Insults and proper names

[jbg]

au contraire, lil' buddy... as I said in your most recent pissant whinefest, your objections to the fine declaratives such as, "ShadyPractices and/or ShadyDubiousSources" are misplaced - these are certainly not names; rather, they are simply, as I stated, useful explanatory descriptive aids.

I doubt you are being fully candid. Sounds like a small bit of sarcasm.

Edited March 7, 2011 by jbg

[GostHacked]

Wow this turned into a train wreck in a hurry. Almost mirros the 'forum facilitators' thread.

Can I get my /facepalm icon now?

[Shady]

Is he the guy who calls me "Bubbles" all the time?

Actually, I heard that from Kimmy once, and sort of took it as my own. But yep, if other people are allowed to break the rules, I'm not gonna be the only sucker that follows them.

your objections to the fine declaratives

I don't have any objections to any of the names I'm called. I just suggested that if we're going to start following the rules, dealing with the biggest problems are the best place to begin.

[Shady]

Great idea Charles. This needs a bump as the name calling and use of improper names is out of control.

Bumping is fine. But banning might be better. A simple one time warning, and then gone.

[waldo]

name calling? Hypocrisy... thy name is... Shady!

[Charles Anthony]

Can I get my /facepalm icon now?

Yeah, I second that motion. I am DEFINITELY taking that one to management pronto!

[Smallc]

You're all {insert expletive here}.

[Jack Weber]

You're all {insert expletive here}.

$#@! you,Smallc...you're a %$/"!*

[Smallc]

$#@! you,Smallc...you're a %$/"!*

That's nothing compared to what I think about you, you *%$&($#.

[Mr.Canada]

Bumping is fine. But banning might be better. A simple one time warning, and then gone.

Thats a little severe. I'd like to see more suspensions though.

[BubberMiley]

Bumping is fine. But banning might be better. A simple one time warning, and then gone.

You think you should be banned for calling me "Bubbles"? That's a bit much, I think. I don't even care.

But mighty big of you to blame Kimmy.

[scribblet]

I think it's about time someone stepped in and called for order. Not that I think calling someone 'bubbles' is cause for suspension, but the continuing insults and name calling is getting ridiculous. Warning first, then suspension, maybe 3 and you're out ?

[Charles Anthony]

BUMP

I think it's about time someone stepped in and called for order. Not that I think calling someone 'bubbles' is cause for suspension, but the continuing insults and name calling is getting ridiculous. Warning first, then suspension, maybe 3 and you're out ?

Yes.

[waldo]

yes! Clearly, in recent days we've had a couple of MLW members call the leader of the Liberal Party a "shylock" and a "scumbag".

[Guest Derek L]

yes! Clearly, in recent days we've had a couple of MLW members call the leader of the Liberal Party a "shylock" and a "scumbag".

Indeed.....such offenses are akin to one MLW member calling another a "silly bugger".......As I understand it, that’s also another reference to one that practices sodomy…….clearly said member would have no such inclination if the member he or she claims to be a “bugger” does indeed practice sodomy……….Hence personal attack?

[waldo]

good point! Is there a difference between a personal labeling, say labeling someone a 'silly buggar'... and labeling actions as a said 'silly buggar act'? As an act labeling vested in British tradition... what better venue to reference than the Cambridge dictionary:

=> play silly buggers - UK slang
=> Definition › to behave in a silly, stupid, or annoying way:

[Guest Derek L]

good point! Is there a difference between a personal labeling, say labeling someone a 'silly buggar'... and labeling actions as a said 'silly buggar act'? As an act labeling vested in British tradition... what better venue to reference than the Cambridge dictionary:

=> play silly buggers - UK slang

=> Definition › to behave in a silly, stupid, or annoying way:

And in British tradition, a bugger is what?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bugger

¹bug·ger noun \ˈbə-gər, ˈbu̇-gər\

Definition of BUGGER

1

: sodomite

2

a : a worthless person : rascal

b : fellow, chap

3

: a small or annoying thing <put down my keys and now I can't find the buggers>

[waldo]

as a going forward insightful review to aid in interpreting personal insults... versus labeling acts/actions, when is a noun... a verb? I guess... never, right?

as an aside, perhaps I've unintentionally struck a nerve over your use of the scumbag label for the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. I suggest we move on from this thread - yes?

[Guest Derek L]

as a going forward insightful review to aid in interpreting personal insults... versus labeling acts/actions, when is a noun... a verb? I guess... never, right?

as an aside, perhaps I've unintentionally struck a nerve over your use of the scumbag label for the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. I suggest we move on from this thread - yes?

Pot.....Kettle?

[GostHacked]

I don't think it is an issue if we throw insults at the people being discussed about in the thread.

I do have an issue with throwing insults at each other.

[Argus]

I don't think it is an issue if we throw insults at the people being discussed about in the thread.

I do have an issue with throwing insults at each other.

CA has an issue with insulting anyone, regardless of whether they're here or not.

And he's the one whose opinion matters.

[Argus]

And in British tradition, a bugger is what?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bugger

Yes, I ran afoul of those English traditional usage myself once. I called some the ex-RCMP commissioner Chretien's bumboy. To me, that meant lackey or sniveling yes-man. But in English tradition it was a sodomite sort of thing, so I got suspended.

[Charles Anthony]

BUMP

[Rue]

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.

[Rue]

On 6/18/2013 at 3:38 PM, Argus said:

CA has an issue with insulting anyone, regardless of whether they're here or not.

And he's the one whose opinion matters.

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.