Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 5:40 AM
19 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, xongsmith (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 121 of 134 (450671)
01-23-2008 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Rrhain
01-23-2008 4:20 AM


Re: Are you that lazy?
No, I don't follow all topics. Many topics I follow fairly lightly at best.

I would presume that the large number of people going up against NJ at the topic in question would have no problem blasting his stupid arguments out of the water.

I presume the arguments you just presented in this topic were also presented in the topic in question. If not, why not?

Do the debate there, not here.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 4:20 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1810 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 122 of 134 (450674)
01-23-2008 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Rrhain
01-23-2008 4:20 AM


Finally...
This is the perfect reponse. As Jar correctly pointed out, all that bullshit about incestuous rape fantasies makes you look like an ass (and worse) and completely obfuscates the point you are trying to make. But this post, made in exasperation to AdminMoose, cuts to the chase and lays NJ's implicit bigotry on the line for all to see.

I will never claim to be completely free of socially instilled homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. Reading NJ's posts together with well constructed criticisms, such as your latest post here, helps with my own self-examination. Thus I would never call for the censoring of such subjects.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 4:20 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 123 of 134 (450686)
01-23-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Rrhain
01-23-2008 3:00 AM


Yes, we do agree that if someone was to declare gays are incestuous or paedophiles then action should be taken.
Apparently not or you would shut NJ down.

I will state this one final time: If I thought NJ was declaring that gays are incestuous or paedophiles then I would be taking action. I do not think that NJ is declaring that gays are incestuous or paedophiles.

You seem to forget that I was part of that thread and contrary to your claim, not a single point was addressed. Instead, you just stuck your fingers in your ears and sang la-la-la, can't hear you!

It is self-evident from reading both this thread and that one, that you were unimpressed with my responses. My answers remain essentially the same: there is no need to repeat the argument.

It seems we've got a repeat performance. Since NJ ALWAYS makes this bizarre claim about raping his infant son and since it ALWAYS derails the thread, why are you punishing those that fight back?

Shouldn't you be paying attention to the bully?

Fine: do not discuss raping NJ's son again or I will suspend you. I will further suspend NJ should I see him discussing raping his son more than I have seen you discussing raping his son. Complaining about moderator actions regarding NJ's behaviour (which I understand you find reprehensible) can be done without such distasteful comments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 3:00 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by berberry, posted 01-23-2008 11:21 AM AdminModulous has responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 134 (450719)
01-23-2008 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by AdminModulous
01-23-2008 8:21 AM


Here's an idea...
I have a proposal that might settle this. First, though, I want to repeat something I said a long time ago in one of the Haggard threads and repeated at least once to (I think) Percy the last time round: that the argument comparing gays to pedophiles and rapists, as presented repeatedly by n, clearly runs afoul of point 4 in the Forum Guidelines. Again and again, evidence to support the argument has been requested from n, but the most anyone can get out of him is, in convoluted language, that it is his belief that gays are immoral just like rapists and pedophiles, therefore legitimizing one will legitimize the others. That's not clear evidence, it's nothing but a statement of belief worded in a way to thinly veil an insult toward gays. He has never presented one shred of real evidence. He usually drops out of the thread once he can't get past the challenge to show evidence

The last time round, I think it was Crashfrog (or perhaps Dan Carroll, I can dig up a link if you need proof) who managed to get an agreement from Percy himself that, indeed, if n was refusing to support the argument with evidence that it would constitute a violation of point 4. For some reason, though, Percy never actually enforced that rule. But I don't think Percy ever contested the point that n's comparison was insulting. He just thought I was being thin-skinned, and illustrated his feelings by portraying me as an hysterical, menstruating woman.

I need to mention that I do not endorse one particular aspect of Rrhain's argument, although I completely agree with his logic (in fact, I wish I'd thought of it). I would not myself have turned the argument back on n quite so directly. I would have been a bit more general, so that I could feebly claim to have not had n in mind at all. I believe that Rrhain should be asking - in direct response to one of n's posts - why fundie xians can't think of same-sex relations without fantasizing about raping a child, not why n specifically can't do it. In my view, this would be more consistent with n's style.

That said, here's my proposal: while you watch, I'll go to the current gay marriage thread and respond to message 3 - the one Rrhain quotes just upthread. In a dispassionate tone, I'll challenge n to support, with real evidence, his contention that allowing gay marriage would either be the same as or lead to allowing rape, pedophilia and incest.

If he cannot support his argument with clear evidence, will you (or any other admin who happens to see this) fault him for a violation of point 4 of the Forum Guidelines?

I understand that point 4 is sometimes relaxed in the case of fundies because they so often have no clue how to observe it. But n is an intelligent man (which is precisely why his comparison of gays to rapists and pedophiles is so very insulting - he's not one of the usual fundie dumb-asses). I hope you will agree with me that in light of the fact that n himself is an admin, and that he is in fact quite intelligent, he should not get the same sort of pass regarding point 4 that would be granted to, say, the desdemonas of the world.

What do you say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by AdminModulous, posted 01-23-2008 8:21 AM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-23-2008 11:29 AM berberry has responded
 Message 128 by AdminModulous, posted 01-23-2008 12:59 PM berberry has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Admin, posted 01-23-2008 1:10 PM berberry has not yet responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2094 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 125 of 134 (450721)
01-23-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by berberry
01-23-2008 11:21 AM


Re: Here's an idea...
sounds reasonable to me. the clencher is, though, every time he does it in the future, they'll have to suspend him. that will get tiresome since it happens so often.

of course, then we'll have to talk about his claims of what liberals think too :p


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by berberry, posted 01-23-2008 11:21 AM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by berberry, posted 01-23-2008 11:45 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 134 (450726)
01-23-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by macaroniandcheese
01-23-2008 11:29 AM


Re: Here's an idea...
brennakimi writes:

quote:
sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks very much! I appreciate that. But I'm going to wait until I hear from an admin before I address n directly.

quote:
the clencher is, though, every time he does it in the future, they'll have to suspend him. that will get tiresome since it happens so often.

That may be, but maybe not. I think he might get the message quickly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-23-2008 11:29 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-23-2008 12:30 PM berberry has not yet responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2094 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 127 of 134 (450733)
01-23-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by berberry
01-23-2008 11:45 AM


Re: Here's an idea...
That may be, but maybe not. I think he might get the message quickly.

i'm not convinced. it's like a security blanket. woven out of hate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by berberry, posted 01-23-2008 11:45 AM berberry has not yet responded

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 128 of 134 (450741)
01-23-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by berberry
01-23-2008 11:21 AM


Re: Here's an idea...
That said, here's my proposal: while you watch, I'll go to the current gay marriage thread and respond to message 3 - the one Rrhain quotes just upthread. In a dispassionate tone, I'll challenge n to support, with real evidence, his contention that allowing gay marriage would either be the same as or lead to allowing rape, pedophilia and incest.

If he cannot support his argument with clear evidence, will you (or any other admin who happens to see this) fault him for a violation of point 4 of the Forum Guidelines?

This is all entirely reasonable, though we need to keep in mind that evidence is not the only qualifier under rule number 4. Reasonable argumentation for the position is also fine (and this is where it becomes a qualitative judgement as to what suffices as 'reasonable'). NJ has already agreed that to continue posting in the thread would involve him merely repeating his points - which would be a violation of rule 4 and has now left the discussion (See Message 157).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by berberry, posted 01-23-2008 11:21 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 57 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 129 of 134 (450742)
01-23-2008 1:04 PM


NJ and the gay marriage thread
I don't want to get to involved in this argument, but I will say that I did not consider this appropriate;

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

Just like it would be discriminatory for you to have barred Oscar Wilde from marrying his true love? If you're going to make an emotive argument, you have to be real careful that the tables don't turn on you.

From Message 53
In the original post, the name "Oscar Wilde" turns out to be a link to the North American Man-Boy Love Association. When I do someone the courtesy of looking up a link that they are using as part of there argument, I don't expect to find myself on a paedophile apologist website. Most people make do with Wikipedia.
NJ clearly should have made it obvious what that link was. I have no wish to give NAMBLA more hits. It is all the more pathetic, given that it was basically a childish stunt, aimed at irritating the opposition. Someone of NJ's age and intelligence really should know better, especially since he has admin status.
I notice that the offensive link is still there, whilst the wholly inoffensive picture of three gay men enjoying a bit of harmless fun, has been hidden.


Mutate and Survive
Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by teen4christ, posted 01-23-2008 1:15 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 130 of 134 (450744)
01-23-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by berberry
01-23-2008 11:21 AM


Re: Here's an idea...
berberry writes:

But I don't think Percy ever contested the point that n's comparison was insulting. He just thought I was being thin-skinned, and illustrated his feelings by portraying me as an hysterical, menstruating woman.

Sorry, I've had enough.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by berberry, posted 01-23-2008 11:21 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 131 of 134 (450745)
01-23-2008 1:12 PM


No more gay issues discussion at EvC Forum
That's it, no more.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Jaderis, posted 01-23-2008 1:54 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 132 of 134 (450747)
01-23-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Granny Magda
01-23-2008 1:04 PM


Re: NJ and the gay marriage thread
Edited after seeing the message right above.

Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Granny Magda, posted 01-23-2008 1:04 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 133 of 134 (450751)
01-23-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Admin
01-23-2008 1:12 PM


Re: No more gay issues discussion at EvC Forum
Brilliant. So instead of banning NJ from discussion of gay issues or simply suspending him for derailing the thread (again!) and those who took his bait, we now have a blanket ban.

And I was gearing up for a productive discussion about the differences in the views on marriage laws within the same sex community with teen4christ.

Excellent move.


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Admin, posted 01-23-2008 1:12 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 134 of 134 (450755)
01-23-2008 2:53 PM


I'd like to thank all the moderators who have given so much of themselves, some of them for years.

I think EvC Forum needs one voice, one direction, so I am now the only moderator.

I am closing this thread. This will be the last of the moderation threads.

Please keep discussion focused and on-topic. Thanks.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019