Originally Posted by Finch

Actually, just the Full Moon. But we did participate in the Solstice Parade in Fremont. My wife even made the papers. I'm in that picture too, but I'm not telling you which one is me =)

That looks like a lot of fun! Are you the Bacchus figure in the front of the crowd?

This forum had two things going for it: #1) it had colorful characters and #2) it was self-policing.

You take away #2 and you will eventually lose #1 as well.

I claim no authority to make policy around here - I don't pay for the bandwidth (although the fact that I got the late Mr. Strauss on C2CAM should I hope have paid for my own use of the bandwidth with a few book sales).

In any event censorship is still un-American.

And some of you net nannies need to get lives.

If what is good about this place is ever restored I'm sure you can find me somewhere.

Cheers!

Originally Posted by Linus

This forum had two things going for it: #1) it had colorful characters and #2) it was self-policing.

You take away #2 and you will eventually lose #1 as well.

I claim no authority to make policy around here - I don't pay for the bandwidth (although the fact that I got the late Mr. Strauss on C2CAM should I hope have paid for my own use of the bandwidth with a few book sales).

In any event censorship is still un-American.

And some of you net nannies need to get lives.

If what is good about this place is ever restored I'm sure you can find me somewhere.

Cheers!

Am I permitted to agree with Linus?

Originally Posted by Linus

This forum had two things going for it: #1) it had colorful characters and #2) it was self-policing.

You take away #2 and you will eventually lose #1 as well.

I claim no authority to make policy around here - I don't pay for the bandwidth (although the fact that I got the late Mr. Strauss on C2CAM should I hope have paid for my own use of the bandwidth with a few book sales).

In any event censorship is still un-American.

And some of you net nannies need to get lives.

If what is good about this place is ever restored I'm sure you can find me somewhere.

Cheers!

Am I also permitted to agree with Linus? I would only disagree that it was a "net nanny" mentality that drove this hysteria, even if some actual "net nannies" were conceivably duped into signing on to the silliness. As anybody who has visited the Big Orgy thread knows, Her Majesty is not easily offended. As with virtually everything else she does, this latest action was solely intended to piss certain people off. No more, no less. She incites passions in others and derives energy therefrom. We have witnessed this behavior over and over again in her years on this site. It is indisputably her M.O. This latest episode is no different. It ain't healthy. Sensible people keep her on Ignore. It would have been best if any "net nannies" she duped had had the good sense to put her on Ignore rather than support her. But then Craig may yet wise up to her in the same way he finally wised up to Xenakis.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Am I also permitted to agree with Linus? I would only disagree that it was a "net nanny" mentality that drove this hysteria, even if some actual "net nannies" were conceivably duped into signing on to the silliness. As anybody who has visited the Big Orgy thread knows, Her Majesty is not easily offended. As with virtually everything else she does, this latest action was solely intended to piss certain people off. No more, no less. She incites passions in others and derives energy therefrom. We have witnessed this behavior over and over again in her years on this site. It is indisputably her M.O. This latest episode is no different. It ain't healthy. Sensible people keep her on Ignore. It would have been best if any "net nannies" she duped had had the good sense to put her on Ignore rather than support her. But then Craig may yet wise up to her in the same way he finally wised up to Xenakis.

What he said.

Originally Posted by Mustang

As anybody who has visited the Big Orgy thread knows, Her Majesty is not easily offended. As with virtually everything else she does, this latest action was solely intended to piss certain people off. No more, no less.

I am inclined to agree. Furthermore, if this entire episode were truly about keeping offensive "threats" off the forum, the complainant(s) would have deleted their own quotations and references by now. The fact that they haven't shows that this is about something else.

In any case, if the intent was to get *me* angry, it's backfired. I'm actually highly amused to read the questions about what is and is not permitted anymore.

I think this levelling wind of Reform will actually improve matters as in many previous Reforms. New code phrases will soon be invented as was the case in the Soviet Union to get about the censors.

Personal attack will have to become more deft as insult sensitivity climbs and climbs. This escalation may drive posters to the OED and Roget's as a variety of language will be used by both the injured and the abusing. Foreign languages may soon be involved.

One might post that a certain Progressive policy has sprung forth from the napasika lobby in the Grand Old Party; and those offended will have to have some understanding of this Uralic term for a Tayasussian-American and the issue at hand before the whinging can commence. It is a win-win for the reference librarian community.

We are now to be chained. One can climb and tug those fetters; or let them drag one down into the Equality. The choice dear fellow T4Ters is yours (and Mr. Cheslog's).

Originally Posted by The Rani

True. This is about improving the quality of the forum in the future.

Well, that remains to be seen.

In the meantime, will the quoted "strangulation fantasies" continue to be available?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Or, another question, is it a personal attack to put certain posters on "ignore," then repeatedly announce to the group why they have put these posters on their list? These are indirect "slams," but they also tend to lower the civility level.

Good grief. The only real "ignore list" that exists is the one never heard from or about. I mean, no poster been has been subjected more to this silly "ignore" megaphone-treatment than I. But that ain't nothin' compared to the many thousands of potential posters who have actually passed thru this place, even becoming members, only to place the entire forum on their unannounced "ignore list" forever.

Tsk, tsk. This entire place has become infested and politicized by left-wing hacks, kooks and whiners. I wear their "ignore lists" as proudly as I long to tweak and torture them with mere words.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

That sounds like a personal insult to me. So he's young. Perhaps what you're trying to say is that, being a Millie, he would expect clear rules enforcing civility, but many older posters have been used to playing the game under a quite different set of rules. (emphasis mine)

You of course don't mean incivility like Justin baring Janet's "t--" during super bowl halftimes, or a popular Democrat calling the President of the United States worse than Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin combined on the floor of the U.S. Senate, or Ted Kennedy accusing a SCOTUS nominee of being a racist during a confirmation hearing, or a certain presidential nominee accusing small town Americans of being "bitter" and "clinging to their guns", do you?

I bet you could make the case that most anything a liberal Democrats sez is "civil" (ie., raising taxes for the children, making government bigger to clothe and feed the people etc) and anything a conservative Republican sez is quite uncivil, eh?

Originally Posted by zilch

...I long to tweak and torture them with mere words.

-He said "tweak" & "torture"!

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-He said "tweak" & "torture"!

That's basically what you're doing to a liberal Democrat when you point out that, say, the unemployment rate is the same today as when Bill Clinton won re-election.

Originally Posted by zilch

You of course don't mean incivility like Justin baring Janet's "t--" during super bowl halftimes, or a popular Democrat calling the President of the United States worse than Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin combined on the floor of the U.S. Senate, or Ted Kennedy accusing a SCOTUS nominee of being a racist during a confirmation hearing, or a certain presidential nominee accusing small town Americans of being "bitter" and "clinging to their guns", do you?

I bet you could make the case that most anything a liberal Democrats sez is "civil" (ie., raising taxes for the children, making government bigger to clothe and feed the people etc) and anything a conservative Republican sez is quite uncivil, eh?

As a matter of fact, no, and I'm not going to try. That statement seems to conflate the philosophy itself, with the choice of words and tone of voice, which strikes me as an extremely odd form of argument except from the standpoint of Me = All Good and You = All Bad. If that's the position being taken here, I'm afraid I consider that not to be debate at all.

As for the first paragraph - I was always taught that, except in a context of self-defense (or defense of another), two wrongs don't make a right. Craig? Do you agree with this?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

As for the first paragraph - I was always taught that, except in a context of self-defense (or defense of another), two wrongs don't make a right.

Two wrongs certainly do make right, wherein moralistic, and always hypocritical, Democrats are concerned. Case in point is Obama's convenient right turn on Iraq today: Yesterday, withdraw was mandatory, today it's stay the course in Iraq. Why? Tsk, tsk, a big election looms... Imagine that, eh?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Craig? Do you agree with this?

This is a perfect case of what I meant by "tweak and torture" liberal Democrats. Anyone who even questions their worldview is immediately suspected of incivility and the like.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Well said. That's why I would like to encourage people to not start new threads if there is an older thread that would fit in with their post. Note that this isn't a forum just for people to hang out; serious researchers use it too.

Thanks.

Do serious researchers use the forums? What for?

Originally Posted by Mustang

Sensible people keep her on Ignore.

I guess that means I'm not a sensible person.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I am inclined to agree. Furthermore, if this entire episode were truly about keeping offensive "threats" off the forum, the complainant(s) would have deleted their own quotations and references by now. The fact that they haven't shows that this is about something else.

As far as "offense" goes, whatever damage was done on that front was done when the comments in question were posted. The only harm that Pink Splice's old posts could have now would be to suggest to newer posters that such behavior is acceptable. Since the quotes and references are embedded within the context of a discussion in which it is made abundantly clear that this behavior is unacceptable, there's no real harm in them.

As one of the complainants, I can say that you're pretty much correct. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say with certainty that own goal was never to get the comments edited or deleted after the fact, it was to bring a much larger pattern of abuse to an end.

Thank you very much for your efforts, Craig. When I first started lurking here a couple of years ago, I found the discussion very thought-provoking and insightful. Recently, the 4Tforum has gone downhill due to a lot of cat-fighting, name-calling, and personal attacks. This has really limited my enjoyment of the 4T forum to a point where I was beginning to consider it a complete waste of time. Good moderation is key to a successful forum where ideas can be freely shared and intelligently discussed. I look forward to seeing the school-yard atmosphere dissipate and the 4T forum return to what it used to be.

Bri2k

Although I haven't been involved in any big wars lately, largely thanks to the "ignore" button, over the last ten years I think I've taken as much abuse as anyone. Despite that, I remain true to the Boomer beliefs of my youth. Words do not kill. They are a good substitute for actual violence. They also tell us what people are really thinking, which is important to know. So far this thread has wasted a great deal of valuable time that might have been spent discussing something important.

I do agree with another point--there are too many duplicating threads. But despite everything this is still a very high-quality discussion and I didn't feel things (at least in the forums I was looking at) were going so badly--they were worse a few years back.

Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Irony anyone?

I also remember you asking people not to quote zilch in the past, in effect attempting your own version of forum censorship.

True enough--and I have recommended that people use the ignore button instead of wasting everyone's time complaining about trolls. That isn't censorship. Those are individual decisions that everyone is free to make, or not--not rules.

DK

Excellent idea. Not for the name-calling, which was out of hand, but if someone's arguments amount to a tantrum or a deliberate twisting of everything said, you're quite right. It's a weapon I hate to use, being afraid of missing something important, but for those who strike their one-note no matter what you say - especially if they are abusive as well - that's the cure. Done.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

As far as "offense" goes, whatever damage was done on that front was done when the comments in question were posted. The only harm that Pink Splice's old posts could have now would be to suggest to newer posters that such behavior is acceptable. Since the quotes and references are embedded within the context of a discussion in which it is made abundantly clear that this behavior is unacceptable, there's no real harm in them.

There is another use to which they could be put (and have been put, as I see it) -- to attempt to embarrass and humiliate someone by taking them out of context and distorting their meaning.

Craig is, of course, the final word on whether posts stay or go -- but as a general principle, I think we need to be very careful about what we decide to request to be eliminated from discussion.

As one of the complainants, I can say that you're pretty much correct. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say with certainty that own goal was never to get the comments edited or deleted after the fact, it was to bring a much larger pattern of abuse to an end.

You may get that.

I think you've also managed to chill the discussion here, and it looks like Linus, at least, has decided to stop posting. I don't see either of those developments an an improvement.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

True enough--and I have recommended that people use the ignore button instead of wasting everyone's time complaining about trolls. That isn't censorship. Those are individual decisions that everyone is free to make, or not--not rules.

DK

Exactly right. It's not censorship to make a personal decision not to read something. It's censorship to remove the comments.

Being that T4T is a privately owned forum, this is perfectly legal, even if some of us believe it was not necessary.

I apologize if I stepped on any toes.

I was in a bad mood.

I'll be back.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

[L]largely thanks to the "ignore" button, over the last ten years I think I've taken as much abuse as anyone... I have recommended that people use the ignore button instead of wasting everyone's time complaining about trolls. That isn't censorship.

The poor little victim of the "trolls," finds the ultimate triumph over the "trolls" via same weapon (the infamous 'ignore button') used against him?

Good grief, this is utterly pathetic. Hey, you go Obama!