I'll let pawtucket make the rules for himself...but you did miss the 'schoolyard bully' part of the post and did not mention the intentional derailing of the thread with no concern for the original topic or the question of the original poster.
WD picked an off topic fight with DWBH to further his own agenda without adding anything worthwhile to the thread. That MO is crude no matter what kind of messageboard you go to-- and as Paw pointed out a distraction from any real interaction happening. Many people have offered pro twi views here over the years without being obnoxious about it or using threads to pick fights and settle personal scores.
I think the offer of a free proTWI website is a good one that WD should take him up on
The primary focus of this forum is to discuss the OTHER side of the story, we know the TWI side! You have not added to the discussion, rather you distract any discussion from happening.
If you want to defend TWI, that is your privilege. Here we are discussing the other side. I will even set up a site for you for free, if you want talk about the greatness of TWI and it's leadership. ...
No link to the post nor the thread, almost as if Oldiesman didn't
want us to read the entire post nor the posts it replied to...
White Dove,
You are nothing more than a school yard bully. You have a right to your opinion. What you don't have, is a right on these forums to call people liars, albeit reworded.
The primary focus of this forum is to discuss the OTHER side of the story, we know the TWI side! You have not added to the discussion, rather you distract any discussion from happening.
If you want to defend TWI, that is your privilege. Here we are discussing the other side. I will even set up a site for you for free, if you want talk about the greatness of TWI and it's leadership. I'll even link to it!! But the bullying and demanding will end today.
The post was in reply to derailing a thread and "politely calling people liars".
the derailing (as with derailings in general) added nothing to the discussion,
but attempted to end it by continually going off-topic.
Civil posting has never drawn a response from staff,
and it's unlikely it ever will.
But don't let little things like "honesty" or "fairness" affect you.
You've never seen the OTHER PERSON's side to anything here,
and I see no reason for you to bother trying now.
Not that you WERE trying....
For the curious, here's the beginning of the thread.
Oldies........the context is all-important of paw's post.
As mstar said, a poster was intentionally derailing thread after thread and calling other posters "liars" over and over again. The posts seemed to escalate to an all-out campaign to disrupt any and all personal testimonies, specifically against vpw and his "God-given" ministry. Like a school yard bully, his verbal assaults were ongoing.
Here is paw's post:
White Dove,
You are nothing more than a school yard bully. You have a right to your opinion. What you don't have, is a right on these forums to call people liars, albeit reworded.
The primary focus of this forum is to discuss the OTHER side of the story, we know the TWI side! You have not added to the discussion, rather you distract any discussion from happening.
If you want to defend TWI, that is your privilege. Here we are discussing the other side. I will even set up a site for you for free, if you want talk about the greatness of TWI and it's leadership. I'll even link to it!! But the bullying and demanding will end today.
If Paw's intent was the correction of intentional derailing alone, why mention anything about the content of the derail?
i.e. if it were derailing alone the content of the derail would be irrelevant.
But since Paw mentioned what the focus of the content should be, it is the focus of the content that I am wondering about and what I feel needs to be clarified and memorialized in the forum rules.
clarified? why? They arent really that hard to understand are they?
...please be courteous to fellow posters......don't make it personal...... harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums....There is no need for personal attacks.
Nobody needs a dictionary definition for those do they?
It is behavior not position that determines what is unacceptable. I have been reprimanded and disciplined as severely as any here, even occasionally on your behalf :) ....and yet, I am the polar opposite of you and Dove on twi issues.
To intimate any less is an insult to the forbearance and patience of those who run this site.
Just telling the other side of the story....doesn`t deign that it is pro or anti ... it is simply the other side of the story..our story what we saw, experienced, endured. The problem seems to be when a person stops telling their story, and instead,begins a relentless campaign to silence anothers that they don`t like.
According to the post, the one being called to task had no interest in the subject being discussed but was simply attacking people ... It wasn`t accidental, the posters actions were deliberate...I think that you know that too.
It is behavior not position that determines what is unacceptable. I have been disciplined as severely as any here, even occasionally on your behalf :) ....and yet, I am the polar opposite of you and Dove on twi issues.
To intimate any less is an insult to the forbearance and patience of those who run this site.
Just telling the other side of the story....doesn`t deign that it is pro or anti ... it is simply the other side of the story..our story what we saw, experienced, endured. The problem seems to be when a person stops telling their story, and instead,begins a relentless campaign to silence anothers that they don`t like.
According to the post, the one being called to task had no interest in the subject being discussed but was simply attacking people ... It wasn`t accidental, the posters actions were deliberate...I think that you know that too.
No, I think this issue of posting pro-twi opinions needs to be clarified in the rules so posters know where they stand.
Paws remarks to WD were clear... among other things, WD was told his pro-twi opinions were not the primary focus of this forum and that those opinions are already known.
Paw said "if you want to defend TWI, that is your privilege. Here we are discussing the other side. I will even set up a site for you for free, if you want talk about the greatness of TWI and it's leadership."
So why can't "the greatness of TWI and it's leadership" be discussed here?
Do you see why the content is now in question?
Just saying that to WD is like giving him a spanking for his content, not for his behavior.
Why? At least they were clear. I think he was extremely clear ....Heck, I was banned, locked out of GS without warning for 3 days, I was then allowed to read but not post for an entire month...shrug....n I garaundamntee ya it wasn`t because what I was typing was pro ministry...lol
I figured out the rules pretty quickly after that. :)
...and I think that you are picking one thing out of context trying to make this into something that it really is not.....aka unfair treatment of a poster because of their position on twi.
I ALSO think that this is an insult to pawtucket and the moderators who try to make this place fair and balanced for all participants ...not an easy job for a group as widely varied as ourselves.
Right... and you suggested it was an insult twice already; but its not my intent to insult anyone, all I'm asking for is succinct clarity in what is acceptable posting content.
IF the only way WD can maintain his pro TWI stance is by bullying and taking threads off topic, and by stalking a certain poster, then yeah, I say he's in violation of the rules--by behavior, not by belief system.
If you cannot distinguish wrong behavior because it is tied to your doctrine and the great debate/battle stance--or are willing to turn a blind eye to wrong behavior because it is in defense of the TRUTH, then you are so very sad. And kind of scary.
If your belief system tells you it is okay to bully for the Truth... Hmmm... I do remember that from TWI.
what is wrong with you posting on twi's website?.......why must you post your apologeia for twi, or lhim, or cffm, or ces/stfi, or geer, or whomever here?...they all have their own websites......(except for mr.paranoia-geer)......why do you feel compelled to support or defend these charlatans, proven liars, and adulterers here at greasespotcafe?.....what service are you performing for us, or society in general?........your cloak of "free speech" is sadly mis-applied, imho........
do you see your role here as "necessary irritant"?..........freedom fighter?........o'reilly/prager/hannity, vpw, hitler, mouthpiece?......defender of the insane, immoral, illicit, or those with little or no redeeming social value?........just promoting yourself?.......what is your personal interest in plaguing this site with right-wing nonsense and incessant hostile drivel important to you or this website?..............just curious..............peace.
Below is an extract of a recent quote from Paw regarding posting on the forums:
This quote appears to be saying that pro-twi viewpoints are not welcomed here. Paw even went so far as to say he'd set up a pro-twi site for free.
In other words it seems to be saying "it is your privilege to defend twi, but here, please be quiet, we already know the pro-twi side and we don't want to hear it."
Please please clarify if this is a rule change, and if it is, please post this on the forum rules so that all posters (even those with pro-twi viewpoints from time to time) know where they stand.
I don't think that's entirely it. I don't think there's a problem with a pro-twi posting, as long a certain people aren't so intensely obnoxious about it..
to me, it's the eternal bickering, eternal lawyering.. eternal quest to exonerate the scumbags.. lying in wait for a poster to make a small factual error.. then to blow a little matter completely out of proportion with demands of following rules of evidence, documentation, etc. etc. etc.. in short, "lawyering" any personal account into a dark deep hole.. and conveniently ignoring fully documented corroborating evidence and the like..
and it goes on, and on, and on..
if twi wants a lawyer here, I'm sure they will send one..
I think some posters just watched too much Perry Mason..
there the "accused" is NEVER the real perpetrator..
at the end of the show, even with overwhelming odds.. da lawyer pulls some judicial wabbit out of the hat.. and his client is fully exonerated, the apposing legal team slinks away in embarrassment and dishonor..
somehow, I don't think that's going to happen here..
. . . it's the eternal bickering, eternal lawyering.. eternal quest to exonerate the scumbags.. lying in wait for a poster to make a small factual error.. then to blow a little matter completely out of proportion with demands of following rules of evidence, documentation, etc. etc. etc.. in short, "lawyering" any personal account into a dark deep hole.. and conveniently ignoring fully documented corroborating evidence and the like..
Hmmmm, At time the Politics and Tacs forum has been called un-civil. It appears that this thread and the previously mentioned thread seem to make the politics thread seem tame. :blink:
Hmmmm, At time the Politics and Tacs forum has been called un-civil. It appears that this thread and the previously mentioned thread seem to make the politics thread seem tame. :blink:
at least one can't describe it as "boring".
generally.. the schoolyard bully comment is fitting, but I think it describes bullying with a quasi-legal flavor to it.. corporations can exhibit that kind of behavior. Like the old RCA corporation and Armstrong. he lost simply because RCA had deeper pockets, and more lawyers and motions in courts than he could even dream of keeping up with..
but this is not a court here. At least last I checked..
I don't see a problem with having a different experience in twi.. not everyone went wow, or corps, were publically berated, or were drugged and raped, or the like..
"wow, that wasn't MY experience.." now, if one said their piece, and just left it at that..
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
6
8
13
Popular Days
Mar 31
42
Apr 1
34
Apr 2
5
Apr 26
2
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 7 posts
skyrider 6 posts
oldiesman 8 posts
Ham 13 posts
Popular Days
Mar 31 2009
42 posts
Apr 1 2009
34 posts
Apr 2 2009
5 posts
Apr 26 2009
2 posts
Popular Posts
Tzaia
A look at "Christmas Past."
Tzaia
Honestly, why do any of you give them any level of power over your life? What difference does it make what they say or think? Really? Do you not get that it's this caring about what others think that
Tzaia
I believe you are one that needn't put them on ignore, because you can hold your own and can beat them at their own game. I won't ignore them for the same reason you do. They remind me of where I was
mstar1
I'll let pawtucket make the rules for himself...but you did miss the 'schoolyard bully' part of the post and did not mention the intentional derailing of the thread with no concern for the original topic or the question of the original poster.
WD picked an off topic fight with DWBH to further his own agenda without adding anything worthwhile to the thread. That MO is crude no matter what kind of messageboard you go to-- and as Paw pointed out a distraction from any real interaction happening. Many people have offered pro twi views here over the years without being obnoxious about it or using threads to pick fights and settle personal scores.
I think the offer of a free proTWI website is a good one that WD should take him up on
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No link to the post nor the thread, almost as if Oldiesman didn't
want us to read the entire post nor the posts it replied to...
The post was in reply to derailing a thread and "politely calling people liars".
the derailing (as with derailings in general) added nothing to the discussion,
but attempted to end it by continually going off-topic.
Civil posting has never drawn a response from staff,
and it's unlikely it ever will.
But don't let little things like "honesty" or "fairness" affect you.
You've never seen the OTHER PERSON's side to anything here,
and I see no reason for you to bother trying now.
Not that you WERE trying....
For the curious, here's the beginning of the thread.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=19557
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Oldies........the context is all-important of paw's post.
As mstar said, a poster was intentionally derailing thread after thread and calling other posters "liars" over and over again. The posts seemed to escalate to an all-out campaign to disrupt any and all personal testimonies, specifically against vpw and his "God-given" ministry. Like a school yard bully, his verbal assaults were ongoing.
Here is paw's post:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If Paw's intent was the correction of intentional derailing alone, why mention anything about the content of the derail?
i.e. if it were derailing alone the content of the derail would be irrelevant.
But since Paw mentioned what the focus of the content should be, it is the focus of the content that I am wondering about and what I feel needs to be clarified and memorialized in the forum rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
clarified? why? They arent really that hard to understand are they?
Nobody needs a dictionary definition for those do they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
It is behavior not position that determines what is unacceptable. I have been reprimanded and disciplined as severely as any here, even occasionally on your behalf :) ....and yet, I am the polar opposite of you and Dove on twi issues.
To intimate any less is an insult to the forbearance and patience of those who run this site.
Just telling the other side of the story....doesn`t deign that it is pro or anti ... it is simply the other side of the story..our story what we saw, experienced, endured. The problem seems to be when a person stops telling their story, and instead,begins a relentless campaign to silence anothers that they don`t like.
According to the post, the one being called to task had no interest in the subject being discussed but was simply attacking people ... It wasn`t accidental, the posters actions were deliberate...I think that you know that too.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The part about harassing behavior is already clarified and not in dispute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
No, I think this issue of posting pro-twi opinions needs to be clarified in the rules so posters know where they stand.
Paws remarks to WD were clear... among other things, WD was told his pro-twi opinions were not the primary focus of this forum and that those opinions are already known.
Paw said "if you want to defend TWI, that is your privilege. Here we are discussing the other side. I will even set up a site for you for free, if you want talk about the greatness of TWI and it's leadership."
So why can't "the greatness of TWI and it's leadership" be discussed here?
Do you see why the content is now in question?
Just saying that to WD is like giving him a spanking for his content, not for his behavior.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Why? At least they were clear. I think he was extremely clear ....Heck, I was banned, locked out of GS without warning for 3 days, I was then allowed to read but not post for an entire month...shrug....n I garaundamntee ya it wasn`t because what I was typing was pro ministry...lol
I figured out the rules pretty quickly after that. :)
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
...and I think that you are picking one thing out of context trying to make this into something that it really is not.....aka unfair treatment of a poster because of their position on twi.
I ALSO think that this is an insult to pawtucket and the moderators who try to make this place fair and balanced for all participants ...not an easy job for a group as widely varied as ourselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Right... and you suggested it was an insult twice already; but its not my intent to insult anyone, all I'm asking for is succinct clarity in what is acceptable posting content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
oh oh...I just saw your edited post!!!
You changed a word...Pawtucket actually said *DEFENDING the greatness of twi leadership*
You said that he said that we couldn`t DISCUSS it....clever oldies.
What Dove was doing was attacking people who were discussing leadership in order to defend them...big big difference.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
It can, but apparently a few can't do it without throwing detractors under the bus by discounting personal experience as hearsay.
Edited by TzaiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
IF the only way WD can maintain his pro TWI stance is by bullying and taking threads off topic, and by stalking a certain poster, then yeah, I say he's in violation of the rules--by behavior, not by belief system.
If you cannot distinguish wrong behavior because it is tied to your doctrine and the great debate/battle stance--or are willing to turn a blind eye to wrong behavior because it is in defense of the TRUTH, then you are so very sad. And kind of scary.
If your belief system tells you it is okay to bully for the Truth... Hmmm... I do remember that from TWI.
Criminy. Playing the victim card.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I didn't change a word... go back and re-read Paw's quote.
But what is wrong with defending leadership, if that is what a poster wants to do?
The rules currently state the following, in part:
Nothing there about discouraging the defense of TWI leadership.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
what is wrong with you posting on twi's website?.......why must you post your apologeia for twi, or lhim, or cffm, or ces/stfi, or geer, or whomever here?...they all have their own websites......(except for mr.paranoia-geer)......why do you feel compelled to support or defend these charlatans, proven liars, and adulterers here at greasespotcafe?.....what service are you performing for us, or society in general?........your cloak of "free speech" is sadly mis-applied, imho........
do you see your role here as "necessary irritant"?..........freedom fighter?........o'reilly/prager/hannity, vpw, hitler, mouthpiece?......defender of the insane, immoral, illicit, or those with little or no redeeming social value?........just promoting yourself?.......what is your personal interest in plaguing this site with right-wing nonsense and incessant hostile drivel important to you or this website?..............just curious..............peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Peace be to you too. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
that's your answer?.......typically "substantive", eh?..................sheesh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I don't think that's entirely it. I don't think there's a problem with a pro-twi posting, as long a certain people aren't so intensely obnoxious about it..
to me, it's the eternal bickering, eternal lawyering.. eternal quest to exonerate the scumbags.. lying in wait for a poster to make a small factual error.. then to blow a little matter completely out of proportion with demands of following rules of evidence, documentation, etc. etc. etc.. in short, "lawyering" any personal account into a dark deep hole.. and conveniently ignoring fully documented corroborating evidence and the like..
and it goes on, and on, and on..
if twi wants a lawyer here, I'm sure they will send one..
I think some posters just watched too much Perry Mason..
there the "accused" is NEVER the real perpetrator..
at the end of the show, even with overwhelming odds.. da lawyer pulls some judicial wabbit out of the hat.. and his client is fully exonerated, the apposing legal team slinks away in embarrassment and dishonor..
somehow, I don't think that's going to happen here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Witness:
*and that's when the scumbag..*
Defense:
*your HONOR. I OBJECT. Assumes facts not in evidence..*
Prosecution:
*we have already established your client is a dirtbag. Your honor, what is substantially different here?*
Defense:
*Your honor.. I assure you, there is a substantial difference between these OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS... besides, my client isn't convicted, yet..*
maybe the "defense" has delusions or something.. there is no prosecution, no judge.. we're not even in a courthouse..
maybe he's walking around just talking to himself..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zshot
Hmmmm, At time the Politics and Tacs forum has been called un-civil. It appears that this thread and the previously mentioned thread seem to make the politics thread seem tame. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
oldieman,
the thing i hate most in this world is to dislike people
i have been on this site for a number of years and reading your past post i tried not to dislike you,well today i don't like you at all
leave paw alone stop your bit###ing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
at least one can't describe it as "boring".
generally.. the schoolyard bully comment is fitting, but I think it describes bullying with a quasi-legal flavor to it.. corporations can exhibit that kind of behavior. Like the old RCA corporation and Armstrong. he lost simply because RCA had deeper pockets, and more lawyers and motions in courts than he could even dream of keeping up with..
but this is not a court here. At least last I checked..
I don't see a problem with having a different experience in twi.. not everyone went wow, or corps, were publically berated, or were drugged and raped, or the like..
"wow, that wasn't MY experience.." now, if one said their piece, and just left it at that..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.