That is a different issue and one with which I completely agree with you. It is the act of a coward.

Points for you and all of us who limit/eliminate personal attacks on FT. Can we say "rehabilitated" boys and girls?

I don't know if it's the act of a coward... but it's the act of a non-constructive person who likes to have paper soldiers as allies.

I am glad you included "all of us." In a contextual review of my "genocide" statement and then pondering your insistence to discredit my positions with said word, I would presume you will also be "rehabilitating."



[This message has been edited by ap2110 (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

Most certainly... I will even downplay your use of the word genocide henceforth. Your use of the word "raghead"? I don't know about that one... still making a determination. I am still trying to find a context where racial slurs are appropriate ... and I hope I never do.

Let's see if it is or not.

My full name is Dov Ben-Galil. I live in Yiron, Israel. I post under the nick of "Dovster".

I will be in Fort Lauderdale in May and will be willing to meet, in person, any FT member.

FTOmnibox says that he is reading the ORP threads. Therefore, I presume he is reading this. I challenge him to come out of hiding and provide information about himself equivalent to what I posted in the previous two paragraphs.

Ok... but what does identity have to do with debate? I say is has little or nothing to do with debate since there are plenty of examples in journalistic history where unnamed sources do add value. Positive identification has little to do with security -- if you check a person for dangerous items and/or a quick intent check (even if impossible to truly conduct) -- and it has little to do with debate (unless one is looking to be lazy in filtering or understanding or responding to a situation or, in this case, a debate).

We are seeing a lot of false starts in this thread. What is the fundamental issue -- is it identity, is it derogatory labels/speech, is it perceived unfairness in treatment? Identify the fundamental issue and let's stick to it.

An irrelevant distinction in my opinion.

Personally, I may [in fact do] find many if not most of your posts "appalling" if not merely frustratingly two-dimensional in their presentation. If I [we] were to use your line of reasoning above then I would be justified, based on my personal "evaluation" of your posting history, to label you something like [for the sake of argument] "a Hitler loving, kitten drowning fascist."

It should be apparent to all [I hope] that such an example and such a response is completely unacceptable.

I fail to see why this is even an issue.

If Anrkitec were to post such a response it would, exactly as he said, be apparent to all that it is completely unacceptable.

But if Anrkitec were to post that response and it were to be removed by a moderator, nobody would be able to judge, for himself, the acceptability of what Anrkitec said.

If Anrkitec (or GUWonder, IJK, Dovster or anyone else) is to be judged fairly by members of OMNI they must be able to see his postings for themselves.

Tomorrow, I might post something saying, "AP2110, you are being foolish." A moderator could determine that I have flamed AP2110 and remove the post. Many readers might consider it to be a very mild flame. Others might well not see any flame in it at all and agree with me.

On the other hand, I could post exactly what Anrkitec said and call AP2110 "a Hitler loving, kitten drowning fascist." In this case, almost all FTers would decide I had gone way overboard and hold me in contempt.

If the moderators delete all such posts, how are those who don't see them supposed to be able to judge?

Let me repeat what I said earlier: I don't believe that anyone's reputation is damaged by being flamed -- only by being the flamer.

Unintentionally, by taking the flame out, we are protecting the flamer and no one else.

We're getting very close to agreement.

In in your example above, if the "flamer" continues to flame, they will lose their ability to post after repeated off topic posts.

Actions have consequenses, and the only action to being flamed is to call for assistance (not to take the law in your own hands).

Everyone is allowed to lose their temper once in a while, its the ones that are habitual that need to go.

If taking the laws into your own hands had its traditional meaning ("I'm gonna get my gun and shoot that so-and-so") I would agree with you.

Here, we only take the law into our own hands with words. I believe that most FTers are intelligent enough to be able to defend themselves. More than that, the great majority are fair enough to come to the defense of someone they feel has been abused -- even if that is not a person they generally agree with.

As you know, when I was defending my deleted post, I admitted to having flamed on one occasion -- back in December. At that time, I said that someone's opinions were straight out of Mein Kampf. Although I did not use the word "Nazi" to describe her, I certainly made it clear that I felt she shared Nazi sentiments.

Although I feel I did not lie about her, I fully agree that I flamed her.

My post was not deleted and the thread underwent an interesting procedure.

The first reaction by several posters was to come to her defense.

The second reaction was to challenge me to
back up what I said.

When I did so, there was a third reaction: While still not accepting my comparison to the Nazis, several posters, including friends of hers, agreed that what she had posted was -- in the words of one -- "truly disturbing as it sounds like a very anti-semitic comment."

I think it was very healthy, and helpful to both sides of this issue, that the debate was allowed to run its course.

Ah, but that is where you are wrong Mr. Bear. Although we are not using knives or guns, the action you have described is against the rules. If you feel compelled to defend yourself with words, you are encouraged to do so, just do it via email.

We are not here to show how great we are by posting responses that would rival in length the phone book of a small city, we are here to engage in intelligent, and not so intelligent discussions. If we can't do it, then take it offline.

Well, at least you show remorse

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

I disagree. By leaving the offending comment, it sends the message that people can get away with flaming for the purpose of getting the thread locked and preserving it perfectly so that it can be brought up again and again in the future.

Why do you need to see what the original flame was to judge whether it was a mild flame or a bad flame? We have to trust the moderators to do their job and they (at least from what I've seen) operate co-operatively. If you don't trust the moderators to do the job, then why have moderators? Or, why don't you apply to be moderator?

Doesn't seeing "(offending comment deleted by moderator)" and "[Edited by moderatorX]" already speak volumes about the post and the poster?

I've seen this on a number of occasions where the offending poster quickly goes in and edits his post again to remove the evidence that it had been zapped by the moderator. The original flame does not re-appear, so I'd say this technique is rather effective. Plus, we all get to see what a chickensh** the offending poster is. Why do you need to see the original flame to be able to come to the same conclusion?

FewMiles..