Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 860 (681312)
11-24-2012 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by PaulK
11-24-2012 1:22 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 1:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 1:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 47 of 860 (681314)
11-24-2012 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 1:33 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 1:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 2:07 PM PaulK has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 860 (681316)
11-24-2012 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
11-24-2012 1:52 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 1:52 PM PaulK has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 49 of 860 (681317)
11-24-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 1:07 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Actually, that's something I'd like a moderator ruling on, since none of you have said one way or the other. If I respond to an argument my opponent didn't make, but I do so in a way that I'm implying like he made it, or at the very least I'm acting like he made it, is that a form of misrepresentation?
Intentional or otherwise, just for the record - would that be a form of misrepresentation?
Case by case basis. Whether someone misrepresented someone, and whether that constitutes a serious enough problem to warrant action is not something that can be defined in a straightforward manner.
This is inaccurate. Hooah did not construct an example where "black people had privilege." So he could not have been responding to my response to an example that wasn't given.
Whether he succeeded or not is not a matter I'm going to discuss. That was clearly his intention.
Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood?
Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege.
Did I misunderstand him when he called my statements lies in that message?
An unpleasant way of saying that your new statements seem to run counter to early ones. Which was hooah's overall point.
Are you sure you didn't misunderstand (or, perhaps, misrepresent) Hooah's post, here?
I suppose I could have been under the mistaken impression that hooah was trying to construct a scenario where the black people had the privilege to see if you would be prepared to call their actions racist.
quote:
in my example, the black men had "privilege" because they had the basketball and the extra players and the white guy wanted to play basketball, but needed the black guys. The white guy is the underprivileged in this scenario.
No, it looks like my understanding of hooah is pretty much what he was trying to represent.
Has anybody criticized Hooah's execution of it?
I raised hooah's potentially poor execution as a possible reason for the issue.
The only one anyone seems to want to criticize is me.
quote:
Either because in hooah's example wasn't sufficiently clear or some failing of crashfrog's or both, it doesn't really matter.
I appreciate your look, but you don't seem to be done, yet. Is it your contention that every one of the seven examples I've given so far has just been a "misunderstanding"? Are you sure that's the case? Before you arrive at that conclusion, could you please look at each one, and consider them as a pattern and not merely individual isolated cases each to consider in the light of the maximally generous interpretation for my opponents?
I'm really not sure that's going to improve your mood, but here's what I made of a few of them
Your citing of Message 376 falls down as that is a question about your position, not a representation of your position. For some reason when you quoted it you omitted the words 'Are you citing' and the question mark at the end. You then changed the word 'as' to 'is'.
In Message 369, Straggler said "you have effectively defined", indicating that Straggler believes that your position amounts to that, not that he was saying you had explicitly stated that as your position.
Message 316 is a conditional. You quoted hooah as saying 'you think it's a-ok to be racist as long as you aren't white.' When what he actually said was " I said that racism is not dependent on race to be qualified as racism. Black people can be just as racist as white people. It's about seeking equality, something you will never be able to do if you think it's a-ok to be racist as long as you aren't white."
This seems a reasonable, though not particularly eloquent, continuation of the argument that black people can be racist to white people or any other race, even when they lack the privilege to institutionalise that racism or enact some kind of policy or whatever.
With Message 312, I will grant that hooah didn't quite get it right - but you did introduce 'upsetness' as a flag of sorts for racism.
Message 288, you omitted the 'So' and the question mark.
Message 282 was Straggler saying he was not convinced of the misogyny or sexism in EG's actions, which he says runs in contrast with 'lots of blog entries' that cite it as a 'prime example of sexism in action'. How is that misrepresenting you? Are you one of those blog entries?
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 1:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 2:42 PM AdminModulous has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 860 (681320)
11-24-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by AdminModulous
11-24-2012 2:22 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege.
No, not true. Again, I understood that he intended to present an example of where black people had the privilege. I mean, duh, I'm not an idiot.
But I made a convincing argument that he failed to do so, which constituted my reply. In this case you appear to have misunderstood me, rather than me misunderstanding Hooah. Surely Hooah's arguments are not so universally convincing that to dispute them is to prove that one has not understood them? (I would not even ascribe such power to my own posts.)
And again, we're speaking specifically about positions misattributed to me, so I'd like to repeat my question from earlier:
quote:
Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood? ...was it that I misunderstood that he was attributing that position to me?
If your answer is "no, that wasn't the misunderstanding" that would seem to be your admission that I correctly understood that Hooah had attributed to me a position I don't hold. Could you address this? It's the central point, and I'd like it to not be lost in your general habit of addressing peripheral statements and asides while ignoring the main point.
I'm really not sure that's going to improve your mood
My mood is calm and rational. Have I given any indication to the contrary? Rahvin asked that this be discussed in this thread, Admin asked me for more evidence for what I've asserted, and I'm perfectly happy to oblige. Contrary to your earlier imprecations I'm perfectly happy to have you take a look at this regardless of your decision. My only objection is with being dismissed as a paranoid delusional by people who have not actually reviewed the situation.
Your citing of Message 376 falls down as that is a question about your position, not a representation of your position.
Irrelevant. It's called a "loaded question." A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the discussion to date might easily be mislead, since they would assume that Straggler would have no reason to ask that question unless I'd said something like it. This stands as an example of a position attributed to me that I don't hold. Straggler has already admitted to doing so on the basis of his misunderstanding and my lack of clarity, and I accept that.
In Message 369, Straggler said "you have effectively defined", indicating that Straggler believes that your position amounts to that, not that he was saying you had explicitly stated that as your position.
Um, I don't see the difference. It's precisely Straggler's act of asserting my position amounts to something it doesn't amount to where he's misrepresenting it. This stands as an example of misrepresentation - again, unintentional I'm sure.
This seems a reasonable, though not particularly eloquent, continuation of the argument that black people can be racist to white people or any other race, even when they lack the privilege to institutionalise that racism or enact some kind of policy or whatever.
What argument are you referring to? Hooah didn't make that argument, so how could he "continue" it?
With Message 312, I will grant that hooah didn't quite get it right
Ok, so there's the one example where you actually do admit that Hooah misrepresented my position.
Message 288, you omitted the 'So' and the question mark.
...And?
Message 282 was Straggler saying he was not convinced of the misogyny or sexism in EG's actions, which he says runs in contrast with 'lots of blog entries' that cite it as a 'prime example of sexism in action'.
That's not what Straggler said. He said that he was "unconvinced that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts." Reading that statement now, don't you get the impression that he's referring to an argument someone made, trying to convince him that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts?
But since no such argument was made, isn't that an attempt to attribute to someone, at least, an argument that they did not make?
So, just to sum up, we have 5 examples that you misunderstood, 1 you admitted was an example of misrepresentation of my argument, and 1 you simply didn't make any kind of ruling about at all. Again, I'm not asking that these be considered examples of "actionable misrepresentation" - which is a new category of misrepresentation introduced by you - merely as examples that I'm not making this shit up because I'm a paranoid delusional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2012 2:22 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2012 4:47 PM crashfrog has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 51 of 860 (681346)
11-24-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 2:42 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Again, I understood that he intended to present an example of where black people had the privilege. I mean, duh, I'm not an idiot.
I see.
But I made a convincing argument that he failed to do so, which constituted my reply.
You did? I thought you said it wasn't racist and then said that SWPL is not racist. What was the convincing argument that he had failed to construct a scenario in which black people had privilege? Another way to look at it is that you were just arguing that it was fine for a black person to say 'White people can't play ball' (which would make it a bit like SWPL I suppose), but hooah's example has them denying the white person the opportunity to play ball. Perhaps you missed that? Perhaps there is some alternative I'm not seeing.
Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood?
Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege. I appreciate that you claim not to have misunderstood this, but that is what I was referring to. Maybe you misunderstood it in the way described above. If you understood hooah's intention and meaning fully, your reply to him looks pretty misleading to me - and I can't fault him for being misled.
...was it that I misunderstood that he was attributing that position to me?
I'm not sure further explanation will get us anywhere. Hooah believed that he had presented an example where black people had privilege and were racially discriminating. When you said that wasn't racist, he criticised you for it. He believed you held the position that when black people held privilege they still wouldn't be being racist, as that is how you had responded to him.
My mood is calm and rational. Have I given any indication to the contrary?
I wasn't implying your mood was uncalm or irrational.
Irrelevant. It's called a "loaded question." A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the discussion to date might easily be mislead, since they would assume that Straggler would have no reason to ask that question unless I'd said something like it. This stands as an example of a position attributed to me that I don't hold. Straggler has already admitted to doing so on the basis of his misunderstanding and my lack of clarity, and I accept that.
It's not a loaded question. If you answer 'no', the follow up would just be 'can you provide such an example?'. I see no unjustified or controversial assumptions built into the question here. I don't think anybody reading that would reasonably infer anything incorrect about your position.
Um, I don't see the difference. It's precisely Straggler's act of asserting my position amounts to something it doesn't amount to where he's misrepresenting it. This stands as an example of misrepresentation - again, unintentional I'm sure.
If your opponent is wrong about what your position leads to, that isn't misrepresentation. Or if you want to say that it technically is on some level, it's certainly not the kind of thing that will get moderator intervention - as it would be unworkable and if applied fairly it would kill discussion dead.
the argument that black people can be racist to white people or any other race, even when they lack the privilege to institutionalise that racism or enact some kind of policy or whatever.
What argument are you referring to? Hooah didn't make that argument, so how could he "continue" it?
He made it in Message 312,
quote:
if I tell Oni to go eat a taco, it IS RACIST but he likely won't get offended. Hell, it's not even accurate since he's Cuban, but it's still racist. It is NOT, however, racial privilege. Its is simply racism. RACISM, NOT RACIAL PRIVILEGE. You are just too much of a honky to understand racism. You are so wrapped up in cracker land that the only racism you know is what you read in your college textbooks.
And back in Message 291 he said
quote:
Since when does privilege dictate what is considered racism? You are basically saying that it would not be racism for you to tell the king of Rwanda to go eat some fried chicken and watermelon simply because he is privileged.
Racism is racism no matter the race. Sexism is sexism no matter the sex. You ought to stop trying to make special cases.
Hooah was clearly of the opinion that one can be racist without having privilege and was making that argument.
...And?
That means it wasn't a representation of your position, but a viewpoint as to what your position implies. It's perfectly fine in an argument to use the 'so you think x, then?' line of attack. I mean it can be used problematically, of course. But just because someone says 'So then x?' and you don't agree with x, that isn't necessarily misrepresentation.
Message 282 was Straggler saying he was not convinced of the misogyny or sexism in EG's actions, which he says runs in contrast with 'lots of blog entries' that cite it as a 'prime example of sexism in action'.
That's not what Straggler said. He said that he was "unconvinced that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts."
It's a pretty close description of what Straggler said, indeed what he said exactly was
quote:
I've found lots of blog entries citing the elevator-gate incident as some sort of prime example of sexism in action........
I remain entirely unconvinced that elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts" or being sexist rather than being a bit of a dick.
Some blogs said it was sexism, Straggler is unconvinced that it was either sexist or the exhibition of misogynistic thoughts. Where's the misrepresentation of your position?
Reading that statement now, don't you get the impression that he's referring to an argument someone made, trying to convince him that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts?
I thought he was referring to some blog posts. I got that from where he said 'I've found lots of blog entries citing the elevator-gate incident as some sort of prime example of sexism in action'
Again, I'm not asking that these be considered examples of "actionable misrepresentation" - which is a new category of misrepresentation introduced by you - merely as examples that I'm not making this shit up because I'm a paranoid delusional.
Whether or not misrepresentation is something that can be acted upon is not a concept invented by me. Since in debates, people regularly misunderstand what their opponents are arguing - the charge 'misrepresentation' as a debate problem is a difficult one to establish. I would normally look for some intent to deceive in place, or some other egregious act.
As I said, I don't think there is any particular act of misrepresentation going on here. At best your opponents are trying to demonstrate problems with their perception of your position. I guess its up to you how much work you want to put into explaining the errors in their perception before you give your opponents up as hopeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 2:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 5:31 PM AdminModulous has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 860 (681352)
11-24-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AdminModulous
11-24-2012 4:47 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
What was the convincing argument that he had failed to construct a scenario in which black people had privilege?
It was Message 408, and the reason I know it was convincing was that he stopped using the example.
Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege.
But.. that's not a misunderstanding, that's my argument. (If I were Rrhain, I'd be making some kind of "boggle" type remark because I'm really boggling at this.)
Look, Mod, you're not making any sense. I didn't misunderstand Hooah's example, I refuted it. Do you really not understand the difference?
Again, am I supposed to treat Hooah's arguments as so inherently convincing that to not be convinced by them is to be taken as proof that they weren't understood? That's absurd - doubly absurd to suggest that Hooah, of all people, is the one of us capable of arguments of such power.
You're just not making any sense. I think you're scrambling to defend your erroneous conclusion than I've misunderstood Hooah in some way, when it's clear that I haven't.
I'm not sure further explanation will get us anywhere.
I'm not asking you to explain, I'm asking you to answer a simple question. Did I misunderstand Hooah when I understood that he attributed to me the position that
quote:
merely having a certain skin color does... in all scenarios, grant universal privilege
or not? Was that a misunderstanding on my part, and if it was, why did he agree that he had attributed that position to me in Message 410? And if not, is that my position? And if it isn't, isn't it a misrepresentation to attribute it to me?
Can you please answer these questions?
I wasn't implying your mood was uncalm or irrational.
Fair enough, but then let's leave my mood out of it, ok? Remember, "argue the position, not the person."
Or if you want to say that it technically is on some level, it's certainly not the kind of thing that will get moderator intervention - as it would be unworkable and if applied fairly it would kill discussion dead.
That's fair. Like I said, I'm not looking for moderator intervention on something like that unless it keeps happening over and over again and genuinely disrupts conversation. What I would like it to lead to is the recognition among moderators that people are misrepresenting me and it's not just something I'm making up out of paranoid delusion. How does that sound?
He made it in Message 312,
I don't see the argument you refer to in Message 312, but maybe I'm just missing it in between all the times I'm called a "honky" and a "cracker" which isn't racist, but are certainly violations of the forum guidelines. I dunno, I guess personal attacks make it kind of hard for me to see whatever argument you think you're referring to in there. For instance I don't see the word "institutionalize" in any of that.
That means it wasn't a representation of your position, but a viewpoint as to what your position implies.
How, exactly? How do you get "viewpoint of the implication", whatever that means, out of "So" and a question mark. How does that work? Can you show me in a dictionary or something where the word "so" plus a question mark is defined as a "viewpoint to what one's position implies"?
Where's the misrepresentation of your position?
It's the part where he attributes to me the position that "Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts." Since that's not my position, but it was attributed to me as though it was, that's a misrepresentation of my position.
I thought he was referring to some blog posts.
I asked him several times who had asked him to be convinced that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts. If the answer is "blog posts", why didn't he say "blog posts"?
I got that from where he said 'I've found lots of blog entries citing the elevator-gate incident as some sort of prime example of sexism in action'
But he doesn't say "misogynistic thoughts", does he? So that's not a statement of his saying that "blog posts" are asking him to be convinced that Elevator Guy was exhibiting misogynistic thoughts. Straggler never attributed that to "blog posts"; by implication, he attributed them to me.
Whether or not misrepresentation is something that can be acted upon is not a concept invented by me.
In this discussion, you're the one who introduced the idea of "actionable misrepresentation." I don't care whether it's actionable or not - I'm not a moderator, I have no reason to be concerned about that. I'm very concerned about getting the moderators who accused me of paranoid delusion - which is a pretty serious accusation as well as a deeply personal attack - to recognize that, in fact, people are misrepresenting my arguments just exactly as I said.
As I said, I don't think there is any particular act of misrepresentation going on here.
Well, yes, you do. You said so:
quote:
With Message 312, I will grant that hooah didn't quite get it right
"It", being, his representation of my argument. Again, I'm not asking for Hooah to be punished on the basis of it. I've not asked for anyone to be punished. I'm asking for moderators to acknowledge what is plainly at the end of their own noses, something that now includes the text of your own posts, Mod.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2012 4:47 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2012 8:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 53 of 860 (681368)
11-24-2012 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 5:31 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
I've given my view of the situation. I looked at your examples. I answered questions you asked of me regarding my position on it, though I appreciate not fully to your satisfaction. Experience tells me that continuing in this vain will be futile and counter-productive.
Sorry if you didn't get what you wanted from me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 5:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 10:48 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 860 (681375)
11-24-2012 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by AdminModulous
11-24-2012 8:28 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Experience tells me that continuing in this vain will be futile and counter-productive.
Yes, it's certainly been my experience that discussing moderation issues with you is futile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2012 8:28 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 55 of 860 (681497)
11-25-2012 11:23 PM


Forever having another meltdown?
Your post just confirmed what evil sons of bitches people from the UK are. Go crawl back under the rock you came from you slimeball.
Do we really have to continue to put up with this abuse? Dr. A made a very well presented refutation to a lame assertion by Forever and instead of a defense of his original comments FEY responds with this.
ABE
I see the Moose is on duty, I guess the plan is to give FEY more rope to hang himself.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2012 5:36 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(9)
Message 56 of 860 (681824)
11-28-2012 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Theodoric
11-25-2012 11:23 PM


Re: Forever having another meltdown?
Why do we put up with this idiot? Moose has just closed a perfectly respectable, topical, and interesting thread (and I don't blame Moose) because it has been trolled by FEY, and others simply can't help feeding the troll. We're not remedial school, we're not here to handhold some angsty teenager through pubescence, and I don't see why discussion and debate should be curtailed because of one immature poster.
And this has nothing at all to do with that twit jeering everyone in sight, resulting in me losing my perfect 10 score. Not at all. Doesn't bother me one bit. Nope. Did I mention it was 10 before he starting being a twat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 11-25-2012 11:23 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2012 6:11 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 11-28-2012 6:39 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 79 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-07-2012 12:23 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 57 of 860 (681826)
11-28-2012 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by cavediver
11-28-2012 5:36 AM


Re: Forever having another meltdown?
Why do we put up with this idiot? Moose has just closed a perfectly respectable, topical, and interesting thread (and I don't blame Moose) because it has been trolled by FEY, and others simply can't help feeding the troll. We're not remedial school, we're not here to handhold some angsty teenager through pubescence, and I don't see why discussion and debate should be curtailed because of one immature poster.
Because he has a spark of intelligence and morality in him. Deep down inside him, I believe, there is a good and sane person fighting to get out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2012 5:36 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 11-28-2012 9:25 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(3)
Message 58 of 860 (681827)
11-28-2012 6:11 AM


Memo to Mr. Pot
Adminnemooseus writes:
A fool and fools chasing the fool (OSLT).
Apologies to topic started Straggler, who was not one of the fools.
Adminnemooseus
Gee, I wonder how that could have happened?
The Kid has learned he can spit, scream and post pure insult here without consequence.
So he does. Undisciplined kids are like that.
We have terms for parents who let kids do that in public places; "moderator" ain't among 'em.
If you want to pinpoint the foolishness that derailed that thread, check out the fellow calling other people fools. It's right at the end of the thread.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 59 of 860 (681830)
11-28-2012 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by cavediver
11-28-2012 5:36 AM


Re: Forever having another meltdown?
cavediver writes:
And this has nothing at all to do with that twit jeering everyone in sight, resulting in me losing my perfect 10 score. Not at all. Doesn't bother me one bit. Nope. Did I mention it was 10 before he starting being a twat?
Quite. You know what would've been a perfectly viable solution? Asking him to stop posting to that thread. Problem would've resolved itself within 10 messages after the request, and we could've had a reasonable discussion about the glory of a true European Union / World Government.
I think....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2012 5:36 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2012 6:40 AM Huntard has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 60 of 860 (681831)
11-28-2012 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Huntard
11-28-2012 6:39 AM


Re: Forever having another meltdown?
RPG.net has the concept of a "thread ban". Maybe the moderators here should be using it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 11-28-2012 6:39 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 11-28-2012 8:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024