In the now-closed thread regarding Lord Hillyer's and my banning for three days, I referred to Bells as a "cranky cunt".

She warned me that referring to her as such again would produce an infraction.

In the course of the conversation, James R. threatened to ban me if I called her it again, and I replied to him:

Pray tell how calling someone a "cranky cunt" is a serious offense?

I am not even baiting you here: Seriously, what is so bad about "cranky cunt"?

"Cranky cunt" is the most abusive language possible?

How so?

I thought in Australia, the term "cunt" was relatively common, for one?

Secondly, certainly one can say something worse than "cunt", can't one?

I mean, off hand, I can think of several things I could have called her far more offensive than that. I won't repeat them here, though.

When someone insults me, I insult back.

I have been repeatedly insulted and slandered by yourself and others.

Pray tell why should I not retaliate in kind?

Am I to suppose that moderators have special "flame" privileges?

Here, how about this James R.:

You give yourself, Bells, and several other peoples infractions for unwarrantedly calling me a "racist bigot" and you give me a 5 point infraction for calling Bells a "cranky cunt".

We'll be even then and we can go on like big boys and girls.

In none of the above statements did I call Bells herself a "cranky cunt", but referred to the incident in which I did. Unless I adopt a euphemism (which I doubt would have not given me an infraction anyway) I cannot reference even the activity of doing something?

Bells said it was "obvious" I was using it to insult her purposefully. I deny this, as I mentioned explicitly in my post "I am not even baiting you" to show James R. that I wasn't even trying to make a point here, but asking for why this is considered so heinous.

Accordingly, though the infraction is very light and I could not give a damn whether Bells is insulted or not, I protest receiving it as I did not warrant it.

told yall

Get used to it everyone. As long as SF embraces neo Nazis we will always have these provocations and trolling. Free speech is peachy and all I suppose but does it have to include the KKK?

Clearly you are creating a disguised insult by claiming that you are merely discussing the insult. Deception to be sure, but one that gives you "plausible" deniability.

The irony is that the infraction you received was for inappropriate language, not flaming or insulting. Here's the ironic part: you can get yet another infraction for exactly the same reason since your OP in this thread uses the same inappropriate language. Especially since you goal is probably to continue to make the original insult whilst maintaining the cowardly stance of claiming to be "merely discussing it." In essence, you're still referring to her with the same insult.

Skinwalker:

I am actually being completely honest here:

Like I told Bells, I am not passive aggressive. I am -outwardly- aggressive. If I want to call someone something, I call them something. I do not use underhanded tactics as a manner of course.

If you'd care to review my post record, you'd see that generally speaking, I'm a straight shooter.

And actually, Skinwalker, Bells told me in PM to "feel free" to discuss it in public. In fact, to give her quote verbatim:

If you wish to make your grievances public in regards to the infraction I have given you, by all means do so.

Moreover, since this is the appropriate forum to discuss a complaint such as this, giving me an infraction for complaining about it would be hardly appropriate in the least. In fact, I think it would be quite apparent that any such move towards that would speak leaps and bounds against the integrity of Sciforums and of the moderators in particular.

I'm thinking more and more that by not giving you an infraction for inappropriate language, I'm shirking my duties. Whether that inappropriate language be in quotes or not.

Perhaps I'll revisit the post and decide later. Particularly now that you've reminded me that there should be some "integrity" within the SciForums moderation team.

Yes... it indeed inspires one to stroke the chin. You could, of course, edit the inappropriate language before I return. However, should it still be there and I'm of the mind that it is inappropriate and, assuming that I'm of the mind that there should be "integrity" in the standards of the SciForums moderation, I'll not be inclined to reverse any infraction should it later be edited.

Skinwalker:

If you cannot see that such would be a blatant abuse of your powers, I cannot see why I should acquisce to your demands.

If you are so inclined towards this course of action, I stand here only to challenge you to "do your worse". Give me whatever infraction or ban you desire.

I care not, but I shall not be party to despotism.

"There are many things for which I am willing to die, but none that I am willing to kill" - Gandhi.

Fine. I gave you opportunity to right your wrong. For all who view this thread, I'm issuing an infraction against PJ for use of inappropriate language. Period.

It is good that you should reveal yourself to us all as what you are.

Yes. Consistent. And, because of the ample opportunity I gave you: fair.

Consistency in abuse is hardly something to be proud of.

Anyway, shall any moderator like to discuss the actual topic at hand, rather than go on a tangent?

And perhaps would someone like to erase Skinwalker's mistake?

Moreover, since this is the appropriate forum to discuss a complaint such as this,. . .
i disagree.
you should take this up through PMs.
bells has given me infractions too, and for essentially the same thing you are doing.
did i drag this crap out onto the open forums? no, i took care of it with the party involved by PM.

And perhaps would someone like to erase Skinwalker's mistake?

There is no mistake. I will reissue the infraction if it is erased.

I think the biggest problem is that do not take responsibility for your actions. Maybe you can't see that you do have problematic behavioural patterns, but your ban and the infractions you received should have been a hint that maybe a time-out is needed so you can do some introspection.

Spuriousmonkey:

Befitting your user name, you are both spurious, and ape-like in this situation.

leopold99:

Actually, if you had bothered to read my posts above, you'd have noticed that Bells gave me the clear to air our dirty laundry out in public.

leopold99:

Actually, if you had bothered to read my posts above, you'd have noticed that Bells gave me the clear to air our dirty laundry out in public.
you have alot to learn about women. she's giving you the rope and she's going to laugh herself silly when you hang yourself with it.

Secondly, certainly one can say something worse than "cunt", can't one?

I mean, off hand, I can think of several things I could have called her far more offensive than that. I won't repeat them here, though.
I'm genuinely impressed. Satisfy my curiosity.

The only reason I haven't closed this thread is Bell's statement that she wanted to allow discussion of the matter.

However, I would suggest that there is nothing further to be gained here.

leopold99:

Actually, if you had bothered to read my posts above, you'd have noticed that Bells gave me the clear to air our dirty laundry out in public.

I said you were free to voice your complaint publically and/or privately with admin or however else. Anyone who feels they have a need to complain should do so as they see fit.

I still stand by my decision to give you the infraction I did, and I advised you of that.

I have kept out of this thread up until now because it was about me and you had a right to complain without my getting involved.

That is all I wish to say on the matter.

Discussing what matter?? <blink-blink>
The "c" word?? <blank-blank>
Or receiving an infraction for it? <ding-dong>
Or perhaps it's a competition of wits? <bong>

Personally, I reserve that word for very very special occasions, and I hope to god it doesn't make the mainstream circuit.

Or is it a discussion about good ol' Bells? <ring-ring ... ring-ring ...>

This threads is really just a lame attempt at self-justification by PJ.

Let it go, PJ. Move on.

Bells:

That is very professional of you. Thanks.

James R.:

No, it is a legitimate grievance. :) Injustice is something we ought to fight against, don't you think?

James R.:

No, it is a legitimate grievance. :) Injustice is something we ought to fight against, don't you think?:rolleyes: PJ the Freedom Fighter. If you really think SF is oppressive and unfair to neo Nazi sexists then the real world will be a very scary place for you.

...I protest receiving it as I did not warrant it.

Stop being such a cranky cunt.

I'm a newcomer here, but I do have some questions regarding this.

Does this mean that just discussion, not malicious use, of what's dubbed to be inappropriate language can result in a ban? Or for example, use of foul language in a non-attacking way?

And also, is there a post somewhere listing just what is and isn't tolerated here at sciforums? I checked the faq on the top bar but didn't see anything there.

inappropriate language

It depends if the spirit of your intention will convey your true will — usually inferred to by a thread's, or a post's, advancing temperament: metal blades, plastic knives, or rubber spoons. And it also depends who is speaking, or who is being targeted.

It's a minefield. Infractions are easier received when you behave like a total ass. You can also get away with murder if you are seen as a valuable member of sciforums.

It is extremely difficult to be banned. See my post count and I have called people cunt or something equivalent many times. It's about context, networking and brushing your teeth twice a day.

In short. Explore, observe, contribute, and be positive.

Saying cunt with nobody particular in mind (although I had someone in mind when I just wrote it) will not get you banned. However, BIG WARNING, this also depends on the subforum where you post, because different moderators have different values.

If you say cunt in the Biology Subforum I might ask you if it is not better to refer to them as female genitalia.

Context.

DISCLAIMER: I do not make policy here. You cannot quote this post to use as a defense against any sanction received for saying cunt.

And also, is there a post somewhere listing just what is and isn't tolerated here at sciforums?
yes.
it was the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up.
plus, when you open the forums look for threads that start with the word "sticky" then by their title you will know which ones (threads) have rules in them.

It's a minefield. Infractions are easier received when you behave like a total ass. You can also get away with murder if you are seen as a valuable member of sciforums.

It is extremely difficult to be banned. See my post count and I have called people cunt or something equivalent many times. It's about context, networking and brushing your teeth twice a day.

In short. Explore, observe, contribute, and be positive.

Saying cunt with nobody particular in mind (although I had someone in mind when I just wrote it) will not get you banned. However, BIG WARNING, this also depends on the subforum where you post, because different moderators have different values.

If you say cunt in the Biology Subforum I might ask you if it is not better to refer to them as female genitalia.

Context.

DISCLAIMER: I do not make policy here. You cannot quote this post to use as a defense against any sanction received for saying cunt.
shut it, cunt.

you breed gay generals. zotte lambik

you breed gay generals. zotte lambik

yes, but my gay generals think you are a cunt.
and so i suppose you are free from their "interests".

yes, but my gay generals think you are a cunt.
and so i suppose you are free from their "interests".

They prefer your mother.

They prefer your mother.

yeah...her donkeycock is HUGE.

Thank you for this pleasant demonstration to all new members on what could get you possibly banned.

gekke belg.

Thank you for this pleasant demonstration to all new members on what could get you possibly banned.

gekke belg.

:) that was actually all meant to be a demonstration of how you can get away with assholery without getting banned.

aapenriemer.

I don't know. I count at least 5 insults. I could give you 4 infractions for insulting other members. automatic ban.

Let's be brutally honest here:

Those who kiss the asses of the moderators get away with murder and other positions in the administration. Those who don't get shafted.

The devil Inside doesn't kiss my ass. He licks it.

Let's be brutally honest here:

Those who kiss the asses of the moderators get away with murder and other positions in the administration. Those who don't get shafted.

i dont kiss anyone's ass.

at all.
ive had flamewars with moderators before. :p

The devil Inside doesn't kiss my ass. He licks it.

http://www.goyk.com/flash.asp?path=157
yeah, lick my ass bitch.

Stop being such a cranky cunt.

Woo hoo! First infraction baby! I was starting to feel sooooo left out. :shake:

DISCLAIMER: I do not make policy here. You cannot quote this post to use as a defense against any sanction received for saying cunt.




It's a minefield. Infractions are easier received when you behave like a total ass. You can also get away with murder if you are seen as a valuable member of sciforums.

It is extremely difficult to be banned. See my post count and I have called people cunt or something equivalent many times. It's about context, networking and brushing your teeth twice a day.

In short. Explore, observe, contribute, and be positive.

Saying cunt with nobody particular in mind (although I had someone in mind when I just wrote it) will not get you banned. However, BIG WARNING, this also depends on the subforum where you post, because different moderators have different values.
spuriousmonkey
Cunt vs. Sciforums, 2007



You've now set precedence.

http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/5/58/Swear.jpg/180px-Swear.jpg

So... I'm seeing lots of new moral support in PJ's defense for using the c word.

Seeing that the issue has been made into such a huge joke and the issue and the word itself itself appears to have been undermined, I have reversed the infraction I have given PJ.

It was mine to give, and now will be mine to take away.

I will be honest and say that I do not appreciate some rules applying to some and not others.

Personally, I'm in two minds about handing out some infractions for this thread.

Let's just close it an move on, for now.

But a warning: gratuitous use of the "c" word may result in penalties. Use it at your peril.