Ninny ... the new dirty word

[TomJoe]

The word "ninny" edited over at IIDB (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2269127&postcount=8)

Does calling someone who obviously can't read, a "ninny", constitute ad hominem? Thanks to Pervy, I may as well have called mountain_hare an asshole or the son of a motherless goat, to the same effect.

The people over at IIDB should never bitch about CF moderating ever again.

Oh, and why is the word "ninny" edited, but not "thin skinned pussies"? Should I have called mountain_hare a "pussy" instead?

[viscousmemories]

What I find more ironic is that calling someone a 'ninny' is evaluated as an insult, while implying that someone is illiterate isn't. I'll never understand the rationale behind that. But then again I've never much understood any moderation rationale, which is why I'm drawn to forums that don't have any moderation.

[livius drusus]

Well, you see, TomJoe, if you had just said mountain hares are ninnies then there would have been no problem. Just like mountain_hare would have been edited if he had said you sir, are a CF moderator and therefore a pussy.

[godfry n. glad]

:damn: Wha....?

Is this for real? :oyvey:

[Corona688]

Seems so. I think I glimpsed the edit in question somewhere in ~E~

[Roland98]

The word "ninny" edited over at IIDB (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2269127&postcount=8)

Does calling someone who obviously can't read, a "ninny", constitute ad hominem? Thanks to Pervy, I may as well have called mountain_hare an asshole or the son of a motherless goat, to the same effect.

**(With the disclaimer that I stay the hell away from that CF thread, and assuming this is where said edit occurred...)**

Well, yeah. Call him a loser or a motherfucking cross-eyed communist goatshit eater, they're both insults. It's not rocket science.

Oh, and why is the word "ninny" edited, but not "thin skinned pussies"? Should I have called mountain_hare a "pussy" instead?

Did someone call someone else a thin-skinned pussy? It's not the word that's edited; go and call someone's father a ninny and it'll stay as long as his father's not a member of the board. It's the use of the word as an insult to another user that makes it editable.

[godfry n. glad]

But....
ninny?
:roflmao:

[viscousmemories]

I think it was a justified edit, honestly. As Roland said, namecalling is namecalling. He could've called him a pooface and it would be a rule violation. But that's the problem with their rule about insults, imo. All you have to do if you want to insult someone is avoid direct statements, a practice many of the regulars there are well-versed in. For example I'm pretty sure if TomJoe had said "In my experience people who complain about the moderation of one forum on another are ninnies", he would've been able to express the same sentiment but without being edited.

I demonstrated the effect this has in practice in a recent ICR thread over there, by responding to someone's post with "What a stupid fucking thing to say!" in large, bold font. As I expected it wasn't edited because it was an insult directed at what the user had said, not the user his/herself. Yet as we can see adding ", ninny." to a sentence will get an edit. Which would you find more insulting? :shrug:

[John Carter]

Does calling someone who obviously can't read, a "ninny", constitute ad hominem?


Not by itself. One can commit an ad hominem without insulting anyone, just as one can insult someone without committing an ad hominem. IOW, ad hominem is a specific logical fallacy which may or may not include an insult, but it is most definitely not synonymous with insult.

Calling someone a ninny is only an ad hominem if you say something like: "You are a ninny, therefore your argument has no merit."

[godfry n. glad]

And does it matter if they were blithering or not?

Or, tittering, even?

[viscousmemories]

Actually I just re-read the rules there to make sure my comments above were accurate, and realized that IIDB doesn't actually have a rule against insults. They have a rule against being a jerk, insulting others is considered jerk-like behavior, and moderators are empowered to deal with jerk-like behavior however they see fit. There don't seem to be any written guidelines (in public view, anyway) as to what exactly may or may not be edited, so I guess it doesn't make sense to say it was a justified edit. I'll maintain though that it's at least consistent with the general moderation practice as I've seen it there.

Here's the jerk rule:

(1) You agree not to be a jerk.

The following are some but not all guidelines on the behavior required to comply with this rule. This is not an exhaustive set of rules and it is left to the discretion of Moderators and Administrators to decide what is and is not acceptable behavior.

Do not post material that is knowingly defamatory, illegal, abusive, threatening, harassing, or generally viewed by a reasonable person as being a derogatory epithet.

You will not advocate what is generally accepted as illegal activity. If a moderator cannot readily determine if a post is a joke, then it will be treated as serious material and subject to deletion/editing.

Comments about other users, insults and flames are not acceptable.

The Internet Infidels discussion forum tries to be an intellectually-stimulating environment in which users exchange ideas in the spirit of discovery. Poisoning that environment with acrimony is highly discouraged. Please exercise tact and refrain from insulting others or disrupting ongoing discussions with inflammatory speech.

Hyperbolic or overly-emotive language and imagery, such as saying "Christians are morons", is generally discouraged.

Off-topic posting or hijacking of threads is inappropriate.

Calling a fellow poster "delusional", "deceitful", or a similarly inflammatory accusation, is not acceptable even if you believe that the accusation is true.

In general, any material that is deliberately goading should not be posted.

Members will refrain from retaliating to inflammatory material with further insults or inappropriate comments.

If you encounter a post that you believe contravenes the rules of the board then you are encouraged to use the 'Report this post' function to alert a forum moderator.

Administrators do not monitor Private Messages (PMs). However, you agree not to use the Private Message system to circumvent the IIDB rules regarding insults, threats or harassment. Should such abuse come to the attention of the Administrators, the Administrators will treat PMs as if they were open posts.

[viscousmemories]

Actually now that I look at that I don't really understand the use of the words "inappropriate", "unacceptable", "generally discouraged", etc. in that context, since the opening sentences specify that whether a post is acceptable is up to the individual mods' and admins' discretion and some of those behaviors (like the ability to say "Christians are morons") are held as virtually sacred rights by the usership there. In fact I don't think I've ever seen a moderator discourage generalized insults directed toward practitioners of any religion even if said people are posting in the same thread.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be getting down on II or their staff here. I see these same problems crop up in every forum that moderates "insults" and every rationalization I've seen just seems to be so arbitrary as to be absurd. I do respect their desire to create and maintain a civilized environment, I guess I just don't have much faith in moderation for that purpose. Especially when there are huge blind spots in the rules like that.

[livius drusus]

I think they subsumed all those things under the jerk rule when they revamped the rules early last year. Almost all of them are direct quotations from individual forum rules and are definitely cited as grounds for deletion. I haven't seen the generic jerk rule invoked in ages.

I had forgotten about the goading one. "In general, any material that is deliberately goading should not be posted." That's kind of a knee-slapper, ain't it?

[TomJoe]

I see. Do not be a jerk.

I guess it's not jerk-ish behavior to misread the OP and spout some stupid generalized, insulting inanity, but it is jerk-ish behavior to call someone a ninny.

I stand corrected. Mea culpa. :yawn:

[livius drusus]

No need to be such a thin-skinned pussy about it, TomJoe. :giggle:

[godfry n. glad]

Waitaminnit....

Is this some kind of "do as I say, not as I do" thing?

Wouldn't they have to get rid of about half their moderators and admins if they consistently invoked the "Jerk Rule"?

[Roland98]

Actually now that I look at that I don't really understand the use of the words "inappropriate", "unacceptable", "generally discouraged", etc. in that context, since the opening sentences specify that whether a post is acceptable is up to the individual mods' and admins' discretion and some of those behaviors (like the ability to say "Christians are morons") are held as virtually sacred rights by the usership there. In fact I don't think I've ever seen a moderator discourage generalized insults directed toward practitioners of any religion even if said people are posting in the same thread.

You don't read E/C very much then. :) You know I really don't like to edit--I tend to post just those kinds of warnings instead. Which, of course, you then say are condescending and treat the users like they're children.

And y'know, even in the thread TomJoe is talking about, there was a warning from a M@L to knock off the insults. I'd have probably left it at that since the thread got locked anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be getting down on II or their staff here. I see these same problems crop up in every forum that moderates "insults" and every rationalization I've seen just seems to be so arbitrary as to be absurd. I do respect their desire to create and maintain a civilized environment, I guess I just don't have much faith in moderation for that purpose. Especially when there are huge blind spots in the rules like that.

I understand and I agree with a lot of that, but there needs to be some cut-off and that's where the line's been drawn.

I guess it's not jerk-ish behavior to misread the OP and spout some stupid generalized, insulting inanity, but it is jerk-ish behavior to call someone a ninny.

No, both are.

So I saw the thread where this came from--the title of which contains the phrase "christian forum." I don't think it's unreasonable to make the mistake that it was the "Christian Forums" that banned the opening poster, given their reputation. Simple mistake that I probably would have made myself, except that I'm all too familiar with the famous Fritz from CBBS--and you may notice, I corrected him in my own post on that thread, so why the need to go and insult him afterward? How exactly did that advance the discussion?

[TomJoe]

I guess it's not jerk-ish behavior to misread the OP and spout some stupid generalized, insulting inanity, but it is jerk-ish behavior to call someone a ninny.

No, both are.


Then why is it that my post gets edited, and in such a way that it makes it look like I used much "stronger" language (like asshole, or fuck stick, or something along those lines) and there was no direct intervention with mountain_hare's post?

I could speculate ... but for the time being, I will not.

[TomJoe]

So I saw the thread where this came from--the title of which contains the phrase "christian forum." I don't think it's unreasonable to make the mistake that it was the "Christian Forums" that banned the opening poster, given their reputation. Simple mistake that I probably would have made myself, except that I'm all too familiar with the famous Fritz from CBBS--and you may notice, I corrected him in my own post on that thread, so why the need to go and insult him afterward? How exactly did that advance the discussion?

Anyone who can comprehend what they have read, would know after reading the OP, that the christian forum being discussed, was not the Christian Forums. Basic reading comprehension ... a skill taught very early on in a child's educational development. If mountain_hare is on IIDB, I would hazard a guess that he/she/it should be well past that stage.

So I commented on it.

So, why did I apparently rub further salt in his wound after your admonishment? Because I replied to his post immediately after I read it. Many people here can attest to the fact that I do not read entire threads before making my own comments. It's my style, and how I've been posting on the internet for a decade now. I read, I respond.

[Roland98]

Then why is it that my post gets edited, and in such a way that it makes it look like I used much "stronger" language (like asshole, or fuck stick, or something along those lines) and there was no direct intervention with mountain_hare's post?

I could speculate ... but for the time being, I will not.

Because his isn't editable. We don't edit people for misreading--dear lord, I'd have to delete almost every creationist post in E/C! :)

Anyone who can comprehend what they have read, would know after reading the OP, that the christian forum being discussed, was not the Christian Forums. Basic reading comprehension ... a skill taught very early on in a child's educational development. If mountain_hare is on IIDB, I would hazard a guess that he/she/it should be well past that stage.

So I commented on it.

Actually that's not made very clear. Christianity.com and crosswalk.com's addresses are listed, but someone who's not familiar with those sites (or with Fritz) may not have understood how they played a role in innerpeace's banning. He didn't say specifically which one banned him--again, all he says is "pussy christian forum."

So, why did I apparently rub further salt in his wound after your admonishment? Because I replied to his post immediately after I read it. Many people here can attest to the fact that I do not read entire threads before making my own comments. It's my style, and how I've been posting on the internet for a decade now. I read, I respond.

Well, that's kind of being a jerk also, to ignore the rest of the thread--but you can see that's clearly not actionable behavior, because I'd have to have some 6th sense or a history with you to know that you hadn't read the rest of the posts. Editing insults (more often than not--there of course are exceptions) is generally pretty straightforward.

[TomJoe]

Well, that's kind of being a jerk also, to ignore the rest of the thread...
I disagree. If you think this is also jerk-ish behavior, I guess my reply is "TFB". Which I guess you can also lament as being jerk-ish behavior. From my vantage point, I look at it as me giving the poster I am focusing my comments on, my undivided attention, free of any comments or criticisms which may bias me further on down in the thread. If someone has already made the same comments I am about to make, then the idea was good enough to be repeated twice (or more) IMNSHO.

As for the rest of the posts in the thread, I'll deal with them when I get to them. It's a fairly simple concept and it's served me well for a decade, without any criticisms even, until today.

[godfry n. glad]

If you think this is also jerk-ish behavior, I guess my reply is "TFB". Which I guess you can also lament as being jerk-ish behavior.

Ah... well...

Thanks for making my point for me.

[viscousmemories]

Well, that's kind of being a jerk also, to ignore the rest of the thread...
I disagree. If you think this is also jerk-ish behavior, I guess my reply is "TFB". Which I guess you can also lament as being jerk-ish behavior. From my vantage point, I look at it as me giving the poster I am focusing my comments on, my undivided attention, free of any comments or criticisms which may bias me further on down in the thread. If someone has already made the same comments I am about to make, then the idea was good enough to be repeated twice (or more) IMNSHO.
That's an interesting perspective. I've always figured people do that because they're more interested in promoting their own POV than trying to re-evaluate their own in light of new or different information. How does it help you learn anything if you focus on a particular statement at a particular point in time, irrespective of any new information or change in the original position?

[Roland98]

Well, that's kind of being a jerk also, to ignore the rest of the thread...
I disagree. If you think this is also jerk-ish behavior, I guess my reply is "TFB". Which I guess you can also lament as being jerk-ish behavior.

Nah, to each his own--I'm just pointing out how what's "being a jerk" to one person is perfectly acceptable to another person: a point you pretty much just cemented. That's why those rules are guidelines, and generally only the insults portion are subject to edit.

From my vantage point, I look at it as me giving the poster I am focusing my comments on, my undivided attention, free of any comments/criticisms which may bias me further down in the thread. If someone has already made the same comments I am about to make, then the idea was good enough to be repeated twice (or more) IMNSHO.

So what if, hypothetically, the person you attacked had already acknowledged his mistake and then apologized earlier in the thread--that you skimmed over? Wouldn't that make you feel like an ass?

[TomJoe]

That's an interesting perspective. I've always figured people do that because they're more interested in promoting their own POV than trying to re-evaluate their own in light of new or different information. How does it help you learn anything if you focus on a particular statement at a particular point in time, irrespective of any new information or change in the original position?

Well, it's not as if I make my reply, and then skip the rest of the thread to focus only on what may arise after I've made my post. I may be able to produce threads elsewhere, where I've made a comment based on my own feelings and knowledge of the situation at the time, only to come up with a reply a while later saying: You know what, I didn't take that into consideration earlier, I need to think on that. As long as I post honestly and up front about what I'm thinking/feeling, I don't see it as a ego trip or anything of that nature.

If you're italian, and have been to a big family dinner where the conversation has turned to talk on politics or religion, you'd know how I view posting on MBs. :)

[viscousmemories]

You know I really don't like to edit--I tend to post just those kinds of warnings instead. Which, of course, you then say are condescending and treat the users like they're children.
No, no. It's not the admonishments themselves, it's the language that's sometimes employed that irritates me. "Play nice", "Okay kids, let's keep it civil", "Don't make me have to put the smack-down on this thread", etc. I'd personally be fine with "Please tone down your comments", or "If the insults don't stop, this thread will be locked". I don't see any benefit to speaking to adults like they're children - but of course you'll say if they're acting like children... :P

[Roland98]

If you think this is also jerk-ish behavior, I guess my reply is "TFB". Which I guess you can also lament as being jerk-ish behavior.

Ah... well...

Thanks for making my point for me.

Hey! I didn't say that!!

[Roland98]

You know I really don't like to edit--I tend to post just those kinds of warnings instead. Which, of course, you then say are condescending and treat the users like they're children.
No, no. It's not the admonishments themselves, it's the language that's sometimes employed that irritates me. "Play nice", "Okay kids, let's keep it civil", "Don't make me have to put the smack-down on this thread", etc. I'd personally be fine with "Please tone down your comments", or "If the insults don't stop, this thread will be locked". I don't see any benefit to speaking to adults like they're children - but of course you'll say if they're acting like children... :P

I like "play nice." :) I don't think I've ever used "kids," but if I had, it was in jest--as I'm pretty sure anyone else who used that would have been. Doubting Didymus always had the best warnings like that--sometimes a thread just needs some lightening up.

[TomJoe]

So what if, hypothetically, the person you attacked had already acknowledged his mistake and then apologized earlier in the thread--that you skimmed over? Wouldn't that make you feel like an ass?

I'd reply to his/her/its acknowledgement and likewise offer an apology myself and commend him/her/it for their public pronouncement. Having an ego on a MB doesn't do much. A MB ego still can't get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks unless I shell out an additional five dollars. But my mistake wouldn't make me feel like an ass. I feel like an ass when I walk out a door and forget to hold it open for the person who is walking up to enter the building I just left. I feel like an ass if I cut someone off unintentionally in traffic because I didn't adjust my mirrors properly. I however, do not feel like an ass for replying to a post without reading the rest of the posts below it. No matter what the consequences may be.

Perhaps my method of posting/replying to posts is unconventional, and makes me more prone to these faux pas, but I think I'm on the safe side here in saying that when someone doesn't read what has been written, and then spouts off calling an entirely different group a bunch of "thin skinned pussies", that the chances are ... they won't be apologizing.

[Roland98]

Perhaps my method of posting/replying to posts is unconventional, and makes me more prone to these faux pas, but I think I'm on the safe side here in saying that when someone doesn't read what has been written, and then spouts off calling an entirely different group a bunch of "thin skinned pussies", that the chances are ... they won't be apologizing.

Quite possibly...but again, I think it's quite possible for one to indeed have read what was written in that OP and still think it's from Christian forums. :)

[godfry n. glad]

If you think this is also jerk-ish behavior, I guess my reply is "TFB". Which I guess you can also lament as being jerk-ish behavior.

Ah... well...

Thanks for making my point for me.

Hey! I didn't say that!!

Oops... my bad. I misread this and misquoted it, too. It should be appropriately attributed to TomJoe. Which, of course, guts the impact of my intended comment entirely.

:qsigh:
godfry

My sincerest apologies to Roland. :blush:

[TomJoe]

Quite possibly...but again, I think it's quite possible for one to indeed have read what was written in that OP and still think it's from Christian forums. :)

Of course it's possible for one to read what was written and still think it's from CF. It's possible when they don't stop to comprehend what they just read.

[Roland98]

My sincerest apologies to Roland. :blush:

Forgiven. :kisscheek:

[Roland98]

Quite possibly...but again, I think it's quite possible for one to indeed have read what was written in that OP and still think it's from Christian forums. :)

Of course it's possible for one to read what was written and still think it's from CF. It's possible when they don't stop to comprehend what they just read.

Show me. How did they not comprehend what they read? Again, the only place it even mentioned a site was in Fritz's signature--and even with reading comprehension, if you're not familiar with those sites, it means jack shit. Reading the title and the message from Fritz certainly sounds like it was from CF.

[Sweetie]

If you're italian, and have been to a big family dinner where the conversation has turned to talk on politics or religion, you'd know how I view posting on MBs. :)

LOL, we're not Italian but man there's a reason why I don't say much at family gatherings. My voice is softer and I just can't compete with the decimal level. :D

Oh man though, I miss the good ol' days with the rip-roaring debates in the living room about anything and everything but my favorites, some of my aunts against my militant atheist cousin. What was the poor boy thinking? :D

[TomJoe]

Show me. How did they not comprehend what they read? Again, the only place it even mentioned a site was in Fritz's signature--and even with reading comprehension, if you're not familiar with those sites, it means jack shit. Reading the title and the message from Fritz certainly sounds like it was from CF.

The key is those two links:

http://www.crosswalk.com
http://www.christianity.com

The fact that the link http://www.christianforums.com cannot be found anywhere in the OP, should lead one to deduce that christianforums.com is not the subject of the OP.

And if one isn't familiar with those sites, when why offer any damn commentary (ie: thin-skinned pussies) in the first place? Hmmm?

[viscousmemories]

I like "play nice." :) I don't think I've ever used "kids," but if I had, it was in jest--as I'm pretty sure anyone else who used that would have been. Doubting Didymus always had the best warnings like that--sometimes a thread just needs some lightening up.
Well I appreciate that you don't see it as condescending to instruct adult people who are in the midst of a serious discussion to "play nice", but I do. But I was responding to your implication that the only two options are editing and patronizing, which are both distasteful to me. There is at least one other option, and one I would appreciate, which is more respectful reminders to adhere to the site guidelines. I realize it's just a personal pet peeve, though. I don't think most of the posters have a problem with being talked down to by people in positions of authority. It's par for the course in our society.

[Roland98]

Show me. How did they not comprehend what they read? Again, the only place it even mentioned a site was in Fritz's signature--and even with reading comprehension, if you're not familiar with those sites, it means jack shit. Reading the title and the message from Fritz certainly sounds like it was from CF.

The key is those two links:

http://www.crosswalk.com
http://www.christianity.com

But simply reading those doesn't tell you anything. Could have just been some random sites he linked in his sig, or blogs of his or something. Reading comprehension alone wouldn't enlighten you.

The fact that the link http://www.christianforums.com cannot be found anywhere in the OP, should lead one to deduce that christianforums.com is not the subject of the OP.

But it is in the title--and in Fritz's message, all that's mentioned are "communities."

Say I wrote a thread at II titled, "Those fuckers at freethought forum won't leave me alone!" But then I proceed to write about, say, JREF, or somewhere that could be considered a "freethought forum" but not The Freethought Forum, with the only reference being a link in a sig in a message I received from someone there. I think, given the usership at II, it would be reasonable for them to assume I meant here, even after reading the OP.

And if one isn't familiar with those sites, when why offer any damn commentary (ie: thin-skinned pussies) in the first place? Hmmm?

One can be familiar with CF but not the others and not realize that those links go to other christian forums. Yes, "christianity.com" is pretty obviously a Christian site, but even there you have to click on the "forums" button to get to the MB. Crosswalk isn't obvious at all.

[TomJoe]

One can be familiar with CF but not the others and not realize that those links go to other christian forums. Yes, "christianity.com" is pretty obvious, but crosswalk isn't.

If one is familiar with CF, they'd know that there is no person named Fritz on staff.

[Roland98]

One can be familiar with CF but not the others and not realize that those links go to other christian forums. Yes, "christianity.com" is pretty obvious, but crosswalk isn't.

If one is familiar with CF, they'd know that there is no person named Fritz on staff.

Oh, c'mon. I occasionally read CF and I have no idea who's on the staff. The only one I know about is Erwin because I hear him discussed so often at II.

[TomJoe]

Say I wrote a thread at II titled, "Those fuckers at freethought forum won't leave me alone!" But then I proceed to write about, say, JREF, or somewhere that could be considered a "freethought forum" but not The Freethought Forum, with the only reference being a link in a sig in a message I received from someone there. I think, given the usership at II, it would be reasonable for them to assume I meant here, even after reading the OP.


Then IMO the IIDB usership is a bunch of idiots. And I actually disagree with you. I think most of the membership at IIDB would be savvy enough to notice the link and realize the OP was not about The Freethought Forum. I also think that most of the IIDB membership, even if they didn't realize it, wouldn't spout off some inanity calling the staff here at the Freethougth Forum a bunch of pussies. Only a select, stupid few, would do that.

All of which is an aside to the point that censorship of the word "ninny" is pretty assinine IMO. Especially how it was done. But then again, I'm biased, since I was the subject of the official action.

[viscousmemories]

I read the OP and thought it was about CF. This is because 98 out of 100 posts I've read at IIDB that are antagonistic toward a Christian forum are about THE Christian Forums.

My anecdotal $0.02 on that.

[livius drusus]

Anyone who called the staff here a bunch of pussies would be innumerate as well as illiterate.

[TomJoe]

Oh, c'mon. I occasionally read CF and I have no idea who's on the staff. The only one I know about is Erwin because I hear him discussed so often at II.

Then you are not familiar with CF.

Anyone who is not familiar with a place, but still feels the need to offer such intellectual gems as calling them all pussies, is a ninny ... at a bare minimum.

Also, if you are familiar with staff enough to know that they are all pussies, than one really should also be familiar with whom they just called a pussy.

[TomJoe]

I read the OP and thought it was about CF. This is because 98 out of 100 posts I've read at IIDB that are antagonistic toward a Christian forum are about THE Christian Forums.

My anecdotal $0.02 on that.

Yes, but ... you also didn't jump in and offer *ahem* "commentary" on something you are not familiar with. mountain_hare however apparently does suffer from verbal diarrhea.

[viscousmemories]

Yes, but ... you also didn't jump in and offer *ahem* "commentary" on something you are not familiar with. mountain_hare however apparently does suffer from verbal diarrhea.
Okay, but I was addressing the question of whether one must be an idiot or illiterate to incorrectly surmise that the OP was about Christian Forums. Since I made the same mistake and I don't think either of those adjectives describes me, I'd say not. Of course I have proven time and again in posts on these forums that I am literate, but it may very well be the case that I'm an idiot. In fact I often think I am.

[TomJoe]

Okay, but I was addressing the question of whether one must be an idiot or illiterate to incorrectly surmise that the OP was about Christian Forums. Since I made the same mistake and I don't think either of those adjectives describes me, I'd say not. Of course I have proven time and again in posts on these forums that I am literate, but it may very well be the case that I'm an idiot. In fact I often think I am.


Ninny. ;)

In my defense, I did qualify my comments when I stated:
I also think that most of the IIDB membership, even if they didn't realize it, wouldn't spout off some inanity calling the staff here at the Freethougth Forum a bunch of pussies. Only a select, stupid few, would do that.

[pescifish]

."In my experience people who complain about the moderation of one forum on another are ninnies"

[TomJoe]

."In my experience people who complain about the moderation of one forum on another are ninnies"


Touche! :D

You bastard. :P

[AspenMama]

Actually I just re-read the rules there to make sure my comments above were accurate, and realized that IIDB doesn't actually have a rule against insults.
Sure they do, within the jerk rule.

Here's the jerk rule:

(1) You agree not to be a jerk.

{snip}
Comments about other users, insults and flames are not acceptable.
{snip}
Really it is quite simple in my view and in my time as a former moderator there. Attacks against the argument = okay. Direct attacks against the individual = bad. But I will say that I was somewhat isolated in my role in the social forums-- particularly Secular Lifestyle and often see insults allowed to stand in other forums that I would've squashed as a moderator.

[viscousmemories]

Actually I just re-read the rules there to make sure my comments above were accurate, and realized that IIDB doesn't actually have a rule against insults.
Sure they do, within the jerk rule.

Here's the jerk rule:

(1) You agree not to be a jerk.

{snip}
Comments about other users, insults and flames are not acceptable.
{snip}
Well that's kind of the point I was making. It's hard to tell (because of the use of words like "unacceptable", "discouraged", etc.) which of those 'guidelines' listed within the jerk rule are actual rules themselves, and which are really just guidelines for determining whether someone is being a jerk.

ETA: In fact, even that line itself is confusing as a 'rule'. Are comments about other users really against the rules? So every time someone makes a comment about, say, seebs, is the remark edited out? If so the moderation is pretty lax, 'cause I see comments about other users all the time. And then aren't insults and flames the same thing? If not, what's a flame? That isn't clear either...

Really it is quite simple in my view and in my time as a former moderator there. Attacks against the argument = okay. Direct attacks against the individual = bad. But I will say that I was somewhat isolated in my role in the social forums-- particularly Secular Lifestyle and often see insults allowed to stand in other forums that I would've squashed as a moderator.
I don't really think it's that simple. What constitutes an attack, and then how do you determine whether it was directed against an individual? If someone posts an OP about their life as a carpenter, and I am the first and only poster to respond, and say "I think carpenters are assholes", is that an attack directed at the OP'er? I would think so, but I suspect the average moderator would consider it a general comment about carpenters.

[AspenMama]

Ah VM, my friend, you do have an uncanny knack for complication.

I always thought it simple in my role as moderator to make these determinations in my forums. I think at some point, you've got to quit tweaking the rules into complicated legalize, and rather rely on picking reasonable smart and cute moderators like myself. :P

[godfry n. glad]

Ah VM, my friend, you do have an uncanny knack for complication.

I always thought it simple in my role as moderator to make these determinations in my forums. I think at some point, you've got to quit tweaking the rules into complicated legalize, and rather rely on picking reasonable smart and cute moderators like myself. :P

Ah... Like when you tell somebody that they cannot call another a liar because they cannot read that person's mind? And when they tell you that they have three separate sources of communications from the same poster, each within minutes of each other, that make contradictory claims...do your repeat that they cannot read minds? Then, when they offer up various alternative approaches toward the poster, asking whether any or all are acceptable, do you state that using any one of them would be considered "cyber-stalking"? Isn't that a clear contradiction of the claim you made about them not being able to read the poster's mind?

What is it about IIDB moderators that they seem to be able to do things that they assure others is not possible? Do they think they are gods, or mindreaders, or what?

Arbitrary and capricious authority is not impressive to those upon whom it is imposed.

[viscousmemories]

Ah VM, my friend, you do have an uncanny knack for complication.
I said there's no explicit rule against insults, you said there was and pointed to the jerk rule, I pointed out that the jerk rule is not at all clear as to what exactly it refers to, and you say I'm complicating things? I don't understand.

I always thought it simple in my role as moderator to make these determinations in my forums. I think at some point, you've got to quit tweaking the rules into complicated legalize, and rather rely on picking reasonable smart and cute moderators like myself. :P
I don't know why you and others seem to think I'm being legalistic about the rules. On the contrary, I'm saying that as long as moderators are empowered to make subjective judgements about what constitutes an insulting comment, why limit their ability to do so by enshrining "generalized attacks" even in cases where the obvious target of the attack is an individual? If you ask me, that's the legalistic approach. I think the common sense approach would be to leave 'ninny' in and take "Buddhists are shit-eating dog fuckers" out. But that's not what happens.

Anyway as I understand it they're already struggling to keep the mod numbers at an appropriate level over there. It would probably be a really bad idea to up the requirements as high as "reasonable and cute", in addition to warm-blooded with an Internet connection. :P

[AspenMama]

Ah... Like when you tell somebody that they cannot call another a liar because they cannot read that person's mind? And when they tell you that they have three separate sources of communications from the same poster, each within minutes of each other, that make contradictory claims...do your repeat that they cannot read minds? Then, when they offer up various alternative approaches toward the poster, asking whether any or all are acceptable, do you state that using any one of them would be considered "cyber-stalking"? Isn't that a clear contradiction of the claim you made about them not being able to read the poster's mind?

godfry-- You well know that I was not the moderator with which you had these issues. I had not wanted to get into this with you but here's my take. You had a legitimate gripe with a certain poster at II mostly as I understand through PM conversations.

You wanted to inform/warn the entire board as to a certain poster's two-facedness via posting in threads where that poster participated-- whether or not they were about dog grooming or dating or the difference between a google-eyed hunchyback griffin and a green-eyed yam faced troll and calling this poster a liar no matter the topic at hand. Are these the alternative approaches you offered? How is following this poster around not cyber stalking? I don't understand your contradiction here. Granted the individual was a liar to you personally, (from what you've shared with me), but was this person a liar publicly and in every thread?

What is it about IIDB moderators that they seem to be able to do things that they assure others is not possible? Do they think they are gods, or mindreaders, or what?
Are you lumping all moderators into one heap here? If so, then I am offended. I feel I did my job well as do many others. Gee thanks. I'm obviously not a mindreader, or I would've known you thought so poorly of me.

Arbitrary and capricious authority is not impressive to those upon whom it is imposed.
We're going to have to disagree that all moderators at II are given arbitrary and capricious authority. I know I wasn't moderating in order to impress anyone.

[AspenMama]

Ah VM, my friend, you do have an uncanny knack for complication.
I said there's no explicit rule against insults, you said there was and pointed to the jerk rule, I pointed out that the jerk rule is not at all clear as to what exactly it refers to, and you say I'm complicating things? I don't understand.

I always thought it simple in my role as moderator to make these determinations in my forums. I think at some point, you've got to quit tweaking the rules into complicated legalize, and rather rely on picking reasonable smart and cute moderators like myself. :P
I don't know why you and others seem to think I'm being legalistic about the rules. On the contrary, I'm saying that as long as moderators are empowered to make subjective judgements about what constitutes an insulting comment, why limit their ability to do so by enshrining "generalized attacks" even in cases where the obvious target of the attack is an individual? If you ask me, that's the legalistic approach. I think the common sense approach would be to leave 'ninny' in and take "Buddhists are shit-eating dog fuckers" out. But that's not what happens.

Anyway as I understand it they're already struggling to keep the mod numbers at an appropriate level over there. It would probably be a really bad idea to up the requirements as high as "reasonable and cute", in addition to warm-blooded with an Internet connection. :P

Okay. It just wasn't clear you were going for simplification.

[xouper]

It's gratifying to see that I cannot be blamed for all forum squabbles.

[godfry n. glad]

Ah... Like when you tell somebody that they cannot call another a liar because they cannot read that person's mind? And when they tell you that they have three separate sources of communications from the same poster, each within minutes of each other, that make contradictory claims...do your repeat that they cannot read minds? Then, when they offer up various alternative approaches toward the poster, asking whether any or all are acceptable, do you state that using any one of them would be considered "cyber-stalking"? Isn't that a clear contradiction of the claim you made about them not being able to read the poster's mind?

godfry-- You well know that I was not the moderator with which you had these issues. I had not wanted to get into this with you but here's my take. You had a legitimate gripe with a certain poster at II mostly as I understand through PM conversations.

You wanted to inform/warn the entire board as to a certain poster's two-facedness via posting in threads where that poster participated-- whether or not they were about dog grooming or dating or the difference between a google-eyed hunchyback griffin and a green-eyed yam faced troll and calling this poster a liar no matter the topic at hand. Are these the alternative approaches you offered?

Actually, what I offered was five or six approaches to another poster's posting, each of which was perfectly acceptable under the rules. The point pressed home to me at that point was that used systematically, such use could be construed to be "stalking". The point I returned was that that was exactly my point....by watching the poster and discerning that pattern, one could reasonably assume their motive. I wasn't reading a mind, they weren't reading a mind; we both were interpreting the evidence we had at hand.

Telling me I couldn't read minds and therefore couldn't discern the poster's motive is twattle. It's interpretation of evidence.

Side note here: I was never asked what evidence I had. Never.

How is following this poster around not cyber stalking? I don't understand your contradiction here. Granted the individual was a liar to you personally, (from what you've shared with me), but was this person a liar publicly and in every thread?

What is it about IIDB moderators that they seem to be able to do things that they assure others is not possible? Do they think they are gods, or mindreaders, or what?
Are you lumping all moderators into one heap here? If so, then I am offended. I feel I did my job well as do many others. Gee thanks. I'm obviously not a mindreader, or I would've known you thought so poorly of me.

You know, there was a time I was flattered to have been recommended for and offered moderator at BibCrit&Hist. I had a palpable part in the debunking of the James Ossuary there. I even had a decent relationship to the poor moderator who initially edited my post. I even referred every other moderator/administrator I could to another moderator....who is still a moderator and, I believe, an administrator...who was directly and personally involved in my web of evidence.

Well...You know I think you're an absolute sweetheart and a beauty, to boot. I do think you have high quantity and quality of intelligence. I think this is evidenced, in part, by your no longer being an IIDB moderator. Or administrator. Is this not correct?

There are moderators I think very highly of at IIDB. I think they should come to their senses as well. I've seen enough evidence to convince me that I would not like to have any part of their venture. I wonder that people I know and respect would continue to do so.

Arbitrary and capricious authority is not impressive to those upon whom it is imposed.
We're going to have to disagree that all moderators at II are given arbitrary and capricious authority. I know I wasn't moderating in order to impress anyone.

You know that I think some are better than others, and you were one of the best, for me, at least. You moderated me well. But all flourish under inadequate guidelines and arbitrary administration. A diamond in the cellpool doesn't make the water any cleaner.

:bouquet:

[Gurdur]

Just to interrupt here a moment.
AFAIK, y'all talking about Leah, yes ?
As per my own observations over a very long time (at least a year and a half); Leah is very definitely a very manipulative liar, and one of the worst and nastiest, in a subtle way.
Now, to put it in context, there are a lot of liars around, a couple here, a lot on SecWeb, no doubt the whole net is crawling with liars, but Leah makes a speciality of
1) leading on men (in public threads and per private PM)
2) casting around for public sympathy in threads with situation descriptions you only realise are melodramatising lies if you compare them with other things she writes over a long period
3) indulging in public hatefests (again, usually about "men" who have allegedly done her wrong, but occasionally she will go into hatefests about other groups)

She likes leading on men into believing that they are her "protector" and only refuge in a nasty, hostile world, and that she's romantically interested in them; her very usual pattern is then to drop them, and complain about her last victim to her newest about-to-be victim, as though she was being terrorised by her victims.

The thread that, AFAIK, set Godfry off where he initially wanted to call her a liar, and which set the whole ball rolling till Godfry got banned from SecWeb, was in fact one of her nastiest and most melodramatic, where she was setting up one of her latest victims and also gathering public sympathy; it was all dreadfully transparent nasty bullshit, but to some degree you had to really know her whole posting history to see the whole pattern in it.

Godfry was morally very right indeed to call her a liar; that it was against SecWeb rules was unfortunate but justifiable --- if SecWeb rules were applied consistantly, which they are not (quite a few posters have gotten away with very open abuse -- it all depends on which forum you're in, EOG is a forum where the favourites can get away with a hell of a lot, for example), that Godfry stands more on being forthright rather than subtle is perhaps unfortunate but not a grevious sin characterwise and moralllywise, and that a SecWeb admin (was it crazyfingers or wyzsub10) should try claiming as an excuse about "inability to read minds" was pure and utter bullshit on many levels, that Leah goes on continuing her psycopathic career is more than unfortunate, but then, hey, many have psychopathic careers on SecWeb. Let the loonies have each other.

Godfry might not be everybody's cup of tea, he might be a tad too forthright, unsubtle, prickly and quick to anger, but I personally would far rather have Godfry near me, or on a bulletin board, than Leah (or a fair few others, come to that).

[Gurdur]

:hrm: :hrm: It's gratifying to see that I cannot be blamed for all forum squabbles.
Shit, man, you should see how a lot all blame me.

:hrm:

[Dingfod]

Shut up. Leah's in love with me, only she doesn't know it yet. I know she is because I told her she looked like Paulina Poriskova last year; a line which almost always works.

[Gurdur]

Oh dear. Oh my.

[Dingfod]

Heh! Two can play that game.

[AspenMama]

Actually, what I offered was five or six approaches to another poster's posting, each of which was perfectly acceptable under the rules.
Ah okay. I don't know the whole story.

Side note here: I was never asked what evidence I had. Never. Well, I shouldn't really comment on that.

Well...You know I think you're an absolute sweetheart and a beauty, to boot. I do think you have high quantity and quality of intelligence. I think this is evidenced, in part, by your no longer being an IIDB moderator. Or administrator. Is this not correct?
Thanks! And I'm glad to have such interesting friends as yourself. Ah no I quit moderation a while ago-- more for time constraints than anything. I never accepted an admin job.

There are moderators I think very highly of at IIDB. I think they should come to their senses as well. I've seen enough evidence to convince me that I would not like to have any part of their venture. I wonder that people I know and respect would continue to do so.
Perhaps they are trying to make positive changes.

You know that I think some are better than others, and you were one of the best, for me, at least. You moderated me well. But all flourish under inadequate guidelines and arbitrary administration. A diamond in the cellpool doesn't make the water any cleaner.

:bouquet:

Okay. Again, thank you.

[AspenMama]

The thread that, AFAIK, set Godfry off where he initially wanted to call her a liar, and which set the whole ball rolling till Godfry got banned from SecWeb, was in fact one of her nastiest and most melodramatic, where she was setting up one of her latest victims and also gathering public sympathy; it was all dreadfully transparent nasty bullshit, but to some degree you had to really know her whole posting history to see the whole pattern in it.
I think it was around that time that Godfry and I became friends. Something about Leah set off warning bells, and I emailed him for that reason.

Godfry might not be everybody's cup of tea, he might be a tad too forthright, unsubtle, prickly and quick to anger, but I personally would far rather have Godfry near me, or on a bulletin board, than Leah (or a fair few others, come to that).
Don't let Godfry fool you. In person, he's a pussy cat, much like I imagine you to be Gurdur. :D

[godfry n. glad]

[quote]Godfry might not be everybody's cup of tea, he might be a tad too forthright, unsubtle, prickly and quick to anger, but I personally would far rather have Godfry near me, or on a bulletin board, than Leah (or a fair few others, come to that).
Don't let Godfry fool you. In person, he's a pussy cat, much like I imagine you to be Gurdur. :D

:blush:

Gosh... Such backhanded compliments. What ever shall I do?

Pussy cat, eh? Including going off into the bushes to cough up a hairball?

:roflmao:

Well, I see I'm not the only one who watched her for some time and picked up the contradictions in her stories. I compared notes with another poster who'd been given a very different "back story" from the one she'd given me. I personally think that Leah was more than one person and the implications of what she was doing at IIDB were potentially much more sinister. If her motive was not sinister, then, in my estimation, she needed professional help....which, by the way, got me censure for suggesting just that to her online at IIDB. It was crazyfingers I dealt with as the official who represented IIDB administration.....and note that I entered that discussion having voluntarily recommending that I be banned, as I would not back down or apologize for my direct, and accurate, description of another poster.

As much as I like many people at IIDB (and here Roland comes to mind, as well as you, AspenMama), something about the governing vision there and how it translates into how the board is run alienates me something terrible.

No good deed goes unpunished.

godfry

Do the spa yet? Just to taunt you, I've been getting nearly weekly massages for over a year now. With gardening season just opening, I need it now more than ever.

[godfry n. glad]

Heh! Two can play that game.

Hey, pal... Don't book any airline tickets to Germany, man. Those pictures are bait, man. Bait.

[viscousmemories]

godfry, at the risk of inadvertently fanning flames here (which really isn't my intention), I don't really understand why you seem to be criticising the majority of the moderators and administrators at IIDB for a problem you had with one or two mods and one admin. Granted I'm sure I haven't followed or understood all the details of exactly what happened, but is your beef with a moderator or moderators, crazyfingers or all the admins, the policies as written or as enforced, or what?

I don't really want to see you get all frustrated and angry all over again, but if you'd be up for it I'd be interested in reading a step by step of what exactly happened and what you'd like to have seen handled differently. For my own knowledge as a forum admin, but also just because I'm interested.

[Gurdur]

I think it was around that time that Godfry and I became friends. Something about Leah set off warning bells, and I emailed him for that reason.
I worked it out all by myself --- and FYI, I've never been burnt by Leah myself; she made tentative approaches but she kind of blabbed all when I taxed her with the inconsistancies I had seen in her behaviour; and while there are lies I can understand, there are lies (and liars) I just will not have a moment's patience for, and Leah is one of them.

As for Godfry, well, we've had our share of disagreements, but I know I will get something approaching the truth from Godfry -- maybe it won't be my POV, maybe I will disagree with him, but on a deep level if Godfry does engage with me, I will get something like the truth --- and that's what I respect.

Don't let Godfry fool you. In person, he's a pussy cat, much like I imagine you to be Gurdur. :D
Why, I am but a lovable wombat *. It's no secret that I am warm, cuddly and lovable, and quite, quite peaceful.
Okaaaaaay, some might not agree with the "peaceful" part, but I assure you, in comparison to many, I am the soul of peacefulness.
____________

* No offence, but I am a wombat, not a pussycat.
The difference is not terribly important, except wombats are mostly herbivorous, while pussycats are death to fieldmice, shrews, moles and other beautiful living things. Thus, I am a wombat.

[Gurdur]

Hey, pal... Don't book any airline tickets to Germany, man. Those pictures are bait, man. Bait.
Shhheeeeeeeesh, FYI Leah is not the only one to live in Germany, man, and since I've invited Warrrenly (and yourself, and AspenMama), I'ld be kinda grateful if the whole place wasn't condemned for one looney.

And any pix you might have seen of me are just .... me.
Maybe some help with a hat.

[Gurdur]

... I personally think that Leah was more than one person ...
Do you mind detailing why ?
IMHO, she is ony one person behind the username, and while she may be crackers, I've known others like her; she's not that unusual, unfortunately.
and the implications of what she was doing at IIDB were potentially much more sinister.
Again, if you don't mind, I would like to know what you consider as the implications there.
If her motive was not sinister, then, in my estimation, she needed professional help.....
There's no medical cure for manipulative assholery.
If there was, you could cure the whole White House. :yup:

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, pal... Don't book any airline tickets to Germany, man. Those pictures are bait, man. Bait.
Shhheeeeeeeesh, FYI Leah is not the only one to live in Germany, man, and since I've invited Warrrenly (and yourself, and AspenMama), I'ld be kinda grateful if the whole place wasn't condemned for one looney.

And any pix you might have seen of me are just .... me.
Maybe some help with a hat.

Yeah, well, I considered it, but I was in transit through Frankfurt. Not real close. I nice a nice salad and a tall glass of ice water, items I hadn't had since leaving Osaka. It was wonderful.

I agree that all Germany shouldn't be judged by one loony...after all, that's just one Canadian dollar and only .73 of one US dollar (although that may have changed of late). If you'll return the favor and not judge us by our president.

Is that a deal?

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

... I personally think that Leah was more than one person ...
Do you mind detailing why ?
IMHO, she is ony one person behind the username, and while she may be crackers, I've known others like her; she's not that unusual, unfortunately.

Um...One conversation I had with the post name was really baubbled. Like it was a man. Lurid language led to a claim likely only to be made by a man. A Jewish man. About being able to tell that she was Jewish when we were intimate. Since I'd been married to a Jew for nearly 20 years, I knew she/he was lying, and the only way I might reasonably know she/he was Jewish was if he had a circumsized penis. I don't know how common this practice is amongst non-Jewish/Islamic Europeans, but it's fairly common amongst non-Jewish/Islamic Americans. Males only. Nice Jewish girl, Greek girl, Sicilian girl, Lebanese girl, Turkish girl...all look nice. Initimate makes no difference.


and the implications of what she was doing at IIDB were potentially much more sinister.

Totally my speculation and I have no real evidence to put forward, but the story as it unravelled, sounded to me like a couple was setting up out-of-country travellers for fleecing. Luring them to wherever she was and them screaming sexual harrassment, or rape, or whatever. The payoff was for her to keep quiet. That was my more lurid speculation.

It has no evidence. It cannot be reasonably supported. But it fit the behavior patterns I was seeing. My first, and foremost, speculation was that she had/has mental illness issues. Hell, I did...and still do. It's called grief.

If her motive was not sinister, then, in my estimation, she needed professional help.....
There's no medical cure for manipulative assholery.
If there was, you could cure the whole White House. :yup:

Ah, gee, bursting my bubble. Perhaps you're right. :deepsigh:

[viscousmemories]

Did you see my post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51129#post51129) back up there a few, godfry? Not trying to push you, but I've been catching bits and pieces of this story in your posts to others for a year and a half now and I'm really interested in what exactly happened.

I ask specifically because of this comment:

There are moderators I think very highly of at IIDB. I think they should come to their senses as well. I've seen enough evidence to convince me that I would not like to have any part of their venture. I wonder that people I know and respect would continue to do so.
With the little info I have about your situation I'm just not seeing how you derived such a profound general distaste for IIDB as a whole from your personal experience. Of course I have my own issues with II's policies and administration, but even I see a lot of value in the place despite those issues and I wouldn't say that participation on their staff diminishes my opinion of someone, if that's what you meant to suggest.

[godfry n. glad]

On an official basis, the only representatives I communicated with at that time were AspenMama, crazyfingers and catalyst. AM was my contact into the IIDB moderator/admin system because I had another email address for her. Crazyfingers was evidently the person charged with dealing with me. He is, from my view, the source of my opinions of IIDB. It is due to the dealings I had with him, and its contrast to what I understood the IIDB rules and procedures to be, has tainted my view of both. Subsequent intersubjective dealings went into the toilet. Mishandling, misunderstanding and overreaction became the norm on both sides.

The rest is best left alone.

Yes, my entire opinion of IIDB is based upon my exchange with crazyfingers. That he is still a person of authority there is an anaethema to me. He's not the only one I avoid....or even openly confront. As you can atest, vm.

[viscousmemories]

Okay I just wasn't sure if I was missing any chunks of the story. Thanks, godfry. :)

[godfry n. glad]

and the implications of what she was doing at IIDB were potentially much more sinister.
Again, if you don't mind, I would like to know what you consider as the implications there.


My basic concern was that IIDB had a "predator", whether it was emotional or actual, I couldn't tell, but I did not trust it to be what it was purporting to be, and they should consider watching its behavior closely. I suggested that if they did, they would ban Leah. I urged them to do so.

That was the message I tried to pass on as they were passing me out the door on the ban I had requested. I knew I could not go back to those lists without confronting "her" again. I had said my goodbyes to cyberfriends on my favorite threads. I told folks not to expect me around and maybe I'd run into them elsewhere. Instead of banning me, I was put on suspension, told that we needed to talk and then dropped from communication entirely.

[Gavin]

Oh well,
It's been a year, and still a topic, so let me finally say my bit.

1. Godfry, I did like you and I did want to meet you at the airport. What I had told you about catalyst and my contact was nothing but the truth.
(for your info, he is not an admin anymore, if you search on iidb for the thread "mormon name" in the elsewhere forum, you will find that his result does not cofirm either of the two real first and surnames he used to claim to have. Within days of that post catalyst was nomore an admin, a couple of weeks later he left iidb for good, and Roland started a post on here about lying and her future weariniess of people .... that's all we can read, the rest is suspicion).
Catalyst withdrew from me after I had asked him to finally own up to the truth, and I had made clear that I would not hold it against him.
He was moving his attention to Roland at the time. That's that.

2. Godfry, I only told you about the story because I was so heartbroken.

3. Around Jan/Feb 04 I had replied to Gurdur via pm pretending all was well with catalyst and me (or alike), but that was during those weeks that I had given catalyst time to own up to his truth. I had asked him not to meet me before we had talked about the issues in question. My comment to Gurdur about the situation was not the complete truth, but I was difficult to say the right thing without being disloyal to catalyst at the time.

4. Leading men on:
I've been writing with catalyst, Steve (sweep or spleen, not sure) on a friendship basis, Jobar (around the time he stopped being mod) a friendly exchange, DoctorX (just before he got banned), Gawen (a marvellous writer, but with different intentions), then Godfry starting with gardening and getting to know him.
Ever since, whenever a man shows interest via pm I politely make clear that I am not interested in getting to know any net man ever again.

5. Leah did come onto iidb to understand a few things of an old story. There I unfortunately understood a bit more then I should have, and did want to take revenge, that is true. And I am sorry about this.
I only stayed on there because of catalyst, he gave me to start with good material about Native Americans, and I kept suggesting to meet elsewhere but he wanted to keep on meeting me there, so I stayed.

6. Perhaps I did talk some bull**** on iidb at times, don't we all?
I don't think I told any lies, if anything that board holds a lot that I hadn't talked about for a long time, if ever.

7. Gurdur, I was never interested in you personally and did not try to lead you on. Unless sending birthday wishes is leading someone on.
I think you are interesting, intelligent and dangerous. This probably does sound crazy, but thinking someone has a fascinating mind does not consequently equal 'personal interest'.
I once, in Jan or Feb send you a pm, at a time when I needed someone to talk to. I also wrote to Steve (sweep or spleen, see above) and to Eric_H on that same day, and we talked.
You did then write something about you never being sure when to believe me or not, you were polite, and I replied probably very oddly by saying "better to stay away from me". I simply didn't have the energy to justify or explain, when I was so down.

What else?

8. The pics of me are me, I am one person, a woman to be precise, and not some gang trying to bait victims or anything like it.

9. I have probably been flirty in the past, and get highly upset when a man becomes direct. Call it my sensitive spot. But I do kindy ask the person then to change the tone, which some don't understand.

10. I have never impersonated being a Jewish man.

11. I don't want to make this too long, but basically what you can read on iidb is a development. I was when registering on some 'magic trip', and have come to some senses ever since. A few other attitudes of mine have changed.
But most of all, I have learned a lot on there. People can develop, change, whatever.

12. Godfry, I really am sorry about the way things turned out. I really thought we could get to know another better as friends, and then we would see. When you mentioned that Aspen Mama showed interest in you, I made a comment on a public post for you making clear that you and me had nothing going and that you were a nice man. You thanked me for that note via pm.
I've send you a video clip of my family of four generations, photos of my house and garden. Those things I had not shared with someone out of the net before. I really thought we were becoming friends.
You shared personal things about your dearest, I have not shared those with anyone else.
Godfry, let us close an old book, things did not turn out. Read your last posts on iidb, and how my replies changed. I got scared.
Just forgive me now for not returning the kind of interest you wished I had and let's call it quit, please.
If is serves you in anyway, I can stop posting on iidb, if you like, fine with me.

Ok, I can't think of more to say.
Do note that with this reply I am not attempting to attack anyone,
Let's have some peace. And if I'm a complete loonatic, then I am still really sorry for winding so many people up so much.

Leah
____________________________
BTW, this is going to be my only attempt of setting things straight and only comment on the issue.

[Dingfod]

Hi Leah. Welcome to FF.

6. Perhaps I did talk some bull**** on iidb at times, don't we all?Not me, what you see is what you get. I still think you look a bit like Paulina Poriskova.

[Gurdur]

1. ... Catalyst withdrew from me after I had asked him to finally own up to the truth, and I had made clear that I would not hold it against him.
He was moving his attention to Roland at the time. That's that.
This is really getting complex. :eek:
5. Leah did come onto iidb to understand a few things of an old story. There I unfortunately understood a bit more then I should have, and did want to take revenge, that is true.
Revenge for just what ?
7. Gurdur, ....I think you are interesting, intelligent and dangerous.
I have no idea why a couple of people always want to paint me as being some kind of new Lord Byron; just as an aside, I get really tired of melodramatic fits from anyone trying to paint me as "scary, dangerous or whatever", since quite frankly, none of it's true.
I am about as scary as a hamster.
BTW, this is going to be my only attempt of setting things straight and only comment on the issue.
Pity. I would have liked to have seen a few things cleared up, but they do not involve me, and it looks like the total story is way more complex than I imagined.

[AspenMama]

This is completely bizzare and very disjointed. Leah, or whatever your name is... do you often talk about yourself in the third person?