JUGGERNAUT Posted September 7, 2005 Author Share Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) According to the definition of "ignorant", I suppose. But leave it alone, and things will go better. Deal? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's going to get boring around here with that kind of regulation but fine. From now on if I find something in a reply to my post offensive then I will just point it out for a mod to "selectively" edit. :rolly On the subject of SOTALK regulation are these phrases acceptable? "you are mistaken" "contrary to your opinion/belief" "nonsense" "baka" Can we use negative context in foreign languages? Just asking. Edited September 7, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 01:51 PM) Can we use negative context in foreign languages? Just asking. If I swear at someone...but I do so in Klingon...do I get banned for nerdiness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I say "that's incorrect", followed by the correct information. That seems to work. It also helps not to resemble a condescending donkey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) On the subject of SOTALK regulation are these phrases acceptable? "you are mistaken" "contrary to your opinion/belief" "nonsense" "baka" Simple tact is what is needed. I find your insights to be something I'd like to carry with me... FOR ME TO POOP ON!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 A con descending a donkey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted September 7, 2005 Author Share Posted September 7, 2005 If I swear at someone...but I do so in Klingon...do I get banned for nerdiness? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do these regulations apply to greens are well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:53 PM) If I swear at someone...but I do so in Klingon...do I get banned for nerdiness? Hab SoSlI' Quch!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:53 PM) If I swear at someone...but I do so in Klingon...do I get banned for nerdiness? Ayyy caramba. Oh wait. Klingon. ASDGSDAFHAERHSDFHSDAFBSDH DSFJHADFHJAETJDAFHJADFGJRTJKDFG Now what did I say? Seriously, Juggs. I think he did that because he didn't have time to sit there and meticulously remove the "ignorant" sentance. I think it's one thing to call a poster ignorant (which frankly is a negative connotation and why we don't want it used) vs. saying... "I don't agree with your views, and here is where we differ." It's all about that. I know I'm being sarcastic here at times, but at the same time, I want you to get what we're trying to say. I'm not speaking for southsider, but a lot of people do get their feathers ruffled when you call them ignorant. ACCORDING TO YOU, they're ignorant, yet, they truly may not be. Hence, the way we'd like you to try and post is, "I disagree with your use of "ignorant", and this is why". You're too smart for your own good. No joke. I'm going to start calling you Mr. Spock. And I mean that as a compliment, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted September 7, 2005 Author Share Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) Simple tact is what is needed. I find your insights to be something I'd like to carry with me... FOR ME TO POOP ON!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's both tactless & offensive. With respect to the word "ignorant" I try never to personalize it. I am usually careful to make reference to what is said in the post as being ignorant of something rather than the poster themselves. I believe that was the case here. Logically speaking, calling another poster ignorant in a post demonstrates ignorance of the word. It's impossible for any one to be 100% ignorant. Everyone knows something. Some more than others. Edited September 7, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:02 PM) That's both tactless & offensive. Well, then I have to go back to tact school. Not directed at you, btw, just an example of how you might get around the "I" word. Any way, Hab SoSlI' Quch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 01:54 PM) I say "that's incorrect", followed by the correct information. That seems to work. It also helps not to resemble a condescending donkey. A condescending elephant however, I'm sure is fine. Blast this place and it's secret right-wing innuendoes!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:08 PM) A condescending elephant however, I'm sure is fine. Blast this place and it's secret right-wing innuendoes!!! LMAO!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:08 PM) A condescending elephant however, I'm sure is fine. Blast this place and it's secret right-wing innuendoes!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted September 7, 2005 Author Share Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) Well, then I have to go back to tact school. Not directed at you, btw, just an example of how you might get around the "I" word. Any way, Hab SoSlI' Quch. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> www.kli.org/tlh/phrases.html nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'. Only at SOXTALK would a thread of this nature digress to Kli-speak. :rolly Edited September 7, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:23 PM) You're having fun I see. www.kli.org/tlh/phrases.html Just testing those mod boundaries. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:23 PM) www.kli.org/tlh/phrases.html nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'. First door on the right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 02:23 PM) nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'. Only at SOXTALK would a thread of this nature digress to Kli-speak. :rolly My work here is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 02:23 PM) www.kli.org/tlh/phrases.html nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'. Only at SOXTALK would a thread of this nature digress to Kli-speak. :rolly At least 1 of the phrases on that page is either wrong or out of date...they said the Klingon for "Today is a good day to die" in Episode 1 of Star Trek DS9: Season 4, and that's not the phrase they have on the page. How scary am I right now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 04:34 PM) At least 1 of the phrases on that page is either wrong or out of date...they said the Klingon for "Today is a good day to die" in Episode 1 of Star Trek DS9: Season 4, and that's not the phrase they have on the page. How scary am I right now? Really, really, really scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Dear Lord this will be fun. 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' Presents 'Evolution Schmevolution: A Daily Show Special Report' Airing Nightly From September 12-15 at 11:00 P.M.* NEW YORK, Sept. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Science vs. Religion. Evolution vs. Creation. It is an age-old battle whose time has come. "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" will gather together all the experts (or at least those who will talk to them), travel to the places that matter in the debate (basic cable budget permitting) and ultimately settle the controversy once and for all. "Evolution Schmevolution: A Daily Show Special Report" will premiere on Monday, September 12 and air nightly at 11:00 p.m. through September 15. For one full week, "The Daily Show" goes in-depth, around, through and quite possibly under, one of the hottest hot-button issues facing our nation: evolution. It's the accepted theory on the origin of life by an overwhelming majority of the world's biologists, but maybe they're all wrong. What's so great about the scientific method anyway? "Evolution Schmevolution" will explore: * What other theories are out there? * Who's on the frontlines of this debate? * Should your child's curriculum really be decided by experts in their respective fields? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 03:29 PM) No. It's just someone immature who believes wiping out a fact is better than debating one. :rolly OK, its obviously air clearing time. You seem to like to fancy yourself as some sort of a martyr who is fighting the forces of evil who discriminate against your beliefs, and I am here to tell you that you could not be any more wrong. Juggs, you singlehandly generate more PMs, emails, threads, and other problems than all but two posters in the history of Soxtalk all by yourself. Those come from a huge range of people many of them who share one belief or another with yourself. The fact that you are still allowed to post on Soxtalk today is a testement to exactly how open-minded this site is. If you would have caused half of the problems and arugments on any other site, you would have been gone a long, long time ago. Technically you and the other poster you were arguing with should have been suspended instantly, but because we have tried to bend over backwards to show everyone else that your allegations of discrimination are incredibly false, you weren't suspended, even though the new policy stipulates that you are supposed to be suspended without hesitation or consideration. The sad thing is the majority of the time when you are saying that you are being attacked and using that as a rationalization for your poor me entitlement attitude, you are simply being hit back by someone else who has tired of your condesending attitude and need for personal attacks. No one has any pity for someone who is crying "he said something mean to me", when you in fact instigated the situation in the first place. In reality, there maybe one person on this board today who ends up in more fights when it is considered how often people post. Everytime you post, you end up in a fight with someone, I could set my watch to it. The telltale sign is that it is rarely with the same person, which is the key indicator as to where the problems lay. The sheer volume of warnings, PMs, and suspensions that you have logged is by far the most of anyone who is still allowed to post on Soxtalk, and yet you feel you are discriminated against? That is laughable. If you want to point to your posts being edited today as being a part of some grand conspiracy to rid Soxtalk of pious Christians, you can quit flattering yourself. There have literally been dozens of posts edited by this staff, with a whole whopping two of them being yours. All of them contained objectionable material under the new guidelines that were clearly outlined and discussed. Many people even posted messages or sent PMs after their posts were edited, apologizing for their behavior, and realizing that their posts weren't necesary. Now,guess who the only person to cry wolf was? But of course, it means everyone is out to get just you. A few posts may have been missed, but all that means is that a mod or admin didn't catch it. We have been really consistant and even-handed about whose posts get edited. I personally have even edited the posts of people I consider friends off of this board. It doesn't matter to anyone who posts stuff, the point is to stop the pointless namecalling that has taken over Soxtalk. None of us have claimed to be all encompassing perfect, so things will be missed. I can speak for myself is knowing that I wasn't on the site until 13 hours after the first post was made, and I totally missed it. If I would have saw it, I would have taken it down without a second thought. The fact that the arguement was with you probably saved the other guy from getting suspended as well, because once again, I am trying to show that no one is after you, so the other poster couldn't have been suspended without you, in the name of evenhandedness. And finally realize that 99% of what you get on Soxtalk you bring upon yourself. When you consistantly attack people and their opinions and use terms of derision to describe peoples points of view, you will have people who look to tear your posts apart. Even more-so the selective application of statistics, facts, and quasi-sciences when convient for your own point of view only exaserbates the people who want to prove you wrong. Add to that never admitting you are wrong, and it only means that people are going to look for your specific posts to discredit. There are a few other posters on here who fall under that category, and for some reason none of them generate half of the problems that we get because of you. They seem to be able to understand that they reap what they sow, and that there isn't some vast left-wing minor internet board conspiracy to make sure they never post again, but that they made their own bed. Now I am sure you will pick this apart and use what is convient to fuel your misguided rage against the man, so have at it. Just realize that everyone here has actually bent over backwards to try to prove to you that no one on the staff here cares if you post. They care if you attack people, and their opinions, and there is a huge HUGE difference between those two concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balance Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Busy day at work. I can't say I'm not glad to have missed this firestorm. The mods appropriately edited my post. I apologize for calling Juggernaut ignorant. I let my emotions get the better of me. I will watch myself from here on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm going to ignore the fact that your post constitutes a personal attack. Let the mods do as they see fit on that post. Instead I will rebut the content. With respect to the majority of the time it's a pretty simple pattern: 1) I create a post supporting a conservative viewpoint which almost always includes a factual basis. 2) A reply quotes my post & makes defamatory & derogatory references to me personally. 3) I reply with a forceful effort to destroy the argument put forth by the offensive reply. 4) A mod takes action ONLY on my reply. 5) I make note of that in a subsequent reply & the mod might take further action. The telltale sign is in the numbers. Simply count up the number of posts that support a conservative viewpoint on an issue. Then count up the number of posts that flame that one. The numbers will clearly tell where the problem lies. The evidence is in the thread. Of all the posts that were edited only mine were completely wiped out. Likewise only my posts would have been edited if I had not called attention to it. The purpose of debate is to present an argument supported by a factual basis & to weaken opposing points of view using factual basis. That is what I do in my posts. Since I might be the lone wolf presenting conservative viewpoints I do expect counter arguments. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with spirited debate. I have admitted several times where I was wrong. I have even agreed with some counter arguments. I am not shy at admitting mistakes. I have likewised apologized if it became personal. So the generalization that I never admit when I am wrong is simply untrue. All I have ever asked from mods is to level the playing field. If I or an opinion of mine is attacked allow me to retaliate. Apparently that is asking too much. It serves no purpose to post if they are to be wiped out. So I have no choice but to assume that mine will be held to a higher standard than others & act to avoid such a consequence. The problem is that I am the most visibly conservative minded voice in the forum. I am not just a minority here. I am an endangered species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 10:16 PM) The problem is that I am the most visibly conservative minded voice in the forum. I am not just a minority here. I am an endangered species. Cause Nuke Cleveland or Southside Irish or Controlled Chaos never talk about politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 11:17 PM) Cause Nuke Cleveland or Southside Irish or Controlled Chaos never talk about politics. Or G&T or SS2K5 or Kap. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.