Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

@Setanta,

Okay, thanx folr explaining about sock puppets!

Thanx to you also Francis. I'll check that out.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
If BBB suffered one iota more because of my reference to RM’s despicable treatment of her, for that I am truly sorry. Any damn fool would realize that was certainly not my intent,

Well, that's nice. But enough about your intent.

Who precisely are you droning on about this for if not for yourself, Thomas? Did Robert, or anyone else ask you to keep pestering me about my posts? Or does Thomas comment on whatever the hell he pleases, just like Bill does?

Thomas wrote:

How about BBB's? Did you ask her back then what she wanted you to do about it?

Did you ask what she wanted you to do about it? Who made you the representative? (I hope by now you're starting to see the hypocrisy in your own heinous exploitation, in that it is indistinguishable from that which you are accusing me of. This was a juvenile attack on my person when Robert did it, and it’s no less so when you do. Tell me how many times you’ve asked a member what they’d like done before chipping in your opinions and expressing your distaste whenever the hell you felt like it, Thomas. I’d bet the answer is never.

Thomas wrote:

Does it occur to you now that asking beforehand might be better than feeling "truly sorry" afterwards? Just look at how you're trying to frame the issue: it's all about what disgusts you, what your intentions are, and so forth. What exactly gives you standing to push a case for defending other people, none of which asked you to defend them?

Again, what makes you think you have more standing to do so now, you big phony? I’ve seen you jump down verbally abusive posters throats more times than I can count. What gave you the standing to be the white knight in shining armor, carrying the mantle for all the downtrodden…. Yadda, yadda, yadda ad nauseum? Your boy King would be just as guilty as you and I, (if indeed we were guilty of anything) and you’re both a couple of hypocrites if you can’t see this obvious parallel.

Thomas wrote:

A case for censorship that everybody except you in this thread opposes? A case that the owner of this site has decided long ago in your disfavor? Instead of proclaiming what disgusts you and what your intentions are, why not listen to other people's interests for a change?

Look you self-important hypocrite; Robert began this thread as a place to debate the relative merits of increasing what you call censorship. Now granted he poisoned the well beforehand, and has mostly fortified his case with bogus, hypocritical ad hominem like you’re doing now, but the friggin thing was set up as a challenge for me to do precisely that.

Since then, only JPB even bothered to reply to the argumentation he requested from me (and barely at that), and a whole slew of mostly abuzzers piled on to the ad hominem bandwagon… but there’s no bias… none. As cyclo pointed out, your own argumentation is absurdly biased in describing what you later call "good points" when challenged, as "just plain wrong" for general consumption. I’m sure not used to seeing you talk out of both sides of your mouth like this, Thomas, and I doubt you’d be doing so if not for your desire to assist your boy-king in assaulting the traitor.

Anyone that can’t see the bias on this thread is blind. Look at the huge up-vote count Deb got for contradicting herself… simply because it was couched as being in agreement with Robert that Bill is worser. She initially claimed that on the count of volume-trolling of RM; I was much worse! But upon challenging that ridiculous assertion she backpedalled away from her own argument to the apparent delight of the peanut gallery. That’s honesty? That’s unbiased? No, that’s Robert poisoning the well with a bogus statement from authority to begin with for his faithful to believe in, and leaving the deck stacked because the true post-count would obviously demonstrate how ridiculous of an assertion it was in the first place.

I wonder if anyone here has the intellectual honesty to consider how differently this thread might have played out if Robert had banned the demented trolls; and I was defiantly challenging his wisdom for doing so (in my usual, horrendously annoying way).

(Please don't anyone think I'm suggesting a single soul chipped in against censorship, or varied their opinions just to suit Robert on that count. The bias I'm alluding to is much more subtle than that.)

3 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Occom Bill wrote:

Who precisely are you droning on about this for if not for yourself, Thomas? Did Robert, or anyone else ask you to keep pestering me about my posts?

Robert did, kinda--by starting a topic in which your requests feature prominently. I am "droning on about this" for the relationship it bears to the topic of this thread.

Occom Bill wrote:

Did you ask what she wanted you to do about it? Who made you the representative?

Again, Robert started this thread to ask the community, including myself, about our perspective on this issue. This is my perspective on the issue.

Occom Bill wrote:

Again, what makes you think you have more standing to do so now, you big phony?

I guess this is what you categorize as "abuse of people who deserve it".

Occom Bill wrote:

Look you self-important hypocrite;

There you go again. Please carry on.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Again, Robert started this thread to ask the community, including me, about our perspective on this issue. This is my perspective on this issue.

Bill's 'perspective' on the BBB issue was no different, yet he was excoriated for presenting it. It was relevant to the thread. How is that meaningfully different than the criticism that you and others have given him for his actions?

I'm not saying that EITHER of you shouldn't say what they like. But it's a little funny to think that he is somehow wrong for talking about things he cares about, and analyzing the behavior and responses of certain people in a thread from a certain point of view, while others are in fact perfectly justified to do so - towards him.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Since this thread has gone right off track with what to call people who are not white...

On the contrary, PC avoidance is on the thread's main track - and please recall, we're looking for a one-word designation....

I must be lost in space. Pc avoidance thread? I thought I was in the "Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?" thread as started by Robert.

The fact that you choose to troll and change the topic does not make your topic the topic of this thread. If you need help understanding that, I will put it into very simple terms for you upon request.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Quote:

I thought I was in the "Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?"

You'd be wrong, I. You're obviously in the Get it off your chest thread. Smile

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bill's 'perspective' on the BBB issue was no different, yet he was excoriated for presenting it.

Bill's request to evict specific posters was a "perspective" relevant to the topic of a thread? Maybe to this one, but not to the one where it originally occured, and to which Robert linked in his initial post here.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Robert has some very loyal friends indeed.

Nonsense. This ad hominem you repeat is just an insult to the intellects of people who independently reach the same conclusions.

Nobody on this thread is any more my "friend" than you are. I don't give anyone any kind of "friendship loyalty" on able2know and don't think I get any either.

I would agree you seem to have a great deal of integrity of not giving "friendship loyalty", but you're either taking the term too literally, or a damned fool if you think you don't receive any. Every leader of virtually every establishment does to some degree with varying degrees of merit. The fact that you're willing to stand toe to toe with us commoner alone makes you well worthy of additional consideration.

Any dispute like this is going to be tainted with: What an ungrateful jerk! Fear of being frowned upon by the king (no matter how unfounded that fear really is), and more than a few other subtle considerations. Whether you’ve ever stopped to ponder it yourself, or not, this is damned near inevitable. The fact that you are so fair, open, and well respected only serves to increase the" loyalty effect" <-- Perhaps someone with a broader vocabulary can put their finger on a more appropriate word or term for this phenomenon… but believe me; it’s there.

The fact that you’ve poisoned the well, done your best to make this one personal, and continue to withhold facts that would demonstrate some of your assertions questionable, to say the least, doesn’t help either.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bill's 'perspective' on the BBB issue was no different, yet he was excoriated for presenting it.

Bill's request to evict specific posters was a "perspective" relevant to the topic of a thread? Maybe to this one, but not to the one where it originally occured, and to which Robert linked in his initial post here.

Bill has been criticized in this thread and the other one, not only for calling for the removal of certain posters, but also for his 'white knight' attitude in going after those who attacked BBB and her story, whether or not she asked him to. I submit that his behavior in doing so was not incorrect in any fashion and is little different than you and I discussing his behavior.

All meta- is meta-, in the end. Trying to yell at someone for engaging in too much meta-discussion inevitably leads one to fall into the same trap.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

All meta- is meta-, in the end. Trying to yell at someone for engaging in too much meta-discussion inevitably leads one to fall into the same trap.

Oh man. Now you're getting way over the head of this simple-minded physicist. I'm not a science-fiction buff like you are---I can't do meta! Smile

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Ad hominem bandwagon?

Tangent, from me as expected: I take it there are two kinds of ad hominems, the one where people attack the person as part of the argument (I'm a little fuzzy on that, but see websites on logic), and the one where people argue on the proffered points and then bomb the person. Those are not formally known as ad hominems, I gather. (I only took logic 1a, in the dark ages.) As has been mentioned, I think by Set but I don't want to misquote him, only the first counts in debate, but what do I know. I do agree insults weaken the insulter, or I think I do, if only by affect - not that I am pure (yet another debate, not on my purity but on the ramifications of insults).

I disagreed with you, O'Bill, but can easily grasp the emotion and reasons for it, and once in a while your points.

I also listen to Baez. But I think his serious questions can have remedy with the proposed groups who will want and get curation by their own moderation.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
All meta- is meta-, in the end. Trying to yell at someone for engaging in too much meta-discussion inevitably leads one to fall into the same trap.

Oh man. Now you're getting way over the head of this simple-minded physicist. I'm not a science-fiction buff like you are---I can't do meta!

You already are! Laughing

Don't sell yourself so short.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The curious thing is that when I wrote that post about people exploiting the reaction to BBB's telling of her story for their own agendas, Bill O was far from the top of the list of folks I was thinking of when I wrote it. In fact, the major culprit has already apologized and stopped doing it.

To me, the rape thread has become akin to that of a bunch of cutters in a feeding frenzy. Both sides keep complaining about the other's posts while continuing to self-inflict a bit more instigation into the thread with yet another paste of a rape account or one blogger's view of how off-kilter statistics are.

Back in July on the first few pages, one side announces they are ignoring the other side while using comments by other posters as a method of not really ignoring and just talking about rather than talking directly to the people that are supposed to be ignored. The other side jabs at them some more with some other remark and the cycle continues on and on and on for months and 250 pages of it. If it dies down a bit, out comes yet another pasting of an article or study about rape. If they aren't quick enough with the pasting of yet another article, then the jabbers drop another load of disparaging remarks and they both point to each other and yell "see! see!" It has become a contest about who gets the last word rather than a discussion about the topic's subject. Each side has a set of cheerleaders egging them on and contributing to the ongoing cutting marathon.

4 Replies

This is navel gazing.

It's all about PC-compliance and the guilt of it. Everybody wants to be PC but doesn't want to be associated with the sneers directed at PC.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I disagreed with you, O'Bill, but can easily grasp the emotion and reasons for it, and once in a while your points.

My post wasn't directed at you, Osso. Lots of people disagree with me, and most do so with class... including Robert and Thomas most of the time. But their hypocritical personal attacks on my person I have little choice but to take personally. The whole issue with exploiting one person's hardship being heinous on one side, but a perfectly acceptable hammer to pound with on the other is ridiculously slanted. And the fact that many are having trouble recognizing that which should be obvious is indicative of an obvious bias. This thread is chuck full of similar oddities.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

High Seas wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Since this thread has gone right off track with what to call people who are not white...

On the contrary, PC avoidance is on the thread's main track - and please recall, we're looking for a one-word designation....

I must be lost in space. Pc avoidance thread?

Slowly but surely the truth has dawned on you - maybe see you at some point, online, on the off chance you're back from the wild black yonder Smile

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

So it goes, as Vonnegut would say.
I opted out, except for some burps, wry or insulting.

last post wins, as a concept, is bereft re human benefit.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Butrflynet wrote:

The curious thing is that when I wrote that post about people exploiting the reaction to BBB's telling of her story for their own agendas, Bill O was far from the top of the list of folks I was thinking of when I wrote it. In fact, the major culprit has already apologized and stopped doing it.

To me, the rape thread has become akin to that of a bunch of cutters in a feeding frenzy. Both sides keep complaining about the other's posts while continuing to self-inflict a bit more instigation into the thread with yet another paste of a rape account or one blogger's view of how off-kilter statistics are.

Back in July on the first few pages, one side announces they are ignoring the other side while using comments by other posters as a method of not really ignoring and just talking about rather than talking directly to the people that are supposed to be ignored. The other side jabs at them some more with some other remark and the cycle continues on and on and on for months and 250 pages of it. If it dies down a bit, out comes yet another pasting of an article or study about rape. If they aren't quick enough with the pasting of yet another article, then the jabbers drop another load of disparaging remarks and they both point to each other and yell "see! see!" It has become a contest about who gets the last word rather than a discussion about the topic's subject. Each side has a set of cheerleaders egging them on and contributing to the ongoing cutting marathon.

Firefly and I have decided to completely ignore them and not respond to them. We are trying to get the thread back onto the topic and hopefully, we can keep it there.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before... He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Well, hey, the thread subject was overrun.
The thread was - now - seeming lasting mere minutes, a subject topic that got me to post, which I hadn't posted on for several years. There was a point some of us thought of that thread that way, a place to talk. Not long enough.

I get the anger at the thread invasion, I yelled about it, and the arguments now about it being an open forum, which I agree with. I get the data bank quoting, in argument, though I didn't follow it. I never thought it would be useful much for arguments.

So I understand part of the energy for Groups. I'm not sure I'm any kind of joiner on those, we'll see.

I am probably most for grown up people not engaging forever with others to the detriment of the thread. Conversation lapses.

1 Reply

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know