Moderators - dictators of taste?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moderators - dictators of taste?
We used to be self-moderating on Mil Aircrew, but I believe it was security concerns over GW2 that led to the Mil moderators being created.
Northern Monkey started a thread on Ugly Wives that had me in stitches (and I am an ex-F3 driver so it was targetted in general at me). I could see the funny side and took it for the banter I thought it was, but some people seemed to take it as a personal attack (probably the type that read Flight from the front instead of the back).
It was suggested by some people that Northern Monkey delete the thread. Instead, it appears that the moderators have sentenced it to a slow lingering death. Try posting a new reply on the thread and you will see that it does not rise back to the top of the ladder. Given a few more topics and it will slip off the bottom of the page.
The thread has probably had a long enough run anyway, but are we being dictated to about what is in good or bad taste? Rants about Israel Vs the Arabs, personal abuse or security concerns are good enough reasons to take a thread down.
If the moderators think this was personal abuse, shouldn't they have the courage of their convictions and take the thread off completely.
Northern Monkey started a thread on Ugly Wives that had me in stitches (and I am an ex-F3 driver so it was targetted in general at me). I could see the funny side and took it for the banter I thought it was, but some people seemed to take it as a personal attack (probably the type that read Flight from the front instead of the back).
It was suggested by some people that Northern Monkey delete the thread. Instead, it appears that the moderators have sentenced it to a slow lingering death. Try posting a new reply on the thread and you will see that it does not rise back to the top of the ladder. Given a few more topics and it will slip off the bottom of the page.
The thread has probably had a long enough run anyway, but are we being dictated to about what is in good or bad taste? Rants about Israel Vs the Arabs, personal abuse or security concerns are good enough reasons to take a thread down.
If the moderators think this was personal abuse, shouldn't they have the courage of their convictions and take the thread off completely.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The very one Jacko. Actually another ppruner pointed out, that just prior to the ugly wives thread having the chocks applied against the burner, One ppruner had posted in just about every thread previous, presumably to drive the Ugly wives one South.
But then again, that's probably x-files stuff
But then again, that's probably x-files stuff
I am qrateful to the Moderators for facilitating the inexorable slide into the gutter which the thoroughly unpleasant 'Ugly Wives' thread justly deserves.
This was a thread which opened with an outrageously unpleasant personal attack on the relatives of those returning from an operational theatre. It then continued with a series of weak, puerile posts which would have been out of place even on a prep school lavatory wall.
This was not 'banter'; far from it. It was inappropriate childish smut. As such I personally consider that it had no place on PPRuNe; I am NOT a Moderator but I, along with others, did ask for the thread to be deleted. PPRuNe Admin decided instead to facilitate certain measures which resulted in the properties of the thread which others have noted.
At a time when the bodies of those less fortunate than the Leuchars F3 crews were being returned to their grieving relatives, we had 'northernmonkey' and his aliases making these totally unacceptable remarks. OK - I may be a boring old fart, but I consider that there are limits to which PPRuNe should not be allowed to descend; I'm not sure that I would wish to associate with those who think to the contrary.
And that's all I have to say about that.
This was a thread which opened with an outrageously unpleasant personal attack on the relatives of those returning from an operational theatre. It then continued with a series of weak, puerile posts which would have been out of place even on a prep school lavatory wall.
This was not 'banter'; far from it. It was inappropriate childish smut. As such I personally consider that it had no place on PPRuNe; I am NOT a Moderator but I, along with others, did ask for the thread to be deleted. PPRuNe Admin decided instead to facilitate certain measures which resulted in the properties of the thread which others have noted.
At a time when the bodies of those less fortunate than the Leuchars F3 crews were being returned to their grieving relatives, we had 'northernmonkey' and his aliases making these totally unacceptable remarks. OK - I may be a boring old fart, but I consider that there are limits to which PPRuNe should not be allowed to descend; I'm not sure that I would wish to associate with those who think to the contrary.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - I may be a boring old fart,
I have also had a thread completely thrown off track...deleted sections and moved it into different forums etc etc.
And where has the banter gone...its getting too serious, too much of the time....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I entirely agree with Beagle on this one. I stopped reading the thread after the third or fourth post because I found it offensive to the memory of those who gave their lives. Neither am I a moderator, but if I was, this is one that I would have deleted without hesitation; Danny is far more tolerant than I.
Banter should be fun and not cause offence. Hence that thread cannot be described that way. And I am sorry, Jacko, that you chose to link back to it - you have earned a lot of respect from me and other professional military men on this forum, and supporting gutter subjects can only damage that fine reputation.
Banter should be fun and not cause offence. Hence that thread cannot be described that way. And I am sorry, Jacko, that you chose to link back to it - you have earned a lot of respect from me and other professional military men on this forum, and supporting gutter subjects can only damage that fine reputation.
I did link to it. I do think that we're becoming over-moderated. I do deplore the dishonest way in which this is being done. I may not agree with something (Northern Monkey's childish slights of other men's wives or Danny's Zionism, for example) but I'll defend their right to express their opinion.
I recognise that this is extremely shaky ground to fight the battle on, since the thread was indefensible. I was amazed that it sat there getting bigger and bigger.
I have not posted on the aforementioned thread. I read only the first post, and then, when I linked, the last page.
I found what I read shockingly and horribly insensitive, callous and tasteless (civvy sensibilities) especially since it obviously referred to specific named officers wives. But I can see only two justifiable reasons to lock a thread.
One is military sensitivity (obviously) - though one needs to be careful not to lock threads which merely repeat what is already in the public domain, and the other is gratuitously offensive personal abuse, which goes beyond banter. I think that if this thread falls into the latter thread, then it should be killed, and not just surreptitiously modified in the way referred to.
Linking to it does nothing to stop it dying, but does allow anyone to go and look at it, see what we're discussing (I'm not arguing with you or BEagle from what I saw) and make up their own minds.
Moreover, the addition of a rolleyes gif might have alerted you to my feelings on the 'merits' of what I linked to.
And while I am an ugly old journo myself, I thought the said ladies looked and seemed intelligent, articulate, vivacious, and generally quite attractive. And when in tears or extreme emotion, it's not easy to look anything like that good, I'd have thought. In more normal circs I suspect I'd think they were gorgeous.
I recognise that this is extremely shaky ground to fight the battle on, since the thread was indefensible. I was amazed that it sat there getting bigger and bigger.
I have not posted on the aforementioned thread. I read only the first post, and then, when I linked, the last page.
I found what I read shockingly and horribly insensitive, callous and tasteless (civvy sensibilities) especially since it obviously referred to specific named officers wives. But I can see only two justifiable reasons to lock a thread.
One is military sensitivity (obviously) - though one needs to be careful not to lock threads which merely repeat what is already in the public domain, and the other is gratuitously offensive personal abuse, which goes beyond banter. I think that if this thread falls into the latter thread, then it should be killed, and not just surreptitiously modified in the way referred to.
Linking to it does nothing to stop it dying, but does allow anyone to go and look at it, see what we're discussing (I'm not arguing with you or BEagle from what I saw) and make up their own minds.
Moreover, the addition of a rolleyes gif might have alerted you to my feelings on the 'merits' of what I linked to.
And while I am an ugly old journo myself, I thought the said ladies looked and seemed intelligent, articulate, vivacious, and generally quite attractive. And when in tears or extreme emotion, it's not easy to look anything like that good, I'd have thought. In more normal circs I suspect I'd think they were gorgeous.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for starting this thread was not to condone the Ugly Wives thread. It was to do with the wider issue of censorhship. I was concerned that PPRuNe was becoming boring. Jet Blast used to be hilarious, then we got the introduction of legal considerations (necessary, but unfortunate). I occasionally still look in Jet Blast but not nearly as much as I used to. I still check in with Mil Aircrew but find precious little that keeps me amused - serious issues only seemed to be the order of the day. Nothing wrong with that, but where had the banter gone (it had gone before the majority of mil aircrew had gone to the desert). Ugly Wives was a "blow for freedom" in a way, despite the bad taste, but if the moderators didn't like it thay should have killed it completely and given a reason, not taken the underhand action they have done.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ali Barber, stop being such a tw@t. And yes, I would tell you to your face if I knew who you were. If you showed an ounce of understanding of what is involved in running this forum, and I mean trying to balance the needs and wants of a such a diversified group then you wouldn't be bleating and whining about 'censorship'.
The thread about the ugly wives was amusing, for about the first 10 or 15 posts but when someone like Northernmonkey, whose repertoir soon shows itself to be of very limited scope, doesn't realise that repeating the same old joke over and over and over and over... soon becomes pettty, infantile and puerile. Thankfully, even NM realised that he was flogging a dead horse and even stated so. Obviously Ali Barber still wants more of this repetitive and 'not so funny anymore' cr@p.
The moderators may have made a mistake in moving it to JetBlast so quickly but at least it was left there and eventually moved back here. It was interesting experiment in group reaction but eventually I found the post to be repetitive and the humour had worn itself out. I decided that editorially it would be better for this thread to slip away. Unfortunately, a few of you obviously have a serious deficiency in some hormone or something if you feel that the Ugly Wives thread should somehow still be up there near the top. It's a bit like going to see the same low ranking comedian, time and again but he never changes his script. Get a life puhleese!
The Mil forum is NOT moderated as such. Except for the requirement to prevent a few mentally deficient individuals who are unable to figure out what might be too sensitive for posting or preventing individuals who are too mentally challenged to realise that something might legally put me or PPRuNe at risk, they do not get involved. I on the other hand will occasionally make an editorial decision to stop someone taking advantage of the fact that a post will jump back up to the top every time anything, and usually it is something trivial, is posted. I can make a post 'slippery' and I took the decision to do so in this case.
Maybe if a little bit of wit had been introduced to the thread my decision would have been different but sadly it just became a repeat of the same old joke and mores the pity that NM didn't rest on his laurels with his original trawl but just continued to repeat what was by now becoming predictable. For Simpsons fans, I refer them to the "I didn't do it" episode where Bart becomes a celebrity for his one line comment. Unfortunately, NM will now become like all those other instant celebrities whose status is elevated by an audience whose idea of entertainment is watching a bunch dipsticks who crave publicity but don't have the talent to back it up. The C4 'Big Brother' TV series fans may be feeling uncomfortable by now.
Anyway, back to the topic. Dictator of taste? Not necessarily but I still retain editorial control and in an effort to try and cater for the widest possible audience I will continue to impose (occasionally) certain restrictions if I feel something is getting too much prominence based on a minority who are unable to figure out that it is the quality of the replies to a thread that are important and not the quantity.
As for Jackonicko sticking his oar in, he in particular will know the frustration of not getting something he has written published. In fact I would suspect that he has that experience much of the time. At least here on PPRuNe he gets his voice heard to some extent. I wonder how many editors or publishers have knocked back his works? Would he call that censorship? Perhaps it is just quality control?
I would suggest that Ali Barber and Jacko amongst others try and get an article or even just a letter published in a publication that has the same or even greater readership than PPRuNe. Even if it were published I doubt that it wouldn't be edited in some form or another. I wonder if they would be shrieking and stamping their little feet if that were the case? No... of course they wouldn't, the poor little diddums. 
There is an extremely wide variety of points of view made available here in this forum and if you extend that to the rest of PPRuNe you should be able to find some niche or another where your tastes are catered for. If you can't then feel free to make suggestions but please don't accuse me or my moderators of "dictating taste". Put it down to editorial control. After all, it is what has allowed this forum and the rest of PPRuNe to become the first stop for rumours, news and 'banter' for many of you.
Finally, Ali Barber, if you think that what you have witnessed is 'censorship' or you are concerned with PPRuNe becoming boring then perhaps you should consider the fact that it is the members who submit the content and all I and my friends do is occasionally make sure we are covered from a legal point of view. If I decide that a thread (read article or story in a newspaper or magazine sense) doesn't deserve to be on the front page but should be somewhere else because the quality and exclusivity doesn't warrant it then I will move it. To call that censorship shows that you need to educate yourself in the ways of the world. As ex-Mil myself, I know what banter is but to claim that someone repeating the same old joke ad nauseum is somehow eligible to be at the forefront of this forum because it is 'banter' just doesn't wash. Any fool can criticise... unfortunately many do!
The thread about the ugly wives was amusing, for about the first 10 or 15 posts but when someone like Northernmonkey, whose repertoir soon shows itself to be of very limited scope, doesn't realise that repeating the same old joke over and over and over and over... soon becomes pettty, infantile and puerile. Thankfully, even NM realised that he was flogging a dead horse and even stated so. Obviously Ali Barber still wants more of this repetitive and 'not so funny anymore' cr@p.
The moderators may have made a mistake in moving it to JetBlast so quickly but at least it was left there and eventually moved back here. It was interesting experiment in group reaction but eventually I found the post to be repetitive and the humour had worn itself out. I decided that editorially it would be better for this thread to slip away. Unfortunately, a few of you obviously have a serious deficiency in some hormone or something if you feel that the Ugly Wives thread should somehow still be up there near the top. It's a bit like going to see the same low ranking comedian, time and again but he never changes his script. Get a life puhleese!
The Mil forum is NOT moderated as such. Except for the requirement to prevent a few mentally deficient individuals who are unable to figure out what might be too sensitive for posting or preventing individuals who are too mentally challenged to realise that something might legally put me or PPRuNe at risk, they do not get involved. I on the other hand will occasionally make an editorial decision to stop someone taking advantage of the fact that a post will jump back up to the top every time anything, and usually it is something trivial, is posted. I can make a post 'slippery' and I took the decision to do so in this case.
Maybe if a little bit of wit had been introduced to the thread my decision would have been different but sadly it just became a repeat of the same old joke and mores the pity that NM didn't rest on his laurels with his original trawl but just continued to repeat what was by now becoming predictable. For Simpsons fans, I refer them to the "I didn't do it" episode where Bart becomes a celebrity for his one line comment. Unfortunately, NM will now become like all those other instant celebrities whose status is elevated by an audience whose idea of entertainment is watching a bunch dipsticks who crave publicity but don't have the talent to back it up. The C4 'Big Brother' TV series fans may be feeling uncomfortable by now.
Anyway, back to the topic. Dictator of taste? Not necessarily but I still retain editorial control and in an effort to try and cater for the widest possible audience I will continue to impose (occasionally) certain restrictions if I feel something is getting too much prominence based on a minority who are unable to figure out that it is the quality of the replies to a thread that are important and not the quantity.
As for Jackonicko sticking his oar in, he in particular will know the frustration of not getting something he has written published. In fact I would suspect that he has that experience much of the time. At least here on PPRuNe he gets his voice heard to some extent. I wonder how many editors or publishers have knocked back his works? Would he call that censorship? Perhaps it is just quality control?
I would suggest that Ali Barber and Jacko amongst others try and get an article or even just a letter published in a publication that has the same or even greater readership than PPRuNe. Even if it were published I doubt that it wouldn't be edited in some form or another. I wonder if they would be shrieking and stamping their little feet if that were the case? No... of course they wouldn't, the poor little diddums. There is an extremely wide variety of points of view made available here in this forum and if you extend that to the rest of PPRuNe you should be able to find some niche or another where your tastes are catered for. If you can't then feel free to make suggestions but please don't accuse me or my moderators of "dictating taste". Put it down to editorial control. After all, it is what has allowed this forum and the rest of PPRuNe to become the first stop for rumours, news and 'banter' for many of you.
Finally, Ali Barber, if you think that what you have witnessed is 'censorship' or you are concerned with PPRuNe becoming boring then perhaps you should consider the fact that it is the members who submit the content and all I and my friends do is occasionally make sure we are covered from a legal point of view. If I decide that a thread (read article or story in a newspaper or magazine sense) doesn't deserve to be on the front page but should be somewhere else because the quality and exclusivity doesn't warrant it then I will move it. To call that censorship shows that you need to educate yourself in the ways of the world. As ex-Mil myself, I know what banter is but to claim that someone repeating the same old joke ad nauseum is somehow eligible to be at the forefront of this forum because it is 'banter' just doesn't wash. Any fool can criticise... unfortunately many do!
Danny,
In a private message...responding to what I considered (even as a former US Army Warrant Officer Helicopter Pilot and former Police Officer....two professions that require you to have armor plate instead of skin....when it comes to banter!) a rude, ugly, and devoid of any redeeming value post, suggested that there was banter...and there was banter. I assured the individual that his banter lacked the intellectual basis upon which geniune humor is based and that he should reconsider his style, manner, and construction. I would hope that he gave my advice some fair consideration and that his future attempts might be better reading.
Maybe you ought to charge an annual fee of a Tuppence....then you could correctly tell the protesters that there is no "free speech" on pprune and thus cut off these kinds of complaints. But.....then they would scream at the outrageous prices you charge for membership or something!
I might suggest those that think uncontrolled participation is the acme goal of these kinds of internet forums.....then you should shift to JustHelicopters....that way you will not feel constrained to any sort of guidelines. Bon Voyage!
In a private message...responding to what I considered (even as a former US Army Warrant Officer Helicopter Pilot and former Police Officer....two professions that require you to have armor plate instead of skin....when it comes to banter!) a rude, ugly, and devoid of any redeeming value post, suggested that there was banter...and there was banter. I assured the individual that his banter lacked the intellectual basis upon which geniune humor is based and that he should reconsider his style, manner, and construction. I would hope that he gave my advice some fair consideration and that his future attempts might be better reading.
Maybe you ought to charge an annual fee of a Tuppence....then you could correctly tell the protesters that there is no "free speech" on pprune and thus cut off these kinds of complaints. But.....then they would scream at the outrageous prices you charge for membership or something!
I might suggest those that think uncontrolled participation is the acme goal of these kinds of internet forums.....then you should shift to JustHelicopters....that way you will not feel constrained to any sort of guidelines. Bon Voyage!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like many others, I was surprised the thread involved managed to have the legs to run on and on with such infantile material.
I made my point early on and chose not to get involved any further but I have had a look back and despair of what passes for "humour" with respect to the chosen subject. Typically, the people who chose to maintain the thread attacked and derided the rest of us for having no sense of humour and formed a little brain dead clique who displayed a primary school attitude that is better off pencilled on a toilet wall - frankly, I've seen much better intellectual content from my kids! Isn't there another forum somewhere in the boondocks for that sh!!t
As for censorship, well, freedom of speech carries a bit of responsibility too. "Ugly Wives" was, and still is a cheap shot and ran it's course very quickly to anyone with half a brain.
I made my point early on and chose not to get involved any further but I have had a look back and despair of what passes for "humour" with respect to the chosen subject. Typically, the people who chose to maintain the thread attacked and derided the rest of us for having no sense of humour and formed a little brain dead clique who displayed a primary school attitude that is better off pencilled on a toilet wall - frankly, I've seen much better intellectual content from my kids! Isn't there another forum somewhere in the boondocks for that sh!!t
As for censorship, well, freedom of speech carries a bit of responsibility too. "Ugly Wives" was, and still is a cheap shot and ran it's course very quickly to anyone with half a brain.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and, similarly, what some find humourless is extremely funny to others. For me the boring posts by apparently boring people was what made the more outrageous posts so funny. If individuals took offence they should remember that in responding they were adding to the humour.
Whilst I accept the need to keep prune posts within reasonably boundaries, nobody is going to influence whether I laugh or cry and I would prefer the moderators to stick to legal principles in determining what to allow. Just because one group of people find something offensive, that is not reason enough to deny others the opportunity to read it. If that becomes the norm on prune our future discussions had better be only about neutral subjects like the weather.
Whilst I accept the need to keep prune posts within reasonably boundaries, nobody is going to influence whether I laugh or cry and I would prefer the moderators to stick to legal principles in determining what to allow. Just because one group of people find something offensive, that is not reason enough to deny others the opportunity to read it. If that becomes the norm on prune our future discussions had better be only about neutral subjects like the weather.
"Just because one group of people find something offensive, that is not reason enough to deny others the opportunity to read it."
Absolute nonsense. That is the excuse of the gutter press. In civilised society, there are things called standards. PPRuNe contributors should recognise and accept that. For without standards, there is but the rule of the mob.......
Absolute nonsense. That is the excuse of the gutter press. In civilised society, there are things called standards. PPRuNe contributors should recognise and accept that. For without standards, there is but the rule of the mob.......
Danny, I'm used to personal abuse from you, usually on the basis of your prejudiced view that I'm some kind of mouthpiece for Arafat, or (worse still) a bleeding heart liberal. I hadn't expected unsubstantiated and ignorant condemnation of my work from you, however.
"As for Jackonicko sticking his oar in, he in particular will know the frustration of not getting something he has written published. In fact I would suspect that he has that experience much of the time. At least here on PPRuNe he gets his voice heard to some extent. I wonder how many editors or publishers have knocked back his works? Would he call that censorship? Perhaps it is just quality control?
I would suggest that Ali Barber and Jacko amongst others try and get an article or even just a letter published in a publication that has the same or even greater readership than PPRuNe. Even if it were published I doubt that it wouldn't be edited in some form or another."
1) I don't write anything on spec. Period. In 19 years as a professional writer I have therefore never had any article or book 'knocked back'. Nor does my work normally require much editing, though standards at my end of the business are admittedly low.
2) I don't know the 'readership' of the mil forums of PPRUNE, but I do know that the aviation magazines I write for have circulations running into the high tens of thousands, while I suspect that even the broadsheet newspapers I've written for have circulations which exceed the 'readership of this bulletin board, to say nothing of the tabloids. I'm currently working on a piece for a major US news magazine (yep, that one). I've also written a number of books, one of which sold more than 80,000 copies, most of which sell about 5,000 per title. And people actually have to pay their own hard-earned cash to read most of the bilge I come out with, whereas PPRuNe is free.
You're getting bitter and twisted, Danny. How would you feel if someone made silly, unsupportable accusations that you fly for a third rate airline because you weren't good enough for BA, or the RAF, or the IDF/AF? You'd be irritated, if not angry, and quite rightly so. Any such accusation would be infantile and beneath contempt - and would demonstrate a total lack of appreciation about job satisfaction and all the other factors which influence professional pilots in choosing for whom they work. And yet you choose to make equally silly, even more groundless remarks about my work.
"As for Jackonicko sticking his oar in, he in particular will know the frustration of not getting something he has written published. In fact I would suspect that he has that experience much of the time. At least here on PPRuNe he gets his voice heard to some extent. I wonder how many editors or publishers have knocked back his works? Would he call that censorship? Perhaps it is just quality control?
I would suggest that Ali Barber and Jacko amongst others try and get an article or even just a letter published in a publication that has the same or even greater readership than PPRuNe. Even if it were published I doubt that it wouldn't be edited in some form or another."
1) I don't write anything on spec. Period. In 19 years as a professional writer I have therefore never had any article or book 'knocked back'. Nor does my work normally require much editing, though standards at my end of the business are admittedly low.
2) I don't know the 'readership' of the mil forums of PPRUNE, but I do know that the aviation magazines I write for have circulations running into the high tens of thousands, while I suspect that even the broadsheet newspapers I've written for have circulations which exceed the 'readership of this bulletin board, to say nothing of the tabloids. I'm currently working on a piece for a major US news magazine (yep, that one). I've also written a number of books, one of which sold more than 80,000 copies, most of which sell about 5,000 per title. And people actually have to pay their own hard-earned cash to read most of the bilge I come out with, whereas PPRuNe is free.
You're getting bitter and twisted, Danny. How would you feel if someone made silly, unsupportable accusations that you fly for a third rate airline because you weren't good enough for BA, or the RAF, or the IDF/AF? You'd be irritated, if not angry, and quite rightly so. Any such accusation would be infantile and beneath contempt - and would demonstrate a total lack of appreciation about job satisfaction and all the other factors which influence professional pilots in choosing for whom they work. And yet you choose to make equally silly, even more groundless remarks about my work.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
Thanks for the personal abuse, I didn't think we were supposed to do that here! And, by the way, I was widely published for a couple of years - it was my job - and I admit to having "quality control" applied, and even having had one article completely censored.
My comment was not on the content of the thread (I said it had probably run its course), but on the way it was sliding off the page which seemed to be a covert form of censorship (for want of a better phrase). Why did you not just apply the icon of "a closed topic: no new replies accepted"?
Thanks for the personal abuse, I didn't think we were supposed to do that here! And, by the way, I was widely published for a couple of years - it was my job - and I admit to having "quality control" applied, and even having had one article completely censored.
My comment was not on the content of the thread (I said it had probably run its course), but on the way it was sliding off the page which seemed to be a covert form of censorship (for want of a better phrase). Why did you not just apply the icon of "a closed topic: no new replies accepted"?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny.....Please put a stop to this drivel. It is a totally nonsensical topic that should be killed off right away.
To Jackonicko......Why does everything you post come down to the Israeli/Arafat/Palastine/Arab issue. You call Danny a zionist,
but you still condemn personal attacks! Give it a rest, please.
To Jackonicko......Why does everything you post come down to the Israeli/Arafat/Palastine/Arab issue. You call Danny a zionist,
but you still condemn personal attacks! Give it a rest, please.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kennyr - maybe jacko is just reacting to the one-sided slating he gets from the management.
I myself have been accused by Danny of being a Ba'ath party supporter just because I suggested that he was applying an unbalanced approach to moderating posts on the war.
As a former RAF officer who carried a VERY high level security clearance, I suspect that being a Ba'athist would have made the attainment of that clearance unlikely!
I myself have been accused by Danny of being a Ba'ath party supporter just because I suggested that he was applying an unbalanced approach to moderating posts on the war.
As a former RAF officer who carried a VERY high level security clearance, I suspect that being a Ba'athist would have made the attainment of that clearance unlikely!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - You wrote: "In civilised society, there are things called standards. PPRuNe contributors should recognise and accept that."
Whose standards? You might well share the same standards as me but we must both accept that others do not and we should not censor them just because we are different.
Modern global life is all about tolerance and the sooner we can tolerate each other with all our differences and peculiarities, the sooner I and everybody else employed to fight will be out of a job.
Roll on, I am ready to retire.
Whose standards? You might well share the same standards as me but we must both accept that others do not and we should not censor them just because we are different.
Modern global life is all about tolerance and the sooner we can tolerate each other with all our differences and peculiarities, the sooner I and everybody else employed to fight will be out of a job.
Roll on, I am ready to retire.
KENNYR,
You're dredging up history, if not ancient history.
On 28th March 2003 at 18:46 _perhaps a bit late,_I wrote:
"There could not be a more pro-Palestinian Pruner than I am, as Danny will confirm, I'm sure. I'm not the mouthpiece and apologist he accuses me of, but I do believe that Israel must cede land for peace, and strongly support the pre-67 borders as being a good starting point. But Danny owns and runs this board, providing a useful forum for us to discuss virtually all subjects under the sun. Virtually. Any exclusions are his business. Danny has served in the IDF, and is a moderately Zionist Jew, and as such has strong feelings on the issue. To his great credit, he does not attempt to ram those feelings down our throats - except when provoked, and he has decided that the subject is best avoided altogether. Where the Israel/Palestine issue is directly relevant, I think we should be allowed to mention that fact, but in Danny's defence, the detailed arguments about the issue have been endlessly and comprehensively aired here, and even I think that Danny's feelings and desire to avoid further acrimonious debate should be respected."
I'm sorry that I did not respect those feelings earlier, and have apologised to Danny privately and publicly.
Since then I have avoided any debate of the Israel/Palestine issue. To say "I may not agree with something (Northern Monkey's childish slights of other men's wives or Danny's Zionism, for example) but I'll defend their right to express their opinion." Hardly qualifies as "everything I post" coming "down to the Israeli/Arafat/Palastine/Arab issue" while referring to someone as being a zionist is hardly a personal attack.
The original Tornado wives thread is hardly something for us to be arguing about, I think, in the light of what I've said about it, since our opinions seem to coincide. We differ only on the issue of moderation - and on the acceptability of abuse about my writing!
You're dredging up history, if not ancient history.
On 28th March 2003 at 18:46 _perhaps a bit late,_I wrote:
"There could not be a more pro-Palestinian Pruner than I am, as Danny will confirm, I'm sure. I'm not the mouthpiece and apologist he accuses me of, but I do believe that Israel must cede land for peace, and strongly support the pre-67 borders as being a good starting point. But Danny owns and runs this board, providing a useful forum for us to discuss virtually all subjects under the sun. Virtually. Any exclusions are his business. Danny has served in the IDF, and is a moderately Zionist Jew, and as such has strong feelings on the issue. To his great credit, he does not attempt to ram those feelings down our throats - except when provoked, and he has decided that the subject is best avoided altogether. Where the Israel/Palestine issue is directly relevant, I think we should be allowed to mention that fact, but in Danny's defence, the detailed arguments about the issue have been endlessly and comprehensively aired here, and even I think that Danny's feelings and desire to avoid further acrimonious debate should be respected."
I'm sorry that I did not respect those feelings earlier, and have apologised to Danny privately and publicly.
Since then I have avoided any debate of the Israel/Palestine issue. To say "I may not agree with something (Northern Monkey's childish slights of other men's wives or Danny's Zionism, for example) but I'll defend their right to express their opinion." Hardly qualifies as "everything I post" coming "down to the Israeli/Arafat/Palastine/Arab issue" while referring to someone as being a zionist is hardly a personal attack.
The original Tornado wives thread is hardly something for us to be arguing about, I think, in the light of what I've said about it, since our opinions seem to coincide. We differ only on the issue of moderation - and on the acceptability of abuse about my writing!