Originally posted by nemesio
You're doing the old 'duck and spin' technique.
You called #1 a troll from jumping into a thread
after you posted something absurd.
Urm, not quite. Unfortunitely I don't keep tab's on No1's posts and I don't particularly care to sift through all posts to find his responses.
Off the top of my head I'll quote 2 examples :
Topic : "Smacking father hits out.. "
PCaspian: The best example I can give is how my brother put his hand around an electric wire as a child. He got shocked once, got a fright, no serious harm to him other than a big fright and he never touched that wire again.
No1 :
Maybe properly administered electrical shocks to a 3 year old would be an even more effective and technologically superior alternative form of disciplining the toddler than simply "smacking" them.
Then follows up with "Perhaps 10 minutes of electrical discipline before Barney every day would be sufficient to completely break their spirit and submit to any authority ever claimed over them. That seems to be in accord with your general view on the value of the average member of the human race."
I don't think I had actually been chatting to no1 for atleast a month, I find ignoring them more successfull, yet credit to him, he doesn't give up.
The other example (which I can't find now) was me definiting hate speach as 'One settler one bullet' in referecence to black South Africans of the ANC promoting the murder of white farmers.. Ofcourse no1, who had not even posted in that thread added the contribution of "they deserved it" and left.
Here we go with the 'grammar police.' Do you want me
to start emending your posts?
If you're requesting substantiating on views where the reply to your question is based on misleading grammar, urm, then yes.
The words : "Panda" , "eats", "shoots", and "leaves" mean anything to you ?
I answered this already:
As for a racist joke, I certainly expect all folk, irrespective
of color, to alert the post.
So lets follow the logic.
1.PCaspian : "There are simply put, posts that deserve moderation and a warning or ban irrespective of the quantity of people having to read it first before moderating it. But free speech they wanted, and that is what they got. "
2.Nemesio "Why can't it be that most people aren't offended and the whiney people are in the vast minority? "
Hmm?
3.Pcaspian: "Should someone come to RHP and makes racist jokes (as what happened last month), but only 2 people (black) find this insulting, according to your view , should we brand them "whiney" ? "
4. Nemesio "As for a racist joke, I certainly expect all folk, irrespective of color, to alert the post. "
** Now lets continue this. Are you of the opinion that this type of post (racist joke) should be banned irrespective of what the majority of RHP posters believe or, are the minority , as you call it "Whiney" ?
I eagerly await your response.
Just about every third or fourth post of yours is
offensive to some people, but you don't see me alerting
them, do you?
Exactly who are these people ? . Lets get things out in the open now (unless you have something to hide or playing Devil's advocate again), because you always claim I offend everyone. You and no1 claim that my views offended gay people (in my homosexual marriage) debate with BBarr. Are you two speaking on behalf of homosexuals or on your own behalf ? I have little doubdt that there must be homosexual men on this forum, yet I've not heard anyone come out and claim that I offend their sexuality. The same said for the debate regarding alchoholism. So please enlighten me, otherwise stop representing a group of people you have no association with.
I just don't quite understand your deep rooted grudge from a debate held 6 months ago. Please fill me in.
pc
edit : Replaced ('alerted' with 'banned'
alerted irrespective of what the majority of RHP posters believe or are the minority , as you call it "Whiney"
to
banned irrespective of what the majority of RHP posters believe or, are the minority , as you call it "Whiney"
Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being idiotic and paranoid; I barely venture into the debates forum anymore, so where is this "trolling" and "persecuting" of you that I deserve to be banned from RHP occurring? A "forum troll"???
How about you reply to points made by your opponents , instead of rebuttals in the form of 'idiotic' and 'paraniod' ?
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianThat's pretty funny: TWO times in THREE MONTHS I make comments in a thread directly relating to your comments and that shows I'm a "troll" who should be banned because I'm "stalking" you???????????????????????????
Originally posted by nemesio
[b]
You're doing the old 'duck and spin' technique.
You called #1 a troll from jumping into a thread
after you posted something absurd.
Urm, not quite. Unfortunitely I don't keep tab's on No1's posts and I don't particularly care to sift through all posts to find his responses.
Off the top of my he ...[text shortened]... ite understand your deep rooted grudge from a debate held 6 months ago. Please fill me in.
pc[/b]
Originally posted by pcaspianHow about you quote the entire post where I did rather than pulling an Ivanhoian cut and paste?
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] You're being idiotic and paranoid; I barely venture into the debates forum anymore, so where is this "trolling" and "persecuting" of you that I deserve to be banned from RHP occurring? A "forum troll"???
How about you reply to points made by your opponents , instead of rebuttals in the form of 'idiotic' and 'paraniod' ?
pc
[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauder
That's pretty funny: TWO times in THREE MONTHS I make comments in a thread directly relating to your comments and that shows I'm a "troll" who should be banned because I'm "stalking" you???????????????????????????
Do you lack the ability to reply with one post ?
Are you and Nemesio the same person ?
Originally posted by pcaspianYes and BBarr and Royal Chicken and Cribs, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] That's pretty funny: TWO times in THREE MONTHS I make comments in a thread directly relating to your comments and that shows I'm a "troll" who should be banned because I'm "stalking" you???????????????????????????
Do you lack the ability to reply with one post ?
Are you and Nemesio the same person ?[/b]
In Xeroxship,
2BitLawyer
Originally posted by pcaspianThey are to 2 EEEEEEVVVVIIIILLLLL, sides of the same coin.😉🙄
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] That's pretty funny: TWO times in THREE MONTHS I make comments in a thread directly relating to your comments and that shows I'm a "troll" who should be banned because I'm "stalking" you???????????????????????????
Do you lack the ability to reply with one post ?
Are you and Nemesio the same person ?[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is his contention. I'm glad that it's so unreasonable
That's pretty funny: TWO times in THREE MONTHS I make comments in a thread directly relating to your comments and that shows I'm a "troll" who should be banned because I'm "stalking" you???????????????????????????
that it isn't worthy of a thoughtful response (lest the
Grand Conspiritor General and Chief Heretic be labeled
as trolls some more).
Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspianI do not believe that a 'minority' of people would find
** Now lets continue this. Are you of the opinion that this type of post (racist joke) should be banned [b]irrespective of what the majority of RHP posters believe or, are the minority , as you call it "Whiney" ?
I eagerly await your response.[/b]
a racist joke worthy of being alerted. I think a majority
would; or at least n+1.
However, what you want is n=1, where if ANYONE is
offended, the post disappears. I disagree with this
categorically. People, nutjobs mostly, have abstract
'objective' standards about what is offensive which have
no bearing on reality. To allow them the privilege of
censoring whatever they want in spite of what the
community finds totally palatable is absurd.
The main gist of my first post, though, is summarized
in my response to Mike, wherein I note that the level
of offensiveness has not gotten better in the past three
or four months (indeed, I believe it has gotten worse).
Where are 'n' people? Did 'they' leave (the ones who
were so offended before)? You asserted that 'they' did.
Who are 'they' and how can you prove 'they' left?
(Let's see if you answer it this time.)
Nemesio
P.S., Pcaspian, as for your little grammar comments, I
think you can do better than this; given that your grammar
and spelling leaves a lot to be desired, you really ought not
to criticize mine.
Originally posted by nemesio
However, what you want is n=1, where if ANYONE is
offended, the post disappears. I disagree with this
categorically.
Nope, that is not what I asked. I am asking you whether posts exists that should be banned based on content irrespective of whether they are offensive to 'n' people at RHP. It is a simple, yes or no.
Where are 'n' people? Did 'they' leave (the ones who
were so offended before)? You asserted that 'they' did.
Actually I've denied this claim after you clarified your question. Your question was flawed, as illustrated.
P.S., Pcaspian, as for your little grammar comments, I
think you can do better than this; given that your grammar
and spelling leaves a lot to be desired, you really ought not
to criticize mine.
I touch type Nemesio and I don't use a spell checker. As such I make mistakes. Provided I communicate effectively, I care little about typos. In cases where your question is misleading, I will point out incorrect grammar, especially should you choose to harp on about why I didn't answer your flawed question correctly.
Now I suggest you answer the rest of my question.
Are you speaking on behalf of alcoholic and homosexuals when you claim my posts to be offensive ? I've yet to have a single self confessed homosexual or alcoholic here inform me they are offended by my views, yet you make the bold assertion that every 3rd or 4th post of mine is offensive.
Indeed you state
However, alerting a post simply because it contains an
idea that might be considered offensive by someone
is absurd. Just about every third or fourth post of yours is
offensive to some people, but you don't see me alerting
them, do you?
Thus, by what authority do you judge my posts offensive concerning homosexuals or alcoholics.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspian
Actually I've denied this claim after you clarified your question. Your question was flawed, as illustrated.
My question was not flawed. Your understanding of english
grammar is. My question did not require "comma's" (sic);
indeed, adding them made no semantic sense. You, who
frequently misuse (and indeed abuse) english grammar and
interpretation, have no grounds to make any claims about
another person's grammar.
I touch type Nemesio and I don't use a spell checker. As such I make mistakes. Provided I communicate effectively, I care little about typos. In cases where your question is misleading, I will point out incorrect grammar, especially should you choose to harp on about why I didn't answer your flawed question correctly.
I could have deduced this. Your errors betray both a weakness
in english grammar and your 'caring little' betrays an apathy
towards grammar. While this is, in and of itself, fine with me,
when you start correcting other people (especially when they
are not wrong), it becomes a point of contention.
My grammar was not wrong, pcapian. Your flawed understanding
of the way in which english ought to be spoken and written is
the problem.
Are you speaking on behalf of alcoholic and homosexuals when you claim my posts to be offensive ? I've yet to have a single self confessed homosexual or alcoholic here inform me they are offended by my views, yet you make the bold assertion that every 3rd or 4th post of mine is offensive.
I was speaking hyperbolically, but yes, you often post things
which I find morally offensive. However, I have never (to my
recollection) alerted one of your posts. I only alert posts which
are egregiously offensive, such as people saying, '<expletive>
<expletive> homos should be shot on sight.' These I alert and
I expect 'n' people to alert them as well. You have never said
anything so grossly hateful and offensive (though if you did,
I would indeed alert it).
I don't alert posts which contain your offensive ideas because
I respect your right to have and express those ideas. I counter
with poking holes in your fallible positions, but I have never
alerted your posts.
I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.
Care to answer my question, now (the one where you support
the idea that 'they' have left)?
In friendship,
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesio4) certain people who objected and cared before,gave up on it
Would you like me to point to offensive language and
posts in the General forum as a demonstration? I assure
you, I can.
Your classification of the Debates Forum as the 'garbage
dump' is unfair. There are a lot of very interesting posts
there. Compare with 'Word Association.' The reason that
there is less of what you call garbage in the Gener ...[text shortened]... rst place.
Do you care to provide a theory, or just make more biased observations?
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesio
My question was not flawed. Your understanding of english
grammar is.
A1.
Q1.Did the righteous, calling for the stricter moderation, leave RHP?
Q2.Did the righteous calling for the stricter moderation leave RHP?
In question 1, you are referring to "The righteous", 'calling' being your verb. In this case you are referring to actual people leaving RHP.
In question 2, you are attributing the adjective 'righteous' to the abstract noun 'calling', implying the 'calling' has left RHP.
Again, a Panda eats shoots and leaves <> a Panda eats, shoots and leaves.
Any requests for further argument will be referred to this explanation A1.
I accept your apology.
I could have deduced this. Your errors betray both a weakness
in english grammar and your 'caring little' betrays an apathy
towards grammar. While this is, in and of itself, fine with me,
when you start correcting other people (especially when they
are not wrong), it becomes a point of contention.
Thanks. See A1.
I was speaking hyperbolically, but yes, you often post things
which I find morally offensive. However, I have never (to my
recollection) alerted one of your posts. I only alert posts which
are egregiously offensive, such as people saying, '<expletive>
<expletive> homos should be shot on sight.' These I alert and
I expect 'n' people to alert them as well. You have never said
anything so grossly hateful and offensive (though if you did,
I would indeed alert it).
Let us try again.
Do you find my posts regarding homosexual morality offensive because you yourself are a homosexual or alcoholic ? If not, what gives your the right to make such claims on their behalf when not a single self proclaimed homosexual or alcoholic on RHP have done so ?
Just about every third or fourth post of yours is
offensive to some people, but you don't see me alerting
them, do you?
To whom ? Please justify this statement.
Care to answer my question, now (the one where you support
the idea that 'they' have left)?
The question in mind was whether the 'calling' has left RHP. To that I answered 'yes', meaning the people that were pro-moderation at RHP have since stopped addressing the issue due the imlpementation of Robomod.
If you claim I haven't answered your question, please refer to A1.
In friendship,
pc
PCaspian: If not, what gives your the right to make such claims on their behalf when not a single self proclaimed homosexual or alcoholic on RHP have done so ?
So if you started calling mentally handicapped people "retards" so long as none of them complained, it wouldn't be offensive? If you make faces at a blind person, is it like a tree falling in the woods? If you shouted insults at a deaf person to be funny and someone else heard it, they'd have no right to be offended: only the deaf person would have a right to complain? Are those the Pcaspian rules of offensiveness? Why should someone have to declare their sexual orientation on an internet web site to say that the use of the term "polesmoker" is offensive? Will you require two difference forms of picture ID for someone to take umbrage at a women being called "bitches"? Or do you feel that homosexuals and others that you don't like aren't governed by the same rules as everybody else?
In Curiousityship,
2BitLawyer