It’s you Jaboney. I find your “moderating” to be biased and hypocritical. Always have. Funny I have no poblems with other mioderators but I’m always receiving PMs from you demanding I explain my posts…surely my grammar and vocabulary aren’t that esoteric. It’s odd that you call me on posts that are simply in response to crap I get from other posters and I have my posts either edited or removed…while their posts are allowed to stand. And how many times have I ever, ever, ever PMed a mod complaining about someones posts attacking me?
The posts in question concerned abortions and Nazis. Show me where a latrine came into the discussion.
Yes, I agree, and there are different levels of sensitivities among posters. I saw nothing in this thread but one poster reaching the limit of her tolerance and expressing her disatisfaction with another poster. Neither exchange reached the level of a personal attack IMHO, yet neither poster was exactly nice either.
But, there is no rule about actually being NICE to posters.
We cannot be expected to moderate in such a way that will satisfy all posters’ sensibilites, can we?
Well, to be honest, I thought it was very hypocritical of Jaboney to get upset with me for allegedly calling him a name with a “Middle East connotation” a few weeks back. He took the worst possible interpretation of my lettering alignment (rather than the Finnish alignment meaning) .
The next day, he calls me a “name” that can have some very negative connotations including ape etc. I, under a friend’s account (with his permission of course ), call him on this. He then states that I should take the positive interpretation on his wording.
Hypocritical? I think so. He takes a negative interpretation on my wording, but wants me to take a positive on his? WTF?
I’m not complaining about the suspension. I needed the time out.
I am just agreeing with CS. With Jaboney, a double standard plainly exists…
[quote=“jdsmith”]
We cannot be expected to moderate in such a way that will satisfy all posters’ sensibilites, can we?
[/quote]No you can not. What you can do however is try to be more sensible yourself. Not you as in you jd, but feel free wear the hat if it fits you.
If you have a problem, and it’s not already picked up by one of us, PM a mod about about it. Or hit the squeal button. That’s what we’re here for, that’s what the button is there for.
“Always receiving PMs” from me? That’s a bit over the top. If you’re getting more PMs from me than you’d like, it may be because you’ve “always wondered about the logic” of the message/ messenger rule. As for bias, I can only suppose that you see what you’re looking for, and you don’t see the PMs other posts receive from me. You’ll have to just take this on faith, but if you want to divide these debates up into “sides”, I’ve spent far more mod time addressing those who would be arguing against you, rather than with you.
Go back to my first post in this thread. I initially address your statement regarding the message/ messenger thing, then move on to Bodo’s complaint. I acknowledge that I understand why some posters take issue with your style, but question the validity of her complaint in this instance. I make a comment on your posting style, then immediately follow up by acknowledging my own short-comings in the same regard. Is this problematic, biased, or hypocritical?
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Bodo”]It is apparent you have no regard for me or other posters on this thread, and by extension the debate taking place. Makes me wonder why you bother to post.[/quote] Some might say that Comrade Stalin and I don’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, including what constitutes a good discussion–I haven’t a clue where they’d get such an idea–but even so, I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that he has no regard for the issue under debate. It’s an issue he’s posted on in the past, and his position is consistent. Why assume he’s arguing in bad faith?
Why is his tone in debate so winsome? I don’t know the answer to that one either… and everyone knows that my tone is consistently pitch-perfect. :roflmao: [/quote]
Moving on…
The posts in question concerned abortions and Nazis. Show me where a latrine came into the discussion.[/quote]
Show me where the halls of academia came into it.
the Finnish interpretation is bunk, and you know it.
My understanding of it, and I haven’t bothered to get the reasoning crystal clear because the decision was entirely out of my hands, is that you were suspended for: a) misrepresenting my user id in order to try and score some cheap points regarding censorship (in a way I found to be the equivalent of calling someone a Nazi); b) disrespecting another mod, and; c) a plurality of minor infractions.
Once again, I suggested (to a poster I’m not familiar with, oh! that was you using another’s account) that your posting style–not you–might well be summed up by your most frequently used emoticon: . (At the same time I accepted another’s negative description of my own style as “professorial”.) I referred to the emoticon as “a smirking imp”. The software calls it “twisted”. I don’t see anything offensive in being “impish”–in fact, applied to your style, I thought that a better description (more accurate as it conveys a sense of humorous delight) than “twisted” (which might easily cause offense)–but just for the sake clarity, try the following.
Why don’t you put the best possible spin on your statements–no ridiculous Finnish spins, thanks–and the worst possible on mine. See what you come up with. Take the situation that works best to make your case, apply the rules, and let me know how badly I come out of it. You see, so far as the rules are concerned–and your contention is that I have a double standard in their application–I don’t think that there is much of a ‘best spin’ to be had when it comes to your statements, whereas if you really want to stretch my comment, I think it just starts to brush up against the rules. But that’s just my take and I’m always happy to be shown the error of my ways. So, seriously, please, show me this double standard.
Sounds all too familiar to me - certain individuals break the rules (repeatedly judging by the content of the flame forum) and then try to find fault with the moderator that holds different politcal views and throw accusations at him, not to mention that they always have a “good” explanation, that their contribution was of course no rule-breaker and how unfairly they are treated blabla. Well, that behaviour is the only hypocrisy I can see here.
.
), call him on this. He then states that I should take 
I don’t know the answer to that one either… and everyone knows that 
. (At the same time I accepted another’s negative description of my own style as “professorial”.) I referred to the emoticon as “a smirking imp”. The software calls it “twisted”. I don’t see anything offensive in being “impish”–in fact, applied to your style, I thought that a better description (more accurate as it conveys a sense of humorous delight) than “twisted” (which might easily cause offense)–but just for the sake clarity, try the following.