babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Not a Criticism of the Moderator
June 2, 2010 - 7:24pm
V
The thread on Jack Layton went sideways and Catchfire closed it, saying this.
Catchfire, I don't think there was anything in there about electoral politics that mattered.
I felt the whole dispute was fairly transparent, and following it had nothing to do with a background knowledge of politics.
Mahmud doesn't like the NDP. The reasons he gave for that was that its useless for POC, inherently white, etc.
Then he made a specific accusation about the NDP and snitch lines, and made some kind of reference to being involved in the field.
Then BA contradicted that claim, and had very close involvement at the time to back him up.
What happened after that was pure nastiness, and isn't worth going over. At worst, mahmud was loose with what he claimed to know, and had the misfortune to come up against someone who appears to have very credible information.
The NDPs treatment of POCs was never under discussion. It was mahmud mentioning it. Then he tried to butress that with an apparently ill chosen example. And people going wonky. Thats it in my opinion.
There wasn't any political background to miss Catchfire. We had BAs long account of what happened, and no one contradicting that, mahmud included.
I think its possible Catchfire that you just didnt follow the flow. If so, big deal.
No one has enough time, and the mods dont get paid enough to digest everything in every thread as closely as do the protaganists in the discussion.
Pretty obvious that the sideways business had everything to do with the usual conflict for and against the NDP, with the usual suspects. But don't second guess yourself that if you don't really get it, thats because you don't follow the electoral politics events enough. and that lack of knowledge doesnt stop the protaganists by the way.
I wrote this while that thread was being closed:
For the record, I don't agree with BA that babble is going downhill or that the mods are looking the other way, or any of that.
But I'm also going to take exception with Slumberjack and Unionist that mahmud was merely criticisng the NDP.
And the 'danger' of this board turning into a NDP mouthpiece is just a straw person fantasy.
he was proven wrong numerous times, with citations even, and still kept inisting he was correct and the rest of us were partisans, and you did have recourse I will refer to the applicable babble rule:
The 'danger' is that some NDP partisans take criticism of the NDP as a 'personal attack'. This has been a reoccuring issue and even if the criticism is over the top and or false, that kind of a precedent is dangerous and is easily avoided if people just develop slightly thicker skins.
I didn't think mahmoud was making a personal attack on me. I just thought he was being dishonest and said so. And, yes, I am aware that I am wandering around on the far side of the official rules on Babble. OTOH that might be the most quoted post I have ever made on Babble, so I think a few people appreciated me sticking my neck out.
Well after being in the fields all day maybe I am a little more tired and have a little less energy but I think Catchfire was trying to do his best, but to me got it wrong. But you know what such is life if I always got everything right I would be a lot smarter than I am- and maybe even a lot wealthier too. In the end it is litte more than a foofaraw I expect.
I have though given up on babble as useful (at least for me)- which is nothing more than a personal opinion - so with this I will bid you all adieu and wish you all much peace, joy and success on issues we all care about despite our differences.
The danger is that some would think others do not know when they are being personally attacked under the guise of partisanship.
Personally I got pretty damn thick skin, but I am not fucking stupid, nor am I going to tolerate the disengenuous lies and attacks.
Frankly I will never get a thick skin over being personally attacked.
BA hopefully you just take a break and come back, punk know nothing asses want to drive solid opinions and thoughts away, as well as vocal NDP supporters....do not let them win...
It's not the first time, nor do I suspect it will be the last, that whenever the pot of NDP criticism is given a stir, BA makes an appearance to denounce the entire board, and subsequently promises to leave if a more NDP friendly atmosphere is not enforced, thereby depriving us of his marbles, until next time.
At least he has not lost his marbles...not a universal situation hereabouts.
Yer a mean fella, Sj. Quite the piece of work. But I hope that I can reply in kind.
Come to think of it, yer goddam pathetic.
And yes, after several appeals for moderators to speak to the questions of that now safely closed thread, I have just plain given up on the one-sided bullshit instilled fratricidal nature of a board where the snipers rule.
I don't recall making any comment about mahmud whatsoever. I was just trying to express my fatigue at those who react to the NDP with either hatred or love, without paying attention to what stands it takes and what roles it plays. In all my three (3) posts, I actually tried to return the discussion to the topic of a coalition with Layton as leader, which I fully support. Perhaps you can review those three (3) posts (out of a total of 93 posts in the thread) and see where you got your wrong impression from.
Or, perhaps people can stop attacking each other just because someone says the wrong thing about the party one loves or hates.
I always find it to be an interesting exercise to scroll back to the top of a thread which has turned into a dogfight and identify the poster who started personally attacking another poster. There's always a first one, and it's almost never justifiable.
George, still searching the archives, when i feel like it, as i do not want to waste valuable time on someone who is pretending they did not say something, while pretending to be honest without fault,
Know I will find it now the archives are up...too bad they were not search engine searchable though would make it quicker and easier, but I have patience
stop it unionist, just please stop, your holier than thou attitude, without a leg to stand on, is pukeable, speaking of puking,
Snipers you say. Then why bring your machine gun to the mix in this fashion George?
Now BA, don't be like that. Come on back now, ye hear.
A lot of people around here seem to like going apeshit.
BA called mahmud on the claims he was making.
I beleive that before he had a chance to reply, multiple people were jumping in calling him a liar, and someone who came here to lie... people with a talent for mind reading I suppose.
At worst he was bullshitting. Like that never happens around here.
Itchy trigger fingers.
And to boot, giving mahmud the satisfaction to go apeshit over you going apeshit on him.
Everybody gets their jollies.
Seems those the best with words and writing hold considerable sway around here. A bit classist you might say.
Looking back over that thread, it is quite interesting Unionist. Here's post #3:
No references, links or even rhetorical devices nor anecdotal evidence to offer. I'm sorry but if babble is going to agree that sticking with "the devil I know in Steven Harper" while disparaging the federal NDP with all kinds of nasty connotations with not one shred of evidence while invoking Bob fucking Rae is not damaging to the progressive cause I'm quite confused with the policy around here.
First disclaimer: I vote NDP but I normally agree with how this is not an NDP board moderation is applied but this one bothered me.
Anyway, not much was said but the next morning this was posted at #21
Again, false innuendo and blatant distorting of the fact that any gains for the "downtrodden and ethnically different" come about from NDP activism. What the fuck has Harper done that mahmud so likes? I'm sure I could link 100's of babble posts showing just the opposite.
After remind responds for what it is, post #23
If anything, his position is banalizing as he offers not a shred for discussion, just smears. jrootham asks for links, No Yards refutes mahmud and mahmud tries to offer up some flimsy link that goes nowhere and the suggestion he made for googling led me here first and to links about Harris' implementation of it due to Rae's generous welfare state.
No Yards refutes that again so then mahmud declares he knows how inside guvment works.
I bolded the last sentence. Notice a bit of a personal attack there, no?
His next one, #30
I'm scared to touch this one but I think he feels Employment Equity legislation for women wasn't a good idea. Sense a pattern yet?
So various babblers and "mostly" politely still tell mahmud he has no facts for his discussion.
Finally, BA makes a clear, detailed, polite point about the lies that have been put forth by mahmud.
And all he's got to fucking say is this?:
Perhaps the moderators don't have the time for a closer reading of the thread but it obviously degenerated for one reason only.
Bookish Agrarian please have a break but please don't leave and let lies like these espouse themselves. Thank you for your efforts and all the others who politely tried to shut this fucking smear job up.
The agent provocateurs seem to be breeding. Fortunately, inbreeding kills the species.
A third point would also be helpful: (c) some babblers might want to consider simply ignoring posters who make their blood pressure pop.
There are many examples of babblers who simply don't like one another. They should either engage with each other (without personal attacks) or hit the mental "ingnore button". The degree of rancor we frequently see here would be greatly diminished if more babblers followed that third (and incredibly simple) "rule".
ETA: Do you have a like to the results of the pledge, Unionist? I recollect that movement but don't recall how it shook out.
Do you have anything further to add in reply to my carefully worded response to you in the previous Layton PM thread, or shall I take this offering as the sum of your efforts in that regard?
Strange, you edited your post after I posted mine Unionist. No comment on my reply about your re-reading of threads? Perhaps, I should have quoted it, who knows.
mahmud was clearly offside and those that choose to ignore it do progressive politics a disservice.
That is something worth repeating -- and elaborating on, KenS.
I've frequently seen (and I've been guilty of it myself) babblers making assumptions about (and then attacking) the motives behind another babbler's posts.
It would be good if more of us would step back and just stick to reading what is actually written by other posters...rather than trying to divine hidden meanings or motives behind the words appearing on the screen.
And I like Unionist's fun at trying to dominate the board but clearly his rules aren't being applied consistently by Unionist himself.
Welcome back, Sven.
There were several threads on the topic. Here was one that was just aimed at updating the list. Then there was this and this.
But the origin of the pledge, or poll, or whatever, was Michelle's proposal/reflection here. I just tried to put it in a codified form that babblers could discuss and consider.
Hi, RP.
Although I appreciate your involvement here almost all the time, I'm going to ignore you until you stop attacking other babblers - whether me or anyone else.
No mind reading necessary on your part Sven, you're pretty straightforward and I appreciate that.
But it's all just wordsmithing at times and that's elitist.
That's cool U. I feel the same about your involvement but I'm not prepared to be silent about this one. I hope you can see my position.
Are you saying that babblers who express their incoherent thoughts with incomprehensible prose should be cut extra slack around here??