Are you looking forward to Forum reforms?

Post Reported for Excessive Incendiary Linkage.

Post Reported for Excessive Post Reporting.

I quoted and addressed "...over reform that all but two people oppose....". My point is that what is seen here is a small sample. Jim Lumiere objected to being spoken for in another thread and I always hope for but did not expect a response much different from what he received.

Post reported for excessive recursion.

I was not sarcastic with you in any way - was the hostility really necessary?

I think it would be a good idea (for the sake of you and Jim), for everyone, when they make a statement regarding trends in opinions, to have a little logo included implying that their statements are indicative of the opinions that they have read in the respective thread.

Kind of like an admission that they are not psychics, and that they would like to comment within the bounds of a linear conversation . I would suggest the following, but modified for forum usage:



Again, this would be a special logo that everyone would include in their posts for the sake of you and Jim, so the next time someone types "everyone so far has ______", you will understand that they are only referring to participants in the conversation.




I made up for it, Ano!

Post Reported for playing the post-reported game!

I am smelling a new game thread, and it smells like Newark.

So in your terms I could look at you and say"In my opinion you are menatally I'll. Furthermore you are ignorant and since you opinions are born out of your ignorace you are wrong" and this would not be considered a personal attack?

I absolutely disagree, such statements are a direct persobnall attack and are not related to any opinion. the forums is aboslutely not a plce to experess such senitments. Period.

You actually include "your(sic) wrong" in as a personal attack? Yes, if you combine all of them you can make it into a definite personal attack, and the first three do cross the line. However, the last one was so ridiculous to even include on the list - and shows the crux of what they are actually opposed to.

Look at the forums honestly. Do you remember ever seeing someone say to someone else FUCK YOU? In two years, I have never seen this. I have seen FUCK YOUR OPINIONS, FUCKING MORON, and other variations of the word fuck uttered by one person. To tell someone what they are saying is ignorant is not a personal attack - telling them they are stupid is. People often speak out of ignorance in these forums - they go off half cocked without understanding the full details of something - hence, ignorance.

If we are going to deal with real personal attacks, then stop with all the ridiculous smoke screens. Any list that includes "you're wrong" on it, or a list like the one Cocoanut came up with of Enabran's comments, shows that there is a severe lack of understanding as to what actually constitutes a "personal attack".

Cris, suggesting that my statement would hold true for any mindset implies that I was speaking on behalf of a particular mindset. That is in opposition to my point in posting. It seemed I needed to be more emphatic in making that point but I am sincerely not hostile to you. I don't need to agree with you on all things to maintain my respect for you as a steadfast and consistent proponent of free speech. I apologize if you took offense as none was intended. It really was an attempt to refute any implication that I was of, or trying to speaking on behalf of, one particular mindset.

It clearly states in the TOS that "you're wrong" is only considered a personal attack when the properly designated emoticon is attached at the end:

"you're wrong "

Maybe you guys should read the TOS a little more carefully. Here is the link

Your an ass........





.....et to the forum.

You're ignorant

In truth, Cristiano, I do not thing "your wrong is a personal attack" I just added it in for completeness. I concede your point in that regard. I have seen the others used a few times: "Fuck you" maybe twice, but the others quite a number of times.

I also tend to agree the Enbaran's statements were not intented as personal attacks. My point was really to hightlight that somone proposed that "You are ingorant and mentally ill" is not a personal attack. To that extent I am guilty of forum hyperbole. Eh. So what, it amuses me.

You're free to disagree. That's whats so great about these forums

Note that I did say Mentaly Ill was borderline, but I prefer to err on the side of not restricting people.

Uh uh, your ignoreant!

I agree with you here. If someone told me they thought I was mentally ill, so what? The only way for someone to marginalize you is for you to let them. People place way too much value on what someone else says. I would much rather err on the side of letting people speak their minds - it often just makes them look bad anyway. To me, preventing someone the freedom to say "you're mentally ill" is a worse thing than someone saying it.

I just looked at page 1 again. This thread was AMAZING until page 2.

All I could see on page 1 were diagrams.



The 4 quadrant corners of the
Earth sphere rotate as a quad
spiraling helix - thus creating
4 simultaneous days per each
rotation and 4 simultaneous
years per 1 orbit around Sun.
Greenwich day is of stupidity.

-Gene Ray

Odd I feel the same way about the names FIC and Tekki-wikkiati. I haf offered that opinion before and been assured that FIC and Tekki Wikiati are very divisive terms that constitute personal attacks as they marginalized members of a particular group.

I have never said someone should prevented from using the terms, just to not be surprised if someone is insulted by them. They were used at times as an attempt to marginalize the efforts of people - it doesn't mean it was succesful at doing so. I didn't say that calling someone mentally ill would not offend them. I simply find the efforts to control speech to the point of making the forums sanitized from any dissent to be far more offensive than someone hauling off and calling someone nuts (or hauling off and calling someone FIC or anything else).

If you recall, no one who found those terms offensive launched a campaign to change the forum rules to prevent them from being uttered. They just made it clear what they thought of the inventor of those terms and his agenda. While the terms were clearly meant to be derisive, it was the agenda that spawned them that was truly offensive.

yeah but apparently his answer was wrong beyond anyones wildest imaginations.