Complaints
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:34 pm
Post them here, if you must.
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26
Typhoon wrote:Another opportunity promote my unique device to protect onself from a too rapid ascent into Heaven:
No more worries about "Rapture Rupture".
Call now and we will throw in a free set of Ginsu knives.
Operators are standing by.
You do a good job as moderator, YMix, and you're safe on this one. The Colonel's slip is showing . . again . .YMix wrote:Probably, but I figure I should be more relaxed about moderating such off-topics or I'll get myself in trouble again.
1) I'm not easily offended, nor am I offended at all in this instance. Your post was simply off-topic however you care to rationalize it. Your call, the topic will survive.Typhoon wrote:1/ Topical humour regarding a preceding post is fine. This forum does not cater to the easily offended.
2/ I have full confidence in YMix as a mod.
First, the OP is but a disingenuous attempt to smear Republicans with what Ib considers to be an offensive point of view.Typhoon wrote:This thread was flagged for review.
The start post
http://onthenatureofthings.net/forum/vi ... 31361links to an external site which in turn quotes excerpts from the author of
Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative
Unless the above, self-published, book is a forgery, then it presumably reflects the views of it's author and thus the thread passes review.
This means he is stereotyping an entire community of people as "close" to being rotten. It also is in the subject title, suggestive of same.I'm not saying this guy us indicative of the entire party..... but he's close.
Bingo! A bigot is a bigot is a bigot . . we look for in others what we find in ourselves!Parodite wrote:It is in the opening statement of Ibrahim:This means he is stereotyping an entire community of people as "close" to being rotten. It also is in the subject title, suggestive of same.I'm not saying this guy us indicative of the entire party..... but he's close.
It is one thing to link to an article or book and let the reader form his own opinion, but another to use that link to support the stereotyping smear you start with: the republican party nearly only consists of nearly complete rotten individuals.
Nothing "thin-skinned" about thinking trash-talk belongs in Hell . .Typhoon wrote:Both Republicrats and Demopublicans have been unfairly. and often outrageously, smeared in posts in the US section.
It appears to be a popular national pastime, so the thin-skinned should learn to deal with it.
This suggests it should be possible on this forum to unfairly and outrageously smear Islam and Muslims (as real or perceived)... without the thread ending up in Hell? That'll be the day.Typhoon wrote:Both Republicrats and Demopublicans have been unfairly. and often outrageously, smeared in posts in the US section.
It appears to be a popular national pastime, so the thin-skinned should learn to deal with it.
Skin Job spelled it out, but it has been patently obvious from the get-go that Ib's OP is sleazy attempt to smear Republicans and Conservatism with racism by quoting what Ib considers a racist and then applying his interpretation to an entire category of people. Nothing new there . . same ol' . . Liberals and Conservatives are not unique to the United States; Liberal and Conservative are transnational categories. A Liberal in, say, Canada finds Conservatives offensive wherever they're encountered.Typhoon wrote:Finally a poster pointed out the obvious fallacy in this line of argument - a standard misuse and misapplication of mathematical induction - generalizing from n = 1 to an entire group.
As for shamelessness, the view from abroad is that both conservatives and liberals are equally shameless in their smears.
There is an entire long thread devoted to debunking Goreian global warming ideology.Skin Job wrote:And yet, Gore's ideology, if enacted, would have caused far more damage than any of the right-wing wackos portrayed in this thread.
Don't care for either. What extremists at both end of the spectrum have in common is a hate for humanity.Skin Job wrote:So, how do you like your crazies, as repulsive yet harmless fringe elements, or slick, persuasive mainstream hucksters with supremely dangerous plans?
Either I don't understand you correctly or you don't understand how a forum works.Skin Job wrote:I dispute the notion that the OP, or the moderators for that matter, have the authority to define what sort of ideologue the phrase "these guys" encompasses.
Oh, I understand. You have the authority to move, delete, or ban, but you don't get to decide what words mean to us. Sorry to impugn your presumed omnipotence, sir.YMix wrote:Either I don't understand you correctly or you don't understand how a forum works.Skin Job wrote:I dispute the notion that the OP, or the moderators for that matter, have the authority to define what sort of ideologue the phrase "these guys" encompasses.
If there was only "Republicrats are naughty" or "Demopublicans are nasty" threads and posts in the US section, then you might have a valid argument.Skin Job wrote:Oh, I understand. You have the authority to move, delete, or ban, but you don't get to decide what words mean to us. Sorry to impugn your presumed omnipotence, sir.YMix wrote:Either I don't understand you correctly or you don't understand how a forum works.Skin Job wrote:I dispute the notion that the OP, or the moderators for that matter, have the authority to define what sort of ideologue the phrase "these guys" encompasses.
Skin Job wrote:Oh, I understand. You have the authority to move, delete, or ban, but you don't get to decide what words mean to us. Sorry to impugn your presumed omnipotence, sir.YMix wrote:Either I don't understand you correctly or you don't understand how a forum works.Skin Job wrote:I dispute the notion that the OP, or the moderators for that matter, have the authority to define what sort of ideologue the phrase "these guys" encompasses.
I'll remind you to keep a civil tone when you address the staff. You don't pay them to take your guff.Well, you sure showed me!
Do you actually also behave in such a manner in person?Skin Job wrote:I apologise for my ingratitude, and appreciate the opportunity to freely express selected opinions here on the forum.
I went back and clicked on "Display this post" in order to find out what generated the subsequent exchange that was moved to Hell. No problem with that.'Farcus wrote:People who have conversations with their sock puppets are pathetic.Marcus wrote:A nice point, Skin Job, and nicely taken.Skin Job wrote:. . The truly great are almost universally humble, while pretenders need to strut and swagger.
"Ye shall know them by their hubris" . . .
Works for me . . should be the motto of these fora . . .
I am sincere in my gratitude for being allowed to post. Forgive me for the rest, please, I am not accustomed to being "moderated" in this fashion, and I was a bit upset.Typhoon wrote:Do you actually also behave in such a manner in person?Skin Job wrote:I apologise for my ingratitude, and appreciate the opportunity to freely express selected opinions here on the forum.