Questions for Mandy

[Azathoth]

[charlou]

25so8dl.jpg

Very apt. Did you make it yourself, Ghat?

[Thinking Aloud]

Well, IMO, and many others I suspect, there has been much "intentional malicious trolling" in this thread...

This, of course, is neither a personal attack on anybody (it is an opinion about the nature of somebody's actions, of course), nor a statement as a mod, simply the opinion of a member...

Simple "Intentional malicious trolling" on it's own isn't enough though Jim, either/both of the other bits I bolded also need to apply. Part of the reason for that is the difficulty in defining "Intentional malicious trolling". The other bolded bits are the clarifications which allow us to decide if the definition applies.

"With the intention of tormenting" would seem to apply nicely. Posting in the knowledge that you're winding people up is tormenting.

That, in my opinion, would not apply nicely. What that does is leave the determination of what posts are acceptable to the whim of the audience. A lot of things wind people up. People get wound up by libertarian and conservative, and especially religious, opinions expressed. If someone keeps posting them and others get wound up repeatedly so that the poster is "in the knowledge that they are winding people up" are they then "tormenting?"

The moderators then would step in and make a determination, and the tendency would be to downplay the alleged transgressions of those of whom a generally favorable opinion exists, and exaggerate the transgressions of those of whom a generally negative opinion exists. That's just human nature. I'm not claiming there would be some intent to censor or anything like that - it's just human nature. People will "interpret" what Mandy says as improper much quicker than someone who holds opinions opposite of Mandy. In my opinion, of course.

This forum is a community - or at least it was, in my opinion. I think there's a great deal of patience and tolerance for people who hold perhaps extreme views on one particular subject, but who otherwise participate in the community as a whole, and as themselves. Where the impatience shows (and it happened before with another member) is where someone comes here and does NOT participate other than to continually repeat their extreme views ad nauseum, insert those views into other threads where they aren't relevant, do it repeatedly, knowing that it's annoying others, and add nothing else to the community we have here.

But it sounds like enough people here like this sort of thing...

(Yes, I know, I don't have to read these threads if I don't like them. Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.)

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, IMO, and many others I suspect, there has been much "intentional malicious trolling" in this thread...

This, of course, is neither a personal attack on anybody (it is an opinion about the nature of somebody's actions, of course), nor a statement as a mod, simply the opinion of a member...

Simple "Intentional malicious trolling" on it's own isn't enough though Jim, either/both of the other bits I bolded also need to apply. Part of the reason for that is the difficulty in defining "Intentional malicious trolling". The other bolded bits are the clarifications which allow us to decide if the definition applies.

"With the intention of tormenting" would seem to apply nicely. Posting in the knowledge that you're winding people up is tormenting.

That, in my opinion, would not apply nicely. What that does is leave the determination of what posts are acceptable to the whim of the audience. A lot of things wind people up. People get wound up by libertarian and conservative, and especially religious, opinions expressed. If someone keeps posting them and others get wound up repeatedly so that the poster is "in the knowledge that they are winding people up" are they then "tormenting?"

The moderators then would step in and make a determination, and the tendency would be to downplay the alleged transgressions of those of whom a generally favorable opinion exists, and exaggerate the transgressions of those of whom a generally negative opinion exists. That's just human nature. I'm not claiming there would be some intent to censor or anything like that - it's just human nature. People will "interpret" what Mandy says as improper much quicker than someone who holds opinions opposite of Mandy. In my opinion, of course.

This forum is a community - or at least it was, in my opinion. I think there's a great deal of patience and tolerance for people who hold perhaps extreme views on one particular subject, but who otherwise participate in the community as a whole, and as themselves. Where the impatience shows (and it happened before with another member) is where someone comes here and does NOT participate other than to continually repeat their extreme views ad nauseum, insert those views into other threads where they aren't relevant, do it repeatedly, knowing that it's annoying others, and add nothing else to the community we have here.

But it sounds like enough people here like this sort of thing...

(Yes, I know, I don't have to read these threads if I don't like them. Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.)

Hmmmm....o.k........I would think if a post is made that is "not relevant" to a thread, then it would be moved or removed as "off topic." Mandy is not off topic or posting irrelevant stuff here. It's a "questions for muslim mandelson thread." But, oh, well. Thought I'd just chime in on that slight derail topic...

On another note - Mandelson, where are you? We need some more edukatin' on the Musselman faith!

[JimC]

TA wrote:

This forum is a community - or at least it was, in my opinion. I think there's a great deal of patience and tolerance for people who hold perhaps extreme views on one particular subject, but who otherwise participate in the community as a whole, and as themselves. Where the impatience shows (and it happened before with another member) is where someone comes here and does NOT participate other than to continually repeat their extreme views ad nauseum, insert those views into other threads where they aren't relevant, do it repeatedly, knowing that it's annoying others, and add nothing else to the community we have here.

But it sounds like enough people here like this sort of thing...

I think you make good points, aside from the crankiness of the final sentence...

To be fair, the others are not "liking that sort of thing", but are worried whether official sanctions against those who do that sort of crap might be the thin end of the wedge, allowing other official sanctions in the future more easily, and for less valid reasons and I can see that point of view to an extent.

coito ergo sum wrote:

That, in my opinion, would not apply nicely. What that does is leave the determination of what posts are acceptable to the whim of the audience. A lot of things wind people up. People get wound up by libertarian and conservative, and especially religious, opinions expressed. If someone keeps posting them and others get wound up repeatedly so that the poster is "in the knowledge that they are winding people up" are they then "tormenting?"

The moderators then would step in and make a determination, and the tendency would be to downplay the alleged transgressions of those of whom a generally favorable opinion exists, and exaggerate the transgressions of those of whom a generally negative opinion exists. That's just human nature. I'm not claiming there would be some intent to censor or anything like that - it's just human nature. People will "interpret" what Mandy says as improper much quicker than someone who holds opinions opposite of Mandy. In my opinion, of course.

And there's a fair amount of truth in that as well, although moderators and admins do make some effort to be reasonable and balanced, in the face of conflicting interests. However, sometimes pragmatism has its place...

[Azathoth]

25so8dl.jpg

Very apt. Did you make it yourself, Ghat?

It's an old meme of the just add relevant text variety

On another note - Mandelson, where are you? We need some more edukatin' on the Musselman faith!

He is getting his lulz now at the drama

[Stein]

MrFungus420:
Now, can you answer the question?
Do YOU (yes, you personally) think that stoning rape victims to death is a moral act.

you dont know nothing about morals. so leave it out mate.
but i said no to stoning the women. if she been properly raped then no stoning her.
but if not then why not. she asked for it. she got it.

Coito ergo sum:
What about a woman who is not truly raped? Is it o.k. to stone her?

if she aint been truly raped that means she is making it up.
then its up to the islamic judge to do what he wants with her. sometimes he will just give her only 100 lashes. but i think he will stone her coz thats what rules say. law is the law. is she is lying just to ket the boys in trouble, then she will be buried in the sand up to her shoulders and then she will be rocked. people will throw large stone to stone her to death. thats the islamic law for lying about sex. muslims take sex very seriously you know. we dont joke about it. you get stoned for screwing around.

:pissed:

Hmmmmmm............ I'm starting to wonder, frankly, if our "muslim" here isn't "gaming" this board by pretending to be a muslim instead and deliberately putting Islam in a poor light just to have a few laughs at our expense. There are things he(?) has said here in Islam's defense that are just so odd it's hard to believe that "Mandelson" really thinks he's acting effectively as "counsel for the defense". Call me overly suspicious -- perhaps even unfair to this poster -- but I'm honestly starting to feel now that he's just having us on.

Stein

[Bella Fortuna]

Many people have been saying the same thing for quite awhile now, yet folks keep getting reeled in.

[Trolldor]

Hmmmmmm............ I'm starting to wonder, frankly, if our "muslim" here isn't "gaming" this board by pretending to be a muslim instead and deliberately putting Islam in a poor light just to have a few laughs at our expense. There are things he(?) has said here in Islam's defense that are just so odd it's hard to believe that "Mandelson" really thinks he's acting effectively as "counsel for the defense". Call me overly suspicious -- perhaps even unfair to this poster -- but I'm honestly starting to feel now that he's just having us on.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... raped.html

[FBM]

Hmmmmmm............ I'm starting to wonder, frankly, if our "muslim" here isn't "gaming" this board by pretending to be a muslim instead and deliberately putting Islam in a poor light just to have a few laughs at our expense. There are things he(?) has said here in Islam's defense that are just so odd it's hard to believe that "Mandelson" really thinks he's acting effectively as "counsel for the defense". Call me overly suspicious -- perhaps even unfair to this poster -- but I'm honestly starting to feel now that he's just having us on.

Stein

Astute observation, new person.

For many/most of us, this comedy routine became a while back.

Welcome to Ratz, btw.

[Stein]

Hmmmmmm............ I'm starting to wonder, frankly, if our "muslim" here isn't "gaming" this board by pretending to be a muslim instead and deliberately putting Islam in a poor light just to have a few laughs at our expense. There are things he(?) has said here in Islam's defense that are just so odd it's hard to believe that "Mandelson" really thinks he's acting effectively as "counsel for the defense". Call me overly suspicious -- perhaps even unfair to this poster -- but I'm honestly starting to feel now that he's just having us on.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... raped.html

So? The fact that this is a detailed account of what passes for justice in a country dominated by Islam doesn't mean that a poster here might not use it as a way of gaining opprobrium for Islam by pretending to defend it and defending it poorly. Accounts like this one that you cite do not, sadly, exaggerate. What I still find odd, though, is that a "defender" of Islam would address this kind of horror in the ineffective way that Mandelson does. Mandelson doesn't sound like someone who is seriously interested in making readers take another look at Islam in the "unbiased" way that Mandelson has claimed he is looking for.

He sounds like someone who is more interested in having a few (rather grisly) laughs at Islam's expense instead.

Stein

[Trolldor]

What I'm saying is it's not hard to believe that he actually thinks this.
Also, if he's trolling he's failing. There's been no blow-up, the forum hasn't descended in to madness, an admin or mod hasn't gone batshit insane and tried to delete everything.

[charlou]

Hmmmmmm............ I'm starting to wonder, frankly, if our "muslim" here isn't "gaming" this board by pretending to be a muslim instead and deliberately putting Islam in a poor light just to have a few laughs at our expense. There are things he(?) has said here in Islam's defense that are just so odd it's hard to believe that "Mandelson" really thinks he's acting effectively as "counsel for the defense". Call me overly suspicious -- perhaps even unfair to this poster -- but I'm honestly starting to feel now that he's just having us on.

Stein

Astute observation, new person.

For many/most of us, this comedy routine became a while back.

Welcome to Ratz, btw.

Ayep.

Welcome, Stein.

[JimC]

What I'm saying is it's not hard to believe that he actually thinks this.
Also, if he's trolling he's failing. There's been no blow-up, the forum hasn't descended in to madness, an admin or mod hasn't gone batshit insane and tried to delete everything.

That you have noticed, anyway...

The hush-up worked this time, at least...

[Tigger]

What I'm saying is it's not hard to believe that he actually thinks this.
Also, if he's trolling he's failing. There's been no blow-up, the forum hasn't descended in to madness, an admin or mod hasn't gone batshit insane and tried to delete everything.

That you have noticed, anyway...

The hush-up worked this time, at least...