|
On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:21 Probe1 wrote:
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning. Am I not? I do believe Kwark has just dug himself a hole from which he cannot dig himself out. God, the irony in this thread just gets greater and greater, doesn't it?
Perhaps. Guide me to the hole he just digged out. Because I cant find it lol
|
Lalalaland34503 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:22 Firebolt145 wrote:On October 25 2012 08:08 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:04 dAPhREAk wrote:
why did you use the word prancing? Ahh, the primary reason I was banned. Good question. The reason I used the word "prancing" is because gay men tend to be more flamboyant than straight men. A sore attempt at a joke, I suppose, and a mistake in retrospect. Now I have a question for you. Do you think semantics are justifications for bans? Although I used the word prance, I'm implying the word run, which is an issue of semantics. Had I used the word run, would I have been banned? You know, if you had pm'd Kwark saying 'I did not mean any offence with the word 'prancing', it was supposed to be a feeble attempt at a joke, though in retrospect I probably shouldn't have done it', this whole thing would've blown over by now. Where's the fun in that?
Rofl.
'Hey guys I got banned for this, I disagree with this ban'
'Maybe if you approached it this way..............etc etc'
'Lololol fuk dat mate, where's the fun in that? YOLO SWAG YOLO'
|
On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable?
|
United States2791 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:24 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:21 Probe1 wrote:
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning. Am I not? I do believe Kwark has just dug himself a hole from which he cannot dig himself out. God, the irony in this thread just gets greater and greater, doesn't it? I don't see this hole.
You don't see the emperor's new clothes?
|
On October 25 2012 08:13 neversummer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Show nested quote +Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda. I'm inclined to side with him. I'm curious as to how you would respond to this, then: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UNL7l.png) Which was followed by this: On October 04 2012 01:56 KwarK wrote:
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter.
By restating my main argument. In my mind any validity your argument may have is reduced by the fact that you were recently banned by Kwark. If someone else were making this point I'd be more inclined to listen to them.
|
On October 25 2012 08:25 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:13 neversummer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Show nested quote +Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda. I'm inclined to side with him. I'm curious as to how you would respond to this, then: Which was followed by this: On October 04 2012 01:56 KwarK wrote:
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter. By restating my main argument. In my mind any validity your argument may have is reduced by the fact that you were recently banned by Kwark. If someone else were making this point I'd be more inclined to listen to them.
That is called circumstantial ad hominem and is a logical fallacy.
|
On October 25 2012 08:25 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:22 Firebolt145 wrote:On October 25 2012 08:08 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:04 dAPhREAk wrote:
why did you use the word prancing? Ahh, the primary reason I was banned. Good question. The reason I used the word "prancing" is because gay men tend to be more flamboyant than straight men. A sore attempt at a joke, I suppose, and a mistake in retrospect. Now I have a question for you. Do you think semantics are justifications for bans? Although I used the word prance, I'm implying the word run, which is an issue of semantics. Had I used the word run, would I have been banned? You know, if you had pm'd Kwark saying 'I did not mean any offence with the word 'prancing', it was supposed to be a feeble attempt at a joke, though in retrospect I probably shouldn't have done it', this whole thing would've blown over by now. Where's the fun in that? Rofl. 'Hey guys I got banned for this, I disagree with this ban' 'Maybe if you approached it this way..............etc etc' 'Lololol fuk dat mate, where's the fun in that? YOLO SWAG YOLO'
xD
homie dont play like dat.
|
United States43959 Posts
For neversummer, the only man who doesn't get this. I apologise to every other poster in the topic who understands exactly what happened.
Saying "homosexual men cannot be trusted around children" is making the implication that homosexual men are a risk to children, or rather, more of a risk than heterosexual men, sufficient to be worthy of distinction. This is a homophobic comment.
Saying "neversummer is stupid" is not a homophobic comment.
|
On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:21 Probe1 wrote:
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning. Am I not? I do believe Kwark has just dug himself a hole from which he cannot dig himself out. God, the irony in this thread just gets greater and greater, doesn't it?
What are you talking about?
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Show nested quote +Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda. I'm inclined to side with him.
This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM.
Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding.
1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge.
2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like:
TL;DR: Kwark needs to go.
TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument.
|
Man, being bitchy after a temp.. well, warnings. I'm 100% guilty. I think I sent KwarK a bitchy one once.
Sry m8
|
On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument.
Psh. Why should he go when he is clearly winning the argument?
Amirightno?
|
Lalalaland34503 Posts
Half of me is screaming 'oh god mods close this thread already'
The other half of me is in the kitchen making more popcorn
|
On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument.
I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this:
On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable?
Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.
|
There's no winning. Everyone here is embarrassed to still be here.
This is where we start talking about pokemon or smth.
|
United States43959 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:
Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.
I see we're back to the "yes, but I don't think I was speeding and it doesn't count until you explain to me to my satisfaction that I was" part of the game. Similar to your "I do have bad mod history but I think I don't so it doesn't count" defence.
|
Lalalaland34503 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.
No one ever accused you of calling homosexuals paedophiles. People are accusing you of making a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Homophobia insults homosexual people. Calling a mentally retarded kid 'stupid' is harsh, but it's kinda fact.
I've never given Kwark brownie points for being nice, and I am struggling to figure out exactly what he's doing to his girlfriend to make her think he's the 'sweetest guy like evaaaar', but he generally tells the truth as it is.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.
LOL considering you're arguing an opinion -that Kwark doesn't handle his responsibilities properly and that TL should care/do something about that- it actually is about how many people agree with you.
|
On October 25 2012 08:40 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. LOL considering you're arguing an opinion -that Kwark doesn't handle his responsibilities properly and that TL should care/do something about that- it actually is about how many people agree with you.
actually, it only matters what a few, privileged people think, and hot_bid has already spoken. this thread is merely for philosophical discussions and amusement at this point.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:40 Myles wrote:On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. LOL considering you're arguing an opinion -that Kwark doesn't handle his responsibilities properly and that TL should care/do something about that- it actually is about how many people agree with you. actually, it only matters what a few, privileged people think, and hot_bid has already spoken. this thread is merely for philosophical discussions and amusement at this point.
Very true, I should have been more specific and said how many of the admins agree with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
