moussaoui attempts guilty plea

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Too bad that certain anonymous posters chose to destroy this conversation. It had been moving along nicely for a little while. I think we will have to revert back to deleting certain topics. Some people have demonstrated that they can not discuss certain topics.

You know, amazingly enough these topics have moved along pretty sanely. As you pointed out, the problem isn't necessarily the topic, it's the anonymous posters. Maybe simply deleting their comments when they get out of control in such topics would be sufficient in the future?
Just a suggestion. I eat this stuff up.

[Thomas Paul]

Just to clarify what I was talking about, the following incidents occured during the American Revolution:
May 30, 1778 - A campaign of terror against American frontier settlements, instigated by the British, begins as 300 Iroquois Indians burn Cobleskill, New York.
July 3, 1778 - British Loyalists and Indians massacre American settlers in the Wyoming Valley of northern Pennsylvania
November 11, 1778 - At Cherry Valley, New York, Loyalists and Indians massacre over 40 American settlers.
August 29, 1779 - American forces defeat the combined Indian and Loyalist forces at Elmira, New York. Following the victory, American troops head northwest and destroy nearly 40 Cayuga and Seneca Indian villages in retaliation for the campaign of terror against American settlers.
August 19, 1782 - Loyalist and Indian forces attack and defeat American settlers near Lexington, Kentucky.
August 25, 1782 - Mohawk Indian Chief Joseph Brant conducts raids on settlements in Pennsylvania and Kentucky.
November 10, 1782 - The final battle of the Revolutionary War occurs as Americans retaliate against Loyalist and Indian forces by attacking a Shawnee Indian village in the Ohio territory.
As I said, the British allied themselves with the Indians and paid them to attack American settlers. The reason was not because they supported the Indian cause but because they thought this would force Washington to send troops to the west to defend the settlers. In fact, this strategy worked and some troops were sent although not enough to have any effect on the outcome of the war.

[Thomas Paul]

Since our anonymous posters have chosen to become hostile I have started deleting all their posts. I now realize that they don't want a conversation but simply want to stir something up. If they change their minds and decide to participate they are welcome.

[To Thomas]

Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
How can he do that - he doesn't know who you are. Bunches of different folks may have posted using that anonymous name :roll: .
That would not happen if you pick a name to sign on with. Then only YOU could post under that name < sigh >.

Cindy,
I think it is quite obvious which posts were from that anonymous guy, but just incase they were not, I would ask Thomas to support his claim that that anonymous guy was being "hostile". I mean, I didn't think he was being "hostile".
Thomas,
Perhaps you can give some examples. I mean you are the one talking about having support for one's claims. And Thomas, weren't you the one that called him a "twit". That seems more hostile to me than anything he said to you.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by To Thomas:

Cindy,
I think it is quite obvious which posts were from that anonymous guy, but just incase they were not, I would ask Thomas to support his claim that that anonymous guy was being "hostile". I mean, I didn't think he was being "hostile".
Thomas,
Perhaps you can give some examples. I mean you are the one talking about having support for one's claims. And Thomas, weren't you the one that called him a "twit". That seems more hostile to me than anything he said to you.

I did not call him a twit. I said that he was acting like a twit. there are several things that were hostile. First he insinuated that Jason was too simple to understand the issues. Then he accused me of claiming that American Indians were terrorists and they they were not ill treated. When challenged on these things he just got huffy as if he was too smart to bother to respond to us mere mortals. Also he accused jason of being incredibly biased and then said that he wouldn't bother responding to my posts. In other words, he started acting like a twit.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[To Thomas]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

I did not call him a twit. I said that he was acting like a twit. there are several things that were hostile. First he insinuated that Jason was too simple to understand the issues. Then he accused me of claiming that American Indians were terrorists and they they were not ill treated. When challenged on these things he just got huffy as if he was too smart to bother to respond to us mere mortals. Also he accused jason of being incredibly biased and then said that he wouldn't bother responding to my posts. In other words, he started acting like a twit.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

The only point that I saw in your so called "support" for anonymous guy acting hostile was that he "insinuated that Jason was too simple to understand the issues". Yes, but that was way before, and if you go back, you will also find that Jason implied that anonymous guy was too simple to understand the issues. If you want direct quotes and support I will give you them at your request.
You also say, "he accused me of claiming that American Indians were terrorists and they they were not ill treated". Well, similarly, you accused him of supporting cold blooded murder, when in fact he was just providing some explanation as why some kind of phenomenon occurs. There you have done the same thing, so perhaps, you should remove your own posts too.
Your last point was that he did not answer you. Well, that is far from being hostile. Where in the Java Ranch policy does it say you have to answer a question? Perhaps he found your question insincere or the point you were arguing ludicrous (not to be hostile, just giving a possible explanation as to why he did not answer your question).
Thomas, it seems you were discriminating against anonymous guy for one (or both) of two reasons:
1. The simple fact that he was anonymous. This just makes me angry too. I hate anonymous posters.
2. He disagreed with your views. I really hope this is not the case, because I find that I disagree with your views too.
Perhaps we can get back to the topic rather than calling people "twits". Oh I mean, telling people that they were acting like "twits". Sorry, two completely different things.

[To Thomas]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Also he accused jason of being incredibly biased and then said that he wouldn't bother responding to my posts. In other words, he started acting like a twit.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

Also, I thought I should address these points too. Is accusing Jason of being biased really that hostile. Perhaps he felt Jason's views were hostile based on his answers to the hypothetical situations that he raised. Is it any more hostile that saying, "I'm glad I was able to talk down to a level you could finally understand"? I really don't think so. I would even say that telling someone that they "act like a twit" is more hostile than telling someone that their views are bias.
Oh, and you said "he wouldn't bother responding to my posts". Do you have to answer everyone who posts any question on this forum? Is it considered "hostile" if you don't respond to someone's post". Is that in the policy? Or do you just have to answer the Sheriff? Please let me know, because I may have not read the policy as close as I should have.
If it is hostile to tell someone you won't bother responding to their posts then perhaps you missed Jason's comment. I believe it is on page 4 towards the bottom. If you can't find it I'll locate it for you and cut and paste it.

[Jim Yingst]

I'm inclined to ban anonymous posts in sensitive threads like this one. I'm not saying all anonymous posts or posters are bad, but there's a long history of this sort of behavior at the ranch which indicates to me (and others) that anonymous posters are more likely to stir up trouble and be generally inconsiderate. If you have something worth saying, there is absolutely no reason why you can't register a real account to say it. Just make up a name if you are afraid to use a real one. But do not use obviously made-up names like "Truth" or "To Thomas". The former is obnoxiously pretentious, while the latter is merely obnoxious. If you want to address a post "To Thomas" you can put it in the body of your post like a normal person. Making it the account name is just an abuse of the system, quite unnecessary (and counter to our stated display name policies).
So why do were care, given that we can't really enforce that the name you use is actually your real name? The truth is, most of us don't much care if it's your real name or not - but we want some sense of continuity between posts. Was anonymous post A made by the same person as anonymous post B, or not? Right now there are just a few anonymous posters in this thread, and it seems we can generally tell them apart - but if left unchecked, it only gets worse. We've seen it get worse in the past, and have no attention of playing along with these silly games this time around. Maybe it seems silly to you, but it's also easy to avoid if you actually have anything worth saying.
I will note that part of the problem may be that the name "Truth" echoes the nom-de-guerre of one (or more) particularly obnoxious posters found in this newsgroup in the past. In general the current "Truth" seems to be a much nicer conversationalist than the past incarnation. If it's the same person, perhaps he's just matured. Or more likely this is someone else who had the misfortune to make a bad choice of name. Either way, I suspect this may account for some added frustration and hostility on our parts in this case. And when "Truth" starts changing his name at random, he starts to resemble the past incarnation that much more. So really, do us all a favor and just get a real account. Thank you.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[To Thomas]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
I'm inclined to ban anonymous posts in sensitive threads like this one. I'm not saying all anonymous posts or posters are bad, but there's a long history of this sort of behavior at the ranch which indicates to me (and others) that anonymous posters are more likely to stir up trouble and be generally inconsiderate. If you have something worth saying, there is absolutely no reason why you can't register a real account to say it. Just make up a name if you are afraid to use a real one. But do not use obviously made-up names like "Truth" or "To Thomas". The former is obnoxiously pretentious, while the latter is merely obnoxious. If you want to address a post "To Thomas" you can put it in the body of your post like a normal person. Making it the account name is just an abuse of the system, quite unnecessary (and counter to our stated display name policies).
So why do were care, given that we can't really enforce that the name you use is actually your real name? The truth is, most of us don't much care if it's your real name or not - but we want some sense of continuity between posts. Was anonymous post A made by the same person as anonymous post B, or not? Right now there are just a few anonymous posters in this thread, and it seems we can generally tell them apart - but if left unchecked, it only gets worse. We've seen it get worse in the past, and have no attention of playing along with these silly games this time around. Maybe it seems silly to you, but it's also easy to avoid if you actually have anything worth saying.
I will note that part of the problem may be that the name "Truth" echoes the nom-de-guerre of one (or more) particularly obnoxious posters found in this newsgroup in the past. In general the current "Truth" seems to be a much nicer conversationalist than the past incarnation. If it's the same person, perhaps he's just matured. Or more likely this is someone else who had the misfortune to make a bad choice of name. Either way, I suspect this may account for some added frustration and hostility on our parts in this case. And when "Truth" starts changing his name at random, he starts to resemble the past incarnation that much more. So really, do us all a favor and just get a real account. Thank you.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

Jim, I may post a "real" name, and from now on, feel free to remove my posts as "To Thomas", but, I would ask you to review the recent comments of the anonymous guy- most, if not all of the posts by "Truth" are mine. I ask you to find anything hostile in those posts. I believe you will find nothing "hostile" in them- or at least nothing more hostile than what was directed at me. On the other hand, look at the posts by Thomas. Despite the fact that he started out as a "nice" conversationalist, when I said that I would not reply to his posts, he started with the name calling. Tell me Jim, am I required to answer his posts?
If my anonymous posts were removed for the simple fact that they were anonymous, then that is fine. If it is the policy of Java Ranch to give better treatment to registered members, I can understand that. But if Thomas has removed my posts because I no longer wanted to argue a point that seemed worthless to argue, then I see no point in registering a name, because I still will not agree with him, and I still find it worthless to argue some points that seem to me fairly simple to understand.

[Michael Ernest]

It's also not a good idea to bait a sheriff with sarcasm and fallacious argument on the principle that all things should be "fair."
This site is not dedicated to the truth. It is, as we say on the sign, a friendly place for Java greenhorns to meet. Friendly to me does not mean we all have to be kissy-face to each other. It does mean that, on the whole, it's easier for all to remain friendly if a) you're not manufacturing facts; and b) you offer and elicit opinions and thoughts, c) you avoid aggressive, belittling interrogations, dark sarcasm and general whiny crap. c) is also a good idea when you're saying something stupid, but you believe your preeminent intellectual might gives you license to do so.
The fine tradition of baiting authority (i.e., sheriffs) so that you can eventually decry their abuses has limits. If Thomas doesn't delete the stupid stuff in threads like this, I will. If that has a chilling effect on more of the same, I'm ok with that.
No one has a right to be stupid in this forum; you have an invitation to be stupid, and there's a big difference. If your brand of foolishness causes a group Macarena tribute, no worries. If it starts a war of political crap, appeals to emotionalism over divisive topics, constant rhetorical oneupsmanship, I'll send you to /dev/null myself.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[To Thomas]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
It's also not a good idea to bait a sheriff with sarcasm and fallacious argument on the principle that all things should be "fair."
This site is not dedicated to the truth. It is, as we say on the sign, a friendly place for Java greenhorns to meet. Friendly to me does not mean we all have to be kissy-face to each other. It does mean that, on the whole, it's easier for all to remain friendly if a) you're not manufacturing facts; and b) you offer and elicit opinions and thoughts, c) you avoid aggressive, belittling interrogations, dark sarcasm and general whiny crap. c) is also a good idea when you're saying something stupid, but you believe your preeminent intellectual might gives you license to do so.
The fine tradition of baiting authority (i.e., sheriffs) so that you can eventually decry their abuses has limits. If Thomas doesn't delete the stupid stuff in threads like this, I will. If that has a chilling effect on more of the same, I'm ok with that.
No one has a right to be stupid in this forum; you have an invitation to be stupid, and there's a big difference. If your brand of foolishness causes a group Macarena tribute, no worries. If it starts a war of political crap, appeals to emotionalism over divisive topics, constant rhetorical oneupsmanship, I'll send you to /dev/null myself.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

Michael,
Again, I would like you to give me some examples. Personally, I thought the discussion was going very well for a while. Then I saw a comment by Thomas that I disagreed with, but I thought stating that disagreement was pointless. Perhaps you are right that I had some sarcasm in there, and you are definitely correct to say that this site isn't necessarily about what is "fair", but the reason I did not answer his post was because I saw it going exactly where we are now. I will agree that next time a simple, "I would rather not reply to that" would be better, but what I said was not too far from that.
Perhaps this whole thread should have been stopped first, but as Jim said, he allows it to go until it ends in name calling. I think if you look at the discussion, you will see that after that post from Jim, I have tried very hard to avoid name calling. Unfortunantly Thomas was very upset by my not answering him. I do not believe I provided any false information. I maybe guilty of misunderstanding him, but NEVER did I provide false information. I maybe guilty of believing a point is not worth arguing, but again, I did not instigate a confrontation or resort to name calling. I may have used some sarcasm, and I will not do that anymore, but in your post you seemed to imply that I, as the anonymous guy, provided false information and that I did not avoid aggressive, belittling interrogations, but I avoided all of this and if you just go back and read, I think this is pretty clear.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by To Thomas:

If my anonymous posts were removed for the simple fact that they were anonymous, then that is fine. If it is the policy of Java Ranch to give better treatment to registered members, I can understand that. But if Thomas has removed my posts because I no longer wanted to argue a point that seemed worthless to argue, then I see no point in registering a name, because I still will not agree with him, and I still find it worthless to argue some points that seem to me fairly simple to understand.

I'm not bothering to talk to or listen to "you" because I don't know who "you" are. But "you" seem to want to be taken seriously. "Your" points, as I've skimmed them, strike me neither as self-evident or simple, unless of course "your" expectation is that they be accepted on face value.
Just to avoid posts on the matter, I am not arbitrating between you and Thomas or Jason, and I hope Jim isn't going to bother either. We're not here to judge right from wrong, we're here to ensure this forum remains a friendly place.

[Jim Yingst]

It looks to me like Thomas started getting fed up just after you misquoted him about the Indians, and things escalated from there. I don't particularly want to play referee on a point-for point basis - who has that kind of time? Ultimately, the more work it is for me and others to keep a thread open and at least nominally civil, the more likely it is that I or others will simply close it or delete it. I hope it doesn't come to that, as I've enjoyed a lot of the posts so far.
I realize the decision to delete anonymous posts may seem rather ad hoc to you, particularly since you are the beneficary. But to address one of your concerns: no, I honestly do not believe Thomas is just using this as an excuse to delete posts he disagrees with. I think anonymous posts are at best sort of an ongoing irritant for many of us, which become more aggravating in the course of a serious discussion when tempers start to rise. And we really are better off without them. I realize that may sound like a convenient retroactive justification; nonetheless, it's also the truth. (As far as what I believe, at least.) I hope that works for you.
Note that "To Thomas" is still not an acceptable display name. I appreciate that you did register an account, but please try again.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[To Thomas]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

I'm not bothering to talk to or listen to "you" because I don't know who "you" are. But "you" seem to want to be taken seriously. "Your" points, as I've skimmed them, strike me neither as self-evident or simple, unless of course "your" expectation is that they be accepted on face value.
Just to avoid posts on the matter, I am not arbitrating between you and Thomas or Jason, and I hope Jim isn't going to bother either. We're not here to judge right from wrong, we're here to ensure this forum remains a friendly place.

Michael,
I do not mean to keep beating on this issue, but I just want to know what I said that was unfriendly. I did not resort to name calling. I did not instigate any arguments and all I have done is try to avoid answering one point that Thomas made. Perhaps you do not find it simple either, but does the fact that I did not want to discuss that issue really make this place "unfriendly"? Is it more "unfriendly" then saying, "you are acting like a twit". I have accepted where I think I may have been "unfriendly", and if the issue is my anonymous name, then please just say it is only that.
Perhaps my question would be answered better this way. Say everything that was posted by "Truth" and "To <blank>" was actually posted by a registered member with a real name. Would they be ok then? I really hope the answer is yes, and if the answer is no, I would really like to know what in those posts is more "unfriendly" than the name calling that others on this post have resorted to. If the answer is yes, then I can understand that the problem is that I am posting as anonymous. If the answer is no, then before I register a real name, I want to know what in those posts was unfriendlier than some of the name calling and sarcasm that was directed at me.

[To Thomas]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
It looks to me like Thomas started getting fed up just after you misquoted him about the Indians, and things escalated from there. I don't particularly want to play referee on a point-for point basis - who has that kind of time? Ultimately, the more work it is for me and others to keep a thread open and at least nominally civil, the more likely it is that I or others will simply close it or delete it. I hope it doesn't come to that, as I've enjoyed a lot of the posts so far.
I realize the decision to delete anonymous posts may seem rather ad hoc to you, particularly since you are the beneficary. But to address one of your concerns: no, I honestly do not believe Thomas is just using this as an excuse to delete posts he disagrees with. I think anonymous posts are at best sort of an ongoing irritant for many of us, which become more aggravating in the course of a serious discussion when tempers start to rise. And we really are better off without them. I realize that may sound like a convenient retroactive justification; nonetheless, it's also the truth. (As far as what I believe, at least.) I hope that works for you.
Note that "To Thomas" is still not an acceptable display name. I appreciate that you did register an account, but please try again.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

Understood. This works fine for me, and does NOT sound like a convenient retroactive justification. I realize that "To Thomas" is not an appropriate name, and if I want to continue posting on the Java Ranch, I will consider registering a real name.
The issue is this. Is it the content of my posts that was hostile, as was described by some, or was it the fact that I was posting anonymously that made my posts seem hostile. Perhaps this seems like an insignificant issue, but I don't think it is, because if I am going to register a name, the contents of my posts will be the same (with perhaps a bit less sarcasm), since I do not see anything "hostile" in the contents of my posts (which are the one's as "Truth" and "To <blank>").
All I really wanted to hear was that the issue was not what was in my posts, rather it was the fact that in the past other anonymous posters have abused the forum. And that is my understanding from your post. If I have misunderstood your post, and it is infact the contents of my posts, then please let me know so we can avoid future problems. Otherwise, we have an understanding and "To Thomas" shall post no more.

[Jim Yingst]

Urgh. Again, I don't want to get into a detailed post-mortem here. And it sounds like some posts may have been deleted which I never saw; I have no idea how hostile they were or were not. My general impression is that at least for the majority of your posts I've seen, you have interesting things to say, and present them in a polite and reasonable manner. However misguided your ideas may be. It's just recently that things started to break down. You should probably try to avoid summarizing the views of others unless you preface it with "if I understand you correctly..." or the like. (Which worked fairly well when you did it, I thought.) But when people feel they are being misquoted, it really ticks them off.
I think it's very valuable to learn more about how others think, particularly when they disagree with you. But we must all be prepared to accept that in many cases the most we may be able to achieve is to learn, not to change the ideas of others. No matter how logical our arguments may seem to ourselves. Sure, it can happen that you manage to convince someone to change their mind - but don't count on it. Often a wall is reached, and when we sense we aren't getting through with logic, we want to lash out instead. With veiled insults, or condescension, or other ways. Which is usually a good time to get up from the terminal and go for a walk instead.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Urgh. Again, I don't want to get into a detailed post-mortem here. And it sounds like some posts may have been deleted which I never saw; I have no idea how hostile they were or were not. My general impression is that at least for the majority of your posts I've seen, you have interesting things to say, and present them in a polite and reasonable manner. However misguided your ideas may be. It's just recently that things started to break down. You should probably try to avoid summarizing the views of others unless you preface it with "if I understand you correctly..." or the like. (Which worked fairly well when you did it, I thought.) But when people feel they are being misquoted, it really ticks them off.
I think it's very valuable to learn more about how others think, particularly when they disagree with you. But we must all be prepared to accept that in many cases the most we may be able to achieve is to learn, not to change the ideas of others. No matter how logical our arguments may seem to ourselves. Sure, it can happen that you manage to convince someone to change their mind - but don't count on it. Often a wall is reached, and when we sense we aren't getting through with logic, we want to lash out instead. With veiled insults, or condescension, or other ways. Which is usually a good time to get up from the terminal and go for a walk instead.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

Yes, I am posting anonymous one more time. I am not at the computer I usually am, and I will register a name tomorrow. I hope no one is deeply bothered by this, if so, then perhaps you can deal with it until tomorrow .
I do have a question though. I agree with everything you said. If you look at my post, I believe it was before any of the deleted ones, I said just that. I stated that some issues are not worth arguing about. I completely agree that there is a wall sometimes and it is important to realize that.
So my question is this: If a Sheriff on MD reaches that point, and instead of realizing this, resorts to veiled insults and name calling, can another Sheriff close the discussion?
Perhaps, you do not think this has happened in this case. I believe that is exactly what happened. I will respect what you think because I think you have shown respect to everyone. Whether it is this case that this has happened or has not, I think you will agree with me that the potential is still there, right? Perhaps my answer is in Michael's answer about this not necessarily being about what is "fair", but I would like to hear your idea on this. My point is that if anyone in this discussion resorted to veiled insults it was Thomas. I would not even say that Jason did. Perhaps his comments were not "nice", and perhaps he misquoted or misunderstood some of my posts, but I do not find that as offensive as someone calling me names, and then accusing me of name calling.

I think <slacker> raised a good point. When you have a Sheriff taking part in the argument, you have the potential problem of the Sheriff resorting to name calling, and false accusations, and then deleting the posts by someone trying to defend oneself. If you look, he has allowed Jason to misquote and accuse me of having no morals and supporting murder. While it did not bother me that much, and all I did was try to tell him that he misunderstood me, I was not deeply offended by it the way Thomas was when I misundertood him. Perhaps another Sheriff should have stepped in right about there. While I agree that I will be more careful to not follow that path of argument, perhaps the Sheriff participating should not be able to start or help start (I will admit that it takes two to allow a situation to get out of hand as it has) such a path of argument and then delete whatever posts he wants.
Jim, I realize that you are probably quite annoyed by me still using an anonymous name. I hope you do not think I am just playing around and trying to drag this out, but I really wanted to have this question answered. Perhaps the best way to go about this is to register a name and then see if this unfortunant incident comes up again. I really hope not and I really hope I will be more successful in avoiding it, but it does bother me becasue it seems quite obvious that Thomas began with the name calling and false accusations, and when I followed, which I should not have, he began removing my posts. But I will register a name, and hopefully we can have a discussion without telling people that they are "acting like twits".
This is the last post from me as anything anonymous or "To Thomas". , but please give me an answer, even if it is just, "Life's not fair," because I think that is a great answer to many questions in life.

[Thomas Paul]

Here is my main gripe... you misquoted me about the American Indians. When I challenged you on it, you continued to misquote me. And whether you have a real name or not, my response would have been the same. You deliberately misquoted me to lead others to the conclusion that I was a racist. Those are "fightin' words". And as I said, if you were half a man you would have apologized. But instead you are an anonymous coward hiding behind a false identity.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Thomas Paul]

Excuse me, but you are the one who insinuated that I was a racist. It was only after you started insulting people that I said you were acting like a twit. Do you deny that misquoting someone and trying to cast them as a racist is twit-like behavior? You really do suffer from a persecution complex. I can't believe that someone would write such a whining post because they were told to stop acting like a twit and then had some offensive posts deleted.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <Question>:

I think <slacker> raised a good point. When you have a Sheriff taking part in the argument, you have the potential problem of the Sheriff resorting to name calling, and false accusations, and then deleting the posts by someone trying to defend oneself.

You really must lead a sheltered life. So what names did I call you? I said that you were acting like a twit... once. What false accusations did I make against you? None. And your posts that got deleted were deleted for being offensive, not for defending yourself.
Now if you are done whining, can we get back to the discussion at hand?

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Here is my main gripe... you misquoted me about the American Indians. When I challenged you on it, you continued to misquote me. That was when I said you were acting like a twit. And whether you have a real name or not, my response would have been the same. You deliberately misquoted me to lead others to the conclusion that I was a racist. Those are "fightin' words". And as I said, if you were half a man you would have apologized. But instead you are an anonymous coward hiding behind a false identity.

Ok, it is me. I have registered a real account. Hopefully now I will no longer be subject to name calling and false accusations.
Thomas, if you look, you and Jason deliberately misquoted me and tried to imply that I supported cold blooded murder. Furthermore, when you start to delete posts, you begin to not allow people to defend themselves. You also deleted a post from <slacker>, just because he did not agree with you.
Jim, I hope you saw this post. Perhaps you missed it because Thomas got to delete it first, but all it said was that he did not see anything insulting in my posts and he suggested that perhaps it is unfair to allow the Sheriff to participate in an argument and then delete posts. <slacker> was very polite and did not say anything "hostile". Perhaps you, Thomas, should apologize to <slacker> if it was in fact you who deleted his post for no other reason then the fact that he did not agree with you. If there is another reason, please share.
I will not apologize to you Thomas, because I do not feel I owe you an apology. You obviously think I do, and I think that you owe me an apology. Given this situation, I hope we can just forget the past postings and go from here.
Please note that I do not appreciate the comment, "if you were half a man you would have apologized". This is implying that I am not half a man, and given the very sensitive rules on this forum, I think this is a veiled insult. I will assume that that veiled insult was directed at the "anonymous" me and I will ignore it, and I hope that you can avoid such insults now that I have registered an account.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Urgh. Again, I don't want to get into a detailed post-mortem here.

There were, if I remember correctly, two posts of his that Thomas deleted. They were as I remember them, a bit insulting.
Anonymous Posters
-----------------
Here's the thing from my perspective. As one who hangs out here every now and then, I can attest to the fact that there has been a problem with anonymous posters in the past.
My take on it is that posting anonymously is discouteous to the people you are having a conversation with. You are leaving them with the burden of trying to figure out whether or not you are the same person who last posted under the anonymous name you are using, or someone else is now using that name, or whether or not you are really a series of anonymous posters posting in the same thread.
As most of the anonymous posters we have had ni the past who have caused problems appeared to me to be frequent users who normally post under another name, that tells me a couple of things. For one, they feel free to take shots at people as long as they feel their reputation will not be tarnished. For another, they are afraid to have their words or opinions associated with their name, for one reason or another. Or, they could just be spineless individuals who like to cause trouble, as long as they think no one knows who they are. Maybe they just don't really believe what they are saying.
Since in my experience, people who post anonymously are doing it for some of the reasons I have mentioned above, I am particularly harsh with anonymous posters. For the most part I don't believe they are entitled to common courtesy since they do not show it themselves, and I have seen little reason to offer them much latitude. Often I will just ignore them altogether. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not really talking to an individual when I'm dealing with an anonymous poster, just some anonymous entity who doesn't garner the respect that an individual would.
I have been in some heated debates with several here, but as long as they are using their real names I don't have any less respect for them just because we disagree. Actually I have more respect for them because they are willing to stand by their opinions, even if they are misguided liberals.
From my perspective, post anonymously if you want, but when you start getting abusive, just don't be surprised when people don't treat you all that nice.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

I had to fix my post so here it is:

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:

Ok, it is me. I have registered a real account. Hopefully now I will no longer be subject to name calling and false accusations.
Thomas, if you look, you and Jason deliberately misquoted me and tried to imply that I supported cold blooded murder. Furthermore, when you start to delete posts, you begin to not allow people to defend themselves. You also deleted a post from "slacker", just because he did not agree with you.
Jim, I hope you saw this post. Perhaps you missed it because Thomas got to delete it first, but all it said was that he did not see anything insulting in my posts and he suggested that perhaps it is unfair to allow the Sheriff to participate in an argument and then delete posts. "slacker" was very polite and did not say anything "hostile". Perhaps you, Thomas, should apologize to "slacker" if it was in fact you who deleted his post for no other reason then the fact that he did not agree with you. If there is another reason, please share.
I will not apologize to you Thomas, because I do not feel I owe you an apology. You obviously think I do, and I think that you owe me an apology. Given this situation, I hope we can just forget the past postings and go from here.
Please note that I do not appreciate the comment, "if you were half a man you would have apologized". This is implying that I am not half a man, and given the very sensitive rules on this forum, I think this is a veiled insult. I will assume that that veiled insult was directed at the "anonymous" me and I will ignore it, and I hope that you can avoid such insults now that I have registered an account.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
Thomas, if you look, you and Jason deliberately misquoted me and tried to imply that I supported cold blooded murder.

OK, show me the post where I implied that you supported cold blooded murder. If you can't then I expect two apologies from you. If you can, then I will apologize.
As to the rest of your post, it isn't even worth commenting on.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
Please note that I do not appreciate the comment, "if you were half a man you would have apologized". This is implying that I am not half a man, and given the very sensitive rules on this forum, I think this is a veiled insult.

Veiled? Not at all. There is nothing veiled about that insult.

[Jason Menard]

Yeah I have to get in on this one too. Show me where i misquoted you please. If I did misquote you, I will appologize. If you cannot show this, I will expect the same from you. Of course then I suppose we will go off for several messages about what it really means to misquote someone. :roll:
This really is getting ridiculous. I would much rather get back to the topic. If only I could remember what it was.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

"There were, if I remember correctly, two posts of his that Thomas deleted. They were as I remember them, a bit insulting."
Are you talking about two posts from "slacker" or from me? If you are talking about from "slacker" then I am sure you did not read the one that was recently deleted. I doubt anyone could find those posts even a bit insulting.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
"There were, if I remember correctly, two posts of his that Thomas deleted. They were as I remember them, a bit insulting."
Are you talking about two posts from "slacker" or from me? If you are talking about from "slacker" then I am sure you did not read the one that was recently deleted. I doubt anyone could find those posts even a bit insulting.

For a period I was deleting any anonymous post without even bothering to read them. Since the anonymous posts had become offensive, I felt we needed to end anonymous posting in this thread.
And I will continue to delete anonymous posts in this thread whether the be from "Truth", "Slacker" or anyone else.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Jason Menard]

This is implying that I am not half a man

[Thomas Paul]

And just to clarify, this is apparently the post that got Anthony's knickers all bound up:
This is apparently your method of avoiding looking like a twit. "I don't have an argument so I will accuse him of something he didn't say." Please, find the post I made that supports your accusation against me. Either that or be a man and apologize. Personally, I expect neither to happen.
And my expectations were met. Anthony didn't find what he accused me of saying and he didn't apologize for the false accusation. But he has falsely accused Jason and me of misquoting him. If nothing else, Anthony is predictable.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Yeah I have to get in on this one too. Show me where i misquoted you please. If I did misquote you, I will appologize. If you cannot show this, I will expect the same from you. Of course then I suppose we will go off for several messages about what it really means to misquote someone. :roll:
This really is getting ridiculous. I would much rather get back to the topic. If only I could remember what it was.

I completely agree. I could find a quote from you where you say something like I lack morals, or something of that sort, and then you would say that I did not misquote you.
I do not want to "go off for several messages about what it really means to misquote someone. :roll: ". I wish to get back to the topic, or maybe some other topic.
It seems to me Thomas would rather continue with the insults and you have continued with the sarcastic remarks (I am referring to the one about his comment implying that I am "half a man"). Honestly, your sarcastic remark does not bother me as much as Thomas's insult, which he admits was a direct insult to me.
Honestly, all I have tried to do is get passed this. I do not think that I insulted him anymore than he insulted me. Now again, we can argue forever and it will get us nowhere. I will not be part of that. I hope he does not think this is hostile, and I am quite suprised that no one can see that Thomas is deliberately trying to continue this conflict and that I am trying to end this conflict. Perhaps people have, and perhpas Thomas is simply removing their posts.
Thomas, I will ask you again to give up on trying to further extend this pointless conflict. If you refuse, then I see no reason in replying to you.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

"I completely agree. I could find a quote from you where you say something like I lack morals, or something of that sort, and then you would say that I did not misquote you."
Unfortunantly, I have to be very careful with what I say because there are those who are trying very hard to extend this conflict. Therefore I would like to note that what I was talking about was that I could find a quote from you where you say something to the effect that I do not have morals and say something like, "Well, I can tell the difference between a murderer and a justified execution." I am paraphrasing, I hope it is not a misquote. And then you could argue that you didn't misquote me. It would just make this huge mess even messier, which seems to be Thomas's goal. I am trying to clean it up.

[Rob Slacker]

Iam the slacker dude. As long as they allow anonymous posting, I think I will go with the anon posting.Always hated the logon process.
To be fair Anthony, only my last post was deleted.
My suggestion was that only the moderator responsible for this section( MD) should be allowed to delete/modify posts.I think moderators who participate in discussions, cannot effectively moderate.Jim Yingst has been reasonable and consistent in his editing/stopping threads.
Anyway as I said before, it is their site and they can run it as they please.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Rob Slacker:
Iam the slacker dude. As long as they allow anonymous posting, I think I will go with the anon posting.Always hated the logon process.
To be fair Anthony, only my last post was deleted.
My suggestion was that only the moderator responsible for this section( MD) should be allowed to delete/modify posts.I think moderators who participate in discussions, cannot effectively moderate.Jim Yingst has been reasonable and consistent in his editing/stopping threads.
Anyway as I said before, it is their site and they can run it as they please.

Well then I would like to APOLOGIZE to you for misquoting you. I agree with your suggestion, and ultimately agree that they can run their site however they please.

[Rob Slacker]

No problem. You didnt misquote me at all.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Rob Slacker:
My suggestion was that only the moderator responsible for this section( MD) should be allowed to delete/modify posts.I think moderators who participate in discussions, cannot effectively moderate.

Intersting, Slashdot seem to have similar rule (if I understood them right):
"Moderators can not participate in the same discussion as both a moderator and a poster. This is to prevent abuses, and while it is one of the more controversial aspects of the system, I'm sticking to it."
Thanks to Anthony Villanueva for this link

[Jim Yingst]

Sigh... I was writing bits and pieces of this amidst doing other things; I see quite a few new posts have arrived in the meantime, but I'm too tired to bring everything in my post fully up-to-date. Ah well...
please give me an answer, even if it is just, "Life's not fair," because I think that is a great answer to many questions in life.
I am heavily leaning towards the "life's not fair" answer, if only because my head is starting to hurt from keeping track of all this. :roll: Well, also because it's true, life isn't fair - we just try to make the best we can of it.
So my question is this: If a Sheriff on MD reaches that point, and instead of realizing this, resorts to veiled insults and name calling, can another Sheriff close the discussion?
Can, yes. It's happened in the past a few times. I wouldn't rule it out here. There are other possibilities, like attempting to deal with the situation quitetly (or not so quietly) in Moderators Only or in e-mail if that seems appropriate. But, while I might be happier if Thomas had a more laid-back approach here, I can also sympathize with why Thomas feels wronged. I'm not as sure as he is that the misquote was deliberate, but the fact that you still haven't rectified it (or at least clarified what you were talking about) isn't a positive indicator.
In an ideal world, all deletions and thread closures might be handled by neutral third parties who had time and inclination to monitor everything. But that's not really possible. Among other things, you never know how long it may be before the "official" moderator (me in this case) may be unavailable. The Ranch (and MD in particular) relies heavily on having a group of sheriffs who are empowered to step in in any forum as they deem necessary. I'd hate to try to keep the peace here all on my own. We're not always perfect; we have human foibles; we may get drawn into contentious discussions; we may even get pissed off. But we've also each put in a vast amount of time helping to make JavaRanch a better place in any number of ways. I'd like to think that counts for something. I'd prefer that moderators avoid moderating discussions that they're emotionally involved in - but it's a tough call at times. Often immediate action is what's best, which means whoever gets there first makes the decision.
It's funny - at the beginning of this thread I was cringing at the subject matter, knowing where it might lead. And yet now I find myself hoping you all will manage to return to that subject. Good luck...

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Intersting, Slashdot seem to have similar rule (if I understood them right):
"Moderators can not participate in the same discussion as both a moderator and a poster. This is to prevent abuses, and while it is one of the more controversial aspects of the system, I'm sticking to it."
Thanks to Anthony Villanueva for this link

Map, as you may imagine I also like this policy very much.
This rule could be set experimentally for some time and if it works could be kept.
Anyway I like a lot Thomas and Jason style, even though we usually agree to disagree.
They are somewhat rude to anonymous posters but I think they are right to do so.
If a poster chooses to be annoying at least should be brave enough to post with a registered name, IMHO.
Thomas and Jason are usually very informative in their posts.
And they never offended anyone (at least not me) or my beliefs.
I think that if Thomas decided to intervene and delete some posts had his reasons...
I have also been censored in the past but I did not post anonymously and it was clear I did not want intentionally to offend or misquote anyone so in the end I had some support from the sheriffs/bartenders I love more and my reasons reinstated.
Dear former anonymous posters, trust me if you like. In the long run
Satyamev Jayate - Truth Always Wins -
[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: OMAR KHAN ]
[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: OMAR KHAN ]

[Paul Stevens]

A good poilcy for Sherrifs is if you delete a post or thread let the forum moderator know. It really is difficult when you get blindsided with a complaint about a post or thread you never saw.
ps THE HORSE IS DEAD!!!

[Thomas Paul]

Anthony, the reason that I am mad at you is because:
1) You misquoted me
2) you refuse to admit that you misquoted me
3) you said that I misquoted you
4) you refuse to demonstrate a single case where you have been misquoted by me (or by anyone else)
5) you refuse to apologize for your actions
6) You whine about how you are the attacked party when you are the only one who has been attacking anyone else. I am beginning to wonder if you are nothing more than a troll.
Now explain to me why I should bother to have a conversation with you?