Originally posted by frogstompI agree, but expectations are rarely realities when people's conduct/attitudes are involved.
Actually under normal circumstances being reasonable should be the rule. However obnoxious people like Ivanhoe has time and time again proven himself to be have no righteous call to ask not to be subjected to the same abuse that they use as a tactic of debate.
Originally posted by StarrmanYou seem to take this question very lightly. Why ? Because you and your ideological friends are not affected by it in any serious way. I sometimes derail, I plead guilty but this is peanuts compared to the daily load of abuse, insults and accusations I and other Christians from different denominations as I have to swallow.
I do not want to stop ALL abuse, I think there is a level of it which is necessary in defining the community. I know you will disagree with me on this and that is fair enough. You have been surprisingly frank here and I will be in return. Yes I, amongst others, goad you from time to time, this is undeniable and whilst I hold no ill will towards you, I am o ...[text shortened]... vel? Possibly.
Is this likely to happen? I doubt it, people are people, that's life ivanhoe.
You hide behind superfluous and evasive statements like not wanting to stop ALL the abuse.
Statements like "I think a level of it which is necessary in defining the community" are absolutely incomprehensible and too vague to mean anything at all, in my view. Please explain.
I look upon goading as something completely different from abuse.
Would you call the continuous and structural insults, attacks, Ad Hominems, foul language, degrading comments and harassment by Frogstomp goading ? If his behaviour isn't against the ToS then I don't know what is.
Do you look upon the middle finger in Bbarr's avatar as goading ?
Do you look upon Bbarr's insults, swearing and foul language as goading ?
Do you look upon all the insults by for instance David C as goading ?
I wonder what would be your reaction if I were to do this ? Are you using two measuring sticks ?
The latest accusation and attack on me is that I would be using multiple accounts. Does it ever , EVER, stop ?
Originally posted by StarrmanYou and many others are conveniently forgetting that every time I derailed my abuse was the direct result of extremely offensive and provoking statements from the usual crowd.
I agree, but expectations are rarely realities when people's conduct/attitudes are involved.
What I want is the implementation by the mods of the ToS for EVERYBODY, including myself.
Originally posted by frogstompIvanhoe in a post directed to Darvlay:
Actually under normal circumstances being reasonable should be the rule. However obnoxious people like Ivanhoe has time and time again proven himself to be have no righteous call to ask not to be subjected to the same abuse that they use as a tactic of debate.
"If you want to take this issue of abuse seriously it is the right course of action to adress the initiators of the unwanted and anti-ToS behaviour and not turn the focus of attention towards those who react to it, in a wise or unwise way. Doing this you lay the responsibility for the problem on the shoulders of the wrong party.
The responsible party in changing the unwanted situation is not the one who is the subject of the abuse and reacts to it, but the party who initiates the abuse."
Originally posted by ivanhoe
You seem to take this question very lightly. Why?
Because you are, as usual, making a mountain out of a molehill. I am not taking on board your perception that somehow this forum is out of control with abuse.
Because you and your ideological friends are not affected by it in any serious way.
My ideological friends? Is that an ad hominem I hear lurking in the back?
I sometimes derail, I plead guilty but this is peanuts compared to the daily load of abuse, insults and accusations I and other Christians from different denominations as I have to swallow.
It works both ways Ivanhoe, there are certain beliefs that Christians on this site produce which are offensive to others (gays are evil, pro-life stances etc) should we suffer these without recourse? Stop playing the martyr, it's over the top and it comes across as if you are trying to force a situation into being that is not currently there. Let me ask, do you think being told that you will burn in the fires of hell for all eternity is offensive?
You hide behind superfluous and evasive statements like not wanting to stop ALL the abuse. Statements like "I think a level of it which is necessary in defining the community" are absolutely incomprehensible and too vague to mean anything at all, in my view. Please explain.
What on earth is so incomprehensible? You cry fire, I look around and see only a few smoking twigs. We're not trying to create a utopia here, it's a debating forum, designed to thrash out the very concerns of the human condition, what do you expect? If everyone was utterly civil, we would get nowhere closer to truths on any side and eveyone would lose interest.
I look upon goading as something completely different from abuse.
So do I.
Would you call the continuous and structural insults, attacks, Ad Hominems, foul language, degrading comments and harassment by Frogstomp goading?
Somtimes. Don't generalise. If you can point to an abusive post which appears in a thread where he has not been abused by you I would acknowledge that you had been abused unfairly, but trying to suugest that froggy's raison d'etre is your torture, is ridiculous.
If his behaviour isn't against the ToS then I don't know what is.
This is exactly my point, I'm not sure your perception of what does and does not break the ToS is correct.
Do you look upon the middle finger in Bbarr's avatar as goading ?
Yes. Abuse? No.
Do you look upon Bbarr's insults, swearing and foul language as goading ?
Bbarr rarely ever uses foul language, he is possibly the most reasoned and effectual poster on this site. If he has used foul language I am pretty certain he was goaded into it and that it was a temporary flash of untempered humanity. We are ALL guilty of that from time to time. Did not Jesus throw the money lenders tables to the ground? So it is with Forum Christ.
Do you look upon all the insults by for instance David C as goading ?
Specifics please ivanhoe.
I wonder what would be your reaction if I were to do this ? Are you using two measuring sticks ?
As I said before, no, we are ALL guilty of unpleasentries, your recent moral stance merely singles you out as exhibiting double standards. Fair enough you have apologised, but since you will no doubt do so again, I think it rich that you feel you can now lecture us all on conduct. This is not a confessional, we do not offer absolution here.
The latest accusation and attack on me is that I would be using multiple accounts. Does it ever , EVER, stop ?
This is something entirely different, if you have a problem with it, take it up with Russ.
Originally posted by StarrmanStarrman: "It works both ways Ivanhoe, there are certain beliefs that Christians on this site produce which are offensive to others (gays are evil, pro-life stances etc) should we suffer these without recourse?"
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]You seem to take this question very lightly. Why?
Because you are, as usual, making a mountain out of a molehill. I am not taking on board your perception that somehow this forum is out of control with abuse.
Because you and your ideological friends are not affected by it in any serious way.
My i ...[text shortened]... b]
This is something entirely different, if you have a problem with it, take it up with Russ.[/b]
.... and isn't this the crux of the matter ? You and the abusers(they)look upon certain moral STANCES and political POSITIONS as being offensive and from that you continue and derive a RIGHT to abuse. In essence you (they) present yourself(ves) as a victim of your (their) opponent's stances and your (their) abuse is simply a justified reaction (recourse) to it, isn't it ? ..... and that's why your opponents are to be looked upon as the initiators of the offense. Always ! If they want to change this they should change, not their foul language, their insults or uncivil behaviour, no they should change their political and moral stances. This is a undemocratic and very intolerant course of action to take and as I have said earlier, and I am sorry to say but I am being honest, this political tactic reminds me of the intimidating and insulting manner the SA hoards roamed the streets of German cities in the thirties to attack their political opponents whose opinions were offensive to them and not just their opinions but their sheer existence.
Starrman: "If he has used foul language I am pretty certain he was goaded into it and that it was a temporary flash of untempered humanity."
I wish I could count on the same benevolence and understanding on your part.
Originally posted by StarrmanMy ideological friends? Is that an ad hominem I hear lurking in the back?
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]You seem to take this question very lightly. Why?
Because you are, as usual, making a mountain out of a molehill. I am not taking on board your perception that somehow this forum is out of control with abuse.
Because you and your ideological friends are not affected by it in any serious way.
My i ...[text shortened]... b]
This is something entirely different, if you have a problem with it, take it up with Russ.[/b]
No. You state that you are an atheist. Other atheists are therefore your ideological friends.
If you want specifics about David C please read his posts.
The accusations of having multiple accounts isn't something completely different. It is part of the continuing harassment. Of course you are not inclined to view it that way, but this really doesn't change the fact that I look upon it that way. It is harrassing behaviour violating the ToS. If he really thinks I have multiple accounts he should alert the admins and prove his accusations. I'm sure Russ will dismiss his accusations as being not true at all.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
No. You state that you are an atheist. Other atheists are therefore your ideological friends.
Ideologists they may be, but since atheism is not bound by anything other than a denial of god's existence, why do you believe them to be my friends? If they are, it has nothing to do with their being atheist.
If you want specifics about David C please read his posts.
No ivanhoe, you brought him up, you should be providing examples, or you are appealing to generalisms.
The accusations of having multiple accounts isn't something completely different. It is part of the continuing harassment. Of course you are not inclined to view it that way, but this really doesn't change the fact that I look upon it that way. It is harrassing behaviour violating the ToS. If he really thinks I have multiple accounts he should alert the admins and prove his accusations. I'm sure Russ will dismiss his accusations as being not true at all.
Perhaps you might remember this?
originally posted by ivanhoe
14 Sep '05 23:50 :: 0 recommendations
.
..... and which handle will you be using when you "come back", mafrauder?
Now do you see why I find it so meaningless that you stand up and give sermon on standards?
EDIT: I will reply to your other post when I get home tonight.
Originally posted by Starrman[/b]Oh brother, I don't believe this. If No1 decides to come back he can open a new account and pay for it. He can leave the no1 account as it is. There are others who have done this and there seems to be no problems in the eyes of the admins. The instance you gave is not an instance where I accuse people of having multiple accounts.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]No. You state that you are an atheist. Other atheists are therefore your ideological friends.
Ideologists they may be, but since atheism is not bound by anything other than a denial of god's existence, why do you believe them to be my friends? If they are, it has nothing to do with their being atheist.
...[text shortened]... and give sermon on standards?
EDIT: I will reply to your other post when I get home tonight.
Starrman: "Now do you see why I find it so meaningless that you stand up and give sermon on standards?
I repeat what I said before: I want the ToS to be upheld for everybody including myself. I cannot see what is wrong with that. If only people who are "free from sin" can address this point we better get rid of the ToS alltogether.
It seems you do not want to address the problem at hand, but just the fact that I am an evil hypocrite who has, in your eyes, lost the right to make an appeal to uphold the ToS and has lost the right to be free from abuse, insults and other forms of harrassment.
If you look upon me as a second class RHP member with less rights than others, because of my behaviour in some instances, please say so.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Oh brother, I don't believe this. If No1 decides to come back he can open a new account and pay for it. He can leave the no1 account as it is. There are others who have done this and there seems to be no problems in the eyes of the admins. The instance you gave is not an instance where I accuse people of having multiple accounts.
But it is! You are accusing no1 of using mulitple accounts even though he has yet to do so. Or perhaps you have some other explanation of your post which I have missed?
I repeat what I said before: I want the ToS to be upheld for everybody including myself. I cannot see what is wrong with that. If only people who are "free from sin" can address this point we better get rid of the ToS alltogether.
Come on ivanhoe, not once did I suggest that any level of cleanliness was required. What I still have a problem with is that you seem to have some definition of abuse which contravenes the ToS, but which you are unable to pin down. You talk about how we should all behave in a particular way, but you have yet to specify that way and I just do not believe that you have committed your last Ad Hominem or insult. You didn't even address most of the parts of my last post.
It seems you do not want to address the problem at hand, but just the fact that I am an evil hypocrite who has, in your eyes, lost the right to make an appeal to uphold the ToS and has lost the right to be free from abuse, insults and other forms of harrassment.
Strawman ivanhoe, there is no level of evil here, nor any loss of rights. All I am hoping for is that you stop acting like you are the sole recipient of abuse here. And indeed, provide not only a decent definition of the abuse you believe to be present, but also provide specific examples of attacks on you that others have made. Failure to do these things only makes you sound ambiguous and melodramatic.
If you look upon me as a second class RHP member with less rights than others, because of my behaviour in some instances, please say so.
Of course I don't, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I try not to be into character assassination.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... and isn't this the crux of the matter ? You and the abusers(they)look upon certain moral STANCES and political POSITIONS as being offensive and from that you continue and derive a RIGHT to abuse. In essence you (they) present yourself(ves) as a victim of your (their) opponent's stances and your (their) abuse is simply a justified reaction (recourse) to it, isn't it ? ..... and that's why your opponents are to be looked upon as the initiators of the offense. Always ! If they want to change this they should change, not their foul language, their insults or uncivil behaviour, no they should change their political and moral stances.
You claim that you are offended and yet when others are offended you skip over it. Do you think being told that you will burn in the fires of hell for eternity is offensive? Answer the question please.
This is a undemocratic and very intolerant course of action to take and as I have said earlier, and I am sorry to say but I am being honest, this political tactic reminds me of the intimidating and insulting manner the SA hoards roamed the streets of German cities in the thirties to attack their political opponents whose opinions were offensive to them and not just their opinions but their sheer existence.
It has nothing to do with democracy, or in fact politics of any sort. You are attempting to suggest that what you find offensive is offensive, but what others find offensive is not. It is that simple. An appeal to the idea that what you call 'the wolfpack' are operating the sort of tactics that lead to Nazi Germany is not only crass, it is offensive and ridiculously misplaced. You are effectively calling members of this site Nazis, should they not look upon this as abuse? Once again you resort to insults instead of debate, or are you not culpable here either?
Originally posted by StarrmanStarrman: "But it is! You are accusing no1 of using mulitple accounts even though he has yet to do so. Or perhaps you have some other explanation of your post which I have missed? "
No, I did not accuse No1 of using multiple accounts. If I were doing this at that time, don't you think the marauder would have jumped on me ?
If you present this as an instance where I went overboard then how on earth can you state that there is no problem ? What I said in this instance is very very innocuous in comparison to the abusive and insulting texts adressed to Christians which are flying all over the forums.
You are not being fair. You are using different measuring sticks.
Starrman: "What I still have a problem with is that you seem to have some definition of abuse which contravenes the ToS, but which you are unable to pin down. You talk about how we should all behave in a particular way, but you have yet to specify that way ... "
The ToS are in English. Please, read them. The "definitions" are all there.
Starrman: All I am hoping for is that you stop acting like you are the sole recipient of abuse here ......
Thank you for supporting my view. That is exactly the problem I am adressing and you are trying to deny.
Starrman And indeed, provide not only a decent definition of the abuse you believe to be present,
As I said, read the ToS.
Starrman: " ... but also provide specific examples of attacks on you that others have made.
Are you for real ? Read the forums and get informed.
Starrman: "........ nor any loss of rights."
Exactly, but you adress me as if I would indeed have lost certain rights. In your eyes I do not have the right to refer to the ToS. This is the crux of your reasoning.
Ivanhoe: "If you look upon me as a second class RHP member with less rights than others, because of my behaviour in some instances, please say so"
Starrman: "Of course I don't, I'm not sure where you got that idea from.
I read your posts !!
Tell me, do I have a right to refer to the ToS, to make an appeal to implement the ToS for EVERYBODY including myself ?