's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

ah-nold-so what do you all think?(33 posts)

ah-nold-so what do you all think?rufus
Dec 10, 2003 9:45 AM
of his change of mind not to look into the allegations of his past sexual misconduct?

reeks a bit of the OJ "searching for the real killers" to me.
Dec 10, 2003 10:58 AM
a dinky issueStarliner
Dec 10, 2003 11:04 AM
Despite changes in sex-case law in recent years which have legally empowered women and restricted the legal powers of accused men, societal attitudes have remained more neutral in the matter of assigning blame and responsibility, and less prone to exaggerate the seriousness of the victim's claim. With Arnold, there exists an attitude of whatever allegedly happened simply goes with the territory of what Hollywood is perceived to be. A center of babylonian decadence. Plus, when an allegation is made long after the alleged fact, timed right before the election, the whole thing becomes seen as a matter of voter manipulation rather than a legitimate case, and therefore results in a backlash of support for the accused.

BTW, a lawyer question: what are the laws dealing with groping, are they felonies or misdemeanors, and what are their penalties?
Anybody dumb enough to vote for him. . .czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 11:46 AM
. . .isn't thinking about this issue or any other.
VOILA!!! There it is... just like I said...No_sprint
Dec 10, 2003 12:22 PM
about a 1/2 hour after his other personality.
Troll. Spew. Ignore. nmBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 12:25 PM
that's becoming very annoying nmDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 2:55 PM
Disagree. (nm)czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 3:18 PM
I'm shocked. nmDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 4:19 PM
Probably OK to call czardonic 'hardonic' sinceBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 4:29 PM
he's a liberal.
I'm sure. It is way too late for you to genuinely claim. . .czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 4:48 PM
. . .annoyance at this kind of thing.
You don't count, czardonic. MJ either. TheBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 4:56 PM
terms of use only apply to people we like. We don't like liberals. Outside looking in, dude.
Actually, if you must knowDougSloan
Dec 11, 2003 7:42 AM
I've deleted far more messages that attack Liberals or at least those who probably call themselves Liberals here. Also, 90% of those I delete on this Forum are referencing homosexuality in some way or another.

So, you're way off base. The rules apply to everyone.

More annoyng than No_sprint's relentlessBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 4:18 PM
negativity, threats of fistfights, calling people "pussy," and general lack of any positive contribution to this board, other than to "spew" (his usual word about others) toxins at people he disagrees with?

Have you even read his ridiculous stream-of-bile posts, or is all that excused because he's a virulent conservative directing this endless personal vitriol at people you don't like politically?
mostly following the subject linesDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 4:22 PM
No, I don't have time or a desire to read all posts. I'm looking at your posting the same subject line repeatedly, without any substantive remarks. No, I'm not going to delete them. This time it's just me being personally irritated.

If you have concerns about particular messages that are personal attacks, contain obscene language, or otherwise violate the Terms of Use, please alert me. Thanks.

Is '"pussy" obscene, and does calling someoneBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 4:26 PM
a pussy after threatening them with violence a personal attack that violates TOU? If so, I'm alerting you.
I have to give Doug some credit.czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 5:11 PM
His annoyance at certain tactics may be selective, but his application of the Forum Guidelines has been (if nothing else) even-handed.

That puts you at a disadvantage if you don't want to "go there" with name-calling and threats -- but such is life.
But No_sprint has run wild.BottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 5:15 PM
Maybe his "good stuff" is so boring that Doug doesn't read it. That would explain the fact that no one has called him on his psycho posts.
If his posts amuse him (or Doug). . .czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 5:35 PM
. . .let 'em yuck it up, I say.
You're such a libertarian. nm .BottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 5:40 PM
I figure this board needs at least one. (nm)czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 5:51 PM
You're the one and only. nmBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 5:53 PM
just let me knowDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 8:49 PM
point me to the offending remarks and I'll do something about it; I can't take the time to browse everything here; sorry, as much as I wish I could. I sort of rely upon people to help sometimes.

Yes, I try to be even handed. As czar probably knows, I've come down hard on some remarks offensive to him, too. Personal attacks or obscenity won't be tolerated no matter the political persuasion of the perp.

Talking to yourself? Here and gone at the same time. nmNo_sprint
Dec 11, 2003 8:21 AM
enough. let's move on; thanks nmDougSloan
Dec 11, 2003 8:23 AM
I don't give him any credit.dr hoo
Dec 10, 2003 6:57 PM
I am speaking here as someone who has both maintained order on net forums, and studied the creation of online community.

Even handed treatment is necessary, but not sufficient.

The biggest threats to online discussion forums, especially ones that deal with "hot button" issues like politics, are personal attacks and insults. Any moderator worth their salt nips those in the bud before things get out of hand. If that is done early, people pretty much self regulate.

Deletion need not be done. But warnings, and statements that "You have been going too far and I will be keeping my eye on your posts", can go a LONG way with LITTLE labor in keeping order.

If you "don't have the time" to do the job, don't pretend to be doing it. And when rule #1 (The message insults or degrades another member of the community) is violated IN THE SUBJECT LINES (that Doug claims to be reading), it's pretty clear the job isn't getting done.

I can play it clean or dirty, and have fun either way. But as far as evaluation of moderators goes, Doug gets an "F".
That's food for thought.czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 7:18 PM
If Doug (or someone) wants to restore some level of decorum on this board and enforce the guidelines, I volunteer to clean up my act.

But if people want to play dirty, that's fine with me too.
me tooMJ
Dec 11, 2003 5:39 AM
but in the meantime I won't avoid the fight fire with fire approach - if nothing more than for my own amusement - after all if the moderator isn't in the business of maintaining some sense of decorum then what can I do...

anyone who's happened on this board over the past few weeks will give it a miss owing to bill105 and No Sprint
Cry baby! LOLOLOL!!! Go run home to your mother!! LOL nmNo_sprint
Dec 11, 2003 8:13 AM
oh give me a breakDougSloan
Dec 11, 2003 7:46 AM
I get criticized either way. Either I'm deleting too much, complaining too much, or not enough. I can't make everyone happy. There's no doubt about that. All I can do is attempt to strike a balance.

No, I really don't have time to read everything. However, everyone here is free to alert me to a problem, and that happens maybe once a month. You can't sit idle by and criticize when you are doing nothing to help.

There have been far more warnings than deletions. You may not be privy to all communications, you know.

Show me even one example of your making a positive contribution in this respect here.

How's this for an example:dr hoo
Dec 11, 2003 1:10 PM
Once, on MTBR Passion, I managed to get Francis Cebado to threaten to run me over if he ever saw me on the trail. And if you know how easy going Francis is, then you can guess what THAT took.

Ooops, bad example!

Honestly, if I thought you would do anything about it, I would have pointed things out. But you seemed not to be doing anything, past deleting shots of ta-tas that is. Keep in mind my participation here is relatively short, so I did not have the full history and was just going by what I saw. I'll play nice.

Oh, one more thing. Behind the scene warnings are good, but public warnings send the same message not only to the offender, but to the wider community as well. It can save a lot of work for you down the road.
Dec 11, 2003 1:52 PM
There are plenty of public warnings, and 90% of the time that takes care of things. The private warnings are usually when it gets so bad they are about to get banned.

Problems are never small. They are either out of control southern California wildfires or nothing. People talk alot about just not responding to trolls, but far too many people fan the flames. Each time, it's only 2 or 3 people who really are the problem. It's almost never just one person alone.

The ta-tas decisions are easy. That's pretty cut and dry. Direct threats and "the 7 words you can't say on television" are easy. The hard part is when it's not so obvious, and then I usually wait for someone to point it out and complain. Over all, that has worked very well.

re: Well it gets better......jrm
Dec 10, 2003 2:54 PM
One more chunk of personal creditability gets chipped off.