bush_cheney2004 Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 That's why we have Godwin's Law...there is never a shortage of member posts to prove it again and again. Economics trumps Virtue.
Big Guy Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 Linking so many things to the Nazi's is simply put, stupid, mentioning that its stupid is not, attacking someone for mentioning it...well maybe you can see where this is going. If you will check, the quotes that Big Guy uses as a comparative to some of the radical statements made here include David Duke, Fascist organizations and other extremist groups. If the Hitler reference is uncomfortable then Big Guy will switch to other reference quotes. The point is, one can try to rationalize any extreme position. That is freedom of speech. One can also take the words of that position and show how similar they are to those of established extremist groups. I am trying to show that there is nothing new in these views. They have been around for centuries - and I use quotations to prove my point. If that makes any poster uncomfortable then they have the ability to show how their views are different from those coming from hate groups. That too is freedom of speech. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
cybercoma Posted October 12, 2015 Report Posted October 12, 2015 I guess if you don't want to be associated with radical white wing hate groups, then maybe you shouldn't be spreading their propaganda.
Argus Posted October 12, 2015 Author Report Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) I suggest that: 1.You speak for yourself and yourself only. You have already been told as much by the moderator. If you do not care about my "self-righteous lectures" then why are you replying? Well, most of them are directed at me, despite you having self-righteously declared many months ago that you were ignoring me. Besides, you're like that demented old man on the corner who comes out screaming and waving his cane every day whenever someone speaks above a whisper, worthy for amusement value if nothing more. 2. I find your posts here to be inflammatory and racist in nature. Yes, I'm aware of it. It doesn't bother me. After all, I deal with ignorant opinions all the time, and none here have ever been more defiantly knowledge-free than yours. 3. I find your tone here confrontational and the personality that you have given your avatar to be unfriendly and distasteful. <shrug> I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed how hyper-sensitive you are to anyone who disagrees with you. That's why you rarely deign to even reply to other posters, but prefer to harangue them anonymously. 4. I try to ignore your less serious attacks on minorities I don't attack minorities. 5. Having read many of your posts for a while, I think you have major problems accepting women as equals That's an interesting position to take. I've posted hundreds, if not thousands of times in anger against groups and individuals who harm women. You, on the other hand, have expressed admiration for Iran, where women are beaten and arrested if they show any hair or makeup in public, stated that life under ISIS is fine, and we should leave them alone, even though they engage in the buying and selling of young girls as sex slaves, and ardently defended the niqab. and people "who are not like you" as your equal. Savages? Idiots? Morons? Barbarians? Religious fanatics? Nope. I don't consider them my equal, though they could well be yours. 6. I reply on a personal level in this thread because it deals with moderating And because you're fuming. - maintaining the limits of acceptable participation. Actually, no, you haven't. You are issuing personal insults. But I know you believe you should be immune from the rules. If I was moderator for this site I would have removed Argus a while ago. And probably just about everyone else, too. I have observed your indignation and frustration at the fact people are permitted to express opinions with which you disagree. You will never have a site, for no one would participate with you, and nothing you write personally is either interesting enough or intelligent enough to be worth reading. 8. As to my use of quotes from the KKK, David Duke, Hitler and his minions in relation to your views, you are invited and quite capable of explaining how your views of immigrants is different from theirs. And what are their views of immigrants? I have no idea. I'm willing to bet you have no idea either. I'm also willing to bet your distaste of Israel and your oft repeated statement that we should 'wash our hands of them' would find ready and enthusiastic agreement among them, as well as other fascist and anti-Semitic types. Edited October 12, 2015 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 12, 2015 Author Report Posted October 12, 2015 Have you ever taken the time to read your own replies? There is irony in this reply as I get the same self-righteousness feeling from many of your posts Yes, but you're a conspiracy theorist, and prone to the sort of unstable thinking which will invariably misinterpret what people say. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 I stand by what I said and thank Argus for proving it through his/her latest post. Sorry, I do not reply to parsed posts. It leads to parsing of parsed posts which have been parsed ... Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
BC_chick Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 I don't normally respond to parsed posts either, and if I must, I quote the whole thing and respond below. Truth be told, I rarely even read parsed posts. Well, one parsing posters is quite funny. I make exception for him. It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
On Guard for Thee Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Well, one parsing posters is quite funny. I make exception for him.Hmmm, that's got me guessing.
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Sorry about my cryptic post. I wish I'd left that part out. It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
sharkman Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 I stand by what I said and thank Argus for proving it through his/her latest post. No, Argus makes some good points. You tend to be holier than thou and hyper sensitive, and your obsession with certain areas of the world has lead to multiple threads started by you where you repeat yourself over and over.
Big Guy Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) No, Argus makes some good points. You tend to be holier than thou and hyper sensitive, and your obsession with certain areas of the world has lead to multiple threads started by you where you repeat yourself over and over. OK. Thank you for your opinion. Does that mean that I should put your name into the "Not too crazy about Big Guy posts" column? On your suggestion, I will ask to be tested for OCD during my next doctor visit. Thank you for your concern. Edited October 14, 2015 by Big Guy Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
BubberMiley Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 I find his Internet psychiatry very helpful as well, but I worry it might be a compulsion with him. "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
GostHacked Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Yes, but you're a conspiracy theorist, and prone to the sort of unstable thinking which will invariably misinterpret what people say. Thanks for proving my point.
Argus Posted October 24, 2015 Author Report Posted October 24, 2015 Well, there seems to be great rejoicing on this site about the end of the secretive and autocratic Harper administration. This seems a good time to talk about the even more secretive and autocratic administration of Mapleleafweb. We know very little about the three men who run the place. Greg is a sysadmin out west but is only occasionally involved these days. Charles and Michael Hardner are ideologues of the Left, the far Left, in some ways. Their decisions are for them to make, in as arbitrary a fashion as they choose, and they ask advice of no one. No discussion is permitted, and no explanation is offered. How many people have been banned and why? We don't know. How often are people suspended? They won't say. When they suspend someone it's done with the push of a button. No explanation is offered, no discussion permitted. Even the mailing feature is now disabled so those suspended can't ask for enlightenment, or protest the decision Too busy, they say. far too busy, you see. This implies they suspend people many times a day, or that it's just an excuse for an autocratic mentality which bristles at decisions being questioned. This site has been steadily deteriorating over the years, in large part, I think, due to the indifferent, arbitrary and biased nature of the moderation. It fixates on sometimes odd interpretations of the letter of the "law" while completely ignoring the spirit. Hostile, disrespectful, contemptuous, sneering, snide, mocking, trolling posts are fine, as long as their interpretation of 'insult' isn't breached. And their interpretation changes from day to day and hour to hour, often, it seems to me, depending on how much they agree with the politics of whoever is posting. I've noticed this site has gotten more and more Left of center in the past few years. The additional people to discuss politics with would be appreciated if so many of them weren't incapable of any sort of rational or polite discussion. This is not a general screed against lefties, btw. Jdobbin was a liberal hack, but he was also one of the better, more intelligent posters on this web site. Canadien was, I think, a jerk, but not a crank, and we have too many cranks and kooks now. None of them are as amusing as Oleg Bach was, either. Where'd Mdancer go? Or Wild Bill? Dogonporch, Madmax, Riverwind, Theloniusfleabag, geoffrey, and a host of other regular posters have faded away since last election, most of them moderates or mild conservatives who, I suggest, were fed up with the determined effort of the biased moderators to turn this site into a sort of cheap ass version of Rabble.ca The quality and intelligence of the political discussion here is lower than I've ever seen it, and I've been here eleven years. A lot of topics are little more than monkeys throwing excrement around or sub-literate cretins making vast pronouncements of no value . The rules call for respectful dialogue but that's a joke ignored by all. Especially the moderators. And this sort of thing builds on itself. The more hostile the dialogue, the less likelihood there is of attracting intelligent new posters, and the more likelihood of attracting cranks and kooks – who seem to be welcomed with open arms as long as they don't use 'insults'. This place needs a new moderation policy – badly. This site's only attraction is the interplay between the members. Literally, this site is a content provider, and the content is the members' discussions. Without a critical mass discussions don't interest those who stop by enough to join. Suspending and banning people left and right is idiotic, and the laziest way possible of managing respectful dialogue. If the moderators are too busy for more then why haven't they asked for more people to step up and volunteer? You want my idea of a new moderation policy? Anyone who issues an opinion on the motivation, morality or intelligence of anyone else here in their response gets their post deleted. The subject is what is under discussion, not the other poster. If you feel so outraged about the opinion then explain why it's wrong. If you can't do that without giving your unvarnished opinions of those who hold that opinion, then leave or see all your posts deleted. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 You want my idea of a new moderation policy? Anyone who issues an opinion on the motivation, morality or intelligence of anyone else here in their response gets their post deleted. We do that sometimes for personal comments, but you said above that you expect an explanation for such things. It's a pretty grey area for a lot of things so you can't expect us to be 100% consistent. I think it's quite another thing to assert that we're trying to make this a right- or left- wing site. We get accused of both things, by the way. A lot of times, the discussion will start out objectively, then one poster will make an assertion about the other poster's argument as being 'unproven', or maybe 'naive' or 'inflantile'. Where are we then ? It's not a personal comment, it's a comment on the mindset that other posters share. I think that such things are fine - others may differ. I receive PMs from people who agree with one side or the other asking me to do something about the insults when in fact they're not personal comments. It's just not easy, Argus. If you can't do that without giving your unvarnished opinions of those who hold that opinion, then leave or see all your posts deleted. I'm trying to spend more time on here, but believe me it takes hours a day to stay on top of things. This is why we ask people to Report. But then I hear "why should I report when you didn't do anything about my last report". The answer is that we need reports to look into things, but we may not agree with your assessment. Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Argus Posted October 24, 2015 Author Report Posted October 24, 2015 We do that sometimes for personal comments, but you said above that you expect an explanation for such things. I said that with regard to suspension. How often do you suspend people in a given day that you don't even have the time to tell them why? How often do you think you'd need to delete a post that you couldn't have a few all-purpose 'please rephrase due to insulting tone' or something similar? And if you don't have the time then quit and let someone else do it who does. It's a pretty grey area for a lot of things so you can't expect us to be 100% consistent. This site's moderation is as consistent as cops who pull people over where they've previously let them go because they're near the end of the month and have a quota to meet. I think it's quite another thing to assert that we're trying to make this a right- or left- wing site. We get accused of both things, by the way. Right. sure. Two very left wing guys get accused of a right wing bias? What wingnut suggests that? A lot of times, the discussion will start out objectively, then one poster will make an assertion about the other poster's argument as being 'unproven', or maybe 'naive' or 'inflantile'. Where are we then ? It's not a personal comment, it's a comment on the mindset that other posters share. Get real. Unproven is fine, naive is neutral, but 'infantile' is clearly meant to be deliberately insulting. And of course it's nowhere near that 'respectful' way that your own rules say must be employed in discussions. I think that such things are fine - others may differ. I receive PMs from people who agree with one side or the other asking me to do something about the insults when in fact they're not personal comments. There are certainly occasions where the determination is a toss-up, but in 90% of the cases it would be very clear whether the comments are respectful or blatantly meant to be antagonistic, insulting and disrespectful. I'm trying to spend more time on here, but believe me it takes hours a day to stay on top of things. I find that very hard to believe, actually. Since I work at home, and work whatever hours I want I can pop in here any old time and I frankly don't see the results of your actions given there are so very many personal comments - including in topics in which you are involved, and which you ignore. Maybe, like my old boss, you simply create work for yourself by not taking the obvious path and simply judging whether the commentary is respectful towards the other posters or not. There's usually little doubt on that score one way or another. This is why we ask people to Report. But then I hear "why should I report when you didn't do anything about my last report". The answer is that we need reports to look into things, but we may not agree with your assessment. Which just boils down to you having no time to discuss and explain things, which simply recalls my asking why, if that is the case, you people have never asked for more volunteers to help. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Charles Anthony Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 Which just boils down to you having no time to discuss and explain things, which simply recalls my asking why, if that is the case, you people have never asked for more volunteers to help.--- because we are not confident any currently active members could help. We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Argus Posted October 24, 2015 Author Report Posted October 24, 2015 --- because we are not confident any currently active members could help. If you're operating on the presumption that the only people who could be at all unbiased in moderating are those who issue no insults here then maybe you should have a look back at your posts before you became moderator. They were, as I recall, extremely hostile towards me among others, and didn't hesitate to make personal comments. I said as much at the time when you became moderator. Obviously you would have to keep an eye on their decisions at first, but saying you don't have the time for that is like the guy who is always overloaded with work but won't hire anyone to help because "I don't have the time to train them". "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Charles Anthony Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 If you're operating on the presumption that the only people who could be at all unbiased in moderating are those who issue no insults here then maybe you .......are mistaken? We do not operate on that presumption. We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Argus Posted October 24, 2015 Author Report Posted October 24, 2015 ...are mistaken? We do not operate on that presumption. Maybe a discussion on why you don't think anyone here is capable of helping you moderate should begin with the faults you see in the existing posters as compared to yourself and MH. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
msj Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 Why don't you put the time in setting up your own forum that suits you and see how much time for no reward it is to do what MH and CA do? This forum costs me nothing and gives me endless entertainment value for which I'm thankful for. The rules are clear and can be abided by unless one chooses not to so be accountable for your own actions when they lead to consequences. If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
WestCoastRunner Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 Why don't you put the time in setting up your own forum that suits you and see how much time for no reward it is to do what MH and CA do? This forum costs me nothing and gives me endless entertainment value for which I'm thankful for. The rules are clear and can be abided by unless one chooses not to so be accountable for your own actions when they lead to consequences. I know that you ignore my posts and as much as I disagree with many of argus' posts I do agree with some of his points here. Charles can be very dismissive and condescending to requests in these support threads. It would be nice to have them taken seriously all of the time. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Argus Posted October 24, 2015 Author Report Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) Why don't you put the time in setting up your own forum that suits you and see how much time for no reward it is to do what MH and CA do? MH and CA did not set up this forum, nor do they pay for it. And if they did not find being here rewarding in some way they would not still be here. This forum costs me nothing and gives me endless entertainment value for which I'm thankful for. Throughout history there have always been those who were content to stand in a field and chew their cud, and those who always wanted to improve things. I am of the latter type. The rules are clear No, they are, in fact, exceedingly unclear. Edited October 25, 2015 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
msj Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 To be fair, I ignore most people's posts most of the time. To some extent we all do this for a variety of reasons. Sure, Argus has some points. He doesn't run the site and doesn't have to invest the time hence my lack of sympathy for his constant complaints. If he expends as much energy to ignore the annoying posters and to focus solely on the ball and not the player then he may have a leg to stand on. But he doesn't. Then the rules are enforced against him and he can't handle the medicine because so and so wasn't suspended too. It's nauseating. If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Big Guy Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Last time I logged on there were 9126 members. One has expressed a point of view that he/she is unhappy with the way this site is being moderated. So there are 9125 more posters who could post their particular views. I find no difficulty with the way this site is being moderated. It is free access, there is no obligation to participate. I know if I did not like the way a site was being administered and moderated then I would cease to participate. I suggest that the author of the complaint seriously consider that option. I quote: Perhaps the author The Indispensable Man (by Saxon White Kessinger) "Sometime when you're feeling important;Sometime when your ego 's in bloom;Sometime when you take it for granted,You're the best qualified in the room:Sometime when you feel that your going,Would leave an unfillable hole,Just follow these simple instructions,And see how they humble your soul. Take a bucket and fill it with water,Put your hand in it up to the wrist,Pull it out and the hole that's remaining,Is a measure of how much you'll be missed.You can splash all you wish when you enter,You may stir up the water galore,But stop, and you'll find that in no time,It looks quite the same as before." Perhaps the disgruntled will find a bucket of water and test the hypothesis. It may be a learning moment and an epiphany of understanding. Or in this case, it may not. I am looking forward to hearing from the other 9124 posters. Edited October 25, 2015 by Big Guy Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Recommended Posts