Did Nemesio get timed out yet, or does he have a few hours left?

Originally posted by pcaspian
Do we have a problem ? I have provided reasons why certain posts are not being moderated, Nemesio has rejected those. I made reference to a post in this very thread containing a gross pun about the very person Nemesio claims to worship, yet Nemesio does not find that offensive.

For the record:

I've never made any claim whatsoever about whom I worship.
I acknowledged that the post was crudely phrased, but not untrue.
Having just played 7 Christmas Masses, I assumed we were talking
about the Baby Jesus suckling at Mary's breast; it never occured
to me that we might have been talking about Mary Magdelene (and
I don't give GEOS enough credit for his knowledge of current
Historical Jesus topics, like 'Was Jesus Married?'😉.

And, yes, I rejected your theories with logical reasons for those
rejections. You've not responded to these, nor have you responded
to my specific request for you to defend your notion of the 'objective
offensiveness' of a topic.

I suspect people are losing confidence in 'Robomod' when their alerts are not addressed, as such cease to alert posts. In addition, attempts to publically address posts one finds offensive, are met with jeers being prudish or sexually repressed, which needless to say further suppress any outcries against the standard of the forum.

To the contrary, I do not think this. I think that few people are
alerting things because most people find few things offensive.
When you complained about Shavixmir's 'Shaving' thread as being
offensive, I observed that it was the most highly recommeded
post of its time; that is, it had the recognition and support of the
community as being a worthy post.

You didn't like that, and you didn't like the responses to it. I'm
sorry to tell you that you are in a minority. Most people found
it acceptable (and indeed funny). You don't like being in this
minority, I'm sure. Thank goodness, however, that 'n' does not
equal 1. Obviously, fewer than 'n' agree with you about what
constitutes offensive.

Your notion that people are being belittled into not alering is
laughable. Alerting a post is an anonymous activity. Anyone
can alert something and no one would be any the wiser. Try
again, pcaspian.

As Nemesio's original post got 4 rec's, it seems that there are indeed some that believe the current forum system is flawed. Ignoring the childish posts in this debate (of which I have no doubdt you are including my posts), I do believe this is the correct forum to be discussing this issue.

Interesting that you would speculate that my posts four
recommendations equates with something being wrong
with the system. Rather, perhaps those who found my
post worth reading were agreeing with my bemusement
at the 'righteous' who seem to be silent now (unless they
have left). Given the tenor of my post and the position
I advocate, I can hardly imagine that the 'righteous' were
the people recommending my post.

Your buddy,
Nemesio

Originally posted by pcaspian
Nemesio, the problem we have is that you claim to be a Christian. Had you not claimed this, I could care less about what you believe about Christianity.

Originally posted by nemesio
Where did I make this claim, pcaspian? I'd like to know
the thread and the page, if you please.

I've claimed to be an organist at a church. Perhaps that
is where you are confused.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio is not a Christian ..... maybe he is a deist.

Originally posted by pcaspian
He did ofcourse avoid my last question claiming :

You've been avoiding my one request for three pages.
Defend the notion of objectively offensive. You've provided
the following example:

1. RHP is an international forum based on chess.
2. 'ni**er' is a historically derogatory term."[/i]

...blah, blah, blah...

You will find a thread in which I participated where I used the
term 'ni**er' multiple times. It was in a discussion with Pradtf,
who similarly made the claim that there were things that were
'objectively offensive.' None of my posts were hidden, thus supporting
my claim that the term is not intrinsically offensive.

You however, choose to rigidly adhere to the belief that there is 'nothing' that can be intrinsically offensive. ofcourse this is true (as I admitted, because 'dickhe*d' will mean nothing to a person unable to speak English, however we are not claiming that something needs to be intrinsically offensive for it to be worthy of moderation are we ?

If someone posted some obscene comment in, say, Eskimo, and no one
could read it, what would you say then? Something is only offensive
if a person reads it and finds it offensive. There is no way around this.
You can't argue that something unintelligible is offensive. It's not
possible, but you keep trying.

* Note, I like the part that if 'n-1 or fewer people alert it' it is not worthy of moderation.

Why do you like this part? That's the rule on this site! 'N' people need
to alert a post before it is removed. What's so remarkable about this?!?

Of my entire last rebuttal, Nemesio responds to one line , however does not actually answer my question ...

Pcaspian, you have my permission to make a post about my mother. Make
it as sordid as you want, or as subtle as you want. If it gets moderated,
know that I was not one of the people who alerted it.

If it stays, we can conclude that very few people (or none) found it offensive.
If it goes, we can conclude it was beyond the threshold established for RHP.

Were you oblivious to the pun put forward by Graye with that statement ?

Answered in my preceding post.

You start this thread off with claiming that the forums have gone to pot.

I did NOT say this. My observation was that there were people complaining not
long ago, and now there aren't. I was never a complainer and I am not
complaining now. I am comfortable with the general tenor of the forums here.


I agree with you, yet you then (because of our previous discussion re: alcoholism) choose to pick on me simpy because you don't like me.

I 'pick on you' because you have perverse viewpoints about the
way the world 'ought to work.' Case in point: 'Objective Offensiveness.'

No, not my view on moderation, but your ingrained hatred of Ivan, myself and other 'fundamental' Christians on this site.

Ask KellyJay if he thinks I hate him. I don't 'hate' anyone on this site. You don't
register high enough on my 'care-o-meter' to elicit a 'hate' response, pcaspian.
As for Ivanhoe, I have a million times more respect for him and his intellect
that I do you and yours. I find that you have a one-track, unperturbable mind
that is incapable of generating cogent arguments.

As for 'resignation,' I am resigned to the fact that you will continue to be yourself
and not answer my one question, even though I have responded to your every
point.

Nemesio

Originally posted by bbarr
That is an interesting assessment, Ivanhoe. Although I haven't read all of nemesio's posts (there are only so many hours in the day, after all), I can't remember any that seemed to me inconsistent with being a Christian. Of course, my un ...[text shortened]... oked. Out of curiousity, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

BTW, pcaspian a pun is a "humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest different meanings or applications or of words having the same or nearly the same sound but different meanings". Ex: "it's raining cats and dogs out" "I know I stepped in a poodle". (where's Prad when you need him?). The true statement "Jesus sucked on Mary's nipples for hours and enjoyed it" certainly contains nothing that could be considered a pun. Perhaps what you meant was that he was using a "double entendre": "a word or expression capable of two interpretations one of which often has a risque connotation". As you are so interested in precision of grammar, however, you should have been more clear. Should all puns and double entendres be automatically moderated?

In Lookitupship,

2BitLawyer

Originally posted by Grayeyesofsorrow
I am sure Jesus spent many hours suckling on Mary's nipples, which is why that statement isnt offensive. [/b]

Originally posted by ivanhoe

That would spark a discussion of denials, moral indignation, accusations and other unpleasant phenomena. As you will remember I'm in a state of forgetting and forgiving.

Nemesio can clear up this enigma by simply saying that he indeed is a Deist ..... or simply deny it.

Originally posted by bbarr
Interesting. If you are unwilling to present your evidence for this claim, then why did you make it in the first place? Strange that you claim to prefer to avoid unpleasant phenomena like accusations, and yet your post in this thread is pre ...[text shortened]... Christian, don't you think he would be offended by your post? 😕

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I'm sure Nemesio can speak for himself. There is no need for you to do this .... or is there Bbarr ? 😕

If he is a Christian, he can simply say so. I doubt whether he is one. He could very well be a Deist. If you try to twist this statement of mine into some accusation, then this is your own responsability.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm not trying to twist anything at all. You claimed Nemesio was not a Christian. I merely wanted to know what your evidence was for this claim. If you are unwilling to provide your evidence, I guess we'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Nemesio has the answer.

Hehe, no he doesn't Ivan.

I'd love to explain it to ya, but as I'm sure you're aware, I've the IQ of an 'average' 2nd grader. 😉

Originally posted by pcaspian
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]
Nemesio has the answer.

Hehe, no he doesn't Ivan.

I'd love to explain it to ya, but as I'm sure you're aware, I've the IQ of an 'average' 2nd grader. 😉




[/b]