Because of recent circumstance I regretfully have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to provide some people with guidelines regarding acceptable language and demeanor on this blog.
I will not permit or tolerate any abusive, racial, sexist, age-ist, speciesist attacks aimed at me or any other contributor. If you have something valid to say, do so in a civil manner and your input will be respected. I reserve the right to delete any and all posts which do not follow these very reasonable, minimum standards that I request.
Until this point I have had no issue with visitors on this blog - It is unfortunate that such a small minority of undesirables cast such a bad light on those who are genuinely interested in honest debate.
To the trolls who are willfully ignorant and deliberately ugly - You are not welcome here.
12 comments:
Bea, this is an honest and direct question:
Are you only going to implement this to people who disagree with you or any and all people who do not follow these specific rules?
To me, if someone goes out of their way to personally attack someone who gives a valid argument that is against yours, they are just as guilty as the supposed "Troll" of the board.
If you are going to act heavy-handed toward myself or others who dare to challenge your beliefs - yet allow those who agree with you to follow your rules, I will see to it that this board is shut down.
Oh, and undesirables means that you will not tolerate anyone who has a dissenting opinion.
I've noticed a lot of people who are not supportive of your ideals were actually quite fair and ONLY attacked someone after the person supporting your side of the story attacked them. And they attacked simply because the person told them plain and simple questions and CALLED out the attacker (your side) for dodging or ignoring questions. They also included you in that statement, and again - plain and simple English questions.
Please tell us why you are instituting this toward people that are not in compliance with your views? This is a fair question.
Bea, looking at your blog again, do you realize that your little counter resets to zero every time someone refreshes the blog?
You're giving a misleading informative item there - that little black counter is not accurate and is sheer propaganda. It also leads to people antagonizing you, and more importantly not believing you. Call people trolls if you like, but if you want people to believe you and these "rules" - make sure you apply them to people on your side as well.
Oh, and Bea - nice try, but it's still on record that you originally posted this up June 20 and still let these "trolling behaviors" - both sides - continue.
Please - don't lie to people on this board. Even children know that you deleted the original blog of this.
Someone has a fascination with children (mel) and elementary school. Btw, the counter isn't bs. It's merely counting the number of animals per second killed worldwide.
So what if the page refreshes and it resets? It's still counting from that point you start it again for every second you have the page open.
Oh btw, this isn't a 'board', it's a blog with a comments section. Looks nothing like a forum/message board.
I have no desire or need to justify what I will or will not permit on MY blog. Truth be told if I find a blog owner to be irrational - I say my piece and move along quietly. Don't know why some folks here are so darned determined to change my mind about things.
Don't like my POV? Present a rational argument, without using profanity or hate-speech. Either we get on with an intelligent debate or not. If my policies bother you - Move on. Go away. Get your own blog! I simply don't have the patience to baby-sit or patrol antics from naysayers who keep pitching the same deflated rhetoric. If nothing new has been contributed to a discussion after several posts, I have to assume that the subject has reached an impasse. Such is the case here. Comments are closed on this post.
Bea,
While I find some of the inflammatory and hateful comments posted on your blog to be repulsive, they do not shock me. This is, in fact, the sort of behavior one would expect from those who perpetuate violence against others for their own selfish desires.
It's about time you set some limits.
And remember the quote from Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Bea wrote: I have no desire or need to justify what I will or will not permit on MY blog. Truth be told if I find a blog owner to be irrational - I say my piece and move along quietly. Don't know why some folks here are so darned determined to change my mind about things.
Mel: You try to challenge people to change their minds, so you should expect people to do the same with yours.
Bea: Don't like my POV? Present a rational argument, without using profanity or hate-speech.
Mel: Bea, I presented my argument rationally without the hate speech - well at least what most people would see as rational.
Your definition of hate speech is anything that is disagreeable to your views. You simply do not want to be challenged.
Bea: Either we get on with an intelligent debate or not. If my policies bother you - Move on. Go away. Get your own blog! I simply don't have the patience to baby-sit or patrol antics from naysayers who keep pitching the same deflated rhetoric.
Mel: This does not answer my question except to say that if the person agrees with you - even if they are rude, crass and ugly to someone presenting a rational debate, you will not remove the post.
Bea: If nothing new has been contributed to a discussion after several posts, I have to assume that the subject has reached an impasse. Such is the case here. Comments are closed on this post.
Mel: Again, you refuse to allow people to make a valid point, and this is why you will constantly lose your argument. You declare an impasse because you can't handle the truth.
Honestly, the only one who is being hateful here has been you:
1. I have never attacked you with ugly and crass remarks - I have asked you SPECIFIC questions that you refuse to answer because you know that I have a valid point.
2. You allow people who agree with you to attack those such as me without provocation.
Sorry lady - you're the hater here. I'm not surprised though - you cannot handle childhood logic that says that an animal many times your size will attack if they are truly abused.
Bea wrote: I have no desire or need to justify what I will or will not permit on MY blog. Truth be told if I find a blog owner to be irrational - I say my piece and move along quietly. Don't know why some folks here are so darned determined to change my mind about things.
Mel: You try to challenge people to change their minds, so you should expect people to do the same with yours.
Bea: Don't like my POV? Present a rational argument, without using profanity or hate-speech.
Mel: Bea, I presented my argument rationally without the hate speech - well at least what most people would see as rational.
Your definition of hate speech is anything that is disagreeable to your views. You simply do not want to be challenged.
Bea: Either we get on with an intelligent debate or not. If my policies bother you - Move on. Go away. Get your own blog! I simply don't have the patience to baby-sit or patrol antics from naysayers who keep pitching the same deflated rhetoric.
Mel: This does not answer my question except to say that if the person agrees with you - even if they are rude, crass and ugly to someone presenting a rational debate, you will not remove the post.
Bea: If nothing new has been contributed to a discussion after several posts, I have to assume that the subject has reached an impasse. Such is the case here. Comments are closed on this post.
Mel: Again, you refuse to allow people to make a valid point, and this is why you will constantly lose your argument. You declare an impasse because you can't handle the truth.
Honestly, the only one who is being hateful here has been you:
1. I have never attacked you with ugly and crass remarks - I have asked you SPECIFIC questions that you refuse to answer because you know that I have a valid point.
2. You allow people who agree with you to attack those such as me without provocation.
Sorry lady - you're the hater here. I'm not surprised though - you cannot handle childhood logic that says that an animal many times your size will attack if they are truly abused.
To the other anonymous - I do not care that if this is a blog or a board. The point I have made is that Bea intentionally attempted to claim that she made this trolling thread before she actually did. She lied - you can't alter time stamps.
One more point: In regard to your comment of "Deflated rhetoric..."
Tell us straight up why you refuse to answer a simple question of why you feel that an animal that is much larger than it's handlers wouldn't go and attack the handler if he abused it.
This is a very simple and honest question, yet you constantly dodge it.
But since you refuse to, I will answer...
An animal no matter how hard you train it to be a pet will override that instinct when they are in danger or for other reasons.
1. Monticore overrode his training to not move around when he grabbed Roy (Siegfried and Roy) during a magic show when he had his stroke.
2. Elephants have been known to run over or stomp people when they're attacked.
3. The orca at Sea World attacked and killed the trainer because to him she looked like a seal.
4. The running of the bulls constantly has people injured or killed along with some of the bulls themselves.
5. The chimpanzee who attacked the young woman and severely mauled her was taught to be nearly human and act like a child. Even the people treated him like one of their own children.
The point of this is - you have the defeated rhetoric, and because you can't stand to be wrong, you delete posts that disagree with it.
If you don't want to be challenged, then say so, but to dare say that a simple and direct question I give you is an attack but one of your fellow colleague's direct attack at me - no countering my point, just attacking me, is OK, shows that you are biased and frankly not open to debate.
And if you're not open to debate, then don't challenge people on it because all it does is show how many holes your debate truly does have.
To clear matters up - Regarding animals attacking humans or being "trained" by humans or whatever the subject drifted off to. It was entirely off topic. I also think I made a minor remark that animal can be and often are intimidated into submission. Other than that I stayed away from the conversation, because as I said it was way off topic.
Secondly, with 111 comments most from "anonymous" - It's virtually impossible to keep up with responses - Especially since so many were just copy/paste repeats of what was said before and before that...
Lastly, the trite "time-stamp" issue was more of a blogging technicality than a deliberate "ruse". I had a draft page already created it was just simpler for me to use that one. So as to un-ruffle feathers, and in all "fairness" this particular post will vanish into the depths of the blog-o-sphere as a nameless and forgotten entry.
I will update my "policies" to reflect the current date and will allow no comments on that post nor will I accept any further posting on this entry from here on as well.
Good bye.
Post a Comment