I saw no posting from you at all, much less questions, in the "Aborigine" thread and in this thread came up only with the following:

Don't we have enough darn threads regarding reputation already?

My answer: Yes, we do.

The other was not really a question, but it could be interpreted as such:

Then explain how you think that is OK to call us gestapo

My answer: I do not think it is okay. I greatly dislike the misuse of terms (in the past I have objected to "Fascist" and "Nazi") as they not only are insulting to the recipients but also dilute the onus which should be placed squarely on those who actually qualify.

Undoubtedly in the course of the thousands of posts you have made in Omni, you have asked many other questions. However, these two threads were the only logical places for me to look.

Of course, none of this has to do with the issue at hand: Specifically, why certain people are allowed to repeatedly get away with extremely offensive posts (and the one I cited above was one of the more mild ones) whereas others find their posts removed. (I have not seen Cactus Pete's post, but am going to take your word for it that it was in violation of the TOS -- just as the one proceeding it, which was allowed to stand, was in violation.)

I have to admit that it does confuse me. If I considered the Omni mods to be "terrible" people I would understand. I will even accept Sean's statements that he is a Republican who tends more to the right. And, yes, I have seen your not-too-fond opinions of Hillary.

Moreover, on an individual level, I have the highest respect for Scott (while not sharing his political views).

Yet for all of that, time after time, posters from the extreme left are allowed to publish some of the most vile things imaginable while much more mild posts from the right are removed.

Yeap, just those two, and thanks for answering them ^, but the dude making the comment has not ;)

Guilty as charged :o

Well, I might have to disagree with you here :p , just kidding, ScottC is an excellent dude


Thanks for answering the two questions, even though they were not directed at you :)

I never claimed that you were a terrible person. I am just looking for consistency.

You are asking rhetorical questions about the definition of a word that we clearly are never going to agree upon. I gave you my definition of the word, which is the meaning that I intended it to have.

On the other hand, when moderators are stalking me, making up new rules on the fly, selectively enforcing other rules, and publicly threatening me with a suspension, then yes, I expect answers to some simple questions. See http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314797]. If the company line is "report it to a moderator", then I also expect the moderators to provide the courtesy of a reply.

Just to be clear, the questions posed were:

If you are saying that the Evangelical Christian faith is somehow superior to, or more legitimate on this forum than a 'Kangaroo bone faith', then it is YOU who are violating the TOC.

I think the gestapo comment is inappropriate when directed at anyone here on FT.
But as an American, I have to live with Bush's atrocities being commited in my name. As a world traveler, Bush has painted a big red target on MY back. If anyone can be compared to a nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc., it is unfortunately, my President. I believe that calling him a moron, is being polite.
I don't think the moderators were wrong to close the thread, since the subject has been well covered elsewhere. I also don't believe there was anything personal about it.

Your questions have been answered Pete, you just aren't listening.

Here's the TOS:

Here's your removed post (the one that got you the warning):

Now honestly, how is your removed post living up to the standard of: "by all means, challenge the opinion or idea - not the person." and "You may challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully." ?

Post all you want on OMNI, but take personal comments like the one above to email and you'll never hear from a moderator. Just like the hundreds of other individuals that post on OMNI on a daily basis who never hear from a moderator.

Now honestly, how does Cactus Pete's removed post come anywhere near the level of the one below?

That quote, which comes from a thread that I know the moderators are familiar with, and was addressed from a Gay on the Left to a straight on the Right, still appears.

Are we to believe that the moderators saw it as an honest, friendly, offer to supply a fellow F/ter with a free t-shirt? I'm sorry, but I have too much respect for their intelligence to accept that.

It is just another example of the leeway extended to one group and denied to another.

Really? According to the posted TOS (Italics mine):

Seems to me that a poster who wishes to posit that one set of religious beliefs is superior (by whatever definition) to another is offering to engage in “a healthy exchange of opinions.” It may be foolhardy, but it seems to be “challeng[ing] the idea or opinion” not the person.

It is indeed true, of course, that in some repressive and unenlightened countries in the world, such a philosophical discussion would be culturally and perhaps even legally banned, but I have always (perhaps incorrectly) presumed that since FT is based in the United States, the TOS should be interpreted in accordance with US laws and culture, and such a discussion, if “respectful and thoughtful,” is well within the “tolerance zone” of reasoned debate.

Of course, if a poster used pejorative language, for instance calling one of the belief systems a “gutter religion,” that could hardly be said to be “respectful and thoughtful;” similarly, if a poster said of an individual – for example – “well, what else could one expect from a <enter faith here>” in a derogatory manner, that would constitute a personal attack, rather than a discussion of opinions or ideas.

And speaking of personal attacks, I would think that calling someone a “nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc.” (unless of course the “target” held himself out to be, or had been properly convicted of being a nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc.), besides being a violation of the TOS as not being “respectful and thoughtful,” would also constitute a “personal attack” in violation of the TOS.

It is one thing to posit “Resolved: That the President’s actions in the GWOT are ill-advised and counter-productive,” a topic which could easily be the subject of “respectful and thoughtful” – as well as spirited and even heated – discussion. It would seem, however, that simply calling the President names is neither “respectful" nor "thoughtful” and indeed may be said to cross the line into being “abusive”.

(And, with all respect to PremEx, I did not interpret the provision of the TOS which I again set out below:

as limiting the protection from personal attacks to members of FlyerTalk. In my understanding, the second sentence does not modify the third sentence; the ban on personal attacks is not limited to responses to an “idea expressed by another member” but rather is a complete and universal ban. If I am correct and that is the case, calling the President names is a violation of the TOS even though he may not (how would we know?) be a registered member of FT.)

I am open for “respectful and thoughtful” discussion on what I said here. No flames, please. :D

If your interpretation is correct, then FlyerTalkers must speak respectfully of all complete wastes of flesh, including Osama bin Laden and other worthless trash. Others might seek to extend the protection to dead trash like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and others.

I've always thought the TOS prevented attacks on other FlyerTalkers, not public figures (unless they register as FlyerTalkers and request that the disrepectful posting about them cease). :)

You may be right - as I said, it's only my interpretation.

However, what point is furthered by calling someone "worthless trash" in a post (whether they are indeed worthless trash or not)? Unless, of course, there's a topic over on OMNI entitled something like "Worthless Pieces of Trash I Love to Hate" (and for all I know, there could be :)). Usually such language only serves to inflame emotions, not enhance reasoned discussion.

Your reference to "public figures" (à la New York Times v. Sullivan?) seems to imply that any "protected speech" under the First Amendment may be OK under the FlyerTalkTOS. I don't think the TOS is meant to be coextensive with the First Amendment (as PremEx rightly observes earlier in this thread, "It's always been my impression that you can't say anything you like here...even if it's true!"). I think it is intended to ensure polite discourse. (Note that one can report a post for being "rude".)

So, if the idea encompassed by the TOS is to encourage reasoned discussion rather than "flaming," it seems to me that it would indeed be a violation to gratuitously call someone a piece of "worthless trash" irrespective of the objective truth of the statement.

Again, just my opinion.

FWAAA, do you realize the damage that such a policy could cause?

If a poster wished to state something negative about someone -- be it Hitler, Bush, Kerry, or the Pope -- he would be required to make his case factually.

It would no longer be enough to misrepresent history and/or current events. "Information" gleaned from extremist right and leftwing websites would have to have their sources identified. In turn, others wishing to debate such information would be forced to provide facts (and sources of facts) to back up what they were saying.

Before long, Omni would turn into an area with intelligent debates, leaving the blind idealogues out in the cold with no place to spew their invectives. This would no longer be the Omni we all know and love!

Every call is a judgment call. I let a lot of posts slide, like the one above specifically because it did not directly insult another poster.

FWIW, I personally removed 2 other posts yesterday on OMNI. And guess what? Both of them were directed at members of the so called "right".

So what? :rolleyes:

Interesting. Who decides what is factual or not?

The reader, who would have the advantage of knowing where it came from.

Example: If I were to post that Hitler depended on the support of homosexuals to gain power, and never had any real dislike of them, most people would disagree with me. They would point out that Hitler put many in concentration camps with "pink triangles" on their clothing.

However, if I were give details behind my statement, and provide attribution from a reliable source, it would be received differently:

During his rise to power, Adolph Hitler relied heavily on the fear of his storm troopers. Known collectively as the SA, they were formed from various "Frei Korps" organizations, the most powerful of which was headed by Captain Ernst Roehm.

As William Shirer pointed out in his masterpiece, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", the SA gave its primary allegiance to Roehm, not Hitler. This created a potential source of opposition to Hitler, which was not comfortable for him. After becoming chancellor, Hitler wanted to consolidate his power and to do so needed the support of the German Army General Staff. They offered it on condition that the SA be disbanded.

Hitler's first step in doing that was the so-called "Night of the Long Knives" during which Roehm and many of his supporters were killed. Hitler had known of Roehm's homosexuality for years (Roehm never tried to hide it) and had defended him, saying that as long as he was good at his job his sexual preferences did not matter. However, in publicly justifying the murders Hitler professed shock at Roehm's sexuality (Roehm had been found in bed with his boyfriend).

As many in Roehm's inner circle were homosexual, including Edmund Heines who Hitler personally ordered to be shot along with his boyfriend, Hitler found it convenient to associate homosexuality with his other pet peeves, Jews and Communists.

H.R. Trevor-Roper, unquestionably the leading historian specializing in the Third Reich, has repeatedly contended that Hitler's subsequent persecution of homosexuals had two roots: Gaining support from those who were homophobic and Hitler's own concern that homosexuals might be Roehm supporters who had eluded his dragnet.

In the first instance, I had had merely made an unsupported statement. In the second, I gave attribution for the statement and gave the details behind it, giving it much more authority.

Conversely, if I had nothing to support the statement other than a quote from www.wehatehomos.com, most readers would not pay much attention to it.

(Incidentally, I sincerely hope there is no such website -- I would hate to give it free publicity!)

Dovster, I've got another suggestion for Sean. It's widely known that the OMNI moderators are both highly compensated for their duties on OMNI and that they admittedly have no other life outside OMNI.
I therefore suggest they repay FT for this compensation by spending a minimum of eight hours a day doing research in a scholarly institution until such time as they become indisputed legal, moral and political sages. They will then be in a position to pass judgement on all the various OMNI issues and debates and release THE final word on all factual issues.
This solution, IMHO, appears to be brilliant and I can find nothing to prevent it's immediate implementation. ;)