bobbins

OK, but I will put almost no thought into it thus making me immune from mockery.

You pick and choose what to respond to, your points have been proven incorrect by Surf and Cleetus but you don't acknowledge them and still press the point that Hulky was an innocent dullard who didn't deserve or ask for any ill treatment. As you are so fond of saying in your "strongly argued style" maybe you need to read the original thread properly so you can understand it.

I ignore stuff that's disingenuous, ad hominem, or anything that tries to distract from the point or create a false black-white "end of" point to an issue that is more complex and can't be defined that simply. Engaging with people who do that would be a complete waste of time. For example, you've created the false dichotomy that Hulky is either an innocent dullard, or someone who deserves ill treatment because he asked for it. I reject both of those ideas, but it's a result of that simplified attitude that if I'm not taking one side of the false dichotomy then I'm perceived to be taking the other, so I'm forced into a false position of your own construction. I really can't be bothered to explain this every time it happens. It amazes me that people have such difficulty processing the idea that you can talk about the Luis Suarez issue without being a defender of racism. Cleetus gave an example of Hulky rising to the bait and responding to the relentless flaming that was aimed at him, and Surf talked about meeting him in person and him seeming normal. Neither of those posts "disproved" my point that Hulky was essentially trying to get along with people in that thread, and that he's a human being not "deserving of ill treatment" as you put it.You may consider this a "patronising statement", but the "large leaps in logic" are not coming from me.

Firstly, absolutely get fucked with the bullying bullshit. I know what my intention was with that thread, and I've been deliberately on top of that kind of thing when modding, a ton of times. There have been Mod Challenges before, and like I said, it was just a throwaway thing that generated some laughs completely not at anyone's expense. As far as 'following' someone all over the place, or responding to people who you suddenly think are off limits because they're a bit damaged, should we just never reply? If someone's being wacky in my direction, or baiting me, or outright making shit up, I'm probably not going to hold back on clearing that up just because they're a little on the oddball side of things.

Fair enough. I guess it's just my personal opinion that a guy like HF is off-limits because his difficulties are so obvious. The nastiness was before the mod challenge came in imo.

What with this, and the reports you've been making, it feels like you're of the mindset of "Fuck this place, might as well go down in flames, wheeeee" and troll yourself a ban.

Not at all. I've just been reporting abusive posts, like we're encouraged to do, because I genuinely think it's a better idea than responding to them. (Also out of interest to whether anything would happen.) Since my suspension ended I was immediately met with a volley of personal attacks and nasty shit about meltdowns etc, when all I've been doing is posting calmly, but in my usual strongly argued style. I only post when the consensus has come to an opinion that I disagree with, or when I've got a point that I think is worth making. That can lead to conflict, but I'm not trolling anyone or looking for a ban, even with Trevor's desperate flamebaiting. The points I've made are that the FA is incompetent, Diane Abbott probably isn't a racist and asking about the moderation of the board (after being suspended for a reason unrelated to any of the forum rules). I don't see why any of that should be met with all this aggression.

But I'd prefer if you'd just, you know, go back to being any good.

Hey, I've sparked some debate haven't I?

He wasn't the butt of the joke. It was some random, off the top of my head shit, that I knew he wouldn't even bother to read through, let alone reply to.

The whole thread was about him, setting a challenge that you know he hasn't the ability to rise to is bullying whether you like it or not. It's taking the piss. And it was adding to a thread that had been one big pile-on for pages. To me, decent modding would just see you ban HF, lock the thread. It'd make you a spoilsport and unpopular and uncool, but it'd be the decent thing, rather than making the pile-on board-sanctioned if you like. I don't think you (or anyone) was being intentionally individually malicious. That's just the way bullying works, lots of little digs.

Just so we're clear, seeing as you're into BEING CLEAR ABOUT WHERE WE STAND at tedious length to make some weird point, it's not cool when it's him, (and coincidentally, a time when you cop a suspension out of it), but the likes of Radders, Coey, Bryant, Alan Hill, or any of the multitude of other genuinely insane message board types are fair game to replying with like you would anyone else, yeah?

Had no intention to post at tedious length. Think I've made my points briefly, but people keep coming back to it, so I'll keep discussing it. Guilty as charged on the Alan Hill, Coey insanity. Looking back, it was probably good that there were mods stepping in when it crossed the line. Those two could obviously handle themselves though, and it was generally one-on-one. I will certainly hold my hands up to being a dick to many people on the net over the years. Live and learn. Maybe that's why I'm no longer "fun". :)I never had any encounters with Chad Bryant, and it was you who was the truly vociferous Radders-baiter. Following him all over the place, even after it was blatant that the guy was very seriously mentally ill, and I made that point a couple of times.

He's no different to thousands of others on the internet,

Come on man, you can't tell me you think HF is a normal, regular guy who functions great in ordinary society, with a happy productive life.

Nobody smacked him about a bit before kicking him out. They said join in with the rest of us and you can stay. He didn't want that. He wanted to be one above the rest of us. So he got kicked out.

Mate, that's bollocks. I challenge anyone to go and have a look back at that thread objectively. It's a pretty nasty pile-on of a very easy target that hasn't the tools to fight back, with HF just trying to be nice and get along. It's actually quite sad. It's easy to de-humanise people on the internet.

Yeah, if you're a misogynist

I'll let that one slide. It's not like he's calling every female member of the board a prostitute eh Pitcos?

We also encouraged Pitcos, Sean Thomas Jolly and Wretch into humiliating themselves for our entertainment.

Nah, they weren't the butt of the joke.

He's not stupid. He's not mentally impaired. He keeps coming back because - quite simply - he's an utter cretin.

So he's not stupid or mentally impaired, then what's your definition of cretin? I don't know what's up with the guy, but he's human. Banning him because he can't get along is fine, smacking him about a bit and rubbing his nose in it before you kick him out is pretty callous.

How many more days is this paddy going to go on, bobbins?

I'll be responding to most personal attacks as and when they pop up thanks.

Fucking hell bobbins, a few years ago you used to have a sense of humour about things. Since then you've turned into Mr Sourpuss, you sourpuss you.We all know why you're moaning, it's because you were needled out for a suspension due to the super rap challenge (which was a super fun thread), but you don't do fun these days. I actually challenge you to point out the last fun post you made, instead of a tutting aunt post. Bring back the old and fun bobbins.

When people's idea of fun is baiting a vulnerable guy to humiliate himself for everyone's entertainment, I'm quite content to be the sourpuss.

I'm never offended

Don't talk soft you stupid sod.

Dazzling.

I'm not sure this conversation would be happening had someone else been chosen as a recipient of the suspension.

Maybe not. I don't think it makes my question irrelevant.

Judging by his posts on the Premier League thread, David, it's no suprise that bobbins doesn't see the issue with what Abbott said.

 

It's nice to see a Liverpool fan, such as yourself David, approach the issue with a great deal of humility and intelligence. I wish the same could be said for your other fellow Liverpool supporters.

Engage with my points or don't. Sneering from the sidelines is cowardice.

 

I wasn't sneering, nor do I intend to engage in a debate with someone who is clearly still bitter about his ban and having something of a breakdown. Maybe step away from the keyboard just for tonight eh, you mentalist.

 

[/sneer]

Besides, if you knew the answer to your question then why did you even ask it, unless you wanted to make a point.

I didn't know the answer until Sickboy answered.

 

I didn't mention bullying. Just an aside that jokes at the expense of vulnerable posters, is normally the sort of thing that "moderators" by definition, tend to try and tone down (preferably in as gentle and non-humourless a way as possible) rather than start. Just nice to know if a forum you frequent has a different definition to "moderation" than the norm.

Not really, Bobbins. I can imagine what your opinion would be had this been a Tweet from a white male who held a fairly prominent position within the Conservative party.

 

She was out of line, simple as that.

Your point about what my opinion would be if this was a tweet from a white tory seems to suggest that you didn't read or understand the article. Are you saying this is equivalent to a white mp complaining about black people liking to divide and rule? The ridiculousness of that hypothetical goes to show how there is no equivalence to white on black racism here. You cannot cry racism without accounting for the context of the power structure and history. Clearly she should have said "white power elites" or "some white people", but that doesn't mean that simple mistake should be turned into a racism issue by hypocritical Daily Mailers.

 

There was an interesting comment from Ally Fogg on the blog.

 

Great blog Dorian.

Being sympathetic to DA (and you) I’d say that what she meant was ‘the white ruling class’ rather than ‘white people.’ Understood that way, her comment was perfectly sound.

To be less charitable for a moment, I do wonder if her choice of words might reveal a quite deep-seated prejudice or opinion which holds that “white people” and “the white ruling class” are basically synonymous. I’m sure she knows rationally it’s not true, but she does have a bad habit of spouting kneejerk generalisations when her guard is down.

Yes, storm in a twitter-cup. Yes, hideously exploited by those seeking a diversion. But yes, what she said was pretty daft and careless.

 

Judging by his posts on the Premier League thread, David, it's no suprise that bobbins doesn't see the issue with what Abbott said.

 

It's nice to see a Liverpool fan, such as yourself David, approach the issue with a great deal of humility and intelligence. I wish the same could be said for your other fellow Liverpool supporters.

Engage with my points or don't. Sneering from the sidelines is cowardice.

David missed the Mod challenge then.

The thread with the videos? Yeah, I saw that

Don't want to be all sour-grapesy about a joke (whether you think a joke at the expense of a mentally ill/learning disabilities guy is funny/appropriate or not) but if the moderators are doing the exact opposite of their stated reason for existence, I'm just wondering if that's the way things are going to go from now on.

Were they making fun of someone with learning disabilities then? I must have missed that. If anything, they were making fun of themselves, no?

The usual at the expense of Hulkamania Fan. I asked the question to see whether it's the mod's job on here to lessen that stuff rather than to lead the goading themselves. No is the answer.

 

Liverpool fan in "Going out of his way to be offended" shocker.

Thinking something is a bit stupid and shit is not the same as being offended. I'm never offended and don't think it's a trait particularly common to Liverpool fans. I think you have your stereotypes confused.

 

Just pop a Liverpool shirt on and he'll turn a bind eye to it

The parallels are quite striking.

David missed the Mod challenge then.

The thread with the videos? Yeah, I saw that

Don't want to be all sour-grapesy about a joke (whether you think a joke at the expense of a mentally ill/learning disabilities guy is funny/appropriate or not) but if the moderators are doing the exact opposite of their stated reason for existence, I'm just wondering if that's the way things are going to go from now on.

I have a question. What is the role of a "forum moderator" on the UKFF?

Why are you asking that? You know what they do. They keep tabs on the discussion within the various threads on the forum

Is that the limit of their remit? Moderating excess? Doesn't seem to be the case from my experience.

Excellent piece on the Abbott issue.

 

http://33revolutionsperminute.wordpress.co...bott-was-right/

I have a question. What is the role of a "forum moderator" on the UKFF?

I don't think you necessarily have to be a conspiracy nut to see the affects unchecked capitalism has had on the world wide economy.

 

As a history student I can observe that since the onset of capitalism the standard of living for most people in the western world has improved considerably. We live longer, eat better etc.

 

Even now in the midst of a recession most of us have it pretty good.

Yes and no. If you were to take the capitalist era as that beginning after Feudalism, then I would agree that standards have improved in several areas. However it has been tempered by a lot by regulation (some loose, some very stringent) and a lot of different interpretations in different parts of the world combined with numerous political positions attached to it. Child labour laws, minimum wage laws, trade unions, health & safety and so on have helped contribute along side e.g. ensure that the food you eat is safe, medical treatments are proven to be effective and aren't quackery, you can go to work without fearing that you may end up not coming back home that evening or that what you do will likely send you to an early grave.

 

Yep, although we're in a recession we still live comfortable enough lives in this country. Many social developments over the centuries have made what we have today possible.

 

...and that all happened within capitalist systems, no?

Is everyone ignoring the keyword "unchecked"? As Glen says, those improvements have come about thanks just as much to the restrictions, regulations and checks put on capitalism as thanks to capitalism itself. You can't just say "things improved under capitalism therefore market fundamentalism and the free market are entirely to thank", it's just one part of the story. The elite will always try and remove those checks from the capitalist system and portray them as holding it back, and being the enemy of a healthy growing economy. What everyone needs to understand is that it's an absolute lie. The economy exists to make things better for everyone, if it's not performing that function, it needs altering.

The interview with the McCann's yesterday was just bizarre as anything else attributed to whatever they have done in the media. It appears that the whole thing is becoming a bit of a witchhunt rather than a equal investigation to the pros and cons of the ethics used.

lololol witchhunt! Yes, those McCanns are pursuing a vengeful witchhunt against those poor media outlets who were just interested in bringing the truth to the people. What the fucking fuck?

How outraged are you on a scale of 1-10, Aaron? Just for point of referral, 1 would be red-faced and pacing around your bedroom with your fists clenched and 10 would be kicking bankers in the bollocks as they get on the Jubilee Line at Canary Wharf while screaming "I AM 10/10 OUTRAGED!" in their faces. You might be naked as well. Too angry for clothes.

Is snarky cynicism a more appropriate response to our current irreparably damaged political system than blind, impotent fury?

Barney Ronay puts it better than I ever could.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/...betting-scandal

 

An enduring image of the England versus Pakistan Test series last year was the sight of a visibly appalled Giles Clarke refusing to shake hands with Mohammad Amir

Very strange to see such glee about this. I find the whole thing pretty sad.

 

Are you going to elaborate on this? I don't really see all that much 'glee' around about this whole business.

Great day for cricket. Good riddance. Shame Asif didn't get a harsher sentence. They were the 3 successive posts after the verdict. I just found it very strange, how it conflicted starkly with my own feelings about it. Just different outlooks I guess.

Very strange to see such glee about this. I find the whole thing pretty sad.

When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument.

Monbiot was desperate to destroy that guy before he was cut off.

 

On the monarchy secession, it just highlights how daft the whole thing is. Favouring a first born child is just as arbitrary and ridiculous as favouring a male child.