that is irrelevant to the reason I am upset.
unacceptable behavior in a poster
- Thread starter pjdude1219
- Start date
that is irrelevant to the reason I am upset.
This whole complaint is nothing more than childish whimpering.:bugeye:
The expression "mommy's house" is NO different than saying "Parents house." On one occasion, following a divorce, our grown daughter had to move back to mommy's house. That of it's self was NO reflection on mommy nor any other family member in any way, shape, form or fashion.
In addition, in all the time I've been here, never once have I ever seen PJ reveal ANYTHING about his mother's condition before this very moment. Therefore, I totally agree with BR and James both.
So I repeat myself: This whole complaint is nothing more than childish whimpering.:bugeye:
The expression "mommy's house" is NO different than saying "Parents house." On one occasion, following a divorce, our grown daughter had to move back to mommy's house. That of it's self was NO reflection on mommy nor any other family member in any way, shape, form or fashion.
In addition, in all the time I've been here, never once have I ever seen PJ reveal ANYTHING about his mother's condition before this very moment. Therefore, I totally agree with BR and James both.
So I repeat myself: This whole complaint is nothing more than childish whimpering.:bugeye:
I don't need to I'm fully capable of flat out ignoring his post on my own. I still don't feel its aproiate to demand I do things because because he like to make personal attacks against me that mention my family.
and its not just me he acts like a concending asshole to me. despite james attempts to chracterize buffalo as some old guy just trying to impart his expierance and wisdom he as a proven track record of berating people with personal attacks when they call out his mendacity. I remember once when he tried to treat another right wing poster like he treats me. incidently the poster in question I belive was actually ideological similiar to him and older but he still tried to play the your just kids and I'm a old guy so you must be wrong and I must right.
what a suprise another old guy that likes to make attacks on people because their younger than him.
actually your mistaken. I suggest you look into the concept of connatation. one has a negative one the other is nuetral.
I ahve mentioned a couple times in the past. in fact I ahve mentioned it directly to YOU.
how argeeing with a dedicated troll and someone who cares nothing for the rules he is supposed to enforce
So you wouldn't have a problem if someone mentioned your family for no reason? typical of you and buffalo jump into a thread go after someone in a personal way and get away with it.
I'll repeat that, this whole complaint is nothing more than childish whimpering.
I do NOT recall you ever having told me that. I will label that statement a total lie unless you can PROVE to me - and everyone else here - where you did so.
That last sentence (above) makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say???
In the same exact fashion in which that statement was made? Absolutely not. In fact, I *did* live at momma's house until the day I joined the army.
I agree with Sam on this one. Toughen up a little there. I would agree that there are plenty of issues surrounding Buffalo Roam; however, this is not one of them.
/snort
By all means, lead the way. I personally stopped encouraging him, to speak of, a long, long time ago. And it's pretty clear that the only thing attracting him to this place is the reliable availability of "liberal" opponents that will engage him in debased cat-fights with a bunch of dumb arguments and poor tactics - and you're right at the vanguard of that demographic.
So, yeah: grow up and learn to ignore noise like Buffalo Roam.
well . . . uh . . . hmmmm . . . maybe there is more to this than simple name calling.
the thing that comes with age is experience.
i am beginning to see this as "rebellious youth sticking it in the face of authority"
which isn't a bad thing mind you but when that authority slaps your teeth out you shouldn't "run for cover" but get a bigger gun. BR has the edge when it comes to experience, something he can beat the crap out of you with. that is why its important to make sure your ducks are in a row before you go in shooting from the hip. if you aren't sure of what you are about to tackle it's best to let someone else do the heavy lifting.
Indeed, my experience has led me to the conclusion that what SciForums does not tolerate is profanity/name-calling. If I tell somebody to "fuck off" or call them a "jackass," that tends not to be tolerated. But if I write a scathingly insulting essay-format take-down of someone (preferably, in the most astoundingly condescending, hectoring tone possible), it seems to cause no issue whatsoever. And I'm sure that those of you paying attention can think of at least one person in a position of authority here that exemplifies this sort of behavior.
More specifically: the fact that many of these inconsistencies could be easily addressed with some simple re-wordings, but this never happens. Just change the rules to say what they actually are: "insult" is "namecalling/profanity," "religious bigotry" is "hate speech," etc. These arguments seem to keep happening exactly because the substance of the policy doesn't match the wording - so just change the wording to match the substance, and you won't have to worry about people complaining about the inconsistency.
And by this point, this policy has been in effect long enough to screen the member pool down to exactly those people who like playing the insult/mismoderation game. So, yeah, might as well just be honest about what we're about - to make SciForums into the sort of place that didn't tolerate insult, would probably mean rebuilding it from scratch.
Yep. And this same inference holds on the question of "respect" as well as "effort." When you protect people who respond not just lazily, but in bad faith, then nobody has any reason to relate in good faith. Instead, you take it for what it is: a pissing contest, to be dominated by the most pig-headed and ruthless participants.
Y'all should really think about seriously cleaning the moderator house. And not just the politicized ones - there are a number that don't seem able to cultivate the general level of respect amongst members that is required for effective moderation. If that would leave you without enough moderators to staff all of the fora, I'd suggest that you have too many fora. There's no point in having more fora than you can effectively moderate, regardless of what vision one might have for site organization and mission. But I'm guessing that the work involved in moderation would actually be lower, if you addressed these various systemic issues.
pjdude:
I haven't characterised BR as anything. He's very far from a wise old guy. He believes whatever Fox News tells him, for instance - nothing wise about that.
You may feel insulted when he tells you to grow up, but objectively that's not actionable here (at least in my opinion). You need to grow a thicker skin.
quadraphonics:
Agreed. I worked out long ago that BR isn't interested in real discussion. He is interested only in recycling talking points from Fox News. Besides, he's mostly interested in the minutiae of US internal politics, which holds little interest for me. He is over-reliant on quoting sources that he doesn't understand. Often his sources say or imply the opposite of what he thinks they say. In short, he isn't very bright. But with joepistole and pjdude, BR has found his own level. joe and pj fall over themselves to engage BR on his own terms. They post weak arguments from a left-liberal perspective and too often fall into traps set by BR.
The level of political discussion from BR, pj and joe is fairly taudry and uninformed, so I avoid it as much as possible. If any of those guys were preaching from a soap-box in the park, most people would just walk right past. You wouldn't stop to listen. BR probably goes on about the same stuff to his buddies at the local pub, and bores them to death too.
Some people need to be taken down by a well-targeted critique or two. There's a difference between name-calling and comment on a person's motivations, methods or whatever as revealed from his or her posts. In short, there's nothing wrong with bouncing off what a person writes.
From the point of view of moderation, we can't be in the business of moderating against hurt feelings. If pj gets all upset when somebody mentions his mommy, that's something he has to deal with. If you get all upset when somebody calls you condescending, that's something you have to deal with. Obviously, it's an impression they have picked up somehow, right or wrong.
It's impossible to make sciforums a place where people never feel offended or hurt, at least not without clamping down on freedom of speech to an extent that I consider unacceptable.
When we do take a hard line on enforcing the rules, what inevitably happens is that we get a string of complaints calling us Nazis and fascists and free-speech deniers. Look at Gustav's latest series of tirades, for example.
Yes, we could have a policy whereby every reported insult, even one where a person just had their self-esteem damaged a little, would result in a ban from the forum, or something like that. I really don't think members would be happy with such an approach.
I haven't characterised BR as anything. He's very far from a wise old guy. He believes whatever Fox News tells him, for instance - nothing wise about that.
You may feel insulted when he tells you to grow up, but objectively that's not actionable here (at least in my opinion). You need to grow a thicker skin.
quadraphonics:
Agreed. I worked out long ago that BR isn't interested in real discussion. He is interested only in recycling talking points from Fox News. Besides, he's mostly interested in the minutiae of US internal politics, which holds little interest for me. He is over-reliant on quoting sources that he doesn't understand. Often his sources say or imply the opposite of what he thinks they say. In short, he isn't very bright. But with joepistole and pjdude, BR has found his own level. joe and pj fall over themselves to engage BR on his own terms. They post weak arguments from a left-liberal perspective and too often fall into traps set by BR.
The level of political discussion from BR, pj and joe is fairly taudry and uninformed, so I avoid it as much as possible. If any of those guys were preaching from a soap-box in the park, most people would just walk right past. You wouldn't stop to listen. BR probably goes on about the same stuff to his buddies at the local pub, and bores them to death too.
Some people need to be taken down by a well-targeted critique or two. There's a difference between name-calling and comment on a person's motivations, methods or whatever as revealed from his or her posts. In short, there's nothing wrong with bouncing off what a person writes.
From the point of view of moderation, we can't be in the business of moderating against hurt feelings. If pj gets all upset when somebody mentions his mommy, that's something he has to deal with. If you get all upset when somebody calls you condescending, that's something you have to deal with. Obviously, it's an impression they have picked up somehow, right or wrong.
It's impossible to make sciforums a place where people never feel offended or hurt, at least not without clamping down on freedom of speech to an extent that I consider unacceptable.
When we do take a hard line on enforcing the rules, what inevitably happens is that we get a string of complaints calling us Nazis and fascists and free-speech deniers. Look at Gustav's latest series of tirades, for example.
Yes, we could have a policy whereby every reported insult, even one where a person just had their self-esteem damaged a little, would result in a ban from the forum, or something like that. I really don't think members would be happy with such an approach.
Bells
Staff member
No, we should not. But we do.James R said:
The kaffir incident is a prime example of that. And then there is also this:
I think it would be fair to say that we are expected to moderate against hurt feelings up to a point. We normally end up banning members who call us "Nazis, fascists and free-speech deniers".. possibly because our feelings are hurt? It is disruptive? We consider it a mischaracterisation?
Pj has the right to request that members do not mention his mother or his relationship to her when they respond to him. And he has done so. It really has nothing to do with discussing politics or world events. He obviously has his reasons for doing so. He should not be denigrated if he requests that his sick mother not be dragged into whatever discussion he happens to be having at a particular time and used as an insult against him personally.
Do pj and Buffalo have an antagonistic relationship on this forum? Yes, they do. But that does not mean that Buffalo should denigrate the care pj has for his mother in caring for her in her time of need, nor should it mean that pj can make derogatory comments about Buffalo's relationship with is spouse, children or parents. There are some things that are considered out of bounds on this forum and I think it is fair to say that insulting one's sick relative or using the care one gives to one's sick relative as an insult on this forum should be considered out of bounds.
He isn't saying that he has an issue with being told to grow up. He has a clear issue with his mother being dragged into the debate. And this is not a one time thing with Buffalo. He does bring up people's mother's quite a bit in arguing with them on the forum.
So just like when members felt offended that they were called a Kaffir, Pj is exercising his right to file a complaint about having his sick mother dragged into the debate by others and used to insult him personally.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
James R said:
I been thinking the same thing for ages, and I've been berated by quadraphonics, tiassa, and others for criticizing (quote) one of the most "noble" posters on sciforums like joepistole.
They don't even see how he's not any different from BR, behaviorally. joepistole is just a different side of the same coin as BR, and the only reason he is defended while BR is demonized is that the ideology he supports is more favorable among members of the forum. Earlier in this thread BR was criticized by tiassa for using talking points but I have seen joepistole refer to "recycled talking points" over and over and over again himself. So... why the berating of *only* BR in this issue? Well..? I'm waiting... :huh:
Yeah, they probably won't want to answer that one. It's a very sad state that the P&WE has fallen into, and the whole situation is MR. Some of these people are incapable of taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. They're too fixated on demonizing the side that they hate. And I know from a recent thread I created that I am not alone in thinking that.
I tend to agree. The sad thing is that certain members of the forum are too limited in vision to see that. And they don't want change and they attack the people who try to raise the standards of discourse in those forums. Recently, in my thread entitled "People who antagonize others for having alternate forms of political leanings," we are seeing that. People with non-extreme views are viewed with suspicion. It's getting to be rather pathetic, and the moderator who exists there (superstring) is a do-nothing.James R said:
Last edited:
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
This kind of personal crappola is meant to distract from the larger issues at work on this forum and it is used by people to who want to limit the discussions to extreme bullshit again. BR's comment might have been rude, and I don't like rudeness either, but it isn't the prime issue in those two forums. pjdude has told other people to "quit whining" when they didn't like the way someone else on the forum spoke to them either, so he is complaining only because he is the one being hurt here. That kind of complaining is not well-intentioned.
(Insert title here)
If you'd paid attention, you wouldn't have to wait. Or maybe it's not about paying attention, since asking for what's already on the record is hardly a method unheard of around Sciforums.
I mean, if there's some part that confuses you, by all means, let me know. But when you offer such a general complaint, as you tend to when asking for what's already on the record, there's not much people can do to help you.
But, then again, that seems to be the point. After all, it's what allows you to say, "Yeah, they probably won't want to answer that one." Or "I wouldn't be surprised if you don't want to answer these questions", or whatever else you can come up with when asking for what's already on the record.
Because that's the whole point. Ask for what's already on the record, and then complain when people either reiterate themselves, or point out that the question is so broad that they can only reiterate themselves.
Part of the problem I have answering your vagary in this case is that the context of my earlier remarks seems quite clear; it is part of an historical review. While Joe is certainly aware, through remarks both public and private, what I think of his approach to political argument, those points are actually irrelevant to the historical review. If you would like me to make them relevant, I would simply point out that Joe's method is a choice to play according to the most protected rules of Sciforums debate. Once it became clear that our deliberate decision to attempt an appearance of political balance meant lowering the bar for one side of the discussion, some, like Joe, chose to step down and play by that standard. Perhaps originally the point was that they would play nice when that became the way of things again, but it's been clear to me for a while, now, that playing nice isn't in the cards for the near term. That is, when our efforts to present an appearance of political balance resulted in the proposal to start banning people in order to protect Mr. Roam specifically, it was pretty clear to me that we had completely blown that pretense.
Joe has his own choices to make, and he will make them as he sees fit. But I didn't include him because he's symptomatic of the original problem, which was the number of exceptions we made for low-quality, even belligerent posts in part to bolster (or, at the very least, preserve) what we might describe as our "conservative" ranks.
Does that answer your question, or has that question sufficiently evaded an answer so that you can feel your self-dependent prophecy has been fulfilled?
WillNever said:
If you'd paid attention, you wouldn't have to wait. Or maybe it's not about paying attention, since asking for what's already on the record is hardly a method unheard of around Sciforums.
I mean, if there's some part that confuses you, by all means, let me know. But when you offer such a general complaint, as you tend to when asking for what's already on the record, there's not much people can do to help you.
But, then again, that seems to be the point. After all, it's what allows you to say, "Yeah, they probably won't want to answer that one." Or "I wouldn't be surprised if you don't want to answer these questions", or whatever else you can come up with when asking for what's already on the record.
Because that's the whole point. Ask for what's already on the record, and then complain when people either reiterate themselves, or point out that the question is so broad that they can only reiterate themselves.
Part of the problem I have answering your vagary in this case is that the context of my earlier remarks seems quite clear; it is part of an historical review. While Joe is certainly aware, through remarks both public and private, what I think of his approach to political argument, those points are actually irrelevant to the historical review. If you would like me to make them relevant, I would simply point out that Joe's method is a choice to play according to the most protected rules of Sciforums debate. Once it became clear that our deliberate decision to attempt an appearance of political balance meant lowering the bar for one side of the discussion, some, like Joe, chose to step down and play by that standard. Perhaps originally the point was that they would play nice when that became the way of things again, but it's been clear to me for a while, now, that playing nice isn't in the cards for the near term. That is, when our efforts to present an appearance of political balance resulted in the proposal to start banning people in order to protect Mr. Roam specifically, it was pretty clear to me that we had completely blown that pretense.
Joe has his own choices to make, and he will make them as he sees fit. But I didn't include him because he's symptomatic of the original problem, which was the number of exceptions we made for low-quality, even belligerent posts in part to bolster (or, at the very least, preserve) what we might describe as our "conservative" ranks.
Does that answer your question, or has that question sufficiently evaded an answer so that you can feel your self-dependent prophecy has been fulfilled?
Just ignore it. There are two ways to debate:
1. Debate the argument
2. Debate the personality of the poster.
The second is pointless unless you can relate it to the first. When you read an insult or a disparaging remark, consider if it has anything to do with the points you are arguing. If not, it is just "noise" Focus on the signal, let the other person waste their energy on creating/debating noise.
Btw, I am not of the opinion that age is accompanied by wisdom or experience as a general rule. Many times, age shows up all by itself.
In your opinion. In my opinion, EFC calling GeoffP "kaffir" was intended as, and equivalent to, calling him "dirty, sub-human unbeliever f**k".
Those people are banned essentially for trolling and/or flaming and/or insults, not for hurt feelings on the part of moderators/administrators.
Personally, I find being compared to a Nazi to be insulting. The archetypal Nazis, after all, were genocidaires and fascists who basically stood for many of the things I am personally strongly against. I think it would be fair to say that most people would be insulted to be called a Nazi.
Everybody has a mother.
Did you read the quote from BR that pj gave in his opening post? BR wasn't at any point talking about pj's mother.
I agree completely. And if BR ever did denigrate the care pj has for his mother etc. then I would quite happily ban BR. That has not happened, as far as I am aware.
Where was anything personal about his mother mentioned? The only thing that was mentioned was that pj lives with his mother (according to BR). pj could easily reply and say "BR, there's nothing wrong with living with my mother, and the fact that I do so has nothing to do with failing to grow up." Or, pj could just say "BR, your comments about my personal life are unwelcome and off-topic. Please cease and desist from such comments in future." But then, of course, pj couldn't legitimately tell BR to "grow up" and not expect BR to reciprocate with a "grow up" comment of his own. You can't hand out one behaviour to others and expect to get back different yourself.
The only reports I've ever seen of such a thing have come from pj.
I don't mind what anyone says to me.
Just don't mention Percy my Goldfish, OK?
Just don't mention Percy my Goldfish, OK?