Rue

I defer to you. Yes. Lol! Humour much much appreciated. The inconsistency in moderation on this forum, specifically in regards to trolling, derailing, hijacking, insulting, who gets banned I believe has grown sufficiently inconsistent to the point it can appear unfairly selective as to older posters on this forum not just me. I argue a moderator will losevghdir neutrality if they stay in the position too long developing resentment and contempt for certain posters. Charles Taylor called me as liar let him explain why he trolled like that but will censor others for saying the same thing. What did I lie about? Please explain. What statement? Is my saying responding to a thread on the banning of a Churchill statute calling Trudeau out and discussing Trudeau as being off the topic of the thread as lie? Explain why. How is that a lie? Is Charles Taylor capable of questioning his own perspecyivebon shat HD thinks derailing, hijacking means? Is he using the same consistent standard for all when he thinks he must intervene? Instead of calling me a liar let him explain the standard he uses and how making subjective comments about Trudeau on a thread about Churchill is on topic. Explain how callingbthztbout as brilliant znzlysuxvis a dixciplinary offencd. Explain how challenging a poster who has openly stated white neo Nazi opinions on this board coming on the thread not ironic? Do I need to explain to the moderatorcsho Churchill defeated. Is saying thztvgoes zip over his head bannable? Of course I am spitting mad. This kind of moderation is so inconsistent as to appear petulant and overreacting due to over familiarity with me. It's not just me. Its many older posters. Do we have the right to express ourselves as about it since trying to get an answer from the moderator is not possible? I have asked for clarifications of rules. I am still waiting. Like other posterscwhdn we ask we get no answers. So we come to these CV off topic forum areas.

That is right Dr Ow.... Michael Harder has been my sex therapist for many years now. He taught me never to say Regina when it's cold outside. I have been to Dildot, Newfoundland.

The moderator has repeatedly in the past ignored me when I have reported posts and when I follow up so stop the crap with references to polite discussion. The point I made was and went zip over your head is that responding to something not considered of topic, I.e., derailing can't be unless it introduces a different topic that might be. It's not derailing to challenge an allowed subject. Ifanything what I might have been banned for was supposedly using insulting words. You even know what derailing means? You know what trolling means? When is something off topic? Are you telling me that when certain people go off topic on this forum they are moderated? You read the gawd damn posts. You see the double standard on who can say what whether it's off topic or rude. Itsvinconsusteng and it comes about based on a moderator becoming bias from moderating too long and losing their neutrality and listening to certain complaints but not others and cultivating negative familiarity. Telling someone their analysis was brilliant that is a point off? Why? Please tell me. Telling someone Churchill stands for the exact opposite of what they said for is insulting? That is unacceptable? Bullshit. Taxme who I directed that to has engaged in white supremacist neo Naxi opining on this board and I challenge it. You support his opinions good for you. I do not. On a thread with a Churchill statute ban as the topic what the phack did his comrade Trudeau have to do with it? How was that not derailing but my response to it was? How did I go off topic on something not off topic? Tell me how that works. Tell me how does Taxme sho supports racist views about whites support Churchill? Tell me? How is saying that point went zip over his head a point off? You explain. How am I a liar calling these inconsistencies out?Kind of ironic a moderator telling me not to insult responds clearly with one. Yah yah he can I can't. What if I say zip over your head will you call me a liar? Of course not. I have given up trying to figure out the inconsistencies of Taylor.. ...I also argue all moderators need to be changed they lose their objectivity. Moderation needs to be consistent with everyone equally. Ask Charles Taylor if he know the difference between a moderator and a prosecutor. Ask him if he really believes he is not overly familiar with certain posters from being a moderator too long and needs to call it quits now.

What because I disagree with you I am a liar? I did not lie and my words are public domain. You know exactly what I wrote.Why would I lie? Charles Taylor you are out of line.

His opinipn is based on subjective, selective standards as to who the poster is he feels is doing the insulting and that is evident on the kind of comments allowed on this forum with some but not others. The inconsistency in who he allows to insult and who he allows to be insulted has rendered his role as a moderator a farse. He is harming the forum and not protecting free speech but engaging in personal vendettas against certain forum members he likes and dislikes. That is unfortunate.

Charles Taylor I think it is time you take a walk as moderator. Your selective bias is past acceptable. On a current thread Taxme on a thread about a Churchill statute and whether it should be banned derailed the thread referring to Trudeau. His comments clearly had nothing to do with the thread. I responded saying his analysis was brilliant and you gave me a point and force me to agree with you to get back on the forum. You consider calling his comments brilliant analysis a personal insult and you accused me of derailing the thread but you clearly allow him to derail the thread. This is precisely why I have zero respect for you now. You are two faced. You look the other way with certain posters and protect them. People have said far worse than what I did and you have never banned them or disciplined them. You are abusing your moderator power and making a mockery of applying consistent objective standards. This is because you have been a moderator too long. I ask you to leave as moderator. I ask Greg to find someone less familiar with the forum. You have turned into an illogical, agry, petulant, moderator.

Bubber you and Shady could do less with the name calling and more with the references when making your comments. Take it from me who never calls anyone name syou two jack asses. (joking) Here to your point: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-covid-19-younger-adults-are-at-risk-too Here to Shady's point https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html The two are what both of you and many others base their perceptions. Bottom line is that most people who died or have had complications from Covid 19 have some kind of pre-existing medical issue that usally impacts on their immunity system that makes getting Covid 19 potentially life threatening, i.e., diabetes, asthma, lupus, any kind of cancer, heart disease, liver or kidney disease, any kind of blood clotting illness, hyper-thyroidism, smokers, people with CPD, who are overweight, have arthritis, psoriasis, ms, md, als, pretty much the xact same issue as with any flue or virus. Nothing has changed in that regard as Covid is just another virus and in that sense it brings along with it the same threats to people with compromised health. That said what makes it unique is that doctor's have no clue why some people show zero negative symptoms and others can die from it when BOTH have NO underlying medical conditions. Initial studies focused on people who died from it who were mostly older people with underlying issues or people with chronic conditions. Now as it has been around longer, and it has spread to otherwise healthy people, doctors think there are different strains of it now, and that your dna has a lot to do with whether it kills you, harms you, or does nothing to you. The problem is you can have it and have zero symptoms of any kind and therefore could easily be spreading it to others not knowing you have it. What we are now seeing are rates increasing with healthy young Americans who have been gathering in condensed crowds on beaches or at parties. We now know speaking, singing, yelling transmits microscopic water droplets. When you are out in the open maintaining space, those droplets are much more likely to travel and drop and not on you or your clothes . If you are in a crowded outdoor place, yes you can catch it from healthy people of course if you are not properly spaced. We have seen healthy athletes trying to quarantine failing to avoid it. We also know if you go inside poor air circulation and air conditioning systems incubate and spread it. Like any virus confined poor circulating air re-pumped provides a moist place to grow. You are both right in the sense that many healthy people do not get it but other healthy people have. The stats are not definitive but I go with John Hopkins on this as are most doctors arguing safe distancing is a must outside and inside. I think because of our existing laws, since employers are obliged to guarantee safe work places, poor air circulation is going to make it problematic for many employers to take back workers in phase 3 or any other return phase without facing major liability exposure. Bottom line-I would think until they come up with a vaccine there is no way to stop the spread and even that vaccine may have limitations for only certain strains or for limited time period. What is also known for sure now is people who have had Covid 19 do not build up a permanent herd immunity At best they have a temporary immunity of a few weeks. So anyone can get it, get it again and spread it no differently that any virus, including the common cold and flu.

Your post does not discuss the issue at all. Trudeau is not the issue. Stop derailing the thread.

You are referring to this inaccurate pulled out of context quote: "The Dalai Lama, head of Vajrayana Buddhism is quoted as saying, " If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. " (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001) " from Wikipedia. The problem with quoting wikipedia is if it quotes a newspaper article and you simply parrot the news article they reproduced, it may not be accurate. Any Buddhist will tell you the concept of "ahimsa" is fundamentally opposed to any concept of anger or violence.There is a history of discussing and defending armed force: http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_31_28.pdf .However it would be inaccurate to equate such discussions with justifying people having political tantrums and destroying property. It completely removes the reference you use and others out of their SPECIFIC not unlimited contexts. Buddhists will and have engaged in protest against governments. They are usually peaceful or at their worst and we saw it in Vietnam they will light themselves on fire, no one else. In fact Buddhist doctrine is not clear at all on how much force is considered reasonable to defend oneself and when one can or can not defend themselves.It certainly would not condone using it as a choice of expression of a view, and only endorse it in a specified context as a limited, unemotional controlled exercise and as a last resort in saving of a life. The current Dalai Lama did not lament over Ben Laden's death but to say he endorses violence is bullshit. Next contrary to popular belief he is not the expression of unified agreement of all Buddhists. The most accurate description if you must stereotype Buddhists if of their use of martial arts. To use self-defence it would have to be disciplined, never initiated, done with complete control of emotions, with strategic purpose and only as is necessary to defend against not initiate violence and with absence of malice and anger. The idiots we are talking about smashing property and screaming are spoiled brats acting out feelings of self entitlement. They engage in the very behaviour Eastern disciplines like Taoism and Buddhism sought to evolve past.

That sounds more like you. Add in this Senior, pinkish-grey-green man who thinks the word "systemic" is meaningless and that every human is an ist or ism in one degree or another but the way Singh uses it trivializes it and makes it absolutely meaningless and moronic. If he can not find any other issues to concern himself with its time he run along. He is so elitist out of touch this is about the only issue he can run with. It requires only a few syllables of posed outrage. If he had to discuss the economy it might cause his limited pee-brain to misfire.

Its not just from the travel. You ever head some of the speeches from WE. Full of talk very little in terms of actual work done. I like smaller charities that actually DO something like Unitarian Service Committee or if you are gonna be big then follow the model set by the Salvation Army consistently spending the majority of its money on charitable exercises NOT employees and speeches of them. I support good charities. I am uncomfortable when government favours certain ones as Trudeau has in such a blatant patronage manner.

Come on I was peeing. Let me finish before I respond. I can't do both. Sheesh you demand immediate response. At my age? Just changing the diaper takes awhile. Actually I was reading this Bogesy: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/justin-trudeau-drops-into-another-pitfall-of-his-own-making/ar-BB16BGQS It does make you wonder. He's not stupid. Well I mean he is....but this show's you he is arrogant and petulant. Why be surprised. He is a spoiled rich boy. He thinks he is above the laws of we ordinary shmos. It repeats his constant pattern of thinking he is above the law of we mere toadstools. Send Besty to visit Lord Justin of Trudeau and give him a good wack with her wooden spoon on his keester.

Men with big breasts are not uncommon. We have many elected to office. The key is to wear larger suits and shirt sizes not restrict them so we can see when they are cold. That is the concept of democracy. Accommodate individual characteristics if possible and it causes no harm to society. On the other hand can we get real and not have people using their altered chemistry for unfair advantage.

While I am sympathetic its not democratic or how Parliament works. Parliament does not prohibit any political parties. Laws limit hateful content of what we all say but not the right to form political parties based on religious or specific views that you and I consider extremist and often undemocratic or bigoted. I may not agree with many things the Christian Heritage Party stands for but I absolutely defend their right to exist as a political party in Canada. Same goes with the NDP who to me are today a fringe party. We can't prohibit ideologies we don't like. Its more complex than that. I think the problem is not so much fringe parties as it would be proportional representation with voting if you had many parties given seats by virtue of percentage of votes. The current system manages it pretty well. I mean the Bloc Quebecois is as fringe as it gets. Only in Canada would we pay people to be against Canada and break it up. (well Israel too). Its a fringe group but other than be monumentally a two faced joke what has it achieved for its separatists living off of fat federal pensions.

Oh they let me out of the cooler for now Besides I only rant in this section. I know better. I know you and Mr. H do not take me too seriously. I am annoyed as snot though. I think for a forum member within one post to insult the entire forum and not be called out on it is bullshit. I also have to ask, why do so many of these one timers hit and run and we never see them again. The pattern is there. So is the pattern of clumsy transference from an old troll to a new one in the same thread or the writer;s cognitive dissonance a phenomena that arises when someone writing is conflicted with the identities they are assuming and it interferes in what they write. Syntax, context, cognitive dissonance, is shit I worked with for years. Yah it gives me a short fuse with people playing the forum with different names and I get being told not to use inappropriate language but I have not. I have challenged words not people and challenged identities when the people are trolling yes. My frustration is with inconsistency in what people say. It is true the longer you are on any forum your familiarity breeds contempt with the moderator as well as making older members too familiar with each other causing contempt. Both phenomena occur. This is what annoys the snot out of me really. Moderators get overly familiar with older posters and hold them to a different standard and that is annoying as hell. I do admit some of the older posters probably can not stand me from familiarity or maybe vice versa, but the majority of us ignore each other when we have lost it and police ourselves. Its only a handful of trolls really and most leave after they burn out their one trick pony approach to trying to incite anger and get attention. The anti American trolling is bloody obvious how suddenly someone shows up, rants about something in general about the US and asks people to join in and then people do like sheep not noticing the poster is brand new and simply engage din a rhetorical accusation or subjective opinion with swet phack all to base it.