Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 304 (410498)
07-15-2007 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by berberry
07-14-2007 3:02 PM


Re: STAY AWAY FROM ME!
quote:
The general philosophy for those who maintain a secular worldview believe in "live and let live."
No, you do not get to insult me further. You have no goddamn idea what my philosophy is.
Perhaps you missed in my quote where I said in " general." Besides that, what exactly was so offensive about that?
I don't care if I get suspended for saying this because you need to know it.
Ordinarily your behavior at this point does warrant a suspension. But Percy seems to be feeling very generous with you and I won't override his leniency being that he is, in a sense, my boss. I'm also engaged in the conversation as an active participant. There would be a conflict of interest for me in an Admin role to suspend you while also being an active participant. So I will that up to the discretion of another Admin.
I told you to shut the fuck up and leave me alone.
Berberry, if you truly wanted me to leave you alone you wouldn't have responded to my post.
I have absolutely no intention of reading one more fucking word from you until I get an apology for your comparison of gays to animals and your comparison of gay sex to rape. So go to hell.
Berberry, I've tried to be very civil with you without compromising my position. I've met that objective. I have reviewed my posts to see where your continued misconstrual of my words comes from. I can't see it. So I suspect the real issue is that you are either delusional or that what I'm saying is sinking in. I think the latter explanation will suffice.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit so that I don't offend delicate sensibilities

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by berberry, posted 07-14-2007 3:02 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 07-15-2007 12:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 304 (410507)
07-15-2007 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ringo
07-15-2007 12:57 PM


Re: STAY AWAY FROM ME!
The said part is that you lack the empathy to see how offensive your attitude is.
Funny how you could have the audacity to say that about me, while saying nothing about his behavior, let alone the slew of highly offensive terms he's branded me with.
But that's okay. I take it in stride because he knows not what he says.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 07-15-2007 12:57 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 07-15-2007 2:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 304 (410608)
07-16-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
07-15-2007 2:11 PM


What's good for the goose, isn't good for the gander
I do take your offensive attitude(s) in stride, but that doesn't make them less offensive.
Its not that I'm offensive. Its that you don't ascribe to my personal beliefs. If I was as half as nasty as some of the people in here, I'd have been sent to a leper colony by now.
It's not just direct comparisons of gay people to animals, etc. that are offensive
I don't make comparisons between homosexuals and animals. What I do is show why if you should morally support one, why don't you morally support the other by the same premise? If you're tolerant to one, but intolerant of the other, please explain how in the hell you can sit there and brand me as a bigot when you do the same thing?
If we were talking about African-Americans and I made an analogy about "dirty apes", do you see how some people might be offended? If I said I wasn't comparing African-Americans to dirty apes, would that magically erase the offense?
You just did. You offend me.
As a side note: What terminology do negro Canadians prefer? African-Canadians?
As I said, it's sad that some people can blythely walk around crunching other people's toes and ignoring their cries of pain.
As heartrending a testimony like that is, it doesn't undercut the fact that I've tried to civil discourses with many people who don't agree with me. I've managed to do that with many people. And while many, if not most, do not agree with my position, they seem to able to at least respect me enough to keep it civil.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Changed to meet the requirement of my boss

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 07-15-2007 2:11 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 07-16-2007 12:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 07-16-2007 1:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 35 by AdminPaul, posted 07-16-2007 2:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 304 (410638)
07-16-2007 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taz
07-16-2007 1:33 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
Remember that nem jug is a police officer of some sort. He's experienced with these sort of things. He knows how to press our buttons and make it appear that we are at fault. He has done a very good job at hiding his insults in a form of opinion.
Taz, I'm being myself. I didn't have extra training on how to piss people off. If I really wanted to, I could get every one here spun up. But why would I want to? You might be surprised to hear that I'm actually very non-confrontational. I like rational, calm discourse.
All I can say is the only thing we can do right now is to wait for him to die of old age, or perhaps of some other less natural causes. Until then, I guess we'll have to continue to share our air with his bigotry.
Listen to yourself and then think of the word, hypocrite.
Oh, and have I mentioned that nem jug's unashamed continuing usage of comparasons between gay people and animal and rapists is a perfect example of what I meant when I told riverrat that I want to have nothing to do with christianity (or god) until the christians clean themselves up a little bit?
Do us all a favor and quote all the times where I said, "Homo's are dirty goat lickers," or "They like to rape little boys because they're gay." That's comparing homosexuals to this or that.
Me showing you how your relative morals really aren't relative is me showing you how your hypocrisy knows no end. See the difference?

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 07-16-2007 1:33 AM Taz has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 304 (410640)
07-16-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Admin
07-16-2007 12:46 PM


Re: Ringo compares African-Americans to dirty apes
That's a pretty nasty subtitle, not to mention misleading in the extreme.
Exactly my point, good sir!!!
Subtitles are listed in most message lists. You might want to consider changing it.
Done deal.
Your response to Ringo, and I'm talking about the entire message now, not just the subtitle, raises a good point about the importance of maintaining civility, but it probably isn't a good idea to use EvC Forum as a testing ground of people's ability to maintain equanimity in the face of inflammatory or frustrating behavior. It would be better to see people trying to set examples as facilitator and communicator rather than instigator.
As long as you understand the premise of the test, I'm happy with that.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 07-16-2007 12:46 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 07-16-2007 1:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 304 (410673)
07-16-2007 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by berberry
07-16-2007 1:13 PM


Re: You found a way to do it again!
Fuck you!
Thanks for the offer, but I'm married.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 07-16-2007 1:13 PM berberry has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 304 (410846)
07-17-2007 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 11:18 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
I've looked through a few NJ posts as you can see and I find nothing where he directly compares homosexuals to zoophiles concluding that they are similar - instead he concludes that the relativist philosophy demands they be viewed equally but relativists do not - which, contends NJ, is hypocrisy.
I know that you and I most often don't share the same philosophies, but I very much appreciate you clarifying my position. Thank you, Mod.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 11:18 AM AdminModulous has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 304 (410859)
07-17-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Chiroptera
07-17-2007 11:39 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
Well, okay, then the next step, after it is explained how a relative moral relativist can distinguish between the two, is to discuss the reasoning.
NJ never does that. In fact, he constantly ignores the reasoning.
Can you back up this assertion, please? No, I'm not being condescending. I truly want to know how you think I've avoided it so that I can clarify my own position.
Also, can you please not just quote me, but also provide a link to the thread. I was trying to look for old threads yesterday where we've delved in to similar conversations but had trouble locating them.
Personally, I think he says that homosexuality is the same as bestiality because he likes to say it.
AdminModulus has stated my position in a way that explains it better than I have thus far. It is not comparison that says homosexuals are the same as zoophiles. The comparison, as AdminMod has elucidated, is about moral relativity and how the two conflict without an established set of principles that people can reference.
If I were really one of those kinds of people that hold up mean-spirited signs, like, "God hates fags," you would know about it. I couldn't fly under the radar this long. Besides, I'm pretty sure everyone knows that I'm straightforward and call 'em how I see 'em at this point. Anyone want to disagree about that?
I think those hateful sentiments are atrocious, counterproductive, and sinful to speak about anyone like that! Not only is NOT true, but its disgusting. The irony is that the very people that claim I'm a mean and nasty homophobe do far worse than I've done or said. (Please refer to the Jerry Falwell thread, where Berberry danced on Falwell's grave). Hypocrites!
The problem, as I see it, is that its all or none for people like Crash, Taz, Berberry, or Dan. For some reason, they are incapable of distinguishing that, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, they assume that I must somehow hate them for it. I don't. In fact, its the opposite.
Now, I am willing to cede the point that after long, arduous, and redundant dialogue, I have been known to get uppity. I admit that, and I apologize for that. It does me no good in the long run if you think that I'm condescending you. However, at no point am I disengenuous, inconsistent with my beliefs, or trying to offend a single person intentionally.
I have tried to be clear as a crystal about my position, without compromising my position. I think I've done a fairly good job at that, whether you personally like my views or not. I have made a conscious effort to try and do that to the best of my ability.
Again, if my sarcasm was derrogatory or sardonic to the point where it extended past jocularity, I apologize.
What I will not apologize for is my usage of comparisons strictly for the use of dethroning the rationale behind relative morality. I believe that I have a valid point and make no apology for it. Until I can get a rebuttle with some substance, I will continue to use because it is effective.
Hope that sets the record straight.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Chiroptera, posted 07-17-2007 11:39 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Jazzns, posted 07-17-2007 3:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 07-17-2007 3:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 100 by Chiroptera, posted 07-17-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 304 (410902)
07-17-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ringo
07-17-2007 3:18 PM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
See, that apology would ring a lot truer if it had come fifty posts ago, or six threads ago... you should apologize immediately and try to rectify the situation. You shouldn't deny, deny, deny
I was apologizing for being snippy and condescending. I could have been more constructive. I stand by everything else I've said. I will go a step further and say to Berberry that I'm sorry if I had anything to do with him misunderstanding me. A few other people seem to understand what I'm saying, so I'm not sure the obligatory response would be to apologize for anything else other than getting snippy and, perhaps, not relaying my position well enough.
You, on the other hand, have taken a third of a thread to apologize and in the process, two people have been suspended.
Excuse me, but are you blaming me for their suspension? Among the myriad of things I'm capable of, mind control, I'm pretty sure, isn't one of them.
That, I think, is why some people have expressed dismay at your admin appointment. Are you an admin because you're qualified for the job, or just because you're on "the other side"?
You'd have to ask my employer.
Are you suggesting that I'm not fair? Are you suggesting that I show bias in the capacity of my Admin duties? If so, back up your assertion.
A lot of the success of EvC is down to respect for the admins, I think. Don't spoil that.
Speak rationally and calmly... get chastised
Clarify my position... get chastised
Apologize for my role in the fiasco... get chastised and have my integrity challenged
I feel fortunate that Jesus is willing to forgive a sinner like me.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 07-17-2007 3:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 07-17-2007 8:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 304 (410903)
07-17-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Chiroptera
07-17-2007 6:35 PM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
Fair enough request.
I can't find the thread that I do remember, and don't quite remember the other threads I thought I saw this.
So I'll withdraw my accusation.
No worries, Chiro. Seriously, I meant what I said. I would rather you show me if you think I'm being inconsistent so that either I can better explain my position, or rectify a flaw in my reasoning. If by chance you stumble onto an old thread and see any discrepancy, please, by all means, call me out on it so I can rethink it.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Chiroptera, posted 07-17-2007 6:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 304 (411580)
07-21-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by AdminAsgara
07-19-2007 1:56 PM


Berberry is a he. Berberry is a male. Berberry is a man.
That's a man baby, yeah!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-19-2007 1:56 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 304 (412295)
07-24-2007 10:32 AM


Enmity and strife
I've been reading this whole dialogue now for two days straight, but I'm not seeing any headway. One group says this, while the other maintain that, and somewhere in the middle is a moderate group trying to wash their hands clean of it.
This discussion is concluded. Please Do Not Respond!
Any response to this post or continuation of this subject will lose access to this forum for roughly 24 Hours.

--AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 304 (412355)
07-24-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 5:57 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
I'm not a moderator, and I'm certainly not the one being too obtuse to see that a gratuitous and unnecessary comparison between adult homosexuals and rapists is, by definition, offensive the first time and a forum-violating provocation every subsequent time.
When so many people are telling you're wrong, Mod, isn't it just slightly possible that you are?
Crash, Modulous is being spot on about my argument. As well, AdminPD has posted several of my former posts where I make a similar argument. Its unassailable at this point that I was, and always have been, making an argument against moral relativism.
Either way I don't see how you can be qualified to moderate this forum.
Come on, Crash.... Modulous is by far one of the most equitable Administrators on this forum. Please don't take out your frustrations for me out on him. Modulous is a terrific moderator.
Aside from which, his personal feelings concerning homosexuality are more akin to your own. Yet, he recognizes that the argument I've made had far less to do with homosexuality itself than it did with questioning how one can arrive at a moral conclusion about it while denuding another by the same premise.
If Nj was ever suspended for his conduct, it somehow passed beneath the notice of every single person here.
Which only serves to confirm that I was never in any violation, and that the argument made against me was one made purely out of an emotive response.
His Austin Powers thing, while off-topic, was intended to be humerous and I really didn't see the merit of a suspension.
I actually thought, this, of all things, was going to be what you most agreed with them on.
I assumed that Percy was just using that as a face-saving excuse to address his earlier conduct; the one that got us where we are now.
I kind of sensed that too-- that given the fragile nature of the thread, if he didn't suspend me for something (insert scapegoat here: _______) it would appear that his fairness would be in question. Austin Powers became that scapegoat, even though, ironically, it had everything to do with other people calling referring to Berberry as a "she."
Berb's frustration was certainly legitimate
Berberry seems to be flustered by just about anything. He seems to be a very touchy fellow. I'm not the only one who noticed it. He makes it so that no one can ever question homosexuality-- that if they do, we'll immediately be "offending" him. That's not how debate works. I suggest that he grow some thicker skin, because if what trivial thing I've said offends him, he's going to blow a gasket when somebody actually uses some derogatory comments about homosexuals against him.
This discussion is concluded. Please Do Not Respond!
Any response to this post or continuation of this subject will lose access to this forum for roughly 24 Hours.

--AdminPD
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Fixed quote box
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 5:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2007 2:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 304 (414257)
08-03-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Admin
08-03-2007 8:21 AM


Re: not to whine, but.
At the next moderator meeting I'll raise the issue of whether a warning should first be issued for chatroom behavior.
Please do, because neither of them deserved to be suspended for any length of time for such a minor infraction.
Now, I do agree with Moose's premise, that treating a forum like a chatroom should be discouraged, but at the same time, Brenna and Arach should have been warned prior.
Had they disregarded a clear warning, then all bets are off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Admin, posted 08-03-2007 8:21 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 5:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 304 (414267)
08-03-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by arachnophilia
08-03-2007 5:14 PM


Re: not to whine, but.
we have been warned on previous occasions
Well, then that might change the dynamic of the situation. But I can't really say for sure, being that I didn't witness any of the dialogue in context.
all the posts were precisely on topic, just short logical arguments. they weren't wasting thread space with off-topic banter, in-jokes, or any of that sort of thing. they were just on-topic arguments. albeit short ones.
Yeah, I agree. Jar was right when he made mention of you being on topic. I don't think the length of a post is a good criteria, otherwise, somebody with as much brevity as Ringo would be off topic all the time!

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 5:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 6:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024