|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 22, 2013 2:52:51 GMT -5
Agreed. Their way basically is "show me yours, but I won't show you mine, because I don't want you to get too excited", basic intuition already tells us to stay far away from such perverts. It's within the extended latitude range, said Peter. I asked him about his take on this. However, I don't know why Question chose a sexually loaded word like pervert as if we would have discussed sexual matters there. I rather think Question has some mental hick-ups around the subject of sexuality. Hetero got banned because he said 'jackass' but Question gets a free pass with saying 'pervert'. I'd say pervert is much more offensive than jackass. Maybe Max and Peter should rethink their decisions. I didn't quite understand the free pass extended latitude. Is this going to be standard procedure for all permanently banned members who return in disguise? Q has no special insight, nor a particularly noble temperament. A constricted latitude (and even longitude as well) seems more appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 22, 2013 3:05:07 GMT -5
It looks like things are upside down again. The tail wagging the dog. Please feel free to comment and explain your reasoning, especially Max and Peter.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2013 3:56:08 GMT -5
I didn't quite understand the free pass extended latitude. Is this going to be standard procedure for all permanently banned members who return in disguise? Q has no special insight, nor a particularly noble temperament. A constricted latitude (and even longitude as well) seems more appropriate.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 22, 2013 5:05:04 GMT -5
To be honest, the free pass extended latitude seemed to be Peter throwing in the towel on trying to decide where the boundaries are with Q. since a significant portion of the community disagreed with his decision in this case, it looked like he got exasperated and said "well fine then, I'm not going to moderate Q at all".
I am pretty sure there are still standards and boundaries that will get Q booted if they are crossed. I wanted Q back to be able to confront his behavior. So far he's been not responding to it, but his behavior is fairly tame right now. In the past, Q seemed to get aggressive when confronted. That he isn't doing it now shows that he is implicitly acknowledging the existence of the boundaries while not explicitly acknowledging them. I think people have been afraid to confront him on his behavior, fearing his response. I dont think Peter is going to have any problem performing his duties if Q is being malicious or if the community rescinds it's good will towards him.
The undirected pervert comment isn't any worse to me than calling someone an idiot, which has been done recently by other peeps on the forum.
I'm more interested in why you are bringing this up Reefs? What is your goal with this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 22, 2013 5:29:57 GMT -5
I'm more interested in why you are bringing this up Reefs? What is your goal with this thread? And I'm interested in why you don't read what I wrote. The answers to your questions are already there. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 22, 2013 5:37:25 GMT -5
I'm more interested in why you are bringing this up Reefs? What is your goal with this thread? And I'm interested in why you don't read what I wrote. The answers to your questions are already there. Are you really just wanting an explanation? Or are you wanting a change in behavior/policy/attitude towards Q? If all you desire is an explanation, what happens after you get it and disagree with it (which seems inevitable)? Your request for an explanation seems to be a first step towards an as of yet unexpressed goal. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 22, 2013 7:04:51 GMT -5
Who are youcalling a pervert, Bambi? Fine, I will spell it out for you. My position is that psychoanalysis is a great tool but when it is used in an asymmetrical context (analyst/analysand) it should be done only with someone of great competence and with absolute confidentiality. This forum is a terrible place for it. At the present moment, on this forum there is present neither sufficient competence, certainly no confidentiality, and above all here is way too much hostility - some discussions here are utterly bizarre and the behaviour of some members is quite frightening to be honest. So, given that all this should be somewhat obvious, what does it take for someone to openly confront another member and force him to reveal the depth of his/her personality, especially in such an unsuitable context? And even worse, to structure the discussion so that another member is expected to repent his/her sins, even though the sins are a matter of interpretation? I suggest that this attitude is supported by a sadistic desire for dominance, not dissimilar from the "show me yours, but I won't show you mine" example. That is not to say that personal matters can't be discussed here, but merely that it can only be done so absolutely voluntarily and in total solidarity and absent any sort of dominance, it is this asymmetry that accounts for many conflicts. The reasoning behind the calling of "pervert". |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 22, 2013 9:40:13 GMT -5
Wait. Isn't there another thread for this?
Otherwise, I've said my piece. That he should now be allowed to post using another sock puppet (and 'Bambi' no less) after being banned makes no sense to me whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 22, 2013 15:52:33 GMT -5
I'm thinking the drama boulder has gained so much momentum that it's become unstoppable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 22, 2013 22:00:42 GMT -5
And I'm interested in why you don't read what I wrote. The answers to your questions are already there. Are you really just wanting an explanation? Or are you wanting a change in behavior/policy/attitude towards Q? If all you desire is an explanation, what happens after you get it and disagree with it (which seems inevitable)? Your request for an explanation seems to be a first step towards an as of yet unexpressed goal. Seems your story has already been written and my answer doesn't match your script.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 22, 2013 22:01:22 GMT -5
Fine, I will spell it out for you. My position is that psychoanalysis is a great tool but when it is used in an asymmetrical context (analyst/analysand) it should be done only with someone of great competence and with absolute confidentiality. This forum is a terrible place for it. At the present moment, on this forum there is present neither sufficient competence, certainly no confidentiality, and above all here is way too much hostility - some discussions here are utterly bizarre and the behaviour of some members is quite frightening to be honest. So, given that all this should be somewhat obvious, what does it take for someone to openly confront another member and force him to reveal the depth of his/her personality, especially in such an unsuitable context? And even worse, to structure the discussion so that another member is expected to repent his/her sins, even though the sins are a matter of interpretation? I suggest that this attitude is supported by a sadistic desire for dominance, not dissimilar from the "show me yours, but I won't show you mine" example. That is not to say that personal matters can't be discussed here, but merely that it can only be done so absolutely voluntarily and in total solidarity and absent any sort of dominance, it is this asymmetry that accounts for many conflicts. The reasoning behind the calling of "pervert". So who exactly did he call perverts? And if Steve would explain his reason behind the name calling (which he did very well!), would that be sufficient enough for a free pass? There's some screwy logic at work, I'd say. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2013 12:15:17 GMT -5
To be honest, the free pass extended latitude seemed to be Peter throwing in the towel on trying to decide where the boundaries are with Q. since a significant portion of the community disagreed with his decision in this case, it looked like he got exasperated and said "well fine then, I'm not going to moderate Q at all". Well, I hope peeps are happy with what they get. I speculate that Q is. That makes sense given that he has the latitude to insult and the confronters do not. I agree, and that seemed like a violation as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 12:19:08 GMT -5
To be honest, the free pass extended latitude seemed to be Peter throwing in the towel on trying to decide where the boundaries are with Q. since a significant portion of the community disagreed with his decision in this case, it looked like he got exasperated and said "well fine then, I'm not going to moderate Q at all". Well, I hope peeps are happy with what they get. I speculate that Q is. That makes sense given that he has the latitude to insult and the confronters do not. I agree, and that seemed like a violation as well. You labeled a post of andrew's with one word- idiocy You seem to think you're above it all |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2013 13:03:02 GMT -5
I didn't quite understand the free pass extended latitude. Is this going to be standard procedure for all permanently banned members who return in disguise? Q has no special insight, nor a particularly noble temperament. A constricted latitude (and even longitude as well) seems more appropriate. When I saw silvers like of this I realized the (nonparadoxial) ambiguityness of it ... it was an allusion to what I already said on the matter in the unban vote thread that echoed E's sentiment here -- Peter went a different way and I got nothin' to say about that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2013 22:19:42 GMT -5
Well, I hope peeps are happy with what they get. I speculate that Q is. That makes sense given that he has the latitude to insult and the confronters do not. I agree, and that seemed like a violation as well. You labeled a post of andrew's with one word- idiocy You seem to think you're above it all Yes, after he did the same. I thought he might like to know what it felt like. |
|
