Scott, in this case I am NOT complaining about the moderation.

It is true that I would prefer to be allowed to see an offending letter and make up my mind about the offender, but I do not deny that under the current rules this was a TOS violation.

Sorry for me using the word "complain", thanks for your clarification.

When reviewing the whole of IJK's postings his positions are clear and rather appalling. Others may see my post as a flame but IJK may actually take it as a compliment. Allowing the post to remain would give IJK the benefit to state his postions and rebut my post if he so desires. If IJK opts not to respond, fine, we continue on.

Sean: I understand the rules issue; it is more an issue of consistency for me per my comments on ftomnibox.

I can appreciate the moderators while still offering my opinion and trust you understand my comments in that light.

It would, perhaps, been clearer if I had not used actual examples in this thread (IJK and ftomnibox).

On the other hand, by being able to look at these two cases we can judge the issue at hand (what is a flame and how should it be handled) without going too far off into Never-Never Land.

Perhaps as perfect proof of what I have been saying, I just received a piece of hate mail from ftomnibox. In addition to his venom, he included the statement that "Even
Randy agrees with me that you're a worthless extremist who has no place on FT." To "prove" his point, he forwarded a letter sent to him by Randy.

If I had not been able to read Randy's letter myself, I might believe that Randy actually does agree with ftomnibox. But because it was attached, I was allowed to judge for myself what Randy was saying and saw no indication that Randy held any such opinion.

People should look in the mirror... it might help us learn that FT is not a place for intolerance and hate. I don't mean to bring this up here, but your application of the term "raghead" and advocacy of "genocide" would be appalling to a majority of the people in the world. It was, however, not a personal attack even if it was in poor taste. That is why IJK has a slightly higher moral ground than yourself.... for I have yet to see IJK advocate "genocide" or apply bigoted labels to a group of people based on birth. I could be wrong. I think the fact that IJK has not applied his terms to a specific individual (generally speaking) is why he may have not crossed the moderators in the same way.

Only Randy Petersen is not a forum for a politicized wing of FT members -- who, in net, are great contributors that I thoroughly enjoy to disagree with them vociferously -- to whine that they should be allowed to spew intolerance on the basis of sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, creed, and such.In some people's eyes (even if not mine), it may make FT and FT's owner look bad when the FT forum becomes a host and forum for intolerance. Combine that with personal attacks, and so far the moderators seem to be doing the right thing (even if for reasons that are not easily and well articulated). To expect perfection is to be disappointed.

How does FTOmnibox think that you are an extremist. You strike me (who disagrees with you on many an issue) as anything but an extremist. You may have positions that I consider in the wrong, but you yourself, are anything but an extremist. Some people have a fanciful imagination, FTOmnibox amongst them. Why cannot people stick to debating the ideas and concepts rather than debating people?

An old saying basically goes as follows: "The average person discusses events. The less-than-average person discusses people. And the above-average person discusses ideas." Keep this in mind when debating.

Dovster:
"Today, an OMNI post was edited by the mods because a poster had referred to
IJK (another poster) as 'Islamic Jihad Kid'. I would be furious if someone were to
imply that I support Islamic Jihad."


This is not the first time that my sequential three-letter 'FT handle' has been
referred to in this way.


See:

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/018283.html
(middle of page 5)

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/018405.html
(page 1)


In both cases, this was done by a poster that is presently not posting in OMNI
(probably due to several TOS violations), so I am curious if this poster is using
multiple handles to recently repeat the use of this very particular phrase - - or,
the recent misuse of my handle by a poster with another handle was inherited as
learned behavior?


I basically ignored the reference - - I initially said "Very funny.", which it was,
in a way (showed some cleverness), and ignored it subsequently. However,
the non-response dictated by the FT TOS to type of thing may have implied that
I accepted this 'name' as somehow being representative, or even complementary.

I wish to indicate that this is not the case.


Dovster:
"I do not know how IJK feels about this. He has consistently taken a pro-Arab position
on every Israeli-Arab thread. I don't recall him ever condemning Arab terrorism. It is
possible that he would not see being identified with Islamic Jihad as an insult."


Well, I do find it troubling that this particular poster has chosen to ignore my
repeated statements lamenting the grip of the extremists in the Middle East in
prolonging and escalating the violence - - on both sides. There is no need to
characterize (or mis-characterize) my, or anyone else's, position, thoughts and/or
'who we really are'. (See the attempt at 'character assassination by implication'
of ChaseTheMiles by the same poster in the first thread above.)

And my supposed "pro-Arab position" has been characterized here only for the sake of
making the rhetorical argument of "what if they like what they are called - - is it OK
to call them something bad because they might like it?" (paraphrased), even though the
whole FT community would naturally interpret the label as offensive and in bad taste.

If the use of a label found offensive by the FT community is used as an "in" joke, then
it should not be used in this private manner in a public forum, or the subtext should be
explained for the benefit of all.


It is also interesting to note the subtle shift in context here, and in other posts by
the same person. I supposedly have "a pro-Arab position on every Israeli-Arab thread."

Well, I have a "pro-Palestinian" position in general (not universally), and a critical
position of Sharon and his career - - not a "pro-Arab" position, which would imply that
I support all sorts of other things, including potentially the attacks om 9/11. Personally,
I find this (possibly implied) extension as repugnant tactic, even if it may not have been
used deliberately here. If the term "Palestinian" is automatically thought of as "Arab"
by someone else, I am sorry, but that is a problem with whoever does this on a regular
basis.

As for all the "Israeli-Arab" threads, I do not recall participating in any discussions
regarding Israel and the Arab states, or the Arab world. But I do recall many threads
about the Israeli-Palestinian battle happening in the Middle East at the present though...


Dovster:
"Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that IJK does not see it as insulting.
The poster obviously meant it as an insult -- so is that enough to make it a flame?"


If the intent to insult is obvious to anyone (even though it was not interpreted as such
by the target), then why desacrate the FT community with what appear to be blazen and
obvious insults? If this is supposedly OK, posters will start to think that it is OK to start
flaming away...


Dovster:
"If IJK is proud of this identification, is it still a flame?"


Yes, to everyone else it is.

But why argue about hypthetical, rhetorical philosophic arguments? This is equivalent
to asking: "If a tree falls in the forest, but no-one is around to hear it, does it make
a sound?" Or perhaps this is just a way to subtly further malign someone's character
in the name of legitimate dabate about a valid question?

We should first discuss "What is a flame?" in a regular context, and then (if ever) discuss
special, rare or convoluted cases or arguments, without impuning any member's inner beliefs.


And at the present time, I am simply not going to respond to what ap2110 had to say.
.


[This message has been edited by IJK (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GUWonder: How does FTOmnibox think that you are an extremist. You strike me (who disagrees with you on many an issue) as anything but an extremist.

AP2110 had read IJK's posts and come to the conclusion that they are "appalling."

GUWonder has read posts from both AP2110 and IJK and determined that IJK has a slightly higher moral ground.

Ftomnibox has read posts from me and decided that I am an extremist.

GUWonder has read many of the same posts from me and came to the opposite conclusion.

We are able to make up our own minds only when we are given the opportunity to read what the other person says.

GUWonder:
"That is why IJK has a slightly higher moral ground than [ap2110]"


"Slightly" higher...

Should I be 'slighted' and take this as an insult, or as a compliment? :-)
(Even though it was somewhat back-handed...)

I can not tell you how he came to that conclusion. I can only tell you that he did. His exact words were:

Time for you to get off Flyertalk altogether. I am reading your constant whining on ORP, like any right wing bully you run for mama when you get your knuckles
rapped for offending everybody except your extremist cohorts. Like the addict Rush Limbaugh, you expect the ACLU to bail you out of the mess of your own making.

Take your apartheid musings someplace else! Even Randy agrees with me that you're a worthless extremist who has no place on FT. If you don't believe me, read the attached email he sent me this week.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the rear end on your way out.

I have no idea of who "mama" in this case is and certainly don't recall asking the ACLU to enter into any litigation on my behalf,
but in FTomnibox's fevered imagination that is the case. So be it.

Anyone who reads this thread is free to determine for himself whether FTomnibox is right.

I sent him a short response by e-mail: "I do not deal with cowards. Identify yourself and we will continue this conversation."

I do.

For the inconsistency issue: Had ftomnibox posted in OMNI (or any other "actively" moderated forum), the post would have been removed as it was clearly a post from a duplicate id. Since this forum is not "activley" moderated, it sadly remains.

The registration process for OMNI posting was put in place to prevent "sneak attacks" from the people that brought you 'ftomnibox'.

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

I think no less of JeffS because of ftomnibox's ramblings about him.

Whatever feelings you might have about me, I do not believe they are the result of what ftomnibox said.

The only person whose reputation has been hurt by ftomnibox is ftomnibox.

That is why I can not agree with your words "sadly remains".

Most FTers are intelligent people able to come their own conclusions. The more obnoxious a person is in his attempt to flame someone else, the more clear it becomes that he, not his target, is the one to be looked down upon.

I think that JeffS can join me in the proud knowledge that ftomnibox feels about us the way he does. After all, it is true that "you are known by the enemies that you have."

Well, IJK chooses not to respond to my "offensive" post; fine, we continue on. I doubt I would have ever brought it up again in that thread.

In light of this discussion and reviewing the rules again, I will reconsider my tactics and attempt to eliminate any "personal attacks" from my posts in the future.

I'm a bit sensiitve to the issue of duplicate accounts due to the fact that before the last OMNI closure we had a few of people that chose to use duplicate ids as a weapon for forum disruption. As such, I have no tolerence for the use of such a tool or any message that it might try to deliver.