Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

ScottG · 07-19-2001, 05:52 PM

MEM. an excellent post that acctually explains your position w/ out demeaning others (frankly what I would have expected to have seen by a moderator immeadiatly after canning someone, an action I consider to be rather serious). Why would I expect it? - (because otherwise the person canned and others reading are left to wonder why this was unnacceptable behavior versus other behavior, even if Larry had been the moderator his response still would not have offered an acceptable explanation).

As for Larry:

I truely am sorry that I infered in my orginal post that you were hipocritical, as they say "my bad".

The latter insult (and the corresponding explanation) however was to try and get you to think about what you wrote (and your position to write it) immeadiatly after someone gets canned. GO BACK AND READ YOUR POST AGAIN.

Things I found offensive in your first post:
1. You and not the moderator posting a good reason immeadiatly following canning someone from this forum (though yours certainly wasn't good).
2. Using the "we" that implies we all feel the way you do (had you been the moderator I could have at least taken that to context - though others might still object).
3. Stating that Worm's humor is sick (paticularly in context with the "we" format of the post). His humor may well be sick to you, but at least to me it was not. I thought it was outrageous in a humerous fashion, but certainly not something I would characterize as sick (the BG2 graphical animations of violence far more characterize the word sick to me). Why did I find it outrageously humerous? (I wasn't expecting to see it, sex is an absurdly humerous topic (though as MEM. points out it is also Adult in nature), the absurdity is compounded by the fact that golems are sexless - in fact it was nicely graphical w/ out being graphic - I wouldn't have canned him, but hey I'm not the moderator and I respect their authority to do so).

Couple of other things to think about:
1. If a woman on the board thought this was sexual harrasment then she can simply inform the moderator of her displeasure (as golems are sexless however I fail to see it), or in voicing her opinion here on the forum (or both).

2. Hmmmm, you seem to be gravitating to the assumption that this is male-male sexual humor - funny I didn't get that at all, perhaps this is why you used the term "sick" (even if I did find this to be homo-humor I wouldn't characterize any orientation as sick), (again though see #1's results).

Ultimatly, your position in your 1st post and your latest post demeaningly implies that others can not form their own opinion and follow-up on it. But hey, WE did not think this - I did, others may disagree.

07-19-2001, 05:52 PM	#11
ScottG Drow Warrior Join Date: June 13, 2003 Location: Never Never Land Age: 55 Posts: 267	MEM. an excellent post that acctually explains your position w/ out demeaning others (frankly what I would have expected to have seen by a moderator immeadiatly after canning someone, an action I consider to be rather serious). Why would I expect it? - (because otherwise the person canned and others reading are left to wonder why this was unnacceptable behavior versus other behavior, even if Larry had been the moderator his response still would not have offered an acceptable explanation). As for Larry: I truely am sorry that I infered in my orginal post that you were hipocritical, as they say "my bad". The latter insult (and the corresponding explanation) however was to try and get you to think about what you wrote (and your position to write it) immeadiatly after someone gets canned. GO BACK AND READ YOUR POST AGAIN. Things I found offensive in your first post: 1. You and not the moderator posting a good reason immeadiatly following canning someone from this forum (though yours certainly wasn't good). 2. Using the "we" that implies we all feel the way you do (had you been the moderator I could have at least taken that to context - though others might still object). 3. Stating that Worm's humor is sick (paticularly in context with the "we" format of the post). His humor may well be sick to you, but at least to me it was not. I thought it was outrageous in a humerous fashion, but certainly not something I would characterize as sick (the BG2 graphical animations of violence far more characterize the word sick to me). Why did I find it outrageously humerous? (I wasn't expecting to see it, sex is an absurdly humerous topic (though as MEM. points out it is also Adult in nature), the absurdity is compounded by the fact that golems are sexless - in fact it was nicely graphical w/ out being graphic - I wouldn't have canned him, but hey I'm not the moderator and I respect their authority to do so). Couple of other things to think about: 1. If a woman on the board thought this was sexual harrasment then she can simply inform the moderator of her displeasure (as golems are sexless however I fail to see it), or in voicing her opinion here on the forum (or both). 2. Hmmmm, you seem to be gravitating to the assumption that this is male-male sexual humor - funny I didn't get that at all, perhaps this is why you used the term "sick" (even if I did find this to be homo-humor I wouldn't characterize any orientation as sick), (again though see #1's results). Ultimatly, your position in your 1st post and your latest post demeaningly implies that others can not form their own opinion and follow-up on it. But hey, WE did not think this - I did, others may disagree.