Like I said....that is good news for you.
First kill all the lawyers
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Like I said....that is good news for you.
You can call it low standards if you like, but the simple fact is that real, genuine expediters have a much longer leash in the Soapbox than do those who aren't expediters. The overwhelming bulk of the trouble to be found in the Soapbox originated from non-expediters. Deal with it.
As for the thread starter and the comments following it, I personally as a member nor a Moderator will be complicit in fostering ignorance and stupidity by suggesting or censoring speech which doesn't violate the Code of Conduct.
In William Shakespeare's play Henry IV, Part II, Act IV, Scene II, line 73 states, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
The phrase is spoken by Dіck the Butcher, a follower of anarchist Jack Cade, whom Shakespeare depicts as "the head of an army of rabble and a demagogue pandering to the ignorant," who sought to overthrow the government, thinking that if he could disturb law and order, he could be king. Shakespeare's acknowledgment that the first thing any potential tyrant must do to eliminate freedom is to "kill all the lawyers" is, indeed, a classic and deserved compliment to those attorneys and judges who stand for and instill justice in society.
Real history has also proven that any tyrant worth his salt will make every effort to control the media and eliminate those who would report anything other than the tyrant's version of the truth. Since it is the job of journalists to report the truth, Dіck the Butcher's line could have just as easily been, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the journalists."
The odd death of journalist Michael Hastings is just one example of, "let's kill all the journalists." Odd, because the official reports state he crossed the median at high speed and crashed into a palm tree, which killed him, but security video shows, and eyewitnesses state, there was a flash of light and an explosion prior to the crash, and that the vehicle slowed down considerably before the crash, after the explosion. In 2010 Hastings wrote an article that led to General Stanley McChrystal’s firing as U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Hastings wrote for Gentleman’s Quarterly, Rolling Stone and Buzzfeed, reporting on national security issues. At the time of his death, Hastings was working on an exposé on CIA director John Brennan, including Brennan's role in sanitizing Obama's passport records prior to the 2008 presidential election, and in Brennan's connection in being in charge of the Obama administration’s surveillance of investigative journalists and the link between Obama, Brennan and Holder in obtaining the phone records of the Associated Press and other journalists.
So, in conclusion, you people (you know who you are) need to read Shakespeare and pay attention to the news, instead of getting your panties into an ignorant knee-jerk wad every chance you get.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
It would help if the person quoting Shakespeare understood the quote in the first place when starting a nonsensical thread such as this one.
Xiggi, OVM and LDB, I do believe you were just called ignorant.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Are these your words or from a source on the web?
Shakespeare said nothing about journalists and neither did the op until he added it after the fact. I believe eo needs to stop protecting certain members time after time as your conclusion does nothing but prove one more time. Maybe its time for this site to add another forum dedicated to advocating death during its redisign.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
If you install that limitation by topic, you then have to do it to others which amounts to censorship.
My advice would be to put the author on "ignore" if one is within the COC rules yet still feels offended.
Kind of like cable TV. If your kids are watching something you don't like, you can block that channel.
My advice would be to put the author on "ignore" if one is within the COC rules yet still feels offended.
Kind of like cable TV. If your kids are watching something you don't like, you can block that channel.
Very true. Many expediter sites have come and gone over the years and with EO still here and growing, the current formula seems to be working.
You assume he did not. I make no such assumption.
Xiggi and OVM, yes. LDB, no.
I am, and have been called, ignorant about many things. You can fix ignorant.
Not sure why it matters in the context of this thread, but both, actually.
He didn't add the part about journalists after the fact. He added his question to Will after the fact.
That's the wonderful things about opinions, everyone is allowed to have them, even if others disagree with them, and even if their conclusions are incorrect, as yours is above.
Your correct about the first part I did word it wrong to convey that.
The second part I stand by my belief along with others that you are wrong. It has been shown time and again that this site chooses to enforce policy depending on the wind. Its their right to do so while at the same time displaying a lack of integrity.
Oh IMHO of course.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
There's no policy against saying things that some find offensive. It's up to the other members to let the poster know what they think.
Likewise, it's not against policy to repeat the same drivel ad nauseum, or to throw in lame non sequiters to deflect criticism [or the potential], or any of a brazillion annoying habits. It's up to the rest to say "Stop it." or whatever. Or just ignore it, as I did when the [unedited] post first appeared, because it made no sense whatsoever. There was no 'there' there, and nothing to respond to, so why bother?
That's how a community functions.
Likewise, it's not against policy to repeat the same drivel ad nauseum, or to throw in lame non sequiters to deflect criticism [or the potential], or any of a brazillion annoying habits. It's up to the rest to say "Stop it." or whatever. Or just ignore it, as I did when the [unedited] post first appeared, because it made no sense whatsoever. There was no 'there' there, and nothing to respond to, so why bother?
That's how a community functions.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Well, sometimes it works that way and sometimes it doesn't. Someone complained because I used the synonym for sodomite, the one that rhymes with bag, and its derivations. A moderator said it wasn't against any part of the CoC. So I used it again, and the same moderator said something to the effect of, "You haven't taken our hints to stop using it, so stop using it. Confine yourself to the biblical term."
Even though I thought this was bizarre--"You're not breaking the rules/You haven't stopped doing what doesn't break the rules/Stop doing what doesn't break the rules"-- I just adapted. But now you say it's not against the rules to say what some consider offensive.
It's not that I'm complaining, but I guess I could use a clarification.
That I'm wrong about what? That I'm wrong to not take stuff from previous threads and ignorantly and incorrectly apply those contexts to this one? That I'm wrong about understanding a Shakespeare reference when translated to journalists? That I'm wrong for not thinking that Leo is actually advocating the murder of all laywers and all journalists?
Well, no, that's not true. It's been alleged time and time again, but it's never been proven to be a wind-dependent enforcement of policy. I've even leveled the same allegations myself, both as a member and as a Moderator. Unfortunately, the polices here at EO are not enforced with one hundred percent even-handedness or with one hundred percent accuracy. That's the trade-off of having the policies enforced by people who don't strictly adhere to hard and fast rules applied with no common sense and intelligence (like, say, Panther) and instead applies the rules with human imperfection. We're not perfect and don't claim to be. There have been many decisions made, or not made, that probably should have been handled differently. But this thread isn't one of them.
The notion that I'm protecting Leo for some reason is absurd on the face of it. And if you knew what my personal opinions are about Leo and his opinions about some things, then you'd realize just how absurd an allegation that is. I'd give my opinion about Leo right here and right now, but it would be rude, inconsiderate and thoroughly unprofessional. But my personal opinions don't matter. What matters is the text on the page and whether or not it violates the Code of Conduct and/or is or is not appropriate for this forum. But that's a judgement call, and one that is rarely made by any single individual here.
So, more to the point, I don't call the shots here. I'm not the head cheese. I don't make the rules nor do I get to decide the exceptions to them. I don't get to decide who gets banned or who doesn't. I don't get to make the final call on very much of anything here. Most Moderating decisions are made by committee, by consensus, except those which are undeniably violations of the CoC. The assertion that I made the decision and handed down the order to "protect LDB at all costs," and then all the Administrators, the SuperModerator, and all of the other Moderators just accepted that order in lock step is just ridiculous.
I think that's an unfair accusation.
Of course.
It's really pretty simple. Your use of the word "
gotry" and all of its various and sundry derivatives, over and over and over and over and over again ad nauseum was becoming annoying and nauseating to the membership here, was becoming dangerously close to SPAMing and ranting which was disrupting the forum community by inviting and inciting flames and trolling, and it got to the point where the "Report Post" and the Private Messaging System was seemingly invented just to deal with the ramifications of your postings. You were, to put it bluntly, becoming more trouble than you were worth, causing an inordinate amount of time to be spent my moderators and administrators in dealing with the scores upon scores of complaints generated by your posts. You were asked to tone it down a bit, and you ignored (or refused) both the hints and the outright pleas to do so. At that point, the next step in the Steps Towards Being Banned was to tell you in plain English to knock it off and stop using the word and its variants. Fortunately for all concerned, you "just adapted," and were thanked for doing so, IIRC. I say "for all concerned" because I believe the community is better with you in it than it is without you, as you bring impassioned opinions to the table that, disagree with you or not, forces people to think.
It's really pretty simple. Your use of the word "
Exhibit b your honor...
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
That doesn't even make any sense.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
^ Exhibit "C" your honor. ^
