Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by seagypsy, Jun 6, 2012.
I have very, very, rarely seen Bells do both. I've never seen her get abusive with Mod powers.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
This from the person who just characterized anyone who disagrees with them as "fringy."
Your act is getting old, Dave.
For whatever it's worth, his continual commentary about your person would warrant moderation, given that it's unfounded. That's just my take, though. I'm of the belief that once you sniff out a troll, that troll should be dealt with, so perhaps I'm not the best judge of these matter. In other words, Neverfly shouldn't have to drop the C-bomb on you to get shown the door. He's already proven his worth, and shown you what we can expect from him in the future.
Was this necessary? We're talking about how people treat each other and you can't resist an ad hom? Even here?
And putting words in my mouth. There is a Fringe forum an Alternative Theories forum and the Free Thoughts forum here expressly to accommodate those with fringy ideas.
Dude, you're a troll that causes fights all the time and you're always in a state of denial when confronted about the very things you say.
You're right about you not being the best judge in these matters.
Yeah, I just said it outright.
As far as "continual commentary about her person," I've only explained what Words In Her Posts applied. So try to stay honest.
Nor am I suggesting that is the case here. I am simply putting forth more encompassing ideas for the overall benefit of the forum.
Having an open policy would provide assurance to members in SeaGypsy's position if the officials could say 'you are not having a conversation with the Moderator of the thread'.
You mean we can simply treat him as the security guard treated the suspected shop-lifter?
Wouldn't that be ironic..
But I can't do that. I have had so many accusations made against me by him and seagypsy, that for me to act on his continued commentary about my person and my morals would be me over-stepping my boundaries and could be deemed unfair moderation. Suffice to say that from the get go, I was posting about this in the back room. In short, I didn't make a move without letting the others know in advance or as it was happening.
I rarely ever do. I think a valid complaint from my colleagues would be that I may be too active and descriptive in any discussion I am involved in and any moderation I do.. They haven't complained yet as such, but that is what I am like.. Kind of anal about such things. In effect, on the subject of Neverfly and seagypsy and their accusations, let them stand. People can judge for themselves. Certainly, there will be some who will support them because they are 'going up against the system - the big bad evil moderators' and good for them. That is not the case here though.
Like on his complaint about my death penalty comment. Trippy actually got it when he thought about it:
Neverfly's complaint that I mischaracterised him and painted him in a bad light for asking him if he thought it was acceptable that rent-a-cops in supermarkets should have the right to prejudge someone of being guilty of a crime and then tackle him to the ground and ignoring his pleas for help and his non-responsiveness (when he became unresponsive and stopped breathing) and not get off him when he said "I'm dying" for example.. should they have a right to go against their employer's policy of disengaging if it puts someone's life at risk? Hence the 'play judge, jury and executioner' comment.. and the mention of the death penalty. This came after Neverfly's spray about how he can do the dirty work so that people like you can sit back because he's prepared to do said dirty work and then the descriptive methods he gave on how to kill a mugger for example.
And this was a person who asked me this:
Because such an absurd question cannot be construed as a personal attack, because to him, it was a valid comparison of 3 security guards getting into a fight with a suspected shoplifter and responding to what he saw as an attack by the shoplifter on the 3 guards.. I mean what kind of arsehole would expect a woman to allow herself to be raped? Do I look like such an arsehole that I would tell a woman to allow herself to be raped so that she didn't injure her rapist?
So it is best that I just no longer bother.
Stop trying to redefine ad hom to suit yourself. You called people who disagreed with you and your friend BWE "fringy." That's an insulting characterization, and one without warrant, since BWE is clearly the fringe character in this play. I merely pointed out the irony of you complaining (constantly) about ad hom attacks since you're quite loose with them yourself.
But then, isn't it always the one complaining the loudest who is also the biggest offender? We're seeing this with seagypsy and Neverfly at the moment as well.
"inflicting the Death penalty" and repeated questions as to my character- Do I believe they can act as judge, jury and executioner etc IS far fetched and out of line.
That is NOT what happened in that case.
No one "inflicted the death penalty." you took it way too far.
A person, whether it's three or a city population under attack- is still persons under attack with the Right To Self Defense.
You answered the question, by the way- so if you would Not advocate that a woman being attacked should allow it, why advocate that a security guard- or three- should?!?!
I'm offended by the insinuation that my position is to treat others with the recklessness displayed by the loss prevention employees (they weren't even security guards) in an event that resulted in the loss of human life. And let's be honest with each other: had no harm come to the suspected shoplifter, this would not be a story, so let's no pretend there was some intrinsic wrongness about their behavior other than the fact that their actions resulted in someone's death. Certainly no such result is possible here.
My contention was that would have been within your rights to moderate him for making unfounded claims about your character. What seagypsy did was different, which was making false claims about your actions. Or at least that's how I perceived it, maybe I was wrong. In any event, Neverfly did break the rules, and should have been moderated in my opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong for taking the high road, I'm simply saying you would have been within your rights to do so.
I did also say that trolls should be shown the door the moment they demonstrate their trollness. We catch a spammer, we ban it. They're not all robots, either, so why do we allow people like Wynn, like LG, like Neverfly, to continue to disrupt the forums in the manner they do? I'm not holding you responsible, I'm simply asking why.
Well, I certainly echo those complaints, and so do many others. I doubt you'd argue that you being a moderator can be a conflict of interest, precisely because you do and say things with impunity that others are moderated for. That's not to say you're unfair in your moderation, of course, because with the one recent (retracted) exception, I have never seen that from you. It's only to point out that your moderator-ship means that you are above the rules that are enforced on others.
I understood what you meant by that as well. Pedantry has never appealed to me.
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to goad you into a reaction, anyway. I was simply stating my thoughts on the matter.
But you said you felt no remorse, and even said he was "fair game." Clearly you were in favor of the suspected thief's death. Why are you trying to deny it now?
I did not.
You're reading what you want into my words. I was not speaking about anyone in the thread. I addressed a specific question about the general behavior on his site. (It does not matter if you believe me.)
Apparently to you. Do you consider the entire Fringe Forum, Alt form and Free Thoughts forum to be an insult then?
Take this vendetta elsewhere; it does not belong in this thread.
Not feeling sympathy for someone who violently attacks someone while he's committing a crime doesn't mean I'm In Favor of death. It means I'm not sympathetic. If that is what he brings upon himself- it is what he brings upon himself. Those he attacks have the right to self defense. It's very easy to understand.
That's vastly different from people running out and "Inflicting the Death Penalty" or acting as "judge, jury and executioner."
There is no denial.
Her Over-Exaggerations were a misrepresentation and far fetched.
I know you weren't. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But, it's not worth arguing this with him. Denying him that outlet is a more effective way of handling trolls. And I am guilty of engaging him about this as well. Like in the thread, after 37 posts and he was still talking about me and I commented on that and when I addressed his point here.
So I won't do that anymore. It's not worth my time. I have better things to do. Like paint my toenails in the nail polish my son's thought was "cool".. all I can say is thank god for closed toed shoes and winter here.. lurid purple.. !Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And thus, I bid thee farewell..
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You said that it attracts a lot of fringe people with very poor communication skills. That is an insult. Though it was indirect, it was a blanket statement about people who disagree with you.
There is no "fringe" forum on this site. There is an alternative theories forum, but that is not where we were at the time of your comment. We were in the religion forum. Did you forget that already, or are you just naturally dishonest?
I think you need to take your whole act elsewhere. This level of dishonesty and ad hom has no place here.
You're right, that's not what makes you in favor of his death. The statements "This is what happens to thieves," and "he's fair game as far as I'm concerned" are what make you in favor of his death.
It's not vastly different. It's not different at all. Self-defense does not entitle someone to commit murder or act negligently. There is a line between that and defending oneself. You decided to ignore that line on the basis that the person was allegedly a criminal (not that you bothered with the "alleged" part, of course, so you were in fact acting as judge and jury), and therefore deserving of anything that befell him. IN fact, you didn't adopt the "self-defense" argument until later. At first you were simply in favor of his death because he was a thief, and even justified it by stating that you're biased because of how much you had lost to thieves in your lifetime.
This had nothing to do with self-defense until we called you on how disgusting you were being about it. That's when you jumped the gun and assumed the guy was attacking the employees and not simply trying to get away.
Uh, that's what you're doing right now, chief.
Nope, she was completely right. I mean, maybe the whole "they beat him to the ground" was a bit much, but that's it.
Yeah... ok. Sounds like a lack of sympathy to me. Whatever.
Yeah, ok, JDawg. They ran outside and murdered someone now.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, the News article in the OP said he attacked them.
Secondly, that I was referring to self defense was well established. The first post I made in thread pointed out
"He then decided, when he got caught, to get violent.
The way I see it, he was fair game at that point.."
The second post I made said, "Not allowed to fight with someone who is Violently hitting you?"
I again ask; Please stay honest. If you should try to misrepresent- bear in mind the posts I actually made may show you to be wrong.
Sorry, people, in a moment of vanity I'm indulging myself.
I gotta say, all this attention is flattering. You seem to come find me wherever I am and hang on my every word. You'll happily derail a thread like this to put all attention on me (selfishly I would have this continue if you please).
I always wondered why you didn't just ignore me. But like me or hate me, you can't stay away from me.
I feel like a star that's captured a long-term comet. You go off for a while, but always come zooming back.
Is this what it's like to be a celebrity with fans? It's kind of intoxicating!
Does anyone else here have fans?
OK. Back on topic.
"He's fair game" has nothing to do with sympathy, it is the condoning of their killing of the suspect.
They acted negligently, and it resulted in his death. I'd call that murder. So would the courts.
Self-defense was never well-established. It still isn't well-established, and in fact eyewitness testimony tells that it had nothing to do with self-defense. And again, you never said anything about self-defense until several posts into the thread.
It was not established that he was "violently hitting them." It was three on one and they initiated the contact, that much was clear from the beginning. You decided from the start that he was guilty, so any physical response he gave to their attempt to detain him made him fair game. You never stopped to think that they might have detained the wrong person, or that he had very good reason to get away from them, which would have completely changed the moral dynamic of the confrontation. For example, let's say I have a nervous disorder and have terrible panic attacks when restrained (not far from the truth, as I found out years ago when I was once arrested; thankfully the police was cool about it and took good care of me). If some Walmart employees tackle me to the ground, I'm going to get out of there as if my life depended on it. I might even kick somebody's ass, but let's just say for the sake of argument I'm just going to get out of there. In that case I'm well within my rights to get out of there and keep those idiots off my back.
So your whole justification for the violence was that he was a criminal, not that he was resisting or that he got violent.
Well, I'll keep that in mind should I ever decide to misrepresent you.
Unsurprisingly, you've again resorted to ad hominem rather than contending the point. You think nobody notices that?
Separate names with a comma.