moderators editing members posts

[cacophony]

i would like to know who added "allegedly" to the title of my GWB Hates Women thread.

locking the thread and discontinuing discussion is one thing. editing my post without my permission, without notification, and without a moderator comment appended to the post to indicate the change is something quite different.

i'm appalled that anyone in this community would think it was okay to edit a member's post without notification or comment.

i had a good chuckle when everyone was up in arms about the locking of the thread. because it's a unilateral move that affects both everyone and no one. and in essence it doesn't stop the discussion because, as happened in the "locked???" thread, the discussion picked up once again where it left off.

that being said, i am not chuckling about the editing of a single member's post, without any indicator that the edited content did not originate with the member him or herself. it is tantamount to putting words in someone's mouth, and considering how outspoken i was in that thread and considering how strongly i expressed my opinion it is unforgivable to add the word "allegedly" as though i were cowardly enough to couch my sentiment in such namby-pamby placating terms.

this place has gone seriously awry. scott w. never abused his privileges this way and i think it's a goddamned crying shame that the abuse of authority was adopted so swiftly upon his departure.

so thanks, i've lost a lot of respect for this place. congrats to whichever moderator screwed the pooch on that one. whichever moderator you are, you need a moment alone to think about what your role here really is.

i would be no more pleased if one of sean's posts had been edited to soften its tone and make it more agreeable to my point. one of the things this place has excelled at is a healthy respect for disagreement, even (or especially) in passionate debate. i would no more expect a moderator to change another member's post to make it more agreeable to my sensitive palette than i expect my posts to be altered to make it agreeable to anyone else's sensitive palette.

but hey. i've always been of the opinion that beggars can't be choosers. it's a free forum and i'm not footing the bill. i'm here because someone else's generosity allows for the continuation of this community and i certainly don't expect to come in here and make or change the rules. i'm not going to campaign to anyone for my "rights" because it ain't my financial burden to bear. all i can do is be disgusted and incredibly ashamed that anyone here would endorse this sort of action.

so fuck this. i'm done.

[//\/\/]

what she said /\

[BeautifulBurnout]

I edited it the second time to "Allegedly" because some else has edited it to add "Bush - Cock". I had forgotten I'd done it, frankly, with all the other shenanigans that had been going on in here when I got back from my evening out. I have to admit to being a tad pissed off with the whole thing at 2.00am.

I will change it back immediately. I am sorry if it offended.

However, you are wrong to assume that it is only since Scott has gone that threads have been changed, deleted, moved, renamed or anything else. It just doesn't happen very often in World. And this time it happened for a reason in that I was trying to calm down what had exploded into a complete hissy-fit.

[BeautifulBurnout]

whichever moderator you are, you need a moment alone to think about what your role here really is.



I have no need for a moment alone, thank you. All I need is to know that when people post they show a little respect for other posters. And when they don't, I normally deal with it by way of a "c'mon, let's all have a group hug" type post.

The mess that was here on Friday night when I got home was waaaaay beyond that, including people telling other people to fuck off, threads being locked, other threads complaining about the threads being locked and general mayhem. So I dealt with it as best I could.

You maybe need a moment alone, Cacophony, to ask yourself if you are right to swear at people directly in your posts.

[cacophony]

nice to see you dangling out there on the cross, suffering for the sins of dirties everywhere. it's a message board. you don't get extra credit for getting yourself worked up at 2 in the morning because 3 people were miffed about a locked thread. it was hardly WWIII so let's not lend the circumstances more importance than they deserve.

additionally, it's not up to you to decide how disrespectful sean's comment to me was. it was beyond disrespectful and as the target of the comment it is purely up to my discretion to decide how offended i was. his comment to me was inexcusable. that said, we're all adults here and i believe i couched my "fuck you" in a very clear framework that explained exactly the terms and limitations of the expletive.

this forum doesn't need a self-appointed mother. as you said, moderation did happen in other forums under scott's watch, but never in the world forum. i wonder why you suddenly think your intervention is necessary now. both sean and i could be described as "long-timers" with a long history of both agreement and disagreement. this was hardly two newbies trolling each other. your role as diplomat in this instance is not necessary.

and since you explained the reason for your edit, to remove the pooch-screwing of another moderator, i'll be happy to broaden my overall disappointment to include anyone else who has abused their ability to edit other members' posts.

and now i'm left wondering which moderator will step up to cross that final frontier: banning a member who dares speak out about poor moderation. anyone tempted?

[BeautifulBurnout]

nice to see you dangling out there on the cross, suffering for the sins of dirties everywhere. it's a message board. you don't get extra credit for getting yourself worked up at 2 in the morning because 3 people were miffed about a locked thread. it was hardly WWIII so let's not lend the circumstances more importance than they deserve.

additionally, it's not up to you to decide how disrespectful sean's comment to me was. it was beyond disrespectful and as the target of the comment it is purely up to my discretion to decide how offended i was. his comment to me was inexcusable. that said, we're all adults here and i believe i couched my "fuck you" in a very clear framework that explained exactly the terms and limitations of the expletive.

this forum doesn't need a self-appointed mother. as you said, moderation did happen in other forums under scott's watch, but never in the world forum. i wonder why you suddenly think your intervention is necessary now. both sean and i could be described as "long-timers" with a long history of both agreement and disagreement. this was hardly two newbies trolling each other. your role as diplomat in this instance is not necessary.

and since you explained the reason for your edit, to remove the pooch-screwing of another moderator, i'll be happy to broaden my overall disappointment to include anyone else who has abused their ability to edit other members' posts.

and now i'm left wondering which moderator will step up to cross that final frontier: banning a member who dares speak out about poor moderation. anyone tempted?


Get a grip. Show some of the perspective you were demanding of others earlier.

Resorting to personal attacks demonstrates your lack of clarity and vision in any of this, and having read and re-read the GWB Hates Women thread, while I agree in general with your points, I find it very hard to see where Sean was being offensive enough to deserve being told to fuck off, or to be publicly lambasted and humiliated about a private message he had sent you. But hey, that's just my opinion.

And beautifully-worded and funny though your characterisation of me might be, I don't accept your criticisms of my "poor moderation", any more than I arbitrarily go about stomping on people, locking threads or banning them.

What ever your issues are, this is not a place to vent your spleen and take it out on other posters.

[cacophony]

you're welcome to your opinion. the difference between us is that i don't have the ability to edit your posts to make them conform to a different perspective.

[BeautifulBurnout]

you're welcome to your opinion. the difference between us is that i don't have the ability to edit your posts to make them conform to a different perspective.

OK.

I said I was sorry it offended you.

I explained the circumstances surrounding the changing of the thread title (Side note - I have certainly never interfered with the content of anyone's posts and I never will, unless it links to pr0n).

I then changed it back to the original title.

You are reading things into this that aren't there. It wasn't an attempt to weaken any of your posts, otherwise I would have used my Super Magical Moderator Powaz to edit all your posts as well. I actually agree with the points you made. I simply saw that someone changed the title to something stupid and, in the heat of the moment, I changed it to something less stupid, and forgot about it.

I didn't particularly appreciate being told to spend some time alone to consider my role so I gave an explanation of that as well. Your response made me LOL, frankly, as it was coming from the person sneering at others for complaining that the thread had been locked in the first place.

I have done what I can to put this right. What else would you like me to do, exactly? I really don't see why you are still ranting at me about it.

In any event, to mis-quote Forrest Gump, that is all I want to say about that.

[Sean]

i would be no more pleased if one of sean's posts had been edited to soften its tone and make it more agreeable to my point.Dubman actually did edit one of my posts in the "GWB hates women" thread for no other reason than to be sarcastic. I edited back over the top of it, but this is the one. I was replying to Deckard:

If I believed in god, I'd pray that you would stay actively involved. I feel like I'm alone in crazy town....;):D

mature edit by dubman in an effort to clearly display his awesome powers as a moderator :rolleyes: - YES I AM ALONE IN CRAZY TOWN

Needless to say, I didn't appreciate it either.

[dubman]

i edited it to 'bush, cock' because by then the thread smelled strongly of the infamous "bono, cock" thread, and i was the Ally in that thread, so it was as big a joke on me than anything, but it was, um... lighthearted?
and yeah i did seans post too, just because. i didnt take anything he was saying out, and i was basically making fun for no one calling anyone out by name because we were all playing nicey-nice, but since that's not obvious it's otherwise hardly anything to get worked up about unless thats not what this is really about.

gee, you think were all still a bit pissed and this 'group hug' PM was a bit premature?

[cacophony]

I have done what I can to put this right. What else would you like me to do, exactly? I really don't see why you are still ranting at me about it.

you're right, my comment about the ability to edit opinions shouldn't have been directed towards you. your explanation of events sounds as though you were trying to make things right.

in which case i wish that in the process of rectifying things you had included a moderator comment illustrating that the changes were not my doing. that's the responsibility that goes along with being a moderator, inconvenient as it might be. i would also hope that whoever felt it was within their role as a moderator to edit my thread title to "bush - cock" would own his or her changes as well. my third wish, since wishes come in threes, would be for that person to lose their moderator status so that they will never again be tempted to edit other members' posts.

my disappointment and disgust still stands with the person who made your actions necessary. i have to wonder if that person will own their actions the way you owned yours.

additionally, my assertion that this forum does not need a self-appointed mother also stands. that applies to you, if you feel it necessary to intervene when you think playtime is getting a little too rough, and it applies to anyone else who feels the same way and locks or edits threads without owning the action.

[cacophony]

i edited it to 'bush, cock' because by then the thread smelled strongly of the infamous "bono, cock" thread, and i was the Ally in that thread, so it was as big a joke on me than anything, but it was, um... lighthearted?
and yeah i did seans post too, just because. i didnt take anything he was saying out, and i was basically making fun for no one calling anyone out by name because we were all playing nicey-nice, but since that's not obvious it's otherwise hardly anything to get worked up about unless thats not what this is really about.

gee, you think were all still a bit pissed and this 'group hug' PM was a bit premature?

i was on your side in the context of the thread. i felt like you and sean were teading tit-for-tat with no one coming out the better. i was still in your corner when you locked the thread, because at the very least you included a post just before doing it notifying users that the subject was closed. locking the thread didn't matter to me, but i recognize that it mattered to others.

but this? how can i be in your corner? maybe you were making a little inside joke for a member who no longer posts here? if ally were still active and he were here to comment on the change, maybe it would all be different. but that's not the case. you simply used your authority for your own amusement.

and editing sean's post, which i was not aware of until now, is far worse. because i saw it before he edited it back, and i had no idea that those weren't his words.

it is no small matter to access another member's account. all we have on a forum is words and when you change them and take them away you ruin the implicit understanding that we may represent ourselves however we wish with the only method of communication we have.

i hate that it's you that i'm saying this about because frankly i like your posts and what i can know of you as a person through your posts. but this was way wrong. and i feel very strongly that your rights as moderator should be removed because clearly you can't handle the responsibility.

edit: and the comment about the premature PM? it wasn't premature for those of us who thought we were all playing on the same field. it was premature for you, because none of us were aware of how far you were willing to go to abuse your moderator status.

[dubman]

you simply used your authority for your own amusement.

kinda, yeah
what else am i supposed to do with it.

jesus. get serious about it? pretend its a responsibility? its a goddamn forum.

sorry, i can only take the heat on this for so long. you guys going *this* bugfuck is starting to get LJ-funny.

[BeautifulBurnout]

additionally, my assertion that this forum does not need a self-appointed mother also stands. that applies to you, if you feel it necessary to intervene when you think playtime is getting a little too rough, and it applies to anyone else who feels the same way and locks or edits threads without owning the action.

OK. And I know I said I have no more to say, but I was lying.

Even before I was a moderator, I was always a hippy. And I always used to intervene with a "come on, let's all hug and be nice to each other"-type comment, no matter what forum it was in if I felt that it would help turn a negative situation into a more positive one. A lot of people don't like that about me, but it is who I am. I am not going to stop doing that just because I am a moderator now. Soz.

But I don't believe in editing, amending or otherwise interfering with what anyone else has to say. I don't like jack-boot moderation when it is done to me (and it has been), and I certainly won't be doing it to anyone else either.

[cacophony]

you simply used your authority for your own amusement.

kinda, yeah
what else am i supposed to do with it.

jesus


and this is why i think you shouldn't be moderator. if you don't get this fundamental concept, then you can't handle it.


you were right when you said it's just moderating, it's not the weight of the world. when i agreed, i felt i was agreeing with the justifiable action of choosing when to close a thread. as i've said, i had no problem with that although i recognize that others did. closing the thread was not a violation. editing other people's posts was.

[dubman]

and this is why i think you shouldn't be moderator. if you don't get this fundamental concept, then you can't handle it.


you were right when you said it's just moderating, it's not the weight of the world. when i agreed, i felt i was agreeing with the justifiable action of choosing when to close a thread. as i've said, i had no problem with that although i recognize that others did. closing the thread was not a violation. editing other people's posts was.
eeugh, theres nothing to handle
you were agreeing with the idea of closing the thread, but if seans not going to let it go for the childish play it was, that idea's going to apply here too.

[holden]

Been away from the forums a few days, so i missed the drama.
But i've read it all now, as well as the locked thread, editing posts follow-ups.
Lots of strong emotions on the original and tangential topics. But it does seem like the finger-pointing is getting out of hand.

As an outside perspective, i just want to say that the moderators tend to do an excellent job of keeping the forums functioning as spirited but generally sane place. Editing posts isn't right, nor is locking threads that are clearly still running strong (even if the arguments have gotten twisted through PMs and somewhat argumentative debate... for however many or few were actively posting, there was still something worth posting about!).

But i think it's unfair to call for moderator resignation/impeachment ;)

Kind of think we're all mature enough to say, sorry, apology accepted, let's not let it (threadlocking/editing) happen again.

The namecalling and fierce posting should continue, though! :)

[gambit]

Man, I haven't stepped into this shit since it started. But this is getting way out of hand, cacophony, when you go after BB repeatedly after she's apologized. Bear in mind, I agree with you on most things you argue about in world and certainly with the recent "GWB hates women" thread and the moderator editing. But, pardon my language, you are way out of fucking line here, cacophony. You're turning into an unbearable asshole, which is unfortunate because you're intelligent and engaged in actual discussions here. I'm a writer myself, so I'm with you all the way about someone else editing your words or someone else's words, but fuck. You're beating a dead horse here. BB's apologized, dubman's seen the error of his ways. They've learned their lesson, now move along please.

[dubman]

well i think the concern is legitimate, but since the only mods who bother here are BB and myself, it could have been addressed this time though PM, where i could backpedal some more and admit that, yes, conceptually its a crappy thing to do. and as much as it wasnt insignificant but a board-wide joke i thought everyone would get, i can see the yellow card a-comin for it.
but it was a thread, and a shouty one full of flouncing and super-drama, so it made me also think that realistically, none of this crap is warranted, so i got glib. it's on you people at some point for whats ridiculous on this board.

[Professor]

all points are good, everybody forgives everyone and we all win.

really. agree that censorship is bad, this forum is sometimes 'serious' depending on one's state of mind at the time, but in general, it IS just a forum, not life....

i've gotten my panties in a wad on occasion, and i've laughed at people on occasion who have gotten theirs in a wad. it all goes around.

i've had my posts changed for a joke... sometimes it's funny, sometimes not... most times it is. (winks at stimpee and yan)

my point: we all have too much time on our hands

[Deckard]

I've typed and deleted my message here 3 times. Fek's sake, that's more than I normally do in an argument with Sean. :D

It's not about being scared to say anything, it's about whether what I will say will help move things on or make things worse. And, umm, I think it may be the latter, even if I sent it by PM.

Yeah pointless post, but anyway....

[cacophony]

Man, I haven't stepped into this shit since it started. But this is getting way out of hand, cacophony, when you go after BB repeatedly after she's apologized. Bear in mind, I agree with you on most things you argue about in world and certainly with the recent "GWB hates women" thread and the moderator editing. But, pardon my language, you are way out of fucking line here, cacophony. You're turning into an unbearable asshole, which is unfortunate because you're intelligent and engaged in actual discussions here. I'm a writer myself, so I'm with you all the way about someone else editing your words or someone else's words, but fuck. You're beating a dead horse here. BB's apologized, dubman's seen the error of his ways. They've learned their lesson, now move along please.

i already pointed out my mistake in continuing the argument with BB after she explained her involvement. it's clear she's not the one who was in the wrong. as i said, i wish the effort to rectify the problem had included a moderator note but that's pretty small potatoes in light of things.

and just to make my point further, i don't mind if you express your opinion that i'm turning into an unbearable asshole. it would bother me just as badly if someone came in and edited your post to remove the ad hominem remark, even though it's directed towards me.

and i don't agree that dubman has seen the errors of his ways. i think it's an issue that i take with greater seriousness than he does. that's fine, i made light of locking the thread. but it's one thing to make light of the issue when you're not the one wielding the power. i can laugh at locking threads all day long. but i can't actually lock a thread.


edit:

well i think the concern is legitimate, but since the only mods who bother here are BB and myself, it could have been addressed this time though PM, where i could backpedal some more and admit that, yes, conceptually its a crappy thing to do. and as much as it wasnt insignificant but a board-wide joke i thought everyone would get, i can see the yellow card a-comin for it.
but it was a thread, and a shouty one full of flouncing and super-drama, so it made me also think that realistically, none of this crap is warranted, so i got glib. it's on you people at some point for whats ridiculous on this board.

i replied before seeing this post. now i think you've seen the error of your ways.

[Professor]

give the girl the power. that's my vote

[Sean]

eeugh, theres nothing to handle
you were agreeing with the idea of closing the thread, but if seans not going to let it go for the childish play it was, that idea's going to apply here too.Whoa - hold the phone there, Champ. Sorry, but did you actually just say "if seans not going to let it go for the childish play it was"? Really? All I said was that I "didn't appreciate it" in a thread about moderators editing member posts for no good reason. Did I come out swinging over it? Did I get on your case about it? Did I call for your head? No, no, and no.

Look, I recognized it was meant as a joke in response to my original light-hearted post. That's why this was the first time I even mentioned it despite the fact that I discovered you did it days ago. But on another level, it was a joke I didn't appreciate because it did appear in MY POST, appearing as if it was MY WORDS. You could've delivered it as a reply that quoted me as everyone else here is capable of doing, but instead you actually used your moderator privileges to go into my account and mess with what I wrote because you thought it'd be cute. Whatever...I have a life that's far, far, far more important than this place, but I do reserve the right to call you out on it and let the forum community at large know that you're someone to beware of in this regard. Many people, myself included, may feel a bit more hesitant to participate around here knowing that a moderator may change your posts for their own amusement without telling you, and will then talk smack about you when you bring it up. If that's an overblown thing to want to be aware of, then so be it. But as far as I can see, things are a bit more delicate here in the world forums due to the frequently sensitive nature of the discussions we have here - racism, religion, misogyny, etc. - things that you typically want to make sure you choose your words carefully for, and that you'd hope your words wouldn't be changed by a stranger about.

So seriously, don't act as if I'm making this into something it's not. And don't get on me for "not letting it go" when you haven't even displayed the minimal decency and maturity it would require to say something to me along the lines of "yeah...sorry 'bout that". Somehow, starting right in with a post about how I just "won't let it go" doesn't have the same affect as a simple apology....:rolleyes:

since the only mods who bother here are BB and myself, it could have been addressed this time though PM

Why would anyone send you a pm about something as you say they should here, after you publicly lashed out at Strangelet over the one he sent you?

[dubman]

i replied before seeing this post. now i think you've seen the error of your ways.
gimme cookie.

ok ok.
but this isnt a before-and-after thing. the position hasnt changed, i was just saying how you want to present it chnages how i'm going to react to it, which isnt unreasonable. there's a difference between a PM and threatening to leave the board and calling for 'resignation'.
as professor hinted at, edits happen to posts all the time by moderators fiddling around. they're mostly good natured. you should have seen the escalating sig-altering dorkery between myself and BLD. i've had my profile and sig changed by yannick and tom. i've had tom edit thread titles basically calling me a faggot. the latter hit a minor nerve but it was ultimately just fun n games and doesnt mean that peoples writerly words are being misrepresented. what basically happened here was "woe be unto the one that treats the world board with this flippant levity."
it happens in all the other boards and didnt see how the world board was supposed to be exempt from these same "shenanigans" because it's oh-so-much-more serious
which its why it's rather hard to apply words like "responsibility" to modship here. ok, youve got different rules, like any politics forum does in a general messageboard. and applying what happens to every other board here doesnt work for you guys. fine. i've said before i'll let janie handle the editing, locking, and otherwise writerly perversions you think dangle precariously on world tyranny.
but this is still overblown and at this point more drama has been made than what i can be responsible for.

[dubman]

Why would anyone send you a pm about something as you say they should here, after you publicly lashed out at Strangelet over the one he sent you?
because i was anticipating more and wasnt having it. i wouldnt have posted it if it didnt end in "lets group hug". wtf? why? no. and i saw myself getting more of them with people looking to keep the same division but insisting it's all healed over now. again, no.

but as for that other stuff yeah it was probably a cheap shot. you write so much and hold so much back tho, it's funny. makes the terse posts you do make seem like theyre waiting for someone else with less manners to pick up the umbrage for you.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

...You're turning into an unbearable asshole,...


HEY! Wait minute, that's MY designation!

You've gone too far gambit. And if I had my smiley thingys I'd put on the the happy ones here.

*******

Did someone say cyber-facism somewhere back there?

And none of this "It's for your own good, you'll be more careful with your choice of words" BS!!!!

*******

ooops, just took Sarcasmo's advice and re-read the crazy thread (hey, that rhymes. I GONNA BE A RAP STAR!!!)
You're not really behind the disappearing smiley thing? OMG, it's the same aliens that are fucking with the world's missiles!)
I think I just may have extended my restriction and probably a lowering of allowance.

[Sean]

because i was anticipating more and wasnt having it. i wouldnt have posted it if it didnt end in "lets group hug". wtf? why? no. and i saw myself getting more of them with people looking to keep the same division but insisting it's all healed over now. again, no.So then it's on us to recognize whether you'll deem our messages worthy of being a pm to you or not, and if we guess wrong, then we can expect public belittlement?

but as for that other stuff yeah it was probably a cheap shot. you write so much and hold so much back tho, it's funny. makes the terse posts you do make seem like theyre waiting for someone else with less manners to pick up the umbrage for you.Wow. You managed to deliver an even less effective apology than my suggestion of a simple "yeah...sorry 'bout that". Well done. :rolleyes:

And I don't try to bait anyone. I say what I think and mean and you all can reply however you'd like. Yeah, I tend to avoid diving straight into name-calling because it generally misses the point 100%. Instead, I opt to make a smart-ass comment that's actually in regards to the subject at hand. You handle it differently. Great. Thus my post in the GWB thread about me feeling that you were "out of your depth" based on your arguments, and your reply to it which was to call me an "asshole".

[cacophony]

as professor hinted at, edits happen to posts all the time by moderators fiddling around. they're mostly good natured. you should have seen the escalating sig-altering dorkery between myself and BLD. i've had my profile and sig changed by yannick and tom. i've had tom edit thread titles basically calling me a faggot. the latter hit a minor nerve but it was ultimately just fun n games and doesnt mean that peoples writerly words are being misrepresented.

that's great if you guys are fine with that. i'm not. i post in 2 forums: world and underworld. on the very very very rare occasion i might venture out but we're talking probably fewer than 10 posts outside of world and underworld in all of the years i've been a member here.

it's a matter of forum characteristics. i used to run a forum on my own server years ago, and it was a comparatively small group of close friends just yucking it up for kicks. i made everyone a moderator specifically because editing each others' posts was a game we played.

it's all about context. it's not black and white, cut and dried.

[cacophony]

Thus my post in the GWB thread about me feeling that you were "out of your depth" based on your arguments, and your reply to it which was to call me an "asshole".

to be fair, i found your remark to him about being out of his depth to be just as insulting as the "asshole" retort.

just another unsolicited opinion.

[dubman]

1. So then it's on us to recognize whether you'll deem our messages worthy of being a pm to you or not, and if we guess wrong, then we can expect public belittlement?

2. Wow. You managed to deliver an even less effective apology than my suggestion of a simple "yeah...sorry 'bout that". Well done. :rolleyes:

3. Thus my post in the GWB thread about me feeling that you were "out of your depth" based on your arguments, and your reply to it which was to call me an "asshole". It's more about sticking to the point for me.

1. as much as can be dished out on a board. i'm still a member. all the same things that make me a regular poster are still there. i'd say the same whether i was a mod or not.

2. wasnt apologizing and dont intend to. i'll cop to something when im called out on it, but thats about it.

3. sean, i wasn't calling you an asshole (come to think of it, did i? lol. dont remember. ah well) but what i was mainly saying was how you were doing everything but calling me an asshole, which is all you wanted to do if you shave the extraneous bullshit. i dont see how not doing that was sticking to the point, it actually made it funnier. especially since what you did wasnt any different, just more restrained.

[Sean]

1. as much as can be dished out on a board. i'm still a member. all the same things that make me a regular poster are still there. i'd say the same whether i was a mod or not.Understood. But the public airing of private messages is a bit taboo as my understanding of standard forum etiquette goes. As a moderator, I expected that maybe you'd be more mindful of that fact. If you don't intend to be, then that's good to know.

2. wasnt apologizing and dont intend to. i'll cop to something when im called out on it, but thats about it.That's too bad. A moderator changing a forum member's post for their own amusement seems to cross a line that I would've expected at least a mild apology for. But your refusal to do so does tell me that you're a moderator to be wary of, so I guess I still get something out of the deal.

3. sean, i wasn't calling you an asshole (come to think of it, did i? lol. dont remember. ah well) but what i was mainly saying was how you were doing everything but calling me an asshole, which is all you wanted to do if you shave the extraneous bullshit. i dont see how not doing that was sticking to the point, it actually made it funnier. especially since what you did wasnt any different, just more restrained.Yeah, actually you did. You called me a "pedantic asshole" to be specific. Frankly, I don't really care what you call me, I was just pointing out that it's a difference in our approaches.

But to be clear in regards to what you've assumed here about my intent (and to verify the "pedantic" aspect of your name-calling at the same time ;)), no, what I wrote was not meant to imply that I think you're an asshole. I've never met you, so I don't know if you're an asshole or not. You could be a super guy. All I can do is react to your arguments, and those are what I was referring to. Saying that I believed your arguments displayed to me that you were "out of your depth" on the subject meant just that. Nothing in that statement implies that I'm pretending to know anything about your overall personality. All I know is that though you had ample opportunities, I never felt you represented your steadfast stance in a meaningful way, and so I believe that you had displayed that you were out of your depth in the argument. Sure, that wasn't a nice thing for me to say, but I don't think we were too worried about being "nice" at that point. The point is that there's a big difference between criticizing your arguments and criticizing you as a person.

I do find it interesting though that you've been consistent in dismissing any critical thought about those you disagree with, instead opting to assign whatever label to them that suits your argument. In the GWB thread, it was calling people on the pro-life side of the argument "fucking retards" rather than recognizing the legitimate point that their stance is based on their view of the sanctity of a fetus' life - and in my case, rather than acknowledge that I said your arguments were essentially weak, ineffective and unfair, you've deemed that what I was really saying was that I think you're an asshole. And don't read anything else into this observation. Honest to god, it's just what I said it is - an observation that I find interesting, and that I'll keep in mind in future debates with you.

[dubman]

it's all "good to know" to "keep in mind" ;)
sean, i'd make more of an effort if i was taking you seriously.

[Sean]

to be fair, i found your remark to him about being out of his depth to be just as insulting as the "asshole" retort.

just another unsolicited opinion.I would agree that it was equally insulting....and I even freely admit that it was meant to be. But there's still a difference between insulting the arguments he's presented and insulting his personality.

[Strangelet]

Yeah, actually you did. You called me a "pedantic asshole" to be specific. Frankly, I don't really care what you call me, I was just pointing out that it's a difference in our approaches.


he also called you walter. I mean really... :mad:

[dubman]

I do find it interesting though that you've been consistent in dismissing any critical thought about those you disagree with, instead opting to assign whatever label to them that suits your argument. In the GWB thread, it was calling people on the pro-life side of the argument "fucking retards" rather than recognizing the legitimate point that their stance is based on their view of the sanctity of a fetus' life
and this is why.

nothing you were doing was particularly critical or insightful. it sounded like you were trying to masquerade your perspective as logic in regards to what misogyny is and what isnt. thats not critical, its contemptible, and i stopped trying to work on your level to prove myself against your "logic". hence, not taking you seriously and generally being obstructive and glib

you call pro-lifers "points" legitimate, i call them flawed by default.

[Sean]

he also called you walter. I mean really... :mad:That one, I actually really liked. Not sure what it meant, but it made me picture myself as some kind of cross between me and Walter Matthau. :D

[dubman]

That one, I actually really liked. Not sure what it meant, but it made me picture myself as some kind of cross between me and Walter Matthau. :D
sobchak! do you know your lebowski, man?!

[Sean]

sobchak! do you know your lebowski, man?!Ahhhh....now I see. :D Yeah, the Coen Brothers have been one of my favorite film-making teams of all time ever since I first saw Raising Arizona way back in the late 80's.

[dubman]

it seems inane to have a comedy as my favorite movie ever and not one that has, say, acheived the rare ability to articulate a sense or truth that people dont/cant say in words...

but it's just better than anything i've seen. it gets better over time. theatres have retro night for it and im always there. i dont know another movie like that.

where were we.
oh right. ok even though i've been the most insistent one about not letting go for the sake of letting go, i've said the same thing 4, 5, 6 different ways and said how i was holding back off the moderating 3 different ways. each time has tried to be a bit clearer and less opaque than last time, but the last one was as clear as i can make it. it was a fundamental difference in perspective and of who has legitimate ground, and it wasnt going to progress into anything that sounded cohesive to either party. the mod-lock is, to me, an entirely seperate judgemnt that was not done out of spite but out of genral boarding experience in these things. and the editing of posts wasnt classy (albeit harmless) and obviously isnt taken as lightly as it is elsewhere on the forum. i've got my opinion how how that fell through as you do, but really, it's deconstructed enough where it feels like, again, the same things are being said.

[Sean]

it seems inane to have a comedy as my favorite movie ever and not one that has, say, acheived the rare ability to articulate a sense or truth that people dont/cant say in words...

but it's just better than anything i've seen. it gets better over time. theatres have retro night for it and im always there. i dont know another movie like that.

where were we.
oh right. ok even though i've been the most insistent one about not letting go for the sake of letting go, i've said the same thing 4, 5, 6 different ways and said how i was holding back off the moderating 3 different ways. each time has tried to be a bit clearer and less opaque than last time, but the last one was as clear as i can make it. it was a fundamental difference in perspective and of who has legitimate ground, and it wasnt going to progress into anything that sounded cohesive to either party. the mod-lock is, to me, an entirely seperate judgemnt that was not done out of spite but out of genral boarding experience in these things. and the editing of posts wasnt classy (albeit harmless) and obviously isnt taken as lightly as it is elsewhere on the forum. i've got my opinion how how that fell through as you do, but really, it's deconstructed enough where it feels like, again, the same things are being said.
Aaaand lock thread...
:D

[dubman]

dammit, i almost made that joke but you cant joke about these things it's just inappropriate dammit

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Aaaand lock thread...
:D


That should be this year's "Don't taze me bro".

[cacophony]

I would agree that it was equally insulting....and I even freely admit that it was meant to be. But there's still a difference between insulting the arguments he's presented and insulting his personality.

eh. i think it's splitting hairs. we all weigh our words and put something of ourselves into our posts. insulting the words is, in a way, insulting the person. telling someone they're out of their depth is still a bit of an ad hominem attack.

whatever, i'm only weighing on this because i think dubman was neither out of his depth nor the first to go for the jugular in that thread.

we're still going around and around so i won't belabor the point. but essentially from where you stand your position was "logical" and "clear" and no one was playing by what you felt were the rules of the discussion. even here you fixated on dubman's opinion that pro-lifers are retarded rather than conceding your debatable point that they're actually motivated by concern for the fetus. i wouldn't disagree with you 100%, but i will disagree strongly if your assertion is that no other motivation exists in that community.

you're still looking at those who disagreed with you in that thread from the standpoint of being "correct." it skews your ability to try to clarify your point in this thread or make any valuable inroads in the resolution of the debate.

[cacophony]

nothing you were doing was particularly critical or insightful. it sounded like you were trying to masquerade your perspective as logic in regards to what misogyny is and what isnt.

precisely.

[holden]

World forum reality imitates reality...
Two of the most divisive and hotly-debated issues facing the world stage:

pro-choice vs. pro-life
&
post editing.

In the "real world" or dirtyworld, neither side can see eye to eye.
But you've made some real steps in these threads. :cool:

[Strangelet]

precisely.


oh for christ sakes.

Do you honestly think george bush looks at his wife and his daughters and says to himself "god I fucking hate your kind".

that's what fell out of *your* logic, the obvious refutation of which was what sean pointed out. see, he's actually your best friend, because he keeps the energy against misogyny pointed in the right direction, the gratitude received, of course, is further condemnation of misogyny.

seriously, women need to understand religion hates everyone equally, the victims as well as the willing executioners.

[cacophony]

oh for christ sakes.

Do you honestly think george bush looks at his wife and his daughters and says to himself "god I fucking hate your kind".

don't be stupid. you're either being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument or you're beyond meaningful discussion because you're incapable of comprehending anything i've said.

that's what fell out of *your* logic, the obvious refutation of which was what sean pointed out. see, he's actually your best friend, because he keeps the energy against misogyny pointed in the right direction, the gratitude received, of course, is further condemnation of misogyny.

i dare you to make less sense.

seriously, women need to understand religion hates everyone equally, the victims as well as the willing executioners.

i'll take it a step further and assert that the world would be a better place with a cock in every woman's mouth.

shut up, chicks! everything is fine!

[Strangelet]

i'll take it a step further and assert that the world would be a better place with a cock in every woman's mouth.

shut up, chicks! everything is fine!

I'm not going to be bullied by your vitriol or your comically misguided sense of offense. I'm going to calmly reiterate my point.

GWB does not hate women. He has a wife, daughters, and a mother, like 90% of all men. But he happens to be a drunk and a man child who found God to help his issues with his father. That same religious belief has instilled in him priorities for which he has surrendered his personal judgment and temporal self-interest. That means he is acting out of a learned "value of life" that is diametrically opposed to the well being of his wife, daughters and mother. Just like all pious men have done. Because the system is such that the only ones who benefit are the people on top.

In the mormon tradition, the number of wives are a symbol of religious power. That is indicative of the fact that its not so much men versus women in the dynamics of religion. Its between those who have power and those who do not. Those who must give up their daughters and those who hold sway over them.

And so before you respond with another inventive literary device involving felatio, bear in mind its already going to be a while before I can begin to take anything you say seriously.

[chuck]

Can I just interrupt this flow for a bit - to state that I am a moderator.

To that end I've mainly removed porn links - have attempted poorly to stir up some debate in technique - and try to keep up here in world.

For the record - I wasn't involved in the thread locking/post editing - and don't really have the time to go back and read it all. Not sure I'd really be able to keep up.

So - yeah - like Deckard - don't think I've added much to this particular thread - but wanted to front up with the Mod status.

And no-one ever PM's me.... ;)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Strangelet: "90% of all men". Seriously?

chuck: You want people to bitch to you? I don't think there's even a definition for that yet.

[BeautifulBurnout]

I'm not going to be bullied by your vitriol or your comically misguided sense of offense. I'm going to calmly reiterate my point.

(...)

And so before you respond with another inventive literary device involving felatio, bear in mind its already going to be a while before I can begin to take anything you say seriously.

I'm very much afraid that I have kind of got to that point as well. Gambit's post in this thread was pretty extreme, but in essence he had a point.

There is a difference between a debate and a harangue; argument and vitriol; making one's point and having a shrill hissy-fit with whomsoever dares defy one's accepted "vision".

I dunno. Maybe it is just an American cultural thing, but I certainly don't have people in my entourage who feel that is the proper way to conduct a debate, particularly on so important a subject as pro-choice.

What I see coming out of this is not misogyny from the male posters but merely an expression of their view that anti-choice policies (I can't call them pro-life when they come from a president who thinks it's fine to execute people) do not automatically equate to a hatred of women.

The characterisation that Cacophony seems to be making thereafter is that because some people don't agree with what she is saying, it has to be because they don't understand and/or they must be misogynists too, which is the way in which people with entrenched and unshakeable positions (dare I say extremists?) always try and justify their stance. "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you insist on asking me to explain why I am right, or trying to explain why you are not wrong, it means you are too thick to see it, probably because you are one of 'them' as well" is one of the most immature, illogical and intellectually insulting arguments to be used. It is up there with GWB's infamous "You're either with us or against us". It brings intelligent debate into disrepute, frankly.

I am waiting for the post telling us we are all brainwashed by the patriarchal hegemony any time soon.

(And, to reiterate, I am pro-choice and support a large part of what Cacophony says on the subject.)

[chuck]

chuck: You want people to bitch to you? I don't think there's even a definition for that yet.


Heh - not to bitch at. And being a mod here is usually just about tidying up old threads - I don't have that much power.

Just saying - having stated my mod status - the PM box is there to use if necessary. Not that I'm on here as much as the other inmates - so responses might not be instant.

[cacophony]

And so before you respond with another inventive literary device involving felatio, bear in mind its already going to be a while before I can begin to take anything you say seriously.

this does not concern me. if i were interested in you taking my responses seriously, i would respond to your posts seriously.

in case you haven't figured it out yet, i'm done debating the misogyny topic. i haven't contributed one constructive word to the debate since my last longwinded post in the original thread. you're not bothering to read anything i've said as evidenced by your sudden trip down religion lane. it's as though you and sean have already convinced yourselves of what my argument is so you're asking me to refute everything and anything that pops into your head.

sorry, not going to play that game. you both seem to have some pent up issues about why feminists are ruining planet earth and i'm not going to be your one grandstand battle for either of you to prove that it's all imaginary foofaraw.

you don't have to agree with me. i've never asked anyone to agree with me. does anyone remember the uproar when i announced that every member of the police force is a pig with serious socialization problems? lollerskates what a fun mess that was. guess what? i still believe it. and nope, i'm not interested in your opinion on that either.

the one single, most awesomely stupid point that my mind keeps returning to is how you and sean so blindly missed the play on "george bush hates black people" hilarity that was all the pop culture rage after katrina. instead of simply discussing what the post was about, what it linked to, you both fixated on this "GASP! CAN SHE REALLY SAY THAT?!?!?!" outrage.

so whatever, dude. keep yapping about religion and how men who have daughters automatically qualify for daughter of the year.

[cacophony]

The characterisation that Cacophony seems to be making thereafter is that because some people don't agree with what she is saying, it has to be because they don't understand and/or they must be misogynists too

oh jesus christ. not even close.

there are no eyes rolly enough for this. :rolleyes:


everyone seems to have completely lost their sense of humor. it shouldn't have taken smiley faces for anyone to grasp that the cock in the mouth reply was total jest. if we're going to take stuff like that as SRS BZNS then what's the point of anything we do here anymore?

[BeautifulBurnout]

oh jesus christ. not even close.

there are no eyes rolly enough for this. :rolleyes:


everyone seems to have completely lost their sense of humor. it shouldn't have taken smiley faces for anyone to grasp that the cock in the mouth reply was total jest. if we're going to take stuff like that as SRS BZNS then what's the point of anything we do here anymore?

Well I am afraid you only have yourself to blame for people not seeing the "funny side" of your posts when so many of them are so full of invective. I thought that particular "joke" was goading brinksmanship of the first water.

I shan't be responding to you any more until you stop whining about other people and what is wrong with them instead of entering into sensible, mature debate.

We aren't at High School any more. This isn't a game of who can write the funniest insults - or if it is, it needs to be moved to the Noise forum.

[stimpee]

moderator-n00bs. Don't mess with people's posts. I learned that lesson years back here, for all to see. To all: calm the fuck down, its not the end of the world. To mods: pwned!

[BeautifulBurnout]

moderator-n00bs. Don't mess with people's posts. I learned that lesson years back here, for all to see. To all: calm the fuck down, its not the end of the world. To mods: pwned!


I LOL'd so hard I just spat out my tea!

And don't think you can come in here getting this thread back on topic either! Tsk! :mad:



;)

[Deckard]

you both seem to have some pent up issues
Your habitual tendency to dismiss other people's opinions across more than one thread by ending posts with a sarcastic variation along the lines of "well, what do I know, guys, I'm just a chick" makes me wonder who's really the one with the pent up issues here.

That was even before the comment about a cock in every woman's mouth. ROFL! And it's others who have the issues? Gimme a break.

[cacophony]

i haven't seen histrionics like this since the last season of project runway. :rolleyes:


ah well, it's the natural order of things for long-time forums to have occasional breakdowns and conflicts. like a forest fire clearing the way for new growth.

this has gone so far beyond stupidity that all i can do is quote myself, of all uncreative moves. i'll be damned if nearly a decade of fun and sometimes heated debate where my propensity towards hyperbolic comments has been accepted as part of the environment is going to be decried as something more appropriate for the "noise" forum. this ain't new, folks. same as it ever was, same as it ever was. i don't believe in the necessity of justifying oneself on a personal level in an internet community. it's all about community standards. a year or so ago "all cops are psychotic" was okay, this year "GWB hates women" is not. hey, it's how i post. if that's not working for the group as a whole anymore, then it's not working. i'm not going to argue that it should work.

anyway. it's become exhausting.

thanks to everyone, especially all of the people who have disagreed with me over the years. the ability to disagree and maintain an overall balance on this forum is what has made it so historically great. so in all sincerity, i had a good time. but i think i'm done.

[holden]

anyway. it's become exhausting.

thanks to everyone, especially all of the people who have disagreed with me over the years. the ability to disagree and maintain an overall balance on this forum is what has made it so historically great. so in all sincerity, i had a good time. but i think i'm done.

I can simpathize with everyone that's become frustrated on this forum or otherwise in cyber-land. It can be very draining, emotionally, intellectually, and not to mention time-wise to keep trying to explain oneself and getting seemingly nowhere.
But that's no reason to leave, cacophony! Your viewpoint adds a lot to discussions around here! Taking a break's fine, esp. with these threads, but don't pack it in because of a bad experience or two. We've all had them on forums.
You raise a good point about the internet communiy and justification. It's just so hard to communicate this way, over timezones/timelags, cross-culturally, semi-anonymously. We are free to say things here that we might not say in person, and it's sooo much easier to be misunderstood, misconstrued, what have you.
i sincerely believe that if these same debates were happening in person, we'd behave a bit more civilly, many misunderstandings of tone or intent would vanish, and the time it takes to make your point would diminish significantly. So there's a downside to the free anonymity of internet forum posting.
But there's plenty of upsides. You know this, and hopefully will stick around. :o

just my 2 cents of support...

[BeautifulBurnout]

Never say "never again".

I've flounced off in my time for a variety of reasons and come back again.

Holden is right - the internet is a place where people shoot from the hip because they don't have to be face-to-face with the person they are corresponding with. I don't think anyone here has ever said you don't have the right to have the opinions you do. But it is important to accept that resorting to name-calling is never going to make the person on the receiving end of it happy to read it.

There is a great french saying: "Les paroles s'en volent, les ecrits restent"- spoken words fly away, but written words stay. And that is part of the problem, because someone who has been insulted or humiliated or offended by something posted is likely to feel far worse about it than if it had been a throwaway remark face-to-face or on the phone, because it is here to stay, for all the world to see. And, irrespective of anonymity, people are still people. They still have feelings. Sometimes they will discard it with a shrug and a smile. Other times they will feel injured by it. One can never tell which, no matter what the intention was when one was writing the post.

If you think you can't participate here any more that is entirely up to you. But don't think that people don't want you around, because for my part that is certainly not true.

[potatobroth]

To speak a little on this, I had NO idea that moderators were editing comments to make jokes or whatever. Thus, every comment that has been moderated-for-humor has been read, by me and others, as words chosen by the credited author. That's just not right and as the moderator of a much less serious forum (not saying this is the epitome of serious either) I would never edit a user's comments for ANY reason. It's practically the worst thing a moderator can do. Moderators aren't around for our amusement, they are around to make sure topics don't turn into hateful threads, correct errant links, fix bad HTML, and delete spam. Other than that the posts should remain as how the author intended.

If a moderator wants to make a joke, they should just quote and comment in the same way as everyone else. The second a moderator takes a different approach to their position, the community will start to crumble as posters will rethink their reactions.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

"...Why don't you close your eyes and re-invent me?..."

It's fun being the king of shit talk!

Why?

Because I'm good at it.

[Sean]

So this debate has gone everywhere, lost the point, found it, beat the crap out of it, nursed it back to health, and then started all over again. In the simple interest of clarity, I just want to post what I guess could be considered my closing arguments on the subject. I'm not going anywhere, or refusing to reply to any new points that may arise, but for where things are as of now, I just want to make sure my stance is accurately understood.

My overall point is not who's right or wrong, it's simply meant to address whether or not I think the charge that "GWB hates women" is a logical enough conclusion to warrant it's assertion as fact. For all we know, Cacophony and Dubman are right, and he does hate women - but does this story provide clear evidence of it? That's what I question, and I don't personally think it does.

First and foremost, the issue at hand is that Bush presented a "memo that defines several widely used contraception methods as abortion and protects the right of medical providers to refuse to offer them."

The contraception methods at issue are specifically ones that take affect after the sperm and the egg have combined, which is why things like condoms and other methods that simply block sperm and egg from ever meeting are not included in this new definition of abortion. I believe it logically follows that the most likely reason for this would be the pro-life stance that individual life begins at the moment of conception. Again, I feel this is the most likely reason, not necessarily the hands-down correct one. Nor do I think that the "sanctity of life" argument is the only one that motivates pro-lifers, but it is the foundation of their stance, and the aspect of it that most directly applies to this particular issue.

Why do I consider this to be the "most likely" reason? Because this issue is most directly linked to all of Bush's overall philosophies on reproductive functions and the morality of what we do with them. Considering this, we can look at other issues that are directly affected by these philosophies to find any common threads.

The first two that pop to mind for me are stem cell research and partial birth abortions. Stem cell research could lead to cures of diseases such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or injuries like paralysis. But Bush's flawed reasoning that stem cell research reduces the potential human life of an embryo to nothing more than basically a lab rat took precedence over the suffering people that stem cell research would surely help. In the case of partial birth abortions, for Bush, the life of the unborn baby takes enough precedence over other considerations that he won't even allow for mothers to have the option of saving their own lives by terminating the pregnancy if that's a real choice they're facing. In both cases, as well as in the case of redefining abortion that started these discussions, the common thread is that for Bush, all other considerations are trumped by the philosophy that the life of an unborn child must be protected at all costs. That's what, to me, makes it the most likely logical reason for his stance...it's clear presence in all reproductive-related issues he's addressed.

If we similarly evaluate the stance that "GWB hates women" as a conclusion reached directly through the evidence we have, it simply comes out as less likely to be the reasoning behind the memo. We do see some common traits between how the redefining of abortion and partial birth abortions both negatively affect women, but it's certainly not a common thread that runs through Bush's stance on all things reproductive, like stem cell research and the like. So if we take a purely Occum's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor) style approach to the subject, then the conclusion that Bush's stance on this means that he "hates women" simply doesn't pass the test. The simplest explanation is that he values fetus life over all else, regardless of how debatable the subject of when life begins actually is, and regardless of who else is hurt in the process.

To me, Bush's stance shows disdain for many things - reason, indisputable human life and suffering, science, realistic consequences, etc. But I don't see a specific, focused intent on women that would qualify the assertion of "misogyny". There is no consistent trail of legislation or publicly known philosophies from Bush that show the common thread of specifically "hating women" that would need to be there to justify such a focused charge. At best, it's a guess based largely on assumptions. And frankly, I think that viewing this as an example of Bush's overall flawed thinking on the subject to be far worse than the limited, focused charge of misogyny. On that, I'm surprised to be meeting with such staunch resistance.

And as I've said before, if this story is accepted as evidence enough to establish Bush's misogyny, then we must also accept a myriad of other conclusions about him that are based on equally compelling evidence. That would mean that we must accept that Bush hates people with diseases and conditions that could be cured through stem cell research. And that he must hate Iraqi people. And that he must hate blacks as evidenced by hurricane Katrina. And that he must hate gay people since he opposes same sex marriage. And that he must hate Iranians because he supports sanctions against Iran. And that he must hate teenagers because he opposes making condoms available to high school students. While these are all certainly people who have been negatively affected by Bush's misguided policies, I don't personally feel that concluding he must hate them all is accurate or fair.

And to fortify the point, we must also, by extension, then apply the same reasoning to other stances. Like that, again, pro-choice people must hate babies. Or that anti-gun people must hate all hunters. Or that death penalty opponents must hate the families of some murder victims. Or that supporters of affirmative action must hate white people. Clearly, some of these examples are more ludicrous than others, but all rely on exactly the same logic that is required to justify the assertion that "GWB hates women".

So that's it. I think that clarifies exactly where I stand on it. Agree, disagree, get pissed, yell at me, call me stupid, whatever. I'm happy to continue the discussion about it, but probably won't engage in any debates that would simply require me to reiterate these points over and over again.

[dubman]

stimpee's right, it's much easier to sit back and let the meltdown happen, though the only reason i got pwnt here is because i didnt stick to my guns on locking it all up, like i probably should have, and acquiescing to the unwritten rules about whats a no-no. i also treated the "the word is all we have and its sacred" mumbo jumbo crap about piss-taking internet edits seriously. shame on me...
but so *glad* you guys not only brought the argument from the now-unlocked thread here, but are doing everything (including repeating the whole shitty cycle, flouncing, failing to bring up new points or indeed anything thats traversing the divide that isnt just trying to checkmate the other and make sure you can keep going with the kind of dialogue youve been content to distract yourselves with for years and years) that i thought was going to happen and locked the thread for.
BB got in late and is playing the part of sean, and cacophony got fed up and is now doing what i did by openly mocking everyone because the dialogue stopped being respectable several posts ago. we're supposed to be childish because we refuse to see your logic as realistic or truthful, and you're supposed to be weak-headed because all we're hearing is evasion and cowardice from whats actually happening.

BUT NO LETS KEEP THIS GOING ITS ESSENTIAL AND WE'RE ADULTS AND DONT NEED TO GET PULLED OUT OF A THREAD. YOU SURE SHOWED ME. BEERS FOR EVERYONE.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

BEERS FOR EVERYONE.


$4 bucket of Corona and a lime please.

[Sean]

stimpee's right, it's much easier to sit back and let the meltdown happen, though the only reason i got pwnt here is because i didnt stick to my guns on locking it all up, like i probably should have, and acquiescing to the unwritten rules about whats a no-no. i also treated the "the word is all we have and its sacred" mumbo jumbo crap about piss-taking internet edits seriously. shame on me...
but so *glad* you guys not only brought the argument from the now-unlocked thread here, but are doing everything (including repeating the whole shitty cycle, flouncing, failing to bring up new points or indeed anything thats traversing the divide that isnt just trying to checkmate the other and make sure you can keep going with the kind of dialogue youve been content to distract yourselves with for years and years) that i thought was going to happen and locked the thread for.
BB got in late and is playing the part of sean, and cacophony got fed up and is now doing what i did by openly mocking everyone because the dialogue stopped being respectable several posts ago. we're supposed to be childish because we refuse to see your logic as realistic or truthful, and you're supposed to be weak-headed because all we're hearing is evasion and cowardice from whats actually happening.

BUT NO LETS KEEP THIS GOING ITS ESSENTIAL AND WE'RE ADULTS AND DONT NEED TO GET PULLED OUT OF A THREAD. YOU SURE SHOWED ME. BEERS FOR EVERYONE.You've made it crystal clear that you think we're a bunch of windbags venting nothing but self-delusional distractions, that you see no value in respecting what forum members have written by refraining from editing their posts, and that you think nothing of interest is coming out of any discussions going on here. Super. If this particular subject is so bothersome to you, you could always feel free to just step out of it and let those of us interested in continuing do so. Can't say I see any use in you insisting on piping up for the sole purpose of giving everyone here crap.

But I will take that beer...

[dubman]

well i think i can have one wee "i told you so" considering i was told that *other* people werent done discussing a few other points and that it still had places to go. only to fail miserably one more time and justifying my initial impulse to lock it. although i'm jazzed that you so competently paraphrased everything ive been saying, so thats good. it doesnt bother me, honestly, it's too funny to yell at anyone at this point.

john, no corona. have some taste please.

[Sean]

well i think i can have one wee "i told you so" considering i was told that *other* people werent done discussing a few other points and that it still had places to go. only to fail miserably one more time and justifying my initial impulse to lock it.I mentioned that "the article that started the thread has other, as yet unexplored aspects to it that are worthy of discussion", but that's speaking to the point that the option of exploring other aspects of the story should simply remain available to us. It doesn't mean I was predicting that other people would be setting the thread abuzz with activity, or that such activity would be necessary to justify re-opening it.

although i'm jazzed that you so competently paraphrased everything ive been saying, so thats good. it doesnt bother me, honestly, it's too funny to yell at anyone at this point.Well now let's see...

You - "you guys are...repeating the whole shitty cycle, flouncing, failing to bring up new points or indeed anything thats traversing the divide that isnt just trying to checkmate the other and make sure you can keep going with the kind of dialogue youve been content to distract yourselves with for years and years"

My paraphrase - "you think we're a bunch of windbags venting nothing but self-delusional distractions"

You - "i also treated the 'the word is all we have and its sacred' mumbo jumbo crap about piss-taking internet edits seriously. shame on me..."

My paraphrase - "you see no value in respecting what forum members have written by refraining from editing their posts"

You - "BB got in late and is playing the part of sean, and cacophony got fed up and is now doing what i did by openly mocking everyone because the dialogue stopped being respectable several posts ago. we're supposed to be childish because we refuse to see your logic as realistic or truthful, and you're supposed to be weak-headed because all we're hearing is evasion and cowardice from whats actually happening.BUT NO LETS KEEP THIS GOING ITS ESSENTIAL AND WE'RE ADULTS AND DONT NEED TO GET PULLED OUT OF A THREAD. YOU SURE SHOWED ME."

My paraphrase - "you think nothing of interest is coming out of any discussions going on here"

I know I supposedly lack a fundamental understanding of the magical labyrinth that is your mind, but I don't think I missed the mark by too much. Maybe I should've specified that your post edits are supposedly limited to the "piss-taking" variety, but aside from that....

[BeautifulBurnout]

Dubman.

Stop behaving like a kid with a new water pistol.

You don't go about locking threads and changing posts or thread titles in the World Forum just because you can, and because you think it's funny. You want to diss people or take the piss out of them? That's fine. Just do it the clever way, because if you keep on abusing your mod power you will find yourself all on your own laughing at your own jokes (which you will have had to post yourself anyway because no bugger else will be posting).

If your only agenda is to wreak mayhem "for a laugh" - and let's be fair, you have said yourself you are not interested in the debate in this forum - then go right ahead. Light the blue touch paper and stand well back. And watch your firework fizzle out like a damp squib as one by one people disappear to somewhere where the integrity of what they post in a political forum is not jeopardised by someone whose sense of humour is stuck in grade school.

[dubman]

oh sean....

i was actually sincere there.
i know its my fault for being nothing but snide up until then, but l-o-l

no you pretty much got it perfect.

[BeautifulBurnout]

oh sean....

i was actually sincere there.
i know its my fault for being nothing but snide up until then, but l-o-l

no you pretty much got it perfect.


Oh LOL look! You got Sean all wet with your pistol there! Guhuh!

[dubman]

Dubman.

Stop behaving like a kid with a new water pistol.

You don't go about locking threads and changing posts or thread titles in the World Forum just because you can, and because you think it's funny. You want to diss people or take the piss out of them? That's fine. Just do it the clever way, because if you keep on abusing your mod power you will find yourself all on your own laughing at your own jokes (which you will have had to post yourself anyway because no bugger else will be posting).

If your only agenda is to wreak mayhem "for a laugh" - and let's be fair, you have said yourself you are not interested in the debate in this forum - then go right ahead. Light the blue touch paper and stand well back. And watch your firework fizzle out like a damp squib as one by one people disappear to somewhere where the integrity of what they post in a political forum is not jeopardised by someone whose sense of humour is stuck in grade school.
keep on abusing? a post edit and a locked thread. both that had fantastic fireworks after both occured. i told you in private and publicly i was refraining from further mod-work on this board specifically, so dont try to put me down to being childish and "wreaking havoc", because i wasnt terribly far off in locking the thread in the first place, and i've been more than negotiable in actions, if not in opinion.

i also take great steaming offense at humor being stuck in grade school as if it's a bad thing. it's the same impulses dressed up to look more 'sophisticated' as we grow up. also it's pretty fun if you dont give a shit because it still makes the adults flustered.

[dubman]

Oh LOL look! You got Sean all wet with your pistol there! Guhuh!
huh?
you jumped on the wrong occasion for that one.
and i'm asked to be clever about this?

[stimpee]

How many threads have been locked here in the past 6 or so years? Theres very little reason ever to lock threads, especially on this forum (world even more so). Yannick and Tom have screwed around in other parts of this forum, namely noise/static. The world forum always gets more heated because politics and religion always bring out the strongest feelings. Even so, I cant remember ever seeing a locked thread here or even posts being edited. This is still one of the most free and most "hands off" forums around and I like it that way. No need for the banstick. Just a PM will do.

If youre going to rename thread titles, only do it for clarity and put the original title in brackets. If youre going to edit things from someones post then comment on what youve changed and why. Same goes for deleted posts.

As for the whole topic of Bush hating women, well I always thought he was a closet homosexual :p

[Sean]

oh sean....

i was actually sincere there.
i know its my fault for being nothing but snide up until then, but l-o-l

no you pretty much got it perfect.Sorry...I didn't recognize sincerity from you. Assuming, of course, that this was sincere....

:D

[Sarcasmo]

Oh...My...God...

Sean, BB, please just give it up. dubman has been beaten about the head and shoulders quite enough already, and since there are no real consequences to his behavior on this board (other than getting banned - and let's face it, if you're repeating "Down the road, not across the street" because you got permabanned from a website, you need to be slapped) getting all wound up about it is only going to make you more aggrivated at the end of the day, because he'll just keep acting the way he wants. You've said what you need to say. Go grab a bite to eat, take in a nice movie (I hear there's quite the doozy about a man who dresses up as a flying rat), do a striptease for your spouse: whatever! Enjoy your lives, because while you say you have more important things to do than post here, you're being RLY RLY SRYUS right now.

It's sad that cacophony (who was getting pretty goddamned interesting) had to take a break. I hope she's taking a break. I hope she comes back and tweaks a few more noses before she's done. Frankly, I'm far more interested in dealing with people who are rigidly steadfast in what they think, even if they're in disagreement with me, because, if nothing else, it makes me think long and hard about what I believe. Huh-huh..."long and hard." Sorry, I've been in the desert too long. If you're still lurking a little bit, cacophony, I still love you, even though I think you were acting a little batshit insane for a while there. I'm not going to mince words or dance around for you, because I don't think you appreciate it. Some of us, particularly myself and Sean, have taken some real abuse on this board, and have subsequently had to get leagues better at debate, and the fine art of taking shit. We don't stop...ever. Not until you crush us in a hydraulic press (50 points to whomever figures that out) made of pure reason. Calling us "poopie heads" or whatever only makes us bite harder.

dubman, you may think that this board is just some static that you have agreed to preside over, but I offer this: Since I came here, back in '99, I've changed my stance on gun control and the death penalty. Granted, that may have happened with time, but I definitely credit the people who helped me get there a little quicker; ergo, Sean, Janie (or BeautifulBurnout if you prefer), HAL9000, sven, Ally, human151, myrrh...if I weren't so tired, I'm sure the list could go on and on. Point is: this might seem pretty trivial and lol to you, but it's been an experience for some of us, and you should probably think about respecting that, just a little bit. I think you've taken more than your fair share of shit in the last few days, but you have to admit you've invited some of it with your "I don't care what you wrote, and I think it's ROFL funny, but I'm going to post here again and poke you some more!" attitude.

On a lighter note, I only have a little over 50 days left in this shit-box. Keep the beer cold.

[Strangelet]

I WANT TO SAY THE ANGRY MEAN WORDS TOO


RWAAAARRRR!@!!!!

please stay, cacophony. you know we lurve ya

[holden]

Huh-huh..."long and hard."

:p best post ever? Settle down, Beavis!

Long and Hard: kinda describes this thread and it's parent threads, too;)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

well I always thought he was a closet homosexual :p

Really?

ooooh, I'm putting on my best dress tonight.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

(50 points to whomever figures that out)



I love a challenge, but what do these points apply to? If it's some Chuck E. Cheese sideshow Bob throw away, forget about it.

[BeautifulBurnout]

huh?
you jumped on the wrong occasion for that one.
and i'm asked to be clever about this?

Soz. I was out of order. I was hot, tired and cranky cos I couldn't sleep and had school today. My temper got the better of me. Again. :o

Sarcasmo - got some Old Speckled Hen here with your name on it, buddy. :) It's warm, though.....

jOHN - I have a dress just like that!

[dubman]

yeah and anyway whats wrong with squirt guns.
except their inherent grossness...

sarcasmo's point should have been bleedin obvious from the get go considering the longevity of members is more than enough time to budge somewhat on "the issues", but thats... so rare. i know it's dirty and we're above the blog rabble but politics aint dinner table convo for a good reason. the older people get the more entrenched it gets and... agh, it either becomes a headache or a joke. but ok. we're dirty, we're better. fine.

and i was asking for it and i knew i was, just not the multi-thread, page-spanning epic it became.

[Sean]

and i was asking for it and i knew i was, just not the multi-thread, page-spanning epic it became.To be perfectly honest, I like that things got shaken up for a bit and it turned into an "epic". Things have been kind of slow around here lately, and I kind of miss the old days of heated arguments between a lot of us.

Sarcasmo reminded me of a few people and some of the threads from the old days - I can't remember if it was Sven or Ergo who once came out saying they thought it would be a good idea to quarantine all people with AIDS in some isolated city somewhere to stop the disease from spreading. That one turned into a good argument....:D

[Professor]

i hate everyone.....






not really. i love you guys

[TheBang]

So this is when the group hug happens for reals?

[BeautifulBurnout]

So this is when the group hug happens for reals?

My guess is that it will be when UW decide to do a special Dirty-Only gig somewhere, in the same way Sting (http://www.epinions.com/content_112326053508) did in 2001.

(Although God forbid that there be anything so horrible that would happen on the same day as did here.....)

[//\/\/]

sting did a dirty concert?

[BeautifulBurnout]

sting did a dirty concert?

OK Mr Smarty-Pants! :p

[Sean]

My guess is that it will be when UW decide to do a special Dirty-Only gig somewhere, in the same way Sting (http://www.epinions.com/content_112326053508) did in 2001. I would hug the crap out of everyone if this were to happen...

[Sarcasmo]

I would hug the crap out of everyone if this were to happen...

You slut!;)

[ndrwrld]

i also moderate here.
and i only get PM's from Oceanic when he's out on weekends from his lenghty jail term for, as i understand it, sex with a walrus.
koo koochi koo.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

i also moderate here.
and i only get PM's from Oceanic when he's out on weekends from his lengthy jail term for, as i understand it, sex with a walrus.
koo koochi koo.

Who's this Oceanic person?

[ndrwrld]

he's very mysterious, kinda like James Bond, just instead of a license to kill, he has no licenses to do anything really.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

he's very mysterious, kinda like James Bond, just instead of a license to kill, he has no licenses to do anything really.


Ooooh(sp?), the intrigue. In a totally non-sexual way.

[stimpee]

wanted to bounce this worthy opinion piece by none other than hillary clinton. I think its a hell of a thing she's doing and I'm glad she's doing it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/an-outrageous-attempt-by_b_114064.html

as a moderator here i dont want to fan the flames, but should i move this to a more relevant thread? :)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

as a moderator here i dont want to fan the flames, but should i move this to a more relevant thread? :)

I think he's smoking pot.

[IsiliRunite]

'basement-manufactured crystal meth with window cleaner shake-down additive' is more like it.

[Strangelet]

as a moderator here i dont want to fan the flames, but should i move this to a more relevant thread? :)

prolly wise yeah :)

[Sean]

as a moderator here i dont want to fan the flames, but should i move this to a more relevant thread? :)The "GWB hates women" thread would be the one.

[Strangelet]

The "GWB hates women" thread would be the one.

mods: i've self moded the post. have a good one.

[Strangelet]

'basement-manufactured crystal meth with window cleaner shake-down additive' is more like it.

yeah. that must be why I think you're so fucking hilarious. :)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

'basement-manufactured crystal meth with window cleaner shake-down additive' is more like it.

Would you be shocked if I told y'all that's another all right thing?
(sorry but, I have to add. Say this in a country bumpkin voice. Gets a giggle out of me every time)

Oooh, the webs they've weaved.