Page 6 of 9

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:07 pm
by brekin
rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:57 pm wrote:also, all things considered, CW's commentary does not - in any way - seem to indicate that she cannot control herself as is being alleged repeatedly in this thread.


Interesting rollingstone. I'm curious how familiar you are with CW's commentary since you have only recently joined RI three days ago. Are you speaking of her commentary the last couple of days? Or have you gone back and reviewed her other posts? How far back did you go? Or perhaps you have some innate connection with CW that helps you understand her thinking? It is amazing that you are able to make a decision about a poster after just having joined. Or are you perhaps a long time lurker who suddenly found that CW's plight was the issue that finally made you realize you needed to raise your voice here on RI?

ON EDIT: I see that this has already been covered here now:
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=16700&start=855

So I guess goodbye Canadian_Watcher!
And a welcome to rollingstone!

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:17 pm
by rollingstone
I don't want my contribution to get lost in a sea of questioning my integrity. I would refer people to the thread called 8 Crazy Reactions and Ridiculous Conclusions to see how C_W handled herself there. I was happily surprised by how well it defies the current characterization.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:24 pm
by DrEvil
rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:57 pm wrote:also, all things considered, CW's commentary does not - in any way - seem to indicate that she cannot control herself as is being alleged repeatedly in this thread.


Then you haven't been paying attention.

People are fucking stupid cowards, for the most part.

When the odd person shows up who ISN'T a stupid coward, the mob descends.
Or if the mob doesn't get the scent of blood first, the overlords stage a hit.

it's a great system they've got going, 'cause most of the time the mob does all the work.

Free thought policing.
Free courage killing.
Free peer pressure.

If only they could monetize it, though. Then they'd REALLY have a good thing going.

if I could teach the world one lesson it would be to honour brave people - they are rare, and getting more so. Why? Because you're staging an ethic cleansing.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.


I think I know what's happening here.

Some people are building their online profile so as to be exceptionally pleasing to the NSA data sniffing dogs!

good boy, good girl! you get a pass.


So if you lived in the time of the Crusades you'd fit right in, dude.


But hey, easier to just throw out accusations instead of doing a quick search of the forums.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:50 pm
by rollingstone
Thanks for those. I can find examples like that from everyone who has contributed to this thread. And I agree with the second quote, above, although maybe the f word hurts some people's sensibilities, so I might have left that out. That post wasn't directed at anyone at all was it? I can't see that it was.

But I am not going to argue this. My point is and has been that I cannot watch this one sided witch hunt without speaking up. The poster you are banning has spoken for me, more or less, as I've sat silently reading. My turn has come.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:58 pm
by American Dream
rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:50 pm wrote:
The poster you are banning has spoken for me, more or less, as I've sat silently reading. My turn has come.


What is this supposed to mean?

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:02 pm
by brekin
rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:50 pm wrote:Thanks for those. I can find examples like that from everyone who has contributed to this thread. And I agree with the second quote, above, although maybe the f word hurts some people's sensibilities, so I might have left that out. That post wasn't directed at anyone at all was it? I can't see that it was.

But I am not going to argue this. My point is and has been that I cannot watch this one sided witch hunt without speaking up. The poster you are banning has spoken for me, more or less, as I've sat silently reading. My turn has come.


rollingstone a.k.a. Canadian_Watcher why don't you just speak your peace now so we all don't have to play pretend? Instead of pretending to channel CW you can just let us all know why you think you deserve to stay. You run the risk of rollingstone being banned if in fact it is a puppet for CW and then they will probably block your IP range indefinitely and you will lose any chance then. Why not just speak plainly to the board as a whole now so we can bring this to some type of conclusion for everyone?

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:12 pm
by compared2what?
brekin » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:53 pm wrote:
Thanks compared2what but Jerky wasn't addressing that rather vile remark towards me - but I think wintler or barracuda.


:oops:

Oh. Well, my apologies to whichever, then.

Not that it matters however. Granted someone opened that door, but then he went in and shit on the floor. To me a little crassness is fine - but there are limits. Violent sexual imagery with a request to visit a member at their home address has an odor of implied threat and is not something I want to wade through. That he hasn't been talk to about this is pretty troubling. I'm not completely sure about wintler or barracudas genders but if they are women and I assume that Jerky is a man it is even more vile (not that if they are all men or women it is a pass). It is kind of ironic that Jerky is CW's most outspoken advocate also. It seems members who have troubling deciphering where the lines of appropriate discourse are have a common cause as the RI nation goes to the polls.


I don't totally agree that it doesn't matter who it was addressed to. For stuff that's clearly assaultive and nothing but that, it doesn't. (Or clearly topical and nothing but that, obviously.)

But you can't mandate that people not have personal feelings about themselves and others. And it would actually be a bad idea to mandate that they not express them. Personal feelings are necessary. Useful. Important. Inseparable from life and liberty. And since that includes anger, the non-chronic, occasional expression of personal anger is a useful, important thing that's inseparable from life and liberty, QED.

It kind of goes without saying that good personal conduct is generally a plus, and that violent overtones are generally a minus because they're somewhat threatening in themselves, even when not actionable. But to some extent, everybody is always basically guessing about what's going to constitute good conduct and/or meaningfully violent overtones, as far as the other party is concerned.

I mean, loosely speaking, everyone judges that by a reasonable-person standard. But that's not a fixed thing, it's circumstantial/cultural. So sometimes it includes who said it to whom.

I also don't think your suggestion about Jerky in the last line there is fair. He's not typically given to saying ugly, insulting things. So he doesn't really have a reason to fight for that right. He likes and appreciates Canadian_watcher enough to be willing to fight for her. That's a good thing, not a bad thing, whether he does it perfectly or not.

______________________

FWIW, imo, the real question is always "Does this silence discussion and inhibit free expression?" and not "Is this an insult, or hurtful, or a personal attack?"

Because if you're erring on the side of more expression, sometimes that means hurt feelings even without insults, unfortunately. Is my point.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:20 pm
by Wombaticus Rex
brekin » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:02 pm wrote:You run the risk of rollingstone being banned if in fact it is a puppet for CW and then they will probably block your IP range indefinitely and you will lose any chance then.


Let’s not be threatening any more bans for awhile here. Just a small quibble, but please.

User rollingstone has posted from 7 IP addresses over the course of 10 posts to date. All of which are associated with proxy/anonymizer services.

I have no problem with any RI members using such honeypot services and do not think it should be grounds for suspicion, now or in the future.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:25 pm
by DrEvil
rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:50 pm wrote:That post wasn't directed at anyone at all was it? I can't see that it was.


Uh, she was accusing everyone who disagreed with her of being the thought police, while at the same time insinuating that everyone who disagrees with her is also a stupid coward. And of course, not a single sentence regarding the actual topic of the discussion. She's basically accusing this board of conspiring against her because she's so smart.

(On a more general note - people who claim to be smarter than everyone else are usually the dumbest fucks around. They don't have the mental capacity to understand how stupid they are.
There's even research backing that up. Sorry - there's scientism backing that up :wink: )

People are fucking stupid cowards, for the most part.

When the odd person shows up who ISN'T a stupid coward, the mob descends.
Or if the mob doesn't get the scent of blood first, the overlords stage a hit.

it's a great system they've got going, 'cause most of the time the mob does all the work.

Free thought policing.
Free courage killing.
Free peer pressure.

If only they could monetize it, though. Then they'd REALLY have a good thing going.

if I could teach the world one lesson it would be to honour brave people - they are rare, and getting more so. Why? Because you're staging an ethic cleansing.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:26 pm
by rollingstone
That's right on. I began using the anonymizers after I was roundly accused of sockpuppetry on my first or second post by more than one user. I knew they were bluffing, but it did get me to thinking that it might not be a bad idea to keep my location hidden.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:29 pm
by rollingstone
Dr Evil:
And of course, not a single sentence regarding the actual topic of the discussion.
That was the topic of the discussion. it's the OP. If you'd care to link to the post you're referring to everyone else could see that as well.

c'est toute

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:31 pm
by barracuda
rollingstone wrote:I don't want my contribution to get lost in a sea of questioning my integrity. I would refer people to the thread called 8 Crazy Reactions and Ridiculous Conclusions to see how C_W handled herself there. I was happily surprised by how well it defies the current characterization.


Are we allowed to call Candian_watcher "a complete asshole" now that she's no longer a member? Or is it too soon? Because that's one way I would characterize her behavior in the thread you list as a character reference.

Please.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:34 pm
by Wombaticus Rex
barracuda » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:31 pm wrote:Are we allowed to call Candian_watcher "a complete asshole" now that she's no longer a member?


I would greatly prefer it if nobody did that, thank you for asking.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:42 pm
by compared2what?
rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:57 pm wrote:also, all things considered, CW's commentary does not - in any way - seem to indicate that she cannot control herself as is being alleged repeatedly in this thread.


I don't see that being alleged.

I mean, I allege that since her I-was-goaded defense isn't true, her vow not to allow herself to be goaded into attacking people doesn't indicate an intention to change. Or anything very meaningful, ftm.

But maybe you weren't talking about that? Not sure what you mean, I guess.

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:17 pm wrote:I don't want my contribution to get lost in a sea of questioning my integrity. I would refer people to the thread called 8 Crazy Reactions and Ridiculous Conclusions to see how C_W handled herself there. I was happily surprised by how well it defies the current characterization.


I agree. There was a very tiny little bit of of unsupported opponent-bashing. But not enough to make a difference. And therefore, so what?

I'm again not sure what your point is, though.

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:44 pm
by barracuda
Wombaticus Rex wrote:I would greatly prefer it if nobody did that, thank you for asking.


Well, let me know when the phony respectful mourning period ends, will you?

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:26 pm wrote:That's right on. I began using the anonymizers after I was roundly accused of sockpuppetry on my first or second post by more than one user. I knew they were bluffing, but it did get me to thinking that it might not be a bad idea to keep my location hidden.


I wasn't bluffing, Not-Canadian_watcher.