RADICAL CHANGES

Post Reply New Topic

To those of you who have said Fnord did nothing wrong and that Sinsboldly did nothing wrong, your wrong. Fnords comments were hurtful the only reason he posted in my haven thread furious to the point of a nuclear meltdown was to upset me, he knows I don't like him further more his comments serve one purpose to put me down and hurt my feelings so the only reason he posted in my haven post was to annoy and upset me so I would get upset and lash out thus getting myself into trouble. Fnord and I have been going at this for a while now, and I have told him more than once to stay clear of my thread that I don't want to seem him in my threads because just the sight of his name or his avatar causes problems, for him to come in my thread at all was insulting to say what he did was like poring acid into an infected cut and laughing as I scream.

Please take a good look at his comments.

Also is it acceptable for a moderator to ignore such comments while hummilating the victim of such comments by posting a lecture directly to the the victim in their haven thread because they lashed out after being baited into having a meltdown?

pB, despite your wishes, simply telling people that their feelings and perceptions are wrong isn't going to work. Fnord's comments aren't flattering, but they aren't in violation of ToS. I've read the comments. He is entitled to his opinion as you are entitled to yours. Assuming that he is referring to you explicitly, he called you angry, vindictive and prone to external blame. Perhaps not prime fodder for the Haven - I will acknowledge that - but you choose to let it hurt you instead of seeing it as the opinion of a single person. Even in this quote, you blame him for making you lash out, when that is within your control - you can not respond, you can respond to him directly, you can complain and discuss it with someone who is a moderator as to whether it is a violation, and how to handle it. I've had to ask for suggestions at times, as I don't know how to respond in some situations, or feel confident in how to interpret what is said. SinsBoldly had no cause for action; you and Fnord need to handle this yourselves in a civil manner, or make another appropriate decision.

SoM, I'm not trying to make something bigger, especially in regards to stirring that mess up that was cited. You asked that it be examined, I'm asking you to be more specific as 20 pages is a bit much, if you really want the example to be seen. As for the rest, I responded to points in your post. If they aren't important, then we can let them drop.


M.

Considering how little I've posted in this thread compared to others, I'm amazed as well!

And many thanks to all those people who've seen the rationality in my posts, whether or not they even agree with the concepts!

WP is a great website, and that's because of (most of) the members!

I think it would be appropriate to mention that The Haven has a different set of rules than the rest of the site. Basically, in The Haven, you go easy on people.

If you want to practice your Fnord impersonation, especially if you're actually Fnord, the rest of wrongplanet is wide open.

Since this ain't The Haven, I can say...

Never mind, I won't say it.

Fnord knows how much I hate him yes you read correctly I hate him I despise him and he knows that, thus Fnord's comments serveded but one purpose and that was to cuase me negative emotional stress. He knew that if he posted a personal attack in my haven thread where it was already established that I was very emotional and agitated it would cause me great deal of emotional pain. Also if you look at the context it makes it very clear that his only intent was to cause me harm. Now did I blow up and verbally attack him of my own free will you bet your bottom dollar I did, do I feel remorse for doing so nope not one bit nor will I ever feel remorse for what I said because I said what I felt and what I meant without censor or restraint.


Lets move on now then I am not the only one who saw Fnord's comments as nothing more than a personal attack.

Check out what two other members said as well just after all this went down.

marshall

alba



So how can you deny that Fnord is innocent of launching a personal attack for the sole purpose of provoking me then getting away with it? How can you say that Sinsbody abused her power by not following the rules that she is bound to uphold?

This is becoming tedious.

No one has said that. You have failed to show any instance where Fnord has violated the WP rules. You have been asked to provide links, several times, and have not. You have not given us any idea what we are supposed to look at. How can we give any opinion on what Fnord may or may not have done when you will not tell us where to look?


Again. Show us something she has done wrong. You have broken the WP rules by attacking Fnord. You have not shown us any place where he has offended. Merle asked you for this, right at the start, and you declined to reply.


I'm sorry, but I suspect we are right.

Judging by what you say yourself, Fnord has in some unspecified fashion annoyed you, but you have then chosen to break the rules.

============
PS. Please stop referring to "my threads" on WP. All the threads on WP are Alex Plank's, to do with as he wishes. He delegates some of that control to the moderators. Beyond that, anyone is free to post whatever they like on whichever thread they wish, provided they stick within the rules.

Lau, what happens if I ever decide to press the issue of PB breaking the rules, especially regarding his personal attacks against me? Not that I'm pressing it now ... I mean, I'm certainly no saint (and I'd be lying to claim otherwise), but I have refrained - for the most part - from insisting that any action be taken against him; I have even (twice) offered to set this all behind us and be friends!

PB has had a lot of "Second Chances" and I'm not interested in any vindictive action, but where should a person draw the line?

As a friend of Philosopherboi, I can vouch that he is a good person and that he has a good heart. I just wish this would blow over.

Er, probably won't be the best place for him. Since he can't take rude behavior here or attacks, he probably won't take them well over there.

I think your question is now moot.

PhilosopherBoi made a complaint, via PM, to sinsboldly, which is exactly what he should do. The fact that he had already "taken matters into his own hands" was regrettable, but we're a forgiving lot.

He then decided that Merle's response was not good enough, and impolitely published the PMs as this thread, where I don't think anyone can quite understand what his beef with Merle is. (She asked him to tell her where you had been out of order - we're not omniscient - quite.)

He has continued to accuse you of all sorts of misdemeanours, without once posting any links. What he has cut&pasted does not bear out what his is saying, at all, and most of it I have no idea of its source.

It seems to be HIS choice, to air HIS dirty linen in public.

So far as I can see, if he makes one more attack, on anyone (you, Merle, and probably now me), we will be forced to ban him, as we can't allow people to persistently break the rules.

=========
And yes, Fnord, I know you're no saint.

There are claims in this thread made that PB is overreacting. Though perhaps another legitimate claim is that Fnord is also "underreacting".

Fnord. In light of PB's strong feelings towards you, have you moderated your own behavior? Whether you "need" to, is another and interesting matter. Whether PB "needs" to has already been addressed.

I am reminded of how a child in the back seat of a car might taunt his sibling by putting his finger close to his sibling without touching him. The sibling responds with pleas, "quit it!" and "stop it!", to which the child says, "I'm not doing anything!". Then it usually blows up from there.

The parents/adults who gleefully ignored the child and his sibling, now become angered because the two young ones have violated the cardinal rule: never force the parents/adults into having to actually parent/act like adults. Usually, the parental/adult intervention is not about what precipitated the event or any other details for that matter. Most certainly it is not about any overall judgment of who is "good" or who is "bad". No line is drawn between assailant and victim. At the point of intervention, it is all about the specific incident which prompted the intervention. It becomes about the one that cries, or the one that yells the loudest, or the one that moves into making the most annoying taunt, or about how both became violent, or even about the one that asks for intervention.

In the end, the most involved response from the parents/adults is to tell the child to stop teasing, and the sibling to stop bothering the adults (though sometimes said politely). The real lessons learned are about how to cause trouble without actually breaking any rules, and how to defend against trouble without breaking the rules.
The aggressor who continues on this path ends up at either of two extremes. Eventually he either becomes adept at causing lawful trouble and is never caught or fails and gets caught.
But for the retaliator who continues on this path, a different set of extremes awaits him along with an additional outcome. Eventually after much time spent struggling to defend himself, the retaliator either crosses the line and is punished as an unlawful aggressor, or finds himself unable to defend himself and yields to his role as the eternal lawful victim. The third outcome, that he becomes adept at lawful defense, is thus difficult to achieve. Unlike the aggressor, similar lawful "success" for the retalitor is a precarious balancing act, rather than a simple game of tweaking and testing the limits.

While this seems harsh, it is often a theme in fiction which depicts one-dimensional dualistic morality (Good versus Evil). Evil is free to do "anything" while Good must struggle with whether to perform evil acts in the name of good. Does one become the enemy in order to defeat the enemy?


In the role playing game "Dungeons and Dragons", they had an interesting two-dimensional classification system for morality (until recently). On one axis was good versus evil, and on the other axis was order (represented by lawful allegiance) and chaos (represented by explicit disregard for the law). Thus instead of 3 moral positions in the one dimensional case: good, neutral, and evil; there are 9 moral positions:

.
[Question: What is a word that describes order versus chaos? It would fill the following analogy: "Good and Evil" are part of "Morality" as "Order and Chaos" are part of _________.]

The moderators here, the adults in my analogy, and law enforcement in society are all idealistically "Lawfully neutral". They do not care about enforcing what is "right" or "wrong", rather their allegiance is purely blind obeisance to the law. Fnord might be represented by "lawfully evil", and PB is struggling on the good axis between "lawfully good" and "chaotic good" (sorry Fnord for making you "evil" in this analogy, but honestly, look at your avatar and PB's! lol It screams good versus evil, lol. It is not meant as a personal attack).

In the end, all I have said is,

and,


I am told I can come off as "Neutrally neutral" at times, or paradoxically a "good person" or a "bastard". What do you think? lol

mystyc's post is rational, persuasive and brilliant.......i heartily concur.

Fnord, philosopherBoi and myself are fairly new members...Fnord May 08, philosopherBoi Aug 08, myself Aug 08. That being the case, we have much to learn and need to tread softly until we gain a bit more experience. i can think of at least one occasion in which i was deliberately provoked and i do believe i responded in a way that was against the rules, however i was not reprimanded for it due to it being in PPR. nevertheless i reprimanded myself and made a mental note to do my best to follow the rules even if i am deliberately provoked.

That being said, i believe Fnord's post in PB's thread, which has already been cited, was inappropriate for intent and purpose of the forum as summarized:

..For those times when you're feeling blue and need to get a little HELP FROM YOUR FRIENDS.

unless i am mistaken, The Haven is for people having emotional problems to post and get SUPPORT and HELP in coping with life's stresses.

this is only my opinion and i don't intend it to be fact:

i believe Fnord's post constituted a kind of behavior that might be construed to be "temporary trollling". he was intentionally mocking and provocative. i have seen Fnord behave in a way i would characterize as incredibly insensitive. unless and until he learns a modicum of appropriate compassion, i think he should be discouraged from posting in The Haven.

Fnord likes to indulge in tooting his own horn while simultaneously putting down others.....this is his m.o.; i've learned to disregard his comments most of the time. while this kind of behavior may be appropriate in the other forums, i think The Haven should encourage more sensitive comments....something i think Fnord has to exert a great deal of effort to accomplish.

The Haven is a place to "get a little help from your friends". This would imply supportive empathy and compassion. it states "from you friends". Fnord had no intent whatsoever of acting as a friend toward philosopherBoi. this alone should have disqualified him from posting in PB's thread. his real intent was to harass and exacerbate PB's pain. Fnord seems to delight in mocking, insulting, subtly attacking, deriding, ridiculing and humiliating others while simultaneously tooting his own horn. usually he does it in a way that is slightly entertaining. but this type of posting isn't appropriate in The Haven.

i think marshall's opinion in this matter, whose commentary implies he also believes philosopherBoi was intentionally victimized - should be given more weight than mine because he has been a member since Apr 07.

I often wonder why so many people are so certain of my intentions without ever asking me what they really are. I ask that they do not presume to know my motivations and intentions, as they are not omniscient. So, to clear things up, here are my intentions:

"I will rebut any other person's fallacious reasoning, non-factual data, and high-handed opinions wherever and whenever I encounter them ..."

This is amended now with the words, "... except in The Haven."

The fact that I've done so twice in The Haven only serves to illuminate acts of inattentiveness on my part - I was not paying attention to where I was posting. I am working to correct this behavior. The Haven is for supportive posts and the airing of personal angst. It is not for ridicule, slander, insults, threats, or the ripping of someone's new rectal opening.

Each person is solely responsible for the choices they make themselves, and if they choose to violate the rules of this website, then it is no-one else's fault than their own. I screwed up when I posted in The Haven in a something-less-than a Politically Correct form. This is my fault and mine alone, and I hope that my future actions will reflect a more compassionate and remorseful attitude on my part. I learn from my mistakes; others don't.

As for emotions - no-one can make anyone else feel any emotion without their cooperation. If people bear a grudges against one person for what he or she has done outside of this website, then they are free to express their displeasure with his or her actions in a direct manner. But this does not mean that they can insult that person, make false accusations against, and/or make threats against that person.

Finally, I apologize for the violations I've committed.

Now, can we put this all behind us and get on with our lives? PLEASE?

Well said, Fnord, and I think you summed up the situation very well while acknowledging your own mistakes and errors along the way. It takes a lot to admit that we ourselves are wrong. I also think you're spot on with regards to personal responsibility, for what one says as well as for how one reacts. Alba, I do not agree with your ideas of tenure - as a teacher, I've seen a lot who stuck around out of lack of options, not for their abilities - but respect your thoughts, and I think Fnord made reference to them as well. I know in the second time that the commentary got astray in The Haven, it was something we addressed in the thread and found resolution in - I hope we are now able to do the same here. I would suggest, however, that you rethink one of the latter portions of your post, where you wish him to discouraged from The Haven. We all have need for a safe place, and it isn't right to shun one, especially when they are willing to face up to what has happened. While still standing his ground, he admitted that his response was not supportive and apologized - I have respect for this. And, some times, what we need to hear isn't the nicest thing, or what we want to hear - it is up to those of us responding to make sure we remain constructive, even when the content may be painful. I didn't see delight or spite in what was originally said, only that it was harshly put, and when comments are made in a comparative fashion there is room for insult... however, room for is not proof of, as it were.

Long story short, if pB will accept the apology and move on, I think we've got better conversations to get into today.


M.

Your right here

Just what is it about Fnord that seems to draw the dramatic to him, anyway? He's hardly the rudest, most insensitive, or bluntest member on here, but this is the third or fourth time that I can recall having seen someone lose their mind about him and start spewing troll accusations. What's your secret, buddy? I have to put real effort into making people who disagree with me tear at their hair and spit whenever they see my avatar, but it seems to come naturally to you, color me impressed.