The blog for the somewhat free-thinker named Darius Franklin Farrar (aka me). It will contain whatever I feel like writing, which is likely to include such topics as computers, philosophy, religion, politics and, well, my life.
Aren't the Admins supposed to be the mature ones?
Published on May 21, 2004 By Darius Farrar In Blogging
First off, I'm not saying all Admins here are immature, but that there is at least one who is. I think it fair to at least call it to the attention of the other admins.

Where I was brought up, people could always discuss things in a civilized manner, even if people were totally opposed to each other (I'm talking about at school... not at home). If I disagreed with Person X, I let him know and explained my reasoning for opposing him. He usually reciprocated. I have never gotten to the degree of shouting at someone in an argument (outside of the home). Mainly, because it is excessively inappropriate in public places to shout. Additionally, shouting can detract from your own argument, it clouds your thoughts and brings too much emotion into the issue. Lastly shouters lack basic grammar which often results in hard to read sentences, a significant bar to communication. Shouting pretty much bars any chance of civilized debate.

The same goes for the internet. Shouting generally is done by those people that don't know what shouting means ("how do I get my letters out of caps... and why is this little green light on on my keyboard") or the people who are too immature to deal with an issue they feel passionately about in a intelligent fashion. Such people often fall into the same category as people who are sometimes referred to as AOLers (LIEK TAHT SIET TAHT HAS A TRANSLA2R WHICH TRANSLAETS SIMPL3 TAXT IN2 CORUPTED AOLAR SPECH).

Because of this and other quality control issues (the main being trolls... which I'll get to in a moment), internet sites have evolved a system of Admins and Moderators to control this. The Admins or Moderators tend to be more mature people who deal with content that is inappropriate. In addition to having the power of controlling conversations, they also have the responsibility to set an example for other users. Though usually they succeed at this, occasionally Admins will loose their cool.

Everyone knows what trolling is. My take on it is essentially that it is a comment that does not add anything intelligent to the discussion. Trolls can use shouting, but often they won't, because people that shout are usually disregarded.

In my most recent blog article, Draginol said this:

Let me help you out:

THEY CUT THE HEAD OFF OF AN INNOCENT PERSON ON TELEVISION SLOWLY WHILE HE SCREAMED THE ENTIRE TIME, HELD UP THE HEAD TO THE CAMERA AND THEN DUMPED THE BODY BY THE ROAD.


As I read down the page, the first thing I thought was "Oh, this was the guy that engineered the entire site, which is an example of his intelligence. I'm sure he will have something very intelligent to say on my response to Senator McCain's comments."

Then, I read what he actually said, and was sorely disappointed. For one, he shouted, which was inappropriate. His didn't use basic english grammar, and his comment added absolutely nothing to the discussion. And he's an admin. This comment is a perfect example of what should be gotten rid of on moderated boards. Even if his comment did have anything intelligent to say, it would have been too obscured by the shouting. He may have felt emotional about the issue, (as obviously he did), but this is not the way to express it. He could have said something like "I am greatly offended by your blog. Please pause to evaluate what action you are claiming isn't barbaric. How can you not call an action like cutting someone's head off, in addition to filming it, barbaric. Moreover, they gleefully held up his head to the camera and then dumped his body by the site of road. You exhibit an extreme lack of compassion." I wouldn't have had an issue. But instead, he typed before he thought, acted purely on emotion, and did not add anything valuable to the discussion.

Brad, it's your responsibility to serve as an example for other bloggers. I hope I can find a blog site whose creator can deal with their emotions appropriately

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 22, 2004

Darius, I'm not sure what you are hoping to accomplish.

You're not a customer. You're not paying us for this site. So why exactly do you feel we (me or any admin) owe you anything? If you don't like something, you are free to leave to find a better place.

 

on May 22, 2004
Darius - I am sure you would find a rather more sympathetic audience over at the Democratic Underground or an audience more in keeping with your maturity level over at AOL kids. This is the last of your threads I will contribute any more to as it has simply become you trolling for controversy.
on May 22, 2004

btw, it is telling that Darius seems incapable of making the distinction between a personal attack and disagreeing with him.

He wrote a post asking how we can call them barbarians. I think it's easy to call people who think it acceptable behavior to cut off the heads off of innocent people on television. I couldn't believe that someone would actually write such a dense article only days after that atrocity. That is why I wrote my comment in caps which I felt was quite to the point.

Now, for someone to equate my response to me coming in and name-calling the original poster speaks volumes.

Nothing I wrote is even remotely similar to what he believes the equivalent is:

BRAD IS A FRIGGIN MORON BECUAUSE HE CAME TO MY BLOG AND ATTACKED ME AND TROLLED ME AND WAS A TOTAL IDIOT. LOOK AT HOW STUPID HIS COMMENT IS! IT DOESN'T ADD ANYTHING TO THE DISCUSSION AND IS JUST SUCKY AND STUPID. HE CAN'T EVEN USE GRAMMAR RIGHT IF HE CAN'T KEEP HIS STUPID OPINONS TO HIMSELF I'M GUNNA BLACKLIST HIM.

You seem to have a fixation on grammar btw. Which is ironic considering your..writing.

on May 22, 2004
I think writing an article calling someone out because of one single response is somewhat ill-tempered and childish. It brings you down to level of the person you were disagreeing with so why even do it. I don't think it's Brad's responsibility to do anything, we aren't paying for this site and we haven't signed a contract to stay. He doesn't censor you opinions and he even lets you post an article that is calling him out directly. I see that as completely fair treatment.
on May 22, 2004
I think of Brad as two seperate people (maybe he's a gemini.) One person is the creator and administrator of JU. He does an excellent job of this....generally doesnt interfere with people unless they get really out of line. I will be eternally grateful to him for this fantastic site. He and the team have put a lot of work into it and we get to use it for nothing. How good is that?

The other Brad is the same as any other poster here and I believe he expects his articles to be treated as such.....you will see some pretty scathing comments on some of his posts same as anyone else.


I see what you are saying... I just find it odd that there is not a 1:1 correlation.

You're not a customer. You're not paying us for this site. So why exactly do you feel we (me or any admin) owe you anything? If you don't like something, you are free to leave to find a better place.

You don't owe anyone anything, but it would make everyone's life better if people (including you) didn't troll other people's posts.

Darius - I am sure you would find a rather more sympathetic audience over at the Democratic Underground or an audience more in keeping with your maturity level over at AOL kids. This is the last of your threads I will contribute any more to as it has simply become you trolling for controversy.

How is it immature to expect an Admin not to troll my posts, without even bothering to read it?

btw, it is telling that Darius seems incapable of making the distinction between a personal attack and disagreeing with him.

I do consider a thoughtless post like yours as a personal attack. The fact that you disagreed with me was fine, the problem was that you conveyed your opinion in a very disrespectful manner. It's a personal attack because you are saying "this person isn't even worth the time to read and respond to." Moreover, you didn't add anything to the discussion.

He wrote a post asking how we can call them barbarians. I think it's easy to call people who think it acceptable behavior to cut off the heads off of innocent people on television. I couldn't believe that someone would actually write such a dense article only days after that atrocity. That is why I wrote my comment in caps which I felt was quite to the point.

I really wonder If anyone bothered to read what I wrote. Like I said, the question was how can we call them barbarians, but then call our actions instances of mistreatment. I never said it was acceptable behavior. Please show me where I said that (good luck finding it, because I sure couldn't). I am quite curious as to where someone could so horribly misinterpret what I said. I wasn't going to do this but since you are here I might as well. Here is everything I wrote (everything else was copied and pasted):

Generally I am a very moderate person (independent, they call it), but statements like these really make me think. For one, how is one murder so barbaric, when what we have done is just instances of mistreatment? Here, let me show you the list of what has happened in our prisons:

Look at that key sentence. I didn't say "For one, how is one murder so barbaric," I said "For one, how is one murder so barbaric, when what we have done is just instances of mistreatment?"

That sentence is a comparison sentence, asking how is one x when another is y. Responding just to x totally avoids the point of the sentence.

To me, it seems like calling that one gruesome act barbaric (and it was terrible), but then downplaying the abuses by Americans, is extremely biased, and well... wrong. Sure, the Americans that preformed these torture acts were only a small amount of people, but so were the al-quieda that preformed the beheading. Additionally, we have an established system of order, where the higher commanders are responsible for what their underlings are doing. With all the technology we have, how can these abuses occur? It's one thing for terrorists to murder someone, but I say it's even worse for Americans, with all of their order and organization, to preform those horrendous acts of barbarity on Iraqi detainees. Are the abuses examples of why we need to NOT win the war in Iraq?

Again, my statement isn't "it seems like calling that one gruesome act barbaric (and it was terrible) is extremely biased, and well... wrong" but it is "it seems like calling that one gruesome act barbaric (and it was terrible), but then downplaying the abuses by Americans, is extremely biased, and well... wrong."

Moreover, that quote by that second senator is even more infuriating. He says we shouldn't allow people to check the military's human rights violations? How can that possibly help us? It is our duty to stop them, and people crawling over the prisons will help to speed the stoppage of violations. Then he throws that pathos in there "while our troops, our heros, are fighting and dying." This addition does not serve to help his statement at all. There is no connection to the troops fighting and people checking human rights violations. That is just a little pathos to make it seem like he is a good guy trying to support our troops.

Doesn't apply to the issue you are discussing.

Don't get me wrong, I am in full support of (almost) all of our troops in Iraq. But that does not give them ANY right to torture detainees, and then have the people back home claim that's any less barbaric than one gruesome murder.

Here, I say that y is equal to x. I never say that x is irrelevant, or that it is acceptable to be on television. Since it is clear that I belive that y is terrible, that makes it clear that I also think that x is terrible.

Now, for someone to equate my response to me coming in and name-calling the original poster speaks volumes.

You failed to add anything, while not even bothering to read the entire post! I interpret this as a fundamental act of disrespect. That is no different from name calling. Except that name calling doesn't pretend to be doing something else.
on May 22, 2004

Darius, I really don't know what you want here.  If you're not happy, move along.  If you think that you've been trolled, then blacklist the troller, or tell them that you'd prefer they not post on your blog anymore.  It's really that simple.  I don't like to tell anyone this, but you're making a mountain out of a molehill. 


I still think you ought to rethink your definition of trolling:


Link


 


 

on May 22, 2004
The alternating between normal and bold text is not all caps, but it's as annoying.

but you're making a mountain out of a molehill


I agree. It seems that it's such a minor thing to make a flaming post about. Don't be a grammarian, man! Link

Sometimes I agree with Draginol or sometimes I disagree. Sometimes it seems that I disagree with him a lot, but I certainly did not make any blogs deriding him like you did. Are you that type that try to "destroy" people that happen to disagree with you on very trifling detail? Such as "You and everything yours is crap because you dislike blue and likes light blue!".

You have to accept that there is always people that disagree with your views.
on May 22, 2004

Darius: Not agreeing with your opinion doesn't make someone a troll. I'm not sure you even know what trolling is.  If I had come on and put you down personally that would be one thing. But my comment was, even with hindsight, right on target: You asked how we can call them barbarians and I gave a pretty good (I thought anyway) example of a barbaric act.

If you want to get right down to it, your article here is a much better example of trolling than anything I've written.

on May 22, 2004

You failed to add anything, while not even bothering to read the entire post! I interpret this as a fundamental act of disrespect. That is no different from name calling. Except that name calling doesn't pretend to be doing something else.

I think this sentence stands out as being pretty representative of your attitude.

Simply put your view seems to be: If one doesn't agree with your views, it's only because they didn't read your whole post. For if they had, surely they would have seen the inherent wisdom in  your words, yes? But if they don't agree with your views, that means they failed to read your entire post which in your mind is the same as going into a personal attack flame fest.

 

on May 22, 2004
Regardless, starting a new blog to address a comment on another blog is childish and vindictive. Have a backbone and address it where it occured, or delete the comment, or give it a trolling. All those you can accomplish without being a crybaby trying to rally people around your banner. If you wanted to stand up for yourself you could have done it where it occured, this is just a way to get other people to prop you up.

I count personal attack threads far more like trolling than Brad expressing his personal feelings as he chose to express them. I think you got a lot less outrage than you deserved, and you couldn't even handle that...
on May 22, 2004
Wow.

Wow.

You said: But my comment was, even with hindsight, right on target: You asked how we can call them barbarians and I gave a pretty good (I thought anyway) example of a barbaric act.

Did you read my above post? Can't you see that wasn't the entirety of my question?

You said: Simply put your view seems to be: If one doesn't agree with your views, it's only because they didn't read your whole post.

Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't disagree with me. What I'm saying is that you didn't read my entire post because your answer doesn't answer the question posed within: Look at that key sentence: "For one, how is one murder so barbaric, when what we have done is just instances of mistreatment?"

If you are going to respond you need to respond to the question posed, not half of the question. I'm not disappointed you disagree with me, just that you didn't bother to respond to the question I posed.
on May 22, 2004

I did read yoru whole post. And I'm not aware of any incidents of Americans cutting off the heads of innocent civilians on TV. Feel free to correct me though.

I'll say it again: You assume that those who disagree with you simply don't read what you write. That's arrogance in its most basic form. I did read your whole article and I found it appalling and outrageous.

But having read this new article, it makes more sense, you have a problem with keeping things in perspective. You don't make distinctions between say cutting off the head of some hapless civilian simply because he was an American and the humiliation/abuse of a handful of Iraqi POWs.  Similarly, you can't make the distinction between someone disagreeing with your position and someone making a vile personal attack.

If you feel that people aren't "getting your meaning" I can only say that perhaps you need to work on your writing skills.  I thought your article was pretty straight forward: "How can we call them barbarians when our guys have done X, Y, and Z."  I simply don't equate X, Y, and Z acts to be anywhere near the same league as cutting the head off some poor guy whose only alleged crime was that he was an American.

To use an analogy, your article is akin to someone say "How can you call a murderer a criminal when you've probably violated the driving speed limit before!" My view was that your argument was incredibly feeble and you seem completely oblivious to the obvious (hence why I put it in caps).

on May 22, 2004
If you feel that people aren't "getting your meaning" I can only say that perhaps you need to work on your writing skills.  I thought your article was pretty straight forward: "How can we call them barbarians when our guys have done X, Y, and Z."  I simply don't equate X, Y, and Z acts to be anywhere near the same league as cutting the head off some poor guy whose only alleged crime was that he was an American.


To use an analogy, your article is akin to someone say "How can you call a murderer a criminal when you've probably violated the driving speed limit before!"


Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I'm at not being sarcastic at all here, that is the kind of response that I would have liked. It actually responds to the point of my article. Can't you see that the above statement was a lot better than yelling about half of the question?
on May 22, 2004

No. Because I did not feel your original article merited a lengthy response because it was, in my opinion, so appallingly weak.

I could just as easily say to you that you failed to read the true meaning behind my original response: That I felt that the distinction between what the US had done and what the "barbarians" do was vast.

I find it incredibly offensive when people write things like "Well sure, they cut the heads off this poor guy on TV but some American gurad took a picture of a dead Iraqi detainee."

I'm sure someone out there could help demonstrate to you the difference between being "punched and kicks" and having your head cut off.

2 Pages1 2