Objection

[Qqmike]

Snowhog--closing that thread is an abuse of your authority. Do you have that right? I would think not. Issue is moot, my friend, because woody will soon start another one and pi** off someone else. The best statement you could have made is to have left it open to see what happens.

[Snowhog]

Yes, I do, as do any of the Administrators. I was not the only Administrator who was considering this action.

I didn't close the thread because of your reply, if that is what you might be thinking.

The tenor of the thread was changing, and not in a beneficial direction.

[Qqmike]

"Yes, I do, as do any of the Administrators."

And so, the rules for doing so are what, arbitrary?

Yes, the tenor is there--as you sense it is. But fact is, these things, issues, do become personal at some point. (Bigotry is personal. Poverty is personal. Freedom of speech is personal.) What gives some people the right to provoke, yet others do not have the right to counter?

Issue is moot. You closed it. Woody will open another one soon, perhaps by the dozen. Perhaps a PM is in order (not to me, but rather to ... ).


(personal: Sorry if I appeared to be rude or confrontational to you, Snowhog.)

[woodsmoke]

Woody will open another one soon, perhaps by the dozen.

That is an assumption which is not necessarily correct. Anyone who knows woody's history on the net might argue the other way.

One person decided to leave the thread, and that was, possibly/probably, acceptable to "many/most" because that is the makeup of the forum. Woody decided to leave but that is....somehow not ok?

Why is it ok for one person to have one opinion and another to not have an opinion?

Is the minority report not acceptable?

[img]
http://www.mattfind.com/12345673215-...x250_80800.jpg
[/img]

woodsmoke

[benny_fletch]

Coming from a distro's forum that does not tolerate such things (i.e topics involving religion or politics) in any form or fashion (i.e. http://forum.mepiscommunity.org/ ), thus I am new to this type of discussion, I understand that the administrator has the final authority to close a thread based solely on their judgment and nothing else. Also, it can be considered a violation of the Code of Conduct of the forum:

Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users and colleagues, and we expect you to take those consequences into account when making decisions. For example, when we are in a feature freeze, please don't upload dramatically new versions of critical system software, as other people will be testing the frozen system and not be expecting big changes.
Be respectful. The Ubuntu community and its members treat one another with respect. Everyone can make a valuable contribution to Ubuntu. We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It's important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We expect members of the Ubuntu community to be respectful when dealing with other contributors as well as with people outside the Ubuntu project, and with users of Ubuntu.

Be it noted, I am only weighting in on the issue of the right of an administrator and not the content of the closed thread (which I have not [or have no desire to] thoroughly read).

[woodsmoke]

Ok, I give.
I was merely trying to argue the minority report, the distaff side, the unpopular opinion.

So...I hereby voluntarily will not post any kind of provocative thread in the future.

woodgotmyheadcrackedonastupidexitcrosbuckwhenIwasl eavingtheparkinggaragesmoke

[Jonas]

I agree with Qqmike and Whatthefunk views on the thread in discussion. Woodys opinions are quite common, I meet it almost every time discussing politics. I agree with Qqmikes statement that "someone have to stand up for the sake of reason".

BUT I also think that the Snowhog(and other admins) was correct closing the thread due to the fact that it didn't seem to lead anywhere. I believe that we all could take a step back and let the steam blow over. If not for the peace at the fora, then for the sake of not completely closing this soapbox section.

Just to make things clear; I fully respect you Woodsmoke, even though I don't agree with you, and it wont affect my views across this board.

Sooo ... lets all now mock Apple



peace and best regards

Jonas

[bsniadajewski]

Yeah, it's time we all settle down from the political discussions here and find something else to mull over, like the final play in last night's Monday Night Football game. (I say it was either offensive interference or interception by GB)

Sooo ... lets all now mock Apple

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3685[/ATTACH]

peace and best regards

Jonas

I won't object to that.

[GreyGeek]

....
Just to make things clear; I fully respect you Woodsmoke, even though I don't agree with you, and it wont affect my views across this board.....

That attitude is the heart and soul of the Kubuntu Forum. Qqmike just said what Voltaire (IIRC) said when he wrote "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Mutual respect is the key. Personal attacks, directly or implied only had heat, not light to a discussion, and amount to a capitulation which effectively says "I've run out of counter arguments or data against your position so I am going to change the topic of the discussion to one impugning your intelligence or motives." Alinsky's 5th Rule, ridicule, is often employed.

Failing mutual respect, the best course of action to take when someone insults you or your intelligence is to do what a wise sage said to do, "turn the other cheek". IOW, refuse to take an insult as an insult, ignore it, and continue the discussion as if the insult or innuendo were not hurled, instead of replying in kind. In the end what most civil discussions boil down to is an exchange of views and an agreement to agree to disagree.

[Jonas]

That attitude is the heart and soul of the Kubuntu Forum. Qqmike just said what Voltaire (IIRC) said when he wrote "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Mutual respect is the key. Personal attacks, directly or implied only had heat, not light to a discussion, and amount to a capitulation which effectively says "I've run out of counter arguments or data against your position so I am going to change the topic of the discussion to one impugning your intelligence or motives." Alinsky's 5th Rule, ridicule, is often employed.

Failing mutual respect, the best course of action to take when someone insults you or your intelligence is to do what a wise sage said to do, "turn the other cheek". IOW, refuse to take an insult as an insult, ignore it, and continue the discussion as if the insult or innuendo were not hurled, instead of replying in kind. In the end what most civil discussions boil down to is an exchange of views and an agreement to agree to disagree.

Yes, very true. All though I think that the Voltaire statement (I may be wrong here) actually came from his wife, Émilie du Châtelet, mathematician and philosopher, her science and life is non the less very interesting, and her influences on Reneé were enormous, though not much noted in history science.

Since I work part time for bread-feed-job at a furniture store (since I'm from Sweden you'll have to guess )with customer service and retail/recovery management (i.e all complaints come to me). From time to time customers try to launch somewhat personal accusations at me. It's quite amusing to see their reaction when their accusations don't "bite". I'm quite used to it.


b.r

Jonas

[GreyGeek]

Yes, very true. All though I think that the Voltaire statement (I may be wrong here) actually came from his wife, Émilie du Châtelet, mathematician and philosopher, her science and life is non the less very interesting, and her influences on Reneé were enormous, though not much noted in history science......
Jonas

You are right, of course, and I knew that although Voltaire is often attributed with that comment, he didn't make it, but I couldn't remember the name of the person who actually said it and I was too lazy to look it up. Thanks for the reminder! :cool: