Girls in... threads and the lack of reasonable moderation

DonDaddyD

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Fact is, whatever my motive, the threads are clearly a problem for some. So unless you are going to dismiss their valid objections in an attempt to simply blame me in an effort to dismiss the issue I think both of you need to focus on attacking the arguments and not the person, namely me.

I believe I have done both.

So please clarify:

You think that the objections to the 'girls in...' thread should be dismissed?

You think I should be blamed?

You believe attacking the person and not the argument is acceptable?

You think the issue should be dismissed at the expense of ignoring those who have found the threads offensive?

JT wrote:

Absolutely not. The only difference is when I'm guilty of hypocrisy I try not to climb onto a soapbox and crow loudly about not doing one thing when I know perfectly well that I've done it myself.

Point out where I have climbed onto this imaginary soapbox and spouted louded about not doing one thing when I have clearly done so while taking the following into consideration:

I previously wrote:

Yes some of my previous posts were highly questionable

I previously wrote:

I am not blameless, just willing to accept the point that my past actions could have also made women feel marginalised and cheapened).

Now explain to me how the above examples of what I have previously wrote are examples of me claiming that I have not performed an action while knowing that I actually have. Because those (the above) look like an admission to me.

Humility would now see you admitting that your assumptions are wrong. But you won't, you'll deny, try to find another angle of attack and entrench yourself, stupidly so, in a particular blind alley view desperately trying to ignore the examples in front of you while you cling to a hope that you can prove you are right. There is a futility in talking to you.

JT wrote:

The problem is I don't think you have. I think you are the epitome of one of those guys I find myself defending in Cake Stop. I think you are a decent, regular bloke with good set of morals who never intentionally wants to hurt a soul. I think that while you do respect women, from time-to-time you enjoy releasing your inner lad and mean no harm in doing so. Perhaps we have now decided that this is not the forum for us to do that, which is a shame as where better than among a group of like minded men with a common interest in a male dominated sport/hobby (I'm not suggesting it should be male dominated, but it is).

Regardless of what you may think, I have repeatedly told you my intentions and how this came about. The fact that you cannot accept that as truthful is your problem. I have no reason to lie. Hence my admission of guilt above.

JT wrote:

Very very few of us would ever wish to intentionally upset a female member by what we have said, but as most of the time it feels as though we are all blokes together we may occasionally overstep the mark.

But the overarching point is that the thread has. That is what needs to be acknowledged, discussed and a solution needs to be found on how to move forward not the 'internet posturing' of lets blame a user named DonDaddyD.

MonkeyMonster

as an aside - singletrack - ie bunch of very dirty majoritevly lads can seemingly manage to not have such threads, forum based off a magazine. Haven#t read most of the pages between 6 and 20 as they all started to blend into each other. Very surprised this thread managed to get to 20+ majority of cake stop attendees appear to atttacking rather than defending why they should be allowed such threads.

Q for trousers though. If this single person can affect such change as you describe in the forums - do you honestly not think there might be something behind her objections when a single voice CAN manage to force that change?

DDD - it's the internet, your silence from now on will help the argument better than responding.

jonny_trousers

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Q for trousers though. If this single person can affect such change as you describe in the forums - do you honestly not think there might be something behind her objections when a single voice CAN manage to force that change?

A for monster: I don't know what single person you are referring to: DDD for starting his thread - in which case he is a she - or Volcesrapture? If it the latter then absolutely. I've already acknowledged that she has given me pause for thought and that a good argument has been put forward. Perhaps I haven't made myself clear enough or maybe you haven't actually bothered to read my most recent posts, but I have said that I essentially agree with much of what she is saying. I simply don't think it applies to 99% of those "Girls in..." threads. If you do then she is right, shame on you for not speaking up about them before.

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

And still, None of your posts above, you're insults or accusations, does anything to strengthen your arguments for having any of the 'Girls in...' threads.

Insults are just words,the accusations that you have as yet been unable to disprove still linger. You don't actually have an argument now,just a faint glimmer of credability that is fading fast.

This is childish.

1). Insults cause offense to varying degrees and are not tolerated on this forum. You would do well to mind that.

2). Your accusations are that I got a private slap on the wrist and so am lashing out. You have no way of supporting your accusation with any evidence. And in actual fact your fictional accusations matter little.

3). My name is not really DonDaddyD it is an online user name that I use from time to time. Any credibility associated to it is as important.

I don't dismiss their objections,in fact some have been rather interesting to read. I do wholly dismiss yours though, that is largely due to the mannor in which you went about this whole thing and the fact that, you did single handedly tear this forum apart by throwing toys out of your pram(as if it wasn't fragile enough). Publically,there was no known issue,until you decided there was one when you couldn't get your own way. That really is what this all comes down to, YOU.

Hahahaha!

Really, seriously. Wow!

I cannot be held responsible for the direction a discussion takes. I can only be held responsible for the question I asked. There was nothing wrong with the question I asked. I did not ask or encourage others to complain about the 'girls in...' threads directly. But as they did it became a more poignant point than the original question I asked. In other words they had a point and it needed to be discussed further/considered. Whether you can grasp this, I think, is your own personal introspective battle.

And you failed to point out what my objections are aside from the fact that on some levels I actually agree with velostrapture, MsMancunia et al.

Who can?

Well that's one thing at least. :roll:

MonkeyMonster

Monkeypump wrote:

thekickingmule wrote:

I'll just presume those against these kind of threads are going to leave the forum? That seems like the simplest idea to me...

No, they're going to try to force change in line with their views.

I apologise trousers, it was monkeypumps comment I was refering too. I have commented before visibly and not so but am more visibly backing this endevour as I hope it goes the distance, my only fear as I have mentioned before is that money will stop it.

edit: and no as mentioned i haven't read back tbh - that greg66 is still encountering a high level of entrenchment made me suspect there is nothing to be gained from reading back bar getting saddened/irritated.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is childish.

Yes

1). Insults cause offense to varying degrees and are not tolerated on this forum. You would do well to mind that.

Oooh threats!

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is childish.

2). Your accusations are that I got a private slap on the wrist and so am lashing out. You have no way of supporting your accusation with any evidence. And in actual fact your fictional accusations matter little.

It's quite easy to see.

3). My name is not really DonDaddyD it is an online user name that I use from time to time. Any credibility associated to it is as important.

And therefore any offence taken? Or is that selective?

I cannot be held responsible for the direction a discussion takes. I can only be held responsible for the question I asked. There was nothing wrong with the question I asked. I did not ask or encourage others to complain about the 'girls in...' threads directly. But as they did it became a more poignant point than the original question I asked. In other words they had a point and it needed to be discussed further/considered. Whether you can grasp this, I think, is your own personal introspective battle.

You went out of your way to make a big deal and stamp your feet. What other reason would there be for starting the initial thread in the middle of CC? Perhaps people would have been more receptive if you had have taken your little wrist slapping and said nothing,but that wouldn't cause max drama would it?

A genuine question would have been better understood,but you had to make yourself feel better somehow.

supersonic

Afternoon ladies and gentleman,

Sorry for the late reply, I have been snowed under, and am about to leave the house again so will be away for a few more hours.

I believe the admin team is close to making a decision, and updates could be made as early as tonight.

Paul

jonny_trousers

DonDaddyD wrote:

Fact is, whatever my motive, the threads are clearly a problem for some. So unless you are going to dismiss their valid objections in an attempt to simply blame me in an effort to dismiss the issue I think both of you need to focus on attacking the arguments and not the person, namely me.

JT wrote:

I believe I have done both.

Sigh* In the interests of keeping you happy I will try to quickly reply:

You think that the objections to the 'girls in...' thread should be dismissed?

Absolutely not, that's why I have wasted so much time discussing it already.

You think I should be blamed?

Not particularly. I just think you are a monumental hypocrite.

You believe attacking the person and not the argument is acceptable?

For being a hypocrite, yes. For their argument, no.

You think the issue should be dismissed at the expense of ignoring those who have found the threads offensive?

Hmm, I think it is an interesting and perhaps worthwhile discussion, but I think it is ultimately for the site owners to decide what is done. Again, though, would I really waste so much time replying if I felt the discussion should be dismissed?

DDD wrote:

Point out where I have climbed onto this imaginary soapbox and spouted louded about not doing one thing when I have clearly done so while taking the following into consideration:

Yes some of my previous posts were highly questionable

I am not blameless, just willing to accept the point that my past actions could have also made women feel marginalised and cheapened).

Now explain to me how the above examples of what I have previously wrote are examples of me claiming that I have not performed an action while knowing that I actually have. Because those (the above) look like an admission to me.

Humility would now see you admitting that your assumptions are wrong. But you won't, you'll deny, try to find another angle of attack and entrench yourself, stupidly so, in a particular blind alley view desperately trying to ignore the examples in front of you while you cling to a hope that you can prove you are right. There is a futility in talking to you.

The soapbox was your first post on this subject and the above are confessions you have made in retrospect of being rumbled. It reminds me a little of one of those evangelical preachers who, having been caught with their whatsits in the choir girl's mouth go on to publicly confess their sins and thinks that gives them the right to be righteous again.

JT wrote:

The problem is I don't think you have. I think you are the epitome of one of those guys I find myself defending in Cake Stop. I think you are a decent, regular bloke with good set of morals who never intentionally wants to hurt a soul. I think that while you do respect women, from time-to-time you enjoy releasing your inner lad and mean no harm in doing so. Perhaps we have now decided that this is not the forum for us to do that, which is a shame as where better than among a group of like minded men with a common interest in a male dominated sport/hobby (I'm not suggesting it should be male dominated, but it is).

DonDaddyD wrote:

Regardless of what you may think, I have repeatedly told you my intentions and how this came about. The fact that you cannot accept that as truthful is your problem. I have no reason to lie. Hence my admission of guilt above.

JT wrote:

Very very few of us would ever wish to intentionally upset a female member by what we have said, but as most of the time it feels as though we are all blokes together we may occasionally overstep the mark.

DDD wrote:

But the overarching point is that the thread has. That is what needs to be acknowledged, discussed and a solution needs to be found on how to move forward not the 'internet posturing' of lets blame a user named DonDaddyD.

No one's blaming you for any more than being a hypocrite. Your born again status didn't even kick in until half way through your original thread as I seem to recall you admitting that you enjoy porn and then telling us you'd given it up when your child was born and worse, announcing that you thought the "Girls in realistic situations" thread was "funny". It's all still there for you to view if you want to.

t.m.h.n.e.t

supersonic wrote:

Afternoon ladies and gentleman,

Sorry for the late reply, I have been snowed under, and am about to leave the house again so will be away for a few more hours.

I believe the admin team is close to making a decision, and updates could be made as early as tonight.

Paul

Either way, good

velocestrapture

Greg66 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I *think* velocestrapture's point is that now the point is in play, either speak up or run the risk of being "tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs" by virtue of sitting in silence.

Nah,

I know. You had already explained what you understood her to mean.

Let's wait for her to explain it, eh?

I was intending to keep on track about discussing the way forward only, but as I have been asked a direct question:

I do consider that men have a positive obligation to step in and tackle sexism and negative attitudes to women when they see it, not just when they are prompted to by a woman taking the lead or asking for help.

I accept that my own awareness of the perniciousness of misogynistic attitudes will be higher than a lot of people's. It wasn't always - when I was younger I wouldn't have turned a hair at the "Girls in" threads. It is only as I have experienced more misogyny myself, seen my female friends experience it, and seen just how awful its effects can be through my work with women who have been abused by men that I have developed an awareness. This has caused me to think and read about why it is so prevalent, and what may be the causes.

However, I do think that there is a lot of misogyny that is obvious - for example the account that JT posted about his fiancee being sexually harassed in her workplace, and msmancunia's similar posts - and I think that men are not doing nearly enough to stop it.

Taking JT's example: how many men do you think have worked with this guy? How many of those men do you think have confronted him directly and told him his attitude is unacceptable? How many have made a complaint to management and refused to work with him if he continues? How many male managers would say to a woman making a complaint that "That is just the way he is. He doesn't mean anything by it. He's good at his job, so we have to work round him. We can move you to another role if you don't want to work with him"?

Every single man who has not spoken up has contributed to a culture in which that guy can get away with abusing women, and abusing his power over women. It doesn't matter that you don't abuse women yourself, if by your (lack of) words and actions you allow other men to abuse them instead, you are colluding in that abuse.

As I have said, this is my view. I have been thinking about these issues and working with the women affected by them for years. I remember the first girl (she was 14 years old) who I worked with who had been trafficked to the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and how it shocked me into looking at our society in a different light. It took something that dramatic to create a lightbulb moment for me.

The problem that misogyny is so prevalent that it has become normalised, and most people do not think critically about what is normal. A vicious circle has been created in which women get abused, because abusing women is so normal.

But some abuse of women is obvious, and there is no real excuse not to speak up against it. Putting that aside, I hope that whatever the outcome of the decisions on moderation, airing this issue has caused some of you to think more carefully about the way you react to misogyny and sexism, and that from now on you will make a positive decision as to whether you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

DonDaddyD

OK here goes:

JT wrote:

The soapbox was your first post on this subject and the above are confessions you have made in retrospect of being rumbled. It reminds me a little of one of those evangelical preachers who, having been caught with their whatsits in the choir girl's mouth go on to publicly confess their sins and thinks that gives them the right to be righteous again.

Have you got any evidence that proves that I ever denied posting inappropriately or participated in the 'Girls in...' threads?

I've asked the question repeatedly and you keep regurgitating the same erroneous claim without actually answering the question. And you have done as I said you would, find another means of attack and stupidly entrench yourself in desperation of trying to prove that you are right.

Incidentally this post was made on the 29 Feb and was without prompting.

I previously wrote:

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12839076&start=60
The pictures do objectify women, they aren't welcoming to women and the comments compound on these things. Have I posted in those threads? Yes. Do I laugh? Yes. But I don't for one second ignore what they are or the negative effect on the website

And no that doesn't make me a good person.

Very first time I was asked whether I have contributed in the 'Girls in...' thread again on the 29th Feb. This is on page 5, the thread was made on the 28th Feb.

I previously wrote:

Many times, yes. I posted pictures of Liz Hatch and Lizzie Armistead.

So tell me, using an example that predates these two posts, where I have denied ever previously contributing to the problem?

Anyway :roll:

JT wrote:

DDD wrote:

You believe attacking the person and not the argument is acceptable?

For being a hypocrite, yes. For their argument, no.

And

JT wrote:

DDD wrote:

As for being a hypocrite, can either of you honestly say that you have never said one thing and done another?

Absolutely not. The only difference is when I'm guilty of hypocrisy I try not to climb onto a soapbox and crow loudly about not doing one thing when I know perfectly well that I've done it myself.

You are aware now that at the first opportunity I did not deny or refute my past actions.

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

2). Your accusations are that I got a private slap on the wrist and so am lashing out. You have no way of supporting your accusation with any evidence. And in actual fact your fictional accusations matter little.

It's quite easy to see.

So in other words you haven't got any evidence, have you.

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

You went out of your way to make a big deal and stamp your feet. What other reason would there be for starting the initial thread in the middle of CC? Perhaps people would have been more receptive if you had have taken your little wrist slapping and said nothing,but that wouldn't cause max drama would it?

Can you prove that there was a wrist slapping?

tailwindhome

DDD is the David Millar of BikeRadar

I claim my £5

roger_merriman

supersonic wrote:

Afternoon ladies and gentleman,

Sorry for the late reply, I have been snowed under, and am about to leave the house again so will be away for a few more hours.

I believe the admin team is close to making a decision, and updates could be made as early as tonight.

Paul

cheers I think for whatever viewpoint one has, a decision soon would help matters as so far not really much debate any more, just mud slinging.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

2). Your accusations are that I got a private slap on the wrist and so am lashing out. You have no way of supporting your accusation with any evidence. And in actual fact your fictional accusations matter little.

It's quite easy to see.

So in other words you haven't got any evidence, have you.

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

You went out of your way to make a big deal and stamp your feet. What other reason would there be for starting the initial thread in the middle of CC? Perhaps people would have been more receptive if you had have taken your little wrist slapping and said nothing,but that wouldn't cause max drama would it?

Can you prove that there was a wrist slapping?

There really isn't any evidence needed,anyone who thinks for themselves will see the true reason for the existance of this thread and the previous. It's all here and it's not because of Girls in _threads.

RonB

velocestrapture wrote:

The problem that misogyny is so prevalent that it has become normalised, and most people do not think critically about what is normal. A vicious circle has been created in which women get abused, because abusing women is so normal.

But some abuse of women is obvious, and there is no real excuse not to speak up against it. Putting that aside, I hope that whatever the outcome of the decisions on moderation, airing this issue has caused some of you to think more carefully about the way you react to misogyny and sexism, and that from now on you will make a positive decision as to whether you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

I do agree with many of the points you raise and I appreciate you have gone on to explain things. What I don't get is the way you interchange some of the terminology. "Abusing women" and "misogyny" for me are in a different league to "sexism".

Do I think I have a role in dealing with misogyny and abuse in the workplace ? Absolutely, yes. Do I think I have a role in dealing with sexism? I honestly don't know. I am constantly surprised by how society seems to be heading backwards in terms of sexing up almost anything, mostly through blatant, cynical advertising, which seems more directed at young women and girls rather than (us) sex starved blokes.

Anyway, here's to a resolution.

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

There really isn't any evidence needed,anyone who thinks for themselves will see the true reason for the existance of this thread and the previous. It's all here and it's not because of Girls in _threads.

So you don't have any evidence do you? Where is it. Show us.

Bottomline do you or do you not have any evidence alluding to this "wrist slapping" claim?

alanp23

roger merriman wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Afternoon ladies and gentleman,

Sorry for the late reply, I have been snowed under, and am about to leave the house again so will be away for a few more hours.

I believe the admin team is close to making a decision, and updates could be made as early as tonight.

Paul

cheers I think for whatever viewpoint one has, a decision soon would help matters as so far not really much debate any more, just mud slinging.

+1.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

There really isn't any evidence needed,anyone who thinks for themselves will see the true reason for the existance of this thread and the previous. It's all here and it's not because of Girls in _threads.

So you don't have any evidence do you? Where is it. Show us.

Bottomline do you or do you not have any evidence alluding to this "wrist slapping" claim?

Prove me wrong

msmancunia

RonB wrote:

I do agree with many of the points you raise and I appreciate you have gone on to explain things. What I don't get is the way you interchange some of the terminology. "Abusing women" and "misogyny" for me are in a different league to "sexism".

Do I think I have a role in dealing with misogyny and abuse in the workplace ? Absolutely, yes. Do I think I have a role in dealing with sexism? I honestly don't know. I am constantly surprised by how society seems to be heading backwards in terms of sexing up almost anything, mostly through blatant, cynical advertising, which seems more directed at young women and girls rather than (us) sex starved blokes.

Anyway, here's to a resolution.

To be honest, I think rather than misogyny and abuse being in a different league to sexism, it's more of a sliding scale. You can do the same with racism - you've got Mr Bernard Right-on at one end, Mr BNP at the other, and in the middle you've got the Daily Mail "I'm not racist but... " types. I think that one of the reasons that we've argued so much about this issue is that on the "What's sexist, What's not" scale with the Girls in... threads, we've got different people sat at different points on the scale. It's not black and white.

Having said that, I admit to having a little bit of an ephipany of sorts over the past few days. It's got me questioning what I really find offensive, and what I just don't like, and what I don't actually mind as long as it was moderated and had the appropriate warnings.

So yes, here's to a resolution!

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

There really isn't any evidence needed,anyone who thinks for themselves will see the true reason for the existance of this thread and the previous. It's all here and it's not because of Girls in _threads.

So you don't have any evidence do you? Where is it. Show us.

Bottomline do you or do you not have any evidence alluding to this "wrist slapping" claim?

Prove me wrong

You are the one making the accusations and I am the one who has asked you a direct question. The onus is not for me to provide any proof, it is for you to supply evidence.

Your somewhat cowardly and continual avoidance of answering what is simply a "yes or no" question proves you are making a fictitious claim.

A forthright person would have answered the question directly by now.

Here, let me demonstrate.

Question: DonDaddyD was your original question the result of being told not to swear by the moderators?

Answer: No it wasn't, I asked the question out of pure curiousity. I didn't expect the thread to go in the direction it did or have such a widespread impact on the board. I do believe, however, it is largely a good thing as it exposes an underlying issue with board policy amongst a often underrespresented section of members. Equally it has made me question some of my previous unsavory actions.

But I've said as much previously already.

Also, it is not my problem if you have difficulty in accepting this.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg66 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I *think* velocestrapture's point is that now the point is in play, either speak up or run the risk of being "tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs" by virtue of sitting in silence.

Nah,

I know. You had already explained what you understood her to mean.

Let's wait for her to explain it, eh?

It seems I was wrong.

FWIW, I don't agree with velocestrapture on that point.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

You are the one making the accusations and I am the one who has asked you a direct question. The onus is not for me to provide any proof, it is for you to supply evidence.

Your somewhat cowardly and continual avoidance of answering what is simply a "yes or no" question proves you are making a fictitious claim.

An adult or a real man would have answered the question directly by now.

Let me refresh your memory

I'm not a believer in the reasoning behind the initial discussion on this and if anything the manor in which it was conducted was never going to be fruitful (oh dear was that a homosexual slur?). It doesn't take brain surgeon IQ to figure out that a thread in Commuter about a thread in Road/Cake Stop was never EVER going to come to anything but a lock. I really don't think the issue is girls vs swearing at all,I think someone had posts removed/edited for naughty words and figured he would take it out on everyone else. It's amazing how so many people crawled out from under their rocks to say something against Cake Stop-esque threads yet nobody brought up in a constructive manor before.

If you want to take thought as accusation be my guest. Got very defensive over nothing didn't you?

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

You are the one making the accusations and I am the one who has asked you a direct question. The onus is not for me to provide any proof, it is for you to supply evidence.

Your somewhat cowardly and continual avoidance of answering what is simply a "yes or no" question proves you are making a fictitious claim.

An adult or a real man would have answered the question directly by now.

Let me refresh your memory

I'm not a believer in the reasoning behind the initial discussion on this and if anything the manor in which it was conducted was never going to be fruitful (oh dear was that a homosexual slur?). It doesn't take brain surgeon IQ to figure out that a thread in Commuter about a thread in Road/Cake Stop was never EVER going to come to anything but a lock. I really don't think the issue is girls vs swearing at all,I think someone had posts removed/edited for naughty words and figured he would take it out on everyone else. It's amazing how so many people crawled out from under their rocks to say something against Cake Stop-esque threads yet nobody brought up in a constructive manor before.

If you want to take thought as accusation be my guest. Got very defensive over nothing didn't you?

Sweet mother of patience. How old are you, 12? What does that prove? That's the post where you originally attempt to accuse of me of reacting to some fictious action by the moderators. The question I asked was for you to PROVE that the moderators editted my post and that I was made aware of this.

What you have posted is not evidence, it is not proof. It is nothing but a desperate attempt in deluding yourself that you actually have a point when you have none.

Look, let me spell it out for you. You have made a fictitious claim and you are too cowardly to admit the truth or answer a direct question.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sweet mother of patience. How old are you, 12? What does that prove? That's the post where you originally attempt to accuse of me of reacting to some fictious action by the moderators.

It's not evidence, it's not proof. It's nothing but a desperate attempt in deluding yourself that you actually have a point when you have none.

Look, let me spell it out for you. You have made a fictitious claim and you are too cowardly to admit the truth or answer a direct question.

I made no claim. Why are you so defensive?

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sweet mother of patience. How old are you, 12? What does that prove? That's the post where you originally attempt to accuse of me of reacting to some fictious action by the moderators.

It's not evidence, it's not proof. It's nothing but a desperate attempt in deluding yourself that you actually have a point when you have none.

Look, let me spell it out for you. You have made a fictitious claim and you are too cowardly to admit the truth or answer a direct question.

I made no claim. Why are you so defensive?

You either are or are deliberately being obtuse.

This is a claim:

I think someone had posts removed/edited for naughty words and figured he would take it out on everyone else.

You have yet to support it with any evidence or proof that (i) a moderator had changed my post and (ii) I was aware of this and decided to publicly ask the question in retaliation.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sweet mother of patience. How old are you, 12? What does that prove? That's the post where you originally attempt to accuse of me of reacting to some fictious action by the moderators.

It's not evidence, it's not proof. It's nothing but a desperate attempt in deluding yourself that you actually have a point when you have none.

Look, let me spell it out for you. You have made a fictitious claim and you are too cowardly to admit the truth or answer a direct question.

I made no claim. Why are you so defensive?

You either are or are deliberately being obtuse.

This is a claim:

I think someone had posts removed/edited for naughty words and figured he would take it out on everyone else.

Oh no,that's a thought. I highlighted the relevant bit. A claim would be

"DDD swore,got his wrist slapped so decided to piss off the rest of the forum to make himself feel better"

DonDaddyD

G66 wrote:

It seems I was wrong.

FWIW, I don't agree with velocestrapture on that point.

I want to agree with you, but sometimes I feel that when people see or hear a crime, injustice etc and they don't step forward I think they are in someway culpable. It's part of my nature to be forthright and call things as right or wrong even my own misdemeanors.

I don't subscribe to the notion that we should all actively champion against injustice, in this case specifically:

Every single man who has not spoken up has contributed to a culture in which that guy can get away with abusing women, and abusing his power over women. It doesn't matter that you don't abuse women yourself, if by your (lack of) words and actions you allow other men to abuse them instead, you are colluding in that abuse.

I mean does that mean that everyone who hasn't spoken up against racism, homophobia, bullying has therefore contributed to an environment where it exists.

Should I then blame velostrapture for not speaking up for me against certain posters even though their accusations and attacks are clearly wrong. Has her inaction contributed to an environment where it is OK to blame DDD?

It's not the same thing or even near the scale of abuse, any form of abuse, but the principle is the same.

jonny_trousers

Beyond the issue of whether 'those threads' have a place on this forum, forgetting about the small matter of sexism and misogyny, can we please all agree on the only point worth considering here: DonDaddyD is innocent, he was right all along and is now completely vindicated. I have no real clue any more as to what he was innocent of, right about or vindicated of, but he wrote the most, demanded more reference and included way more quotes than anyone else, and by the power of Greyskull, that therefore makes him the winner.

Insert favourite facepalm here

Thank you to all who put up a persuasive argument and encouraged us all to think. Thank you also to DDD for the laughs.

I too raise my mug of tea to a resolution - whatever it may be.

DonDaddyD

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Beyond the issue of whether 'those threads' have a place on this forum, forgetting about the small matter of sexism and misogyny, can we please all agree on the only point worth considering here: DonDaddyD is innocent, he was right all along and is now completely vindicated. I have no real clue any more as to what he was innocent of, right about or vindicated of, but he wrote the most, demanded more reference and included way more quotes than anyone else, and by the power of Greyskull, that therefore makes him the winner.

Insert favourite facepalm here

Thank you to all who put up a persuasive argument and encouraged us all to think. Thank you also to DDD for the laughs.

I too raise my mug of tea to a resolution - whatever it may be.

I understand! The inability to answer the questions in my post directly. Doing so might force you to admit that you may have been mistaken and this is something you seemingly are incapable of doing.

I sympathise with your problem.

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

I think someone had posts removed/edited for naughty words and figured he would take it out on everyone else.

Oh no,that's a thought. I highlighted the relevant bit. A claim would be

"DDD swore,got his wrist slapped so decided to wee-wee off the rest of the forum to make himself feel better"

Same as above.