What's wrong with this picture?

[woodlawn]

>I understand the point you are both making. I assume you are

>not talking about being offended by trite, giggly, inane

>posts, because as annoying as those may be, they don’t violate

>the rules.

 

Neither does saying you are glad an Israeli astronaut is dead because he was involved in Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear plant in 1983 -- but Ad rian got kicked out because of that comment anyway.

 

What you have to understand is that there are no "rules" here in any meaningful sense of that word. Hooboy and his minions do whatever they please, and when you point out to them that what they are doing doesn't comport with the "rules" they keep talking about, they fall back on the tried and true refrain: "Hooboy pays the bills so he can do what he wants." That is exactly what happened in my discussion with "Daddy" in this thread. That is what the inane crap about "Judge Judy" means. That is the way any discussion of these so-called "rules" always ends.

 

The Hooboy crew doesn't realize this, of course, but what they are doing is the sort of make-it-up-as-you-go-along legislation the Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned as "unconstitutionally vague." The Court long ago explained that a statute violates the requirement of due process if it is so vague or elastic that one can never really be sure whether one's behavior violates it or not. When you think about it, that is a rule of simple fairness -- how can it be fair to punish someone for violating a law if the law is drafted in such a manner that he can't tell what is permissible and what isn't? But fairness doesn't really have any place in this discussion.

 

> I too have seen one of the Camp Fire Girls turn

>into a filthy mouthed spawn of Satan, wish someone a horrible

>death, and then have the audacity to lecture someone else

>about etiquette just days later. The hypocrisy is not lost on

>me.

 

Peachy.

 

> If someone dismisses those people as

>dysfunctional old ladies, don’t you think that is insisting

>that their views on the relative importance of an internet

>message board, are the only correct views?

 

Yes, but as it happens their views ARE the only correct views. Let's not get so caught up in this "balanced" approach of the modern news media that we lose sight of the fact that some things are true and others are not. We can give a "balanced" view of the Holocaust by giving equal time to Elie Wiesel and to Mel Gibson's father. But the truth is that Wiesel's position is correct while the position of the Holocaust deniers is false. So it is with those who get upset about what happens on an obscure message board like this and those who do not. The undeniable fact is that so long as no one is identified by a real name here, no one has anything real at stake here. Whatever "harm" is done by harsh words written here exists only in the imaginations of those who think they are harmed, not in reality.

 

To give another analogy, I have known men to become extremely emotional over the result of a golf game. But the men were not pros and had nothing at stake in the game -- they were supposed to be playing for no other reason than enjoyment. So why get upset about it? Many people who play games in which they have nothing real at stake get so caught up that they become furious if the games don't go as they wish. But this reaction is not in accord with reality and should never be encouraged. The fact that many people are susceptible to hysteria is no reason to say that hysteria is a good thing. Do you really want to give equal time to hysteria?

[phage]

>Neither does saying you are glad an Israeli astronaut is dead

>because he was involved in Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear

>plant in 1983 -- but Ad rian got kicked out because of that

>comment anyway.

 

Actually, they say that “tasteless and offensive posts may be removed.” His postings on that topic were clearly both. I know you have an excellent memory so I don’t need to remind you that he was celebrating the death of ALL of the astronauts because the U.S. had dared to allow an Israeli aboard. He used the opportunity to rub salt in an open wound that many, many of the board’s participants had at the time.

 

I think this goes to the heart of my comment about there being limits to what the site’s owner/administrators are willing to be associated with. I imagine (don’t know of course) that you don’t think much of Hooboy’s chosen profession. However, this site is something he has created and is at least part of his livelihood. He is not anonymous to the advertisers on this site and does need to be concerned about what goes on here.

 

You may not agree with him on what situations – if any – should be actionable, but you aren’t walking in his shoes. I know that I would be ten times worse. I would have zapped ad rian in a heartbeat. The guy that was posting about Pat Tillman’s nude body… history. Anyone who sent me a scathing private email…toast.

 

I might end up with a pabulum filled place that was so boring that no one would participate, but I have a tendency to let power go to my head.

 

>The undeniable fact is that so long as no one is

>identified by a real name here, no one has anything real at

>stake here. Whatever "harm" is done by harsh words written

>here exists only in the imaginations of those who think they

>are harmed, not in reality.

 

That is true for most people, but there are varying degrees of anonymity here and I don’t think it rises to the level of “undeniable fact” that all harm exists only in imaginations.

 

I know that your personal policy is that you will never ever reveal even the smallest tidbit of personal information. That is your chosen method of participating in the message center, however, not everyone has made the same choice. You may think they are crazy for coming out from behind the anonymous internet handle, but it’s their choice to make and it does alter the reality somewhat.

 

Many of the regular posters here have met one another and know the person behind the handle. I’ve had long email exchanges with several posters where we have shared quite a bit of personal information. I’ve spent hours and hours on the phone with one poster and we know full names, addresses, where each other works, family situations and everything else that a “real world” friend would know. That is how I have chosen to participate in the message center.

 

Regardless of the level of anonymity, I realize that no one is really harmed by harsh words. By the same token, no one is harmed if you go into the coffee room at work and start screaming obscenities, but it is still frowned upon and there would be consequences.

[HooBoy]

"Beat me, beat me", cried the dead horse.

 

In 24 hours, I wanna lock this thread if no new light is shed on the subject.

 

Thanks to everyone for your contribution and to Daddy for the clarification.

[woodlawn]

>Actually, they say that “tasteless and offensive posts may be

>removed.” His postings on that topic were clearly both.

 

Says who? Didn't you just get through telling me that we should make room for different points of view on what is offensive? Saying that his postings were offensive simply assumes that everyone would see them the way you do. But that assumption isn't true and you know it. His postings seemed outrageous to us because we seldom are exposed to the views of the millions and millions of people who feel about Israel exactly the way he does. To those people, what he said probably seems pretty reasonable.

 

>I

>know you have an excellent memory so I don’t need to remind

>you that he was celebrating the death of ALL of the astronauts

>because the U.S. had dared to allow an Israeli aboard.

 

Actually I don't remember him saying that at all. If anyone can find a copy of the post I'd be interested to see whether my recollection is correct or incorrect.

 

 

> He

>used the opportunity to rub salt in an open wound that many,

>many of the board’s participants had at the time.

 

And what was Traveller doing when he replied to Ad rian by saying that he wanted US troops to barbecue some more Muslims, or words to that effect? Has he been banned also? If not, why not?

 

> I imagine (don’t know of course) that you

>don’t think much of Hooboy’s chosen profession.

 

And what profession would that be?

 

 

>However, this

>site is something he has created and is at least part of his

>livelihood. He is not anonymous to the advertisers on this

>site and does need to be concerned about what goes on here.

 

Hooboy has repeatedly told us, I believe with the intention of belittling what is said here and those who say it, that this message board is visited by only a small percentage of the people who come to this site, is that not so? He has also said repeatedly that he seldom reads the board himself. If what he has told us is true then he has little reason to care what is said here.

 

> Whatever "harm" is done by harsh words written

>>here exists only in the imaginations of those who think they

>>are harmed, not in reality.

 

>Many of the regular posters here have met one another and know

>the person behind the handle. I’ve had long email exchanges

>with several posters where we have shared quite a bit of

>personal information. I’ve spent hours and hours on the phone

>with one poster and we know full names, addresses, where each

>other works, family situations and everything else that a

>“real world” friend would know. That is how I have chosen to

>participate in the message center.

 

That's nice, but I assume that people who have used this message board to become friends in the real world are not likely to be yelling insults at each other on the board. Right?

 

>Regardless of the level of anonymity, I realize that no one is

>really harmed by harsh words. By the same token, no one is

>harmed if you go into the coffee room at work and start

>screaming obscenities, but it is still frowned upon and there

>would be consequences.

 

I think you confuse two different situations. In one, an anonymous stranger whom I will never meet in reality says something harsh to me, who is also totally anonymous to him. In another, there is a personal confrontation among people who know and work with each other in the real world. Not a good analogy at all.

 

Nice talking to you, however. Don't be such a stranger!

[HooBoy]

>>>Hooboy has repeatedly told us, I believe with the intention of belittling what is said here and those who say it, that this message board is visited by only a small percentage of the people who come to this site, is that not so? He has also said repeatedly that he seldom reads the board himself. If what he has told us is true then he has little reason to care what is said here.<<<

 

There was a time when I did not care what went on here. But I have made it clear in my most recent posts that I do care and I monitor this Message Center daily, several times a day.

 

For the record.

 

Just to be clear.

[HooBoy]

>>>Hooboy has repeatedly told us, I believe with the intention of belittling what is said here and those who say it, that this message board is visited by only a small percentage of the people who come to this site, is that not so?<<<

 

I am sorry, but please do not *suppose* my intentions.

 

How in the world could I even conceive of belittling anyone with such a high opinion of himself? I would not, sir.

 

When I apolgized back in December for my past transgressions, you were quick to hop on the "well we've heard that before" bandwagon. While things have remained steady here, you have continued to maintain your negative stance with no interference from me or the

Moderators.

 

Personally, I am just happy I am not an escort and I do not have to put up with having your cock in my mouth because my gag reflex would be going full speed, not because of your cock size, and you would most likely wind up with vomit all over your weenie.

 

IMHO.

[Doug69]

>Personally, I am just happy I am not an escort and I do not

>have to put up with having your cock in my mouth because my

>gag reflex would be going full speed, not because of your cock

>size, and you would most likely wind up with vomit all over

>your weenie.

 

In case anyone is interested in learning the art of vigorously attacking an issue without attacking the person, this excerpt from Hooboy's post is an excellent learning guide.

 

Here, you will notice that Hooboy has told Woodlawn that he's grateful he doesn't have to be an escort because the thought of having Woodlawn's (likely small) cock in his mouth is so disgusting that he would puke.

 

So as you see, Hooboy is able to convey this interesting and powerful substantive point ABOUT THE ISSUE without engaging in any personal attacks on Woodlawn of any kind.

 

THAT is what Hooboy means when he says he dislikes personal attacks here. It is why he has enacted rules prohibiting personal attacks - because he, Hooboy, does not and would not engage in them, because he has great personal disdain for such attacks.

 

I think we should all work hard to emulate Hooboy's inspiring example.

[HooBoy]

>>>the thought of having Woodlawn's (likely small) cock<<<

 

I did NOT say woodlawn has a small cock -- you are spinning it.

 

GGood work as always, Doug...are you two guys roomates? You seem to be online at the same time.

[Rick Munroe]

>Good work as always, Doug...are you two guys roomates?

 

Who do you think cleans up the vomit? :7

[woodlawn]

>>>>Hooboy has repeatedly told us, I believe with the

>intention of belittling what is said here and those who say

>it, that this message board is visited by only a small

>percentage of the people who come to this site, is that not

>so?<<<

 

>I am sorry, but please do not *suppose* my intentions.

 

Where in my post do you see the word "suppose"? I said "I believe" my statement is correct, and I stand by it.

 

>How in the world could I even conceive of belittling anyone

>with such a high opinion of himself? I would not, sir.

 

Please do not "suppose" that you know how I feel about myself. Unlike a lot of posters here I don't use this board to go on and on and on about myself, so you have very little evidence on which to base such a supposition.

 

>When I apolgized back in December for my past transgressions,

>you were quick to hop on the "well we've heard that before"

>bandwagon.

 

If I was quick to do so, then the hateful words you direct at me toward the end of your last post prove that I was quite right, do they not? You do seem to have this pattern of apologizing and then returning to the behavior for which you apologized.

 

>While things have remained steady here, you have

>continued to maintain your negative stance with no

>interference from me or the

>Moderators.

 

Remained "steady"? If by that you mean you have not (until now) returned to the habit of personal attacks for which you apologized months ago, you know quite well that is not true. As for my "negative stance," that characterization comes from inside your head. My "stance" is and always has been that I describe what I observe here, good, bad or indifferent.

 

>Personally, I am just happy I am not an escort and I do not

>have to put up with having your cock in my mouth because my

>gag reflex would be going full speed, not because of your cock

>size, and you would most likely wind up with vomit all over

>your weenie.

 

Thanks for that hateful personal attack, which validates my observation that you do not practice the civility you demand from others. As if there were not plenty of other evidence of that already. It's become so obvious over the years that you are not willing to practice what you preach -- so why bother to preach? Is anyone really supposed to take your sermons seriously? If so, what do I do now -- hit the "Alert" button so the moderators will delete your post?

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

Hey Doug,

 

>Thanks for the defense, but this - what you summarized above -

>is not what I meant, although I can see how it was unclear. I

 

Thanks for clarifying. PEACE. :-)

 

VDN

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

>In 24 hours, I wanna lock this thread if no new light is shed

>on the subject.

 

I looked into my crystal meth ... I mean crystal ball. I predict there will be NO new light shed on this subject. LOCK IT NOW BROTHER!

 

http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~emcdonald/drafting/images/skeleton_key.jpg

[HooBoy]

Sorry, I did stoop to a low point.

 

Someone spilled a full glass of wine onto my spanking new laptop, ruining it and I was simply not in a good mood, certainly not a mood to read the negativity focused in what I perceived was my direction.

 

You are correct, I was wrong.

 

Carry on and perhaps soon I will bark like a chihuahua for you.

[woodlawn]

>Sorry, I did stoop to a low point.

 

Yes, that was pretty low all right.

 

>Carry on and perhaps soon I will bark like a chihuahua for

>you.

 

Please don't bark. Instead, why not forget about preaching civility and have some nice grilled lamb instead? It can be very good at this time of year if it's not served too hot. And after the lamb, you can relax with the latest issue of Good Housekeeping magazine and some Readers Digest condensed books. That always puts me in a good mood.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

>Please don't bark. Instead, why not forget about preaching

>civility and have some nice grilled lamb instead?

 

Oh my. If this isn't a sign to LOCK this thread and throw away the key then I don't know what is.

[Barry]

>>Please don't bark. Instead, why not forget about preaching

>>civility and have some nice grilled lamb instead?

>

>Oh my. If this isn't a sign to LOCK this thread and throw

>away the key then I don't know what is.

 

Not at all. Now if he had asked Hoo if he wanted some nice Fava beans with that, it would have crossed the line.

 

Barry :+

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

>Not at all. Now if he had asked Hoo if he wanted some nice

>Fava beans with that, it would have crossed the line.

 

Barry, you are man of class and decorum. I too agree cannibalism on a weekday is tacky.

 

VDN