The female troll squad in love & dating

Post Reply New Topic

so you are saying that you would like to publicly discredit me? there is no sense in pretending that is not what you are doing. by posting this comment people will dig up whatever it is you are talking about, so it serves the same purpose as actually posting it. don't pretend there is no method to what you are doing, as you are clearly not guileless.

frankly, i don't believe you when you state you would treat all people equally on here. you have apparently already judged me and are carrying some form of grudge. i would never trust you with my back.

you apparently ARE more interested in winning the argument than anything else, and you have also made the decision to keep it as personal as possible. you are stooping as low as you can possibly go.

Fair enough, you have the whole rest of the site to express your censored opinions on.



I support his right to talk, what you're describing is already covered by laws concerning criminal conspiracy.



Again, see above.



Why don't you read back through the posts, all I've done is argue against another poster's opinions about when moderation is necessary and the applicability of the rules, at no point have I tried to "force" my opinions on anyone (as if I had that ability). Do you really not see the irony in suggesting that I'm trying to create an exclusive club by NOT wanting anyone's opinion to be censored? Think about it...



They can take a stand and argue their points, same as everyone else. What could be more egalitarian than that?

wait, are you talking about my BPD? my latest psychologist thinks it is probably a misdiagnosis, but whatever. i'm not ashamed of it, and it does not cloud my understanding of the issues at hand. the large majority on this board have some form of developmental disability or other disorder, so that is not exactly a valid point to make against me, and your implication in this area really is stooping pretty low.

so, i guess your real point is that you truly cannot be trusted? that you would use every single argunment at your disposal, even if it is an unfair assessment, if it would serve to discredit your opponent. you fight dirty.

is that what you were trying to 'out' me with? or was it our disagreement on reverse racism?

Contrary to common perception, I do post on forums other than PPR and on boards other than WP; I'm plenty familiar with the female "voice". My assessment of your posts as "shrill" is just that, MY assessment, you're free to disagree. Intriguingly, we do have some semi-regular female posters in PPR that do not come of as shrill in the least, while at least 5 male regulars come to mind that I would also describe as "shrill". Any sexism you're reading into that word is not coming from my end.



When I have questioned your credibility, it has been for concrete reasons such as only having been a member for two months or not taking your unverifiable claims of numerous supporting PMs at face value, those are legitimate issues to raise. I feel no need to revisit the various attacks on me you've launched in this thread and the other one in PPR, they are plain for anyone to see and draw their own conclusions.



You read too much into my choices of words, what I was and am trying get across is that you broke no rules, but you violated forum etiquette. It was then pointed out that it was unreasonable to expect new members to be aware of such unwritten guidelines, so I started the sticky thread project to correct that problem. You're free to contribute to the thread and offer your own suggestions as to how PPR should be run, as are any other users of the forum, but as you've seen yours seems to be a minority opinion within the forum and you don't have a right to demand that your opinions be given special treatment.



I saw nothing that I would characterize as such, but it should be more than clear that I have a radically different idea of what constitutes a personal attack than you do. I would think that a personal attack launched from within the Moderator Attention thread would have drawn a response from them; perhaps you should take it up with them why it was not addressed.



Who's trying to intimidate you? How could they even if they wanted to, no one short of a mod can do anything but argue with you, and argument is what PPR is all about. Same thing with shutting anyone up, only the mods can do that, and I think which of us is more interested in that course of action has been thoroughly resolved. What I've tried to do is to clarify the status of PPR and prevent issues like this from occurring in the future, or at least minimize their frequency and impact. If you want to view my actions as a negative, that's on you.



True enough, but I'd been quietly discussing this very issue and possible solutions such as the sticky thread for some time in PM with various posters and mods, you provided an excellent opportunity to publicly state my case. By repeatedly objecting to my opinions, you've given me a platform to state my visions and solicit opinions and suggestions for refining my own thoughts and plans. It's no secret that I enjoy debate and like having a lot of freedom to do so in PPR, this conflict has just allowed me to take my position to a wider audience than it would receive within PPR itself.

The issue of what the rules actually mean has been a divisive one here before, and again as a newer member here you're not familiar with how they've historically been applied. I know that a lot of Aspies don't do well with gray areas, and if you really read through the site TOS you'll find that it's unfortunately riddled with gray areas and ambiguity. Fixing those has been a longstanding ambition of mine, but it's not my site and Alex seems OK with living with the issues in the rules, plus the mods are busy enough without me opening that can of worms.

I must be missing a connection here, explain again how censoring opinions on an internet forum saves lives. Or do you really think that the only thing holding people back from slaughtering each other in real life is what is said on the internet?

we were comparing which situation was worse - dying, or being silenced on a forum, and you stated that being silenced on a forum is just as bad.

i said nothing about saving lives.

i didn't refer to 'numerous' PMs. please reread my posts if you are going to question my credibility based on my statements. i will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are mistaken.



my point is that there was no problem to correct. i am not the only member who agrees, based on other posts in both threads. this isn't just my sole opinion, though you seem to want to focus on me a great deal.


you have been trying to discredit me, and have made it clear that you will do everything you can towards that end.



what i am seeking to do is express my opinion on these threads. and i am not alone in my opinions, evidently. some veteran posters have the same perspective as me, so my newness is irrelevant in this argument.

You misunderstand my question.

Here's what you said:



I read that as "ruveyn being allowed to express his offensive opinion is worse than him being silenced", so I replied that this being nothing more than a forum to debate idea, him being silenced is the worst things that could happen to him here.

You replied with:



Here you're equating Ruveyn's opinion with the action of actually killing people, which is patently false. To go back even farther, what he actually said was:

Thread title: "My reaction to the outrage of 9/11"

Followed by the Latin equivalent phrase for "kill them all and let god sort them out".

He's not saying "let's go out and kill Muslims" or even "we should support killing all Muslims", what he's saying is "when 9/11 happened my reaction was to kill all those responsible", which is NOT hate speech. I don't think he even mention the word "Muslims" in his OP.

Is that a bit clearer for you?

I don't quite know what to make of this, so I'm going to use a slightly different format of responding to try to sort it out.

What I said:

What you said:



That's exactly the opposite of what I establish in my second sentence and reinforce throughout the post...

I referred to a previous interaction between us in an oblique way that only you would understand precisely so that no one else would know what I was talking about and go looking themselves. The only "method" to this posting was to let you know that our disagreement wasn't personal and that I was NOT going to stoop to assassinating your character, and I referred to potentially damaging postings I knew of but hadn't acted on as a sign of good faith.



You don't have to believe me, I presented a neutral reference that could confirm my defense of diverse posters of various persuasions over the years.



Madame, you have no idea how low I could go, but that would be both uncalled for and counterproductive.

i don't believe that the old thread paints an unflattering portrait of me. it is about my struggle with an disorder, but it has absolutely no bearing on my arguments here.

you brought it up in reponse to me asking whether my background is as important as someone like ruevyn. you were seeming to excuse his behaviour due to his past experiences, and i thought background should have no bearing on whether a person's comments should have moderator intervention. as an example i was asking if my own experiences were important as well (i could have used someone else as an example, but i do not use people as pawns in arguments), and somehow you thought it was impotant to allude to old posts that you state would discredit my arguments.

obliquely' bringing it up has the same purpose as actually stating it, for the people who care to dig. and pointing it out for the sake of argument was quite underhanded. it was either a threat, a warning, or an attempt to undermine my credibility. but all you've really accomplished is to let your own true colours shine through.

on another note, i was wondering where i had gotten the idea of you and your cohort being a 'club'. i remembered it was not DW_a_Mom who had planted the idea, but i could not remember who it was. out of curiosity, i finally went back to ruevyn's thread (i had been avoiding it, hence why i got mixed up as to who linked back to the mod thread).



i do understand that your post was tongue-in-cheek, but it is amusing you yourself planted the idea. there has to have been some basis in reality behind the post, or you would not have said it. interesting.

are you trying to postulate that he was not speaking of muslim people, but was speaking of other people? or that he didn't want all muslims killed because of the events at 9/11? because that is patently absurd.

hate speech, once again defined. i even found a new definition for variety:



i think you are misunderstanding the point of killing vs. silencing. killing somebody completely stops their life. experiencing moderation may temporarily or permanently restrict their access to WP. stating that all people of a certain race or group should be killed is expressing that you wish that they would no longer exist. that is a powerful statement, and i would say that yes, even making that statement against other people is worse for those people, than a person being silenced.

and some individuals from a minority may in fact feel silenced by the fact that they are not protected from extreme racism on the forums (at least one person said so, in a post which you replied to), and that their opinions are not being heard. essentially, you are taking the stance that ruevyn and others have a greater right to be protected than the minorities who would be protected by the actual application of forum rules.

by the way, i didn't EVER state that ruevyn should be silenced. it is not as though a single complaint leads to total banishment, now does it? people get warnings, threads get locked. and if people followed the rules to begin with, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 25 Sep 2010, 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

that's what this all sounds like to me too.

i don't even care much about PPR, i was continuing to follow this discussion because i thought there could have been ways to apply it to dissent in other parts of the forum.

when talking about what is or isn't appropriate to post, or when mod intervention is or isn't the right thing to request, it would be nice to try to include different viewpoints instead of hearing one pedant like a broken record.

If Ruveyn had said something like "I was so angry I wanted to kill them all". I wouldn't have had a problem with that. (Not much anyway )
Pretty much like your first post on the thread.

What he wrote sounds as though he is exhorting people to kill all Muslims because you cannot be sure which are terrorists.

That sure sounds to me as if it is against site rules and so it should be.

If he didn't want to alter the statement to clarify it the "running to the mods" seems exactly the right thing to do IMO.

^
And that's basically what the fuss is about: his choice of words sounded like instigation - and I don't think such a historically loaded phrase was used by accident either - and it's not clear if he expressed his feelings or an opinion. Assuming he makes a distinctions between the two.

Ruveyn??? Wasn't that pro-zionist who was rejoicing while I was being under the I."D".F's shells shower?

He's banned?

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 26 Sep 2010, 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

No, he's not banned and nobody asks that he is.