Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 61 of 424 (567054)
06-29-2010 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 12:42 PM


CS writes:
I'm saying that when he talked about homos and rape in the same post, that he was not saying the two were the same thing.
He never outright said that homos and rape are morally equivilent just like I've never said that being catholic and pedophile is morally equivilent.
Now, what's the difference between catholic and pedophilia?
Maybe because he thought it was a good example that nobody had sufficiently rebutted yet.
There were at least two dozen of us responding to him on the matter. Don't tell me not one of us explained to him the moral difference between the two.
Do you think you should be suspended for that?
I've repeatedly requested Percy to wave his magic wand and resurrect all our dearly departed, even the ones who were on crack. I don't want to see anyone banned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 12:56 PM Taz has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 424 (567055)
06-29-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Taz
06-29-2010 12:49 PM


He never outright said that homos and rape are morally equivilent just like I've never said that being catholic and pedophile is morally equivilent.
Right.
And even if he did say that they were morally equivalent, like a nihilist might make an arguement about, that still doesn't mean they are saying that they are the same thing.
Now, what's the difference between catholic and pedophilia?
Ones a religion and ones a psychiatric disorder.
Should I be crying about how you think all catholics are pedophiles and how I'm deeply insulted by this?
There were at least two dozen of us responding to him on the matter. Don't tell me not one of us explained to him the moral difference between the two.
His arguments were about how atheists and/or moral relativists didn't have a good argument to distinuish between the two without a moral authority, or something like that.
Maybe you really didn't address his argument, I don't remember.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 12:49 PM Taz has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 424 (567056)
06-29-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Huntard
06-29-2010 12:30 PM


What puzzles me is how he misinterpreted that to mean that NJ thought homosexuals are kids and dogs. Is this what got all that started, cause it seems like an overreaction to me.
It's amazing how extreme the two differences of opinion are. One side is convinced that he was definately gay-baiting. The other side is saying it is an overreaction and misconstrual.
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Huntard, posted 06-29-2010 12:30 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Huntard, posted 06-29-2010 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 2:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 64 of 424 (567060)
06-29-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 12:44 PM


He's not the only one. Berberry, Taz, Crash, Rrhain, Dan, Schraf, etc. all though that making that comparison is saying that you think that homos are kids/dogs.
Weird. Could one of you (Taz? Frog?) explain to me how saying that is comparing gays to dogs/kids?
Edited by Huntard, : did quote wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 65 of 424 (567061)
06-29-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 1:00 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
It's amazing how extreme the two differences of opinion are. One side is convinced that he was definately gay-baiting. The other side is saying it is an overreaction and misconstrual.
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.
Indeed. I still can't quite wrap my head around it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 424 (567063)
06-29-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taz
06-29-2010 12:31 PM


For the record, we have the records
And we clarified to him like 10,000 times that gay marriage and rape weren't two comparable things.
But he never made that comparison to begin with. He said, if you are a moral relativist and allow for gay marriage, what moral precept makes you preclude things like rape, incest, zoophilia, pedophilia, are aberrant? If you can't tell, what he's attempted to point out is his perception of the futility of moral relativism. You may think he's trying to be clever by disguising his insults, but I think he thought he was clever by turning moral relativism around on its head. That's where he thought he was Mr. Smarty Pants.
Yeah, I agree it's a piss poor slippery slope too, both as an argument against moral relativism and for gay marriage, but I really think you guys gave him more credit than what he's due in the clever department.
What's the difference between catholics and pedophiles?
Just based on that statement alone, NJ could say that you are making clear accusations that catholics and pedophiles are the same thing. What's more, you actually made the reference, with no disguise.
Should we therefore punish you for being hurtful to Catholics? Because from everything I read, that's basically what the lynch mob wanted to do to NJ. He said something offensive and he should be punished for it. That would be absurd, even if he directly said "I hate fags because they rape puppies!"
We didn't take the bait. We just became frustrated
But why do you care so much about his opinion that he needs to be punished or muzzled for his opinion? If you didn't want to see anyone banned or suspended (including him) what did you want to happen?
Isn't he entitled to even the most homophobic opinion? From what I read, he didn't hate homosexuals, he pitied them and feared the societal repurcussions of allowing it in to society.
It's delusional and every bit as vapid as all the other fundy arguments, yes, but surely he's allowed to have the opinion.
I even recently saw a thread in where he actually tried to make a mends and apologized for hurting Berberry's feelings. He even offered to censor himself a gesture of good faith. In my opinion, it was you guys being the pricks, not the other way around. You, in particular, even shunned his apology.
You guys are making him out to be some kind of hideous beast that crawled out of a swamp. All things considered, he was tame by fundy standards.
Mod ain't gay. He's bi, which is a totally different animal
If he's bisexual then obviously he's okay with homosexuals. My point is, Modulous would have had every personal reason to execute NJ. But apparently he interpreted it as I do and was not equating gays with pederasts and beastialists alike. If Modulous is such a terrible and partial moderator, NJ would have been history in the blink of an eye.
Then, of course, you have the rest of the forum interpreting it the same way, except for you, Crash, Rrhain, Dan, Outcastinator(?)and Berberry. From what atrocious behavior I witnessed from Berberry, and continue to witness from Rrhain, I'll take their testimonies with a grain of salt.
For the record, I never wanted anyone to get banned. I even repeatedly requested Admin to give a blanket amnesty to everyone, including some of the craziest crackpots we've ever seen. I don't want to see anyone banned.
I did see that. I think you did the right thing in that instance. It does beg the question though, in light of you not wanting bannings or suspensions, what did you want to happen to NJ?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 12:31 PM Taz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 424 (567067)
06-29-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
06-29-2010 3:51 AM


The answer is obviously the same, hence why I said it both ways. You're stuffed.
You're still not getting it. Forget about me for a second. What do the moderators do?
We just disagree over whether that happened.
But we can't disagree. It's impossible for there to be disagreement, because the things Dan said to you were objectively the same things NJ was saying to Berb.
And when Dan said them to you, you correctly identified them as disrespectful. You even asked Dan to confirm that they were disrespectful, and he confirmed your judgement. Remember? He said it was "balls-on accurate?"
Didn't you understand, that was the point? That Dan was very obviously recasting NJ's argument against Berb into an argument against you? Did you really think he thought you were a retarded monkey, and that you needed help learning how to eat a banana?
Jesus, Mod, what else did you miss in that thread?
. I give you my word I was not of the opinion that NJ had disrespected Berberry.
But again - this is not possible. It's simply impossible for you not to be of that opinion, because when Dan made the same statements to you that NJ made to Berb, you accurately apprehended them as disrespectful. And you asked Dan if that was indeed the case, and he confirmed it. He told you your judgement was "balls-on accurate." He told you that he "fully expected to be suspended from his first post." Why did he expect that? Because he was purposefully engaging in the conduct NJ was engaged in, and he knew that you knew that conduct merited suspension.
And indeed, you suspended him! So you must have known that NJ's conduct merited suspension, because you suspended Dan for engaging in it.
I don't need you to tell me what you thought, Mod, because your actions made your thoughts clear. You knew the conduct NJ was engaged in merited suspension, because you suspended Dan for engaging in it.
Can you give me any reason why it should be viewed as a critique on moral relativism?
None at all, Mod, because - like NJ - Dan was not engaged in a critique of moral relativism. It was never his intent to put forth a critique of moral relativism. It was his intent to put forth the exact same conduct that NJ was engaged in, only directed at you so you would accurately apprehend its meaning.
And you did! You even asked Dan if you had accurately apprehended his meaning, and he confirmed that your judgement was "balls-on accurate." And so you suspended him, because the conduct he was engaged in merited suspension.
But you never suspended NJ. You actually shortened his suspension.
I seem to remember a lot of people claiming that Dan was suspended for daring to criticise the moderators.
But Dan's critique was that you only correctly apprehended disrespect when it was directed at yourself. You claim that's not the case - that you can apprehend disrespect when its directed to people who are not yourself.
So by your own words I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action. That was your ultimate failure as a moderator, the failure of the entire moderation team, and as NJ's repeated gay-baiting spiraled out of control, Percy fired the moderators and suspended the complainers. Even though he knew that NJ was the central cause of the controversy. But the moderators Had Ruled, there could be no going back on the explicit approval of NJ to gay-bait, and therefore the only apparent solution was to suppress dissent.
So, yes, Mod - you caused the collapse of EvC forum, along with Percy and the other moderators. All you had to do was suspend NJ when he engaged in gay-baiting. All for the want of a horseshoe's nail, indeed.
If it was a case of unconscious defensive behaviour because so much shit was being thrown at the moderators - do you think the answer is to continue throwing shit?
But again, that's the point - we weren't throwing shit. The moderators were throwing shit, and we were engaged in a constructive dialogue to convince them to stop throwing shit.
Rrhain just went nuts accusing NJ of fellating his dog and raping his infant son.
Because you let NJ keep gay-baiting! Even Percy recognized it. And I have to ask, if even Percy saw it, why didn't anybody take the extraordinarily obvious action of suspending or banning NJ for gay-baiting?
Because for about 300 posts over several months various moderators had explicitly stated that they weren't going to do that, and it's endemic to persons in shared authority that it's more important for them to do the same thing than to do the right thing.
Heat of the moment, naively believing that it might achieve something, who can say?
Mod, if you're admitting to posting in the "heat of the moment", can you admit that it may have been moderators who were acting impulsively, emotionally, and as an obstacle to constructive dialogue? (Suspending Rrhain for "won't fucking let fucking it fucking go" was all the evidence I needed.)
Or are you still intent on portraying this as a situation where participants simply wouldn't see reason?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 3:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 2:44 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 06-29-2010 2:45 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 2:49 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 79 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 3:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 68 of 424 (567068)
06-29-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Taz
06-29-2010 12:22 PM


Hi, Taz.
Taz writes:
Oh, please, NJ was not an idiot. If anything, he was very intelligent. Don't expect me to believe he honestly did not understand the moral difference between homosexuality and rape.
Nobody has yet provided an example of NJ equating homosexuality with rape, and I haven't been able to find any such reference using the Search or Member Topic List functions.
I haven't gotten all the way through all the pertinent threads yet, so I admit I may have missed something, but I'm becoming more and more skeptical of your and Crashfrog's claim that this happened.
Since you were there at the time, maybe you or Crashfrog would be better equipped than I to find the reference and post it here?
I'll keep looking myself, of course, but I've got a lot of work to do in the real world, so I don't plan to put a great deal of effort into this.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 12:22 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by purpledawn, posted 06-29-2010 3:17 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 424 (567071)
06-29-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 8:59 AM


Irrelevant, insofar as you still seem quite perturbed by all of the moderators and by what transpired over two years ago.
I hadn't even thought about the issue until Rrhain linked to those posts in the other thread, so no, I'm not nursing any grudges, here.
And again - Mod opened the thread, not me. In response to Rrhain. So likely it's Rrhain's grudge.
I'm surprised he hasn't posted in this thread yet, but perhaps when he does you can ask him why he dredged all this up.
That being the case, it gives the impression that you're not merely an impartial observer, but are suspicious of moderators before the fact, and your perception of them coveting power.
I maintain that the only reasonable and objective attitude towards authority is to be a priori suspicious of their actions, because being in a position of authority has known psychological effects that corrupt cognition. See the Stanford prison experiment.
But, sure. By the time GenDiscMod11 rolled around I'd had my own issues with some of the moderators. Are you saying you never have? Well, maybe they're better nowadays. If that's the case then I feel my statements had some effect.
Did you miss the hysterical fits displayed by Berberry?
No, and I told you that I didn't. Are you listening? Remember when I asked Berberry "what the fuck was wrong" with him? Berb deserved his suspension, but the only reason he blew his top in the first place was NJ's campaign of gay-baiting, directed specifically at him, that went on for months with explicit moderator approval. The moderators needed to own up to their role in that. Mod still refuses to. I guess it really doesn't matter now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 8:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 70 of 424 (567072)
06-29-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 1:00 PM


It's amazing how extreme the two differences of opinion are. One side is convinced that he was definately gay-baiting. The other side is saying it is an overreaction and misconstrual.
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.
NJ pursued the matter relentlessly with those who were quite evidently offended by his comments and questions. In that sense at least he was "gay baiting".
On the other hand moral absolutism was one of NJ's main areas of discussion whether it related to sex or not. And he seemed to genuinely feel that he had one over on the moral relativists on this particular issue. Quite possibly because rather than getting dispassionate rebuttals he was in many cases inspiring emotionally charged invectives. Regarding the content of what NJ was saying alone I think there definitely has been overreaction and misconstrual.
NJ's own stated moral line was clear. Right and wrong are biblically derived. And in that sense at least (whatever else one thinks of the comparison or of the legitimacy of such biblical condemnation) gay sex and bestiality are indeed linked. Of course it can be pointed out that eating lobster is also linked in terms of being a biblical "abomination"................
I can see why some might take offence at him asking the questions he asked in the manner that he asked them. But I also don't think that asking where the moral line is and on what basis there is any line at all for moral relativists is unreasonable. In fact I think it is rather interesting. As a line of questioning in itself it certainly doesn't warrant being banned even if expressed insensitively or even provocatively.
If on one hand it should be considered a moral right for consenting adults to be able have sex with whomever they choose then on the other hand can we say that incest is immoral?
If the defining difference between moral sex and immoral sex is consent are there exceptions and if so on what basis are they made?
Why is consent the defining factor in deciding what is moral and what is not? Who decided this?
Can we really say that bestiality is morally wrong because animals cannot give consent whilst simultaneously feeling morally righteous as we turn them into cheap shoes?
Why is marriage of any sort a "right" and why should the state rather than the Church define who can marry who?
These are rhetorical questions. Anyone who has witnessed me post on these topics can probably pretty much guess my own position on these matters anyway and I don't want to drag this thread down the route of attempting to answer them here.
But they are examples of the sort of thing that NJ was getting at. And are very valid questions.
Message 150 up and down thread exemplifies these conversations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 3:19 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 424 (567073)
06-29-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AZPaul3
06-29-2010 10:01 AM


AZPaul attempts to be "constructive"
You didn't answer the question, Frog.
I think you'll find that I did, Paul. Please go back and read more carefully.
We don't care, Frog.
Then I apologize, since someone must be twisting your arm and making you participate in this thread.
Oh, what's that? No, they're not? Nobody's twisting your arm at all?
Then why are you here?
Again, Frog:
Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.
quote:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 06-29-2010 10:01 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 12:55 AM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 424 (567075)
06-29-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:19 PM


But we can't disagree. It's impossible for there to be disagreement, because the things Dan said to you were objectively the same things NJ was saying to Berb.
And when Dan said them to you, you correctly identified them as disrespectful. You even asked Dan to confirm that they were disrespectful, and he confirmed your judgement. Remember? He said it was "balls-on accurate?"
But they were talking about the comment about eating bananas, not about christians raping goats. So, no, it wasn't objectively the same thing at all.
But again - this is not possible. It's simply impossible for you not to be of that opinion, because when Dan made the same statements to you that NJ made to Berb, you accurately apprehended them as disrespectful.
But you're wrong. So your judgment of the intent is wrong.
This is a great example of why you shouldn't be doing that.
I don't need you to tell me what you thought, Mod, because your actions made your thoughts clear.
No, they don't. What's "clear" to you is wrong. You cannot read peoples' thoughts from text they submit to a forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 424 (567076)
06-29-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 10:01 AM


Which you cannot know without judging their intent.
Er, no. Intent is irrelevant, we're talking about the action of comparing someone to a rapist.
I don't need to speculate on intent to know if one person is bashing someone else with a baseball bat. I don't need to get into their head to know if that action is being taken. I just have to observe the bat in their hand, rising and falling as it is used to beat the other person over and over again. At that point it really doesn't matter what's going on in anyone's head, we're talking about actions, not intent.
We don't need to know NJ's intent. His intent is irrelevant. We observed that he was taking the action of comparing consensual homosexual relationships to rape and bestiality, suggesting that they were morally equivalent. That action violates the forum guidelines and should be subject to censure, but for some reason moderators uniquely took NJ's supposed "intent" (which they could not know) into account and let him continue to do it.
It was a gross injustice and the most shameful episode of moderation in the life of the forum. Full stop.
Ones where you judge peoples' intents by a few lines of text and then determine what they're thinking so you know how to moderate them.
CS, I've told you - it was never a matter of what NJ was thinking. It was a matter of what he was doing. We don't need to have read his mind to observe what he was doing.
Ber was insulted because he thought that NJ really did think homos were rapists.
Well, no. That's false. Berb was never insulted by what NJ was thinking, he was insulted by what NJ was saying. Just as I don't have to read your mind to know what you're saying, neither Berb nor anyone else had to read NJ's mind to know what he was saying.
Intent doesn't matter, but for some reason moderators decided, in NJ's case, to rule from intent, and then use the fact that they couldn't know his intent to justify inaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 10:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 2:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 74 of 424 (567077)
06-29-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:19 PM


Hi, Crashfrog.
crashfrog writes:
It's impossible for there to be disagreement, because the things Dan said to you were objectively the same things NJ was saying to Berb.
I disagree with you here, Crashfrog.
NJ didn't direct any of his insults at Berberry or anybody else specifically. He was very cautious to express his views without condemning anybody in particular. It was Berberry's and other's sensitivity to the issue, and not anything that NJ actually said, that made the discussion personal.
On the other hand, Dan Carroll's and Berberry's comments were leveled directly at NJ and Modulous, and were attacks on the personal character of individual people.
I don't see how these are objectively the same.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:56 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 75 of 424 (567078)
06-29-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:19 PM


You're still not getting it. Forget about me for a second. What do the moderators do?
Could you make the question more specific? Be wrong, seems the most obvious answer - but you won't like that.
Didn't you understand, that was the point? That Dan was very obviously recasting NJ's argument against Berb into an argument against you? Did you really think he thought you were a retarded monkey, and that you needed help learning how to eat a banana?
So in order to demonstrate that one party insulted another party Dan insulted a third party? No - Dan tried the recasting of NJ's argument technique with his goat raping gambit.
I don't need you to tell me what you thought, Mod, because your actions made your thoughts clear.
I'll stop bothering, since you have just explicitly told me it would do no good.
But Dan's critique was that you only correctly apprehended disrespect when it was directed at yourself.
No - it wasn't. Dan's critique was
1) You should suspend Christians offended by "Christians rape goats' Message 55 - a critique of the Berb suspension.
2) NJ was just saying bestiality and homosexuality were the same over and again. Message 56
3) OK, argument 1) wasn't quite right. Then make it ""if you support the right of Christians to worship freely, you have no reason for not supporting the rape of goats." Message 61
4) NJ was saying they were the same over and over again Message 66
5) Mod's 'version' of NJ is more reasonable that NJ, Message 67
6) Mod should do his fucking job. And he's a quote mining bitch Message 69
7) NJ was saying they are morally the same. "By this point, only a retarded monkey who was thrown out of retarded monkey school for being too retarded and monkeylike to pass the qualifying exams for retarded monkeydom could not realize that NJ really has no desire to discuss moral relativism" Message 74
8) Mod is a retarded monkey who is about to take the qualifying exams. Message 82
9) Mod is accurate in his assessment that I was disrespecting him in 8), Message 90
So by your own words I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.
My own words repeatedly said the opposite, but don't let that stop you being wrong about that. It didn't then, and I guess it still won't.
But again, that's the point - we weren't throwing shit. The moderators were throwing shit, and we were engaged in a constructive dialogue to convince them to stop throwing shit.
You were raising a point that when one feels like shit is being thrown at you, you get defensive and circle the wagons. So - do you think that increasing the perception of shit throwing was the correct reaction to the moderators alleged wagon circling? Or would that merely exacerbate the situation?
Mod, if you're admitting to posting in the "heat of the moment", can you admit that it may have been moderators who were acting impulsively, emotionally, and as an obstacle to constructive dialogue?
I actually gave some possible explanations in good faith and said 'who knows?'. I suppose it's to be expected you would read that as an 'admission'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:10 PM Modulous 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