Sarg is entitled to express his opinion... even if we don't personally agree.
I've certainly read far worse on this board.
I've certainly read far worse on this board.
delete or not delete......
- Thread starter TQM
- Start date
Hello morons,
1. I started this thread to get your opinions, not to get any action on the concern - Asterix are you that thick that you can't see this difference?
2. Skyshit - I don't want to ban ideas or delete anything said - you fucking moron - but I'll gladly take a stand against hate.
3. In the restaurant - CapitalMoron - you can always cover your ears. You can request a table further away. You can start humming to yourself......etc..
4. Comprosimpleton - there's also a reasonable expectation here that you won't be harrassed, won't be subject to hate. Anyone who thinks there's a reasonable expection to free speech on a private site is a moron.
1. I started this thread to get your opinions, not to get any action on the concern - Asterix are you that thick that you can't see this difference?
2. Skyshit - I don't want to ban ideas or delete anything said - you fucking moron - but I'll gladly take a stand against hate.
3. In the restaurant - CapitalMoron - you can always cover your ears. You can request a table further away. You can start humming to yourself......etc..
4. Comprosimpleton - there's also a reasonable expectation here that you won't be harrassed, won't be subject to hate. Anyone who thinks there's a reasonable expection to free speech on a private site is a moron.
May God and Allah bless you, TQM. I, sadly, will be ignoring you. Good luck with exams this year (I'm assuming you're a high school student, based on your level of discourse). Ta.TQM said:
ooooh.
Such a good put down. Feel put in my place.
It's intellectual cowardice to favour civility over morality.
(But the best joke of the evening goes to Capital Guy - he'll ignore me over my uncivil behaviour...... but tolerate the thoughts of racism and hate.)
Do any of you see the irony (which I've deliberately pushed) in feeling so strongly about civility but not really caring about true hate? Any of you?
I can just hear it in my head, "Well of course, it's bad to be racist, but being uncivil - now that's a true crime."
Anyone see that as offensive? Anyone?
Such a good put down. Feel put in my place.
It's intellectual cowardice to favour civility over morality.
(But the best joke of the evening goes to Capital Guy - he'll ignore me over my uncivil behaviour...... but tolerate the thoughts of racism and hate.)
Do any of you see the irony (which I've deliberately pushed) in feeling so strongly about civility but not really caring about true hate? Any of you?
I can just hear it in my head, "Well of course, it's bad to be racist, but being uncivil - now that's a true crime."
Anyone see that as offensive? Anyone?
You can get better. If you are hearing voices in your head, see a doctor and get some help. You don't have to go through life being so angry, it can be cured.TQM said:
Now the voices coming from the toaster should be followed. They are for real.
A final comment...
....before I never again hear from TQM.
Ignoring someone on the internet who is annoying you is exactly what I recommended in my post. Not sure what your problem is with that. Clearly I am just not as s.m.r.t. as you since I don't see the contradiction between my words and my actions.
I will accept that TQM is a boor, or at least that he exhibits boorish behaviour, and that he will continue to post in here. I can live with that. I will accept that there is racism in here and that racist posts will continue to take place. I can live with that too. When a racist poster gets to the point that he annoys me, I can choose to ignore him as well. That means I accept that I cannot change either of their behaviours; I likely can't. Such is life. So far SgtStiffCock, who is clearly racist, is more entertaining than annoying, so he stays unignored. TQM is an apparently intelligent man who is simply acting like a jerk. That's annoying, so I choose to stop reading his posts.
As much as I wish there were nothing but acceptance and civility in the world, there are racists and boors out there. The Sgt and TQM are birds of a feather in the sense that they are not likely to accept anyone else's point of view on their respective hot button issues. Too bad.
Now, this time for real. Off to silence.
....before I never again hear from TQM.
Ignoring someone on the internet who is annoying you is exactly what I recommended in my post. Not sure what your problem is with that. Clearly I am just not as s.m.r.t. as you since I don't see the contradiction between my words and my actions.
I will accept that TQM is a boor, or at least that he exhibits boorish behaviour, and that he will continue to post in here. I can live with that. I will accept that there is racism in here and that racist posts will continue to take place. I can live with that too. When a racist poster gets to the point that he annoys me, I can choose to ignore him as well. That means I accept that I cannot change either of their behaviours; I likely can't. Such is life. So far SgtStiffCock, who is clearly racist, is more entertaining than annoying, so he stays unignored. TQM is an apparently intelligent man who is simply acting like a jerk. That's annoying, so I choose to stop reading his posts.
As much as I wish there were nothing but acceptance and civility in the world, there are racists and boors out there. The Sgt and TQM are birds of a feather in the sense that they are not likely to accept anyone else's point of view on their respective hot button issues. Too bad.
Now, this time for real. Off to silence.
TQM, you ignorant slut
Oops, sorry. For a minute there I thought I was trapped in an old SNL skit.
Oops, sorry. For a minute there I thought I was trapped in an old SNL skit.
What, no clever word play on my handle? Had your chance. My opinion is that however insulted I might be by somone's bigoted, racist post, there isn't anything I can do about it unless I choose to engage them, for lack of a better word, in conversation. Often the worst option as it turns out.TQM said:
Last edited:
You know,
the biggest problem I have with the lot of you is that not only are you incapable of even the slightest abilities in reasoning, but that you all have remarkably poor memories about even your own words.
Here's the cases:
Case 1
Capital Guy says that all he was saying was to ignore the guy.
But, just a teeny point - he was saying much more than just ignore the guy. He was saying my analogy wasn't "apt". Now he may be right or wrong about my analogy, but saying it isn't apt isn't just saying to ignore the guy.
So - I objected, in my usual style, to his claim that the analogy wasn't apt, and to the point defended the analogy. And let's be clear, I just don't think he was wrong in rejecting the analogy - I think he was wrong in a stupid way.
I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
I think it's obvious why his rejection of the analogy was wrong and stupid.
But it's breathtaking that he's unaware, allegedly, of what he said. I defend the analogy (whether you think I was successful or not is irrelevant) and he responds saying "all I was saying was to ignore...". No - that wasn't all he was saying.
In other words, I don't know if I disagree with his conclusion about ignoring, but I certainly disagree with how he got to his conclusion.
Case 2
Asterix tells me my analogy is poor. He says its poor because the restaurant owners have a direct interest in the ambience (my word) of the restaurant.
I respond to him in my usual way that the owners of this website have a direct interest in the ambience (again my word) of this site, and therefore, that the analogy isn't poor.
His response then is to say "exactly" and asks so why did I bring the subject up?
Let me find a wall to knock my head into.
Case 3
Skypilot
This guy (can he really be human?) chastises me for wanting to delete or ban ideas. The only problem with that is that I was explicit that I don't want to delete or ban ideas.
My top post and subsequent posts were straightforwardly clear on this. And he thinks I'm going ballistic because people disagree with me.
I don't know how better to explain this, but I'm not going ballistic because people disagree with me. I'm going ballistic because it's impossible to even begin a conversation with people that are so moronic.
I can't even begin a conversation with Skypilot because from the very first step he entirely mischaracterizes what I said. Where can I go from there?
Case 4
calloway and Compromised
These two really don't even enter into the conversation. They suggest there is some kind of entitlement to freedom of speech here, and really, after one attempt, I'm not interested in debating the obvious fact that as in the restaurant there is no such entitlement here. (Guess what? the analogy is apt?)
Last point for you all. If you - any of you - are really going to think about something, you can't just dismiss it out of hand. You have to examine the concept in its entirety, seeing all sides.
I practice what I preach. I think all religion is crazy, but I recognize racist hatred for what it is. I won't tolerate it. If you're going to dismiss a religion, you have to present a reasoned argument as to why, and not some propaganda shit. My analogy should have got some of you thinking.
the biggest problem I have with the lot of you is that not only are you incapable of even the slightest abilities in reasoning, but that you all have remarkably poor memories about even your own words.
Here's the cases:
Case 1
Capital Guy says that all he was saying was to ignore the guy.
But, just a teeny point - he was saying much more than just ignore the guy. He was saying my analogy wasn't "apt". Now he may be right or wrong about my analogy, but saying it isn't apt isn't just saying to ignore the guy.
So - I objected, in my usual style, to his claim that the analogy wasn't apt, and to the point defended the analogy. And let's be clear, I just don't think he was wrong in rejecting the analogy - I think he was wrong in a stupid way.
I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
I think it's obvious why his rejection of the analogy was wrong and stupid.
But it's breathtaking that he's unaware, allegedly, of what he said. I defend the analogy (whether you think I was successful or not is irrelevant) and he responds saying "all I was saying was to ignore...". No - that wasn't all he was saying.
In other words, I don't know if I disagree with his conclusion about ignoring, but I certainly disagree with how he got to his conclusion.
Case 2
Asterix tells me my analogy is poor. He says its poor because the restaurant owners have a direct interest in the ambience (my word) of the restaurant.
I respond to him in my usual way that the owners of this website have a direct interest in the ambience (again my word) of this site, and therefore, that the analogy isn't poor.
His response then is to say "exactly" and asks so why did I bring the subject up?
Let me find a wall to knock my head into.
Case 3
Skypilot
This guy (can he really be human?) chastises me for wanting to delete or ban ideas. The only problem with that is that I was explicit that I don't want to delete or ban ideas.
My top post and subsequent posts were straightforwardly clear on this. And he thinks I'm going ballistic because people disagree with me.
I don't know how better to explain this, but I'm not going ballistic because people disagree with me. I'm going ballistic because it's impossible to even begin a conversation with people that are so moronic.
I can't even begin a conversation with Skypilot because from the very first step he entirely mischaracterizes what I said. Where can I go from there?
Case 4
calloway and Compromised
These two really don't even enter into the conversation. They suggest there is some kind of entitlement to freedom of speech here, and really, after one attempt, I'm not interested in debating the obvious fact that as in the restaurant there is no such entitlement here. (Guess what? the analogy is apt?)
Last point for you all. If you - any of you - are really going to think about something, you can't just dismiss it out of hand. You have to examine the concept in its entirety, seeing all sides.
I practice what I preach. I think all religion is crazy, but I recognize racist hatred for what it is. I won't tolerate it. If you're going to dismiss a religion, you have to present a reasoned argument as to why, and not some propaganda shit. My analogy should have got some of you thinking.
The odd thing is, if you've been paying attention, is that I agree with you on some issues. It's your presentation I find a bit wanting.TQM said:
You started out by saying you'd favour banning a poster for racist remarks. You followed that up with your restaurant analogy, concluding it's up to the owners. I singled that out and said "exactly", because it was the only part of the comparison I found accurate. As I said, the owners of this board do not have the same incentive to react to obnoxious behavior unless they think it will in some way offend their advertisers. Your opinion, or mine, on whether a post should be deleted or a poster banned amounts to squat, especially in this forum. The fact that racist, and borderline racist, comments continue to be tolerated should have made that obvious to you by now.
Last edited:
Looks like the only one you don't have a problem with is me!TQM said:
I don't know if I should feel honoured or insulted.
I've been here all along. In fact, I was the first to respond to your thread.TQM said:
Either you're not paying attention or you have no problem with my synopsis. FWIW, I have no concerns with either scenario.
