Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Should Jeff and TheMods be asked to re-consider their permanent ban on Canadian_Watcher?

1 No The permanent ban should stay
22
44%
2 Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
28
56%
 
Total votes : 50

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby brekin » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:16 pm

Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:59 pm wrote:Please tell me you're kidding, Brekin. Even YOU can't be that big of a freaking sissy-pants.


Yes, to use your vernacular, I am that big of a freaking sissy-pants.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:23 pm

Jerky » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:59 am wrote:Please tell me you're kidding, Brekin. Even YOU can't be that big of a freaking sissy-pants.

YOPJ


Mocking, name calling and baiting someone when they are cogently expressing sincerely held concerns?

Polite request to up the game?

I think there is a great deal of merit in what Brekin said in the first section. I think the issue isnt one of 'cowardice' , rather of 'stupidity' based on ideas of 'say what you feel like whenever you want'. I have no objection to people doing that. I have a BIG objection to them saying that will not have potential consequences for themselves and others.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby brekin » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:51 pm

Hate to be requesting a ban again when I'm supposed to be in seclusion but I think Jerky needs time to understand why comments requesting home addresses of members so he can masturbate in their face may be offensive (and scary) to others. Maybe this will also help him understand why accusing other members as terrorists is also offensive. Or is this violent sexual imagery acceptable now along with NSA terrorist shouts outs?

I don't have a complex about masturbation.
In fact, why don't you give me your home address so I come masturbate right in your smug little face?
Love,
Jerky

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36823&start=15
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:05 pm

And I am requesting that Brekin and Cuda be banned for accusing RollingStone of being a sock-puppet and piling up on him or her, just because they don't like the fact that he or she signed up to vote in the Canadian_Watcher poll.

Also, if people don't want do the masturbation and sexual shaming dance with me, then they'd best not bring it up in the FIRST fucking place.

Sincerely;
YOPJ
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2192
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby barracuda » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:07 pm

Cites or GTFO.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:12 pm

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=16700&start=855

This whole thread. Or are you going to try to pretend that your obvious snark about RollingStone was in fact the very model of sincerity?

YOPJ
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2192
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby barracuda » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:17 pm

Now you're accusing me of insincerity??

- faints -

This is really too much, my old pal, too much, I must say.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:24 pm

Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:59 pm wrote:Please tell me you're kidding, Brekin. Even YOU can't be that big of a freaking sissy-pants.

YOPJ


Jerky, I may be a girl, but I am not any more of a sissy-pants than any man here.

She typically insults, mocks and abuses me approximately three times on every thread we post to together before I ask her to stop or mention it. And then however many more it takes before I get too stressed out to take it while replying on topic.

It's bullying. I've asked her a million times to keep it in check. Or to tell/show me what I can do. And all I ever get is that when I respond pointing out that she's wrong about something in enough detail that she can't evade it, I'm doing a bad thing to her.

Which I'm not. Because I don't fucking force her to refuse to acknowledge whatever thing I said to begin with by insulting me in the first place.

I love Canadian_watcher. But there's nothing cute about harassing people who don't toe the same party line you do. Check out the vaccine thread. Do you really think I deserve to be insulted and mocked because I'm trying to let people know they might want to think twice about taking information from people who don't have enough sense not to give special-needs children bleach enemas?

Would you rather live in a world where people are brave enough to prevent that information from being attended to?

It might matter to someone who didn't get to hear it. You know.

A little responsibility-taking would be nice. None of us is here alone. Except the socks. But I think they're unfairly stigmatized anyway. They're never any worse than real people. And in some ways, they're better. We get a high class of socks here.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:48 pm

C2W, I understand your concerns, but if you and her clashed so much, why not just put her on IGNORE? Wouldn't that be a better solution than just having one side stay, the other go, due to personal differences that keep popping up?

I mean, I understand that online forums aren't a democracy. I know that. My concern is that I truly believe that this forum would be a lesser place, for ME, with Canadian_Watcher gone. And it seems to me that people are getting attacked and banned for making JOKES (however harsh) while others are allowed to make obvious and bald-faced insinuations and insults without anybody batting an eyelash.

Sincerely;
YOPJ

PS As a vaccine skeptic, myself, surely you're not suggesting that every report ever put out about the dangers of thimeresol (sp?) has been conducted by people with some kind of bizarre fetish for anally bleaching the mentally retarded? Because I can assure you that is most definitely NOT the case.
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2192
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:56 pm

Jerky wrote:She has agreed to be on her best behavior and simply IGNORE anybody who tries to goad her into getting herself in trouble again.

YOPJ


Because the thing about ^^that is that as long as her best behavior is claiming that people goad her when -- in fact -- people (me, for example) have repeatedly asked her on thread after thread to show them where the goading happened and only gotten a run-around like this:

First, for the millionth time, we start with something like:

C_w wrote:Sorry to name names, but c2w and barracuda are the primary suspects wrt those who can belabour and belittle with impunity.


Then, since it is the millionth time and a million requests for examples, cites and quotations haven't produced any, I ask for some, like so:

I wrote:Examples, or you're just throwing a rock then running away. I have no problem with being called out for what I do.

Show me where I instigated an off-topic dispute and then belabored my side of it. as opposed to "where I was insulted for my presumed reading habits, sheep-like conformity or political views when (a) nothing I'd said represented any of those things; and (b) the points I had made were being ignored, then objected when the person who hurled those rocks ran away without being helpful enough to me to show me where I'd erred."


Because if I have, I want to know. And if I haven't, you're out of line to name me and then scamper off. I don't do it to you. Or to anyone. It's not fair. Kafkasesqe, as a matter of fact.

Or you could just try not insulting me. If you did, I wouldn't have anything else to say.


Then she BRAVELY replies:

I think stickdog and Mac already "showed you" where you belabored your side of it. I don't want to engage any more than I already have. Everyone knows what I'm talking about, including you, so I don't need to elaborate.


And that's not very helpful to me. Because one of those posters ALSO said I did something I hadn't, without citations. And the other one quoted him.

(So it basically amounts to saying: "Just like a real PR professional, I've now repeated this charge often enough that it's influenced how others see you, so I now don't have to demonstrate it. It's become true.")

Swiftboating, IOW.

Then:

I wrote:No they didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about. Where? Please show me.

Thanks


And then:

Canadian_watcher » Sat May 18, 2013 8:04 pm wrote:
compared2what? wrote:No they didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about. Where? Please show me.

Thanks.


okay..
right here, right now. Just forget it, would you?


So there you have it. What I do to belittle and belabor her with impunity is insist that she not say that when it's not true, which she experiences as my belaboring and belittling her.

That's happened in one form or another to me and other posters more than once. Seems to me like she could save some trouble by just not saying it. And it doesn't strike me as promising that she thinks she's goaded.

But maybe that's just me.

(Exchange is from here.)
Last edited by compared2what? on Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:05 am

Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:48 pm wrote:C2W, I understand your concerns, but if you and her clashed so much, why not just put her on IGNORE? Wouldn't that be a better solution than just having one side stay, the other go, due to personal differences that keep popping up?


Yeah. It's a little overdetermined to say personal differences keep popping up as if that wasn't something that happened because A PERSON was picking on ANOTHER PERSON.

Why should I be forced to sacrifice my right to read a wide range of opinions, which I value? I'm not doing anything wrong.

I mean, I understand that online forums aren't a democracy. I know that. My concern is that I truly believe that this forum would be a lesser place, for ME, with Canadian_Watcher gone. And it seems to me that people are getting attacked and banned for making JOKES (however harsh) while others are allowed to make obvious and bald-faced insinuations and insults without anybody batting an eyelash.


If you mean me, I want examples. (Joking, I think.)

The thing is. you can keep calling that brekin thing a joke. But it wasn't one to him. And since you can't really expect someone who has a reason to be bothered about being named in that kind of context to go around blabbing about it, you do have to use the butt of the joke's estimate of whether or not it was funny and not yours, in such a case.

Basic common courtesy.

surely you're not suggesting that every report ever put out about the dangers of thimeresol (sp?) has been conducted by people with some kind of bizarre fetish for anally bleaching the mentally retarded? Because I can assure you that is most definitely NOT the case.


Certainly not. I'm suggesting that unreliable people are prone to unreliability. So irrespective of how good their information is, you can't count on them to use it for good.

I guess I'm also maybe suggesting that when you can't count on people not to subject children to torture, it's not possible for them to have a cause that's worth your supporting. But that does depend on how implicated they are in the bad acts, arguably. And it's a judgment call.

Anyway, that wasn't my point.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:12 am

I want her to come back on whatever terms are agreeable to everybody.

It's not up to me.

I'm just not willing to keep taking the fall for being a goon when I'm not one. It does nobody credit.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby wintler2 » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:28 am

compared2what? » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:12 pm wrote:I want her to come back on whatever terms are agreeable to everybody...

Cunning recourse to impossibility, i like it!

Rory wrote:..But this farce is a step to far. I feel like I have insight into the characters and motivations of some of the regular forum users but this is a clusterfuck of narcissism masquerading as concern for others.

Mods ban people then choose to unban and the net positive result, longterm will be exactly as before.

C-W will be banned again - it is in her nature to take aggressive umbrage and flame her perceived foes. I think inviting her back is perverse - you will all get to revisit this same hand-wringing and meta analysis down the road.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

Word.

-


I predict this thread will run to 70 pages .. unless i provoke jerky into exposing himself again; i'll run a poll on whether to do that when it hits 10 pages :rofl:
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:43 am

wintler2 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:28 pm wrote:
compared2what? » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:12 pm wrote:I want her to come back on whatever terms are agreeable to everybody...

Cunning recourse to impossibility, i like it!


I meant "Don't mind me." Or "I'm not the boss of you." Or whatever. You know what I mean.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:06 am

Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:05 pm wrote:And I am requesting that Brekin and Cuda be banned for accusing RollingStone of being a sock-puppet and piling up on him or her, just because they don't like the fact that he or she signed up to vote in the Canadian_Watcher poll.


Yeah.

Jerky, can you see the difference between posters exchanging snide remarks on a thread about something personal, where it doesn't impede the discussion and, let's say, responding to the third person who raises the same totally legitimate and on-topic question like this:

"Canadian_watcher' wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
"Canadian_watcher' wrote:
Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Mask wrote:So, again, why would they go to such risky length when they can just blow some random people* up, given the moral compass of any likely deep-state actors involved (as semper said)?




Just in case anyone missed it.




I just answered it two or three posts ago, Joe. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.




But your response didn't include an explanation of what made the risky lengths worthwhile when there were more expedient alternatives.

So that's still an open question.





last one ever, miss thing.

Anything i might say on that matter would be conjecture, and I'm told you people want facts. You want them, you go look for them. Hint: you can't find them in your email from your friends who all think the same way you do. that is if you have any fucking friends.


From here

FYI, there weren't any bans or suspensions for that. Or for the other exchange I quoted upthread. Or for the time she told Norton Ash he was going to end up a suicide, although I don't recall what he did to provoke that, exactly. But it was on the Theophobia thread. Or for the vast majority of the times when those pesky personal differences kept popping up.

So you guys can keep ignoring that while saying that it's favoritism, if (a) you feel like it; and (b) you find saying that the people who aren't your favorites have done the same thing as the people who are when they haven't compatible with it.

But that's why this fucking happened. Because you can't solve problems while insisting they're not there. It doesn't help anybody.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Ask Admin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests