Going on strike if Obama wins

[fletch]

You are actively exemplifying the kind of evil that I seek to eliminate.

Evil? Dont you think that is a bit much?

[Myself]

You present caustic attitude and mistaken viewpoint as though there should be considered ordinary, and furthermore as being something "typical" of this forum, when in fact these are unacceptable forms of behavior here.

When you describe someone as caustic and mistaken you don't have to elaborate. They're called pejorative words -- self evidently negative.

You also seem upset that I pointed out the obvious. There are rude and mistaken posters on this board. Unacceptable? In the Forum Rules, sure. In practice? Not so much. Look at the scores of threads over three pages long. They almost always digress into personal attacks and offensive sarcasm. Even in shorter ones you'll find it pop up. Want an example? You, in this thread. You started out being snide. You ended with:

You are actively exemplifying the kind of evil that I seek to eliminate.

If I'm the "exemplification of evil", maybe you should just go ahead and ban me. "Eliminate" in your words. You're a moderator. Make it happen.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Myself

[DavidOdden]

You also seem upset that I pointed out the obvious.

I'm not upset. I am however motivated by the fact that you claim -- falsely, I maintain -- that caustic attitudes and mistaken views are the norm here. So you're not pointing out the obvious, you're pointing out the false.

There are rude and mistaken posters on this board.

No question: it is a rarity that is dealt with as necessary.

Unacceptable? In the Forum Rules, sure. In practice? Not so much.

If you're criticising the moderation team for not being more aggressive in snuffing out such posters, that doesn't square at all well with your agreement with Utabintarbo's position. It is not always necessary to use the most extreme sanctions against someone who had a bad moment. Sometimes it is sufficient to argue against a person's position, to show it for what it is. In this case, though, the repudiation of reason was rather clear. Although I have no particular reason to think that you will actually see the error of your position, I at least start from the assumption that you can be dealt with as a rational being. I'm assuming that you know how to step back from your attacks on the character of this forum, and that if you put some serious thought into it you would realize your error, and that your support of Utabintarbo's position was just plain wrong (factually and philosophically). How can you possibly justify impugning the forum as a place where caustic attitudes and mistaken views are "ordinary" and then further use that false claim as an excuse to tolerate further examples of such conduct? What is the logic behind this?

[Chops]

We've got two hugely different topics being discussed here. Time for a split?

[Myself]

How can you possibly justify impugning the forum as a place where caustic attitudes and mistaken views are "ordinary" and then further use that false claim as an excuse to tolerate further examples of such conduct? What is the logic behind this?

I'm going to divide this post into two sections. The first will be in regard to my stance against banning ST1DinOH. The second will be about my charge against the selectively applied moderation I've seen on this Forum.

__________

Let me clarify my position on the call for the outright banning of ST1DinOH. I am against it. I'm for issuing a warning and going through standard moderation including banning if he continues to violate Forum Rules.

I'd like to point out that he is a new member who just finished reading Atlas Shrugged a few days ago. He's worked up over the abominable election of a President who will certainly be a disaster for this country. I've seen trolls on this board before. I don't think he is one. I do think he needs to tone it down, read and comply with the Forum Rules or be justifiably banned.

__________

I'm disturbed by what I see as the less than uniform enforcement of the Forum Rules by the moderation team. I routinely see established members with hundreds of posts get away with rude and abrasive behavior without repercussions.

RationalBiker posted a thought out justification of this practice, claiming that established members have more leeway because they have more invested here. I disagree. I think that members who have been here longer have less excuse for violating rules. I also think that if a forum has rules they should be enforced the same way for every member regardless of their number of posts or years posting.

At this point you might want me to back up my claims. I'm going to give one example for now. This thread. Here are two forum rules that were not enforced uniformly and fairly:

Do not post complaints about the behavior of any member on the forum - report them to the moderators. Public complaints about other members will be treated as a personal attack and may be deleted!

If you think someone deserves a warning, please use the "Report!" link found on every post. The offender will not know who reported him.

No personal attacks

* Healthy debate is encouraged, but participants agree not resort to personal attacks, and do not belittle someone else's argument. Instead of making it personal, participants agree to use rational, persuasive skills to make a point or criticize another’s.

If you'd like me to pick apart this thread and cite every post that violated those rules, I'd be happy to do so. I don't think I need to though. The violations are so blatant and so numerous they speak for themselves.

[utabintarbo]

...

I suspect you may not agree with this approach or maybe not even agree that this assessment fits this picture, but as I said, I'm offering a perspective.

I do not agree that your analogy fits. This forum isn't like a house, it is more like a storefront. Anybody can walk through the front door. They don't need to "earn" their way in, though they may need to "earn" the right to stay by keeping their shoes and shirt on.

I have a friend, Pete, who has stood too close to the presses for too many years. He tends to talk too loudly. He doesn't mean to be a disturbance, but he sometimes is. When he is made aware of this, he starts to use his "office voice". Until someone mentions George W. Bush, whom he despises. He then has to be re-reminded about his "office voice".

Mr. ST1D is kinda like Loud-talker-Pete. Perhaps a reminder to use one's "office voice" is in order. But booting him out of the store seems a bit over-the-top. Especially since the sign says "Welcome".

JMO

[RationalBiker]

I do not agree that your analogy fits.

Okay, that's what I suspected.

[CWEarl]

if obama wins, i will refuse to contribute to this mess. i will become an order taker, a cog in the machine. a rusty cog that slows the mechanism. one that that causes the motor to work harder, one that causes the machine to labor beyond it's original intention.

i will remain unemployed as long as possible.

i will apply for and attempt to recieve as much state and local funding as i can.

You may choose to drop out because you've decided to become a loser and give up your values because you suffer from the absurd notion that you punish others by doing so, but you have no right to demand that the other citizens of the U.S. pay for your keep. How dare you!

i will become one of the lazy servitude masses.

i will refuse to devote my mind, spirit, and energy to those who will do nothing but steal from my efforts.

i will deny them the right to loot and plunder my ability and i will become one of the need.

While you loot and plunder. Brilliant.

i will become this woman:

i've just finished atlas shrugged. if you read my profile you'll see what's brought me here. the book speaks of atlantis and all the great producing minds retreat and withdraw from the world to watch it crumble. i'd be nice, but it's not practical for someone in 2008. i'm not about to go all communal on life and run away to idaho and join a cult or something, but i do wish to contribute nothing to what i see coming.

So you want to become a looter. Maybe you should read Atlas Shrugged again. You'll notice that the heroes in the novel did not become wards of the state.

so i say this:

if obama wins, if obama becomes presidenet and has controll of all branches of government...

i am on strike.

now...here's my question.

does this make me a member of atlantis...or does this make me one of john gaults former co-workers at the factory doing as little as possible and expecting to take from ability?

The latter, obviously.

on a base level this makes me feel as a moocher.

Actually, it makes you a moocher at any level.

but what if i'm not alone? what if all the dedicated working people out there, in my situation (currently laid off) decide to just not go back to work. decide to not support a corrupt system. decide not to allow maobama and the obomunists to rely on people of ability and drive to support those who do not wish to contribute.

does this make me one of those people?

It makes you a moocher. Nothing more.

or am i one of those proud atlantians who bask in the glow of the golden dollar sign in that magical valley?

You must be kidding. What you are is the evil they fought against.

prop me up or tear me down, i await your replies.

If you're serious, you disgust me.