Not directed at you Papal Bull but this directive to post more WHITE is fucking pissing me off. Is rabble just going to become the pissed off WHITE dude site? Us WHITE progressives? Or didn't it intend to be much more? From a WHITE dude, if you want to separate yourself from the chaff, you're doing a poor job rabble.
Still waiting for an answer from the rabble.ca Managing Editor - Is it really anti-labour to call "police officers" pigs?
Fri, 2010-08-27 00:11
#52
RevolutionPlease
Fri, 2010-08-27 00:11
#53
I just thought they were trying to do things differently here
Indeed, I believe alex mentioned something about Canadian press
therefore your Chicago style goes out the window
Take that back! I love Chicago style and Chicago style loves me!
and we might get some experience of FN or POC style, if you know what I'm sayin'
As do I.
Fri, 2010-08-27 00:15
#54
RevolutionPlease
I owe you a deep dish Chicago pizza PB.
Fri, 2010-08-27 00:50
#55
Not directed at you Papal Bull but this directive to post more WHITE is fucking pissing me off. Is rabble just going to become the pissed off WHITE dude site? Us WHITE progressives? Or didn't it intend to be much more? From a WHITE dude, if you want to separate yourself from the chaff, you're doing a poor job rabble.
I'm not going to shoot the messenger (alex, who was kind to clarify the position of rabble) but I think this is important to think about in terms of whiteness:
To clarify the editors' position, thread titles on babble, while more informal in their style, are considered a form of headline. When you start a thread, the title you give it informs the entire thread, not only your individual comment, and the thread titles appear throughout rabble, including on the front page. Further, these babble headlines do show up in Google searches and represent rabble.ca publicly
The decision to edit 'pig' from a headline, while not banning the use of the term in threads, was made to conform to the front page style guide for headlines, which follows the Canadian Press style guide. There was no intention of suppressing use in comments in the threads themselves by any individual babbler.
If we want to stop whiteness on babble, I can imagine the easiest solution. It is a matter of stopping this site from making us all "headline writers" for an independent journalism source that is conforming to Canadian Press style standards. There is nothing more white than coercing posters into practicing as pseudo-professionals - independent journalists - to express opinions and expressions that meet the standards of a patently white institution (a press institution).
The other alternative is to suggest rabble.ca let babble (and maybe even rabble itself!) "go rogue" from journalistic decorum (aka whiteness) and face legitimacy crises that I am sure most white institutions will not dare confront.
So, here is the best I can suggest: treat babble different, and stop coercing people into journalistic standards that are patently white standards, or stop making our posts searchable and free us of these standards.
Fri, 2010-08-27 00:58
#56
RevolutionPlease
You express it much better than I, j.m., thanks. And if they don't want to give up on their whitey thing, let us know so the struggle can be carried on ELSEWHERE. Good luck progressive white folk without your real allies. We want to be heard but you folks don't wanna hear it. Or aren't ready, take your choice.
Fri, 2010-08-27 00:59
#57
Any chance you can post a link to this fascist document? And explain why it is relevant?
I thought rabble was different?
I know this wasn't for me, RP.
Here's the link (just add $35.95):
http://www.thecanadianpress.com/books.aspx?id=182
And, if I may take a stab, the answer to the second is because the Canadian Press is reputable, professional, for profit agency. It represents CTVglobemedia, torstar, and gesca. Owned and primarily run by none other than primarily white people (who are primarily male). I was going to be vulgar and boil it down to "because it is a white institution" and I did anyways.
Fri, 2010-08-27 01:04
#58
RevolutionPlease
Thanks, sort of, j.m. Figured it would cost money... Fuck the noise. Just pacify it. Close threads in the Aboriginal forums with no moderation whatsoever...Just keep on keeppin' on. HOO-RAH!
Fri, 2010-08-27 01:17
#59
Thanks, sort of, j.m. Figured it would cost money... Fuck the noise. Just pacify it. Close threads in the Aboriginal forums with no moderation whatsoever...Just keep on keeppin' on. HOO-RAH!
We should all have style guides ready when we're writing our headlines. Why stop at "pig" when CP standards of spelling and grammar must be adhered to? Lame.
Fri, 2010-08-27 01:21
#60
RevolutionPlease
They stopped me from puttting FUCK in the titles, but hopefully I'll be here for awhile. I'll see what I can do about affording the cost of doing business around here. Lucky, I'm bourgsiose(sp), no?
Fri, 2010-08-27 02:11
#61
Just so you know, RP, I'm actually neutral on the "'Pig' ban in thread titles" issue. I appreciate your response and your explanation of what the significance of that word is to you. Please don't assume I'm defending "the suits" on the issue. I was just wondering why this particular word is such a big deal, and you've helped me understand that.
I'd appreciate it if "the suits" responded as clearly to my first question as RP did to the second.
Fri, 2010-08-27 02:23
#62
RevolutionPlease
No problem Ken. They'll never respond CLEARLY to you. It will be a game of "Canadian Press style guides".
And I've never assumed anything about you other than you're an ally.
Fri, 2010-08-27 02:28
#63
RevolutionPlease
Questions for both sides on this debate to consider:
2)(for anyone who insists on using the "p-word" in a thread headline)Yes, police violence is a horrific thing, and anyone with progressive sympathies needs to denounce it. And yes, everyone in a group that is targeted by law enforcement for violent treatment is entitled to use the word "pig". But, is it really the ONLY word that can convey the necessary rage? What, exactly, do you lose by NOT using that word?
We lose the outrage of those that detest us using it. We lose the message it sends to our brothers and sisters. We lose the dignity that we deserve. We lose the fight against fascism. We lose our struggle. We lose to the corporations who can run amouk. We always lose.
I can defend the usage on free speech grounds. But what, as you see it, gives "pig" a rhetorical power that no other word can possibly convey? It was coin of the verbal realm among a lot of the Sixties/early Seventies Left...but it very quickly became a cliche through overuse and lost, at the time, any forcefulness or meaning. The word became a joke. Are you sure it won't be reduced to that again?
Maybe a joke to you but not the other and those who are our real allies. It's not the '60's dude.
Fri, 2010-08-27 02:34
#64
Maysie
Just popping in to say, again, that Alex and Kim are not "suits".
What Alex posted at #44 is a joint decision by the editors and the babble moderators. Once the tech stuff is sorted we'll have a better idea of what this all might look like.
We're trying. I know cutting moderators slack isn't something that happens a lot here, but Catchfire and I are doing the best we can. Being slagged in every other thread is not my idea of a fun workplace.
And on that note, goodnight.
Fri, 2010-08-27 02:37
#65
RevolutionPlease
My apologies Maysie and Catchfire. I'm hoping to reach beyond your schwing.
Fri, 2010-08-27 03:21
#66
I think if it came across as an attack on anyone, I am sorry. I do think the logics at work are *really* lame. Yes, it is easy for a journalistic website to adhere to journalistic standards as a policy (including in babble) but I think there is momentum for this to change.
I don't think anyone is "suiting up" but there certainly are tendencies to rely on these guides despite their obvious contradictions. I imagine there is a lot of pressure for paid employees to enforce these positions as to ensure their bosses stay their bosses (and also to ensure that there isn't some effect on the institution). But we shouldn't rule out what decolonizing babble (headlines) looks like.
I am sorry for leaving fairly critical comments of your work at 1 am, Maysie (and to Catchfire, who I imagine might not be awake), in ways I could have otherwise articulated without coming across as unappreciative of your work.
Fri, 2010-08-27 06:40
#67
If it were left to some of us, most of the articles appearing on the babble home page would be laced with profanity and epithets simply as a result of the circumstances being described in them. I suppose it's reasonable to expect that babblers wouldn't be extended that level of editorial freedom on the introductory page of the site. In weighing the decision by using the cup half full approach, we can still pig out in any and all of the threads, and for the rabble home page readers who've come to appreciate that sort of thing, they'll just have to catch up on the latest unofficial commentary by accessing the board.
Fri, 2010-08-27 07:12
#68
If it were left to some of us, most of the articles appearing on the babble home page would be laced with profanity and epithets simply as a result of the circumstances being described in them. I suppose it's reasonable to expect that babblers wouldn't be extended that level of editorial freedom on the introductory page of the site. In weighing the decision by using the cup half full approach, we can still pig out in any and all of the threads, and for the rabble home page readers who've come to appreciate that sort of thing, they'll just have to catch up on the latest unofficial commentary by accessing the board.
I quoted the whole post to express my appreciation and support for those words of wisdom and compromise. It's the best post I've read yet on the subject.
Fri, 2010-08-27 08:12
#69
Maysie
j.m., I wasn't able to articulate this last night, it being at 2am at the time, but I found your post #55 the most succinct and clear expression of my feelings about all this. And I'm an anti-oppression educator and writer. Ha.
In order to make real change in the world, then one has to actually make change in the way one conducts one's life, whether that be personally, professionally or any other way. The argument that babble is user-generated content, and the rest of rabble is not, is one of the clearest arguments I've made for this exact point.
It's not about certain words or profanity (although I am a huge fan of the strategic / emotional use of profanity in my own writing spaces). It's about how do some voices express anger, frustration, irritation, rage about the status quo, and what can a progressive, predominantly white space such as babble and rabble do, not just for the sake of inclusion, which is a good enough reason for me, but to be a different kind of space for that expression.
And fyi, Catchfire is usually up later than myself since he's on the west coast and I'm a central Canada overlord.
Fri, 2010-08-27 09:56
#70
remind
So rabble.ca is trying to be, or is being, picked up by the Canadian Press feed?
Fri, 2010-08-27 10:25
#71
Catchfire
Look Maysie, I go to bed at a reasonable hour. Obviously, there's nothing I'd like better than to moderate babble at 2am, but a man needs his beauty winks. It keeps me sharp--on the edge--where I got to be.
Fri, 2010-08-27 11:22
#72
M. Spector
What Alex posted at #44 is a joint decision by the editors and the babble moderators. Once the tech stuff is sorted we'll have a better idea of what this all might look like.
Hey, big surprise! The moderators caved in to the suits!
And I don't care what anyone says or actually wears, Alex is clearly a "suit".
The last time we heard from Alex on this subject (back on [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/changing-thread-titles#comment-... Day[/url]) she said:
To reiterate what old goat, maysie and catchfire have already tried to explain, thread headlines do appear on our front page. If these contravene with (sic) our editorial policies the mods and/or editors do step in to change these headlines -- particularly if they are deemed to be [b]oppressive[/b]. In this case the use of the word 'pig' to describe a police officer is a term we feel is [b]anti-labour which is why it was changed[/b]. [emphasis added]
Now, six weeks later, on the eve of her vacation, Alex pops by to present a brand new theory, apparently embraced by the moderators as well: It's all about following the Canadian Press style, dont'cha know!
Who knew the Canadian Press frowns on oppressive and anti-labour language?
No, the real reason for rabble.ca's censorship of the word "pig" in thread titles has nothing to do with headline style, or oppressive language, or anti-labour language. The real reason lies elsewhere and has yet to be admitted.
The decision to edit 'pig' from a headline, while not banning the use of the term in threads, [b]was made to conform to the front page style guide for headlines, which follows the Canadian Press style guide.[/b] There was no intention of suppressing use in comments in the threads themselves by any individual babbler.[emphasis added]
Someone ought to explain to Alex and the moderators that banning the word "pig" in this case is a political decision, with political consequences. Trying to hide behind formal rules of style (written for the mainstream corporate media, no less) in order to trump political concerns is indicative of an apolitical, bureaucratic approach to the management of rabble.ca and babble.
Someone ought to explain to Alex and the moderators as well that it's not just the headlines, but also the body of the article or the thread that is indexed by Google.
This apparent concern for the stylistic reputation of rabble.ca is curious, to say the least, given the notable lack of adherence to any stylistic rules being applied to thread titles - except, strangely enough, for censoring the word "pig".
What will they ban next? The use of "Israeli apartheid" in thread titles? What does the Canadian Press have to say about that, I wonder?
"Never mind the politics - consult the bourgeois style book!"
Fri, 2010-08-27 11:55
#73
Cueball
Seems pretty political to me.
Fri, 2010-08-27 11:59
#74
There are some really interesting perspectives in your post, M. Spector, and I tend to agree with your analysis of the "anti-labour" and oppressive language excuses with the CP style issue. The stories are changing. The formal reasons are lying behind a series of interpretations of what Rabble is and isn't, none of which are clearly explaining what is going on. But we know the following.
Rabble/Babble is:
1. a place where a lack of journalistic decorum in headlines won't be tolerated
2. "oppressive" language from the oppressed is unacceptable
3. anti-labour language is the interpreted answer from indignation of police abuse from those that are constantly attacked economically, culturally, socially and politically due to (intersections of) age, race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability.
No, the real reason for rabble.ca's censorship of the word "pig" in thread titles has nothing to do with headline style, or oppressive language, or anti-labour language. The real reason lies elsewhere and has yet to be admitted.
So, I don't know what the real reason is. I think these formally articulated reasons are a part of it, though, and they hint at some very problematic positions within a progressive site.
Hey, big surprise! The moderators caved in to the suits!
I don't think this is the case, and Maysie has voiced concerns. There has been some serious movement to challenge privilege and oppression on this site since Catchfire and Maysie have come on, and I don't think "consultation on this issue" can be reduced to some major compromise, especially when the issue isn't done with.
Someone ought to explain to Alex and the moderators that banning the word "pig" in this case is a political decision, with political consequences. Trying to hide behind formal rules of style (written for the mainstream corporate media, no less) in order to trump political concerns is indicative of an apolitical, bureaucratic approach to the management of rabble.ca and babble.
:D
Someone ought to explain to Alex and the moderators as well that it's not just the headlines, but also the body of the article or the thread that is indexed by Google.
This is true. I am finding great posts by typing anything in google. I got three very different posts (from NorthReport, RP and E. Tamaran) by just typing "bullshit" and "rabble" into the text box (there is no hidden message in that, I just see a lot of people write "bullshit")
Fri, 2010-08-27 12:04
#75
Exactly what I was thinking M.Spector, lame excuse to cover up the real reason, which is that they feel calling the pigs pigs is "anti-labour". Funny that, because Police ARE anti-labour, but now Rabble must protect these shining examples of fascism. Great. Makes me feel a whole lot better.
Fri, 2010-08-27 12:43
#76
Catchfire
You know, I don't disagree with much that has been said here (except, of course, the accusation that Maysie and I have "caved to the suits," but then, I would think that), but authority in language is a funny thing. The Canadian Style Guide is rightly condemned here as a bourgeois institution, but of course, the language used in the critique checks virtually every box demanded by the very same manual. In fact, it's pretty bourgeois to defend the right to use profane language with more bourgeois language--particularly in a self-righteous, patriarchal, good ol' fashioned berating. So it's a bit rich to call the Canadian Style Guide "fascist" or a "bourgeois" as you adhere to the very standards it advocates. I'm reminded of rhetorical scholars and linguists who criticize the way standard English and "proper" grammar carries hegemonic ideologies in its structure, expositing such noble theories in articles studiously written according to MLA guidelines.
So by all means, point out the logic gaps and hypocrisies in the way rabble appeals to a certain brand of politics but communicates them in another, but also recognize that language is hypocritical and contradictory in its very essence--and all of us are complicit in that.
Fri, 2010-08-27 15:21
#77
So if it really is the style guide might I suggest a link to the relevant portions or do we all have to pay a corporation $40 to know what is allowed on babble. Or should we just post outrageous banners to find out where the fault lines are? The second is a far cheaper way of learning what is acceptable on this forum and if we start a thread we can make a list and check it twice to find out who's naughty or nice.
Fri, 2010-08-27 16:11
#78
Catchfire, can you address why the reasons changed from 1) not calling police "pigs" because it is anti-labour to 2) now having to do with Canadain Press standards?
Why did the explanation change? We are not children. It would be nice to be spoken to like we were adults. So which is the reason for the rule about using "Pig" in thread titales? is it 1 or 2 or are we not going to find out?
This has absolutely nothing to do with you, maysie, oldgoat...it has to do with the powers that be and why they made this decision. I would love to know why the need to play nice with the police. An honest true answer.
Fri, 2010-08-27 16:16
#79
In my opinion, there are far more important things to discuss about police than what we call them.
Fri, 2010-08-27 16:23
#80
In my opinion they should be tarred and feathered and replaced with actual human beings with hearts, souls and a decent social conscience.
Fri, 2010-08-27 17:47
#81
Sven
In my opinion they should be tarred and feathered and replaced with actual human beings with hearts, souls and a decent social conscience.
Hey! I've long said that more progressives should be cops...
Fri, 2010-08-27 18:21
#82
You know, I don't disagree with much that has been said here (except, of course, the accusation that Maysie and I have "caved to the suits," but then, I would think that), but authority in language is a funny thing. The Canadian Style Guide is rightly condemned here as a bourgeois institution, but of course, the language used in the critique checks virtually every box demanded by the very same manual. In fact, it's pretty bourgeois to defend the right to use profane language with more bourgeois language--particularly in a self-righteous, patriarchal, good ol' fashioned berating. So it's a bit rich to call the Canadian Style Guide "fascist" or a "bourgeois" as you adhere to the very standards it advocates. I'm reminded of rhetorical scholars and linguists who criticize the way standard English and "proper" grammar carries hegemonic ideologies in its structure, expositing such noble theories in articles studiously written according to MLA guidelines.
So by all means, point out the logic gaps and hypocrisies in the way rabble appeals to a certain brand of politics but communicates them in another, but also recognize that language is hypocritical and contradictory in its very essence--and all of us are complicit in that.
I understand, Catchfire, but if I tried a different tack
rabble suits what youre doing is fucking bullshit dont censor our speech with your piss poor politics
I can enjoy the authenticity of conveying my thoughts outside the bourgeois (and WHITE) institution of proper english AND the suits will listen to me? With respect....ROFL
Fri, 2010-08-27 20:11
#83
So rabble.ca is trying to be, or is being, picked up by the Canadian Press feed?
There is really only one way to get the attention of those who refuse to listen, and that is to boycott their services. People paid salaries or who volunteer tend to just do what they are told and no more. Someone at the top isn't listening and doesn't care.
Fri, 2010-08-27 20:24
#84
Catchfire
I can enjoy the authenticity of conveying my thoughts outside the bourgeois (and WHITE) institution of proper english AND the suits will listen to me? With respect....ROFL
Oh totally. In fact, that's probably why a progressive media website (should I put progressive in scare quotes?) wants to adhere to a professional standard. I'm not suggesting you change anything--particularly because your posts are so excellent exactly the way they are--I'm just pointing out that language and authority are very fraught concepts. But that's more of a personal opinion rather than any kind of explanation on behalf of rabble.ca. I just thought if I was going to be on the receiving end of a berating rant (I'm referring to only one specific post here, no points for guessing which one) about deconstructing the politics of language, I'm going to finish that methodology all the way down the river.
Catchfire, can you address why the reasons changed from 1) not calling police "pigs" because it is anti-labour to 2) now having to do with Canadain Press standards?
Yes, well, I don't think I want to explain that too much, since it's not my personal opinion or my comment, but in conversation with those involved (Alex, Cathryn, Kim, Maysie) we all agree that a desire to adhere to a certain standard of language was behind the reason for the change.
Fri, 2010-08-27 20:29
#85
Hey, big surprise! The moderators caved in to the suits!
I used to miss your posts during your lengthy absences and urge you to return. Now, not so much. If you don't care to be part of this community because you despise and scorn the mods so much, then the community will be better off without you.
Fri, 2010-08-27 20:53
#86
Next question: Will we be allowed to use the words "Rabble 'suits'" in thread titles?
Fri, 2010-08-27 21:01
#87
In my opinion they should be tarred and feathered and replaced with actual human beings with hearts, souls and a decent social conscience.
Who is "they"? The pigs? Or the suits who won't let us refer to cops as "Pigs" in thread titles?
Fri, 2010-08-27 21:12
#88
I think babble has become a general repository for anonymously authored personal attacks and for those with anti-social tendencies in general. it's a place where posters with anti-leftwing and pro war, pro-USA views manipulate moderators and the people running things couldn't care less.
Fri, 2010-08-27 21:14
#89
It DOES seem to me though that some here (and I'm not including Stargazer) are going a bit over the top in their criticisms of the rabble.ca suits and their fascist aesthetics. ;)
Yeah, I would have to agree with that. I really need to repeat that people who can't tolerate babble should go somewhere else.
Fri, 2010-08-27 21:16
#90
Ok, you got me. I was kidding. I know that Stargazer was meaning that about the cops, and I wouldn't expect that she'd feel that way about staff at rabble. I should've included a big winking icon...generally i find the winking icons are not dry enough for what I'd really like to convey.
It DOES seem to me though that some here (and I'm not including Stargazer) are going a bit over the top in their criticisms of the rabble.ca suits and their fascist aesthetics. If there were explicitly a call for the suits to be tarred and feathered (which there hasn't been, explicitly), I would not be all that surprised. That's what I was trying to convey.
Fri, 2010-08-27 21:25
#91
It DOES seem to me though that some here (and I'm not including Stargazer) are going a bit over the top in their criticisms of the rabble.ca suits and their fascist aesthetics. ;)
Yeah, I would have to agree with that. I really need to repeat that people who can't tolerate babble should [size=20][color=red]go somewhere else.[/color][/size]
Listen to a designated scarecrow and go away everyone. Just go. Hit the road Jack. They love Jack so.
Fri, 2010-08-27 21:27
#92
Count how many people seriously used the word(s "(the) suits", Unionist and wage zombie, and why don't you just name (for you, wage zombie) the possible bloodlusters and (you, Unionist) the people you think should go elsehwere.
I don't like this playground shit.
Fri, 2010-08-27 21:32
#93
Hey, big surprise! The moderators caved in to the suits!
Yeah, its a shame that in electing to stay on, their handsome compensation and benefits package is clearly more important than any other consideration. No one is immune it seems from the charms of the almighty capitalist dollar when even Mods can be turned into reactionaries.
Fri, 2010-08-27 21:41
#94
They jump and rollover like trained poodles. It's disgraceful really. What else would they do for money and favour?
Fri, 2010-08-27 21:42
#95
Count how many people seriously used the word(s "(the) suits", Unionist and wage zombie, and why don't you just name (for you, wage zombie) the possible bloodlusters and (you, Unionist) the people you think should go elsehwere.
I don't like this playground shit.
No one is forcing you to play in the playground. The bullying and harassment of Maysie and Catchfire - on a stupid and insignificant issue - has gone on for too long. Anyone who thinks they are agents of the bourgeoisie, and that babble has become an organ for the racists and oppressors, should seriously go somewhere else. In Spector's case, he never posts here any more, except for a once-in-a-blue-moon drive-by to tell us how counterrevolutionary we are. I used to love his posts - but now I realize that he's not happy here.
Anyone involved in any real social movement would instantly recognize this squabble about calling cops "pigs" in thread titles as being the preoccupation of medieval theologians with fuck-all to do in life - or of provocateurs bent on attacking this progressive space we have carved out for ourselves. I firmly believe that anyone who feels themselves become physically ill because "cops are piggies" is now banned in thread titles, should do themselves a big favour and not make themselves ill.
Now, what was your actual point, j.m.?
Fri, 2010-08-27 22:04
#96
Count how many people seriously used the word(s "(the) suits", Unionist and wage zombie, and why don't you just name (for you, wage zombie) the possible bloodlusters and (you, Unionist) the people you think should go elsehwere.
I don't like this playground shit.
I think your posts in this thread have been thoughtful and considerate. So I was not talking about you. I would say that E.Tamaran and M.Spector were the only two people who used "the suits" seriously. I never called anyone a bloodluster.
Other than that I agree with most of Unionist's post in #95. I say most because I think it was unnecessary and counterproductive to bring up the idea of provocateurs.
On the scale of issues and challenges we're currently facing, I agree with Unionist that Rabble's decision to "censor" (as M. Spector said it) the word "Pig" from thread titles is insignificant.
Fri, 2010-08-27 22:05
#97
I disagree with the potshots and I disagree with your prescriptions to tell people to leave babble for dissenting, or disagreeing with your views (which you did - you didn't tell them to leave for being disrespectful exactly, did you). You did it before in the Ottawa firebombing thread and youv'e done it again here.
There are legitimate concerns, and there are unfair shots. You conflate the two and treat the latter by administering potshots, then call people's claims illegitimate and finish by telling people to get lost.
That is my point, Unionist, and I don't like it, nor am I playing.
Fri, 2010-08-27 22:12
#98
Other than that I agree with most of Unionist's post in #95. I say most because I think it was unnecessary and counterproductive to bring up the idea of provocateurs.
Well, I wouldn't have said "provocateurs" if this very same bullying hadn't been going on for [b]months[/b]. Under the circumstances, I'm rather tempted to use much more colourful language.
Fri, 2010-08-27 22:13
#99
I disagree with the potshots and I disagree with your prescriptions to tell people to leave babble for dissenting, or disagreeing with your views (which you did - you didn't tell them to leave for being disrespectful exactly, did you). You did it before in the Ottawa firebombing thread and youv'e done it again here.
You should read carefully and not make defamatory accusations. I have disagreed - from day one - with the ban on "cops are pigs" in thread titles, mostly because I think it's an idiotic trifle. What I said was that people who feel called upon to bully Maysie and Catchfire, and to carry on condemning rabble for this irrelevant action, should get out of here if they can't get over it. It has absolutely nothing to do with "disagreeing" with any position. I really think you should read and write carefully, because I can guarantee you will be challenged vociferously every single time you concoct untruths.
Fri, 2010-08-27 22:37
#100
N.Beltov
HTFG. What a waste of energy. Are any of the people who thinks this is such a big deal actually ACTIVISTS? ffs! ETC.
Fri, 2010-08-27 22:44
#101
I think, wage zombie, Stargazer has been pretty clear and consistent in her views on the police, and I agree with and respect those views. I can't begin to imagine Stargazer attacking the mods in this way.