moderators editing members posts

[dubman]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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]

Originally Posted by dubman

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.

Originally Posted by dubman

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.

Originally Posted by dubman

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]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

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...

[dubman]

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

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

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.

[dubman]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

sobchak! do you know your lebowski, man?!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by dubman

sobchak! do you know your lebowski, man?!

Ahhhh....now I see. 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.