good dialogue…very funny…
Bjorn, you just kinda get on my nerves, this dates back to the whole icelanders vs the rest of the planet debate…I purposely call you bjork ( I believe there is a singer with that name, an odd looking little creature of no discernible sex that you put me in mind of.)but I’ll stop though.
I really enjoy disagreeing with you, so stop being so damn nice!
honestly my adamant dislike of you is meant to ellicit a smile…I also told my best friend that when she bickers whith her husband in front of me that it gives me a rash…etc.
nothing personal little bear.
kisses
Kelli
Jess
Member posted 08-13-1999 05:49 PM
“Am I correct in assuming that Dex is responding to posts by Con #3 that have been pulled?”
I hope so. The only other explanation I can think of is that he’s having a conversation with the voices in his head. :)
CKDextHavn
Administrator posted 08-14-1999 03:29 PM
“Gosh, officer, why are you arresting me for armed robbery of this bank, when the clerks who work there steal pens and paper from the bank every day? You’re not being even-handed in your treatment of us robbers!"
An amusing defense.”
An even better analogy, IMO, than either this one or c#3’s would be “Gee officer, there aren’t any guards around here, the clerks let me walk right in and take the money, and everyone else in the bank was grabbing as much cash as they can carry. I thought the bank had decided to give its money away.”
The fact of the matter is that it is pretty much impossible to have an in-depth conversation without breaking these rules. When I read them, I figured they were so all-encompassing that they were more to encourage the vague, ill-defined standard of “don’t be a jerk” than to provide an actual guide to behavior. Here’s list of the rules, along with statement that could be construed as breaking the rule.
knowingly false and/or defamatory,
“In 1994, three teenagers disappeared while investigating reports of a ‘Blair Witch’. ”
inaccurate,
“The human body contains 200 bones.”
abusive,
“You are absolutely, 100% dead wrong.”
vulgar,
“Have you seen Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me?”
hateful,
“Those neo-Nazis really annoy me.”
harassing,
“I still haven’t heard a response from you. Do you have a rebuttal or not?”
obscene,
“Research suggests that the female orgasm may aid conception.”
profane,
“Jesus was a real jerk.”
sexually oriented,
“So, have you heard that the Mormon church declared that it will fight against the recognition of gay marriages?”
threatening,
“If you continue to go off topic, I’m just going to ignore you.”
invasive of a person’s privacy,
“Have you ever used pot?”
or otherwise violative of any law.
“The following article has been banned from China:”
By making the rules so hard to follow, ignoring the vast majority of violations (I could probably find somwthing wrong with at least half the posts), allowing administrators/moderators to ignore the rules, and creating a forum expressly for those that wish to break the rules, you make the few cases where you do enforce the rules seem like instances of singling one person out. You’ve basicaly said “It’s against the rules to say anything that someone else might not like, but we’ll only enforce this when we feel like it.” It seems to me you might as well be honest and say that there’s only one rule: don’t do anything the administration doesn’t want you to do.
CKDextHavn
Administrator posted 08-17-1999 08:07 AM
“Could you please explain to me, though: about the deletion of the entire thread. Ed apologized and admitted it was an error. Why is there is still an uproar about that?”
There’s sort of a difference between someone trying to make something right because they feel bad about it vs. they don’t think they’ll get away with it, isn’t there? Not that we know which one is the true state of affairs, but some people apparently aren’t inclined to give Ed the benefit of the doubt.
-Ryan
" ‘Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.’ " -Kurt Vonnegut, * Breakfast of Champions *