Muslim Murdered by Hindus for Allegedly Eating Beef in India

Originally posted by Suzianne
The poster you replied to with this one-liner said (and you quoted, so you must be aware of what he wrote):
"I find your propensity to make debates personal morally repugnant and intellectually stiffing. Seriously, you, FMF and Proper Knob, its as if the ability to reason objectively is quite beyond you and thus at every turn you seek to make matters perso ...[text shortened]... say anyways.

Do you somehow think this speaks well of your current campaign to become a mod?

I agree he is not well suited to be a mod, he cannot engage in rational discussion, makes up a plethora of values that the contributor has not expressed, using skulduggery like loaded questions and false dichotomy in attempts to entrap people, has a poor view of jesters and all in all is the most unqualified person to be a mod I know of.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, it's called one more episode in the "FMF and Robbie" show. It's ludicrous to suggest that the people in this forum find this more compelling than the actual topic which you have hijacked for your own ends. Do you somehow think this speaks well of your current campaign to become a mod?

You should follow threads and discussions you enjoy and avoid or ignore threads and discussions you don't enjoy.

Originally posted by Suzianne
How, in ANY way, does what you posted in reply to him have ANYthing to do with what he posted?

robbie's long ad hominem - including a copy paste from somebody else's post on the GF - was nothing but a deflection seeking to avoid and distract from answering the simple question, so I simply ignored the ad hominem and copy paste [which had nothing to do with marital rape or "Christian principles"] - and I repeated the essence of the key question that was being dodged.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I agree he is not well suited to be a mod, he cannot engage in rational discussion, makes up a plethora of values that the contributor has not expressed, using skulduggery like loaded questions and false dichotomy in attempts to entrap people, has a poor view of jesters and all in all is the most unqualified person to be a mod I know of.

Will you ~ like Suzianne ~ be leaving the web site for ever if Russ makes me a Mod?

Originally posted by FMF
Will you ~ like Suzianne ~ be leaving the web site for ever if Russ makes me a Mod?

You would make a poor mod, sir, and i say that as somebody who probably wouldn't nick your wallet if you fell down an escalator.

Mods need to reside on the periphery, remain uninvolved and objective. (Think superman floating just outside the world's orbit, waiting to swoop down when someone cried Help!). As a regular forum poster you are too involved and have the objectivity of a wasp. (Just like the rest of us misfits). Despite your best intentions you simply wouldn't be able to treat all fairly. Allegiances are too deeply rooted.

Have you considered becoming a Rocker?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Mods need to reside on the periphery, remain uninvolved and objective.

I've already said I'd give up posting on the forums if I were a mod. 🙂

I'd be willing to do it for a year.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Despite your best intentions you simply wouldn't be able to treat all fairly. Allegiances are too deeply rooted.

You're being awfully presumptuous. What would "Allegiances" have to do with responding to alerted posts?

Originally posted by FMF
You're being awfully presumptuous. What would "Allegiances" have to do with responding to alerted posts?

My presumption is based on 14 years as a Mod sir, so i speak from experience.

For example, say Robbie made a complaint about something Dive posted. Can you say, hand on heart, that you would be completely objective, detached and fair in the way you dealt with the complaint? (And respond in exactly the same way if it was Dive complaining about Robbie?) And do you think the community at large would have faith in your ability to do so?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
My presumption is based on 14 years as a Mod sir, so i speak from experience.

For example, say Robbie made a complaint about something Dive posted. Can you say, hand on heart, that you would be completely objective, detached and fair in the way you dealt with the complaint? (And respond in exactly the same way if it was Dive complaining about Robbie?) And do you think the community at large would have faith in your ability to do so?

My presumption is based on 14 years as a Mod sir

Back of da net, nom nom nom, nice toast!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
For example, say Robbie made a complaint about something Dive posted. Can you say, hand on heart, that you would be completely objective, detached and fair in the way you dealt with the complaint? (And respond in exactly the same way if it was Dive complaining about Robbie?)

If I were a Mod, yes. We're not talking about me as a poster involved in discussions. We're talking about me volunteering to do the job of Mod. I wouldn't be involved in the discussions between divegeester and robbie anymore.

I don't see the role of Mod as a person who deletes posts he disagrees with. I don't see what agreeing or disagreeing with a poster would have to do with it. I can't remember a recent post by either of them that needed to be deleted. I don't think the Mod's job would involve going after posters like robbie and divegeester unless they posted stuff that was different from what they usually post nowadays.

If either of them made a spurious request to have the other's post removed, it would be turned down. I can, with hand on heart, say that I would be completely objective, detached and fair in the way I dealt with all complaints, and if you were unable to be that during your 14 years as a Mod, then that is a matter for you. 🙂

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This discussion about the morality of dysfunctional marriage has not been a "flame war". It's an example of thread drift. A "flame war" would be where a poster was incessantly accusing others of being things like 'pathological liars' and 'trolls' and doing so obsessively over and over again in the course of people trying to have discussions on a message board.

You yourself, surprise surprise, started talking about rape (as you so often do, on so many threads, regardless of the original topics) on page one of this thread. Indeed, you started a thread about 'eating beef in India' as a motive for murder but you'd raised the issue of "rape in India" even before we'd got to the bottom of page one. divegeester, robbie, Proper Knob, divegeester and I ended up discussing "rape in India" thereafter.

You raised the topic of "rape in India", not somebody else. That you chose not to get involved in the discussion that ensued was your prerogative. But describing the thread drift that then occurred as a "flame war" is disingenuous.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

FMF's a hateful pathological liar who flagrantly violated RHP's Terms of Service by creating
multiple accounts for his trolling purposes. FMF then kept lying--or at least refusing to admit
that he had created multiple accounts--until he felt certain that RHP, which long has done
almost nothing to moderate the endemic abuses in the forums--would fail to discipline him.
By his actions--for which he has no expressed no sincere regret--FMF has expressed his
flagrant contempt for RHP's Terms of Service.

Contrary to FMF's typical lie, FMF and his allies in trolling here have *not* been arguing
only about 'rape in India'. In fact, they have been long arguing about *rape in Christian
marriage*, which has nothing to do with India, Hindus, Muslims, or eating beef.
FMF's a tireless pathological liar and one of the most morally despicable people at RHP.

Now, this is "flaming".

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes, it's called 'thread drift'. It hasn't been a 'flame war', at least not until this latest post of yours.