Time for the Potomac membership to chime in

[Spence]

I just got a PM from WarEagle, asking to be re-instated to the Potomac. He said he has apologized to Biggie. [I'm assuming that's an apology I haven't seen 'cause the one I did see qualified as another insult, not an apology.] I can't promise I'll go by what you, the Potomacites, want regarding WarEagle, but I'm definitely take it into consideration.

So, what do you think? Let him back in or not?

[Also, I need to check with Biggie and see what he thinks. I also need to find out if Biggie received a real apology, not the fake one I saw in the thread.]

[Keino]

I was a big advocate of banning him in the first place. However, I am not without mercy or forgiveness. I think that I would probably let him back in, but his admittance would be conditional. He would certainly, if up to me, be required to post a real apology. The minute he starts another thread advancing his brand of bigotry he should be dismissed, permanently (From the Potomac, as I never advanced the idea he should be banned from the site completely).

I don't really agree with censorship, but at the same time I don't feel that people should be subjected to hateful speech. We wouldn't tolerate it being directed at Jews, or African Americans due to the history of intolerance aimed at these two groups, nor should it be tolerated being aimed at Muslims.

If he is serious about making a contribution to this forum, which really is about the exchange of ideas, then let him come back. The minute he demonstrates an ulterior motive, then he should be banished.

That is my take.

[akhhorus]

I vote no. He's entitled to whatever stupid beliefs he wants, but he has been happily abusive towards posters here and posting just all sorts of racist diatribes. I have a real problem with letting him back in if he "behaves himself" or giving him proverbial one last chance. He's shown that the muslims are his total obsession, and its beyond the point of any rationality or sanity with him. I do not believe for one second that he would be able to return conditional and drop the subject, nor would I believe any apology he proffers to anyone he called a terrorist sympathizer or anything. His supposed apology to Biggie was callous, meaningless and only came about after Dave pointed out that his 9-11 comment could(and should) get him banned.

Just my two cents. He shouldn't be let back into Potomac, and I would be surprised if he doesn't continue his Islamic Pogrom in Off-Topic(which he did after the Glasgow incidents, probably in an attempt to expand readership of his hatred).

And: if he's considering his faux apology to Biggie in the thread as his apology, then this isn't an issue and he's out IMO.

[RedskinsDave]

He really crossed the line with his attacks on both Biggie and Flave. I'm not so sure an apology cuts it. I will wait to see other's comments but I think he went too far and, if ever allowed back in, should have to stay out longer.

[PyroGenic]

I think it depends on whether or not he's actually sincere about his apology. Even if he is, I still wouldn't let him post in the potomac. He ignores big factors in his debates with the other members and has shown in the past that he doesn't really contribute to anything besides his own agenda in trying to convince people that muslims are a blood-thirsty, savage people and nothing else.

Also, if his racist views pour into other threads he should probably be banned again.

[redskin_rich]

I think he'll end up pulling the same thing again. The simple fact that he only apologized after he was banned says a lot. The man hates and that won't change, what do we expect him to just bite his tongue on certain issues, while we all know they are there?

IMO, it will cause an uncomfortable atmosphere for some and it will be just a waiting around for a bomb to go off for the rest.

[Spence]

Okay, not looking too good for WarEagle so far. Keep 'em comin', people.

[shally]

i was, and am, unalterably opposed to him being banned.

the written conditions for being able to post in potomac are different from those in the general forum ... where nobody has any issues with him as far as i can determine. that is hypocrisy. if he is such a terrible person, why is it he is allowed to remain at hR at all ? we forgive his "transgressions" as long as he hews to the redskin line ? rubbish !!!

for the most part, his posts were sincere, but offensive, to most posters.
anyone was free to ignore his threads (as i did) or to put him on "ignore").
i think the response of banning him was childish and, to some extent, indicates a frustration on the part of some to being unable to counter his arguments persuasively on the face of them. hence, he was attacked as being
intolerant. i thought it was wrong to ban him in the first place, and it remains wrong to continue it

[Keino]

I think its hilarious that I wanted him banned, but of those who responded, Im the only one who said let him back in.

[shally]

I think its hilarious that I wanted him banned, but of those who responded, Im the only one who said let him back in.
no, you are not alone

and, honestly,i think this whole thread is juvenile and beneath the usual sterling content of this forum

[akhhorus]

i was, and am, unalterably opposed to him being banned.

the written conditions for being able to post in potomac are different from those in the general forum ... where nobody has any issues with him as far as i can determine. that is hypocrisy. if he is such a terrible person, why is it he is allowed to remain at hR at all ? we forgive his "transgressions" as long as he hews to the redskin line ? rubbish !!!

for the most part, his posts were sincere, but offensive, to most posters.
anyone was free to ignore his threads (as i did) or to put him on "ignore").
i think the response of banning him was childish and, to some extent, indicates a frustration on the part of some to being unable to counter his arguments persuasively on the face of them. hence, he was attacked as being
intolerant. i thought it was wrong to ban him in the first place, and it remains wrong to continue it

Shally, he can have any views he wants, as can anyone here, but WarEagle made accusations about other posters and treated other posters here like garbage. This isn't a free speech issue and don't try to make it into one.

[PyroGenic]

i was, and am, unalterably opposed to him being banned.

the written conditions for being able to post in potomac are different from those in the general forum ... where nobody has any issues with him as far as i can determine. that is hypocrisy. if he is such a terrible person, why is it he is allowed to remain at hR at all ? we forgive his "transgressions" as long as he hews to the redskin line ? rubbish !!!

for the most part, his posts were sincere, but offensive, to most posters.
anyone was free to ignore his threads (as i did) or to put him on "ignore").
i think the response of banning him was childish and, to some extent, indicates a frustration on the part of some to being unable to counter his arguments persuasively on the face of them. hence, he was attacked as being
intolerant. i thought it was wrong to ban him in the first place, and it remains wrong to continue it

That's not exactly true. He just ignored the arguments that he didn't want to debate or claimed that they weren't relevant.

[Carmelo]

can I get a link to the thread in question? I keep switching computers and forgetting to reenter the potomac password and I miss out on a lot of new post. I'd like to read what is specifically in question before I respond.

I will say that sometimes, I wonder whether that guy is real or if he's another Ilovebush. Some of the stuff he says is so ridiculous.

[akhhorus]

That's not exactly true. He just ignored the arguments that he didn't want to debate or claimed that they weren't relevant.

Right. Whenever anyone found an example or pointed out an inconsistency/factual problem with his argument, he just ignored and and posted something else, or accused them or sympathizing with the terrorists.

[fent]

can I get a link to the thread in question? I keep switching computers and forgetting to reenter the potomac password and I miss out on a lot of new post. I'd like to read what is specifically in question before I respond.

I will say that sometimes, I wonder whether that guy is real or if he's another Ilovebush. Some of the stuff he says is so ridiculous.

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=41774

[akhhorus]

can I get a link to the thread in question? I keep switching computers and forgetting to reenter the potomac password and I miss out on a lot of new post. I'd like to read what is specifically in question before I respond.

I will say that sometimes, I wonder whether that guy is real or if he's another Ilovebush. Some of the stuff he says is so ridiculous.

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=41774

Towards the end he accuses Biggie of celebrating 9-11 because he's muslim.

[redskin_rich]

i was, and am, unalterably opposed to him being banned.

the written conditions for being able to post in potomac are different from those in the general forum ... where nobody has any issues with him as far as i can determine. that is hypocrisy. if he is such a terrible person, why is it he is allowed to remain at hR at all ? we forgive his "transgressions" as long as he hews to the redskin line ? rubbish !!!

for the most part, his posts were sincere, but offensive, to most posters.
anyone was free to ignore his threads (as i did) or to put him on "ignore").
i think the response of banning him was childish and, to some extent, indicates a frustration on the part of some to being unable to counter his arguments persuasively on the face of them. hence, he was attacked as being
intolerant. i thought it was wrong to ban him in the first place, and it remains wrong to continue it

The guy openly insulted quite a few members and had been doing it for some time. It was nothing about countering his arguments, plenty of people did and he just kept spewing his intolerant crap.

You may not have seen all his remarks over the past few months but I did, as I received lots of PM's from members complaining about him.

I wouldn't let him back in and the second he posts any of his crap somewhere else on the board, I would permanently ban him from the entire site.

[Keino]

i was, and am, unalterably opposed to him being banned.

the written conditions for being able to post in potomac are different from those in the general forum ... where nobody has any issues with him as far as i can determine. that is hypocrisy. if he is such a terrible person, why is it he is allowed to remain at hR at all ? we forgive his "transgressions" as long as he hews to the redskin line ? rubbish !!!

for the most part, his posts were sincere, but offensive, to most posters.
anyone was free to ignore his threads (as i did) or to put him on "ignore").
i think the response of banning him was childish and, to some extent, indicates a frustration on the part of some to being unable to counter his arguments persuasively on the face of them. hence, he was attacked at being
intolerant. i thought it wa wrong to ban him in the first place, and it remains wrong to continue it

I disagreed with you then and I disagree with your reasoning now. It is impossible to debate someone who doesn't respond to arguments and frankly he was shown, persuasively to be hypocritical in his positions.

I further disagree with the notion that he was attacked as being intolerant. His own posts convicted him of that. How is it useful to have a poster here who everyone has on "ignore"? The fact is, it has never been permissible in this forum to attack other users on a personal level, which he clearly did to at least 2 of our users. Furthermore, it is not hypocrisy to ban someone from a sub-forum here that requires special permission to enter into in the first place while leaving him free to participate in other areas of the site.

At the end of the day, were he spitting his venom at Jews, while arguing that you personally, being a Jew are guilty of ruining our society, I don't think you would be so quick to say "Just ignore him".

[fent]

i say no because he makes me feel liberal which makes me want to take a shower every time i read his drivel ;).

seriously, though, we've let others (ILoveBush! excluded) back after making similar attacks, both personal and against the general US populace (some without even the apology we want from WE), so if he actually apologises and wants to be subject to the ridicule he's sure to face, then let him back in.

[GreenspanDan]

he is the polar opposite of me politically, but i wouldn't mind him being reinstated. speaking solely for myself i'd rather see the other side first hand from the horse's mouth, than be shielded from it.

however, considering it wasn't me who was the target of these outbursts, i don't think it's my call.

[akhhorus]

At the end of the day, were he spitting his venom at Jews, while arguing that you personally, being a Jew are guilty of ruining our society, I don't think you would be so quick to say "Just ignore him".

I think the better analogy would be if a virilent Anti-Semite was posting all sorts of the usual Jewish conspiracy stuff(9-11, Pearl harbor, etc etc) and after Shally attacked him for his comments, the Anti-Semite started accusing Shally(and those who disagreed with him) of being part of said conspiracy.

[redskin_rich]

Here is an older thread, that was pretty much the start of all this:

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=41151

[Keino]

I think the better analogy would be if a virilent Anti-Semite was posting all sorts of the usual Jewish conspiracy stuff(9-11, Pearl harbor, etc etc) and after Shally attacked him for his comments, the Anti-Semite started accusing Shally(and those who disagreed with him) of being part of said conspiracy.

I agree that is a better analogy, but really I was just trying to get Shally to put himself in Biggie's shoes and ask himself if his position would be the same.

[flave1969]

Personally, I hate to see people Banned.

He took me to a place that led me to personally upset people I respect very much.

I think that if he is too be re-instated he must be made to put reasoning and where appropriate factual evidence behind what he says.

He personally has insulted my country on three occassions but worse still he took the integrity of my lifelong Muslim friends and trampled all over it and that is unacceptable.

I am happy for him to come back, but make him back up what he says.

[rskinsfan10]

no, you are not alone

and, honestly,i think this whole thread is juvenile and beneath the usual sterling content of this forumFirst, his banning was "childish", and now this thread is "juvenile"? I understand that you have a lot of posts, but that doesn't mean that you have been around hR for it's duration. Let me assure you that creating a thread for the general membership to weigh in whether another member should be allowed back in isn't the norm. Banishment usually isn't something that we allow to be put through "the democratic process". Our house, our rules is the standard here. Yet, Tom has decided to let you and everyone else that frequents this side of the river give your opinions on whether or not WE should be allowed back. I personally find that to be far from "childish" or "juvenile". There have been many members banned from that forum, let alone the entire site, that haven't been afforded this consideration.

I will point out to you and anyone else that cares to read this as I did in that thread that "Basic rules of civility still apply". That means that the Potomac isn't there for any member to have free reign on attacking someone in such a ridiculous manner despite the fact there is more leeway in there in comparison to the rest of hR. "Basic rules of civility still apply". It says so in the description of the Potomac. It needs not to be forgotten.

[Carmelo]

Personally, I hate to see people Banned.

He took me to a place that led me to personally upset people I respect very much.

I think that if he is too be re-instated he must be made to put reasoning and where appropriate factual evidence behind what he says.

He personally has insulted my country on three occassions but worse still he took the integrity of my lifelong Muslim friends and trampled all over it and that is unacceptable.

I am happy for him to come back, but make him back up what he says.

After reading those post, I still wonder if someone like this can actually exist. Is this a real person or is he here just to get under our skin?

I think you should let him back... I think that if he really wants to be a part of the discussion, someone should come up with a bulleted list of all the argument points that he has disregarded and have him answer them one by one. Worse than the things he says, I hate the way he dodges the facts presented to him to come to his twisted conclusions.

[SkinsKY]

some of the things he said were terrible and purely inflammatory. The apology doesn't mean that much to me, so I'd hardly factor it into the decision at all. If he's let back in, he needs to know that the leash is so short that a single misstep will get him tossed on his ear. I don't want to see personal attacks on this board. I also don't want to see someone who just dodges questions they don't want to answer (not bannable, but a nuisance).

[shally]

I disagreed with you then and I disagree with your reasoning now. It is impossible to debate someone who doesn't respond to arguments and frankly he was shown, persuasively to be hypocritical in his positions.

I further disagree with the notion that he was attacked as being intolerant. His own posts convicted him of that. How is it useful to have a poster here who everyone has on "ignore"? The fact is, it has never been permissible in this forum to attack other users on a personal level, which he clearly did to at least 2 of our users. Furthermore, it is not hypocrisy to ban someone from a sub-forum here that requires special permission to enter into in the first place while leaving him free to participate in other areas of the site.

At the end of the day, were he spitting his venom at Jews, while arguing that you personally, being a Jew are guilty of ruining our society, I don't think you would be so quick to say "Just ignore him".

i would prefer people who spew hatred of jews to be permitted to do so openly, so people can see them for who they are.

if you repress hate speech, you create martyrs

it takes 2 to argue...if nobody responded to any posts, he would have simply run out of steam

[shally]

I agree that is a better analogy, but really I was just trying to get Shally to put himself in Biggie's shoes and ask himself if his position would be the same.

give them a megaphone and let people see who they are..

now, that is different from someone saying "kill the jews" or inciting a riot. that is clearly different and at that point the behavior needs to be dealt with...

[BurgundyNGold]

I ignore listed him anyway, so it's up to Biggie and Flave, IMO.

[Keino]

i would prefer people who spew hatred of jews to be permitted to do so openly, so people can see them for who they are.

if you repress hate speech, you create martyrs

it takes 2 to argue...if nobody responded to any posts, he would have simply run out of steam

There are many avenues with which to spew hate speech. HR need not be one of those, and I doubt that any martyrs can be created from a sub-forum of a message board.

I think everyone can see W.E. for what he is, and Im not sure that exposure qualifies as a meaningful contribution to this forum.

[BurgundyNGold]

First, his banning was "childish", and now this thread is "juvenile"? I understand that you have a lot of posts, but that doesn't mean that you have been around hR for it's duration. Let me assure you that creating a thread for the general membership to weigh in whether another member should be allowed back in isn't the norm. Banishment usually isn't something that we allow to be put through "the democratic process". Our house, our rules is the standard here. Yet, Tom has decided to let you and everyone else that frequents this side of the river give your opinions on whether or not WE should be allowed back. I personally find that to be far from "childish" or "juvenile". There have been many members banned from that forum, let alone the entire site, that haven't been afforded this consideration.

I will point out to you and anyone else that cares to read this as I did in that thread that "Basic rules of civility still apply". That means that the Potomac isn't there for any member to have free reign on attacking someone in such a ridiculous manner despite the fact there is more leeway in there in comparison to the rest of hR. "Basic rules of civility still apply". It says so in the description of the Potomac. It needs not to be forgotten.
WarEagle = How Kenny Got His Groove Back. :D

[swheeler]

he is the polar opposite of me politically, but i wouldn't mind him being reinstated. speaking solely for myself i'd rather see the other side first hand from the horse's mouth, than be shielded from it.

however, considering it wasn't me who was the target of these outbursts, i don't think it's my call.

I agree with this post. I think Biggie and Flave's opinions on this should mean the most.

[akhhorus]

i would prefer people who spew hatred of jews to be permitted to do so openly, so people can see them for who they are.

if you repress hate speech, you create martyrs

it takes 2 to argue...if nobody responded to any posts, he would have simply run out of steam

Shally: again, this isn't a free speech issue. WarEagle treated Biggie specifically like total sh*t and accused him of celebrating over 9-11 for the simple reason because that he's a muslim. No matter what he said, that alone is enough for being banned from HR, much less the political forum. Stop trying to make this into a free speech issue.

And saying that others are to blame for his stupidity because it 'takes 2 to argue" is ridiculous. He wasn't provoked into starting a thread(and multiple threads) on this, nor are his comments on Biggie(or flave) in the "heat" of the moment.

[Spence]

Let me just reiterate two things I thought were clear already:

1. WarEagle was banned from this forum not for prejudice against Muslims, but for using outrageous language to personally abuse an HR member in good standing. We have well-established rules at this site about how we conduct ourselves vis-a-vis our fellow members. By accusing others of celebrating the 9/11/01 attacks when there was absolutely no evidence they had ever done such a thing, WarEagle was responsible for one of the worst personal attacks I've ever seen at HR. It was a blood libel -- like accusing a Jewish member of HR of drinking the blood of Christian babies. The description of this forum, which I wrote myself, makes it clear that although the discussion tends to be more heated, basic rules of civility still apply. I fail to see how any reasonable person could equate what WarEagle wrote with "basic civility."

2. It is easy to claim that what WarEagle wrote should be protected under our general American regard for free speech. Consider, however, how anyone could run a large and active website such as this if there are no boundaries about what a person can do. We make getting along with other members a priority. You can call Senator Suchandsuch a lying, scumbag piece of human filth, but you cannot write such a thing about an HR member. That's the price you pay for being a member here. I think it is a very small and reasonable price to pay.

[Spence]

Again, let me state: WarEagle was not banned for bigotry. He was banned for an outrageous personal attack on a fellow HR member. If we allow such an attack to stand unpunished, we must allow anything and everything. I don't see how a decent community can be maintained here if we allow such conduct.

[LATrueRedskin]

Again, let me state: WarEagle was not banned for bigotry. He was banned for an outrageous personal attack on a fellow HR member. If we allow such an attack to stand unpunished, we must allow anything and everything. I don't see how a decent community can be maintained here if we allow such conduct.

I agree. I'm not much of a poster in this forum, but I'm an avid reader of it. After reading that thread, I have a problem with how WarEagle attacked both Biggie and flave, and I think it's unacceptable behavior for this forum. I agree that he can say whatever he wants, no matter how unbelievable and small-minded it is, but the way he attacked two great hR members is unforgivable.

I do think he should be allowed to use the other sections of this forum, however. He's a good poster in those arenas, but the political forum is way too hot for him.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Again, let me state: WarEagle was not banned for bigotry. He was banned for an outrageous personal attack on a fellow HR member. If we allow such an attack to stand unpunished, we must allow anything and everything. I don't see how a decent community can be maintained here if we allow such conduct.

Problem is, it's impossible to divorce WarEagle's political views from direct insults to other members whether or not he directs them specifically.

My vote would be to let him be reinstated but I think Biggie should have veto power if this were a vote. Not that I think WE adds substance to the debate but he does resemble a substantial sect of Americans (unfortunately).

[rskinsfan10]

WarEagle = How Kenny Got His Groove Back. :DYou missed me, huh?:cool:

[Biggie]

I also need to find out if Biggie received a real apology, not the fake one I saw in the thread.I have not heard from WarEagle since he was banned, nor have I recieved any apology from him since the one he posted in the thread. I'd assume that the original apology is the one he's referring to.

Regardless of his lack of tact, decency, or common sense, I am a firm believer in forgiveness, and I have seen nothing offensive or inflammatory from WarEagle outside of this forum (by which I mean General Discussion, because one of his topics apparently started out in the Off-Topic area before being moved). I don't see why he shouldn't be able to discuss the Redskins here, which is the main point of the site, as long as he is no longer provided an avenue for spewing his anti-Islamic rubbish. Therefore, were it up to me, I would ban him from the Potomac but let him continue to post on the rest of the forums.

[Keino]

I have not heard from WarEagle since he was banned, nor have I recieved any apology from him since the one he posted in the thread. I'd assume that the original apology is the one he's referring to.

Regardless of his lack of tact, decency, or common sense, I am a firm believer in forgiveness, and I have seen nothing offensive or inflammatory from WarEagle outside of this forum (by which I mean General Discussion, because one of his topics apparently started out in the Off-Topic area before being moved). I don't see why he shouldn't be able to discuss the Redskins here, which is the main point of the site, as long as he is no longer provided an avenue for spewing his anti-Islamic rubbish. Therefore, were it up to me, I would ban him from the Potomac but let him continue to post on the rest of the forums.

In my opinion, this answer really carries the most weight.

[akhhorus]

In my opinion, this answer really carries the most weight.

Nice that WarEagle thought that his non-apology apology would count lol.

[Biggie]

Nice that WarEagle thought that his non-apology apology would count lol.

It's sad, really. That apology was almost as insulting as his other posts, but I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[Keino]

Nice that WarEagle thought that his non-apology apology would count lol.

Yea. Pretty hilarious actually, when he was blasted for that "apology" prior to getting banned.

[shally]

Shally: again, this isn't a free speech issue. WarEagle treated Biggie specifically like total sh*t and accused him of celebrating over 9-11 for the simple reason because that he's a muslim. No matter what he said, that alone is enough for being banned from HR, much less the political forum. Stop trying to make this into a free speech issue.

And saying that others are to blame for his stupidity because it 'takes 2 to argue" is ridiculous. He wasn't provoked into starting a thread(and multiple threads) on this, nor are his comments on Biggie(or flave) in the "heat" of the moment.

the only thing i have difficulty with is a lack of consistency in this matter.

by that, i mean that most, if not all, posters here are comfortable with WE in the other areas of the forum. as far as i know, there has never been a complaint about his behavior. all complaints are specifically directed at his posts in the potomac arena

the rules for the potomac area are supposed to be different, except for the basic need for civility between posters. people are asked to check their feelings at the door, so to speak, in the interest of spirited and lively debate. based upon how nearly everyone feels, he has crossed a line. and yet, he is permitted to remain in good standing elsewhere at hR. i find that position inconsistent.
if i could not associate with someone at this thread because of how deeply i felt, i doubt i could associate with that poster elsewhere
NOW I WANT TO SAY I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT WE BE BANNED FROM HR
ENTIRELY. i do not want to be the cause of this happening when his banishment was heretofore only at potomac
nor am i advocating the correctness of any of his positions or defending
his actions towards flave or biggie
i just find things inconsistent in response. i am not saying it is a free speech issue...

[redskin_rich]

the only thing i have difficulty with is a lack of consistency in this matter.

by that, i mean that most, if not all, posters here are comfortable with WE in the other areas of the forum. as far as i know, there has never been a complaint about his behavior. all complaints are specifically directed at his posts in the potomac arena

the rules for the potomac area are supposed to be different, except for the basic need for civility between posters. people are asked to check their feelings at the door, so to speak, in the interest of spirited and lively debate. based upon how nearly everyone feels, he has crossed a line. and yet, he is permitted to remain in good standing elsewhere at hR. i find that position inconsistent.
if i could not associate with someone at this thread because of how deeply i felt, i doubt i could associate with that poster elsewhere
NOW I WANT TO SAY I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT WE BE BANNED FROM HR
ENTIRELY. i do not want to be the cause of this happening when his banishment was heretofore only at potomac
nor am i advocating the correctness of any of his positions or defending
his actions towards flave or biggie
i just find things inconsistent in response. i am not saying it is a free speech issue...
Have you forgotten already that this forum is a private one and members are only allowed in by privilege? I would say that WarEagle has lost that privilege but he has not done anything on the rest of the board to be banned. Now, if he insults a member, elsewhere on the board, I'm sure he will be banned entirely.

[Spence]

...if he insults a member, elsewhere on the board, I'm sure he will be banned entirely.Take that one to the bank.

[akhhorus]

the only thing i have difficulty with is a lack of consistency in this matter.

by that, i mean that most, if not all, posters here are comfortable with WE in the other areas of the forum. as far as i know, there has never been a complaint about his behavior. all complaints are specifically directed at his posts in the potomac arena

the rules for the potomac area are supposed to be different, except for the basic need for civility between posters. people are asked to check their feelings at the door, so to speak, in the interest of spirited and lively debate. based upon how nearly everyone feels, he has crossed a line. and yet, he is permitted to remain in good standing elsewhere at hR. i find that position inconsistent.
if i could not associate with someone at this thread because of how deeply i felt, i doubt i could associate with that poster elsewhere
NOW I WANT TO SAY I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT WE BE BANNED FROM HR
ENTIRELY. i do not want to be the cause of this happening when his banishment was heretofore only at potomac
nor am i advocating the correctness of any of his positions or defending
his actions towards flave or biggie
i just find things inconsistent in response. i am not saying it is a free speech issue...

Then what are you saying? You seem to want to have things multiple ways here.

[shally]

Have you forgotten already that this forum is a private one and members are only allowed in by privilege? I would say that WarEagle has lost that privilege but he has not done anything on the rest of the board to be banned. Now, if he insults a member, elsewhere on the board, I'm sure he will be banned entirely.

no i have most assuredly not forgotten that fact. i fully understand that
participation here is a privilege and not a right
i have explained why i felt there was an inconsistency and obviously, my position is not resonating.
my issue was one of "process" and not of "content"

[akhhorus]

no i have most assuredly not forgotten that fact. i fully understand that
participation here is a privilege and not a right
i have explained why i felt there was an inconsistency and obviously, my position is not resonating.
my issue was one of "process" and not of "content"

The process is simple. The Admin/owner decides whether or not what you did is deserving of banishment. When Spence did it, he made it very clear that this issue(WarEagle's status) would be revisited(which is very rare btw).

[shally]

Then what are you saying? You seem to want to have things multiple ways here.

what i am saying is that if the punishment has already been determined, i do not wish to be the reason for it being extended because of my posts and comments

nor do i wish to keep extending this thread. i thought early in the main thread between biggie and WE that no good would come of it and that the whole thread should have been closed and locked, and i posted as much..
i still feel that no good comes from it...

[akhhorus]

what i am saying is that if the punishment has already been determined, i do not wish to be the reason for it being extended because of my posts and comments

nor do i wish to keep extending this thread. i thought early in the main thread between biggie and WE that no good would come of it and that the whole thread should have been closed and locked, and i posted as much..
i still feel that no good comes from it...

I'm sorry shally, but I just don't see how Biggie is to blame in any way, shape, or form for "provoking" WarEagle into saying that he was celebrating 9-11. That sounds like your point now.

[Keino]

no i have most assuredly not forgotten that fact. i fully understand that
participation here is a privilege and not a right
i have explained why i felt there was an inconsistency and obviously, my position is not resonating.
my issue was one of "process" and not of "content"


But that's not inconsistency. These are viewed as Wholly seperate forums. Potomac requires special permission, the rest of the site not. There are plenty of people who are members of HR, are solid posters, but are not permitted to enter this forum.

Checking egos at the door is not a Carte Blanche permission to insult any and everyone who disagrees with you.

[Biggie]

nor do i wish to keep extending this thread. i thought early in the main thread between biggie and WE that no good would come of it and that the whole thread should have been closed and locked, and i posted as much..
i still feel that no good comes from it...

Sorry? You make it sound like what happened was some sort of personal feud, when we all know quite well that no one involved agreed with WarEagle, and that several members (Keino, flave, and akh, for example) took him to task as well.

[smoak]

I didn't really see the exchange so my comments are all meant to be general statememnts to the issue. That said I think our history has been hit or miss with our forgiveness policies, but some of our best members have been at one point or another in hot water with the owners/mods. My initial reaction is to allow him back on a VERY probationary status, but my concern is the perception that other members might take from doing so. People need to understand that there are consequences for your decision to ignore the rules of the road and the warnings of the owners/mods. It is very difficult to maintain such an atmosphere as we have on an internet messageboard, and I think the ownership should be applauded for maintaining the integrity of their product.

But that is just my $.02.

[Fathead]

This seems pretty simple to me. War Eagle went beyond the rules of the potomac forum and has failed to apologize for his actions. I see no point in him posting in this particular forum. By all means, allow to post in the rest of the site, but until he demonstrates the ability and desire to act in a civilized manner, there is no purpose in his being in the Potomac.

[RedskinsDave]

I'm sorry shally, but I just don't see how Biggie is to blame in any way, shape, or form for "provoking" WarEagle into saying that he was celebrating 9-11. That sounds like your point now.

He's a blood thirsty son of Allah. That alone makes him a guilty party. Now where'd I put that lasso?

[shally]

Sorry? You make it sound like what happened was some sort of personal feud, when we all know quite well that no one involved agreed with WarEagle, and that several members (Keino, flave, and akh, for example) took him to task as well.

i NEVER thought that what you said was wrong or at fault in any way. i just thought that the entire thread was a bad idea.
i am not blaming you for defending yourself

again, i just saw that this was going to lead nowhere positive

[shally]

I'm sorry shally, but I just don't see how Biggie is to blame in any way, shape, or form for "provoking" WarEagle into saying that he was celebrating 9-11. That sounds like your point now.


i never said that. i just feel that the thread was a bad idea from the start
and all would have been better off it if had been pulled

[akhhorus]

i never said that. i just feel that the thread was a bad idea from the start
and all would have been better off it if had been pulled

Fine. What does this have to do with the issue at hand?

[shally]

Fine. What does this have to do with the issue at hand?

apparently, not very much..

i just dont have anything else to offer and dont want to perpetuate any further negativity

[Biggie]

Fine. What does this have to do with the issue at hand?

Well, he does have a point. That topic was clearly going in the wrong direction and closing it would have probably been a good idea, but as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

[akhhorus]

apparently, not very much..

i just dont have anything else to offer and dont want to perpetuate any further negativity

Neither does Spence apparently. Still sounds like you're trying to mitigate what he said or blame everyone involved in that thread.

[redskin_rich]

i never said that. i just feel that the thread was a bad idea from the start
and all would have been better off it if had been pulled

There were three separate threads that WarEagle posted his dislike for all Muslims, two of which, he himself started. The last one was when it really came to a head and some people that had not replied in the first two, finally had enough and posted their thoughts on WarEagle's hateful remarks.

We are not about censorship here. Sometimes it is necessary to close or even delete threads that go off course or over the line but WarEagle was the only one crossing that line and it was important that others had their chance to respond. And the responses were well thought out and lacking the venom of WarEagle's posts. I don't see why you think we should have closed that thread when WarEagle had been spewing this crap for a couple months. Finally when practically everyone was replying to his crap, you expect us to close it? No way, WarEagle deserved to be scolded by everybody and everybody handled him with a lot more class than how he was dealing back with them.

[shally]

Neither does Spence apparently. Still sounds like you're trying to mitigate what he said or blame everyone involved in that thread.

i have done neither. i am not excusing or mitigating ANYTHING that WE said

i am not blaming, biggie, flave, you or anyone else who posted in the thread

i thought this was going to be full of negativity, and it continues to be

[akhhorus]

i have done neither. i am not excusing or mitigating ANYTHING that WE said

i am not blaming, biggie, flave, you or anyone else who posted in the thread

i thought this was going to be full of negativity, and it continues to be

And where's your outrage for what WE said? It sure sounds like you were trying to mitigate WE's comment as in the heat of the moment.

[shally]

And where's your outrage for what WE said? It sure sounds like you were trying to mitigate WE's comment as in the heat of the moment.

c'mon akh.. that's a cheap shot

[akhhorus]

c'mon akh.. that's a cheap shot

I'm sorry if you think it was, but I'm just trying to understand what the point of your comments in this thread are. Your latest comment about "negativity" makes even less sense. You started in this thread not to fight negativity or something, but accusing those who banned him of doing so because they couldn't counter his arguments and continued by trying to blame those who argued with him with provoking him into making that comment which got him banned. So you can stop the false outrage against "negativity" here Shally.

[shally]

I'm sorry if you think it was, but I'm just trying to understand what the point of your comments in this thread are. Your latest comment about "negativity" makes even less sense. You started in this thread not to fight negativity or something, but accusing those who banned him of doing so because they couldn't counter his arguments and continued by trying to blame those who argued with him with provoking him into making that comment which got him banned. So you can stop the false outrage against "negativity" here Shally.

akh, i have no desire to continue this further with you. it serves no purpose that i can think of..you are right and i am wrong

so... i apologize to any and all that i might have offended

[akhhorus]

akh, i have no desire to continue this further with you. it serves no purpose that i can think of..you are right and i am wrong

so... i apologize to any and all that i might have offended

shally, there's no right or wrong here. You said what you said, then constantly changed what you said your point and/or reason was. I'm just trying to understand what the blue hell you're saying in this thread. And I understand even less why you're unable to do that.

[Keino]

There were three separate threads that WarEagle posted his dislike for all Muslims, two of which, he himself started. The last one was when it really came to a head and some people that had not replied in the first two, finally had enough and posted their thoughts on WarEagle's hateful remarks.

We are not about censorship here. Sometimes it is necessary to close or even delete threads that go off course or over the line but WarEagle was the only one crossing that line and it was important that others had their chance to respond. And the responses were well thought out and lacking the venom of WarEagle's posts. I don't see why you think we should have closed that thread when WarEagle had been spewing this crap for a couple months. Finally when practically everyone was replying to his crap, you expect us to close it? No way, WarEagle deserved to be scolded by everybody and everybody handled him with a lot more class than how he was dealing back with them.

I agree with most of this. I will add however, that in reviewing one of those old threads, I certainly stooped to his level. If I was banned myself for some of my comments I would have certainly understood it.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, he does have a point. That topic was clearly going in the wrong direction and closing it would have probably been a good idea, but as they say, hindsight is 20/20.
I vehemetly disagree with this. This is the Potomac. Things need to be able to go to and tap dance on the edge here. If someone goes over, they get dealt with, as with WarEagle. But I don't like closing threads early. 99% of (my own personal) frustration I have ever had on hR are because of threads getting closed.

Just my $0.02. Put that together with smoak's $0.02 and you have the closing value of the US dollar in relation the Canadian dollar.

[Spence]

I've made my decision. Thank you everyone for your input. You didn't change my mind, but you did give me quite a bit to think about. In the end, I came right back to where I was originally.

WarEagle will be allowed to post at hailRedskins except in this forum. He is banned from the Potomac and will remain banned for the foreseeable future.

[BurgundyNGold]

You missed me, huh?:cool:
Absolutely! Nobody lops off heads like you do, lol. Primo entertainment. ;)

[flave1969]

I agree with most of this. I will add however, that in reviewing one of those old threads, I certainly stooped to his level. If I was banned myself for some of my comments I would have certainly understood it.


This is the thing that makes me uncomfortable about WE, he took me to a place I did not want to go. I patently refused to get involved at first but the LATimes thread was the end of it. I found myself spewing things that in some cases were justified but way of the mark in others. I came of as Anti-American which when I look at my life makes me feel very ashamed. I have apologised for that but I feel it damages my standing. That is what provocation does and it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

[thickskin]

jesus christ. the whole point of the forum is to engage in discourse about difficult topics. you're on a computer, typing, reading words on a screen, with the ability to ignore or respond. you have the opportunity to converse, in a safe, sterile format with people who have different value sets than yourself. the real question is this: what do you come here for? to circle jerk with a bunch of people who agree with you about everything save the minutiae? or to maybe learn something? it strikes me as inherently vaginal to disengage from an ONLINE discussion bc you're offended at something you've read. and the presumption of moral highground taken by alot of you is equally chickenpoop, not to mention naive. you can't consider yourself an openminded person if you're not open to closedmindedness.

[akhhorus]

jesus christ. the whole point of the forum is to engage in discourse about difficult topics. you're on a computer, typing, reading words on a screen, with the ability to ignore or respond. you have the opportunity to converse, in a safe, sterile format with people who have different value sets than yourself. the real question is this: what do you come here for? to circle jerk with a bunch of people who agree with you about everything save the minutiae? or to maybe learn something? it strikes me as inherently pussy to disengage from an ONLINE discussion bc you're offended at something you've read. and the presumption of moral highground taken by alot of you is equally chickensh*t, not to mention naive. you can't consider yourself an openminded person if you're not open to closedmindedness.

Thanks for not giving a crap about the actual issue at hand. WarEagle could post all the anti-Muslim diatribes he wanted to and nothing was done to him. He made a vicious personal attack against a poster here and thats why he was booted from this forum. Not for his views. Why was this so hard to process for you?

[thickskin]

Thanks for not giving a crap about the actual issue at hand. WarEagle could post all the anti-Muslim diatribes he wanted to and nothing was done to him. He made a vicious personal attack against a poster here and thats why he was booted from this forum. Not for his views. Why was this so hard to process for you?

he was attacked himself a great deal, often by you. which is fine. you're ballbreaking amuses me. that an insult typed by someone who doesn't know you, and who you don't know, can be taken as "vicious" makes me giggle.

[akhhorus]

he was attacked himself a great deal, often by you. which is fine.

So, it was mitigated or fine that he accused Biggie of celebrating 9-11 only because those 'Muslim urges' make him do that, because Keino, I and others attacked his views. Good to know where you stand. Its perfectly fine for WarEagle to say what he said in your myopic world, because we dared to call him a moron. You're a fool.

you're ballbreaking amuses me. that an insult typed by someone who doesn't know you, and who you don't know, can be taken as "vicious" makes me giggle.

No, its not vicious. After reading it, 'pathetic' comes to mind--much like your posts in this thread.

[thickskin]

I like ponies!

[akhhorus]

then ban me too. here's a vicious attack as justification:
you're a ninny who gives better than he can take.

I take plenty of abuse and questioning of my views here, and I've never lashed out like WarEagle did. But I guess the next time, according to you, someone does, I can say just about anything to them because thats part of "free speech" or whatever nonsense you're spilling now.

And, btw, your "attack" on me doesn't come close to what WarEagle said.

[Keino]

then ban me too. here's a vicious attack as justification:
you're a pussy who gives better than he can take.


You go internet tough guy. Calling someone a pussy online makes you a real brave soul.

[flave1969]

the whole point of the forum is to engage in discourse about difficult topics.

Had WarEagle done this then he would still be here. Never once did he answer one of my points. He continued to simply answer with sarcasm and attack on my country, myself and my friends. Never once did he answer a question or enter into discussion on a thread he started.

His attack on Biggie overstepped the mark in a big way and was made simply because Biggie is a Muslim.

WarEagle may well be here had he made a personal apology but he didn't.
I took time to personally apologise to the person I offended by PM, and apologised openly.

"Basic rules of civility still apply"

[thickskin]

You go internet tough guy. Calling someone a pussy online makes you a real brave soul.

lol. my point exactly!

[thickskin]

Had WarEagle done this then he would still be here. Never once did he answer one of my points. He continued to simply answer with sarcasm and attack on my country, myself and my friends. Never once did he answer a question or enter into discussion on a thread he started.

His attack on Biggie overstepped the mark in a big way and was made simply because Biggie is a Muslim.

WarEagle may well be here had he made a personal apology but he didn't.
I took time to personally apologise to the person I offended by PM, and apologised openly.

"Basic rules of civility still apply"

rules are rules, but that one's a little vague. which makes this thread a good idea, since the people who come here ought to decide the matter. the guy took alot of ridicule, dished some out, wants to hang around. i say keep him. best case scenario, he doesn't offend you anymore and you expand your perspectives by talking to each other. worst case, you get some practice dealing with people who offend you and then you ban him permanently.

[akhhorus]

lol. my point exactly!

What is your point? First you start bitching that he was banned for his views, then changed into something totally different because that wasn't the case.

rules are rules, but that one's a little vague. which makes this thread a good idea, since the people who come here ought to decide the matter. the guy took alot of ridicule, dished some out, wants to hang around. i say keep him. best case scenario, he doesn't offend you anymore and you expand your perspectives by talking to each other. worst case, you get some practice dealing with people who offend you and then you ban him permanently.

His views have NOTHING to do with this thread(or why he was banned). His personal attack on Biggie was. Why does this concept elude you?

As for how "vague" the rule is, its up to the owners to decide when it applies. An owner did in this case because WE clearly crossed the line.

[flave1969]

rules are rules, but that one's a little vague. which makes this thread a good idea, since the people who come here ought to decide the matter. the guy took alot of ridicule, dished some out, wants to hang around. i say keep him. best case scenario, he doesn't offend you anymore and you expand your perspectives by talking to each other. worst case, you get some practice dealing with people who offend you and then you ban him permanently.

I actually have said in this thread bring him back, just make sure he reasons out the things he says. He does not seem to want to discuss things so far but i am all for giving him another chance but he needs to apologise to Biggie and he has not done so.

[thickskin]

What is your point? First you start bitching that he was banned for his views, then changed into something totally different because that wasn't the case.




His views have NOTHING to do with this thread(or why he was banned). His personal attack on Biggie was. Why does this concept elude you?

As for how "vague" the rule is, its up to the owners to decide when it applies. An owner did in this case because WE clearly crossed the line.[/QUOTE]

vague bc people have different ideas of civility. the personal attack justification eludes me bc personal attacks happen here all the time. with WE, he got nasty after taking licks from just about everyone on here ABOUT his views, myself included (awhile back). from the start of that thread--la times or whatever--he tries to keep it civil. people kept piling on him and he fired back. it happens. where better for it to happen than on the internet?

[akhhorus]

vague bc people have different ideas of civility. the personal attack justification eludes me bc personal attacks happen here all the time. with WE, he got nasty after taking licks from just about everyone on here ABOUT his views, myself included (awhile back). from the start of that thread--la times or whatever--he tries to keep it civil. people kept piling on him and he fired back. it happens. where better for it to happen than on the internet?

WarEagle tried to keep it civil? Are you sure you're not confusing him for another poster in that thread? And there's a HUGE difference between attacking someone's views aggressive/borderline personal attack and what WarEagle said about Biggie. That was the worst personal attack I've ever seen here at HR. And NOTHING that happened or was said to him in that thread(or any of his previous ones) justifies or mitigated what he said. Just because its the internet and "it happens" doesn't mean that the ownership should have to tolerate it, nor do I understand why you're excusing it. What if someone made a similar comment about African-Americans to an African-American poster here(or Whites, or Jews, or whatever)?

[Spence]

Thickskin, I think you're being very naive if you believe a site as big and diverse as this one can survive if rules of civility do not exist and are not enforced. There are a number of places where Redskins fans can gather online to discuss things. Most of the people who come to this one and stay have done so because they like the tone and atmosphere of this place. I think many or most will leave if hR becomes a site where vile abuse is casually tossed about. There are places like that and if you or anyone else prefers them, they can patronize them. As long as I have anything to say about it, hR will never be like those places.

I don't think rules of civility are terribly vague. Almost anyone with a passing familiarity with common courtesy knows what they are. Like pornography, you should know it when you see it. Since more than 99% of the people at hR are never suspended or banned, it is self-evident that most people here have no problem understanding the rules and abiding by them. They are not, after all, terribly onerous.

[Ibleedburgundy]

jesus christ. the whole point of the forum is to engage in discourse about difficult topics. you're on a computer, typing, reading words on a screen, with the ability to ignore or respond. you have the opportunity to converse, in a safe, sterile format with people who have different value sets than yourself. the real question is this: what do you come here for? to circle jerk with a bunch of people who agree with you about everything save the minutiae? or to maybe learn something? it strikes me as inherently vaginal to disengage from an ONLINE discussion bc you're offended at something you've read. and the presumption of moral highground taken by alot of you is equally chickenpoop, not to mention naive. you can't consider yourself an openminded person if you're not open to closedmindedness.

It's online for now. I never thought I would meet any of these guys but then I played golf with some of them a while back. I think the need for civility is important for obvious reasons but also because it could potentially cross over to a tailgate party. Forsight.

[Fathead]

When did the language rating in this forum change? I missed that memo.

[RedskinsDave]

When did the language rating in this forum change? I missed that memo.

It didn't. I am editing it now.

I will also add that if it happens again to that level I would expect a break from the board.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm glad I missed most of this. Espscially since I'm usually the one causing it, lol.

[thickskin]

What if someone made a similar comment about African-Americans to an African-American poster here(or Whites, or Jews, or whatever)?

it would depend on my mood. hopefully, i'd fight my inclination to feel superior and try to continue the discourse in a civil manner, esp if they were so inclined as well, and esp if i had myself contributed to the hostile manner of the conversation. and even if i were in an unforgiving mood, i know for certain that i wouldn't stay that way with a few hours to think it over. the facts (that i'm online, that they don't know me or i them, that in real life people so different as the two of us can't have a conversation like this w/out violence and therefore that this is a learning opportunity for me and an opportunity for me to influence someone else) would tell me to get off my keyboard highhorse.

[BurgundyNGold]

it would depend on my mood. hopefully, i'd fight my inclination to feel superior and try to continue the discourse in a civil manner, esp if they were so inclined as well, and esp if i had myself contributed to the hostile manner of the conversation. and even if i were in an unforgiving mood, i know for certain that i wouldn't stay that way with a few hours to think it over. the facts (that i'm online, that they don't know me or i them, that in real life people so different as the two of us can't have a conversation like this w/out violence and therefore that this is a learning opportunity for me and an opportunity for me to influence someone else) would tell me to get off my keyboard highhorse.
As an earnest side note, you write too well to allow your thoughts to be muddled with run-on sentences. I'd like to think that I'm following what you're saying, but you should organize and present your thoughts more concisely. Shorter sentences and periods would help me follow your writing better.

[thickskin]

Thickskin, I think you're being very naive if you believe a site as big and diverse as this one can survive if rules of civility do not exist and are not enforced. There are a number of places where Redskins fans can gather online to discuss things. Most of the people who come to this one and stay have done so because they like the tone and atmosphere of this place. I think many or most will leave if hR becomes a site where vile abuse is casually tossed about. There are places like that and if you or anyone else prefers them, they can patronize them. As long as I have anything to say about it, hR will never be like those places.

I don't think rules of civility are terribly vague. Almost anyone with a passing familiarity with common courtesy knows what they are. Like pornography, you should know it when you see it. Since more than 99% of the people at hR are never suspended or banned, it is self-evident that most people here have no problem understanding the rules and abiding by them. They are not, after all, terribly onerous.

i agree with all that. but you're aware you're conflating hr with the hr political forum. the latter is not especially diverse, requires a password, and is prefaced by "enter at your own risk." i enjoy the political forum bc i can learn alot about politics from the posters and i enjoy the bantering, even when i'm the only one who thinks floyd mayweather is a prick. on wareagle, i'm not going to spend another sentence defending him bc i don't want to, but at the same time i'm not going to run and hide from people i disagree with, since, in my experience, you often learn the most from talking to them, which is not easy, but is made alot easier by the sort of format we enjoy in the political forum. i disagree with you about the clarity of the rules of civility. if they were terribly clear, i don't think you'd've had to start a thread about the wareagle situation. but since you started a thread requesting feedback on this issue, i'm giving it, per your request, naive or no.

[thickskin]

As an earnest side note, you write too well to allow your thoughts to be muddled with run-on sentences. I'd like to think that I'm following what you're saying, but you should organize and present your thoughts more concisely. Shorter sentences and periods would help me follow your writing better.

well, we all write for our audience don't we? maybe i think you read too well to allow the javert-ish strictures of high school grammarians to muddle what you glean from language. but if you really want to talk about it, there's some parallel structure in one sentence, and a long parenthetical in another, but neither is really run-on--even if that were a sort of indictment i could believe in.

[BurgundyNGold]

well, we all write for our audience don't we? maybe i think you read too well to allow the javert-ish strictures of high school grammarians to muddle what you glean from language. but if you really want to talk about it, there's some parallel structure in one sentence, and a long parenthetical in another, but neither is really run-on--even if that were a sort of indictment i could believe in.
Whatever. Just do everyone a favor and throw a period in every now and again so you sound less like a raving Dennis Hopper in "Apocalypse Now".

[thickskin]

It's online for now. I never thought I would meet any of these guys but then I played golf with some of them a while back. I think the need for civility is important for obvious reasons but also because it could potentially cross over to a tailgate party. Forsight.

understood. that explains people having one another's backs around here. but try to appreciate the perspective of someone who has a degree of detachment; an online discussion is a great place to disagree: you'd have to be delusional to take someting personally (since you really know no one and vise versa). so you go to a place where a) people can challenge your arguments b) argumentative, competitive discourse is accepted and appreciated.

[thickskin]

Whatever. Just do everyone a favor and throw a period in every now and again so you sound less like a raving Dennis Hopper in "Apocalypse Now".

why are you prejudiced againt dennis hopper in apocalypse now? if i could, i'd ban you for saying such things...then i'd let you back in. maybe. you'd have to jump through hoops and stuff. it's hard to stay mad at you, you being so sexy drinking that huge mug of beer and all.

[thickskin]

It didn't. I am editing it now.

I will also add that if it happens again to that level I would expect a break from the board.

i find your reiteration "vaginal" offensive to vaginas. as such, i'd appreciate some brackets crediting you with and exculpating me from the changes. i suggest the following:

"[edited by redskinsdave, vagina hater]"


...not that there's anything wrong with that

[Spence]

Thickskin, no one is suggesting you run and hide from anyone. Just don't insult them outrageously and gratuitously. That's all. Shouldn't be too difficult.

[Keino]

i agree with all that. but you're aware you're conflating hr with the hr political forum. the latter is not especially diverse, requires a password, and is prefaced by "enter at your own risk." i enjoy the political forum bc i can learn alot about politics from the posters and i enjoy the bantering, even when i'm the only one who thinks floyd mayweather is a prick. on wareagle, i'm not going to spend another sentence defending him bc i don't want to, but at the same time i'm not going to run and hide from people i disagree with, since, in my experience, you often learn the most from talking to them, which is not easy, but is made alot easier by the sort of format we enjoy in the political forum. i disagree with you about the clarity of the rules of civility. if they were terribly clear, i don't think you'd've had to start a thread about the wareagle situation. but since you started a thread requesting feedback on this issue, i'm giving it, per your request, naive or no.


If they weren't clear, the rules of civility I mean, then why hasn't it been an issue before now? I'll tell you why, it's because the rules of civility are fairly obvious to everyone. WE chose to ignore civility with comments that were well beyond the pale. And I think you should know that Spence didn't have to start this thread at all. He did so, because he values the opinions of those who have been granted access to this particular forum.

Here is the distinct difference, IMO from your arguing an unpopular opinion vs the way Wareagle did. You actually respond to opposing argument as opposed to ignoring it and calling all those who disagree with your points Racists, or Terrorists or whatever is applicable under the current hot topic.

BTW - If you argued that Floyd Mayweather was prick, I don't think you would have gotten much resistance to that notion. It was the comparison, direct or indirect of his outfit to "blackface" that people disagreed with and what the intent of the outfit was.

[akhhorus]

it would depend on my mood. hopefully, i'd fight my inclination to feel superior and try to continue the discourse in a civil manner, esp if they were so inclined as well, and esp if i had myself contributed to the hostile manner of the conversation. and even if i were in an unforgiving mood, i know for certain that i wouldn't stay that way with a few hours to think it over. the facts (that i'm online, that they don't know me or i them, that in real life people so different as the two of us can't have a conversation like this w/out violence and therefore that this is a learning opportunity for me and an opportunity for me to influence someone else) would tell me to get off my keyboard highhorse.

The facts are pretty clear. WarEagle has his views and everyone has theirs. Thats not why he was kicked out of this forum. He was kicked out of this forum for violating a basic rule of this whole board(personal attacks). I just don't understand why what he said gets a free pass from you, and if you want a fourm where you can whatever you want to each other, feel free to stop coming here and go to ES.

[Carmelo]

You guys should form an official HR Debate team. You guys would kick butt. You could have your own Sunday morning show and everything.

[thickskin]

If they weren't clear, the rules of civility I mean, then why hasn't it been an issue before now? I'll tell you why, it's because the rules of civility are fairly obvious to everyone. WE chose to ignore civility with comments that were well beyond the pale. And I think you should know that Spence didn't have to start this thread at all. He did so, because he values the opinions of those who have been granted access to this particular forum.

Here is the distinct difference, IMO from your arguing an unpopular opinion vs the way Wareagle did. You actually respond to opposing argument as opposed to ignoring it and calling all those who disagree with your points Racists, or Terrorists or whatever is applicable under the current hot topic.

BTW - If you argued that Floyd Mayweather was prick, I don't think you would have gotten much resistance to that notion. It was the comparison, direct or indirect of his outfit to "blackface" that people disagreed with and what the intent of the outfit was.

i feel like i've dug up a time capsule with this floyd mayweather thing, and it's far less interesting to me this time around. rules of civility: you know, i'm ready to put that to bed too. i just don't get worked up, or not for long, over online incivilities, and really, in this forum, the incivilities, greater and lesser, entertain me. looks like i'm in the minority on this one, which i'm comfortable with, since you're all racists.

[thickskin]

The facts are pretty clear. WarEagle has his views and everyone has theirs. Thats not why he was kicked out of this forum. He was kicked out of this forum for violating a basic rule of this whole board(personal attacks). I just don't understand why what he said gets a free pass from you, and if you want a fourm where you can whatever you want to each other, feel free to stop coming here and go to ES.

and miss your hissy fits? how could i?

[Keino]

i feel like i've dug up a time capsule with this floyd mayweather thing, and it's far less interesting to me this time around. rules of civility: you know, i'm ready to put that to bed too. i just don't get worked up, or not for long, over online incivilities, and really, in this forum, the incivilities, greater and lesser, entertain me. looks like i'm in the minority on this one, which i'm comfortable with, since you're all racists.

LOL. You did dig up a time capsul is a sense, but I honestly intended to start the thread up after I saw the Hatton fight which took place June 23 I believe. It just slipped my mind, and seeing you here remided me about it.

[akhhorus]

and miss your hissy fits? how could i?

Oh please, I've never had a hissy fit like you've had in this thread.

[RedskinsDave]

The lock is open and ready to clamp down.......

[thickskin]

Oh please, I've never had a hissy fit like you've had in this thread.

no, you just wish you could. but you could start a hissy fit over my hissy fit about your hissy fit about wareagle