tigerlily78 wrote:The warning was given in both "forum help" and a thread that was locked in Everything Else, Basically explaining that you (and others in one case) need to show some amount of respect and courtesy to other people or you can go ahead and leave, because we are not going to tolerate rudeness from a few who in turn create hostility in the whole forum.

You did not cite what you considered "rude," nor did you define it. There was a vague message in a locked thread and when I asked for clarification, you did not provide it.

I'm fine with the community.

I think you need however to be clear what you expect or people are going to assume, correctly, that you're administering on personal whim -- and simply banishing those you disagree with.

At least in several cases here, I've seen this pattern:

Person 1: Here's my idea.
Person 2: That disagrees with the prevailing idea around here!

A group of people then berate Person 1. He or she finally responds with a cynical comment, and is accused of being rude or disrespectful.

Classic passive aggression.

Now that kind of abuse of authority -- we wouldn't want to see that here. Do we agree?

Conservationist wrote:
I think you need however to be clear what you expect or people are going to assume, correctly, that you're administering on personal whim -- and simply banishing those you disagree with.

At least in several cases here, I've seen this pattern:

Person 1: Here's my idea.
Person 2: That disagrees with the prevailing idea around here!

A group of people then berate Person 1. He or she finally responds with a cynical comment, and is accused of being rude or disrespectful.

Classic passive aggression.

Now that kind of abuse of authority -- we wouldn't want to see that here. Do we agree?

Maybe you see the pattern that way. What I see is someone who comes on board and questions every statement, doesn't take the time to follow up on the source materials provided, and continues to argue using expressions like "fallacy" "ad hominem" and "straw man" because that makes them sound better educated... when in fact they are merely holding back from making any statement of their own to avoid being put under the same magnifying glass and held to providing their own evidence.

It becomes a waste of other people's time to spoon feed the few who will never rethink their perspective anyway. I think the bulk of the community would prefer that I "abuse" my power and maintain the level of openness, flow of discussion, and civility of the forum.

You may recall I defended your right to free speech when you first arrived here, but we are not going to tolerate your negativity if it makes the forum a miserable experience for everyone else.

We do have a handful of other dissidents here on TH who manage to defend their point of view without talking down to everyone else and offending people, it isn't impossible. They probably make an effort though instead of making excuses for their own poor judgement.

SgtMaj wrote:Only if we (all people on the planet) curb population growth. If we do that, then it had a tremendous impact, if not, then doing so only helps us remain overpopulated that much longer, which personally, I'm kinda looking forward to the population crash because I think we're already grossly overpopulated and that nature can only begin to recover once human populations decline significantly.

Ok.

I don't really like violence and so I'd much rather see a 'softer landing' to the human population issue.

idahogev wrote:

SgtMaj wrote:Only if we (all people on the planet) curb population growth. If we do that, then it had a tremendous impact, if not, then doing so only helps us remain overpopulated that much longer, which personally, I'm kinda looking forward to the population crash because I think we're already grossly overpopulated and that nature can only begin to recover once human populations decline significantly.

Ok.

I don't really like violence and so I'd much rather see a 'softer landing' to the human population issue.

Wouldn't we all? But that can ONLY come from the entire world voluntarily curbing population growth, and as you may have noticed, getting enough people on board with voluntarily curbing population growth in order to both stop and reverse the growth rate is seemingly impossible, at least at this juncture. I suspect that just like every other species on Earth, humans as a whole will fail to take action until we come to a point of mass famine and population crash before the cycle starts over again (likely without human kind having learned anything meaningful from the experience).

tigerlily78 wrote:What I see is someone who comes on board and questions every statement, doesn't take the time to follow up on the source materials provided, and continues to argue using expressions like "fallacy" "ad hominem" and "straw man" because that makes them sound better educated.

Let's look at these one by one:

1. Questions every statement. Every statement? Really? And how is questioning bad?
2. Doesn't take the time to follow up on the source materials provided. Every time? And aren't you assuming those source materials are valid?
3. Continues to argue using expressions like fallacy, ad hominem and straw man. These are legitimate expressions in a debate, or do you disagree?
4. Because that makes them sound better educated. Are you sure you're not guessing at motivation here?

.. when in fact they are merely holding back from making any statement of their own to avoid being put under the same magnifying glass and held to providing their own evidence.

Again, how do you know? Are you sure you're not projecting?

I'll make my position clear: if someone presents to me bad evidence, I'm going to bypass it. I am not interested in wasting my time debating bad sources or biased sources. However, I will also avoid a source attack, because that's perceived as aggression. Do you agree?

It becomes a waste of other people's time to spoon feed the few who will never rethink their perspective anyway.

That's a pretty nasty thing to say. Do you have evidence that I have never rethought my perspective?

I think the bulk of the community would prefer that I "abuse" my power and maintain the level of openness, flow of discussion, and civility of the forum.

You have yet to show that any of the above are threatening those.

You may recall I defended your right to free speech when you first arrived here, but we are not going to tolerate your negativity if it makes the forum a miserable experience for everyone else.

We do have a handful of other dissidents here on TH who manage to defend their point of view without talking down to everyone else and offending people, it isn't impossible. They probably make an effort though instead of making excuses for their own poor judgement.

What is the crime here?

"Talking down to everyone else and offending people" -- please provide proof that I've talked down to everyone, and also define talk down.

If someone presents to me an innaccurate or badly sourced idea and I don't immediately take it as fact, is that talking down?

If you can't define those, it seems to me the crime is offending assumptions of the group, and that you're threatening to use moderator power to crush certain dissent and not others.

Why would you do that?

SgtMaj wrote:But that can ONLY come from the entire world voluntarily curbing population growth, and as you may have noticed, getting enough people on board with voluntarily curbing population growth in order to both stop and reverse the growth rate is seemingly impossible, at least at this juncture.

And this is the core of the problem.

People aren't going to curb population growth, or stop buying SUVs, unless forced to.

And by the time nature gets around to forcing them -- well, things will be too far gone.

The bigger problem is that it's not just in the USA, but the whole world.

Population growth is increasing, not decreasing. Here's a great resource:

http://www.reddit.com/r/overpopulation

Some quality articles get posted there daily about the overpopulation issue.

greenteadrinker wrote:The reaction I get from most people is baffling to me. They react to my simple statement of
being a vegetarian as a personal attack on them. "Oh, I love eating meat"; as if I'm going to
take away their choice of eating it/not eating it....

...And I'm "just" a vegetarian, I can't imagine all the crap vegans must hear.

Hi GTD, that really got me thinking that what you are experiencing may be more regional than anything. I work with a few people who are vegetarians and even though the subject comes up when we are figuring out where to go for lunch, it has never become a big deal or even been questioned that I can remember. My wife and I were at a cooking supply store in St. Paul this weekend and talking to a lady who has been a vegetarian for 20 years and a vegan for 2 and if anyone is going to ask "why are you a vegan?" it would be my wife (she says the first thing that comes into her head) and she didn't bat an eye. It was just part of the conversation, with no more importance than anything else.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm thinking that the reactions may differ depending upon region (and even neighborhood).

Conservationist wrote:

1. Questions every statement. Every statement? Really? And how is questioning bad?
2. Doesn't take the time to follow up on the source materials provided. Every time? And aren't you assuming those source materials are valid?
3. Continues to argue using expressions like fallacy, ad hominem and straw man. These are legitimate expressions in a debate, or do you disagree?
4. Because that makes them sound better educated. Are you sure you're not guessing at motivation here?

.. when in fact they are merely holding back from making any statement of their own to avoid being put under the same magnifying glass and held to providing their own evidence.

Again, how do you know? Are you sure you're not projecting?

I'll make my position clear: if someone presents to me bad evidence, I'm going to bypass it. I am not interested in wasting my time debating bad sources or biased sources. However, I will also avoid a source attack, because that's perceived as aggression. Do you agree?

It becomes a waste of other people's time to spoon feed the few who will never rethink their perspective anyway.

That's a pretty nasty thing to say. Do you have evidence that I have never rethought my perspective?

I think the bulk of the community would prefer that I "abuse" my power and maintain the level of openness, flow of discussion, and civility of the forum.

You have yet to show that any of the above are threatening those.

You may recall I defended your right to free speech when you first arrived here, but we are not going to tolerate your negativity if it makes the forum a miserable experience for everyone else.

We do have a handful of other dissidents here on TH who manage to defend their point of view without talking down to everyone else and offending people, it isn't impossible. They probably make an effort though instead of making excuses for their own poor judgement.

What is the crime here?

"Talking down to everyone else and offending people" -- please provide proof that I've talked down to everyone, and also define talk down.

If someone presents to me an inaccurate or badly sourced idea and I don't immediately take it as fact, is that talking down?

If you can't define those, it seems to me the crime is offending assumptions of the group, and that you're threatening to use moderator power to crush certain dissent and not others.

Why would you do that?

I have had several members tell me via private message that you make the forum less enjoyable. It falls to me and other moderators to ensure these forums continue to be a place people would like to spend their free time. I am not actually required to protect your rights as an individual. I give most people the benefit of the doubt, but there is a point where you stop giving people second chances when they don't appreciate or make an effort to accept them.

Your stubborn refusal to take any responsibility for your own attitude and actions or to think about and adopt any changes to your conduct based on the warnings and recommendations you were given make it clear that you are not someone who can easily be persuaded to any change, even when it is in their best interests.

You are right, no "crime" has been committed. This is not a court of law, but a privately owned forum and you really do not have any rights or liberties here unless we grant them to you. Expressing your views here are a privilege at best.

If you want to know the definition of something, try the dictionary. Like I said, I am not going to spoon feed you information that is widely available, or waste my time detailing what parts of your behavior reflect rudeness when it is clear to everyone here but yourself.

If you don't know how to not be a jackass, then I guess there is really nothing further for us to discuss.

@tigerlily78
Thank you, ma'am.

tigerlily78 wrote:I have had several members tell me via private message that you make the forum less enjoyable.

That's wholly subjective and depends on who they are.

I am not actually required to protect your rights as an individual.

No one said you were.

What you're debating for here -- and you know it -- is whether or not you're objective.

If you stomp people because you disagree with their opinion, and you and others can't control your emotional reactions to it and so wholly subjectively are having less fun with what they think is their own little clique, then you're a power abuser like any other.

Your stubborn refusal to take any responsibility for your own attitude and actions or to think about and adopt any changes to your conduct based on the warnings and recommendations you were given make it clear that you are not someone who can easily be persuaded to any change, even when it is in their best interests.

That's ridiculous. The warnings were not specific, and no one has been able to give me specifics, e.g. saying "in this post right here you're out of line."

Instead there's a generalized objection to what are fair and legitimate debating techniques.

You've called me under-educated, now "a jackass" and other names, but without evidence.

I'd like to see specifics, or I do believe you're abusing your power and the community should know.

If you want to know the definition of something, try the dictionary. Like I said, I am not going to spoon feed you information that is widely available, or waste my time detailing what parts of your behavior reflect rudeness when it is clear to everyone here but yourself.

Weren't you complaining that I wasn't providing such information to other people? Why doesn't that same rule apply to you?

If you don't know how to not be a jackass, then I guess there is really nothing further for us to discuss.

I think we live on separate planets!