Softus said:May I just say a big and sarcastic THANK YOU, to ban-all-sheds, who, when I was in the middle of some dialogue with Slogger, stuck his venomous oar right into the middle and caused Mod Rupert to wield his giant portcullis here.
It was an absolutely selfish and utterly pointless contribution.
The only way to judge people's characters is by what they post.Gary_M said:Must agree with you Softus. Having recently been on the receiving end of personal insults from BAS, I think he has to realise that this is an open site for discussion and not a place where he can make judgements on people's characters who he has probably never even met, based on HIS way of thinking.
ban-all-sheds said:The only way to judge people's characters is by what they post.Gary_M said:Must agree with you Softus. Having recently been on the receiving end of personal insults from BAS, I think he has to realise that this is an open site for discussion and not a place where he can make judgements on people's characters who he has probably never even met, based on HIS way of thinking.
So if I see someone making posts that display a dangerous and idiotic attitude, I have to deduce that they are dangerous idiots.
It's interesting that your definition of "an open site for discussion" is that you should be free to behave in a thoroughly reprehensible way but that I should not be free to criticise you for it.
ban-all-sheds said:The only way to judge people's characters is by what they post.
ban-all-sheds said:So if I see someone making posts that display a dangerous and idiotic attitude, I have to deduce that they are dangerous idiots.
ban-all-sheds said:It's interesting that your definition of "an open site for discussion" is that you should be free to behave in a thoroughly reprehensible way but that I should not be free to criticise you for it.
Oh boy am I angry, and you're making it far worse.ban-all-sheds said:I didn't know that normal moderating service had been resumed.Softus said:It was an absolutely selfish and utterly pointless contribution.
Don't be so f***ing stupid - you KNOW that he isn't "allowed" to do any of that, and that people responding to his posts is not an automatic acceptance of his points, but before your intervention there was a relatively calm debate in progress. If your aim was to draw attention to your own opinion, then you have - so well f***ing done. If your aim was to facilitate further debate, and to bring civilised behaviour to the barbaric amongst us, then you have singularly and utterly failed.I didn't know that Slogger was allowed to advocate crimes, up to and including crimes against humanity, and not be criticised for it.
Mod 2 said:i'm sure i mentioned civil above
I would suggest interpreting them as you find them, i.e. that my character is one that despises racists, that is sickened by calls for vigilantism, that considers people who call for maimings, torture, arson, mass-murder etc to be vile scumbags, and who, when he encounters such people, tells them exactly what he thinks of them.Gary_M said:ban-all-sheds said:The only way to judge people's characters is by what they post.
Very interesting analysis, but if it is what you believe, could you please analyse some of your posts (in particular, any that you have made personal insults to people) and let us know how you interprate them? (based on your above statement)
No research or evidence.ban-all-sheds said:So if I see someone making posts that display a dangerous and idiotic attitude, I have to deduce that they are dangerous idiots.
Another interesting assumption. Can I ask what research and/or evidence base are you using to substantiate this statement?
There were two separate aspects.ban-all-sheds said:It's interesting that your definition of "an open site for discussion" is that you should be free to behave in a thoroughly reprehensible way but that I should not be free to criticise you for it.
There is a BIG difference about criticising the content of what is written, and making personal accusations and assumptions about the person who passed it on.
It's no more, or less, important for me to do it than it is for anybody else. And if, as you say, we accept that as human beings we make judgements about people and situations, why not state what our judgement is?If we accept that as human being, part of our 'safety mechanisms' are to make judgements about people and situations. Do you believe that it is right for one person to pass on THEIR opinion/judgements to others, and why do you feel that it is important for you to label a person based on your assumptions and personal judgements?
It wasn't a ridiculous post, it was the truth, and you know it.Softus said:Oh boy am I angry, and you're making it far worse.ban-all-sheds said:I didn't know that normal moderating service had been resumed.Softus said:It was an absolutely selfish and utterly pointless contribution.
Using your style of deduction, I should now be allowed to deduce you not knowing something allows you fully evade all responsbility for the ridiculous post you made against Slogger.
I don't see the mods putting a stop to it...Don't be so f***ing stupid - you KNOW that he isn't "allowed" to do any of that,I didn't know that Slogger was allowed to advocate crimes, up to and including crimes against humanity, and not be criticised for it.
It wasn't a wind-up, I meant every word of it.and that people responding to his posts is not an automatic acceptance of his points, but before your intervention there was a relatively calm debate in progress. If your aim was to draw attention to your own opinion, then you have - so well f***ing done. If your aim was to facilitate further debate, and to bring civilised behaviour to the barbaric amongst us, then you have singularly and utterly failed.
You might not know things, but the assumptions you imply that you made (e.g. that there had been a sea change in the moderator service) defy common sense, which is something you clearly have a lot of. So don't be dumb, don't act dumb, own up to what you've done, and stop winding people up under the pretext of the common good when the truth is that it serves no purposes other that your own.
I'm sorry the thread got locked, for that was not my intention.It's almost too late for an apology, but seeing that you're capable of it would be nice surprise.
There are others who are far worse offenders. And I do not set out to get threads locked.Softus said:I had no intention, whatsover, of this topic being a civil one. The frequent locking of topic or deleting of posts immediately following a b-a-s intervention is just boring and counter-productive.
ban-all-sheds said:I would suggest interpreting them as you find them, i.e. that my character is one that despises racists, that is sickened by calls for vigilantism, that considers people who call for maimings, torture, arson, mass-murder etc to be vile scumbags, and who, when he encounters such people, tells them exactly what he thinks of them.
ban-all-sheds said:You may think it is not idiotic to pass on any rumour you hear without applying any thought, or stopping to wonder if it is true, or bothering to find out if information you are presenting as fact really is a fact, and not a lie, but I do.
ban-all-sheds said:2) The fact that you posted it at all. I know that you did not write it - I do not hold you responsible for the content. But you posted it, and that was very wrong, and that is the type of act that nobody should ever do.
ban-all-sheds said:It's no more, or less, important for me to do it than it is for anybody else. And if, as you say, we accept that as human beings we make judgements about people and situations, why not state what our judgement is?