I think sexual harrasment is way to important an issue to be used as a "bandwagon" event, leading to witch hunts. I think we should be careful what we describe as sexual harassment.
Sounds like an attempt to whitewash the issue.
Since I don't know what was written by yazata I cannot say where his remark would fit.
Perhaps you would prefer "name and shame" where a users transgressions are displayed for all to see?
Equally sexual harassment is too important an issue for me to accept your opinion as to where his remarks fits.
Interestingly enough, you don't have to "accept" the moderation teams opinion on anything. If you disagree with it, take it up with the Administration (in this case JamesR) as the rules the site follows were established by the Administration.
I do know that he reflected on his remarks and withdrew them.
I am curious how you would know the inner workings of his mind so very well...
Few people have not said something, in the heat of the moment, that they did not later regret. It is to yazata's credit that he recognised his remarks were inappropriate and deleted them. That should be an occassion for praise, accompanied by a private expression of concern that he posted it in the first place and that, even in anger, harboured such thoughts.
That is a curious viewpoint...
Well a lie is not a lie when it is posted as a light hearted dig.
Oh, really? So if I put in the public space, as SciForums is, that you were a pedophile, then afterwards claimed it was "simply a joke", that would be just peachy keen with you?
That was how I read the post. I thought it was amusing. I expected JamesR to come back with a similar good natured jab. I'm not going to spend time looking for examples of exchanges of that sort between members, but I would be surprised if you deny that they occur.
The history of certain members precludes extending them the benefit of the doubt that such things are "good natured" in
any meaning of the word.
I don't remember when I joined this forum
October 10th, 2005.
and I have spent very little time here.
This much seems evident, given that you have less than 500 posts total in almost twelve years.
In this most recent series of visits I have been struck by how strongly influenced some members are by the impressions they have formed of other members. They seem to react to posts not on the content of the post but on the basis of whom the poster is. Past posting history and views should certainly inform ones perceptions to a degree, but it can be over done. It strikes me as being the case here.
Aye, they do inform views - and repeated poor behavior on the part of certain members makes it incredibly difficult to find any reason to extend the benefit of the doubt, especially when their apparent modus operandi is to simply win through volume of content, regardless how much of it is debunked, refuted, or shown to be utterly irrelevant, whilst simultaneously ignoring anything that would disagree with their desired outcome... yes, it gets some peoples hackles up, for good reason. Such behavior is extraordinarily tiring.
As an example... have you ever tried debating with a brick wall, to convince it not to be hard?
