Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1lawecon
Just so we all learn the right lesson from the administrative action of "permanently suspending," Barabara, maybe you could clarify the basis of this action?
Yes, it was apparent early on in the original Dytopian thread that Barbara was a nazi. She had all the typical characteristics: championing "the White Race" against the rest of the human race, believing that Jews were the leaders of a conspiracy against "the White Race," believing that all of recent history was a plot against Reich (err, I meant "the nation") and "The White Race," etc. Further, she posted one extensive rant after another, the contenst of which were or should have been copied from a site like Stormfront.
But Tim and I have previously had a discussion where he was adamant about the policy of librarything being not to deny access of its property to bigots, homophobes, anti-Muslims, antisemites, etc. As I recall, he clearly advised me that TOS only prohibited insults to individuals, and that attacks on groups were permissible. Tim's repeated rationale for prohibiting only direct personal attacks on particular individuals, rather than requiring minimal civility in these forums, has been that he and his staff "don't have the time" to monitor for and enforce a more rational policy. That is also his rationale for not generally monitoring these forums, but relying on the "flag" system and unknown criteria to hand out administrative actions.
To further emphasize the point that one can engage in all sorts of bigotry or incivility in these forums without violating TOS, Tim sent out a mass message about a week ago advising those who had posted to the original Dystopian thread that "At present, LibraryThing has no "official" defenses against such a creature." (Was this itself a violation of TOS by being a "personal attack" on another poster?)
At the same time that you were suspending Barbara, there was a thread started in the Pro And Con group entitled "One third to one half of Texans are intellectual retards." One need hardly mention the continual attacks on Christians by certain easily identifiable regular posters, posters who apparently regard Christians in the same light as Barbara regards Jews. Yet no administrative action had been taken or even suggested in those instances. Why is that?
So, I trust you can clarify the policy of librarything regarding the permissible limits of posts to these forums, so that we can all abide by that policy, whatever it is, going forward.
Yes, it was apparent early on in the original Dytopian thread that Barbara was a nazi. She had all the typical characteristics: championing "the White Race" against the rest of the human race, believing that Jews were the leaders of a conspiracy against "the White Race," believing that all of recent history was a plot against Reich (err, I meant "the nation") and "The White Race," etc. Further, she posted one extensive rant after another, the contenst of which were or should have been copied from a site like Stormfront.
But Tim and I have previously had a discussion where he was adamant about the policy of librarything being not to deny access of its property to bigots, homophobes, anti-Muslims, antisemites, etc. As I recall, he clearly advised me that TOS only prohibited insults to individuals, and that attacks on groups were permissible. Tim's repeated rationale for prohibiting only direct personal attacks on particular individuals, rather than requiring minimal civility in these forums, has been that he and his staff "don't have the time" to monitor for and enforce a more rational policy. That is also his rationale for not generally monitoring these forums, but relying on the "flag" system and unknown criteria to hand out administrative actions.
To further emphasize the point that one can engage in all sorts of bigotry or incivility in these forums without violating TOS, Tim sent out a mass message about a week ago advising those who had posted to the original Dystopian thread that "At present, LibraryThing has no "official" defenses against such a creature." (Was this itself a violation of TOS by being a "personal attack" on another poster?)
At the same time that you were suspending Barbara, there was a thread started in the Pro And Con group entitled "One third to one half of Texans are intellectual retards." One need hardly mention the continual attacks on Christians by certain easily identifiable regular posters, posters who apparently regard Christians in the same light as Barbara regards Jews. Yet no administrative action had been taken or even suggested in those instances. Why is that?
So, I trust you can clarify the policy of librarything regarding the permissible limits of posts to these forums, so that we can all abide by that policy, whatever it is, going forward.
2MyopicBookworm
(I think it might be reasonable for the site to have a policy discouraging anyone from bombarding a Talk group with reams and reams of verbiage, whatever its content: such behaviour is a misuse of the forum facility. I sent a private message to bjc suggesting that the material was more suited to a blog.)
3lilithcat
> 1
I agree.
There's no question in my mind that this was a content-based suspension. However, don't fault LT alone. What about the people who flagged her posts, despite the fact that, however delusional and offensive, they did not violate the terms of service?
> 2
"Discourage", yes. But, again, I would not agree that logorrhea should be grounds for suspension.
I agree.
There's no question in my mind that this was a content-based suspension. However, don't fault LT alone. What about the people who flagged her posts, despite the fact that, however delusional and offensive, they did not violate the terms of service?
> 2
"Discourage", yes. But, again, I would not agree that logorrhea should be grounds for suspension.
4timspalding
Actually, Jeremy had ample non-content based reason to suspend her--her second suspension. More later. I'm Christmas shopping.
6timspalding
The poster in question was suspended once before, back in May, for commercial spam. Although, as you note, she was some sort of Nazi, this suspension was temporary, as is our habit with first suspensions. She reemerged and recently began the threads you are speaking of, praising Hitler, going on about "Jew skin" and so forth. Eventually she was goaded into attacking a member, and was suspended by Jeremy.
Frankly, having now reviewed her message, Jeremy and I are at variance as to whether her message was sufficient to suspend her permanently. The attack was not large, although I also see the argument that her previous suspension should have put her on the knife's edge for remaining on LibraryThing. It was Jeremy's call to make. In the sitatuation, I don't really feel that going back on this at this point would make sense. If you see inconsistency in that, I'm afraid that's all I have for you.
The OP is right that I wrote members who had engaged with her asking them, as a member, not to reply to her--to starve her of attention, as it were. It was my hope that, if people stopped replying to her, she'd find the site boring and go away. I think, frankly, this would have worked, if we had waited somewhat longer and others had been supportive of it. That Lawecon was publicly non-supportive and obstructionary of an effort to ignore her is, I think, unfortunate.(1)
The OP misrepresents--intentionally or not--the rationale for not policing the "content" of messages, such a rule against hate speech, apart from rules on the form of argument. LibraryThing does not have rules about what ideas may and may not be expressed, only that one may not attack members. (Other rules, like spam and sock puppetry are another thing, of course.)
The rationale is that there are quite a few topics that shade over into opinions which one side or another will claim are hate speech, and others will claim are not. We do not feel that administrators should be making these distinctions, and setting those boundaries.
The OP points some of these situations out. Some will claim that some of the attacks on Christians are hate speech, and there have certainly been threads on homosexuality, Islam, race in America and so forth that enter this gray zone. I myself have referred to posts as anti-Christian biggotry, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, homophobic and so forth. Others have disagreed with me, including many of the site's most well-known and popular posters. I do not think it is wise to put *my* sense of what's acceptable as the one true standard by which LibraryThing ends discussion and ejects members. Nor should we expect Jeremy--whose taste and politics are also well-defined and will be to some posters liking and not to others--to be arbiter of what's acceptable and what's not. This accords with my general and very "American" notion--and after all it is my site and I am an American--that stupid and evil ideas are more effectively shown to be stupid and evil by conversation, mockery, critique and social oprobrium, not by shutting them down and making martyrs of their spokesmen.
Lawecon confuses this policy with another one, that we don't police messages unless we are asked to. This indeed is how things work--we don't have time to read everything written on the site, or even flagged.(2) So, if you want to reliably bring official attention to a post on the site, please write to us with details. This is, however, quite a separate question from what constitutes a violation of the TOS.
This particular incident was an unfortunate one. I'm glad, frankly, that it ended as it did. If the user had not stepped over a boundary and users could not be persuaded to ignore her, I would have looked to further steps. This certainly was the most serious test of LibraryThing's "no content restrictions" policy, for, indeed, I do not relish having LibraryThing turned into a haven for Nazis. The next step would have been to re-open some of the ideas that have been floated previously, such as allowing groups to have a special TOS, or instituting other color flags with effects on visibility or whatever. We might similarly introduce a rule against using LT as a blog, which, as suggested, might have applied here.
Finally, it might also have forced us to consider a sitewide rule against the most clear-cut instances of hate speech. I have no objection, in principle, to a rule against straight-up holocaust denial and attacks on "jew bankers." My fear, however, is that such a rule could become a slippery slope, with yours truly having to decide whether this or that less obviously objectionable statement was hate speech or not.
If I don't reply, it is because I am shopping now.
1. Lawecon is wrong to label this an attack on my part, as LibraryThing has never policed the contents of private messages between two members about a third. Members are free to call me or him an idiot in a private message to another member.
2. As a wrinkle, enough flags in a short period of time eventually trigger a special email to us, and an automatic member block, instituted as a defense against spam. This chain of events often brings attention from us, but not necessarily so.
Frankly, having now reviewed her message, Jeremy and I are at variance as to whether her message was sufficient to suspend her permanently. The attack was not large, although I also see the argument that her previous suspension should have put her on the knife's edge for remaining on LibraryThing. It was Jeremy's call to make. In the sitatuation, I don't really feel that going back on this at this point would make sense. If you see inconsistency in that, I'm afraid that's all I have for you.
The OP is right that I wrote members who had engaged with her asking them, as a member, not to reply to her--to starve her of attention, as it were. It was my hope that, if people stopped replying to her, she'd find the site boring and go away. I think, frankly, this would have worked, if we had waited somewhat longer and others had been supportive of it. That Lawecon was publicly non-supportive and obstructionary of an effort to ignore her is, I think, unfortunate.(1)
The OP misrepresents--intentionally or not--the rationale for not policing the "content" of messages, such a rule against hate speech, apart from rules on the form of argument. LibraryThing does not have rules about what ideas may and may not be expressed, only that one may not attack members. (Other rules, like spam and sock puppetry are another thing, of course.)
The rationale is that there are quite a few topics that shade over into opinions which one side or another will claim are hate speech, and others will claim are not. We do not feel that administrators should be making these distinctions, and setting those boundaries.
The OP points some of these situations out. Some will claim that some of the attacks on Christians are hate speech, and there have certainly been threads on homosexuality, Islam, race in America and so forth that enter this gray zone. I myself have referred to posts as anti-Christian biggotry, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, homophobic and so forth. Others have disagreed with me, including many of the site's most well-known and popular posters. I do not think it is wise to put *my* sense of what's acceptable as the one true standard by which LibraryThing ends discussion and ejects members. Nor should we expect Jeremy--whose taste and politics are also well-defined and will be to some posters liking and not to others--to be arbiter of what's acceptable and what's not. This accords with my general and very "American" notion--and after all it is my site and I am an American--that stupid and evil ideas are more effectively shown to be stupid and evil by conversation, mockery, critique and social oprobrium, not by shutting them down and making martyrs of their spokesmen.
Lawecon confuses this policy with another one, that we don't police messages unless we are asked to. This indeed is how things work--we don't have time to read everything written on the site, or even flagged.(2) So, if you want to reliably bring official attention to a post on the site, please write to us with details. This is, however, quite a separate question from what constitutes a violation of the TOS.
This particular incident was an unfortunate one. I'm glad, frankly, that it ended as it did. If the user had not stepped over a boundary and users could not be persuaded to ignore her, I would have looked to further steps. This certainly was the most serious test of LibraryThing's "no content restrictions" policy, for, indeed, I do not relish having LibraryThing turned into a haven for Nazis. The next step would have been to re-open some of the ideas that have been floated previously, such as allowing groups to have a special TOS, or instituting other color flags with effects on visibility or whatever. We might similarly introduce a rule against using LT as a blog, which, as suggested, might have applied here.
Finally, it might also have forced us to consider a sitewide rule against the most clear-cut instances of hate speech. I have no objection, in principle, to a rule against straight-up holocaust denial and attacks on "jew bankers." My fear, however, is that such a rule could become a slippery slope, with yours truly having to decide whether this or that less obviously objectionable statement was hate speech or not.
If I don't reply, it is because I am shopping now.
1. Lawecon is wrong to label this an attack on my part, as LibraryThing has never policed the contents of private messages between two members about a third. Members are free to call me or him an idiot in a private message to another member.
2. As a wrinkle, enough flags in a short period of time eventually trigger a special email to us, and an automatic member block, instituted as a defense against spam. This chain of events often brings attention from us, but not necessarily so.
7lawecon
The OP is right that I wrote members who had engaged with her asking them, as a member, not to reply to her--to starve her of attention, as it were. It was my hope that, if people stopped replying to her, she'd find the site boring and go away. I think, frankly, this would have worked, if we had waited somewhat longer and others had been supportive of it. That Lawecon was publicly non-supportive and obstructionary of an effort to ignore her is, I think, unfortunate.(1)
================================
This is, of course, a typical attempt to evade responsibility for the uses one allows of one's property. Tim doesn't want to "police content" but he wants others to change their behavior so he won't have to police content. He rejoices when someone is "goaded into attacking a member," although that is the least of that poster's sins.
In fact, my disobedience to his plea was limited to two two line posts. I guess he missed the numerous posts by certain other librarything "regulars." But it is nice to have a scapegoat.
=================================
The OP points some of these situations out. Some will claim that some of the attacks on Christians are hate speech, and there have certainly been threads on homosexuality, Islam, race in America and so forth that enter this gray zone. I myself have referred to posts as anti-Christian biggotry, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, homophobic and so forth. Others have disagreed with me, including many of the site's most well-known and popular posters. I do not think it is wise to put *my* sense of what's acceptable as the one true standard by which LibraryThing ends discussion and ejects members. Nor should we expect Jeremy--whose taste and politics are also well-defined and will be to some posters liking and not to others--to be arbiter of what's acceptable and what's not. This accords with my general and very "American" notion--and after all it is my site and I am an American--that stupid and evil ideas are more effectively shown to be stupid and evil by conversation, mockery, critique and social oprobrium, not by shutting them down and making martyrs of their spokesmen.
=================================
Total hypocrisy. Because you are an "American" do you allow repulsive people with barbaric agendas - or just plain consistently offensive people - to camp out in your living room? Why not? You are not for "forcing" your preferences on others, are you? By denying such people free access to use of your living room are you not denying them a space to stand while they act out? Imposition !! "Imposing your sense of what is acceptable" on others. For shame!!
The simple fact, Tim, is that librarything is your property. You grant licenses to people on certain terms to use your property, but it is still your property and you are still ethically responsible for how it is used. All these rather ridiculous attempts to contend that your failure to require responsible use of your property is some sort of support for "free speech," is a conceptual confusion and a moral abdication for reasons of mere expediency. When you say "I simply don't have and don't intend on acquiring the resources to police my property properly," that makes some sense. When you try to recharacterize expediency as virtue, well, I am sure you know what that is........
================================
This is, of course, a typical attempt to evade responsibility for the uses one allows of one's property. Tim doesn't want to "police content" but he wants others to change their behavior so he won't have to police content. He rejoices when someone is "goaded into attacking a member," although that is the least of that poster's sins.
In fact, my disobedience to his plea was limited to two two line posts. I guess he missed the numerous posts by certain other librarything "regulars." But it is nice to have a scapegoat.
=================================
The OP points some of these situations out. Some will claim that some of the attacks on Christians are hate speech, and there have certainly been threads on homosexuality, Islam, race in America and so forth that enter this gray zone. I myself have referred to posts as anti-Christian biggotry, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, homophobic and so forth. Others have disagreed with me, including many of the site's most well-known and popular posters. I do not think it is wise to put *my* sense of what's acceptable as the one true standard by which LibraryThing ends discussion and ejects members. Nor should we expect Jeremy--whose taste and politics are also well-defined and will be to some posters liking and not to others--to be arbiter of what's acceptable and what's not. This accords with my general and very "American" notion--and after all it is my site and I am an American--that stupid and evil ideas are more effectively shown to be stupid and evil by conversation, mockery, critique and social oprobrium, not by shutting them down and making martyrs of their spokesmen.
=================================
Total hypocrisy. Because you are an "American" do you allow repulsive people with barbaric agendas - or just plain consistently offensive people - to camp out in your living room? Why not? You are not for "forcing" your preferences on others, are you? By denying such people free access to use of your living room are you not denying them a space to stand while they act out? Imposition !! "Imposing your sense of what is acceptable" on others. For shame!!
The simple fact, Tim, is that librarything is your property. You grant licenses to people on certain terms to use your property, but it is still your property and you are still ethically responsible for how it is used. All these rather ridiculous attempts to contend that your failure to require responsible use of your property is some sort of support for "free speech," is a conceptual confusion and a moral abdication for reasons of mere expediency. When you say "I simply don't have and don't intend on acquiring the resources to police my property properly," that makes some sense. When you try to recharacterize expediency as virtue, well, I am sure you know what that is........
8Jesse_wiedinmyer
He rejoices when someone is "goaded into attacking a member,"
You, and every other poster on this site, has the ability to control whether or not you attack a member.
You, and every other poster on this site, has the ability to control whether or not you attack a member.
9lawecon
Yes, indeed, and those with any sense of morality will cheer when I or anyone else "attacks" someone like Barbara. But of course to do so would be a TOS violation.
But you don't get the distinction, do you? You see, the one has to do with civilized behavior and the other has to do with simple expediency that is, frankly, not very admirable.
But you don't get the distinction, do you? You see, the one has to do with civilized behavior and the other has to do with simple expediency that is, frankly, not very admirable.
10Jesse_wiedinmyer
I'd flag it all the same.
12MyopicBookworm
#7: In fact, my disobedience to his plea was limited to two two line posts. I guess he missed the numerous posts by certain other librarything "regulars."
lawecon: I think you are probably incorrect. Tim's message reached me on Dec 13, but as I tend to arrive on the site at Talk not Profile, I did not read it until Dec 14, when I had already seen the last posts by anyone other than bjc and you (#231, 232, 234). After ten more rants from bjc, you chipped in on Dec 17 (#245) and again on Dec 18 (#253).
But it is nice to have a scapegoat.
I don't buy the "righteous victim" line.
lawecon: I think you are probably incorrect. Tim's message reached me on Dec 13, but as I tend to arrive on the site at Talk not Profile, I did not read it until Dec 14, when I had already seen the last posts by anyone other than bjc and you (#231, 232, 234). After ten more rants from bjc, you chipped in on Dec 17 (#245) and again on Dec 18 (#253).
But it is nice to have a scapegoat.
I don't buy the "righteous victim" line.
13timspalding
Total hypocrisy. Because you are an "American" do you allow repulsive people with barbaric agendas - or just plain consistently offensive people - to camp out in your living room? Why not?
No, but then the list of LibraryThing members I'd want in my living room is far smaller than the set I am willing to talk to on the site, and smaller still than those I do not kick out of the site.
A better analogy would be a large outdoor cafe. If I ran an outdoor cafe, would I allow people I disagree with to drink coffee and chat with friends and other tables there? Certainly. I would even serve people whose conversation in my cafe advanced positions that would get them thrown out of my living room. But would I allow people to yell insults at other patrons or throw dishes? No.
You are not for "forcing" your preferences on others, are you? By denying such people free access to use of your living room are you not denying them a space to stand while they act out? Imposition !! "Imposing your sense of what is acceptable" on others. For shame!!
This language of forcing and imposition and the view here are entirely yours. Although you put both in quotation marks, and are clearly intending to characterize my views, I never used these or similar terms, and they do not describe my arguments at all. This is the second time on this topic you have mischaracterized my views, and this one was after I laid them out very deliberately.
I resent these mischaracterizations and misquotations, as someone may take them as my own. And I wonder if you actually understand me.
This is, of course, a typical attempt to evade responsibility for the uses one allows of one's property. Tim doesn't want to "police content" but he wants others to change their behavior so he won't have to police content.
We disagree, I think, on basics quesitons of private vs. public. I believe that a private business can create a space for open discussion and not be morally responsible for what is discussed. Further, I think that, if I were required to police content, I would probably do a bad job of it, being drawn deeper and deeping into defining what shades of discussion are just over or just under, with inevitable charges that I am deciding the question from a partisan standpoint, aren't treating anti-semites as harshly as homophobes, or whatever. Considering how often we've disagreed, and on diverse topics, I'm confident you'd disagree with me here too!
Further, if moral justification for open discussion is needed, I believe that typically American thing--that open discussion, while it allows objectionable views to be aired, is in the long term interests of better opinions and better facts.
I also believe that social norms may and even should exist separate from hard authority, and that social norms, not that authority, are the best way to produce a healthy conversation. To this end, I have no problem with members making other members feel social presure--oprobrium or just a lack of engagement--when they say gross things, even though the administration of the site itself does not delete the members for saying those things.
No, but then the list of LibraryThing members I'd want in my living room is far smaller than the set I am willing to talk to on the site, and smaller still than those I do not kick out of the site.
A better analogy would be a large outdoor cafe. If I ran an outdoor cafe, would I allow people I disagree with to drink coffee and chat with friends and other tables there? Certainly. I would even serve people whose conversation in my cafe advanced positions that would get them thrown out of my living room. But would I allow people to yell insults at other patrons or throw dishes? No.
You are not for "forcing" your preferences on others, are you? By denying such people free access to use of your living room are you not denying them a space to stand while they act out? Imposition !! "Imposing your sense of what is acceptable" on others. For shame!!
This language of forcing and imposition and the view here are entirely yours. Although you put both in quotation marks, and are clearly intending to characterize my views, I never used these or similar terms, and they do not describe my arguments at all. This is the second time on this topic you have mischaracterized my views, and this one was after I laid them out very deliberately.
I resent these mischaracterizations and misquotations, as someone may take them as my own. And I wonder if you actually understand me.
This is, of course, a typical attempt to evade responsibility for the uses one allows of one's property. Tim doesn't want to "police content" but he wants others to change their behavior so he won't have to police content.
We disagree, I think, on basics quesitons of private vs. public. I believe that a private business can create a space for open discussion and not be morally responsible for what is discussed. Further, I think that, if I were required to police content, I would probably do a bad job of it, being drawn deeper and deeping into defining what shades of discussion are just over or just under, with inevitable charges that I am deciding the question from a partisan standpoint, aren't treating anti-semites as harshly as homophobes, or whatever. Considering how often we've disagreed, and on diverse topics, I'm confident you'd disagree with me here too!
Further, if moral justification for open discussion is needed, I believe that typically American thing--that open discussion, while it allows objectionable views to be aired, is in the long term interests of better opinions and better facts.
I also believe that social norms may and even should exist separate from hard authority, and that social norms, not that authority, are the best way to produce a healthy conversation. To this end, I have no problem with members making other members feel social presure--oprobrium or just a lack of engagement--when they say gross things, even though the administration of the site itself does not delete the members for saying those things.
14lawecon
Tim: I also believe that social norms may and even should exist separate from hard authority, and that social norms, not that authority, are the best way to produce a healthy conversation.
===================================
Lawecon: Again you attempt to confuse public and private. No one, at least not me, is suggesting that the state "police content" on private property. You can say and do anything that is peaceful on your own property. You can even create a haven for ill tempered bigots. However, if you create a haven for ill tempered bigots you can't then deny responsibility for having done so. YOU are the authority concerning what is done with your property, and you are responsible for the ways you use your property.
==================================
Lawecon: You are not for "forcing" your preferences on others, are you? By denying such people free access to use of your living room are you not denying them a space to stand while they act out? Imposition !! "Imposing your sense of what is acceptable" on others. For shame!!
Tim: This language of forcing and imposition and the view here are entirely yours. Although you put both in quotation marks, and are clearly intending to characterize my views,I never used these or similar terms, and they do not describe my arguments at all. This is the second time on this topic you have mischaracterized my views, and this one was after I laid them out very deliberately.
I resent these mischaracterizations and misquotations, as someone may take them as my own. And I wonder if you actually understand me.
=================================
Lawecon: Well, you should get it straight. Either I am deliberately mischaracterizing your views or I misunderstand you. Let's be generous and say that I misunderstand you. How would you help me understand better?
Presumably you do not deny that you COULD police these forums, your property, so they are not a soapbox for bigots and those who believe that Texans and Christians are mostly morons, because, ah, they are Texans and Christians. Presumably you admit that you deliberately choose not to police these forums to exclude such bigotry.
According to what you say in the quotation at the head of this post, your basis for doing what you do is that you don't want to exercise "hard authority" to suppress any opinions. To exercise "hard authority" over your property would be somehow to suppress "a healthy conversation."
Sounds to me like I've got your position exactly right. You obviously view the exercise of discretion according to social norms over the soapbox you have created and supply to others as some sort of suppression, force and imposition over "free discussion." I think that view is absurd, but it what you just said above.
So presumably "discussions" over child sacrifice, whether Muslims should be herded into concentration camps for everyone's protection, advocacy for torture, and advocacy of boy-man love are all welcome - as are those who think that liberals and Jews are out to destroy White Civilization and those who think that all conservatives are morons. One just has to be a little careful not to DIRECTLY attack identifiable others who are posting on the same day. The offensiveness of views are irrelevant, except, of course, in a case like Barbara's, where they are relevant and any excuse will do to get rid of the offending poster......
So I'd really like to hear your clarification of what you are REALLY doing and saying and how it differs from my characterization above.
===================================
Lawecon: Again you attempt to confuse public and private. No one, at least not me, is suggesting that the state "police content" on private property. You can say and do anything that is peaceful on your own property. You can even create a haven for ill tempered bigots. However, if you create a haven for ill tempered bigots you can't then deny responsibility for having done so. YOU are the authority concerning what is done with your property, and you are responsible for the ways you use your property.
==================================
Lawecon: You are not for "forcing" your preferences on others, are you? By denying such people free access to use of your living room are you not denying them a space to stand while they act out? Imposition !! "Imposing your sense of what is acceptable" on others. For shame!!
Tim: This language of forcing and imposition and the view here are entirely yours. Although you put both in quotation marks, and are clearly intending to characterize my views,I never used these or similar terms, and they do not describe my arguments at all. This is the second time on this topic you have mischaracterized my views, and this one was after I laid them out very deliberately.
I resent these mischaracterizations and misquotations, as someone may take them as my own. And I wonder if you actually understand me.
=================================
Lawecon: Well, you should get it straight. Either I am deliberately mischaracterizing your views or I misunderstand you. Let's be generous and say that I misunderstand you. How would you help me understand better?
Presumably you do not deny that you COULD police these forums, your property, so they are not a soapbox for bigots and those who believe that Texans and Christians are mostly morons, because, ah, they are Texans and Christians. Presumably you admit that you deliberately choose not to police these forums to exclude such bigotry.
According to what you say in the quotation at the head of this post, your basis for doing what you do is that you don't want to exercise "hard authority" to suppress any opinions. To exercise "hard authority" over your property would be somehow to suppress "a healthy conversation."
Sounds to me like I've got your position exactly right. You obviously view the exercise of discretion according to social norms over the soapbox you have created and supply to others as some sort of suppression, force and imposition over "free discussion." I think that view is absurd, but it what you just said above.
So presumably "discussions" over child sacrifice, whether Muslims should be herded into concentration camps for everyone's protection, advocacy for torture, and advocacy of boy-man love are all welcome - as are those who think that liberals and Jews are out to destroy White Civilization and those who think that all conservatives are morons. One just has to be a little careful not to DIRECTLY attack identifiable others who are posting on the same day. The offensiveness of views are irrelevant, except, of course, in a case like Barbara's, where they are relevant and any excuse will do to get rid of the offending poster......
So I'd really like to hear your clarification of what you are REALLY doing and saying and how it differs from my characterization above.
15lawecon
~12
Mea culpa. Three posts of two lines each, two of which were before Tim's email. Of course, that was all that was said in response to Barbara after his email, as Tim implies.
Mea culpa. Three posts of two lines each, two of which were before Tim's email. Of course, that was all that was said in response to Barbara after his email, as Tim implies.
16timspalding
So presumably "discussions" over child sacrifice, whether Muslims should be herded into concentration camps for everyone's protection, advocacy for torture, and advocacy of boy-man love are all welcome - as are those who think that liberals and Jews are out to destroy White Civilization and those who think that all conservatives are morons.
In the six years LibraryThing has been around, we have not--to my knowledge--had any proponents of child sacrifice, Muslim concentration camps or man-boy love. I believe we just had our first person who thought "liberals and Jews are out to destroy White Civilization," although I suspect it wasn't just liberals.
But let's take your other two: (1) people who think all conservatives are morons, and (2) people who support torture.
Our politics groups have indeed seen more than a few people who appear to believe that conservatives are morons. Members have said as much on many occasions. Sometimes they've restricted it to "teabaggers" or to supporters of a particular candidate.
I'm sorry if this is new to you, but this sort of opinion--sometimes conscious hyperbole and sometimes not--is quite common on the political left here in the US. What would you have me do? Shall we shut down conversations of this sort and suspend members who say it? Shall we make it a rule that you may never call the members of any group idiots? And which groups? Democrats? Surely you think that. Followers of Lyndon LaRouche, a one-time respectable Democrat whose adherents now believe that the Queen of England is behind the international drug trade? Many would say no. Although I dislike the use of "idiot" to mean "supporter of idiotic ideas," I definitely think LaRouchism is idiocy. Assuming you don't think I should kick myself off the site, draw for me, if you will, the line between La Rouchians and Democrats. Demarcate it for me, because I don't want to.
What about "advocacy of torture"? Has LibraryThing had discussions about the morality of torture? Of course it has. The morality of torture was at the center of US national debate for a while there, with most of the leaders of one party solidly in favor of waterboarding detainees--a practice which has generally been considered torture, although some disagree. A number of national Democrats as well as most or all of the current crop of Republican nominees support this policy still, and some have gone farther. People like Senator Lieberman and Vice President Cheney have gone on national shows, like Meet the Press, advancing these opinions. Bush has given speeches on the topic. (Since NBC gave these people a platform, you must believe NBC is morally responsible for supporting torture, right?)
So, again, tell me what I am to do? Shall LibraryThing have a policy of forbidding discussion of mainstream Republican opinion on the topic of torture? If someone says the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind of 9/11," wasn't such a big deal shall we expel them immediately, or give them a change to recant? Shall we suspend members who support Mitt Romney and Senator Lieberman, who are on record supporting waterboarding, or do we have to wait for them to voice support for their stance on the issue? At one point polls showed that 58% of Americans supported waterboarding. Shall we kick them out when they say so? Play King for me, since clearly you want me to play one.
I don't know what your opinion on such questions, but I find it revealing that, when you had the whole universe of objectionable opinion before you, you still managed to get into such sticky ground!
Perhaps you regret including these examples. If you thought harder, you could perhaps have found better ones. No decent person would express support for the Khmer Rouge, right? (I get to suspend Noam Chomsky—woo hoo!) But I don't think you'd find examples that were both extreme enough to draw near universal condemnation and actually a problem on the site. Meanwhile, you'd get me involved in endless edge cases and judgement calls, angering an ever wider selection of members, and, I think, stiffling legitimate debate on issues like waterboarding and the "idiocy" of this or that political view.
Call me morally evasive and hypocritical if you want, but I don't want to go there.
In the six years LibraryThing has been around, we have not--to my knowledge--had any proponents of child sacrifice, Muslim concentration camps or man-boy love. I believe we just had our first person who thought "liberals and Jews are out to destroy White Civilization," although I suspect it wasn't just liberals.
But let's take your other two: (1) people who think all conservatives are morons, and (2) people who support torture.
Our politics groups have indeed seen more than a few people who appear to believe that conservatives are morons. Members have said as much on many occasions. Sometimes they've restricted it to "teabaggers" or to supporters of a particular candidate.
I'm sorry if this is new to you, but this sort of opinion--sometimes conscious hyperbole and sometimes not--is quite common on the political left here in the US. What would you have me do? Shall we shut down conversations of this sort and suspend members who say it? Shall we make it a rule that you may never call the members of any group idiots? And which groups? Democrats? Surely you think that. Followers of Lyndon LaRouche, a one-time respectable Democrat whose adherents now believe that the Queen of England is behind the international drug trade? Many would say no. Although I dislike the use of "idiot" to mean "supporter of idiotic ideas," I definitely think LaRouchism is idiocy. Assuming you don't think I should kick myself off the site, draw for me, if you will, the line between La Rouchians and Democrats. Demarcate it for me, because I don't want to.
What about "advocacy of torture"? Has LibraryThing had discussions about the morality of torture? Of course it has. The morality of torture was at the center of US national debate for a while there, with most of the leaders of one party solidly in favor of waterboarding detainees--a practice which has generally been considered torture, although some disagree. A number of national Democrats as well as most or all of the current crop of Republican nominees support this policy still, and some have gone farther. People like Senator Lieberman and Vice President Cheney have gone on national shows, like Meet the Press, advancing these opinions. Bush has given speeches on the topic. (Since NBC gave these people a platform, you must believe NBC is morally responsible for supporting torture, right?)
So, again, tell me what I am to do? Shall LibraryThing have a policy of forbidding discussion of mainstream Republican opinion on the topic of torture? If someone says the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind of 9/11," wasn't such a big deal shall we expel them immediately, or give them a change to recant? Shall we suspend members who support Mitt Romney and Senator Lieberman, who are on record supporting waterboarding, or do we have to wait for them to voice support for their stance on the issue? At one point polls showed that 58% of Americans supported waterboarding. Shall we kick them out when they say so? Play King for me, since clearly you want me to play one.
I don't know what your opinion on such questions, but I find it revealing that, when you had the whole universe of objectionable opinion before you, you still managed to get into such sticky ground!
Perhaps you regret including these examples. If you thought harder, you could perhaps have found better ones. No decent person would express support for the Khmer Rouge, right? (I get to suspend Noam Chomsky—woo hoo!) But I don't think you'd find examples that were both extreme enough to draw near universal condemnation and actually a problem on the site. Meanwhile, you'd get me involved in endless edge cases and judgement calls, angering an ever wider selection of members, and, I think, stiffling legitimate debate on issues like waterboarding and the "idiocy" of this or that political view.
Call me morally evasive and hypocritical if you want, but I don't want to go there.
17aulsmith
Not a member of this group, but popping in to support Tim in not (generally) policing the site.
I was watching the original discussion because I'm always interested in how tolerant people deal with pleas for the toleration of intolerance, so I'm a little sad that Barbara was (perhaps prematurely) suspended.
However, I have found "Don't Feed the Trolls" to be a very effective tool here on LT and applaud the management's advocacy for social control as its method of choice for dealing with difficult people.
I was watching the original discussion because I'm always interested in how tolerant people deal with pleas for the toleration of intolerance, so I'm a little sad that Barbara was (perhaps prematurely) suspended.
However, I have found "Don't Feed the Trolls" to be a very effective tool here on LT and applaud the management's advocacy for social control as its method of choice for dealing with difficult people.
18lawecon
I'm sorry if this is new to you, but this sort of opinion--sometimes conscious hyperbole and sometimes not--is quite common on the political left here in the US. What would you have me do?
===================================
Let's use your outside cafe example to illustrate what I "would have you do." Let's say you ran such a cafe and someone came in wearing a t-shirt that proclaimed in five inch letters that "Obama is an ignorant dirty n)(*er" (but without the punctuation). Permitted speech under the 1st Amendment? Undoubtedly. Someone you want sitting around your restaurant? Not unless you want the rest of the patrons to be Klansmen the following week.
What would I do under the above circumstances? I'd walk over to this guy and ask him to leave. If he didn't leave I would have him ejected - either through my own staff or by calling the police. I assure you, the police would help, and there would be no successful resulting legal action.
But you choose, Tim. It is your property.
I am sure that you know where the bounds of decency and civilization lie. I suspect, for instance, that you know that those who advocate torture of prisoners are barbarians, whether or not they are Republicans. But whether you know things like that or not, the consequences will be the same. You actually stick with your "principles" and you will have forums filled with ranters who attack everyone who isn't a member of their particular bigots' club or you can put some effort into policing your property and have a reasonable place to carry on reasonable discussions in a reasonable tone.
Incidentally, you never got around to explaining how my prior characterization of your views was a deliberate mischaracterization of what you believe. But I'm sure there is a reason for that omission.
===================================
Meanwhile, you'd get me involved in endless edge cases and judgement calls, angering an ever wider selection of members, and, I think, stiffling legitimate debate on issues like waterboarding and the "idiocy" of this or that political view.
Call me morally evasive and hypocritical if you want, but I don't want to go there.
==================================
Yept, well there are also a lot of people who don't want to keep their empty lots cleared of weeds and debris. Most of their neighbors aren't happy with them, but some of the fuck up kids looking for a place to down a fifth and some gang members looking for a place to administer "justice" just love the unsupervised state of their property. I guess it depends who you are trying to appeal to in managing your property.
===================================
Let's use your outside cafe example to illustrate what I "would have you do." Let's say you ran such a cafe and someone came in wearing a t-shirt that proclaimed in five inch letters that "Obama is an ignorant dirty n)(*er" (but without the punctuation). Permitted speech under the 1st Amendment? Undoubtedly. Someone you want sitting around your restaurant? Not unless you want the rest of the patrons to be Klansmen the following week.
What would I do under the above circumstances? I'd walk over to this guy and ask him to leave. If he didn't leave I would have him ejected - either through my own staff or by calling the police. I assure you, the police would help, and there would be no successful resulting legal action.
But you choose, Tim. It is your property.
I am sure that you know where the bounds of decency and civilization lie. I suspect, for instance, that you know that those who advocate torture of prisoners are barbarians, whether or not they are Republicans. But whether you know things like that or not, the consequences will be the same. You actually stick with your "principles" and you will have forums filled with ranters who attack everyone who isn't a member of their particular bigots' club or you can put some effort into policing your property and have a reasonable place to carry on reasonable discussions in a reasonable tone.
Incidentally, you never got around to explaining how my prior characterization of your views was a deliberate mischaracterization of what you believe. But I'm sure there is a reason for that omission.
===================================
Meanwhile, you'd get me involved in endless edge cases and judgement calls, angering an ever wider selection of members, and, I think, stiffling legitimate debate on issues like waterboarding and the "idiocy" of this or that political view.
Call me morally evasive and hypocritical if you want, but I don't want to go there.
==================================
Yept, well there are also a lot of people who don't want to keep their empty lots cleared of weeds and debris. Most of their neighbors aren't happy with them, but some of the fuck up kids looking for a place to down a fifth and some gang members looking for a place to administer "justice" just love the unsupervised state of their property. I guess it depends who you are trying to appeal to in managing your property.
19jjwilson61
18> Let's use your outside cafe example to illustrate what I "would have you do." Let's say you ran such a cafe and someone came in wearing a t-shirt that proclaimed in five inch letters that "Obama is an ignorant dirty n)(*er" (but without the punctuation).
But that analogy fails because the message isn't conveyed to everyone on LT or even everyone using Talk. A better analogy would be if that person walked over to one of the tables and made the statement. Do you want Tim eavesdropping on all the conversations at all the tables. Wouldn't it be better if the people at that table just ignored the boor and let him mutter to himself?
But that analogy fails because the message isn't conveyed to everyone on LT or even everyone using Talk. A better analogy would be if that person walked over to one of the tables and made the statement. Do you want Tim eavesdropping on all the conversations at all the tables. Wouldn't it be better if the people at that table just ignored the boor and let him mutter to himself?
20DeusExLibrus
I'm only beginning to be active in this group, but I'd like to poke my head in here for a second to ask a question/offer a suggestion. Is lawecon aware of how incredibly MASSIVE the discussion area of this site is? I've been here for a couple years, looked at a number of groups, and am quite sure I've only scratched the surface. I routinely see people are members of groups I've never heard of. The sheer size of the site combined with the limited group of people running it makes micro-managing Talk rather an unwieldy idea.
I also agree with timspalding, though maybe for different reasons. I'd much rather have the people running the site working on the site and doing their respective jobs than playing morality police. A conversation may offend your sensibilities, I've certainly run into a number on here that offend mine. However, it seems a much more reasonable response to simply not get involved than run to the management expecting them to expel every person spewing a point of view you disagree with. We're all adults here (or the vast majority are) maybe we should act like it instead of expecting other people to fix everything.
I also agree with timspalding, though maybe for different reasons. I'd much rather have the people running the site working on the site and doing their respective jobs than playing morality police. A conversation may offend your sensibilities, I've certainly run into a number on here that offend mine. However, it seems a much more reasonable response to simply not get involved than run to the management expecting them to expel every person spewing a point of view you disagree with. We're all adults here (or the vast majority are) maybe we should act like it instead of expecting other people to fix everything.
21timspalding
I suspect, for instance, that you know that those who advocate torture of prisoners are barbarians, whether or not they are Republicans.
LibraryThing will not be purging supporters of Mitt Romney and Joe Lieberman just because you "know" they are barbarians.
Incidentally, you never got around to explaining how my prior characterization of your views was a deliberate mischaracterization of what you believe.
Compare what I said and your description of it, complete with quoted words. You added major ideas nowhere in my words. I'm puzzled that you can't see this, but I feel no responsibility to teach you close reading of texts.
summary
I think I've set things out pretty clearly, and at considerable length. It seems to me we disagree on basic issues—public vs. private, what is objectionable, what "reasonable" means, the role of social pressure, etc. I don't see how these differences are to be bridged. If there are other members who want to discuss this issue, I'm all ears. But I think I've given you quite enough of my time.
LibraryThing will not be purging supporters of Mitt Romney and Joe Lieberman just because you "know" they are barbarians.
Incidentally, you never got around to explaining how my prior characterization of your views was a deliberate mischaracterization of what you believe.
Compare what I said and your description of it, complete with quoted words. You added major ideas nowhere in my words. I'm puzzled that you can't see this, but I feel no responsibility to teach you close reading of texts.
summary
I think I've set things out pretty clearly, and at considerable length. It seems to me we disagree on basic issues—public vs. private, what is objectionable, what "reasonable" means, the role of social pressure, etc. I don't see how these differences are to be bridged. If there are other members who want to discuss this issue, I'm all ears. But I think I've given you quite enough of my time.
23MyopicBookworm
I'm puzzled. Someone complains that the discussions are not firmly enough policed, and then raises objections when one is? Because it was not done according to exactly the principles that he demands?
Look, on this website, Tim is God, right? If you can't get a systematic Timodicy together, you'll just have to become an aTimist and stop trying to believe in such a frankly absurd imaginary figure.
Look, on this website, Tim is God, right? If you can't get a systematic Timodicy together, you'll just have to become an aTimist and stop trying to believe in such a frankly absurd imaginary figure.
24lawecon
I'm puzzled. Someone complains that the discussions are not firmly enough policed, and then raises objections when one is? Because it was not done according to exactly the principles that he demands?
=============================
As I've said repeatedly above and before, I have no "objection" at all to Tim using his property in any way he sees fit. I just want to be clear that he prefers an empty lot with lots of trash and weeds where people gather to beat the crap out of each other over baseless opinions. Obviously, he does. End of topic as far as my interest goes.
===================================
Look, on this website, Tim is God, right?
====================================
No, Tim is not G-d anywhere outside his own mind. He may an owner of particular property, but he is not G-d. Maybe that is why you're "puzzled."
=============================
As I've said repeatedly above and before, I have no "objection" at all to Tim using his property in any way he sees fit. I just want to be clear that he prefers an empty lot with lots of trash and weeds where people gather to beat the crap out of each other over baseless opinions. Obviously, he does. End of topic as far as my interest goes.
===================================
Look, on this website, Tim is God, right?
====================================
No, Tim is not G-d anywhere outside his own mind. He may an owner of particular property, but he is not G-d. Maybe that is why you're "puzzled."
25MyopicBookworm
an empty lot with lots of trash and weeds where people gather to beat the crap out of each other over baseless opinions
Maybe you need to spend more time on different Talk groups, instead of concentrating on the ones that piss you off.
In an empty lot, the squirrels can play :-)
Maybe you need to spend more time on different Talk groups, instead of concentrating on the ones that piss you off.
In an empty lot, the squirrels can play :-)
26timspalding
The site has rules, called the Terms of Service (here). I made the rules, which have hardly changed over six years. We have debated more consequential rule changes, such as group-level rules, but we have not instituted any. The rules are enforced by me and other LibraryThing staff. At present Jeremy does most of the policing.
The rules as they stand allow members to express all opinions and ideas, including many (like the defense of waterboarding or criticisms of Texas) that some members would like to prohibit. The rules do, however, require that members avoid certain modes of expression, such as personal attacks on other members. They also come down very hard on certain attempts to misuse the software, including spam, sock puppetry and willful misuse of flags.
Violations are dealt with primarily when someone brings them to our attention. Repeated violations are treated more seriously. We tend to be more forgiving when a violator has a long record of positive contributions, because we have grounds for thinking they can avoid future violations, and less forgiving of members who seem to have joined the site primarily to violate its terms.
That LibraryThing allows all ideas to be expressed does not by any means mean that members must respect all ideas. Members are free—indeed, encouraged—to behave as a community, such as telling members to be nicer or refusing to engage in argument with members trolling for negative reactions.
In this case someone who had spammed us as soon as she joined. She was suspended from the site for it and let back in. (If being a Nazi had been sufficient to ban her, we would never have let her back in, because her views were apparent from the start.) She then resorted to personal attacks on other members, and was suspended. As stated, Jeremy made the call and it was his to make.
The rules as they stand allow members to express all opinions and ideas, including many (like the defense of waterboarding or criticisms of Texas) that some members would like to prohibit. The rules do, however, require that members avoid certain modes of expression, such as personal attacks on other members. They also come down very hard on certain attempts to misuse the software, including spam, sock puppetry and willful misuse of flags.
Violations are dealt with primarily when someone brings them to our attention. Repeated violations are treated more seriously. We tend to be more forgiving when a violator has a long record of positive contributions, because we have grounds for thinking they can avoid future violations, and less forgiving of members who seem to have joined the site primarily to violate its terms.
That LibraryThing allows all ideas to be expressed does not by any means mean that members must respect all ideas. Members are free—indeed, encouraged—to behave as a community, such as telling members to be nicer or refusing to engage in argument with members trolling for negative reactions.
In this case someone who had spammed us as soon as she joined. She was suspended from the site for it and let back in. (If being a Nazi had been sufficient to ban her, we would never have let her back in, because her views were apparent from the start.) She then resorted to personal attacks on other members, and was suspended. As stated, Jeremy made the call and it was his to make.
27krolik
lawecon,
I'll jump in here belatedly. I've been travelling and have had only intermittent internet access. We've already corresponded about my reluctance to flag, and this recent case certainly tests limits.
But I do think the analogy of an outdoor cafe works. And, if a person enters such a place and doesn't like the menu or the look or behavior of the clientele, then he or she can always leave.
Or stay, and put up with the clientele.
But the person off the street doesn't get to choose the clientele.
Of course, you could always open your own cafe. I might show up. You could throw me out. Or, maybe you would let me stay. (And my posts could irritate you in two venues!)
I'll jump in here belatedly. I've been travelling and have had only intermittent internet access. We've already corresponded about my reluctance to flag, and this recent case certainly tests limits.
But I do think the analogy of an outdoor cafe works. And, if a person enters such a place and doesn't like the menu or the look or behavior of the clientele, then he or she can always leave.
Or stay, and put up with the clientele.
But the person off the street doesn't get to choose the clientele.
Of course, you could always open your own cafe. I might show up. You could throw me out. Or, maybe you would let me stay. (And my posts could irritate you in two venues!)
28lawecon
~25
In an empty lot, the squirrels can play :-)
==========================================
Yes, I would say that "the squirrels" is a good alternative description of many of the regular participants in those groups.
In an empty lot, the squirrels can play :-)
==========================================
Yes, I would say that "the squirrels" is a good alternative description of many of the regular participants in those groups.
29lawecon
~27
But I do think the analogy of an outdoor cafe works. And, if a person enters such a place and doesn't like the menu or the look or behavior of the clientele, then he or she can always leave.
=====================================
Exactly my point. You will note that the frequency of higher level polite discussion in the groups that Myopic refers to is low. Is it low because there are very few people who are polite, intelligent, and would participate if the environment were more conducive to polite and intelligent discussion or because they enter, experience what is going on, and soon exit?
========================================
(And my posts could irritate you in two venues!)
==========================================
Don't flatter yourself.
But I do think the analogy of an outdoor cafe works. And, if a person enters such a place and doesn't like the menu or the look or behavior of the clientele, then he or she can always leave.
=====================================
Exactly my point. You will note that the frequency of higher level polite discussion in the groups that Myopic refers to is low. Is it low because there are very few people who are polite, intelligent, and would participate if the environment were more conducive to polite and intelligent discussion or because they enter, experience what is going on, and soon exit?
========================================
(And my posts could irritate you in two venues!)
==========================================
Don't flatter yourself.
30krolik
>29 lawecon:
Logically, if that is your point...why don't you leave? Your unhappiness with the venue is often expressed. Or are you a masochist? Or are you illogical? Help me out here.
I'm not flattering myself. My self-esteem is not at stake here. I was attempting to appeal to your sense of humor. I failed. Hmmm.
Logically, if that is your point...why don't you leave? Your unhappiness with the venue is often expressed. Or are you a masochist? Or are you illogical? Help me out here.
I'm not flattering myself. My self-esteem is not at stake here. I was attempting to appeal to your sense of humor. I failed. Hmmm.
31lawecon
Logically, if that is your point...why don't you leave? Your unhappiness with the venue is often expressed. Or are you a masochist? Or are you illogical? Help me out here.
===============================
Yes, perverse, isn't it? But let's see if I can explain. First of all I am immensely stubborn (partially Dutch, you know). As Stormraven has observed, I am also a bastard. So you can blame the assholes who decided that I was a possible target who should be and could be run out of these forums. The more they vented their spleen, the less likely I was to leave. After about a half dozen posts going on and on about how horrible I was (in complete violation of TOS, of course), posts concerning which Tim did nothing, I'm here permanently. Wouldn't think of leaving.
This is, to me, a most fascinating environment, well worth ten minutes a day. It is sort of like journeying into a jungle full of oddities without any risk to oneself. There are all sorts of creatures here who think that they are cuttingly devastating, but who wouldn't last five seconds in a litigation environment, or even a faculty meeting concerning allocation of the budget for the forthcoming year. The arrogance and ignorance is first rate entertainment. (Would you care for popcorn?)
=======================================
I'm not flattering myself. My self-esteem is not at stake here. I was attempting to appeal to your sense of humor. I failed. Hmmm.
========================================
Your sense of humor is, ah, just splendid!! Who would suggest otherwise?
===============================
Yes, perverse, isn't it? But let's see if I can explain. First of all I am immensely stubborn (partially Dutch, you know). As Stormraven has observed, I am also a bastard. So you can blame the assholes who decided that I was a possible target who should be and could be run out of these forums. The more they vented their spleen, the less likely I was to leave. After about a half dozen posts going on and on about how horrible I was (in complete violation of TOS, of course), posts concerning which Tim did nothing, I'm here permanently. Wouldn't think of leaving.
This is, to me, a most fascinating environment, well worth ten minutes a day. It is sort of like journeying into a jungle full of oddities without any risk to oneself. There are all sorts of creatures here who think that they are cuttingly devastating, but who wouldn't last five seconds in a litigation environment, or even a faculty meeting concerning allocation of the budget for the forthcoming year. The arrogance and ignorance is first rate entertainment. (Would you care for popcorn?)
=======================================
I'm not flattering myself. My self-esteem is not at stake here. I was attempting to appeal to your sense of humor. I failed. Hmmm.
========================================
Your sense of humor is, ah, just splendid!! Who would suggest otherwise?
Aansluiten om berichten te kunnen plaatsen
