I'm confused. Are you talking about Brett LR or about Everett Allie here? Both seem to qualify for your description. Thankfully, I was enjoying my extended stay in Prague while the entire Agassi war was blowing over.
And where is my credit for fighting the good fight vis-a-vis them? (I must admit that Hermit, as execrable as he has been lately, deserves a hefty chunk, too).
If it is to fullfill it's role, then we must be willing to use it.
How is such a thing to be decided? By unilateral decision making on David's part? By a vote with a set percent necessary - say 70% in favor? The only thing I am sure of is that there must be a convincing majority of people who feel the post should be sent to the pit if it is to be done by voting.
Either method is fine by me.
What about implementation? Is it a laborious task, David? Is there someone objecteive you can pass it to if it is something you would rather not do?
If it is to fullfill it's role, then we must be willing to use it.
How is such a thing to be decided? By unilateral decision making on David's part? By a vote with a set percent necessary - say 70% in favor? The only thing I am sure of is that there must be a convincing majority of people who feel the post should be sent to the pit if it is to be done by voting.
Either method is fine by me.
What about implementation? Is it a laborious task, David? Is there someone objecteive you can pass it to if it is something you would rather not do?
Best to all of you
Right now, I think anyone can use it unilaterally simply by cutting and pasting the "offending" piece, and backlinking it from the Pit. I see it more as an issue of putting things where they belong. Once we get it there, we can then address the issue of whether any moderation is appropriate, but we need to get in the habit of using it first.
[Bill Roh] If it is to fullfill it's role, then we must be willing to use it.
<snip>
[Hermit] I was under the impression that you did not like the use of "we"? Oh, it is alright for you to employ it, but not for others? Then what are you doing here (refer http://virus.lucifer.com/sins.html)?
[Hermit] I would suggest that you decide for yourself whether your writings belong in the Pit - or, in the Pit (as it could be construed as an ad hominem, and you would be a hypocrite to recommend the ad hominems of others to the Pit when not doing so with your own (refer above link)), nominate the writings of others if you feel strongly enough on the issue and are prepared to waste the time.
[Hermit] We had moderation. Inappropriate material was not deleted, it was moved to a thread performing much the same function as the Pit (worth noting that no news items or discussion or comments on them were moved, despite the fact that BBS users were requested to move their responses into individual threads). You then left, according to the following, allegedly because you disagreed with such moderation. Letter from BillRoh@ChurchofVirus.com to Hermit timestamped 2002-04-04 Quote:
Suffice it to say that my last line went something like this: I don't think I belong here any longer, I'm getting more and more sure of it every day. You cannot expect me to lighten my stance on your moderation of the news section. Not only are you wrong about the American people, it's news coverage and it's corporate influence, as a brief glance at this weeks TIME magazine would show, but I think you are trying to corral the church and new members into your way of thinking. I'm displeased and distrustful and fear having my name associated with such a blatently one sided image. I don't respect us - and I'm one of us. The thought that this news section is supposed to represent us is too much to bare.
[Hermit] So why now ask for ways to implement moderation to which you seemed so strenuously opposed? Or have you changed your mind? If so, if we are to have moderation, what is it intended for? If only for invective, that leaves out all of the other imperfect behavior, unatractive formatting, plagiarism and logical incongruities being demonstrated all over the CoV BBS (many of your posts exemplify at least some of these) which makes it unattractive to so many. If not, then why bother? The CoV has exactly what you - quite prominently - argued that you wanted.
====== [Bill Roh] Best to all of you
[Hermit] Bill - I think you lie. As usual.
[Hermit] In a letter sent by BillRoh@ChurchofVirus.com to Hermit timestamped 2002-04-04 you said, "My point is, I don't want to offend you, Hermit yes - you no." I would suggest that your partisan postings suggest that you have not changed your mind...
[Hermit] So, at least your "all" is seemingly incorrect.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
BillRoh
Guest
Re:The Pit
« Reply #25 on: 2003-02-28 16:15:24 »
Fortunately Carl, times change. You are not abusing power - so I have no desire to offend you. I know - a non static world is impossible for you to understand.
What part doesn't your mind grasp.
I AM NOT OPPOSED TO MODERATION - I AM OPPOSED TO YOU MODERATING.
I doubt caps will get that through your head though. All you need to realize that opposed to moderation is NOT the same as opposed to you moderating.
Jake: I disagree with your implemention concept, that is not the way I intended it when thinking about it. However, it is a good place to start - so start there i will.
Jake: I disagree with your implemention concept, that is not the way I intended it when thinking about it. However, it is a good place to start - so start there i will.
I know. We would all like to have a team of full time moderators. Unfortunately for the time being few wish to volunteer more than a few moments now and then, and we certainly have yet to provide a salaried position for that. In the mean time, if we can get people to post things in the Pit that they think worthy of moderation, in addition to perhaps an Email to David to get him or someone else to look at it. It will make it easier on whoever does finally step in to moderate to see what you are talking about instead of trying to wade through hundreds of threads for him/herself on some sort of investigative journey. The pit is the place you get to show people what you are talking about (re:hatred, ad hominem etc.), instead of expecting people to find out for themselves. It may, or may not be the final implementation we need but until we get that, it is the best we can do for the moment. If done right, I think it can at least make the decisions a little easier for whoever does volunteer to moderate, and I think that is important.
[Hermit] I would suggest that you decide for yourself whether your writings belong in the Pit - or, in the Pit (as it could be construed as an ad hominem, and you would be a hypocrite to recommend the ad hominems of others to the Pit when not doing so with your own (refer above link)), nominate the writings of others if you feel strongly enough on the issue and are prepared to waste the time.
<snip>
[Jake] It would be nice if we all could eradicate hypocrisy to such an extent that we would moderate ourselves this way, but since hypocrisy is expectable amongst non-spacemonkeys we will probably just have to rely on others or even our enemies to help us out on this one.
Carlita: I will state this white dog truth, with references, 1200 times if necessary (and with someone of such neanderthalesquely willful obtusity as yourself, it probably WILL be necessary).
Did I or did I not state that you had made horrific and horrifically wrong predictions with regard to starving millions in Afghanistan and the subsequent declaration of a pan-Muslim jihad against the US? I did.
Did you or did you not deny same, and demand that I produce the conclusive proof that you had indeed uttered such bizarre and erroneous prophecies? You did?
And did I or did I not produce precisely the conclusive proof which you had demanded, in your own terminally dense and misguided words, no less? I did.
That's it. End of story. I made my contention, you challenged it, and I proved it with conclusive and BBS-referenced evidence, as well as producing a way for anyone else onlist to draw it up and peruse it for themselves to their heart's content (but I'll do it again: just plug in afghanistan and haj, set user to hermit, and push search, then look for the post in answer to Jonathan Davis).
Everyhing else you have posted since has been vain and futilely reality-denying pussy farts from someone who possesses an alligator ego welded to a mosquito intellect, and who, due to rampant megalomania, is constitutionally unable to admit when he has been pinned to the canvas of his own error seven ways from sunday, even when everyone else can readily see same.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999