Misc - Several issues - Misc Posters Read! - Page 12

TheLonelySquire · July 11 2009, 11:37 PM

Scout101 wrote:

Just read the user names for the last few pages of the thread. All either TNZ regulars, or in a few cases (TLS is the first example I saw, hard to give too many examples since TNZ banning itself is rather hush-hush and not subject to annoucement or review) those that have been kicked out or left on their own. And hell, the quotes posted? Garak, Squiggy, etc.

If you want to make it more than just that one thread, can go into the recent Obama thread, and identify more gems from TLS and Gertch. There are plenty more threads to play this game with, but let's not get bogged down in semantics, hmm? Seems pretty clear it's just a TNZ overflow problem. Posters that have been kicked out of TNZ (or couldn't handle being held to the fire for their posts) have migrated here, and set up shop. Their regular 'enemies' then follow them in (can't let them "get away with anything", of course), and the same game starts up here instead.

And not to defend any of those individual quotes, but they seem a lot worse pulled out of context the way T'Bonz posted them. Most were clearly fairly relaxed jokes, until you show just that one snippet, without the rest of the thread. I sincerely doubt Squiggy is going to rape anyone's face, for example. Bonz would have a good point if that was said to an unsuspecting poster here, but when it was Squiggy and garak going back and forth, don't think either was upset by it. And if just reading that upsets people so badly, the internet must be a scary place indeed...

I've posted in Misc. for years and if I break a rule I'm fine with being called on it. And I have my own moderator angel that keeps me in line anyway.

You however make fun of mentally and physically handicapped people in your signature line. Are they any more acceptable a group to make fun of?

You also violate the #1 rule of TNZ with your every post. Not that I expect anything to be done about it though.

Da'an · July 12 2009, 03:43 AM

TheLonelySquire wrote:

You however make fun of mentally and physically handicapped people in your signature line. Are they any more acceptable a group to make fun of?

You also violate the #1 rule of TNZ with your every post. Not that I expect anything to be done about it though.

Actually I took it to mean he was making fun of people who believe internet debates have any importance.

Which one is Rule #1?

Skywalker · July 12 2009, 10:50 AM

Honestly, I have no idea what you people are talking about. Maybe I should have read that Palin thread.

Also, um...sexism is bad. But so is taking things out of context and overreacting.

J. Allen · July 12 2009, 10:53 AM

Holdfast wrote:

Bob The Skutter wrote:

Personally I think the main rule we need instating is "Don't be an arsehole" and if there's any problems deal with them as they arise, not pre-emptively try and squash problems.

You are correct IMO.

The long-standing issue underlying the regularly scheduled contortions around rules on this board (this episode is just the latest in a long line) stems from a reliance on creating a "fair" rules-based consitution for the board with long-winded avenues of appeal, as well as the pretence that we are a PG-13 board.

Stripping the rules down to "don't be an arsehole", choosing mods carefully enough so there's a reasonable & plausible mix of opinions on the definition of an arsehole, acknowledging that the vast majority of our posters are above 18 (or at least above 15/16) and so should be able to take a bit of rough & tumble, and having a "dumb threads" forum to send threads started in clear bad faith or threads which are just moronic beyond belief. would go a long way to creating an easier to manage and also more enjoyable environment. Trouble is, those measures are not in the board's tradition and philosophy and so would be very difficult to institute.

Agreed. At some point, decisions have to be made. Bonz made these, and that's how it is. I don't agree with many of them and think they're rather Draconian, but I didn't really expect a different result from this whole issue.

J.

captcalhoun · July 12 2009, 11:19 AM

my only problem is in the puritanical ethnocentrism of the rules regarding female photos.

no images that if they were in a magazine you'd need ID to buy

HA! In the liberal UK, you can buy magazines featuring women flashing their boobs with no need for ID. Loaded, Front, Zoo and Nuts regularly have bare boobage and there's no restriction on their sale. and that's besides three national daily newspapers having 'page 3 girls' flashing their bristols to all and sundry.

i also don't get this whole 'side boob' thing. WTF? Seriously? the side of a boob is titalating? come on! you can have titlating pictures with NO boob showing!

and, frankly, i think it's sexxist saying no bare boobs, yet bare male chests are allowed. the argument goes that since men don't have mammary glands, this is some how okay, yet women are clearly excited over shirtless pictures of men or we wouldn't have women posting with avatars of shirtless Connor Trineer. or posting images of bare chested hunks. slag off Hermiod's whinging all you want, but he's right that there is a double-standard there.

oh, and, yeah, selective quoting, not good. context is everything...

TheLonelySquire · July 12 2009, 11:53 AM

Da'an wrote:

TheLonelySquire wrote:

You however make fun of mentally and physically handicapped people in your signature line. Are they any more acceptable a group to make fun of?

You also violate the #1 rule of TNZ with your every post. Not that I expect anything to be done about it though.

Actually I took it to mean he was making fun of people who believe internet debates have any importance.

Which one is Rule #1?

"What goes on in TNZ stays in TNZ" His signature line breaks that rule.

TheLonelySquire · July 12 2009, 12:38 PM

Squiggyfm wrote:

Let's look at the rape comment in context:

Rush Limborg wrote:

Had it not been for Palin, Obama WOULD have gotten his landslide. He did not...because of the crowds she drew.

Squiggyfm wrote:

I'm I going to have to dust off all my old election charts and maps and choke a bitch?

Obama won every swing state with the exeption of Missouori, which wasn't finalized for weeks because McCain only won by 3,900 votes out of 3,000,000 cast.

Obama won Indiana. The first time since Johnson's landslide of 1964 that Indiana went blue.

Obama won Virginia. Also the first time since Johnson's landslide of 1964 that Indiana went blue.

Obama won Omaha. The whitest place on Earth.

Obama won North Carolina. The home of Jesse Helms. The first time in 30 years North Carolina went Democrat.

Now, watch me as I rape your face. These are the county changes between 2004 and 2008:

Watch me as I rape your face again. This the how much each county changed. The darker the blue, the more Democratic, the darker the red the more Republican

Nationwide, the country went heavily for Obama with the only Republican gains in Tennessee, Arkansas, and the Appalachians. Well done Palin! What a electoral powerhouse you are.

Let's look at the national polling shall we?

Oh my. She seemed to have helped for a week or so...until she opened her mouth and showed the United States that Alaskans shouldn't be trusted to vote for their own governor and should be devolved to a territory.

There you go. There's my rampant sexism. Ohhhh no. Ooga booga, I'm keeping the proud female down.

Just an observation, but for one of board managements favored posters you do seem to have your fair share of controversies. However, while that comment is disgusting, it's hardly sexist toward women.

Locutus of Bored · July 12 2009, 01:00 PM

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Just an observation, but for one of board managements favored posters you do seem to have your fair share of controversies.

No inherent contradiction in that statement at all.

TheLonelySquire · July 12 2009, 02:32 PM

Locutus of Bored wrote:

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Just an observation, but for one of board managements favored posters you do seem to have your fair share of controversies.

No inherent contradiction in that statement at all.

Not at all. One can be controversial and yet still receive favor. Pretty simple really.

Once I'm a moderator I'll rule with a much more even hand.

Da'an · July 12 2009, 02:44 PM

captcalhoun wrote:

and, frankly, i think it's sexxist saying no bare boobs, yet bare male chests are allowed. the argument goes that since men don't have mammary glands, this is some how okay, yet women are clearly excited over shirtless pictures of men or we wouldn't have women posting with avatars of shirtless Connor Trineer. or posting images of bare chested hunks. slag off Hermiod's whinging all you want, but he's right that there is a double-standard there.

Well it is fairly common to see shirtless men in everyday situations. Especially in the summer.

Nobody bats an eyelid when a guy walks around topless, this gender discrepancy is nothing more than cultural conditioning.

That doesn't make it right, but it does make it understandable.

Locutus of Bored · July 12 2009, 02:47 PM

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Once I'm a moderator I'll rule with a much more even hand.

Cool, then I can visit your internet paradise while I'm sipping piña coladas on my presidential space yacht with my First Lady Jessica Alba.

RJDiogenes · July 12 2009, 03:48 PM

Da'an wrote:

Well it is fairly common to see shirtless men in everyday situations. Especially in the summer.

Nobody bats an eyelid when a guy walks around topless, this gender discrepancy is nothing more than cultural conditioning.

Exactly. This is why women have to go to court to affirm their Right to be topless.

TheLonelySquire · July 12 2009, 05:08 PM

RJDiogenes wrote:

Da'an wrote:

Well it is fairly common to see shirtless men in everyday situations. Especially in the summer.

Nobody bats an eyelid when a guy walks around topless, this gender discrepancy is nothing more than cultural conditioning.

Exactly. This is why women have to go to court to affirm their Right to be topless.

ALL women?

RJDiogenes · July 12 2009, 05:14 PM

No, just the ones who live in places where it still isn't allowed, obviously.

Squiggy · July 12 2009, 08:45 PM

TheLonelySquire wrote:

RJDiogenes wrote:

Da'an wrote:

Well it is fairly common to see shirtless men in everyday situations. Especially in the summer.

Nobody bats an eyelid when a guy walks around topless, this gender discrepancy is nothing more than cultural conditioning.

Exactly. This is why women have to go to court to affirm their Right to be topless.

ALL women?

The ones I want to party with at least.

WARNING: THE PRECEDING REMARK WAS SEXIST.

July 12 2009, 10:50 AM	#168
Skywalker Admiral	Re: Misc - Several issues - Misc Posters Read! Honestly, I have no idea what you people are talking about. Maybe I should have read that Palin thread. Also, um...sexism is bad. But so is taking things out of context and overreacting.

July 12 2009, 11:19 AM	#170
captcalhoun Admiral Location: gone	Re: Misc - Several issues - Misc Posters Read! my only problem is in the puritanical ethnocentrism of the rules regarding female photos. no images that if they were in a magazine you'd need ID to buy HA! In the liberal UK, you can buy magazines featuring women flashing their boobs with no need for ID. Loaded, Front, Zoo and Nuts regularly have bare boobage and there's no restriction on their sale. and that's besides three national daily newspapers having 'page 3 girls' flashing their bristols to all and sundry. i also don't get this whole 'side boob' thing. WTF? Seriously? the side of a boob is titalating? come on! you can have titlating pictures with NO boob showing! and, frankly, i think it's sexxist saying no bare boobs, yet bare male chests are allowed. the argument goes that since men don't have mammary glands, this is some how okay, yet women are clearly excited over shirtless pictures of men or we wouldn't have women posting with avatars of shirtless Connor Trineer. or posting images of bare chested hunks. slag off Hermiod's whinging all you want, but he's right that there is a double-standard there. oh, and, yeah, selective quoting, not good. context is everything...

July 12 2009, 05:14 PM	#179
RJDiogenes Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Location: RJDiogenes of Boston	Re: Misc - Several issues - Misc Posters Read! No, just the ones who live in places where it still isn't allowed, obviously. __________________ Please stop by my Gallery and YouTube Page for a visit. And read Trunkards!

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US