whyamihere

Aggieboy

Unless I missed a relevant post and assuming MarkWalker was banned by you, could I (we) have a definitive answer as to why, please? I know the thread became a bit heated but hey, we're all big boys regardless of our viewpoint and I , for one, like to read everyone's point of view.

Thanks.

Aggieboy

Anyone else got a serious view?

Jez mon

I think Mark probably had received some warnings from moderators before, and it might have been an accumulation type thing, after all, tbf, he did make repeat personal attacks at times...

I think maybe we should have some kind of forum rules sticky at the top of Cake Stop.

STEFANOS4784

Not gone home yet :oops:

Anyway i agree with your point. However this forum can be viewed by anyone so any posts that may offend anyone could land the owners(?) in bother and lead to the site being closed if enough complaints are received i suspect.

MARKWALKER did add a bit of fire to the forum which was good but i can see that (in the current PC world) some of his comments were unsuitable for a public forum IMO.

We all knew he was joking but what about someone visiting for the 1st time?


IMHO

a_n_t

mark who?

Frank the tank

Compared to some of the posters on some football forums I visit Mark Walker is like mother Terresa. Obviously different moderators have different standards.

I agree with aggieboy, most of us on here are grown up enough to take other peoples viewpoints on the chin. Some people are more articulate than others but so what?

Forums are all about differing opinions. For instance, Teagar and I will never see eye to eye on most things but I would gladly buy him a pint and have a chin wag if our paths ever crossed. As Mark Walker himself posted on a thread he originated often the person posting from the "safety" behind a keyboard could well be different to the actual person. From my experience of posters on football web sites I can say this is very often the case.

crumbschief

a_n_t wrote:

mark who?

Mark texas ranger Walker is considered M.I.A,last seen on Deimos in an odd postition with an imp.

EKIMIKE

I find all this 'Positive discriminination' lark just as offensive as racism. Therefore if markwalker has been banned Teagar should be too (i don't know if he has).

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I certainly don't take anything on an internet forum too seriously. It's all talk, most of it can be laughed at. Personally I don't think anyone deserved a ban. Maybe bikeradar.com fears having this sort of debate on their webspace which is fair enough cos' this is meant to be a bike forum.

+1 to Aggieboy, I like to hear everyones opinion. Would be nothing to read if everyone's was the same. North Korea anyone........

alfablue

EKMIKE, I will go gentle, but there is a world of difference between a discussion about affirmative action (or positive discrimination, less correctly) and racism. Racism is about hatred of people on grounds of race, affirmative action is an approach to redressing the balance for minorities that are victims of racism. Hatred and affirmative action are poles apart - they are not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think the spread of racist ideas and views are a laughing matter, it is the thin end of the wedge. And for those who criticise those who speak out against racism . . . "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Pokerface

Someone complains, someone gets banned. Them's the rules (more or less).

No worries - Mark will be back as one of his alter egos in no time.

Aggieboy

alfablue wrote:

EKMIKE, I will go gentle, but there is a world of difference between a discussion about affirmative action (or positive discrimination, less correctly) and racism. Racism is about hatred of people on grounds of race, affirmative action is an approach to redressing the balance for minorities that are victims of racism. Hatred and affirmative action are poles apart - they are not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think the spread of racist ideas and views are a laughing matter, it is the thin end of the wedge. And for those who criticise those who speak out against racism . . . "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Did he make racist remarks?

EKIMIKE

alfablue wrote:

EKMIKE, I will go gentle, but there is a world of difference between a discussion about affirmative action (or positive discrimination, less correctly) and racism. Racism is about hatred of people on grounds of race, affirmative action is an approach to redressing the balance for minorities that are victims of racism. Hatred and affirmative action are poles apart - they are not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think the spread of racist ideas and views are a laughing matter, it is the thin end of the wedge. And for those who criticise those who speak out against racism . . . "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Without wanting to create a massive debate again, I don't think that they are 'equal'. However I think Affirmative Action is just as socially aggrevating as racism. It creates division (of opinion, lives, choices e.t.c). As for letting racism prevail as a dominant trait of any society, I am not your man (as per your quote). Could I have made it any clearer that I truly disagree with racist ideologies?

alfablue

affirmative action may upset those who think the natural order of things is white superiority, and as such, at a stretch, may be divisive. But think of the motivation: racism is based on the belief that certain races are culturally, intellectually, morally, indeed, genetically inferior; affirmative action is based upon the concept of equality, and the motivation to try and redress the balance for those so discriminated against - chalk and cheese.

I do understand that you disagree with racist ideologies - no worries there, but I think there is some desire for fairness that has suggested that there is a moral equivalence between racism and affirmative action. This is a dangerous route to go down as it legitimises racism. I don't for one minute think you are racist, but your desire to be even handed is really missing the point about the very different nature of these two doctrines.

We need to be very careful about legitimising racist views, lest we repeat the mistakes of the 1930's.

alfablue

Aggieboy wrote:

alfablue wrote:

EKMIKE, I will go gentle, but there is a world of difference between a discussion about affirmative action (or positive discrimination, less correctly) and racism. Racism is about hatred of people on grounds of race, affirmative action is an approach to redressing the balance for minorities that are victims of racism. Hatred and affirmative action are poles apart - they are not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think the spread of racist ideas and views are a laughing matter, it is the thin end of the wedge. And for those who criticise those who speak out against racism . . . "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Did he make racist remarks?

yes, for example, comments about not employing people from Africa because they are goat herders. Plenty of other examples, and he refused to condemn racism, though he was very happy to condemn positive discrimination. He made little attempt to hide his true colours, even when invited to deny them.

redddraggon

This place is run by left wing apologists.

Pokerface

redddraggon wrote:

This place is run by left wing apologists.

I'm sorry. Is that bad? :P

alfablue

Pokerface wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

This place is run by left wing apologists.

I'm sorry. Is that bad? :P

It's certainly a lot safer than the alternatives!

fast as fupp

dont think he was banned for his political views, but for calling someone a sock cooker :shock:

EKIMIKE

alfablue wrote:

affirmative action may upset those who think the natural order of things is white superiority, and as such, at a stretch, may be divisive. But think of the motivation: racism is based on the belief that certain races are culturally, intellectually, morally, indeed, genetically inferior; affirmative action is based upon the concept of equality, and the motivation to try and redress the balance for those so discriminated against - chalk and cheese.

I do understand that you disagree with racist ideologies - no worries there, but I think there is some desire for fairness that has suggested that there is a moral equivalence between racism and affirmative action. This is a dangerous route to go down as it legitimises racism. I don't for one minute think you are racist, but your desire to be even handed is really missing the point about the very different nature of these two doctrines.

We need to be very careful about legitimising racist views, lest we repeat the mistakes of the 1930's.

I will never legitimise racist views. It seems you are suggesting unless I adopt the extreme of Affirmative Action, I will be in-directly encouraging racism. I find it a shame that you think this issue requires such a polarisation. It's not that I think Positive Discrimination will result in a negative discrimination against the White majority. The issue is, I feel Affirmative Action does alot to stoke the fire of racist thought.

I think you've also misinterpretted my views as coming from a feeling of disadvantage or unfairness. That is not the case.

EKIMIKE

alfablue wrote:

Aggieboy wrote:

alfablue wrote:

EKMIKE, I will go gentle, but there is a world of difference between a discussion about affirmative action (or positive discrimination, less correctly) and racism. Racism is about hatred of people on grounds of race, affirmative action is an approach to redressing the balance for minorities that are victims of racism. Hatred and affirmative action are poles apart - they are not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think the spread of racist ideas and views are a laughing matter, it is the thin end of the wedge. And for those who criticise those who speak out against racism . . . "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Did he make racist remarks?

yes, for example, comments about not employing people from Africa because they are goat herders. Plenty of other examples, and he refused to condemn racism, though he was very happy to condemn positive discrimination. He made little attempt to hide his true colours, even when invited to deny them.

Dude, wrong guy. I've never said anything about african goat herders.

alfablue

EKIMIKE wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Aggieboy wrote:

alfablue wrote:

EKMIKE, I will go gentle, but there is a world of difference between a discussion about affirmative action (or positive discrimination, less correctly) and racism. Racism is about hatred of people on grounds of race, affirmative action is an approach to redressing the balance for minorities that are victims of racism. Hatred and affirmative action are poles apart - they are not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think the spread of racist ideas and views are a laughing matter, it is the thin end of the wedge. And for those who criticise those who speak out against racism . . . "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Did he make racist remarks?

yes, for example, comments about not employing people from Africa because they are goat herders. Plenty of other examples, and he refused to condemn racism, though he was very happy to condemn positive discrimination. He made little attempt to hide his true colours, even when invited to deny them.

Dude, wrong guy. I've never said anything about african goat herders.

Look, we aren't talking about you - its MW I am quoting, I am not attacking you!

EKIMIKE

Yeh, thought you weren't. It just looks like you're talking about me :shock: . Only because the quote is of you talking to me.

alfablue

EKIMIKE wrote:

alfablue wrote:

affirmative action may upset those who think the natural order of things is white superiority, and as such, at a stretch, may be divisive. But think of the motivation: racism is based on the belief that certain races are culturally, intellectually, morally, indeed, genetically inferior; affirmative action is based upon the concept of equality, and the motivation to try and redress the balance for those so discriminated against - chalk and cheese.

I do understand that you disagree with racist ideologies - no worries there, but I think there is some desire for fairness that has suggested that there is a moral equivalence between racism and affirmative action. This is a dangerous route to go down as it legitimises racism. I don't for one minute think you are racist, but your desire to be even handed is really missing the point about the very different nature of these two doctrines.

We need to be very careful about legitimising racist views, lest we repeat the mistakes of the 1930's.

I will never legitimise racist views. It seems you are suggesting unless I adopt the extreme of Affirmative Action, I will be in-directly encouraging racism. I find it a shame that you think this issue requires such a polarisation. It's not that I think Positive Discrimination will result in a negative discrimination against the White majority. The issue is, I feel Affirmative Action does alot to stoke the fire of racist thought.

I think you've also misinterpretted my views as coming from a feeling of disadvantage or unfairness. That is not the case.

I have pointed out why affirmative action and racism are not morally equivalent. Disagreeing with affirmative action DOES NOT make you a racist. My problem was that you were suggesting they (one based on hate, one based on a desire for equality were morally equivalent. THAT is the issue I was commenting on; I have mixed feelings about affirmative action myself, but we are NOT in the same ball park as debating whether racism is good or bad, far from it. Please don't be too paranoid, I am not trying to condemn you, just trying to move you away from the stance that race hate is morally equivalent to affirmative action :?

alfablue

EKIMIKE wrote:

Yeh, thought you weren't. It just looks like you're talking about me :shock: . Only because the quote is of you talking to me.

sorry about that - careless on my part

EKIMIKE

Ok then well you have no work to do because I see the difference. Sorted .

PS I did say explicitly that I didn't mean they are equal. It's on pg1.

alfablue

EKIMIKE wrote:

Ok then well you have no work to do because I see the difference. Sorted .

PS I did say explicitly that I didn't mean they are equal. It's on pg1.

This notion casme from the fact that you argued that Teagar should be Banned if MW was, because he argued for positive discrimination, thus equating the two.,

EKIMIKE

I give up :roll:

Slow Downcp

When did soapbox make a comeback? :?

Pokerface

fast as fupp wrote:

dont think he was banned for his political views, but for calling someone a sock cooker :shock:

Did the left wing sock movement protest?

alfablue

EKIMIKE wrote:

I give up :roll:

sorry Mike but if you say

I find all this 'Positive discriminination' lark just as offensive as racism. Therefore if markwalker has been banned Teagar should be too

how am I to interpret the words "just as" if not indicating equivalence? Has someone snuck out and changed the English language while I cooked dinner??? :shock:

tebbit

There was a leader in the Telegraph regarding the BNP that could have been applicable in this case, which is give the said numpties the oxygen of publicity, they are that useless that they will just make a laughing stock out of themselves. The whole article was about a group that intend to "embarass" the BNP by honest and accurate reporting, the gyst of the article is that the honest and accurate reporting was highly inaccurate and could be detrimental to the aims of those opposed to the BNP. As Norman Tebbit once said "why give the scum the credibility?"