It's relevant. I'm saying that, if Xev is more than a minor irritation to you, it means you need to change your attitude a little.
Impeach Xev? Serious Poll!
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
- Status
Do you need a novel to say that if you apparently can also say it in one sentence?
Gimme a break. I don't think my posts weigh in as the heaviest in this thread...
bigbluehead
Hathor... as someone who adopts the name of an Egyptian cow goddess as their alias, I'm not sure that you should be talking about how we bare our souls to each other; I don't really believe that people here are showing their "true" selves by any stretch of the imagination.
policing my words? my handle impacts my choice of words and subject matter? explain please. where do i talk about a "baring of souls"?
secondly, as with isis, the cow is merely a represention. she is the goddess of love, fertility and festivities
I mean, honestly, you don't go play Everquest and then complain when some 11457th level Mushroom Humper snips your head off with a pair of garden shears, right? (Well, maybe you complain, but it's more like "Bastard!", and not so much like "You don't respect me as a person!") We usually accept that, in situations where we play an alter ego, we shouldn't have nearly as much sensitivity for the feelings of our alter ego as we do for our own. Not the chess piece, not the Dungeons & Dragons character, not the little Monopoly top hat; these things, however much we may like them, are not us.
an inaccurate analogy. a science forum is far more restrictive than the above mentioned virtual worlds. if that kind of predator exists on this board and conducts himself in a manner as described, it is not in the board's interest to allow a continuation of that particular behaviour. i simply cannot see how discussions are furthered by a "snipping of heads"
secondly, on the matter of alter egos....on a bbs, these are known as trolls.
Now, if you wanted to argue that people don't engage in enough relevant discussion and that the degree of relevant discussion decreases proportional to the increase of insult and invective, that may in fact be so.
i am glad we agree then
Often (as I've said before I believe) invective serves as a valuable indication of an impasse in a discussion, and can (for those of you who don't like the punch-ups) indicate a perfect time to leave for greener conversational pastures - all that was to be learned has been.
valuable? maybe perhaps to those participants who have no idea of the subject matter at hand. what cutting edge discussions are carried on here? is it not the case that the impasse probably had been reached by others, perhaps a hundred years ago? and that all one needs is a history lesson to figure out which paths are dead ends. to accomodate stupidity , you appear to recommend invective
This isn't necessarily so, and sometimes a few serious shinies can be had by watching some educated bulldogs bang their heads together for a page or two; a violent discussion is still a discussion, and we may either see a new synthesis between the two head-butters, or (more likely) come away with a better understanding of the intellectual division between them, which is still valuable.
perhaps. has this been your experience? or has it been one where words are juggled, sentences restructured and old arguments rehashed? is that not the norm? a pseudo intellectual exercise of dubious value?
Then, the engine can keep chugging by itself and we are all happier. Not so?
well alright. i cannot disagree with something that affords the members of this board, a fairly extraordinary degree of latitude. quite remarkable actually
Hathor... as someone who adopts the name of an Egyptian cow goddess as their alias, I'm not sure that you should be talking about how we bare our souls to each other; I don't really believe that people here are showing their "true" selves by any stretch of the imagination.
policing my words? my handle impacts my choice of words and subject matter? explain please. where do i talk about a "baring of souls"?
secondly, as with isis, the cow is merely a represention. she is the goddess of love, fertility and festivities
I mean, honestly, you don't go play Everquest and then complain when some 11457th level Mushroom Humper snips your head off with a pair of garden shears, right? (Well, maybe you complain, but it's more like "Bastard!", and not so much like "You don't respect me as a person!") We usually accept that, in situations where we play an alter ego, we shouldn't have nearly as much sensitivity for the feelings of our alter ego as we do for our own. Not the chess piece, not the Dungeons & Dragons character, not the little Monopoly top hat; these things, however much we may like them, are not us.
an inaccurate analogy. a science forum is far more restrictive than the above mentioned virtual worlds. if that kind of predator exists on this board and conducts himself in a manner as described, it is not in the board's interest to allow a continuation of that particular behaviour. i simply cannot see how discussions are furthered by a "snipping of heads"
secondly, on the matter of alter egos....on a bbs, these are known as trolls.
Now, if you wanted to argue that people don't engage in enough relevant discussion and that the degree of relevant discussion decreases proportional to the increase of insult and invective, that may in fact be so.
i am glad we agree then
Often (as I've said before I believe) invective serves as a valuable indication of an impasse in a discussion, and can (for those of you who don't like the punch-ups) indicate a perfect time to leave for greener conversational pastures - all that was to be learned has been.
valuable? maybe perhaps to those participants who have no idea of the subject matter at hand. what cutting edge discussions are carried on here? is it not the case that the impasse probably had been reached by others, perhaps a hundred years ago? and that all one needs is a history lesson to figure out which paths are dead ends. to accomodate stupidity , you appear to recommend invective
This isn't necessarily so, and sometimes a few serious shinies can be had by watching some educated bulldogs bang their heads together for a page or two; a violent discussion is still a discussion, and we may either see a new synthesis between the two head-butters, or (more likely) come away with a better understanding of the intellectual division between them, which is still valuable.
perhaps. has this been your experience? or has it been one where words are juggled, sentences restructured and old arguments rehashed? is that not the norm? a pseudo intellectual exercise of dubious value?
Then, the engine can keep chugging by itself and we are all happier. Not so?
well alright. i cannot disagree with something that affords the members of this board, a fairly extraordinary degree of latitude. quite remarkable actually
BigBlueHead said:
It is not a personal comment.
this is out of hand. lock this up already.
Hathor: If you've read my posts on language and communication (which, chances are, you have not) you would know that I have an unusually low opinion of people's ability to communicate original concepts to one another in the first place.
That is partly why I hesitate to restrict any, even the most inane, form of communication - since meaningful communication is sparse enough without my trying to further restrict the medium.
That is partly why I hesitate to restrict any, even the most inane, form of communication - since meaningful communication is sparse enough without my trying to further restrict the medium.
we can't really lock the thread. It is a poll...
maybe some moderation would be in order.
maybe some moderation would be in order.
you can't lock polls? i did not know this.
SwedishFish said:
You can lock it, but then the Poll will be for nothing (again).
crazymike has not be banned, yet.
The Android said:
So are you saying it's good to do this? Or bad?
So here's the summation;
Pro-Xev voters;
Anti-Xev voters;
Please let me know if I've left anything out.
Pro-Xev voters;
- She's entertaining
- She does her job
- She's offensive but people should be less sensitive
- She has kept people away, but those people shouldn't be on the internet if they can't hack it.
- No one else wants the job
- No one else knows as much about philosophy.
Anti-Xev voters;
- She's not that funny, and is a drama queen
- She abuses her power (see examples in thread)
- She's extremely offensive and insulting
- She has driven people away with her insults and offensive behavior (see Padma)
- Her opinions and racism preclude her from being unbiased towards specific posters
- She keeps intelligent conversation out of the forum by her behavior
- She's hypocritical. (sited several times with examples)
- She makes different rules for herself then the rules she enforces.
Please let me know if I've left anything out.
Last edited:
Where does she abuse her power??? the Pro-Xev voters specify that she has not abused her power, which would be the only good reason to impeach.
Last edited:
Arditezza said:
Not exactly...
Her antagonistic behaviour is not a good enough reason for people to be upset in the first place, 'tis true.
BUT
If someone can cause you lasting pain by writing something to/about you on a forum, then you have a personal problem that you should deal with on a personal basis, rather than demanding that other people be forbidden from saying hurtful things.
They don't know you,
They're just shooting their mouth off,
Don't let it bother you.
WellCookedFetus said:
We have a constitution that says what good reasons are to impeach a moderator?
Well no, but I thought people would abide by morals of what good reasons are. 
Arditezza,
I would love to change my vote.
Arditezza,
I would love to change my vote.
I'm an atheist.
I have no morals (apparently).
I have no morals (apparently).
- Status