Good Bye, Lightgigantic.

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by scifes, Feb 24, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    See, this kills me. Not only was Bells not told she'd be "better off simply giving blowjobs to people," but then the poster above actually calls someone a sociopath!

    Okay, so, where is the line here? We're not allowed to mention metaphorical blowjobs, but blatant accusations of sociopathy are okay? From a moderator, no less?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    The connection between defending LG and your character is simple; both involve sexual deviance, something you seem desperate to defend/absolve, and gives the appearance of bias as defending LG is also defending your own opinion. Honestly, it has nothing to do with an ad hominum poke at your defense; the defense itself is pointless because, at this point, the decision has been made.

    As for your question: I moderate primarily the Sci Fi and Fantasy forum and assist with the On the Fringe section (including Pseudoscience, etc). No, I am not a super mod, but I do try and keep some semblance of unity among the mods as a whole as the dissonance of opinion and attitude can cause friction and rifts to form.

    See, there is a simple difference here: one is an attack based on trying to change how something is interpreted, while the other is simply taking a definition and applying the term to the defined trait.

    In this case, scifes has ADMITTED that he would knowingly and willingly consider raping someone if he thought he could get away with it. Given the definition of sociopathy/psychopathy:

    He fits the qualities of amoral, egocentric, and potential failure to learn from experience (considering he's brought this topic and thus his traits therein to the forefront again).

    I'm sorry, but calling a rake a rake doesn't make it an insult

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    *snrk* Though I am flattered you felt the need to report my post Baley... though it's wholly unnecessary as I'd already called attention to it in the mod forum. Thankfully we have a thread there in which we can vent our frustrations about different things, like the fact that randomly banning everyone that irritated us would be frowned upon and where we can lament that while we have the power to do just that, we shouldn't use it like that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    So... out of moderator-self-interest to be portrayed more favorably... LG was improperly moderated... which taught him that "bad behavior" was acceptable.!!!

    In light of the above statements by Bells... whats obscene is... that moderators didnt accept responsibility for ther part in creatin LG's "bad behavior" an atempt to improve ther moderator skills... an not by an startin off wit a perma-ban... but a short term ban to give LG the chance he deserved to improve his behavior.!!!
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    And that last sentence was exactly the cause of much of the contention and debate among the moderation staff. As it stands, there are looking to be some pretty serious changes to policy that resulted from this, changes that could potentially move the line of what is acceptable in such a way as to potentially put a chunk of people on the wrong side of the rules.

    It isn't that we're changing the rules... it's that we're reducing the amount of play with which they can be interpreted and that would result in stricter moderation and, as a result, a fair number of people suddenly finding themselves moderated for things they could have gotten away with before.

    It will be an... interesting... discussion to say the least (and already has been), and I'm curious to see what we end up doing.

    Anywho, it's now 12:30am here and I need to be at work in less than 6 hours so... I'm off! Time for sleep.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    A Pertinent Question

    What is this unnatural focus on blowjobs?
     
  9. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    I know im perty excited about it.!!!

    Wit the stricter moderation... will you argue that it be phased in wit short term bans... insted of goin directly to perma-bans.???
     
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No there isn't. That's an old, unclever forum trick; pretending that it's merely an observation, not an insult. By that logic, calling a stupid poster stupid would be fair, calling an asshole an asshole, calling a fuckwit a fuckwit, etc.. You're making a personal attack against someone. Own it, delete it, and for fuck's sake, stop defending it.

    Given that diagnoses don't take place in dictionaries, you aren't a mental health professional, and an anonymous internet forum is not even remotely a proper setting for such a conclusion to be reached, all you're really doing is making excuses for yourself.


    If "rake" were an insulting term, then yes, yes it does.

    Is that a threat?
     
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    So after a pair of moderators behave abhorrently, the fallout will be to crack down on the behavior of regular members?

    Essentially, in order to right the wrong, they're going to rewrite the books so the original wrong wasn't a wrong at all. Convenient!
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I'm not sure you want to go there. By that definition, if someone starts questioning whether not a poster here is a whore, they could defend it claiming that it was defined as permissible. "I am simply taking a definition and questioning whether it can be applied to a defined trait of this poster. A moderator described this as acceptable."
     
  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Hi Tassa...
    Sinse you got no joy from LG's perma-ban... im not sure how to take you'r coment.???
    Is it ment as some sort of joke that might cheer LG up.???
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    My hostility? By what measure? Arguing the facts and asking him to stop misrepresenting arguments and insulting and offensive behaviour and address the facts in the thread? How hostile!

    You consider being told that my responding to their lies, misrepresentation and trolling was tantamount to offering blowjobs a "refresher" on how to deal with trolls?

    Wow, that's a new one.

    Whether you believe there was sexual harassment or not is really a moot point. I and others participating in that discussion did.


    So I was not a victim of sexual harassment based on your say-so alone? Interesting. What makes you the expert? Oh wait, that's right. You don't think it's sexual harassment because of your obvious dislike of me. Had it been said to anyone else, you'd be demanding action. But because I am the "aggressor", I was merely being reminded of the pecking order, or given a refresher on how to deal with trolls by being told that I may as well offer blowjobs.

    You came back, what? A week or two after the event and decide this?

    Your posts reek of anger that you were overlooked for something you felt you deserved.

    If you must know, the vote was not something anyone asked for, but something the senior staff decided to do to make sure everyone could express their views on what transpired.

    Which again shows just how little you know of this issue or understand what actually happened. I had reported sexual harassment the moment those comments were made. It took days for anything to be done about it, because everyone was trying to figure out how to deal with this. James arrived on the scene a day after LG was banned. Not before. But hey, better to just make things up to suit how you see it, eh Balerion?

    Since you believe it cannot be sexual harassment, tell a woman you are disagreeing with something at work that instead of responding, she may as well offer to give you a blowjob. It's not sexual harassment, according to you. But we both know you would never do it. Why? Because it is inappropriate and it is sexual harassment.

    The blowjob comment was taken in the way it was meant. And how that was meant was clear to all of us who were taking part in that discussion. The only people who 'disagree' are those who were not only there at the time, but were also not taking part in the discussion and like you, have an axe to grind with me and especially for those like you, with James for what you erroneously believe is the truth.

    If that was the case, you would not be here.

    Speaking of context:

    Do you know what is telling about that post?

    It's that you believed he was a troll and you don't have a problem that he is gone, you just have a problem with the reason he was banned and who he made the comment to.

    Then you get the situation in the back room so wrong, that frankly, it's laughable. You have no idea who voted what or how, you have no idea what was discussed or by whom, or how the matter was actually settled. You don't even know the choices given or the options given in the "vote". You even go so far as to assume it was a simple "yea or a nay" vote. You are wrong on all counts by the way.

    But context, who needs it? Much better to just assume something happened because that fits in with your personal views of the people involved.

    Please, carry on. While all the moderators had different opinions on the matter of LG's ban, you may end up being the one factor that brings all factions amongst the staff back together. Irony.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And yet, that was the OP..

    Aside from your praising of draqon, which, kind of says it all really... you openly started a thread debating the circumstances of his ban. And when you are clearly shown that he has a history of this sort of behaviour, this is the excuse you come out with?

    Because you believe it was acceptable since I was the recipient?

    Which begs the question why you spent so much time discussing "the details" that apparently do not interest you..

    Then perhaps you should just stick to paying your respects, leaving a tribute or whatever one does when one is banned.
     
  16. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Nope. I addressed your "arguments" as well--see post #73.

    And the "relevance" of the preceding post would be for the purpose of providing pertinent historical context.
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No, by calling people liars, trolls, hacks, misogynists, etc.. Do you not consider those hostile words?

    On how not to deal with them, yes. I'm sorry, are we supposed to believe you don't understand what a metaphor is?

    So your opinion--and those in agreement with you--is more valid than mine? According to whom?

    No, but it's interesting that you hold your own opinion, and those in agreement with you, as evidence in favor of it being sexual harassment, but the dissenting opinion is dismissed out of hand...because it's an opinion? At any rate, you were not a victim of sexual harassment because there are clear definitions of what sexual harassment is. You were not even harassed in the posts you're referring to, since you were actively engaged in an argument in which you were the aggressor. If anything, you were harassing them.

    What makes you the expert? You're the one here claiming that theirs is the only opinion of any consequence.

    Well, it's no secret that I think you're a miserable, rotten human being (inb4ban!). Nobody who has had the displeasure of watching you vomit on these, or any other forums, could honestly think otherwise.

    But I also have no respect whatsoever for LG. See, I'm in a lose-lose situation here, because neither of you are people I'd choose to spend time with. But don't flatter yourself into thinking that I'd go to the bother of posting about this at such length just to get under your skin. No, this is about attempting to clean up a community that is increasingly going to shit.

    You think your posts disappear into puffs of smoke? Why is the time of the event relevant here?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here we go...

    I never said you asked for it. I saw the hissy Tiassa threw when James decided to put it to a vote. It's public record.

    Because everyone was trying to figure out how to railroad LG? James laid it bare in the post I linked to previously. I'm not confused about anything here, Bells. You wanted him on the "hysteria" nonsense, then it became about the innocuous "blowjob" comment. In either case, it was a case of someone who can't take what they dish out.

    It's not sexual harassment. Basically, you're saying that a simple "Blow me." is sexual harassment, which it isn't. It's obviously inappropriate for that setting, but again, this is not a workplace. For there to be sexual harassment, there must be harassment. There was no harassment. You were not being harassed, and the comment--while sexual on its face--was not actually sexual in nature. So no, you were not sexually harassed. And you know this, which is why you and your defender Kittamaru have attempted to change the narrative and avoid context. You only present it in a manner which it could possibly be construed the way you want it to be construed. Putting the posts in their proper context reveals nothing sexual in nature.

    Again, why do you put value on being there, as if "there" was some moment in time and space? This is a text-based discussion forum--the entire event is right there for us all to review. And I, at least, have done so. There was no sexual harassment. There was simply a pair of abusive moderators who, thanks to having zero oversight and literally no consequence for their actions, have decided they don't have to walk away from a fight when they can slam the ban hammer instead.

    Nonsense. Though, I'm sure you and your buddy will cook up some excuse to ditch me in short order. If not, James will buckle to once again show a united front. After all, according to another moderator, the result of this mess is going to be greater restrictions on regular members--not a review of how moderators behave.

    Gee, Bells, how did you unravel that particular layer of subtext? Could it have been when I said "My problem with him being gone isn't that he's gone, only how they went about getting rid of him"

    Note, however, that the target of those comments is irrelevant.

    I'm not far off. I was given a brief description by James via PM, where he stated that all members of the No Rules For Us club were allowed to speak their minds and cast a vote. I've heard other mods make mention of different ban lengths; James himself mentioned it, as well. In either case, these are minor details. The overarching point stands: It came down to a vote, which is ridiculous because it puts power in the hands of people who could not, and did not, make compelling arguments. James saw clear as day what was up, and then promptly shirked his responsibility to us as a community by actually giving votes to the people involved. Except LG, of course. Cuz, see, he's one of us regler folk, so he don't get all them good rights you impotent MOD-RATERS get.

    To quote someone I used to know...

    :shrug: Will the irony never end?

    ADORABLE. Rather than stewarding the website, let's all gang up on a member who calls shit like he sees it.

    And let's also pretend I'm the only one complaining. LOL!
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    *Chuckle*

    Still getting it wrong. But that's alright. We must all have our time to shine. And this is apparently yours. You aren't the only one complaining. Never declared that you were, however your manner of protests and who you are protesting about and why is so blatantly wrong, that really, it is worthy of a chuckle. Because this is so classically you and what you do. Nothing has changed in that regard.

    Tell me, would you be arguing about it coming down to a vote if the "vote" had gone the other way? I'm guessing the answer to that question is no? Funny that, huh? You are here arguing and complaining that James did not just stomp in and fix it as he saw fit but instead decided to get everyone's opinion on it by posting a poll. While in the same breath, you are complaining about moderators just stomping in and 'using our powers' against you "regler folk". Surely the irony of your complaint cannot have escaped your notice? Perhaps it has. In other words, you are complaining about moderator authority by complaining that a senior moderator did not use his authority and instead, asked that other moderators have a say in the matter.

    Not only have you misrepresented what was said and in what context it was said, but you have declared that you know more than those of us who not only witnessed it, but experienced it. Fair enough. You will vent and make this what it is not. I'm not going to stop you in that regard. But I will correct you when you blatantly lie and misrepresent what actually happened to fit into what you want it to be. So please, carry on.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Not at all - just a simple statement of fact. After all life would be so much easier for us if we simply shit canned every abusive abrasive irritating poster with all the holy vengeance you seem to think we have. Since we don't do that, though, you are welcome to continue your little tantrum.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    And so the fallout continues.

    I considered not commenting at all, but what the hell. Everybody else is.

    It's interesting that we've now seen both sides of the same argument. Earlier I was being soft on LG because he clearly deserved to be banned permanently. And now, LG's permanent ban is a terrible miscarriage of justice, because he didn't deserve the ban (or, according to some, at least, any punishment at all). And in both instances, the outcome was apparently pre-determined, even though that pre-determined end result flipped around at some point. It's a strange argument, given what happened.

    A few responses, in the order of the posts above (and I have no intention on responding to everything point by point)...

    That ban was also extensively discussed by the moderator group at the time.

    Obviously, you haven't been following this very closely. The matter was extensively discussed in at least two public threads.

    There was no trial. This forum is not a courtroom. We don't have rules of evidence, witnesses testifying, prosecutors and defence lawyers, a jury or a judge, as such.

    In this case, there was some disagreement among the moderator group as to what punishment would be appropriate in all the circumstances. As the administrator, I put it to a vote of the moderator group. Over the course of a week, both in the Moderators forum and in the public forums, the matter was extensively and exhaustively debated. The moderator group voted. The vote came out in favour of maintaining LG's permanent ban, by a close margin.

    LG was not here to defend himself, but all the arguments being put in his favour in the current thread were also considered at the time. And that includes all the arguments about moderator bias on both sides, all the arguments about whether or not his behaviour was harassing, all the arguments about whether past behaviour should or should not be taken into account, and so on.

    It's over. It's done. Move on.

    You're certain of that, are you?

    There's no possible way that LG's comments could be construed as harassing? You're sure?

    It's interesting that you think sexual harassment is just a matter of "political correctness". That's a bit of a slip there, which shows your real opinion about such matters. You might have been more convincing had you not shown your real thoughts on this.



    You still don't seem to get it. I had one vote. Even if what you say was true, and I completely pre-judged the matter, I still only got one vote.

    Besides, the vote went your way, not mine. What are you complaining about?

    There are two threads in the public forums, including the original one in which the harassment occurred and one in which the banning of LG was debated. You should read both of them if you really want to inform yourself about this matter. You've already made a number of errors in reviewing what happened.

    Clearly you haven't read what Bells had to say about feeling harassed. Go and read the threads. And, by the way, in these kinds of matters, males like you telling women that they have no reason or right to feel what they feel is usually unhelpful.

    In the threads, I made some general comments about sexual harassment. Clearly, you're not very familiar with what sexual harassment is and isn't. There's another reading assignment for you. Don't just take it from me, though. Try google: "What is sexual harassment?" You'll get plenty of helpful hits.

    Given the outcome here, I'd say he fucked up for real this time. If his behaviour was calculated, then clearly he misjudged the risk. Majority opinion holds that, whatever else may be said about LG, he was always very well aware of what he was doing in posting the way that he did.

    Who appointed you spokesman for the "community"? And how do you know what "the community" thinks?

    You were not banned for "a few days". You were banned for one day.

    Do you not understand why you were banned? If not, please let me know, and I'll be happy to explain it for you. I thought that I'd done so sufficiently in the PM you received from me at the time the ban was given out. I generally perceive you as an intelligent guy, but maybe I've overestimated you. Or maybe you just have a blind spot when it comes to sexual harassment, just like several other men in the current thread.

    It's a good thing that didn't happen here, then. Not this Administrator, anyway.

    It surprises me that, given your quite strident arguments about how the use of the word "hysterical" amounted to sexual harassment, you now feel that members making quips to the victim in this matter in the precise terms that were the subject of the harassment allegation in the first place, is just fine and should be tolerated.

    But then, you were never really concerned about the "blowjob" references, were you? You were much more concerned about use of the word "hysterical". I find it quite bizarre that you consider the latter to be sexual harassment, but not the former. It seems inconsistent to me, on the face of it. But I'm sure you can explain your position.

    But the funny thing was that, before the vote the verdict was supposed to be one way, then after the vote it was the other way.

    So what went wrong with the predetermined verdict?

    In other words, you simply assume that LG could never possibly say anything that could be construed as harassment, and you're done.

    I sincerely hope you're never on a jury.

    Recall that it was lightgigantic who was banned, not ElectricFetus. You should be searching through LG's posts for harassment, not EF's.

    You don't give enough wait to the fact that over half of the moderator group considered the permanent banning of LG to be appropriate.

    I'm not sure whether you think the vote went this way because somehow Bells manipulated all those people to make the wrong decision (or was it Tiassa, perhaps?). If so, then you're insulting the intelligence of a number of other moderators.

    And as for me, it doesn't matter what I do - you'll think it's wrong on principle. I know you don't like me, Balerion. I'm not that fond of you, either. But you shouldn't let your personal feelings cloud your judgment as much as you do. If you want to have a little dig at me, why don't you write it all down and send me a long, bile-filled personal message? I promise that I won't take any action against you. Go on. Tell me what you really think of me. Get it out of your system. (Oh wait, did you do that already, some time in the past? I'd have to go through my PMs and check. I know that a number of other posters have done that, but I'm not sure whether you were one of them. I put you in the same mental box with them, though. It's hard to keep track sometimes.)

    Now, go the next step. Ask yourself: was LG's reference to EF's post a form of sexual harassment in itself? It doesn't sound like you've thought this through to the end.

    Tiassa is on the record in the various threads on this matter. There's no need to suspect. You can confirm this for yourself. This was but one of LG's transgressions, though, according to Tiassa.

    As Bell's has pointed out, your chronology is completely out here. And that's important, because it destroys your argument.

    Ironic, eh? You talking about context and all, having not really examined it?

    Tell us, O Balerion.

    What is sexual harassment?

    Seeing as you're the expert and all.

    Suppose two office workers, male and female, get into a verbal argument over whether God exists. Things get heated, and at a certain point the male shouts "What would you know, anyway, you stupid slut!" Suppose that the woman was, prior to that comment, being verbally aggressive, accusing the man of being an idiot, and dishonest and of holding ridiculous opinions.

    Would this, in your expert opinion, mean that she couldn't possibly be harassed by his calling her a slut?

    (And while we're at it, do you think that if a woman wears skimpy clothing out in public, it mitigates rape? No, don't answer that.)

    Once again, Balerion, it's important to get your facts right. The record is there. If you're going to tell the participants what they did and said, it's important to get it right. Bells was never particularly interested in the whole "hysteria" issue. Her focus was, at all relevant times, on the "blowjob" comments.

    Please review the record, since you obviously have no clue.

    Once again, I merely note the irony in passing, and move on.

    Tiassa has his own views on ultimate consequences. His views are not necessarily shared by all of the moderators. If one thing should be clear from all this, it is that moderators have individual opinions. We are not a group mind.

    Obviously, the arguments that were put were compelling enough for over half of the moderators. On a personal note, recall that my argument was LG deserved a ban - just not a permanent one. And a much larger majority than half of the moderators agreed that LG did something wrong - something ban-worthy.

    I also repeat: who appointed you spokesperson for "the community", anyway?

    As for me shirking my responsibility, I think I gave this one a pretty good shake. Under most circumstances, when a moderator decides to permanently ban a member, the other moderators see the notice and say to themselves "Ah, that happened, did it? Ok then.", and that's the end of it. Or they think "Hmm... I don't know whether I would have handed that person that ban at this time, but what's done is done.", and that's the end of it. Rarely, a moderator might post a comment or (rarer yet) start a new thread in the moderators forum to discuss whether the permanent ban is justifiable. In this instance, we had a couple of threads leading up to the decision to ban, then a couple more discussing the matter and putting it to a vote. That's quite unusual. That the matter was also discussed publicly in great detail by the moderators is even more unusual.

    Also worth mentioning: regular members always have a say in whether they are banned or not. In fact, they get that say all the time. It's in how and what they post on the forum. Every member decides for himself what he will or will not post. With every post, he makes a decision about whether it will likely attract the attention of the moderators, and what the likely outcomes will be. Few posters are ever banned for a single transgression.

    The "rights" that members have here are to post freely within the guidelines that they accept by posting here in the first place. This is not a democracy. There are fully democratic forums out there, in which each individual member has, in theory, equal power. This is not one of them.​
     
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Thank you James, hopefully hearing it from you, it will finally sink in that this actually was discussed at great length and not a case of a sheriff saying guilty on a make believe trial just so he could get home in time for his vittles.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I doubt that hearing from me will change anybody's mind. It will probably just further enrage people. Oh well.
     
  23. Onehit Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2
    Everything has been pretty much discussed except for one detail which sort of slipped the radar ... at least on the public discussion front:

    Have to copy/paste this since I am not sure I can link.
    01-02-14, 09:38 AM
    LG :It wouldn't matter if she was your ex-lesbian lover, had an affair with your husband or sold your children into slavery ... unless you can somehow tie these acts later in her life being some consequence of surviving an abortion attempt
    Bells :I have seen the consequences of surviving an abortion troll and I am paying for her to get an education and make something out of her life. I have also seen women having to make that awful decision and being abused by the likes of you, being spat on, threatened and called a murderer by people just like you. What have you done? *****Oh yes, masturbate over some chick on the internet and make her your poster child.****** And you dare wonder why I don't take pro life little plebs like you seriously.

    +++
    01-02-14, 03:29 PM
    Bells: Call me that again (slobberchops) , and you will take a holiday from this forum.
    LG : If you feel you have an open license to call people all sorts of names, lay all sorts of charges against them and have no basis for such statements aside from your fervent imagination,
    eg (just from your last response)...... :
    You are the type of misogynistic troll who values women so little that her body is not even her own.
    ....
    Unfortunately, it is not my imagination but your sexist and twisted little mind.
    ...
    What have you done? Oh yes, masturbate over some chick on the internet and make her your poster child. And you dare wonder why I don't take pro life little plebs like you seriously.

    ..... you can expect similar reciprocation.

    ++++
    01-05-14, 02:48 PM
    Bells: Your response to this is to make bizarre comments about my weight, accuse me of drooling and word it in such a way as to suggest I am a dog, etc.
    LG : and your response is to say I masturbate to women on the internet and make various derogatory comments about my genitals (BTW it wasn't about your weight, it was about being a troll and living in a cave ... I am just saying that it doesn't look good for you if you only vocally protest the notion of "waddling" as opposed to be a troll living in a cave).
    Tit for Tat bells, if you want a more civilized standard in these discussions it might pay to display a bit more self control.

    Bells: You can say what you want about my argument LG and you are free to give back as well as you want in that regard. But the moment you attack people's weight, how they look, etc, then that's it. If I made such comments about your looks, your hygiene or anything else so personal like that, my colleagues would nail me to the wall.
    LG: Oh, you mean comments like this :
    the moment there is a thread discussing women's rights, you're in there, scraping your backside on the ground like you have a rash on your genitals, itching to demand the removal of rights from women and trolling in the worst way possible.
    If you are actually sore about using people's bodies as analogies for the weak point s in their arguments, don't bring them to the discussion.
    Its as simple and as difficult as that.

    +++++

    ###### And this is the tickler, when Bells seems to have no problems explaining away sexually inappropriate comments .. as long as she is the one who says them (would she say them in a workplace environmengt though ....) #####
    01-05-14, 07:36 PM
    LG: feel free to explain how accusing me of masturbating to some chick on the internet is an attack on my argument and not an attack on my person.
    Bells : I made a comment about it because you seem somewhat obsessed with her. As in you bring her up in every single abortion debate there has ever been on this site since you joined here. And why is masturbation or comments about you possibly wanking off to someone on the internet an attack on your person? Wait.. you don't believe in that either?
    (and my subsequent response)
    LG : Err ..... because it has nothing to do with the discussion, its against forum rules to insult and goad and so on and so forth.
    But that aside, if you want to again open the threshold of acceptable behavior to new lows, suspend forum rules and declare open season on making jibes about people's sexual behaviour, marital relationship's, etc , please proceed ... although I suggest you get permission from some sort of higher forum authority and make sure you are up on your prescription medication before you do so.

    (and the grand finale, of her response)

    Bells : It's okay, everyone does it. It's very normal.



    When I bring this to Tiassa's attention, namely that Bells is sort of going off the scale with these sorts of comments, he responds by saying its acceptable (You can read about it where I respond to tiassa later in the thread).

    (BTW Tiassa, just for the record, if you want to start calling upon the definition of terms in vogue 100 or so years ago in order to levy a charge, it might pay to begin your posts with "Top Hat" instead of "Mod hat" ... just to offer a clue that you are using terms that predate WW1).

    : the shrug of all shrugs:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page