Ugh... - Page 2

RC Mike · 07-30-2006, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sal

Not quite, Mike. I wouldn't have taken the logical leap you took.

I was commenting on the justification of torture, violating of basic human rights, etc. as being morally repugnant. I was not commenting on the people who think it's okay.

I'm sure you're a nice guy, there are plenty of absolutely upstanding folks who have told me I'm a pinko liberal, and have quite a few opinions which I find distasteful, that does not make them bad people, and I would like to state for the record: I was not making any comment as to your visceral personality.

I would encourage you to edit your prior post as it was not my intent.

Sal, you lose here when you tell me I am wrong... Edit me yourself or ban me from your site... Because to say I am a nice guy, then say "I find any justification for the way the "enemy combatants" were treated to be morally repugnant."
is absolute bu!)$#it... you have made that judgement, and are now trying to hide...

mike

Sal · 07-31-2006, 05:38 AM

"I'm a loser baby... " (Beck)

Well, I tried to make peace. But you can have it your way.

C'est la vie. We'll have to agree to disagree.

-Sal

P.S. By the way, I don't edit other people's posts because they disagree with me, nor do I "ban" people for the opinions they hold. I DO believe in the freedom to share opinions etc.

pam · 07-31-2006, 07:40 AM

There seems to be some confusion about banning and editing of posts on this forum, and I'd like to clear it up now, since it's been mentioned in 2 threads in the OT area.

It takes a lot to get banned - spamming the list with unrelated advertisements will get you banned in a heartbeat. Causing major disruption on the list will get you banned, or moderated - now, how do we define major? Well, that's subjective, and unfortunately the moderators are people, so they, by the very nature of their peopleness, will be subjective. However, a person isn't banned until they've been notfied that their behavior is inappropriate and they have a chance to stop what they're doing. And we really do try to lean over backwards NOT to moderate or ban people.

Editing posts. This is done only rarely. Usually to clean up a URL so that a picture can come through. At one time or another a whole thread has disappeared. This usually happens if the poster or the thread starter has requested for it to happen. We don't arbitrarily go in and make those changes. I will admit that I've edited one person's posts - in an effort to tone down the rhetoric so as to keep the posts from being so inflammatory. I do reserve that right, however, I've only used it once.

We do moderate for civility on the forums. Particulary in the HT related forums. We tend to be a bit more freewheeling in the OT forums, but still don't want list members attacking each other. Having a difference of opinion is not an attack.

If you're in a bad place (we all get there some days) and find that you would like to take everyone's head off that day, I'd suggest that you NOT post to the forums that day

. If you have one subject you just can't discuss without getting "fighting mad", I'd suggest you not read those topics. You're free to do whatever you want, of course, as long as you're willing to take responsibility for your behavior - which I'm assuming all the posters on this forum are.

Pam

RC Mike · 07-31-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pam

We tend to be a bit more freewheeling in the OT forums, but still don't want list members attacking each other. Having a difference of opinion is not an attack.

I would say calling someones opinion "morally repugnant" is an attack, but whatever... I will just leave this discussion, since apparantly my opinion is not desired.

RC Mike · 07-31-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pam

If you're in a bad place (we all get there some days) and find that you would like to take everyone's head off that day, I'd suggest that you NOT post to the forums that day

. If you have one subject you just can't discuss without getting "fighting mad", I'd suggest you not read those topics.

This is why I took 2 days before my reply in Josh's Bushwhacking thread... I wanted to make sure it was clear but not angry. Sal's response strikes me as angry. Whatever.. Sal has the moral high ground.

Mike

pam · 07-31-2006, 01:12 PM

Ah, well I make a distinction between a person and their opinion. They are not their opinion. Their opinion is something they have, but it's not them. I would assume that if something came along to make them want to change that opinion, they'd change it. Now, I wouldn't imagine that 'I' could say something to make them change that opinion, but if, for whatever reason, they reexamined that opinion and decided to change it, they could do that. That means to me that they are not their opinion. The opinion doesn't own them.
Pam

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC Mike

I would say calling someones opinion "morally repugnant" is an attack, but whatever... I will just leave this discussion, since apparantly my opinion is not desired.

RC Mike · 07-31-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pam

Ah, well I make a distinction between a person and their opinion. They are not their opinion. Their opinion is something they have, but it's not them. I would assume that if something came along to make them want to change that opinion, they'd change it.

OK, so say I told you and Sal that your opinion made you an idiot. Would that be OK? What is different than Sal calling my opinion morally repugnant. Moderate yourself.

Mike

GyroGo · 07-31-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC Mike

OK, so say I told you and Sal that your opinion made you an idiot. Would that be OK? What is different than Sal calling my opinion morally repugnant. Moderate yourself.

Mike

While Pam can speak for herself (and I'm not a fan of heavy moderation), I can explain the dif.

ATTACKS YOUR POINT:
Your idea is idiotic.
Your opinion is morally repugnant.
(although both of these could be restated into less offensive tone, and are not very polite - I would say "that" instead of "your", but it is semantics)

ATTACKS YOU PERSONALLY:
You are an idiot.
You are morally repugnant.

Interesting aside (to me, anyway):
I was listening to Penn Gillette's (the avowed atheist from Penn and Teller) radio show a couple of days ago, and he was talking about a particular popular religion (It happened to be Catholic, but it could have been anything) and was commenting that attacking the ideas OF a group of people (and he wasn't being very kind, either) is very different from attacking the group FOR their ideas.

pam · 07-31-2006, 05:03 PM

Ah, but that would be a personal attack, because you're saying I'm an idiot. If you want to say you think my idea is idiotic, you can, (although I find that kind of rhetoric tends to close off conversations, rather than encourage them) and I'm sure some people will agree, and some will disagree.

Gary has actually made my meaning quite clear.

Pam

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC Mike

OK, so say I told you and Sal that your opinion made you an idiot. Would that be OK? What is different than Sal calling my opinion morally repugnant. Moderate yourself.

Mike

RC Mike · 07-31-2006, 05:14 PM

I agree completely that the conversation stops and the anger starts, my point is that I feel that calling my beliefs morally repugnant, is actually calling me morally repugnant. And if it had been someone else that did it I would not be nearly as worked up as when a moderator says it.

Just my opinion.

Mike

07-31-2006, 05:38 AM	#12
Sal Enjoys a well balanced glide Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 3,422	"I'm a loser baby... " (Beck) Well, I tried to make peace. But you can have it your way. C'est la vie. We'll have to agree to disagree. -Sal P.S. By the way, I don't edit other people's posts because they disagree with me, nor do I "ban" people for the opinions they hold. I DO believe in the freedom to share opinions etc. __________________ If every value is negotiable upon circumstance, we have no true values. (Anon?)

07-31-2006, 07:40 AM	#13
pam Last of the Early 30 Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Yelm, WA Posts: 4,679	There seems to be some confusion about banning and editing of posts on this forum, and I'd like to clear it up now, since it's been mentioned in 2 threads in the OT area. It takes a lot to get banned - spamming the list with unrelated advertisements will get you banned in a heartbeat. Causing major disruption on the list will get you banned, or moderated - now, how do we define major? Well, that's subjective, and unfortunately the moderators are people, so they, by the very nature of their peopleness, will be subjective. However, a person isn't banned until they've been notfied that their behavior is inappropriate and they have a chance to stop what they're doing. And we really do try to lean over backwards NOT to moderate or ban people. Editing posts. This is done only rarely. Usually to clean up a URL so that a picture can come through. At one time or another a whole thread has disappeared. This usually happens if the poster or the thread starter has requested for it to happen. We don't arbitrarily go in and make those changes. I will admit that I've edited one person's posts - in an effort to tone down the rhetoric so as to keep the posts from being so inflammatory. I do reserve that right, however, I've only used it once. We do moderate for civility on the forums. Particulary in the HT related forums. We tend to be a bit more freewheeling in the OT forums, but still don't want list members attacking each other. Having a difference of opinion is not an attack. If you're in a bad place (we all get there some days) and find that you would like to take everyone's head off that day, I'd suggest that you NOT post to the forums that day . If you have one subject you just can't discuss without getting "fighting mad", I'd suggest you not read those topics. You're free to do whatever you want, of course, as long as you're willing to take responsibility for your behavior - which I'm assuming all the posters on this forum are. Pam Last edited by pam; 07-31-2006 at 07:42 AM.. Reason: putting back in a comma <G>

07-31-2006, 05:14 PM	#20
RC Mike Account Suspended Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Belmont Shore, CA, USA. Posts: 312	I agree completely that the conversation stops and the anger starts, my point is that I feel that calling my beliefs morally repugnant, is actually calling me morally repugnant. And if it had been someone else that did it I would not be nearly as worked up as when a moderator says it. Just my opinion. Mike

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)