Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 424 (567122)
06-29-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 5:11 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
And you have to look past the submitted text to get to the subtext...
No, you just have to read it.
You can't get from 'the text that NJ submitted' to 'a personal attack' without bringing in more than his position
So, if I tell you that you're wrong because you're a ridiculous douchebag, you're the one arguing the person when you take offense?
Don't be absurd.
As if your interpretation is the only one possible
No, it's just the only one reasonable. Look, it actually is possible to be too ignorant to be insulted. Sometimes insults go over your head because you don't know what they mean. If I called your mother a "round-heeled doxy", you're probably not insulted because you have no idea what that actually means. You're ignorant of the meaning, so paradoxically you're immune to the insult. Trust me, as a semi-professional insulter this is a huge problem in my field, you have to aim your insults at your intended audience - not over their heads.
But ignorance is only a defense the first time. If you're not gay yourself, maybe you don't know how insulting it is to be told that, morally, you're no better than a rapist. But once you've been told that comparing gays to horse-fuckers is insulting to people who are gay, there's no excuse for continuing.
He did... for weeks.
Where?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 5:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 107 of 424 (567124)
06-29-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 5:26 PM


I must be reading things quite differently from you, because that is not what I take away from those quoted paragraphs.
For instance:
NJ writes:
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.
According to you this is where "NJ tells [you you're] gay".
But that's not how I read it at all. The final sentence, where he says "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.", the "them" there does not refer to anyone mentioned there, it refers to homosexuals in general. At least, that's how I read it.
Or a possible second meaning, that he doesn't hate you for thinking homosexuality isn't a sin (or for failing to distinguish that he does), again not calling you a homosexual.
I just cannot see it, I'm sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:56 PM Huntard has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 424 (567125)
06-29-2010 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Modulous
06-29-2010 5:27 PM


1st Party: NJ
2nd Party: Berberry
3rd Party: Mod
That's all I was saying.
Then I guess I don't know what you were saying. Usually when people say "third party", they mean "completely unrelated party." But you weren't unrelated, you were in the thick of it, having defended NJ's actions and reduced his suspension. Berberry's issues were as much with you and the rest of the moderators as they were with NJ. NJ, after all, was just being his regular self.
Do you mean you were literally the third party to get involved? Again, I don't see how that's true, either; Percy was actually the third person to post in that thread.
I don't remember anyone claiming that he did
It was pretty obvious, Mod. Ringo was doing it too. The "dirty apes" thing? Like I said, I think there's much you missed on that thread that was incredibly obvious to the rest of us, and we had no idea you were misunderstanding us so dramatically because you never said so. I wish you had.
It wasn't of the same 'kind' at all.
It was, in fact, exactly the same - which is how I know Dan actually doesn't believe that Christians rape goats.
I mean you can continue to presume that there was some kind of characteristic difference between the thinly-veiled insults NJ was directing at Berb and the thinly-veiled insults Dan was directing at you, but we all can read, too, and it was clear at the time that the only difference was that Dan's veil was a little too thin, and that the insults were directed at you and not at Berberry.
And against Rrhain. And against Berberry
I didn't see any examples of that, I guess. You'll have to tell me what you think you're talking about. And the fact that you took no action regarding NJ's disrespect of Berberry is exactly what got us into this in the first place.
Are you trying to revise history again? Now you're pretending that you actually did address NJ's campaign of harassment?
If that's the case, how did it come to be the subject of at least two GenDiscMod threads? How did it come to be the central issue surrounding the "Changes at EvC" event?
what you mean to say was
What I meant to say was what I said, Mod, but thanks for proving yourself so willing to argue with strawmen. The truth is, I can only speculate on your mindset and motives when you ask me to. The truth is I have no interest in why you were wrong, only that you were. You were wrong then and you were wrong, now.
I mean, you have to be. If NJ's conduct was perfectly allowable under the rules, why did it trigger such hurt feelings? Such controversy? Why did it become such a tremendous burden to moderation?
Do you think that Berberry, Dan, Taz, Rrhain, Ringo, Paulk, Arach, Chiroptera, Omnivorous, Dr. A, and myself all coordinated behind the scenes to get insulted by one completely innocuous line of argumentation chosen completely at random? How do you explain how NJ's comments became the source of such enduring controversy, dramatically in excess of any kind of statement made either before or since, if what NJ was saying was nothing more than the regular churn of argument that happens at EvC?
How can you possibly explain that? Doesn't the fact that NJ's comments ultimately degraded the board and triggered a crisis of moderation and suppression prove you were wrong about them being a legitimate feature of debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 5:27 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 7:38 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 109 of 424 (567126)
06-29-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 5:05 PM


The only objection was to his arguments.
Well that isn't how it seems to those who disagree with you. It seems like the perceived intent behind his arguments is far more important to his detractors than anything NJ ever actually said. Have you not picked that up from this thread?
The only person he actually pursued was Berberry, and he didn't pursue him making moral relativist arguments, he pursued Berberry by re-iterating that morally he was no different than a rapist horse-fucker, and "gosh why are you getting so offended when I call you a horse-fucker, horsefucker? It's just an argument about moral relativism, honest!"
You think my version of events is skewed because you're making up events that never happened to support yours.
In my admittedly subjective opinion you are guilty of that which you are accusing me of. NJ did engage in numerous arguments pertaining to moral relatavism. I had many debates with him on that subject myself long before the forum meltdown debacle. Moral absolutism was his EvC thang .
Crash writes:
NJ asked what the difference between a homosexual and a rapist was supposed to be, and he was told "consent." He never asked why that difference mattered; he never asked anything!
Yet in the thread I linked to NJ and Mod have exactly that discussion. Mod seems to successfully counter NJ's position on this. Message 150 up and down thread.
Because I have two eyeballs, a functioning brain, and I can read and interpret statements in plain English. That's how I can arrive at the conclusion that I'm correct and others are wrong - because I'm right, and they're wrong. How else would I get there?
How are you suggesting that those of us who have reached a different conclusion reached that conclusion? We also have functioning brains and eyes and are able to interpret statements made in plain English. Many of us are also arguably in a far more objective position on this than yourself.
Mod's wrong. Full stop; he was wrong then, and you and he are wrong now.
So you assert. But many here disagree with you. Previously and now. It isn't as black and white as you want to pretend it to be.
I mean, Jesus Christ I've only said it a dozen times already. If what NJ was saying had really been so harmless, letting him say it as much as he wanted wouldn't have resulted in crisis. But that's exactly what happened.
You can say it a dozen more times if it makes you happy. Your predictions of a crisis that you yourself arguably contributed to are not evidence of your assertions regarding the nature of the crisis being correct. If a bunch of people collectively decide that justice has not been done and that they are going to be aggrieved by said injustice they are not necessarily the best people to make the judgement that their reaction to the perceived injustice is evidence of a legitimate grevance. And - Yes the same could be said of the moderators in this instance.
The difference seems to be that they acknowledge that things could have been handled better whilst you insist that anyone who disagress with you regarding any aspect of why this all happened is just obviously wrong.
It just isn't that obvious. It isn't that black and white. If it were there wouldn't be this discussion now.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 6:13 PM Straggler has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 424 (567127)
06-29-2010 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Huntard
06-29-2010 5:44 PM


According to you this is where "NJ tells [you you're] gay".
Right. Why else would he think he's supposed to hate me for the sin of homosexuality?
He asserts that while he opposes "the sin of homosexuality", he doesn't hate me for it. "It" being the sin of homosexuality. But why would he think he should hate me for it, unless he thinks I'm engaged in the sin of homosexuality?
If I told you "I believe that bank robbery is a crime, but I don't hate you for it, Huntard" don't you read that as implying that you're a bank robber? I mean, if you're not, why would it even be a possibility that I would hate you for the crime of bank robbery? What's the connection between you and bank robberies that should reasonably place you in that sentence? If I'm not calling you a bank robber who I nonetheless don't hate, the sentence is complete nonsense.
NJ was saying that he doesn't hate me just because I'm gay. Well, good for him, but I'm not gay. Never have been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 06-29-2010 5:44 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Huntard, posted 06-29-2010 6:07 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 111 of 424 (567129)
06-29-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 5:56 PM


crashfrog writes:
Right. Why else would he think he's supposed to hate me for the sin of homosexuality?
I don't think he said that at all. I think he meant that he doesn't hate homosexuals in general for being gay.
He asserts that while he opposes "the sin of homosexuality", he doesn't hate me for it. "It" being the sin of homosexuality. But why would he think he should hate me for it, unless he thinks I'm engaged in the sin of homosexuality?
He never mentions you specifically, the "them" can refer to homosexuals in general.
If I told you "I believe that bank robbery is a crime, but I don't hate you for it, Huntard" don't you read that as implying that you're a bank robber? I mean, if you're not, why would it even be a possibility that I would hate you for the crime of bank robbery? What's the connection between you and bank robberies that should reasonably place you in that sentence? If I'm not calling you a bank robber who I nonetheless don't hate, the sentence is complete nonsense.
Quite.
But that's not the sentence NJ used was it? He used something more along the lines of:
"I believe that bank robbery is a crime, but I don't hate them for it, Huntard, Straggler and Bluejay".
That's how I read it anyway.
NJ was saying that he doesn't hate me just because I'm gay. Well, good for him, but I'm not gay. Never have been.
Again, I don't think that's what he meant. What does it matter anyway, so what if he thinks you're gay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 6:39 PM Huntard has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 112 of 424 (567130)
06-29-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 5:26 PM


crashfrog writes:
NJ writes:
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?
NJ writes:
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.
Oh, right. "Berb, the only reason you're offended by me calling you a rapist horse-fucker is because you suspect I'm right."
I think you are reading too much into that.
Nemesis Juggernaut was actually making a "slippery slope" argument - once you allow homosexual practices, sooner or later you will allow other more despicable practices. He (Nemesis Juggernaut) was not actually accusing berberry of anything.
Edited by nwr, : Cleaned up some of the formatting (content unchanged).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 424 (567132)
06-29-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Straggler
06-29-2010 5:51 PM


It seems like the perceived intent behind his arguments is far more important than anything NJ ever actually said. Have you not picked that up from this thread?
Yeah, but you guys are wrong. Jesus, if it was just a matter of NJ's beliefs that would have been tremendously easier! I mean, is there anybody here who would seriously dispute that NJ had a big problem with homosexuals and homosexuality?
Trying to get you guys to read in context is a lot harder than trying to get you to agree about NJ's personal attitude towards homosexuality. If that's what was actually important, that's what we would have been arguing, because it would have been a lot easier to convince you.
How are you suggesting that those of us who have reached a different conclusion reached that conclusion?
Do you want me to speculate? Well, you're either dishonest, ignorant, or stupid. Same reasons anyone is ever wrong. You either know better and are arguing something you don't believe, or there's a critical piece of information you aren't aware of, or you're intrinsically unable to apprehend the evidence.
Like I said, whenever someone is saying something wrong it's for one of the above reasons. I doubt that makes you feel any better, but, hey, you asked.
It isn't as black and white as you want to pretend it to be.
I never claimed it was black or white. But honestly, the right thing to do was never a mystery. I mean we only told the moderators exactly what to do, over and over again. It would not have been supremely difficult to tell NJ "hey, stop comparing homosexuals to rapists; regardless of your intent it's really destructive to discourse." It would not have been impossible to suspend him for a week.
But for some reason, NJ's conduct was the point where Mod decided to take a stand and say "you know, suspension from EvC Forum is such an unbelievable hardship that it just can't, absolutely cannot, be applied to anyone who we aren't absolutely certain has transgressed the forum guidelines."
I mean, I appreciate Mod's principled stand against unfair punishment, but Christ, where was he all those times I was being unfairly suspended?
I mean, Jesus, just the fact that NJ was becoming the focus of an unbelievable amount of complaining to moderators should have been reason for them to at least consider telling him to stop whatever he was doing. Shouldn't it?
Your predictions of a crisis that you yourself arguably contributed to
Well, wait now. What was my contribution to the crisis, exactly? I participated in GenDiscMod11 right up to the point where I was asked to stop, and then I stopped. I never posted in GenDiscMod14 at all. I had left the board by the time "Changes at EvC" and the Great Purge occurred, which is why I was never suspended during it.
My contribution to the crisis was limited only to warning it was coming. Are you saying that it was some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy? That I influenced weak-minded contributors to keep complaining about NJ? GenDiscMod14 seems to largely be Rrhain arguing with moderators about NJ's continued acts of equating gays and horsefuckers, and he was walking that beat in GenDiscMod11 long before I got involved in the thread.
Maybe you and Hyro could elaborate on the way in which you think I contributed to a crisis that occurred months after I had left the board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 5:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 6:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 114 of 424 (567134)
06-29-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 5:26 PM


Cave, he follows Berb into GenDiscMod11, all the time saying "what? What's the deal? All I'm saying is, there's no moral difference between gays and rapists. You must be under some kind of delusion to think I'm talking about you."
Your rewording of NJ's quotes are sufficiently distorting towards your own interpretation that I cannot accept them as part of your argument. If NJ's words are so obvious in their intent then they will speak for themselves.
Oh, right. "Berb, the only reason you're offended by me calling you a rapist horse-fucker is because you suspect I'm right."...
That's the conduct you're defending, Cavediver?
Again, you are supposed to be convincing me that his words are purposely inflammatory. Substituting your own purposely inflammatory words based on your own interpretation is not going to convince me, especially when you follow it with a claim that I am defending these words that you yourself have authored.
But NJ can't resist one last parting shot...
Playing the victim.
You seem to be doing everything possible to read everything NJ said in as negative a light as possible. This is not helping me see it your way.
Of course, there's the hilarious part where NJ tells me I'm gay...
I mean, Berb's been banned, so he's got to identify the next target, right?
And now you've completely lost me. There are other interpretations of what NJ said. And given how supposedly intelligent and cunning is NJ, how am I then supposed to accept that with no good reason whatsoever, he leaps to the conclusion that you, Dan, and Taz are gay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 6:48 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 115 of 424 (567135)
06-29-2010 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 6:13 PM


Straggler writes:
It isn't as black and white as you want to pretend it to be.
I never claimed it was black or white.
You claimed that those who disagree with you on this are just blatantly wrong. How is that not black or white?
Straggler writes:
It seems like the perceived intent behind his arguments is far more important than anything NJ ever actually said. Have you not picked that up from this thread?
Yeah, but you guys are wrong.
Shades of grey........
Mod in the OP writes writes:
Essential background reading can be found at General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 .
Crashfrog writes:
Maybe you and Hyro could elaborate on the way in which you think I contributed to a crisis that occurred months after I had left the board.
You should review your contributions to the thread Mod linked to in the OP. That, I suspect, is what those of us with shorter memories or lss time at EvC are basing our conclusions on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 6:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 424 (567137)
06-29-2010 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Huntard
06-29-2010 6:07 PM


I think he meant that he doesn't hate homosexuals in general for being gay.
I know that's what he meant. And he listed the homosexuals that he specifically doesn't hate - myself among them.
But I'm not gay. Never have been.
He never mentions you specifically
No, he does. Quote:
quote:
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.
Who did you think he was talking about when he said "Crash"? That's me. "Crash" was something people called me back then. We - that list of me, Taz, Berberry, and Dan - are the "they" and "them" in the sentence that follows. Nem never uses the noun "homosexuals" in that paragraph, so it can't be the antecedent of the pronoun "them."
He can't mean "homosexuals in general" because he never said "homosexuals in general". There's only two pronouns in the English language that can take as antecedent a noun not previously made explicit, and that's "you" and "I."
"I believe that bank robbery is a crime, but I don't hate them for it, Huntard, Straggler and Bluejay".
No, in that sentence "Huntard, Straggler, and Bluejay" can't be the antecedents of "them" because they occur after that pronoun. In NJ's paragraph me, Taz, Dan, and Berberry must be the antecedents of the pronoun "them" because they're the only nouns that precede the pronoun "them."
Like I said, it's quite clear. If NJ was referring to homosexuals in general, he would have had to actually use the word "homosexuals."
What does it matter anyway, so what if he thinks you're gay?
It's support for my contention that NJ was engaged in gay-baiting. Calling people "gay" who aren't actually gay is gay-baiting. You're trying to get them to object to the inaccurate characterization, then you pretend that their protest means they don't like homosexuals, then you call them a bigot who hates gay people.
It's a pretty textbook-standard way to troll defenders of gay rights, which NJ knew I was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Huntard, posted 06-29-2010 6:07 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 6:46 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 117 of 424 (567140)
06-29-2010 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 6:39 PM


Grammatical Perspective
Who did you think he was talking about when he said "Crash"? That's me. "Crash" was something people called me back then. We - that list of me, Taz, Berberry, and Dan - are the "they" and "them" in the sentence that follows. Nem never uses the noun "homosexuals" in that paragraph, so it can't be the antecedent of the pronoun "them."
He can't mean "homosexuals in general" because he never said "homosexuals in general". There's only two pronouns in the English language that can take as antecedent a noun not previously made explicit, and that's "you" and "I."
Grammatically your are 100% correct. But fuck dude you still come across as struggling to inflict a position on NJ that doesn't add up except in the most convuluted (albeit grammatically correct) of ways.
You honestly think this constitutes gay baiting by means of accusing heterosexuals of being gay?
I'm sorry but IMHO you have lost all perspective on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 6:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 6:51 PM Straggler has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 118 of 424 (567142)
06-29-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by cavediver
06-29-2010 6:29 PM


Your rewording of NJ's quotes are sufficiently distorting towards your own interpretation that I cannot accept them as part of your argument.
Fair enough. Did he, or did he not, say that a "delusion" was the only way Berb could honestly interpret his comments the way Berb did? Did he, or did he not, say that you couldn't consistently believe that gay sex was moral but bestiality and rape were immoral? Did he, or did he not, affirm time and time again that he was innocent of what he was being accused of, that he was being misunderstood, that he was just trying to engage in a conversation about moral relativism?
I'm pretty sure all those things happened. Did I make them up? I quoted NJ saying those things. Did I invent those quotes? Did NJ not really write them, they just appeared under his name?
Again, you are supposed to be convincing me that his words are purposely inflammatory.
Berb was inflamed by them, as were a dozen of the rest of us. Is that not evidence that they were inflammatory?
When we told NJ that his remarks were inflammatory and he should use alternate language to express the same point, he ignored us and strengthened his language. Is that not evidence that he did so with purpose?
You seem to be doing everything possible to read everything NJ said in as negative a light as possible.
Does he, or does he not, assert his innocence? Does he, or does he not, assert that of all parties involved he's the aggrieved one?
There are other interpretations of what NJ said.
No, there's not. See my posts to Huntard. "Them" is not a pronoun in English that can take an unspecified antecedent, which is why it's weird and funny when conspiracy theorists say "they're out to get me!" and wags reply "who is 'they'?"
"Them" can take as antecedent only the individuals Nem had already specified, which were me, Taz, Dan, and Berberry. Berberry is gay, which supports my contention that Nem intended that as a list of persons who were gay but that he did not hate. I don't recall whether or not Taz is gay. Dan isn't and I'm not, never have been.
And given how supposedly intelligent and cunning is NJ, how am I then supposed to accept that with no good reason whatsoever, he leaps to the conclusion that you, Dan, and Taz are gay?
He knows we're not gay. He's just saying we are, because he's engaged in gay-baiting. Calling straight people homosexuals is a textbook-standard strategy in gay-baiting. He doesn't believe it; he's just trolling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by cavediver, posted 06-29-2010 6:29 PM cavediver has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 119 of 424 (567144)
06-29-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Straggler
06-29-2010 6:46 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
You honestly think this constitutes gay baiting by means of accusing heterosexuals of being gay?
In context with his months of passive-aggressive gay-baiting? Yes, of course, absolutely.
Calling people gay who aren't gay - but defend gay rights - is a textbook-standard way to troll defenders of gay rights. It happened dozens of times here at EvC alone, by plenty of people besides NJ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 6:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 6:56 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 120 of 424 (567147)
06-29-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 6:51 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
You honestly think this constitutes gay baiting by means of accusing heterosexuals of being gay?
In context with his months of passive-aggressive gay-baiting? Yes, of course, absolutely.
It reallydoes not come across like that in the quote you cite.
Calling people gay who aren't gay - but defend gay rights - is a textbook-standard way to troll defenders of gay rights. It happened dozens of times here at EvC alone, by plenty of people besides NJ.
Are there any more explicit examples of NJ engaging in this behaviour or is that example of grammatical inexactitude your sole basis for accusing him of this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 6:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 7:03 PM Straggler 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