»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The Circus is Coming to Town
| The Alley |
|
The Circus is Coming to Town |
|
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
Boy Hussein Obama can not win, unless it is the same way Hitler won. The people of this country and this continent will never be governed by an insufferable tyrant and will not endure living in a Marxist hell, and then will bury this wanna-be misleader, this plastic, patchwork persona, this arrogant, trumpt-up, inflated buffoon in contempt, ridicule and scorn. Obama will not deliver us from evil, but into it. A sudden, meteoric rise always precedes an equally meteoric fall. Remove me from this forum if you will, but history will vindicate these words. Friendship is for Life, if not Forever. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 The Sun - All Rights Reserved | |||
SEA 
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
I really hope you aren't right, but I think this way too. I think both of them truly suck. |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
A racial slur in the opening line, yet this post is still on the board. Shocking! Guess no one reported it. I will now. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mr. Fradera, I googled "Boy Hussein Obama" found mostly a series of inflammatory websites listed. In common they seemed to have an interest in spreading the notions that Senator Obama was a muslim and a Jihadi. I am unclear as to weather you subscribe to these ideas and to what extend you realize that you should actually prove statements you make in print unless your interest is simply to smear somebody's reputation without regard to reality. Should anybody care to google "Boy Hussein Obama" they will no doubt be thrilled at the number of racist remarks available for their reaction on the first page of references alone. The two listed under Osama, Osama, Yo Mama or particularly noisome. [paragraph removed - Ron] [paragraph removed - Ron] [partial paragraph removed - Ron] Senator Obama is, like Mrs. Clinton, Republican Lite and not even an actual left wing democrat. The closest we've had to one of those in office has been LBJ, and he blew the Democratic party in half, and plunged the country into a shameful war fought by brave soldiers. His Domestic Agenda against poverty and racism was very fine from my own left wing Democratic position, but there's nothing like that visible in the here and now. In fact, who knows if we can get the new President, Democrat or Republican to render the new Presidential powers back to the people, and return to the people the lost civil rights incursions into Habeas Corpus and the rights of freedom from unreasonable Search and Seizure. The tyranny Mr. Fradera is worried about happening in the Future, friends, has already descended; and our problem is what degree of our former liberties can we reclaim, and what legal ways must we use to go about doing so. [paragraph removed - Ron] We don't have to like each other to look for a roughly objective set of facts. It's about facts and the good of the country, not winning points. It's about helping the country survive. [This message has been edited by Ron (09-08-2008 08:43 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Not everyone in our backroom is convinced a racial slur exists, Jennifer. It could be just a dropped or misplaced comma, some contend. Doesn't matter. Either people have the freedom to impugn political candidates or they don't. No one gets to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say their character assassinations are on one side of the line and someone else's is on the other side. Either politicians are fair game or they're not. If you believe skin color isn't a valid criteria for a leader (good for you), you are certainly free to ignore any arguments centering on skin color. As many others, I suspect, will do for pouffy hair. Bob, I felt it necessary to remove several paragraphs from your post, paragraphs that I believed characterized the poster, not the post. Your views on the issues are important to us. Your views on Jaime or any other Member here are not. quote: Removal from this community, Jaime, isn't based on a determination of Truth. Put another way, being right has never been an excuse for breaking our rules. Cross the line, as you seem increasingly intent on doing of late, and history will not save you. If you no longer like it here, please save everyone a lot of headaches and make your exit quietly. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I smell a con . . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, I trust your judgement on that. I'm sorry if I got carried away. When I tried the google search. . . and the nature of the original post itself was difficult for me. I know I should be more objective and will work for that. Thanks for your help here. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"The tyranny Mr. Fradera is worried about happening in the Future, friends, has already descended; and our problem is what degree of our former liberties can we reclaim, and what legal ways must we use to go about doing so." I think a good start, Bob, might be by putting two Constitutional lawyers at the helm, Obama and Biden rather than the bottom of his class Academy grad McCain and his journalism major running mate, Palin. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Very respectfully Ron, following your closing comments in the other thread, I would be grateful if you would please clarify whether you regard my comment: "I don't see the "attacks" made by Jaime as only attacks. They are nearly tantamount to incitements to hatred and racist violence." as acceptable. Just to be clear, my intention was to question the EFFECT of Jaime's words, NOT to try and second guess his reasons for posting those words. Perhaps I have done more than that? I'm trying here to understand where the lines are and how they are drawn. Thanks.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Moonbeam, those are exactly the kind of determinations that our Moderator team tries to make. And, of course, it's no easy task. If it was my belief that anyone was advocating a violent answer to a problem, I would probably pull the post. Even if it was directed at a politician. Was your comment acceptable? Personally, I don't think it's the kind of thing we should encourage in a public venue. While it's exactly the kind of thing that goes on in the backroom, I suspect doing it out front is just going to result in a lot of finger pointing back and forth. And to what good? Those kind of complaints need to be handled at an official level, I believe. Look in the top right corner of every post; you should see an "Inappropriate content?" link. Clicking that link creates a thread in the Deputy Moderator forum where our whole team can, as a group, make a determination. It might take an hour, a day, or a week, but words that might otherwise simply incite more accusations can actually reach a result there. Make sense? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes it does, I understand. Thanks Ron. M |
||
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
My piece, though perhaps rather crudely written, was an oppinion. Obama is a Marxist, and that is NOT an opinion. I do agree with Ron, though; history will not save me. Why should it? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
[Personal attack removed - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (09-11-2008 12:54 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sources, please, Mr. Fradera? For a statement that controversial, and in the context of the discussions here over the past week or so, I would hope the sources would be less controversial than the statement itself. I would like to be convinced by evidence if I am going to abandon my current expressed position that Senator Obama is Republican Lite. I have not seen, for example, that the senator wishes to promote a revolution of the proletariat in this country or any other. In fact he seems to be attempting to work within the system to better the conditions of "the wretched of the Earth." The fact that he seems to go after elected office would in fact qualify him to be what a good marxist would probably call a "running dog of capitalism." The marxist position, ever since Lenin, has been somewhat cynical. Others may correct my attribution here, but I do believe it was Lenin who said that the Capitalists would sell the very rope used to hang them. This does seem to me to be an accurate description of Republican environmental policy. I am probably closer to being a marxist than Senator Obama, though I am not a marxist, only pretty far to the left. Senator Obama is still able to talk with many of these people far right wing folks, and to negotiate with them with a reasonable lack of rancor. I have difficulty as seeing them as being other than people who are attempting to murder the entire species, including themselves, for momentary profit. Exactly how the Senator's economic policies are marxist is unclear to me as well. He still seems to believe that it's fine for people to make an honest profit in business; and that people should be rewarded of their efforts on their own parts AND on the part of the community as well. You may call this last part marxist. To me it sounds remarkably like Adam Smith's "enlightened self interest," something that Capitalism should display but so often does not. These are a few thoughts in response to your suggestion that the Senator was a Marxist. I await your thoughtful response. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Bob K, Republican Lite.  I like that. You crack me up. And Jaime I think Bob's got you on this one. And your post is crudely stated. And I'm not sure to what purpose. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Oooooo Larry ... tssk tskk "If you want to analyze (or question) someone's motivations for posting, you should probably join a forum for armchair psychiatry. They might accept you as an expert witness; we won't. Feel free, at any time, to disclose your own motivations, but please leave those of other Members out of the discussion." We musn't speculate on the poster's motives for writing what he wrote. ~spank spank~.  Seriously though I think this illustrates how difficult it is in a discussion forum, especially one for "flamin and complainin" NOT to slip into discussing motive. My own opinion is that what is important is the INTENT behind the "speculation". That's why the moderator of this forum has a near impossible job! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Only if you intend to pass judgment on the poster. Is Obama a Marxist? Will Jaime's intent make the Senator a Marxist? Or prevent him from being one? |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
moonbeam, Actually I was reflecting Jaime's own admission as a means of concurring. So I'm pretty sure I'm safe. I happen to like Jaime a lot and know that I could never cope with the challenges of life that he has dealt with. And thus I find this particular post disconcerting if not out of character. And you are sooo right about the moderating. A serious portion of my reading on this site I do with one eye on how the moderators work and what their challenges might be given what I've read. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
My apologies to Jaime if my post came across as a personal attack. I can’t recall my exact words but thought they addressed the content of his post, not him personally. And, I did wish him a pleasant evening trying to show that I bore him no ill will. You know, it’s getting a bit confusing. Some opinions directly addressing a poster by name and judging them get a pass as being just an “observation”, whereas some opinions focusing on the post, not the poster, are being called personal attacks. Have to tell you, maybe it’s just me, but I not getting it. Anyway, again, my apologies to Jaime. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
No Ron! Sorry misunderstanding, my bad. I wasn't challenging the "rules" of PiP which I do understand bar ANY discussion of a poster's intent. I was just taking a step back into the real world which thankfully isn't moderated, where I think trying to make a judgement about someone's motives with benign intent isn't so bad.And anyway, as I said before in this case I wasn't speculating on what Jaime's intent was at all. I was speculating on what the effect of his words might be. ........ Point taken Ringo! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Feel free to write me any time, Jennifer. While a public rehashing of what I felt was over the line would defeat the purpose of removing it, I'm more than happy to discuss it in private. FWIW, most of your post was, indeed, fine and you should feel free to post it again. I just didn't have the time this afternoon to edit it for you. And, yes, Moonbeam, in the real world we frequently judge people by their intent. Which, I think, is often a real shame. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron and, of course, dear Mr. Fradera, I have no idea about Mr. Fradera's intention here. I do know that he has made a statement that is inflammatory in the extreme. If you notice the beginning of the thread, you will note that Mr. Fradera appears to have done so before, and within recent memory. I understand that this is political speech, and is protected for that reason. It should be. Nevertheless, I continue to wait patiently for Mr. Fradera to offer proof from sources that are as trustworthy as such a massive and unsupported statement should naturally demand to back his accusation. From what I know of the literature, and certainly my knowledge is not encyclopedic, I cannot see solid evidence out there to support such a reckless statement, and I believe that Mr. Fradera is in error. Standard journalistic practice is three reputable sources offering independent collaborative evidence. For a story this large, I would want more, personally, as would, I suspect, anyone who had an interest in a fairly objective look at the story; but I'd settle for three if they were, in fact, reliable sources; and if they did, in fact, offer independent collaborative evidence. If I were trying to break some sort of left wing story, I would want to exclude any left wing sources in the interests of keeping things above board. When I do offer references here, I tend to avoid left wing sources for that reason. I would hope Mr. Fradera would have the resources and courtesy to do the same from specifically right wing sources. Once again, I wait the courtesy of a reply from Mr. Fradera. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“most of your post was, indeed, fine and you should feel free to post it again.” Fair enough, and thanks, Ron. Since you haven't given me any indication what part of my post you saw as being a “personal attack”, either in this forum or by email, then it's impossible for me to exclude that part in a repost. All I can do, I'm afraid, is post what I recall having said and trust that you'll delete the part you feel is a personal attack. I certainly don't want to offend Jaime again. I’ll break my three line post down into separate sections, number each, double space, thereby hopefully making it easy for you to point out the part(s) by deleting the text that made it a “personal attack” so in future I won’t make the same mistake and neither of us will have to sit around waiting for a reply by email. 1. Said Hi to Jaime 2. Mentioned something about no supporting evidence for any of the statements in his post. 2a. Also mentioned that the language used in the post was offensive to many people. 2b. Said that because of 2 & 2a, in my opinion, that made the post a rant. In a do over, I'd probably also characterize the post as being inflammatory. 3. Wished Jaime a pleasant evening. Which of those statements contain the personal, the ad hominem attack? I can understand that if I had called Jaime a boorish ranter, a racist, a flamer, then that would be a personal attack. Since my statements addressed only the post, not the character or the intentions of the poster, nor was I in any way judging Jaime personally, then I really do have difficulty understanding why you labeled it a “personal attack”. Now contrast my statements about Jaime’s post with those below which are personally directed, judgmental, fallacious, disparaging, and put words in the mouths of posters they never said, then perhaps you can understand why I’m confused about why my post was considered a personal attack and removed and these, in a post that was reported as being inappropriate, weren’t: “Now, it seems that Jennifer feels disrespected and insulted, and refuses to let it go” "Balladeer feels like he is being ganged up on, and is taking his ball and going home." [This message has been edited by Ron (09-12-2008 09:22 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Ron, I think that's far too simplistic. (I may be misreading you, in which case ignore what follows). Outside of the artificial environment of PiP I'd say that if you DON'T make an effort to judge someone actions by looking beyond the overt, then you are potentially missing out on a lot of life, and moreover likely to do substantial damage! The cliche is the "male/female - mars/venus" thing - and perhaps there's some truth in it. Imo the crucial issue isn't the fact of trying to assess someone's motives, but, as I said before, the state of mind of the assessor. An open, fairminded, honest, truthful, unsuspicious, kind, and altogether benign, approach will yield dividends in harmony. A recent example: someone at work who, if I had judged purely on his outward actions I should have fired immediately, but, guessing the motive for his apparently incomprehensible actions, I didn't. Time will tell if I am right or not I guess, but it feels right, and that's good. That's part of why your job here is very difficult. You have to apply rules mechanistically and that inevitably leads to "mistakes" and hurt when the person to whom the rules are applied doesn't fully realise the unenviable postion you are in. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Jennifer, as I said in a previous post, the line between what someone says and who they are isn't always a clear one. In my opinion, your choice of adjective went over the line, in tone if not specificity. Frankly, I would strongly discourage that kind of characterization in CA, too, where the goal IS to talk about a person's style of writing. In a discussion forum like this, I think the focus should be on what someone has said, not the manner in which we "feel" they said it. quote: First, Jennifer, it was hard to take any complaint about disrespect seriously in that thread -- the entire thing was rife with it, and you certainly got in a few barbs of your own. More than a few, I think. Second, we can't really contrast anything in this thread with that one because that's not in keeping with the relationship between them. That previous thread was the push. This thread, and I suspect more threads to come, are the pendulum. Pendulums don't swing half-way. quote: This is the kind of topic that deserves its own thread, moonbeam, and it certainly deserves more time than I have this morning. Suffice it for now to say that I believe intent only becomes important if you hope to predict future actions. Past actions have to stand on their own merit. quote: I think you know better? Rules, I think, are a bit like ethics. Good rules, like good ethics, lay out a road map that is the "most likely" path to the desired destination. Philosophers have tons of fun inventing new ethical dilemmas, but I still believe -- in the absence of absolute knowledge of right and wrong -- that doing the ethical thing in a sticky situation will usually lead to the best results. Ya gotta play the odds. It's not much different with rules. If someone is hurt at PiP, it won't be because we applied the rules mechanistically, but rather because we made a mistake. Our rules are generally pretty flexible and open to interpretation (and re-interpretation). Indeed, I think that last thread got into trouble (does anyone here think it wasn't in trouble?) because I allowed myself to be enticed into interpreting our rules a little too loosely. When push comes to shove, however, we still have to play the odds. Rules that have worked well for ten years can't be lightly dismissed. |
||
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
On a somewhat unrelated subject, why hasn't the presumptive vice president elect had an abortion? Friendship is for Life, if not Forever. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
It was the word boorish? Rant, meaning claptrap is ok but boorish meaning artless isn't? Ok then, thanks for setting me straight, Ron. And, Jaime, I apologize most sincerely for calling your factually unsubstantiated inflammatory rant boorish. Please accept my heartfelt apologies for using Dr. Dictionary's Word of the Day "boorish" in my post. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Because Biden is a male. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mr. Fradera, [Edited] While I personally don't believe there is any case at all for calling Senator Obama a marxist, I am still curiously awaiting your ethically sourced and objectively presented case. I certainly am willing to be won over by good data. I am loyal to the facts here, and if you have facts to present about Senator Obama's marxist identity I would be the first to congratulate you on breaking this story. [Edited] It is my hope that Senator Obama and Senator Biden win the election. I have no particular love for Governor Palin. I have no interest in her decisions on matters of personal choice for political reasons. If my reasoning were not governed by politics, it would be governed by politeness. Everybody doesn't agree with me, nor should they have to. Your willingness to bring up the issue of abortion at a time when you are being asked to account for making what certainly appears like an ill founded smear on a presidential candidate certainly doesn't speed your attempt to make your case. [Edited] I patiently await your presentation of an ethical, factual and convincing case. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Ron (09-13-2008 12:12 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: ~chuckling~ Yes, finally I do Ron. I know that just because you have the keys to the car it doesn't necessarily mean you're in total control of it, and that makes all the difference. You have both my congratulations and sympathy The rest of your reply is a Pandora's box which I'll have to sit on till I have time to cope with fielding the contents. Later. M |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
My initial opinion, and it definitely IS an opinion, is that the original post is twaddle and the subsequent claim that Obama is a Marxist is also twaddle, though I‘m willing to change my mind given sufficient evidence. As far as politicians being fair game is concerned my opinion is that they should deserve the same respect in these forums that members are afforded - their words and actions should be fair game but personal attacks, based on things like skin colour, shouldn’t be tolerated. Would this post be removed if Obama were a member here as well as a politician? As a politician am I open to personal attacks despite being a member? I believe that respect shouldn’t be dependent on skin colour or vocation or whether you’re a member of a poetry website, it’s either applied universally or it’s not respect at all. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It sounds very lopsided when Jen's comment was removed for something that was not at all obvious, but Jaime's that is outrightly insolent gets to be published here without any censorship whatsoever? What is going on? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, I tend to agree, but political speech is protected speech constitutionally, and disrespectful treatment of politicians is one of the prices that politicians pay and that private citizens do not have to pay. I believe that's the way the legality of it runs, and I'd rather err on that side. I do tend to draw the line on attacks that I believe to be not only smears, but blatantly untruthful as well. I feel that if somebody is actually distorting the truth, then that should be made as clear as possible to as many people as possible so that when the same source (once again) attempts to float something in the future, not so many people will be inclined to say, Hey, maybe there's something true about that! when there really isn't. If the charge is, in fact, real, why, there should equally be a forum for actual proof— fair objective journalistically ethical and not tinged by left wing or right wing propaganda truth—so that the charges can be aired, examined and assessed. Fairness in these matters, and a decent set of ethics, is of absolute importance to keep from having the political process completely taken over by people who don't believe in the importance of getting as close to the truth as possible. Keep in mind, for example, the wretched charges made against Senator McCain during the 2004 campaign, false charges, by the way, using racist attacks whose contents I will not detail. False false false, all of them, and yet they apparently helped defeat the Senator in the primary election in South Carolina in 2004. While Senator McCain is not my man, I would not see him defeated on the basis of such slime. I want to know about the issues. Pardon me, Grinch, while I climb down off this particular hobby horse. As usual, I seem to have gathered splinters in particularly troublesome places. Maybe they'll let some of the hot air out; I'll set the fan going, just as a precaution. No smoking in this part of the house, either. All my best and much of my second best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
To my mind the admins and mods lost the high ground as far as respect is concerned the minute they decided it was ok for a poster to use a racial slur because it was his opinion. What’s next, gay bashing, attacking a person’s faith or ethnic heritage? Have to tell you, really don’t care much if I’m attacked or if my posts are deleted, small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but I am heartsick every time I think that something as offensive as a racial slur gets a pass on this site. The bar has been lowered, not just by the posters, but by those in charge. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I can legally drive at 30mph past some schools Bob, sleep with a girl of sixteen and discharge a firearm in the comfort of my own home but so far I’ve managed to avoid doing all of them based on the simple principle that I believe that it isn’t a good idea. If I’m going to err I generally try to do it based on what feels right rather than what’s legal and I’ve a sneaky feeling that you’re not that different in that regard. Attacking the person rather than their words or actions is one of those things that doesn’t feel right, it seems to me to be a pointless exercise with no redeeming merit which, even in the political arena, serves no useful purpose. This site however is governed by a different constitution created by Ron, one that, up until now, I believed was based on respect and the principle that personal attacks were unacceptable. Ron has the right to set that particular bar as high or as low as he pleases but he’s also had the foresight to allow us to respectfully disagree. Which is where I came in. To my mind if all politicians are fair game then members who are politicians are fair game, the only alternative I can see is to stoop to discrimination and afford politicians who are members an immunity to attack that all other politicians are denied. In which case you may as well go the whole hog, with or without lipstick, and base that immunity on race, sex, or sexuality, they‘re all examples of discrimination. That's the end of my little speech, it probably won't make a difference but I had to say it because it felt right. As ever - thanks for the chance to read and reply Ron. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And you think Jennifer's comments in previous threads weren't insolent, Essorant? Her comments then, like Jaime's now, stood because they were directed at political candidates. quote: quote: Or, heaven forbid, motherhood? What you are asking me to do, guys, is to set the qualifications for the leaders of the free world. Pouffy hair is a valid qualification to ridicule, but sexual preference or skin color isn't? I certainly know the criteria I intend to use when voting, but I am not so arrogant as to think my criteria has to be yours. If you want to judge a person by the actions of their child or their minister, by all means, go for it. If you want to try to sway others, again, go for it. You won't sway me with those arguments, but neither will I try to silence you because I don't agree. You are perfectly free to argue that the color of a man's skin should not be an issue. Others will argue that a candidate's family should be sacrosanct. Neither, in my opinion, should be summarily silenced, if only because forced silence is never an appropriate answer. quote: You're missing an obvious alternative to your alternative, Grinch. We could just refuse to accept any national politicians as Members here. Most couldn't pass the Q&A test any way. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I've gotten an occasional newspaper on the nose myself here for being out of line. I don't always agree, but I believe that folks make a good faith effort to be even handed. Because I'm a Liberal, I believe that free speech boundaries should be set widely enough so that even I am uncomfortable with them, so my own personal sense of what just and comfortable have to be confused by the whole area of dialogue. If I'm not slightly disoriented, I'm probably not listening widely enough. I don't have to agree with everyone I listen to; in fact, I hope I don't. But I do believe I should at least listen. If I don't like what they have to say, then I can dispute them. If they are speaking in what appears to me to be bad faith, I can ask them to present the basis for their point of view, so I can make a better determination and not simply dispose of them out of hand. I try to confine myself to reasonable politeness, but I fall short, and I like that Ron is there to offer a point of view on the nature of the discussion. I am no more obligated to take Ron's word as absolute truth than I am my own—I certainly know I fall well short!—or anybody else's. He does the best he can and faulting him for not being somebody more perfect or different than Ron is like faulting a net in a tennis match for being too high or too low at the point where it catches your serve. I do like the idea of criticizing Ron, because I think it helps him feel at the top of his form, and I like to think that it keeps us from being too subservient to authority. I think we both learn from it, and that's all part of the way groups process conflict. It's a balancing act, group leadership, and it's very difficult both to encourage free exchange and supply a safe environment in which that exchange can take place. Part of the solution is to develop a sense of these things within the group itself, so that what appeals to Ron or to the other leaders really is of secondary importance. Blather, de blather, blah blah, blather, bluster bluster, ahem ahem ahem blah ahem bluster blah ahem ahem ahem. Feel free to quote me on that. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Time and need to address poetry stops me from commenting at length which is kind of frustrating. But for what it's worth I pretty much agree with Ron with a teensy weensy quibble.I also agree with Bob's last post especially the last bit which I think gives a clue as to the line of argument that could be most fruitfully put to Ron. Definitely more later. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: You will condone then the publishing of outright personal insults and attacks on people based on them simply bearing the title " political candidates"? In which way do you justify that kind of discrimination? I don't think it is much different from having a website and condoning publication of personal insolence and attacks toward you Ron, simply because you have the title "Administrator", nor is it different in principle from doing so because of your race, or religion, or sexuality, etc. How does one's title, or anything for that matter, justify giving room to outright insults and attacks? In my judgement it doesn't. I certainly would not allow personal insults or attacks to be directed at Ron, if I had an interactive website such as Passions, and likewise I don't agree with the publication of such toward Obama or any other person at this one. This is a family forum, and particularily the Alley is "Rated G"? Far from it when we see this kind of garbage being accepted. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Ess, you’ve made your point quite eloquently and helped me see the issue from a totally different perspective. Thank you. And your point about the Alley being a family forum “rated G” is well taken. I’m as guilty as anyone in crossing the line, letting my emotions overrule my head and not according all the respect they are due regardless of their politics, beliefs, role, station in life, etc.. Your post was a real wake up call for me, hope others will also listen carefully and hear what you’re saying. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: How did I guess you were going to say that! It probably won't surprise you to hear that I don't quite see it like that, and I think past actions can always be redeemed (or otherwise) in the light of later analysis or a better understanding of a person's mental state. So I am unclear as to what you mean by the phrase "have to stand on their own". And you are right about the importance of intent in predicting future actions - but isn't that what we all consciously or unconsciously do constantly in our interactions with other people. In short I see it as so self evident that trying to establish intent is not only important but crucial to happy relationships that I can only assume I am misunderstanding you. quote: Agree completely with that. quote: I was wrong to state that if someone is hurt at PiP it's just because of a mechanical application of the rules. That can be the case I think, but you are also right, "mistakes", perhaps better called misjudgements, are I suppose made, although this is such a subjective area it would be a braver person than me who started to dabble in an arena where we are essentially talking about an interpretation of what is right and wrong. Having said that, I am about to dabble! With the strong caveat that what follows is just my opinion: quote: ~Raises hand tentatively~ I'm probably jumping right into a bear or wolf or moose trap here Ron, but since you asked the question I'll answer "yes" and "no". Yes - because I think the thread had about run it's course and was drifting off topic way too often; no thanks to yours truly introducing the Jaime's threads I might add. Having said that, I am not sure whether the mere fact that in a discussion forum the discussion wanders a little from the originating topic should warrant a moderator closing it down. So maybe that "Yes" is actually a No in any case. Now the real No. No - because I think the reason you cited for the "troubled" state of the thread was both tenuous and also based upon a shaky recent moderating history. I'll explain. The moderating history: You already know from my comments here and my long e-mail to you, what I think about Jaime's two contentious posts. While I think you are right about politicians and people in the public eye being "fair game" I also think Ess has a point. You make your bed and lie in it Ron. If you want to allow such outrageously inflammatory, unsubstantiated and frankly (in the case of the Hitler references) obnoxious posts to remain standing in the forum that's clearly your prerogative as moderator. But then to get all precious about the rules when subsequent discussions in the febrile atmosphere thereby created, get heated, strikes me as a bit illogical. And lest you say that they were different threads, I'd point out that the "relationships" between posters are often forged over a series of threads, as I believe was the case here. These semantics over what is and isn't disrespectful to a public person miss the point. I agree with Ess's view that it's not "nice" to say nasty things about anyone! I agree with you Ron that public people are legitimate targets. Two different points - irrelevant to the real issue here in the Alley, which is quite simply what level of unsubstantiated abuse you as moderator are going to tolerate given, what seems to me to be the perfectly predictable consequences of allowing, for instance, completely unsubstantiated vicious attacks to remain. If you are fool enough to leave your tuna smelling finger dangling in a pirana infested river, don't complain afterwards if it gets bitten off! The tenuous reasons for closure of the thread: I shook my head and bit my lip Ron when you said as part of your closing speech: "In my opinion, however, discussion only works when everyone has a voice." I'm all for that, but really reflect on what's been going on in the Alley and tell me with a straight face that most "decent" PiP people wouldn't be put off posting in a forum with posts like Jaime's. I suspect you make the (admittedly unconscious) decision to exclude a large segment of PiP each time you let posts like that stand. And although I blame you (sorry correction, not "you" - the whole moderation effort) in the Jaime cases, as a general point I think you are right to leave rigorous posts and replies. For instance Temptress made a recent originating post that was nothing more than an announcement that she was hacked off with the posters in Dark for not making more replies. Sure, it was a kind of criticism of other PiP posters, it was also a complaint and an outburst of frustration and it led to quite a bit of ensuing friction every bit as fractious as what went on in the Palin thread. And so what? It was good. It aired the issue. People had their say in a reasonably "adult" way, and you didn't close the thread. Quite rightly in my view. The point is Ron, you are running a forum here for "flaming' and complainin'" (yeah, I know about the respectfully bit!). You are not running a poetry forum. And my own opinion is that in the Palin thread you did, in one sense, apply the rules mechanistically in that you suddenly decided that precisely the same rules on "personal attacks" should be applied there as in the poetry forums, despite that fact that it seems to me some considerable latitude had been shown previously. Imo (and I know you won't agree but anyway) there are very good and solid reasons for applying the "address the poem not the poet" rule absolutely rigidly in a poetry forum. The reasons are pretty obvious and I won't recite them here. However in a debating forum I'd contend that not only is it much more difficult to apply them consistently and rigidly, but it's also, up to a point, undesirable. The reason is simple - in debate, as distinct from a poetry critique, it is (as you have said yourself) quite difficult to separate a criticism of someone words from a criticism of the person. Or put another way, it's all too easy when the rhetoric becomes heated, to transfer the commentary on text to a commentary on person. The judgement becomes one of opinion not fact and opinion is swayed by context and language. So that what happens Ron is you start to judge not the FACT of a personal attack or otherwise, but simply the ferocity of the language. Alison said that what I said was insulting. (Was she saying I was being insulting?) I said that what someone said seemed hypocritical. (Was I saying he was a hypocrite?) Jennifer said that someone's words were boorish. (Was she saying he was boorish?) Mike accused Jennifer of conducting a smear campaign. (Was he saying she was a gossip?) The words were all strong. The temptation to make a judgement of personal attack strong perhaps. What you (Ron) do, in fact, is to make a subjective judgement about a poster's intent and motive, based upon the language that that poster uses! And that's fine because at the end of the day you are moderating the forum and that's what you have to do. The problem that I have with your closure of the Palin thread is that I think you did, to use your words, make a "mistake" in your application of the rules. A misjudgement if you like. I think there were perhaps a few instances where direct comments were made about another poster, but even in these instances the people involved sorted out their differences and moved on. Throughout the thread emotions heated and cooled and people joined and people left. But there were no outright childish tantrums, and no flaming, swearing or name calling. In fact the discussion proceeded much as many debates I attended at university, except in a considerably more polite manner. There are occasions Ron when I feel you act a little like a parent stepping in to stop a squabble between children, and perhaps sometimes it's justified - this time I felt it perhaps wasn't. But, having said that, I thought that, for the reasons I mentioned above, it was no bad thing that the thread was brought to an end. Well, you did ask! M |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jaime did one thing right. He gave this thread the correct name, as it turns out |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
You callin' me a clown Mike?! Heh. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You could indeed Ron, but isn’t that simply applying another shade of lipstick on the same pig? Discrimination, by any other name, smells just the same. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You may be right, Moonbeam, and I'll be the first to decry that as a real shame. These forums exist today because ten years ago a large handful of people were outraged over similarly inflammatory posts in another forum. I haven't forgotten the feeling it engendered. Those posts, however, were directed at groups of people, not individual candidates. I hope the difference will keep such posts from becoming pandemic. If not, frankly, I suspect our policies will have to be reexamined. I don't intend we become a soapbox for the fringe. Having said that, however, your concern for excluding large segments of our community is one I share. And I think that's exactly what happens when they see people standing toe-to-toe in a verbal slug fest. It takes an usual person, I think, to willingly stick their hand into a hornet's nest. I don't want to limit our discussion to just unusual persons. Grinch is concerned about the potential overlap between protected Members and unprotected political candidates. I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Honestly, I'm not sure those kind of relationship can overlap, and make no mistake, that's what we're talking about: relationships. That's the difference between attacking a political candidate and another member of the community. The relationships are very different. The former, I believe, requires an adversarial bent to remain healthy. The latter cannot long survive the same adversarial atmosphere. Without respect for each other we stop being a community. Without tolerance of our diversity we cannot be friends. "Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best." Robert Heinlein |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Odd you should mention how PiP started, I was only telling someone that the other day. Believe me Ron I see exactly what you are saying, and ideally I think you are right. Perhaps it's simply that I have yet to see a worthwhile political discussion that doesn't get a little heated and I'm just not sure that the Palin thread was at the "verbal slugfest" level. A graph of heatedness might have been peaks and troughs around a horizontal median, rather than peaks and troughs around an upwardly inclined trend line. But then again that's just my opinion and I might well be wrong. And the Heinlein quote. I couldn't agree more. It's regrettable that his list of exceptions seems to be lengthening by the decade. Or maybe it's just me getting older! Thanks Ron. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
