rigorousintuition.ca

seemslikeadream wrote:I know what it feels like to be ganged up on by 3 or 4 posters here and the emotional toll can be overwhelming at times ...

It happens to me on virtually every thread I enter to any depth. I guess I must hold some unpopular opinions or something.

_______________________________________________________

Here's what the poll should be:

• 1. Did you ever get pissed on or repulsed by Canadian_watcher?
  
  2. Did you ever receive a li'l huggie emoticon or a friendly pm from Canadian_watcher?

Choose one.

_______________________________________________________

Alternate poll:

Choose one:

• - Hugh Manatee Wins
  
  - Canadian_watcher

The banned poster with the most votes may return to the forum.

no....it's not about CW alone..... we have a problem here with threads and the fire pit....there used to be a valve here to stop threads before they became rancid

Whatever you folks do you need to set some guidelines, just letting another member create a poll willy nilly is not the way to do this, set some guidelines like mine above on how this sort of thing is going to work NOW and IN THE FUTURE because if you afford her this option you need to afford it to everyone going forward.

Think about this and do it right the first time.

We had a solution here .....the Fire Pit .....worked fine for years

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:46 am wrote:no....it's not about CW alone..... we have a problem here with threads and the fire pit....there used to be a valve here to stop threads before they became rancid

My understanding is that THIS POLL being discussed is about whether to let CW return or not, BAN OR NO BAN, it IS indeed about her and her a lone, you are talking about a deeper issue that needs to be addressed for sure but for purposes of THIS POLL is it about whether everyone wants her banned or not, at least that is my understanding.

I like her but I doubt I will even be around here enough for it to matter, really, so do what you want.

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:48 am wrote:We had a solution here .....the Fire Pit .....worked fine for years

Sure that is another issue altogether, this poll is about HER BAN and whether people want her to be allowed back or not. Certainly a discussion needs to take place as to why it happened and how to fix it but first we need to decide if the ban sticks or not, again, that is what I am seeing people saying here, this is about her permaban and people disagreeing with it and WR offering to allow us the chance to vote on HER BAN.


Anyway...

barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:42 am wrote:

seemslikeadream wrote:I know what it feels like to be ganged up on by 3 or 4 posters here and the emotional toll can be overwhelming at times ...

It happens to me on virtually every thread I enter to any depth. I guess I must hold some unpopular opinions or something.

_______________________________________________________

Here's what the poll should be:

• 1. Did you ever get pissed on or repulsed by Canadian_watcher?
  
  2. Did you ever receive a li'l huggie emoticon or a friendly pm from Canadian_watcher?

Choose one.

_______________________________________________________

Alternate poll:

Choose one:

• - Hugh Manatee Wins
  
  - Canadian_watcher

The banned poster with the most votes may return to the forum.

Its called the internet and people having different opinions, but you already know that. Those attacked have done plenty of attacking of their own, nobody is without blood on their hands.

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:46 am wrote:we have a problem here with threads and the fire pit....there used to be a valve here to stop threads before they became rancid

That is a very real, important, but completely separate ongoing issue that needs to be resolved in the Posting Guidelines or Ask Admin subforum. In my always too honest opinion.

Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:53 am wrote:Its called the internet and people having different opinions, but you already know that. Those attacked have done plenty of attacking of their own, nobody is without blood on their hands.

I hear ya.

barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:42 pm wrote:

seemslikeadream wrote:I know what it feels like to be ganged up on by 3 or 4 posters here and the emotional toll can be overwhelming at times ...

It happens to me on virtually every thread I enter to any depth. I guess I must hold some unpopular opinions or something.

_______________________________________________________

Here's what the poll should be:

• 1. Did you ever get pissed on or repulsed by Canadian_watcher?
  
  2. Did you ever receive a li'l huggie emoticon or a friendly pm from Canadian_watcher?

Choose one.

_______________________________________________________

Alternate poll:

Choose one:

• - Hugh Manatee Wins
  
  - Canadian_watcher

The banned poster with the most votes may return to the forum.

"Toughen up, Beoyatch" ... I'm sure that will change behaviour

OK re-capping
a) There is information requested by AD on C-Ws previous bannings
b) A request to discuss the Icke thread and flammable threads by SLAD before a poll is taken
c) A request to change the poll options to C_W stays or goes

I don't know if we really need a discussion of the Icke thread ....in fact I hope we don't

We don't even need an discussion of the fire pit ...just need to get back to use of when necessary

David Icke - 74 pages....really?? Was that really necessary?

Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:49 am wrote:

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:46 am wrote:no....it's not about CW alone..... we have a problem here with threads and the fire pit....there used to be a valve here to stop threads before they became rancid

My understanding is that THIS POLL being discussed is about whether to let CW return or not, BAN OR NO BAN, it IS indeed about her and her a lone, you are talking about a deeper issue that needs to be addressed for sure but for purposes of THIS POLL is it about whether everyone wants her banned or not, at least that is my understanding.

I like her but I doubt I will even be around here enough for it to matter, really, so do what you want.

For whatever's it's worth, I agree with HUNTER's approach in his last few posts. Setting up a simple poll for C_w [ban or no ban]; setting precedent for a similar/same process on a moving forward basis -- providing opportunity for the forum community to decide on a given member's potential banishment -- makes sense.

While I'm at it, in full disclosure I may as well put in my vote in advance [assuming of course a poll will in fact be furnished]: NO permanent ban for C_w.

So the question is going forward who gets to decide which threads are necessary and which are not and is everyone going to be happy with that persons decisions and if they are not what is the recourse.

And I am not disagreeing with you, that was a shit show of a thread but as you can see and imagine, the person making that decision will not be a very popular individual but of course more mods arent.

I guess there needs to be some criteria for fire pitting threads, I dont know that there every was one other than "it didnt feel right anymore so we sent it to the pit."

I think back when threads were sent there it was Jeff and only Jeff making that decison, he didnt have mods then, now he has mods who all each have different opinions and feelings as to what threads may or may not be "necessary" which is obviously going to cause issues.

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:58 am wrote:I know what it feels like to be ganged up on by 3 or 4 posters here and the emotional toll can be overwhelming at times ...

I do too.

...

Honestly, I'd say that the emotional toll of being picked on by only one person can be just as bad.*** But maybe that's just me. And anyway, it's immaterial. Because nobody was picking on or ganging up on Canadian_watcher on that thread. I mean, she and I fight all the time. And (at least as far as the topic goes), for most of the thread, even I was on her side and/or had her back more than the other way around.

So I'm not trying to be obstructive or mean. I want her to come back. But the truth is that this:

MIB, Brekin?

Where are you big swinging dicks now? Let's have your answer to my question.

LET's HAVE IT.

...is not exactly the portrait of somebody who's being assaulted. ****

The reason she had to post asking AD, MiB, and brekin if they believed she was an anti-Semite or not was:that nobody had called her one.

And the reason she addressed the question to those posters was that they were the only three people on the board who had made ANY sustained or serious objections to Icke, atlhough -- as it happens -- MiB wasn't arguing that he was anti-Semite; brekin was only arguing it incidentally; and AD wasn't arguing it exclusively. Or even primarily.

I'd say that the reason it became such a disproportionate focus of attention was that as far as this board is informally concerned, there's no difference between suggesting that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and Holocaust revisionism/denial are anti-Semitic and being a fucking latter-day member of the Irgun.

But if anybody who disagrees can show me that I'm wrong, I'd actually be grateful not resentful. FWIW.

______________

***ON EDIT: Um....It belatedly occurs to me that there's a whole thread about exactly that down in the Posting Guidelines subforum, actually. Full disclosure.

****(Messed up the formatting on her quote, sorry. It was similar to that, but not precisely that.)

OP ED always votes against bans.

this despite the fact that OP ED doesn't like Watcher and we've almost never agreed on our approaches to anything that did not also involve common enemies in a given situation.

[i.e. stephen morgan, etc]

if OP ED did ever wish to see someone banned, only Jeff would know, because OP ED would PM him about it quietly. this has never happened.

OP ED likes having people who are "wrong" around. otherwise OP ED has no one to test OP ED's arsenal of compliance against.

[edited to remove first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun and replace said pronoun with "OP ED" in one of OP ED's sentences above]