It certainly seems like the post that got a banning warning contained no hate speech, and the threats that occurred were unwarranted.
To be sure, Lib enjoys standing up against authority, and making it all overdramatic. But despite that, his essential point was absolutely correct.
Arbitrary rules that are really nothing more than the current whims of whoever is in charge are usually not a good thing.
And deleting his post? What is that about? If he said he wanted to take a break, then let him. But deleting his post sends a different message than the one being portrayed here.
I imagine that it was done out of consideration for Libertarian. If not for that, people might have publicly called for a permanent ban, rather than the temporary ban that was used. It might have saved Lib some potential embarrassment when he reappeared after his customary break.
I saw the post and quickly reported it, specifically so that something like what the Mods did could be done.
I had no idea that Lib intended something different.
Gaudere’s comments make me wonder what the actual point of Lib’s “taking a break” and then coming back later (if it did actually happen before – Gaudere says he’s only 99% sure) might be. Is he really so unable to control himself from posting when he should be “on a break” that he needs moderator intervention?
Lib was making the point that using a rule which says “anything I say is hate speech, is hate speech” to threaten people for posts which clearly contain no hate speech, is a bad idea.
I don’t think it is reasonable to somehow infer that he wanted his own point erased from the site, nor was his point so offensive that it merited deletion.
But the, what do I know about what should or should not be censored. I liked Lib’s old parody threads…
Originally posted by Gaudere
Lots of posters ask us to take away their privs for a while so they can have a break from the board and not be tempted to post;
RevTim said, “I gotta say, I find that a bit odd.”
Me too. Heh. Wasn’t there a scene in “Young Frankenstein” where Gene Wilder wanted to be locked in the room with the monster and asked that no one let him out, no matter what? Talk about the height of drama!!!
Odd you may find it, and unusual it may be, but it’s a very healthy and helpful way to deal with problems here. There’s nothing wrong with stepping away for a while; however, if you’ve become accustomed to posting frequently it may be quite difficult to do so. We all have our weaknesses, and sometimes the removal of that to which we are addicted (!) is the best course of action.
So how about we put the Banned tag under his name? he was a useless poster and he got what he asked for. He’s not going to ask for posting priveliges back, so can we at least make it formal?
He’s in rehab. I, for one, think it’s a good system. I welcome our moderator posting abuse counselor overlords. That was a joke, though the mods are all Waffen SS. That was another.
I won’t cry any big tears over seeing him leave; indeed, I’ve always been puzzled by the respect so many posters had for him. I found him to be a disingenuous arguer of nearly decemberlike proportions. He struck me as the sort of chap who covered up his own stupidity with high-flying words whose meaning utterly escaped his grasp; when confronted with his own ignorance and faulty logic, he put on a long-suffering act and claimed that his opponents just didn’t get it.
Worst, he tried to turn every disagreement into his own private crucifix, complaining constantly and consistently about how he and his ilk were being persecuted. I’ve never known such a strange masochist, so desperate for abuse that he invented abuse out of whole cloth.
It seems more to me to be a good indication on why outright removing posts is really just asking for trouble.
Eyewitness testimony being worth whatever it’s worth, I remember the post in question. Lynn warned someone or other (crazy grady, I believe) about watching it buster, or lose your posting privileges. Lib quoted Lynn’s post, to add “May I have the honor of having mine removed as well?”
I’ve always been a firm believer that when someone asks to have their posting rights taken away, that there should be no hesitation in granting the request. Good that they did. Not bad as such, but silly that they also removed the post clearly asking for it to happen.
Anyway, there’s a storm warning for the town of Teapot, located on Mt. Molehill.
I recall one of Lib’s problems (at least at one point) being that people could say very mean things about being religious, and about gods, but that was “mysteriously” ok, while anyone having a slightly harsh thing to say about homosexuals would get a stern talking to. I don’t know what rips in the spacetime continuum happen when you are a religious (non-UU) homosexual, but I seem to remember that the results weren’t pretty. Wasn’t there a supernova that year? —
At any rate, I caught him making references to the point for a while, but he hasn’t been in GD for a while even when he was still active, so I miss most of his stuff.
I think his concern was more than legitimate. I cringe every time a religious thread comes up anymore, and I’m not even religious (Eris doesn’t count—no one ever taught her how to). Not that I think that he thus has a leg to stand on; secularism tends towards the derision of strongly held religious belief, and this is a secular board with some militant motherfucking atheists on board who know god doesn’t exist because god has personally assured them of it (for all their “proofs” are worth).
In any event, he’s always been one of my favorite posters, and a thinker I respect even if we do disagree on more and more topics as time goes on.
I dunno. I’ll miss Lib’s dedication and willingness to write long, thoughtful posts. I won’t miss his habit of not actually thinking about the contents of his posts.
I have to agree with erislover. Lib wears his heart on his sleeve and is sometimes damn near blinded by tunnel vision over particular passions, but he’s made me analyze my own positions more than any other poster has. As much as he used to irritate me with practically every post, he also had me looking forward to those posts.
To me asking to be banned says being banned, even if it is banning that can later be revoked. Crowing about the banning confirms it.
I agree with Left Hand of Dorkness. Lib’s entire act was involving his ridiculous philosophy in any thread he could, and then trying to martyr himself when others called him on it. He added nothing to the board. Sure, he, at times eloquently defended Christianity and religion, but it’s nothing Phlosphr hasn’t done better. I guess if he could could be credited with anything, it is allowing others to expose the gaping holes in his pet political system.
Your definition differs from most. You are banned when your privs are removed permanently. If you have them suspended, you are not banned. You are suspended. You are on sabbatical.
Ask the admins here if he’s banned. If they say no, are you going to pretend otherwise just to fit your own definition of the word?
That’s not a fair statement. Libertarianism is an interesting philosophy, but I believe it is most appropriate as just that; and it is unworkable as a genuine system of government. Lib would disagree, of course, but that’s fine. I can value differing opinions without agreeing with them.
The martyr act was a bit much – but Lib didn’t always employ this tactic. Personally, I’d rather have him continue to post, but he seems to be burning his bridges.
I’m not sure, Waverly, but gex gex may have been referring to his modal ontological proof of god, an argument for God’s existence which he typed up every chance he got. When I first encountered him promoting it, he was saying things about how it was accepted by modal logicians and implying that anyone who didn’t accede to the argument simply didn’t understand logic. I read his source material and discovered he was misrepresenting the argument; I read further and discovered that plenty of logicians consider the argument to be baloney, for pretty much the reasons I (a layperson) suspected it was baloney.
Libertarian continued to promote the argument as if it were uncontroversial; that’s the point when I decided he was not nearly as honest as he claimed to be.