How can "Porker"'s post NOT be considered a personal attack and my attempts to defend myself get busted, presumably as such?
I'm now going to attempt to defend myself against "Anonymouse"'s snide and insinuous post, feel free to hamstring me once again by only allowing my assailants to be heard.
M.
You wrote "...since you are apparently only interested in being an ass."
This could have been accepted last year but come January Stanford Wong decided no more T&A in the posts. He wants this to be a family site. (His Vegas magazines arrive four years late.)
Ok so ass is out! The most you can get away with is some low decolletage.
Hope this helps.
pb16
Ass oon as you think you understand this site it changes. Bu tit's got to be for the best!
.. because that's what the context clearly reveals the word's meaning as.
None the less, I'll bear it in mind should I have any more posts in the future.
M.
I have nothing against the use of the word "ass." But I do object to personal criticism. Criticizing a person's ideas if fine, but please refrain from criticising the person.
Stanford Wong
So, I should resort to the time honored format of "That statement looks like something an ass would say" that always seems to slip under the radar, as in "the above statement looks to me like something a person completely bankrupt in moral substance would make."
Really Stanford, I hate causing trouble, but even after a month away from the boards, I stuck my head out and I was immediately beset upon. I hate wasting board space as much as the next man, but I'm not going to sit defenseless while the slander flies right at my face, which (thanks to choice wording) evades the definition of the word.
M.
As well as insulting, all who came to the board that did not agree
with his exaulted point of view. There were many of his posts that
were loaded with filth, and allowed to stand. The current level of
civility is far better than it was a few months ago. There are a lot
of us who can be an ass at times, I can be an ass; for years I worked
at it at the poker table-quite profitably. That was when I could still draw cards !
Despite the fact that your opinions are completely discordant to my own, at least you have the courage to make an identity for yourself and stand by it, which is more than I can say for others.
M.
"As well as insulting, all who came to the board that did not agree with his exaulted point of view."
-I was always amazed that some one of Don's apparent knowledge and ability could be so patient with people who often never appreciated what he was trying to do for them. Most of his BJ disagreements wil quite civil, unlike most of the ones you are involved in. Talk about the (crack)pot calling the kettle black!
@^D
"There were many of his posts that were loaded with filth, and allowed to stand."
Name one single post that contined "filth". Angry words? Yes. Justifiably Bustable? Once in a while, like most of us. But just because someone is angry or disagreed with you or even got busted doesn't mean their words were "filth", Frankie. Every once in a while, when Don let some fool (guess who?) get the best of his temper, he got busted right along with the rest of us do, when we step over the line.
@^!
"The current level of civility is far better than it was a few months ago."
Wrong again Frank, there's as much disruption as there ever was. Its just part of the ebb and flow of running a website like this.
"There are a lot of us who can be an ass at times, I can be an ass;"
-Just too easy. I'll move on, since I normal don't battle wits with an unarmed man!
@^D
Get help soon, Frank
Cyclops
Personal flaming does not show 'character' or 'courage.' The rules of the game apply to all, but if you feel it is selectively applied you should re-examine your debating technique instead of whining about censorship. Just because an occasional slanderous remark slips by does not mean it is acceptable behavior. Some people have established a propensity to defend their positions with ass-assinations that show little respect for posters to voice opinions contrary to their own. Civility is still a virtue, and I will defend to the death the right of the postbusters to exercise their discretion in what may and may not adhere to the guidelines that Mr. Wong has established through the years.
I would consider a busted post as analogous to being backed off in a casino. Something about your play needs to be corrected. If what you have to say has merit, it is easy enough to edit and repost within the generous guidelines our host has provided.
MHO
scobee
IMHO, at any given time there are countless posts on this site where someone is critisizing someone else, (not just their ideas) that never get busted.
I just felt the need to speak up here and point that out, for the sake of fairness.
Take care,
@^)
Cyclops
..and right in the same thread as your "Please refrain from criticising other visitors.." post.
Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but is seems that Frank is getting an extraordinary amount of leeway here.
@^!
my 2 cents worth,
@^)
Cyclops
I absolutely HAVE to blame it on somebody !
go back to aug thru nov last year. There were a lot of DUMB posts
by him that vilolated rules. The only one I saved was 16 oct 01
9:03pm on the Misc board. My answer was a ref. to my college algebra
book and the world book encylopida. He would get all over Walt, John
Patrick and any other author. From SW's stand point of view, his
tyrade on a question ended with are you some sort of stupid newbie-
He was, and that did not help this board a bit. 7 Nov I made a post
to SW about that incident.
.. is to figure out exactly how far you can get to the "personal attack" guideline without crossing over. To wit,
* Implying that someone is too unskilled to beat the game is acceptable ("Do yourself a favor and save the money for you and you're son, NOT for playing", along with countless other "You're only dealing because you'll never have the skill" posts)
* Insulting someone by labelling them as a "turncoat" or "the enemy", or calling it "sickening", is apparently okay.
* Insulting someone by inference is acceptable ("Spoken like someone very lazy", "A statement I would expect from someone completely bankrupt of moral character", and so forth)
.. and all of this completely unprovoked, as I simply posted a message to reply to a friend.
Now I have no problem with this, and if I have to dance around these rules to defend myself, so be it. But the last thing I'm going to do is prove my "civility" by letting myself be slandered and insulted without speaking up for myself.
M.
Stanford, in all fairness....IMHO, at any given time there are countless posts on this site where someone is criticizing someone else, (not just their ideas) that never get busted.
I just felt the need to speak up here and point that out, for the sake of fairness.
BJ21's postbusters are volunteers. The only difference between postbusters and other visitors to BJ21 is postbusters have a deletion password that works on the free pages of BJ21. Postbusters are not required to patrol the boards. Postbusters read BJ21 just like you do -- they visit whichever boards they choose, and they read whichever posts appeal to them. Thus there always will be posts on BJ21 that might have been deleted had a postbuster read them.
Stanford Wong
to stand up for your rights. I appreciate your dilemma, sir.
It is a confusing world with inexact standards. FWIW, I have always enjoyed your posts and have found nothing dismaying about any that I have read......and am frequently entertained.
Stanford, isn't THIS a personal attack on Don? ... and right in the same thread as your "Please refrain from criticizing other visitors.." post.
Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but is seems that Frank is getting an extraordinary amount of leeway here.
This is the post you are talking about:
As well as insulting, all who came to the board that did not agree with his exalted point of view. There were many of his posts that were loaded with filth, and allowed to stand. The current level of civility is far better than it was a few months ago. There are a lot of us who can be an ass at times, I can be an ass; for years I worked at it at the poker table-quite profitably. That was when I could still draw cards !
This is a good example of the distinction between criticizing a person and criticizing something else. It's acceptable to say that "many of his posts ... were loaded with filth." That is a criticism of Don's posts, and not a criticism of Don himself. Criticizing Don's posts is acceptable. Criticizing Don is not acceptable.
Stanford Wong
