EnviroLink Forum

I don't know what transpired after I left yesterday, but I used one of those names frequently, and had absolutely no clue it was taken offensively. it was certainly not meant to ridicule. This raises a question for me, I shorten names on a regular basis, due to laziness mostly. If I shorten a name unintentionally to something someone takes offense to, how will I know unless the person tells me? And if the mods do know, and I had no clue, what actions are going to be taken by the mods? I would hope I would be given the chance to modify the post, rather than just having it deleted, but I can understand that sometimes that can be inefficient for Wayne and Sandra. It wouldn't end in a ban would it?

Josh, I know you are upset, but please understand that I am not trying to make things difficult, I guess I just need more info to avoid problems in the future.

Apparently I missed the lude pictures, thankfully. I don't know what was wrong with that guy, but it went further than dyslexia for sure. I tried to get along with him, but the only way to do that most of the time was to just stay away from him. I guess that will be an easier thing to do now.

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different " X-Black

fyi...they stopped makin quaaludes years ago....... ...but here's a lude picture for you

_________________
lately i been thinkin' aunt betty stopped her blinkin'....soon she'll be a stinkin'..........my deceased mother in law speaking of her aunt who had died.

Ok, to clear the air, so to speak. I was here when it all transpired yesterday and was probably as much a cause as anyone here other than the person undertaking the actions. There was NO attacking that I saw toward that person. They were "upset" over my removal of 3 posts the prior evening for complete posting of an article by werefoxes without following the rules. I deleted the first post with the article, the reply by another which quoted the original, and the final reply that quoted them all. There was significant discussion after these posts prior to my following the thread. After the "debate" with the s/o of the person in question I was not going to spend the time correcting the posts but did save the link the original site to post as a reference. The discussion had gotten onto the claim of hunters killing two people, of which I had some knowledge. Once the information from a pro-AR source was posted the true nature of the deaths was revealed and the discussion drifted away mainly because there had been a level of misrepresentation occurring. If anyone has a question I suggest they review that thread up to yesterday.

The situation should never have moved past that point based on the posts by all of the others here yesterday. I believe there may have been factors outside of this forum involved, but IMO, there was no more ganging of one side than the other in the last couple of days. I would be very upset if there had been any planning for this type of action and am thankful there is no proof either way so I cannot suggest actions. I think there were discussions on the other board, which look bad at this time, but I also believe the latest group of posters from the UK also had some communications. I have only an opinion on that aspect, but I would bet money on it.

From my position, if there is any concern that I or anyone else caused the meltdown yesterday I do not believe it happened and will be happy to defend the actions I undertook or witnessed. I believe we are in a position where there is little in the way of past animosity which can be used to defend ANY snipes at anyone else. I suggest we all try to have a "kinder gentler" forum with those who are here presently and those who may visit in the future. We can now deal with more of a "clean slate" in that regard. I enjoy a good debate, I enjoy and honest debate, I hope we can have both more often in the future.

Sorry for continuing this thread, Josh, but it seems there was more confusion than may have been best for the health of the forum.

I am assuming that any information on problems that would affect communication, such as in this case, will NOT be the basis for anything other than an increased level of understanding. If not, I will be taking a personal interest in those posts ... from either side of a discussion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The discussion at FMB linked in this thread was posted after the banning. There was no conspiracy to disrupt this board; it was mentioned as an interesting forum so a few members of FMB decided to check it out. I don't think any of us signed on with the intention of causing trouble, unless you consider questioning the validity and accuracy of argument in debate to be causing trouble.

Then again, any one is welcome to join FMB if they want to debate in a different style than is allowed here.

Hello.

I did say that I would not be returning to the previous debate on 'violence from huntsmen' and that remains the case, however, I do have some points on this thread which I would wish to raise with the administrator.

It is regrettable to learn that one member has posted abuse to the forum. My contention has always been, that if a person becomes angry or abusive in a debate, then he has lost the argument, and I have always believed in good manners in any debate, irrespective of the issues or the persons involved. However, while I do not condone this man's actions at all, perhaps I can cast light upon the reasons why such an unpleasant event occurred.

Some days ago I joined this forum and joined a debate on 'violence from huntsmen'. I remained polite and respectful in my postings, nevertheless if my personal opinion has anything to add to this matter, (which I feel it has), I did detect an undercurrent of hostility on the board from most of my protagonists (Wayne being perhaps the exception). Despite my polite postings, I was asked by one member if I had 'control issues', another began to sneer at my good manners, and there were, at least from my perspective, the insinuations that what I had written was tantamount to lies, or that I had embarked upon deliberate misrepresentation of the facts of my posting. As said, although such remarks are not directly offensive, collectively, they are nevertheless unpleasant, and I might add, uncalled for in the circumstances. Needless to say, if other forum users have the same experience, it goes without saying that one of them will lose control and become aggressive, although as said, I do not condone this.

I would again like to point out that it was never my intention to misrepresent whatsoever any fact that I posted to the board. I mentioned the deaths of two hunt saboteurs in England, who were killed by huntsmen, one Mike Hill and Tom Worby. I would like to point out again, that I did not mention nor imply 'murder' as was later stated by the pro hunt, I wrote 'manslaughter'. Now the legal or technical definitions of this aside, the operational definition of 'manslaughter' is 'to unintentionally kill'. With the benefit of hindsight perhaps I should have written 'accidentally killed', but this aside, I stand by what I have written, and which I can subsequently corroborate as I have now found the links to do so.

I would like to point out that another matter which I feel exacerbates potential tensions on this board is in response to the timings and number of postings that I received. I don't know whether this can be addressed in any way, but I found that I was receiving several replies to my one posting all at once, and to be frank, I was being swamped with questions and requests, with the result that I could not give as clear an answer to each individual posting as I would have liked. Perhaps in future, if this suggestion is of any worth, it would be helpful if a forum member were allowed space to reply to each counter posting one at a time, this I feel would go a long way to cooling tempers down, and defusing any arguments.

I do trust that all will be well from now on. I have subsequently been invited to another forum to debate issues regarding animal welfare, but with the permission of members of this forum, pro hunt or otherwise, I would still like to use this one. I do hope very much that this is still the case. Thank you.

Phantomuk was barred for shotgun posting of explict pornographic images. I didn't see them. Wayne and Josh did. My response is at the Phantomuk Barred thread.



Bow weevil I was referring to names used in an obviously derogatory way with the clear intention of offering an insult: not just any old short form or nick-name. I do realise that one and the same short form / nick name could be used with no such intention, in fun, or just in a friendly way.



You wouldn't know and if the person doesn't say s/he takes offence and there is no blatantly obvious intent to ridicule that person, you would have no need to worry. I do think however we should be careful how we shorten names.



If the post is obviously obscene or highly derogatory it will probably just be deleted and the Poster warned. Otherwise, posters considered in breach of the rules will be issued a request to consult, explain and/or revise their post as seems appropriate. This is not about unintentional slights, misjudgments, cultural differences in language sensitivities, language skills or minor slips in courtesy. It is about systematic and co-ordinated bullying and, "trashing", of threads.



I can't speak for Josh but I understand this is a genuine query. I hope I have answered it sufficiently.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

I cannot speak for Josh, obviously, but you have not done anything to prevent you form continuing your discussion. The only problem you had, to my knowledge, was the posting of an article form a site without following the rules posted. That is a fairly common problem with new posters and nothing that would be a concern.

I am sorry the follow up discussion was not as available as we all would have liked. I would look forward to a continued debate on the subject as I imagine would others here as well.

Welcome to the board.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

wijim wrote:

.



Not specifically. I am describing a general impression based on an overview of many different postings over a longer period of time than just the past few days.





I have acknowledged all along that there is provocation on both sides. What I am talking about goes beyond one on one hostile exchanges.





Good. Provided success means success in establishing the truth, or revealing errors in argument and not just discrediting or seriously discomforting your opponent, I don't think anyone will have anything to say.






O.K. if you think it wasn't handled properly please elaborate and we can all learn from your experience.







Mmm? "what type of person", "I was dealingwith", these are not expressions indicating much empathy with the individual are they? They are certainly not difficult to misunderstand in the context of yesterday's heated atmosphere. However, I have no other reason to draw that inference. I take your word for your intentions.



Much depends, doesn't it, on how challenges are offered, how many challengers there are and the overall context of the debate. Seeing you were, "ticked off", at the time there might be value in reviewing your posts with 20/20 hindsight.



There is a history of, "bucketing", certain, "types", of newcomer to this Board and I have a feeling that *** might have had a retaliatory agenda when he came on board. But I do not think it was rational debating that drove him over the edge.



Wimjim my comments to you above were in response to yours to me above; nothing else and nothing more. I have no opinion on your conduct and am not suggesting that you have anything in particular to answer for. I am identifying a problem that has plagued this Board for a long time and suggesting that, if you feel you were caught up in what I'm talking about, you might care to review your own conduct and draw your own conclusions.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Hello to you too Werefox

I note Wayne's welcome and add mine. Welcome to the Board.

Thank you for your dispassionate contribution to this thread. I entirely agree that anger and abusiveness in a debate that has been conducted in a rational and courteous manner signifies inability to sustain the argument. However, it is anger and abusiveness in response to provocation that is in issue here and I agree that your remarks on the treatment accorded you do, "cast light upon the reasons why such an unpleasant event occurred.".

It is precisely that, "undercurrent of hostility"; the, "sneering", at good manners and perfectly reasonable propositions; disparagement of arguable positions (in lieu of counter argument) insinuations that every wrong or poorly stated proposition is a deliberate misrepresentation (a lie) and outright personal insults, that is causing problems. As you say, collectively, such things are unpleasant and uncalled for, to say the least, and, as you also say, it goes without saying that someone one will eventually lose control and become overtly aggressive.

I would like to take up your point on misrepresentation as I feel this word is frequently misused with, probably unintentional, undesirable consequences. To say that there are, "misrepresentations", in someone's post is, I think, to say that the Poster is intentionally distorting the truth or, to be plain, lying. It is not just to say that the post contains statements that happen to be untrue. Accordingly, I would like to suggest that, if there is no intention to accuse someone of lying another form of words should be employed such as, "I think that is incorrect".

You also refer to an aggressive response to your mentioning of a fact that was unpalatable to the other side. I think that is also an important point. If a person may not so much as mention an event without immediately being challenged to prove it to the satisfaction of a court of law, debate becomes impossible. Obviously it is a valid thing to ask for statements to be substantiated with some evidence and sound reasoning but that is the best that can be achieved in such a forum. Posters cannot be expected to post a fully referenced academic thesis on every point they try to make.

Finally your point on being swamped with responses, questions and requests, with the result that you could not give as clear an answer to each as you would have liked. I agree this is a great difficulty; especially if there is an intention to elicit a injudicious or ill structured response that can be easily attacked and disparaged. I agree it would be helpful if a forum member were allowed space to reply to each counter posting one at a time and that this would go a long way to cooling tempers down, and defusing any arguments. I will discuss the suggestion with Wayne and Josh to see if anything like that can be done.



You are very welcome Werefox and I sincerely hope you will continue to favour us with your posts.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Wow. Certainly been a bunch happened in a short time. I might take the valid points to be drawn from this up at another board, since the admin here has indicated a desire to purge the incidents from the history books.

Thank you Sandra for your posting, it was a pleasure to read it and I do appreciate all that you have to say.

Although perhaps now everyone is tired of my mentioning this, right from the outset I did use the word 'manslaughter' referring to the deaths of the two hunt saboteurs. I thought that this particular word would suffice as the meaning therein is to 'unintentionally kill'. I did not have a dictionary or thesaurus at hand and as you yourself say, debate becomes impossible if an individual cannot mention an event or point without immediately being challenged to prove it to the satisfaction of a court of law. I thank you for your comments here.

As an aside I note the lines from the Auguries of Innocence by William Blake. He is perhaps my favourite poet, and I have a rubbing from his grave on my living room wall. Have you been to his former home in Soho in London?
Sadly as you no doubt know he died in poverty, it was only decades after his death that his genius was recognised. But his words of beauty are known the world over now, and it is a pleasure to become acquainted with a fellow Blakean.

Each outcry from the hunted hare,
A fibre from the brain doth tear.

William Blake, Auguries of Innocence.

As said it has been a pleasure to speak to you. My very best wishes, and I do hope that we can speak again soon.

Here is a link for you to follow for dictionary uses Werefox.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm Will help save you looking for words and how to explain the not so suttle differences between Killed ,Murdered , Manslaughter and accidental or dead by mistake caused by victim.

Just as an aside on the subject of definitions and misrepresentations, there is no implied fault with calling something a misrepresentation as opposed to calling something a lie.

I prefer to use misrepresentation in the case of an incorrect statement for just this reason, regardless of the popular implication. The same for the usage of ignorant. It is not an attack but a statement of some lack of knowledge.

Mis·rep·re·sen·ta·tion
n.
Untrue representation; false or incorrect statement or account; -- usually unfavorable to the thing represented; as, a misrepresentation of a person's motives. Sydney Smith.

Note: In popular use, this word often conveys the idea of intentional untruth.



lie2 (lî)
n.

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

In the case of the use of the term manslaughter, it was not correct as it implies a level of fault that was not present. None knew at the time whether it was an intentional usage by anyone or a repeated usage with the assumption of fact. Both cases are fairly common in discussions such as this, so there will be a need to point out what appears to be a misrepresentation for further clarification so that the correct situation may be determined. I assume not being familiar with the legal terms nor even the possible differences in the terms between the US and UK (not even considering OZ yet) could account for such a misunderstanding. Werefox seems to have given a plausible explanation to the misunderstanding and I for one look forward to continuing the discussion on the issue on a rational manner.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

A word of advice to all posters, if you feel that there are too many questions/statements to follow ... just say so. There are enough adults here to understand that quick replies are more likely to contain errors or further a misunderstanding. I would bet that most of us have had a similar experience and would therefore understand. Of course if anyone expects to receive some breathing space after such a statement they must also be willing to give that space. Respect for other posters garner respect for you form them. Sandra has been trying to educate us on this small fact for some time, but some of us are a little slower at times.

Just remember the golden rule of forums, post unto others as you would have them post unto you ...

OK, off my soapbox for a while ....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein