Oh well done ban-all-sheds

[Softus]

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.

 

[Gary_M]

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.

On a more positive note - when someone goes into 'personal insult mode', they have immediately lost any debate, respect or credability

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

I didn't know that normal moderating service had been resumed.

I didn't know that Slogger was allowed to advocate crimes, up to and including crimes against humanity, and not be criticised for it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

The only way to judge people's characters is by what they post.

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.

 

[mlb3c]

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.

The only way to judge people's characters is by what they post.

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.

GOSH I would hope that's not true. people post for all sorts of reasons and if a few (or all) seem weird or 'dangerous' as you put it....maybe they're just having a really off week or off life....or just lettin off steam...
to be that narrow minded....by that remark alone...whats up with that?

MOD 2

i thought it had been quiet recently

 

[Gary_M]

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)

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?

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. 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?


Can I please ask Moderators to let this post run, as I think it is fair debate (assuming that it won't turn into personal name taunts)

MOD 2

fine by me as long as it stays civil

 

[Softus]

It was an absolutely selfish and utterly pointless contribution.

I didn't know that normal moderating service had been resumed.

Oh boy am I angry, and you're making it far worse.

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 didn't know that Slogger was allowed to advocate crimes, up to and including crimes against humanity, and not be criticised for it.

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.

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.

It's almost too late for an apology, but seeing that you're capable of it would be nice surprise.


MOD 2

i'm sure i mentioned civil above

 

[Gary_M]

i'm sure i mentioned civil above

Yes, you did

 

[Softus]

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.

No matter what the content of a topic, or the rights and wrongs of the opinions of the contributors, behaviour that leads to deletion or locking transcends any moral, religious or political argument, because it undermines the whole point of the existence of the forum. No topics - no forum; no forum - no debates.

So, please lock it, or don't lock it. Delete everything, or don't. The damage is done, the horse has bolted, the race is run. I'm officially p*ssed off with b-a-s, and he has yet to have the good grace to apologise.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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)

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.

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?

No research or evidence.

I operate on a very simple set of principles when posting here.

I do not tell lies. I do not say things that I don't mean simply to wind others up.

And my default position for everyone else is that they do the same, and that is a position I will maintain until they say that they lied.

So when Slogger says he wants to burn mosques, I judge him to be an arsonist.

And when I see people indulging in the dangerous practice of forwarding or reposting emails without checking to see if they are true, a practice which does have deleterious effects on race relations, religious harmony, attitudes to Europe etc, and which is an example of generic behaviour that can and does result in people getting killed, then I will call attention to it, and point out what idiots they were to do it.

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.

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.

There were two separate aspects.

1) The criticism of what was written, i.e. the analysis of it, and the numerous proof points of how false it was.

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.

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'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?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It was an absolutely selfish and utterly pointless contribution.

I didn't know that normal moderating service had been resumed.

Oh boy am I angry, and you're making it far worse.

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.

It wasn't a ridiculous post, it was the truth, and you know it.

I didn't know that Slogger was allowed to advocate crimes, up to and including crimes against humanity, and not be criticised for it.

Don't be so f***ing stupid - you KNOW that he isn't "allowed" to do any of that,

I don't see the mods putting a stop to 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.

It wasn't a wind-up, I meant every word of it.

It's almost too late for an apology, but seeing that you're capable of it would be nice surprise.

I'm sorry the thread got locked, for that was not my intention.

I am not sorry for what I said about Slogger, and there is no amount of vituperation that I can direct at that thing for which I would later be sorry.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

There are others who are far worse offenders. And I do not set out to get threads locked.

 

[notb665]

I often can't be as bothered as b-a-s, but I support him 110%.

 

[Gary_M]

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.

So, what are your aims and motives for telling a person what you think of them?

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.

It still does not explain what gives a person the right to label someone as a 'dangerous person' and more importantly, if you follow this theory are you not portraying a self-admittance that you are a dangerous person by openly broadcasting your opinions about others? Do you strongly believe that your confrontational attitude is the best approach?

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.

If information is never passed on it cannot be evaluated. Also, it is important to analyse the full context and manner in which this information is relayed, otherwise assumptions are made which are often more dangerous than the original intention. I believe that your reaction demonstrated this. It would appear that you have taken the original post (posted in a light-hearted manner), assumed that I believed everything I wrote, and made it into a huge personal issue - which has now given the original context a far more sinister meaning. So, it is not always the information that causes the problem, it is how a person interprates and reacts to it and what he/she does with that information. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not ME who could be referred to as the 'dangerous person'. Information is freely available through a variety of mediums. Pretending that it does not exist will not make it go away.

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?

Because it achieves nothing other than excluding a person from society or giving them a label, and I don't think this is what your intentions really are. There are large amounts of research to indicate that excluding a person is NOT an effective way to change the behaviours that a society does not accept. Also, it implies that you are better than that person and you have taken away their personal responsibilty to develop. It is far more appropriate to give a person the opportunities to develop and be there to support them when needed - NOT to put a person down by offering your judgements about them. You will also find much research about this, and interestingly, you will find that the people who are constantly being judged negatively by others, are the ones who will rebel against society - Therefore the more negative judgements you are giving a person, the more you are shaping them into that person you apparently don't want them to be.

 

[joe-90]

If he can't win the argument he gets the thread locked. Isn't it time the moderators realised that he is simply manipulating them? Why can't they see what his game is?