Banning of Balerion

[GeoffP]

There is a difference between what Geoff said to me and what I said to you.

I don't know about that, but there is certainly no difference between what you said to me and what I said to you.

Geoff accused me directly of wanting to murder people. Previously, he accused me of wanting to murder women and children.

You accused me of wanting them to be murdered. I accused you of the same. I'd like to see some evidence of your second accusation. There's a difference, also, between wanting someone murdered and wanting to murder someone. I expect this is one of the things Tiassa is talking about when he bemoans things that people shouldn't need told to them. He should probably talk to you about it.

We brought up GeoffP's history but

You brought up your interpretation of it, but not the actual article.

 

[GeoffP]

As for the Rwandan genocide.. It was immoral. But not all the Hutu's were, as the majority saved a lot of people. If I were to use your style of commentary or your ideology, then I would say all Hutu's are immoral,

...actually, no. Your specification here is in parallel with Balerion's stance. 'Genocide' is equivalent to 'Islam' above as a conceptualization of a phenomenon. 'Hutus' are then parallel with 'Muslims'.

 

[quinnsong]

@ Geoff

When did this love affair with Bells and Tiassa begin? Was it love at first site(pun intended)?

 

[GeoffP]

Heh. That I don't know. My guess is that it starts with mutual dislikes. It's not sufficient justification for what's been going on.

On another note, I hate to see this thread keep going, but my name keeps getting dragged in.

 

[quinnsong]

It is a shame! IMO, some of the best debates have involved all three of you and then it deteriorates into personal attacks and I think to myself, uh-oh here we go again.

 

[Balerion]

Heh. That I don't know. My guess is that it starts with mutual dislikes. It's not sufficient justification for what's been going on.

On another note, I hate to see this thread keep going, but my name keeps getting dragged in.

Yeah, I'm done with it. I wanted to demonstrate Bells' hypocrisy and awful behavior, and I've done that. It's time to move on.

 

[(Q)]

Yeah, I'm done with it. I wanted to demonstrate Bells' hypocrisy and awful behavior, and I've done that. It's time to move on.

I gave up on that, too. Join the club.

 

[Bells]

Hmmm, maybe we should change the title thread to Bashing of Bells instead of Banning Of Balerion. Carry on!

It's better to just leave them be. If it makes them feel better, then so be it.

---

Bells, good day. Glad to see you are still happy and healthy enough to Post.l

In your previous Post, directed at me, dmoe, you stated : quote - "...then I guess it's all open slather." - unquote.

Bells, I ,dmoe, am somewhat bemused by that statement - I fully understand the definition of "slather" - but I was under the impression that you, Bells, were one of the Major Technicians that preferred to apply it so often and so "thickly".

Bells, would you deign to clarify that statement : quote - "...then I guess it's all open slather." - unquote, for me, please?

BTW, Will I, dmoe, always be waiting or antici.............pating, your Posting of "PROOF" OF A MODERATOR ISSUED WARNING TO ME or of an apology?

Just wondering, and please continue to have a wonderful day!

I think my open slather comment was quite an obvious one.

And I'm sorry, but do you expect an apology for my moderating you for your anti-Semitic comments about Jews ruling the media, etc? I am 100% certain that you won't be getting one.

 

[Undefined]

Hey guys!

A 'circuit breaker' suggestion:

Working on the assumption that we all can agree that no-one is always 100% sensitive to one's own little misspeaks etc in the politically and emotionally charged discussion of world affairs and personal takes on same...

...how about all involved in this instance make a blanket "without specifics" apologies to each other for anything which may have been said in the heat of argument and which may have been better put in hindsight?

Then you can all forgive and forget all that longstanding 'old baggage' grievances and start afresh with no grudges or hard feelings from past unfortunate situations which spiralled out beyond the intentions of anyone involved. Yes?

The new intention should be to be more circumspect and less inflammatory when dealing/speaking on serious issues like those involved in this instance. That will test who is reasonable and who is not for future assessments of/by what issues from now on from the persons involved. Yes?

Come on, guys; let's all let bygones be bygones and start afresh, hey?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Trouble maker!

 

[GeoffP]

Hey guys!

A 'circuit breaker' suggestion:

Working on the assumption that we all can agree that no-one is always 100% sensitive to one's own little misspeaks etc in the politically and emotionally charged discussion of world affairs and personal takes on same...

...how about all involved in this instance make a blanket "without specifics" apologies to each other for anything which may have been said in the heat of argument and which may have been better put in hindsight?

Then you can all forgive and forget all that longstanding 'old baggage' grievances and start afresh with no grudges or hard feelings from past unfortunate situations which spiralled out beyond the intentions of anyone involved. Yes?

The new intention should be to be more circumspect and less inflammatory when dealing/speaking on serious issues like those involved in this instance. That will test who is reasonable and who is not for future assessments of/by what issues from now on from the persons involved. Yes?

Come on, guys; let's all let bygones be bygones and start afresh, hey?

That road's been tried; if I must say it, 'this side' has made such offers, and 'that side' then digresses or misrepresents the case again, demanding fresh new apologies or else just rejecting them. Mine was rejected and the other side offered no real apology, so I withdraw it. Pointless, really. It's just a game. I can't say that the experience hasn't been helpful, though: it's illustrative to my understanding of human perfidy.

If a poster can be banned for 'abusive PMing', does this mean only for PMing a moderator? How would a moderator see an 'abusive' PM to a member?

 

[Undefined]

Trouble maker!

Hehe. Good one, CK. Tongue-in-cheek comedy relief at its best. Thanks. And yes, peacekeepers do often catch it from both 'sides', hence their unenviable role in the world, hey! But someone has to risk doing it nonetheless when things get way out of hand, yes?

 

[Undefined]

That road's been tried; if I must say it, 'this side' has made such offers, and 'that side' then digresses or misrepresents the case again, demanding fresh new apologies or else just rejecting them. Mine was rejected and the other side offered no real apology, so I withdraw it. Pointless, really. It's just a game. I can't say that the experience hasn't been helpful, though: it's illustrative to my understanding of human perfidy.

If a poster can be banned for 'abusive PMing', does this mean only for PMing a moderator? How would a moderator see an 'abusive' PM to a member?

Understood, GeoffP. It was always thus, as they say and you confirm.

HOWEVER, if all agree to make mutual apologies this time, then only future disagreements/comments will be involved, and not let drag in again all the old baggage to cloud the new instances which should be settled on their own facts and not on old feuds/baggage, yes?


Anyhow, I want to stress that in this particular 'bygones-be-bygones' suggestion, the new and important difference THIS time is that I, Undefined, am the observer, and watching both 'sides' from a position of impartiality. Whether that makes a difference or not is yet to be seen. However, the way individuals respond and behave from now on to the spirit of the initial suggestion will make clear who is and who is not being a reasonable interlocutor in future debates/arguments. So I will have no trouble in discerning, and observing upon, the NEW instances where one or other of the individuals involved in this particular set-to are genuine in their discussion/moderation (as the case may be) agenda, trying to avoid grievous and gratuitous personal offense/insults, or not, yes?

Good luck and good thinking/discussing on and off the net, GeoffP, everyone!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

It's better to just leave them be. If it makes them feel better, then so be it.

---

I think my open slather comment was quite an obvious one.

And I'm sorry, but do you expect an apology for my moderating you for your anti-Semitic comments about Jews ruling the media, etc? I am 100% certain that you won't be getting one.

Again, Bells, good day. Glad to see you are still happy and healthy enough to Post!

1.) - Were or are you the Moderator on that thread ?

2.) - Was it not you, Bells, that seemed to assume, presume, attack, allege, accuse, libel, and slather,because of your own seemed biases or preconceived notions, and that I, dmoe, was being truly being misconstrued and mis-perceived as Posting "...anti-Semitic comments about Jews ruling the media, etc." ?

3.) - It seems, Bells, that you still refuse to see or refuse to comprehend or otherwise refuse to believe that a Semite is :
- quote "Semite (sĕm´īt, sē´mīt), originally one of a people believed to be descended from Shem, son of Noah. Later the term came to include the following peoples: Arabs; the Akkadians of ancient Babylonia; the Assyrians; the Canaanites (including Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Phoenicians); the various Aramaean tribes (including Hebrews); and a considerable portion of the population of Ethiopia. These peoples are grouped under the term Semite, chiefly because their languages were found to be related, deriving presumably from a common tongue, Semitic. The Semites were largely nomadic pastoralists, although some settled in villages. At least as early as 2500 BC, the Semites had begun to leave the Arabian peninsula in successive waves of migration that took them to Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean coast, and the Nile delta. They were organized into patrilineal tribes, occupying defined territories and ruled by hereditary leaders, or sheiks. In Mesopotamia, Semitic people from the earliest times were in contact with Sumerian civilization and with the rise of Sargon of Agade (Akkad) and Hammurabi of Babylon were able to dominate it completely (see Sumer). In Phoenicia the Semitic population developed a widespread maritime trade and became the first great seafaring people. That group of Hebrews that had been diverted through Sinai into the Nile delta settled at last with other Semitic inhabitants in Palestine. These southern or Judean Hebrews became the leaders of a new nation and religion." - unquote
From : Link (NOT an anti-Semitic link) - http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Semites.aspx

4.) - Do you, Bells, realize that all the slathering and name calling and ranting that you seemingly directing at Assad and other Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis...etc. - was and still is, indeed seemingly, being truly anti-Semitic - and not simply being misconstrued and mis-perceived?

Bells, evidently, none of this seems to matter to you - even though I have previously apologized for offending you!

Truly, Bells, I really do understand the problem.

So...again I am sorry and apologize profusely for anything of my doing that created it.

And again, Bells, please accept my apology.

And in my best "Moderator Posing voice" may I "Moderator Issue You", Bells, "Moderator Permission" to remain 100% certain of anything your little heart desires!

And please continue to have a wonderful day!

 

[Balerion]

Understood, GeoffP. It was always thus, as they say and you confirm.

HOWEVER, if all agree to make mutual apologies this time, then only future disagreements/comments will be involved, and not let drag in again all the old baggage to cloud the new instances which should be settled on their own facts and not on old feuds/baggage, yes?


Anyhow, I want to stress that in this particular 'bygones-be-bygones' suggestion, the new and important difference THIS time is that I, Undefined, am the observer, and watching both 'sides' from a position of impartiality. Whether that makes a difference or not is yet to be seen. However, the way individuals respond and behave from now on to the spirit of the initial suggestion will make clear who is and who is not being a reasonable interlocutor in future debates/arguments. So I will have no trouble in discerning, and observing upon, the NEW instances where one or other of the individuals involved in this particular set-to are genuine in their discussion/moderation (as the case may be) agenda, trying to avoid grievous and gratuitous personal offense/insults, or not, yes?

Good luck and good thinking/discussing on and off the net, GeoffP, everyone!

It's never going to happen because Bells will never admit wrongdoing, and thus will never apologize. And look at how she rejected the apology from GeoffP that she had previously begged for. And while no one who is familiar with her work would ever take her seriously, the things she has said about me go beyond apologies at this point. What purpose would it serve, anyway? Apology or no, she's eventually going to make some way out-of-line comment again, and we'll be back to square one.

If you're an optimist, you might say that all of this means the ball is in her court. And that's partly true. But as a realist, I know she's never going to change. She has enough "bygones" to fill several palatial manors at this point.

 

[Undefined]

It's never going to happen because Bells will never admit wrongdoing, and thus will never apologize. And look at how she rejected the apology from GeoffP that she had previously begged for. And while no one who is familiar with her work would ever take her seriously, the things she has said about me go beyond apologies at this point. What purpose would it serve, anyway? Apology or no, she's eventually going to make some way out-of-line comment again, and we'll be back to square one.

If you're an optimist, you might say that all of this means the ball is in her court. And that's partly true. But as a realist, I know she's never going to change. She has enough "bygones" to fill several palatial manors at this point.

I have no baggage in this, so I am prepared to wait for and accept everyone making their own blanket apology without prejudice or specific admissions, for the purposes of forgetting your past interactions and re-setting the record from scratch beginning NOW.

A good start might be to allow Bells, AND ANYONE ELSE involved in this particular affair, to speak for themselves, AND ONLY FOR THEMSELVES.

So, I expect each person involved to make a blanket apology to all others concerned, for their own parts and no more.

Until we allow everyone involved to actually speak and make that for themselves, we won't know who is or is not intending to be reasonable and move on and start afresh with the intention of making conversations here more reasonable and less 'baggage driven' than it had been in the past that has led to the present situation.

Everyone speak for themselves only, and then we can see 'where to from here' as far as each 'intends from here', yes?

And like I said, this time it's different; I, humbly and impartially, as Undefined will be watching and observing what 'side' or 'individual' makes the sincere attempt and who does not. Then I can comment as to what's what from this point on, without any reference to past baggage among those involved in this so far.

Good luck and good thinking and discussing from here on in, Balerion, everyone!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@Undefined

Undefined, good day. So where do I, dmoe, stand in the humbly and impartially watched and observed scheme of things?
Thank you in advance for any determination you care to reply with.

 

[Tiassa]

A Note to Quinnsong

A Note to Quinnsong

October, 2007, as near as I can tell. If it's earlier, I haven't found it; then again, I haven't really looked.

 

[Undefined]

@Undefined

Undefined, good day. So where do I, dmoe, stand in the humbly and impartially watched and observed scheme of things?
Thank you in advance for any determination you care to reply with.

Hi dmoe, pleased to meet you. My observations all begins afresh from now...and that "now" starts as soon as Bells and everyone who has had the "past" run-ins with Bells (which has led to this present situation) has had a chance to make their blanket apologies without specifics for the sake of starting afresh with each other. Once that is done (or not, as the case may be), we can all see who among those involved in this instance is prepared to forgive and forget and start afresh. That is the only way for me to assess for myself who is reasonable and who not (if any). So, dmoe, I will wait humbly and impartially to comment when all involved in this instance have had their say and made their intention clear one way of the other (the telling indication being whether or not the blanket apology is offered/accepted by each concerned in the spirit of my suggestion to all start afresh without baggage of any kind from past misunderstandings etc). Good luck and see you round, dmoe!

 

[Balerion]

I have no baggage in this, so I am prepared to wait for and accept everyone making their own blanket apology without prejudice or specific admissions, for the purposes of forgetting your past interactions and re-setting the record from scratch beginning NOW.

A good start might be to allow Bells, AND ANYONE ELSE involved in this particular affair, to speak for themselves, AND ONLY FOR THEMSELVES.

So, I expect each person involved to make a blanket apology to all others concerned, for their own parts and no more.

Until we allow everyone involved to actually speak and make that for themselves, we won't know who is or is not intending to be reasonable and move on and start afresh with the intention of making conversations here more reasonable and less 'baggage driven' than it had been in the past that has led to the present situation.

Everyone speak for themselves only, and then we can see 'where to from here' as far as each 'intends from here', yes?

And like I said, this time it's different; I, humbly and impartially, as Undefined will be watching and observing what 'side' or 'individual' makes the sincere attempt and who does not. Then I can comment as to what's what from this point on, without any reference to past baggage among those involved in this so far.

Good luck and good thinking and discussing from here on in, Balerion, everyone!

As much as I appreciate your attempt to get everyone on the same page, you're overstepping a bit here. It isn't your place to accept an apology. No one has named you arbitrator, and the reasons why sorry's won't be getting tossed around have been made clear.