Personal attacks by moderators

Pot, kettle

Yeah, I can't quite decide what I'd take more offense with...being called slimy...or little.  What did it for you?

That got me pretty angry as well. Especially since all the code words that were written in that thread, such as "passive viewing" and then the tirade about how children aren't really "innocent" (this in the context of child abuse") were left alone.

And wtf?? I'm angry about this topic because I have been "triggered"? How totally and completely insulting and condescending. I'm not allowed anger and if I am angry I must be triggered? 

Not ONE time was Cueball asked to provide one shred of evidence of proof regarding what he says the police re: use this means of chasing and tracking down child abusers to track down activists. Not once. He uses a lot of words and people fawn all over his supposed brilliance but don't bother asking him to provide any source material. None. So his long words are "rational" while mine? I was just "triggered" and therefore by implication, irrational. 

I've worked in IT for years. I have studied pedophiles extensively - read a lot of book on how police capture them using technology, and yet, I am the idiot. Cueball is the authority. I'm sick to death of those threads being hijacked and women's voices drowned out, or called irrational. Bullshit. To have a child abuse picture on your computer, you must have been looking very hard, through link after link after link to get that image to "pop up". That's the reality. I see in the new thread this reality is being tossed aside for a cueball made reality. Read some books and provide some backup. But nope, none of us who have any experience in this field are to be tolerated by Cueball. 

Fidel gets a warning and a break (I think) and Cueball gets to spew his long words, which in reality, seriously and truly means nothing on this topic. Those of us who wish to discuss it are at his mercy.  Toe Cueball's line or be banished. After all, he's just looking out for those 57 men who may be innocent. 

If you want to discuss the real issue, child rape and abuse - too bad - keep in in Cueball's context or be gone. 

After all those code words, and I'll gladly pull them from his many quotes,  we are the ones who need to be banished. Forget the way Cueball refers to viewing child abuse imnages as "passive looking" Forget that he goes on to decry the notion of "innocent children". Nope, it is we who must be idiots. Not Cueball. Truly sickening. 

I'm sorry, Fidel and Martin were implying, without any justification whatsoever, that Cueball was consuming child porn.  That's about as slimey and ethically diminutive as it gets.  People like Stargazer, Martin, and Fidel were also adamantly refusing to consider the details of his arguments in favour of tarring him as a loathsome "other".  I can easily understand how, in these circumstances, he would use the word "idiot".  I'm not condoning his use of this term, but my God, when you start hitting someone in the face with a 2-by-4 you have to expect that at some point he's going to try and throw a punch in your direction. 

I wasn't on the computer at all yesterday, but followed the thread for a while when it started.  I just went back to review how it ened up, and frankly found it both difficult and painful to try to follow.

It seems to be one of those threads that pops up around here now and then that just goes totally toxic.  My own personal feeling is that some approach a matter from a purely 'neck up' detached point of view, and others are justifiably passionate, and angry because anger is a perfectly legitimate response. Both are subjectively honest approaches, but in a babble thread, it's kind of like mixing gasoline and matches.

Anyway,  people can't insinuate that others are consumers of child porn, or for that matter, even soft on it because they support due process. I mean you just can't. As far as the technical issues of how someone elses porn searches can end up on your computer, and all that other stuff, I really can't comment.  As far as Michelle's remarks to Martin, she can comment if she wishes, but it was a pretty frustrating thread to try to referee.

I'd like to ask participants to stand back for a moment, look at this thread, and ask themselves if there's any way it's likely to be constructive, and what are the chances it's going to get worse and be shut down.

Martin, I hope you don't bail over this. Check your PMs eh? 

Anyways, is there any particular reason why threads aren't getting closed at 100 posts anymore? (Maybe we're all working for Sven now. )

I don't actually think that Martin was specifically insinuating what Fidel was insinuating. I think he was saying that my tentative objection to increasing police powers to pursue child abuse pornographers was in aid of protecting male privilege generally speaking, if not in this particular realm. He called these "libertarian" arguements. It was a similar type of smear, but not the same. My arguement was that his solution, making the focus of his campaign indivduals only empowered the patriarchal system he objects to generally, by enhancing the means by which dissent can be squashed.

Regardless, there were various other smears that he was perpetrating. For example that I was saying the child abuse investigations were cover for political harrassement, and so on and so forth. I certainly said nothing at all like that.

Yes, sirree! Ol' Sven pays me 9 shillings to pretend that I'm a cockney chimney sweep in a private, hidden thread.

Thank you Michael.

No, you're right, remind, and I've ammended my post.

Michael Nenone: "I'm sorry, Fidel and Martin were implying, without any justification whatsonever, that Cueball was consuming child porn. "

No, I didn't, if only because it would have reduced to ashes a thread of argumentation that anyone can see I had been very careful in arguing, on the basis of Cueball's arguments and their social context.

And as long as I am facing down the censors, I don't think Fidel did either: He argued, convincingly for anyone who knows IT, that the libraries of images of child abuse that a few men finally got accused of having do NOT build up into a computer because of a mistaken keystroke. He then appealed to Cueball to verify that that had never happened to him. The fact that he did this with sarcasm may have opened him up to misrepresentation, but sarcasm was perfectly legitimate given the weakness of Cueball's repetitive argument:

Fidel wrote: "So, how many times have you clicked on the "wrong" hyperlink and had kiddie porn inadvertently dumped onto your hard drive? Is this an ongoing problem for you?"

(Edited for clarity) Cueball could have simply acknowledged that no, he hadn't and it wasn't, as I did for almost every one of his own baiting counter-arguments.

To get back to the OP, do we feel is it legitimate for moderators to insult and bully Babblers as Michelle does, regularly, in my case and in some others?

Please Martin. What the fuck does '"wrong" hyperlink' imply. It implies that I did not use the wrong hyperlink, and in fact intended to use the hyperlink. That is what the quotes are for. He then continues with his sarcastic bullshit.

Fidel's last minute defence was just a bunch of bollocks.

It doesn't matter if it was just sarcastic banter or not. It's completely out of bounds, and if anyone had made such an allusion in jest, from my side of the table you would have been screaming about how insenstive such "jokes" were, especially given the subject matter.

Here I have been decent enough to set forward the opinion that your smears and misrepresentations were not of the colour of Fidel's, at least you could do us the courtesy of recognizing Fidel's dumbass remarks were entirely out of bounds.

If I actually thought you were implying the same I would have asked for action against you too, but I did not.

Well, English isn't my first language, but I understood those quotes as implying that the people who do download pornography do not do so by clicking on the wrong hyperlink (as you wrote - Fidel was quoting your qualifier), that the guys who got arrested had therefore deliberately downloaded those child abuse images, and that since such miskeying presumably was not an ongoing problem for you, your argument didn't stand. 

Hi there. I'm popping in here to request that the thread remain on topic, which is why it's in rabble reactions. If you guys want to continue your debate, please do it in the current open thread. Not that anyone is going to change anyone's mind at this point.

If the thread can't get back on topic, and I feel like waiting for Michelle to come on and speak directly to your issue, Martin, then the thread will have to be closed.

It's been 4 hours since oldgoat wrote this. Things are not looking good. 

Generally, in English quotes around a word like that indicate that it is use is questionable.

That's my point: he was questioning it, the credibility of that hypothesis, and for good reason - not suggesting anything about you (in my opinion at least).

Waiting for people - not just Michelle - to address the OP.

I was the subject Martin, as in: "Is this an ongoing problem for you?" It was this closing sentence that brought home the full intent of Fidel's little "joke".

Well, if highly chancy interpretations about posters' intent are enough to bring down the wrath of a mod and not-ambiguous-in-any-way insults, I think some people need to brush up on the ethical limits of trials of intent. I rarely agree with Fidel but he deserved at least the benefit of a doubt.

Indeed, this whole "you are insinuating that (insert B-S misrepresentation)" trope ought to be saluted with the equivalent of a Godwin point. I have seen it derail too many discussions! Can we agree on this, Cueball?

I claim "Martin point" as the official label of this proposed Babble cleaner-upper.

Half of your arguements are based in implied or latent meanings. For example, your suggestion that my "Libertarian" arguements serve the purpose of protecting my own male privilege, and not what I say they intend.

All of language is based on implied/latent meanings. Pulling out one as "insinuated", adding to its weight in this manner and claiming it represents the speaker's real intent is just cheap rethoric. 

I called your arguments libertarian because that is what I feel some of them are. Do you disagree - if so, I would expect you to argue back rather than whine. 

When it comes to pornography, it seems obvious to me that the libertarian line does protect hegemonic male privilege - its context - and over and against the rights and welfare of male children and many gay men, I might add. 

I find this analysis accurate whether libertarian arguments are voiced by you, another man or a woman, which is why I didn't argue, suggest or insinuate that this was about you. (It certainly isn't specifically IMO.)

P.S.: I am now toeing Maysie's call and out of this exchange.

Well, Martin, I think you are just prevaricating now. I have stated what I think, and why I think it. And as far as it goes, I have made my statements regarding the implied meaning, the intended meaning, and the actual meaning of what has been said in this discourse, as clearly as possible.

I have also disagreed with the interpretation that you were implying the same thing as I believe Fidel was implying, and offered a different interpretted meaning for your statement, which are somewhat at odds with Michelle's view of it. I am not going to say more on this topic because I don't think I can be any more clear.

Hey, sorry, I was out all day and just got back now - I wasn't ignoring this thread.

I don't want Martin to go anywhere either, I think he's an extremely valuable voice on here.  I would just like him to stop implying that people who disagree with him on issues of feminism have some sort of shameful personal reason to do so.  I remember another thread where he suggested that someone had a personal library of pornography simply because they were disagreeing with him about his stand on porn as well.  I've seen this sort of behaviour from him at other times too, and it really pushes all my buttons at once.  If I misinterpreted his posts in this most recent threads, then I apologize.  But they seemed to me like a careful skirting of the edge without quite going over.

Stargazer...I have so much respect for you, and I'm really sorry, I definitely didn't mean to imply that you personally were triggered for any personal reasons unique to you.  I meant that this is one of those topics that triggers EVERYONE because it's one of those hot-button issues.  I guess I worded that really badly, but I didn't mean to be condescending.  I'm very sorry it came out like that.

Finally, I felt that Cueball was being attacked in that thread for asking us to think about the implications of automatically assuming that the police are correct when they charge someone with something.  He wasn't defending sexual abuse of children - he was saying that he was concerned that there is a tendency for people to react in a kind of "child porn bad! pitchforks! torches! sweeping police powers needed" way to these sorts of stories, and that police could take advantage of such a sentiment to smear people, or exaggerate, or to get much broader powers of search and seizure.

For this, people were making slimy insinuations that he personally has something to hide, he personally is just fine with child pornography, maybe he has a taste for it himself, maybe he goes searching for child porn himself and then uses the excuse that he found it "by accident," etc.

I have also been accused (by e-mail) of doing whatever Cueball says and that I was following his orders by suspending Fidel for a few days so he can cool off (and face some consequences for implying a babbler is into child pornography).  

My answer to that would be that Cueball has been suspended at least twice before that I can remember, and possibly more, by me.  Secondly, Cueball has never, before now, ever requested that I ban anyone.  Ever.  If anything, he has spoken out AGAINST me banning or suspending people, even if he's been involved in the argument that led to it.  Thirdly, I didn't ban Fidel, as Cueball requested in the thread, I just suspended him, and I didn't do that because Cueball asked me to, I did it because his behaviour was too egregious to ignore, but I felt that Fidel is too valuable to the babble community to ban him entirely.  I felt a bit of time to cool off was in order.  Finally, Cueball has been told to cool it by the moderators (including me) I don't know how many times when he's gotten too aggressive.  

So I don't know, I guess that would be my response to this thread.

" I would just like him to stop implying that people who disagree with him on issues of feminism have some sort of shameful personal reason to do so."

That is utter bullshit. I am stunned to see you maintaining this conceit even after Cueball has told you different. But I guess this is the best you (and Babble) can do. 

Hi everyone!

I've been busy the last few days. I missed you all!

I've just read the "offending" thread and this one, for the first time.

I know you're all waiting with bated breath for my contribution , so here it is:

1. I agree with Martin, and Cueball, and Stargazer, and Tommy, and others - at least, on many of the differing but not inherently contradictory points they were raising.

2. I'm sorry to see the personalizing of that discussion, but not that surprised.

3. I'm utterly bewildered as to why Fidel was suspended. He made no accusation against Cueball that I can discern.

4. Nor do I believe Martin made any such accusation. These were just overcharged debating tactics.

5. Cueball had a valid and important point - mostly by analogy with surveillance for other purposes, civil liberties, etc. - but it got lost in the unavoidable emotion of the topic (child porn).

6. I empathize with the mods on that thread, but if I were they, I would probably have just tried to let the passion fizzle out. Or not. What do I know, I'm not a mod, and I would never bid on their jobs. Too hard, low pay, and mostly thankless.

There! I feel better now. Now I have to get back to the work that has kept me mostly away from here these past few days. Wish me luck.

Okay Martin, you win.  I'm tired and I can't be bothered wasting my time searching past threads to back up my claim, so I apologize for saying that you insinuate things about other babblers when they disagree with you.  You've never, ever done that, not ever.

I'm going to try to pass any moderating of future disputes involving you to other moderators, and do my best to follow my advice to other babblers (that is, ignoring posts by people they are regularly in conflict with) and hopefully we can coexist here without you feeling persecuted and me feeling like tearing my hair out.  My sincere apologies for my part in this argument.

Well, if Michelle is too tired to do it, then I will.

Here's an example of the kind of implication that Martin regularly engages in to try to discredit those who disagree with him.

Then he persisted three posts later after Michelle told him to stop.

If the argument in that thread cannot be understood as irony, I don't know what can. I was reaching for the most preposterous consequence I could think of to rebut ad absurdum my opponents' notion of our/their ethical/political choices being mechanistically determined by some kind of "hard wiring".

To read this as suggesting in earnest that some objectionable personal library was really writing their posts for them is to believe that Jonathan Swift really recommended that Irish babies be served for lunch.

And - just to make sure - I am not suggesting they do.

P.S.: Thanks, Michelle.

Say, St. Marty, maybe moderators are hardwired to make personal attacks (the steam seems to be going out of this thread).

Sorry to disappoint you, I am more amiable on Sundays.

Here's an idea: When talking about sensitive topics such as pornography and child abuse, try and control your "Swiftian" wit, since it leaves a lot open to interpretation. By the way, I don't actually find Swift funny.

Oh Crap! 

 Seeing that you have noted English is not your first language (which causes us to misunderstand you), and that Swiftian satire is one of the most difficult styles to pull off in terms of writing in English, perhaps you shouldn't attempt it.  In fact, very few of us should.  If that is indeed what you were doing.

In short: you, sir, are no Jonathan Swift.

Martin, I think she's saying you're not too Swift. 

I'll live with that.

Generalized personal attacks by moderators should not happen. They should limit their criticism to the matter at hand and address specific concerns with  examples, imo.

Well, I don't believe it should be done away with entirely  Personally I revel in it when i'm the subject.  How weird is that.

 oops

Maybe some things are better left unsaid?...

That seems to be the point. Mostly certain posters kept suggesting that the discourse should be taking a different course. Yet, when ever they posted they didn't say much more than that, or threw in leading questions, such as "why are you so interested in this topic..." or your only concerned about covering "your asses".

As for that side of this discussion not much else from you and your crew. You didn't really offer any direction to the discussion, other than that. It was actually very reminsent of the kind of substanceless hazing one gets when one talks about Israel. Smears and no content.

Even the "why so much interest" in this topic was a similar form to those discussion. The intent? To close discussion down, other than for a mantra of protests of outrage and "hang them".

If people really wanted to take the discussion in another direction they could have. But they didnt. Instead just a bunch of inunnendo.

Now you have closed it down. Good job democrats!

So, yeah another nail in the coffin of the new babble. good work.

What's this new babble you all speak of?  Seems the same old turd pile to me...:)

lol.

I think it was in poor taste to dominate a thread about child sexual abuse by discussing how people get entrapped into viewing it ... like the problem  of child trafficking and child sexual abuse doesn't really exist, it's all just a ruse to entrap you. 

Yes. Very poor taste.

 Sickening, really.

I think its in very poor taste to distort what people are saying, and then attack them for things that they did not say.

As I said, you seemed to have a problem with the way the thread was developing. If you wanted to add another perespective, other than to attack people for saying what they were saying as if it were some kind of plot to cover up the truth, you had every opportunity to do so. Instead you just attacked people for not saying what you believed they should be saying.

If you have something you want to contribute, do it. But don't suggest that just because other people are talking about the things that they think are important, and adding perspectives that they think are not being looked at as much as they might that they are doing something nefarious.

No, not nefarious.

Poor taste ... I could say lacking in 'tact', but that would be too ironic since I've just been told that myself.

 There's a whole subtext here of what people don't want to talk about ... places like Picton's farm ... and child trafficking networks serving pedophile networks in Canada ... in places of power. 

I agree. I don't want to talk about it either.

But we need to acknowledge ... There IS a problem to be addressed.

Not sayin we give them a blank cheque

... but let's see the evidence, eh?

I never saw anyone in that thread make the claim that there is no problem. Only that there is also the problem of a continuous push against civil liberties by law enforcement, and that this particular issue was the perfect vehicle for that push. Universal revulsion should not overrule due process.

I guess what I really want to say is that we all can agree on this:

This is very unfair. IIRC the main issue (child abuse) was addressed in the original thread. Cueball suggested a second angle about wrongfully accused cases, and he took a beating for that. Then he opened a second thread specifically on the subject of wrongful accusations in such cases, which is a topic equally important to many of us (a lot more important to me).

So the main issue did get its due attention. Unless you don't want the other issue to be discussed at all, I don't see what you found in poor taste. Two angles were discussed in two separate threads.  

Bicker, bicker!

 I guess the fact that the second thread had the same title misled me to believe it was the same topic.

my bad!

bawk! bawk!

And now we can add another pile of generalized personal insult bullshit to the list.

So basically, the feedback I'm hearing from saga is that whenever she writes something other people find offensive here on babble, she should be given any leeway she wants to say whatever she wants, otherwise we're enforcing "feminist orthodoxy".  But when she finds something that someone else writes to be offensive, she wants the posts deleted, and feels free to denounce the person writing the posts as a possible troll or sock-puppet.

Yes, Michelle, I am challenging babble's feminist orthodoxy that disempowers all men and most women. Since you have turned it into a personal attack, I would like to regain some intelligent clarity about the issues:

I believe it should be acceptable to say that some women abuse men. (I got banned for it.)

I believe it should not be acceptable to post hateful, generalized slander against men. (I'm being personally attacked by the mod for it.)

I hope the moderators of babble focus their discussion on those two critically important issues.

I hope the babble moderators will not focus their discussion on emotional generalizations and personal attacks such as the above bullshit.

Saga, points seem to be rapidly and cumulatively going over your head.

What other "points" have accumulated besides those two, other than some personal attacks by a moderator, and now you?

Hey look, if you all want to keep babble and the NDP safe for 'man-hating', go ahead!

Obviously, that policy offends me so I just want to know babble's position so I can make a decision of my own.

The kind of personal attacks I've been subjected to here are intolerable and indefensible, though my opinions are quite normal and accepted, even the expected norm in civil society - fairness.

The decisions on these two issues is what is important.

Not more snide personal attacks.

I can't even quite believe we have to have this discussion ffs!!

I have mailed two mods with a very pointed defence of saga's position, and pointing out the injustices visited on her by others . And she is not the only one who has been invited to crawl in the past while.

Michelle invited private messages, and I hope that the mods review the evidence out therre on the battlefield - it is all too bloody plain for those who take the trouble to look - that saga speaks in defence of herself, is not an instigator of anything but a search for truth.

God how this dishonest world needs just that kind of spine... right Martin?     .....Hello Martin? (I'm sure Martin started this thread some time back with this message in mind. )  Hello....anyone?

There is no "man hating" going on around here but you sure are trying to silence anyone who disagrees with and smear those that don't shut up.

You clearly don't get what a personal attack is. There isn't anything normal and accepted in polite company about going on and on about how hateful feminists are and how women are just as violent and men just as victimized.

You're the only one who seems to think this is actually an ongoing issue.

You should listen to Michelle, she was being civil in the face of your hypocrisy.

I think you should be a bit more patient saga as the moderators have stated they're going through a rethink on the enforcement of the rules.  I also kind of agree Michelle may be wrongly using your desire to express a point.  I don't think it's being done consciously.  I don't agree with your position that babble is man-hating, anything but in my opinion, but I do see your request for discussion and guidelines.

As the prime defender of the feminist orthodoxy, I doubt martin will show for this one!

Thanks for your support, George.

It's hard being a defender of fairness between genders here on babble!

For one thing, you have to keep the NDP out of this saga. No one acting in any capacity for the NDP has anything to do with your windmill-tilting on babble.

And by the way: I don't always agree with Michelle or the other moderators on babble. I've often disagreed. But you seem to think they are at your beck and call. And that is just not on. Show a little respect for the work people have put it to build an online community and you just might get somewhere.

Sometimes I can't believe the garbage I read on the net.

The thread was locked and I was not given an opportunity to respond to Michelle's generalized personal attack, and that's unfair.

I just want to focus the discussion appropriately, on the issues identified above.

It is not about me. It's about babble policy.

I am going to say a couple of things only, there is a very real  misinterpretation (at best) of  reality going on, in part acheived by the historical thread vacuum, caused by the babble switch over. There is a conflating of babble and the NDP all of a sudden.  Why?

lol, slumberjack.

I haven't seen anything that can be called a "personal attack" against Saga. I saw martin dufresne call one of her posts "anti-feminist". This is not a personal attack. Even if it were untrue, it would not be a personal attack. Nor is it slander. Nor can anything the mods have patiently and respectfully conveyed (recently) to Saga be technically considered "slander", "smear" or "personal attack". in fact, I see saga baiting or attempting to bait martin much more than the other way around.

There's nothing sudden about it.  People have been conflating babble and the NDP at least since I joined, seven years ago. (It's been seven years?!!)

I meant in this dialogue al'Q! ;)

I raised the issue:

I don't personally care if a woman hates all men. That's her choice. However, does a woman have the right to say "all men are potential rapists" and expect other people, men and women, to accept that as legitimate intelligent discourse in a public forum with political connections and a broad national readership?

Babble policy allowing what I view as hateful allegations against all men just might be an 'optics' issue for the party associated with this board, as it is unacceptable in the society at large from which the party wishes to draw its support.

Not to mention that it gives carte blanche to all men, male youth and boys to think of themselves as 'potential rapists' and perhaps act out the 'destiny' proscribed for them.

It's problemmatic on many levels, just like Lorne Gunter's hateful diatribe in the NP.

psst, Saga: there are some Liberals on this board, some Greens, some anarchists, communists, libertarians, librarians, and even a few conservatives. This is not an NDP-sponsored board.

And why are you expecting Babble values and policies to accord with those of "society at large"? Would you like that when it comes to Aboriginal issues, as well?

The point of a discussion forum is to exchange views, not dictate them. Some people disagree with you, that isn't the end of the world and its gonna happen both at and away from babble. I think Michelle made some good points.

But you seem to think they are at your beck and call.

wtf is that????

Respect is a two way street, and I have had none from that moderator, just ongoing and hateful personal attacks ad nauseam. Policies that support attacks on all men have very limited public appeal, but that's not my problem.

I feel the same and react the same where attacks on all women are tolerated. I am glad that is not the case here at babble, but the current  imbalance in babble policy warrants the attention it is now getting.

At least I hope the focus of moderator discussion is on the problemmatic policies of babble, where it should be.

Yeah, I'd wish they'd all just get off our backs, us downtrodden men you know, before we chuck Mr. Nice Guy out the window and go on a rampage against the heels of our oppression.

FWIW, saga, I've been on the wrong side of the babble consensus on pretty much every topic where I've posted. Dissent is allowed here. There are, of course, any number of self-appointed moderators who will get on your case, but they are invariably smacked down by the real moderators when the rubber hits the road.

I think the problem is that in addition to dissenting, you've also called for the suppression of views that dissent from your own.

Just a reminder of what I objected to:

Relying on men to stop rape is like relying on foxes to stop eating chickens.
It is in their nature. This is why women must live like dogs in fear constantly.

Perhaps one day we will have a courageous matriarchal government that will allow women to walk with their heads held high no longer in fear of the brutes we share this planet with.

As for it being in men's nature, how many rapes do you think are committed by men? How many do you think are committed by women?

It does not mean that every man is a rapist. It simply means that every man has the potential.

And by the way ... this thread was not in the feminist forum, as Michelle mistakenly said.

And yes, I object to spreading generalized hatred against any identifiable group in this way.

That's why I think babble's feminist policy that allows this kind of gender attack has to be reconsidered.

We can speak for ourselves thank you, in terms of what offends us.

I don't think the "brutes" label is inappropriate given the facts, ot that it is "hatred" to express that opinion. When sufficient numbers of men dissent from the generalized violence and insensitivity that currently defines masculinity, I will be glad to revise that opinion.

As for men's nature, one poster expressed an opinion about it, an opinion I might add that most men share. I think (hope) they are wrong in this assessment. But no one really knows at this stage, and throwing the "hatred" and "crap" labels around doesn't seem to help.

BTW, men apparently hate women a lot more than any women hate men so I would tend to give any woman who would a pass. But I am not seeing it.

Go ahead. I'm not speaking for men.

I'm speaking for me and I do not want to be associated with that kind of unjustified and generalized attack on any identifiable group of people.

I think it reflects badly on all women, including me, and I object to that.

So I am insisting that babble policy be clarified.

There was very much of that from the gerbil running my thinking apparatus.  Thanks for pointing it out Cueball.

Saga.  You are not a moderator.  You do not get to say what the ground rules are on babble.  You can't decide what is appropriate in the feminist forum, or the babblers helping babblers forum, you can't decided to create a man's forum and a women's forum.  You can't decide to delete a post, you can't decided to ban a member.  You can't decide that saying women abuse men is or is not ban worthy. You can't reopen a thread (short of starting a new one which you are fond of doing) if you don't believe it should have been closed.   If you want those abilities maybe you should go to rabble and ask for a job as a moderator and then see what their response is to you. 

 If you stuck with just your opinion on what goes on in the threads I would be fine with it.  If you PMed the Mods if you thought there might be a problem, I would be fine with it.  If you disagreed with a decision, made one comment and moved on I would be fine with that but instead you are making comment after comment, thread after thread.  What was it - oh yeah - beating a dead horse.

Just because you include the words you "believe", you "feel" and in your "view" it isn't anymore undermining and disempowering to the mods that you are trying to tell them what to do and how to do it.  You want the board different, try empowering the mods.  Try fighting based on issues exclusively and if you believe someone should be banned or something deleted PM them and tell them, and ask them why they made that decsion, instead of trying to make it look like they are not doing their jobs.  If you want clarification give them the respect of asking them directly.  I work with a lot of different people and the way to motivate and get them to do the best job possible has never been to tell everyone else how badly they are doing at their job.

I think history has been pretty clear that there aren't so many limits as to how low man can sink in his relations with others.  So I find it hard to be offended when talking about this potential, in fact I think a lot of the world's most interesting literature and thought contemplates this, and its ethically useful to not simply create divisions between Good people and Bad people but look at why people do bad (or good)things.  I thought Tommy Paines response was really interesting and is a good example of why such discussions shouldn't be censored.

I think you are being precious, and pretentious. You have some notion about "orthodox" feminism that is really bugging your ass, and you are using this tendentious little morsel of "objective truth" about "any identifiable group" (an analysis that, for the most part, men on this forum disagree with), as a launching pad for prosecuting your personal beef.

I think its disingenuous and contrived, highly abstracted and annoying.

I think you can stick your personal attack where the sun don't shine, cueball.

Apparently babble does not allow personal attacks, unless someone disagrees with babble policy, and then it is open season on them, for posters and moderators alike to pile on.

It's disgusting.

Well then, given that the "identifiable group" in question doesn't feel the need to be be defended at this moment, and sees that its stuggle lies elsewhere, maybe you could engage your "solidarity" efforts with a little more circumspection.

I suppose you're right, we have been having a little fun at your expense in not treating your concerns with the seriousness it deserves.  But you should realize that it's not every day that someone of the opposite gender comes along on the board to defend us, and frankly, we're just not all that prepared to analyze that level of solidarity.

I was actually much more interested in hearing what Feather Sky had to say as opposed to having people start arguing about abstract principles. I certainly didn't feel threatened or anything. My manhood was not at stake or anything.

So now men are an "identifable" group? LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......

Hee hee, so funny. 

We are mainly identifiable by our prediliction to dress socks and sandals whilst mowing the lawn.

I'm only thirty-something, and i found myself doing that one day last summer. How? I swore it would never happen to me . . .

"fun"?

I repeat:

Apparently babble does not allow personal attacks, unless someone disagrees with babble policy, and then it is open season on them, for posters and moderators alike to pile on.

It's disgusting.

Here I have to support saga. Unless you've got the mentality of a 7-year-old bully, that's not "fun".

The four o'clock shadow gives me away.

Which apparently babble does.

But I would still like the policies clarified, and now we have to add the policy on personal attacks, because there's a definite unfairness and lack of maturity in its implementation.

Regarding  dress socks and men, did anyone else watch "Spectacle" on Friday night with Elvis Costello and Elton John?  I swear I could not get past Elvis's lime green socks, and Elton's darker green ones with a black upper rim, to always pay attention to what they were saying, interesting though it was.

I tend to wear mine until they become little more than ankle warmers.

Well, I know this is seriously off-topic but I'm fond of wearing socks and sandals. Not dress socks, but socks. I know it's considered laughable but I do it anyway. Am I the only socks-and-sandals wearing woman? (Only with pants, by the way.)

Just as much "circumspection" as you put into your personal attacks, cueball, no more.

You are one of the worst offenders here, and I have not forgotten.

For which the process has been made clear to you multiple times. If you feel that something has been said or done in contravention of babble policy, PM a moderator of your choosing for clarification. It's not as if you have not sufficiently aired your grievances publicly. The only reason to persist in your current manner that I can see is to provoke conflict, rather than seek resolution or clarification.

The bigger font makes me hate nested quotes so much the more.

And saga, I sympathize with you, but you need to stop. Just take a break.

Nope, rosal nothing wrong with it all, IMV, I wear socks and sandals, sometimes it is just to cool here in the mountains to wear just sandals,  and one wants the freedom from shoes and winter boots.

And I just darned some/a lot of my partner's socks before they became ankle warmers, as he has to buy socks that are not the disposable kind, and cost a fortune. Being as tall as he is, 40" inseam, he has problems with varicose veins.

Thanks, remind. I feel better now

The only reason I persist here is to deflect the personal attacks that are being allowed, even encouraged, by the moderator(s).

I have never received a response, nor any action when I asked for help from the mod, who herself engages in personal attacks on me.

That's why I have a very serious concern about the integrity of babble. I've been attacked ad nauseam for months.

(because I said some women abuse men)

And catchfire, with respect, I'll "take a break" when the mods do their job and stop the personal attacks on me, but that has never  happened so you are stuck with me.

If your goal is to tear down babble, you will find little sympathy for that project amongst babblers. What is your end-game? Complete capitulation to your world-view? Not. Gonna. Happen.

RosaL wrote:

Thanks, remind. I feel better now

You're welcome, and I must add that I have been known to wear socks, with sandals and a long skirt even. ;) Oh and shorts too.  My favorite socks are those tweedy looking cotton ones.

Sweet jebus.

Closing.

Reopening.

Okay, the moderators have discussed this at length by e-mail, and we've spent about as much time as we're going to on this now.  Sorry it's taken a while, and thanks to those who have contacted us or followed this through these threads the past few days for your patience.

saga was banned from babble before the relaunch of the new software.  Because of some sort of glitch, a number of accounts had their status changed from locked to unlocked and vice versa.  I was surprised to see saga posting here again a while back, but since she was staying out of the feminism forum, we just looked the other way when we saw her account had been affected by this glitch.

The fact is, saga was banned before, and she was not reinstated by anyone at rabble.  This thread, and the several before that, plus the constant posting and attacks on the moderators and other people posting (including conflating feminists and the feminism forum as "hateful" and man-hating) are good examples of why the moderators think there probably isn't going to be any peace here as long as saga's account remains open.  These are clearly issues that we are not going to come to an agreement on, and we moderators are not going to waste hours every single day dealing with saga's issues with the feminism forum.  We understand the disagreement she has with us, and clearly this cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of both saga and the moderators.  We feel that saga is insisting not only that her voice be heard in the feminism forum, but that feminist voices she disagrees with be silenced - and she'll post thread after thread after thread demanding it, as she has done over the past few days.

Sorry if you see this as railroading, saga, but I don't think this is going to get any better, and you're clearly not happy here anyhow.  So we're locking your account, and we hope you find a forum that is more to your liking elsewhere.