Leaving Babble for awhile

137 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2009-04-01 10:12

Stargazer

I haven't logged in to babble for about a week (maybe just under that) and I'd like to take the time to say that I won't be posting here for awhile.

Michelle, thanks for doing a thankless job. I appreciate the work you do here.

For me, this place is getting toxic. Far too toxic to be healthy for me anyways. I have been posting here for quite some time. I've met some good net people, and some I may have regular spats with (Sven) but I like them as well.

Before I leave for my hiatus from babble, I'd like to say a couple of things:

1) I believe that Saga has contributed greatly to the Aboriginal forum, and that she was right in her assessment of what happened in the kiddie rape thread. However, it is quite clear to me that she has a major problem with Babble as a whole, and me and Michelle in particular. I also don't think it is fair nor wise to have let her spew her rantings for 100 posts in the Babble Reactions thread. I think she has been given far too much leeway. Saga is a big part of why I am leaving. I am sure this makes her happy.

2) Cueballs performance in the thread on kiddie rape was appalling. I have no issue with innocent before proven guilty, and I am no fan of the police. I think my posting hiostory shows that. But it seemed to me that that entire thread was first and foremost posted by remind to get people taking about the issue of child abuse, and that got quickly derailed by Cueball with his "idiot" comments and his extrapolation of police work on kiddie porn to that of taking away the rights of activists was in poor taste (in that I concur with pretty much all the females who tried to get that thread back on track).

3) Making Fidel leave because he asked a question, a legit question, about whether Cueball had been stuck in pop-ups, was not a good decision as far as I am concerned. Someone cannot claim to be an expert in something, and use that defense to apply to kid rapers, if they apparently have no idea what or how the internet works. But then again, I never did like Cueball, nor he me.

Any ways, to the rest of you I'll miss you and your conversations but intil this place is not so filled with animosity and hate, I chose to leave.

Michelle, you have your work cut out for you. I personally would have banned Saga, and given Cueball a time out - not Fidel, but I respect your decision.

So have a great week, month, etc. I'll come back when it is safe for me to do so.

Wed, 2009-04-01 11:04

Scout

Another Feminist gone.

Wed, 2009-04-01 11:07

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Be well, Stargazer. I've taken breaks from babble many times, some for brief periods and some for several months over the last 7+ years. Sometimes it's needed.

Wed, 2009-04-01 11:14

martin dufresne

Your return will be much appreciated and I hope that our dynamics justify it by then.

Wed, 2009-04-01 11:27

remind

Stargazer be well, and I am sad that your voice is going to be abscent from here, like so many feminist voices before you..

Wed, 2009-04-01 11:29

Michelle

Sorry to hear that, Stargazer, but I understand what you're talking about - I feel the same atmosphere here and hopefully we can work through it, and things will be a bit better by the time you're ready to come back.

Wed, 2009-04-01 11:43

remind

Oh, and stargazer, just in case you are reading, want to give you an update on some results of the sweep last week. Apparently one of the men caught in the sweep was a city of Delta engineer, who has been working there since 2001, even after being convicted of several child pornography charges in 1997. He has now resigned and child porn was even found on his comp at work.

Wed, 2009-04-01 11:43

jrose

I'm sorry to hear it, Stargazer. We'll look forward to your return.

Wed, 2009-04-01 11:47

Makwa

I will really miss you StarG, and I hope you come back soon.

Wed, 2009-04-01 14:09

#10

Cueball

Stargazer wrote:

2) Cueballs performance in the thread on kiddie rape was appalling. I have no issue with innocent before proven guilty, and I am no fan of the police. I think my posting hiostory shows that. But it seemed to me that that entire thread was first and foremost posted by remind to get people taking about the issue of child abuse, and that got quickly derailed by Cueball with his "idiot" comments and his extrapolation of police work on kiddie porn to that of taking away the rights of activists was in poor taste (in that I concur with pretty much all the females who tried to get that thread back on track).

This is bullshit. You obviouslty don't have the courage of your convictions. And precious little honour yourself. You are just using the opportunity of your proposed vacation as a podium to continue your slandering personal attack.'

I used to have respect for you, even when I fought with you. Now I have little. Bye bye!

Wed, 2009-04-01 14:10

#11

lagatta

It is sad how so many boards get toxic.

stargazer, if you are looking at this, please p.m. me to tell me how your cats are doing. I've been very concerned about them.

Wed, 2009-04-01 14:22

#12

martin dufresne

Cueball, you've really lost it.

Wed, 2009-04-01 14:28

#13

Cueball

It is not actually a post about Stargazer leaving, buddy, It's a ppost 2/3rds of which is a continuation of a debate and a personal attack on my internet charachter, using the dramatic venue of Stargazer's departure as a venue. Nothing to respect there. Spose' couldn't help themselves.

Cheap garbage.

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:09

#14

remind

Stargazer's leaving is a continuation of what happened, and how she feels about it, and she has a right to illuminate it as the reason for her departure..you, however, IMV have no right to call her "cheap garbage".

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:15

#15

Cueball

Fine, and in so doing doesn't really leave me an opportunity to give a fair "cheerio" and "hope you will be back soon", type of reply. She had an opportunity to say what she wanted and say it then. She still has an opportunity to do so, and she can open any number of threads to discuss the issues, if she desires. She is using this opportunity to get a few free pot shots off.

And I did not call her "cheap garbage" I am saying what she is doing is "cheap garabge".

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:25

#16

remind

I would say she does not give a rat's ass about depriving you of an opportunity to give a "cheerio", nor anything else..as she apparently sees you, and others, as wishing to drive her away. Which has validity in itself, if only because that is the way she sees it.

Still none of it gives you the right to label her something so horrific as "cheap garbage". It is the penultimate of dehumanization.

ETD, because you edited yours while I was responding. Again a fine line, if there is one, between labelling the person or labelling their actions. Moreover, the distinction is not there in your original commentary, so who would know you were meaning her actions.

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:26

#17

Cueball

I certainly no desire to drive anyone away. I have always been opposed to "driving" anyone away. If I did think there as cause I would ask for someone to be banned. In the case of Fidel, I did. It is the only time in the many years that I have asked for such.

I did not, I repeat, did not say that she was "cheap garabge" I am saying that this debating tactic is "cheap garbage." I have already corrected you on this point. Distort much?

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:27

#18

oldgoat

This is how threads go toxic. Cueball, she's not here, so stop going on about it. Remind, he didn't call her cheap garbage, he said her post was cheap garbage. There is a big difference.

Stop attacking eachother!

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:35

#19

remind

Cue, you added everything from this comment "Fine, and in so doing doesn't really leave me an opportunity to give a fair "cheerio" and "hope you will be back soon", type of reply", on to your post while I was responding to you. So please do stop with the distorting things much rhetoric.

And I will stand by the observation that your "cheap garbage" comentary, stands alone as one sentence, in its own paragraph, so who would know that you were referring to her "tactics"?

Tactics that you are ascribing to her, but I definitely do not see. I see her as being distressed, wanting to indicate her points of distress, and her sadness at how things are.

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:39

#20

remind

Old goat, I was responding and did not see your post, however, I am not attacking cue, nor do I feel he is attacking me. And am confused as to why you would think so?

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:43

#21

saga

Well, I will miss your pithy comments, stargazer. You have a way of cutting through the crap that I quite admire. In fact, I admired you from the beginning of my time on babble. I am sorry that you feel you need to take a break from babble.

I agree with what Michelle said in the other thread that if we all just remember not to make personal attacks, a lot of other things fall into place too. I regret that some of my views are such hot buttons for her personally, but the rules against personal attacks do not change because someone has a particular emotional reaction to a topic or a perceived/misperceived comment.

I hope stargazer does return with a fresh frame of mind, as she will be missed.

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:43

#22

Cueball

remind wrote:

Cue, you added everything from this comment "Fine, and in so doing doesn't really leave me an opportunity to give a fair "cheerio" and "hope you will be back soon", type of reply", on to your post while I was responding to you. So please do stop with the distorting things much rhetoric.

Fine.

Nonetheless, some people seem to be inferring that it is in bad taste for me to respond in kind to SG's OP. As you have observed it is an explanation of her reasons/feelings etc., and within that there are specifics about the debate and my Cueball charachter there, so I see no reason for me not to respond.

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:52

#23

It's Me D

Goodbye Stargazer, I hardly knew ye. But what I knew I generally liked. Anyway, good luck out there in the real world

Sorry to butt in with a semantic point but now that the phrase "cheap garbage" has been used four-score-and-twenty times or so in this thread, could anyone tell me the purpose of the word "cheap" in this phrase? In what way does the derisive nature of anything being compared to garbage change if the garbage is "cheap"?

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:55

#24

remind

Cueball wrote:
remind wrote:

Cue, you added everything from this comment "Fine, and in so doing doesn't really leave me an opportunity to give a fair "cheerio" and "hope you will be back soon", type of reply", on to your post while I was responding to you. So please do stop with the distorting things much rhetoric.

Fine.

Nonetheless, some people seem to be inferring that it is in bad taste for me to respond in kind to SG's OP. As you have observed it is an explanation of her reasons/feelings etc., and within that there are specifics about the debate and my Cueball charachter there, so I see no reason for me not to respond.

K, now that we have cleared that up, I do believe you had a right to respond, your name was mentioned, and I would never take exception to that right. Only was taking one to what I perceived as dehumanizing labelling, and am happy that you meant what you perceive as her tactics.

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:56

#25

Cueball

saga wrote:

remind, he didn't label her. You are stirring shit.

cueball behaved like an idiot in that thread, I agree.

However, I don't see 'banning' material in what he did.

Nor in what I did.

Fidel, on the other hand, did a slimy personal attack thing and deserved a holiday. Stargazer repeated Fidel's accusations several times, but got no censure.

I didn't see SG repeat Fidel's accussation, and I agreed that MD did not do so, at least not directly. The worst part of Fidel's accussation for me is that I doubt he actually believed it, but was using it as a tactic in pursuing his long standing vendetta against me, and was therefore making light of a serious issue, which he really did not care about in the slightest.

Wed, 2009-04-01 15:56

#26

saga

remind, he didn't label her.

cueball behaved like an idiot in that thread, I agree.

However, I don't see 'banning' material in what he did.

Nor in what I did.

Fidel, on the other hand, did a slimy personal attack thing and deserved a holiday. Stargazer repeated Fidel's accusations several times, but got no censure.

Wed, 2009-04-01 16:07

#27

saga

Well, I suppose it doesn't matter now if she did ...

A lot of us had difficulty with the direction you took that thread, and in my opinion you were also making light of the serious issue of the child sexual abuse industry.

Personally, I don't really give a shit if someone viewing porn (for money) can be 'entrapped' into viewing child sexual abuse, or if someone viewing 'young appearing' girls (for money) is likewise 'entrapped'.Get a lawyer.

The issue of the very robust child trafficking and child sexual abuse network/industry in Canada, however, is of great concern to me.

Wed, 2009-04-01 16:13

#28

Cueball

I don't happen to think that increased police powers is something to be taken lightly. Nor do I think the issue of the politicization of the police force is a light issue. I am doubly concerned about this issue now, since it appears that there are now cases before the courts where political crimes and crime of pedophelia have been linked, in secret trials where reporters can not even look at the case files, nor even the court issued publication ban.

Is Ayad Mejid a terrorist, a pedophile or a victim?

Quote:
Whatever the outcome of the preliminary hearing, the province's Ministry of the Attorney General has imposed a perplexing policy to keep secret the details of this case. While a publication ban on pre-trial hearings is customary in criminal cases, the ban regulates what can be reported, but should not prohibit access to court documents. But a Star reporter was repeatedly denied requests to read the publication ban and the rest of the case file.

Wed, 2009-04-01 16:20

#29

saga

Nor do I, though in the case of pedophiles and porn ... I don't feel strongly about it, and I don't think you will find many women who do. So what if they pick up a couple of borderline creeps? Nope, doesn't bother me at all. Get a lawyer.

It warranted its own thread, for courtesy.

Perhaps if you just acknowledged that, we could move on?

Afterall, this thread is not about you either.

Wed, 2009-04-01 16:20

#30

remind

For the record, I do not believe cueball acted like an "idiot" in that thread. He took it in a direction, that was...unexpected, and used some terminology that I found discomforting, at first, but I got what he meant, when he clarified upon questioning.

Moreover, his points were and are valid, however, IMV, they perhaps should have been taken to a compendium thread.

Wed, 2009-04-01 16:23

#31

Cueball

saga wrote:

Nor do I, though in the case of pedophiles and porn ... I don't feel strongly about it, and I don't think you will find many women who do. So what if they pick up a couple of borderline creeps? Nope, doesn't bother me at all. Get a lawyer.

It warranted its own thread, for courtesy.

Perhaps if you just acknowledged that, we could move on?

Afterall, this thread is not about you either

If its not about me, then why is my internet charachters name used repeatedly in the OP? It's about SG being pissed off with me, and feeling that the moderation in that thread unduly favoured me, and she re-iterates the points that she made on that thread, about Cueball.

Wed, 2009-04-01 16:25

#32

Cueball

remind wrote:

For the record, I do not believe cueball acted like an "idiot" in that thread. He took it in a direction, that was...unexpected, and used some terminology that I found discomforting, at first, but I got what he meant, when he clarified upon questioning.

Moreover, his points were and are valid, however, IMV, they perhaps should have been taken to a compendium thread.

This we did, and the thread was sacked by the interlocutors from the last thread, who then made pretty much similar types of accussations against people who were trying to discuss the topic. The mods then basically deemed that no third thread was welcome, and as such discussion was ended, through what I view as a kind of sabotage.

Wed, 2009-04-01 16:36

#33

remind

A compendium thread from the get go cue, not after, when things blew apart. I know, I know, often we see these things in hindsight.

Some people viewed your interlocution as sabatoge, cue, and I think neither was the case. Michelle's response in one of the threads was absolutely correct, personal leanings/biases, coming to the forefront and driving the dialogue to where it wasn't meant to be (simply put).

Wed, 2009-04-01 16:46

#34

Cueball

Fair enough. I personally never post on child abuse threads generally speaking, but the issue of the enhancement of police powers and so on are ones of interest to me. It's not as if I am constantly spamming these types of threads with this angle, so I am suprised that people were annoyed by asserting this topic.

My comments were entirely in line with my previous interests in issues of state control of the media, police surveiliance overreach, abuse of police power, wrongful conviction and freedom of speech. The fact that people were suggesting that my "interest" was "unusual" and therefore "suspect" in its motives was pretty disgusting, I thought.

Fidel's comment in particular was gratuitous.

The issue of wether or not my comments were in "bad taste", which seems to be the latest line, never came up in the original thread, as far as I can remember.

Wed, 2009-04-01 17:05

#35

remind

Some things just are to some people, and those people think it is self evident. However, it isn't, so called bad taste is also a personal perspective, and therefore subjective.

Wed, 2009-04-01 17:33

#36

jas

See, mods? You can end it, but it doesn't end :)

Cueball clearly stated what the second thread was about. Anyone else posting in that thread to refocus the discussion on child sexual abuse was derailing it, technically. Although we can understand why a "neck up" discussion of the issue is sometimes not going to work, and maybe even offensive to some.

Saga, I did not understand your two posts in that thread. This is the first time I've understood (kind of? I think?) what your position is. Still, even here, you say things like:

Quote:
Nor do I, though in the case of pedophiles and porn ... I don't feel strongly about it, and I don't think you will find many women who do.

It took me two or three reads to understand that you were referring to police powers here and not to child porn. In any case, this was exactly Cueball's point - if I may say so. That even progressives will sweep over due process in their anxiousness to lock up who they perceive as the perps.

Wed, 2009-04-01 17:36

#37

Cueball

remind wrote:

Some things just are to some people, and those people think it is self evident. However, it isn't, so called bad taste is also a personal perspective, and therefore subjective.

The main line of arguement was that any discussion of so called "libertarian" principles was a deflection and a defence of patriarchal male privilege. I can only respond to what is being said, not some hidden ethical and moral construct, based in of all things "taste".

Wed, 2009-04-01 17:41

#38

Cueball

jas wrote:

See, mods? You can end it, but it doesn't end :)

Cueball clearly stated what the second thread was about. Anyone else posting in that thread to refocus the discussion on child sexual abuse was derailing it, technically. Although we can understand why a "neck up" discussion of the issue is sometimes not going to work, and maybe even offensive to some.

Saga, I did not understand your two posts in that thread. This is the first time I've understood (kind of? I think?) what your position is. Still, even here, you say things like:

Quote:
Nor do I, though in the case of pedophiles and porn ... I don't feel strongly about it, and I don't think you will find many women who do.

It took me two or three reads to understand that you were referring to police powers here and not to child porn. In any case, this was exactly Cueball's point - if I may say so. That even progressives will sweep over due process in their anxiousness to lock up who they perceive as the perps.

Yes, and in fact I have just finished having a discussion with a friend of mine who has actually done police foresnic work in these cases, and I asked him point blank if the police still arrest and charge people with even a small amount of child abuse images in their "cache" and he says that indeed they do. Though he did say they are becoming more "rational" about it.

That is hearsay, as far as this board goes, so you can take it or leave it, but there it is.

Wed, 2009-04-01 17:51

#39

jas

Well, if accessing [i]any[/i] child porn is a crime, then one can be charged, but I do wonder what "small amount" means here. And which "cache" you are referring to. Your personal "cache"? Or a temporary internet directory?

Secondly, how would a "small amount" of child abuse images be detected, except by whomever is reporting it looking in someone's hard drive? How are these things being reported? By family? Workplaces? Do you know?

Wed, 2009-04-01 18:01

#40

Cueball

Yes, as in, if you accidentally hit upon a child abuse site, and those images were downloaded into your cache, and the police identified your computer as one in the "ring" they would indeed sieze your computer, do a forensics examination, and even if you had "one or two" imgaes on your HD somewhere they would charge you.

No doubt, they would also sieze any computer associated with you, such as those in your workplace and so on. I hardly see how they could do it otherwise, since they actually need the computer in order to see what's in it. Beyond that, he affirmed that they would charge you.

Suffice to say, nothing said so far in response to my suspicions about the flaws in the investigation and criminal proccess regarding this kind of crime has been met with a satisfactory answer.

The only answer seems to have been that my interest is merely to perserve my own patricarchal privilege, or worse.

Wed, 2009-04-01 18:02

#41

jas

So one or two pictures. OK. Technically, that is the law.

However, we are in danger of getting back into argument here as I believe we established, with Sanizadeh's informed input, that it would be hard to get child porn images onto your hard drive without having actually gone to those sites. I guess the argument remains as to how "easy" it is to accidentally access a website with illegal content on it. I don't intend to continue the argument here.

Wed, 2009-04-01 18:07

#42

It's Me D

jas wrote:
I guess the argument remains as to how "easy" it is to accidentally access a website with illegal content on it.

Anyone could post child porn images right here on Babble and you'd have accessed it. The moderators would report them and obviously ban them but you'd still have accessed it. Its unfortunately not that uncommon on some legal and more highly visited discussion boards.

Sorry I know you said you didn't want to discuss that.

Wed, 2009-04-01 18:09

#43

jas

I don't believe that's the definition of access, Me D.

Wed, 2009-04-01 18:42

#44

Cueball

Oh yeah? Says who?

Wed, 2009-04-01 19:12

#45

remind

Victim's of Violence

Wed, 2009-04-01 19:34

#46

Cueball

Fine. And so in this context we can just shut up about anything else, is that the idea? My point in a nut shell.

I'd say that 2 out of every 3 women I have ever dates were the victims of some kind of sexualized violence. I am no stranger to this issue.

Wed, 2009-04-01 19:40

#47

Sven

I'd PM you, Stargazer, but then you'd have to come back here to read it...and I know you're not in the mood to do that right now.

So...

I'll just type my message here and, if you come back to read this thread, you'll see it then.

Take a break -- BUT PLEASE COME BACK!!

If it's a week, a month, six months...whatever. But, 99.9% of us would very much like to see you and your passion back here at babble.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Wed, 2009-04-01 19:45

#48

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

remind wrote:
Victim's of Violence

Don't rely on that document for accuracy as to the current law. It is at least five years out of date, and in some cases factually wrong.

Wed, 2009-04-01 19:46

#49

saga

jas wrote:

See, mods? You can end it, but it doesn't end :)

Cueball clearly stated what the second thread was about. Anyone else posting in that thread to refocus the discussion on child sexual abuse was derailing it, technically. Although we can understand why a "neck up" discussion of the issue is sometimes not going to work, and maybe even offensive to some.

Saga, I did not understand your two posts in that thread. This is the first time I've understood (kind of? I think?) what your position is. Still, even here, you say things like:

Quote:
Nor do I, though in the case of pedophiles and porn ... I don't feel strongly about it, and I don't think you will find many women who do.

It took me two or three reads to understand that you were referring to police powers here and not to child porn. In any case, this was exactly Cueball's point - if I may say so. That even progressives will sweep over due process in their anxiousness to lock up who they perceive as the perps.

(Just had to check what I was responding to.)

Yup. Take em all to jail!

Let the courts sort out who was and was not viewing child porn, NOT the police. Their opinions are too easily distorted by whether you are middle class or not, and other superficial factors (Like whether you 'know' anyone or not). Also, child porn is not free. How difficult is it to determine if someone paid to view the child porn? Seems to me that's a pretty obvious parameter.

You wallow in the (porn) barnyard, you might get some shit on you.

Not many women are inclined to take to the streets to defend men's right to access porn. Don't want to get caught with the kiddie porn? Stay away from the porn.

Doesn't solve the problems that cueball raised (inappropriately in that thread, I maintain) but it shows why many of us are still rolling out eyes at this 'issue'.

Did you know, btw, that the Pickton farm and a posh establishment in Vancouver supply(ied) children for all manner of deviance, including snuff entertainment? No doubt the dead kids were fed to the pigs so none of their remains were found.

Did you know that 90 kids died 'in care' last year? Do you know that the gov has never before even looked at that issue? Do you know that they still have not yet even tried to determine how many children in care are missing and unaccounted for?

Did you know that the CIA programs children to become their 'agents', and photographs them in bed with men they want to blackmail into acting for them? (MKULTRA lives on.)

Do you know that there are more aboriginal children 'in care' now than there were in the 'Indian' Residential schools, where the pedophile rings flourished? Do you know the whereabouts of all of those children? (Neither does the government.)

Do any of you who stumble upon child porn report it to the police so they can perhaps try to identify the children and rescue them from their living hell?

DO YOU???!!!

And cueball, if stargazer made this thread about you, she also made it about me.

I'm taking this opportunity to say that I have challenged the reigning 'feminist' orthodoxy here on babble because it is, imo, very unhealthy and restricts helpful discussion of important issues. As a primary proponent of the status quo, stargazer has a problem with that and has responded with persistent personal attacks on me, so I opened it up for discussion to clear the air. I hope stargazer comes back with a fresh perspective, as I have always enjoyed her insight.

I would prefer that we simply add 'Women' and 'Men' forums here on babble, to allow equal access to a safe place. The Feminist forum can keep it's particular perspective.

Cueball, your derail of the child porn thread should have been a new thread in a 'Men's Forum', imo.

Wed, 2009-04-01 19:54

#50

Cueball

Why should such a thread be in the "mens" forum. Is there a mens forum? If there is I suggest it be closed.

Wed, 2009-04-01 20:05

#51

Cueball

It seems to me that some people are suggesting that some topics that appear in the National News forum are governed by rules other than those relating to other types of stories. I don't ge that.

Pages

Topic locked