Dear Josh and Moderators http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... &start=240http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... 2&start=75
I have asked Donnie Mac Leod to stop referring to me as "she" or "her". As you might remember this has been discussed with moderators. As I am demonstrating with the links bellow he continues to insult me by referring to me as "she". May I kindly ask that he be banned from this board. I have been traumatized by his continuous sexist provocations.
I do not think banning is appropriate to the case. Anyway that is Josh's department. You have said that Donnie's usage is sexist and/or homophobic. I don't entirely understand the basis of your concern. However I do believe that Donnie's remarks to you were intended to be offensive and I do think that it is discourteous to address or refer to anyone as, "she", (or, "him") let alone as, "it", as has also been suggested. Seeing, however, that your requests have fallen on deaf ears and normal standards of courtesy do not seem to prevail on this Board, I am prepared to delete any such references from Donnie's posts. Donnie,
I will also ask you once again, on behalf of NT-spcssm and the Board in general, to keep to reasonable standards of courtesy in your posts. That includes, I think, using forms of address that are acceptable to other Posters and not exchanging denigratory remarks about a Poster with a third party. Obviously, if you must reference the Poster and not the Post, NT-spcssm can be referred to as NT and addressed as, "you". I hope you will agree to this. If not I will erase the offending sentences.
omg...this can not be serious.....
Yes it can.
The earlier posts by Donnie were clearly intended to be offensive and were received by NT as a sexist/homophobic attack. A request was made to desist and that request was ignored. It isn't courtesy, it isn't funny and, as we all know, it is
associated with serious detriment to victimised groups in society. The first consequence of discourtesy in speech is disorder as we have seen. After that, things just gets worse.
A further example: and I'm leaving this intact, with apologies to NT, only
to illustrate my point. Donnie
From now on I guess *it* or *S/N* will do then because the mods made it clear that one can not refer to another poster by name either.
I don't know (and I don't want to know) what *S/N* means but I do know that, "it", is meant to be offensive to NT in whichever way fits his/her situation. This is absolutely
not acceptable and it is certainly the last such post to stay so long in the light of day.
Sheesshh what a whiny group of sooks you AR's are. Meanwhile Sandra had to delete all the names you called me and after she finished putting the stars on words you called me, she could have made 100 flags with the stars. Pathetic
Very true. NT's epithets were also entirely unacceptable. Difference is NT was, initially, responding (albeit violently) to an unprovoked attack and, to his/her credit has quickly seen the light and apologized to Josh for continuing the, "vicious cycle". You , by contrast, are continuing your offensive remarks; even in this thread which is supposed to be resolving
Then we have this little gem from RF
Perhaps he forgot what you are.
What are you, anyway? Tell me, and I'll try and remember, if I ever decide to address you except peripherally.
and obviously intended to be. Definitely
the last such post that doesn't get deleted on sight - so nobody need bother posting such things in future.
While I'm on this topic I'd like to know whether people really think it is appropriate to use obscene and offensive language even when not directed at individuals. I may be in a minority on this (though I doubt it), but I certainly don't want to be frequently confronted with words like, "....... scum", and that peculiarly offensive Americanism (sorry but I'm sure that's where it hails from), "ass***e.", or phrases like, "s**t down the leg". It shouldn't be beyond the ingenuity of anyone to find inoffensive forms of expression and I think, on a public forum, that should be obligatory.
PS It is instructive that ARs,outraged at the indignities heaped on their non-human
proteges, so often heap (verbal) indignities on their human
opponents. It is equally instructive that anti-ARs, who purport to be highly disturbed at the potential of AR to reduce the status / self esteem of human beings in general
consistently denigrate and attack the status and self esteem of some humans in particular
(ARs). To say the least, there is, perhaps understandable but certainly unjustifiable, ethical inconsistency on both sides. We should all be trying harder to, "practice what we preach".
Donnie and RF; you may say I'm preaching this time if you like - though, as I see it, I'm just stating a position in ethics.
PPS I would just to make my position clear on the question of fault. I agree that there is not a lot of point pursuing this question, it would be better to focus on resolution. However, in view of the fact that the most injured party seems to be getting most of the blame, I would like it on record that, in my considered opinion, responsibility rests largely with the anti
During the last twelve months (while I have been posting to this Board) I have observed what seems to me (and various other people) to be a consistent campaign of trivialization and denigration of the AR position, including personal provocation of AR posters, that would seem to have no other aim but to derail discussions and, "trash", posts. Certainly, there have been some violently accusative, vulgar/abscene and entirely unacceptable postings from pro-AR Posters. My strong impression, however, is that they have been, on the whole, retaliations and perhaps sometimes, "forward defences", for which the above noted, "campaign", is primarily responsible.