A response to FavreChild and others regarding Posting

[Bretsky]

I can certainly see how some of the comments in that thread could be offensive to women and when you are dealing with that topic I say error on the side of caution.
To be honest I read probably the first offensive post and then kind of stopped reading that thread.

Scott, hopefully you've PM'd Joe if yo have a question about whatever it was he deleted.

The Favre issue and lack of respect between the opposing sides IMO is what caused many to leave and some are returning here and there. And plus...it's the offseason.

[Scott Campbell]

I can certainly see how some of the comments in that thread could be offensive to women...........

They could be offensive to anyone - not just women. Rape is an indelicate subject.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott, hopefully you've PM'd Joe if yo have a question about whatever it was he deleted.

Of course I did. Haven't heard back yet.

Though he also could have taken the initiative to explain it via pm it without prompting from me. That'd work fine too.

[Patler]

I can certainly see how some of the comments in that thread could be offensive to women and when you are dealing with that topic I say error on the side of caution.
To be honest I read probably the first offensive post and then kind of stopped reading that thread.

Scott, hopefully you've PM'd Joe if yo have a question about whatever it was he deleted.

The Favre issue and lack of respect between the opposing sides IMO is what caused many to leave and some are returning here and there. And plus...it's the offseason.

Should posts be deleted because someone is offended, without a personal attack on that person? Should a poster be banned for having an extremely unpopular opinion?

[Bretsky]

I can certainly see how some of the comments in that thread could be offensive to women and when you are dealing with that topic I say error on the side of caution.
To be honest I read probably the first offensive post and then kind of stopped reading that thread.

Scott, hopefully you've PM'd Joe if yo have a question about whatever it was he deleted.

The Favre issue and lack of respect between the opposing sides IMO is what caused many to leave and some are returning here and there. And plus...it's the offseason.

Should posts be deleted because someone is offended, without a personal attack on that person? Should a poster be banned for having an extremely unpopular opinion?

The first part might be too controversial for me to answer and honestly most would never agree with my view anyways. When I was a moderator my judgements were always made with the best interest of the forum involved (and many do not agree with that belief) and I respect somebody who makes decision with good intentions involved.

On the second point...well....answer is surely no....or I'd have been banned long ago

[Tarlam!]

Should posts be deleted because someone is offended, without a personal attack on that person? Should a poster be banned for having an extremely unpopular opinion?

No, No and No.

I think FC and Ziggy beind seriously ticked was probably founded. I didn't read it, so I can only go by their respective reactions.

I find FC outta line for making that comment about her reason for no longer posting here. That's a pretty imaginative statement; how often has rape or the persecution of the "fairer sex" been discussed on this forum?

I think, and I've always been a fan of FC and enjoyed her rare posts, that she took a really cheap shot at JH with that statement. The rebuttle she wrote was her right and I sided with her views.

Also, JH was very quick to respond to her personally. I think he deserves acknowledgement for trying to patch things up. Instead, he is publicly chastized by the admin. Publicly humiliating a poster by telling the community he is on defacto probation is akin to how Germany was governed in 1933.

And, no, I am not drunk.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree T.

Hopefully JH can take comfort in the fact that many in this community came forward in support of his return from exile.

[RashanGary]

I said that the only times I've ever had casual sex was when I was completely wasted and the times I did, I regretted just about every one. Said the girls I slept with were sober (compared to me) and that I would have never slept with them when I was sober (for many reasons).

It's not up to them to protect my well being because I'm drunk, although morally, I think it would be right if they did. If they wanted to have sex with me and I was easy to pursuade becuase I was drunk, it's not cool. They're nasty, selfish people, but I don't care about them. I care about me. I shouldn't get wasted if I don't want my judgement impaired and I should be smart about the people I'm around. In times in my life, I was neither.


I can't delve into others situations without knowing what happened (and we don't know everything with Ben), but in my own situations, the only thing I was a victim of was of being self destructive, naive, stupid, immature and a whole slew of other possible dumb-ass descriptors. Again, I'm not speaking for any other situation or anyone else's because I don't know anyone elses well enough to, but I don't feel sorry for myself or anyone who's done stupid shit like me (male or female). That's not sexist, hateful, hurtful or anything. That's just how I view personal responsibility.

For those who are just flat out victims of a sick rapist, that's truely horrible on a whole other level.

[Administrator]

Should posts be deleted because someone is offended, without a personal attack on that person? Should a poster be banned for having an extremely unpopular opinion?

No. And that isn't why I edited them.

Harrell's photo was in poor taste considering the discussion that went on previously. That's why I blew it away. Scott and Harrell were headed down another discussion that was not likely to end well considering the last one, and, it wasn't football related either so I blew it away and closed the thread. Sometimes you gotta cut your losses and move on.

I didn't quote it, but your post about refraining from posting a comment because it was at best marginally related to Rothlisberger and the situation was spot on. That "thought" wasn't going to happen with others. Initially it looked like maybe that discussion was getting back to football or the fallout from the situation, but that didn't last. So, the purpose of the thread was over at that point.

[RashanGary]

Thanks guys. I haven't said anything bad about the possible victim in Ben's situation or victims of any other situation. Rape, murder, assault are all tragic.

[Scott Campbell]

Fair enough - it's not really a football topic.

I didn't see the JH post that was deleted, but from his other posts I'd say he's evolved 1500 or so years in the last 24 months. I don't agree with much of what he says, but it's hard to argue against the progress he's made.

For those of you who don't see the value in these types of discussions, I'd point to his growth.

Joe, is it safe to assume we could continue the discussion here in the RR?

[falco]

I understand its way too late to change anything, and its their own faults that their gone, but I think this place is much less interesting w/o partial and tyrone.

I'd prefer to see no censorship at all (or only in dire cases, such as LJ) but I do think what admin has done has cleaned this place up.

[RashanGary]

And the boys being boys, comment/picture. . . .


I read a statement from the Boston Area Rape something or other group. . . They sarcastically talked about how the media should just continue their, "boys being boys", why did Ben put himself in this situation, he's just a good ol'boy cover up of a horrible crime.

I thought that picture, like the rape societies sarcastic statements, was a back handed way to show how stupid the, "boys being boys" line is. Looking at Ben in that picture, he looked like a nasty sicko. I thought it would be taken as obvious sarcasm.

I actually think it worked. Anyone who saw that picture and that header, I thought it really brought to light how horrible it must be to be a rape victim of a high profile person. If someone really meant that, I would have been hard on them, so I understand why FC was so upset. I'd hope that now, in hindsight, she's still mad at people that carry that opinion, but realizes mine was just the opposite.

For whatever it's worth, hopefully that explains some of the misunderstanding.

[Scott Campbell]

I understand its way too late to change anything, and its their own faults that their gone, but I think this place is much less interesting w/o partial and tyrone.

I'd prefer to see no censorship at all (or only in dire cases, such as LJ) but I do think what admin has done has cleaned this place up.

There's a fine line between interesting characters and utter chaos. I can see both sides of the argument.

[Administrator]

Thanks guys. I haven't said anything bad about the possible victim in Ben's situation or victims of any other situation. Rape, murder, assault are all tragic.

This isn't a "vendetta" to get you. However, you've got a history with offending folks based on your opinion. Some here have told me that you intentionally do this, others feel you enjoy posting while drunk and as a result don't think about what you're saying. Don't know which, and don't care.

But, this isn't the first time you've posted something like this. Last time I banned you, you were all over the Packer forum posting stuff about Deanna Favre. Whether true or not, it was totally unnecessary. I'd have hoped that at some point you might have the realization that your views regarding male/female issues just are not in the majority, and sometimes it is best to just avoid the topic.

You did backtrack once you understood how offended that FavreChild was. However, you did "dig in" first with the photo and caption, and then with the post related to "packer people", whilst even attacking retailguy. THEN, you apologized. Maybe next time, you won't ramp it up further before you back down. Or, maybe we can all take Patler's advice and refrain from posting if not germane to the topic at hand?