New Moderator!

[Charles Anthony]

Coincidence? Yes, that is a possibility. However, at the time of that post, I was actively participating in the politicial discussions. Now, I do not. Previously, as forum facilitator, my duties did not involve issues where political biasmade a difference. Identifying spam or excessive quoting is generally quite objective. Although, there will always be a sneaky exception that makes one want to go: "Hmmm...."

N.B.: Every single member is welcome to report violations of the forum rules. I did so at the time as a regular member too. Ultimately, it was Greg who decided and acted as a moderator.

Now, I have discretionary powers to act upon forum violations. For example, if:

- a member is being rude

- a post or thread is off-topic

- threads ought to be merged

I am expected to send offenders a formal warning or merge threads, without requesting Greg's approval first. Currently, I am not authorized to suspend or ban a member.

In any case you are doing a fine job as moderator,

Thank you. I, in turn, am practicing the discipline of buttoning my lip and paying closer attention to everybody else's contributions. As a result, I am learning much more about politics than I ever did before.

though I do miss your topical posts.

You might be able to find me trolling elsewhere on the web!

[Higgly]

Apparently if you refer to our Conservative Prime Minster as a big fat slob, you are headed for trouble, but if you refer to a Liberal as a lying thieving son of a donkey, that's OK.

[geoffrey]

Being fat isn't really meaningful to political debate. Being a liar is. Just a thought.

[Leafless]

Being fat isn't really meaningful to political debate. Being a liar is. Just a thought.

Then who exactly is the liar?

Just wondering.

[guyser]

Being fat isn't really meaningful to political debate. Being a liar is. Just a thought.

Quite right Geoffrey , but that wont stop the pre-emminent Conservative blogger on this site from engaging in it when it suits him.

[scribblet]

Quite right Geoffrey , but that wont stop the pre-emminent Conservative blogger on this site from engaging in it when it suits him.

Wot pre-emminent conservative blogger - enquiring minds would like to know -

[guyser]

Wot pre-emminent conservative blogger - enquiring minds would like to know -

Come now, yuou are smart enough to figure that one out. Besides, I believe the issue isnow dead as all is resolved.

[Higgly]

I asked Charles to come forward and tell me what rules I was breaking by referring to Steve Harper as a big fat slob. He has stonewalled. Not a good sign, is it? Apparently I didn't break any rules because I would have received some sort of warning. None has been forthcoming.

Folks, we all know that Charles is a card-carrying Conservative. I have a PM from him saying he hates socialists - yes Charles, I did take a screenshot of it.

We also know that Charles was appointed mod because he was performing yeoman service helping discombobulated members disentangle themselves from the forum software. But is that enough?

The question is - now that he is has been appointed referee, can he refrain from handling the puck? Apparently not. Here we have him putting down his skate and redirecting a shot away from the home team's goal.

Hmmmm.

[bush_cheney2004]

What "rule"?

INSULTS

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

People who have a history of antagonistic behaviour will be treated more harshly than those who do not.

Insults levelled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.

[kimmy]

This was a rule that was put in place several years ago due to the sheer volume of complaints from card-carrying Liberals regarding references to Paul Martin as "Mr Dithers" and of mocking imitations of Jean Chretien's ridiculously mangled "Franglais" patois.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Then the irony is made much sweeter indeed.

[Higgly]

What "rule"?

INSULTS

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

People who have a history of antagonistic behaviour will be treated more harshly than those who do not.

Insults levelled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.

Are you quoting the rules? If insults were completely and dilligently purged from MLW, I'd say go for it. This appears to have been selective insult cleansing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you quoting the rules? If insults were completely and dilligently purged from MLW, I'd say go for it. This appears to have been selective insult cleansing.

"...and tell me what rules I was breaking by referring to Steve Harper as a big fat slob..."

He did go for it....you were tagged. Shall we eschew all law enforcement as well because it is not always complete and dilligent?

Members have been warned repeatedly.....

Edited August 25, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

This was a rule that was put in place several years ago due to the sheer volume of complaints from card-carrying Liberals regarding references to Paul Martin as "Mr Dithers" and of mocking imitations of Jean Chretien's ridiculously mangled "Franglais" patois.

-k

Hmmmm. "Jean Chretien's ridiculously mangled 'Franglais' patois." I take it you're referring to yourself?

Edited August 25, 2007 by American Woman

[Higgly]

He did go for it....you were tagged.

I was? How?

[capricorn]

I guess the test of consistency will come, depending what is done by the mod with the title of the present thread. Non?

[scribblet]

Come now, yuou are smart enough to figure that one out. Besides, I believe the issue isnow dead as all is resolved.

I've no idea - clue me in please -

[kimmy]

Hmmmm. "Jean Chretien's ridiculously mangled 'Franglais' patois." I take it you're referring to yourself?

Well, actually yes. I was told to stop transcribing Chretien's verbalizations several years ago due to complaints from an offended party.

However, describing Jean Chretien's manner of speech as a "ridiculously mangled Franglais patois" is not mocking or insulting. It's an objective fact.

-k

[Higgly]

Well, actually yes. I was told to stop transcribing Chretien's verbalizations several years ago due to complaints from an offended party.

However, describing Jean Chretien's manner of speech as a "ridiculously mangled Franglais patois" is not mocking or insulting. It's an objective fact.

-k

Well this is what I think about Steve's sartorial taste. I mean come on now people. We're talking real fashion victim here. What does it take for a serious world leader to be turned out well? A decent suit. A clean shirt. A subdued tie. Polished shoes. It don't take no Karl Lagerfeld to put this outfit together.

[jefferiah]

Yes that's true. I know I read something about that before and specific mention of not being able to use Mr. Dithers. I think it was mentioned in a thread some time ago. I haven't been here for a year yet so I would not have been here when it was put in place.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well this is what I think about Steve's sartorial taste. I mean come on now people. We're talking real fashion victim here. What does it take for a serious world leader to be turned out well? A decent suit. A clean shirt. A subdued tie. Polished shoes. It don't take no Karl Lagerfeld to put this outfit together.

Think as you wish, just don't hurl insults about it. It really does detract from a spirited debate as tacit admission of a loathing based on style over substance. It would be easy to engage in such tit-for-tat antics, but it's a waste of time. We get more of the same from both sides and middle, some expressing their opinion about the intelligence of other members, as if that will win the day.

Instead, play the game...play it well.

[Higgly]

I've thought a bit about the Chretien thing and here's what I tink. Chretien did mangle English, but not by conscious choice. Steve on the other hand choses to dress the way he does and it is sad.

[bush_cheney2004]

I've thought a bit about the Chretien thing and here's what I tink. Chretien did mangle English, but not by conscious choice. Steve on the other hand choses to dress the way he does and it is sad.

So does Michael Moore, but he is a hero.

[Higgly]

So does Michael Moore, but he is a hero.

Michael Moore is carney. Steve Harper is the rev'nooer. Does that help?

[bush_cheney2004]

Michael Moore is carney. Steve Harper is the rev'nooer. Does that help?

Nope...more emphasis on style over substance. That's so....ummmm .....aristocratic.