What Is Harassment?

[Sweetie]

Where's my prize for doing this thing, hmmmm?

Ronin got a new car once, where's mine?

[Petra]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Ronin got a new car once, where's mine?

Here ya go:



or maybe...

[Petra]

I totally love the second one, myself.

[xyza]

I was thinking the same

[Sweetie]

It's nice, but it just doesn't compensate for having to be purposefully ignorant.



Aha!

Anybody here feel capable of coaxing a few nekkid pics out of a few of my sweethearts (with Spoiler tags of course )?

Luna, you can do it, no? Pleeeeeease? I'll cheer from the sidelines like this----->

[Petra]

Nah, not today.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

You haven't insulted me directly, but you have called both vm and myself liars and cowards in our capacity as administrators

Yes , I did told the FF administration coward and liar. Also dishonest and unfair. All my comments and evidence was exposed and was addressed to Visciousmemories' replies.
He was the one who was exposing his claim without any evidence about Latinijral in his replies to Sweetie.
When I challenged him to post the evidence of his claim to Sweetie about Latinijral and my first questions to him he dodged it to respond.
You came later with partial references to my entire argument.
On my second reply to him he did the same thing.

Then I received the insults and harassment just for posting my arguments.
I don't really like or dislike name calling. I dislike the hypocrisy without any argumentation at all and as a form of defending an adoring cult or leader.

Originally Posted by livius drusus

and you have called people names when they didn't insult you (seebs, for instance, whom you twice called an "absolute and unquestioned asshole").

You picked that one: SEEBS . If you have another one please tell me.

Yes , I did told twice Seebs an "absolute and unquestioned asshole" for claiming this : "What's wrong with dictatorship? I'm a Usenet moderator, and I have absolute and unquestioned authority over comp.lang.c.moderated, and have for ten years. So?"

What was my point? Your confession that the FF administration it is a dictatorship.
That was a start , a crude word that was not accepted by other members ( I remember TomJoe insecure about it )
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=262

People tend to confuse private places with dictatorships. .
Having a private place don't give you the right to lie about what you are promoting , don't give you the right to lie and tell the people that signed here that there are rules and that the ONLY reason of banning will be if they violate the rules and then do the opposite.
The aggravate you have by calling yourself NOW a DICTATORSHIP is the contrast with the freethoughts of ideas and styles you are promoting to be the policies here , an opening to all ( of course with some few rules) but that has the label of a dictatorship that will do to us something that is against the agreement and compromise we did when we signed this place.
I just obtained your confession of the mistakes , dishonesty and unfairness about Latinijral's banning.
Your excuse is still the dictatorship role you think you have and your closed mind to open a possibility to rectify your mistake, just because I am the one who is arguing about it.

You confessed me by private that you never will deny that FF it is a dictatorship . "It is. We are a dictatorship. I even called us a tyranny in a recent post, although I don't think that's really accurate because we didn't get our positions through violence."
Banning someone for not violating any rule he signed is not a form of violence?
It is like sending someone to jail for not doing something against the law.
It is like "killing" by death penalty an innocent man.

VM still put quotations marks at that disgusting word, like telling me that is my interpretation or my "zealous opposition".

"This is incoherent, but your zealous opposition to 'dictatorships' is noted. Do you also vandalize the local businesses in your area because they are owned and operated by 'dictators', or are all the local restaurants and such where you come from constitutional republics run by elected representatives?" .
He is still confuse about private property and the right to do whatever you want with people you invite to come inside.
His questions are responded :YES, every time I see a dishonesty once I am inside .
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=336

Then , after I read that quote from SEEBS and assuming people here are promoting a free world , promoting free thoughts and free speech ,and freedom , please help me find an equivalent of asshole to someone who doesn't see nothing wrong with dictatorships , just because he had absolute and unquestionable power for ten years.
I am aware that asshole is rude and insulting , and I accept that was a mistake I did. Maybe in real life I would hit him at his face , while I see at my brain the images of all my friends who died or all the families who suffered because of dictatorships and tyrannies.
Yes , I also felt insulted by Seeb’s quote.

Originally Posted by livius drusus

In any case, I will address your questions to the best of my ability. You may post the relevant PM exchanges, yes.

Thanks for that . I will skip the incident when you disabled my account and when you then put your apology after you recognized your whatever minimum "mistake" . If you want me to post Latinijral's letter because NOW you think it is relevant and against him or me , please tell me.

I want also Visciousmemories to answer my question in preference , since he was the one who did the claims and to whom were directed my questions and arguments before.

How Latinijral "arrived" to this discussion? By me? Nope.


1) My first reply to VM
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...5&postcount=87

Bolds are mine.

Originally Posted by Sweetie
BINGO! That was the reason for the banning of latinijral, the constant attacking nature and disruption of the boards of his comments.
Originally Posted by viscousmemories
No, that's not correct. It was primarily the fact that after a point his posts were almost exclusively personal attacks without any he was posting on.

I asked VM and never responded ( not even you LD):

* After what point?
*I asked him the evidence that latinijral's posts didn't have any substance or relevance to the threads he was posting on.
The link is above.

I posted all the major insulting examples latinijral did , and also posted that insulting and cursing is permitted here. Should I mention the kind of images Scarletpeaches posted last night?

I asked VM and never responded
( you LD did so : http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=131)
*Why you didn't officially warn Latinijral to STOP before taking that banning action?
*Is not honest enough to tell a poster about the changes before taking any radical banning action and AFTER posting the amends to the rules?

I asked VM and never responded ( not even you LD )
*....You decide to implement a rule about it because those actions are "scaring" out the newbies and giving them a false impression of what FF is for real.
Would you ban Adora for doing something that was not stated at the rules when she did it?

2)Vm is accusing me of a complete mischaracterization of livius' comments.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=136

Fence asked VM about his claim about me , and VM didn't respond it (not even you LD)
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=231

*"But isn't it reasonable to claim that if you broke your own policies leading up to the banning, that the banning had the taint of the broken policies?"

3 )
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=137

*If you banned Latinijral who didn't violated your written rules , why you wrote two days before : "not be banning anyone here who hasn't violated our written rules "
*Don't you see a contradiction on your banning action and what you wrote?
*Are you aware that is the same double speech other forums have?

"Liv and I are members of three other forums that latinijral has been banned from, and in all three cases rules had to be bent or created to justify the banning. And we decided at the outset that we will not compromise our own principles without a sound justification for it. And the obvious fact that he's a troll and/or an asshole isn't that."

You two dodged this entire post:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=154

Now , some open questions from our private exchange :

*Did you ban spammers BEFORE exposing the banning rule at the FF and make it public?

*Did you ban spammers AFTER the rule was exposed and when they wanted to continue doing it?
* Did Latinijral signed when the spam rules was exposed?

* Did Latinijral made spam?

*Did you banned Latinijral for doing spam at your forum ?

*Did you ban Latinijral BEFORE exposing your agregate to the rules: "The administrators reserve the right to withdraw or deny membership at their discretion. "

*Did you wrote you will never ban anybody unless for violating the rules while Latinijral was STILL writing here ?

*Did Latinijral violate any rule?

* Did you warn Latinijral for doing something you didn’t like it at your forum?

* Do you agree that you broke your own policies in order to ban Latinijral?

*Do you think is honest to say a poster to STOP and to warn him instead of banning him?

*Do you think I should be banned because I did the same thing Latinijral did and for defending him?

* Do you public recognize that you are now a dictatorship because of the dishonest /honest action you took?

* Do you prefer to change that insulting label that is against your policy , principles and motto?

*It is still here right now that dictatorship attitude?

* Do you think your FF didn’t increase in insults , derailing , false accusations , bitching ,swearing , porno images , shouting, after Latinijral was banned?

*Do you think I am Latinijral?

*How do you feel when Warren and Sweetie accused me , several times , of being Latinijral?

*Don’t you think there is possibility they are assuming you should know but that you are permitting a banned member to post under other account, as Warren claimed?

*Isn’t that implying a dishonesty?

* What is harassment to you?

* Do you think Warren and Scarlet did harassment to me on their deleted posts?

*Do you think I did it to many members here and around the forum?

*Why do you permit it?

*Do you know who I am? My real name? Where I come from and what I do?

*Did you mention me before I joined this forum?

*How many times I was mentioned at FF before I signed?

* Do you think the :"The Freethought Forum is a general discussion forum with a premium on free speech and open to all."?

Thanks,
Carlos

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Carlos

Yes , I did told the FF administration coward and liar. Also dishonest and unfair.

Indeed. Last night you said "All my arguments to VM and to you about the topic doesn't have a name calling". Coward and liar are both insults. No matter what our disagreements, that's name-calling. As I've said several times in PM and public, it's your choice to assume we're intentionally deceptive (lying) rather than speaking honestly about a change of mind, but that doesn't make you calling me a liar and coward any less name-calling.

Originally Posted by Carlos

All my comments and evidence was exposed and was addressed to Visciousmemories' replies.
He was the one who was exposing his claim without any evidence about Latinijral in his replies to Sweetie.
When I challenged him to post the evidence of his claim to Sweetie about Latinijral and my first questions to him he dodged it to respond.
You came later with partial references to my entire argument.
On my second reply to him he did the same thing.

As I've told you repeatedly, vm was being courteous towards me because he felt your questions were directed to both of us in our capacity as admins and didn't want to respond without my input. The responses he gave you were collaborative -- both he and I contributed -- just as the responses I made to you were.

I agree with him that your list of interpretations of latin's posts was a fair enough assessment, but obviously entirely subjective. We disagree that his litany of insults were "on-topic" just because he used a previous post as a segue.

Originally Posted by Carlos

You picked that one: SEEBS . If you have another one please tell me.

godfry and xyza.

Originally Posted by Carlos

Yes , I did told twice Seebs an "absolute and unquestioned asshole" for claiming this : "What's wrong with dictatorship? I'm a Usenet moderator, and I have absolute and unquestioned authority over comp.lang.c.moderated, and have for ten years. So?"

What was my point? Your confession that the FF administration it is a dictatorship.

I know why you called him names and I know what your point was. You claimed that you only name-called people who have done it to you. That is false and your treatment of seebs is an example of how that is false.

Some might think calling somebody who hasn't said a mean word to you ugly names is cowardice and then claiming to only have called people names if they did it to you first is lying, but I disagree.

A more likely explanation is that because combatting dictatorships is deeply emotional issue for you, you responded viscerally to seebs' comment and didn't put it in the same mental category as your insults to other people. You might have also have been mirroring latin's behavior to make a point about harassment.

I wish you could see that there might be similar more benign interpretations of our actions and responses than lying and cowardice, but despite our pleasant private interactions you do not seem willing to grant us the same benefit of the doubt on these issues.

Again, that's your choice. It's my choice to withdraw when my character is being impugned, so if you want to discuss this with me, you'll have to do so without the name-calling.

Originally Posted by Carlos

That was a start , a crude word that was not accepted by other members ( I remember TomJoe insecure about it )

Indeed. Do you remember my telling you I didn't think any governmental analogies applied well to discussion boards? That I preferred the printing press model?

Originally Posted by Carlos

Having a private place don't give you the right to lie about what you are promoting , don't give you the right to lie and tell the people that signed here that there are rules and that the ONLY reason of banning will be if they violate the rules and then do the opposite.

Sigh... We haven't lied. We had originally planned to deal with forum-wide disruption via a now-disabled software feature. We argued and believed for a week that latin's disruption could be dealt with by dedicated use of ignore. We changed our minds when we saw that this had a silencing effect on the forum in general.

Originally Posted by Carlos

The aggravate you have by calling yourself NOW a DICTATORSHIP is the contrast with the freethoughts of ideas and styles you are promoting to be the policies here , an opening to all ( of course with some few rules) but that has the label of a dictatorship that will do to us something that is against the agreement and compromise we did when we signed this place.

I don't call myself a dictatorship willingly because I've repeatedly told you, I don't think government models apply very accurately to our circumstances. If I have to pick from a list of types of government, dictatorship is the closest, but owner of a printing press is a far closer description, imo.

A newspaper puts a premium on free speech too, but that doesn't mean they have to publish everything submitted. The organization can still make choices.

As for "open to all", that is a reference to the former "Freethinkers Forum" which was a closed forum spun off from the Freethinkers Private Forum on IIDB where only non-theists were allowed membership. To avoid confusion, we wished to make it clear that this FF did not have similar membership requirements.

Finally, you registered here on June 11, 2005 and therefore after the addition of our denial of membership clause and therefore cannot say anything we've done is contrary to the agreement you made when you joined.

Originally Posted by Carlos

I just obtained your confession of the mistakes , dishonesty and unfairness about Latinijral's banning.
Your excuse is still the dictatorship role you think you have and your closed mind to open a possibility to rectify your mistake, just because I am the one who is arguing about it.

You don't know what's in my mind, Carlos, so your claims about why I do anything are groundless. In this case they're also wrong. Again, the fact that we made mistakes in the lead-up to latin's banning does not mean to me we must therefore reverse the banning.

Originally Posted by Carlos

You confessed me by private that you never will deny that FF it is a dictatorship . "It is. We are a dictatorship. I even called us a tyranny in a recent post, although I don't think that's really accurate because we didn't get our positions through violence."
Banning someone for not violating any rule he signed is not a form of violence?
It is like sending someone to jail for not doing something against the law.
It is like "killing" by death penalty an innocent man.

I said tyranny doesn't apply because by definition a tyrant gets his position using violence. We got our position by purchasing hosting, software, and then configuring it to our taste.

I disagree with your violence similies. I think it's more like firing somebody for having spread ink all over your newspapers. You didn't expect anyone to spread ink over your newspapers and there's no specific clause in the employment policies which stipulates he can't spread ink all over your newspapers. You might even tell your readership to bear with you and read around the splotchy parts, but when you're faced with a week's worth of ruined papers, you might just have to fire the inker after all.

Originally Posted by Carlos

Then , after I read that quote from SEEBS and assuming people here are promoting a free world , promoting free thoughts and free speech ,and freedom , please help me find an equivalent of asshole to someone who doesn't see nothing wrong with dictatorships , just because he had absolute and unquestionable power for ten years.

I am aware that asshole is rude and insulting , and I accept that was a mistake I did. Maybe in real life I would hit him at his face , while I see at my brain the images of all my friends who died or all the families who suffered because of dictatorships and tyrannies.
Yes , I also felt insulted by Seeb’s quote.

Just as I thought. It's understandable, of course, and I appreciate your acknowledging it was wrong to call somebody names who had not done so to you.

I have to go to work now. I will address your questions one at a time when I can. Please do me the courtesy of waiting until I do so before responding to this. I am a very slow writer and it's hard enough for me to reply to one very long post without having to deal with new replies as well.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I have to go to work now. I will address your questions one at a time when I can. Please do me the courtesy of waiting until I do so before responding to this. I am a very slow writer and it's hard enough for me to reply to one very long post without having to deal with new replies as well.

I will wait for you, before I respond entirely to your polite and interesting reply, until you have time to address my questions,

On a side note I will like to address just the part concerning Seebs , XYZA and Godfry , considering it is my intention to recognize and rectify the mistakes I did (name calling people without they did it to me).

I don't pretend the people who did it to me to do the same thing.

SEEBS:
Maybe you now understand my position about confessed dictatorships of any kind. Maybe you not. That is not the point.
I apologize to you for calling you twice an "absolute and unquestioned asshole" just because you claimed : "What's wrong with dictatorship? I'm a Usenet moderator, and I have absolute and unquestioned authority over comp.lang.c.moderated, and have for ten years. So?"

XYZA :
I am not sure if I did it to you , anyway that is not the point.
I am not even sure if when , you refered to me as a "broken record", is name calling.
Maybe I am missing some posts somewhere else.If you could help me where I called you names it will be appreciated in order to apologize to you.
Here are my replies to you:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=286
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=290
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=296
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=298

Maybe my confessed poor English doesn't help me on this.
Did I really called you names without you doing that to me?
If you think so, my apology is here.

GODFRY:
You are the author of this OP and the author of this thread where you were bitching/accusing Livious playing favorites and painting YOU (or anyone else) as childish and immature, :
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...ead.php?t=4937

Most of your initial posts are deleted now.

My post and quotes to you are still there.
Here is my first reply to you:
I did it before you deleted your posts.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...2&postcount=20
I don't see calling you names at all. Did I ?Where?Any help?

Then you forgot to delete this post you did in your reply to LadyShea:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...8&postcount=92
Bolds are mine, the quote is yours.
"I didn't leave you with this boor. He made it here himself. Are you expecting me to engage this idiot? I'm not even sure I want to be here. I stopped posting while I pondered on my actions and their results...I still have not decided. And, I've been here all along, I'm just busy preparing to leave."
Did you start calling me names instead of ignoring me?
Then you forgot again to delet this reply to LadyShea :
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...0&postcount=98
Bolds are mine , the quote is yours :
"LadyShea -
Deleting my posts is my way of preparing to leave. If I intend on permanently leaving, I prefer that NONE of my posts stay behind."

After that preceding I started to calling you : ASSHOLE , COWARD and LIAR.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=105

You are still here.
Most of your posts are deleted .
You appeared as childish and inmature ( like LIV told you) threatening the board with your pathetic attitude IMO.
Be sure Gentlehorse gave you a wise unsolicited advice :"You apparently have every right to delete your posts on this board. Regardless, I'd like to respectfully suggest that you refrain from doing so. Let the record, for better or worse, speak for itself. "

So I do apologize to you for calling you names ( asshole , coward and liar ) because of ALL your previous action : calling me idiot , deleting your posts , threatening the board to leave , bitching Livius.

VISCIOSMEMORIES :
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=339
The questions and argument are exposed .

I will wait for LIV to respond her last post entirely.
But as I said to LIV , I want you to respond also since more of the skipped questions and argument were adressed to you because of the claim you did.

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Carlos

But as I said to LIV , I want you to respond also since more of the skipped questions and argument were adressed to you because of the claim you did.

Okay, Carlos. Let's start from the beginning of this. Sweetie said:

Originally Posted by Sweetie

BINGO! That was the reason for the banning of latinijral, the constant attacking nature and disruption of the boards of his comments.

To which I replied:

Originally Posted by vm

No, that's not correct. It was primarily the fact that after a point his posts were almost exclusively personal attacks without any substance or relevance to the threads he was posting on.

You challenged my statement above with this post, in which you attempted to disprove my response to Sweetie by doing a review of some of latin's offensive posts accompanied by your opinion that each of those posts were substantive and relevant to the threads in which they were posted. Here is one example from your post:

Originally Posted by Carlos

E)
http://www.freethought-forum.com/fo...923&postcount=5
Thread: Camping stories!
by The Lone Ranger:
"I go camping alone pretty often, but that may not help you much, I suppose."
Latinijral's response : Liar!!!!! I always saw you camping with Tonto !
Try some chicks now!
Yes , Latinijral was rude and insulting . But that is permitted at your forum, even now.
Was he on topic? Yes, he was on topic.
Any substance and relevance on his response? Yes. Unless you consider some direct humour is not allowed here.

Now, here are some problems I had with your post:

1. My statement to Sweetie was very carefully qualified. I clearly stated that the primary reason for latinijral's banning was that after a point his posts were almost exclusively personal attacks without any substance or relevance to the threads he was posting on.

Note that I very deliberately did not say that all his posts could be so described (since I had no doubt someone could find some that weren't) or that that was the only reason he was banned (since livius and I have posted thousands of words across multiple threads on the subject of why, specifically, he was banned.)

2. Obviously substance and relevance are subjective terms. For example I completely disagree with your assessment above of latinijral's response to The Lone Ranger. In my opinion if I post "My Mother is a nurse, and works in a home for geriatrics", that does not make "Nurses are stupid whores and old people smell" a substantive or relevant response. However we can agree to disagree about what constitutes substantive and relevant responses.

Given that, I will concede that it was careless of me to make a brief summation of our rationale for latinijral's banning as if it could possibly be summarized in a sentence. It obviously cannot. However, this concession is not to be interpreted as an admission of a specific instance of lying, dishonesty in general, tyrannical administrative policies, an admission that we were wrong to ban latinijral or an insinuation that we have any intention of reinstating his membership here.

That's probably the last of what I will say on the subject in this thread, unless livius asks me to offer any more input. Anyone who is interested in our complete rationale for banning latinijral can find a lot of information on the subject (and our moderation policy in general) in the following threads (and probably some others):

5/20/05 We Have Banned latinijral
5/25/05 Spam Rule Discussion
6/11/05 Authorities?
6/26/05 Moralizing or Moderation

[Veritas]

This thread has totally cured my insomnia.

[Veritas]

Originally Posted by Carlos

* Do you think Warren and Scarlet did harassment to me on their deleted posts?

Oh wait, wait, this is where we're all supposed to give a shit, isn't it? Aw, diddums. I post a photo of an arsehole and you think it's pseudo-harassment aimed at you? Well, if the cap fits, buddy, wear it. That's if it fits on that oversized head of yours.

I love it how you get all precious about people 'doing harassment to you' even after you throw insults at others in that crappy, grammar-mangling English of yours.

You may want to look up the definition of hypocrite in that lovely, big, throbbing dictionary of yours.



Someone wake me up if something interesting happens in this thread. Like if Adora gets here and it all kicks off.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by scarletpeaches

I love it how you get all precious about people 'doing harassment to you' even after you throw insults at others in that crappy, grammar-mangling English of yours.

How's your Spanish?

English is not Carlos' first language, and I'd like to think that we aren't petty xenophobes around here.

Someone wake me up if something interesting happens in this thread. Like if Adora gets here and it all kicks off.

You appear to be under the impression that threads in the Forum Admin forum are for your entertainment. That they are here to keep you from getting bored; or for sniping in.

Here's a clue: they are not.


It looks like vm, liv and Carlos are finally at a point where they can have some meaningful dialogue. Please leave them to it, so that they can have a productive discussion and not a Jerry Springer free-for-all.

If you have something substantial to say, then say it. But please keep the petty playground crap out of it.


A question we all need to ask ourselves - are we a part of the problem, or are we a part of the solution?


Please stop being a part of the problem.

[Veritas]

Whatever.

First of all, criticising someone for getting all precious when they get a taste of their own medicine does not make me a xenophobe. I don't dislike Carlos because of his nationality, I dislike him because of his bad manners.

Second, I never said these forums were for my own amusement. Although it would seem some people's posts are unintentionally funny.

Please don't patronise me. It doesn't become you.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Carlos

I want also Visciousmemories to answer my question in preference , since he was the one who did the claims and to whom were directed my questions and arguments before.

Your open question was to me so I am replying to your post. Perhaps you and I will be able to communicate more effectively than you and vm were able to.

Originally Posted by Carlos

* After what point?

The night of 5/19/2005 EST.

*I asked him the evidence that latinijral's posts didn't have any substance or relevance to the threads he was posting on. I posted all the major insulting examples latinijral did , and also posted that insulting and cursing is permitted here. Should I mention the kind of images Scarletpeaches posted last night?

Your interpretation of his posts is not evidence; it's opinion. In our opinion all those comments you found on-topic were only insults using a reference to the OP or other posts as a segue. See vm's post above for more detail on that.

Originally Posted by Carlos

*Why you didn't officially warn Latinijral to STOP before taking that banning action?
*Is not honest enough to tell a poster about the changes before taking any radical banning action and AFTER posting the amends to the rules?

As you say, I answered this already.

*....You decide to implement a rule about it because those actions are "scaring" out the newbies and giving them a false impression of what FF is for real. Would you ban Adora for doing something that was not stated at the rules when she did it?

If we added a rule, probably not. If we decided her posts as a whole were too disruptive to the board, we would ban her under the current ownership codicil which, as you know, was not there when she registered.

Originally Posted by Carlos

"But isn't it reasonable to claim that if you broke your own policies leading up to the banning, that the banning had the taint of the broken policies?"

It's a reasonable claim, sure.

Originally Posted by Carlos

If you banned Latinijral who didn't violated your written rules , why you wrote two days before : "not be banning anyone here who hasn't violated our written rules "

Two days before we thought his behavior could be effectively countered by ignoring it. By May 20th we realized that was not the case.

*Don't you see a contradiction on your banning action and what you wrote?

Yes. Changing your mind will obviously result in contradictions with previous comments.

*Are you aware that is the same double speech other forums have?

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Carlos

"Liv and I are members of three other forums that latinijral has been banned from, and in all three cases rules had to be bent or created to justify the banning. And we decided at the outset that we will not compromise our own principles without a sound justification for it. And the obvious fact that he's a troll and/or an asshole isn't that."

(Emphasis mine) We feel we had sound justification beyond latin's being a troll; specifically, we felt his behavior was damaging and silencing discussion across the entire forum.

Did you ban spammers BEFORE exposing the banning rule at the FF and make it public?

No.

Did you ban spammers AFTER the rule was exposed and when they wanted to continue doing it?

Yes, and as I told you in PM, we also deleted spam and banned spammers who had registered and posted BEFORE the rule created and who had stopped posting.

Did Latinijral signed when the spam rules was exposed?

He registered after the spam rule was created.

Did Latinijral made spam?

It's an ambiguous point. By some definitions, yes, by the commercial advertising standard, no.

Did you banned Latinijral for doing spam at your forum ?

No.

Did you ban Latinijral BEFORE exposing your agregate to the rules: "The administrators reserve the right to withdraw or deny membership at their discretion. "

Yes.

Did you wrote you will never ban anybody unless for violating the rules while Latinijral was STILL writing here ?

Yes.

Did Latinijral violate any rule?

No.

Did you warn Latinijral for doing something you didn’t like it at your forum?

No.

Do you agree that you broke your own policies in order to ban Latinijral?

I go back and forth on the subject given that our policies and intent changed and evolved over the course of the 6 months before we opened and have continued to change and evolve since, but as I said it's a reasonable position.

*Do you think is honest to say a poster to STOP and to warn him instead of banning him?

Yes. It can also be honest not to, as we did with the spammers who registered before the rule was created.

*Do you think I should be banned because I did the same thing Latinijral did and for defending him?

You did something approximating what he did, but nowhere near as much of it, so the first question doesn't apply. I do not think you should be banned for defending him.

* Do you public recognize that you are now a dictatorship because of the dishonest /honest action you took?

No. We are a dictatorship insofar as we are the sole owners, operators and decision makers of this forum, not because of a single action we took. Again I will repeat that I don't find governmental analogies particularly accurate for online discussion boards, although they can apply in parts.

* Do you prefer to change that insulting label that is against your policy , principles and motto?

Since my answer to the first part is no, this question does not apply.

*It is still here right now that dictatorship attitude?

Since my answer to the first part is no, this question does not apply.

* Do you think your FF didn’t increase in insults , derailing , false accusations , bitching ,swearing , porno images , shouting, after Latinijral was banned?

I don't know. We've had cycles of ugliness and calm since the forum began.

*Do you think I am Latinijral?

No.

*How do you feel when Warren and Sweetie accused me , several times , of being Latinijral?

I feel they are mistaken.

*Don’t you think there is possibility they are assuming you should know but that you are permitting a banned member to post under other account, as Warren claimed?

I know some people have made that assumption, yes.

*Isn’t that implying a dishonesty?

No. It implies a difference of opinion.

* What is harassment to you?

Persistent aggression in the workplace and home. I do not believe it applies to discussion boards.

* Do you think Warren and Scarlet did harassment to me on their deleted posts?

No.

*Do you think I did it to many members here and around the forum?

No.

*Why do you permit it?

We permit direct insults because making rules against them doesn't stop them and only provides more opportunities for accusations of bias.

*Do you know who I am? My real name? Where I come from and what I do?

Yes.

*Did you mention me before I joined this forum?

Not that I recall.

*How many times I was mentioned at FF before I signed?

I don't know. I quick search indicates that you were mentioned in 2 posts before you registered, but I might have missed any references to you which didn't use your name.

* Do you think the :"The Freethought Forum is a general discussion forum with a premium on free speech and open to all."?

In the sense that we intended it, yes. In your interpretation, no.

[Fencesitter]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I don't call myself a dictatorship willingly because I've repeatedly told you, I don't think government models apply very accurately to our circumstances. If I have to pick from a list of types of government, dictatorship is the closest, but owner of a printing press is a far closer description, imo.

A newspaper puts a premium on free speech too, but that doesn't mean they have to publish everything submitted. The organization can still make choices.

As for "open to all", that is a reference to the former "Freethinkers Forum" which was a closed forum spun off from the Freethinkers Private Forum on IIDB where only non-theists were allowed membership. To avoid confusion, we wished to make it clear that this FF did not have similar membership requirements.

livius,

Thanks for your response to Carlos. I found it very interesting.

Could you expand a little more on the similarities between the printing press model and discussion forums?

I can understand the dictatorship model and why there wouldn't be free speech under that paradigm. And I can clearly see the parallels there.

I'm having a more difficult time understanding how the printing press model more closely exemplifies discussion forums.

And while I wouldn't ask you to reveal anything you choose not to, I was wondering if you could share a little about the frustrations (or joys) of being a site owner with regards to free speech issues. Having not been a site owner or moderator or admin., I may not understand the perspective you have in that regards and may therefore have less of an understanding of your perspective as I have an understanding from the perspective of a participant.

Fence

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

Could you expand a little more on the similarities between the printing press model and discussion forums?

The basic element is that unlike in governmental models, a printing press is entirely dedicated to the production and distribution of words. Any involvement from contributors and readers is entirely voluntary, and the press has none of the powers a government has over the citizens in any given nation-state. The only power it has is to allow/deny access to its facilities (or products, as in the case of private forums).

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

And while I wouldn't ask you to reveal anything you choose not to, I was wondering if you could share a little about the frustrations (or joys) of being a site owner with regards to free speech issues.

That's another thread, I think, Fence. I'll consider putting something like that together, but in all likelihood it won't happen until I've finished dealing with some issues at work.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Okay, Carlos. Let's start from the beginning of this. Sweetie said:

To which I replied:

You challenged my statement above with this post, in which you attempted to disprove my response to Sweetie by doing a review of some of latin's offensive posts accompanied by your opinion that each of those posts were substantive and relevant to the threads in which they were posted. Here is one example from your post:

No problem at all, I already said the same

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Now, here are some problems I had with your post:

1. My statement to Sweetie was very carefully qualified. I clearly stated that the primary reason for latinijral's banning was that after a point his posts were almost exclusively personal attacks without any substance or relevance to the threads he was posting on.

Note that I very deliberately did not say that all his posts could be so described (since I had no doubt someone could find some that weren't) or that that was the only reason he was banned (since livius and I have posted thousands of words across multiple threads on the subject of why, specifically, he was banned.)

I had no problem at all reading your carefully qualified claim.
That was the reason of my first two questions to you:
1) * After what point?
2)*I asked you the evidence that latinijral's posts didn't have any substance or relevance to the threads he was posting on.

You never answered those questions. Not even now.
Liv responded today about the first question :
“The night of 5/19/2005 EST”
According to her response that was hours before Latinijral was banned.. without any warning .

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

2. Obviously substance and relevance are subjective terms.

Well, you were the one who did the claim to Sweetie. Not me.
You are finally accepting of being non objective/subjective on your claim about Latinijral’s posts as your exposed reason why you banned him.

Let me tell you that I expected more from you , knowing your skeptic and critical thinking background from other boards..
I expected objectivism ( regarding rules , adm.actions ) from this FF administration when I signed in, I was wrong.

How come you can tell Sweetie of being wrong on her claim about why Latinijral’s was banned.?
Just because your subjectivism rules over her claim ?
Just because you are the owner of this forum ?
You claimed your subjectivism to her as a FF administrator, assuming that was an unquestionable evidence.
You were wrong.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

For example I completely disagree with your assessment above of latinijral's response to The Lone Ranger. In my opinion if I post "My Mother is a nurse, and works in a home for geriatrics", that does not make "Nurses are stupid whores and old people smell" a substantive or relevant response. However we can agree to disagree about what constitutes substantive and relevant responses.

Let me elaborate about the single post you picked. :
http://www.freethought-forum.com/fo...923&postcount=5
The Lone Ranger : a nick from a comic magazine character , posting how he likes to go camping alone.
Latinijral’s response : Liar!!!!! I always saw you camping with Tonto !
Try some chicks now!
Latinijral’s post has an image : The Lone Ranger and Tonto
Do I have to explain to you the related joke involved just because your subjectivism made you think it was NOT a substantive and relevant response?

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Given that, I will concede that it was careless of me to make a brief summation of our rationale for latinijral's banning as if it could possibly be summarized in a sentence. It obviously cannot..

Of course, when subjectivism rules and the FF administrator have the final word without questioning , what else can be expected.?
Only a little stone in your shoe : That’s me.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

However, this concession is not to be interpreted as an admission of a specific instance of lying, dishonesty in general, tyrannical administrative policies, an admission that we were wrong to ban latinijral or an insinuation that we have any intention of reinstating his membership here.

That is also part of your subjectivism.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

That's probably the last of what I will say on the subject in this thread, unless livius asks me to offer any more input.

I see, you want to say the final word in this discussion with me. As usual.
Unless livius asks you to continue?
I thought you were open to discuss this issues with the FF members and not to dodge it or to put a stop first without reading the replies to you..

I will continue with Livius if you think my arguments don’t deserve a reply from you.
I hope you don’t feel insulted with my reply.
My family is planning to return home on Friday , so I am not really hurry, and I am personally planning to return to my studio on Monday.

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

Carlos, it's not that I want the final word, that I'm trying to dodge anything or that I don't think your arguments deserve a reply from me. It's that I don't want to divert attention away from your dialogue with livius and that given our cooperation in the administration of this forum she can answer any questions you have about our policies and practices as well as I can, and does so with my full knowledge and consent.

As we've both said, at this juncture we are committed to doing whatever we feel is necessary to ensure that our vision for this forum is realized - up to and including exercising our authority (as the owners and operators of this site) to make subjective determinations about who can and cannot post here. I interpret some of your comments and recent behaviors as a demand that we forfeit that authority and an expressed intent to attack us and the forum incessantly if we don't comply.

Believe it or not, I genuinely want you to be satisfied that we have answered your questions and concerns to the best of our ability and for you to either accept our position and remain a member here or reject it and move on. But given that we have been explaining our rationale for a single administrative action (albeit an important one) for going on six months now, there will soon come a time when we decide we have said enough about it.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Carlos, it's not that I want the final word, that I'm trying to dodge anything or that I don't think your arguments deserve a reply from me. It's that I don't want to divert attention away from your dialogue with livius and that given our cooperation in the administration of this forum she can answer any questions you have about our policies and practices as well as I can, and does so with my full knowledge and consent. .

As I told here before , I want YOU to respond to my arguments directed and addressed to YOUR replies and YOUR claims.
Don’t worry about Liv and me , I have time to interact with you both.
She never dodge me any question addressed to her.

I addressed every single word of YOUR last post directed to ME.
At least I deserve the same attention from YOU.

You did to me repeatedly the same “Liv” excuse every time I am questioning you.
No more please.
No more dodging please.
No more “LIV” excuses please.
I prefer you to tell me you don’t want to respond to me because you don’t have time now. But please don’t send LIV to talk in your name, again, again and again

You made the claim , the burden of proof is on your side.
I just questioned your claim to Sweetie.

Please , answer my last post to you. Don’t dodge it again
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=368

I am trying to forget a word that can have your interpretation of an insult.
Help me to forget it.

Take your time.

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

Once again you accuse me of dodging questions I've already answered. Goodbye, Carlos.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Once again you accuse me of dodging questions I've already answered. Goodbye, Carlos.

I am accusing you all the time of dodging the questions and argument you DIDN'T answer and that were adressed to you.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=368
I am accusing you to use LIV as your excuse everytime I questioned you.
You are not helping me to forget that word.
Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. It seems that either I don't understand what you're asking or you don't understand (or accept) my answers. If I don't understand what you're asking I obviously can't answer it, and if you don't understand (or accept) my answers there is nothing more I can do about it.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. It seems that either I don't understand what you're asking or you don't understand (or accept) my answers. If I don't understand what you're asking I obviously can't answer it, and if you don't understand (or accept) my answers there is nothing more I can do about it.

Again?
I thought you said good bye.

If you don't plan to answer my last entire reply to you and you like to continuie dodging it with your excuses , please stay in silence and I will continue with Liv's response. I am asking this as a favor.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...&postcount=368

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Carlos

Again?
I thought you said good bye.

Yes, as hard as it is for you to understand this, human beings do change their minds.

Originally Posted by Carlos

I am asking this as a favor.

Sorry Carlos, if you can't make a single post without insinuating that I have lied or evaded your questions you haven't earned any favors from me. Quit saying you're going to answer livius and do it, otherwise people might get the impression you're being dishonest and evasive.