SaigonSaddler wrote:cyclothymic wrote:SaigonSaddler wrote:cyclothymic wrote:I am surprised that Pedagogue suggests 'outing' this poster - within this thread and in many previous threads there have been suggestions of violence towards this poster - surely 'outing' them under such circumstances would be aiding and abetting. Can't 2009 be a friendlier year on UTS?
For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part. Try it – it is an interesting exercise.
Wendy is a pantomime villain - pure and simple.
All together now:
Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I largely agree.
However posts that are racist, serve as an anonimous vehicle for persecution of individual posters, or repeatedly attack individual posters when it's obvious that it's unwelcome, and unsolicited PMs are
not welcome. These people are my friends and I don't like real people to be treated in that way.
The poster in question has performed all the above and hidden behind the flimsy attribute that some readers find some of his posts amusing. While this has improved of late, it still goes well beyond the remit of a fairly cheeky pantomine villian.
All true - and I have PMed said poster when I think something is out-of-order.
There has been quite a bit of persecution of individual posters recently - some of them do not post any more because of this. The persecution has often been by many members of the board ganging up together (I think I used the word bullying in the past only to be told I was being over-sensitive). MumfordPooPooWendyClaypoleShoeCake
is far from alone in this kind of behaviour.
That said - tounge-in-cheek racism is still racism in the same way that tounge-in-cheek sexism is still sexism and tounge-in-cheek homophobia is still homophobia.
But it is very different.
This is very different to the kind of fun that other normal posters have that lubricate postings. Then we have the spirited debaters who cause each other temporary discomfort over an idea or the tone of their expression. Occasionally two individuals will fall out and have a running feud for a while. That's different too. Both give and take, call each other a few names and eventually get over it.
If someone calls me a name (heaven forbid) then I know it's a joke because I have met them or formed some kind of messageboard relationship. I've never met Manchester for example but we have a laugh. When someone attacks a poster in the way the subject has done in the past then it is very different and somewhat sinister, especially when done repeatedly and without regard to the distress caused.
A sinister Person X is not OK just because person Y isn't perfect. That's like saying Mugabe is OK because Mandela ignored the odd red light.
I think I need to clarify as you are reading my (admittedly poorly worded) post in the opposite way to the way I intended.
To use your analogy - Mugabe is very bad but that does not mean the rest of the world are perfectly behaved.
I have witnessed a number of posters receive insult after insult whenever they post - to the point where they stop posting. What tends to happen is one or two posters start this then everone jumps in in a cyber-pile-on.
In a few cases the poster stays (well done to Diddy P for putting up with shed-loads of abuse and actually turning it round to laugh at those abusing him) but in a number of cases people have just left UTS.
So ... I was not using other peoples bad behaviour to condone WendyPooPooCakeShoeMumford ... far from it. I was suggesting that the kind of behaviour he is being accused of is not isolated to him.
I would quote something about he without sin casting the first stone but that would open a whole new can of allegorical worms :wink:
(I wonder if Richard Dawkins had a nice Christmas :D )