NationStates Jolt Archive

Do we have to put up with this kind of thing?

"I was not my mother's first child. She had not just met my father when she had any of us. But what do I know about your situation, perchance yours was a slut not clever enough/not legally entitled to get an abortion and you project."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14048441&postcount=35

I wonder Grave_n_Idle why you report only me, but not Kyronea, who was actually the first to involve anyone's mother (wretched as though mine is, and thus deserving of her impugnment otherwise) by implying my mother was a slut that would need to be told not to have a child with a man she had only known for a short time, and implied that I would have been the issue of such a frivolous coupling, effectively calling me a son of a whore (never mind that my mother is a whore, we're dealing with what is deemed an attempt at invective).

Is it that the implication was not obvious for your, and I put this quite mildly to spare your sensibility, selective sight, or that you think that I should indeed need to "put up" with such a thing? I would wager, of course, that it's both things, but I would not wager that if one is not punishable, the other is.

I wonder Grave_n_Idle why you report only me, but not Kyronea, who was actually the first to involve anyone's mother (wretched as though mine is, and thus deserving of her impugnment otherwise) by implying my mother was a slut that would need to be told not to have a child with a man she had only known for a short time, and implied that I would have been the issue of such a frivolous coupling, effectively calling me a son of a whore (never mind that my mother is a whore, we're dealing with what is deemed an attempt at invective).

Is it that the implication was not obvious for your, and I put this quite mildly to spare your sensibility, selective sight, or that you think that I should indeed need to "put up" with such a thing? I would wager, of course, that it's both things, but I would not wager that if one is not punishable, the other is.

Kyronea pulled a rhetorical flourish that basically boils down to "would you do that in your own house".

Specific exchange:

The original "Sarkhaan is going to be a daddy! " post.

Fass: "I have a hard time believing that Sarkhaan would do something this... imprudent... or not have the wherewithal to see it rectified."

Kyronea: "I can just see you going back in time and making the same comment to your own mother"

He was commenting (it would appear) on your claiming that having a child is 'imprudent' and needing to be 'rectified'.

Anything else you got out of that, I would say, is all in your interpretation, and not in the posted content.

And, you could have saved yourself the entire last passage, cute little attacks and all. I fully expected to get reported to Moderation if I make posts people think... over the line. And, if I feel I'm being misrepresented, I can comment on it without vitriol.

Anything else you got out of that, I would say, is all in your interpretation, and not in the posted content.

So, when I am told that I should need to tell my mother not to have children with superficial acquaintances, and that I should be aborted, you honestly do not see the implication? Well, as I write in the subsequent paragraph you shall see that I do not believe you to be honest or all that truly offended by anything in the exchange between Kyronea and me, and thus that your reporting of this is frivolous and baseless.

And, you could have saved yourself the entire last passage, cute little attacks and all. I fully expected to get reported to Moderation if I make posts people think... over the line. And, if I feel I'm being misrepresented, I can comment on it without vitriol.

Well, if you really are that prone to thinking the implication that someone else is projecting the sluttiness of their own mother when they imply other people's mothers are sluts is "over the line", then you should have, to keep up any semblance of consistency, clearly reported the original implication as well. Anything else would be quite blatantly insincere and obviously reported on the basis on who wrote it and not what was indeed written. I should hope the implication in this is anything but not obvious to you, since I indeed made it obvious in the preceding paragraph.

So, when I am told that I should need to tell my mother not to have children...

Perhaps I should have put 'Mods Only' in the title.


Simply - I'm not debating this with you here, Fass.

What Kyronea said doesn't even pretend to equate to "...I should need to tell my mother not to have children...", so I didn't report it. End of story.

What you said was "what do I know about your situation, perchance yours was a slut not clever enough/not legally entitled to get an abortion...


There's no parallel, and no amount of you attacking me will make it so.

So - can we please leave this for the Hand of Mod to fall where it may?

Perhaps I should have put 'Mods Only' in the title.

Which still would not have prevented me from claiming your report to be frivolous and baseless, seeing as I am the one reported and thus not covered by "Mods Only". Vexatious that the accused actually get to undermine the claims of the accusers, no?


Simply - I'm not debating this with you here, Fass.

I'm not here to debate, either. I am here to claim your claims flawed, seeing as they are directed at me, by claiming that you are not really of the opinion that anything written there is something worthy of having umbrage taken at, as you didn't, but that any umbrage taken by you is due to who wrote it, since it seems to depend on who the writer is when you report.

What Kyronea said doesn't even pretend to equate to "...I should need to tell my mother not to have children...", so I didn't report it. End of story.

Not to beat an old horse, but I do so to make it clear: I do not trust your honesty here.

So - can we please leave this for the Hand of Mod to fall where it may?

I'm sorry I used my privilege as the accused not to leave your accusation unchallenged. See, that's me being insincere. It's quite obvious when people are being so, no? You would do well to remember it.

Which still would not have prevented me from claiming your report to be frivolous and baseless, seeing as I am the one reported and thus not covered by "Mods Only". Vexatious that the accused actually get to undermine the claims of the accusers, no?


No.

But, as I said, I'm not looking for a head-to-head with you.


I'm not here to debate, either. I am here to claim your claims flawed, seeing as they are directed at me, by claiming that you are not really of the opinion that anything written there is something worthy of having umbrage taken at, as you didn't, but that any umbrage taken by you is due to who wrote it, since it seems to depend on who the writer is when you report.


Very eloquent.

You're not defending what you wrote, just attacking what you claim Kyronea means. Got it.


Not to beat an old horse, but I do so to make it clear: I do not trust your honesty here.


Okay. Hence leaving it to the Mods to decide.


I'm sorry I used my privilege as the accused not to leave your accusation unchallenged. See, that's me being insincere. It's quite obvious when people are being so, no? You would do well to remember it.

And that would be... personal attacks on me IN a moderation thread?

I've asked you to leave it to Moderation. Pleading your case with me is not constructive.

You're not defending what you wrote, just attacking what you claim Kyronea means. Got it.

On the contrary, I am making the claims that a.) what you reported is hardly actionable; and b.) that you only think it actionable because I wrote it, and not when others do, which leads to the conclusion that from my view either both things are actionable, or none. I of course think none. Because it was incredibly mild ribbing, at most, from both parties. You want one punished. I am telling you that your motives for wanting so are transparent, and are not because what was written.

And that would be... personal attacks on me IN a moderation thread?

Your motives are your person? You should not confuse them. I can keep them quite separate, at least.

I've asked you to leave it to Moderation. Pleading your case with me is not constructive.

I'm not pleading with you. I am undermining your accusation. Again, quite vexatious that the accused get to do so? If you do not find it vexatious, then again do not expose your insincerity in this other matter by wishing me to be silent before your accusations.

On the contrary, I am making the claims that a.) what you reported is hardly actionable;


Which isn't for you to decide. Or even for me to decide. Hence, a moderation thread.


...and b.) that you only think it actionable because I wrote it, and not when others do,


Not at all, the two comments may have shared a word or two, but only one of them was offensive.


...which leads to the conclusion that from my view either both things are actionable, or none.


Fortunately, that conclusion is for the Moderation team to reach.


I of course think none. Because it was incredibly mild ribbing, at most, from both parties. You want one punished.


Now, where did I say that? If the material is not acceptable, it should be removed. If it's acceptable, we 'do have to put up with' it.

If the Moderators punished you for it (or some other action), that's a different matter.


I am telling you that your motives for wanting so are transparent, and are not because what was written.


So... you're claiming authority to tell me what my motives are?


Your motives are your person? You should not confuse them. I can keep them quite separate, at least.


Another attack?


I'm not pleading with you. I am undermining your accusation.


You certainly seem to believe that to be so.


Again, quite vexatious that the accused get to do so?


No. But then - you're not making a defence, you're attacking me, and my motives, allegedly.


If you do not find it vexatious, then again do not expose your insincerity in this other matter by wishing me to be silent before your accusations.

I said I didn't want to debate it with you. I asked you to leave it to moderation. Yet - you keep responding to my posts with animosity.

I'm not being insincere, or asking you to be silent. I'm asking you to stop debating it with ME, to stop attacking me, and to let the decision in this moderation thread rest with... well, moderation.

There's a handy thing, called the "post reply" button, that exists at the bottom of the screen. Amazingly, you don't have to push it if you don't want to argue with someone! Fascinating, I know.

Maybe it's a good idea to stop the ping-ponging and wait for the mods. You both made your cases, just calm down and wait, have a cup of coffee or something. It's just the internet.

I can't even begin to fathom the labyrinthine logic of the above exchange, but the initial complaint is clear enough.

Fassitude, knock off your back-handed passive-aggressive flames and flamebaiting. You've lost nations over it before. You ought to know better.

There's a handy thing, called the "post reply" button, that exists at the bottom of the screen. Amazingly, you don't have to push it if you don't want to argue with someone! Fascinating, I know.

Maybe it's a good idea to stop the ping-ponging and wait for the mods. You both made your cases, just calm down and wait, have a cup of coffee or something. It's just the internet.

It's not just the internet. The internet is serious business.

Folks, THIS IS NOT GENERAL. Take your debate elsewhere.

Aww, damn, Fris, I was in the middle of dissecting the labyrinthine logic.

I had the longest post prepared, too, all full of quotes and interpretations and other people's misinterpretations and more quotes and ...

was leading up to the same conclusion.

Note to self: less is more.