Calling me a stalker, snide and disruptive are not ad homenims? I asked a question within the thread and look where it got me. I can only consider this issue hillarious, because to think of it rationally doesn't get anywhere. I am very relaxed about this, and don't feel that I need to catch my breath, but thanks for the advice. I am simply responding to the ongoing posts being thrown my way. In fact, I consider your reactions, and the lack of adressing the issues, more in need of contemplation. But, like you say, to each her own ;-]
Slip incessantly bringing up that he thinks I'm e_space did not seem to get your attention either. In fact, I told you about that in a personal email, and whether he came to that conclusion on his own or not, is not the issue. I am not trying to hide, as I do not feel that my "behaviour" as e_space was any different than it is now, just thought I'd come in on a fresh start. Personally, I think he sorta went outside of decorum for bringing this up. Guess you don't huh? I admit I speak up to abuse and this causes a lot of dissention among those dishing out their negativity. I left ME as e_space because of the persistant attacks, mostly by two posters, one who is no longer with us, the other central to this issue. I decided to come back under another nick because I missed some aspects of the room. Others I didn't miss so much, and these are coming back in an attempt to drive me out of here again, with some added converts it seems. Sorta wondrous to me how someone as harmless as myself could be creating so many waves in the serenity of a pool full of intellects. It is sadly typical to see how those who treat others abusively fail to stand up to scrutiny. I notice BB was complaining about "vile" attacks on himself (not by me), yet you issue him a warning for his mild post and do not address his concerns? Its also questionable that you list my "bad behaviour" line by line, yet have not issued one comment about Skip's posts (that I itemized), that are substantially more abusive than anything I have ever posted. I found it a bit eye-opening you took on the moderator's job within moments of being offered the position. Like you couldn't wait to get your hands on the badge. A signal went off in my head that seems to be panning out. I don't notice the other moderators jumping into the fray, which is rather disappointing but expected. If you think I am being argumentative you are mistaken, I am simply responding to what closely resembles a public lynching, brought about by simply asking for an answer to the race/ethnicity question. I find it questionable that you don't have any constructive comments on that issue, but then turn around and blame me for disrupting the thread, which is exactly what you have done by bringing the issue of my "behaviour" up in this thread, especially after telling me that you thought all moderation issues should be taken up privately??? On Aug 20, 11:12 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > attacking me because you were asked to stay within the guidelines > only takes you further down the path it seems. > > "you as you flex your moderator muscles. > It's like you have replaced your halo with a cops hat" > > are Ad hominen: "replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking > or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the > argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the > argument or producing evidence against the claim." > > I will not repeat the specifics mentioned before because, as I said, > Allan, this is not to be argued or used to derail this thread. This > is something that has been explained to you numerous times in this > group. Take a deep breath, and get back to operating within the > guidelines. > > On Aug 20, 10:45 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > As I have indicated, I don't feel my "behaviour" is different that > > what you and others are displaying. If you could point out where my > > posts differentiate from language that you yourself are using (as I > > pointed out), I would be happy to oblige. If its the grammer you are > > talking about, I can't see any difference except mine comments are > > milder, and only in response to harsh words posted by others. You did > > not respond to the gist of my post, just issued another warning. I > > find this disappointing. ;-[ > > > Ad hominem is a funny thing. One can say, "that idea is pathetic" or > > as someone just indicated in a previous post, "that is ridiculous", > > and as long as you word it so that it is not perceived to be attacking > > the person, it is okay. To me this is hillarious. Thats like saying to > > someone "your idea is ridiculous, but hey, you aren't. Just a > > percentage of you is. How could you ever think of anthing so > > stupid?". > > > I never use language like that, yet those who do don't seem to be > > garnering much attention from you as you flex your moderator muscles. > > It's like you have replaced your halo with a cops hat that only works > > on one side of the street. I find this all rather puzzling, and as > > mentioned, disappointing. > > > On Aug 20, 10:09 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There is no argument with a warning, just the warning. Stop the > > > behavior. It is not allowed. > > > > On Aug 20, 7:19 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I see, so those statement exceed the guidelines, but this one doesn't? > > > > "In regard to Ian's inflammatory language, he has always used it and > > > > no call to action to date has convinced him to stop. The moderators > > > > here can be intimidating and aggressive, as Justin pointed out in the > > > > copyright go round, and I do NOT appreciate it or find it acceptable. > > > > But I do appreciate the fact that they provide us here the space for > > > > dialogue that is rare, and try to keep that as my big picture, letting > > > > their rude behavior roll off. I know that it reflects on them, not me. > > > > I see more for them." > > > > > Lets see if I got this right, its okay for you to call someone's words > > > > rude and inflammatory, but not for me to call them caustic and > > > > unfriendly? Its okay for you to call moderators intimitating and > > > > aggressive, but my stating that someone is having an allergetic > > > > reaction is not? Its okay for you to say that you "see more of > > > > them" (meaning that you think much less of them), but its not okay for > > > > me to say someone is freaking out (when he slammed the door shut on > > > > the thread rather than respond to a ligitimate question). Funny how a > > > > promotion to moderator changes ones outlook isn't it Molly? > > > > > I hope you have fun throwing your new found weight around, although > > > > you seem to be forgetting that you thought it was a good idea to do > > > > moderator work in private emails rather than in a room. I also find it > > > > funny that neither you nor Skip addressed the post I made where I > > > > listed some of his unfriendly...sorry I mean, inflammatory remarks. If > > > > you want to do a good job, I suggest that you act even-handed and > > > > follow your own guidelines. > > > > > I also notice that you did not respond to my post where I addressed > > > > your not overly polite comments that social interaction in ME was at > > > > the bottom of your methods of communicating, and questioned why I came > > > > here. You may think that your posts were polite, but they were full of > > > > negativity. You may very well try to disquise your emotions, but they > > > > fly from the screen and they are not always very pleasant. As you > > > > know, someone warned me about your Messiah complex. Well, I wouldn't > > > > go that far, but it does seem that a bit of power is going to your > > > > head. > > > > > On Aug 20, 4:12 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I think I will have a word and tell you, Allan, that: > > > > > > " I often do find you > > > > > > > caustic and quite unfriendly at times." > > > > > > "Now you are having an allergic reaction to a simple > > > > > > > question" > > > > > > "presumabley because you would > > > > > > > rather freak out than address the issues at hand" > > > > > > "overbiting attitude of yours" > > > > > > are all statements that exceed the guidelines so I will warn you to > > > > > read the guidelines and stay within them. > > > > > > On Aug 19, 5:40 pm, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, you have the adjectives quite right Slip. I often do find you > > > > > > caustic and quite unfriendly at times. I have listed several of your > > > > > > spikes at people in a previous post, to which you did not respond, > > > > > > and > > > > > > yet again. Now you are having an allergic reaction to a simple > > > > > > question in regards to your comments about race and ethnicity (just > > > > > > so > > > > > > we don't forget about your thread), presumabley because you would > > > > > > rather freak out than address the issues at hand? I have no agenda > > > > > > against you, I even like some of the stuff you say, but that > > > > > > overbiting attitude of yours removes much of the enjoyment of your > > > > > > words as I realize they are spoken with your head, and not your > > > > > > heart. > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 4:54 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ripping? LOL > > > > > > > > In part 1 of this thread you blast me........etc.<<e > > > > > > > > Blast? Last time it was Caustic, wasn't it, e? > > > > > > > > I have an idea e, I'll stay on my side of the street and you stay > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > yours. > > > > > > > > Chao! > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 10:45 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I did make a comment to you several days ago about the way you > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > "ripping" other peoples posts. I did not get a response to > > > > > > > > that, but > > > > > > > > if you feel that is what I am doing by simply reflecting off > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > admonitions to me, so be it. One should carefully look at their > > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > > posting style before stating that someone else is being > > > > > > > > disruptive. > > > > > > > > > In part 1 of this thread you blast me for mentioning colour > > > > > > > > (which in > > > > > > > > fact you brought up), and then you keep bringing up race in > > > > > > > > subsequent > > > > > > > > posts, when in fact you are introducing a thread about > > > > > > > > ethnicity. When > > > > > > > > I ask you to clarify the very issue that you knocked me for, > > > > > > > > you claim > > > > > > > > that I am being disruptive? Add it up my friend, and see if > > > > > > > > this makes > > > > > > > > any sense to you. Or is okay for you to just crash into others > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > will, and then strike back when they say ouch? > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 9:45 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps yours are, "e space" aka deripsni. > > > > > > > > > It doesn't take much to put together a congruency in language > > > > > > > > > pattern > > > > > > > > > and style especially when the end results seem to lead to the > > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > exasperation. It seems more time is being spent on tearing > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > shredding than constructive discourse. A simple look at the > > > > > > > > > past > > > > > > > > > reveals a strikingly similar comparative. It's already overly > > > > > > > > > disruptive and it started out that way for you early on > > > > > > > > > didn't it, > > > > > > > > > deripsni? > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 5:11 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You've turned rather nasty lately Iam. Wha'ts up with that? > > > > > > > > > > I brought > > > > > > > > > > up a legitimate point. Are your true colours starting to > > > > > > > > > > show? > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2:46 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:17 PM, deripsni > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess I am a bit confused. In part 1 of this thread, > > > > > > > > > > > > you stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > I was trying to start a race war by talking about race > > > > > > > > > > > > rather than > > > > > > > > > > > > ethnicity, yet your words in this post identify people > > > > > > > > > > > > according to > > > > > > > > > > > > their skin colour (race). What am I missing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your Brain? > > > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > I_D Allan- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
