to ask public questions; off topic discussion is counterproductive to its purpose. We are all guilty of it, and as cliques develop and people get to know each other better and become more comfortable we tend to not see the bigger picture. Opinion is a touchy subject. No one needs to shit on someone else's art just because they are not into it. Arguements about "criticism" being productive will come up; and I agree, however when it comes to things based PURELY in matter of taste that is not criticism unless that criticism takes matters of taste into consideration.

That was confusing Razz


Nono, well put. But the question becomes who defines this "purpose"? In reality if what you stated was the only purpose than it should be a bulitin only with all questions being PM only. Otherwise a BBS is by nature a discussion system that is defined by the people who participate, NOT those who host it.

And Avalon is also correct (just saw that), we are in agreement.

Now granted I do banter a little, I hint. Most the time I am TRYING to put a spike into someones coffee so that they DO PROVE ME WRONG. I like to be wrong, it shows room for growth and that there is still more out there for me to find. Sometimes I heckle just to make people try that much HARDER to get me to shut up. Its the nature of the beast. You'll never see me go "hey you soandso your a freaking idiot" (well there was this one kid really into trance.....) cause THEN the spirit of what these discussion are about is lost and becomes pointless.

_________________
Tek-Know? Website

Re(Vision)
Every Weds @ Annabell's [Ak]

"Minimal house-no is the shit"


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Posted by: Random(seed) Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Level 3 Dungeon Master
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:23 am
Joined: 05 Feb 2006  Posts: 3606
 Post Post subject:

Location: Cleveland
Back to top


And is it just me or is EVERYONE really jumpy latley?

_________________
Tek-Know? Website

Re(Vision)
Every Weds @ Annabell's [Ak]

"Minimal house-no is the shit"


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Posted by: Tymezup Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:39 am
Joined: 01 Feb 2004  Posts: 5295
 Post Post subject:

Location: Cleveland, OH
Back to top


When you are part of the "inner circle" that gets the jokes; then it is cool and funny. However, if you aren't then I wonder. I've always like to read inside jokes and figure them out and I know that's part of my personality. I don't know if the same can be said for everyone else. I'm definately up in the air about this one -- I was only asking to tone that one down.

The "sucks" part, in that context makes sense. However the situation I'm trying to avoid is this:

Promoter (who is not part of the message board clique) posts an event. Promoter has no desire to take an active role in messageboardland; nor does he know people's personal drama or intent. Promoter does see that every discussion about "matters of taste" turns into a drama. Promoter does finally decide to post here and gets a "this sucks" comment as first response. That makes the site look bad in the eyes of anyone who wants to come here looking for information.

I've heard plenty if IRL comments about local promoters and djs and even about their djs skills. Out of respect, a lot of that stuff doesn't get posted here. No one will step on a friend's toes -- especially if they are throwing events or bringing guest djs into town. As long as the music is good or halfway acceptable (who cares if your up there wrecking music you don't otherwise get to hear regularly -- as long as your into it then its cool), but as soon as somone books a music genre your not into (matter of taste) we have to hear "this sucks". Point in case = disco party at Touch. I happen to know that dude that is coming in is SICK behind the decks.


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number

Posted by: Alexandru Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Trancecracker
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:42 am
Joined: 03 Jun 2005  Posts: 1265
 Post Post subject:

Location: Columbus
Back to top


I was going to say... 50 GB of bandwidth is a very low limit.

I had no idea this forum was using anywhere near that much, but that is still quite the low limit...


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

Posted by: Jamie Tyler Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:25 pm
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 4477
 Post Post subject:

Location: sagamore hills
Back to top


Doug you're talking about two different things here, or you're trying to start at one thing and make it lead into another. jokes and banter in event threads is one thing, saying that an event 'sucks' is another thing altogether.

At this juncture my opinion is that if you start regulating what can go into threads you will dilute the honesty of what's being discussed. I also think that people should have enough class to not simply say 'this sucks'. If you have a legitimate beef with an event then yeah, it should be posted, but if you just want to say it sucks you should just shut up. I need to follow this myself a little better than I have at times, but so be it. So, I'd suggest dealing with chronic bitchers privately and if that doesn't work VTB them and let the majority rule.

Now, as far as banter in threads (e.g. stout's propensity for drinking red wine and barfing) I don't see anything wrong with that, and if a promoter has an issue with minor threadjacks and silly crap like that perhaps they should find a new hobby as they have too much time on their hands. They should also realize, as Valerie stated, that such silly crap keeps people reading the threads. Without some silliness you'd have nothing in the events threads except promoters telling us how wonderful their parties are going to be, which would be lame.

BTW you should point the complainers to the cleveland.com forums so they can see what real bitching is like if they don't already know. Anyone who gets their panties in a bunch over this forum and it's rather tame bitcching and criticism really needs to get out more.


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: Tymezup Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:36 pm
Joined: 01 Feb 2004  Posts: 5295
 Post Post subject:

Location: Cleveland, OH
Back to top


Jamie, yeah, in that last response I thought I made it clear that I was talking about two things.

A) Banter in threads

B) Chronic Bitching.


I've been clearn on the chronic bitching complaint; and the reason I'm kinda lumping them into one is that chronic bitching often leads to banter in the threads. Usually that banter reveles all, so it is cool.

Generally speaking, however, banter in the threads I am 50/50 on, and all I asked is that people be concious of it.

A lot of the discussions that have come out of the forum the last little bit have been good. I certainly wouldn't want to stifle that; and I'm not asking for "gee... that looks swell" on every event; but as usual I am saying that unless you have a valid point --then "this sucks" is best left out.


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number

Posted by: graph Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 hublugggggghhhh
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:13 pm
Joined: 06 Apr 2004  Posts: 8898
 Post Post subject:

Location: 216/412
Back to top


GEORGE WASHINGTON 1732-99

1st PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1789-97

Father of his Country. The hallowed phrase expresses everything that was unique about President Washington. For all other Presidents - even Thomas Jefferson - the office was the climax of their lives, their greatest opportunity for fame. Washington alone was greater than his post. He had to make decisions for the first time, and thus lay down guidelines for the future. He set the precedents that others would have to follow. His greatest precedent was himself. Without him there might not have been a presidency at all. The Founding Fathers might have settled for some form of collective leadership or cabinet government. And then, although he had a characteristically modest idea of what the President should be and do, the fact that their great man had found the job worth undertaking enhanced its value in the eyes of all Americans. The fact that he did it so well reinforced the effect, by showing that there would always be some useful work for an honourably ambitious President. Washington, in short, created the presidency in his own image, and handed it on, a precious burden, to his successors, as perhaps his greatest memorial.

He was a remarkable man, but even he could not have done so much if the times had not favoured him. His countrymen desperately needed a hero. In the dark days of the Revolutionary War (and for most of the time they were very dark) only the inflexible figure of General Washington offered any hope. Benjamin Franklin might be having his diplomatic triumphs as the American representative in Paris, but Paris was a long way away. The General was near at hand, visibly struggling with his country's foes, not only the British; he also had to deal with traitors; with mutinous, ill-trained, ill-disciplined troops; with a dilatory Congress; corrupt suppliers; and, worst of all, with incredibly short-sighted, mean, incompetent state legislatures which were, nevertheless, his source of pay and supplies. Groaning inwardly, Washington stood firm, and in due course had his reward, when the British surrendered at Yorktown. That was the turning point, although the war dragged on for another two years. In 1783 Washington returned to New York in triumph, thus blotting out the memory of his rapid retreat from the city in 1776. Then he lost no time in resigning his commission and hurrying home to Virginia; but his glory followed him. He had given the Americans faith in themselves, and notably justified it. They could not forget him. He was inevitably recalled to be the first head of the new government.

His achievements as President did nothing to diminish his fame in the long run, although for a few years party warfare did not spare even his great name. His first cabinet was one of the strongest in American history, with John Adams as Vice-President, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State (dealing with foreign affairs). Over the full eight years of Washington's two terms in office Adams was perhaps the most useful to him of these men, sharing as he did Washington's straightforward patriotism and personal loyalty, as well as his strong common sense. But Hamilton and Jefferson left the greater mark, Hamilton especially, pushing through Congress a series of measures, such as a national tariff and a national bank, which tended to strengthen the financial credit, and therefore the political institutions of the United States. Unfortunately, Hamilton and Jefferson were devoted enemies, both personal and ideological, and it was more than Washington could do to prevent them from eventually running off to lead opposing political parties - the Federalists and the Republicans. The wonder is that he was able to put off the break for so long. Jefferson did not resign until 1793, Hamilton until 1795. Forced to choose, Washington backed Hamilton, as the more conservative of the two, and because he believed in Hamilton's vision of America as a great power, rich as well as republican (Jefferson called him senile for his pains). But he understood very well that the United States also needed Jefferson's vision of democracy. It is a pity that the two rivals lacked his breadth of view.

Then there was the great crisis of the French Revolutionary wars. From America these looked to be merely the latest in the long series of struggles between the national ally, France, and the national enemy, Britain. France had purged herself of the sin of monarchy, while Britain had not. So there was much enthusiasm for the French cause, not altogether dampened by news of the Jacobin Reign of Terror of 1793-94, and the so-called 'Citizen' Genet was sent to America as a French emissary to exploit it. The British had not helped themselves by refusing to carry out all the provisions of the 1783 peace treaty: in particular, they still occupied a string of forts (among them Detroit) in the American North-West, and their blockade of French ports seriously interfered with US commerce.

Nonetheless, it was clear to Washington, Jefferson and the cabinet that strict neutrality was the country's best course, and the President stuck to this view even when others began to drift away from it. Neutrality during a war on the Atlantic did not protect American shipping against British interference, but participation in the war would injure it far more. The country would not be united whichever side was chosen, and in many ways it had scarcely recovered from the Revolutionary War. Finally, what did it matter to America which side won? The ideological claims of both belligerents were bogus: they were quarrelling over power, not principle. Let America then stay at peace.

With this in mind, Washington opened negotiations with Great Britain for the settlement of outstanding differences; the result was Jay's Treaty (1794). Britain conceded as little as possible to the US; but it did agree to move its troops from American soil. After anguished hesitation, Washington sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, and after a sharp struggle it was passed by a just-sufficient majority. It was perhaps the hardest battle of his career; Federalists and Republicans used the episode to further their own ambitions, which the President regarded with deep distaste. But today nobody seriously questions his action.

Knowledge of this might have comforted him; as it was, beneath a marble exterior he was a sensitive man and suffered deeply under the responsibilities, controversies and denunciations that went with his office. His inner life became one of dignified discontent. It is hard not to pity him. Undoubtedly as a young man he had been ambitious for wealth, fame and power. In this he was like the other two most successful soldiers of the age, Napoleon Bonaparte and Arthur Wellesley. But whereas the path before the future Duke of Wellington was clear, and suited his temperament exactly, and whereas Napoleon found in a revolutionary age the perfect opportunity for his stormy genius, Washington, their inferior as a general but their superior as a statesman, had to subdue himself ruthlessly to a not altogether congenial environment. He had to swallow the humiliation of rejection when, as a young officer of volunteers, he applied for a regular commission in the British army; he had to apply himself doggedly to farming in Virginia for 20 years, earnestly studying to avoid the bankruptcy with which exhausted soil and expensive tastes threatened all the great tobacco planters; as General, he had to control his hot temper for eight years when dealing with the difficulties, mostly human, already mentioned; and as President he had to do all he could to avoid the imputation that he was an autocrat with monarchical ambitions. If he had not been a good man as well as a great one, the strain would have been too much for him, and he would either have left his fellow citizens to look after themselves or indulged in ambitious plotting. As it was, he reminded himself of his duty, and soldiered on.

But he really only enjoyed life at his beloved Mount Vernon, his beautiful plantation above the River Potomac. In Philadelphia, where the capital of the United States was established during most of his time, it was all labour and keeping up appearances. His idea of how the President of the United States should appear was austerely grand. He went everywhere in coach and horses; he wore rich black clothes; he held levees, like George III; and he gave formal dinner parties of stupefying boredom. Washington himself had no small talk, and his wife Martha, though a cheerful soul, was as dull as her husband seemed. Besides, the President was always in agony from his false teeth. His real ones had long since started to fall out and for years he had been struggling without much success to get satisfactory substitutes. He possessed two sets made partly of hippopotamus ivory, which he tried to preserve by soaking in port wine when not in use. It was in these circumstances that the most famous portraits of him were painted by Gilbert Stuart. One at least of them is a masterpiece, but it does not do justice either to Washington's character or to his appearance in his prime. Instead it shows brilliantly what he felt like during his presidency.

By 1796 he had had enough. Besides, if he agreed to serve for another term he might well die in office, and then there was a risk that the presidency would become an office always held for life, which was scarcely desirable. He would set his last precedent, and retire after two terms. He got into his coach and drove down to Congress with a personal message - his Farewell Address. This had been written up from his suggestions by Alexander Hamilton, but it was Washington's own long-pondered thought, and he had revised it carefully. Earnestly he adjured his countrymen to maintain the union of the states, to respect the Constitution, check party spirit and the encroachments of government on liberty, follow an honest and frugal policy of public expenditure and steer clear of the wiles of foreign powers. Then he said good-bye, anticipating, as he put it, a happy retirement while enjoying the benign influence of good laws under a free government. He waited impatiently for the day of his release, and when, in March 1797, his successor John Adams took the oath of office, he rode thankfully back to Mount Vernon, with an air, as Adams noted, of triumph, as if to say "Ay! I am fairly out and you fairly in! See which of us is the happiest!"

_________________


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: Sheriiff Kevin Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 VIP Line Jumper
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:35 pm
Joined: 29 Dec 2005  Posts: 1087
 Post Post subject:

Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Back to top


James [graph] wrote:
GEORGE WASHINGTON 1732-99

1st PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1789-97

Father of his Country. The hallowed phrase expresses everything that was unique about President Washington. For all other Presidents - even Thomas Jefferson - the office was the climax of their lives, their greatest opportunity for fame. Washington alone was greater than his post. He had to make decisions for the first time, and thus lay down guidelines for the future. He set the precedents that others would have to follow. His greatest precedent was himself. Without him there might not have been a presidency at all. The Founding Fathers might have settled for some form of collective leadership or cabinet government. And then, although he had a characteristically modest idea of what the President should be and do, the fact that their great man had found the job worth undertaking enhanced its value in the eyes of all Americans. The fact that he did it so well reinforced the effect, by showing that there would always be some useful work for an honourably ambitious President. Washington, in short, created the presidency in his own image, and handed it on, a precious burden, to his successors, as perhaps his greatest memorial.

He was a remarkable man, but even he could not have done so much if the times had not favoured him. His countrymen desperately needed a hero. In the dark days of the Revolutionary War (and for most of the time they were very dark) only the inflexible figure of General Washington offered any hope. Benjamin Franklin might be having his diplomatic triumphs as the American representative in Paris, but Paris was a long way away. The General was near at hand, visibly struggling with his country's foes, not only the British; he also had to deal with traitors; with mutinous, ill-trained, ill-disciplined troops; with a dilatory Congress; corrupt suppliers; and, worst of all, with incredibly short-sighted, mean, incompetent state legislatures which were, nevertheless, his source of pay and supplies. Groaning inwardly, Washington stood firm, and in due course had his reward, when the British surrendered at Yorktown. That was the turning point, although the war dragged on for another two years. In 1783 Washington returned to New York in triumph, thus blotting out the memory of his rapid retreat from the city in 1776. Then he lost no time in resigning his commission and hurrying home to Virginia; but his glory followed him. He had given the Americans faith in themselves, and notably justified it. They could not forget him. He was inevitably recalled to be the first head of the new government.

His achievements as President did nothing to diminish his fame in the long run, although for a few years party warfare did not spare even his great name. His first cabinet was one of the strongest in American history, with John Adams as Vice-President, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State (dealing with foreign affairs). Over the full eight years of Washington's two terms in office Adams was perhaps the most useful to him of these men, sharing as he did Washington's straightforward patriotism and personal loyalty, as well as his strong common sense. But Hamilton and Jefferson left the greater mark, Hamilton especially, pushing through Congress a series of measures, such as a national tariff and a national bank, which tended to strengthen the financial credit, and therefore the political institutions of the United States. Unfortunately, Hamilton and Jefferson were devoted enemies, both personal and ideological, and it was more than Washington could do to prevent them from eventually running off to lead opposing political parties - the Federalists and the Republicans. The wonder is that he was able to put off the break for so long. Jefferson did not resign until 1793, Hamilton until 1795. Forced to choose, Washington backed Hamilton, as the more conservative of the two, and because he believed in Hamilton's vision of America as a great power, rich as well as republican (Jefferson called him senile for his pains). But he understood very well that the United States also needed Jefferson's vision of democracy. It is a pity that the two rivals lacked his breadth of view.

Then there was the great crisis of the French Revolutionary wars. From America these looked to be merely the latest in the long series of struggles between the national ally, France, and the national enemy, Britain. France had purged herself of the sin of monarchy, while Britain had not. So there was much enthusiasm for the French cause, not altogether dampened by news of the Jacobin Reign of Terror of 1793-94, and the so-called 'Citizen' Genet was sent to America as a French emissary to exploit it. The British had not helped themselves by refusing to carry out all the provisions of the 1783 peace treaty: in particular, they still occupied a string of forts (among them Detroit) in the American North-West, and their blockade of French ports seriously interfered with US commerce.

Nonetheless, it was clear to Washington, Jefferson and the cabinet that strict neutrality was the country's best course, and the President stuck to this view even when others began to drift away from it. Neutrality during a war on the Atlantic did not protect American shipping against British interference, but participation in the war would injure it far more. The country would not be united whichever side was chosen, and in many ways it had scarcely recovered from the Revolutionary War. Finally, what did it matter to America which side won? The ideological claims of both belligerents were bogus: they were quarrelling over power, not principle. Let America then stay at peace.

With this in mind, Washington opened negotiations with Great Britain for the settlement of outstanding differences; the result was Jay's Treaty (1794). Britain conceded as little as possible to the US; but it did agree to move its troops from American soil. After anguished hesitation, Washington sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, and after a sharp struggle it was passed by a just-sufficient majority. It was perhaps the hardest battle of his career; Federalists and Republicans used the episode to further their own ambitions, which the President regarded with deep distaste. But today nobody seriously questions his action.

Knowledge of this might have comforted him; as it was, beneath a marble exterior he was a sensitive man and suffered deeply under the responsibilities, controversies and denunciations that went with his office. His inner life became one of dignified discontent. It is hard not to pity him. Undoubtedly as a young man he had been ambitious for wealth, fame and power. In this he was like the other two most successful soldiers of the age, Napoleon Bonaparte and Arthur Wellesley. But whereas the path before the future Duke of Wellington was clear, and suited his temperament exactly, and whereas Napoleon found in a revolutionary age the perfect opportunity for his stormy genius, Washington, their inferior as a general but their superior as a statesman, had to subdue himself ruthlessly to a not altogether congenial environment. He had to swallow the humiliation of rejection when, as a young officer of volunteers, he applied for a regular commission in the British army; he had to apply himself doggedly to farming in Virginia for 20 years, earnestly studying to avoid the bankruptcy with which exhausted soil and expensive tastes threatened all the great tobacco planters; as General, he had to control his hot temper for eight years when dealing with the difficulties, mostly human, already mentioned; and as President he had to do all he could to avoid the imputation that he was an autocrat with monarchical ambitions. If he had not been a good man as well as a great one, the strain would have been too much for him, and he would either have left his fellow citizens to look after themselves or indulged in ambitious plotting. As it was, he reminded himself of his duty, and soldiered on.

But he really only enjoyed life at his beloved Mount Vernon, his beautiful plantation above the River Potomac. In Philadelphia, where the capital of the United States was established during most of his time, it was all labour and keeping up appearances. His idea of how the President of the United States should appear was austerely grand. He went everywhere in coach and horses; he wore rich black clothes; he held levees, like George III; and he gave formal dinner parties of stupefying boredom. Washington himself had no small talk, and his wife Martha, though a cheerful soul, was as dull as her husband seemed. Besides, the President was always in agony from his false teeth. His real ones had long since started to fall out and for years he had been struggling without much success to get satisfactory substitutes. He possessed two sets made partly of hippopotamus ivory, which he tried to preserve by soaking in port wine when not in use. It was in these circumstances that the most famous portraits of him were painted by Gilbert Stuart. One at least of them is a masterpiece, but it does not do justice either to Washington's character or to his appearance in his prime. Instead it shows brilliantly what he felt like during his presidency.

By 1796 he had had enough. Besides, if he agreed to serve for another term he might well die in office, and then there was a risk that the presidency would become an office always held for life, which was scarcely desirable. He would set his last precedent, and retire after two terms. He got into his coach and drove down to Congress with a personal message - his Farewell Address. This had been written up from his suggestions by Alexander Hamilton, but it was Washington's own long-pondered thought, and he had revised it carefully. Earnestly he adjured his countrymen to maintain the union of the states, to respect the Constitution, check party spirit and the encroachments of government on liberty, follow an honest and frugal policy of public expenditure and steer clear of the wiles of foreign powers. Then he said good-bye, anticipating, as he put it, a happy retirement while enjoying the benign influence of good laws under a free government. He waited impatiently for the day of his release, and when, in March 1797, his successor John Adams took the oath of office, he rode thankfully back to Mount Vernon, with an air, as Adams noted, of triumph, as if to say "Ay! I am fairly out and you fairly in! See which of us is the happiest!"


that sucks

_________________
http://www.goodvibesentertainment.com/
Clevelands Hardcore Headquarters and home of DJ LEASH.


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger

Posted by: graph Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 hublugggggghhhh
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:51 pm
Joined: 06 Apr 2004  Posts: 8898
 Post Post subject:

Location: 216/412
Back to top


Sheriff Kevin wrote:
James [graph] wrote:
GEORGE WASHINGTON 1732-99

1st PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1789-97

Father of his Country. The hallowed phrase expresses everything that was unique about President Washington. For all other Presidents - even Thomas Jefferson - the office was the climax of their lives, their greatest opportunity for fame. Washington alone was greater than his post. He had to make decisions for the first time, and thus lay down guidelines for the future. He set the precedents that others would have to follow. His greatest precedent was himself. Without him there might not have been a presidency at all. The Founding Fathers might have settled for some form of collective leadership or cabinet government. And then, although he had a characteristically modest idea of what the President should be and do, the fact that their great man had found the job worth undertaking enhanced its value in the eyes of all Americans. The fact that he did it so well reinforced the effect, by showing that there would always be some useful work for an honourably ambitious President. Washington, in short, created the presidency in his own image, and handed it on, a precious burden, to his successors, as perhaps his greatest memorial.

He was a remarkable man, but even he could not have done so much if the times had not favoured him. His countrymen desperately needed a hero. In the dark days of the Revolutionary War (and for most of the time they were very dark) only the inflexible figure of General Washington offered any hope. Benjamin Franklin might be having his diplomatic triumphs as the American representative in Paris, but Paris was a long way away. The General was near at hand, visibly struggling with his country's foes, not only the British; he also had to deal with traitors; with mutinous, ill-trained, ill-disciplined troops; with a dilatory Congress; corrupt suppliers; and, worst of all, with incredibly short-sighted, mean, incompetent state legislatures which were, nevertheless, his source of pay and supplies. Groaning inwardly, Washington stood firm, and in due course had his reward, when the British surrendered at Yorktown. That was the turning point, although the war dragged on for another two years. In 1783 Washington returned to New York in triumph, thus blotting out the memory of his rapid retreat from the city in 1776. Then he lost no time in resigning his commission and hurrying home to Virginia; but his glory followed him. He had given the Americans faith in themselves, and notably justified it. They could not forget him. He was inevitably recalled to be the first head of the new government.

His achievements as President did nothing to diminish his fame in the long run, although for a few years party warfare did not spare even his great name. His first cabinet was one of the strongest in American history, with John Adams as Vice-President, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State (dealing with foreign affairs). Over the full eight years of Washington's two terms in office Adams was perhaps the most useful to him of these men, sharing as he did Washington's straightforward patriotism and personal loyalty, as well as his strong common sense. But Hamilton and Jefferson left the greater mark, Hamilton especially, pushing through Congress a series of measures, such as a national tariff and a national bank, which tended to strengthen the financial credit, and therefore the political institutions of the United States. Unfortunately, Hamilton and Jefferson were devoted enemies, both personal and ideological, and it was more than Washington could do to prevent them from eventually running off to lead opposing political parties - the Federalists and the Republicans. The wonder is that he was able to put off the break for so long. Jefferson did not resign until 1793, Hamilton until 1795. Forced to choose, Washington backed Hamilton, as the more conservative of the two, and because he believed in Hamilton's vision of America as a great power, rich as well as republican (Jefferson called him senile for his pains). But he understood very well that the United States also needed Jefferson's vision of democracy. It is a pity that the two rivals lacked his breadth of view.

Then there was the great crisis of the French Revolutionary wars. From America these looked to be merely the latest in the long series of struggles between the national ally, France, and the national enemy, Britain. France had purged herself of the sin of monarchy, while Britain had not. So there was much enthusiasm for the French cause, not altogether dampened by news of the Jacobin Reign of Terror of 1793-94, and the so-called 'Citizen' Genet was sent to America as a French emissary to exploit it. The British had not helped themselves by refusing to carry out all the provisions of the 1783 peace treaty: in particular, they still occupied a string of forts (among them Detroit) in the American North-West, and their blockade of French ports seriously interfered with US commerce.

Nonetheless, it was clear to Washington, Jefferson and the cabinet that strict neutrality was the country's best course, and the President stuck to this view even when others began to drift away from it. Neutrality during a war on the Atlantic did not protect American shipping against British interference, but participation in the war would injure it far more. The country would not be united whichever side was chosen, and in many ways it had scarcely recovered from the Revolutionary War. Finally, what did it matter to America which side won? The ideological claims of both belligerents were bogus: they were quarrelling over power, not principle. Let America then stay at peace.

With this in mind, Washington opened negotiations with Great Britain for the settlement of outstanding differences; the result was Jay's Treaty (1794). Britain conceded as little as possible to the US; but it did agree to move its troops from American soil. After anguished hesitation, Washington sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, and after a sharp struggle it was passed by a just-sufficient majority. It was perhaps the hardest battle of his career; Federalists and Republicans used the episode to further their own ambitions, which the President regarded with deep distaste. But today nobody seriously questions his action.

Knowledge of this might have comforted him; as it was, beneath a marble exterior he was a sensitive man and suffered deeply under the responsibilities, controversies and denunciations that went with his office. His inner life became one of dignified discontent. It is hard not to pity him. Undoubtedly as a young man he had been ambitious for wealth, fame and power. In this he was like the other two most successful soldiers of the age, Napoleon Bonaparte and Arthur Wellesley. But whereas the path before the future Duke of Wellington was clear, and suited his temperament exactly, and whereas Napoleon found in a revolutionary age the perfect opportunity for his stormy genius, Washington, their inferior as a general but their superior as a statesman, had to subdue himself ruthlessly to a not altogether congenial environment. He had to swallow the humiliation of rejection when, as a young officer of volunteers, he applied for a regular commission in the British army; he had to apply himself doggedly to farming in Virginia for 20 years, earnestly studying to avoid the bankruptcy with which exhausted soil and expensive tastes threatened all the great tobacco planters; as General, he had to control his hot temper for eight years when dealing with the difficulties, mostly human, already mentioned; and as President he had to do all he could to avoid the imputation that he was an autocrat with monarchical ambitions. If he had not been a good man as well as a great one, the strain would have been too much for him, and he would either have left his fellow citizens to look after themselves or indulged in ambitious plotting. As it was, he reminded himself of his duty, and soldiered on.

But he really only enjoyed life at his beloved Mount Vernon, his beautiful plantation above the River Potomac. In Philadelphia, where the capital of the United States was established during most of his time, it was all labour and keeping up appearances. His idea of how the President of the United States should appear was austerely grand. He went everywhere in coach and horses; he wore rich black clothes; he held levees, like George III; and he gave formal dinner parties of stupefying boredom. Washington himself had no small talk, and his wife Martha, though a cheerful soul, was as dull as her husband seemed. Besides, the President was always in agony from his false teeth. His real ones had long since started to fall out and for years he had been struggling without much success to get satisfactory substitutes. He possessed two sets made partly of hippopotamus ivory, which he tried to preserve by soaking in port wine when not in use. It was in these circumstances that the most famous portraits of him were painted by Gilbert Stuart. One at least of them is a masterpiece, but it does not do justice either to Washington's character or to his appearance in his prime. Instead it shows brilliantly what he felt like during his presidency.

By 1796 he had had enough. Besides, if he agreed to serve for another term he might well die in office, and then there was a risk that the presidency would become an office always held for life, which was scarcely desirable. He would set his last precedent, and retire after two terms. He got into his coach and drove down to Congress with a personal message - his Farewell Address. This had been written up from his suggestions by Alexander Hamilton, but it was Washington's own long-pondered thought, and he had revised it carefully. Earnestly he adjured his countrymen to maintain the union of the states, to respect the Constitution, check party spirit and the encroachments of government on liberty, follow an honest and frugal policy of public expenditure and steer clear of the wiles of foreign powers. Then he said good-bye, anticipating, as he put it, a happy retirement while enjoying the benign influence of good laws under a free government. He waited impatiently for the day of his release, and when, in March 1797, his successor John Adams took the oath of office, he rode thankfully back to Mount Vernon, with an air, as Adams noted, of triumph, as if to say "Ay! I am fairly out and you fairly in! See which of us is the happiest!"


that sucks


which part ?

_________________


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: Jamie Tyler Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:57 pm
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 4477
 Post Post subject:

Location: sagamore hills
Back to top


Jim if you're interested in revolutionary history this may be an interesting read...it's definitely a counterpoint to the popular image of some of our country's founders.

American Aurora - click here


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: graph Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 hublugggggghhhh
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:59 pm
Joined: 06 Apr 2004  Posts: 8898
 Post Post subject:

Location: 216/412
Back to top


Jamie Tyler wrote:
Jim if you're interested in revolutionary history


i'm going home for the day

_________________


 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Display posts from previous:   

Page 1 of 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum

Cleveland Nightlife topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group