75 yr old woman sentenced to 40 lashes for mingling.

Mods already do this. The fact that they don't always delete threads or posts that you believe should be deleted doesn't mean that they lack courage, only that they don't always see things the way you do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

obviously they dont always see things the way i do and maybe repulsive was the wrong word and just speaking in general terms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

any post that complain about being deleted should be deleted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And if you have deleted the ****ing posts, have made no commentary upon the offense, are obfuscating in your description of the offense, then how the **** are we meant to learn what the **** is unacceptable.

Your actions are analagous to the parent smacking Johhny for 'being a bad boy'. Then when Johnny says 'What did I do?' the parent replies 'You should know.'
That's not even Victorian, that's Neanderthal.

There is an implied threat/warning in your last post that, if this discussion is maintained, you will shut this thread down. That will go a long way to helping us learn, won't it? If that happens the problem will stem from you.

Why the **** can't you use the simple expedient followed in many forums (which I have applied with great success) where the offending post is left in place, but its contents are deleted and replaced with an explanation of what was unacceptable about it. The poster and everyone else then very quickly learn the limits of acceptability, plus there is a public admonition of the offending party in place. Too simple? Too open? Too practical?

Sheez!

 

Because Tiassa is infallible? I respect him, but he's not God. But it -is- his forum and so if he wants me to respond via PM when he writes a green lettered post, I'll do it. Still, there are some points in it that I feel should be in public view. Ophiolite's point, for instance...

 

I said the same thing in a PM to him, but in a somewhat different manner

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Tiassa didn't smack anyone here (he can't). He didn't ban anyone either. Because of this, I'd think of it more as business as usual. I've protested the vagueries of what constitutes a bannable offense soon after I joined this board, mainly in pseudoscience and then in SF Open Government.

I agree that that approach -sounds- better, but isn't that essentially what Tiassa eventually did? He said that the offending post was 'beyond the pale'. I think the solution has to be more specific; certain insults have to be classified as no go. I think the fact that you are starring a certain word and perhaps the very fact that you are alluding to it at all is a good sign that you may now know what word Tiassa takes action against. Tiassa didn't help with this, but -I- have the original deleted post on my hard drive. I also happen to know that it's not the first time that that word or a derivatiive has been deleted. I agree that it should be. I hate to say this, but perhaps the reason that Tiassa hasn't marked the term as forbidden is that he himself uses it at times.

 

Scott,
we don't even know whose post it was! OK, I know you have a record of the thread on your hard drive. The rest of us don't and typically wouldn't.

The approach I am recommending leaves the post framework intact. The moderator deletes the content then makes a remark such as "Post content deleted for excessive profanity. Harold54 if you make this kind of post again you are facing a one week ban."

Justice is done. Justice is seen to be done. The lines are laid down.

 

True. Even I wouldn't have it if I hadn't actually been posting at the time.

I disagree. The only clarification would have been who the moderator thought had used profanity. We have to specify what constitutes profanity as well, or the only thing we'll learn from the above approach is that the moderator didn't like what someone said. I can respect Tiassa not wanting to mention who posted something he considers to be objectionable; my problem is that he's rather vague as to what -constitutes- something that's objectionable. I do the best I can, seeing the pattern of f word derivatives being removed, for instance, but that's about all I can do from my end.

 

That depends on which measuring tape you use. Poverty is still proportionately higher in India, minorities are treated worse, and India is still occupying other people's lands (i.e. Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh).

People elected the PPP, Zardari just bullied his way in. I don't know why you are so angry at him, he's the most Pro-Indian politician in Pakistan. Precisely why he won't last long. India has always wanted the worst for Pakistan. That's also the reason you trolled this thread in the first place.

You are definitely an Indian, or of Indian background. You spam any thread that has to do with Pakistan or Muslims, so I also take it you are a Hindu, particularly one who supports Hindutva, judging by your inaccurate assumptions about Muslims.

I'm not Jewish. Muslims don't hit their heads. Obviously your knowledge on Islam can use some more research. Your BJP/RSS based knowledge doesn't apply in the real world.

My ancestors embraced Islam because they were tired of the hypocrisy of espousing equality and justice, while some people were treated like gods and others like social pariahs because of their skin color and ethnicity. Not only that, but the concept of idol worship makes no logical sense, why worship a stone or piece of wood which can neither help you nor harm you. Hinduism has only lived so far because of its tradition, not so much of its validity of truth. I blame the demonization of Islam and Christianity in India on this as well. Tradition over logic.

The Quran is not worshiped, it is read. About black pebbles, I don't know what you are referring to but if you mean the black stone in Makka, that is not worshiped. Worshiping anything besides God is forbidden in Islam.

You are a Hindu radical. It's obvious. The mere fact that you spam threads only about Pakistan or Islam is proof of that. Your false assumptions and bigoted knowledge of Islam is also another proof.

To the rest of the members, excuse me for this interruption. I felt these racist statements needed to be addressed properly.

Please Continue.

 

For ****'s sake Scott, stop nipicking. I gave a flipping off the cuff example. Is it beyond you to see that as much detail and clarification as required can be put into the comments by the moderator. I almost expanded the example to make that point, then decided against it because I thought you were smart enough to understand that could be done. I'm sorry I was wrong.

 

Hello, Sam!!!

 

You engaged in the same fallacy that we agree Tiassa to be guilty of; that people should know things about one's views that one hasn't specified. Anyway, if the moderator outlined the word that he found to be offensive (or the phrase with the offending word, if context is important), then I think that would indeed be good. The identity of the poster in question may not be necessary.

 

Don't be pedantic scott. Move on. Its not a black and white situation. Intent to offend is more important than defining the word.

 

No, that's not about views, it's about using a modicum of intelligence. I've apologised once for overestimating yours. I won't do it again.

 

You're certainly right that it's not a black and white situation. And I'm not being pedantic. People are offended all the time here and in other forums; Tiassa has certainly offended some as well. He's even used the f word against someone atleast once, although I've never seen him do it while responding directly to the person he's referring to.

The situation, and I'm not alone in believing this here, is that the rules against personal attacks are far too vague. The only thing I've been able to cling to is that the f word when used against a person is generally seen as a personal attack, atleast if the person using it is responding to the person being insulted.

 

If that's what you want to believe, so be it.

 

Maybe, but I prefer the flexibility to rigid rules of conduct. For whatever reason, all people are not equal when it comes to discourse and should not be expected to be treated same as everyone else. As tiassa has already, rightly stated, you're beating a dead horse in the wrong farm. SFOG is the proper place for this discussion. If you are unwilling to abide by these simplest of requests, it weakens your position when asking about egalitarian rules anyway.

 

You are equating simple with valid.

 

You're right, but its both simple and valid.

 

Very well, I have created a thread with my response to your post in the SF Open Government forum:
Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague