"I will have the last word on this thread and then lock it. I get to do that. I’m only allowing it to stay at all because I hate the kind of attitude that this perpetuates and the truth should be known. Out of context lies are so unfair and inappropriate."
Does this mean that you will be posting corrections and then locking any thread which contains "out of context lies," regardless of the political affiliation of the victim? If so, should we report threads that contain such lies as soon as we see them?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hides face in hands*
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Oh please -- you know this was way over the line.
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
I happen to be an out of context lie. Does that mean that I'm unfair and inappropriate?
I didn't realize that there were any standards of discourse on this forum at all. Maybe I should find somewhere else to live out my term of existance, even though the madness that created me hasn't yet come to an end.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I imagine it will fall off the bottom of the page soon. Hey, isn't this thread in question a spoof of a thread comparing Al Gore to the Unabomber? Does anyone remember if it got locked?
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Tom -- what I expect is that you and others on this forum will do their homework and be fair. If you can't support your statements with truth, why are you making them?
You are all right that "out of context lies" was a poor choice of words. It now says "out of context and unsubstantiated quotes" -- a better expression of what I meant. Thanks for ridiculing me for it
[ September 08, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, I agree that it was out of line. You'll notice I didn't post on the thread, mainly because I think this kind of comparison is largely unfair -- especially when taken out of context -- and counterproductive. Me, I BELIEVE in Godwin's Law.
But there have been discussions, even recently, where some serious slander's been laid down on the "other" party, and I haven't seen you step in. Now, I wouldn't be concerned if you merely didn't POST in those threads; I understand entirely how someone feels most keenly a slander when it's applied to something they hold dear, and understand why one might simply overlook equivalent examples when applied to the other guys. You've got as much right to a political opinion as anybody else here, and even MORE of a right to voice it, and no one's going to demand that you post in defense of the Democratic Party on a regular basis just because some Republicans get carried away.
But you didn't just defend Bush -- even though I think you did an excellent job of doing that, and IMO buried Rabbit's post under the weight of accuracy. You defended Bush and then locked the thread, making it impossible for anyone to reply, on the grounds that you were just so angry about all the malicious lying going on.
The problem here, as I see it, is that this malicious lying is not and has not been unique to any particular political party, but that the locking of threads -- with a sample size of one, mind you -- HAS been. So I need to know if you intend to lock ALL threads which contain "out of context lies," or if this is a policy that's only going to apply to lies, distortions, and speculations that target the man you're supporting for president.
[ September 08, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
I support Kristine's decision.
[ September 08, 2004, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: unicornwhisperer ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How about the out-of-context lying being used to compare to Hitler? What's the sample size on those posts?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* You would, unicornwhisperer.
Seriously, Kristine, I think it's great that you're paying more attention to some of the political threads we've had here, especially if your posts are going to combine accuracy and righteous wrath that way; we need more of that. But I think suppressing the extremists on a single side of the debate -- and let's not pretend that's not what just happened -- isn't going to help, except that it might win you a few points with unicornwhisperer.
Locking a thread is a sign of official disapproval; it presents the possibility that continuing to post items in that vein will result in sanctions or banning. The thought that anyone wishing to argue against a Bush presidency must be held to a higher standard of proof and/or accuracy to avoid potential banning is not a pleasant one.
Ergo, I just want to know that you intend to prosecute the same vigorous defense of truth against ALL partisans, regardless of stripe.
---
Dag, would being compared to Stalin count? I mean, really, is THAT the measure of excess: inaccurate, out of context quotes used to compare politicians to evil dictators will get a thread locked? That seems like an unusual standard, but I'd certainly be glad to see it consistently enforced.
[ September 08, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm with Tom. You've just created a lot more work for yourself if you intend to lock every thread that has potentially offensive comments about one political party or another. And let's not pretend that this is a) the first or b) the worst thread of its type that Hatrack has ever seen. I suppose you could bypass that by saying, "This site is firmly in favor of the Bush presidency and attacks on his character will not be tolerated" or words to that effect in the terms of service.
It's not that you replied that is bad, it was a great reply and would have opened a wonderful discussion. It's that you *locked* it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
As Rabbit said in the opening post to the locked thread, Al Gore and the Unabomber was okay four years ago.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
You are right -- locking a thread is a sign of official disapproval. How well you caught on to that! We will always disapprove of conversations that are abusive, dishonest or unfair. Usually we just delete them if they are over the line offensive. Usually nobody notices or cares. And sometimes they pass under the radar. This time I gave the thread a little slower death. This time, I wanted to make a point about what was appropriate and I wanted a chance to show what level of truth is expected here. This kind of thing is all over the internet, I think our standards should be higher. I hope you will accept the challenge and do a little research next time you see something you think might be pushing the envelope. I didn't threaten anyone with being banned -- I asked everyone to do what we always have asked here. Be civilized. Continue the conversation all you like - link to the thread if you like - but at some point the offensive material will be gone from Hatrack and not perpetuated.
[ September 08, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
The anti-Bush campaign in America today is full of lies, hatred, and unsubstantiated speculation on motive. But so many people are doing it that it begins to sound almost normal, doesn't it?
Those of you who are complaining that our decision to lock that thread was one-sided, think again. How many posts, here and on our other websites, have attacked me, argued vehemently against my ideas, or negatively commented on my writings? Have we EVER barred people or locked threads because they disagreed with me? You know we have not.
So when we say that we're locking a thread because it crosses the line into vicious, lying slander, then it is yet another vicious, lying slander to ASSUME that our motive is to shut down opposition. Our track record on permitting sane and honest opposition is, in a word, perfect.
But the anti-Bush rhetoric that this post exemplifies is so obviously over the line that I'm ashamed of any of you for having the face to defend it or to attack us for locking it.
You who oppose President Bush: Get a grip on yourselves. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to use. When you resort to trash like this, it's a confession of your inability to put forth reasoned opposition and of your utter lack of fairness or civility. George W. Bush is a real human being who has never committed any acts comparable to the crimes for which we despise Adolf Hitler. It is barbaric to say such things about him.
Of course, comparisons to Hitler on such specious grounds rub me raw anyway, since I was once accused of basing Ender Wiggin on Hitler because both of them were third children. But maybe you think that argument makes sense, too.
As for those of you who ridiculed my wife for an error in writing no worse than those we all commit all the time - you have my contempt for life.
- Orson Scott Card
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"This time, I wanted to make a point about what was appropriate and I wanted a chance to show what level of truth is expected here."
Again, I ask whether this level of truth will be expected regardless of political affiliation. This site has not previously been policed for distortions of truth; if that's going to be a new policy, I'd like your reassurance that you intend to apply it evenly.
[ September 08, 2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Boy, you guys have done it now! The man himself posts. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The thread in question didn't just compare Bush to Hitler-- it presented false information to make that comparison more plausible. So, kacard's reaction is not partisan, IMO. It was in defense of the standards of this community, rather than in the defense of a candidate.
As far as I have seen (I don't frequent EVERY thread, however-- just the ones about me ), no one has done something similar to the 'other side.'
Locking the thread-- it occurs to me that I have about as much say in enforcement on this forum as I do in my best friend's home, when he sends his daughter to her room for misbehaving. I follow the standards that the mods have established, and leave the enforcement of those standards up to them. If ever I feel the enforcements unduly harsh, or too lenient, I need to weigh whether my continued participation in the community is valuable enough to me to offset my discomfort.
I do not believe that it was kacard's intent (even unconsciously) to be biased in this subject. If it were OSC, maybe-- -- but I honestly think that if kacard knew of ANY thing like what happened in Rabbit's thread, she'd react the same way.
Of course, I do not really know OSC or kacard-- but my impression from my time in the forum has been that.
UP WITH KRISTINE!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's their living room. They make absolutely any rules they want, and it's still fair. It's their place.
On the other hand, OSC and Kristine posted! I wish it was for a happier reason.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
My gods...
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Its their living room, agreed. But is it wrong to ask if rules will be enforced equally?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you were at a friend's house and in their living room, would you ask the same question, so abruptly?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Depends on who's the friend. Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: You who oppose President Bush: Get a grip on yourselves. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to use. When you resort to trash like this, it's a confession of your inability to put forth reasoned opposition and of your utter lack of fairness or civility.
I totally agree with this-the immature, hate filled vitriol out there stands to tip people on the fence over to the Bush side and win him the election.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
yeah, I probably would. I like to know the rules I'm supposed to be playing by
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Really? You're in someone's living room, someone starts shouting about Hitler and political leaders and filled with lies, the host says knock it off and have some dip, and you'd demand that if they are going to stop that conversation, they need to micropolice every conversation?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I do not believe that it was kacard's intent (even unconsciously) to be biased in this subject."
Nor do I. I suspect, however, that the Cards are more inclined to defend others than they are to defend themselves -- an entirely meritorious approach, mind you -- and, as Bush supporters, are more likely to notice when offensive posts criticizing Bush appear.
This is not a character flaw, and neither is it uncommon among moderators. People have previously observed that criticism of other religions will not arouse anger nor provoke deletion as fast as criticism of the LDS church will; this is a perfectly valid and true observation, but all it means is that the mods are sensitive to their own interests.
I don't know whether someone reported Rabbit's thread to Kristine or whether she stumbled across it herself, but I'm not at all surprised that she found it offensive. However, speaking as a Democrat who's mildly left of center, there have been many similar posts over the last few years coming from the other side of the aisle which did not prompt moderator intervention. Whether this was because no one reported the post, no mods happened to read the post, or the mods who read the post did not recognize the offensive untruths in the post in question, the simple fact is that this is the FIRST time I've seen a political post locked for inaccuracy.
All I want, then, is the assurance that posts of equivalent inaccuracy will be treated the same way regardless of their subject.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Tom, I have finally found and scanned the thread, and I feel confident that a "Kerry or Hitler" thread would also be disposed of. If you are talking of strict proportionality.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: there have been many similar posts over the last few years coming from the other side of the aisle which did not prompt moderator intervention.
Tom, I challenge you to provide a link to a recent thread that has an equal level of malice, dishonesty, and plain bad taste in the other direction that did not prompt moderator intervention.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:All I want, then, is the assurance that posts of equivalent inaccuracy will be treated the same way regardless of their subject.
See, and I think that if they decided that only attacks on Bush would be cause to lock a thread and only attacks on the LDS church would be deleted, it's still their decision.
In other words, we aren't in any position to demand assurances.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I don't know whether someone reported Rabbit's thread to Kristine or whether she stumbled across it herself, but I'm not at all surprised that she found it offensive. However, speaking as a Democrat who's mildly left of center, there have been many similar posts over the last few years coming from the other side of the aisle which did not prompt moderator intervention.
This is true.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think, from their posts, that you've got that assurance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think that if they decided that only attacks on Bush would be cause to lock a thread and only attacks on the LDS church would be deleted, it's still their decision."
Oh, absolutely. But I'd like to hear that from them, if that's the case, rather than discovering it de facto.
"I think, from their posts, that you've got that assurance."
I wish. So far, they both appear to have gone to some lengths to NOT say anything of the kind.
----
BTW, let me just stick up for Rabbit for a second: I don't believe for a moment that she would have reprinted those quotes from whatever source she'd received them if she had known that their provenance was questionable. It's simply not her style.
[ September 08, 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Please produce the threads, and I'll whistle them for you if you are above such priggishness.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It wasn't just innaccuracy, it was inaccuracy comparing the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler, not simply a man whose existence resulted in the death of tens of millions, but someone whose intended purpose it was to exterminate entire religious groups and to enslave an entire ethnic group, the Slavs. This comparison isn't just wrong, its offensive to those who either reasonably support Bush or are members of those religious or ethnic groups.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'll be a prig.
And a whistleblower.
Hey, I know-- I'll be like Javert; the secret police. Yeah, that's the ticket.
'I will join these little school-boys/ They will wet themselves with blooooood!'
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The anti-Bush campaign in America today is full of lies, hatred, and unsubstantiated speculation on motive."
So is the anti-kerry campaign.
"Those of you who are complaining that our decision to lock that thread was one-sided, think again. How many posts, here and on our other websites, have attacked me, argued vehemently against my ideas, or negatively commented on my writings? Have we EVER barred people or locked threads because they disagreed with me? You know we have not."
But that wasn't the question, was it? The question is, will the policy demonstrated by the locking of this thread be carried out in instances where people from the right are attacking, for example, Kerry, in a similar vein. The precedent established by this thread needs to be understood, and the question Tom asks is fair, because OTHER threads where vile comparisons have been made, going in the other political direction, have not been locked. Will they, in the future, be locked? Is it up to us to establish whether something is true or false, and if a similar comparison is made as in the locked thread, do we then email the moderators... or will the moderators lock the thread with righteous wratch without one of us going through the process of myth debunking first?
"Our track record on permitting sane and honest opposition is, in a word, perfect."
Again, though, the question is whether insane, dishonest, support of your political leanings will be accepted. After all, this was a dishonest attack... but there HAVE been dishonest supporting positions that have not gotten locked.
"But the anti-Bush rhetoric that this post exemplifies is so obviously over the line that I'm ashamed of any of you for having the face to defend it or to attack us for locking it."
At least as far as I can tell, Tom isn't attacking Kristine, nor is he defending the post. In fact, the opposite. He's supported her decision, and attacking the post in question... but he's concerned about how the policy will be carried out in the future. TO be honest, so am I. The swiftvet stuff has mostly been debunked... yet those threads haven't been attacked, despite slanders that are extremely serious. (Obviously not to the extent of calling KErry hitler, but he HAS been compared to stalin and other mass murderers).
"You who oppose President Bush: Get a grip on yourselves. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to use. When you resort to trash like this, it's a confession of your inability to put forth reasoned opposition and of your utter lack of fairness or civility. George W. Bush is a real human being who has never committed any acts comparable to the crimes for which we despise Adolf Hitler. It is barbaric to say such things about him."
Is it barbaric to compare Kerry to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or other leftist barbarians? If so, will the policy of locking threads extend to threads in which people make that comparison?
"As for those of you who ridiculed my wife for an error in writing no worse than those we all commit all the time - you have my contempt for life."
Interesting. I don't see Tom's post as ridiculing at all. Perhaps there were emails sent to Kristine that ridiculed her.
Tom's basic question here is an extremely important one. This is your house, and your rules... but those of us who think Bush is a bad president, need to know whether the attacks on Kerry or others from the left, are going to be treated in the same way that attacks on Bush and others on the right are treated. If not, we should probably just pick up and leave now.
[ September 08, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lalo hasn't been banned. I think you're safe, Paul.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I've seen threads of the type Tom is talking about, but it's been quite some time--not since the last election, if I recall. Unfortunately for our purposes here, that means that they were probably deleted from the forum long ago.
I wholly support the Card's right to close or delete any threads they choose--this is their place, after all--and would agree that the thread deleted crossed a line. I suspect that the moderator's *not* deleting those threads, back when they were occurring, has much more to do with their being less active in the forum at that point, as well as the fact that the "whistle" button wasn't a feature of the board back then. Tom is right that unconscious bias can easily occur, but I don't think that that is probably what was happening in this case.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Again, produce the threads. If they are below the Cards radar, that is what the whistle is for. You people who think the whistle is immoral mystify me. No, I don't use it all the time. I'm just saying it could be a remedy to all this unfairness.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think Kerry supporters (And I'm guessing here) would consider the Swift boat vet ads to be an equivalent level of slander.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, let me ask this: did someone "blow the whistle" on Rabbit's thread, or did Kristine just stumble across it? If the former, that's probably the distinguishing factor; I can't think of any liberal on this site who'd ever report a thread for its political content, even when inaccurate.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm not sure if you're addressing me or Paul, pooka, but if it's me, I'll reiterate that the threads I'm dimly remembering were from long enough ago that they've undoubtedly been deleted from the forum by now due to periodic housecleaning.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Lalo hasn't been banned. I think you're safe, Paul."
I'm not concerned about being banned. In fact, not once did I mention banning in my post. I'm concerned that certain standards of behavior are going to be applied differently.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:humming 'Stars':
So. . . pooka. Right. Um. . . how do you work this whistle thing again? Not that I'm going to use it; I'm not a stool pigeon. Nope. I don't even sing. I'm the anti-tattler, yeah.
When I say the word, anti-disestablishmentarinism, what do you think of?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And I'm saying that Lalo has said just about everything except for Hitler comparisons, and he hasn't been penalized for it. What are you worried about?
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Wasn't "We will always disapprove of conversations that are abusive, dishonest or unfair" a good enough answer for you Tom? I apply that reasoning across the board. Fairness is a big deal with me. I think that's why this one got my dander up so high
I don't remember every thread I've deleted -- in fact I really try to forget them. Yes, I've deleted some anti-LDS threads but I also remember deleting some that were anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Islamic and even a really dorky anti-Bahi one. I've deleted lots of porno links and some really terrible pro-child-abuse stuff. You really don't want my job.
Most of the others I've deleted were when they got way too personal and offensive about hatrack members. I know I've missed some of those. We try, we can't read 'em all.
[ September 08, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The "Al Gore or the Unabomber?" thread is definitely long gone.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I think my post addresses that fairly clearly, and I think Tom's do as well... that certain political orientations will be censored or restricted, while others will not.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom said:
quote: However, speaking as a Democrat who's mildly left of center
If this weren't such a serious thread, I would think that you were joking about this, Tom. I almost went all snarky on you, but then decided that would be less than productive.
How is it that you think that you are only mildy left of center? Where would you say this center you speak of is?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tom's WAY right of me, so he can't be TOO far to the left.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm replying to MPH.
[ September 08, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom is against most abortions and fiscally conservative (I think). He's not in the far left.
quote:that certain political orientations will be censored or restricted, while others will not.
Well yeah, if your purpose here is to twist quotes to compare condidates to Hitler, you won't probably won't feel welcome any more. Besides that, and you're fine.
[ September 08, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
::agrees with Tom's and Paul's posts::
Posted by Pepek (Member # 3773) on :
He's not demanding. The guy is asking a straightforward question that I havn't seen answered yet by the mods in a straightforward manner. - All I see is that they are not focusing on what is being asked and focusing more on the topic of the thread in question. - If they have an opinion, then I don't see why they couldn't have posted what they are trying to say now in the thread that was locked itself. I respect the Card's very much. But I thought we could discuss anything in a mature manner on this site. I dunno. I don't think it should've been locked. If people had a problem with it, they didn't have to reply to it y'know? let it die naturally, but if people want to discuss it, why not? Rag on the topic in the thread, not here. He's just asking a straight forward question. I don't see where any line was crossed in this thread.
*shrugs*
-Jack Montague
-edit- a heck of alot of posts racked up while I was writing this.. so it may not be as relevant as it was.. 10 minutes ago..
[ September 08, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Pepek ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
She said she'd be fair to the best of her ability. You don't believe it?
[ September 08, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
m_p_h, do you consider yourself to be moderate?
Because my impression of you is that you are actually far more conservative than OSC himself.
(Well there's an interesting question, do we all consider ourselve moderates, even though some of us can't possibly be given our diverse opinions?)
I used to think I was conservative. Until I moved and realized that a conservative in California is more liberal than 80% of the rest of the country, especiall on environmental issues. Thus, Arnold is not a paradox in his own state, even though he appears to be compared to Republicans everywhere else.
AJ
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Wasn't "We will always disapprove of conversations that are abusive, dishonest or unfair" a good enough answer for you Tom? I apply that reasoning across the board. Fairness is a big deal with me. I think that's why this one got my dander up so high
I think this answered it, but the question keeps on getting asked. It seems certain members just want to keep on setting bait even when they got the response they were looking for
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think there are too many different aspects to being liberal and conservative to put people into boxes or even on a spectrum.
Yeah, Porter is pretty conservative. Far more so than I.
I was totally under the impression that Cali was pretty liberal. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: When I say the word, anti-disestablishmentarinism, what do you think of?
One thread was locked, for inaccuracy. You (Tom, Paul, and now Ela) are asserting a pattern.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You really don't want my job."
Oh, no kidding.
"Wasn't 'We will always disapprove of conversations that are abusive, dishonest or unfair' a good enough answer for you Tom?"
Kristine, I don't for a moment believe that you would tolerate conversations you think are abusive, dishonest, or unfair, regardless of politics. However, this is the first time I've seen you lock a political thread based on your assessment of what constitutes dishonesty -- and given that "dishonesty" in this case isn't even outright lying as much as it's a reliance on secondhand quotes from Christian religious leaders, I worry how you decide to draw the line.
In other words, it's not that I think you'd EVER be consciously biased; it's that I don't know what standards you apply when making the original determination of "dishonest" or "unfair."
I think it's human nature for people to be a little more lenient of questionable stories and tactics that support their own assumptions. This isn't even necessarily "bias;" it just means that their own experiences make it easier for them to believe things that someone else might consider vicious slander. (Consider all those "faith-building stories," for example, or the different reactions on this board to the Swift Vets ads.) To be honest, I question whether anyone who's both informed and passionate about things can be completely unbiased in this regard; I don't think I could, and I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks they can.
This is why I, somewhat unsubtly, am suggesting that locking political threads due to untruths, even unfair untruths, is probably a poor precedent to establish, if only because it will create demand for this kind of policing where no demand previously existed. If you want to debate the accuracy of a post and complain about the unfairness of its authors, that's great -- but I think doing so in your official capacity as a moderator (which you exercise when locking a thread) will only make things harder for you down the line.
-------
"You (Tom, Paul, and now Ela) are asserting a pattern."
Nope. I was asking if this will CREATE a pattern, or if this thread was in some way special in its inaccuracy.
[ September 08, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think it is because the more liberal leaning often do feel disenfranchised on hatrack, and in several cases, I know of just feel increasingly uneasy at posting anything on Hatrack because they aren't sure if it would be looked on unfavorably by our hosts. They wish to be courteous guests, but at the same time are feeling more and more awkard about saying anything, that says what they truly believe in order to avoid offense.
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think they keep asking the question because they don't believe the answer and they are trying to wrestle an admission of bias. I don't think they are going to get what they are looking for and should be satisfied with what was given.
They should also utilize that little whistle if they feel their side needs more effective policing. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Well yeah, if your purpose here is to twist quotes to compare condidates to Hitler, you won't probably won't feel welcome any more. Besides that, and you're fine."
Again, not the point.
The point is, will people who twist kerry's words or actions to compare him to, for example, stalin, feel more welcome or just as welcome as those who twist bush's words?
Even if I'm not in the group feeling unwelcome, its a very important question. And I think Kristine responded fairly well to it, but Orson did not, which is why my post utilizes quotes from him, and not his wife.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And Kristine said she'd be fair. You don't believe her?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'll believe her when she locks a thread while bringing down "righteous wrath" in the last post.
In the meantime, I will believe she means what she says.
I am not asserting a pattern, by the way... I am asserting a bad precedent.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:You're in someone's living room, someone starts shouting about Hitler and political leaders and filled with lies, the host says knock it off and have some dip...
Can't argue with that...
It's hard to have a place like this with such high standards for debate and community on the Internet. When does debate become trolling? We regulate ourselves because Hatrack attracts polite intelligent people. The Cards help filter out the other ones. Sometimes something like this happens that worries those who know this is a true forum for debate. But hey! We are talking about it and working it out.
*peers at the delicate balance between polite society and restrictive society*
For me I'm willing to give up total freedom (aka: anarchy) for this place. If threads like that get locked or deleated...while a shame for debating heated topics, provides peace.
*goes off to think some more* [edit for spelling]
[ September 09, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'll believe her when she locks a thread while bringing down "righteous wrath" in the last post.
In the meantime, I will believe she means what she says.
You need to pick one. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No I don't, they aren't mutually exclusive.
I believe that she means what she says, but don't yet believe that she will actually be able to carry what she says out in a manner that looks "fair and balanced" to those of a political opinion she doesn't hold.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you'll think she'll try to be fair but will fail?
How is that not incredibly rude?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have a theory that the thread wouldn't have been locked had someone else posted the line-by-line refutation. The thread would have devolved into talking about whether it was taken out of context and the proper role of invocation of God in political rhetoric. In other words, had the discussion turned productive, she might have let it continue.
I'm also assuming someone jumped on Kristine for calling the 9/20 address a "State of the Union" address, which is a fairly minor error with no substantive effect on her post.
Dagonee
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
A lot of things are rude.
Being rude doesn't make me wrong. Nor does it make my concerns less valid. Nor, in fact, would it have come out that I don't believe she will be capable, if you hadn't misunderstood what I was asking for 5 posts, because I didn't feel the need to SAY that, and didn't say it... until you dragged it out of me with misunderstanding what I was driving at. We ALL think rude things. I was trying not to have to say something rude.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kat, he might be questioning the ability of people with political opinions she doesn't hold to perceive her enforcement accurately. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, it does. If you're rude in someone's house to the host, to point of pointedly disbelieving their ability to deliver on what they say, then you're wrong. You aren't owed anything.
I didn't make you rude. I just dragged out of you in explicit terms what you were not hiding particularly well.
[ September 08, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
What say we let this thread die now? Anybody? Anybody?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Oh, I see. You can tell the future now, Kat? You KNOW how she will enforce this new policy?
Interesting. You'll have to share how you do that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I didn't make you rude. I just dragged out of you in explicit terms what you were not hiding particularly well."
No, Kat, I'll continue to blame you for forcing me to have to say something I believe, but didn't want to say for fear of being rude.
Because that is, in fact, what you did. You made me act in a rude manner. Rudeness and politeness have to do with not saying what we really feel. You made me say what I really feel in an explicit manner... which is, by my best understanding of social graces, itself rude.
Posted by Pepek (Member # 3773) on :
Heh.. at the same time I agree with you Paul.. I do think you let yourself get a bit out of hand sometimes. A response like that to katharina isn't proving the point you seem to be making in a very good way and isn't asking for a very mature or nice response in return from her.
-Jack Montague
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Benefit of the doubt."
Reasonable doubt given her own political opinions, past acts on this forum, and statements on this thread, exists. Benefit of the doubt need not be given where evidence exists to cause doubt.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, maybe we can turn the point of the thread.
---
Is it the rude thoughts that are wrong, the inept hiding of rude thoughts, or the explicit expression of them?
I live in the South, and there's a grand tradition of saying something that looks perfectly polite but the real meaning is terribly rude. If the person you're addressing feels the intent, it's the same as saying it flat-out.
Is there more virtue in passive-agressive?
[ September 08, 2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Of course, my statement wasn't DIRECTED at Kristine, was it, Pepek?
No, no it wasn't.
It was directed at OSC, a man who, from all evidence, deals with people in exactly the manner I addressed him (well, ok, he's actually harsher then I was).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This thread cannot die before I invent some Frivel and Schleck for it.
Seriously.
That would make me leave Hatrack. I am not making this up.
I mean, what's an angsty, overly dramatic, thread to do without some good Frivel and Schleck? If this thread is deleted, without the introduction of my Frivel and Schleck, it's a sure sign that the mod's brains have been devoured by zombie Nazis. Or Nazi zombies. I get them so confused sometimes, but they would definitely be goose-stepping, brain-eating, undead persons.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
"Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos."
Should be easy enough to ID.
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
my goodness! As long as this new rule is applyed evenly in the future lets just all MOVE ON!!
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So you subscribe to the "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything," school of thought...
I don't. I tried to say it in a manner that wasn't offensive to Kristine (if it was offensive to OSC, thats fine... I found his post to be HIGHLY offensive, and I Suspect others did as well, and his COLUMNS are usually full of hate filled venom). But what I wanted to say, needed to be said.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why did you capitalize 'Suspect,' and shout the word COLUMNS?
Were you A.A. Milne in Another Life?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:You made me act in a rude manner. Rudeness and politeness have to do with not saying what we really feel. You made me say what I really feel in an explicit manner...
No one can make you do anything you don't want to do. Don't try to blame someone else for your rudeness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm wondering if there actually is any way to ask an offensive question in a non-offensive way.
"Asking as a friend, has that pattern of you getting mad and your wife needing to go to the hospital changed at all?"
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
It's really kacard's rules we have to worry about, OSC is not here to lock down threads. Why demand satisfaction from him?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Come on, nobody? I know somebody out there knows it.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Dag: "I have a theory that the thread wouldn't have been locked had someone else posted the line-by-line refutation. The thread would have devolved into talking about whether it was taken out of context and the proper role of invocation of God in political rhetoric. In other words, had the discussion turned productive, she might have let it continue."
Very good point Dag. Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
rude
1 a : being in a rough or unfinished state : CRUDE <rude line illustrations> b : NATURAL, RAW <rude cotton> c : PRIMITIVE, UNDEVELOPED <peasants use rude wooden plows -- Jack Raymond> d : SIMPLE, ELEMENTAL <landscape done in rude whites, blacks, deep browns -- Richard Harris> 2 : lacking refinement or delicacy: a : IGNORANT, UNLEARNED b : INELEGANT, UNCOUTH c : offensive in manner or action : DISCOURTEOUS d : UNCIVILIZED, SAVAGE e : COARSE, VULGAR 3 : marked by or suggestive of lack of training or skill : INEXPERIENCED <rude workmanship> 4 : ROBUST, STURDY <in rude health> 5 : occurring abruptly and disconcertingly <a rude awakening> - rude·ly adverb synonyms RUDE, ROUGH, CRUDE, RAW mean lacking in social refinement. RUDE implies ignorance of or indifference to good form; it may suggest intentional discourtesy <rude behavior>. ROUGH is likely to stress lack of polish and gentleness <rough manners>. CRUDE may apply to thought or behavior limited to the gross, the obvious, or the primitive and ignorant of civilized amenities <a crude joke>. RAW suggests being untested, inexperienced, or unfinished <turning raw youths into polished performers
quote: his COLUMNS are usually full of hate filled venom
I just want to point out that people often perceive something as hate-filled if it goes against their beliefs. When it is in line with them, they don't see it that way. What is so often referred to as "hate" is more accurately described as "passion". Which is what bugs me about this. Hate exists, it is real, and it is ugly--but so much of what is called hate is NOT.
Is that what worries you, Paul? That our mods might take action against offensive posts that don't go directly against something they believe in, but there won't be the same level of "righteous anger"? Of course you are more likely to see something as offensive if it goes against what you believe. That's why we have the power on this forum to report posts. I believe the mods would be fair regarding reported posts no matter the view expressed. But I wouldn't expect them to have the same level of passion about ones that don't cross their beliefs. Does this bother you?
[ September 08, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
People very often have rude thoughts, Katharina. That isn't what is wrong.
Why don't they want to say the rude thing? Because they value the feelings of the person they are having rude thoughts toward more than they value their desire to 'stick it to them'. They feel like the issue is not important enough to comment on. If they are poor at hiding their thoughts, then that is their problem. And sometimes, sometimes they may feel that their rude thoughts might not even be accurate, but be an emotional reaction, so then they really don't feel like spouting off.
But it is not up to you to force it out of the person they choose not to say their thoughts outright. Even if they are poor at hiding them, that is no reason to force them to say something they fear would offend someone whom they respect.
That is equally, if not more, rude.
I prefer to assume the best intentions in people than to assume that something they say is a veiled attempt to insult. And if I'm wrong, so what. I'm still the happier for it, and it is they who must suffer with their negative thoughts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"As long as this new rule is applyed evenly in the future..."
I just want to know whether this IS a new rule. Has it BEEN a rule, and we just never noticed -- or the mods never thought anything before this thread offensively inaccurate enough to lock? For that matter, is it even a rule NOW, in the sense that "we will delete posts containing inaccurate information attempting to draw parallels between political leaders and historical despots" would be a rule?
Frankly, I don't think it is. I think the mods reacted instinctively to something they personally found offensive. My point in creating this thread, insofar as I had one, was to point out that such reactions can create more problems than they solve when you apply them to perceptions of "accuracy" -- because now Kristine might be called upon to decide whether, for example, she believes that the Swift Vets are telling the truth, or that Clinton had Vince Foster killed and raped a campaign aide, or Nixon really sent people into Cambodia, or whether Reagan promised weapons to Iran during his presidential campaign.
I don't think it's possible for any mod to make this kind of determination in a regular and dependable way. Ergo, I'd submit that, rather than LOCKING a thread which contains something Kristine believes to be outrageously inaccurate, she simply make a post of the caliber of the one that ended the previous thread. In that way, she avoids having to decide in her official capacity as moderator whether or not some political claim is "accurate," but can still make her own powerful arguments.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Wow. At least beverly understands.
Yes, it does bother me... but only because, now, for the first time, precedent has been established that locking threads and expressing official condemnation in the manner Kristine did. If she does not come down in the same way on posts that are equally offensive to Kerry supporters as that one probably was to Bush supporters, then open political discourse will no longer truly be possible here.
Hatrack is a great place in part BECAUSE open, honest, discourse occurs. But if one side suddenly has to word watch much more closely then the other side, open honest discourse dissapears. It becomes circumscribed honest discourse, which is something else entirely.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Amka, I want to thank you deeply.
That touched me. *HUGS*
Don't know if you want those hugs or not... but too durned bad Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Implying someone is either incapable or a liar is not less rude than stating it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Completely open discussion is already not allowed here on several different levels. And I side with Telperion and Dagonee that I am willing to pay that small price for the beauty that is Hatrack. I totally understand if others are not willing.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Completely open discourse isn't allowed, true... but this is a different sort of thing entirely.
Katharina, I'm glad we have different understandings of what is rude or not rude... I don't like your rules. They aren't conducive to communication.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*thinks* I think it's the difference between aggressive and passive-aggressive. I don't think there is virtue in the second, and it doesn't encourage conversation more. The shutdown after a passive-aggressive insult is usually less dramatic but no less thorough.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Even if they are poor at hiding them, that is no reason to force them to say something they fear would offend someone whom they respect.
Again, how can Kat, who is in Texas, force Paul who IIRC is in Massachusetts to do anything? If they were actually sitting in the Card's living room having a heated discussion, I could see maybe making an accusation like that. But in this medium, he can always take a deep breath, walk away from the computer, leave the room, go get a drink, watch TV for a while...
Yet he still chose to make a rude remark. If he truly didn't want to, he wouldn't have.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hugs maui babe* You're right.
With that reminder, I'm going to step away from the computer for a bit, I think. Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
About his only recourse to Katharina while maintaining his integrity would have been to say "I'm sorry, I can no longer reply." Or something similar.
Is that passive aggressive or not?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, no. Now I'm going to have to be serious.
Curses.
What did Kristine condemn?
She condemned the misinformation that Rabbit posted.
She did not condemn Rabbit. She did not condemn Rabbit's viewpoint, except as it misinformed the audience.
Here it is:
quote:I hate the kind of attitude that this perpetuates and the truth should be known. Out of context and unsubstantiated quotes are so unfair and inappropriate.
And then she laid down the truth. Bully for her.
So enough of this talk of condemnation. She didn't condemn anyone or anything except for that thing ALL Jatraqueros should condemn-- lies and misinformation.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Right, scott, but she did it in an official capacity.
The condemnation is actually important, because the lies of the right have NOT been officially condemned in the same manner as this particular lie of the left.
So the lies of the right are, currently, more acceptable to hatrack then are the lies of the right. Which makes this a more hostile place for kerry supporters to be then bush supporters.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
In case anyone was still wondering, it was Walter Sobchak.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Am I biased because I think there has been far more slander and criticism here against Bush than against Kerry? That is honestly my perception. I don't really see the mods action changing that.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Criticism yes.
Slander, well, that's a matter of opinion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It's probably because he is the president. It is easier to criticize the man who has been doing the job for the last 4 years than to criticize the one who hasn't had the chance yet.
I just don't think this fiasco is going to change much, if anything. Except maybe for people leaving because they don't like what happened.
Posted by IvyGirl (Member # 6252) on :
Go OSC and kacard!
Ivygirl
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Right, scott, but she did it in an official capacity.
What does this matter?
Do you normally fear women with power, Paul?
I get that you're afraid that the conservative side of the argument is getting the soft side of Kristine's whooping stick. I haven't seen evidence of this, however, so I'm afraid our viewpoints must remain unreconciled.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I must be missing something but aren't there levels of offensiveness and slander?
Isn't the comparison with Hitler (albeit a somewhat oblique one) of an order much more offensive than, say, misrepresenting or caricaturizing or even slandering the other side?
Isn't the entire point of Godwin's Law that any mention of Hitler shuts down rational discussion?
I guess I'm just not seeing how the locking of a thread where Pres. Bush is compared with Hitler sets a precedent that should make either liberals or conservatives nervous.
Obviously, I understand that the liberals here feel like they have to be more careful than conservatives because they are fewer in number and differ in politics with the hosts. The LDS comparison that Tom makes is rather apt in this regard, I think.
But it's not clear to me why Tom, Paul, Ela etc. see this as such an omninous portent.
Which is not to say that they might not have justifiable reasons for what they've expressed, but rather that I haven't seen it articulated in a way that makes sense to me.
Nor do I find the "it's their house, they make the rules" argument very convincing. The liberals know that. What they would like to know is if the application of those rules are going to be such that they will continue to feel welcome in the home.
At this point I would normally go into my normal rant about civilty, but I've done that enough on Hatrack so I won't.
---
Not that it should matter, but it seems to so -- just to be clear, although my politics is muddled and confused when it comes to how I view Bush, I tend to agree with this recent Slate column.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Don't look now, Ivygirl and unicornwhisperer, but you have a little brown on your nose.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Scott R, you crack me up and I respect you more every time i read your posts or anything else you wrote.
( I just thought this thread could use some good vibes for a change.)
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So agreeing makes them brown-nosers?
We're we all kissing Dan's backside for bowing at his Apology thread?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I have seen many intelligent discussions here that criticize Bush and his policies and they have not been locked or deleted. i don't feel in any way the Cards' own political opinions are influencing locking of threads. I am rather liberal and have never felt I could not speak my mind here.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dag-- I think Storm was being silly. I think so. He's not been silly very often here, so I could be wrong.
Eat your razors, people. After you chew them up enough, they go down rather smoothly.
Posted by IvyGirl (Member # 6252) on :
Tais-toi et sois sage!
Ivygirl
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Scott: razors, schmazers -- broken glass and gravel are what's what.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's possible. Maybe it was the shock that confused me...
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Hey, all people are fallible. The Cards are doing their best, but they will inevitably react more strongly to some things than to others, depending on what their own deeply-held beliefs happen to be.
That is true of anybody, I'm sure.
I'm also sure that slogging through every single thread every single day, to the bitter end, is a fate I wouldn't wish on anybody, certainly not our hosts.
That said, the "Al Gore or the Unibomber" quote thread wasn't locked, and it compared a presidential candidate to somebody who blew up or maimed several people. I'm sure some people found it amusing. It's also possible that no one whistled it, or the Cards didn't see it or didn't care (There is the idea of degree I suppose-- personally killing a few people vs. being responsible for attempted genocide).
My own political leanings are those of learned helplessness, best summed up by a tag line from a summer movie:
Either way, We Lose Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Thanks, Olivet. That is exactly the clarity my muddled political mind was looking for.
Of course, it doesn't help me decide who to vote for. .
EDIT: Who not whom.
[ September 08, 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Which one is the Alien, Olivet?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Obviously, I understand that the liberals here feel like they have to be more careful than conservatives because they are fewer in number and differ in politics with the hosts.
Seeing all the threads created for the sole purpose of bashing OSC's latest column I doubt liberals here feel they have to be careful. It also seems that there are more liberals than there are conservatives, maybe the liberals are just more outspoken.
Posted by IvyGirl (Member # 6252) on :
newfoundlogic- Yes, the liberals are more outspoken, although I'm not sure if there actually is less of them. Most of the conservatives, save one friend of mine, are quiet. It seems to be the case here as well, although there are a few outspoken conservatives.
Ivygirl
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I don't like this thread. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hatrack swings left or right, on average, depending on how vocal a small handful of posters are feeling at any given time. As a forum, and as a whole, it's fairly moderate: a little bit to the right on social issues, and perhaps a bit left on economic ones. This doesn't mean that there aren't people here who belong to either fringe, or that there aren't individuals possessed of a given ideology who're excessively passionate about it, but the forum overall manages to maintain a pretty steady and even keel -- largely through the technique of dogpiling. In general, if anyone posts anything excessively "fringe," the other side will bury it in criticism, the moderates on the same side will nitpick it, and everything will calm down until the "other side" goes too far with their criticism of the original point and the moderates start criticizing them.
[ September 08, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
As one who has been allowed to be offensive to our hosts -- usually completely unwittingly -- for the sake of making fun of things on countless occassions, I have to jump in to say that their forebearance is admirable. And I love it here because of that.
I have not yet gone to see the offending thread, so I can't comment on that.
But I will come back to one irrefutable fact: - this is theirs to do with as they please. - they are paying for it with money they earn - they maintain it with time they could spend elsewhere
Well, okay, three irrefutable facts.
Given that, I don't sweat the rules. Given that I don't sweat the rules, (What a difference a comma makes) I am simply happy to be able to come here and spend time.
I really hope that OSC was not entirely serious about the earning his loathing for life. Truly I am. I do think that Kristine is owed an apology for any comments that even bordered on ridicule. I don't think the comments were intended that way, but clearly they could be taken that way and those who made them would do well to beg her pardon.
And another thing. It's five weeks until the election. It's a bitterly fought contest for something less than 10% of the voters. That means the vast majority of us have already decided. So why are we arguing. I'm going to vote for Kerry. You're going to vote for Bush. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.
And the people who are undecided are so few that chances are they missed that offensive thread entirely. And they've probably missed the equally offensive stuff on the other side.
Mainly because, I fear, if one is undecided at this point, one has either decided to tune EVERYTHING out, or one is a true seeker of knowledge and wouldn't pay attention to vitriolic junk anyway.
In other words, we're all just sneering at intractable opponents and looking silly or repellent to the few lone holdouts.
Let me close by saying that I recognize that I have, in the past, said some rather unkind things about President Bush's motives. As such, I imagine myself included in OSC's group of folks who crossed the line. If my comments offended our hosts at any time, I would like to offer my apologies. Clearly, this was not the place and yet I said it all anyway. (and usually got my head handed to me, but that's beside the point.)
At any rate, before we go further down this path, might I call again for people to step back and realize that what really matters here is not a set of rules, but a set of people? Chief among them our hosts.
Then me.
Then everyone else?
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Um. . . Scott before Bob, except after CT.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Is it really only five weeks until the election?
My word. How time flies.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's their house. They don't have to be consistent or right, and we don't have to post.
The Rabbit's integrity is unimpeachable. In my eyes, she was trying to put together an analogy to show why we should approach, with due wariness, who all those who legislate with god's inspiration, Osama Bin Laden is similarly blessed, as opposed to attending to the matter itself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
All of October, most of September, tiny bit of November - got to be at least 7, I think.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You're right! I heard 5 weeks on the radio this morning and just took it as true.
Sorry.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Drat it, it's six weeks and six days. Now I look like I was being sarcastic, and I really wasn't. I hadn't checked. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
To answer the question "Which one is the alien?" I'd have to say, they both are.
Olivet, "Don't Blame Me, I voted to Kodos"
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I haven't decided yet - so be careful what you portray, folks . . . Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dana, my love, you know how often I misremember supposed "facts." If you were sincerely doubting me, you have ample experience to bolster your opinion.
Even with that, it didn't sound sarcastic at all to me.
Plus, I don't have a lot of ego involvement in being right about such things.
I have involved my ego in having earned your love!
And now I must apologize for turning this in to a mushy thread.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, good heavens, turn it off, turn it off!
Eww. Old people being romantic. Eww.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Thanks, sweetie.
I guess we both have to thank Dag for actually catching the fact that the "fact" was wrong, though.
Edit: Scott:
[ September 08, 2004, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The only reason I checked is because I had a momentary panic that I missed my abesentee ballot deadline.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: You are all right that "out of context lies" was a poor choice of words. It now says "out of context and unsubstantiated quotes" -- a better expression of what I meant. Thanks for ridiculing me for it
One thing that I don't see that's been discussed is this quote. Is it accurate to say that Tom is ridiculing Mrs. Card? I don't see it and I am curious if I am missing something? It seems to me that his only concern was that there was some bias in locking the thread.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I read the other thread.
I'm glad to know the facts on some of those statements (real versus just attributed). Thanks Kristine for posting a thorough review.
I wish the thread wasn't locked because I think there are some interesting things to discuss about the subtleties of political propaganda and the history of campaign-induced vitriol in America. But this is too raw a subject, I fear. I hesitate to start a new thread on it because it might come off as rubbing salt in wounds. But based on my reading of late, we are far less nasty in our politics today than Americans were throughout our early history. I'm glad and I think we can get better.
On another note, might I suggest that we all vow to check our facts as much as possible for the next (almost) 7 weeks and to make it clear when we are stating opinion versus when we are claiming to state facts?
At least when it comes to discussions of the election?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"what really matters here is not a set of rules, but a set of people?"
That sums it up for me. Thanks, Bob.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I sincerely hope that Kristine didn't feel that my quoting of her phrase "out of context lies" was done to ridicule her. Frankly, when Scott mentioned that someone had mocked her, I immediately -- and I mean immediately; I didn't even seriously consider it -- dismissed the possibility that he meant me and wondered whose post had been deleted before I'd had the chance to see it.
I quoted her not because I felt the term was inaccurate, clumsy or ridiculous, but because I felt that it best described -- being her own words, and managing to encapsulate the two things she disliked most about the thread -- what she thought of the text of Rabbit's post.
Did anyone else see some other comment to which Scott might have been referring? If not, I might just shoot an E-mail off to the Cards just to make sure.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I looked through the thread and I didn't see another one, Tom. That's why I brought it up for attention.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Hey, I was having a way intense day. Yes, I felt ridiculed by Tom and and a couple of others who quoted my clumsy prose -- but heck, I never stay mad at Tom for long. I like him too much
And thanks one and all for baiting me with that lovely "Who Said It" part 2. Like my day wasn't hard enough. Oh well, I think I'm giving up and going to bed.
Let's all play nice cause I'm leaving town.
[ September 08, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You're going out of town? Maybe to Virginia? To do a signing? In Fredericksburg?
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Sorry Scott Someday though. Nope, heading to Germany.
[ September 08, 2004, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, um, does Scott know that I wasn't ridiculing you? Because, y'know, I kind of like the guy, and would really, really hate to have earned his contempt for life. I don't THINK he has a "list," but just in case....
(BTW, have fun in Germany! )
[ September 08, 2004, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Germany? There's nothing in Germany. . .
Wait a second. . . Have you been. . . abducted???!!!
GREAT SCOTT!!
There really ARE goose-stepping zombies! I was just kidding about that!
Holy crap!
Someone, we have to rescue the cards from the Zombie Nazis! Or the Nazi Zombies! The fate of the free world hangs in the balance!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:I hesitate to start a new thread on it because it might come off as rubbing salt in wounds.
This is what bothers me the most. Arbitrary rules create fear. Fear leads to anger. You know the rest of the quote. When we don't know what is going to be censored, sometimes it's just easier to say nothing rather than risk offending our hosts or our friends.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
My favorite is 'If you cannot master your rage, then rage will become your master.'
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My favorite is, "Good; bad; I'm the guy with the gun."
BLAM!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's what you were gonna say, isn't it? Edit: the above was to Storm - Ben Stiller said it in Mystery Men.
The below was to Scott, because references to the Bruce are always welcome. Plus it's a actually a quote if you use the name of the smiley.
to the king, baby!
[ September 08, 2004, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
How about "I got a thing about chickens."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dear Dagonee,
I am totally confuzzled regarding your post.
Yourf in Chrift,
Storm Saxon
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh! Yeah! Gotcha! Now I feel stupid!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:And thanks one and all for baiting me with that lovely "Who Said It" part 2. Like my day wasn't hard enough. Oh well, I think I'm giving up and going to bed.
That "one" jackass would be me.
I apologize Kristine, I did not mean to make your life harder. I support your right to nuke any thread. And, as OSC pointed out, you guys have demonstrated a tremendous amount of restraint, as demonstrated in the "Good... OSC" thread.
On the other hand, I am also sympathetic to Rabbit's position. To me, at least, Rabbit's post was certainly no less offensive than previous threads where posters implied that John Kerry was a war criminal.
More importantly, I loved your last post and I believe that, had the thread not been locked, more posts criticizing or supporting Rabbit's point of view would follow. As Dag pointed out, many interesting things could have been discussed in that thread.
The thing I love about Hatrack is that whenever I said something stupid, someone else is there to correct me (usually Dag or Tom, but I'm not bitter, really). Locking down threads prevents that, and that's a shame.
[ September 08, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It's a little annoying to see Tom's undeniably acerbic response to...nothing.
Without the proper context, it's difficult to marvel at Tom's ability to trip the light sarcastic.
-Trevor
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wow.
I hope everyone is OK with this now.
TomD, I understand where you are coming from with this...I remember the Stalin comment form the Swift-Vet thread, it's one of the reasons I kept posting in it. I don't like this sort of stuff, applied to either candidate, and it pisses me off when it happens.
I did make a comment in another thread today about Osama Bin Laden wanting Bush to be re-elected, but I followed up on why. And it was a thread on Cheney's horrible "a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism" speech, so I don't feel too bad about that one, although it probably crossed the line. At least I posted why I thought Bush's response in Iraq strengthened terrorisms hold on the Islamic nations in the region, rather than mis-quoting people to attribute my statements to them...
Funny thing is that I wasn't sure who I would vote for before all the swift-vet stuff, but that forced me to do some research on things which in turn clarified my vote....
So I went to Rock the Vote and registered last night....
Kwea
[ September 08, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:many interesting things could have been discussed in that thread.
The swift vet thread contained a dialogue of people debating the validity of the swift-vet claims AND the impact it would have on the election. Again, "useful" dialog.
Is that the thread that had the Kerrey = stalin reference in it? Because I didn't see it, although I just did a quick "find on this page" to check.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Give me a sec, I'm looking at it.
I read really fast, but there is only so much i can do.... Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Disclaimer: Since I do not have to vote I am pretty impartial. I can easily see both sides' arguments in the Bush versus Kerry battle. I know I'm really late to this thread and this discussion that seems to be mass-misunderstanding on all sides. If I offend anyone, I didn't mean to, but I kind of want to have my say- not on the what was right in deletion terms but the ethics themselves of the thread content.
I apologise to our hosts for my part in the thread in question, and I completely and totally understand their position and choice. Everyone has their line, and, in their living room, everyone has the right to put it anywhere they want.
quote: George W. Bush is a real human being who has never committed any acts comparable to the crimes for which we despise Adolf Hitler.
If we took some of Hitler's quotes out of context, I bet we could make him sound like the nicest person on the planet. We could compare him to Churchill, we could compare him to Kerry, we could compare him to me or you or Orson Scott Card, if we wanted to. It is not the act of comparing but the intent that is the problem. Human decency says that we should not compare people we disagree with, ordinary people in decision-making positions, to people who have committed crimes such as those of Adolf Hitler.
However (yes, there is one of those), should I find sometime in my future that I am saying something that could be something of a trait of Hitler's, something that I have been taught to question and despise, what will that mean? In the same way we compare ourselves to out heroes, we should compare ourselves to our enemies, people we do not want to be like. Only then can we recognise things that need changing, improving and re-thinking.
Parents, teachers friends and family have been doing this for generations. "Don't say that, you'll turn out like Uncle Jimmy," has been used for years to keep unruly children sufficiently concious of themselves.
The Rabbit was wrong to imply that President Bush is like Hitler. Hitler, as everyone says, was a Bad Man. The Rabbit was also wrong to take G.W.B's quotes and present them as truth without disclaimer. But was The Rabbit wrong to draw a comparison? In my belief, had The Rabbit been less forthright and treated the topic more lightly, the thread could of been handled and laughed off, and so had every right to post such a comparison. Did Kristine have the right to delete and defend her actions? Yes, this is her place. Did TomDavidson have the right to question her deletion? Yes, it is the job of people to question a decision. Perhaps he should have been more polite about it. Did Orson Scott Card have the right to defend his decisions, Kristine's decision and the 'line' of the forum? Yes, naturally.
Should anyone be feeling angry, sad, or hurt? No. It would be a shame to destroy something over the hypothetical, over a breakdown in communications.
If this was Canada, everyone would just hug and make up. And in the spirit of compromise and all around bland and happy people, I'm going to use it for the first time:
HA!
ps. Can you tell I don't know whether The Rabbit is male or female. I'm so proud I wrote an entire thing without using he or she.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, now it has been deleted. I swear I read it myself, several times. It also wasn't the only mention of it, it was mentioned in conjunction with the killig feilds of cambodia in another thread as well. I'll keep looking...
Now I am pissed.
Say what you want here, I don't really care...but if you delete something to make me look like I am lying, I will find it anyway, if at all possible.
At least I know I wasn't the only one who read it, or mentioned it here.
Kwea
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, it's gone...but others must have read it, right?
It was way over the line too, but it wasn't banned....unless it was removed after we had read it...or earlier today, proving that the mods WILL treat both sides the same.
I figure they will, maybe they haddn't noticed that thread before this discussion....
Kwea
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
If the mods remove something, they say so. (At least, that's how it has worked in the past.) Things don't just disappear.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*thinks* I think not always. If it's somethig they want to make a statement, then they do. But there have been several threads that were scatalogical or entirely innapropriate to the site that have been removed without comment. Not that I know that's what happened here, and it's usually pretty dreadful before something is deleted, but it does happen.
[ September 09, 2004, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yep. Which means someone removed it and hasn't come clean yet.
Not that I am holding my breath...the whole thread where someone said it the first time is missing, as is the reference to it in the swiftvet thread.
I am not positive about the swiftvet thread, but I KNOW, without any doubt, that is was mentioned in a thread about Kerry's"war crimes", comparing him to Stalin and Cambodias killing fields.
Oh well, .....
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've seen posts deleted by mods with no mention before. I've read that thread sporadically, and I didn't see it or I would have posted something.
I'm not doubting anyone at all about its existence, I'm just wondering if the mods deleted it some time ago.
Which would be an interesting counterpoint to Tom's initial post in this thread, no?
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: It was way over the line too, but it wasn't banned....unless it was removed after we had read it...or earlier today, proving that the mods WILL treat both sides the same.
Actually if this is what happened, (i.e. the posts were removed by the mods) it would not be proof of equal treatment. In fact, it would be the opposite. Posting a rebuttal and locking a thread is very nearly the opposite of removing a thread from existence. In one case, it holds the offense up to the light of day and decries it. In the other, it removes the offense entirely, allowing the offenders to pretend it was never there and denying the offended the chance to prove the offense. In this case, the absolute worst thing I think the Cards could have done is to remove without comment any negative comments or unflattering comparisons of Kerry.
Remember, though, that anyone who starts a thread can delete it. Also, the search function is often wonky. I hope this is a case where it is simply eluding the search function or at worst that the originator of the thread deleted it. At any rate, I'm not going to demand an answer from Mrs. Card. I recognize this is their forum and that they do allow a lot of leeway to both sides of the aisle.
Personally, I think Hatrack is a remarkable place, but unfortunately I find myself feeling more and more alienated. When that gets unbearable, I'm more likely to just leave than to demand anything from the forum or its moderators.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: Posting a rebuttal and locking a thread is very nearly the opposite of removing a thread from existence. In one case, it holds the offense up to the light of day and decries it. In the other, it removes the offense entirely, allowing the offenders to pretend it was never there and denying the offended the chance to prove the offense. In this case, the absolute worst thing I think the Cards could have done is to remove without comment any negative comments or unflattering comparisons of Kerry.
Yep, I'd have to agree.
On the other hand, I come here and play for free, and although the place means a lot to me, I don't kid myself that I should have anything other than guest privileges.
I'm not going to hold anyone's toes to the fire, not specifically. Not my place. But I will extend an invitation. I do think I may remember the source of the Stalin remark in question, and I'd like to see someone set the record straight for themselves.
[thanks for the correction, katharina and Dagonee]
quote:Personally, I think Hatrack is a remarkable place, but unfortunately I find myself feeling more and more alienated. When that gets unbearable, I'm more likely to just leave than to demand anything from the forum or its moderators.
Oh, wow.
[ September 09, 2004, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's a difference between one unacceptable post in the midst of a thread, and an entire thread based on an unacceptable premise. The swift-vet thread had an ongoing discussion; the Hitler/Bush thread had no substantive discussion at all.
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Yes, I agree. If this is meant as a rebuttal to my post, though, I don't see how.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It means public moderator action would derail a "useful" thread, whereas Hitler/Bush had nothing to offer.
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Ok, again I agree. I in no way implied otherwise. My whole point was that moderator deletion would be wholly inappropriate in this case. Either the Kerry comparisons didn't warrant any action or they warranted action in kind. I don't consider deletion to be "in kind" for the reasons I stated.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:whispers: Hit him, Karl.
:whispers: Punch him, Dag!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Public moderator action in the Kerrey/Stalin instance - public deletion, public refutation & locking of the thread - would derail a discussion. Deleting the whole thread would be darn insulting to everyone participating in it in the moderately civilized fashion they were.
Public locking and refutation of the Hitler/Bush thread derailed nothing - the whole thread was participating in the frowned on behavior.
There's no question of "in-kind" treatment, because one was a single post amidst a mutli-page thread, and one was an entire thread. The moderator's job in general isn't to hold up things for the public to decry, but to keep the board running smoothly. Moderators taking action publicly (as they did yesterday) disrupts the entire board. So such an action is reserved for the greater offense (in percentage of the thread).
The fact that one was aimed at Bush and one aimed at Kerrey goes to lack of bias. The fact that the response was different goes to the level of disruption caused by the post and by the correction method used.
Dagonee P.S., of course, we don't know who deleted the post in question.
Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
[totally off topic]Hey Scott, if I'm in your part of the world next month, wanna do something? It's rather unlikely that I will be, but if I am, I'm going to have a lot of free time during the days.[/tot]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No-- I've made a general rule not to meet up in RL with Jatraqueros on purpose.
One day I may break this rule. But not now.
Tell you what-- when TomD reconsiders his dislike of online chatting, I'll reconsider my aversion to meeting up with folks.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: The fact that one was aimed at Bush and one aimed at Kerrey goes to lack of bias. The fact that the response was different goes to the level of disruption caused by the post and by the correction method used.
Here's where we disagree. If the deletion was moderator action (and we don't know whether it was or not), I feel it was inappropriate for the reasons I stated. "It would disrupt the valuable parts of the thread to point out the offense so I just deleted it" is very poor reasoning in this case for the reasons I mentioned. In fact, I'm going on the assumption it was deleted by the author largely because I can't believe the moderators wouldn't see how the action looks more sneaky than virtuous at this point, expecially since there has been such a commotion about whether the pro-Kerry side can show where they've been similarly maligned.
Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
pff...general rule. what if i buy you lunch?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If they deleted it, and if they didn't delete it before all this mess happened.
It's not a question of anyone proving Kerrey's been similarly maligned. Not one person has doubted the recollections of the post.
I'm confused as to how it looks sneaky. The point of removing offending material is so that it's not there to offend. And it clearly shows lack of tolerance for such shenanigans whether aimed at Kerrey or Bush.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pfft, no.
Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
what if i promise to stick to topics from a preapproved list?
if we just lie to the masses and say it never happened?
if i use proper capitalization in a post?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
One bit of writing of Card's that has always stuck with me is the dedication of Saints :
quote: For Kristine, Who showed me the mind and heart of a perfect woman.
Part of me wishes someone would think that of me someday. Part of me thought it was excessive praise. But if she really isn't still mad at Tom today, maybe it's really true.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag, if the mods are currently involved in a discussion of whether anti-Kerry posts have received the same level of moderator attention than anti-Bush posts and someone comments that Kerry-Stalin posts have been let slide while Bush-Hitler posts have not and then the moderator causes the past Kerry-Stalin posts to vanish, that would look sneaky. A comment in the thread where the question of bias was raised saying, “you’re right, I missed that one but now that you’ve called it to my attention it’s gone” would do a lot to alleviate the impression of bias.
Note, I’m not saying that this has happened, nor am I saying the mods are responsible for avoiding any possible perception of bias. I’m just disagreeing with you that it would be unreasonable to perceive bias IF the supposed events did occur in that way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm doing my best not to suck up, but I have to say this.
I absolutely adore Kristine. I think she's incredible. I don't think there's anything she could do that she would do that I wouldn't think she was justified in doing. Back a few years ago when I was completely and totally lost and had to figure things out on my own, I wrote to Kristine because I wanted advice from a Mormon mother figure who didn't have an agenda. She took the time to write me back a thoughtful response, and what she said was perfect.
I know a guy here in Dallas who grew up with Geoff and has known the Cards all his life, and he said once that Kristine was one of the smartest, kindest, coolest person he knew, and that she held the family together with love and force of will - that her family adored her and it was easy to see why.
I don't think she's about to get twinkled, but I do think that if anyone is ever in conflict with her, you'd better examine yourself carefully because finding out where you've gone wrong is the first step to wisdom. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(to dkw, kat hadn't posted yet) Nothing matters because we only seem capable of recruiting everything that happens as evidence of what we thought to begin with. If it overtly supports us, we are vindicated. If it appears to go against us, we are victims.
[ September 09, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
pooka, was that in response to me? To the last line?
I'd like to think more highly of the honesty and intelligence of Hatrackers than that. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But if she really isn't still mad at Tom today, maybe it's really true."
*polite cough* I would argue that I did and said nothing that would give even an imperfect person justification to remain angry with me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But she thought you had...so even though you hadn't, her response to an percieved insult is letting it go. That's still pretty cool.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kat, if you read the thread, the hypothetical issue between Tom and Kristine has been resolved.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Stormy, if you read my post, you'd know I knew that.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I tried to get back in and insert a "dkw-" at the front of that, but I got kicked off the computer.
P.S. And yeah, Tom, I figured you'd find some way to be offended by that.
[ September 09, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* What I hope is that Kristine -- and her husband -- understand that I wasn't quoting her to insult or ridicule her; I get the impression that Kristine does in fact know that, so I'm happy.
That said, my comment was primarily directed at pooka -- who, from HER comment, did not appear to understand the nature of this particular beast. This doesn't mean that I don't think Kristine is a remarkable woman, mind you; I just don't think, and I'd like to believe that she now agrees, that I did anything necessitating a remarkable response from her. *grin*
-------
Edit: Well, pooka, since you specifically named me in the post -- and in a way that suggested that you felt Kristine had a legitimate reason to be angry with me -- I think you had ample reason to expect that I (as a literate person) would understand what you were saying.
[ September 09, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I don't think she's about to get twinkled, but I do think that if anyone is ever in conflict with her, you'd better examine yourself carefully because finding out where you've gone wrong is the first step to wisdom.
This sounds to me like you are saying that Kristine is such a great person, that if she thinks someone gave offense to her, that person needs to examine what they have done.
If this is what you are saying, it's a non-relevant statement in this thread, because the issue has already been resolved such that Tom doesn't need to do any kind of soul searching and, in fact, the 'offense' that he gave was in fact not offensive at all. Everyone has agreed to this, it seems to me.
edit: at least, the relevant parties have.
[ September 09, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Pooka -- I'd like to think more highly of the honesty and intelligence of Hatrackers than that. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
All I'm saying is that whatever kind of person it takes to let this stuff go, that kind of person is better than I am.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. Would you not agree that I was not only excruciatingly polite but downright complimentary to the mods in this thread?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well...the first post made me wince. The words were polite but the timing was a bit off.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, I posted it immediately after I noticed that she'd locked the thread -- precisely because it would have been a completely irrelevant issue had I waited until the thread fell off the first page, and because I knew she was reading the board at that time.
[ September 09, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Goodness gracious.
:shakes head:
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Look, what happened was easily, easily, taken as an insult. Tom basically accused kacard of abusing her powers as a moderator for partisan reasons. It certainly constitutes a "legitimate reason to be angry with [him]."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, I'm not standing here as the world's greatest authority on what stuff means. So, it may be that they were offensive to some people. I mean, I don't see it, but that doesn't matter because Kristine has already said that she misunderstood what Tom was saying and she understood Tom wasn't being offensive. So, the issue is resolved.
I recognize you are trying to be a peacemaker here, Kat, but Engrish being what it is, even the most intelligent, most wonderfullest people in the world can miscommunicate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I didn't know you had such a high opinion of me, Stormy. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*punches kat's arm and looks away shyly*
You ain't so bad.
Doc, the issue is resolved. Jebus.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Dag, do you really think discussion would have fallen apart if a mod had replaced a post with "Deleted due to inappropriate material. Guys, don't compare people to Stalin. Just don't."?
I mean, really? I've seen this sort of thing before, and it didn't derail anything significantly here.
I could see at most a few disgruntled mutterings, but I'm certain the discussion would have gone rumbling on, just without the spectre of Stalin. And this for such an action in an ongoing thread -- even moreso were the thread to have lain inactive for a few days.
[Mind you, I'm fine with one of the mods having deleted the item. I don't think it makes sense to have deleted it for the reason of avoiding derailment -- that would seem absolutely bizarre to me, but then so does college football -- but the act of deleting by the mod isn't something I'd challenge in itself.]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat have you been batting those eyelashes of yours at Stormy?
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw, Stormy knows how much I like him. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom basically accused kacard of abusing her powers as a moderator for partisan reasons."
Specifically, what I did was point out that she, as a moderator, should avoid locking posts simply because she believes -- even correctly -- that they contain inaccurate information precisely because she wouldn't want anyone to think she was abusing her powers as a moderator for partisan reasons; locking posts based on perceived inaccuracy without appearing partisan would be almost impossible for a thinking person with a life in MeatSpace to do fairly, IMO.
I think some people leapt to the conclusion that I was accusing Kristine of having actively suppressed opposition to the Bush administration; clearly, that was OSC's assumption. And certainly some other posters on here did express worries of that nature. But as someone who's moderated a number of other forums in my day, my primary concern was that she seriously reconsider whether involving herself in political threads in her official capacity as a moderator would be a long-term positive.
[ September 09, 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I know Storm, and that's why I kept my post as short as I did--I originally said a bit more. It's just sort of confusing me how some people are acting like Kristine's intial reaction to this thread was unjustified.
It basically was my contribution to the "Kristine is a great lady" portion of this thread, which fine qualities some people were saying weren't demonstrated here.
I was not attempting to take the thread back to square one.
Apologies if I overedited.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, do you really think discussion would have fallen apart if a mod had replaced a post with "Deleted due to inappropriate material. Guys, don't compare people to Stalin. Just don't."?
I mean, really? I've seen this sort of thing before, and it didn't derail anything significantly here.
I could see at most a few disgruntled mutterings, but I'm certain the discussion would have gone rumbling on, just without the spectre of Stalin. And this for such an action in an ongoing thread -- even moreso were the thread to have lain inactive for a few days.
[Mind you, I'm fine with one of the mods having deleted the item. I don't think it makes sense to have deleted it for the reason of avoiding derailment -- that would seem absolutely bizarre to me, but then so does college football -- but the act of deleting by the mod isn't something I'd challenge in itself.]
But that wouldn’t have been in-kind either, so it still wouldn’t satisfy Karl’s complaint. My whole point is that a single objectionable post in the midst of a larger discussion demands different action from the mods than an entire objectionable thread.
While it might be better to replace than delete, I think it’s unreasonable to take that different treatment as signs of bias. In fact, I think that if the mods deleted that post, it can be taken as a good sign that there isn’t bias.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that if we make the forum too much of a hassle, they'll shut it down.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I suggest that we drop this. Picking at it isn't going to make it better. Tom and Kristine have resolved the miscommunication. If they're okay, I don't see a reason for anyone else not to be fine as well.
Tom said his piece. Kristine understands it and whether she agrees or disagrees, the point is that she is the moderator and will do what she thinks is best. And her track record is such that whether one agrees with this particular decision or not, we all owe her great thanks for keeping this place alive and useful/productive/positive for us all.
I never thought that Tom was being disrespectful or forgetting the debt that we all owe Kristine. But it's enough that she felt hurt by it, and OSC as well. But that's solved now.
Let it be.
Really... Sometimes you just have to let things go.
I know it's difficult. I'm in one of these situations now and it is very hard to just stop asking for more details and more post-mortem analysis.
But it's time to bury the corpse. Enough already.
We need to move on.
Tom, you are a wise and wonderful person. And I think Kristine likes you best. Drat it all!
Moderator's pet!
Kristine, you are without equal in the world of moderation. I tried to moderate a board once and finally just had to give up before I burst an artery!
The rest of us -- I think the posts demonstrate that we all care about this place enough to worry about it and the feelings of the people here. And the ideals (largely unspoken) that are reflected here. I'm proud to be a member of this group and my respect for you all grows daily.
Let us cease this too-close examination and focus on something else.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Tom, this isn't an attack, but you didn't say anything of the sort. You asked, over and over again, for assurances that the mods would be impartial.
You may have thought you were implying you were simply giving her advice on how it looked to people, but it could just as easily--in fact, even more easily, be construed as you saying you really, really thought she was being partisan.
I'm not saying your intentions weren't noble, and that you weren't trying very hard to be polite and respectful. All I'm saying is that it really did come across disrespectfully and, in the inital post, at least, and one or two of the subsequent ones, as a little contemptous.
Again, not an attack. I'm not saying you were being contemptous. I think you've done a good job of clarifying what you were trying to do, and what your real intentions were.
I just don't think you realize how strong what you were saying came across. Your brief, one-or-two sentence posting style packs a wallop--I'm sure that's why you use it--but it also leaves a lot to the imagination. In this case, it was really, really easy to fill in those holes with intentions you didn't mean.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So Bob, how's The Wedding coming?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:My whole point is that a single objectionable post in the midst of a larger discussion demands different action from the mods than an entire objectionable thread.
While it might be better to replace than delete, I think it’s unreasonable to take that different treatment as signs of bias.
Sure enough. I think we understand each other, even agree.
As long as we beat the Hokies, the season won't be a loss.
(did I do it right? )
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sara it depends on what college you went to as to whether they PLAY the Hokies.
AJ (who realizes it is only college football after all, even if it is a fun diversion)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Unless of course you meant the Hokey Pokey.
AJ
Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
Would you meet me in a box? Would you meet me with a fox?
Not in a box. Not with a fox. Not in a house. Not with a mouse. I would not meet you here or there. I would not meet you anywhere. I would not meet celia and bill. I do not like them, Scott-I-R.
(i think i'm done now, )
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[confession]
AJ, I have no idea what a Hokie is, even whether it is an abstract concept or something tangible I could sit on, or eat, or throw across a lake.
I'm coming to terms with the notion that despite all the internal hand-waving to the contrary, despite the investment of a substantial amount of creative energy in the stories I tell myself, I am just Not Cool.
I am from the species of the Not Cool, Homo uncoolious. I am best suited to the Arctic environment where there are few distractions, many frozen nose hairs, and no interpersonal interactions to interpret. Sad, but true. [/confession]
[ September 09, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
OMG! Someone actually ASKING me (or dkw) to TALK about the wedding!!! I thought you'd never ask!
Well...so far we have finalized the arrangements for:
- bride - groom - wedding party - officiants - church - music during the service - readings during the service - reception hall - wedding gown - tuxedoes - fabric & pattern for bridesmaids gowns - flowers for the wedding party & church - catering for the reception - wedding night - honeymoon airfare and lodging - music during the reception - style and wording of invitations - style of cake & decorations - style of table decorations at the reception
Things still being finalized, but nearly done: - cake (pretty much final, but purchase pending) - printing of invitations - purchase of elements of table decorations - seamstress to create the bridesmaids gowns - relocation of the groom - rehearsal dinner - gifts for the wedding party
I don't think there are any really big decisions left hanging out there. We're feeling pretty unstressed at the moment. Things might get frantic nearer the date. dkw and I both have trips scheduled 1-2 weeks before the wedding that we can't get out of. It could be very trying.
Well...again, thanks for asking!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sure enough. I think we understand each other, even agree.
As long as we beat the Hokies, the season won't be a loss.
(did I do it right? [Big Grin] )
You did good!
Go Hoos!
Dagonee P.S., A hokie is a castrated turkey, but that's not how they tell it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
CT, I have no idea what a Hokie is other than a Virginia Tech fan either <Grin> (And I know there are a few Va Tech fans on this board that will probably yell at me for that)
Considering the humble origins of the "Sooner" and that Oklahoma's mascot is technically the "Sooner Schooner" I'm sure it isn't much worse. "Sooner" derived from the people who snuck across the OK border illicitly before the Land Rush, and therefore got the best property because they were their "Sooner". So considering my team is named after a bunch of illegal hooligan claim jumpers I'm sure "Hokie" can't be much worse.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Not Kat, nor Dave, nor Bob Scopatz Could tempt me off the beaten path. Not POD, not Ed, not NI nor Ced Would rise the thought up in my head. I like them all (that's MOSTLY true), And wish them good, through and through. But jump from cyber into meat? I'd rather hack off both my feet.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
How can you castrate a turkey when as far as I'm aware birds don't actually have balls?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Bob, somehow I'm concerned by the fact you listed the "bride" and "groom" as "finalized" for the wedding.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Banna, you certainly aren't looking for rationality in college football folklore, are you? I thought you were a fan.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't want to meet you anyway. It interferes with the poetry fan-girl thing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
sorry, Dag sometimes I'm rational despite my best attempts at irrationality.
and yeah, I know the dictionary doesn't have gullible in it.
AJ
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Would you meet Kama, Scott?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
lol, now the word irrational, has me thinking about e and pi and square roots.
Would it add to my irrationality if I said I love the little zaggy square root symbol?
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I actually saw a duck 'phallus' a while back. Weirdest thing. Kind of like a white balloon hanging from the bird's nether regions.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
kat, I would love to meet you. Do you really need anything else?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm pretty sure Scott has met T_Smith and Pat and probably anyone else that lives close to him.
I think what he's really trying to say is that he's a lazy bastard who can't be troubled to mix with you common folk.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I live near him, and he hasn't met me.
But that's OK. I'm anti-social.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scott lives in Virginia, and to my knowledge he hasn't met anyone.
----
Icky, that sounds perfect. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Your brief, one-or-two sentence posting style packs a wallop--I'm sure that's why you use it--but it also leaves a lot to the imagination. In this case, it was really, really easy to fill in those holes with intentions you didn't mean."
You know, you may be right.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Things still being finalized, but nearly done: - purchase of elements of table decorations
Candles obtained and rose petals ordered. We just need to get the little glass thingees.
quote: - seamstress to create the bridesmaids gowns
Done.
And under finalized arrangements you forgot:
- chocolate fountain booked
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dude...you're virtually a lawyer. I wouldn't go within a mile of you without about fifty lbs of garlic, a super soaker filled with holy water, and a stake-O-matic. And then only in broad daylight. That's just common sense.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm going to have to research cloacas when I get back out of sheer curiosity now. However I've realized exactly how delirious I am due to the randomness of my posts and how my brain is all over the place, so I'm going to go take a nap in my car for my lunch break.
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Scott lives in Virginia? I thought he lived in Utah. Doh.
I get all these Mormons confused. It's so hard to tell them apart sometimes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<Unsolicited Wedding Advice>
At my cousin's wedding in Hawaii, we had a bonsai toast. Every one raised their glass of champagne and shouted "bonsai" three times as loud as they could. The louder the shout, the more luck for the couple.
The bride was half-Japanese, so that's where it came from, but it was just such a COOL event. At the end, everyone burst into applause. I vaguely would like to do something similar, but may have to change the word shouted. What could I have people shout instead?
Anyway, I think that would be cool.
</unsolicited wedding advice>
Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
like, duh, if i was going to utah, do you think i'd be asking just one person about hanging out?
last time i went they had a freaking party.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
AJ, that the definition comes from UVa fans, who think a Wahoo is a fish that can drink its own weight in water. It's not worth thinking about.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dude...you're virtually a lawyer. I wouldn't go within a mile of you without about fifty lbs of garlic, a super soaker filled with holy water, and a stake-O-matic. And then only in broad daylight. That's just common sense.
And no one is better at circumventing common sense than lawyers.
bwaahahahahahahaha!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I told my brother he should have about ten turkey buzzards burst from the wedding cake when he cut it. While he thought it was a pretty good idea, the bride didn't think it was that great. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's what Wahoo means? Does Homer know this?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wahoo? There's a board game from like fifty years ago called Wahoo.
Oh, and Homer says "woohoo".
[ September 09, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
- seamstress to create the bridesmaids gowns --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Done.
Oh?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
When is the wedding? Who's doing your cake?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I have met one non-OSC-family Jatraquero, and that was Brock. I did see CalvinMaker at the last OSC signing in Alexandria, but avoided saying hello.
I considered meeting up with some of the DC Jatraqueros when Tom came down-- but honestly, the idea of meeting you people squicks me out.
If OSC ever does come back to VA, I would not object to meeting people there at the signing. But to organize a meeting centered around being a Jatraquero. . . I don't know. It just isn't my style.
Plus, I'm hideous in person. Absolutely, positively atrocious. And bland. I make toast seem like a three week whirlwind tour through the Mid-east.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Whatever. Just stay away from Dagonee. That's all I'm saying.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: I make toast seem like a three week whirlwind tour through the Mid-east. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott, if that was your idea of a fun filled trip, you ARE bland...
Why does the idea of a meet seem so weird? As long as it is in public, and in a safe location, I'd say go for it. I had a lot of fun at the WMASS Picnic, and that was in a monsoon...
I wouldn't go over someones house, or to a party, just for safteys sake, but a large gathering is as safe as it gets, really.
Kwea
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: a Wahoo is a fish that can drink its own weight in water.
If we're talking about a college fish, I'm not sure it's water that it's drinking.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ic: the groomsmaid is another issue. She gets to pick if she wants to have her dress made locally, or have Val do it here and ship it to Florida for alterations.
Karl: April 2, 2005; my mother.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, you think I'm worried about MY safety?
Heh. Hah! HEE!
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
WOW! I come back the next day and look at this thing...
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What's a groomsmaid, and do you have a brideman to for her to usher up the aisle?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Tom wrote
quote: Hm. Would you not agree that I was not only excruciatingly polite but downright complimentary to the mods in this thread?
Whether it was excruciating for you to be polite, I have no idea.
I'm doing the passive aggressive rude content/Southern thing again, aren't I?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
PSI, we have two bridesmen and one groomsmaid.
Edit: and nobody's ushering anybody. Except the ushers. The bride's attendents walk in together and the groom's attendents walk in together.
[ September 09, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I didn't see a mention of photographer. Was mack doing that? (Honestly can't recall.) Also, are you going to video the wedding? If we're unable to make it (we're trying to figure out a way that we can), we'd at least hope for (read: expect) pictures or a movie....
--Pop
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I was a bridesman once. Since I was the only one, they let me stand on the groom's side.
They let me wear a tux too. I was happy about that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ah yes, mac is the photographer. No video.
And as much as I'd love to see my brother in a satin dress, the bridesmen are wearing tuxedos.
Wait a minute . . . I have seen my brother in a satin dress. Hmmmm.
[ September 09, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I was the Man of Honor at my best friends wedding. He had a Best Person and I was the brides Man of Honor.
It was a very small wedding, just the minister, the bride and groom and the Best Person and Man of Honor.
I introduced the my best friend to the the young lady that would become his wife, and in gratitude, she asked me to be her Man of Honor.
msquared
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
Man, you people are really creepy.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
<-- approves of the intention not to film the wedding
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Me, too. When you remember it, it will be perfect. If you could look at the video, you'll see all the stammering and tiny mishaps that don't really matter.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But if you don't video it -- there won't be any clips to send into "American Funniest Home Videos"!!
FG
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think you should hire someone to make a documentary. Then we could be in it, as the denizens of the place that you met.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Sometimes, when I'm feeling particularly attention deficitted, I read the first and last page of really long threads.
This has to be the most remarkable of those experiences.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
<slaps head>
How could I leave out the photographer?
<flips self off for forgetfulness --I-->
dkw -- you got a seamstress!!! Cool!
Also, I was going to not mention the chocolate fountain again in hopes that people would forget about it and then not come to the wedding and there'd be more for me!!!
YUM!
Chocolate fountain!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I had a groomsmaid. Nobody escorted or ushered her; she can walk just fine on her own. She did walk in next to a bridesmaid, but there was no implication of dominance or protection or whatever.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Annie, where's Hobbes to shower you with your much deserved attention?
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote: CT, I have no idea what a Hokie is other than a Virginia Tech fan either <Grin> (And I know there are a few Va Tech fans on this board that will probably yell at me for that)
You would talk about Hokies while I'm in class.
But yeah, the VT page that Dagonee linked to is pretty accurate. This one, however contains a bit more information, particularly about how Virginia Tech became associated with a turkey (hint: it happened after 'hokie' was coined).
quote: Unless of course you meant the Hokey Pokey.
In many parts of Virginia, the preferred spelling is the 'Hokie Pokie.' And there's also the 'Hokie Pokey' where many of the athletes wind up after the local police gets a hold of them...
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
*cough* Marcus Vick *cough*
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
The attention that's deficitting is mine.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote: *cough* Marcus Vick *cough*
Technically not a Hokie right now. That's what happens when you get too familiar with the Hokie Pokey...
And I can't even say I'd cry if he's not allowed back.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
For most birds, copulation involves a 'cloacal kiss', with the male on the female's back & twisting his tail under the female's.
Copulation typically lasts just a few seconds, e.g., Brown-headed Cowbirds (but, there are exceptions, like the Red-billed Buffalo Weaver;
Males in a few species, including most waterfowl & ostriches (see diagram below), have an intromittent organ; most males do not fertilization of the egg usually occurs in the infundibulum --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phony phallus puts sperm ahead in bird orgasm first -- "These birds would be at it for 10-20 minutes," says Tim Birkhead of the red-billed buffalo weaver and its remarkable false phallus. A male uses his organ to rub females up the right way and improve his sperm's chance of success. Few birds are blessed with a phallus; most couples achieve fertilization via a cloacal kiss. So 19th-century reports of a mock member in the buffalo weaver sent Winterbotton et al. (2001) to Namibia. Catching the birds in the act was tough, recounts Birkhead: "In three years we saw eight matings." Living communally in a large stick nest, a frisky pair would occasionally emerge and fly to a nearby tree. "I'd run after them, sweating profusely with my binoculars steaming up," he says. The amorous pair would start bouncing up and down - over numerous consecutive bouts. Compared to the 1-2 second tryst most birds manage, their staying power is unique. Yet, entry of the elusive organ was hard to make out. Even in captivity "they performed beautifully," but the view was blocked, says Birkhead. So they glued a piece of cardboard to an unlucky bird's member. This did not prevent mating, suggesting that the buffalo weaver organ is actually a weapon in sperm wars. By choosing a male who rubs longest or best, females may be selecting top-quality sperm. Paternity testing revealed that female buffalo weavers sire birds from multiple males, suggesting that sperm competition is hot. Time spent courting must be shown to predict sperm transfer or success to really back up the idea. The 1.5-cm appendage lacks blood vessels and has a twisted furrow down its length. Males in communal nests have longer ones than those that live alone, showing that size is a factor in social success. But for males at least, the phallus is for more than foreplay. At the critical moment, the males enter an orgasmic state: "It shuddered and it's eyes glazed over," reports Birkhead. To confirm their observation, the team went to the lengths of manually stimulating the organ. "It's a mystery," Birkhead says - but a unique and stimulating first for birds. -- Helen Pearson, Nature Science Update Additional photos: link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00265/contents/01/00384/supp/
[ September 09, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
That was...informative....Banna
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm finding it less hard to believe that you never stop thinking, even during sex AJ Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
After Turkey castration was clearly not the direction to go, I googled "Avian Castration". And they were able to castrate quail and finches somehow but none of the studies that I can find actually explain how they did it. They use the word "gonadectomized" It looks from the anatomical pictures like it would be difficult, because the testes are up near their kidneys somewhere.
You know I've never actually cleaned a bird (chicken or turkey) myself, only bought them at the supermarket. It would probably be educational to figure it out. I had a friend who would hunt a deer a year for the vennison and I wanted to go with him, or come along after it was well and dead, and not still twitching, just so I could see them gut and clean it. I know its a messy process but the U.S. has become so sterilized about this sort of thing.
(Yeah I know it's probably brought foodborne illnesses way down, but we don't have any Michael Angelos and Davincis any more with their intimate understanding of musculature, because artists can't dissect corpses either on a regular basis)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I wonder what the Cards will make of that post . . .
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It would make sense too, that they would castrate turkeys comercially if it was feasible if it had the same effect on the birds as it does on the steers as far as plumping them up for market goes. But it appears to be way too difficult a procedure. On the other hand zebra finches are tiny so if they could castrate something that small a turkey would be easier.
(though how young would a turkey have to be for the ideal castration age? they do steers pretty young, so they don't become unruly)
AJ
[ September 09, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Hmm... I wonder if my friend (and fellow Hokie) who's a vet would know anything about castrating a turkey?
Kind of doubt it but she might be able to find out something...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
See! I'm not the only one who's randomly curious.
And look at it this way, if you suffered through my post above, you can now explain the "birds" half of the "birds and the bees"
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*suppresses a laugh* (I'm supposed to be working. And part of me feels like I should. I was just picturing the birds and the bees talk with my niece - her mother would never forgive me.)
[ September 09, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I could also see making the inherent difficulties of turkey castration into an absolutely hilarious article for your student newspaper, the day before a football game.
Oh yeah, do you guys honor Ben Franklin somehow too? He wanted the turkey to be the national bird instead of the bald iggle.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<edited because although Banna would be cool and probably think it was funny, I think I've been HatrackKatie enough for one day>
[ September 09, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The quoted portion of your bird sex link has to be the most naughtiest thing ever seen on this forum.
quote: By choosing a male who rubs longest or best, females may be selecting top-quality sperm. Paternity testing revealed that female buffalo weavers sire birds from multiple males, suggesting that sperm competition is hot.
edit: Try using that in the birds and the bees explanation.
[ September 09, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This link really has me wondering about ornithologists in general. I mean if that is work, what do they do in their free time?
AJ (Though I do know a couple of entymologists.)
[ September 09, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
An article like that would be great right around the UVA game, which is (almost) always the weekend after Thanksgiving.
As far as I know, no one really does anything for Franklin, other than reference him when someone says the mascot sucks.
I will say, the absolute best piece of VT lore I've ever heard is that after the school's official name was shortened to Virginia Tech, the school paper ran a contest asking for alternate suggestions. The winning entry was the Eastern Institute of Enlightenment and Intellectual Outgrowth, aka EIEIO.
Hokies are good at laughing at themselves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They just have a lot of good reasons to. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
lol, in college I had friends who would write stuff like that for the student paper. The one I remember most vividly, that was relevant to our campus was the suggestion that the National Merit Scholar dropout rate was due to the fact that there was a government conspiracy to turn them into squirrels since it correlated with the huge squirrel population explosion on campus. (and thd squirrels were aggressive mean and vicious, not unlike your dropout national scholar)
(and yes she knew correlation was not causation)
One of Steve ex-gfs wrote some pretty funny columns too, but that directly led to his paranoia of being mentioned in print. (He hit the roof once when he found out I'd mentioned him on hatrack.) But he's finally realized he can retain his anonymity. His name is Steve Jones, possibly one of the more anyonymous names besides John Smith!
AJ
[ September 09, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I wrote satires for a political magazine.
We had a resolution condemning animal rights activists who only cared about cute animals. It was from the Junior Adolescent Chicken, Kelp, and Seaweed Society.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Banna
Steve Jones?
You are living with him? Who would have thought?
msquared
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah maybe this explains my sudden interest in avian reproduction.
I'd like to apologize to Kristine... I was probably offensive to her in this thread. I have a great respect for what she does here. I simply think, like the rest of us, she's human, and have concerns due to her human nature and the manner in which she acted the other day. I didn't mean to be offensive, and deeply apologize for that. I don't think she'd ever intentionally act in an unfair manner, and did not mean to imply this, if indeed I did imply that.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
kwisni just pointed out a fact to me that I actually did know but had forgotten. Turkeys in this day and age are bred to have so much meat and are so heavy that they are basically all AId cause none of them can do it naturally anymore.
AJ
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
HEY!!!
Who amongst you "birds and bees" experts wants to explain the whole kit and kaboodle to my curious almost-11-year-old-son????
Wow!
MAybe I'll just save this thread and tell him to read it - and explain that it covers everything EVER found in ANY relationship anywhere.
Since let's face it - clear communication as well as proper stroking are both key components to a healthy relationship . . .
(Edited to replace "rubbing" with "stroking" as more appropriate)
[ September 09, 2004, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
And I'm the dirty one?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't know, Beren. Leavning proper stroking aside, how do you feel about improper stroking?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I'm not one-handed for nothing. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"No video."
Oh, man. We didn't videotape the ceremony. The reception we did, but I wanted the wedding to be my very own memory, changed and gilded as time went by.
That is how it has been. I am so glad I made that decision. However, it was extremely unpopular, and I took a load of crap for it.
Liz
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Who called you dirty????
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Who hasn't?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think I have.
I mean, I might have thought it, but I'm fairly certain I never actually said it.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Beren's not dirty - not at all. A nicer, well-behaved, intelligent and humorous correspondent you'll never meet.
Besides, he willingly shares DVDs.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Maybe you don't think I'm dirty because dirty minds think alike
(See, I told you I'm turning feral)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well I think the whole "Hokie" definition thing was some sort of unconscious meme propagated in the minds of many after last week's football game. Whether this is good or bad for the actual Hokies I don't know. For evidence I direct you to the bottom of this column.
To be fair, no one has pointed out (in writing as far as I can tell from the sportswriterse) that USC is strongly encouraging people to call their teams the "Men of Troy" rather than "Trojans" due to the condom of the same name.
AJ
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
My fault, got over-annoyed at a USC student trying to get a physics forum to do his homework problems. Guess my long ago comment -- USC Trojans: Preventing young minds from becoming fertile -- caught on a bit more than I expected.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Heh... Well I've certainly seen some very inappropriate shirts at VT football games... including the USC game. The shirt of choice there said something along the lines of "Trojans belong on my dick." Amazingly enough it's still not as bad as the shirts I saw leading up to West Virginia on Halloween in '99. I draw the line at actually posting that slogan here, but if anyone really wants to know, email me.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), no one has done something similar to the 'other side.' ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
)![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
to the king, baby!![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
-- but the act of deleting by the mod isn't something I'd challenge in itself.]
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)