I did not realize you received the email also, as the other site I mod has a different system of alert (directly to the mod room) and Drake and I have corresponded at a different site. So perhaps I was confused…
While the particular post would be uncomfortable reading for anyone whose relatives died in those particular events, banning discussion of that is not the way to go - reasoned arguament is.
I emphatically agree. I have yet to ban or (intentionally) delete a single post here. I simply have a problem with censorship boards which recently got me banned at another board…
I actually think you’re more out of line than Mike in those two threads - you’re acting in a similar matter and as a mod you’ve got to be above all that.
I agree to some extent that I’ve acted below a Mod function here, as old habits (rotharmy.com) die hard. But, I think MikeM. is clearly acting, if unintentionally, as a troll.
His threads are largely inflammatory misinformation.
I have a good deal respect for you, your intellect, and your leadership ability which I rate highly and I think you are a great credit to the TA as a junior officer.
But, I must say…
You’re still allowed to debate things, but have to be a whole lot more careful in picking and choosing your arguaments. Indeed, if anything I think of the two of you it’s you who is behaving the worst of the two. I haven’t said anything previously because that sort of thing is a matter for GS, Firefly or PK (all of whom appear to be on holiday right now) but you’re making me very nervous.
You see, I think you make a good point. But, I also think we are guilty of a bit of enabling here. I have gone out of my way to avoid modding Mike, because of my personal arguments and possible vendetta with him. And yes, I realize I’ve made so slights in the heat of the moment which can be seen as “unprofessional” if this were actually a profession.
But frankly, I really don’t see him as much above Kato in some ways. I think he’s unequivocally a racist and routinely makes subtle, but pretty clearly nasty stereotypical comments, and he intentionally appears and makes comments in particular threads: i.e. Kato’s trolling racist masterpiece thread where he essentially ignored the entire argument only to focus in on one facet of my comments.
I’m sorry, but I find posters that:
-cavalierly and arrogantly demand proof or scholarship but never, ever offer any
-demanding answers to a bullet comment rewrite list of what he perceives one’s (pseudo)arguments
Both are pedestrian flaming techniques used by either Archie Bunker-like assholes or premeditated trolls. I think he’s probably more the former than the latter. What makes me question some of your thoughts here on this is that I’ve received a couple of accolade PMs from Rising Sun* essentially complementing me on my ability to argue and take insolence without resorting to banning and the use of mod powers. And while you may not have a problem with MikeM.'s “polemic” argument style, I think there are at least three long time posters here that do…
And as far as a summary courts marshal here. That’s fine. Perhaps I should have, like Rising Sun*, have turned down the modship on similar grounds that he did - that it restricts creative license and I either become a censorship bunny that simply deletes any posts he doesn’t like on some grounds of personal taste or I have to be the only mod that has to have to deal with shit thrown in his face. I’ll gladly tender my resignation if need be and will certainly not make a scene or hold any grudges as I respect an genuinely like reading everyone here and would continue to post unabated if demodded…
I’m sorry pdf27. I respect you immensely, and think you’re one of the top two posters here (RS* being my other favourite to read). But I think you’re a bit wide of the mark on this one…
In any case, no problems mate. Happy New years and cheers!
