Jump to content
The Education Forum

Veiled threats of violence


Recommended Posts

I'm slowly concluding, as have many before, that this forum is a complete waste of everyone's precious time. It is totally dominated by utter 'head-the-balls' who are protected and indulged by the moderators. Write the word Nazi (NOT aimed at anyone in particular) and it is removed within seconds. Have another member make a veiled threat and he is simply left untouched. It's a joke!

I have a great suggestion for another moderator, and I'm sure he would be perfect - Gary Mack! Or if Arlen still has a bit of time on his hands....better still.

I have a huge respect for John Simpkin but it saddens me that he is allowing this forum to be infested with such rubbish.

It will never change.

Not enough respect to get John's name right! Though I'm sure it was unintentional.

Bernie, if you have a particular issue with something Francois has said regarding a threat please report the post, we will act on it. we did also act on the treatment Bill has mentioned earlier, it seems unbeknownst to Bill, as this tends to be done privately by moderators.

John has a free speech policy which I, all the moderators, and the vast majority of the membership accept, value and have enjoyed over the years. Most moderators still read the forum daily and it is difficult to examine every post for broken rules. We try our best. Due to recent events the forum (John) lost the administrator and Evan, in particular, has taken up the reigns to help out and keep the forum going.

Funnily enough, I closed a different thread recently as it basically defined another member here as Naziesque. The person who created the post was angry his thread was locked - he shares the opposite views to you on almost everything - yet here you are joined in force wanting to use the word Nazi on the forum!!!

As moderators, unlike regular members, we aren't allowed knee jerk reactions to events, yet we have to permit that some things are knee jerk reactions and out of character for that member.

Of course, all our moderation, is subjective and I think mostly fair and reasonable. I hope you can see the big picture and appreciate that the forum is bigger and better for allowing debate and dissent and that, despite how much you or I, might disagree with certain viewpoints there are plenty of other interesting, informative posts to read and reply to.

It is not the fault of this forum that people with views you feel are rubbish post here and, you're right it won't change and I hope it doesn't. Better the enemy you know! I am very comfrotable in my own beliefs, enough to know, that putting the phrase 'any reasonable person would conclude' after pure speculation - still makes it speculation nonetheless.

Perhaps the 'many who went before' will offer you refuge elsewhere if you feel so strongly in your dislike of what we do here. I would hope, though, you remain a valued member.

On reflection, I guess the big thing to do here is apologise for using the word Nazi. Though I certainly didn't call anyone that I can see that it is a highly charged and highly emotive word and if it caused offence to anyone then I genuinely apologise. And yes, such an outburst is totally out of character.

On the 140 odd posts I have made, even where there are heated disagreements, I have always tried to conduct myself with decent manners and decorum. Just recently Jerry and I had an exchange of views on the Z film: whilst giving no quarter with the issue discussed, we both communicated as adversaries rather than bitter enemies.

But please someone (I may even do it myself) take a trawl over the last few weeks posts by DVP and Francois and do an insult count. Maybe there's some software that can calculate an ‘insult per post ratio’: I guarantee theirs will be the highest.

I made the mistake of dragging myself down to their level and for that I truly apologise. It struck me that while I believe the above mentioned IMO detract from the debate and hinder further learning, then clearly I am just as guilty for rising to the bait.

To DVP and Francois,

We clearly don’t like each other; we will NEVER see eye to eye: Let’s just do the decent thing and stay out of each others’ way, eh?.

For everyone’s sake.

Bernie

That's a well-reasoned apology Bernie.

One sure way to identify a lightweight is to measure the amount of gratuitous insults they consistently use in attempting to advance or defend their arguments.

It's almost axiomatic that the consistent need to insult groups as a whole, or individuals in particular, demonstrates a sign of weakness, not strength.

Exactly. What amazes me about these people is that their "evidence" is nearly always quotes from a couple of non-conspiracy books or websites. They seem incapable of taking part in a reasoned debate. As we say in football (soccer), they seem more interested in playing the man than the ball.

As you know, John, I have been going round and round with DVP and McAdams for years now, and have identified both their strengths and their weaknesses. They both know certain arguments, forward and backward, but have great difficulty defending their subjective judgments. Both of them, for example, repeat that the left lateral autopsy photo supports that the back wound was well above the throat wound, but are incapable of defending this position beyond saying it's "self-evident" or some such thing, even though it was not "self-evident" to the nine members of the HSCA forensic pathology panel, who disagreed.

Von Pein, to his credit, is at least aware of his contradictions. In one go-round, in which he claimed a long-ago poll proved that the majority of Americans believe Oswald pulled the trigger, as part of a conspiracy, I asked him who he thought the American people thought Oswald was conspiring with, and he pointed me to a poll in which a third or so said they thought the CIA was behind the assassination. The combination of these polls indicated that FOUR TIMES as many Americans believed Oswald had killed Kennedy as part of a CIA plot--in other words, that Oswald was a hit man for the CIA--than believed he was set up, and innocent of killing Kennedy. This, of course, is ludicrous, as ANYONE who has ever talked to anyone about the assassination would know.

When I pointed this out to DVP, however, he admitted that he had to believe this, because he couldn't accept that so many Americans--the same people who thought Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11, and now believe Barack Obama is a muslim--could be so stupid as to believe Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. He'd thereby admitted that his interpretation of the evidence is at times conclusion driven, and not related as much to reality as to what he chooses to believe.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On reflection, I guess the big thing to do here is apologise for using the word Nazi. Though I certainly didn't call anyone that I can see that it is a highly charged and highly emotive word and if it caused offence to anyone then I genuinely apologise. And yes, such an outburst is totally out of character.

Let me guess, you made it clear who you were referring to but didn't mention them by name and you think that makes it less offensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I demand that the moderators put Francois Carlier on moderation (or better still, ban him from the forum). I refuse to accept veiled threats.

Stop being silly you were not threatened he wrote

Laverick, you're beginning to get on my nerves.

It's easy to insult people through a computer. Weak people do that !

I'd like to see you talk in front of me !

I agree. A few years back a character invaded this forum with a phony picture and a phony name, and began claiming that Watergate was all part of a plot related to the Church of Scientology. When I saw through his charade, and asked if I could meet him in a public place, to verify that his avatar was an actual picture of himself, he flipped out, and claimed I'd threatened him.

Nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I demand that the moderators put Francois Carlier on moderation (or better still, ban him from the forum). I refuse to accept veiled threats.

Stop being silly you were not threatened he wrote

Laverick, you're beginning to get on my nerves.

It's easy to insult people through a computer. Weak people do that !

I'd like to see you talk in front of me !

Len

So if you were in a bar and said something rude about another person in the bar under your breath and they said to you "I'd like to see you say that to my face"

You would not consider that a threat?

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I demand that the moderators put Francois Carlier on moderation (or better still, ban him from the forum). I refuse to accept veiled threats.

Stop being silly you were not threatened he wrote

Laverick, you're beginning to get on my nerves.

It's easy to insult people through a computer. Weak people do that !

I'd like to see you talk in front of me !

Len

So if you were in a bar and said something rude about another person in the bar under your breath and they said to you "I'd like to see you say that to my face"

You would not consider that a threat?

But that's not what he said. He said, "I'd like to see you talk in front of me!" which can be interpreted as a complaint that Bernie was taking advantage of their distance from one another, and was being ruder than he would be otherwise. Or not.

Why not ask the man? Francois, did you mean to imply that you'd hit Bernie if he talked like that in front of you? If so, guess what, you threatened him.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I demand that the moderators put Francois Carlier on moderation (or better still, ban him from the forum). I refuse to accept veiled threats.

Stop being silly you were not threatened he wrote

Laverick, you're beginning to get on my nerves.

It's easy to insult people through a computer. Weak people do that !

I'd like to see you talk in front of me !

Len

So if you were in a bar and said something rude about another person in the bar under your breath and they said to you "I'd like to see you say that to my face"

You would not consider that a threat?

But that's not what he said. He said, "I'd like to see you talk in front of me!" which can be interpreted as a complaint that Bernie was taking advantage of their distance from one another, and was being ruder than he would be otherwise. Or not.

Why not ask the man? Francois, did you mean to imply that you'd hit Bernie if he talked like that in front of you? If so, guess what, you threatened him.

Come on Pat

You know what Frank was saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that if people did say , in person, some of the things they write to each other there would be fists flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that if people did say , in person, some of the things they write to each other there would be fists flying.

I agree, but however if we were all in person talking to each other im sure that most would not talk in the way they do on the forum, I think when in person the level of respect increases dramaticlly

Unless some of the members have no respect at all when in the company of others that they may not agree with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree. This is the nature of the beast. Trying to tame it personally is perhaps the best one can expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On reflection, I guess the big thing to do here is apologise for using the word Nazi. Though I certainly didn't call anyone that I can see that it is a highly charged and highly emotive word and if it caused offence to anyone then I genuinely apologise. And yes, such an outburst is totally out of character.

Let me guess, you made it clear who you were referring to but didn't mention them by name and you think that makes it less offensive?

If you read my apology all will be revealed. All you have to do is read a few words Len.

And anyway, you're another one I refuse to converse with.

Go taunt someone else!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I demand that the moderators put Francois Carlier on moderation (or better still, ban him from the forum). I refuse to accept veiled threats.

Stop being silly you were not threatened he wrote

Laverick, you're beginning to get on my nerves.

It's easy to insult people through a computer. Weak people do that !

I'd like to see you talk in front of me !

Len

So if you were in a bar and said something rude about another person in the bar under your breath and they said to you "I'd like to see you say that to my face"

You would not consider that a threat?

But that's not what he said. He said, "I'd like to see you talk in front of me!" which can be interpreted as a complaint that Bernie was taking advantage of their distance from one another, and was being ruder than he would be otherwise. Or not.

Why not ask the man? Francois, did you mean to imply that you'd hit Bernie if he talked like that in front of you? If so, guess what, you threatened him.

Come on Pat

You know what Frank was saying

Why do you call him “Frank” the Anglicization of his name is Francis, Frank is “Franc” in French.

Pat pretty much nailed it. He was (rightly or wrongly} complaining that Bernie was being ruder on the internet than he would be on person

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On reflection, I guess the big thing to do here is apologise for using the word Nazi. Though I certainly didn't call anyone that I can see that it is a highly charged and highly emotive word and if it caused offence to anyone then I genuinely apologise. And yes, such an outburst is totally out of character.

Let me guess, you made it clear who you were referring to but didn't mention them by name and you think that makes it less offensive?

If you read my apology all will be revealed. All you have to do is read a few words Len.

And anyway, you're another one I refuse to converse with.

Go taunt someone else!

Yes you offered your halfhearted apology days later, after complaining that the thread had been taken down and smugly asking if it would be OK to use “fascist” instead. You also

  • slagged Kathy, a moderator (who also happens to be one of the nicest members of the forum AND
  • Called DVP and Francois “professional idiots”

Thus your claim that it was a “totally out of character” “outburst” holds less water than a punctured thimble and your complaint that you are being “taunt[ed]” is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...