Jonbouy

Beagle

drewfx1

Jonbouy

Bub


If someone PM'd you and didn't address it with the person that actually offended them, then it's their own fault. We all have a right to be here, and if we are offended by something, we should address it with the person offending them. Not go crying to someone else and let it fester.

This has not been the same place for quite some time now. I keep coming here hoping it will get back to what it was, but I think it's too late. It's pretty clear it's not going to be the same place it was.

Gotta go stare out the window until the wife gets home. Makes for long days I tells ya.

I'm so with you here Bub, wasn't it a previous intervention of the moral police that killed off all the free flowing wit and repartee that used to constantly buzz around this place?

No.

It was people ridiculously overreacting to them.

My rememberance wasn't of of "moral police" in the sense of people being offended with threads being questioned.  it was simply what some "didn't like"
 
objections were (not an exhaustive list): 
too many "ya" and +1 responses
too many mash up threads
too many threads without a "real" subject (according to the one complaining)
too much "baffoonery"
 
there were many other complaints.  but the complaints were not based on anything "moral" - it was based on a perceived problem with the direction of the forum from a few individuals.  I could name them, but I have no wish to invoke that incantation.
 
those who would complain about the subjects I've listed above are not complaining about the morality of the forum.  they were just complaining that it wasn't what they wanted.

I guess I have to recheck my understanding of what 'morality' means then.
 
I'm thinking it is a code of conduct applied to a society in general, characterised by the fact that it changes over time and is never constant .

Sorry, I guess I was adding a perception of offensiveness?
 
none of the complaints at the time were directed at anything offensive, just "buffoonery" where, by the complainers, an atmosphere of cliquishness prevented people from wanting to post.

Beagle


none of the complaints at the time were directed at anything offensive, just "buffoonery" where, by the complainers, an atmosphere of cliquishness prevented people from wanting to post. 

Have they updated their reasons for not wanting to post?

Don't really see them around here much. Was it something I said?

drewfx1

Beagle


none of the complaints at the time were directed at anything offensive, just "buffoonery" where, by the complainers, an atmosphere of cliquishness prevented people from wanting to post. 

Have they updated their reasons for not wanting to post?

Don't really see them around here much. Was it something I said?

woohoo - you managed to offend someone Drewfx

IMO, one of the things that really hurt the vibe of the CH, and is still hurting it - a vibe that overall I also miss - was that unjustified attacks started to be made directly against individual persons.

 
Who decides the justification for calling someone out or not?
 
If one talks like an ass I consider it my duty to express an opinion...I appreciate the favour being returned with as much frankness an honesty as I would give.
 
Being stuffed up with passive anger and tag-teaming behind the scenes isn't my style although I understand that others prefer that course of action.
 
If I have something to say I tend to say it, that is the justification so how can anyone say that is then unjustified.
 
It's unjustified if I'm lying, giving mis-information or otherwise being untrue to myself or just plainly insulting a person for the sake of it.  I tend to put points forward which relate to what has been posted rather than an individual themselves, sometimes those comments are based on experience of what a particular individual might post but not on the individual themselves.
 
So again we ask who is the arbitrator for 'unjustified'?  And I am engaging what you've have written here or am I unjustified for disagreeing with it? 

It's like anything though, there's always trouble if you look for it :)

 
Trust Daryl to start a fight!!!

Oh and, bub... I still lurves ya.

It's funny because the subject of this thread was the one who sideswiped me and made me decide to bow out. We've had pleasant interactions since then but the decision was made.

Anyway, you're a good bunch. Don't let the little things tear you apart.

...

alright... i'll leave now.

Peace.

timidi


Everything is so watered down and protected and apologized for and homoginized and censored and lawyered up and just plain old hid from or not mentioned at all just because there happens to be some wimps present. 
Nauseating.

You are absolutely right.








Back in the day if someone offended the fairer members of your party you could take the offender aside and horse whip him and then have a little conversation that assured everyone that that would the very last thing said about that.


No lawyers, no censors, no nothing but the truth.




Now a days, I think think some people take their ability to survive for granted because most of us have agreed to voluntarily coexist.


:-)



best regards,
mike

If you had a friend... they'd probably tell you that you are doing it again.

daryl1968

jamesg1213


If it comes down to a choice between reading something which may or may not offend a carefully, un-named someone who may or may not have stopped posting here because they may or may not have PM-d someone, and a boatload of transparently self-serving, passive aggressive, nauseous, holier-than-thou rhetoric...I'll go with the penis shaped sausages.

....and the monkeys. What about the monkeys James?

I like monkeys Daryl. 

What about the sheep?

I maintain my earlier point, which was that people generally only express group "offense" when they stand to gain something by it, whether it's a political advantage, some monetary benefit or other, or to evoke sympathy (and people love getting sympathy), or to demonize the person they're accusing of offending them. 

When none of those motives are present, people generally don't whine about being offended. 

Personal attacks are another matter.

As for the sausage-which-looks-like-a-twanger photo, I'll admit that was a bit off. Things which evoke physical disgust and/or make people feel nauseous, well yes you have every right to complain about that. 

But as for the original cause of this whole discussion, which was my use of the word "pussy" in a thread title, well I think there's a little hypocrisy going on here. Not to have a go at Beagle, but he was one of the ones who agreed that it was offensive, yet I notice he made liberal use of the word "wanker" in another thread, which is a sexual curse word and certainly not family-safe in some cultures. Not that I was offended by it, despite being one of the most furious wankers in existence 

noldar12


daryl1968, I agree that there still are many friendly people in the CH, and it is quite possible that your describing it as fractious is a more accurate.  It really might be that that is what I find troubling.

There is enough of that in the "real" world.

Yes, on further thought, I think you have described the underlying situation well (the personal attack issue I think is still a real one).

Jim, is this what you are referring to? http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2759814

Back in the day, people were offended by a skirt above the knee. Not about mention of a "cat".
Look how far we've come.
I think I'll name my next kitty, "wanker galore".

mike_mccue


You can see how popular it makes me here in this instance.


Care to try it some day and see how much gaining you do?



I think your thesis is off the mark.

And you inability to use logic is alarming because all in all you seem like a very smart or at least very aware guy.


"he was one of the ones who agreed that it was offensive, yet I notice he made liberal use of the word"

You can't draw a conclusion based on your latest example... that's a fallacy known as denying the antecedent... and probably a few others as well.



Good luck.





The forum will be what it will be.

:-)

all the best,
mike

1) Your original point was not that you are offended by it, but that others might be offended by it. 
2) Even it is was that you were offended by it, your motive could still be a feeling of moral superiority, or the demonization of someone else
3) It has nothing to do with denying the antecedant. I simply made the point that Beagle is one of the ones calling for a more respectable "tone" on the forum, and yet he saw nothing wrong with using a sexual curse word in another thread. It is what it is. 

timidi


Back in the day, people were offended by a skirt above the knee. Not about mention of a "cat".
Look how far we've come.
I think I'll name my next kitty, "wanker galore".

:)


What's up wankercat?