I will not respond to the actions or reasons of the moderators or other FTers but since this line is about one of my posts I will respond.

Never once did I make a personal attack against Dovester nor did I call him/her dishonest. This was Dovester's first post in the thread in question,

What I said was in response to another poster, letiole, asking where she could find information about the poem "glorifying this woman". I responded to letiole by saying,

In the post to which I was responding, Dovester began to give what appeared to be straight factual description of the artwork in question and then added, "along with a poem singing her praises" and "It was a tribute to a mass murderer" which seemed to be suggesting that this was the intent of the artists in question and the museum. Dovester, or anyone for that matter, certainly has the right to hold and express these opinions but I took issue with what I saw as those 'opinions' being represented as fact. I was simply calling Dovester on this [again, IMHO] intellectually weak method of debate. What I called dishonest was the idea that "along with a poem singing her praises" and "It was a tribute to a mass murderer" were now being represented as something other than Dovester's personal spin on the work.

Yes, I criticized Dovester's idea of this work and his [IMHO] subterfuge to present it as "fact" thus I was critiquing and idea or an issue. I never once, neither technically nor by outright means made a personal attack. Arguments, ideas, and reasoning can and often are dishonest, disingenuous, specious, etc. You cannot debate any serious issue or idea without being able to call into question a persons line of reasoning, but doing so does not necessarily constitute a personal attack. I do not know Dovester personally. I do not know [nor really care, personally] if he is an honest person or a dishonest one but I will, as always, give someone I do not know the benefit of the doubt, AND I still stand by my original argument that to suggest that the official or even the only real intent of either the museum or artist in question is to "honor" or to "sing the praises" [in direct contradiction to the statements by the artists and the museum] of the subject is to make a dishonest argument, regardless of whether or not one agrees with or finds any value in the specific work itself.

Edited to add:

As for the other post quoted by Dovester I think that it should be apparent that I was setting up an extreme example, my suggestion to leave behind what I thought were small-minded beliefs in regard to artistic freedom, to show how one can vehemently disagree with the expression of another's freedom not only without limiting said contrary opinion but in fact celebrating that personas right to have them.

That is that I whole heartedly disagree with what I perceive to be Dovester's willingness to violently limit another persons free speech [support for the ambassadors actions] but I also wholeheartedly support his right to have and express those opinions. If this example was too subtle then I offer my apologies to those offended. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

Anrkitec, you are 100% right. For that reason, I did not call "foul" when you posted these remarks.

However, under the rules as stated by Sean in removing my post what you did is a personal attack.

I did not call any poster any name. I did not say that any poster was being idiotic. I did not say that he has no right to post.

I merely pointed out that he called the Israeli ambassador a "harsh word" (rat) but did not use that term about the murderer, the artist who honored her, or the Swedish officials.

In other words, just like you, I was calling into question his line of reasoning.

Unlike you, I had my post banned. That is the problem -- the double standard that was applied.

I understand what you are saying. I think that it is fair to say that many of us at times do not know where precisely the line is drawn. I do know that it Is going to be impossible to have absolutely consistent moderation in this area as all participants are human and by definition fallible. I personally believe that the mods have blown a couple [one big, on small http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif] but as a percentage of what all goes on in Omni I would honestly have to say that they are doing a very good and, yes, even-handed job.

I believe that it is pretty common knowledge now that my post was deleted because it quoted your post which was deleted for a TOS violation, thus since my post quoted a post that was no longer there, my post became unnecessary. Personally I would have only edited that part that referred to your post under these circumstances but so be it, I will defer to the mods.

That is about the extent to which I can empathize with your situation or address a "double standard" because truly, for the life of me I cannot remember your post nor can I remember what I said in response. I would really be in a pretty tough position trying to argue a point, either way, the text of which I cannot remember.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

My original post read as follows:

Originally posted by debo_nair:

Israel has the right to withdraw her ambassador from Sweden in protest but the rat doesn't have the right to destroy the art in Sweden.

debo_nair used a harsh word: "Rat".

He used no such word to describe the mass murderess.

He used no such word to describe the artist who honored her.

He used no such word to describe the Swedes who allowed the exhibition.

Only one person warranted such a denunciation from debo_nair: the Israeli diplomat.

A few months ago Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh was murdered while shopping. Ms. Lindh was not particularly loved in Israel as she was one of its harshest European critics. If an Israeli museum were to put up an exhibit honoring her assassin, I wonder if debo_nair might use his harsh words a bit differently.



[This message has been edited by Dovster (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

I am not sure about which ones you are talking about, but we never said we were perfect http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

We are just volunteers trying to do a job. The holy spirit did not descend upon us making us wise beyond the average human.

Although, I am smarter than the average bear http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

In that case, we can let the record show you consider both myself and ScottC to be penises:

http://www.flyertalk.com/pasttalk/ft.../012047-2.html

Anointed? Supreme moderator?!? While it's true I did not attend one of them liberal indoctrinating elite private universities, I must have missed the part where ScottC was "smeared or rubbed with oil or an oily substance." I have to assume that Scott, like all other moderators, was named/appointed by one Randy Petersen. Why not email Randy and tell him you think it's lame on his part to appoint "tools" as moderators?

I only get called a penis so often, what can I tell you? I didn't call the transgression horrific, and do not consider it to have been. But if you're going to whine like a little baby about flamin' and baitin' on the part of others, surely your own F&B is fair game? Pot, kettle, black or something like that?

Is that a fact? The OMNI "clique?" Or is that just more crybaby projecting? (Oh my, did I just use a harsh word?) (But mommy, the other kids were mean to me first!)

Do what you want cp. Keep whining, bring it up here, email me, whatever. I don't want to oppress you by dictating a specific course of action. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Okay. NOW I have been flamed!

As is undoubtedly well-known in El Paso, my real name, "Dov", is Hebrew for "bear"! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Tisk-tisk now, selective focus... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif

FWIW, there seems to be a conscious attempt to "Bork" anyone right of the far left. OMNI used to be fun, sparring with others who believe differently; now it's one big stroke-off and any dissenting discussion stifled with tacit, and not-so-tacit flaming. When that fails, the "I'm telling" emails go out to the mods.

Same thing happens over at du as well. What a waste of bandwith. And they call conservatives narrow-minded and opposed to free-thinking http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

You sound like my mother.

<jfe's mom>:"Go clean your rooommm"

<jfe>: "What, what??? I can't hear you!

But that was a problem with my hearing, my vision is working quite well (thanks to some glasses that look like they were made out of the bottom of old coke bottles )


http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Really guys, I don't have favorites, nor do I like to join in political conversations.

Too bad you guys think that we do play favorites, which that is not the case.

Besides, if you need to know, I am a conservative. Check my posts making fun of Hilary http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

After reading through this thread, I am glad I hardly ever read OMNI http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif.

It looks like my post too is zapped.

While I appreciate the volunteer efforts of the moderators I may still disagree with specific actions, the subject of this thread being one.

If we are going to consider any reference whatsoever to someone by name as personal attack I find that ridiculous. My interpretation of the moderator's actions is:
[list=a][*]Mention a someone's name in a rebuttal to a post = a TOS violation.[*]Say the same thing but leave out the name = no TOS violation.[/list=a]

I am certainly open to any illumination on the subject.

A read of Omni reveals that to be the case. Also it is consistently fair game for some to put forth juvenile arguments, usually on the order of: so and so is a moron, the moron said, this group of people are stupid, this group of people are ignorant, blah, blah, blah. And when challenged to support these base assertions quickly devolve into dissembling answers or other evasions.

So if that is the level of discourse tolerated by some on Omni so be it. I see and have seen some simply making a decision to forego Omni and any agita it creates. Which is too bad as some of them added positively to the discussions. I certainly enjoy discussions with some, however there are others whom I do not enjoy. I'm sure some of them feel the same about me. I live on the east coast so I'm not easily bruised as are some others. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

So I'm left feeling that Omni is just one more example of one group shouting down the ideas of another while screaming diversity and tolerance at the top of their lungs? Too bad they can't hear themselves.


[This message has been edited by JeffS (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

I did no such thing. Your interpretation, not mine. Had I intended to call you that, I can assure you that I would have been quite direct.

As the moderator mentioned, why are you bringing this up now anyway, after almost a year?

And my original offer stands - - would you like to discuss the flame-bait posts made by ScottC and you that lead up to that event last year? It might be very interesting to see what the general FT population has to say about it.

Which really shows how wrong someone can be when they make an assumption.

smessier and I are not "buddies". We rarely if ever communicate. I can't even tell you what the "S" in "smessier stands for.

Not that facts matter in this or any other meta-moderation discussion.

------------------
Sean
aka: skofarrell
Moderator, OMNI & American Express

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

I just don't have the energy to rehash this again today (thanks to the server crash).

I think your post is off topic and a personal attack. I still do.

I asked you to take it to email and removed the post to prevent a response. If you posted the same thing tomorrow, I'd act the same.

You can "take you toys and go home", but as I stated before in email, running you off OMNI was not the intent. The intest is to keep thread on topic and prevent flame from erupting.

------------------
Sean
aka: skofarrell
Moderator, OMNI & American Express

Actions speak louder than words.

Pick out one colloquialism and bang on it, but fail to address the substantive issue at hand.

Mentioning a name on a reply is not a personal attack, and will not cause moderator action.

"Calling someone out on the carpet" by judging their actions or personal intent will. As I stated to Dov when he first questioned my action: "Please take any criticism you have about Debo_nair to email. A proper response would have been to say “I don’t think he is a “rat” because as someone who lives with terrorism on a daily basis, we as a people have become very emotional when we see people attempting to make art out of terrorists”

Realize that I probably send 3-4 messages like this a week to posters that cross the line.

The TOS is very clear on this point: "If you disagree with an opinion or idea expressed by another member, by all means, challenge the opinion or idea - not the person. " From my disinterested view, Dov was clearly challenging the person, as well as the opinion or idea."

Again, you all may say that I blew the call on this one, and I'll accept that. But to turn this into a battle of censorship, accuse the moderators of 'left wing' or other bias is something that I will not accept, becuase it is not true.


------------------
Sean
aka: skofarrell
Moderator, OMNI & American Express

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

I thought that your particular issue was that I'm part of the OMNI "clique".

I'm not.

No, the issue is the double-standard.

Oh, that one! The easiest way to address that canard is for you to volunteer to be a OMNI moderator. I'd support it in a heartbeat. You'd be surprised on the view you'd have from this side of the fence.

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 21, 2004).]

Me too. At least in this Forum my post will not mysteriously 'vanish'.

What a place OMNI appears to be lately.

For someone who hardly ever reads it, you seem to think your an expert on it.

You've not been paying attention. More than a dozen posts on this forum vanished when the server crashed this afternoon.

I think that Omni is whatever each individual wants it to be.

I think the value of Omni is whatever each individual chooses to take or not take away from it, to contribute to it or degrade it as they see fit.

Actually, what I personally find to be the most annoying posts [besides those from multiple handles] are not about religion or ideology or politics per se but rather the posts of the more sanctimonious among us who will show up from time to time and opine with something like, "I never usually set foot in this cesspool that is Omni, but I will just this once to say that you lefties [insert group/sub-group of choice] make me sick..."

Participate in Omni or not, but when you do participate you are every bit as responsible for what Omni is or is not as are all of the Omni regulars [I would love to know what the "Omni clique" is. Am I a member? If I have to ask I guess that I am not. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif]. As for the double-standard, I don't see it. Is there less-than-perfect moderation on rare occasions? Yes, but that is not applying a double standard.

Let me offer an observation: there are two posts in this thread alone that have used the terms "lefty", "leftists", "lefters", etc. ad naseum often including the adjective 'all'. This use of these terms was not meant to be instructive in nature but rather pejorative, as in, "Those dam [sic] Lefties". Add an all-inclusive touch of hyperbole and a debate or discussion quickly becomes an extremely partisan and vitriolic rant. I don't see that kind of ranting in this thread from any Omni "liberals". In a way I think that this thread mirrors a typical Omni thread.

Yes, you can see the same thing happen in Omni with regard to the other end of the political spectrum [which is just as wrong] but I submit that this happens more often right now because of a very vocal and hard-core cadre of [forgive the generalization] 'conservatives'. I believe that if we had 10 different Omni-like boards, you would find five where strident attacks were dominated by 'conservatives' and five dominated by 'liberals'. Simply put, I think that it seems as though more "conservative" posts come under scrutiny now because there are simply more, by actual number, that are questionable in regard to the TOS. Two years ago this might have been different and a year from now things could reverse, but since we are in the infancy of 'New Omni' the conservatives just seem to be first up in regard to the posting.

My post got zapped too. I still don't understand why exactly, but it's not a major issue.

I do enjoy Dovster's participation in Omni. It is contributory and not (in spirit at least) detractive of FT or even other FTers.

I am a relatively new user. I suppose I am left politically - but have the conceit to think of myself as an independent thinker.

I have enjoyed Dovster's posts. We do not see eye to eye on everything, but he can think and he can express himself well.

In my first 2 - 3 days on FlyerTalk, I responed to a personal attack with a retaliatory post. The person who attacked me was beyond conservative - fellow who ACTUALLY used the "raghead" epithet.

Sean corrected me in public. He was correct. Just an example of someone taking a leftish position being warned.

The thread on which all of this broke out is perhaps understandably a bit more of a hot button for Dovster. It concerned acts of terrorism/war which occur - not once - but on an ongoing basis in Isreal where he lives. I suggest some slack might be in order for the insistent nature of Dovster's posts. I frankly can't see the personal attack in them beyond being stridently persistent in forcing an issue of perception.

My two cents.

Best wishes.

I agree in your conclusion even though I disagree with the argument you adopt here.

I understand this is more of a hot button issue for peoples who hold legitimate grievances, but legitimate grievances are not an excuse for attacks -- written, verbal or physical -- in my book.

On this matter, I don't recollect what personal attack Dovster made (if any) in the very thread in which I was highly active, but the spirit and style which he applies to arguments generally is very well-reasoned and level-headed -- even if I disagree in the validity of some of his conclusions. His assumptions used in the argument may be subject to questioning, but he does make a great use of facts, and that is where my profound respect for him does come from.

... and I am not part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy". Most of you here know that. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

To date, 26 people posted on this thread.

Not all of them commented on my censored letter. Many of those who did not comment said that they had not seen it but found it hard to believe, based on my other postings, that it was in violation of the TOS.

Of those who did see it, three found it objectionable. One of those three was ftomnibox who called it a "racist rant" and a "hateful, bigoted, post."

As the letter did not mention race, much less in a bigoted manner, absolutely nobody, including the moderators, agreed with what he said.

The remaing two who found my letter objectionable were moderators. It was their feeling that it constituted a personal attack.

Some posters, including people with whom I (almost) never find common political ground, stated their disagreement with that assessment. Not a single poster stated that he/she agreed with the moderators.

I, personally, can not understand how the moderators came to the conclusion that it was a personal attack.

Yes, it called into question debo_nair's line of reasoning, but as anrkitek pointed out, "You cannot debate any serious issue or idea without being able to call into question a persons line of reasoning, but doing so does not necessarily constitute a personal attack."

As anrkitek's own postings, doing the same thing in the same thread, were not censored, I can only assume that the moderators have no problem with questioning a person's line of reasoning.

Before going public with my objections to the censorship, I exchanged letters with the moderators. Only after they refused to budge did I make my objections openly.

Hopefully now, after having the advantage of seeing the viewpoints of various FTers, the moderators will reconsider their decision and allow the letter to be re-instated.

This would constitute neither a personal victory for me nor a defeat for the moderators. Indeed, it would be very much to their credit as they would demonstrate that they are open-minded enough to listen to, and accept, the views of others.

For myself, and hopefully for others on the political Right, it would be a signal that we will be treated equally on OMNI -- which is the only thing that I (and I believe others) require in order to resume posting there.

Dovster... trying to become the union leader of the right (in all its various shades) on FT? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif Admirable, actually.

The moderators are not perfect but they do a good job overall and we and they have all learned something. I think we all should drop this issue and resume to our normal bickering and bantering on OMNI. Dovster I extend a welcome back to OMNI; whether or not you choose to return is your own call.

There is no "vast left-wing conspiracy" on FT. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

You may not question the OMNI Moderators, no matter how well justified.

You will get a time-out from the OMNI Forum if you do. As have others.

Or as I am now discovering, other actions will be put in place by some of them.



------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

Oooh, I know, I know!

But what is OP-FOP? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

First, let me say that I admire and respect the willingness of moderators to devote their time for the good of the community.

Second, we all know that moderators are not perfect, and that Flyer Talkers as a whole can be even less so.

Third, while many moderators have developed thick skins, several still take negative comments about their performance very personally. And perhaps no "insult" cuts to the very core of their self-perception than the accusation of being "biased" or favoring a particular point of view. Many judges don't like recusal motions, either.

In fact, I believe that most moderators are not intentionally exhibiting a tilt in the "Politically Correct" direction. Some correctly point out that their own private views lean in the opposite direction (somewhat akin to those "personally opposed" to abortion) or that their own suspensions are evenly balanced (one lib, one con).

[I am not talking about "In the News" or any substantive forum where a moderator might freely enter a debate, then "time out" an opponent.]

Fourth, there does seem to be an overall "Politically Correct" ascendency on Flyer Talk. Elsewhere I have speculated as to possible reasons, including education, free time, and activist inclination. Hence, it is important to consider not only whether each individual decision is “fair and balanced,” but also whether the collective decision-making process of our moderator corps is having a disparate impact on the "Non-Politically Correct."

As someone who tends to walk on that side of the street at least some of the time, I assert that OMNI does indeed exhibit unwelcoming aspects to those who are not of a highly progressive bent. And if someone as opposed to American unilateralism as ozstamps feels the same way . . .

Okay, maybe I’m not helping my argument, given any animosities that some moderators may hold. But the “solution” or retort, “Why don’t you do it, then?” is not really a valid one either, because most of us don’t have the time to devote to this effort. Does that mean our perceptions are any less valid? Would a true conservative find being a moderator a positive experience given the (at least) subconscious tilt of the other moderators and the obviously contrary viewpoints of the most vocal Flyer Talkers (who do indeed seem to get cut more slack).

But if cactuspete is willing, go for it! [At the time, I thought the “tool” quote referred to a stooge, dupe, or ally, as in a capitalist (or communist) tool. Obviously, I’m not very “hip.” Or the Politically Correct read more into something than intended. Who knows?]

Criticizing the refs is an American pastime, and you’re doing your best. And we don’t have all the information you do. However, I would submit that traditionally-focused individuals travel and spend money, too, even if they have less discretionary income (because family comes first) than the Politically Correct elite.

Creating a blatantly or even subtly unwelcoming atmosphere to this silent minority (or majority) on OMNI is not in the ultimate best interests of Flyer Talk or its owner.

GUWonder, remember that I am a conservative. Union leader? Never. On the other hand, being a cartel leader...

More baseless allegations from down under. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Proof please? Just one name of someone that's been banned from OMNI for questioning a moderator's actions?

Anyone? Bueller?


[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 22, 2004).]

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Another OmniClique-based, left-wing, gay-huggin' conspiracy, no doubt! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

A harsh word used against a public figure -- OMDG, someone better get Randy on the phone so that this injustice can be remedied. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Yeah, the fun never ends when "Hitlery" is involved:

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr.../016036-2.html

Dovster, you seem to be such a great person; I was shocked to find that you were one of them right-wing crazies http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif. Maybe one day when you're in NYC, I can buy you a drink and we can start to wean you away from the dark side. My theory is that all decent and intelligent people who describe themselves as conservative are simply misguided liberals-in-waiting! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
Vasant

I think you protest too much, Sean. And I feel based on recent email communications from you that you are becoming a little too, should I say, undemocratic in your actions and are abusing your power.I think you should stand back, take some time off here and smell the roses.
BTW Omni is not your "turf" as you described it to me in one email...it belongs To Randy and the members who utilize it. You are there to help the community not to run it.
While I think the note you sent me was possibly meant to be a friendly warning it smelled of authoritarian commands, like the "my turf" comment.

[This message has been edited by parnel (edited Jan 22, 2004).]

I thought that in New York City a liberal was defined as "a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet."



[This message has been edited by Dovster (edited Jan 22, 2004).]

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

You must be joking

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

I't not a joke, just more baseless accusations that will never be backed up.

skofarrel, jfe and ScottC deserve huge kudos for the way that they moderate OMNI.

All of these attacks on them are way off base and I hope that Randy will once and for all deal with the people who constantly attack his moderators.