Poetic Justice has arrived....

[The Giver]

Cool it....

Tannin has written out a rather percise discription of what he desires in a forum. Since it's a private forum, that's the perogative of the owner.

Unless being leaned on with federal funding, the Bill of Rights limits the states, and the federal government, not private group membership. If we stop people from free association, we loose that right, in the Bill of Rights.

Well in fairness, The Giver was not planning on calling the Department of Justice Greg. The Giver is very aware that this is a private enterprise and not necessarily subject to the limitations which the Bill of Rights imposes on public entities. If you want a site which discriminates you are perfectly within your rights to have one. But is that what you folks really want?

That said, I think The Giver is over reacting here, and his presence, and comments here, would be a valuable addition to the forum.

Tannin has certainly quantified what I would like in a forum, and I think, pretty much what storage review USED to be.

Indeed The Giver perhaps went too far. Some issues tend to inspire The Giver more than others. Then again, The Giver and Tannin have had a running battle for sometime now. And Tannin may just have gone a bit too far on occasion himself. The Givers Mother (Momma Giver) used to say - "It takes two to fight Son". A wise lady indeed.

The downfall of that forum, in my view, was when the forum leaders sanctioned, and joined in personal attacks, and I was the target of that attack.

How can the forum leaders object to personal attacks, when in fact they are the ones that started that kind of stuff, and allowed others to continue???

Very true and observed first hand by The Giver if days of yore at SR.

Let's through the guantlet the other way, and ask The Giver what he desires in a forum, and how he would limit, or confine, or not, control, or not control, these strange animals known as forums?

Have you watched the US house of representatives during a debate on the House floor? Or Britain's Parliament during Questions to the Prime Minister? The US House debates are wide ranging not only in subject matter but also in the tone and character of those Congressmen who may be debating a particular Bill. Some are gentle and mild, others are filled with emotion and fiery at times. And occasionally harsh, no doubt offensive, things are said when a member feels passionately about a particular subject. Yet these debates are inspirational and thought provoking. Many great things such as civil rights legislation has come from them. Questions to the Prime Minister on the other hand are not really debates at all but rather a cat and mouse game skillfully and cleverly played between the Prime Minister and the Members of Parliament. Again some are passionate and some mild mannered. Others very witty and entertaining. Both of these great institution's debates on occasion include personal attacks upon a particular member. But it is done so in the hopes that one might get their point across.

In short, The Givers idea of a forum would be to combine the best elements of both of these institutions into a place where issues of the day could be discussed by all who wish to discuss them. Discussed with passion by the passionate as they feel. And with fairness to all "speakers". And yes, folks would inevitably get offended on occasion. Look at it as a necessary evil if you will associated with all meaningful discourse between human beings. But a hell of a place to expand ones knowledge, experience, and ideas. Personal growth is painful. Yet, no pain, no gain as they say.

How to maintain control? Moderators seem to work fairly well for most forums. When has a member gone to far? When the moderator tells him he has. Upon what scale does the Moderator weigh his evaluation of a member? On a fair and just scale as best he can. Fair to all.

 

[Pradeep]

I think some of these people wrote something called the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, and,
they also tried to break away from the English concept of judge and King made law. Oh, what sort of system for free speech does England have, and, how about Australia?

There is no guaranteed right to free speech in Australia, and even the Bill of Rights is regularly used as toilet paper by the Judiciary here.

 

[The Giver]

I'm sorry, but that simply won't do

The Giver was speaking of the means by which one might control women, not a forum Greg.

At least some sort of constructionist view of the first amendment should be put forth, supporting your literal interpretation of the first amendment.

What literal interpretation is that? The Giver was not suggesting that anyone was breaking the law nor that were they compelled to follow it in this circumstance.

Your concept, that no restriction is the best restriction on membership, freedom of association, and free speech, is certainly not new or novel.Many have found no restriction preferable to any restriction.

No restriction of who may join does not mean no restriction on what they may say or do. The Giver's objection was that he felt the prohibition on "pissing people off" was excessively restrictive to the point where all members at one time at another were bound to violate it. Indeed, since that post was written there have been indications from those who have responded to it that some were pissed off not only at The Giver but at other posters in this thread as well. A rule so vague as this which one can not help but on occasion break (after all, we have no direct control over the emotional reactions of others) is essentially a rule designed as the justification to banish those whom you do not care for. And again, this your right and you are entitled to do so if that is the sort of people you are.

I, also tend to be of the Hugo Black, literal view of the first amendment, that, 'no' limitiatons on free speech means, 'no' limitations on free speech, but, what do I know???

The Giver would say this interpretation is too liberal. To share with you The Givers interpretation (at no charge Greg) of "free speech" let him say this - Free speech does not grant one the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded Movie Theatre thereby endangering the lives of others. On the other hand it does grant one the right to express his opinions on any topic being discussed even if those opinions are thought to be offensive to others. Even if expressing those opinions "pisses off" others since this endangers no one's life, limbs, or property. However, allow The Giver once again to express his belief that the First Amendment has no authority in this situation. It's your forum and you can do as you like. But as long as The Giver is a member here, he will express his opinions even if they do on occasion piss people off.

I guess the point is, regulation, by other then peer pressure does create problems of enforcement, and consistency.

I participate in a couple other forums, that have severe peer pressure, and, I delight in that pressure. It's great when some idiot jumps on you for no reason to have one of your mates stick up for you, and go to bat for you, or, in the case of these forums, take the shot for you 8) . We used to have that in storage review, and I'm really glad that we have that here.

I think, or hope, that that pressure is enough. However, there is always a person that stretches the envelope, and really does deserve to be banned.

Still, the pressure usually drives them away...

Anyone who knows The Giver, knows that peer pressure can not dissuade him from speaking his mind as he feels compelled to. If you care not for The Giver here in your Forum you are going to have to throw him out. And fear not for The Giver, for he been thown out of far better places than this forum.

 

[The Giver]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

As the Declaration of Independence was brought into this discussion by others, perhaps it would be helpful to re-examine an essential truth expressed within it that has relevance to the discussion at hand regarding the concept of providing equal access to all.

It has been pointed out in Santilli's post above that the First Amendment has no authority here at The Storage Forum. And in fact, this is indeed the case.

Additionally he has also pointed out that your are not compelled by the Constitution to provide equal access to this site either. In short, should you wish to exclude any particular group of people you deem as undesirable, you are certainly within your legal rights to do so.

So as regards free speech and equal access, the Federal Government lacks the authority to compel you to provide that which the Constitution would otherwise grant. Hence on the one hand you may say you believe all men to be equal and that you believe in free speech, while on the other hand you need not practice that which you profess to believe here in your forum if you so desire.

Now, as to the truth expressed within the Declaration of Independence as quoted above and it's relevance here. Note that not only does it state the belief that all men are created equal, but also that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. In other words the authority from which these rights derive is that of our Creator, not from man or government. The same Creator, whom it is asserted, created all men equal.

Therefore The Giver poses this question for you to digest; You have no legal obligation to provide equal access to this site for all under the law, but do you not have a moral obligation to provide such access since the authority behind this principle is that of our Creator?

 

[P5-133XL]

The answer is a simple declarative no, we are no obliged to provide access in any form. We are not obligated to pay for your ISP, nor purchase a computer for your access.

The slightly harder question is are we obligated go allow access to anyone and that answer is also a simple declarative no. Access to this forum is a priviledge, not a right. Anyone participating is doing so because we allow them, not because there is any form of obligation.

 

[The Giver]

The answer is a simple declarative no, we are no obliged to provide access in any form. We are not obligated to pay for your ISP, nor purchase a computer for your access.

Well of course you aren't obligated to buy one a PC or provide them with an ISP. That really as you know is an absurd notion. This is not what The Giver was referring to when he mentioned equal access. But then you know that already.

The slightly harder question is are we obligated go allow access to anyone and that answer is also a simple declarative no. Access to this forum is a priviledge, not a right. Anyone participating is doing so because we allow them, not because there is any form of obligation.

But are you saying you feel no moral obligation to allow people of all types to become members here provided that they are capable of following a realistic set of rules which are not designed as a "poll tax" so to speak? If so, that is very telling and disappointing that such would still be the case in this country some forty odd years since Dr. Martin Luther King's immortal "I have a Dream" speech in which he expressed the hope that one day all men would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

As for membership to this forum being a "privilege", is everyone (that is people of all types and persuasions) considered to hold this privilege upon registering until they abuse that privilege and thereby forfeit it? Or is this privilege a selective "privilege" granted only to those people who qualify as being worthy in your eyes?

 

[Mercutio]

Your latter statement is essentially correct.
To frame your statement a bit differently, in the US, any citizen can vote, except (IIRC) certain convicted felons.

Being a citizen of the US isn't a terribly large burden to bear in exchange for voting rights. Being respectful of others isn't too large a burden to bear in exchange for the right to participate here.

 

[Mercutio]

Latter = the first statement in the last paragraph of The Giver's previous post. No one is sitting around asking if you're "worthy". We discussed that already.

 

[P5-133XL]

The real problem with this entire topic is that the rules are not finished yet and thus everything you say about those rules are speculation at best. Those rules are being discussed by the administrators and it has not even been discussed whether anyone other than the administrators will have any say. I don't know if they will be put up to a vote, whether there will be a general comment period, whether they will be posted and enforced immediately. There are lots of choices and we don't know what will actually be decided because that decision will come after the production of the rules themselves.

If you want to be constructive then write a set of rules with commentary, post them, and discuss them. Note, with those rules, an enforcement mechanism that will always produce the result that you wish is necessary. What is your ideal? Why is that perfect? How do your rules produce that? What enforcement mechinism will guarantee your ideal.

If you are not interested in being constructive, but rather desire only to be destructive then I have serious doubts that I want to here anything you wish to say. I am not interested in people trying to destroy what I and others are trying to build. Criticism is fine and a productive activity, but you are not criticising because there is nothing out there yet. Thus the question occurs to me, what are you trying to do?

If your purpose is to produce a pre-release version, you are not going to accomplish your goal, because that would be harmful to the process. If your purpose is to speed up the process, you are distracting the process rather than accomplishing your purpose. If you are trying to participate then see the constructive paragraph above.

 

[The Giver]

Latter = the first statement in the last paragraph of The Giver's previous post. No one is sitting around asking if you're "worthy". We discussed that already.

Then how do you square that with this quotation from Tannin?;

You want fair, you go to Yahoo Forums. You want quality discussion with intelligent, literate people who know their stuff, come right back here to Storage Forum.

In addition to the ominous sound of "You want fair, you go to Yahoo Forums", note the qualifiers of "intelligent and literate" attached to the implied qualification for membership here. Must one be intelligent to be a member here? If so how do you quantify the intelligence of prospective members? By I.Q.? It is unclear what exactly is meant by "literate" since it is obvious that one must be capable of reading simply to be able to register. Even if one should have someone who could read register for them, why would they want to join if they were illiterate? Lets face it, the graphic's on this site aren't really that interesting that one would wish to stare at them for hours on end. So what is meant by "literate"? The Giver suspects Tannin really means to say "well read" rather than literate. Ok, well then how do you quantify "well read"? How many books, plays, or works of literature must one have read to be considered to be "literate" enough for you folks?

What The Giver is driving at here is that you Mercutio seem to want a forum such as that which you state directly above. But this does not appear to be the same type of forum which Tannin wants. The Giver says this because Tannin's statement that this forum is only for those who are intelligent, literate, and not desirous of fairness, is directly opposed to the idea that all people indeed hold privilege to register here unless they forfeit that privilege by breaking the forum rules.

 

[The Giver]

The real problem with this entire topic is that the rules are not finished yet and thus everything you say about those rules are speculation at best. Those rules are being discussed by the administrators and it has not even been discussed whether anyone other than the administrators will have any say. I don't know if they will be put up to a vote, whether there will be a general comment period, whether they will be posted and enforced immediately. There are lots of choices and we don't know what will actually be decided because that decision will come after the production of the rules themselves.

If you want to be constructive then write a set of rules with commentary, post them, and discuss them. Note, with those rules, an enforcement mechanism that will always produce the result that you wish is necessary. What is your ideal? Why is that perfect? How do your rules produce that? What enforcement mechinism will guarantee your ideal.

The Giver has already done this in a previous post. Please read his posts if you are genuinely are interested in The Giver's thoughts.

If you are not interested in being constructive, but rather desire only to be destructive then I have serious doubts that I want to here anything you wish to say. I am not interested in people trying to destroy what I and others are trying to build. Criticism is fine and a productive activity, but you are not criticising because there is nothing out there yet. Thus the question occurs to me, what are you trying to do?

The Giver is not trying to destroy anything. He is merely trying to ascertain what type of forum you have, or better said, are building. Is that Ok with you Mark? Is that really so outrageous or out of line?

If your purpose is to produce a pre-release version, you are not going to accomplish your goal, because that would be harmful to the process. If your purpose is to speed up the process, you are distracting the process rather than accomplishing your purpose. If you are trying to participate then see the constructive paragraph above.

Well if you genuinely wish The Giver to participate then go back read that which he has already contributed Mark. There is no need to get "snippy" my good man. If you find this discussion to be without merit, don't participate in it.

 

[Mercutio]

It can reasonably be said that I don't want exactly the same kind of forum that Tannin wants. In fact, I take the decidedly minority positions that the actions of moderators here should be subject to some mechanism of review by the forum participants as a group (insurance, in effect, for determining whether the moderators continue to represent the best interests of the community). This is not something that the other admins support; it adds an additional layer of complexity to our job.

On the other hand, there's really very little disagreement, other than some issues of semantics and syntax, between my ideals, Tannin's, CougTek's P5's and/or time's.

Like definitions of "art" and "obscenity", "fairness" is a quality that is judged best by the beholder. There are far too many gray areas to do anything but take an "I know it when I see it" approach, no matter how the rules are eventually written - we will have to trust whomever is ultimately given moderator authority to act responsibly, just as we must ultimately place trust in our Police and politicians.

 

[The Giver]

It can reasonably be said that I don't want exactly the same kind of forum that Tannin wants.

The Giver edited out the remainder of your post as it deals with the rules you attempting to establish. However that which The Giver has quoted above deals with what perhaps is an issue you may want to iron out prior to writing or adopting any rules. The Giver says this because the purpose of the rules to insure that you maintain the integrity of the type of forum you wish to have. If there is no consensus as to what type of forum you all want, then perhaps you putting the cart before the horse here.

On the other hand, perhaps you are the only one who does not see precisely eye to eye with Tannin on this. It might be worth exploring that with your comrades. The is nothing quiet like a "Mission Statement" to keep things on the right track.

 

[The Giver]

Cool it....

Tannin has certainly quantified what I would like in a forum, and I think, pretty much what storage review USED to be.

The Giver is unsure whether it is entirely fair to take Greg's statement above apart from the context in which it was written. However based on this statement it would appear that Greg does indeed see eye to eye with Tannin on what the mission statement is here. That is - "You want fair, you go to Yahoo Forums. You want quality discussion with intelligent, literate people who know their stuff, come right back here to Storage Forum."

So Greg, if you happen to read this, please elaborate on your statement above.

 

[Tannin]

Perhaps I better do some translation here.

"Piss off" is Australian slang. Over here, it means exactly what I wanted to express. But, being local dialect, it may well mean something rather different in the USA or Canada or the UK.

I know that the related term "pissed" has completely different meanings on opposite sides of the pond - in the USA, if I say "DB is pissed" it means he is angry. But if I say "DB is pissed" here in Australia, it means he is drunk, and says nothing at all about anger. (Come to think of it, it says nothing at all about DB either! Nothing that we didn't already know, anyway.)

In Oz dialect, "piss off" has two senses: in the first, it is a not very nice way of saying "go away". It's the sort of thing you say to a phone company salesman when he calls you in the middle of dinner and you hang up on him and he rings straight back. Obviously, this is not the sense in which I used it.

I used "piss people off" in the second sense, where "to piss off" means "to annoy, bother, frustrate and make angry". Persistent phone company sales guys piss me off. Posting for sale items in the computers forum pisses people off. Postiing a constant barrage of CNN reprints so thickly that it's hard to find the real discussion pisses people off (well, some people, I dont mind it that much myself).

We all piss people off now and then. It is difficult, probably impossible, to post anything of substance without creating a little "piss off factor" in somebody. That is the nature of things: I sometimes piss people off, The Giver sometimes pisses people off, Clocker sometimes pisses people off.

The real questions are how much, how many people, and how often we do it.

Take an example: Vambat pissed everybody off to the point where there probably wasn't a single SR member who didn't heartily wish that it was possible to stuff Vambat's modem up his rectum. Prefferably sideways.

Ahh - there is another example - that sentence of mine just above. My use of "up his rectum" instead of something milder and more polite is a potential piss-off factor. On the other hand, the milder expression would be boring. And boring is another piss-off factor. And excessive bad language (the sort of post where every tenth work is f*ck) is still another.

My original point, to rephrase it, was that it doesn't really matter what the rules are, because in any real community, "rules" are always regarded as detailed and exact, but the interpretation and enforcement of the rules is always subjective and individual. There is no such thing as "an unbiased opinion" or an "impartial judgement according to the law". In the end, it always comes down to some person or some group making a personal decision.

In the end, I expect that the only people that will be banned or censured here are people that piss other people off so much that there is consensus that their presence is detracting from the board, and that we would all be better off without them. It comes down to values and value judgements. Everything always does.

---------------

PS: Where does The Giver fit into this? Let's use him as an example, for he is a colorful and controversial character, and I know from experience that he is more than capable of defending himself should he feel the need to. Sometimes he pisses people off, sometimes he doesn't. Some of The Givers posts are (in my personal, subjective view) utter garbage and detract from this board in the same way that fillibustering detracts from parlimentary debate. Others make little difference either way. And still others of The Giver's posts are (still in my subjective and personal view, of course) truly excellent - consider his thoughts about the parlimentary tradition above for an example.

I have come to rather enjoy The Giver's intermittent anti-Tannin tirades, by the way, and should not dream of wanting to muzzle him on that account. The only time when (still in my personal subjective view, of course) they might be a problem is if they start to become so long, so frequent and so lurid that they piss off other members who come here to read about computers, not to watch Tannin vs The Giver round 17.)

Notice an interesting thing about this: there is no room to doubt that The Giver made an unjustifiable personal slur on me above, in his "Why not just hang a "Whites Only" sign out front" post: this, if we were operating strictly according to formal rules, would be utterly verboten, indeed, it would be sufficient to have The Giver ejected from most boards. And yet, in reality, it didn't break Rule 1 ("don't piss people off") so he remains free to say it. (OK, it did piss me off, but it didn't piss me off enough to want to call for action - it was The Giver, after all, and The Giver's accusations in the heat of the moment are never to be taken too seriously.)

Where does this lead me to?

It leads me to being late for work. Again!

Later guys.

 

[The Giver]

Notice an interesting thing about this: there is no room to doubt that The Giver made an unjustifiable personal slur on me above, in his "Why not just hang a "Whites Only" sign out front" post: this, if we were operating strictly according to formal rules, would be utterly verboten, indeed, it would be sufficient to have The Giver ejected from most boards. And yet, in reality, it didn't break Rule 1 ("don't piss people off") so he remains free to say it. (OK, it did piss me off, but it didn't piss me off enough to want to call for action - it was The Giver, after all, and The Giver's accusations in the heat of the moment are never to be taken too seriously.)

Ah but suppose the motivation behind both the "Whites Only" rule and that of allowing only those who are "intelligent, literate, and don't piss off others" is essentially the same? That is, to discriminate against those who are different from one's self. The Giver suggests they are essentially the same, the only difference being the specific attribute which is found objectionable by those who made the rule or sign in question. Was The Giver so out of line if indeed the principle of equal access for all is, or was, violated by both? That is if both discriminate?

If that which crosses the line happens to be true, is it also verboten? Is the truth to be hidden if it should happen to hurt or anger?

 

[The Giver]

Tannin, regarding the following -

Notice an interesting thing about this: there is no room to doubt that The Giver made an unjustifiable personal slur on me above, in his "Why not just hang a "Whites Only" sign out front" post.

Though you took The Giver's statement as a slur, have you asked yourself if it was intended as such? Is there not just the slightest possibility that The Giver was expressing his moral outrage at what he saw as discrimination? Either way, the statement may have "pissed" you off. However the motivation behind the statement is very relevant, in The Giver's opinion, in determining whether it is utterly devoid of value, and therefore "foul play", or on the other hand constructive criticism, however hurtful it may have been. A statement of moral outrage is not one which intends to hurt another even if happens to do so. Are these to be verboten also?

 

[Tannin]

I don't want exactly the same kind of forum that Tannin wants. In fact, I take the decidedly minority position that the actions of moderators here should be subject to some mechanism of review by the forum participants as a group (insurance, in effect, for determining whether the moderators continue to represent the best interests of the community). This is not something that the other admins support ...

Actually, Mercutio, I do support you in this view - or rather, seeing as I said it first, you support me in it!

The quote below was posted here exactly a month ago today, on the 7th January. It is as good a summary of my views as any.

... the best moderation is the least moderation. Ideally, it shouldn't be necessary to have moderation at all, but this is the real world, alas. We will be invaded from time to time by the Vambat666s and the It's Fubars, and someone will need to be empowered to deal with them. And there will be times when, unfortunately, discussion sinks to the level of gutter insult and personal abuse. Eugene showed almost super-human patience with this sort of thing, some would say too much, but would intervene eventually if he felt he had to. I always admired his tolerance .....

I think that it might be best done by several people - here I'm trusting that they will serve as restraining influences on one another - and that these should be people chosen by the members of the forum from time to time, people that are judged by all of us to be tolerant, practical, broad-minded, and yet able to take action where it's really needed, people from all walks of life and with diverse world-views, people that represent a broad cross-section of the readership.

It might be best if there was a rotation of these roles, both to ensure fairness and tolerance, and to make sure that the post-SR Forum remains free and yet civilised, lively and yet decent, argumentative and yet friendly.

 

[Handruin]

Tannin, regarding the following -

Notice an interesting thing about this: there is no room to doubt that The Giver made an unjustifiable personal slur on me above, in his "Why not just hang a "Whites Only" sign out front" post.

Though you took The Giver's statement as a slur, have you asked yourself if it was intended as such? Is there not just the slightest possibility that The Giver was expressing his moral outrage at what he saw as discrimination? Either way, the statement may have "pissed" you off. However the motivation behind the statement is very relevant, in The Giver's opinion, in determining whether it is utterly devoid of value, and therefore "foul play", or on the other hand constructive criticism, however hurtful it may have been. A statement of moral outrage is not one which intends to hurt another even if happens to do so. Are these to be verboten also?

What's the deal here? Rules are rules (be it once they are finished), and rules are here to guide us all along. With anything in life, rules are only pointed out once someone or something has a problem. We break rules everyday, I'm sure everyone of us has. Whether it is 2 mph (kph) over the speed limit, a quick J-walk across the street...fine, it happens. That's how I view the rule here in a person/relation. There aren't any crimes that can be committed, nothing so terrible major events occur. Rules aren’t going to stop people from going out of bounds; people are going to stop people.

The Giver makes a lot of huff about discrimination, when in fact non-has occurred. It seems to me that you are preparing for nuclear war with the way you have trouble with the purposed rules. Your statement about hanging a sign was a little out of range. To me it was no more then an attention-getter. I see your actions as unhelpful and flame provoking, if you want to be part of a growing community, don't try to build it with a wrecking ball. The rules obviously don't bother you that much, or else you wouldn't want to stay. Process is handled a little different here then over at SR, that's because there are more then 2 people running the show.

How many are running the show...have a look over at the members list and that will give you your answer. We all run the show. There are a few key members who have more interaction and choice, but overall this community is for everyone. Instead of defending yourself for every little thing, and pointing out every little flaw, pitch in and give a hand.

Ah but suppose the motivation behind both the "Whites Only" rule and that of allowing only those who are "intelligent, literate, and don't piss off others" is essentially the same? That is, to discriminate against those who are different from one's self. The Giver suggests they are essentially the same, the only difference being the specific attribute which is found objectionable by those who made the rule or sign in question. Was The Giver so out of line if indeed the principle of equal access for all is, or was, violated by both? That is if both discriminate?

If that which crosses the line happens to be true, is it also verboten? Is the truth to be hidden if it should happen to hurt or anger?

First off, the two are not the same. To proclaim “whites only” is based on an attribute that cannot be changed. To even suggest this you must be feel that color matters. But why does it matter? To suggest that the rules only allow intelligent, literate, and respectful people is discrimination, but not like your statement of “whites only”. For you to even suggests this tells me you feel as though white people are superior in some way. Why did you choose this as your example? The two are not even close in comparison. Out of the three attributes, only one of them is really important, and that is “don’t piss off others”. Flare up all you want that it’s discriminating, but the truth is, disrespectful people are not thought highly of. Everyone knows this, as we all do not like rude and disrespectful people. Why does the Giver have a problem with this?

Intelligence cannot be rated, as there is no means other then opinion, which declares a person's intelligence. Literacy is a requirement. Illiterate people cannot function in a place that depends on literacy. It is solely that which limits people with this disability. This is not a trait that the rules seek out and discriminate against, but rather a null point when square peg doesn't fit into a round hole.

Second, that which crosses the line and happens to be true is so vague that the interpretation is left for anyone to define. It depends entirely what “the truth” is you speak of. The truth can always be warped so that it hurts or angers. If there is a real problem here, get to the point and say what it is…that is the truth. Beating around the bush and citing outlandish examples is only to procrastinate that, which is on your mind.

Point being, continue in any way, shape or form you like to communicate in, if people don’t like it, then it will cease to exist. Not by me, but by the power of truth as you say. The truth is, if this continues, people will get sick of it and not address the dramatic comments.

Everyone have a beer or soda and be friendly…but not too many beers as it’s illegal to drink and type.

 

[Tea]

Illegal to drink and type! Whooah! What about our good friend DB? Why isn't he allowed to take his usual down here under the bar? THIS IS DISCRIMINATION!

Goodbye all, I'm calling my lawyer.

 

[Handruin]

Grrr... :sqnt: I guess it's not your cup o' Tea then.

:monky:

 

[Santilli]

Defining what you want can be difficult...

Giver:
Tannin's post obviously struck a core string in you, and your response showed emotion rather then a rational response
to the situation.

Odd that you haven't really been able to quantify what you desire in a forum...

Please forgive me if this is a bit jumbled, and long, but I'm exhausted. Long day.

Often it is easy to define what is not acceptable, far easier to define that then what is acceptable.

I think the essence of what Tannin said was respect for others, and, he, as I, perhaps believes that those characteristics are lost on youth, and often the 20-30 age people, in these forums, and in our public school systems.

Since I just spent the day trying to control, with varying degrees of success, a bunch of "ghetto"(one of their owns term for the school)kids(and I don't really believe that term, but walking on the campus, one might get that impression), I tend to think he is correct.

Also the wisdom of age is very valuable as to what gets you upset, and understanding why it makes you upset. I think the most frustrating part for me is finding myself being angry, and then either realizing I don't know why, or, responding to someone elses' anger, personally, and then realizing I didn't cause it, and I'm not responsible for it.

I've had two instances in the last couple days where kids where rude, uncooperative, and refused to participate in class. The first one I reacted to. The second I let go, since I didn't want to destroy the rest of what was going with the class, and focus on the problem child. I felt that would deprive the others of time I could spend with them.

Since this child was being quiet, just not participating, I let her stew in her own juices, and hoped jealousy of attention would bring her out of it.

That didn't have time to work, since both of my problem children were called out of the class for counseling appointments. I was not the cause of their anger, or the source, I was simply there for them to focus it on. By defusing the situation, I was able to deal with it.

The problem is here, it's hard to have that sort of self-restraint, and self-regulation.

However, we can draw up bright line rules of what we want, and don't want.

I couldn't help but think of trying to describe what we want in the forum as sort of the Supreme Court definition of pornography.

One of the judges defined it as,
"I know it when I see it." And that is much like how all of us think about the forum we had.

The beauty of having Skallas and HellDiver 'refresh' and abuse my recollection of the SR-71, and the merits of a mig.

The diverse opinions expressed by all the different people, from all over the world, Professor Wizard in Italy, Tannin, GaryI in that foriegn country called Texas, that is a beautiful situation, and the discussions that came out of it priceless.

I think we all want that intimacy, and the restraint everyone showed.

However, that is a delicate balance, and, I think it was destroyed by, as I have said prior, the moderators sanctioning attacks, and doing so themselves, and, the success of the forum, with sooo many new faces.

Yes, there are people that lie, and pretend, or are just plain mean, and they do enter forums to screw with people, and pull the wings off flys. They see something successful, are jealous, and try to destroy it.

I do suggest some bright line rules, standards for posting, that indicate a reasonable level of maturity.

Something like the basics:
No ad homs
Absolute no obscenity, or you are banned.
Discuss the issue, not the person.

Basics like that.

On a more personal note: I value the input of all participants in this thread.

Or to be much like a certain beer commercial,

"I love you guys!" :wink:

Tea, I didn't know orangutan had lawyers? Are they gorillas? Silverbacks being the senior statesmen? :lol:
No need for bring one in, I'll act as proxy, or, something like that, if I ever pass the bar.

I guess Tannin has a point, that we should be prepared for nuclear war. Something very percious to me, Tannin, and others here, was taken away, in more ways then one.

Considering the loss of the forums, and the 'situations' and occurences that preceeded, and followed the event, I for one,
would love to have those discussions back for reference and history, and, would not like to have that occur again.

Nor would I like to go through the rather gut wrenching experience of having a moderator turn on me, and, having a wonderful forum turn from a very nice place, in fact, a wonderful place, into one where I find my self-defending
actions alleged to me, by others that were most absurd.

I can't really express how deeply I was hurt by those events, since I always entered the storagereview forum with the best of intentions, and all of a sudden, one guy turned all that upside down, with the help of the moderators, catching me completely off guard.

I guess it was the surprise that was the worst part.

Anyway, actions like those are clearly what we all hope will NEVER happen here.

By the way, I view much of that, in the past, as much like my problem children. Considering the stress, and following events that Davin and Eugene went through, I'm sure I was just a nice target to focus their frustration on, after putting so much into the site, and being unable to make it work to their benefit, and profit.


So, Giver, I'm glad that Tannin and Tea have such concerns, since none of us want any of the bad things to happen, that have happened.

I am confident that with the amazing expertise everyone brings to the forum, that a much more cost effective business model can be designed. I leave that to the experts, such as Handurin, Gary, Giver, and any others
participating in the design of this forum.

I guess, in short, that was the biggest disappointment for me with Davin and Eugene. You guys have forgotten more then I will ever know about systems, servers, etc. I've always loved the sincere responses everyone has made when someone asks a question here.

Why Davin and Eugene didn't draw upon the expertise, and knowledge of this forum is truly beyond me.

I'm glad storagereview is not going down, but I hope this forum betters it, because the leadership, and wisdom, in putting it together exceeds the oligarchy of Davin and Eugene.

I perfer to look at this discussion as an international discussion of the United States Bill of Rights, except a bit better. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. while perhaps incredible people for anytime, can still be rivaled, since we have the advantage of not only their perspectives, but an international community, and, we are not limited to a limited number on this subject.

Ok: Now, on to government. A moderator,president, or dictatorship?

Don't know how that is going to work. As I have said before, what I much perfer is many moderators. We all have been around, we all know obscenity and pornography when we see it. Prior, all would let the offending party know when they had overstepped their bounds, and, if it was just stupid, kid stuff, Eugene would step in, and ban the troll.

Again, this position is much aligned with our First Amendment right of free speech, only, instead of a completely literal approach by the Supreme court, they had to limit it, thanks to a few nuts that would yell "fire"
in a crowded theatre, etc.

I wonder if we couldn't have our own sort of Supreme court?

I often don't follow certain threads, if I'm not intrested in the topic. Some of the political threads I had no intrest in, since the quality of the discussion was inadequate to garner my attention.

If that's the case, how about an email group that notifies the moderator of certain problem children, or topics, and,
perhaps the moderator or moderators, could discuss what proper action is?

Perhaps the peer pressure of group comments in the forum is sufficent to turn a wayward child, or, perhaps we need someone with the title of 'moderator', God, President, Dictator, whatever to indicate that if you play games with this person, and the forum, you will be banned.
One of my favorites is the moderator in ARS with the name
"Ceasar". :wink:
In a subtle, or not so subtle way, he gets the point accross with his title.

Giver: The irony of your statement, that Tannin and I agree on what the forum is, is really ironic.
What made storagereview such a marvel was the participation of the different people and cultures, their backgrounds, collisions, and discussions, and the pretty much absentee
moderators, Eugene, and Davin.

I think what made the forum so great was the wisdom of the majority of the participants, that pretty much made it unnecessary for the moderators to participate, and when they did, there was no question, at least when Eugene acted, that it was neccessary to do so. Also, Eugene was not above a couple stern warnings before acting.

Often a swift hand goes awry, and one or two questionable posts should not end the participants forum privilidges.

So, the irony for me is I think both myself, you, and Tannin and everyone else, want the same sort of forum experience, one with little regulation, if any.

However, having been burned prior, we all want some sort of central protection upon repeating the bad events of the past.

Again, I think this is a bit of a cultural perspective, about obtaining the same end.

Democracy can be obtained in a variety of ways, with a number of different forms of government.
Likewise, dictatorships can be good, or bad, or horrible.

Some try and accomplish the same end with super strict enforcement of volumes of law.

Others try to make it work with the least number of laws, and the least enforcement. I suspect most of us would perfer the later, but, as in international law, sometimes it just doesn't work. Sometimes you have to go after the terrorists, rather then taking an isolationist approach, because they simply won't leave you alone, and blow up your buildings, and kill your people.

I suspect we do live in a world where we wish the least enforcement, but, when neccessary, we must act, and act quickly, for the well being of our society, and community, when we are invaded, attacked, or terrorized.

One has to wonder if I'm not taking this a bit to seriously...
:wink:

gs

 

[The Giver]

What's the deal here? Rules are rules (be it once they are finished), and rules are here to guide us all along. With anything in life, rules are only pointed out once someone or something has a problem. We break rules everyday, I'm sure everyone of us has. Whether it is 2 mph (kph) over the speed limit, a quick J-walk across the street...fine, it happens. That's how I view the rule here in a person/relation. There aren't any crimes that can be committed, nothing so terrible major events occur. Rules aren’t going to stop people from going out of bounds; people are going to stop people.

Yeah... so? Not sure what you are getting at. The Giver's concern was that a rule which could be obeyed by anyone was pointless. And he had another concern about this but will not go into that again.

Look, here's the "Deal", were you to change the rule regarding not "pissing people off" to not "intentionally and deliberately pissing people off" The Giver would have no problem with it.

The Giver makes a lot of huff about discrimination, when in fact non-has occurred. It seems to me that you are preparing for nuclear war with the way you have trouble with the purposed rules. Your statement about hanging a sign was a little out of range. To me it was no more then an attention-getter. I see your actions as unhelpful and flame provoking, if you want to be part of a growing community, don't try to build it with a wrecking ball. The rules obviously don't bother you that much, or else you wouldn't want to stay. Process is handled a little different here then over at SR, that's because there are more then 2 people running the show.

1) The Giver has never said any discrimination has occurred. If you feel he has please direct him to where he said this.

2) The Giver does not need "attention-getters" as his opinions generally attract plenty of attention by themselves.

3) There are no rules yet, as yourself said earlier in this thread, so how could The Giver be so displeased with that which does not even exist, such that he would want to leave?

4) The Giver regrets you don't find his input helpful. Some times you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Here The Giver makes a serious attempt to communicate in with you folks in a thoughtful and intelligent manner and yet he still receives a hostile response from you people.

Instead of defending yourself for every little thing, and pointing out every little flaw, pitch in and give a hand.

The Giver has told you all the type of forum he sees as ideal, along with his idea of how it should be controlled (moderated). What more would you have The Giver do? The Giver has expressed his opinions and is attempting to contribute and yet he is told to stop "defending himself for every little thing" and stop "pointing out every little flaw".

To proclaim “whites only” is based on an attribute that cannot be changed. To even suggest this you must be feel that color matters. But why does it matter? To suggest that the rules only allow intelligent, literate, and respectful people is discrimination, but not like your statement of “whites only”. For you to even suggests this tells me you feel as though white people are superior in some way. Why did you choose this as your example? The two are not even close in comparison. Out of the three attributes, only one of them is really important, and that is “don’t piss off others”. Flare up all you want that it’s discriminating, but the truth is, disrespectful people are not thought highly of. Everyone knows this, as we all do not like rude and disrespectful people. Why does the Giver have a problem with this?

1) The Giver chose the two because as he saw a definite similarity in what he perceived as discriminatory. Is that Ok?

2) With regard to the three attributes you have attributed to Tannins "qualifications" (The givers word, not Tannin's). The Giver would point out that they were actually; Intelligent, literate (assumed to mean well read), and not desirous of fairness. "Pissing" people off was not one of them.

3) "Pissing others off" was Tannin's idea of the fundamental rule of "law" around here, not the qualification for membership. There is a difference between the two is there not? Yet you seem to mix the two together above.

4) That which The Giver was comparing to the "Whites Only" policy of the old South was Tannin's implied qualifications for membership. You may see it differently, but The Giver sees "Intelligent" as in the same category as one's race since both attributes are assigned by our Creator and we are powerless to change either.

5) For the record, The Giver is African-American and certainly knows better than most that Whites are in no way superior to anyone.

6) The Giver agrees that disrespectful and rude people are not well thought of. However it is The Giver's opinion that "Pissing people off" when that is not one's intent is not necessarily rude or disrepectful.
Do you agree or disagree with this?

Intelligence cannot be rated, as there is no means other then opinion, which declares a person's intelligence. Literacy is a requirement. Illiterate people cannot function in a place that depends on literacy. It is solely that which limits people with this disability. This is not a trait that the rules seek out and discriminate against, but rather a null point when square peg doesn't fit into a round hole.

1) Intelligence cannot be equated with opinion. If opinion was the equivalent of intelligence than William F. Buckley is intelligent, while Michael Kinsley is a moron (or visa versa) as their opinions are generally 180 degrees apart from one another. Yet clearly they are both very intelligent men. Perhaps The Giver misunderstands your equating the two. If so please elaborate further on this.

2) If there is no means to judge one's intelligence (other than attempting to do so by the opinions they hold) than all the more reason it should not be a requirement for membership in The Giver's opinion.

3) Yes, literacy is a requirement of necessity but is being well read?

Second, that which crosses the line and happens to be true is so vague that the interpretation is left for anyone to define. It depends entirely what “the truth” is you speak of. The truth can always be warped so that it hurts or angers. If there is a real problem here, get to the point and say what it is…that is the truth. Beating around the bush and citing outlandish examples is only to procrastinate that, which is on your mind.

Well simply put, The Giver is attempting to understand precisely what sort of group this going to be. Is it be a forum such as that which The Giver described as ideal or something else? If something else is the answer to that question, then it is The Givers hope he can persuade others to his point of view regarding this ideal. Isn't that what you want? Is this so wrong?

Point being, continue in any way, shape or form you like to communicate in, if people don’t like it, then it will cease to exist. Not by me, but by the power of truth as you say. The truth is, if this continues, people will get sick of it and not address the dramatic comments.

Well thank you for the invitation to continue. If people get sick of The Giver's thought's then so be it. That is their loss sadly, not The Giver's.

Everyone have a beer or soda and be friendly…but not too many beers as it’s illegal to drink and type.

You buyin'? :aok:

 

[The Giver]

Defining what you want can be difficult...

Giver:
Tannin's post obviously struck a core string in you, and your response showed emotion rather then a rational response
to the situation.

It was emotional, but not at all irrational. More precisely it is know as moral outrage.

Odd that you haven't really been able to quantify what you desire in a forum...

Ok, one more time for all those who seem to think The Giver hasn't aleardy told you - From the previous page;

Have you watched the US house of representatives during a debate on the House floor? Or Britain's Parliament during Questions to the Prime Minister? The US House debates are wide ranging not only in subject matter but also in the tone and character of those Congressmen who may be debating a particular Bill. Some are gentle and mild, others are filled with emotion and fiery at times. And occasionally harsh, no doubt offensive, things are said when a member feels passionately about a particular subject. Yet these debates are inspirational and thought provoking. Many great things such as civil rights legislation has come from them. Questions to the Prime Minister on the other hand are not really debates at all but rather a cat and mouse game skillfully and cleverly played between the Prime Minister and the Members of Parliament. Again some are passionate and some mild mannered. Others very witty and entertaining. Both of these great institution's debates on occasion include personal attacks upon a particular member. But it is done so in the hopes that one might get their point across.

In short, The Givers idea of a forum would be to combine the best elements of both of these institutions into a place where issues of the day could be discussed by all who wish to discuss them. Discussed with passion by the passionate as they feel. And with fairness to all "speakers". And yes, folks would inevitably get offended on occasion. Look at it as a necessary evil if you will associated with all meaningful discourse between human beings. But a hell of a place to expand ones knowledge, experience, and ideas. Personal growth is painful. Yet, no pain, no gain as they say.

How to maintain control? Moderators seem to work fairly well for most forums. When has a member gone to far? When the moderator tells him he has. Upon what scale does the Moderator weigh his evaluation of a member? On a fair and just scale as best he can. Fair to all.

 

[Santilli]

Time: Do you have a couple 55 gallon drums of oil I could...

borrow? Or, how about an oil tanker??? :wink:

OK: Let's try again.

Inherent in democracy are flaws. My favorite posting name, in other places, is Socrates.
Why? He asks lots of questions, and many of them so infuriated the majority in Athens, they ordered him to drink hemlock, and, as a good citizen, he did.

Now here in lies the rub. Do we want to exclude people based on their sexual persuasion, political views, conservative, liberal, or general outlook on life?

I am worried that the special part of the old forum, the interplay of different races, countries, and locations, will be lost, if the majority finds their particular view, 'annoying', or disruptive.

I don't agree with SuperCaffinated, and will happily hammer him on stuff all day, because, despite our differing views, the dialectic interplay of ideas is worth the bit of conflict.
Same with Tannin, Mercutio, Giver, Handurin, etc.
Being able to respectfully disagree, and discuss, is what made the storagereview forum for me.

That is another slant, for me, on what can be a major problem. I suspect my differing political views, and conservative approach to test methods, and computer products, the prior probably due to age, the latter due to seriously ide burned hands, and unfulfilled promises of ide speed, filled with broken dreams, and GXP broken 75's,
brought the ire of the moderators.

I hope that situation will not occur here. I suspect not, since the forum members are a bit older, wiser, and more experienced. Gary helped me a bunch with scsi setups, and general outlook on computers.
To paraphrase,
"All computers suck. And, ten years from now, you won't even believe you argued about hard drive speed."

In that comment is considerable wisdom. I certainly hope that this forum does not fail due to the intolerance of other political, or hardware views.

I live in a place where being conservative in anyway, or being Socratic, wondering if something is wrong with a 48% conviction rate in the crime center of the United States, or, as I'm sure criminals call it,
'Heaven", is pretty much a crime. It's like Athens. Don't think any other way then the way the mob does, or you will drink the Hemlock, and, this intolerance is democracies' biggest failing.

I pray we don't make the same mistake here.

I for one, am a staunch 2nd amendment gun advocate. Yet, I still like to hear from countries, like England, where, despite their rising crime rates, they still believe no guns is the safest way to live.

That dialectic interplay is vital and essential to a quality forum, and, I hope we all don't get 'pissed off' about something that is just different from our views, and refuse to allow our ideals and convictions the crucibal of the dialectic international arena we have here.

Sometimes I really like something I wrote, and, I love the above sentence. For me, it pretty much says it all about what the essence of the old forum was, and what I hope this one will be.

gs

 

[Santilli]

I stand corrected...

It was emotional, but not at all irrational. More precisely it is know as moral outrage.

Again, I stand corrected... :wink:

How to maintain control? Moderators seem to work fairly well for most forums. When has a member gone to far? When the moderator tells him he has. Upon what scale does the Moderator weigh his evaluation of a member? On a fair and just scale as best he can. Fair to all.

So, you decided in a benevolent dictator? Intresting.

Certainly the most efficent form of government. I like the idea of having one of the people that have gone through the crucibal of storagereview, together with all the others, as a dictator as well.

I like knowing that the person moderating knows me, respects me, and, at the same time, because of that respect, allows me latitude, and passion. I like your analogy of the house of reps, since anything goes there, and any language or tactic is allowed. However, if you go to far, the lack of respect from other members can make any bills, or goals you have, impossible to obtain. In fact, probably the worst slap is no one showing up to respond to your time on the floor.

I think we could design a situation, or have a moderator, that fits that judicious use of power, balanced with temperance. The majority senior members, Handurin, or whoever has financial control over this forum could provide feedback. This would probably be the most time efficent as well.

It's been said that the worst politics are something where nothing is at stake, i.e. public school politics, and parish politics.
Having had extensive experience in both, I must agree with Henry Kissenger on this point.

The Giver has perhaps made a wise choice...

gs

 

[The Giver]

Hey! How about a rule prohibiting posting in the G.D. Subject bar? 8)

Santilli,

An excellent post my Brotha'

That dialectic interplay is vital and essential to a quality forum, and, I hope we all don't get 'pissed off' about something that is just different from our views, and refuse to allow our ideals and convictions the crucibal of the dialectic international arena we have here.

This is exactly what The Giver has been trying to say. And Handruin's post above indicating that one's opinion will be the measure of his intelligence around here (intelligence is apparently another requirement for membership, or continued membership as the case may be) only adds to The Giver's fear that this is way things will play out here. Hopefully your expressing your concern will not draw so much flack as The Giver did since you are fondly thought of, and The Giver seems to be a wee bit unpopular at the moment. But if in the end you folks achieve that which Greg mentions above it shall have been worth it.

 

[flagreen]

Santilli,

Are you teaching school now? Details?

 

[Santilli]

If I can learn to like an ide drive, miracles do happen

As much of a scsi lover as I am, I still am glad that after all the debate, I can enjoy, and learn from Davin and Eugene, and even the Tornados of the world, and enjoy the fruits of thier labor, in this case, a Quantum LM.

I guess this is an excellent example of the dialectic process. Despite all the name calling, and through debate,
I combined my position, Gary's, and the boys, and came up with what I consider the best position for the current market for myself.

I wait, and watch the results, looking for seek time, and reliability, waiting at least a year, on ide drives. Then ask questions, of others using the drives, and get their results.

Finally, I buy the drive with the fastest seek time I can find, for ide, and use scsi for the other components, like cdrom, dvd, etc.

This gives me ide drives on single channels, hopefully two drives, all alone, and the other peripherals working better, on a superior interface for burning.

I give credit to Gary I for the conservative, skeptical buying approach for both motherboards, hard drives, systems, and raids, along with an honary degree to IBM, for making those way too good to be true, ide drives.

I give credit to Eugene for the information, if not the dogma, that found and identified the best drive, along with the comments, and support on reliability from any participating member, who had personal experience with one.
Forgive me if I cut the credits short, but the illustration is that by discussing a number of different opinions, and positions, with the people that advocated them, I came up with my own position, that I use for buying drives.

This dialectic, experience, and the crucibal of critique by more knowledgable members is what makes this forum invaluable.

Now, if we can extend the same patience, and discussion techniques to other more inflamatory topics, like politics, the Bill of Rights, etc. we will be heading in the proper direction...

gs

 

[Mercutio]

Well, The Giver and Santilli, you'll both be happy to know that the admins have finally come to an agreement on the rules of conduct for members. You'll be happy to know that there's no mention of member intelligence or race in those rules.

I'm sure both of you will be commenting on the fruits of our labors (labor, in this case, means concensus-building. It's harder than it looks) shortly.

 

[Santilli]

Yes, I'm subbing in one of the local school districts

What amazes me is we have such a diverse bunch of kids, that look like hoodlums, and gangsters, and some of them are, but we have relatively few fights, only one I've been a able to see, and, that they seem to get along far better then I would expect.

I can't say I'm happy with the respect for others learning, but, that's where I come in.

The door has this sign on it,

"A student has the right to learn. A teacher has the right to teach. And no one has the right to interfere."

I like that. Perhaps that is also the essence of what the moderation policy should be here?


I don't feel comfortable revealing the names of the schools, or really discussing too much about any possible violations of confidence. I try at all times to make it impossible for you, or anyone else, to identify the schools, since I move to many different ones, or the children, or people involved, since I feel that violates their right to privacy.
I hope I have been sufficently vague so that I have honored that code.
gs

 

[flagreen]

GS,

Good for you. We need as many good teachers as we can get. By details I only meant what you answered. I would never want you to break a confidence. BTW, I agree with you on your concept of what a moderator should be. Good Luck with the teaching!

 

[Handruin]

Yeah... so? Not sure what you are getting at. The Giver's concern was that a rule which could be obeyed by anyone was pointless. And he had another concern about this but will not go into that again.

Any rule can be obeyed, does that make all rules pointless?

Look, here's the "Deal", were you to change the rule regarding not "pissing people off" to not "intentionally and deliberately pissing people off" The Giver would have no problem with it.

All though not explicitly spelled out, “intentionally and deliberately” are felt to be part of “pissing people off”.

1) The Giver has never said any discrimination has occurred. If you feel he has please direct him to where he said this.

2) The Giver does not need "attention-getters" as his opinions generally attract plenty of attention by themselves.

3) There are no rules yet, as yourself said earlier in this thread, so how could The Giver be so displeased with that which does not even exist, such that he would want to leave?

4) The Giver regrets you don't find his input helpful. Some times you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Here The Giver makes a serious attempt to communicate in with you folks in a thoughtful and intelligent manner and yet he still receives a hostile response from you people.

1) The Giver has not directly mentioned discrimination, but implies the rules are for it. In my statement, I did not clearly state I was discussing the rules.

2) My point exactly, your opinions and expressions contain “attention-getters”.

3) I’ve mistaken written this after reading the proposed rules which you have not seen and have mixed and confused the events, my apologies.

4) On the contrary, your input is valuable, but extracting the details throughout your emotions causes noise in your attempt to help. I feel as though it becomes an argument rather then constructive criticism.

1) The Giver chose the two because as he saw a definite similarity in what he perceived as discriminatory. Is that Ok?

2) With regard to the three attributes you have attributed to Tannins "qualifications" (The givers word, not Tannin's). The Giver would point out that they were actually; Intelligent, literate (assumed to mean well read), and not desirous of fairness. "Pissing" people off was not one of them.

3) "Pissing others off" was Tannin's idea of the fundamental rule of "law" around here, not the qualification for membership. There is a difference between the two is there not? Yet you seem to mix the two together above.

4) That which The Giver was comparing to the "Whites Only" policy of the old South was Tannin's implied qualifications for membership. You may see it differently, but The Giver sees "Intelligent" as in the same category as one's race since both attributes are assigned by our Creator and we are powerless to change either.

5) For the record, The Giver is African-American and certainly knows better than most that Whites are in no way superior to anyone.

6) The Giver agrees that disrespectful and rude people are not well thought of. However it is The Giver's opinion that "Pissing people off" when that is not one's intent is not necessarily rude or disrepectful.
Do you agree or disagree with this?

1) I for one find the comment stereotypical and quite frankly offensive, as I don’t care what “color” people are. Had a similar topic arose and used a “color” pertaining to The Giver, I think he may find it equally offensive. As it isn’t right to make a preconception of an ethnic group and compare it to what you think the rules imply. I take that comment as you solely judge this community to be a “whites only”.

2) I am using illiterate in the dictionary sense, one cannot read/write etc. As I find this not to be discrimination due to the condition being beyond the control of this board.

3) I see this as a “law” of types, not a qualification for membership, as you cannot begin to piss someone off if you don’t even have a membership.

4) I do not see Intelligence as part of a person’s race, as that would imply a particular ethnic race is smarter then another. Both are assigned by our Creator I agree, however I do not view one race to be gifted more then another, therefore explaining why I express frustration with the fact you chose “whites only” as your sign and to not allow jews.

5) For the record you ethnic background isn’t important to me as I would treat you as an individual, not by your background. Please don’t mistake me saying that African-American’s are unimportant, but rather the association doesn’t pertain to how I perceive you as an individual. I also hope that by your second comment you do not think, that I feel as though White people are superior to anyone, because I do not feel this way.

6) I partially agree that if it is not one’s intent to “piss off” another person that it is not rude or disrespectful. However I do feel that one should have enough common courtesy in this community to think about what he/she is saying. Most people are fairly forgiving and it’s a matter that an individual should know if his/her comments may cross the line of offensive material. If the content is questionable, then perhaps it should be rethought before making a statement. (this is my own opinion and not an expression of the forum members)

1) Intelligence cannot be equated with opinion. If opinion was the equivalent of intelligence than William F. Buckley is intelligent, while Michael Kinsley is a moron (or visa versa) as their opinions are generally 180 degrees apart from one another. Yet clearly they are both very intelligent men. Perhaps The Giver misunderstands your equating the two. If so please elaborate further on this.

2) If there is no means to judge one's intelligence (other than attempting to do so by the opinions they hold) than all the more reason it should not be a requirement for membership in The Giver's opinion.

3) Yes, literacy is a requirement of necessity but is being well read?

1) It is in my own view that a rating system such as IQ, or SAT for that matter is not a complete and set standard for measuring one’s intelligence. I did not mean to suggest that one’s intelligence is based solely on their opinion on life. However I feel as though the “system” for measuring intelligence is based on the opinion of experts. Even though an individual may display low IQ scores, or ever low SAT scores, this person could still be a genius.

2) I agree.

3) I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at…

Well simply put, The Giver is attempting to understand precisely what sort of group this going to be. Is it be a forum such as that which The Giver described as ideal or something else? If something else is the answer to that question, then it is The Givers hope he can persuade others to his point of view regarding this ideal. Isn't that what you want? Is this so wrong?

The goal is to have an enjoyable forum for all kinds. The rules cut and dry are here to aid that, not squeeze the life out of it. No one knows for sure what sort of group this will become, but we are trying to make it a good place.

Point being, continue in any way, shape or form you like to communicate in, if people don’t like it, then it will cease to exist. Not by me, but by the power of truth as you say. The truth is, if this continues, people will get sick of it and not address the dramatic comments.

Well thank you for the invitation to continue. If people get sick of The Giver's thought's then so be it. That is their loss sadly, not The Giver's.

That comment comes across harsher then I liked. It’s not my place to say for people to ignore you, but rather point out that the power of this forum lies in the members who wish to interact. I’m also trying to realistically state that the more and more we debate these antics; the more people will skip over the content and move on.

You buyin'? :aok:

Only the bandwidth…

 

[The Giver]

Any rule can be obeyed, does that make all rules pointless?

Ooops! The Giver's mistake, he meant to say "any rule which cannot be obeyed is pointless".

1) I for one find the comment stereotypical and quite frankly offensive, as I don’t care what “color” people are. Had a similar topic arose and used a “color” pertaining to The Giver, I think he may find it equally offensive. As it isn’t right to make a preconception of an ethnic group and compare it to what you think the rules imply. I take that comment as you solely judge this community to be a “whites only”.

While it is a comment which constitutes a preconception of an ethnic group, it is also a comment which constitutes a preconception of discrimination based on factors which are beyond the control of those who are being discriminated against. The comment is intended to draw a parallel between what is clearly recognised as discrimination by virtually everyone, and that which is every bit as discriminatory, yet far more subtle in nature (BTW - Once again, The Giver is not, and was not speaking of the rules as put forth by Tannin, but rather of the "qualifications" for membership which he put forth). Comparing that which is overt and clearly recognisable, with that which is subtle, frequently helps to illustrate a point which might otherwise be easily overlooked or dismissed out of hand as having no merit. Personally, The Giver would not feel any better being told he could not join this forum because he is not intelligent, then he would if he would were told the color of his skin was not acceptable. So perhaps there is lesson here as to how subtle, yet harmful discrimination of any kind can be.

 

[Cliptin]

In fact, I take the decidedly minority positions that the actions of moderators here should be subject to some mechanism of review by the forum participants as a group.

It is all very clear to me now. Tannin is a true republican and Mercutio is, as always, the the Democrat. Who says my 8th grade civics lessons were wasted?

 

[Cliptin]

In fact, I take the decidedly minority positions that the actions of moderators here should be subject to some mechanism of review by the forum participants as a group.

It is all very clear to me now. Tannin is a true republican and Mercutio is, as always, the Democrat. Who says my 8th grade civics lessons were wasted?

 

[Cliptin]

In fact, I take the decidedly minority positions that the actions of moderators here should be subject to some mechanism of review by the forum participants as a group.

It is all very clear to me now. Tannin is a true republican and Mercutio is, as always, the Democrat. Who says my 8th grade civics lessons were wasted?

 

[Mercutio]

I don't think you should be hurling around insulting words like "republican" to label our good friend Tannin. Besides, sock puppets can't vote, except in Florida. Not that explains why Tea has access to the Admin forum.

OK. I'll quit with the puppet references.

Why are there so many... songs about rainbows...

Note that I didn't say anything about Muppet references

Who says I'm a Democrat[1]?

[1] There's a funny story there, but I won't tell it right now.
[/i]

 

[Santilli]

the lighter side, this isn't rocket science, and, hopefully,

no one has long range weapons to attack other forum members.

I deal with situations everyday, in which I had my 45 on my hip...

This is light weight stuff. quit being sooooo serious about it.

gs