Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:39:59 09/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2004 at 08:13:00, Steve B wrote:
>In fact, this reminds me very much of the
>>general feelings on safe sex education. Many conservatives think that discussing
>>and instructing on safe sex will somehow promote teen sex, and as a consequence
>>teen pregnancies and disease. So they would prefer a gag order. I think the
>>opposite and promote education as the best weapon. I can never see silence and
>>ignorance as the best strategy. This is much the same.
>
>no its not at all
>i have to tell you your analogies are completely misguided
>you make a leaping anaology...allowing rascist posts to go undeleted...to ..lack
>of sex education...
>then you go on to debate this point..with yourself(i might add)
If by debating them with myself, you mean you have no arguments of your own to
add, or refuse to do so, then I suppose that's true. Otherwise I don't
understand the last comment. I pretty much never say anything without backing it
up with some form of argument or information. That doesn't mean I'm debating
this with myself, in case that's the source of your comment, it means I'm
explaining my stance.
I *do* think there are moderation issues to be addressed, but the problem is
that they deal with some nebulous grey areas. Far from the black and white being
announced here. I will still try to address them from within. In any case, it
changes nothing on my preception of CTF. You seem to believe that I argue for no
moderation changes. In fact I haven't and never have. What I did argue with was
the blanket description of CTF and its members based on 2-3 people. CTF is far
mroe than 2-3 members and to claim they and their beliefs are somehow more
significant in making up what CTF is, is an offense to the vast majority. You
have 2-3 who do indeed post offensive posts. You have at least 30 regular
posters who write on a wide range of subjects. More perhaps, I haven't really
made any list. Somehow, those posters are ignored and people point to the 2 and
say that is what CTF is all about. It is a comment that is so illogical, not to
mention biased, that I found it hard to say nothing. You can argue that CTF
needs to review some of the moderation issues, and that's fine, but to claim
that it is *filled* with hate, discrimination, and racism based on a couple of
people, that's just plain ridiculous.
>i am no right wing conservative i can assure you
>i am against allowing rascist and hateful posts to remain on a board undeleted
>and in many cases not even commented on
Well, this may seem like silent agreement I suppose to some, but it's not really
so. Suppose I say, "Arabs are the bane of the world" or some such nonsense. You
choose to argue this with me. We enter an animated debate, in which you try to
reason with me (lots of luck after such a comment, but it's natural) and I
present my arguments, which I have btw. You are intrigued and address these
arguments as well. We go one for some 10 posts each leading to quite a lengthy
thread. In the end, I have listened as well, as I showed while debating this
with you, but continue with my anti-arab beliefs. Fine. Because I am really
stuck on this belief, I post another thread on this with new arguments of a
sort, and perhaps even "evidence". You dispute this too. After a while though,
you grow weary. You're clearly not going to convince me, so when the next
nonsense thread come up with my name attached to it, you decide to not waste
your time, and discuss more interesting things with others.
I'll just add that I really don't think they are begeting more though. This
isn't a forum of young children who just nod their heads in wide eyes at
anything you may say with an authorative tone.
I am no longer moderator there. If I were, well, there would have been arguments
on this to be sure.
Albert
>many times i saw this on the CTF..
>you think the posting of hate,exclusion and rascism is somehow a good thing..
>i do not..
>lets leave it at this
>
>i am fairly certain you and i will never see eye to eye on this
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You can hardly present
>>arguments or discussion if you close up shop on all dialogue. Will there be a
>>long line of converts? Hardly, but people do discuss and have the opportunity to
>>learn.
>>
>>In genuine humility, I have. This entire series of threads on the subject has
>>really helped open my eyes further on the value of dialogue and freedom of
>>speech, even though I thought I understood these concepts well. So in answer to
>>your question above, in utter seriousness: Yes, me.
>>
>> Albert
>>
>>>do you think this "dig the heels in and close ranks"approach is working?
>>>or perhaps simply admitting that the CTF needs more reasonable moderation would
>>>be more effective?
>>>
>>>this are rhetorical questions and need not be answered.
>>>actually i myself am a bit tired about trying to explain the reason's why the
>>>CTF is perceived the way it is by so many CCC members
>>>you guys win..dont change the CTF one iota..
>>>donations will remain as it is ,anemic and far less then neccesary to meet the
>>>cost..and soon both boards are gone..
>>>i sent in my donation minutes after Steve asked for it,i tried to remedy the
>>>issues with CTF.(either de-link or better moderation)
>>>i did my share
>>>
>>>
>>>Final Post on this subject Regards
>>>Steve
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.