Moderators

[hrotha]

unless you know the constraints

Let me guess: he's only allowed one Holocaust-denial post per week?

 

[the sceptic]

Let me guess: he's only allowed one Holocaust-denial post per week?

I think he got that + one "I get to decide what is offensive" post and one "people who disagree with me have an anti me agenda" post a week.

good deal.

 

[Kotar_Rhakoz]

What else could "they (jews) are usually very violent" full stop, mean?

Especially from this poster who has discriminated against minorities (homosexuals) before, made a number of derogatory claims about atheists (eg that they do not have the intellectual abilities required to understand him) is a defender of General Franco and aside from other wackjob believes, he has in the cycling threads spearheaded a perennial one man terror campaign against anyone who dares say they watch the Tour de France.

And he is quite clearly saying in this very thread that he meant everything that was in his post and wants it restored. Someone who says "Jews are violent" but doesn't actually mean "Jews are violent" usually says something like - oops, that came out wrong sorry, I didn't want to post anti Semitic remarks. Instead he demands that "cowards" restore his post.

The they in the post meant "Jews who rebel against" not all Jews. Go read it again. The context of the whole post is Bobby Fischer turning against Jews despite being a person of Jewish heritage. He is talking about people who do the same as Bobby Fischer.

 

[BigMac]

You two are so predictable. And arrogant. You just can't help it. The problem with you, apart from being so full of yourselves, is that you're allowed to bait as you wish and continue to ignore clear moderator warnings to desist. It's not the first time you do it but I won't fall for it this time and hopefully a moderator will realize it.

 

[Kotar_Rhakoz]

Given your previous ban that was overturned, are you really sure it's a good idea to start discussing with people on what they are allowed to consider anti-Semitic comments?

If Echoes had written what you imply, nobody would have raised any questions. The word "usually" suggests a natural predilection on the part of the Jews as a general rule toward violence. With a politically charged situation in Gaza right now, it is perhaps a topic of conversation that is always destined for arguments and flame wars.

Hitch took part of the post out of the context of the thread. It was quite clear that Echoes was not referring to every Jew with that sentence when you read the whole post. The they're is only referring to the subject of the previous sentence that is Jews rebelling against their own community. Is it true? I do not know, but I do not think it deserved to be deleted.

He also went on to refer to Bobby Fischer's despicable diatribes against Jews and America as being violent words.

 

[Granville57]

Go read it again.

Well that's pointless now because the post has been edited.

But, uh, "welcome" to the forum?

 

[Kotar_Rhakoz]

Well that's pointless now because the post has been edited.

But, uh, "welcome" to the forum?

It is quoted in a post by The Hitch earlier in the thread, it can be read again. Well at least the part that The Hitch quoted.

And yes I am not new here, I have a new account. It was what the moderators wanted me to do to keep posting here so I did it.

 

[BigMac]

The they in the post meant "Jews who rebel against" not all Jews. Go read it again. The context of the whole post is Bobby Fischer turning against Jews despite being a person of Jewish heritage. He is talking about people who do the same as Bobby Fischer.

Thank you.

 

[The Hitch]

Hitch took part of the post out of the context of the thread.

No, I posted a link to the post and quoted the bit that the mods needed to be alerted to (otherwise it would have been just an unexplained link).

I did not take anything out of context since I offered the link for anyone to see the post.

And your version of what echoes meant requires requires an error on his part. Grammatically when someone writes

Jews rebelling against their own community is not uncommon. They're usually very violent.

the "they" refers to the subject of the previous sentence which is "Jews". Not "Jews rebelling against their own community" since the word "rebelling" in the sentence is quite clearly a verb.

Echoes posts are noticeable not only for the frequent demagoguery abusive nature, and support for several fascist dictators, but also the lack of typos and grammatical errors. It always reminded me of Einstein's saying that a clean desk is a sign of a sick mind, or in this case- a clean post.

So did he make a grammatical error on this one occasion? Maybe. Would be a coincidence though.

Given his previous posting history I don't think its that clear cut at all that he wasn't talking about Jews.

In either case, whether he meant it or not, he did say it, so of course that post was going to be deleted. The mods can't let a post which says Jews are violent to stand, just because other people suspect the poster had a different meaning in mind.

 

[Kotar_Rhakoz]

No, I posted a link to the post and quoted the bit that the mods needed to be alerted to (otherwise it would have been just an unexplained link).

I did not take anything out of context since I offered the link for anyone to see the post.

And your version of what echoes meant requires requires an error on his part. Grammatically when someone writes

the "they" refers to the subject of the previous sentence which is "Jews". Not "Jews rebelling against their own community" since the word "rebelling" in the sentence is quite clearly a verb.

Echoes posts are noticeable not only for the frequent demagoguery abusive nature, and support for several fascist dictators, but also the lack of typos and grammatical errors. It always reminded me of Einstein's saying that a clean desk is a sign of a sick mind, or in this case- a clean post.

So did he make a grammatical error on this one occasion? Maybe. Would be a coincidence though.

Given his previous posting history I don't think its that clear cut at all that he wasn't talking about Jews.

In either case, whether he meant it or not, he did say it, so of course that post was going to be deleted. The mods can't let a post which says Jews are violent to stand, just because other people suspect the poster had a different meaning in mind.

Yes you did take the quote out of context because he uses the word violent to refer to Bobby Fischers comments against Jews. There is no evidence that Bobby Fischer did any violent acts against Jews. That could not be seen seeing the post was deleted although it is has now been partially been restored.

When I first read it I read it as I explained it. I questioned whether it was true but I did not think he was referring to every Jew.

EDIT: You need to remember the subject under discussion was Bobby Fischer, a person of Jewish heritage who rebelled against Jews, whose hatred of Jews was extremely strong. The grammar might not be perfect but the whole overriding topic was not Jews as a whole, it was Bobby Fischer and who he was. Echoes was going from one Jew who rebelled to other Jews who rebelled from there community. Again I do not know whether what he said was true, but I do not think it was worthy of deletion.

 

[MarkvW]

Yes you did take the quote out of context because he uses the word violent to refer to Bobby Fischers comments against Jews. There is no evidence that Bobby Fischer did any violent acts against Jews. That could not be seen seeing the post was deleted although it is has now been partially been restored.

When I first read it I read it as I explained it. I questioned whether it was true but I did not think he was referring to every Jew.

EDIT: You need to remember the subject under discussion was Bobby Fischer, a person of Jewish heritage who rebelled against Jews, whose hatred of Jews was extremely strong. The grammar might not be perfect but the whole overriding topic was not Jews as a whole, it was Bobby Fischer and who he was. Echoes was going from one Jew who rebelled to other Jews who rebelled from there community. Again I do not know whether what he said was true, but I do not think it was worthy of deletion.

Wow! You joined the forum today! You have four posts to your name, and ALL FOUR of them are about an off-topic post that has already been deleted. Welcome to the forum SOCKPUPPET!

 

[Kotar_Rhakoz]

*deleted by mod*

Did you read my posts?

If you did you would have seen that I have already stated that I am not new here but I have a new account because the moderators requested that I create a new one to continue to post here. I am just following the moderators requests. In my view they have been far too nice to me in allowing a new start, I certainly would not have done so if I was a moderator. However they have done so so I have created this new account.

EDIT: There are a lot better people than me involved in this situation. I am not sure why they are so good, but I am very grateful.

 

[the sceptic]

deleted by mod

these personal attacks dont get deleted?

another fine instance of CN moderation.

 

[sittingbison]

these personal attacks dont get deleted?

another fine instance of CN moderation.

thank Afrank
10 chars

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Look, I should have written here after I came from my ban to clear some things up. Some important and grave things. I did not do so because I was advised not to touch the topic again. I wrote two letters to the moderators presenting a case, not for them to have pitty on me, but to explain how things really were and have me back because it was a mistake to ban me in the first place. What most of you know, or think you know, is nothing to what was discussed mainly between me and sittingbison, who I will always be thankful too, but the word of some misinformed, judgemental persons and bullies. I shut up when I came back and risked having my 'persona' marked and tainted, but to clear things up, I'd be delighted if any of the moderators would post my letters for everyone to see. But at the end of the day, I do think I was admited back for something else than 'innocence' being attributed to me, which is quite sad. So I think 'that previous ban that was overturned' is irrelevant as to where I am allowed or should comment on the subject or not. Hope this doesn't get deleted.

And most of us don't know what was said and discussed between you and SB and therefore cannot use it in our judgements. I understand the matter is closed, so we can't really ask either, which makes it harder.

And nobody's saying you can't post on the subject. I'm just questioning whether weighing in on a controversial, related subject is especially wise given that you seem from the above post well aware that you're going to be judged for doing so with the previous incident in mind, and it's a subject destined for flame wars.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Errr... What? I would have a massive problem with that if I saw it.

Yeah, me too.

 

[python]

Yes you did take the quote out of context because he uses the word violent to refer to Bobby Fischers comments against Jews. There is no evidence that Bobby Fischer did any violent acts against Jews. That could not be seen seeing the post was deleted although it is has now been partially been restored.

When I first read it I read it as I explained it. I questioned whether it was true but I did not think he was referring to every Jew.

EDIT: You need to remember the subject under discussion was Bobby Fischer, a person of Jewish heritage who rebelled against Jews, whose hatred of Jews was extremely strong. The grammar might not be perfect but the whole overriding topic was not Jews as a whole, it was Bobby Fischer and who he was. Echoes was going from one Jew who rebelled to other Jews who rebelled from there community. Again I do not know whether what he said was true, but I do not think it was worthy of deletion.

have to agree with this post.

not only i was a regular contributor to the subject thread, i actually read all posts by ethos and, as can be easily seen by anyone, i held a diametrically opposing view to his one re. kasparov vs fischer roles in chess politics.

that said, as kotar pointed out, the context of the modded post is everything.

it is absolutely obvious from the ethos' other posts in the thread that he was not only highly critical of bobby's antl-Semitic tirades, he was disgusted by them. not to see THAT and to disregard this in making a judgement about the edited post means either the person did not read those posts or was lead by something other than what was actually meant...

again, i often dont agree with ethos' ideas, not just in that thread, but felt that in the interest of fairness it's worth pointing he was grossly misunderstood and improperly moderated,imo.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Just to clarify, is this the "whine about the moderators" thread, or the "jump The Hog's ***" thread? Is there any other poster about whom so much "discussion" would be allowed to go on and on - in two different threads, no less?

 

[sittingbison]

No....I want you to stop baiting each other. And certainly not in the mods thread which as we all know is exclusively for bashing about the mods and not insulting each other

Just to clarify, is this the "whine about the moderators" thread, or the "jump The Hog's ***" thread?...

So, who's been nominated the witchfinder general?

OMG now the Moderator thread has fallen to vortexing!!!!

good post hogs

BTW now hog is banned I am moving all this to the member appreciation thread

 

[the sceptic]

No....I want you to stop baiting each other. And certainly not in the mods thread which as we all know is exclusively for bashing about the mods and not insulting each other







good post hogs

BTW now hog is banned I am moving all this to the member appreciation thread

fine, perhaps you could explain why there was no ban for those that baited hog then?

 

[sittingbison]

fine, perhaps you could explain why there was no ban for those that baited hog then?

time is of the essence

 

[the sceptic]

time is of the essence

whatever you say champ. keep running the forum into the ground.

 

[BroDeal]

whatever you say champ. keep running the forum into the ground.

I blame rank stupidity on the part of the mods. There are a lot of forums. They are all in competition with one another. If you want to discuss racing then go to Podium Cafe. If you want to talk tech then go to RBR or Weight Weenies. For general cycling use RBR or Bike Forums. The Clinic was the only thing that made this place unique, and the mods have done their best to throttle the life out of it.

The notorious Coolhand looks like King Solomon compared to this lot. Banning people for feedback in the "About" forum? Really? Whose idiotic idea of customer service was that?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Banning people for feedback in the "About" forum? Really? Whose idiotic idea of customer service was that?

Obvious baiter is obvious.

Having rules and then banning people who break those rules seems pretty consistent to me.

I've been banned thanks to those same rules.

I think twice now when a discussion starts to go in circles and evolve into more bickering. Believe it or not.

 

[MarkvW]

I blame rank stupidity on the part of the mods. There are a lot of forums. They are all in competition with one another. If you want to discuss racing then go to Podium Cafe. If you want to talk tech then go to RBR or Weight Weenies. For general cycling use RBR or Bike Forums. The Clinic was the only thing that made this place unique, and the mods have done their best to throttle the life out of it.

The notorious Coolhand looks like King Solomon compared to this lot. Banning people for feedback in the "About" forum? Really? Whose idiotic idea of customer service was that?

Note that Sitting Bison is now banning people who criticize his moderation. Read his most recent ban post. Absolutely no sense that there might be a conflict of interest there.

And I won't say a darn thing more about this because I am concerned that he will impose a "harassment" ban upon me.