Ship of Fools: hosts chat

Thread: hosts chat Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003441

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

Multiple hosts have prodded me to "tone it down".

Recent:

Aljalon:

A Hostly warning: You're straying awfully close to personal attack in some of your recent posts. I suggest you cool your jets a little, and start adding light, not heat, to the temperature on this Board. For heat we have Hell, and at the rate you're going, someone (not me) is sure to decide that's the best place to deal with you.

John Holding
Host in Dead Horses
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000623;p=8#000376

I understand that the topic is hotly contested. I also understand that there is a healthy dose of smarty-pants intellectual jabbing and stabbing going on.

I recently used a "yoda voice" to mock a rather wonky post that was, well, rather yoda-ish.

Is this really being nasty? Really?

I find it hard to take that accusation seriously.

On the other hand, the actual discussion is may be what is truly too controversial, not the little snipes.... If so, could I have clarification?

"your recent posts" is too ambiguous for me to know what is expressly required of me.

If the goal was to be indirect, because the issues are all just too messy, fine and well. If the issues being discussed are simply that distasteful in general, then my ideas and discussion are simply unwanted here?

Yours truly

A

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
For heat we have Hell, and at the rate you're going, someone (not me) is sure to decide that's the best place to deal with you.[

Got your back, John.
Come on down to the hole, Aijalon

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

When someone posts several times, each of which contains something that is close to the line of personal offense, a general warning of the sort John posted is usually given. We don't really want to interrupt a thread by having an excessively long post from a host giving all the instances where someone is adding heat but little light. It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to ask for the details here in the Styx.

I'm not a host, and I haven't read all that you have posted, so I'm not in the best position to produce such a clarification. However, reading your recent posts, one comment particularly caught my eye. On the Biblical Interpretation thread you say:

quote:
I never expected anyone LGBT to like or pay attention to anything I'm saying, I assume that LGBT people are going to tune me out. I'm really not talking to them, as if they are all that is in the room....I wont treat the issue on the whole with special gloves on because people could be offended. If I have stepped on toes of people wearing their heart on their sleeve -ok- there is a clash, it happens.

This appears to be saying that a) you're not wanting to engage with actual LGBT people posting on that thread (and presumably other threads), and b) you're not particularly concerned about stepping on toes and causing offence.

I would say that both of those apparent points are in the class of "likely to add heat but no light". People will naturally be annoyed if they feel their opinions are not being seriously engaged with - which would apply not just to LGBT people, but friends of LGBT people or anyone who happens to disagree with your interpretations of Scripture. And, of course, when you're not concerned about stepping on toes then toes will be stepped on.

We're not asking you to stop expressing your opinions, we'd have a boring conversation if that happened. But, we would appreciate some respect for others - to remember that the people you are debating with (whether LGBT or not) are human beings. And, to attempt to avoid stepping on toes, with sincere apologies when toes are stepped on. And, the other side of the coin of your views being heard is that it would be good if you could at least appear to take opposing views seriously.

We want discussion which brings light with the minimum heat possible.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
For heat we have Hell, and at the rate you're going, someone (not me) is sure to decide that's the best place to deal with you.[
Got your back, John.
Come on down to the hole, Aijalon

declined

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When someone posts several times, each of which contains something that is close to the line of personal offense, a general warning of the sort John posted is usually given. We don't really want to interrupt a thread by having an excessively long post from a host giving all the instances where someone is adding heat but little light. It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to ask for the details here in the Styx.

I'm not a host, and I haven't read all that you have posted, so I'm not in the best position to produce such a clarification. However, reading your recent posts, one comment particularly caught my eye. On the Biblical Interpretation thread you say:

quote:
I never expected anyone LGBT to like or pay attention to anything I'm saying, I assume that LGBT people are going to tune me out. I'm really not talking to them, as if they are all that is in the room....I wont treat the issue on the whole with special gloves on because people could be offended. If I have stepped on toes of people wearing their heart on their sleeve -ok- there is a clash, it happens.
This appears to be saying that a) you're not wanting to engage with actual LGBT people posting on that thread (and presumably other threads), and b) you're not particularly concerned about stepping on toes and causing offence.

I would say that both of those apparent points are in the class of "likely to add heat but no light". People will naturally be annoyed if they feel their opinions are not being seriously engaged with - which would apply not just to LGBT people, but friends of LGBT people or anyone who happens to disagree with your interpretations of Scripture. And, of course, when you're not concerned about stepping on toes then toes will be stepped on.

We're not asking you to stop expressing your opinions, we'd have a boring conversation if that happened. But, we would appreciate some respect for others - to remember that the people you are debating with (whether LGBT or not) are human beings. And, to attempt to avoid stepping on toes, with sincere apologies when toes are stepped on. And, the other side of the coin of your views being heard is that it would be good if you could at least appear to take opposing views seriously.

We want discussion which brings light with the minimum heat possible.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

I feel that the issue of being offended is generally along the lines of certain LGBT people being in a constant state of offense that people ever disproved of what they do. They are on the lookout for people like me, and are genuinely offended that I exist. I don't think I can help this, though

No not everyone is automatically offended of course, but some are and it only takes 1 or two. It is an inflamed situation.

The church is in a landslide situation in terms of the rate of change in moral views, or, as Barnabas62 recently suggested, the landslide is over, the decision is made.

The issue now will be silencing dissent, or, drowning it out with loud booing.

I am nearly to the point where I sense that the loud booing is just about enough that I should gather my things and leave, but you seem to suggest that this is not quite yet the time.

I have tried to avoid direct personal LGBT discussion in large part because the nature of my questions at a personal level would likely be offensive to who knows who, so I am talking to everyone at large, not assuming anyone to be gay.

For example, I might reject the answer of "I'm LGBT for no reason but I just like it, or I was 'born this way'" with a question about an LGBT person's parents.... you know, the whole "did you have a loving mommy and daddy?" line of questioning.

I feel the chances are high that such questions would not go well, so for the moment I think I have to accept that my ideas are downright offensive to LGBT.

So from here I guess I will investigate how I can talk about this with a mindset of LGBT are in the room, but I am not sure how I will reform how I say things on that account. It may be too late anyway, not sure.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

So from here I guess I will investigate how I can talk about this with a mindset of LGBT are in the room, but I am not sure how I will reform how I say things on that account. It may be too late anyway, not sure.

In general, it's fairly safe to assume that any time you're in a room with a dozen or more people, you have a good chance of being in the room with an LGBT person. If you extend that to being either and LGBT person, or a close friend or relative of such a person, the odds are even higher.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
For example, I might reject the answer of "I'm LGBT for no reason but I just like it, or I was 'born this way'" with a question about an LGBT person's parents.... you know, the whole "did you have a loving mommy and daddy?" line of questioning.

It seems to me that what you're trying to do is ignore the consequences of your questioning, then being confounded by people getting upset with you (and if those are actually the questions you'd ask of a gay person... [Roll Eyes]

)

Ask better questions, and learn some empathy. LGBT+ folk aren't here to be poked like lab rats.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
<snip>For example, I might reject the answer of "I'm LGBT for no reason but I just like it, or I was 'born this way'" with a question about an LGBT person's parents.... you know, the whole "did you have a loving mommy and daddy?" line of questioning.<snip>

Since there is a considerable body of professional research accessible online which addresses the question of the role of parenting and sexual orientation, it's hard to see what individual questioning of posters on this board is likely to achieve. And because such information is widely available, it is likely that such questioning is liable to be construed as not a genuine request for information, but offensive since many LGBT people will have experienced it being used to offend.

I can't see how it is possible in asking such a question to avoid the implication that the way someone is - in this case their sexual orientation - is defective because it is the consequence of faulty parenting.

In the same way that certain language about black people cannot now be used because it has in the past been used to abuse or oppress, so certain things about LGBT people are also out of bounds for the same reason.

I think it is possible that in an established relationship of mutual warmth and respect with someone, it *might* be possible to ask that kind of question - if they could be completely sure that it was a genuine enquiry, although I am sure the question would still be hurtful. I think it is impossible with strangers on the internet.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
And because such information is widely available, it is likely that such questioning is liable to be construed as not a genuine request for information,

His pattern thus far appears to be to accept assertions which bolster his chosen position rather than accessing the research.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I would bring the hosts attention to this post.
It is so full of rubbish it is difficult to credit that a functioning human could post it with anything other than the intent to insult and inflame.
Wouldn't be so bad if the coward would engage in Hell, but he hides in DH.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, I would remind everyone that Hell exists for you to express annoyance at other Shipmates. You can use words like "coward" or comment on whether someone is a functioning human being there, you can't do that here in the Styx (or in DH). There's no requirement for anyone else to read or post in Hell, there is a requirement not to get Hellish outside Hell.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, I would remind everyone that Hell exists for you to express annoyance at other Shipmates. You can use words like "coward" or comment on whether someone is a functioning human being there, you can't do that here in the Styx (or in DH). There's no requirement for anyone else to read or post in Hell, there is a requirement not to get Hellish outside Hell.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

I think he is a functioning human being, this is the problem. I am questioning his intent for the very reasons he has been cautioned. Indeed, the reason this very thread exists.
The use of coward is outside the rules, no defence will I offer for that.
But the other was a creative way of saying that I believe him to be trolling and in violation of the caution he was so recently given.
Perhaps a simple "Sir, Sir, he's been naughty" might have been a better way to do this.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

I was asked for a mechanism... so I gave it. I all seriousness, I felt that I owed some kind of explanation but as the connotation suggests, the issue is complex, and mechanically speaking, an explanation of how society works is a wordy undertaking, so I condensed a number of things into a hasty post that put out the essential bits and so there you have it.

That's my theory in a very hasty outline.

Can only avoid direct questions so long.

By posting what I said, I expected your response.

As far as science and research, you already know I don't believe in the conclusions. If I disagree with science, then you have "won" as they say, and I suppose a certain amount of mockery of my ideas is expected. It is not the mockery of me along your scientific grounds that is irksome, it is the downright angry tone. I'll admit to being annoyed by the tactics of some, but I have not acted as angry as you.

As far as science, it creates it's own small sandboxes of research to prove that say "this guy" has no ill effects from being gay, rather, trying NOT to be gay caused him problems. I'm here saying that science/ medical research has nothing to do with the Bible's implicit moral code.

Furthermore, I'm saying that following that code has benefits to society.

I'm not advocating enforcing that code in any sense of how Moses enforced it. That system of enforcement served a specific purpose, but today that purpose has already been accomplished.

I'm not even saying that gay people cannot be "saved", or are hellbound, etc...
(homosexuality, or perhaps even all sexuality will not even likely be associated with the "kingdom of God")

I'm only here to advocate that the church should not celebrate, accommodate, accept, condone, appease, or otherwise approve of, said "sin".

I was already cautioned for using the term "trolling" in response to someone, I recognize that here perhaps the term Troll might be a common issue raised.....If someone who disagrees with science is a troll, I suppose I must be banished. I'm no troll. However, if I have made people equally angry as a troll, well that's another discussion I guess.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

That was an awful lot of writing to plug your ears and say, "la la la, I can't hear you".

For the purposes of this board, we are only concerned with the functioning of the various discussion fora. Thus, most of your babbling on about your personal motivations for ignoring the accumulation of knowledge and understanding are better discussed on other boards. The only relevant aspect is the degree to which you comprehend the fact that implying some people are "less" or "other" is fundamentally offensive, and it behooves you to post in a manner consistent with that fact.

To be specific, this is particularly relevant when discussing identifying aspects of people: racial identity, sexual identity, national identity, occupational identity, religious identity - to name just a few. If you discuss these aspects, do not pretend that people don't get to have genuine feelings about it. As much as we might find it confusing, there really are people participating in these conversations, and absolutely none of them are beings of pure logic. As such, if a Host perceives that you are getting too offensive to contribute to discussion, ease the fuck back.

If you don't want to back off from spouting your precious precious kernels of truth, the place to explore them without limits is Hell.

Please let me know if you would like any further clarification about what is expected of you.

-RooK
Admin

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

no clarification needed..... considering Hell as an avenue of discussion. I suppose I must start by being brave enough to read the neat things people are saying about me there.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I would (as a Hell Host) point out that Hell is not a continuation of Purgatory or Dead Horses. It's a place to go when communication has broken down and everyone is pissed off enough to shout at each other.

If you can't manage a civil conversation on a subject in Purg or DH, think very hard indeed about having it in Hell. It might be that a contentious subject isn't the problem. It might be that your response to it is.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0