Israel

[CEB]

I haven't said anything about 'civilians being murdered', thats you being inflammatory.

Feel free to clarify which Palestinians you don’t have sympathy for - in fact editing that post to make it clear which Palestinians you have almost zero sympathy would go a long way to making it clear whether or not you’re a c***

[Long slender neck]

Ah, weeks later you now want to discuss the issue?

I suppose, I was just thinking about it on a basic level of Israel vs Palestine. Of course, I have sympathy with any innocent people or living thing in suffering.

[Hoover Attack]

Ah, weeks later you now want to discuss the issue?

I suppose, I was just thinking about it on a basic level of Israel vs Palestine. Of course, I have sympathy with any innocent people or living thing in suffering.

Bit difficult to discuss the issue when banned.

So if you do have sympathy for innocent people suffering, which the entire population of Palestine clearly are, why did you say you have no sympathy for Palestinians?

[CEB]

It doesn’t strike me as “blatant racism” so much as exasperation that so many people, convinced they’re on the side of what’s pure and good, seem totally unaware that Hamas are not good guys as they happily flag wave.
Its iffy for him to put it as “no sympathy for Palestinians”, and maybe it could do with some clarifying, but I’d be minded to assume he meant “supporters of Palestine” rather than “no sympathy for innocent civilians”

I didnt say 'no sympathy for Palestinians".

Oh f*** off. I’ll happily take a ban for this, you disingenuous, weaselly c***. I was foolish enough to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you really are just that much of a c***

Hey Caca - here’s you quoting the post where I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt, and instead of saying “that’s right, I didn’t fully articulate what I thought, but I was intending to say no sympathy for Hamas supporters”

instead you focused on making sure I knew that it wasn’t “zero synpathy” but “almost zero sympathy” that you had for the Palestinians who were dead and dying.
That’s on you.

[The Reverend]

You realise you’ve spent the whole of December arguing about strangers using the C word on the message board of a 3rd division football club, right.

Yes, my point being that people should be able to use this message board without being directly abused by others.

What’s CEBs point? People shouldn’t be able to post opinions he doesn’t agree with?

So here we are again:

Saying that you have no sympathy for tens of thousands of innocent civilians being brutally murdered on a daily basis - OK.

Saying that someone is a C word for having no sympathy for tens of thousands of innocent civilians being brutally murdered on a daily basis - NOT OK.

This is the hurdle we're unable to get over.

The “hurdle” is actually not understanding that someone having an opinion which to you is offensive and outright abusing somebody are not the same thing.

Why should any user get to decide that they are upset enough to then break what is a clear message board rule.

If someone can demonstrate how exactly LSN has broken message board rules then we have a different situation. If somebody doesn’t have sympathy for something it’s not against the rules for them to be honest about this, providing they don’t directly abuse others in doing so.

What CEB is doing is trying to force an ultimatum whereby somebody has to alter their opinion so it is in line with what he believes in, even though the opinion expressed in the first place wasn’t against the rules.

Directly abusing someone is against the rules, regardless of trying to downplay is as “just” using a nasty word.

[CEB]

Ah, weeks later you now want to discuss the issue?

I suppose, I was just thinking about it on a basic level of Israel vs Palestine. Of course, I have sympathy with any innocent people or living thing in suffering.

I’ve just quoted where I discussed it at the time, gave you the benefit of the doubt (which Conkles read and said “hmmm, not sure but if he clarifies, fine”) and your response was not to say “yep, that’s it” but was instead to clarify that “zero” and “almost zero” are not the same.

The fact is you’ve made a balls up of this, and failed to deescalate because it was easier to try to make it go away with use of the ban tool. It’s not going to. You acted like a fool, and I’m maintaining my position until it’s dealt with or I’m gone. I don’t care which. And since you’re unable to actually climb down, we await Admin’s take

[Long slender neck]

Ah, weeks later you now want to discuss the issue?

I suppose, I was just thinking about it on a basic level of Israel vs Palestine. Of course, I have sympathy with any innocent people or living thing in suffering.

Bit difficult to discuss the issue when banned.

So if you do have sympathy for innocent people suffering, which the entire population of Palestine clearly are, why did you say you have no sympathy for Palestinians?

Entire population?

[Long slender neck]

I didnt say 'no sympathy for Palestinians".

Oh f*** off. I’ll happily take a ban for this, you disingenuous, weaselly c***. I was foolish enough to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you really are just that much of a c***

Hey Caca - here’s you quoting the post where I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt, and instead of saying “that’s right, I didn’t fully articulate what I thought, but I was intending to say no sympathy for Hamas supporters”

instead you focused on making sure I knew that it wasn’t “zero synpathy” but “almost zero sympathy” that you had for the Palestinians who were dead and dying.
That’s on you.

Your post was inaccurate, my post had nothing to do with 'supporters of Palestine' or flag waving.

[CEB]

You’re now literally in the position where you’re distancing yourself from what you’ve said, where it’s demonstrable that the content of your post is at odds with what you’d like it to be known your views are, and when it’s been shown to you that when given the chance to clarify by me, giving you the be edit of the doubt, you chose to reject that and instead make an arsey comment about the difference between no sympathy and almost no sympathy.

You’ve done everything except join the dots and say “yep, I messed up here. Sorry. We move on”

[CEB]

Oh f*** off. I’ll happily take a ban for this, you disingenuous, weaselly c***. I was foolish enough to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you really are just that much of a c***

Hey Caca - here’s you quoting the post where I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt, and instead of saying “that’s right, I didn’t fully articulate what I thought, but I was intending to say no sympathy for Hamas supporters”

instead you focused on making sure I knew that it wasn’t “zero synpathy” but “almost zero sympathy” that you had for the Palestinians who were dead and dying.
That’s on you.

Your post was inaccurate, my post had nothing to do with 'supporters of Palestine' or flag waving.

Then which Palestinians is it that you have “almost zero sympathy” for?
Because substitute “Palestinians” for any other group (in fact, leave it as “Palestinians” and it’s still obvious) and it’s clearly racist.
“I have no sympathy for black people” “i have no sympathy for Jewish people” “I have no sympathy for Muslims”

Every example you care to cite puts the onus on you to clarify that you are not making a nasty generalisation. Or, being a bit of a ****

Conkles was correct that it was HoddesdonO level racism -if you didn’t intend it that way, then it’s on you for not wording it carefully, and hiding behind the ban tool rather than finding out why people objected.

Now can we wait for admin?

[Tuffers#2]

Calm down, FTC is mulling the whole thorny issue over. It’s quite tricky to work out whether or not it’s appropriate for a moderator of a message board to say he has no sympathy for murdered civilians and to then arbitrate on the pushback he gets for it. Especially when the optimum outcome is the one where nothing needs to change and where he doesn’t have to risk pulling up Caca, who would have a massive sulk if he was pulled up by him.

If I had to try to work out a way to seem affable while saying “sorry, I guess the moderator here does get to arbitrate the backlash to his own inflammatory posts about dead civilians”, I think it’d take me a while too.

Before you get all condescending in your criticism, can you acknowledge that irrespective of whatever went on in preceding years, Israel did not instigate this mess and that 7 October was solely at the hands of Hamas. There are still 200 hostages held . From what I have read here in recent weeks the moderators have been fair and nothing justifies liberally using the ‘c’ word.

You know Palestine managed with 3 religions
Co existing reasonably peacefully before way back.

Go back to the Treaty of Berlin 1878
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_ ... %20Muslims)%20as%20full%20citizens.

"The status Quo "1757 " .
(1st time that phrase was used)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_ ... y%20places.

Respect for others religions all but disappeared
Mainly due to The warlord of Death ( Netenyahu) as the Observer named him when he first came to power.

You really can't blame everything on Hamas as they didn't exist until after Arafat & the PLO failure to bring peaceeven recognising Israel as a Nation.

Irrespective of October 7th being the start of Israels decimation of the innocent Palestinians as well as Hamas terrorists , it is all connected .

[Tuffers#2]

Ah, weeks later you now want to discuss the issue?

I suppose, I was just thinking about it on a basic level of Israel vs Palestine. Of course, I have sympathy with any innocent people or living thing in suffering.

Bit difficult to discuss the issue when banned.

So if you do have sympathy for innocent people suffering, which the entire population of Palestine clearly are, why did you say you have no sympathy for Palestinians?

Be fair it was " nearly zero sympathy " with Palestinians who weren't Hamas

[CEB]

Ah, weeks later you now want to discuss the issue?

I suppose, I was just thinking about it on a basic level of Israel vs Palestine. Of course, I have sympathy with any innocent people or living thing in suffering.

Bit difficult to discuss the issue when banned.

So if you do have sympathy for innocent people suffering, which the entire population of Palestine clearly are, why did you say you have no sympathy for Palestinians?

Entire population?

Again, disingenuous sh*t which you know is disingenuous sh*t. I await admins decision. And guess what I think you are for disingenuous sh*t posts like this? I’ll give you a clue: it starts with a c.

[Tuffers#2]

Bit difficult to discuss the issue when banned.

So if you do have sympathy for innocent people suffering, which the entire population of Palestine clearly are, why did you say you have no sympathy for Palestinians?

Entire population?

Again, disingenuous sh*t which you know is disingenuous sh*t. I await admins decision. And guess what I think you are for disingenuous sh*t posts like this? I’ll give you a clue: it starts with a c.

Clod ?

[Long slender neck]

Hey Caca - here’s you quoting the post where I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt, and instead of saying “that’s right, I didn’t fully articulate what I thought, but I was intending to say no sympathy for Hamas supporters”

instead you focused on making sure I knew that it wasn’t “zero synpathy” but “almost zero sympathy” that you had for the Palestinians who were dead and dying.
That’s on you.

Your post was inaccurate, my post had nothing to do with 'supporters of Palestine' or flag waving.

Then which Palestinians is it that you have “almost zero sympathy” for?
Because substitute “Palestinians” for any other group (in fact, leave it as “Palestinians” and it’s still obvious) and it’s clearly racist.
“I have no sympathy for black people” “i have no sympathy for Jewish people” “I have no sympathy for Muslims”

Every example you care to cite puts the onus on you to clarify that you are not making a nasty generalisation. Or, being a bit of a ****

Conkles was correct that it was HoddesdonO level racism -if you didn’t intend it that way, then it’s on you for not wording it carefully, and hiding behind the ban tool rather than finding out why people objected.

Now can we wait for admin?

I clarified this about ten minutes ago. It was clumsy, not racist.

[CEB]

Just waiting for “sorry for my clumsy post, and really I should have reflected on the reactions I got rather than hiding behind the mod tools”

Once the apology for the “clumsy” post is there, I’ll be prepared to accept that it actually was clumsy and not c***ish racist contrarian schtick. I’ll even accept that removing the post would be unreasonable since we can all see what’s happened since: just an apology for the clumsiness and the unwise action of using moderating tools to minimise the scale of the objection and we’re good; you’ll then get the apology from me for swearing at you and an assurance that it won’t happen again.

Or we can go back to brinkmanship.

[Long slender neck]

Bit difficult to discuss the issue when banned.

So if you do have sympathy for innocent people suffering, which the entire population of Palestine clearly are, why did you say you have no sympathy for Palestinians?

Entire population?

Again, disingenuous sh*t which you know is disingenuous sh*t. I await admins decision. And guess what I think you are for disingenuous sh*t posts like this? I’ll give you a clue: it starts with a c.

To clarify, I'm questioning whether the entire population are innocent, not whether they're suffering.

[Long slender neck]

I apologise if my clumsily worded post offended anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I wont be forced into changing any of mine.

I did not abuse my power or hide behind mod tools. I'm not prepared to take abuse, be misquoted, have my posts taken out of context and be wilfully misunderstood. I'm always open to discussion.

[CEB]

Once again, disingenuous sh*t. You said “I have almost no sympathy for Palestinians”

Not

“I have no sympathy for those Palestinians who are not innocent” (which would be a trite, pretty much tautological comment anyway)


Where we’re at is that you know your post was clumsy at best, you know that it wasn’t a great idea for you to moderate the backlash yourself rather than arbitrating it yourself, you know the reaction it got was angry at what your post conveyed, and yet, as moderator, your way of addressing it has been

1: consequences for people who swore at you
2: no need to edit or remove the clumsy post
3: no need to apologise for the post to find a resolution.

I’m still giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t thick enough to be swayed by the cheerleader who has inserted himself quite far up your bottom on this, though maybe even that BOTD is misplaced.

Either way, “sorry for the clumsiness of the post, can we move on” is all that’s required. It’ll even allow you the high ground, as the cheerleader guy will be outraged on your behalf and will no doubt frame it as that my petty rage was rewarded and I have serious problems going on so maybe it’s best that I was appeased (or something)

Or we can wait for Admin. I think we both know that any reasonable person reading this will conclude these things
1: it’s very boring
2: your clumsy post warrants *at least* an apology, and would probably have warranted a ban from users who expressed that sentiment and meant it
3: despite being annoying, I’m right
4: both of us deescalating and moving on is most sensible


So?

(Edit - posted before I saw his apology)

[CEB]

I apologise if my clumsily worded post offended anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I wont be forced into changing any of mine.

I did not abuse my power or hide behind mod tools. I'm not prepared to take abuse, be misquoted, have my posts taken out of context and be wilfully misunderstood. I'm always open to discussion.

Thank you for the apology. I’m not interested in changing your opinion, you’re welcome to it. I was interested in whether you stand by your post. Since you don’t, we are good.

You *did* abuse your mod power, by arbitrating on a dispute you ignited. We are not going to agree on that though (except insofar as that I was under the impression your acknowledged that you shouldn’t have been the one to arbitrate on that) and I don’t care enough to press that further, because it’s apparent what you did.

I’ll respond to your apology in kind: I’m sorry if you were offended by being called a c*** when you clumsily made yourself look like one. Assuming you aren’t that clumsy in the future, I won’t call you one again.

Happy New Year x

[BoniO]

I think CEB needs a hobby.

[CEB]

I think CEB needs a hobby.

I do now this is resolved, but thanks for trying to keep it going all the same!

[Hoover Attack]

Ah, weeks later you now want to discuss the issue?

I suppose, I was just thinking about it on a basic level of Israel vs Palestine. Of course, I have sympathy with any innocent people or living thing in suffering.

Bit difficult to discuss the issue when banned.

So if you do have sympathy for innocent people suffering, which the entire population of Palestine clearly are, why did you say you have no sympathy for Palestinians?

Entire population?

Yes mate. The entire population.

Are you serious?

[Hoover Attack]

Ignore - I see we’ve moved on.

[Hoover Attack]

Yes, my point being that people should be able to use this message board without being directly abused by others.

What’s CEBs point? People shouldn’t be able to post opinions he doesn’t agree with?

So here we are again:

Saying that you have no sympathy for tens of thousands of innocent civilians being brutally murdered on a daily basis - OK.

Saying that someone is a C word for having no sympathy for tens of thousands of innocent civilians being brutally murdered on a daily basis - NOT OK.

This is the hurdle we're unable to get over.

The “hurdle” is actually not understanding that someone having an opinion which to you is offensive and outright abusing somebody are not the same thing.

Why should any user get to decide that they are upset enough to then break what is a clear message board rule.

If someone can demonstrate how exactly LSN has broken message board rules then we have a different situation. If somebody doesn’t have sympathy for something it’s not against the rules for them to be honest about this, providing they don’t directly abuse others in doing so.

What CEB is doing is trying to force an ultimatum whereby somebody has to alter their opinion so it is in line with what he believes in, even though the opinion expressed in the first place wasn’t against the rules.

Directly abusing someone is against the rules, regardless of trying to downplay is as “just” using a nasty word.

DO NOT post comments that are overtly objectionable: such as discriminatory, racist,