Afghanistan weather forecast!!!

[troysvihl]

Got this in email. It made me laugh.


>Afghanistan weather forecast!!!
>9/16/2001
>85 degrees
>partly cloudy
>20 mph winds
>
>9/17/2001
>4,000 degrees
>800 mph winds
>H bomb sized hail

[Karel]

IMHO it takes a twisted sense of humor to be able to laugh at this...

[troysvihl]

yes, i do have a twisted sense of humor.

[Karel]

...and proud of it, no doubt?

I hope you realise that by saying "twisted", I was being nice. I should have written "tasteless". You still agree?

What "hit" me most was the fact that it was a post by you, troysvihl...

[troysvihl]

Oh geeze karel, step off your high horse.

This was simply a joke. Yes it was a tasteless, but I still found it funny and I doubt I was alone. It in no way reflects my true feelings on this issue; it was just something I got in an email from a buddy.

[Karel]

Don't worry, I was on my 2 feet all the time.

You don't seem to really understand why I reacted in this way.

Believe it or not, but sick "simple jokes" like these are already being told over here, with the U.S., Americans, CIA, airline security etc. as the subject of the gloating.

I reacted to them even worse and more aggressively than I did to yours...yet no one told me to "step off my high horse", not when I was done with them.

Humor can be great medicine when times are tough, as long as it doesn't leave the wrong after taste.


I may have overreacted to your post, for which I apologize. But I'm sure you'll understand why I did now.

[M. A. Dockter]

If we can't keep this subject civil I will have to ban it's disscussion as much as I hate to.

[troysvihl]

What????

Dok, there isn't anything uncivil about this conversation.

[Karel]

I have hardly been around here since the end of february. A considerable part of the reason for this is now obvious to you too troysvihl...

M. A. Dockter,
Do me just one favor. What do you mean by your post, exactly? I think troysvihl wants to know too.

[Karel]

oh yes......I see

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by Karel
I have hardly been around here since the end of february. A considerable part of the reason for this is now obvious to you too troysvihl...

M. A. Dockter,
Do me just one favor. What do you mean by your post, exactly? I think troysvihl wants to know too.

how bout some kind of answer DOK

[glc]

I will speak for Dok here. The basic PC Mech rules still apply in this forum - no flaming. If you can't discuss the subject without slamming others, please take it over to Forumclick.

[bob]

:D
Would love it if everyone in this thread went to FC and had it out. LOL

[Karel]

glc,

As far as I can tell, the "Contemporary Terrorism" forum was created to include all opinions related to the latest outburst of senseless, inhuman, born-out-of-fanatic-intolerance violence that defiled the face of this, our planet. [If I'm wrong, call it mistake #1]

The opinion, stated in my first post in this thread was by no means meant to flame anybody in particular. It so happens that I loath any kind of cheap, tasteless gloating about other peoples misfortune, ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO THE CURRENT GLOBAL SITUATION. As such, the opinion expressed was a valid one! [If I'm wrong, call it mistake #2]

I admit that I let it become more personal after troysvihl responded in his own, inimitable way (his 2nd post). Still, you'll have to explain to me where the "flaming" started, without resorting to the use of double standards...

When troysvihl (whom I respect very much, which was part of the reason why I posted in the 1st place) explained more clearly "where his post came from", I responded in kind and explained my motives, even apologized - in case he felt I overreacted. Again, please explain to me where the "flaming" started, or continued.

Finally, when M. A. Dockter joined us in his own, inimitable, but less enjoyable way, both troysvihl and I just had to ask what he was on about...(Carl Price also wanted some form of clarification)

Running a forum is all very well. But if you only tolerate specific opinions to be expressed, please don't call it a forum, call it a pamphlet instead. [Don't call this mistake #3, because I know I'm right]

Why would we have to "have it out" over at Forumclick, Bob? Who would read it there...?



You know, I don't even know why I bothered to write this last post...

LOVE & PEACE from Brussels...

[troysvihl]

I can't think of a single time I've ever posted with the intent of flaming. It is possible to have disagreements and even for people to tell each other to "get of their high horse"/"stop having a twisted sense of humor" during a the course of a normal conversation and without it acctually being a flame. I do it all the time with my girlfriend. (btw karel, she agrees with you and says I've got a sick sense of humor and am callous. lol)

[Karel]

No answers from the mods...I take it you all agree with my last post?

Troysvihl, I know you a little better now, it always helps... :)

[glc]

Karel: I have no problem with your last post because it was written within the guidelines of the forum. Whether I agree with it is not an issue. Please debate the subject without demeaning other members - THAT'S the issue. If you really want to get into it, that's what FC is for.

Thanks for your consideration. I'm not trying to chase you guys - just trying to keep things civil.

[SARGE]

And the preacher said, "AMEN".

[Karel]

glc,

You have my consideration (never lost it), but you just might have chased me.

Whether you do or do not agree with my last post IS an issue…after all, I wrote it to you personally, AND I asked you to explain a few things to me. And, as you were so kind to point out, I did so “within the guidelines of the forum”.
The only reason I insist is that it might turn out useful for the future of this forum, as in the past, things obviously weren’t that clear to many – to say the least. I went out of my way to collect just a few “remarks” from the recent past that went unaccompanied by warnings from moderators;

WJWheels to Paul Victorey on 09-13-2001 04:48 PM (http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.php?threadid=17561)
Your drivel is beginning to sicken me Paul.

Smoke24 to Paul Victorey on 09-14-2001 02:51 AM (http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.php?threadid=17561&perpage=30&pagenumber=2)
I don't understand Paul Victory and all the other bleeding heart liberals like him. They need to be allowed the privledge and honor of living the rest of their lives among those they profess to defend.

mairving to Gintaras on 09-16-2001 12:21 AM (http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.php?threadid=17561&perpage=30&pagenumber=3)
Gintaras, I would try to argue with you but you are sounding a bit too much like Sadaam Hussein in your incoherence.


audiyoda about python134r on 09-22-2001 02:23 AM (http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.php?threadid=17966&goto=nextnewest)
What a moron.
(at least audiyoda and python134r were allowed the time to straighten things out without the “assistance” of moderators – I’m sure troy and I would have done the same eventually)

LOVE & PEACE from Brussels...

[reboot]

Thanks for pointing out everyone's noticable irritability on this topic.
I'm sure we ALL get the message, and over-reaction is not something that happens often around here.
In future, when reading this thread, read ONLY the first, 2nd, 3d, 12th, 13th, and 18th posts, and everyone will get along spendidly.
Karel, thankyou for the apology in post #6, however, it would not have been necessary if posts 4 and 5 had not been made.
End of story.

Please continue with comments on the TOPIC...

[Karel]

Can't glc speak for himself?

[Karel]

And what do you call "The topic", reboot? Troysvihl's first post in this thread or "Contemporary Terrorism"? Just to make sure...

[Statica]

Originally posted by Karel
Can't glc speak for himself?

Yes he can .. and quite adroitly too. But he's doing what any of us are doing, trying to keep the peace here, and making sure that everyone learns to respect the other.

Irrespective of what has gone on in this thread before, I'd reiterate what was requested before, if you have anything to contribute to the topic at hand (started by Troysvihl) then by all means do so. Calling out moderators and having them explain themselves (wrt the discussion) will get you nowhere, and you've already done that with 3 of us.

This is the way the board has always worked, from a series of pre-emptive warnings and nudges to make sure that the everyone respects each other's opinions. The difference between accepted name-calling and flaming is just a matter of a thread, and the number of times that has happened on PC-Mech has been rare. Your's as well as everyone's opinions do matter here that is why:
1) this thread exists on a personal computing forum and site
2) moderators come out here to warn rather than kick, ban or close threads

Calling out someone who comes out here to keep some semblance of order isnt going to help you cause, their actions have always been checked and cross checked by all the moderators and by Dok.

Originally posted by Karel
And what do you call "The topic", reboot? Troysvihl's first post in this thread or "Contemporary Terrorism"? Just to make sure...

The link that you clicked to get to this thread is "the topic".
(Afghanistan weather forecast!!!)

[Xayd]

And this is why political forums never last here. The more arguments that get started in here, the faster this forum will end up shut down like the old political forum.

It's always funny to me when people get 'offended' at everything and respond by 'trying to offend' everyone else, Karel. If you don't like this topic, you don't have to reply to it or even read it for that matter. Why is it that everyone has to get their word in on a political forum, even when they claim to be 'offended' by the topic, and even though in the entire history of political forums everywhere not a single mind has been changed about anything?

Hell, I don't like the topics that show up in the Win9x forum that much, so guess what, I don't read them!

Every reply I've ever posted to a political thread has been borderline 'offensive' to at least a few people here. They were probably well past 'offensive' to lesser minds who can't handle a debate on any of the ideologies that they subscribe to, but none of them ended in personal attacks.

This forum was voted on and created to be a world affairs forum (as related to the WTC stuff) separate from the general forum, for organizational purposes only. It's not a re-opening of the old politics forum, no matter who wants it to be or how bad they want it to be.

If this one gets out of hand, we'll shut it down and leave another link to Forum-Click too, so it's up to you guys who post in here how it goes. It's a shame that this comes across like babysitting users, but for the 309483908th time, this isn't a political site, it's a computer site.

Xayd

[Karel]

Statica (reboot, glc, M. A. Dockter),

So you invite me to "contribute to the topic at hand (started by Troysvihl)". I did just that with my first post in this thread (and with my - more personally worded second one - as a reaction to troysvihl's laconic answer).

All it got me was this:
Quoting M. A. Dockter: "If we can't keep this subject civil I will have to ban it's disscussion as much as I hate to."
Judging from the remarks already tolerated in previous threads (see above - post #19), none of my or troysvihl's posts earned this threat from "God Allmighty" Doc.

You say I am "Calling out moderators and having them explain themselves". Sorry, but I'm not the only one. So did troysvihl and Carl Price. I'm sure you'll rate both of them 2 of your more valued members (compared to me).

If I called out 3 of the moderators, I can easily help you to find the reason for that. None of them showed the guts to answer my questions in the first place. It's that simple.

I didn't "call out" anyone in order to further my cause, because I stated my cause (my 1st post) and it stands on its own. I called upon M. A. Dockter to explain to me what on earth he meant by his threat. His silence insults and humiliates me and everyone else who doesn't understand his remark. All subsequent escalation of this "discussion" goes on M. A. Dockter's tab.

Please convince me (after rereading ALL of my posts), with real arguments, that I'm wrong - because I strongly believe that only the stupid never change their mind. Your only alternative (i.e. if I'm right) is to ban me, I guess.

[glc]

I have said the last words I am going to say in this thread. I am not here to debate this issue, I volunteered to moderate this forum strictly as a peacekeeper. I said my piece and that's all I am going to say. The reason other mods have chimed is is because I asked for their assistance in defusing this matter because I was running into a brick wall. My next action in this thread will be to close it if ONE more thing is said that's off topic. If you don't like it, go over to FC. I personally don't CARE if we lose 2 argumentative members over this.

[Xayd]

You're wrong because you're confrontational about everything in this thread. It's not the points you're trying to make, it's because it's you that's making them...and how.

Xayd

[Karel]

Xayd,

Is it not your right in this forum to react when you feel offended? I can assure you that a lot of people felt offended by the "nukes-joke".

I'm touched by your statement that it always seems to be "lesser minds who can't handle a debate". It seems to me that I'm the only one here who's really willing to "debate" the (meanwhile) primary issue at hand, namely the arbitrary use of bans.

Oh well...

[Xayd]

Who has been banned? No one has been, and it has not even been discussed in relation to this topic.

I didn't name any names in my comments, and none of the topics I was referring to had you involved in the slightest that I remember.

You're trying to insert yourself into that comment to start another confrontation and gain sympathy for your position, and it isn't working.

If you would've ignored Dok's comment in the first half of this thread and just taken the hint to keep the discussion civil, this thread would be dead and forgotten, but you chose not to, and you chose to make an issue of it.

Xayd