PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of Expression: split from Mobile Phones at Ballarat



eclectic
15-03-2005, 06:49 AM
I propose that the ACF introduce mandatory reporting of mobile phone violations as a rule in all Australian rated tournaments. Yes, it is an offence of the same magnitude as child sexual abuse in my opinion.

Biggles

i regard this comparison as INSULTING especially to those on the receiving end of such abuse

i ask that it be REMOVED

eclectic

biggles
15-03-2005, 07:26 AM
Its called free speech and my second name is Voltaire

Biggles

Alan Shore
15-03-2005, 07:47 AM
Its called free speech and my second name is Voltaire

Biggles

Sure, you have the right of free speech. However, by doing so you accept the responsibility of looking like the ass end of a mule for making such ridiculous statements (not the true point of your argument but rather the ridiculous comparison you've made alluded to by eclectic). :hand:

Alan Shore
15-03-2005, 09:45 AM
Despite the vulgarity, eclectic's deleted post made its point. Just gives you food for thought about what's deemed acceptable...

Rincewind
15-03-2005, 09:50 AM
Despite the vulgarity, eclectic's deleted post made its point. Just gives you food for thought about what's deemed acceptable...

Please keep to the topic. This is in Australian chess and about the enforcement of the Mobile phone rule at Ballarat and in general. Side issues (like freedom of expression) are best discussed in other forums.

JGB
15-03-2005, 10:26 AM
Biggles man!!! We spoke often on the weekend, and I really dont believe you think this. I think you should consider changing your post.

antichrist
15-03-2005, 11:28 AM
I know this is off-topic but this is where the original child sexual abuse comparison was made, and it remains in the first post.

In my long life I have come across three women who suffered child sexual abuse and all three had the same dysfunctional personalities including a hatred of men, loss of esteem, blaming themselves, etc etc. One mate "lost" his girlfriend because of it and another his wife.

Even tens of years after the event they have still not recovered, it is always just below the surface waiting to explode or break them up emotionally.

So Biggles you do not know who is in your audience and I can imagine it could be very insensitive and painful to such women or girls who are everywhere as child sexual abuse is much more widespread than reported.

So you should apologise or you should be suspended until you do apologise.

arosar
15-03-2005, 11:32 AM
Is it my right (of free speech) to say that this equating of the mobile phone rule to child abuse really stupid? And am I also free to say that such a person (ie. biggles) must be a real idiot?

AR

Rincewind
15-03-2005, 11:38 AM
OK, thread split into Non-Chess. If you want to discuss freedom of expression here is the place to do it.

eclectic
15-03-2005, 12:27 PM
i've noted with interest the response to my protest.

If it warrants shunting off into another thread does it not imply that the source of my protest deserves likewise?

does the point of the post get lost if this last sentence is removed?

would anyone like me to start a poll here asking on whether or not you think it appropriate to equate child sexual abuse with the ringing of mobile phones at chess tournaments?

i thought the poster concerned was/is? a primary school teacher / minister of religion and as such would have more sensitivity.

what's being said here is that the next time a child gets sexually abused it's quite ok for the perpetrator to offer him or her a pretty little mobile phone with gimmicky ring tones as an inducement to shut them up!!

i don't think even matthew sweeney would be so stupid as to make so insensitive a remark

as i am the [author?] of the split thread may i please have it renamed

"protest at having child sexual abuse equated with the ringing of mobile phones at chess tournaments"

i would really like to have something for google to catch the next time it trawls through here

i hope that stml, gandalf and cc moderators are reading this

thank you to belthasar, jgb, antichrist, and arosar who [thus far ...] have lent their voice to this protest.

eclectic

firegoat7
15-03-2005, 12:53 PM
Damn straight electric!! tell em how it is.

Clearly the moderation policy of this bb is inconsistent.

Do your jobs moderators. This is clearly inappropriate expression.

arosar
15-03-2005, 12:55 PM
No, leave it up for all the Australian chess community to see.

What's biggles real name again?

AR

firegoat7
15-03-2005, 01:03 PM
OK, reopening thread. The first post stays. It may be insensitive and possibly insulting but they are not in themselves reasons to infringe on Biggles expression of them. However future outburst of highly offensive language will be treated harshly (as they make more work for me).

An absolutely pissweak decision. Let us forget about the stupid claim of "possibly insulting" - it is insulting. Further more it has nothing to do with "free expression" the comparison is simply inappropriate. It should be withdrawn and an apology offered to the community.

cheers Fg7

JGB
15-03-2005, 01:05 PM
Damn straight electric!! tell em how it is.

Clearly the moderation policy of this bb is inconsistent.

Do your jobs moderators. This is clearly inappropriate expression.

No one has endorsed the idiotic statement, and it is in itself his own opionion.

FG7: Under what rule should it be moderated? I hate the statement also, but he is entitled to his own say regrdless of what we think.

JGB
15-03-2005, 01:08 PM
An absolutely pissweak decision. Let us forget about the stupid claim of "possibly insulting" - it is insulting. Further more it has nothing to do with "free expression" the comparison is simply inapproroate. It should be withdrawn and an apology offered to the community.

cheers Fg7

It is inappropriate, but so is much of what is published in non-chess. This is only insulting to the author of the post.

James

Libby
15-03-2005, 01:10 PM
What's biggles real name again?

AR

boofhead? dill? attention-seeker? (my conclusions for such a ridiculous and intentionally controversial post).

Perhaps if we just ignore this kind of posting, as opposed to feeding it with all this attention, it will go away. How much time is such a dopey analogy actually worth?

firegoat7
15-03-2005, 01:12 PM
FG7: Under what rule should it be moderated? I hate the statement also, but he is entitled to his own say regrdless of what we think.

JGB,

There is a difference between freedom to express an opinion and the condoning of clearly inappropriate statements. Nobody in their right mind would equate mobile phone banning with child sexual abuse. To even suggest that the two possible actions are equal is ludicrous.

The post should be censored, plain and simple. The expression withdrawn and an apology offered.

cheers Fg7

JGB
15-03-2005, 01:17 PM
JGB,

There is a difference between freedom to express an opinion and the condoning of clearly inappropriate statements. Nobody in their right mind would equate mobile phone banning with child sexual abuse. To even suggest that the two possible actions are equal is ludicrous.

The post should be censored, plain and simple. The expression withdrawn and an apology offered.

cheers Fg7

An apolgy? He does not represent this board, you, or I. the only person who should be making an appolgy is Biggles if he so wishes. Yes, it is ludicrus, but is that breaking the forum rules. When I first read it I just laughed and thought... 'what freak'n bonehead.'

firegoat7
15-03-2005, 01:22 PM
An apolgy? He does not represent this board, you, or I. the only person who should be making an appolgy is Biggles if he so wishes. Yes, it is ludicrus, but is that breaking the forum rules. When I first read it I just laughed and thought... 'what freak'n bonehead.'

JGB,

Do we have our wires crossed here? I am suggesting that Biggles ought to apologise, and it shouldn't be a matter of "if he so wishes".

Cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2005, 01:30 PM
Sure, you have the right of free speech. However, by doing so you accept the responsibility of looking like the ass end of a mule for making such ridiculous statements (not the true point of your argument but rather the ridiculous comparison you've made alluded to by eclectic). :hand:

I thought his comparison was clearly either sarcastic or flippant and I am mystified as to why people seem to think that it was serious.

While child sexual abuse is a very nasty thing that can indeed have all kinds of pernicious and lasting effects on the victim (including the tendency of others to jump to conclusions about what those effects must be) I also find the hysteria associated with the issue disproportionate. In some people's minds it seems to be millions of times worse than murder or the rape of adults.

Having said that I've frequently modded antichrist for making inappropriate sexual references in chess threads and I'm going to edit this one as well, there was no need for it.

Grendel
15-03-2005, 01:40 PM
I thought his comparison was clearly either sarcastic or flippant and I am mystified as to why people seem to think that it was serious.

While child sexual abuse is a very nasty thing that can indeed have all kinds of pernicious and lasting effects on the victim (including the tendency of others to jump to conclusions about what those effects must be) I also find the hysteria associated with the issue disproportionate. In some people's minds it seems to be millions of times worse than murder or the rape of adults.

Having said that I've frequently modded antichrist for making inappropriate sexual references in chess threads and I'm going to edit this one as well, there was no need for it.

I know some people who have been on the recieving end. Its not nice, not pretty, we shouldnt let it go :evil:

arosar
15-03-2005, 01:44 PM
I thought his comparison was clearly either sarcastic or flippant and I am mystified as to why people seem to think that it was serious.

I disagree. It is not at all clear if he was being flippant. Even so, such foul comparison deserves what its getting now.

So basically KB, the response here is 'community standards' speaking aloud.

AR

antichrist
15-03-2005, 02:32 PM
KB..
Having said that I've frequently modded antichrist for making inappropriate sexual references in chess threads and I'm going to edit this one as well, there was no need for it.

A/C But I have still got away with some beauties!

eclectic
15-03-2005, 02:36 PM
thank you

firegoat
libby
grendel

thank you too

starter

and to

KB for getting out the snippers and making a start

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2005, 02:42 PM
So basically KB, the response here is 'community standards' speaking aloud.

Seems to me more like an outbreak of tabloid-style hysterical whinging because somebody mentioned the magic words "child abuse".

The three words in question have been snipped from the original thread (for irrelevant raising of an adult issue on the chess section - not for offensiveness) but remain intact on this one so you can see what the fuss was about.

The calls for him to apologise or be banned are ridiculous. It's especially amusing to see firegoat on the bandwagon when he has plenty to apologise for himself but is often too pigheaded to apologise when clearly in the wrong.

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2005, 02:45 PM
What's biggles real name again?David Bell as evidenced by this post http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=5508#post5508 where he mentions it.

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2005, 02:45 PM
But I have still got away with some beauties!

You are a worry. :rolleyes:

Rincewind
15-03-2005, 03:25 PM
Seems to me more like an outbreak of tabloid-style hysterical whinging because somebody mentioned the magic words "child abuse".

The three words in question have been snipped from the original thread (for irrelevant raising of an adult issue on the chess section - not for offensiveness) but remain intact on this one so you can see what the fuss was about.

The calls for him to apologise or be banned are ridiculous. It's especially amusing to see firegoat on the bandwagon when he has plenty to apologise for himself but is often too pigheaded to apologise when clearly in the wrong.

What Kevin said with the added observation that the intent of the author was probably to inflame the debate and by reacting in an hysterical way many of you are just furthering that ambition. Yes, Biggles is a goose and should be admonished wholeheartedly - but lets not be a party to the storm he is trying to brew in his teacup.

Alan Shore
15-03-2005, 06:26 PM
Seems to me more like an outbreak of tabloid-style hysterical whinging because somebody mentioned the magic words "child abuse".

The three words in question have been snipped from the original thread (for irrelevant raising of an adult issue on the chess section - not for offensiveness) but remain intact on this one so you can see what the fuss was about.

The calls for him to apologise or be banned are ridiculous. It's especially amusing to see firegoat on the bandwagon when he has plenty to apologise for himself but is often too pigheaded to apologise when clearly in the wrong.

Kevin, this is sooooo inconsistent with what you were going on and on about before with your stupid 'Godwin's Law'. It's just about the biggest reversal I've seen since Johnny Howard's remarks on GST.

You have issues with the use of 'Gestapo'.
You don't have issues with the use of 'child abuse'.

I'm truly baffled.

antichrist
15-03-2005, 06:29 PM
I supposes it would have been a slight exaggeration if you compared with Dunkirk.

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2005, 09:00 PM
Kevin, this is sooooo inconsistent with what you were going on and on about before with your stupid 'Godwin's Law'. It's just about the biggest reversal I've seen since Johnny Howard's remarks on GST.

You have issues with the use of 'Gestapo'.
You don't have issues with the use of 'child abuse'.

I'm truly baffled.

I didn't think his use of "child abuse" was even 0.1% serious, and still don't - if I had I would have had similar issues with it.

Alan Shore
15-03-2005, 09:22 PM
I didn't think his use of "child abuse" was even 0.1% serious, and still don't - if I had I would have had similar issues with it.

And you thought my use was even 0.1% serious? :rolleyes:

arosar
15-03-2005, 09:27 PM
I think you may have a case BD. You can win this one.

AR

Mischa
15-03-2005, 09:45 PM
Why are you even questioning if he was serious or not. Or even flippant? The fact that he can mention such an issue in a flippant or non serious way is insulting and inappropriate and red necked. As are all of you who can allow such a comment to remain. If you are going to maintain that it is his right of freedom of speech then you can no longer edit any posts without endorsing those that remain.

arosar
15-03-2005, 09:49 PM
Why are you even questioning if he was serious or not. Or even flippant? The fact that he can mention such an issue in a flippant or non serious way is insulting and inappropriate and red necked.

That's exactly right. See, this is the problem when you over intellectualise. Or, in this case, over analyse. Note the ridiculous use of '0.1%'.

We, the chesschat community, are perfectly entitled to react the way we did. Simple really. That idiot biggles is deserving everything he's getting.

AR

Cat
16-03-2005, 09:05 AM
The Mods really need to take stock of what they're saying. You permit this kind of thing to go, while it's clearly an outrage to normal, fair-minded people, yet you take aggressive action against others for reasons one can only guess at.

My guess is that the moderation is done on an entirely ad hoc basis dependant on the personal prejudices of the moderators. This is not acceptable, its an embarrassment and it needs to be cleaned up. Skip spoke of guidelines to be put in place, its high time they are delivered.

firegoat7
16-03-2005, 01:34 PM
The Mods really need to take stock of what they're saying. You permit this kind of thing to go, while it's clearly an outrage to normal, fair-minded people, yet you take aggressive action against others for reasons one can only guess at.

My guess is that the moderation is done on an entirely ad hoc basis dependant on the personal prejudices of the moderators. This is not acceptable, its an embarrassment and it needs to be cleaned up. Skip spoke of guidelines to be put in place, its high time they are delivered.

Hear Hear!! :clap: :clap: I second the motion.

JGB
16-03-2005, 02:20 PM
Hear Hear!! :clap: :clap: I second the motion.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I third the motion. :rolleyes:

Were looking for a new Mod, are any of you gentlemen offering you services? As you seem to have no problems in casting judgement.

Bill Gletsos
16-03-2005, 03:07 PM
I third the motion. :rolleyes:I didnt see DR move any motion, or should we be considering this in the medical sense. ;)

Garvinator
16-03-2005, 03:23 PM
Were looking for a new Mod, are any of you gentlemen offering you services? As you seem to have no problems in casting judgement.
i have applied before and was declined, would it be different this time? or should i just save my time?

Bill Gletsos
16-03-2005, 03:34 PM
i have applied before and was declined, would it be different this time? or should i just save my time?I took it he was being sarcastic.
After all if they were looking for another mod they would no doubt have announced it under announcements like they did before.

Garvinator
16-03-2005, 03:36 PM
I took it he was being sarcastic.
After all if they were looking for another mod they would no doubt have announced it under announcements like they did before.
you just dont know sometimes ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

arosar
16-03-2005, 03:37 PM
i have applied before and was declined, would it be different this time? or should i just save my time?

gray, that's embarassing man. You were declined because you're controversial.

How about quanta? He'd be my choice. He's here often enough and uncontroversial.

Or what about that bloke dunnwannapost?

AR

ursogr8
16-03-2005, 03:38 PM
I took it he was being sarcastic.
After all if they were looking for another mod they would no doubt have announced it under announcements like they did before.

I took #40 to be an indication of how much he wants invisibility back. ;)

Cat
16-03-2005, 07:02 PM
I didnt see DR move any motion, or should we be considering this in the medical sense. ;)

Bill, this is so inappropriate, its not a time for your grunge.

Thunderspirit
16-03-2005, 07:10 PM
Such comparisions are disgusting and are obvioiusly not the views of the majority. While people argue about their 'rights' they forget the coin has two sides and that to have 'rights' you have 'responsibilities' as well.

These responsibilities include keeping such views to your self, or if you have problems with mobile phones in chess, than U can make that known in a sensibile adult manner.

Any points you may of had are now overshadowed by the way you presented your message.

People who have suffered in this manner would have every right to be offended. I ask the moderators to delete this thread.

Mischa
16-03-2005, 07:28 PM
Why was the post of moderator offered only to "you gentlemen"?

eclectic
16-03-2005, 07:45 PM
thank you liberace, cat, and noidea for your supporting posts

liberace,

this thread would never have existed if my request to have the offending remark deleted had been acted upon promptly

eclectic

JGB
17-03-2005, 01:54 AM
Why was the post of moderator offered only to "you gentlemen"?

because im sexist! Sorry for that. :uhoh:

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 02:05 AM
And you thought my use was even 0.1% serious? :rolleyes:

Yes. While you obviously did not intend a literal equation of myself and the Gestapo you clearly seriously believed my tactics were unreasonably heavyhanded and were using a Nazi-era metaphor to exaggerate that view.

As such you were probably around 10% serious.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 02:17 AM
Why are you even questioning if he was serious or not. Or even flippant? The fact that he can mention such an issue in a flippant or non serious way is insulting and inappropriate and red necked.

I disagree - I can think of cases where a serious offence would be mentioned sarcastically in comparison precisely to make the serious point that the first offence discussed was not serious and undeserving of too much fuss.


If you are going to maintain that it is his right of freedom of speech then you can no longer edit any posts without endorsing those that remain.

We don't necessarily endorse anything, we just decide whether we think it needs removing or not.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 02:24 AM
That's exactly right. See, this is the problem when you over intellectualise. Or, in this case, over analyse. Note the ridiculous use of '0.1%'.

You're normally the first to deride the slightest hint of PC-ness here but on this one you seem to have changed your spots.


We, the chesschat community, are perfectly entitled to react the way we did. Simple really. That idiot biggles is deserving everything he's getting.

I'm not questioning that he deserves to get flamed but I think the idea that he should be forced to apologise or be banned is ludicrous - eg you never suggested that for Matt when he was dozens of offences in.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 02:25 AM
yet you take aggressive action against others for reasons one can only guess at.

Specify.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 02:29 AM
Any points you may of had are now overshadowed by the way you presented your message.

I think this is one of the more sensible points on this thread - whatever David tried to say he totally shot himself in the foot.

Cat
17-03-2005, 07:44 AM
You really are loosing the plot, you're turning into a fundamentalist, determined to defend his stupidity despite all available opinion and evidence pointing to the contrary. Is there another moderator that can communicate with us?

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 07:55 AM
Is there another moderator that can communicate with us?

You don't want to communicate you want to censure and cannot accept a differrent point of vew - that's the problem. The moderators (apart from KB, JGB and myself who have already posted on this issue) are Jenni and TCN. Neither of whom have rushed to join your PC bandwagon.

As I said, all this activity is probably exactly the reaction Biggles wanted to generate and you are all just dancing to the tune he is playing. So implore everyone to just get over it. What Biggles said was stupid and insensitive, however (lamentably), neither of those are capital offenses.

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 08:09 AM
<snip>

As I said, all this activity is probably exactly the reaction Biggles wanted to generate <snip>

Post #96 at here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=49829#post49829) is another theory.

starter

arosar
17-03-2005, 09:19 AM
What Biggles said was stupid and insensitive, however (lamentably), neither of those are capital offenses.

For the record, I don't think I called for biggles' banning or even suspension. As I think I said above, leave his post up for all to see.

AR

Alan Shore
17-03-2005, 09:38 AM
Yes. While you obviously did not intend a literal equation of myself and the Gestapo you clearly seriously believed my tactics were unreasonably heavyhanded and were using a Nazi-era metaphor to exaggerate that view.

As such you were probably around 10% serious.

I don't have enough roll-eyes to respond to this post.. I would go dizzy!

In both cases, an analogy was made. Mine was simply a more relevant description yet to honestly think I was painting you as a true-to-life officer of the Gestapo is delusional. In biggles' case, simply mentioning such a phrase is offensive as it paints a picture of one of the most terrible and thoughtless crimes in existence. Even if he was not serious, there is no way you can accuse me of being 'more serious'.

Your '10%' is ludicrous and horribly subjective. Are you a mind reader? Even worse, from private conversation with you, you know damn well I was not even 0.1% serious and to spit out 10% is just disappointing of you.

I don't like to argue with you any more Kev but in this case you're arguing just for the sake of it. My hypothesis is, you attacked my Gestapo-comparison only because it affected you personally. Once it doesn't, you freely go off and say something completely opposite.

If that's not enough, let's look at the numbers:

BD, Cat, FG7 - KB [3-1 for the Godwin thing] ('trangressor'-oppoosition).

Baz, KB, biggles - BD, eclectic, JGB, AC, arosar, FG7, Libby, Grendel, noidea, Cat, Liberaci [3-11 for biggles' comment] ('transgressor'-opposition).

The numbers don't lie KB. It's game over for you on this one mate. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 10:29 AM
In both cases, an analogy was made. Mine was simply a more relevant description yet to honestly think I was painting you as a true-to-life officer of the Gestapo is delusional. In biggles' case, simply mentioning such a phrase is offensive as it paints a picture of one of the most terrible and thoughtless crimes in existence. Even if he was not serious, there is no way you can accuse me of being 'more serious'.
Although biggles comment was stupid and offensive, you are having yourself on if you believe that likening someones behaviour to the Gestapo isnt also offensive.
The Gestapo and the regime they represented were responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities on record and responsible for innumerable deaths.

Alan Shore
17-03-2005, 10:43 AM
Although biggles comment was stupid and offensive, you are having yourself on if you believe that likening someones behaviour to the Gestapo isnt also offensive.
The Gestapo and the regime they represented were responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities on record and responsible for innumerable deaths.

I never said it may not be constituted as offensive. However, I didn't create the allegory, I've seen it used before.. used in its context it's difficult to assume a truthful comparison. Perhaps a worse thing one can be guilty of is intent behind what they say, such as when you call individuals 'Idiot/Fool/Moron, Bill. Feel free to call me 'Joseph Stalin'.. but far worse are the things you've said about me here in the past without using colourful language.

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 10:55 AM
I never said it may not be constituted as offensive. However, I didn't create the allegory, I've seen it used before.. used in its context it's difficult to assume a truthful comparison.What a lame attempt at an excuse. In fact based on the argument that "its difficult to assume a truthful comparison" then you could argue that biggles statement was so obviously stupid that he couldnt have possibly meant it seriously.

However instead of just ending your post there you had to post the following rubbish.

Perhaps a worse thing one can be guilty of is intent behind what they say, such as when you call individuals 'Idiot/Fool/Moron, Bill.Now you are really being a fool if you are going to even try and equate those words to the use of the term Gestapo. If someone continually repeats rubbish based on no facts then they certainly dont qualify as "smart".

Feel free to call me 'Joseph Stalin'.. but far worse are the things you've said about me here in the past without using colourful language.Simply because I'd take RGH's word over yours any day.

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 11:17 AM
Baz, KB, biggles - BD, eclectic, JGB, AC, arosar, FG7, Libby, Grendel, noidea, Cat, Liberaci [3-11 for biggles' comment] ('transgressor'-opposition).

The numbers don't lie KB. It's game over for you on this one mate. :hand:

How is my position in any way pro 'transgressor'?

In fact the only difference of opinion here is whether the offending remark should be removed. None of the moderators have done so or even expressed an opinion in that direction. Further arosar has explicitly reitereated that his is not supporting an edit. Therefore the numbers on this issue are not one sided at all.

The issue is not whether you agree with Biggles or not, but whether a breach of BB code of conduct has occurred. As no expletive language or imagery was invoked, I think the code was not breached.

Alan Shore
17-03-2005, 11:31 AM
What a lame attempt at an excuse. In fact based on the argument that "its difficult to assume a truthful comparison" then you could argue that biggles statement was so obviously stupid that he couldnt have possibly meant it seriously.

Bill, you've missed the point. In fact, your post pretty much supports my initial argument re: KB's backflip. How is my comment worse than biggles' one? Good work Bill!


Now you are really being a fool if you are going to even try and equate those words to the use of the term Gestapo. If someone continually repeats rubbish based on no facts then they certainly dont qualify as "smart".

We obviously differ in opinion over language and intent. That doesn't make your perception any more 'correct' than mine. Nothing on this BB I say is ever personal. It often is with you. In my books, that doesn't make you the better man.

Alan Shore
17-03-2005, 11:32 AM
How is my position in any way pro 'transgressor'?

In fact the only difference of opinion here is whether the offending remark should be removed. None of the moderators have done so or even expressed an opinion in that direction. Further arosar has explicitly reitereated that his is not supporting an edit. Therefore the numbers on this issue are not one sided at all.

The issue is not whether you agree with Biggles or not, but whether a breach of BB code of conduct has occurred. As no expletive language or imagery was invoked, I think the code was not breached.

The point is Baz, it was offensive to the majority. A moderator should be protecting that majority, not only going by what they believe is right personally. If that were the case we'd be under a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 11:54 AM
Bill, you've missed the point. In fact, your post pretty much supports my initial argument re: KB's backflip. How is my comment worse than biggles' one? Good work Bill!Where did I say it was worse.
I simply stated that using the term Gestapo was offensive.


We obviously differ in opinion over language and intent. That doesn't make your perception any more 'correct' than mine. Nothing on this BB I say is ever personal. It often is with you. In my books, that doesn't make you the better man.Perhaps if you had been subjected to the torrents of abuse and misrepresentation from the likes of Matt etc you wouldnt be so quick to criticse my taking it personally.

arosar
17-03-2005, 12:04 PM
That's right. I never said, edit the remark or delete it or ban or suspend biggles. I merely expressed my disagreement with it.

As to this Gestapo business, I think you have to consider this in terms of degree. I don't believe that calling KB a Gestapo is on the same level of insult or sin (or whatever) as equating child sex abuse with the mobile phone rule.

AR

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 12:10 PM
That's right. I never said, edit the remark or delete it or ban or suspend biggles. I merely expressed my disagreement with it.I'm with you on this.


As to this Gestapo business, I think you have to consider this in terms of degree. I don't believe that calling KB a Gestapo is on the same level of insult or sin (or whatever) as equating child sex abuse with the mobile phone rule.Ones reaction to someone flippantly throwing around the Gestapo tag may well depend on your point of view, especially if you were a holocaust survivour and had friends/relatives who didnt.

antichrist
17-03-2005, 12:21 PM
Me, the biggest hypocrite in my own way, asked for biggles suspension until he apologised. I stand by it.

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 01:03 PM
The point is Baz, it was offensive to the majority. A moderator should be protecting that majority, not only going by what they believe is right personally. If that were the case we'd be under a dictatorship, not a democracy.

It is not the job of the moderator to protect your sensibilities of the majority. The guideline is published and Biggles reference was neither graphic nor expletive and therefore not illegal. The moderators have nothing to do. You can disagree with Biggles taste or lack thereof but to call for moderators to enforce something to appease the mob is pointless.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 01:21 PM
You really are loosing the plot, you're turning into a fundamentalist, determined to defend his stupidity despite all available opinion and evidence pointing to the contrary. Is there another moderator that can communicate with us?

Stop wasting bandwidth on such puerile stupid trolling - obviously I am not defending biggles' comment but simply criticising some of the hysteria it provoked.


In both cases, an analogy was made. Mine was simply a more relevant description yet to honestly think I was painting you as a true-to-life officer of the Gestapo is delusional.

Obviously I don't think that and have already said so, so cease amusing yourself with your demented little strawman. What I meant was that you seriously believed my actions were draconian but greatly exaggerated the extent of your belief about how bad they were. It is not at all clear to me that biggles similarly believed the mobile phone offence he was talking about was serious.


In biggles' case, simply mentioning such a phrase is offensive as it paints a picture of one of the most terrible and thoughtless crimes in existence.

You must be trolling to claim that any mention of child sex abuse in any context whatsoever is automatically offensive. Are you suggesting that the subject never be discussed at all, ever? That's one of the attitudes that helps it to proliferate, in case you didn't know. *sigh*


Your '10%' is ludicrous and horribly subjective. Are you a mind reader? Even worse, from private conversation with you, you know damn well I was not even 0.1% serious and to spit out 10% is just disappointing of you.

False. See above.


I don't like to argue with you any more Kev but in this case you're arguing just for the sake of it.

Not at all - on the contrary, you are.


My hypothesis is, you attacked my Gestapo-comparison only because it affected you personally.

My hypothesis is that you are a drowning man clutching at a sinking straw - there are many cases online where I have attacked the use of Nazi or similar comparisons against people other than myself.


If that's not enough, let's look at the numbers:

Well, this stupid "democratic" game is pointless but let's play it anyway:


BD, Cat, FG7 - KB [3-1 for the Godwin thing] ('trangressor'-oppoosition).

firegoat and Cat are idiotic trolls and their opinions on any subject (except medicine in DR's case) are safely ignorable because there is no reason to believe they are ever sincere. You are a part-time troll who in this case was feeling aggreived by being stung for poor debating technique, so let's be generous and say 0.5-1.


Baz, KB, biggles - BD, eclectic, JGB, AC, arosar, FG7, Libby, Grendel, noidea, Cat, Liberaci [3-11 for biggles' comment] ('transgressor'-opposition).

I do not support biggles comment so lining me up on his side is remarkably dumb - I am simply opposing some of the counter-hype (and that only from a minority of those listed).

The only one supporting biggles' comment is biggles himself.


It's game over for you mate.

If you insist.

*records full point on the scoresheet*

(Yes, I know you're just playing silly games but I don't know why you bother.)

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 01:36 PM
The point is Baz, it was offensive to the majority. A moderator should be protecting that majority, not only going by what they believe is right personally. If that were the case we'd be under a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Go read Mill or de Tocqueville on the "tyranny of the majority" that underlies the difference between liberal democracies and illiberal mob rule. Come back when you've understood it.

The point of liberal democracy is to protect the rights of minorities to say and do unpopular things even if the masses would prefer them to be silenced.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 01:38 PM
Me, the biggest hypocrite in my own way, asked for biggles suspension until he apologised.

You said it. I deleted something far more suspension-worthy by you less than an hour ago.

Alan Shore
17-03-2005, 04:13 PM
Obviously I don't think that and have already said so.

So what are you going on about then? Thread over. :owned:


... so cease amusing yourself with your demented little strawman. What I meant was that you seriously believed my actions were draconian but greatly exaggerated the extent of your belief about how bad they were. It is not at all clear to me that biggles similarly believed the mobile phone offence he was talking about was serious.

Oh no no no no no no KB! Sorry, but you specifically made the claim of <'0.1%' for biggles and 10% for myself. Blatant contradiction!


You must be trolling to claim that any mention of child sex abuse in any context whatsoever is automatically offensive. Are you suggesting that the subject never be discussed at all, ever? That's one of the attitudes that helps it to proliferate, in case you didn't know. *sigh*


Listen here you pompous pratt, I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth thankyou. There is a time and a place to discuss such things, not to make such ludicrous and offensive (and not even relevant!) comparisons. My allegory was on-topic and in context, this however was ridiculously insensitive.


False. See above.

I looked above and saw nothing of the sort to suggest it was false. Any two-year old can turn around and cry 'false!' without having a clue what they're on about.


Not at al - on the contrary, you are.

Are you kidding me? Are you back to using the kindergarten equivalent of 'I know you are you said you are so what am I?' :hand:


My hypothesis is that you are a drowning man clutching at a sinking straw - there are many cases online where I have attacked the use of Nazi or similar comparisons against people other than myself.


But not child abuse. What a champ you truly are. :rolleyes:


firegoat and Cat are idiotic trolls and their opinions on any subject (except medicine in DR's case) are safely ignorable because there is no reason to believe they are ever sincere. You are a part-time troll who in this case was feeling aggreived by being stung for poor debating technique, so let's be generous and say 0.5-1.

Gee KB, I can't argue with such Sherlock Holmes-like deductions :rolleyes: More like a nest of non sequiters.


I do not support biggles comment so lining me up on his side is remarkably dumb - I am simply opposing some of the counter-hype (and that only from a minority of those listed).

You made the statement, I quoted it. If you've backflipped then be a man and admit it.


Well, this stupid "democratic" game is pointless but let's play it anyway:

Great. Let's just ignore the opinions of everyone and do what we want to do. You need a lesson in diplomacy if you ever want to run for government. :D


If you insist.

*records full point on the scoresheet*

Thanks Kevin, it saves me the trouble of chalking it up for me myself. A true gentleman you must surely be. :clap:


(Yes, I know you're just playing silly games but I don't know why you bother.)


I've quit playing silly games Kevin. I'm concerned about your attitudes here. I don't think it's very becoming and such a thing needs to be taken a tad more seriously.

Alan Shore
17-03-2005, 04:23 PM
Perhaps if you had been subjected to the torrents of abuse and misrepresentation from the likes of Matt etc you wouldnt be so quick to criticse my taking it personally.

Actually Bill, I'll give that statement consideration, I wasn't aware how much it affected you. I was under the impression of course Sweeney wasn't that serious but even so can understand perhaps how it may have affected you. Even so, I can't help but wonder if you had of reacted without venom in your retaliations that perhaps your opposition would not have been so volatile.. just an idea. You don't always have to fight fire with fire.

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 05:26 PM
Actually Bill, I'll give that statement consideration,I suggest you do so.

I wasn't aware how much it affected you
I was under the impression of course Sweeney wasn't that serious but even so can understand perhaps how it may have affected you..It hasnt affected me except to the extent that I have been subjected to his abuse since 2003 and I am totally fed up him. On top of that idiots like DR have just joined in and encouraged him, without ever taking him to task over his language or behaviour.

Even so, I can't help but wonder if you had of reacted without venom in your retaliations that perhaps your opposition would not have been so volatile.. just an idea.I seriously doubt it as prior to my ever posting on the ACF bb (back when Jonathan Sarfati used to post) his behaviour was just as bad. As far as I am concerned he is a total disgrace.
In another thread I said "He is coarse, crude and vulgar for no other reason than because he can be and in fact he seems to relish in it." I should have included the word abusive in it.
He cannot hide behind the excuse thats just his online persona and in person he is ok. Based use of the c-word on his own board I wont be shaking hands with him at any forseeable time in the future. If he wants to act like a total ratbag then I will treat him as such.


You don't always have to fight fire with fire.In his case I think you do.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 06:23 PM
Oh no no no no no no KB! Sorry, but you specifically made the claim of <'0.1%' for biggles and 10% for myself. Blatant contradiction!

Why? No evidence.


Listen here you pompous pratt,

PKB. And laughably ineffectual.


I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth thankyou.

They were already there - you said "simply mentioning such a phrase is offensive".


There is a time and a place to discuss such things, not to make such ludicrous and offensive (and not even relevant!) comparisons. My allegory was on-topic and in context, this however was ridiculously insensitive.

Mentioning the Gestapo in a thread about entry fee refunds is exactly as off-topic as mentioning child abuse in a thread about mobile phone dobbing.

(snip babble - BD wrote effectively the same rubbish twice then complained because I didn't refute it twice but just said "false - see above")


Are you kidding me? Are you back to using the kindergarten equivalent of 'I know you are you said you are so what am I?' :hand:

It's called trying to talk down to your level. :whistle:

If you make false accusations with no evidence you don't deserve any better than return-to-sender.


But not child abuse. What a champ you truly are. :rolleyes:

False because I have criticised biggles' comment (and similar pointless comparisons elsewhere in cyberspace); I just haven't seen it necessary to jump aboard the SS Conspicuous Public Heated Moral Outrage about it.


Gee KB, I can't argue with such Sherlock Holmes-like deductions :rolleyes: More like a nest of non sequiters.

Guess we won't be seeing any more unsubstantiated claims from you on this board ever again in that case. Maybe you ought to learn what a non sequiter is before you throw the phrase about again. :hand:


You made the statement, I quoted it. If you've backflipped then be a man and admit it.

What statement? I have not supported biggles' comment. Stop fibbing and quit the stupid macho rubbish, it doesn't work coming from one of your highly-strung nature. I imagine a little mouse squeaking as I read it.


Great. Let's just ignore the opinions of everyone and do what we want to do. You need a lesson in diplomacy if you ever want to run for government. :D

I don't ever want to run for government precisely because I am not capable of diplomacy towards idiocy. You need a lesson in political philosophy - I already gave you it.


Thanks Kevin, it saves me the trouble of chalking it up for me myself. A true gentleman you must surely be. :clap:

Why of course. One is always keen to prevent a defeated opponent from falsely claiming they have won the game. :lol:


I've quit playing silly games Kevin.

I don't believe you.

Or rather I don't want to, because if I did it would force me to believe you were seriously dense rather than pointlessly timewasting on public self-embarrassment.


I'm concerned about your attitudes here. I don't think it's very becoming and such a thing needs to be taken a tad more seriously.

*sigh*

You ought to hook up with Naomi Robson.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 06:46 PM
I seriously doubt it as prior to my ever posting on the ACF bb (back when Jonathan Sarfati used to post) his behaviour was just as bad. As far as I am concerned he is a total disgrace.

I can also vouch for this - Matthew's attacks on Sarfati were extremely crude at times when Sarfati was debating with complete civility. Incidentally, to hose down Bruce's nonsense about me only picking fights about Nazi metaphors when personally targetted, my first conflict with Matthew started when Matt called Sarfati a "right-wing social darwinist" for no reason. At the time neither Matt nor I knew that Sarfati was in fact as far from any kind of darwinist as it is possible to get.

Cat
17-03-2005, 07:33 PM
KB, BG - The pair of you are simply dysfunctional! This was a serious incident which through your combined ingorance you've turned it yet again into a personalised debacle. It really is a metaphor for everything the pair of you stand for, I wouldn't trust you with a paper bag at a whelk stall!

There is simply no hope for Australian Chess with this pair of Crash Dummies at the wheel. They simply have no idea, on a road to nowhere. It's like watching the Goon Show with the humour turned off. I am gobsmacked by their obstructiveness. What a mess, what a pair!

Mischa
17-03-2005, 07:43 PM
None of you have any idea of the ramifiactions of the crime you are so carelessly bandying about. This is just a forum for the rattling of sabres and the "my father is bigger than your father" childish behaviour... sorry, have a friend who suffered and still does. You people have noidea

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 07:54 PM
KB, BG - The pair of you are simply dysfunctional! This was a serious incident which through your combined ingorance you've turned it yet again into a personalised debacle. It really is a metaphor for everything the pair of you stand for, I wouldn't trust you with a paper bag at a whelk stall!

The only debacle to have occurred is when a few PC loons got together with their torches and pitchforks. You and FG7 are first class trolls of the highest magnitude and sieze any opportunity to promote irrational ranting. Take for example your attempt in this post to frame the debate in terms of KB/BG vs the rest of humanity. This is such a ridiculous and shallow position as to be transparent to cave-dwelling fish.


There is simply no hope for Australian Chess with this pair of Crash Dummies at the wheel. They simply have no idea, on a road to nowhere. It's like watching the Goon Show with the humour turned off. I am gobsmacked by their obstructiveness. What a mess, what a pair!

If a vote was held between you as a president for a state association against Bill or Kevin, then it would make the Cordover/Jessop ballot look like a close contest. In recent times your idiocy has been seemingly without bounds. I think I speak for the majority of posters here when I say that when you post it feels like the sum total of human knowledge actually decreases.

JGB
17-03-2005, 08:00 PM
The only debacle to have occurred is when a few PC loons got together with their torches and pitchforks. You and FG7 are first class trolls of the highest magnitude and sieze any opportunity to promote irrational ranting. Take for example your attempt in this post to frame the debate in terms of KB/BG vs the rest of humanity. This is such a ridiculous and shallow position as to be transparent to cave-dwelling fish.



If a vote was held between you as a president for a state association against Bill or Kevin, then it would make the Cordover/Jessop ballot look like a close contest. In recent times your idiocy has been seemingly without bounds. I think I speak for the majority of posters here when I say that when you post it feels like the sum total of human knowledge actually decreases.

You just got my vote for post of the year. :clap:

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 08:11 PM
None of you have any idea of the ramifiactions of the crime you are so carelessly bandying about. This is just a forum for the rattling of sabres and the "my father is bigger than your father" childish behaviour... sorry, have a friend who suffered and still does. You people have noidea

Yes, and people suffer from drink-driving too. However you can't stop someone from saying, "In my opinion blitzing someone when they are short of time is worse than drink-driving". Of course it is a flippant and insensitive thing to say, especially to a person who has lost someone close to a drunk-driver. But it can be said. In truth, there are thousand such examples which might cause offense to numerous people.

If you start moderating every thing which every person might take offense to there will not be anything left to say. I would not have said what Biggles said, I think 99% of people would not. However, it was said. People's feelings might have been hurt but that is between Biggles and them. He can be publicly reproved by all and sundry, show him up for the crass buffoon he is. Just don't assume the moderators job is to enforce the will of the majority by gagging the unpopular.

Remember that a BB is a place for the expression of opinion. This can often not be effectively done without offending someone. This board has guidelines as to how far you can go down the expletive path, spamming and a few other areas. Apart from that people are expected to be able to say what they like and are expected to defend what they say. It is my observation that most of the proponents of deleting Biggles comments are good at the first of these but less so at the second.

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 08:13 PM
You just got my vote for post of the year. :clap:

Thanks for the kudos but I think "rant of the ..." is a more accurate description. ;)

JGB
17-03-2005, 08:15 PM
Yes, and people suffer from drink-driving too. However you can't stop someone from saying, "In my opinion blitzing someone when they are short of time is worse than drink-driving". Of course it is a flippant and insensitive thing to say, especially to a person who has lost someone close to a drunk-driver. But it can be said. In truth, there are thousand such examples which might cause offense to numerous people.

If you start moderating every thing which every person might take offense to there will not be anything left to say. I would not have said what Biggles said, I think 99% of people would not. However, it was said. People's feelings might have been hurt but that is between Biggles and them. He can be publicly reproved by all and sundry, show him up for the crass buffoon he is. Just don't assume the moderators job is to enforce the will of the majority by gagging the unpopular.

Remember that a BB is a place for the expression of opinion. This can often not be effectively done without offending someone. This board has guidelines as to how far you can go down the expletive path, spamming and a few other areas. Apart from that people are expected to be able to say what they like and are expected to defend what they say. It is my observation that most of the proponents of deleting Biggles comments are good at the first of these but less so at the second.

I believe this is the general consensus among all moderators.

Don_Harrison
17-03-2005, 08:20 PM
None of you have any idea of the ramifiactions of the crime you are so carelessly bandying about. This is just a forum for the rattling of sabres and the "my father is bigger than your father" childish behaviour... sorry, have a friend who suffered and still does. You people have noidea

You're correct in pointing out that all the garbage going on is nothing more than egos, noidea. A sad situation all round.

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 08:22 PM
I believe this is the general consensus among all moderators.That will never catch on with the likes of fg7, DR and possibly a couple of others as it is not only reasonable but sensible.

JGB
17-03-2005, 08:24 PM
That will never catch on with the likes of fg7, DR and possibly a couple of others as it is not only reasonable but sensible.

and to qutoe and old wise Jedi...
"...that is why we have already lost"

Alan Shore
17-03-2005, 08:34 PM
and to qutoe and old wise Jedi...
"...that is why we have already lost"

You won't change the minds of those who have already decided what they believe is right. It's an exercise in futility. I've lost precious minutes of my life already on this thread arguing with fools who's only priorities are to boost their own huge ego. It will never matter what you say - they'll always find some ridiculous justification to delude themselves into thinking they're right. It's always going to end up like war - no winners.

Cat
17-03-2005, 09:04 PM
The only debacle to have occurred is when a few PC loons got together with their torches and pitchforks. You and FG7 are first class trolls of the highest magnitude and sieze any opportunity to promote irrational ranting. Take for example your attempt in this post to frame the debate in terms of KB/BG vs the rest of humanity. This is such a ridiculous and shallow position as to be transparent to cave-dwelling fish.


I haven't framed anything they've done it for themselves, & Barry you're tumbling headlong into their mess. This is no joke, what we're all sick of is the myopic, selective arrogance you moderators are displaying is dealing with these issues.

I can't believe you're trivialising this in this way. It's patently clear the BB citizen's are appalled by the inept handling of the situation. It's no trolling, its genuine disgust at the contempt and insensitivity of a couple of clowns. I'm surprised at you BJC. As for JCB he's bobbing like a JAck in the Box, not knowing where he's at.

What do people want? They want some respect for the issue & sensitivity, not smart alec comments. What is needed, as I said previously, is a recognised and agreed approach to this moderation. Stop the personal stuff, its truely offensive. Stop excusing your behaviour by accusations of trolling. I'm sick of it, Dion, Noidea - the worse trolls are the moderators. Stop pretending to be superior, stop accusing, show some respect and act decently. Its not a lot to ask for!

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 09:19 PM
I haven't framed anything they've done it for themselves, & Barry you're tumbling headlong into their mess. This is no joke, what we're all sick of is the myopic, selective arrogance you moderators are displaying is dealing with these issues.

I can't believe you're trivialising this in this way. It's patently clear the BB citizen's are appalled by the inept handling of the situation. It's no trolling, its genuine disgust at the contempt and insensitivity of a couple of clowns. I'm surprised at you BJC. As for JCB he's bobbing like a JAck in the Box, not knowing where he's at.

What do people want? They want some respect for the issue & sensitivity, not smart alec comments. What is needed, as I said previously, is a recognised and agreed approach to this moderation. Stop the personal stuff, its truely offensive. Stop excusing your behaviour by accusations of trolling. I'm sick of it, Dion, Noidea - the worse trolls are the moderators. Stop pretending to be superior, stop accusing, show some respect and act decently. Its not a lot to ask for!There is nothing wrong with the way the moderators handled it.
Everyone agrees what biggles said was stupid and offensive.
That is not however sufficient reason for his comment to be deleted. It wasnt crude or vulgar nor full of expletives or vulgar graphic imagery.
I simply suggested that people could equally find likening someones post to the Gestapo equally offensive, but that to is no reason to delete it.
Those that make such stupid comments as biggles should have such stupidity highlighted.
Deleting comments like biggles as if it never existed solves nothing.

Cat
17-03-2005, 09:23 PM
Yes, and people suffer from drink-driving too. However you can't stop someone from saying, "In my opinion blitzing someone when they are short of time is worse than drink-driving". Of course it is a flippant and insensitive thing to say, especially to a person who has lost someone close to a drunk-driver. But it can be said. In truth, there are thousand such examples which might cause offense to numerous people.

If you start moderating every thing which every person might take offense to there will not be anything left to say. I would not have said what Biggles said, I think 99% of people would not. However, it was said. People's feelings might have been hurt but that is between Biggles and them. He can be publicly reproved by all and sundry, show him up for the crass buffoon he is. Just don't assume the moderators job is to enforce the will of the majority by gagging the unpopular.

Remember that a BB is a place for the expression of opinion. This can often not be effectively done without offending someone. This board has guidelines as to how far you can go down the expletive path, spamming and a few other areas. Apart from that people are expected to be able to say what they like and are expected to defend what they say. It is my observation that most of the proponents of deleting Biggles comments are good at the first of these but less so at the second.

You miss the point entirely! What really irks is that when genuine disgust is displayed for an issue that amoral invertebrate has the audacity to tell people their moral outrage is some form of hysteria. Then when Dion says this is not acceptable - and I agree with him completely, the Crash Dummies step in and send the whole thing into free fall. That you're attempting to condone this atrocious nonsense is a deep stain on your character - I thought I'd never say that about you Barry, because I thought you were genuine enough. I'm ashamed for you.

Kevin - stop patronising, respect people's outrage, stop your personal crap, we're fed up with it.

Bill - why must you bring your grunge to every situation?

Barry - sleep on it buddy!

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 09:31 PM
You miss the point entirely! What really irks is that when genuine disgust is displayed for an issue that amoral invertebrate has the audacity to tell people their morale outrage is some form of hysteria. Then when Dion says this is not acceptable - and I agree with him completely, the Crash Dummies step in and send the whole thing into free fall. That you're attempting to condone this atrocious nonsense is a deep stain on your character - I thought I'd never say that about you Barry, because I thought you were genuine enough. I'm ashamed for you.

One of the differences between you and I is that you assume you have a right to have your outrage appeased if you are in the majority. But it doesn't work like that. I disagree with what Biggles said, and how he said it, but I defend anyone's right to be able to say it.

As Bill pointed out, hushing up these issues does no one any good in the long term anyway. People have and will learn from this instance that such outrage turns the majority of people against your opinion just because you express it thoughtlessly. In fact, that may be the only productive thing to come out from this entire thread.

Cat
17-03-2005, 09:33 PM
There is nothing wrong with the way the moderators handled it.
Everyone agrees what biggles said was stupid and offensive.
That is not however sufficient reason for his comment to be deleted. It wasnt crude or vulgar nor full of expletives or vulgar graphic imagery.
I simply suggested that people could equally find likening someones post to the Gestapo equally offensive, but that to is no reason to delete it.
Those that make such stupid comments as biggles should have such stupidity highlighted.
Deleting comments like biggles as if it never existed solves nothing.

Gee I never thought you'd attempt to moderate, but I'm genuinely pleased Bill. Yes it was wrong - Kevin's arrogance was inappropriate and offensive. It was patronising - we don't want to hear it!

The Gestapo comparison was also offensive. It was an extremely tasteless analogy, it wasn't necessary.

People are genuinely hurt by this - its tedious for us all to be put through patronising platitudes by individuals whose sum life experiences shed nothing on the emotions these issues generate.

To then accuse those registering disgust as trolls or senseless is bad form.

No more smart-arse comments, no more pathetic patronising - the moderators need to sleep on their ineptitude and deliver something properly considered.

Cat
17-03-2005, 09:39 PM
One of the differences between you and I is that you assume you have a right to have your outrage appeased if you are in the majority. But it doesn't work like that. I disagree with what Biggles said, and how he said it, but I defend anyone's right to be able to say it.

As Bill pointed out, hushing up these issues does no one any good in the long term anyway. People have and will learn from this instance that such outrage turns the majority of people against your opinion just because you express it thoughtlessly. In fact, that may be the only productive thing to come out from this entire thread.

The difference between you & I is that I can respect the emotions of others and permit them to express those emotions without condescension. What's at issue is not what Biggles said, we're all agreed about that, but the impertenant arrogance of the moderators in describing to the BB posters how they should feel about it, then spending pages & pages of postings on a flamewar initiated by the moderators in defence of their position. The position is indefensible!

antichrist
17-03-2005, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by Rincewind
Yes, and people suffer from drink-driving too. However you can't stop someone from saying, "In my opinion blitzing someone when they are short of time is worse than drink-driving". Of course it is a flippant and insensitive thing to say, especially to a person who has lost someone close to a drunk-driver.

A/C
At face value I have about the worse record on the BB re inappropriate sexual references. But it is usually in a humourous manner and the ladies have not complained as far as I know.

But as I explained earlier and Noidea has backed me up on, victims of child sexual abuse never recover as far as I know. I would put the victim of child sexual abuse at the same shattered, bewilded level as actual survivors of the Holocaust. (and I may have been insensitive towards them).

Rincewind is way off target in his analogy of drink-driving. When victims of child sexual abuse are reminded of it, whether in nightmares, in movies, personal situations of a sexual nature etc. they just crack up. It is always just below the surface waiting to erupt one way or another.

I have seen shattered victims of car crashes, now paraplegics(?), and they get into cars etc, are driven around and it is no big drama for them. Do you honestly think a parallel can be drawn of the paraplegics with victims of child sexual abuse?

In this case the male mods and BG (I think as well) don't know what they are talking about. I hope someone with first hand experience comes onto the BB and really put you sophists in your place!!

There is one difference between you and me. I act the idiot but it is acting only -- whereas you three ARE IDIOTS!!!

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 10:00 PM
At face value I have about the worse record on the BB re inappropriate sexual references. But it is usually in a humourous manner and the ladies have not complained as far as I know.

Assumption #1 :hand:


But as I explained earlier and Noidea has backed me up on, victims of child sexual abuse never recover as far as I know. I would put the victim of child sexual abuse at the same shattered, bewilded level as actual survivors of the Holocaust. (and I may have been insensitive towards them).

Rincewind is way off target in his analogy of drink-driving. When victims of child sexual abuse are reminded of it, whether in nightmares, in movies, personal situations of a sexual nature etc. they just crack up. It is always just below the surface waiting to erupt one way or another.

I have seen shattered victims of car crashes, now paraplegics(?), and they get into cars etc, are driven around and it is no big drama for them. Do you honestly think a parallel can be drawn of the paraplegics with victims of child sexual abuse?

This is all just anecdotal evidence. I was good friends with a guy whose father was crippled by a drunk-driver. Suffice to say he was touchy on the subject even years after the incident. It boils down to: people can be offended by nearly everything and perhaps not all open forums are for everyone.


In this case the male mods and BG (I think as well) don't know what they are talking about. I hope someone with first hand experience comes onto the BB and really put you sophists in your place!!

You've turned from Mr PC to postive-discriminationist now? Don't assume any knowledge about the personal experience of anyone based on their sex. Females are not the only victims of child abuse and not the only ones with the ability to empathise. Also don't assume Jenni's silence is evidence of her support of your position. Start making that claim explicitly and I'm sure you will be disappointed.

antichrist
17-03-2005, 10:07 PM
Assumption #1 :hand:



This is all just anecdotal evidence. I was good friends with a guy whose father was crippled by a drunk-driver. Suffice to say he was touchy on the subject even years after the incident. It boils down to: people can be offended by nearly everything and perhaps not all open forums are for everyone.



You've turned from Mr PC to postive-discriminationist now? Don't assume any knowledge about the personal experience of anyone based on their sex. Females are not the only victims of child abuse and not the only ones with the ability to empathise. Also don't assume Jenni's silence is evidence of her support of your position. Start making that claim explicitly and I'm sure you will be disappointed.


Just as I thought - you would not have an answer.

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 10:14 PM
Just as I thought - you would not have an answer.

Actually it turned out you did not have a question.

antichrist
17-03-2005, 10:23 PM
Actually it turned out you did not have a question.

Now you are adopting Gletsos's tactics when you have nothing decent to say.

Don't stoop to his level.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 10:47 PM
None of you have any idea of the ramifiactions of the crime you are so carelessly bandying about. This is just a forum for the rattling of sabres and the "my father is bigger than your father" childish behaviour... sorry, have a friend who suffered and still does. You people have noidea

Oh really?

Making such assumptions just because people don't react to the issue in the way that you do is incredibly naive and basically a written invitation for the transfer of egg to face.

As it happens, I once (not recently, several years ago) had a girlfriend who had been twice been sexually abused during early childhood, and have known at least two other people who were. I don't pretend that that gives me any insight into its impacts on everyone who is in that situation because I know that those reactions can vary.

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 10:48 PM
Gee I never thought you'd attempt to moderate, but I'm genuinely pleased Bill. Yes it was wrong - Kevin's arrogance was inappropriate and offensive. It was patronising - we don't want to hear it!No Kevin wasnt arrogant and offensive. He just highlighted that the statement was so blatantly stupid that it shouldnt be taken seriously and should be left.

The Gestapo comparison was also offensive. It was an extremely tasteless analogy, it wasn't necessary.Rubbish. The analogy was entirely valid. It highlighted the fact that just like people would find biggles comment offensive, others would find the Gestapo comment offensive.

People are genuinely hurt by this - its tedious for us all to be put through patronising platitudes by individuals whose sum life experiences shed nothing on the emotions these issues generate.All I see was the moderators arguing why the comment shouldnt be deleted.
I agree it shouldnt be deleted but should be left so as to display its sheer stupidity and that of the poster.

To then accuse those registering disgust as trolls or senseless is bad form.Some comments were clearly trolling. e.g. your post #79.
I thought Belthasar and I had a reasonably civil discussion.


No more smart-arse comments, no more pathetic patronising - the moderators need to sleep on their ineptitude and deliver something properly considered.I disagree.
The mods are arguing quite rightly that his stupid comment should be left.

I note that biggles has made no further comment and in fact it could be argued that this thread would have died a natural death around post #28 if people had just shutup instead of it going on and hitting 100 posts.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 11:03 PM
You miss the point entirely! What really irks is that when genuine disgust is displayed for an issue that amoral invertebrate has the audacity to tell people their moral outrage is some form of hysteria.

Your post that I am now replying to appears to prove my point, as does noidea's ridiculous false assumption and the call for biggles to be banned over one incident minor compared to many that have not caused bannings.


Kevin - stop patronising,

To patronise is to feign an attitude of equality while actually talking down to someone. I do not feign any attitude of equality in your case because I have made it clear from a very early stage of your ratings tirades that you are one of the most hopeless debaters/arguers/posters I have ever encountered on any BB anywhere.


respect people's outrage,

I fully respect people's outrage on the issue of child abuse. But I myself can be outraged by all kinds of things without feeling that I need to turn my brain into a screaming mass of jelly when communicating about them and I would appreciate some attempt at the same from others.


stop your personal crap, we're fed up with it.

What "personal crap" are you talking about? The same sort of stuff you've been filling the BB with all night?


Gee I never thought you'd attempt to moderate, but I'm genuinely pleased Bill. Yes it was wrong - Kevin's arrogance was inappropriate and offensive. It was patronising - we don't want to hear it!

You are putting words into Bill's mouth that were not there.

*sigh* I just can't be bothered reading the rest of your drivel tonight and I don't feel that anything I write will be more than a footnote to Barry's excellent effort. Go prescribe yourself a sedative, doc.

Cat
17-03-2005, 11:27 PM
Rubbish. The analogy was entirely valid. It highlighted the fact that just like people would find biggles comment offensive, others would find the Gestapo comment offensive.
That you can even write this gibberish exposes your complete lack of sensitivity. You are the last person to be validating sympathies.


All I see was the moderators arguing why the comment shouldnt be deleted.
I agree it shouldnt be deleted but should be left so as to display its sheer stupidity and that of the poster.
Some comments were clearly trolling. e.g. your post #79.

Then your definition of trolling must be the embarrassment of individuals by exposing their lack of moral rectitude.


I thought Belthasar and I had a reasonably civil discussion.

Probably by your standards.




I note that biggles has made no further comment and in fact it could be argued that this thread would have died a natural death around post #28 if people had just shutup instead of it going on and hitting 100 posts.

Precisely, if the moderators had managed some magnanimity instead of instigating another descent into diatribe then I reckon we'd all have been satisfied. Instead of that we were treated to some preposterous pompous posturing that simply smacked of arrogance.

Cat
17-03-2005, 11:38 PM
Your post that I am now replying to appears to prove my point, as does noidea's ridiculous false assumption and the call for biggles to be banned over one incident minor compared to many that have not caused bannings.



To patronise is to feign an attitude of equality while actually talking down to someone. I do not feign any attitude of equality in your case because I have made it clear from a very early stage of your ratings tirades that you are one of the most hopeless debaters/arguers/posters I have ever encountered on any BB anywhere.



I fully respect people's outrage on the issue of child abuse. But I myself can be outraged by all kinds of things without feeling that I need to turn my brain into a screaming mass of jelly when communicating about them and I would appreciate some attempt at the same from others.



What "personal crap" are you talking about? The same sort of stuff you've been filling the BB with all night?



You are putting words into Bill's mouth that were not there.

*sigh* I just can't be bothered reading the rest of your drivel tonight and I don't feel that anything I write will be more than a footnote to Barry's excellent effort. Go prescribe yourself a sedative, doc.


Nobody wants, seeks or needs your validation! I'm sure you must have learnt that in your real life by now, surely? The same applies in cyberspace. Whatever people feel thats their choice - not yours. Stop preaching your sermons, don't speak until you have listened and show some simple respect!

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 01:23 AM
That you can even write this gibberish exposes your complete lack of sensitivity. You are the last person to be validating sympathies.That you can even write this rubbish exposes your complete lack of empathy for those that were victims of the holocaust.

Then your definition of trolling must be the embarrassment of individuals by exposing their lack of moral rectitude.No, my definition is the standard one.

Probably by your standards.[/qupte]Well your standards are useless to go by. You never once criticised Matt for his foul language or behaviour.
[QUOTE=Cat]Precisely, if the moderators had managed some magnanimity instead of instigating another descent into diatribe then I reckon we'd all have been satisfied. Instead of that we were treated to some preposterous pompous posturing that simply smacked of arrogance.Actually the diabtribe came from the likes of those demanding that biggles words be deleted in this thread.
His words deserved to remain to demonstrate his stupidity.
That fact seemed to elude you and others.

Rincewind
18-03-2005, 07:05 AM
Now you are adopting Gletsos's tactics when you have nothing decent to say.

Don't stoop to his level.

Your one line response deserved no better. Although you are right about one thing. I should not stoop to your level. For one thing I end up with a permenant bad back.

antichrist
18-03-2005, 07:27 AM
My best mate when I was a teenager had a girlfriend who had been sexually abused as a child. The three of us worked togeather for 5 years.

At work at times when something was said which upset her in some way she would break down crying or yell out in anger. We all went on a camping trip togeather, they in their tent. They started kissing and getting hot (as one does) then all of a sudden she had a flashback, she burst out crying and did not stop until 4am the next morning, i.e., from 10pm to 4am - 6 hours. Crying very strongly. How do you think we all felt.

I have read three times the reaction girls have after being sexually abused at a young age, they matched exactly what I saw in this beautiful person.

It came out only 2 weeks ago that 70% of drug abusers or addicts have been abused as a child.

Idiot Barry Cox (Rincewind) reakons it is no worse than drink-driving.

Sexual abuse is a deliberate crime by an adult in trust on a defenceless child. More than likely by a relative, at a age when the child is too young to comprehend, often with the threat of violence, with the cop-out that no one will believe the victim if reported. It devastates the child's psychogy, their image of themselves, their trust in people even close relatives etc etc.

Its haunts them their whole lives. They can never forget. It destroys their future relationships -- my mate copped out after a few years, he could not handle it anymore.

Mods and BG realise that you trying to defend the indefensible and act accordingly.

jenni
18-03-2005, 09:27 AM
My best mate when I was a teenager had a girlfriend who had been sexually abused as a child. The three of us worked togeather for 5 years.

At work at times when something was said which upset her in some way she would break down crying or yell out in anger. We all went on a camping trip togeather, they in their tent. They started kissing and getting hot (as one does) then all of a sudden she had a flashback, she burst out crying and did not stop until 4am the next morning, i.e., from 10pm to 4am - 6 hours. Crying very strongly. How do you think we all felt.

I have read three times the reaction girls have after being sexually abused at a young age, they matched exactly what I saw in this beautiful person.

It came out only 2 weeks ago that 70% of drug abusers or addicts have been abused as a child.

Idiot Barry Cox (Rincewind) reakons it is no worse than drink-driving.

Sexual abuse is a deliberate crime by an adult in trust on a defenceless child. More than likely by a relative, at a age when the child is too young to comprehend, often with the threat of violence, with the cop-out that no one will believe the victim if reported. It devastates the child's psychogy, their image of themselves, their trust in people even close relatives etc etc.

Its haunts them their whole lives. They can never forget. It destroys their future relationships -- my mate copped out after a few years, he could not handle it anymore.

Mods and BG realise that you trying to defend the indefensible and act accordingly.

This is a very sensitive and understanding post. I had to press the reputation button on this one.

jenni
18-03-2005, 10:02 AM
Just to put my point of view (seeing we poor mods are taking a beating on this one).

When I saw Biggles' comment, my immediate reaction, ws one of disgust, but tempered with a knowledge of his BB persona. I am sure in real life he is a very nice person, but we are all a bit different on the BB. On the BB, Biggles likes to whine constantly about things and this was just one more example of him whining. He chose an incredibly inapropriate and insensitive comparison to boost his whine.

The mods have to tread a delicate line between keeping the BB within reasonable limits, so that any junior/parent reading it (and a lot of them do), will not be too outraged (probably more the parents) and allowing a freewheeling and interesting communication arena.

There have been lots of things that I have let go, that I have been itching on a personal level to delete or change (e.g the cheating thread). However I do as little as possible, because I think that is what this community wants.

If we are going to delete this very silly remark by Biggles, where will it stop? - I reckon half the BB will be deleted by the end.

I think it is fine to express your displeaure very vigorously, so that Biggles understands what an idiotic remark it was - if he has any backbone, he would by now have put a retraction and apology on. However don't blame the mods for trying to allow as much freedom as possible.

Libby
18-03-2005, 10:35 AM
I'd suggest that any negative impact from the stupid original post has now been far outdone by a stream of very nasty posting since.

Ego is a very dirty word and there's far too much of it on this BB.

eclectic
18-03-2005, 10:42 AM
I'd suggest that any negative impact from the stupid original post has now been far outdone by a stream of very nasty posting since.

Ego is a very dirty word and there's far too much of it on this BB.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

reputation button pressed

Rincewind
18-03-2005, 11:08 AM
Idiot Barry Cox (Rincewind) reakons it is no worse than drink-driving.

By making false accusation you undermine your already flimsy credibility. Please quote where I said that, retract it, or look like a goose.

eclectic
18-03-2005, 11:31 AM
By making false accusation you undermine your already flimsy credibility. Please quote where I said that, retract it, or look like a goose.

is antichrist allowed to claim the right of free speech like biggles did ?

if he does i'll wait with interest to see what you do then

eclectic

Rincewind
18-03-2005, 11:36 AM
is antichrist allowed to claim the right of free speech like biggles did ?

Yes, and I gave him three options if he doesn't do one of the first two, he will automatically qualify for the third. I don't intend to do anything further, unless he repeats the false claim.

antichrist
18-03-2005, 12:19 PM
Yes, and I gave him three options if he doesn't do one of the first two, he will automatically qualify for the third. I don't intend to do anything further, unless he repeats the false claim.

Rincewind from earlier post:
Yes, and people suffer from drink-driving too. However you can't stop someone from saying, "In my opinion blitzing someone when they are short of time is worse than drink-driving". Of course it is a flippant and insensitive thing to say, especially to a person who has lost someone close to a drunk-driver. But it can be said. In truth, there are thousand such examples which might cause offense to numerous people.

AC
I may have exaggerated or downplayed the point you were making but I still think there is no comparison and you could do better. You can dance with words as much as you like to deflect your stance I am not interested. I retract if I misrepresented you if you like but honestly speaking I don't even know what I am retracting and am not interested.

antichrist
18-03-2005, 12:22 PM
Re-visiting this issue what has come out of it.

KB knows a few girls who have copped it, Noidea knows one, I know three, it shows in a small number of people how widespread this problem is, and they are only the declared ones.

Drink-driving is impersonal and accidental.

jenni
18-03-2005, 12:29 PM
Re-visiting this issue what has come out of it.

KB knows a few girls who have copped it, Noidea knows one, I know three, it shows in a small number of people how widespread this problem is, and they are only the declared ones.

Drink-driving is impersonal and accidental.

I don't know why there seems to be a focus on girls in this issue? As far as I can see boys are just as vulnerable and subject to abuse?

antichrist
18-03-2005, 12:32 PM
I don't know why there seems to be a focus on girls in this issue? As far as I can see boys are just as vulnerable and subject to abuse?

Especially by certain religious figures. I think the figures show that girls cop sexual abuse a lot more than boys. But your point correct of course.

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 12:35 PM
Drink-driving is impersonal and accidental.I'm sure those people left as paraplegics after an accident or the relatives of anyone killed by a drink driver would argue that it was far from accidental.

antichrist
18-03-2005, 12:43 PM
I'm sure those people left as paraplegics after an accident or the relatives of anyone killed by a drink driver would argue that it was far from accidental.

Yes, but we have the same results with out the drink factor. It is an accepted part of driving cars (for better or worse). People don't set out with the purpose of drink-driving than injuring someone.

I know a guy, who lived and worked in a extended family situation, who after drinking the demon drink would go off his rocka, a madman. Otherwise he was a very reasonable person. Usually his relos contained his drinking and behaviour. A bar opened up near his home and he escaped the supervision. He lost the ploy and stabbed someone, buried the body with the help of relos. I don't really blame him because for the 2 years I knew him beforehand and he just can't help himself. A real Hyde and Jeckel (?).
He got off by the way because his relos would not testify against him. They all told me he was guilty.

eclectic
18-03-2005, 12:59 PM
after i posted my almost immediately expunged remark in the thread from which this thread has taken on a life of its own that thread was immediately locked down until people calmed down

then unlocked and split into "here" and "there"

"there" seems to have died

"here" rages on

unless people have sent PM's to biggles i don't think he gives a damn

i doubt he's read this thread once

all objections are quarantined here conveniently out of his view

i wonder what is the chance that if i went away for a few hours to do my weekly shopping i might come back and find this thread locked

permanently

eclectic

Rincewind
18-03-2005, 01:53 PM
Especially by certain religious figures. I think the figures show that girls cop sexual abuse a lot more than boys. But your point correct of course.

Shows how closely you have been reading my posts before you reply to them. I made this point in post 97 when I said...


Females are not the only victims of child abuse

Deriding your silly claims that males would know nothing about child abuse.

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 02:44 PM
Yes, but we have the same results with out the drink factor. It is an accepted part of driving cars (for better or worse). People don't set out with the purpose of drink-driving than injuring someone.The circumstances are entirely different. A car accident may be entirely accidental but their is nothing really accidental about drink driving. Drink driving is a crime and drunk drivers should be held responsible for their actions.

I know a guy, who lived and worked in a extended family situation, who after drinking the demon drink would go off his rocka, a madman. Otherwise he was a very reasonable person. Usually his relos contained his drinking and behaviour. A bar opened up near his home and he escaped the supervision. He lost the ploy and stabbed someone, buried the body with the help of relos. I don't really blame him because for the 2 years I knew him beforehand and he just can't help himself.What a complete copout. It wasnt my faulty I couldnty help it. People who commit crimes should be held responsible for their actions and not use being drunk as an excuse.

antichrist
18-03-2005, 03:12 PM
Rincewindm, what you are arguing about is only a minor moot point, it does not take away from your pathetic attitude, your drink driving analogy should make you and biggles good mates.

Bill, for ages you did not post in non-chess threads, now I know why - because you don't have a clue.

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 03:14 PM
Rincewindm, what you are arguing about is only a minor moot point, it does not take away from your pathetic attitude, your drink driving analogy should make you and biggles good mates.

Bill, for ages you did not post in non-chess threads, now I know why - because you don't have a clue.It comes as no surprise to see you are a much a fool in the non chess threads as you are in the chess threads.

antichrist
18-03-2005, 03:25 PM
It comes as no surprise to see you are a much a fool in the non chess threads as you are in the chess threads.

Would you like it put to a poll on the child sex abuse issue?? The comparison with drink-driving?

Rincewind
18-03-2005, 03:31 PM
what you are arguing about is only a minor moot point, it does not take away from your pathetic attitude, your drink driving analogy should make you and biggles good mates.

My drink driving statement was not an analogy but an example. As I stated earlier, quote me directly and stop representing me. (Sound familiar?)

Rincewind
18-03-2005, 03:33 PM
Would you like it put to a poll on the child sex abuse issue?? The comparison with drink-driving?

What a sad, hypocritical man you are.

antichrist
18-03-2005, 03:34 PM
My drink driving statement was not an analogy but an example. As I stated earlier, quote me directly and stop representing me. (Sound familiar?)

so poor an example that you should not have used it.

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 03:35 PM
Would you like it put to a poll on the child sex abuse issue?? The comparison with drink-driving?I could say dont be stupid, but I'm not sure you can help it. As Barry said it wasnt an analogy but an example.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2005, 05:22 PM
Nobody wants, seeks or needs your validation!

I never said they did.


Whatever people feel thats their choice - not yours.

You are wilfully missing the point again.


Stop preaching your sermons, don't speak until you have listened and show some simple respect!

I don't take orders from moronic trolls.

I have been hesitant about adopting Bill's use of the m-word towards you but your reprehensible behaviour over the last 48 hrs (including spamming the moderators with completely meritless post reports because people you were flaming fought back) had convinced me it is time.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2005, 05:25 PM
Mods and BG realise that you trying to defend the indefensible and act accordingly.

Show me where anyone here has defended either biggles' comment or child sex abuse.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2005, 05:42 PM
KB knows a few girls who have copped it, Noidea knows one, I know three, it shows in a small number of people how widespread this problem is, and they are only the declared ones.

I'm surprised you (especially with your anti-church background) jumped to the conclusion that those I knew were all female when I only specified one was. Thinking about it further I've remembered at least half a dozen people I've met who were sexually abused as children, including two males. My guess would be that most people on this BB know of someone who they know it has happened to.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2005, 05:52 PM
i wonder what is the chance that if i went away for a few hours to do my weekly shopping i might come back and find this thread locked

permanently

I'm thinking it should be wound up once it reaches the point where no new points for or against biggles' right to make his original post are being made and where it has just degenerated into nothing but flaming (which, given the issue, will tend to be more heated than normal.) It may already be at that point, I haven't checked.

On another forum I've locked threads about child abuse almost as soon as the flamewars start, but this forum generally has a strong resentment of censorship and I don't want to do it if there is still any life left in the original subject of biggles' right (or not) to make those comments.

I would suggest that those wishing to say anything new on the original topic of this thread do so fairly soon.

Cat
18-03-2005, 06:44 PM
I would suggest that those wishing to say anything new on the original topic of this thread do so fairly soon.

At last, the only sensible thing you've had to say! If you think I'm flaming you are 1 sick puppy. Bill, Barry & Jenni have all understood I think that this is no joke, although their opinions that my motives are disingenuous are in no small part down to your cynical and disparaging comments of anyone who registers their dislike of your attitude, me included. That you think that my complaints were not meritorious is again a product of your pomposity. Even now you cant manage a single moment of humility.

Bill, I'm genuinely impressed by your changed behaviour, its a credit to you. Barry, don't let yourself be dragged into cynicism by your inferiors.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2005, 06:54 PM
If you think I'm flaming you are 1 sick puppy.

Once again, the world is thankful you are not a vet. You have been flaming by definition. Whether you are serious or not makes no difference to this. Bill, Barry and Jenni think for themselves so don't blame me for their opinions.

Can't be bothered responding to the remaining output from our local random stupidity generator.

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 06:57 PM
Bill, I'm genuinely impressed by your changed behaviour, its a credit to you.I changed nothing about my behaviour in this thread. My opinion on the subject was consistent throughout.
It is too bad that there was no change in your behaviour here from that in previous threads.

Cat
18-03-2005, 07:02 PM
Once again, the world is thankful you are not a vet. You have been flaming by definition. Whether you are serious or not makes no difference to this. Bill, Barry and Jenni think for themselves so don't blame me for their opinions.

Can't be bothered responding to the remaining output from our local random stupidity generator.

Then to flame is simply to register their disgust of your appalling behaviour. Anyone who knows you for the person you are and tells you so is flaming, according to the Lord Bonham - you are an embarrassment!

antichrist
18-03-2005, 10:55 PM
I'm surprised you (especially with your anti-church background) jumped to the conclusion that those I knew were all female when I only specified one was. Thinking about it further I've remembered at least half a dozen people I've met who were sexually abused as children, including two males. My guess would be that most people on this BB know of someone who they know it has happened to.

So now we admit how widespread the problem is and how the allowed trivalisation of the issue by Biggles has demeaned all these people.

The right of free speech on any topic is sacrosanct in public and academic debates, but the trivilisation of a very sensitive issue is another matter altogether.

Yes, the mods and Bill (may have) have condemned it, but they still allowed the trivilisation it on the grounds of free speech - this is inappropriate. You allow serious debate on the grounds of free speech, not trivilisaton of victims.

This is what I mean by defending the indefensible.

I told you all months ago that I didn't think you were all worth two bob, this only confirms it.

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 11:26 PM
Yes, the mods and Bill (may have) have condemned it, but they still allowed the trivilisation it on the grounds of free speech - this is inappropriate. You allow serious debate on the grounds of free speech, not trivilisaton of victims.I and I dont believe the others trivialised it on any grounds. I argued that his comment was so obviously stupid it should be left to highlight his stupidity.

This is what I mean by defending the indefensible.Incorrect. I ridiculed his statement as being utterly stupid. That in no way trivialises it.

I told you all months ago that I didn't think you were all worth two bob, this only confirms it.Yes, but it doesnt mean much coming from someone a few cents short of the dollar.

antichrist
18-03-2005, 11:47 PM
I and I dont believe the others trivialised it on any grounds. I argued that his comment was so obviously stupid it should be left to highlight his stupidity.
Incorrect. I ridiculed his statement as being utterly stupid. That in no way trivialises it.
Yes, but it doesnt mean much coming from someone a few cents short of the dollar.
Bill,
You misread it, must be late in the night for you. Have another go,

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2005, 02:08 AM
Anyone who knows you for the person you are and tells you so is flaming, according to the Lord Bonham - you are an embarrassment!

You certainly don't know me for the person I am.

You can't even follow a basic online conversation.

Lately you are even more of an unstable frothhead on here than either Sweeney or firegoat.

Give up.


So now we admit how widespread the problem is and how the allowed trivalisation of the issue by Biggles has demeaned all these people.

I object very strongly to your use of the word "admit". You make it sound as if I had previously denied the problem's frequency when I would actually be about the last person on earth to do that.

You yourself are on extremely thin ice here given the number of sleazy comments you have made towards female posters. Even if those female posters themselves are not offended by your comments, their capacity to offend women generally is second only to that of the crude rubbish sometimes posted by Matt. You have already forfeited any right to consistently complain about content on this BB being offensive, so get your own act in order before you get too righteous and Christian about anyone else's.


I told you all months ago that I didn't think you were all worth two bob, this only confirms it.

You also said in the shoutbox that I was the one here that you respected the most.

Actually I could not care what your opinion of me is while it is founded in this kind of rubbish but please make up your mind(s). :rolleyes:

antichrist
19-03-2005, 06:11 AM
You certainly don't know me for the person I am.
I object very strongly to your use of the word "admit". You make it sound as if I had previously denied the problem's frequency when I would actually be about the last person on earth to do that.

A/C
I don't believe it sounds like that and it was meant to sound like that. Now I know how you get into thoses long flame wars if you misrepresent simple points like that.

KB
You yourself are on extremely thin ice here given the number of sleazy comments you have made towards female posters. Even if those female posters themselves are not offended by your comments, their capacity to offend women generally is second only to that of the crude rubbish sometimes posted by Matt. You have already forfeited any right to consistently complain about content on this BB being offensive, so get your own act in order before you get too righteous and Christian about anyone else's.

A/C
But I know what I am doing, I know when I am treading on the grey line.

I think the arguments in my prevous post (at 11.55p) holds and the mods were wrong on this one. The mods have a greater responsibility to get it right than I do because my posts are moderated whereas the mods' posts are not.

KB
You also said in the shoutbox that I was the one here that you respected the most.

Actually I could not care what your opinion of me is while it is founded in this kind of rubbish but please make up your mind(s). :rolleyes:

A/C
well you proved in this thread that we all make mistakes, even if only small ones. I think it is clear that Bill miscomprehended one of my recent posts on this issue which I brought up. But Bill often does this and does it arrograntly, i.e., with such as fool etc.

When Pauline Hanson was allowed to get away with her insensitive comments it wasn't nice but they were not that direct and on not such sensitive issue -- and it was in the political sphere. Whereas biggles comments were purely a trivilisation on a very sensitive issue.

Cat
19-03-2005, 07:39 AM
When Pauline Hanson was allowed to get away with her insensitive comments it wasn't nice but they were not that direct and on not such sensitive issue -- and it was in the political sphere. Whereas biggles comments were purely a trivilisation on a very sensitive issue.


Yes I agree, it's obvious to everyone, Bonham is Pauline Hanson!

arosar
19-03-2005, 09:17 AM
Have any of youse had Vietnamese cuisine? Youse all simply must try the Drunken Cow. Mmm...divine!

AR

Rincewind
19-03-2005, 09:47 AM
Have any of youse had Vietnamese cuisine? Youse all simply must try the Drunken Cow. Mmm...divine!

I was wondering how this comment was relevant to this thread. However, I've already received billions of PM from Hindus and vegetarians to removed your offensive remark. Very deep Amiel and well done. :clap:

antichrist
19-03-2005, 01:06 PM
Have any of youse had Vietnamese cuisine? Youse all simply must try the Drunken Cow. Mmm...divine!

AR

As a kid I got chased by a mongrel cow once all the way home from school (yeah that is what happened to me), I had made the mistake of coming between it and its calf. It's horns were "right up" my backside, I had nightmares for ages after, I was only about 5 years old.

I am only following your bad example of posting off thread so if there is a war crimes tribunal I was only following orders, okay?

Now about that ruddy biggles issue again, where was I?

antichrist
19-03-2005, 01:09 PM
I will claim victory in this debate, I/we got the most numbers and I had the best arguments (as usual). Thanks all for participating.

Rincewind
19-03-2005, 01:44 PM
I will claim victory in this debate, I/we got the most numbers and I had the best arguments (as usual). Thanks all for participating.

Thank you, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2005, 03:51 AM
A/C
well you proved in this thread that we all make mistakes, even if only small ones.

Even if that was true, it's big difference between that and "not being worth two bob".

Anyway, antichrist has now claimed victory so it's obvious we mere mortals are hopeless to make progress beyond this point.

It seems to be fizzling out now but threads like this have a nasty Lazarus habit of popping up months later and annoying the hell out of everyone if not kept under lock and key.

*thread locked*