Why has big dirigible been banned???

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

I am sympathetic towards people with those problems. The knock to my head did me harm in those areas. It isn't just one or two that do it. A certain one even likes to start their own threads to do it.

 

[mindseye]

So how would that help this particular poster read the rest of a page? By fiddling with fonts and typefaces, he's only making his own post more visible. But he already knows what his own post says. Right?

The poster I'm thinking of quotes the message they respond to, and changes the color of the quoted parts as well, as if to organize the message they're reading as they respond to it.

I don't know for sure that's why they're doing this, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

NIC is going to kill me for the singular-they in this context.

 

[D_alex8]

Please tell that newbie I appreciate their interest.

The poster I'm thinking of quotes the message they respond to,...

NIC is going to kill me for the singular-they in this context.

Twice today so far, in fact.

 

[wldhoney]

Calling people weeds is not courteous. Calling for people to take up rakes, and get rid of others is neither constructive nor courteous. I read the other site. They are just expressing their opinions and venting. At no time have they called for it to have moderators or strict guidelines. For the most part, it is to be self-governed.
Here, have some All-Bran.

I didn't state that it was courteous, hootie. I stated that it was "far more courteous than many". And regarding the All-Bran statement. :smile: Thank you, but not my posting style, so I will pass.

Such irony in that statement when one considers the source.

I haven't really read many of your posts and am not familiar with you, and I don't know if you have read many of mine. If the implication is that I want to be a chief, you are mistaken. I have absolutely no desire. However, it doesn't mean I am not intelligent enough to read the posts and form an opinion just like anyone else. I think you will find that for the most part I state that I can see both sides and why. But I am not going to lie and follow a crowd because someone might not like that I disagree with them. I will state what I don't agree with in their arguement, which gives them the chance to either state their case or to resort to making "remarks". What I won't do is resort to name calling or "implying" something disparaging, and if I blow it and mess up, I have no problem eating crow and apologizing. Nor do I have a problem changing my mind and telling someone they are right if I agree with them.

It's all in what kind of response a person enjoys and is seeking.

Yes, and to be honest I would think there are a few people who feel that way but do not want to post it. Both here and in my real life (of the last 3 days) I have had to say “whatever, he is entitled to his opinion, and as long as he is not ONLY spouting it behind my back I don't give a F@%& what he says.” This is along the same lines. In short, he is putting his opinion out in public and I can't really fault him for it. As you mentioned, it was done so in a calm manner (despite the rake comment.) I can understand why somebody would feel this way if they think the only reason that somebody would be a site “over there” is to run down this site. I have explained my reasons VIA PM to three or possible 4 people and would do so here but do not feel that I owe the board an explanation for my actions. (O.K. Let the “you don't owe us an explanation for your actions?” questions begin.)

Thank you, dolf250. I don't think it should have anything to do with whether or not someone agrees with him, but rather that he stated his opinion in a way that, though was strong in regards to the rake and weeds comment, was far gentler than some of the more maliscious posts from others. And I wasn't saying that anyone who commented on it after he posted were ones that did so. In fact I think their arguments, like those of firefox and kalypigan are well thought out and did not resort to making rude remarks to or about specific people. And Hazel God blows me away with how articulate and intelligent he is. Reading his posts have clarified a lot for me. Doesn't mean I agree with everything.

For the most part, the posts I have read from uncut are very nice, and he should be able to express himself in the same tone as everyone else.

 

[mindseye]

Twice today so far, in fact.

But in the first example, I don't know the gender of the "newbie"; I've previously discussed with him singular-they in contexts like these. (I defend it as a progressive and healthy step in the evolution of a gender-neutral third-person pronoun.)

In the second example, I do know the person's gender, but I'm being evasive out of respect for that person's medical privacy -- even though I think the information has been disclosed here before. (And if anyone demands transparency on a sensitive issue like that, I'll go Dick Cheney on your face.)

 

[tltigerman2]

Here's what you need to get, bitch: :adam4:

That is the best smily on entire site! :069:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

NIC is going to kill me for the singular-they in this context.

Grammar Nazi? But the boi can't even spell.

 

[D_alex8]

(And if anyone demands transparency on a sensitive issue like that, I'll go Dick Cheney on their face.)

Let's at least exploit the gag to its fullest.

 

[snoozan]

I haven't really read many of your posts and am not familiar with you, and I don't know if you have read many of mine. If the implication is that I want to be a chief, you are mistaken. I have absolutely no desire. However, it doesn't mean I am not intelligent enough to read the posts and form an opinion just like anyone else. I think you will find that for the most part I state that I can see both sides and why. But I am not going to lie and follow a crowd because someone might not like that I disagree with them. I will state what I don't agree with in their arguement, which gives them the chance to either state their case or to resort to making "remarks". What I won't do is resort to name calling or "implying" something disparaging, and if I blow it and mess up, I have no problem eating crow and apologizing. Nor do I have a problem changing my mind and telling someone they are right if I agree with them.

I simply don't understand how a member of the site who has been here for less than a month can be so familiar with the dynamics of the site, the site's history, and the personal histories to have so many well-formed opinions on this topic. I've been here since November or so and am a spectator on this issue for good reason-- there are years and years of history that I don't know. I'm not saying you're someone else in disguise, I'm just wondering how much of what you're saying is anything but wild speculation. You say you don't want to be "chief," but you're awfully vocal and opinionated for somewhat that wants to remain an "Indian."

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Uncut, here is the list of members from that site as I write this:

(I've inluded in red the LPSG usernames of members who have different names there, that I'm aware of).

rantbot
big dirigible
DrScience
madame_zora
DoubleSpoogeWhopperSicle
begrudgingly
TatooedMamaMeg
Lex
Brannon44 (Onslow)
Ashlar
BronxEgo
dong20
findfirefox
Temperence (Kotchanski)
dolf
Fury
Reefer
vince
Whosit (this is me - agnslz)
NCbear
chuck64
Big Dreamer
1viking
hootie
hypolimnas
arliss
chicagosam
playainda336
alex8
Dirtydetoo
HazelGod
Rikter8
WallyL
Dustin DeWynne
earllogjam
Vurpollon
LPSG_Truth-Teller
stretcher74
inwait8
Randomthoughts (jeff_black)
maddog
Stronzo
Biggie77
avalonjim
rubi
mercurialbliss
rawbone
Floozy (snoozan)
cigarbabe
Think_Kink
roosevelt
LINittanylion
kalipygian
MH07
geek0
Diamond
Shelby
J Dean
biguy2738
curiousgurl
fakeplasticlove (KShelby67/Ironsoul)
Leatherboy
fantasize4men
Phuquit (Lordpendragon)
notalittleboy
Maiestas
Kurtle
hickboy
invisibleman
HotBulge
Eeyore (tallguypns)
burns1de
bostonrod
whatireallywant
blowmybooty
Thinking Aloud
InnocentBystander
junior1174
wingnut
lpsguser
Skull Mason
BigLoveRod
Spladle
BanlyManisters
about:blank

Now, after reading that list of people do you still think of all of them as "weeds" in the garden of LPSG? And that they aren't wanted here anymore? Do you still say that all of us who are posting there should be banned from here forever?

I have nothing but Hug's and Kisses for everyone. I just question the action that was taken thats all.:kiss:

 

[ashlar]

Perhaps you could call the forum "the bridge.":biggrin1:

*falls over laughing*

The troll smashing bridge! LOL

 

[kalipygian]

It's hard to see yourself objectively, and the longer you spend in the "good guy/bad guy" mindset (there's a hard word for me to type right the first time), the harder it becomes to disentrench yourself from it.

Wonderfull, the first bit of co-admin introspection I have noticed in this matter.

 

[mindseye]

Kalipygian, I didn't refer to anyone specific, intentionally leaving the statement applicable to lots of parties. Do you have a constructive (rather than "constrictive") reason to construe the statement the way you did?

 

[kalipygian]

I simply don't understand how a member of the site who has been here for less than a month can be so familiar with the dynamics of the site, the site's history, and the personal histories to have so many well-formed opinions on this topic. I've been here since November or so and am a spectator on this issue for good reason-- there are years and years of history that I don't know. I'm not saying you're someone else in disguise, I'm just wondering how much of what you're saying is anything but wild speculation. You say you don't want to be "chief," but you're awfully vocal and opinionated for somewhat that wants to remain an "Indian."

She said in a post elsewhere that she has been following things here for a while, without registering, that seems reasonable to me.

I have followed the forum since about 2001, without participating in the discussions during most of that.

(I pretty much completely disagree with her post)

 

[kalipygian]

Kalipygian, I didn't refer to anyone specific, intentionally leaving the statement applicable to lots of parties. Do you have a constructive (rather than "constrictive") reason to construe the statement the way you did?

It is the obvious way to construe it.

You being introspective does not constrict anyone else from being so.

The immediate cause of the present controversy is your and other moderators action and subsequent behavior. You have rigidly refused to see this.

I or others could could and should examine their own motivations and behavior, that is not pertinent to this thread, the subject of which is asking for an explanation and justification from you, which is still not forthcoming. You have spoken in a manner that has further alienated people and escalated the polarization. You have made yourself the crux of the problem.

I hope the way out of the situation is a positive one.

 

[mindseye]

The immediate cause of the present controversy is your and other moderators action and subsequent behavior. You have rigidly refused to see this.

Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a second and rebut this in a manner that's more extreme than my actual beliefs (even though I just know someone's going to quote me out of context again...):

The "immediate cause of the present controversy" is that big dirigible was a jackass who got himself banned -- plenty of members have attested their opinions of his conduct while he was here.

Once he got banned, the "immediate cause" became a post by rawbone8 in which, rather than merely asking a question, he first prejudged the situation as "unwarranted", then asked for an explanation, and then specified to "spare us the privacy concerns" (despite the fact that privacy concerns are a legitimate part of our job). In other words, "I've already decided you're being unfair. Speak up anyway, worms, in the manner of my choosing!"

Elsewhere, there's a campaign raging to discredit us, no matter what explanation we offer -- I could elaborate, but you know exactly what I'm talking about -- and there's an extraordinary willingness over there to accept the single side of the story that's being presented, and very little effort to hold the wild claims that are being made up to the light to examine them.
​

The subject of which is asking for an explanation and justification from you, which is still not forthcoming. You have spoken in a manner that has further alienated people and escalated the polarization. You have made yourself the crux of the problem.

I have been forthcoming enough to state that, as a matter of conscience, I can't discuss the details behind this ban. We may, as a result of this brouhaha, be called upon to change the way we handle confidential matters, and if that happens, I'll go along with it -- but even then, I think it'd be wrong to apply such a change retroactively.

Having stated that, the conversation could have gone in one of three directions:

1. a forward direction, in which folks talk constructively about how to handle confidentiality issues in future cases (and to be fair, there's been some of that),
2. a stagnant non-direction, in which folks continue to repeat the same demand for information over and over,
3. a backwards direction, in which folks not only repeat their demands, but repeat them with personal barbs and mean-spirited attacks.

You accuse me of having spoken in a way which "escalated the polarization". Although I genuinely believe my postings show much more effort to reduce the polarization than to escalate it, I'll accept a tiny portion of the responsibility for the escalation. But I've stood my ground in the face of people who've called me insane, immature, feeble, Napoleonic, and racist, and I believe I deserve a lot more credit than I'm receiving for keeping the communication channels open throughout this incident.

The "crux of the problem" now, as I see it, is the people who are
dragging the forum backwards, insisting that we capitulate to their terms and endure their hateful epithets, instead of working towards finding common ground.

 

[dong20]

I suggest this thread be renamed the "Who can get the last word in", thread. :biggrin1:

 

[kalipygian]

What I find so interesting in regards to uncut's post, is that if you take it and compare it to posts over the last several days from members who disagree with him or his stance, his is far more courteous than many.

There are so many contradictions. For example, those that have been upset that moderators have stated free members should not be complaining and that they have too much control and that information should be available and open, are the same ones who are on another thread suggesting all kinds of regulations and attempting their own form of control because it is what THEY want.

It's as if no one can win because there is no willingness to compromise while demanding concessions from the other side. There are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians and they all want their cake and to eat it too.

Uncut's post was offensive, it absolutely could not be characterized as 'courteous'. It is not a respectable tactic for you to try to change the subject to what others have said elsewhere, and avoid examining what he said. I have not noticed that anyone has tried to tell him he had no right to be here. That was the very first time I have addressed him.

I have already posted in Rob_E's thread that a lot of the suggestions would be going in the direction of a lot of petty over regulation, so you can't very well be referring to me.
As he has said, people should put out their ideas, and they will be discussed. Certainly some, even some proposed by me, might be dumb ideas, if so they will be winnowed out later.
Several people who have been most vociferous have not posted anything in that thread.

Compromise: How can people who have been banned compromise? They would have to first be allowed to return.
What 'compromise' has been demanded of those insisting on reform of abuses has been called for? That we shut up behave as sycophants.

 

[dong20]

What 'compromise' has been demanded of those insisting on reform of abuses has been called for? That we shut up behave as sycophants.

Abuses?

I think, and this is only my view, that a few folk have lost (if they ever had it) their sense of perspective about what is, after all, an Internet forum. Nobody gets hurt here, and nobody gets hurt from being banned.

The only things here in any danger of being 'abused' are a few egos, and sorry, that doesn't count.

 

[wldhoney]

I simply don't understand how a member of the site who has been here for less than a month can be so familiar with the dynamics of the site, the site's history, and the personal histories to have so many well-formed opinions on this topic. I've been here since November or so and am a spectator on this issue for good reason-- there are years and years of history that I don't know. I'm not saying you're someone else in disguise, I'm just wondering how much of what you're saying is anything but wild speculation. You say you don't want to be "chief," but you're awfully vocal and opinionated for somewhat that wants to remain an "Indian."

I am sorry, snoozan, but I have to disagree.

Being "opinionated" means to have very strong opinions that one refuses or is very unwilling to change; stubborn.

If you read my posts I will generally cite where and how I can see both sides. Being new does not mean I am without life experience and can not process information and comprehend what the arguement is.

I deal with people from different environments who rebel against anything outside their world everyday of my job in often chaotic and traumatic situations. Believe me, I wouldn't get very far if I hadn't learned to listen to the other side, have empathy and place myself in someone else's shoes. It doesn't mean that I agree with all the people I come in contact with, but it does mean I can see where, from their perspective, they have valid points.

I don't care how new someone is. The arguements, and I have read all the posts in several threads, are pretty easy to understand. I have stated numerous times that I don't really know the history and tensions between those upset with the banning and other issues, but based on what I was reading, I could still see the inconsistencies in the arguments.

To be honest, I believe that the issue here is in that I did not jump on a certain bandwagon, therefore I am "over stepping" my bounds because I am "too new". It's like a form of snobbery. Doesn't agree with me, it's because she is too new, so any point or example she gives is invalid and she just wants to take over. It's a very convenient way to push it aside.

Understand, I am not trying to be rude, or to say you are doing this, but if someone on the outside looking in without the emotional clutter points at something, says "wait a minute" and asks for clarification in something I am doing, I am going to give some attention it rather than disparage them and make accusations.

And that type of one-sidedness is exactly why I have the stance I do. Rude remarks or childish put downs are not going to make me rethink my position. If anything it raises questions because rather than stating their side they have resorted to name-calling. and there is no way that most thinking people could read the recent posts and not have some kind of belief. And, not once have I stated that someone was stupid or ignorant or wrong to believe what they do. I respect the opinion of others and am not going to throw a tantrum if it is different.

Believe me, I try to be a nice and friendly person, but it doesn't mean I won't follow my own convictions and state them in a polite way. I am perfectly capable and well with in my rights as a free thinking human being to form an opinion, and that no one could or would answer my questions is just one of the things that formed the opinion that I have. People were upset because they felt that admin/mods were being secretive and not willing to explain themselves, yet they have done the same thing to other members who questioned them and it actually made their arguments suspect to me.

I apologize if it has insulted you in anyway, but believe me, it's nothing personal. :smile: