Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 5:40 AM
23 online now:
Faith, vimesey (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,988 Year: 9,024/19,786 Month: 1,446/2,119 Week: 206/576 Day: 9/98 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 76 of 134 (449192)
01-17-2008 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by macaroniandcheese
01-15-2008 9:27 AM


Re: "ongoing crankiness"
but. since when is "ongoing crankiness" against the forum rules?

stop acting like a troll, yelling at other people (even in lowercase), and infusing your posts with profanity to demonstrate your frustration. you insist that you take [don't] this place seriously, but sometimes you get into pissing matches.

seriously, you know i love you and all, but you also know that sometimes you just gotta chill the fuck out.

Edited by arachnophilia, : oy catching typos too late


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-15-2008 9:27 AM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 2:31 PM arachnophilia has responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 77 of 134 (449904)
01-19-2008 6:16 PM


NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
In Message 128 of the "Gay marriage and the law" thread, AdminPD declares the questioning of Nemesis Juggernaut's motives to be "off-topic."

Specifically:

This is not a debate about homosexuality itself.
This is not a debate about illegal actions not dealing with marriage.

And yet, there was no complaint when NJ let loose with his homophobic emesis. Only when somebody responded in kind was it suddenly decided that there was a problem.

But, this isn't about the double standard and the pathetic attempt to appear "fair" by retroactive administration (for an example, see Message 10 where NJ once again brings up incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, drug use, and addiction in equivocation to being gay and yet there is no admonition to him that these things are "off-topic.")

Instead, this is about the declaration of off-topic the attempt to reverse the issue: NJ's basic claim is that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because of the badness of same-sex relationships. This is, actually, a legal argument: By sanctioning a certain action, certain other actions that are not to be desired will come about. Therefore, the state has a compelling interest to regulate if not outright deny the original action.

If this is so, then it necessarily needs to be explained just what it is about the action in question that leads to it those undesired results that comparable actions don't. Why is it that NJ only seems to think about raping his infant son when he thinks of having sex with someone of his own sex? Why does he never consider raping his infant daughter when thinking of having sex with someone of the opposite sex?

In short, I am reframing the entire debate away from homosexuality and toward the legal justification NJ is proffering: Since we know that rape, incest, and pedophilia are a much larger problem among heterosexuals (both in terms of sheer numbers as well as relative numbers) and yet we still allow opposite-sex couples to get married, then why on earth would we deny it to same-sex couples?

There is a compelling state interest in preventing rape, incest, and pedophilia and if sanctioning the relationship between two adults leads to rape, incest, and pedophilia, then surely we need to rethink the sanctioning of heterosexual relationships since they are so much more likely to engage in such activity.

So since gays are much less likely than straights to engage in rape, incest, or pedophilia, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to encourage it? Shouldn't the law, which has an interest in preventing crime, recognize its duty to sanction same-sex marriage?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AdminPD, posted 01-19-2008 10:35 PM Rrhain has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 78 of 134 (449945)
01-19-2008 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rrhain
01-19-2008 6:16 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
Since monitoring is a volunteer job and I do have a life away from the computer, I'm only able to do spot checks of various threads.

Needless to say, I don't necessarily catch problems the moment they happen. Sometimes I wait to see if the situation will correct itself.

The off topic issue I addressed was not correcting itself.

You'll have to ask Subbie is he feels what you have presented in this thread to be on topic. If he does, you can continue along those lines, but not along the lines of the personal questions you asked in the posts I taggeed.

Argue the position, not the person.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2008 6:16 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 2:57 AM AdminPD has responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 79 of 134 (449984)
01-20-2008 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by AdminPD
01-19-2008 10:35 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
AdminPD responds to me:

quote:
Argue the position, not the person.

Tell that to NJ. He is the only one who ever brings up rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, murder, etc. when discussing sexuality. That is not arguing the position. Since he is the only one who ever does it, it is his responsibility to explain why he immediately jumps to visions of raping his infant son while blowing the family dog when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex.

How is my calling on him to justify his rhetoric "arguing the person" when his rhetoric is not?

Be specific: Are you saying it is allowable to say that gay people are incestuous, raping pedophiles? Need I remind you of NJ's reaction when he was informed that gay people are actually less likely to engage in molestation than straights?

Is it allowable for someone to say that black men want to rape white women? That is a clearly racist statement, wouldn't you say?

If we don't allow racism, why do we allow homophobia? If it is always inappropriate to call people who aren't white rapists, why is it acceptable to call people who aren't straight rapists?

And if it is OK to equate being gay with being a rapist, why is it not OK to reverse the claim and equate being straight with being a rapist?

Be specific.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AdminPD, posted 01-19-2008 10:35 PM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 3:20 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 85 by AdminPD, posted 01-20-2008 7:39 AM Rrhain has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 80 of 134 (449986)
01-20-2008 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 2:57 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
Tell that to NJ. He is the only one who ever brings up rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, murder, etc. when discussing sexuality. That is not arguing the position. Since he is the only one who ever does it, it is his responsibility to explain why he immediately jumps to visions of raping his infant son while blowing the family dog when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex.

How is my calling on him to justify his rhetoric "arguing the person" when his rhetoric is not?

*blinks* you did not just say that, did you?

seriously rrhain, characterizing your opponent as fantasizing about raping babies and felating canines is the very definition of ad hominem. not to mention a clear misrepresentation of NJ, nevermind his argument. two wrongs do not make a right.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 2:57 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2008 4:14 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 4:25 AM arachnophilia has responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1351 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 81 of 134 (449989)
01-20-2008 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by arachnophilia
01-20-2008 3:20 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
seriously rrhain, characterizing your opponent as fantasizing about raping babies and felating canines is the very definition of ad hominem. not to mention a clear misrepresentation of NJ, nevermind his argument. two wrongs do not make a right.

I agree that characterizing NJ as actually fantasizing about this stuff is too far, but the point remains that NJ, in every thread about homosexuality, has done this. He equates homosexuality to pedophilia, rape, and bestiality in every thread he participates in where the morality or legality of homosexuality or gay marriage are discussed. He also makes offensive claims like "the LAW says that homosexuality is an abomination" and refuses to support or retract his statement despite multiple posters demanding it.

Personally, since NJ seems to like to use such threads as an outlet for his hate speech and doesnt like to debate honestly about such topics, I think he should be barred from discussions on homosexuality. He has the right to his beliefs and opinions, but he's not bringing any form of debate to the table, just offensive hate speech.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 3:20 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 4:34 AM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 2:05 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 82 of 134 (449990)
01-20-2008 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by arachnophilia
01-20-2008 3:20 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:
characterizing your opponent as fantasizing about raping babies and felating canines is the very definition of ad hominem.

Then why does NJ keep bringing it up? The thought never appears in any post until NJ decides to tell us what he thinks and apparently when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately starts to think about raping his infant son.

But since there is no connection to sexual orientation and rape, incest, pedophilia, drug use, murder, etc., why is it that NJ keeps equating being gay with all of the above. What is it about the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex that makes him immediately envision raping his infant son?

If it's unacceptable when I do it, how is it of no concern when he does it?

Surely you're not saying that the problem is that I'm being graphic while he maintains the use of clinical terms...that this is just a question of semantics, are you? That when he equivocates gay people to rapists, we shouldn't be thinking of an actual act of rape? That when he equivocates gay people to pedophiles, we shouldn't think of an actual child being molested? That when he equates gay people to those who commit incest, we shouldn't think of people actually being exploited?

If it is inappropriate to apply the actual acts to him that he accuses gay people of promoting, then surely it is inappropriate to apply them to gay people.

Or are you also arguing that gay people are incestuous rapers of children?

quote:
two wrongs do not make a right.

I never said it did. But here's a hint: Three wrongs don't make a right, either.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 3:20 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 2:00 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 83 of 134 (449991)
01-20-2008 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
01-20-2008 4:14 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
Rahvin writes:

quote:
I agree that characterizing NJ as actually fantasizing about this stuff is too far

Ahem. I never said he liked it. I simply said that the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex makes him think about it.

I have directly asked him on multiple occasions if he is trying to tell us something. I don't rightly know what his private thoughts are. All I can go on are his public statements here.

And from those, it is apparent that NJ immediately envisions raping his infant son when he thinks about having sex with someone of his own sex.

It's very simple for him to prove us wrong: Create an argument that doesn't rely upon that image. Since he seem constitutionally (hah!) incapable of doing so, then it is a reasonable conclusion that he cannot separate the two.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2008 4:14 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by berberry, posted 01-20-2008 6:17 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 134 (449993)
01-20-2008 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 4:34 AM


what a surprise...
I go away for a few months and come back (for an entirely different reason, I was going to ask for travel advice from some members who live in areas I'll be visiting soon) to find a nearly exact duplicate of the argument that was raging when I left. It seems a certain stupid who's also an admin on this board has repeated his usual base insults against gay people by directly comparing them morally to rapists, pedophiles and bestials, a practice which has always been encouraged here at EvC. The stupid is never, ever required to show any logical or reasoned justification for his insults against gay human beings, but those responding are always required, usually by AdminPD, with the enthusiastic support of the Larry Craig-like AdminModulous, to stop responding. The stupid is always encouraged by his fellows on the admin tag-team to make his anti-gay insults at will, while those responding are without fail condemned by AdminPD as "off-topic" or somehow otherwise unacceptable.

All of you should have learned by now: only bigots are allowed to hurl insults on this board, and such insults are only allowed against gays. If you have any questions, simply remember that when I responded to insults from the stupid, I was suspended and, while unable to post, was made the object of Percy's ridicule when he portrayed me as an hysterical, menstruating woman.

You people should now this by now. The stupid will never be required to justify his insults against gays. This is unwritten but fundemental board policy. There's no excuse for not observing this fact.

(When I dropped by early Saturday morning, the thread was locked by - who else but? - AdminPD. It appears that some members were taking issue with the stupid, and AdminPD is always on guard against that.)

Edited by berberry, : No reason given.

Edited by berberry, : corrected link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 4:34 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by AdminModulous, posted 01-20-2008 8:27 AM berberry has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 85 of 134 (449997)
01-20-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 2:57 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
If you read the originator's response in Message 78 to NJ's Post 73.

Is has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with the laws of the U.S., which to remind you for the umpteenth time is the topic here.

Since the originator had already noted, in very large lettering, that those issues were off topic; there was no need to act. In a situation like that I tend to wait and see if others heed the originator.

Unfortunately, you picked up on the off topic portion, made your question personal and inflammatory.

Whether you like what NJ wrote or not, he did not make it personal. He presented his position and the originator deemed it off topic.

quote:
How is my calling on him to justify his rhetoric "arguing the person" when his rhetoric is not?
I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand the difference in the wording.

NJ writes:

Either sailors are prone to debauchery (very likely, actually), or pedophilia is on the rise.


Rrhain writes:

Why is it you keep telling us about your fantasies of sex with children?

NJ writes:

When I mention things like pedophilia, rape, incest, etc, I am not attempting to equivocate the action of homosexuality to be as bad, less bad, or more bad than any of those things.


Rrhain writes:

Tell us, NJ, what is it about thinking of sex with someone of your own sex makes you think of raping your infant son? Are you trying to tell us something?

Why is it we allow heterosexuality but don't allow you to rape your infant son?

quote:
If we don't allow racism, why do we allow homophobia? If it is always inappropriate to call people who aren't white rapists, why is it acceptable to call people who aren't straight rapists?
If he had said that it would have been considered inappropriate and inflammatory, but that is not what he said.

It is not our job to censor minority or offensive views, but to make sure they are not presented in a manner contrary to the forum guidelines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 2:57 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by berberry, posted 01-20-2008 8:32 AM AdminPD has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 8:35 AM AdminPD has responded

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 86 of 134 (450007)
01-20-2008 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by berberry
01-20-2008 6:17 AM


I hate myself because I like boys
the Larry Craig-like AdminModulous

:laugh:

For the confused, Berberry is referring to the opinion that since I am not straight - but am not offended by NJ's argument, I must therefore be self-hating.

Perhaps it might be wise to simply disallow certain topics from being re-opened for discussion for a certain amount of time - but some might argue that that is too much admin intervention and limiting the free exchange of ideas is bad precedent. Then again, while some new ideas are getting exchanged they are being dwarfed by old ones.

Do any members have any input on the concept of a topic moratorium? It does seem feasable since it is such a hot topic. This time the OP was well written and was an attempt to extract the debate from another thread - so maybe it's one of those ugly realities we can either bury or confront. I think this might make for an interesting topic in its own right, if others are suitably interested in a lengthy meta-discussion - sounds like a perfect coffee house thread.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by berberry, posted 01-20-2008 6:17 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 134 (450009)
01-20-2008 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by AdminPD
01-20-2008 7:39 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
AdminPD writes:

quote:
Since the originator had already noted, in very large lettering, that those issues were off topic; there was no need to act. In a situation like that I tend to wait and see if others heed the originator.

That is an absolute, bald-faced LIE. You waited to see if anyone dared challenge the stupid, that's what you waited for! The stupid said, after the originator had made that large-letter post, the following:

The LAW says, without invoking any religious connotations, that homosexuality is an abomination.

...without any justification whatsoever. Any high schooler knows that there is no law that recognizes anything as an abomination. This is just another tactic the stupid uses to get in his insults against gays, insults which you continue to refuse to see but are determined to defend at all costs.

Also after the large-letter post, the stupid said, in response to an assertion that straights have the right to marry for love while gays don't:

Just like it would be discriminatory for you to have barred Oscar Wilde from marrying his true love?

...thus further insulting gays by comparing them to child-rapists. Of course, you had no problem with that. You did, though, make an interjection into the thread soon after that. Not to admonish the stupid in any way, no no no. Never that. Rather, it was to warn molbiogirl, who had dared to challenge him. Still later after the large-letter post, the stupid writes:

If homosexual marriage is a basic right, what arbitrates that? What basis do you have to allow this, but not to allow something like incest? Don't dismiss it either. Its a perfectly valid question, because until you can explain to all of us why it is a basic right for homosexuals to marry, you can in no wise begin to explain why it is not a right for those engaged in incestuous relationships.

thereby comparing gay relationships to incest. It is the responses to that insult that you are now taking issue with. If you have ever, in your entire history as an admin here at evc, taken issue with one of the stupid's insults, please cite the instance. I don't believe you ever have. It is only with the responses that you ever have a problem.

Why not try something different, AdminPD? Why not, just once, ask the stupid to support his comparisons in a logical, reasoned fashion. If he can do so, then fine, let him keep making them. If he can't, then insist that he stop making them. Why wouldn't it be easier on all of you on the admin tag-team to simply require him to discontinue any insulting comparisons that cannot be supported through logic and reason rather than chasing after anyone and everyone whoever dares challenge him?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AdminPD, posted 01-20-2008 7:39 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 88 of 134 (450010)
01-20-2008 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by AdminPD
01-20-2008 7:39 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
AdminPD writes:

quote:
Whether you like what NJ wrote or not, he did not make it personal.

When NJ claims gay people are incestuous, pedophilic rapists, how is that not personal? There are no gay people on this board?

quote:
I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand the difference in the wording.

And I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand the problem.

quote:
If he had said that it would have been considered inappropriate and inflammatory, but that is not what he said.

Yes, he did. He said gay people are incestuous, pedophilic rapists. How is that not personal to those who are gay?

We seem to have the problem that we have with regard to people who kill. Eddie Izzard said it best:

You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: “Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch- death, death, death - afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower..."

So if you insult one person, claiming he is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist, then that's something horrible and cannot be accepted. But if you insult millions of people, claiming they are incestuous, pedophilic rapists....

..."Well done!"

I find it difficult to believe that your priorities are so warped that direct statements that insult an entire class of people are of no concern while turning those statements directly back upon the person who uttered them in the first place is somehow beyond the pale.

If it is inappropriate to wonder why NJ is incapable of discussing sexuality without bringing up fantasies of raping his infant son, then why does he get to claim that gay people wish to rape their infant children?

Do you truly not see that the problem is bringing up rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, drug use, murder, etc. in the first place? If you truly wished to ensure that there is no maligning of anybody, shouldn't you do something about the person who starts maligning others? Nobody ever brings up raping an infant child except NJ. So if we don't want to have to wonder where NJ gets this bizarre fantasy of his, shouldn't we stop him from bringing it up in the first place?

Three wrongs don't make a right, PD. If it's wrong when I do it, then it's wrong when he does it and it is wrong for you to call me on it but not him.

Or are you saying gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? I don't ask that for my health. I really want to know. Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists?

quote:
It is not our job to censor minority or offensive views

And yet, you do all the time. If I were to go on the board and say blacks are rapists, I'd be shut down in a heartbeat. Somehow, when the subject is gay people, nobody seems to mind. It's the same mindset that deems "nigger" and "cunt" and "spic" and "wop" and "kike" to be beyond the pale but "faggot" is somehow of no real concern since we want to "acknowledge that people have deep-seated issues regarding homosexuality."

quote:
but to make sure they are not presented in a manner contrary to the forum guidelines.

So it's OK to say that blacks are rapists. Good to know.

Here's a thought:

Do as Rahvin suggested and have a personal moratorium on NJ from posting on any thread dealing with sexuality. Since he ALWAYS brings up his claim that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists and since it ALWAYS derails the thread, surely the solution is to remove the person causing the problem.

I swear, it's like dealing the idiots running schools who seem to think that the solution to the bullying problem is to punish the ones being bullied.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AdminPD, posted 01-20-2008 7:39 AM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by AdminPD, posted 01-20-2008 10:12 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 89 of 134 (450015)
01-20-2008 9:15 AM


Gay Issues Discussion Threads
I hope moderators are able to keep discussion in the gay issues threads focused on the topic and on a fair and even keel, but members who participate in such threads should recognize that for moderators this is challenging in terms of time and draining in terms of finding within themselves some hint of Solomaic wisdom.

Threads on gay issues have a long history here of careening out of control. Please recognize that the resources of time and wisdom are scarce commodities, and that gay issues are not the primary focus of this creation/evolution site. Nothing against gay issues, just a fact.

My own opinion is that NJ engages in gay-baiting in these threads, and that he does so subconsciously and isn't aware he's doing this. Some rise to bait and become indignant, enraged and self-righteous to the point of abusing the very moderators to whom they make their appeals. My own inclination is to disallow the topic at this site. It's divisive, it's far too consuming for our limited moderator resources, and it's a Coffee House topic.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by berberry, posted 01-20-2008 10:54 AM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2008 11:20 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 90 of 134 (450023)
01-20-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 8:35 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
I'm not going to get into a discussion concerning your personal issues with NJ's style of expressing his position.

My job is to moderate according to the Forum Guidelines in an attempt to keep the threads on track and civil.

Based on the Forum Guidelines and my understanding of what the originator wanted for the thread, your comments were off topic.

Your exception is noted, but my moderation action stands.

This concludes our discussion of the moderation action.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 8:35 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 3:10 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019