I appreciate you are disappointed, and I'm sorry about that. However, the thread had not only drifted off topic (nothing intrinsically wrong with that) but it had drifted into an area that has been argued ad nauseam by PPRuNers since before the flood, and every time it has been hijacked by the likes of Wino and Bubette whose respective arrivals are, quite simply, death to any decent debate.
I had not wanted a "Let's knock the USA" thread but some decent debate on the programme the Beeb showed which, I thought, demonstrated not only that the current American Administration's policies are deeply unpopular across the world but also that many Americans have no idea that their image is being very badly tarnished. If they can, perhaps, understand why in the same manner that most Brits can quite understand why their colonial past has made them less than the World's Favourite Nation, then perhaps the USA might be able to benefit from a little self-insight.
[rant=on] Going on the example of Bubette and Wino, perhaps this was hoping for a little too much. Insight and critical self-analysis appears to be beyond them.
Until the majority of Americans can understand that there are other points of view out there and that "We're the biggest, therefore we're the best, therefore whatever we do is right and everyone ought to copy us - let us sell you the secrets" doesn't work for everyone, there's not a lot of hope for the world.
[rant=off]
It's a shame, but I understand your reasons. It's such a pity they do it so often. They're both have their own agenda and have spoiled may previous threads. Wino has hijacked threads with his own agenda for as long as I can remember. The trouble is he's good at it. Bubbette is more to be pitied than blamed. It must be obvious to anyone she's not rational and has problems. It's not normal to be so eaten up with hate. It's easer to just ignore her posts and move on to the next one.
I strongly disagree with your judging all Americans by those two. I visit different parts of the States every six weeks or so, and they are not typical of Americans in my experience. Wino and Bubette may be American but the focus of their obssession lies in the Middle East.
What a very sad state of affairs. Just because a thread doesn't go exactly as the original poster intends is no reason to cancel it. If it goes sufficiently off thread then the Moderators will take care of it. The idea that, "It's my ball and if you don't play by my rules I'm going home " is just too pathetic for words.
Wino posts some good stuff, shame it isn't so left-wing and anti-American as some would wish. Bubbette does, on occasion, say something outrageous but more often she pricks the conscience of the ignorant and/or complacent with a few uncomfortable facts that don't quite fit in with many of the preconceived views that are so often posted by people for whom a little learning has become a dangerous thing.
Oh gosh - I hadn't appreciated that I was going to upset Khan!! Oh no! What shall I do now?
Make whatever assumptions you like, Khan - I stated my reasons. You choose to put a different, and incorrect, slant on it. I understand why you like Bubette's and Wino's posts so much.
I never asked Wino (or anyone else) to be left-wing or anti-American. What a ridiculous idea. Is that seriously the best you can manage? As for Bubette, I've never seen her post any actual facts - just propaganda, prejudice and hatred.
You also seem to have a slightly odd idea of what moderators do.
I started the Right to Bear Arms thread. It was meant to be about Colin Powell's obvious hypocrisy - but it's ended up as a debate about whether folks like T_richard should be allowed to sit in a hide in the middle of the woods and shoot things. Not exactly what I intended - but then perhaps I should have chosen I different thread title. Perhaps something like "Colin Powell's statement on disarming Palestinian militants highlights US hypocrisy over weapons ownership"
Threads always seem to get sucked back to tired old slanging matches - e.g. USA vs Europe, Boeing vs Airbus.
Wino and Bubette are to be commended simply for the fact that they step up to the keyboard.
No matter what you think of their postings or them personally always remember that this society we live in likes to think of itself as one of free speech.
Why am I mentioning this? Well I feel that too many personal feuds are beginning to show on here. Lets try and put them down and move on without them.
Sorry to see it went down the drain Huggie and maybe I'm partly to blame for it. I already decided not to react to the usual diatribe by Bubba anymore and only react to Winos rantings when he's coming up with something worth to discuss about.
At the other hand there's freedom of speech and if a thread goes not exactly the way you want it, so be it and you might consider to bring the discussion back on track or leave it to the almighty moddies....
And btw want to emphasize again: attacking an administration and its deeds doesn't automatically mean I dislike the people of that particular country, which is so often misunderstood.
Removing the thread was, as far as I can see, a show of frustration and selfishness, typical of a child who doesn't get their own way. I am sad that you feel you have to attack Wino and Bubbette just because you do not like their style or viewpoints when it comes to debates.
I am defending them because I have never yet seen them stoop to personal attacks. I too am frustrated sometimes by their point of view and even their singular determination not to be deflected from their own agendas but they only appear to be responding to many of the attacks on their beliefs and politics. Of course they will respond and why not. I find it much more realistic to blame those posters who cannot contain their vitriol in responses to Bubbette and Wino. I suggest you carefully research previous posts and see at what point they enter the debate. I agree that some of the opening remarks when they do enter, especially Bubbette, can cause eye rolling, head shaking and frustration but it is the weak willed attackers who cannot refrain from their insulting replies that actually cause threads to become so corrupted.
As G.Khan stated, much more eloquently that I am capable of doing:
Quote:
Wino posts some good stuff, shame it isn't so left-wing and anti-American as some would wish. Bubbette does, on occasion, say something outrageous but more often she pricks the conscience of the ignorant and/or complacent with a few uncomfortable facts that don't quite fit in with many of the preconceived views that are so often posted by people for whom a little learning has become a dangerous thing.
Hugs response to G.Khan is typical of what I am referring to. The tone and content is antagonistic and you appear to be trying to start a flame war.
You decided to remove the thread and some people have disagreed with your reasons and methods Hugs. You have to be prepared to take any flak together with the praise others may give you. Your reasons were not very valid in my opinion and your subsequent attemot to place all the blame on just two posters is totally unfair. Most mature adults with a basic education are able to ignore comments they don't agree with but it is the people who post something that attracts those comments and then they use the excuse to launch into an attack because of the response they are not happy with that need to take the flak for letting your thread diverge so much.
With great respect to the Boss, the part of G. Khan's post he quoted was almost bound to provoke a reaction. "pricks the conscience of the ignorant and/or complacent" and "the preconceived views that are so often posted by people for whom a little learning has become a dangerous thing." Eloquent? IMHO the comments were supremely arrogant. We know virtually nothing about the backgrounds of others who contribute to discussions. Assuming people with whom we disagree are "ignorant", or have "preconceived views" (in contrast to our own informed and carefully considered opinions, of course) is silly unless it's a technical subject. The adapted Alexander Pope quotation with which G. Khan concluded is both patronising and offensive and, in Hugmonster's case, totally unjustified. I frequently disagree with Hug's opinions, but his posts suggest he's widely and well read.
Hugmonster I've no idea whether your obvious frustration was justified - I lost interest in what began as a very interesting thread and didn't see the later posts - but deleting a thread is rather extreme. Thread-hijackers are annoying, particularly the 'single-issue' variety, but they're a fact of life and, human nature being what it is, they'll always provoke a reaction. To be blunt, it's quite easy to ignore one of the posters you mention. Either ignore completely, or read, chuckle and move on. Most people seem to. I concede the other is more difficult to ignore but, before responding, ask yourself whether there is the remotest prospect of getting someone who never concedes a point in discussion to concede yours?
IMHO, deleting the thread was a mistake. Heat of the moment I suspect but, next time, just walk away and leave it. You'll never win against hijackers, and only irritate others who've spent time contributing to the thread and remain happy to debate the 'new' topic.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 3rd Jul 2003 at 02:21.
Stagger, with all due respect, your thread on the right to bear arms was not hijacked by T-richard, Wino or Bubbette. The initial diversion, on the merits or lack thereof of hunting, was made by BHR after the topic had recieved two replies.
I am sure that we all like to think of ourselves as in favour of free speech, and against censorship.
Just where do we draw the line where freedom of speech is concerned? I have just seen an example of what I personally would describe as out-and-out racism on the current "Middle East" thread, for example.
Do we tolerate such things in the name of an inalienable and absolute right to freedom of speech, or should we repudiate them in the name of common decency and thus deny such ugliness a platform?
With all due respect I didn't claim that the thread had been hijacked by anyone in particular - whether it's T-richard, Wino, Bubbette or BHR.
I just pointed out that it's ended up focused on the hunting issue. Ok - I also noted that T-richard likes to hunt - but I wasn't blaming him in particular.
"It's about time you realized how the Palestinians (not every single one, but certainly supported by the vast majority) are thieves and scum."
Well, those are Bubbette's latest 'facts', for the benefit of the rest of us ignorant/ complacent types with preconceived views who lack G. Khan's depth of learning.
That sort of comment isn't borderline. It's straight-forward racism and, IMHO, shouldn't be permitted.
The only dilemmas are the one nomdeplume mentioned (Is someone like that to be pitied or blamed?) and, whether to respond or treat comments with the contempt they deserve.
Perhaps on this particular forum, a thread originator needs to be prepared to perform a little arbitration and 'steer' the topic back onto course where possible.
And we as contributors should try to respect that input.
I hardly feel I "hijacked" the "Right to bear arms" thread since I replied directly to the issue at hand i.e. the right to bear arms. I am sorry that you feel that discussing the issue in the thread title is hijacking.
Danny,
It is with a heavy heart that I write this here. In the short time I have spent on PPRuNe I have come to respect your postings on many a subject. When particular threads cover the Middle East I have not always agreed with your point of view however I have always taken the time to read what you post as I respect your experience in this region.
All this said I have to express my disappointment in your recent post on this thread in defense of certain ppruners. I feel that those in question are more than capable of defending themselves. It is my feeling that if anyone dislikes what they read here they have two options. Firstly they can report to a moderator and leave it to them to deal with. If the moderator believes that no rule has been broken then the ppruner can leave. No one is ever forced on here.
Furthermore on many occasions you have clearly stated that PPRuNe is not a democracy and those (such as yourself ) will run it as you see fit and anyone who does not like it can leave. So while I am as disappointed as the next ppruner at the deletion of the original thread surely it was Hugmonster's right to delete the thread.
At the risk of having myself removed from PPRuNe entirely I would like to hoist you by your own petard "Most mature adults with a basic education are able to ignore comments they don't agree with". Are you allowed exception because it is your site?
To repeat my initial statement I still respect your opinions on many a topic and I hope you will not take this a personal attack but in the manner intended which was as observations.
Oh Dear Flying Lawyer, supreme arrogance, adapted quote from A.E. Pope etc
Words like Pot, Kettle and Black spring easily to mind. Had you chosen to read my post you would have seen that my comments were in no way directed at Huggy but were general comments that could be applied to many here on PPRuNe.
Just to increase you depth of learning allow me to quote:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again"
(From an essay on Criticism, Alexander Pope - 1711)
Oft mis quoted as 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.
So your comment about ignorant people with preconceived views and little learning didn't refer to Hugmonster, merely to "many here on PPRuNe."
As for 'increasing my depth of learning', it obviously didn't occur to you I might know the full quotation and its source. That illustrates the point I was making, and where we differ. I don't assume people with whom I disagree are ignorant or have little learning.
I'm off to bed. I leave you to consider the latest post by Bubbette whose contributions to debate you were praising earlier.
