Hi, Crashfrog.
crashfrog writes: It was always very clear precisely to whom NJ was directing his comments. |
I've read all the threads I could find, and I don’t see anything that could be viewed as intentionally and unambiguously insulting or offensive to any one person in particular. I think there is a lot a sensitivity among NJ's opponents (which I don't think is unwarranted, mind you), and it was more the sensitivity, rather than what NJ actually said, that turned this whole thing into the fiasco that it became.
This is the theme that I've read from NJ's posts:
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
I can see that you are a homosexual and that I offended you. You misinterpreted my post. We are discussing morals. If homosexual marriage is okay, relatively speaking, then so is marriage between a man and a child or a woman and a dog. Do you understand? I'm not equivocating homosexuals to dogs. I'm merely showing that moral relativism is a bit absurd when you view it in these contexts...
... The bottom line is, I was not referring to gays as dogs and children. I'm sorry if I had anything to do with that confusion.
Source
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: I feel that homosexuality is wrong. And going by inference from what I've seen, living in sin does not produce happiness. It produces moments of fleeting joy, as does all sin, but I don't believe that a long, lasting peace can be found in it. You can call that me "judging you," or you can look at it realistically as me simply not agreeing with your lifestyle. I think you'd prefer that I hate you in order to feel sufficiently martyred, but I don't Berb. Source |
See also
this post (I realize that it's a response to you, and that you thus are probably already familiar with the content).
This is a very clear pattern in NJ’s comments throughout the two Haggard threads and the "I'm an Atheist!" thread. I see a lot of controversial opinions that a lot of people find despicable, and a lot of questionable reasoning used as support for them, but I don't see any insults directed at anybody in particular.
I don't have anything against your cause, and I agree that NJ was being rather callous and insensitive (it's just that blunt personality of his). But, to me, the precedent your requested moderator action would set is entirely too similar to the
moderation style at EvolutionFairyTale, where merely citing TalkOrigins is grounds for suspension because it offends the membership there.
I don’t think it was capricious or cruel of Modulous to divy out the suspensions the way he did: I think it was pretty well thought-out and basically in line with what his office required of him.
Edited by Bluejay, : DbCodes again
Edited by Bluejay, : ...and again
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.