JC: Why did you close this thread in GD?

About This Message Board
#1

This thread.

Granted, it was about justifying pedophilia, but if one reads your mod post upon closing it, it looks like you did so because one poster got warned. Which would seem like a bad reason to close a thread. Did you close it because of the topic and/or the the guy who resurrected it as a Zombie? I didn’t see any warnings given to him, and he wasn’t banned, so I assume not.

Just to be extremely clear: I’m not arguing that the thread should have been left open. I just don’t think there was anywhere near a good explanation as to why it was closed.

#2

Why was Tangent warned for posting the reasonable enough assumption - given his posts - that Henry Miller really wants to fuck some kids?

#3

Exactly. Tangent summarized the poster’s wall-o-text extremely well.

#4

Because as much as H.M was asking for it, you can’t insult a poster.

Or this is one of those times you take one for the team.

#5

Was that really an insult? Is it possible JC actually meant the warning to be directed at H. Miller? It would be nice to get a fuller explanation of what that moderation was all about.

#6

From what I understand of the rules, if poster A posts a long impassioned screed in defense of kiddy-diddling and poster B says “So, you want to have sex with children?”, Poster B will draw a warning. Not sure of the reasoning behind this. Tangent would not have been warned on any sane board.

#7

Esp. since it seems like a perfectly accurate description of said OP’er.
“Hi everybody, new Doper here! I want to talk about HAVING sex with cantalopes!”

“So he’s a cantalope fucker.”

“TWEET! WARNING!”

#8

I figured that’s what it was for.
I quick-read through the Hoover Dam of text and I didn’t see where H.M. said he was a pedo or had those desires so he appeared to be merely making the argument.
Lord knows why.

#9
  1. Zombie thread.
  2. Bumped by wall-o-text
  3. A thread close to generating into abuse and such

If that’s not a cause for closure, I don’t know what is.

As for the warning? We’ve had self-professed pedophiles on the board before and it’s been permitted. However icky - and I agree that it’s icky, God knows - so long as the discussion remains civil and no one’s actively describing ways to get away with it or posting where and how to pick up first graders.

On the other hand, there’s a vast difference between 'So, you like having sex with kids, eh?" and the intentionally insulting, “This guy *really *wants to fuck some kids.” For one thing, it’s not an attempt at discussion…tangent is playing to the audience. For another, it’s presenting in an intentionally insulting manner. That’ll pick up a warning.

#10

Why?

#11

Well, I didn’t draft the registration agreement, nor was I a mod at the time, so I can just give my answer.

Why not? We’re - supposedly - about the exchange of ideas and discussion. Pedophilia is certainly something that is discussable. So when someone comes here claiming to be a pedophile - whether they act on it or not - should we just automatically shut it down because some of us find it icky?

Honestly, if Mary Kay LeTourneau showed up one day and started an ‘Ask the…’ thread wouldn’t that have value? It’d sure be a change of pace. And provided she didn’t tell others the best way to evade the law and how to recruit youngsters for sex I think she’d be within the registration agreement.

#12

I’m not seeing a vast difference there, to be honest. The former implies that the target has actually fucked some kids, and the latter that it is merely an ambition. What’s the more insulting again?

#13

No, there really isn’t.

#14

It’s legal to be a pedophile. It’s not legal to act on those needs.

#15

Sure, but so what? If I owned a bar and a customer came in talking about having sex with kids, doing so so loudly and insistently that other customers were getting grossed out and settling up, I’d cut the guy off and ask him to leave.

The dope lost good posters after the Cesario debacle–Jodi, for one. I guess they’ve learned nothing.

#16

I think claiming there’s “a vast difference” between those statements is a bit of a stretch. If there is a difference, it’s pretty thin. The latter is, at worst, a slightly harsher way of stating the former.

That’s a good point and I can’t argue there.

I can see this but honestly it looks to me more like an honest objective assessment of the guy’s beliefs based on that post. He rather clearly wants to have sex with kids or at least give us the appearance that he wants to have sex with kids.

Personally, I think he should have gotten at worst a note, but that’s me.

#17

Maybe it’s not The Dope that didn’t learn the lesson.

#18

Oh, OK. But you didn’t list any of those reasons in your post when you closed the thread. Hence the curiosity.

#19

Could be an accurate assessment. Or it could be Henry Miller wasn’t being totally sincere. But since there’s a thread pitting him, probably the safest thing that Tangent might have done would be to have posted that comment there.

#20

Let’s see.

#1. Zombie thread? I didn’t realize that was ever a reason to close a thread.

#2. Wall of text? Annoying but still no reason to close a thread.

#3. Close to generating abuse? How close is close?

Naaa, I prefer to think you were equally put off by the tone of a particular poster’s shtick. If that’s the case, I totally agree with you.

IMHO, he was advocating, or promoting, illegal activity and should have had his balls removed with the ban hammer.