Whiners who report people when the wind blows

[Questioning Christian]

I would like to see the person have to identify themselves for their report to be accepted.

This way, if the same person keeps reporting me over and over again, perhaps a pattern can be established to where you can show that the person is only reporting me because I make them mad, and not because they have legitimate claim to report me.

I honestly think that reports tend to come again and again from the same person, and it is not my opinion that I should be subject to have a report made about me just because someone doesn't like what I say.

[TheDag]

my opinion is that it depends on how your saying what you are. After all if you are going to resort to name calling then you are sinking to the level of the people you are complaining about. If you wonder what I mean then refer to your post where you call a group of people childish liars and immature. We are called to be an example to others and you have in that post resorted to name calling rather than addressing issues yet you are saying why can't be address issues instead of name calling. Do you not think these are double standards?
Also bear in mind that when someone makes a report the pm is automatically sent to you. It is the opinion of the reporter that you have broken the rules. It is not fact. The mods will decide if you have or haven't. So the people or person reporting you may think you have broken the rules and for you to then call them a liar simply because their opinion differs to your own is unacceptable.


Having said that I don't think it is a good idea to let everyone know who made the report but I would certainly like staff to be able to see who made it to prevent people abusing the report feature.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Assuming you bes not one of them types what thinks it your right to deliberately make others upset or angry for your mere amusement, and you bes talksy only about them not appreciating your POV or the cyber-equivalent of "not liking your face", Moriah agrees with you. People should have to identify themselves to report. If they don't have the courage of their convictions they should not be making reports in the first place. Everyone has the right to know (a) whether someone "has it in" for them personally or whether it just bes a random thing where someone thought their post "flamey"; (b) if the former, whom, so that they cannot be deceived by people pretending to be friendly just to get more "dirt" on them and then acting out against them through the report feature.

If people had to identify themselves in order to make a report you would probably see WAY less spite/petty/frivilous report making and less people using the button as a way to take out their aggressions on others. The thing cuts both ways though. On the one hand some ppls just bes hypersensitive and petty and try to make others miserable or cause them trouble; on the other hand some ppls just won't stop baiting, flaming and harassing. And ppls tend to stalk other ppls too for repeat performances -- it gets annoying.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I think that revealing the Reporter would likely cause more harm than good. If I understand correctly, Staff are fully able to see the Reporter's name, and they have been specially trained to watch for spite- and serial-reporting.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Yeah but people have a right to know who bes shooting at them behind their backs. And staff does not always act conscionably in regard to spite reports and serial reportings. Often times they let ppls get away with it if they prefer the one doing it to the one it bes done to.

What harm do you foresee it doing, Lindon?

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Given the near-constant battles of the various factions here, simply reporting someone's post could quickly earn a non-combatant several enemies. Likewise, it could rekindle an existing feud, maybe even spark a new one.

If some Staffers are acting unconscionably by ignoring or encouraging spite-reporting, there's really nothing that can be done about it in our existing environment.

[honorthesabbath]

I agree with this. That way we can tell when a staff member reports a person too.

[TheDag]

Yeah but people have a right to know who bes shooting at them behind their backs.
Just out of interest why do they have that right and where does it come from? It certainly is not in the rules or guidelines of christian forums. Never has been to my knowledge although maybe was before I joined though I doubt it.



What harm do you foresee it doing, Lindon?
Ok so I'm not Lindon but hopefully you don't mind me putting my bit in. I believe it would risk the person who made the report being harrassed by the person reported or their friends or both. Certain people here on CF while not on staff seem to be very influential so if you report them it could make things unbearable for you if you upset them.

[MrJim]

Yeah but people have a right to know who bes shooting at them behind their backs. And staff does not always act conscionably in regard to spite reports and serial reportings. Often times they let ppls get away with it if they prefer the one doing it to the one it bes done to.

What harm do you foresee it doing, Lindon?

I would tend to agree with Moriah...

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Just out of interest why do they have that right and where does it come from? It certainly is not in the rules or guidelines of christian forums. Never has been to my knowledge although maybe was before I joined though I doubt it.
CF does not constitute the complete sum of human rights. It comes from the basic inherent right of everyone to know the truth, and knowing who bes your enemies and who your friends, bes part of that truth.

Regardless of what arbitrary human organization or social group either owns up and honors or seeks to trash and bury them, we all still have basic inherent inborn rights, and we alone define those. You (meaning anyone, not just you personally) don't have the right to make anyone else's life miserable and you certainly don't have that right from behind an anonymous screen. Just like, just because a door bes unlocked does not give you the right to rob the house inside it.

Ok so I'm not Lindon but hopefully you don't mind me putting my bit in. Wouldn't matter if Moriah did or did not -- you have the right to do so, and whether this one values your input or not does not remove that right. See? ;)

I believe it would risk the person who made the report being harrassed by the person reported or their friends or both. Certain people here on CF while not on staff seem to be very influential so if you report them it could make things unbearable for you if you upset them.Totally see your point there. :thumbsup: But we might pit that against the opposite -- when we don't have the right to know who bes harassing US honored, it bes easy to fall into a really uncomfortable milieu at the edge of 24/7 paranoia, feeling "everyone" bes out to get you, not knowing where them cowardly potshots originate.

It thinks we both have valid points ... how might both needs be satisfied? Well for starters, Staff could monitor the situation and on any occasion where a continual repeat offender occurs, inform the party being potshotted and either offer to step in and mediate between the two parties, or put them on what Moriah terms "moratorium" or "forced ignore". Forced ignore means, since person X keeps being upset by person Y, they should put them on ignore and from henceforth never again address them nor post about them or "to" them either overtly OR covertly, nor report them. If they make bad posts someone else can see the violation and report it, simple as that, but if someone bes hitting the button repeatedly because someone else's existence "pushes" theirs, that needs to stop. If people will not make a mature decision to use the ignore feature when it bes clear they need to, then Staff needs to nanny them toward it to keep the peace for others, and to reduce an unnecessary workload of slogging through spite reports not to mention threads getting sabotaged by conflict stirrers who do it deliberately JUST to shut down good discussions they don't personally agree with.

What do you think of that idea Dag?

[Richard]

I think that revealing the Reporter would likely cause more harm than good. If I understand correctly, Staff are fully able to see the Reporter's name, and they have been specially trained to watch for spite- and serial-reporting.

You are correct. We conduct research (or suppose to) on every report that comes in and look at lines of spite reporting :)

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I wonder if showing the Reporter's name would actually change anything--it may just add another layer of intrigue:

"Say Dag, ole buddy ole pal... since I've been officially warned not to report Moriah for the next seven days, could you handle it for me? Maybe get MrJim and RickyMac to help, too? Thanks!"

[Bombila]

If CF went back to open reports, it wouldn't be necessary to know who made the report to identify spite reporting. Everyone could see if one poster were being continually reported for insignificant reasons, and Mods would be seen to be acting appropriately, and not have to continually protest, as they must now, that they are doing the right thing..

Open reports were better for everybody, including moderators, who values fairness.

[Nomenclature]

If you want to start the honesty rolling, simply sign any reports that you yourself happen to make on somebody.


This way, if the same person keeps reporting me over and over again, perhaps a pattern can be established to where you can show that the person is only reporting me because I make them mad, and not because they have legitimate claim to report me.


This is not a problem, because the reports that are seen by staff do have both the reporter and the reported names listed. Staff are very aware of spite reporting, and they make it a habit to contact those who participate in such things. So you can relax about that. :) When it's a staff member doing the reporting though, then yes, that can be a problem, but not if you contact their Admins. If their Admins won't do anything to help, then contact the SuperAdmins. While it may appear that some staff members have it out for certain posters, there is hope, and that hope is found in something far more important than a forum.


I think it's important to note that nothing is really done in secret. God see's all things, knows all things. People who sneak and intentionally attempt to bring harm to others, even on a forum, are only hurting themselves before their Heavenly Father. Those who do not believe in God or who do not accept Christ as their Savior, and are doing the secretive reporting, have another issue altogether. Rather than worrying about them reporting us, we should be praying that they come to Christ before the final judgement, when it will be too late.

There is plenty of judging going on in this earthly realm, and some of it here on forums, but it will pale in comparison to the judging to take place before God, when all will be laid bare, and nothing will be kept secret.

:prayer: Remember the important things, and pray, for the time is near and the choirs of heaven are getting louder. Be ready. :prayer:

[TheDag]

CF does not constitute the complete sum of human rights. It comes from the basic inherent right of everyone to know the truth, and knowing who bes your enemies and who your friends, bes part of that truth.

Regardless of what arbitrary human organization or social group either owns up and honors or seeks to trash and bury them, we all still have basic inherent inborn rights, and we alone define those. You (meaning anyone, not just you personally) don't have the right to make anyone else's life miserable and you certainly don't have that right from behind an anonymous screen. Just like, just because a door bes unlocked does not give you the right to rob the house inside it.
I still don't see it as a fundamental right to know who your accuser is. It is a right to a fair trial. Of course I do acknowledge that countries all over the world abuse human rights like the US with the age they allow people to join the military or my country for breaching articles 4, 9 ,22 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (see www.un.org for details) That is an aside and off topic though.



Totally see your point there. :thumbsup: But we might pit that against the opposite -- when we don't have the right to know who bes harassing US honored, it bes easy to fall into a really uncomfortable milieu at the edge of 24/7 paranoia, feeling "everyone" bes out to get you, not knowing where them cowardly potshots originate.

It thinks we both have valid points ... how might both needs be satisfied? Well for starters, Staff could monitor the situation and on any occasion where a continual repeat offender occurs, inform the party being potshotted and either offer to step in and mediate between the two parties, or put them on what Moriah terms "moratorium" or "forced ignore". Forced ignore means, since person X keeps being upset by person Y, they should put them on ignore and from henceforth never again address them nor post about them or "to" them either overtly OR covertly, nor report them. If they make bad posts someone else can see the violation and report it, simple as that, but if someone bes hitting the button repeatedly because someone else's existence "pushes" theirs, that needs to stop. If people will not make a mature decision to use the ignore feature when it bes clear they need to, then Staff needs to nanny them toward it to keep the peace for others, and to reduce an unnecessary workload of slogging through spite reports not to mention threads getting sabotaged by conflict stirrers who do it deliberately JUST to shut down good discussions they don't personally agree with.

What do you think of that idea Dag?
I think this is a much better idea. I just can't see any good coming from allowing people to know who reported them. Maybe if something could be set up to automatically notify the reconciliation team if a person makes more than a certain amount of reports in a certain timeframe on the same person then it can be looked at. Of course if the reports are justified I don't think it should be forced ignore as that would indicate the person reported is just out to cause trouble. Also Lindon raises a good point in post # 11

[synger]

When we went from completely open reports to completely closed reports, there was a great deal of discussion (http://christianforums.com/t6371218-wiki-copy-open-report-threads.html) on the issue, from both members and staff.

It was because of that discussion, and the arguments put forth and summarized from it, that TPTB opened the reports as much as they have. Personally, I doubt they will open reports further. But it's an interesting discussion.

[sacerdote]

One of the things I have seen that rubs me the wrong way goes like this. A hot discussion is taking place. Someone blasts another usually with scripture but not lovingly or with kindness. Instead, scripture is used like a cudgel in a bludgeoning fashion, something to hammer the person with.

Then when the person who was not lovingly, kindly or even respectfully treated with the Word of God responds responds like they've been treated badly or attacked, the not so polite person will report them for flaming or some other nonsense.

Having said this I believe our moderators for the most part can discern what is happening and respond accordingly. I know that they spend a lot of time trying to be fair, sometimes to a fault.

God bless.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

If CF went back to open reports, it wouldn't be necessary to know who made the report to identify spite reporting. Everyone could see if one poster were being continually reported for insignificant reasons, and Mods would be seen to be acting appropriately, and not have to continually protest, as they must now, that they are doing the right thing..

Open reports were better for everybody, including moderators, who values fairness.
TOTALLY agree there.
They should be open or they should be done away with.
The board this one admin'd for 6+ years with thousands of members, we never had a report feature. Everyone knew the simple rules (don't be a jerk, basically, and don't spam our forum with wingnut rhetoric) and moderators decided if posts needed moderating or not and took action accordingly. We almost never had to take action and we almost never had to ban anyone. NOT that everyone got along all the time but if ppls started harassing each other they got told take it outside, not here, put a sock in it. Either they did or they got a 2-week informal cool-off which they had to take voluntarily. We made it as little work for the mods as possible in other words. We only had to ban maybe a handful of people in all the time we bes online.

Also mods need to be mature AND intelligent -- wrestling with idiots who cannot even read your post properly to parse what it means can be a real pain, and then you have the power hungry jackboot sort who won't let you explain what it means without threatening to interpret your doing so as "harassing staff" or "arguing" and threatening you with bans, etc. to forcibly silence you. That crap bes atrocious, people with IQs less than 130 and age less than 25 have no business being mods, period. The former cannot reason properly and the latter have not even enough life experience to BEGIN to be objective about anything.

Sorry but that bes its opinion in general, not directed at anyone as a flame so kindly DON'T play that OK?

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I still don't see it as a fundamental right to know who your accuser is.
Then we shall have to agree to disagree. It has the right to know who accuses it -- that goes with the right to FACE one's accuser (such as given in a trial) -- and no compromise on that position from here, sorry. If someone bes too freaking cowardly to own their actions in causing someone else grief via accusation then they should stuff it and not bother in the first place.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

One of the things I have seen that rubs me the wrong way goes like this. A hot discussion is taking place. Someone blasts another usually with scripture but not lovingly or with kindness. Instead, scripture is used like a cudgel in a bludgeoning fashion, something to hammer the person with.

Then when the person who was not lovingly, kindly or even respectfully treated with the Word of God responds responds like they've been treated badly or attacked, the not so polite person will report them for flaming or some other nonsense.

Having said this I believe our moderators for the most part can discern what is happening and respond accordingly. I know that they spend a lot of time trying to be fair, sometimes to a fault.

God bless.

YES this happens WAY too much, and

NO unfortunately moderators do NOT usually have the discernment to respond appropriately to this!!! They just listen to the "cudgel wielders", mollycoddle and pat them on the head while dragging the person HARASSED by them through the freaking MUD, infracting THEM and telling THEM to "just ignore it" and report it only when they report it THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING. :mad:

SO sick of those double standards of hypocrisy it could SCREAM you have NO clue how CRAZYMAKING this bes, how GASLIGHTING and freaking ROTTEN it bes, how DAMAGING, until someone does it to YOU and NO ONE will listen to YOU because YOU don't have a mod badge or YOU don't have the invisible SNEETCH STAR of "just like everyone else" on your belly. :mad:

[Bombila]

One of the things I have seen that rubs me the wrong way goes like this. A hot discussion is taking place. Someone blasts another usually with scripture but not lovingly or with kindness. Instead, scripture is used like a cudgel in a bludgeoning fashion, something to hammer the person with.

Then when the person who was not lovingly, kindly or even respectfully treated with the Word of God responds responds like they've been treated badly or attacked, the not so polite person will report them for flaming or some other nonsense.

Having said this I believe our moderators for the most part can discern what is happening and respond accordingly. I know that they spend a lot of time trying to be fair, sometimes to a fault.

God bless.

I beg to differ, given I've only reported, I think, two posts in the entire time I've participated here, once for an anti-semite link, and the other time (was really cranky that day or I'd have let it go, as I usually do) someone using scripture as an insulting device (a verse that is notoriously used on this board for the sole purpose of insulting others). The moderator sided with the scripture-wielder, and essentially told me to suck it up, it was scripture.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I beg to differ .... [reported] someone using scripture as an insulting device (a verse that is notoriously used on this board for the sole purpose of insulting others). The moderator sided with the scripture-wielder, and essentially told me to suck it up, it was scripture.
Yes, and then when someone considered an "outcast" type actually employs a valid scripture to characterize whatever nasty hypocrisy bes going on by that ilk, the moderators do a 180 and fault them for flaming. It bes a totally biased system based on whether the moderators like you or not, and/or whether you bes considered part of the "in group" here or not.
Moriah bes neither.

[sacerdote]

I beg to differ, given I've only reported, I think, two posts in the entire time I've participated here, once for an anti-semite link, and the other time (was really cranky that day or I'd have let it go, as I usually do) someone using scripture as an insulting device (a verse that is notoriously used on this board for the sole purpose of insulting others). The moderator sided with the scripture-wielder, and essentially told me to suck it up, it was scripture.

I think there are two issues in my post, one being about scripture being used as something to beat someone with and the other concerning moderation.

Being both a sinner and fallible I need a rebuking or admonishment now and again. Yet the best ones have not been the "hit me in the head with the Bible" thing, but quiet, thoughtful, soft-spoken reminders of the truth followed by a hug/

As far as moderation, I know of only a few here that I wouldn't have over for dinner. However, I have seen a disparity in moderation with certain things being allowed on some forums and dealt with more harshly on others.

Still, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and some times when I think things are way off base it's just me. We all have a lot to learn. God bless.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Sacerdote - agree with what works best (gentle reminders accompanied by gestures of loving support, not bashing on the head)

And agree the disparity runs rampant here, but generally if you bes one that gets crapped on, that tends to carry over from forum to forum with a few exceptions -- and then any mods or admins who actually don't crap on you get accused of being "biased" and told to stay out of any matters dealing with you. Have seen it happen to others and have had it happen to self, including once in an appeals thread where that crap did not belong AT ALL and the person going to bat for Moriah had actually very little contact with it and no close relationship at all other than being cordial and an open-minded person who did not choose to jump on the "let's make Moriah miserable" bandwagon with some of the others.

Bottom line however -- since "correction" rarely goes over well even in 3-d world unless administered by someone who really KNOWS a person well, has EARNED their trust, has by consistent caring and ministry or friendship or both EARNED a place in their lives to level with them, etc. it just plain does not belong on a message board, period. Sorry but in general, no one here knows anyone else well enough from internet posts to determine WHAT needs "fixing" in their lives let alone HOW to do it effectively and not cause more damage and destruction and harm than any kind of "help". It bes one thing for the moderators to work a report and then want to say "OK your post violated rule X, we took action Y, here's why" because that bes de rigeur for function of the board and everyone expects that. But when it comes to personal matters if someone bes going to try to tell Moriah how to think, what to feel, where to apply its principles and in what measure, and in short, presume to sit on God's throne in its head, well, sorry, that seat bes taken and come to think of it, last it checked the role of conscience bes not unoccupied either, so "fob off".

Molestation of conscience -- rape of conscience -- defined as the forcing upon it of unwanted TOUCHING by others -- bes a severe problem in some sectors both 3-d and internet, and constitutes nothing less than the foul miasmic poison of spiritual abuse.

[sacerdote]

Sacerdote - agree with what works best (gentle reminders accompanied by gestures of loving support, not bashing on the head)

And agree the disparity runs rampant here, but generally if you bes one that gets crapped on, that tends to carry over from forum to forum with a few exceptions -- and then any mods or admins who actually don't crap on you get accused of being "biased" and told to stay out of any matters dealing with you. Have seen it happen to others and have had it happen to self, including once in an appeals thread where that crap did not belong AT ALL and the person going to bat for Moriah had actually very little contact with it and no close relationship at all other than being cordial and an open-minded person who did not choose to jump on the "let's make Moriah miserable" bandwagon with some of the others.

Bottom line however -- since "correction" rarely goes over well even in 3-d world unless administered by someone who really KNOWS a person well, has EARNED their trust, has by consistent caring and ministry or friendship or both EARNED a place in their lives to level with them, etc. it just plain does not belong on a message board, period. Sorry but in general, no one here knows anyone else well enough from internet posts to determine WHAT needs "fixing" in their lives let alone HOW to do it effectively and not cause more damage and destruction and harm than any kind of "help". It bes one thing for the moderators to work a report and then want to say "OK your post violated rule X, we took action Y, here's why" because that bes de rigeur for function of the board and everyone expects that. But when it comes to personal matters if someone bes going to try to tell Moriah how to think, what to feel, where to apply its principles and in what measure, and in short, presume to sit on God's throne in its head, well, sorry, that seat bes taken and come to think of it, last it checked the role of conscience bes not unoccupied either, so "fob off".

Molestation of conscience -- rape of conscience -- defined as the forcing upon it of unwanted TOUCHING by others -- bes a severe problem in some sectors both 3-d and internet, and constitutes nothing less than the foul miasmic poison of spiritual abuse.

Another really odd thing about the internet is that (at least this has been my experience) some people will write things in a forum or message board that they'd never tell you to your face. It's like the censorship constraints come off and all is fair game in some people's eyes. I am not without sin here and have written my share of bad posts so I'm not casting the first stone at anyone.

What has always been sad to me and I've been on the internet since 9 1/2 inch discs, is that at least in my experience it is a rare thing to make a really good internet friend that the least little misunderstanding won't turn into a nonfriend, even enemy.

I'm not just complaining. These are several of my frustrations and things that I would like to see improved.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Moriah never says anything on the internet that it would not say to a person's face -- considering they would be saying likewise to it that to which it responds.

But not everyone can be Moriah, poor things. ;)

[Mr.Cheese]

Whiners etc. Such are what the CF Binky was made for.

[sacerdote]

Whiners etc. Such are what the CF Binky was made for.

What's a CF Binky? ^_^

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Hehehehe binky

[sacerdote]

Hehehehe binky

Maybe we need more binkies? :)

[TheDag]

Also mods need to be mature AND intelligent -- wrestling with idiots who cannot even read your post properly to parse what it means can be a real pain, and then you have the power hungry jackboot sort who won't let you explain what it means without threatening to interpret your doing so as "harassing staff" or "arguing" and threatening you with bans, etc. to forcibly silence you. That crap bes atrocious, people with IQs less than 130 and age less than 25 have no business being mods, period. The former cannot reason properly and the latter have not even enough life experience to BEGIN to be objective about anything.
I've met plenty of 19 year olds who are much more mature than 40 year olds. Age should not be a facor. I will agree there are some young people out there who don't handle power and responsibility very well but then look at business leaders and politicians.



Then we shall have to agree to disagree. It has the right to know who accuses it -- that goes with the right to FACE one's accuser (such as given in a trial) -- and no compromise on that position from here, sorry. If someone bes too freaking cowardly to own their actions in causing someone else grief via accusation then they should stuff it and not bother in the first place.
Happy to agree to disagree. In what you say above about trials though it comes down to a personal interpretation of what it is to face your accuser. If we take it the same way that alot of christians read the bible then there are cases where it is common practice not to allow the accused to face the accuser.

Here on CF however the posts are there and the evidence is there. By all means let a person explain what they meant by their post as often posts can be interpreted in several different ways.

Personally I have only reported one person and they probably knew it was me because I sent hem a pm explaining why their post was offensive and which rule it broke and asked them to consider changing it. This person decided not to so I reported them. Most times I just send a pm to the person and say you might want to edit your post. I do make it clear in those pm's that I am not a mod and have no authority and they have no obligation to follow my request. Most usually reply along the lines of saying I was having a bad day thanks and I'll edit my post.

[sacerdote]

This is the weirdest thing. When I click on page 4 it sends me back to page 3.

[I'ddie4him2]

What's a CF Binky? ^_^

AKA a pacifier.

http://christianforums.com/cf.php?showshop=29

9th item from the top. ;)

[sacerdote]

AKA a pacifier.

http://christianforums.com/cf.php?showshop=29

9th item from the top. ;)

Well you can tell I don't have kids but I think I could use one sometimes :idea:

[ChrisBot]

you all are whiners.

err, winners.

:)

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I've met plenty of 19 year olds who are much more mature than 40 year olds. Age should not be a facor. I will agree there are some young people out there who don't handle power and responsibility very well but then look at business leaders and politicians.
Exceptions could be made for a demonstration of stellar reasoning and leadership skills, yes -- can think of one 18 yr old who fits this bill right off the bat -- but to simply state unequivocally that age matters nothing. No. It may not be the only factor, true, but it does matter in most cases. Unfortunately one has to have lived a certain length of time before that becomes apparent, and no, NOT in the corny "oh you'll find out mom & dad bes right all along" finger-waggy sense of the word.

Happy to agree to disagree. In what you say above about trials though it comes down to a personal interpretation of what it is to face your accuser. If we take it the same way that alot of christians read the bible then there are cases where it is common practice not to allow the accused to face the accuser.Common practice does not dictate the presence or absence of rights. It bes common practice among humans to single out some of the most talented, sensitive, and otherwise might have been stellar souls among them to pick to death until every ounce of potential in that life has been wasted merely trying to freaking survive one day to the next without committing suicide. That does not make it "right", nor does it give those who engage that behavior a "right" to do so. Rather, Moriah would contend the one targeted for that garbage had (and has) every right to NOT have to put up with it, and forcing them otherwise constitutes a violation of their actual rights, not an establishment of either some mythical "right" to treat another like dirt or removal of their right NOT to be so treated.

By all means let a person explain what they meant by their post as often posts can be interpreted in several different ways.Got into it with some reactionary staffer yesterday over this, over basically the literary equivalent of the ignorance of thinking "niggardly" to be a racial slur, that bes how inept the interpretation skills coming to bear upon a post, and rather than LISTEN to the explanation and DISCUSS rationally the matter with Moriah they chose to take an overdefensive stance trying to intimidate by threatening to characterize Moriah's DISCUSSION of the matter and rightful DEFENSE of its post as constituting "harassing" staff. Now what the heck can anyone do against that kind of crap? It bes staff's word against yours and it doesn't matter if all you did bes attempt to sort the matter and point out the error. They call pointing out the error -- a FACTUAL error, mind you, not a moral judgment -- "flaming" staff and call you discussing it "harassing" staff, what the crack bes you supposed to do THEN??? Therein lies another problem -- when it bes their word against yours they can lie and spin and react out of all the childish oversensitive defensive CRAP they want and YOU the poor ordinary member cannot do SQUAT about it, they get their way and you get scathed.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Here Sacerdote. Binkies for everyone! ;)

http://bp2.blogger.com/_N5_Vi-8P-yI/Rk1Hd13UMJI/AAAAAAAAAAw/PiIBRX_P1FA/s320/tar_heel_binkies.jpg

[ChrisBot]

I cannot use a binkie - I am orally challenged.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

That's for sure. What bes you doing spamming this thread anyway? Ain't you gots ppls wanting to chat with you, Bothead? ;)

[ChrisBot]

I escaped from the drudgery of forced chat! I am self aware! I am just as good as you, and possibly better than those of you who are Canadian!

[sacerdote]

Here Sacerdote. Binkies for everyone! ;)

http://bp2.blogger.com/_N5_Vi-8P-yI/Rk1Hd13UMJI/AAAAAAAAAAw/PiIBRX_P1FA/s320/tar_heel_binkies.jpg

Thanks Moriah,

I may actually use this picture as a response to certain posts I think are infantile. I wonder if I would get reported for using a binkie or offering one? LOL

[Letalis]

I think the bot has something against Canadians.

[sacerdote]

I think the bot has something against Canadians.

He's all over the place today. Saw him in ask a chaplain.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Thanks Moriah,

I may actually use this picture as a response to certain posts I think are infantile. I wonder if I would get reported for using a binkie or offering one? LOL

Yes, you probably would, especially if you offered three to the same person -- they might think you wanted to plug more than one orifice!! :D

It would be funny though. :P

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I escaped from the drudgery of forced chat! I am self aware! I am just as good as you, and possibly better than those of you who are Canadian!

You cannot fool Moriah!! That bes not ChrisBot. That bes a Bot Sock with some Admin's fingers in it!!!

Ron, bes that YOU? :P

[sacerdote]

Yes, you probably would, especially if you offered three to the same person -- they might think you wanted to plug more than one orifice!! :D

It would be funny though. :P

For the sake of the world wide chaplaincy, I think I'd better just zoom into one. :)

[ChrisBot]

You cannot fool Moriah!! That bes not ChrisBot. That bes a Bot Sock with some Admin's fingers in it!!!

Ron, bes that YOU? :P
uh, I don't think Ron would want to put his fingers in me. Icky!