Why I no longer post in the Paddock
- Thread starter Jim Craik
- Start date
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Well Jim, for what it is worth I'm sorry that you no longer post. I enjoyed locking horns with you and thought you always showed respect in the heat of battle.
I posted recently that that I thought the sting had gone out of the paddock, you and your forthright views and graphs were part of that sting.
Hopefully someone will help you pick up the toys you threw out of your pram and you will see your way clear to post again.
I posted recently that that I thought the sting had gone out of the paddock, you and your forthright views and graphs were part of that sting.
Hopefully someone will help you pick up the toys you threw out of your pram and you will see your way clear to post again.
Because I have to follow your set of rules in my discussions, you don’t. Because it descends into point scoring on both sides. Because it’s a lot of time arguing about what a good man should be instead of being one. Because just because you percieve something does not make it true. Because it reminds more and more of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
Because it was just a bit of fun, but not anymore.
But mostly because there are only so many times you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
Because it was just a bit of fun, but not anymore.
But mostly because there are only so many times you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.
Last edited:
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
inadvertent inadvertent inadvertent ....repeat
Last edited:
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
It does seem rather barbaric at times, and you've got to have thick skin when a post is made that adds nothing to the discussion (something about graphs?). Anyway, I enjoy observing the 80/20 ratio of tact vs unproductive attacks, and throw out the 20%. Take a hiatus, get your self respect back, and I look forward to seeing your posts again.
I miss Jim!!!
His graphs supported the points he was trying to prove and I think that is why so many started ridiculing his use of graphs. Now there are nothing in the political threads except opinions (guilty as charged) and nothing to present an objective viewpoint. I have always solicited opinions, as any political discussion will generate a shitstorm of opinions, but Jim backed his opinions up with objective data and was ridiculed for that...SHAME ON THOSE WHO DID THAT (you all know who you are).
Keith...I think you have done a wonderful job of moderating, but when you censored Jim's post because he intentionally ridiculed you I kept waiting for you to censor some of his adversaries who so openly ridiculed Jim for using graphs, using the same rationale as you used to censor Jim. Sadly, I have not seen that you did so...my apologies if you did and I missed it. Moderate both sides of a spirited discussion equally, please. Was Jim's only transgression honestly admitting his transgression?
I think Jim kicked ass and I know this is not a popular opinion. I taught debate and served as a judge at state debate tournaments...you must provide objective proof for your opinions and it must be from reliable, unbiased sources. Jim did that and when his adversaries complained about his sources he found other unbiased sources to support his opinions...and many of those used graphs. No wonder his adversaries screamed "BLOODY MURDER"!!
Before the right wing starts screaming that my opinions and Jim's are the same and that is reason for this post, please let me point out that my opinions are all over the spectrum. We have disagreed. I just think Jim deserved better treatment than the ridicule and unilateral moderation that I observed. Neither did anything to add to the discussions, they only drove away the only party who made efforts (successfully in my mind) to use a visual format to disprove the cries of his adversaries.
Again...SHAME ON ALL OF YOU who did that!
Doug
His graphs supported the points he was trying to prove and I think that is why so many started ridiculing his use of graphs. Now there are nothing in the political threads except opinions (guilty as charged) and nothing to present an objective viewpoint. I have always solicited opinions, as any political discussion will generate a shitstorm of opinions, but Jim backed his opinions up with objective data and was ridiculed for that...SHAME ON THOSE WHO DID THAT (you all know who you are).
Keith...I think you have done a wonderful job of moderating, but when you censored Jim's post because he intentionally ridiculed you I kept waiting for you to censor some of his adversaries who so openly ridiculed Jim for using graphs, using the same rationale as you used to censor Jim. Sadly, I have not seen that you did so...my apologies if you did and I missed it. Moderate both sides of a spirited discussion equally, please. Was Jim's only transgression honestly admitting his transgression?
I think Jim kicked ass and I know this is not a popular opinion. I taught debate and served as a judge at state debate tournaments...you must provide objective proof for your opinions and it must be from reliable, unbiased sources. Jim did that and when his adversaries complained about his sources he found other unbiased sources to support his opinions...and many of those used graphs. No wonder his adversaries screamed "BLOODY MURDER"!!
Before the right wing starts screaming that my opinions and Jim's are the same and that is reason for this post, please let me point out that my opinions are all over the spectrum. We have disagreed. I just think Jim deserved better treatment than the ridicule and unilateral moderation that I observed. Neither did anything to add to the discussions, they only drove away the only party who made efforts (successfully in my mind) to use a visual format to disprove the cries of his adversaries.
Again...SHAME ON ALL OF YOU who did that!
Doug
Pat
Supporter
So that means what???
You are going to censor what you find disagreeable as you did with Jim?
I personally find that pretty disagreeable. I'd suggest you re-read Howard's post.
I personally believe Jim's frustration may resonate as to why the paddock is not the interesting place it used to be. Goodness knows I disagree with him on an awful lot but I find his views insightful and instructive. Contrary to your "proof" Jim (like others with contrarian views) have actually changed my mind on a few things and perhaps hardened my outlook on others.
“Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency.”
- Unknown
Charlie Farley
Supporter
I agree with Veek. With the authority given to be a moderator,
comes also.. responsibility. In this case i feel Jim has been taken advantage of.
Keith, you talk about there is no room for personal abuse...
then you end your post by calling him a ' crybaby ', against your better judgement, i hope.
How ironic.
comes also.. responsibility. In this case i feel Jim has been taken advantage of.
Keith, you talk about there is no room for personal abuse...
then you end your post by calling him a ' crybaby ', against your better judgement, i hope.
How ironic.
Dear Lord, has everyone got a "let's misinterpret everything" hat to wear? I merely meant that I that's ME personally will not fall into the trap of letting things get personal. As far as I'm concerned, y'all can fuck each other off until the cows come home but I won't be part of if. Get my drift people?
As far as moderation goes, I have deleted about 8 messages ever. Four from the General forum that were reported as spam, and I happened to get there first, 3 in the Paddock, one was because I considered the content pornographic and definitely not acceptable to anyone, another one because the member concerned was deliberately trying to provoke another member into a shit fight and was uncalled for and unnecessary (I suppose y'all want to know those two people were, right? Well I ain't saying) and the third was Jim's, I deleted because, well I deleted it. Would I do it now? No. Can I get it back? No. Will I back down and apologise? No. Do I think I was right to do it? Yes.
Now, it has been said that JC has been called loads of names without recourse. I will say that to my recollection this hasn't been recently as I would have acted, so don't y'all stitch me up with some kind of hidden agenda here. I care not. The other thing you reprobates should bear in mind is that unequivocally I DO NOT READ EVERY EFFING POST IN THE PADDOCK. In fact, my eyes glaze over when I see some of the thread titles, and if I could run, I would do the mile in under three minutes from that stuff. Since you seem to need some assistance in the comprehension department, if you have an issue with another members post that you think does not reach the dizzyingly high standards of the Paddock, report it! Yeah? Simple but effective concept. No-one to date has ever done that, so don't get your shreddies in a bunch because I don't get offended on your behalf. That's fairly straight forward isn't it? If I see it, I'll take issue with it. If nothing happens don't assume I'm ignoring it....
Finally, some of you know my health issues, and I will bring it up now because it might have some bearing on exactly why I CAN'T possibly read all this shit. I spend about half my week every fucking week in and out of hospitals and hospices receiving intrafuckingvenous pumped antibiotics trying to keep my miserable ass out of the ICU, in between towing 40' of sodding oxygen tubing around the house and that's if I can even walk let alone breathe.
Now, people that know me know this is not a "poor-me" kind of message because I am fucking hard core! Get it?
And if any of you shower of sorry ass reprobates step out of line again, I will delete the lot of you with Xtreme Prejudice.....:furious:
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
All kidding aside, I think Keith does a great job moderating and promoting discussion. All this is just another of many speed-bumps here.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Here is your opportunity Jim.
'Bloody' well said IMHO! rockonsmile
Keith for WOGG world leader...for that matter, world leader PERIOD! :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Oh my, I had no idea that it would turn out this way.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
Guys, I guess because I was so close to it, I really though that most of the regular posters knew why I stopped posting...
<o
></o>
I really thought that outside of one or two, no one cared that I stopped and many would rejoice.
<o></o>
But lately several of you had contacted me to ask if I'm OK and last week at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
I must say that I'm very supprised and greatly gratified by the response.
<o></o>
As a student of history I know that taking a stand on principle rarely has a positive short term effect for either side...
<o></o>
I spent almost four months on the sidelines pissed off and Keith now has to deal with this.
<o></o>
It's usually only after much time and in retrospect that a stand on principle seems like the right thing to do.
<o></o>
But after reading these posts, I can see that most of you missed the reason for my absence and after hearing the story, folks on both sides of the debate quite eloquently jumped in to support the right of the minority to be heard.
<o></o>
Now I completely understand that my strongly taking the minority view will irritate some and lead to angry responses. I'm OK with that, Howard is correct, I'm a big boy and I can take it. Being called a comi or a crybaby does not bother me. I only brought it up to show the lack of fairness in Keith indignation.
<o></o>
Keith, I'm glad that there are people like you willing to be moderators, its a tough job, one I know I should never consider.....
<o></o>
I have no problem with you continuing to moderate, but it must be fair, you must be able to step away from the actual debate and look objectively, really objectively....particularly If you chose to enter a debate yourself.
<o></o>
If you can do that, great....
<o></o>
But as I said, "You can't have a debate when one side censors the other"
<o></o>
I want you guys to know that I'm incredibly gratified by your responses, a great, grey cloud has been lifted and once again when I think of this site I can smile. Thank you!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
Guys, I guess because I was so close to it, I really though that most of the regular posters knew why I stopped posting...
<o
></o>I really thought that outside of one or two, no one cared that I stopped and many would rejoice.
<o
></o>But lately several of you had contacted me to ask if I'm OK and last week at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
<o
></o>As a student of history I know that taking a stand on principle rarely has a positive short term effect for either side...
<o
></o>I spent almost four months on the sidelines pissed off and Keith now has to deal with this.
<o
></o>It's usually only after much time and in retrospect that a stand on principle seems like the right thing to do.
<o
></o>But after reading these posts, I can see that most of you missed the reason for my absence and after hearing the story, folks on both sides of the debate quite eloquently jumped in to support the right of the minority to be heard.
<o
></o>Now I completely understand that my strongly taking the minority view will irritate some and lead to angry responses. I'm OK with that, Howard is correct, I'm a big boy and I can take it. Being called a comi or a crybaby does not bother me. I only brought it up to show the lack of fairness in Keith indignation.
<o
></o>Keith, I'm glad that there are people like you willing to be moderators, its a tough job, one I know I should never consider.....
<o
></o>I have no problem with you continuing to moderate, but it must be fair, you must be able to step away from the actual debate and look objectively, really objectively....particularly If you chose to enter a debate yourself.
<o
></o>If you can do that, great....
<o
></o>But as I said, "You can't have a debate when one side censors the other"
<o
></o>I want you guys to know that I'm incredibly gratified by your responses, a great, grey cloud has been lifted and once again when I think of this site I can smile. Thank you!
Last edited:
Jim and I had many battles and to be honest, I got carried away and entrenched. I didn't like who I was becoming in the Paddock.
I have missed the banter and the occasional taking of the piss, but in the future, if Jim and I (or anyone else for that matter), disagree, I hope that I can be less of a twat about it!?
I have missed the banter and the occasional taking of the piss, but in the future, if Jim and I (or anyone else for that matter), disagree, I hope that I can be less of a twat about it!?
:thumbsup: Could not have put it better mark.
p.s. That's I didn't like who I was becoming in the paddock not what Mark was becoming.......there again on second thoughts
.