Well, since you want to jump in on the accusation game, I will point out that despite your repeated accusation, I am not very fast with the “Warning” post, generally telling other posters to ratchet down their rhetoric rather than actually issuing Warnings. Since the Warnings I have issued tend to cross the spectrum of posters regarding philosophical outlook and are all based on actual rules violation, your claim is in error.
You’re a fine one to be chiding anybody about their claim being in error.
(I notice that you made no attempt at defending his observation that you are wrong and stonewalling.)
I must say, though, that it’s a freeing experience to know that by mod fiat I no longer need to feel compelled to recant and apologize around here whenever I’m proven to be wrong about something. All I have to do is jabber about insults and whine that my opponent treated me badly in the past and then I’m off the hook.
Cool! Who’d have thought it would be so easy!
I’m pretty much ignoring the rest of the personal attacks on me from the usual suspects. I have responded to those false claims lodged against my moderating–for which there has been no evidence presented.
If by ‘personal attacks’ you mean calls that you admit it and apologize when you are proven to be wrong, then yes, I suppose you could say you are being subjected to personal attacks.
By the way, I’m really glad to know I’m not the only poster tomndebb dumps on.
Still no evidence of bad Modding, I see.
And you are right on one point: I am not going to go out of my way to apolgize to a poster for one difference of opinion when he has insulted me without provocation and made false claims about me, just because he wants to have a personal snit.
I’m not sure, but I’m thinking that perhaps that’s because the issue has never come up?
This is just another dishonest attempt at evading the real issue, which is that you made false claims about my postings and you are too immature and prideful to admit it.
Look, you don’t have a leg to stand on here. You know perfectly well that the issue between us in this regard is not a matter of “opinion”. You made aggressive and provably false claims about things I’ve said and have refused to recant and apologize for them.
I told you in the thread I linked to above that if you could show where I’d insulted you without provocation I would apologize. You posted three instances where I’d allegedly insulted you without provocation, and in each case I was able to show that you had gratuitously insulted me first.
Nope. I just want you to do what has been the custom and convention for as long as I’ve been here, and that is to recant and apologize for the false statements you made regarding my posts.
Had you done so to begin with, that would have been the end of it. But like I said just above, you are too immature and too prideful to admit you were wrong and apologize like almost anyone else would, mod or not, and you have chosen instead to employ dishonest and nonsensical rationalizations for your refusal to man up and do the right thing.
Frankly, given your behavior toward me and some of the other posters to this thread, I’m surprised that you have been allowed to retain your status as a mod. I would expect that mods, even if acting as posters, would be required to conduct themselves honestly and according to the rules and conventions of the board they moderate.
It was the specific reason I posted in this thread before you interrupted witrh your personal feud hijack.
Nope. You showed three places where I had taken issue with comments I found to be wrong and wrong-headed without actually calling you names over which you have chosen to take offense even though my comments were addressed to your statements and not your person and were less insulting than those you had already posted against numerous posters.
Tom, There have been a few “rancorous discussions” in the Pit through the years and your link doesn’t work for me. (Did it work for anyone else?) More likely than not, I suggested that you take your personal attack on someone to a private medium for resolution. I probably thought there might be someone there capable of helping you with your seemingly insatiable hostility.
You have failed to provide a cite for anything I have said that would even remotely suggest that Mods should apparently “simply accept attacks on themselves, offering no defense against calumny.”
Your statement is false and contrary to what I believe. I am the only authority on my motives. You are so not.
I neither expect nor desire an apology.
Doesn’t matter. This is not an issue of whose insults were snide vs. crude, nor of their relative intensity or fairness; it’s an issue of whether or not a poster is morally obligated to retract and apologize if he makes statements about another poster that are provably false.
Since you are so obviously determined not to address the issue, I wonder if we could get a ruling from an admin or Ed as to whether posters are rightly excused from retracting and apologizing for wrongful accusations toward another poster simply because they harbored resentment over previous skirmishes with that poster?
I await your apologies, then. 
The gods only know why I’m wading into this snakepit, but here goes anyway… Zoe, we don’t know each other, and I’ve never had any exchanges with you or with **tomndebb **in my time here. I’ve just been following this thread. I’d like to think I’m a fairly neutral observer here, and I read your comments about **tom **and “pitting” in the same way **tom **apparently did. Let me explain. Here’s a somewhat snipped summary of the exchange in question.
OK, so what I understood you to mean when you wrote “Who says that Mods can’t Pit Dopers?” was that you believed **tom **had pitted another poster (and that this is against the rules and should not happen). When **Marley **points out that **tom **did not pit anyone, he participated in an existing pitting, you say that is a “distinction without a difference,” etc. To me, that therefore sounds like you thought that **tom **should not have participated in that pitting, i.e. you thought mods should not be allowed to pit people *or *participate in pittings. Now, I may have been wrong in my reading (apparently I was) but that’s how I read it. Then **tom **responded with:
This post made perfect sense to me, because he apparently read your post the same way I did.
So, here you explain yourself and where I say to myself, “Hmm, I guess I misunderstood what **Zoe **was saying earlier, because I thought the same thing **tom **did.”
So, my purpose here is not to defend **tom **or get ensnared in all these (IMO, pointless) accusations and counter-accusations. I only wanted to let you know that a neutral, third party with no bias against you or anyone else (mis)interpreted your posts the same way **tom *did, so you might want to take that into consideration, FWIW.
*
And now, back to our regularly scheduled sniping…
This is a whoosh right?
Your actually asking TPTB to rule on questions of morality now?
We’ve officially jumped the rule shark and are now cruising over Pope Cecil the Pious’ piranha pond.
Can we get a sticky on pre-marital sex too?
Or have sticky pre-marital sex … or something … oh, and a pony!
CMC fnord!
No, it’s not a whoosh. tomndebb is a mod. Therefore his actions, even as a poster, can be used to set a precedent for the board’s standards.
As long as I’ve been a poster here it’s been considered de riguer for a poster to recant and apologize whenever they’ve said something that was erroneous or untrue and that something was shown or proven to be false.
It would be easy for me, for example, to use his behavior toward me as an excuse to avoid having to suck it up and apologize whenever I make a mistake. All I’d have to do is refuse because the poster or posters in question had previously insulted me or because I bore a grudge toward them from a previous disagreement, and then use tomndebb’s behavior toward me on this issue to justify taking that position.
Mod behavior, with mod hat on or not, should be held to a higher standard because their actions can be used as a precent for other members’ behavior. It would be easy for me, for example, to make false accusations about another poster and then when proven wrong, refuse to apologize because that poster had previously insulted me or because I bore him a grudge over previous disagreements, and then use tomndebb’s actions toward me to prove that that’s okay.
And in my opinion the quality of the board’s discourse could go downhill because people would be free to spout any kind of nonsense they want about anyone else and not be held accountable, as they largely are now.
ShadowFacts, thanks for your courteous explanation and inquiry. I’m not sure that I am understanding you correctly, but I hope this helps.
Marley23 said that Mods aren’t allowed to Pit another Doper (meaning to start a thread that is personally critical of another Doper.) I don’t know for certain Ed’s reasoning behind this rule, but I have been told that it is along the lines of helping to preserve respect for the Mods.
My contention is that Tom gets around the spirit of the rule by being personally critical of other Dopers in Pit threads that have been started by someone else. He avoids the profane and obscene namecalling, but manages to use his gift with words to post comments that are just as attacking.
Tom claims that he does this only in self defense and that I have said that he has no right to defend himself. That is not a true statement of my thinking at all! And Tom has failed to provide a cite after being asked twice to do so.
Defending oneself can be healthy behavior. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see that one is treated honestly and fairly.
However, it isn’t necessary to attack others when defending oneself. My understanding is that it is the attacking of Dopers that is violating the spirit of the rule against Mods pitting Dopers.
tomndebb is someone who I have long thought should have a medal for his treatment of Starving Artist. Very few others have had the patience to respond to Starving Artist’s completely fantastic and nosensical descriptions of civil rights and the evolution of American culture in the 20th century. I for one was unsure whether treating them with such thought and patience was a good idea, since it might give a false sense of legitimacy to Starving Artist’s claims. Most other people here, notably me, take the much easier and more vulgar route of dismissing Starving’s nonsense with extreme prejudice.
Of any faults tomndebb might have, his treatment of that particular poster is not even on the radar.
None of which is surprising in the least, given that the enmity between the two of us goes back years before my comments on the effects of liberalism on this country.
His “treatment” of me isn’t what is in question. His honesty and integrity is.
It’s amusing how you allegedly take the “vulgar” route of dismissing me with “prejudice”, yet rarely miss an opportunity to take some sort of backhanded swipe at me whenever the opportunity presents itself. It’s not surprising to me in the slightest that you see nothing wrong with tomndebb’s dishonesty and lack of integrity.
I thought modifying someone’s handle was not acceptable outside of the pit.
True. Mea fuckup. I was so concentrated on not spelling it “Hector the Librarian”, as I usually do, that I forgot “Contrarian” was one of my previous subs for Barbarian.
So, unlike your buddy tom, I hereby fall on my sword and admit error and apologize.