Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[Argus]

Or, to get back to topic, so conveniently aware of your UNawareness that you are a troll.

I have never made the claim that I am always respectful towards others here, for others are rarely respectful of me and, as in your case, I generally return the favour.

Unlike most of you, however, I defend my positions with facts and logic, not tearful emotions and feelings.

If my interlocutors are respectful I will be respectful in return. They seldom are, of course. Many of them here are simply incapable of discussion as an intellectual exercise, lacking the intellect to do so. They get indignant and self-righteous and feel the need to demonstrate their moral outrage on a daily basis.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Argus

[msj]

I have never made the claim that I am always respectful towards others here, for others are rarely respectful of me and, as in your case, I generally return the favour.

Unlike most of you, however, I defend my positions with facts and logic, not tearful emotions and feelings.

If my interlocutors are respectful I will be respectful in return. They seldom are, of course. Many of them here are simply incapable of discussion as an intellectual exercise, lacking the intellect to do so. They get indignant and self-righteous and feel the need to demonstrate their moral outrage on a daily basis.

Still unawares I see.

You participate in far too many ad hominem straw man type arguments and then you come to this thread to complain about it.

It is your MO.

But you think you're above it all and only defending yourself after that person "started it first -whah!"

Well, no, it does not go down like that at all.

The circle of your ad hominem attacks grows so large no one can see the beginning nor, I fear by the length of this whine filled thread, the end of it.

And then things just get worse as we see you pretending to be the white knight when everyone knows your the blackest kettle amongst the blackest pots.

[cybercoma]

So basically I've migrated from MLW to ATS in the last few days. Interesting.

ATS?

[Argus]

Still unawares I see.

That I disagree with you does not make me unaware. It simply makes me smarter.

You participate in far too many ad hominem straw man type arguments and then you come to this thread to complain about it.

I didn't come here to complain, and 'participate' would seem to indicate I'm responding to someone.

But you think you're above it all and only defending yourself after that person "started it first -whah!"

I prefer to discuss the topic under consideration rather than the moral failings of those who disagree with me.

I understand that sort of behaviour confuses you, never having considered it yourself. But if you ever manage to garner enough information and ability to discuss a topic, and do so with at least some degree of civility for your interlocutor, you can then call me on being insulting should I act up.

[Smallc]

ATS?

Above Top Secret

[ReeferMadness]

Yes, please respond within forum rules. The point is that there are no special rules for Fringe posts, so:

- Don't feel free to ridicule and derail those threads

- Don't report them

- Do treat them like other topics

So is MLW trying to be all things to all people? I don't want to see anyone censored. However, when I see an 8,000 word thesis on why the scientists who've spent their lives studying climate change are out to lunch or a deep conspiracy theory backed up only by documents of dubious origin and websites that specialize in trading in wild conspiracy theories, I have to wonder if there aren't other discussion forums that are more appropriate for them.

Just saying.

[Spiderfish]

In my personal opinion, most of what I read is filled with craziness and bitterness.

Hard to disagree with you on this. I guess that's why I rarely post anything on this site any more and only occasionally browse it's contents when I'm in the mood for a chuckle.

We don't consider so-called 'fringe topics' as derailing, as there are still the basic elements for discussion there. This is difficult for some to understand, but we need people to either to engage in such topics fairly or move on.

Ahh, I get it, these concepts are too complicated and beyond the scope of my comprehension. And here I wrote it off as just another crazy conspiracy theory, never did I consider that Harper may be complicit in a massive cocaine smuggling operation. It all makes sense now...

[poochy]

Hard to disagree with you on this. I guess that's why I rarely post anything on this site any more and only occasionally browse it's contents when I'm in the mood for a chuckle.

Ahh, I get it, these concepts are too complicated and beyond the scope of my comprehension. And here I wrote it off as just another crazy conspiracy theory, never did I consider that Harper may be complicit in a massive cocaine smuggling operation. It all makes sense now...

I made one of those deals with the pictures and string on the bulletin board that you see in crime movies, it really helped me see the light

[Charles Anthony]

So is MLW trying to be all things to all people?

Nothing has changed. There is no agenda beyond fostering civil Canadian discussion.

Did you think there was action to exclude people from participating?

I have to wonder if there aren't other discussion forums that are more appropriate for them.

Why? What leads you to wonder so?

Perhaps you may think you have explained how to respond in a clear way, but it only adds more confusion for me.

Here are different ways of expressing the same directive:

If you do not like a citation/reference/source offered by a fellow member, feel free to say so but you will be expected to explain why in a civil manner ACCOMPANIED BY AN ATTEMPT TO FURTHER THE DISCUSSION.

Drive-by dismissals of sources will be deleted.

SHORT VERSION: The essence of your post must be on topic. The topic is not the citation/reference/source in question.

[bush_cheney2004]

SHORT VERSION: The essence of your post must be on topic. The topic is not the citation/reference/source in question.

NO PROBLEMA: If a topic is nonsense, I will post that the topic is nonsense, and explain why the topic is nonsense.

Works for me.

Edited February 9, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Charles Anthony]

Just because you may personally buy the particular 'facts' as they are presented, it doesn't mean that the defence is valid. He made up a bunch of stuff that happens to be libelous, and defended it with more made up libelous stuff. The thread was clearly outside of bounds.

I want to avoid discussing any particular case. Forgive me if I speak in generalities. Let whoever sue for libel. Better yet, whoever is welcome to join the forums and protest.

Do you want mod staff to decide what is out of bounds? As long as discussion is polite, we are cool with it.

If you believe something should be censored, report it but do not reply to it. We are letting you folks decide what is out of bounds but we are only giving you 1 tool to express it: ignoreport it.

If everybody ignores something that is out of bounds or trolling or just plain boring, then it will go away.

Works for me.

Has anything changed?

[msj]

That I disagree with you does not make me unaware. It simply makes me smarter.

I didn't come here to complain, and 'participate' would seem to indicate I'm responding to someone.

I prefer to discuss the topic under consideration rather than the moral failings of those who disagree with me.

I understand that sort of behaviour confuses you, never having considered it yourself. But if you ever manage to garner enough information and ability to discuss a topic, and do so with at least some degree of civility for your interlocutor, you can then call me on being insulting should I act up.

Ha! Again!

I don't make any claims to being smart or not smart although I am lazy as f^ck but that's another thread.

But honestly, look back at your posts: they are riddled with nothing more than ad hominem after ad hominem.

The "he started it first, mom!" excuse is not helpful.

I think the mods would prefer all of us to move alone and ignore it so I do apologize to them for bringing so much attention to the amount of ad homineming that you do here but it is really tiring to see you complain time and time again when you are the one who is the guiltiest of the offences that you complain about.

I mean, honestly, read your own stuff.

[bush_cheney2004]

Has anything changed?

Maybe....we now have a new "prime directive" and a hint that perhaps the mods don't like being bothered with reports about "fringe topics".

Other than that, just another wonderful day in paradise.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ha! Again!

I don't make any claims to being smart or not smart although I am lazy as f^ck but that's another thread.

But honestly, look back at your posts: they are riddled with nothing more than ad hominem after ad hominem.

The "he started it first, mom!" excuse is not helpful.

I think the mods would prefer all of us to move alone and ignore it so I do apologize to them for bringing so much attention to the amount of ad homineming that you do here but it is really tiring to see you complain time and time again when you are the one who is the guiltiest of the offences that you complain about.

I mean, honestly, read your own stuff.

Somehow I doubt even that would alter the situation. People do get set in their ways I guess.

[cybercoma]

Let whoever sue for libel. Better yet, whoever is welcome to join the forums and protest.

Interesting change of direction from the forum that banned all discussion of the Gomery Commission in 2005 because Greg was afraid the publication ban would come back on him if we discussed it in the forum.

Edit: Link for those interested:

Please note that it is illegal to even discuss the particulars of Jean Braults testimony at the Gomery Commission in Montreal, Canada. Any links, quotes, or discussion of the testimony will be immediately removed from these forums.

Sorry folks, my hands are tied. We're not risking criminal charges so that a few of you can get a sneak peak at what is being said. Be patient, everything will come out with time.

Cheers,

Greg

Admin

Edited February 9, 2016 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Libel and illegal material are two different things.

MLW abides by Canadian law with regards to our content, including publication bans and pledges to act quickly when illegal material is brought to our attention.

Edited to add: Gomery was an exception in Canadian law.

[Argus]

But honestly, look back at your posts: they are riddled with nothing more than ad hominem after ad hominem.

That would be against the rules, and I always follow the rules.

And I have nothing more to say to you on your unhappiness about my posting style. Your opinion simply doesn't matter to me.

[cybercoma]

Libel and illegal material are two different things.

MLW abides by Canadian law with regards to our content, including publication bans and pledges to act quickly when illegal material is brought to our attention.

Edited to add: Gomery was an exception in Canadian law.

Libel is illegal.

[WestCoastRunner]

Libel is illegal.

Since this site is hosted in Texas it wouldn't be held to Canadian laws would it?

[bush_cheney2004]

Since this site is hosted in Texas it wouldn't be held to Canadian laws would it?

The physical server is probably in the Seattle area, but same difference.

[WestCoastRunner]

The physical server is probably in the Seattle area, but same difference.

Exactly.

[BubberMiley]

There are libel laws in ate U.S. as well, but it wouldn't matter where the server is located (other than to alleged Americans who are fascinated with all things Canadian).

[WestCoastRunner]

There are libel laws in ate U.S. as well, but it wouldn't matter where the server is located (other than to alleged Americans who are fascinated with all things Canadian).

Are you sure? The reason I ask is because I read something exactly about this earlier. Wasn't details about the Paul Bernardo case published in the states even with the publication ban? Or maybe that's different than libel laws.

[Charles Anthony]

I reviewed this with Greg and he is not concerned.

[WestCoastRunner]

I reviewed this with Greg and he is not concerned.

What do you mean he's not concerned? what is he not concerned about?