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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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....
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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....
posted
If the mods remove something, they say so. (At least, that's how it has worked in the past.) Things don't just disappear.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
posted
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.
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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]
Posts: 157 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, if you read the thread, the hypothetical issue between Tom and Kristine has been resolved.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
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.
posted
Pooka -- I'd like to think more highly of the honesty and intelligence of Hatrackers than that. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. Would you not agree that I was not only excruciatingly polite but downright complimentary to the mods in this thread?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
to the king, baby!![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
