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. ]. 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.

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? 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.

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?

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.

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).]

Another OmniClique-based, left-wing, gay-huggin' conspiracy, no doubt!

A harsh word used against a public figure -- OMDG, someone better get Randy on the phone so that this injustice can be remedied.

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

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