A Petition To Reverse Abuse

As I am sure you all know, I recently had my backroom access removed and was given a warning for participating in a discussion of religion into which I stated facts that were politically incorrect.
While what I said, I am sure, made many members uncomfortable, they were true. Something shouldn't be censored SOLELY for the reason that it makes people uncomfortable. You could make me uncomfortable because of my white side by bringing up all the discrimination commited by whites on other races, or you could step on the toes of my black blood (a good amount of it) by mentioning all the slavery, warfare, and discrimination commited against other blacks, or you could shake-up my Christian side by bringing up all the attrocities that people claiming to be Christians have committed in the name of Christianity, but as uncomfortable as all of these would make me, they would all be the truth, and I would not expect them to be censored.
As a matter of fact, I have to put up with all kinds of uncensored discrimination that is not based in fact at all - against my religion, my political view points, and other parts of my being.
I was challenged on what I said and it (what I said) was called lies, so I proved that everything I said was complete truth (at least half-way...till I was banned from the Backroom...maybe that was why. Was I banned because I promised to bring up truths (and have cited sources for them all) that would have proved what I said beyond a shadow of a doubt, blown the argument made by those arguing against me out of the water, and made some people uncomfortable? That tells me that you have something to hide.).
Some truth makes people uncomfortable - I thought that was what the backroom was for. Every religious thread ends up wripping Christianity apart, yet when someone says something about islam (something completely true) it is quickly censored. The information I presented about islam was proven and documented fact, yet what is said about Christianity on this board on a daily basis is nothing but unfounded, mindless, blasphemous, insulting, insensitive, taunts.
If you don't like insults and flames make a rule that all posts must be made of proven fact and not opinion...or is it the fact that you want to ommit, leaving only the flaming and insults in the guise of intellegent conversation?
I was rationally discussing religion using fact, not flaming or insulting. If it is flaming or insulting that you want to go on in the backroom, state so clearly and ban all members but Tribesman, Watchman, BG, and a hand full of Christian conservatives for them to prey on. (Yes you can count that as an official accusation and complaint).

Vuk

Vuk, let me put this nicely:

why don't you kindly piss off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Vuk, let me put this nicely:

why don't you kindly piss off?

---

Vuk wants to reverse abuse. So you should tell him to kindly ffo ssip.

What, will you car bomb me if I don't? ;) Just joking. I meant that in a very kind way. The same way as you meant piss off, I have faith in it!

Vuk

Quote:

---

If it is flaming or insulting that you want to go on in the backroom, state so clearly and ban all members but Tribesman, Watchman, BG, and a hand full of Christian conservatives for them to prey on. (Yes you can count that as an official accusation and complaint).

---

If Banquo insulted you [....] and you feel this warning was wrongfully given, why don't you simply try to settle this by PM ?

:balloon2:

I tried. He simply told me in other words that he was a mod, he had the power, and that there was nothing I could do to have my wrongs righted.

Vuk

How about a link to the thread? So we can all enjoy it

If I had my backroom access back I could show you.

Please may I request that you calm down and refrain from transforming this thread into a hostile environment. Please may I request that you relax and wait for TosaInu/Ser Clegane/somebody else with satisfactory authority to deal with this matter. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

Please may I request that you calm down and refrain from transforming this thread into a hostile environment. Please may I request that you relax and wait for TosaInu/Ser Clegane/somebody else with satisfactory authority to deal with this matter. Thanks.

---

In case you haven't noticed, my post was to the admins, and the first reply was a regular member telling me to piss-off!! I am turning it into a hostile environment?!! No wonder you chose your name as you did!

Please keep this civil, folks (and telling others to **** off does not count as civil).

@Vuk
The reason that was given for you warning was "trolling" (not "spamming" as you chose to state in the other thread).
Examples for "trolling" in the posts that you made:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I will post some verses from the koran on war. There are many of these verses and they are VERY hard to misunderstand. In fact, to misunderstand them you would have to be a dribbling, brown-nose, politically correct leftist who can't see past ali's rear turban!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Taking from the "holy books" of islam is important, but it is also important to understand the animal who wrote them: Muhamed.

---

Enough to warrant the 1-pointer you were given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk in post #6

He simply told me in other words that he was a mod, he had the power

---

These must have been very "other" words indeed...

EDIT: @Vuk - addendum:
The request to remain civil applies to you as well - no reason to insult other patrons who made a polite post (a post that was not even necessarily directed at you)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Please keep this civil, folks (and telling others to **** off does not count as civil).

@Vuk
The reason that was given for you warning was "trolling" (not "spamming" as you chose to state in the other thread).
Examples for "trolling" in the posts that you made:

That was trolling?! No, it was not! I never called anyone on this board that. It was a simple hyperbole to show that no matter how leftist or conservative one is, they cannot avoid the truth. I was actually quite proud of the way I worded that. I didn't know that poetic expression was censored on this board.


Muhammed is an animal! Your an animal! Your grandmother was an animal! Tosa is an animal! Even the sexy Vuk is an animal!! All humans are animals! It is science! What school did you graduate exactly? (Answer: "Elementary my dear Watson, Elementary!") Would I get in trouble also if I called him a human? After all, he is both?

Enough to warrant the 1-pointer you were given.

Not really (as I did not direct it torward anyone, on this board or anywhere), and certainly not enough to warrant my backroom access being removed.




These must have been very "other" words indeed...

Other words, yes. That was his general drift though.

EDIT: @Vuk - addendum:
The request to remain civil applies to you as well - no reason to insult other patrons who made a polite post (a post that was not even necessarily directed at you)
He chose his name, not me. The post was right after mine and clearly directed at me. Your right, I do not have proof that his post was directed torward me, and he doesn't have proof that my comment didn't mean that he resembled Omanes Alexandrapolites a lot. We can all believe what we like in our happy little world. ;)

---

Vuk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

In case you haven't noticed, my post was to the admins, and the first reply was a regular member telling me to piss-off!! I am turning it into a hostile environment?!! No wonder you chose your name as you did!

---

Calm Vuk,

Sorry If Im talking in something that doesnt concerns to me, but I think Omanes has no relation with your incident, he is trying to help you, and he doesnt deserve to be insulted by you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Muhammed is an animal! Your an animal! Your grandmother was an animal! Tosa is an animal! Even the sexy Vuk is an animal!! All humans are animals! It is science! What school did you graduate exactly? (Answer: "Elementary my dear Watson, Elementary!") Would I get in trouble also if I called him a human? After all, he is both?

---

Quite frankly, I consider this to be a rather unconvincing attempt to play semantics...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

and certainly not enough to warrant my backroom access being removed.

---

Your Backroom access had been temporarily removed after a track record of violations of our forum rules and general hostile behaviour (and if I remember correctly your reponse was that we should not bother to restore it as you did not intend to post there anymore).

Your first series of posts after your temporarily forced Backroom absence expired were the posts for which you received the warning that you are contesting here.

Given that context we decided to suspend your Backroom access again, and - to be honest - in this very thread here (i.e., your response to Omanes you are displaying the conduct that led us to believe that your general approach to discussing emotionally loaded topics is not appropriate for the Backroom.
As the problems we see primarily affect the Backroom discussions and are not necessarily relevant for other parts of the org we decided to limit the removal of access to the Backroom.

Vuk, the way I read your quoted post, you called Muhammed an animal in an insulting way. You used the word "animal" in a pejorative meaning. That particular post cannot be interpreted in any other way. You have to admit that.

I think you are well aware about what Muhammed means to muslims. Like you, I don't like political correctness and everyone has the right to express his opinion, even if it's completely wrong, stupid, idiocy, totally misplaced, insulting, etc etc. It's called freedom of speech.

But, and here it comes: There is no freedom of speech here. Dhepee explained it much better than I will ever be able to do so right HERE

So, there's only the Org rules that can be applied here.

You signed up and thus you are supposed to know the rules of the Org, but here's a reminder:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DA RULES

Examples of objectionable messages include (but are not limited to):

...

Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs, or insults -- addressed to either an individual or a group -- is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.

---

You called the most important figure of Islam an animal, using "animal" in a pejorative meaning. That's a fact. No more, no less.

Which is in some countries a violation of the law. It's also defamatory (=harmful), abusive (=expressing offensive reproach), vulgar (lacking refinement or cultivation or taste), somewhat hateful and harassing (=annoying persistently, challenging aggressively).

It is obvious that your post violated the rules and the warning was just imho.

Oh, and you shouldn't complain about regular members giving their opinion on the issue. By making a thread in the Watchtower, you made this discussion public. If you wanted to have a discussion only with the Admins, you should have used the PM function instead of the Watchtower.

Vuk, I asked you to piss off. Tho that isn't really nice.
I could ask you to vuk off, tho that isn't really nice as well.
So now I will be really nice to you:
please go away

What you're doing here is not really helping you?

Sides you're pissing me off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Vuk, I asked you to piss off. Tho that isn't really nice.
I could ask you to vuk off, tho that isn't really nice as well.
So now I will be really nice to you:
please go away

What you're doing here is not really helping you?

Sides you're pissing me off

---

First of all, learn history. Second of all, learn some phonetics. I do not say this to be unfriendly, but simply to make a sugestion in an attempt to better your future and the discussion that takes place on the ORG. The "u" in Vuk is pronounced like in "Pooh" (as in Pooh Bear). Not as in "f$%*".
Now one could say that what you just said you could say, you said. But that is that. ;)
I don't care if I am "pissing you off" (and please do not use that language, I find it very offencive ;)), I am trying to talk to the admins. BQ is a liar, and does not do his job. Tosa seems to ignore my PMs, so I must post here where they will all see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Quite frankly, I consider this to be a rather unconvincing attempt to play semantics...

Prove that the meaning that I said I posted that with is not truely the meaning I intended. I am glad you think so, but you cannot just assume things like that. As I already said, muhamed is an animal. Nothing wrong with saying so. ;)

Your Backroom access had been temporarily removed after a track record of violations of our forum rules and general hostile behaviour (and if I remember correctly your reponse was that we should not bother to restore it as you did not intend to post there anymore).

A track record? I will plead no contest to that (as I do not have the time, or energy to refute it, and the number and severity of violations needed to remove ones backroom access is completely up to your discretion and can change with your will), but that is not the subject of this conversation. I did ask you not too (and still wish you didn't), but you did give it back, and now I want it.

Your first series of posts after your temporarily forced Backroom absence expired were the posts for which you received the warning that you are contesting here.

It is this that I am contesting. What you removed me for the second time was unwarranted.

Given that context we decided to suspend your Backroom access again, and - to be honest - in this very thread here (i.e., your response to Omanes you are displaying the conduct that led us to believe that your general approach to discussing emotionally loaded topics is not appropriate for the Backroom.

I just got done being insulted and sworn at be several people trying to hijack (what a coincidence that I should use that word in this thread :beam:) my thread. I was not responding emotionally, but simply trying to keep the discussion civil by spreading some humor.
As the problems we see primarily affect the Backroom discussions and are not necessarily relevant for other parts of the org we decided to limit the removal of access to the Backroom.
Praise a pile of camel dung! What would I do if you hadn't made that decision!?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Vuk, the way I read your quoted post, you called Muhammed an animal in an insulting way. You used the word "animal" in a pejorative meaning. That particular post cannot be interpreted in any other way. You have to admit that.

I do? Who said that I meant it in an insulting way? I already said that I didn't. I remember someone calling Jesus Christ a pig, a over-praised proposter, and other things. Mods never commented on them...maybe because the mods share their views...
Whatever the case, nothing that I could have said (no matter in which context you choose to take it) was in anyway any worse than the things that other members of the board said about Christianity.

I think you are well aware about what Muhammed means to muslims. Like you, I don't like political correctness and everyone has the right to express his opinion, even if it's completely wrong, stupid, idiocy, totally misplaced, insulting, etc etc. It's called freedom of speech.

Ahh...yes I do. :beam: I am also sure that the members of this board know what Christ means to Christians. The first time I say something untrue about muhamed, I will forgive a comment that they said about Christ. Yes, I have insulted Muhamed. I called him a jigalo, a pervert, etc. But everything I said about him was true. I was not just mindlessly insulting him. I was presenting fact with poetic expression.

But, and here it comes: There is no freedom of speech here. Dhepee explained it much better than I will ever be able to do so right HERE


You're darn right. There is no Freedom of speech, but there should be an equality of speech. (You know, the old "what's good for the goose is good for the gander") If one party can say anything they want (inside nearly boundless limits) about Christianity, they (or another party) should be able to say anything they want (within the same limits) about any other religion.
A little while ago (50 or so years back), you could do nearly anything you wanted to a black, but if you messed with a wighty, you got it. Now you can say anything you want about whites, but you get it if you say anything about blacks. Being a mix of both, I get it both from the old prejduces from 50 years ago and from modern ones. That is why it is important that everyone be treated equally (which isn't to say that they can't be treated differently. I am not saying that guys and girls should be forced to wear the same types of clothes!). You shouldn't treat discussion of one religion differently than another. If facts, and truth, and rational discussion are allowed, then it should be applied to all religions. Certainly, people shouldn't be able to mindlessly insult one religion!
So, there's only the Org rules that can be applied here.

You signed up and thus you are supposed to know the rules of the Org, but here's a reminder:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DA RULES
Examples of objectionable messages include (but are not limited to):

...

Let's take this one step at a time.
Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory,nope inaccurate,certainly not abusive,nope vulgar,not unless islam is vulgar. What are you trying to say? ;) hateful,more like truthfull facts cannot be hatefull, only opinions harassing,nope, i was asked obscene, profane, sexually oriented,My sources certainly were, but they were direct from the koran. if their holy book is in violation of Guild rules, you should say directly that one cannot post passages from X rated "holy books" ;) threatening,Heavens! I should hope not! invasive of a person's privacy,nope or otherwise in violation of any lawnope. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged.nope The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs, or insults -- addressed to either an individual or a group -- is extremely inappropriate.k, this is the closest to a rule that you could say I eer broke. I did make a few comments that, thought true, were of an intense nature Please respect etiquette at all times.Sorry, never learned my etiquette when I was young, surely one can't be punished for that? ;)

---

You called the most important figure of Islam an animal, using "animal" in a pejorative meaning. That's a fact. No more, no less.

That is your opinion. Whether you are correct or not, you cannot prove ones intent. ;) muhamed is the most important figure? Then where does poor little allah boy come in? Poor little boy, guess you forgot him. ;)

Which is in some countries a violation of the law. It's also defamatory (=harmful), abusive (=expressing offensive reproach), vulgar (lacking refinement or cultivation or taste), somewhat hateful and harassing (=annoying persistently, challenging aggressively).
In countries where woman are killed if they are raped by filthy animal men (there is that animal again ;)) they are put to death. I hope that that is not the type of country that the Org is going to base its policy on.

It is obvious that your post violated the rules and the warning was just imho.
If you assume meaning (which a mod should not be doing), I violated A rule, and he can give me a warning if he wants, but removing my access is completely an abuse of his power.

Oh, and you shouldn't complain about regular members giving their opinion on the issue. By making a thread in the Watchtower, you made this discussion public. If you wanted to have a discussion only with the Admins, you should have used the PM function instead of the Watchtower.

I already explained why I didn't settle it by PM. I couldn't.

---

Sorry about the manner in which I wrote. I have been being very sarcastic, but for a reason. I have also been twisting some of my own comments (following the example of several members and mods on the ORG), but to stress a point. I hope that it has not been missed.
The point still remains. My backroom access has been removed unjustly and should be restored. Also, BG should be punished for abuse of power.

Vukenstien

Quote:

---

That is your opinion. Whether you are correct or not, you cannot prove ones intent. ;)

---

It is unwise to assume people will automatically recognize your jab at one of the most important figures of a religion as mere poetic expression, especially over the internet - where even sarcasm has to be pointed out in order to be prevent confusion. Don't you think ?

I assume said confusion has already been felt in this very thread, judging by how Omanes' post was taken.

:balloon2:

If Banquo is disciplined for this, please remove my access to the Backroom. I do not want to be part of any community which deems Vuk's comments to be acceptable, and Banquo to be in the wrong for taking action over the matter. If this were in the RTR forums, I would be making a strong case for the person making those comments to be banned for inciting racial or religious hatred.

Yea, BG is an evil person...

http://www.modifiedcarforums.com/for...dramaqueen.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If Banquo is disciplined for this, please remove my access to the Backroom. I do not want to be part of any community which deems Vuk's comments to be acceptable, and Banquo to be in the wrong for taking action over the matter. If this were in the RTR forums, I would be making a strong case for the person making those comments to be banned for inciting racial or religious hatred.

---

For telling the truth? lol, what hatred. :P
For showing passages of the koran that show a pattern and pointing that pattern out (not that it needed any pointing out)? Are you saying that the koran is hateful?
I'm glad that you love me as much as I love you darling cheeks! Snuggles!

Vuk

P.S. I noticed that not you or anyone else even tried to refute anything that I said. Though you claim to think it hateful, you know it is true. I guess that truth is hate, so we should all live together in a big peaceful world of lies!

:juggle2: WEE! This sounds fun!!:juggle2:

Christians (non-Christians who say to believe in Christianity) have commited many attrocities in the past, and as much as modern Christians may not like to admit it (as hatefull as they think it may be), it is the truth and they know it and must learn to live with it. Likewise, non-Christians have to learn to live with truths that they may consider "hateful", or otherwise unsavory.

There is no hate in it. Truth cannot be hate. Truth is fact. Hate is opinion or reason for presenting fact.

Vuk

I dont think anything you are doing is helping right now Vuk.

You have become increasignly abusive as this has gone on. Insulting a moderator personally is not a good idea anywhere.

If Vuk is not remanded for what he is doing in this thread, i will go on strike.

Vuk, you addressed the Admins, not Moderators like me, so I'll stay out of your argument over details.

A point of order:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

As I am sure you all know, I recently had my backroom access removed and was given a warning...

---

No one knew that except you and staff. Warnings and access details are kept private here.


I am curious about 2 things:

1) From where did you obtain the english translation of the Qur'an verses you quoted?

Unless you are a speaker/reader of Arabic, I assume you used someone else's translations, and forgot to give credit when you posted. (NOTE: if it's a 'hate site' it would be better to PM me a link, rather than publicly post it here).

2) Why do you come back to the Org?

In the face of such opposition, what motivates you to return? Love of a good fight? To show heathens the errors of their ways? I'm really, genuinely curious about that.

Some guys try out a vid-game fan site, don't like what they see, and just remove the link from their bookmarks. Others like the place and stick around. A few meet opposition, and fight like banshees about their bad treatment for days/weeks/months. I don't understand that last group. Maybe you can help me to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

P.S. I noticed that not you or anyone else even tried to refute anything that I said. Though you claim to think it hateful, you know it is true. I guess that truth is hate, so we should all live together in a big peaceful world of lies!

---

I suspect that most haven't responded to your claims because of how utterly absurd they sound, so why would they bother?

A lot of Orgahs have known Banquo's Ghost since long before he was a moderator here, myself among them. I honestly don't think I've ever seen him -- since either before his promotion or after -- be anything less than congenial and level-headed. You, on the other hand, often come across as overly-excitable (especially in terms of seeing perceived insults & injustices towards yourself), which in turn has a tendency to make you become somewhat abusive.

That is, of course, only my own opinion, but I have a strong hunch I'm not the only one to hold such views.

Well Vuk, I think we disagree than.

You called Muhammed an animal. As Dutch_guy said, such a remark, when made on the internet, will probably be interpreted as an insult. You should have known most people would interprete the word animal in a pejorative meaning and would rightfully conclude you insulted Muhammed. Like a murderer should have known a shot in the head of his victom would probably killed him.

It is sooo obvious that you cannot deny you intended to insult Muhammed and as a consequence, the religion of many Orgah's.

And if you are telling the truth now (which I don't believe you do), then the mistake you made is that you called Muhammed an animal and you assumed people would understand animal in a non insulting meaning. If that's truly the case, well, maybe than it's in your best interest you got removed from the Backroom...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Well Vuk, I think we disagree than.

You called Muhammed an animal. As Dutch_guy said, such a remark, when made on the internet, will probably be interpreted as an insult. You should have known most people would interprete the word animal in a pejorative meaning and would rightfully conclude you insulted Muhammed. Like a murderer should have known a shot in the head of his victom would probably killed him.

It is sooo obvious that you cannot deny you intended to insult Muhammed and as a consequence, the religion of many Orgah's.

And if you are telling the truth now (which I don't believe you do), then the mistake you made is that you called Muhammed an animal and you assumed people would understand animal in a non insulting meaning. If that's truly the case, well, maybe than it's in your best interest you got removed from the Backroom...

---

Given the rest of his remarks, if he really does mean that Muhammad is an animal because he's demonstrably part of the animal kingdom (isn't Vuk a creationist?), then I'd like to tell Vuk to go **** himself. That wouldn't be an insult either, as I'd merely be telling him to go and give himself pleasure, to give him greater ease of mind and making him a happier person. Would I expect the mods to accept that explanation? No, because it's plainly a fib, and the call for Vuk to go **** himself is equally plainly an insulting comment.

My plea to the mods and admins: don't swallow this. If you need reminding, go and look up gullible in the dictionary.

I find it weird that The Pope's comments on Islam were taken offensive and Vuk wants even higher offenses to be taken "as is", not as an insult.

Quote:

---

A lot of Orgahs have known Banquo's Ghost since long before he was a moderator here, myself among them. I honestly don't think I've ever seen him -- since either before his promotion or after -- be anything less than congenial and level-headed. You, on the other hand, often come across as overly-excitable (especially in terms of seeing perceived insults & injustices towards yourself), which in turn has a tendency to make you become somewhat abusive.

---

BQ has been around here more than you have ever been on the Internet. So, it's normal for us to believe BQ and not YOU.

And when you come with PROPER proof that BQ insulted you, then we *might* reconsider it. Till then, Vuk off. :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I remember someone calling Jesus Christ a pig, a over-praised proposter, and other things. Mods never commented on them...maybe because the mods share their views...
Whatever the case, nothing that I could have said (no matter in which context you choose to take it) was in anyway any worse than the things that other members of the board said about Christianity.

---

So you are saying: Other members broke the rules as well and they didn't get punished, so I shouldn't get punished neither"

What other members did it totally irrevelant in the present case. We are talking about your behavior and the action taken against it. What other members posted is irrelevant to your case.

Again the murderer: "I shouldn't go to jail because there are some crimes unresolved, some murderes never got punished, so that means I shouldn't get punished neither..." ? Don't think so.

Besides, as for the "other members" who "violated the rules as well":

1) Warnings are given in private, so maybe those members did get puinshed, but they didn't complain in public like you did;
2) If you were offended by someone insulting Jesus Christ or Christianity as a whole, you could have clicked the "Report post" button.
3) Alternatively, you could have pm'ed a Moderator or an Admin, quoting or linking to the abusive post in question.

But as I said, totally irrelevant to your present case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

1) Warnings are given in private, so maybe those members did get puinshed, but they didn't complain in public like you did;

---

Hands up those who've been warned by Banquo.
:2thumbsup: (Pannonian)
Hands up those who've griped about it.
:no: (Pannonian)

I would like to remind everybody again that this thread should not be used to exchange personal attacks.

Thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

BQ is a liar, and does not do his job.

---

I take exception at this statement, which questions the integrity of a staff member in a very offensive way.
You accuse, Banquo's Ghost oy lying - I expect you to specify this.
With regard to the second part of the statement - is that your opinion or another "fact"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Tosa seems to ignore my PMs,

---

I have to wonder - were those PMs written in the same style as the ones you sent to Backroom moderators?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Also, BG should be punished for abuse of power.

---

An abuse of power has so far not been demonstrated by what you brought forward. The warning you received was for a violation of our forum rules and the rationale for the removal of your Backroom access has been laid out in my previous post.

Apart from that, I am also genuinely curious about your answer to Kukri's question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

He chose his name, not me. The post was right after mine and clearly directed at me. Your right, I do not have proof that his post was directed torward me, and he doesn't have proof that my comment didn't mean that he resembled Omanes Alexandrapolites a lot. We can all believe what we like in our happy little world.

---

My most sincere apologies should you saw it that way Vuk, yet it was aimed at nobody in particular - more at everybody who may have been posting, or thinking about posting, within this thread, aiming to prevent them from causing offence towards you or others. Sorry again.

Dear Vuk,

I find it sad that you insulted Omanes, one of the nicest and most helpful members of this board. Whether you meant it jokingly or in seriousness I am little more than appalled. So Omanes there is no need to apologise, (apologising for something they did not commit truly humble you are :bow:).

I can understand you anger at something you find so deep-seated in your beliefs. And I can understand your frustration, especially when you have been insulted in this thread by those who should not be sticking their noises in your business (such as my self, although I promise not to insult you because I cannot/will not cause harm to anyone's person or ego). Stig's and Pannonian's comments were not necessary as they were personal attacks, but you are a mature person so I would think you would have the ability to ignore them and instead ask for their comments to be removed as they are both vulgar and insulting. We have rules and they should be abided by by all, so I am sorry you were offended by the off-topic posts.

Third I would like to state that on the Internet it is impeccably hard to understand all the connotations of what someone says correctly, and this leads to misinterpretation. So although you may not have wilfully or deliberately intended to insult or offend (whether it is the truth or not), your posting style allowed for room to misinterpret and take off-hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

1) From where did you obtain the English translation of the Qur'an verses you quoted?

---

In response to KukriKhan I would also like to know where you garnered an English translation. As I have my own copy of the Qur'an right here, and I'd be quite happy to cross check any references made.

I understand what you mean about Christians/race etcetera as I have lurked through numerous threads involving such topics and seen my own religion torn to shreds and it saddens me. However, it is up to the mods to determine what goes, not members. And if that is the case I will avoid those threads, and use my own discretion as to where I place my feet. I trust the mods, to do their jobs and I would follow their instructions even if I didn't agree because in the long run they have experience and knowledge, and they will be even-handed even if you think otherwise. They only step-in when they believe the situation is dire. So I find it as a personal blow to every member of this great community when you accuse the staff. If you wish to do so please make it private, clear and polite.

When emotions and opinion is involved it is always hard to stay detected and impassive, which is entirely understandable. And it does not help when those around you are not. But you are a smart guy, I've seen that with your modding ability etcetera, so I really thought you'd be able to do so. I think maybe this thread should be scraped and you can start all over again, but this time without people being allowed to fling insults at you and you respond with the facts clearly stated and without sarcasm.

Rythmic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Vuk, you addressed the Admins, not Moderators like me, so I'll stay out of your argument over details.

A point of order:


No one knew that except you and staff. Warnings and access details are kept private here.

That is why I was addressing admins! Duh!

I am curious about 2 things:

1) From where did you obtain the english translation of the Qur'an verses you quoted?

Unless you are a speaker/reader of Arabic, I assume you used someone else's translations, and forgot to give credit when you posted. (NOTE: if it's a 'hate site' it would be better to PM me a link, rather than publicly post it here).

From a hardcover English translation that I got from my local library. Would you like me to PM the PIN #? Or perhaps the colour of the underwear that the guy who translated it was wearing?
Oh yeah, and for your info: I do not visit hate sites. I do not hate muslims. Some of my best friends are muslims and we discuss islam AND Christianity together. They agree on many of th points that I made, but believe that islam can be a good religion and follow it. (Not caring to take literally the passages that order them to smite off the body parts of disbelievers and cover them in molten metal) They on the other hand disagree with Christianity and many things that Christians have done. I agree with them that many of the things that Christians have done hae been bad, believe Christianity to be the true Religion and God to be the true God, and do not believe that things people claiming to be Christians have done is a good way to judge Christianity. In this way we can all get along, speaking our opinion (founded in truth, not hate like many members of the Org), and still remaining friends. This is something I have NOT seen on the Org. I guess I am lucky to have civilised friends.

2) Why do you come back to the Org?

Because it is my all time favorite site. I like the Org, like most of the people on it, like most of the atmosphere. It is a good place, and I think that if I stopped coming here, I would have to give up playing TW.

In the face of such opposition, what motivates you to return? Love of a good fight? To show heathens the errors of their ways? I'm really, genuinely curious about that.

I don't like a fight. My point was to have an intelligent discussion. A member of the forums was trying to make a point, and the other one was calling it hate. I provided facts to show that the first member was right. I was not trying to "repremand" anyone, or show anyone "the error of their ways", but trying to have an intelligent discussion - something I thought possible on the Org. I admit that I did get a little hot headed and phrase some of my sentences sarcastically, but till I had been acussed of all kinds of things.

Some guys try out a vid-game fan site, don't like what they see, and just remove the link from their bookmarks. Others like the place and stick around. A few meet opposition, and fight like banshees about their bad treatment for days/weeks/months. I don't understand that last group. Maybe you can help me to.
I should not have met "opposition" for stating my opinion and supporting it with facts on a thread devoted to religious discussion. That doesn't say much for the Backroom.

---

Vuk

Quote:

---

detected

---

Spelling should be detached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

From a hardcover English translation that I got from my local library. Would you like me to PM the PIN #? Or perhaps the colour of the underwear that the guy who translated it was wearing?...

---

Heh. Sometimes you just crack you up, huh? :)

Thanks, but the usual citation would be better; you know: Title, Author, Publisher, date.

I meant no disrespect with reference to a 'hate site'; I thought maybe your quoted material was from an online source. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :bow:

I returned the book several weeks ago. I didn't know you'd ask me for that info. I can get it out again, but I do not think it will matter as the koran is the koran, and I dare say that what one koran says, another will.
I will get it out next time I go to my local library. (Right now I have finals, so it may not be for a week or so.)
I will spend the next few minutes answering the other posts that I did not have time to before.

Vuk

From my perspective, having not seen the thread in particular and not being a regular back room reader/poster anyway, it seems that the original issue is now largely irrelevant, and that successive readers of this thread will base their views on Vuk's attitude within this particular thread itself, and not on the thread/incident in question.

It seems to me Vuk, that you have, shall we say, a "talent" for getting yourself into scrapes, through your overly direct and unsubtle approach to particular issues. It also seems that after getting into these situations you will almost "fight to the death" in trying and justify yourself and seemingly wriggle your way out again - instead of backing down and admitting your error. You constantly try to point out the inconsistency in the justice dealt out here at the .org, yet you seem oblivious to the glaring inconsistencies in your own comments. When these are are pointed out you, you will begin the word for word post post dissection and demolition process, which is the mark of a bad debater. Jumping on your opponent's posts in a piecemeal form, trying to dissect and discredit sentence by sentence or even word for word where possible. This in itself is not endearing and you have shown countless examples of it in this very thread.

Your comment about Muhammed being an 'animal' is a classic example of inconsistency. You intended this in a derogatory way, I think 99.999% of orgahs can work that one out, yet you have now backtracked and tried to explain this as:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Muhammed is an animal! Your an animal! Your grandmother was an animal! Tosa is an animal! Even the sexy Vuk is an animal!! All humans are animals! It is science! What school did you graduate exactly?

---

You seem to be overly obsessed with "legality" of your comments, and not how your comments are actually perceived. There is no sense in "getting away" with posting something offensive simply because you can explain it away later in that fashion. That does not remove the original insult or the offence and it doesn't leave anyone any more convinced.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

My most sincere apologies should you saw it that way Vuk, yet it was aimed at nobody in particular - more at everybody who may have been posting, or thinking about posting, within this thread, aiming to prevent them from causing offence towards you or others. Sorry again.

---

Omanes, my comments were obviously in jest, I do not see how they could have been taken any differently. I have no quarrel with you and don't remember ever having one. I am sorry if I made you believe that such exists between us. Whenm there is a subject that I am hot on, I vent by resorting to humor. :P :beam: Such as my defense of my use of animal (while I still do not officially deny that I meant it in an inoccent way, I am just talking about my WAY of defending it. ;)).

I like the ORG (and most Orgahs), and generally try to avoid any trouble. (though if someone throws it into my face, I somtimes throw it back:embarassed: ) I certainly do not make it a habit of randomly starting fights with members who post in my thread. ;)

Sorry that I was taken the wrong way, and I will say now that much of what I say on the Org is in jest, so don't jump at everything I say. ;) Just so you know. ;)

Vuk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

Please may I request that you calm down and refrain from transforming this thread into a hostile environment. Please may I request that you relax and wait for TosaInu/Ser Clegane/somebody else with satisfactory authority to deal with this matter. Thanks.

---

In case you haven't noticed, my post was to the admins, and the first reply was a regular member telling me to piss-off!! I am turning it into a hostile environment?!! No wonder you chose your name as you did!

---

The fact is, that this comes across as a base personal attack and, whatever your intentions were, it will be viewed as a deliberate personal attack by other readers of this thread. Omanes did not attack you in any shape or form, his post was aimed at the thread in general. Again, this kind of attitude is not endearing you to anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II

From my perspective, having not seen the thread in particular and not being a regular back room reader/poster anyway, it seems that the original issue is now largely irrelevant, and that successive readers of this thread will base their views on Vuk's attitude within this particular thread itself, and not on the thread/incident in question.

Ok, let me start with a point by point disection. As a matter of fact, I will skip my usual chronilogical order and tackle Point By Point Disection (PBPD) right here. I never us PBPD unless I disagree with every point being made (or at least all the ones I comment on). It is not a sign of a bad debator, but a thorough one. If I can some my reply up in a sentence at the end, I will do so, but usually the posts I am replying to are so flawed that they require each point to be addressed individually...yours for instance :beam:.

The original thread is what I am arguing, and a don't give a duck's flat rahi (no, before you frantically search, this is not a swear, a vulgarity, or a sexual reference :beam:) about what people think of my attitude in this thread. I have displayed a very bad attitude in this thread (bet ya didn't think you'd get me to admit that, eh?). It is in responce to months of injustice committed against me, and as long as I don't break any rules, I don't care if my attitude is bad here. This is my rave thread in a sense. (one that hopefully will bring some attention from the admins and get them to fairly judge my case) My attitude here has nothing to do with the thread in question. The thread is in question because it is important! It is WHAT is important, or more specifically, the injustice done to me because of my thread.

It seems to me Vuk, that you have, shall we say, a "talent" for getting yourself into scrapes, through your overly direct and unsubtle approach to particular issues.

Yes, I am very direct and very unsubtle. I am that type of person. If someone doesn't like me, I would rather they tell me and me and him have an understanding than to have him go on pretending to be my friend. I have views, others have views. There is no need to dislike each others over their views, but if someone wants to dislike me, I will dislike them right back. Is it that people don't like my "unsubtle" (ness?) or that they don't like my honesty?

It also seems that after getting into these situations you will almost "fight to the death" in trying and justify yourself and seemingly wriggle your way out again - instead of backing down and admitting your error.
When I am right, I usualy will not back down. That is not a bad thing. The only reason I have ever stuck to something that I have been at error with is when I needed to to show a point. A certain one that I have recently made (but will not name, thoughan animal reference is floating through my mind) was to demonstrate the same pigheaded lying that was made by two other members, and to show how ridiculous some of the accusations (in which my words were horribly twisted) made against me were. Also, I was feeling like spreading a little humor. :P
You constantly try to point out the inconsistency in the justice dealt out here at the .org, yet you seem oblivious to the glaring inconsistencies in your own comments.
There have been inconsistencies in my comments, but I have been the first to point them out. The "justice" (though I am not sure that that is a good word for it) on the Org is horribly biased. I say that now, and will continue to unless changes are made.
When these are are pointed out you, you will begin the word for word post post dissection and demolition process, which is the mark of a bad debater. Jumping on your opponent's posts in a piecemeal form, trying to dissect and discredit sentence by sentence or even word for word where possible. This in itself is not endearing and you have shown countless examples of it in this very thread.

Already covered this up above.

Your comment about Muhammed being an 'animal' is a classic example of inconsistency. You intended this in a derogatory way, I think 99.999% of orgahs can work that one out, yet you have now backtracked and tried to explain this as:

I find it hard to believe that .00001% of the Org could not see the humor in many of the comments I made about that. I did not expect for more than half to get the meaning behind it. I don't think that you did.

You seem to be overly obsessed with "legality" of your comments, and not how your comments are actually perceived. There is no sense in "getting away" with posting something offensive simply because you can explain it away later in that fashion. That does not remove the original insult or the offence and it doesn't leave anyone any more convinced.

I proved that what I said was fact and not insult (thought the sarcastic way I worded several phrases was meant to be a little more than a tad insulting), so I was accused of legal transgressions. That is why I defend them. Many Orgahs say this that just fall inside legality, but are highly insulting and get away with it. That is a big part of this discussion. It is not about me, but about the justice on the Org (with an emphasis on a single thread), and so completely relevant.

:bow:

---

Cheers,
The Vukinator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II

The fact is, that this comes across as a base personal attack and, whatever your intentions were, it will be viewed as a deliberate personal attack by other readers of this thread. Omanes did not attack you in any shape or form, his post was aimed at the thread in general. Again, this kind of attitude is not endearing you to anyone.

---

Again, I do not give a duck's platinum pinky if my posts here "endear" me to anyone. I have a reason for posting here, and it is to reverse abuse (as you would know if you read the title of the thread) and not to make tea time friends.

As for my comment, I meant it in a humorous way (as I already explained and am getting tired of doing so) and I am sorry that it was taken out of context. I come from the back streets with a bunch more worthless "niggers" that you would never care you white collar poncho about, so that is the way I talk. I am sorry if you don't like it, I know no other way to talk. If you can't realize that I was joking, then please HANG UP and try again.

Vuk

Quote:

---

I returned the book several weeks ago.

---

Isn't it funny that you can quote a book that you do not have , yet couldn't quote the bible because you didn't have one:inquisitive:

Some (probably final) comments on this whole issue to provide some additional perspective.

Yesterday, while the discussion in this thread was running a new account has been opened under the username Muhammad

This new account was (ab)used to spam the Entrance Hall with several posts that were obviously meant to slander the religion of other patrons (the comments in the profile alone should emphasize this point).
After several warnings the account was temprarily banned and can currently not be used to make further posts.
Given the timing of the posts of this account and the content of posts and profile which are in line with the posts that received the warning we are discussing here I, personally, come to the conclusion the the starter of this thread wanted to give another example of this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I was rationally discussing religion using fact, not flaming or insulting.

---

So to summarize:
1) A patron gets warned for making offensive and slandering posts and subsequently gets his Backroom access removed.
2) The patron contests the warning, asserting that he is not insulting or flaming - just stating "facts" and the "truth"
3) The patron is questioning the integrity of a staff member by accusing him of lying and abusing his power - accusations that have not been backed up, even after being asked for it
4) While the discussion is going on a second account starts to spam the EH with offensive posts.

I think I have seen enough to feel comfortable with the decision to keep the access of the thread starter to the Backroom blocked.
The Muhammad account will be permanently blocked - further steps are under consideration (e.g., transferring any awards and warning points the Muhammad account accumulated to the primary account of the user as good housekeeping would demand).

Thank you

I hope at least some people enjoyed this soap opera :elephant:

I am off to class now. I will reply to this when I am back. There is something I have to add to this thread that you may want to hear, so perhaps you should keep it open for a little while longer.

Vuk

Vuk, I have tried to avoid stating this previously - the inability to edit posts in this forum has prevented me mostly as, if I were to later decide that it was a bad idea I would not be able to edit it out. I'm sorry to inform you of this matter, but I think that is may be something which you may wish to take note of.

This may sound obvious, and I apologise if it insults you, yet, on the internet, when posting, nobody can see your facial expressions, your tone of voice nor can they interpret your body language. This means that the people reading your posts cannot always interpret them the way you meant them to be interpreted. This means that certain jokes, here the word "joke" means something that is not supposed to be, through your eyes, taken too seriously or may have a double meaning, could be interpreted as being serious. This can conclude in warnings, bans and other such nasty measures which are not exactly positive in your eyes, as demonstrated within this thread.

So, may I suggest that you imagine that all your posts are taken for their literal meaning, everything is taken seriously, and before calling somebody/someone any names, you consider what their multiple meanings may be, should they have any to avoid any offence that may be caused towards others.

My sincere apologies for pointing this matter out.

BTW, TosaInu, if you think this is a little harsh or incorrect please may I request that you remove it. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Ok, let me start with a point by point disection. As a matter of fact, I will skip my usual chronilogical order and tackle Point By Point Disection (PBPD) right here. I never us PBPD unless I disagree with every point being made (or at least all the ones I comment on). It is not a sign of a bad debator, but a thorough one. If I can some my reply up in a sentence at the end, I will do so, but usually the posts I am replying to are so flawed that they require each point to be addressed individually...yours for instance .

---

The last post you made is not an example of your usual demolition and dissection, let me make that clear. A point per point reply is very different to a word for word and sentence for sentence dissection. This has been your approach through this thread. You have siezed on a particular point and attacked it with ridicule and derision, due to lacking any solid argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The original thread is what I am arguing, and a don't give a duck's flat rahi about what people think of my attitude in this thread. I have displayed a very bad attitude in this thread. It is in responce to months of injustice committed against me, and as long as I don't break any rules, I don't care if my attitude is bad here. This is my rave thread in a sense. (one that hopefully will bring some attention from the admins and get them to fairly judge my case) My attitude here has nothing to do with the thread in question. The thread is in question because it is important! It is WHAT is important, or more specifically, the injustice done to me because of my thread.

---

So in fact you don't actually care what fellow orgahs think of your conduct here at the .org? It may be news to you, but the .org is in fact an online community and if you couldn't care less about other orgahs opinions then debate is largely redundant as someone that care nothing for others' opinions is not open to debate, and you need to look again at the reasons as to why you're here. The orgahs are what makes the .org, no orgahs, no .org. You replied to Kukrikhan that you are still here because "Because it is my all time favorite site. I like the Org, like most of the people on it, like most of the atmosphere. It is a good place, and I think that if I stopped coming here, I would have to give up playing TW.", yet you couldn't give a damn about how you are viewed by your fellow orgah, and you feel that there is no justice here?

Your next statement is yet again to make excuses, citing "months of injustice" against you. If you hope to grab the attention of admins, think again. Attention seeking threads from attention seekers are rarely attended to in a forum such as this. You probably won't get what you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Yes, I am very direct and very unsubtle. I am that type of person. If someone doesn't like me, I would rather they tell me and me and him have an understanding than to have him go on pretending to be my friend. I have views, others have views. There is no need to dislike each others over their views, but if someone wants to dislike me, I will dislike them right back. Is it that people don't like my "unsubtle" (ness?) or that they don't like my honesty?

---

Being direct and unsubtle does not equate to being disliked. I doubt anyone dislikes you for your views, but it may be that your attitude could cause some friction. It also gives you a difficult time here at the .org with these kinds of issues arising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

When I am right, I usualy will not back down. That is not a bad thing. The only reason I have ever stuck to something that I have been at error with is when I needed to to show a point. A certain one that I have recently made (but will not name, thoughan animal reference is floating through my mind) was to demonstrate the same pigheaded lying that was made by two other members, and to show how ridiculous some of the accusations (in which my words were horribly twisted) made against me were.

---

But how can you be sure that you are always right? An argument or debate usually consists of two or more people, each believing that they are in the right. They cannot all be in the right, and at the same time all hold opposing views, only one of them can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The "justice" (though I am not sure that that is a good word for it) on the Org is horribly biased. I say that now, and will continue to unless changes are made.

---

If the justice here is so "injust" then you can vote with your feet and leave. When in a similar situation myself in the past at another forums, I did just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I find it hard to believe that .00001% of the Org could not see the humor in many of the comments I made about that. I did not expect for more than half to get the meaning behind it. I don't think that you did.

---

When your humour is religionist or racist, then it is often not perceived as humour. Also what is funny in one particular culture is far from funny in another culture. As the .org is on an international scale, this is something that every orgah needs to be aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I proved that what I said was fact and not insult (thought the sarcastic way I worded several phrases was meant to be a little more than a tad insulting), so I was accused of legal transgressions. That is why I defend them. Many Orgahs say this that just fall inside legality, but are highly insulting and get away with it. That is a big part of this discussion. It is not about me, but about the justice on the Org (with an emphasis on a single thread), and so completely relevant.
Cheers,
The Vukinator

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I come from the back streets with a bunch more worthless "niggers" that you would never care you white collar poncho about, so that is the way I talk. I am sorry if you don't like it, I know no other way to talk. If you can't realize that I was joking, then please HANG UP and try again.

Vuk

---

Playing the race card doesn't help your case either, nor does making assumptions on my social standing and ethnic origin (both of which you have completely wrong, funnily enough). (Note: I'm not even going to comment on your use of the 'n' word)

It seems to me that, in reality you're wasting your time with this thread. I cannot see the point in making it public. If you care nothing for the opinions of other orgahs, which you obviously don't which is entirely evident from your undiplomatic and negative approach, then why make your case here publicly for other orgahs to comment on? All of this could have been settled privately by way of PM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I hope at least some people enjoyed this soap opera :elephant:

---

Believe it or not, but I'm thoroughly enthralled by it. :yes:

Absolutely fascinating stuff.


:elephant:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Isn't it funny that you can quote a book that you do not have , yet couldn't quote the bible because you didn't have one:inquisitive:

---

At the time that I quoted from the koran, I had it in front of me! DUH!!


Vuk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II

The last post you made is not an example of your usual demolition and dissection, let me make that clear. A point per point reply is very different to a word for word and sentence for sentence dissection. This has been your approach through this thread. You have siezed on a particular point and attacked it with ridicule and derision, due to lacking any solid argument.

Actually, that is a good example of just about every post I make.

So in fact you don't actually care what fellow orgahs think of your conduct here at the .org? It may be news to you, but the .org is in fact an online community and if you couldn't care less about other orgahs opinions then debate is largely redundant as someone that care nothing for others' opinions is not open to debate, and you need to look again at the reasons as to why you're here. The orgahs are what makes the .org, no orgahs, no .org. You replied to Kukrikhan that you are still here because "Because it is my all time favorite site. I like the Org, like most of the people on it, like most of the atmosphere. It is a good place, and I think that if I stopped coming here, I would have to give up playing TW.", yet you couldn't give a damn about how you are viewed by your fellow orgah, and you feel that there is no justice here?

No, I do care. I just don't give a duck's feather if they want to judge me by this thread. As I said before, I like the Org.

Your next statement is yet again to make excuses, citing "months of injustice" against you. If you hope to grab the attention of admins, think again. Attention seeking threads from attention seekers are rarely attended to in a forum such as this. You probably won't get what you want.

This thread is to communicate to the admins. To do that I need to grab their attention. That doesn't mean that this is an "attention seeking thread"

Being direct and unsubtle does not equate to being disliked. I doubt anyone dislikes you for your views, but it may be that your attitude could cause some friction. It also gives you a difficult time here at the .org with these kinds of issues arising.

It is both. I had a perfectly amiable attitude until I was attacked for my beliefs.

But how can you be sure that you are always right? An argument or debate usually consists of two or more people, each believing that they are in the right. They cannot all be in the right, and at the same time all hold opposing views, only one of them can be.

I argue about fact, not my opinion. To give an example (and I don't mean that you believe this, it is meant only as an example)"It is fact that Vuk is black. It is your opinion that that makes him worthless" See? I will argue my opinion that I am not worthless, but I will stick on with my teeth if you try to argue that I am not black. Get me?

If the justice here is so "injust" then you can vote with your feet and leave. When in a similar situation myself in the past at another forums, I did just that.


I like the Org. The injustice of one moderator and a # of members is not going to make me leave my favorite forums.

When your humour is religionist or racist, then it is often not perceived as humour. Also what is funny in one particular culture is far from funny in another culture. As the .org is on an international scale, this is something that every orgah needs to be aware of.

That or how to laugh. "jokes" (very insulting ones) are being made about Christianity all the time. They are "jokes" and ok. Even the mods make them.

Playing the race card doesn't help your case either, nor does making assumptions on my social standing and ethnic origin (both of which you have completely wrong, funnily enough). (Note: I'm not even going to comment on your use of the 'n' word)

I know your attitude and have had to put up with it before it real life. It always came from upper class whites or lower class Hispanics. Considering you have an internet connection, I assumed you were the first (not that I mean to stereotype anyone here, but that comes from my own experience).
As for the "n" word, I am using it as from your thoughts. And you can say it if you want, I don't care. I call my friends "nigger" and they call me it back. If you call me "nigger", I will call you "craka". (that is unless you find it offencive *rolls eyes*) You see, Vuk has a sense of humor. Vuk is not the one who is ultra sensitive. I am a black man, and I do not cringe at the word, yet I bet that many non-blacks will cringe when the see it. Never again accuse me of being sensitive. (lest I cry ;) See! Vuk has a sense of humor also!:P)

It seems to me that, in reality you're wasting your time with this thread. I cannot see the point in making it public. If you care nothing for the opinions of other orgahs, which you obviously don't which is entirely evident from your undiplomatic and negative approach, then why make your case here publicly for other orgahs to comment on? All of this could have been settled privately by way of PM.
I am tired of explaining why I didn't settle it by PM.

---

You have already made your opinions clear, and there is no reason for you to clog my thread futher. I am really gettint aggrevated by having to respond to all these worthless posts and accusations. I have a very important post by Ser Clegane that I have to reply to now.

Vuk

Topic is closed, action will be taken.