|
Post by mysteria on May 15, 2004 14:59:26 GMT
Interesting how you resort to threats when someone dare speak against you. There again, what else did I expect.
"And don't be daft."??
I certainly hope you never become a politician, HStorm, really really hope not with an attitude like that! You may actually make them look GOOD!
|
|
|
Post by TheAntiThatcher on May 15, 2004 16:57:33 GMT
Actually, HStorm would make a VERY good politician, and I'm not just saying that because he's my boyfriend.
But it DOES insult me the way you talk back to him - give it a rest, will you!
I thank you.
|
|
|
Post by mysteria on May 15, 2004 16:59:11 GMT
Talk back to him? A teacher once told me that, as if I had no right to ANSWER BACK!
Evidently people consider themselves members of the elite in here.
Am just not going to bother with him.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 15, 2004 18:13:14 GMT
Well if this is your attitude in a political discussion forum then how can you justify your presence? "Firstly, don't refer to my reply as having problems, it makes you out to sound like a patronsing pig. Just come out with something more appropiate like 'I strongly disagree.'" As HStorm said it means exactly the same thing, and there are some 'problems' with your points, which HStorm then stated politely, in a true political discussion you must accept other points without being so rude. There is absolutely no need to take such a snobby, high horse attitude. "Evidently people consider themselves members of the elite in here.
Am just not going to bother with him. " This is not the right attitude, HStorm has done nothing wrong and I'm afraid with this attitude YOU will be the one who gets into trouble being so damned unkind to other members, you are welome to share your views and others are allowed to disagree so please calm down.
Take some time to think things through and type your next post with a better attitude. Also before I get spoonfed some insults about my mental capacity please remember I am an admin here and continuing this attitude WILL result in a warning at the least, lets be a little les rotten, yes?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 15, 2004 18:22:56 GMT
Mysteria, you are clearly not paying a blind bit of notice to what anyone says to you, which will win you very little respect. Not just from me but from all the members here. In just a few posts on this board you have given the impression of being obnoxious, arrogant, narrow-minded, self-important, rude and fearful of being proven wrong. Your words have also had a very patronising edge again (wasn't that what you were accusing me of a few posts ago, Mysteria?) and have been more than a little presumptious.
Let me set you straight on a few things,,,
When did I threaten you? I never did. What did I threaten you with? Nothing. I did not threaten you, I have not threatened you, I will not threaten you. Partly because that is unworthy behaviour, but mainly because discussion is not worth the bother of being threatening over. When I told you not to dare accuse me of being patronising, I was in fact pointing out that the hypocrisy of your accusations made you look a great deal less than intelligent. (I also remind you of the "is your brain in gear?" insult you threw at me - this complaint about threats is a bit hollow coming from you isn't it?)
No I do not consider myself a member of the "elite". What exactly is this "elite" you're referring to? Do you consider anyone who refuses just to agree with your opinions to be an elitist then?
I also notice that you haven't bothered responding to any of my points about the topic itself now that I've clarified my meanings. Is this tidal wave of accusation your way of trying to draw attention from the fact that I have successfully out-witted you and your control-of-expression opinions?
You have the right to answer back, sure, and indeed we encourage it. But what we will not stand for on this forum is persistent rudeness, and THAT is what Julia and I were objecting to - not the fact that you answered back, but the manner in which you did so. Once again, you failed to pay attention to what was said to you, assumed things that were not, and became abusive. By any standards that is unacceptable.
Furthermore your attempts to foist the blame onto me for your poor manners and even poorer temper by accusing me of being patronising and threatening have only served to show that you are also very easily riled.
As for whether or not I'd make a good politician, I don't remember saying I wanted to be one anyway, but how in heaven's name you think that YOU'D know my capabilities is quite beyond me. You've never met me you know, so what could you possibly know about me that I don't?
And I'm afraid you'll find that I'm the global mod on this forum, so whether or not you want to "bother with" me is a moot point. As long as you choose to take part in the forum's activities, you'll just have to "bother" because I'm not going to go away just to suit you.
The bottom line, Mysteria, is having disagreed with you I backed up my position by discussing the FACTS, calmly and methodically answering your points with what I know to be true and the conclusions I've drawn from these things. Your response was to take offence at being argued with, to throw accusations around, to get patronising and insulting, and fail to pay adequate attention to what people were actually saying to you.
I suggest you take a while to cool off, think about what I'm saying, and then come back and talk. I'm quite willing to have many an open and honest discussion with you about current affairs, and no matter how heated or impassioned our views may be, or how vastly they may differ, I don't see any reason for personal animosity. So I ask you to control your temper a little more in future please. You're still more than welcome on this forum, but please show more respect to others.
Hand-shake?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 16, 2004 7:54:11 GMT
Yes, well said HStorm. I hope that 'mysteria' will be good enough to accept your handshake.
|
|
|
Post by mysteria on May 16, 2004 15:34:01 GMT
It is clear to me that there are some nice people on here, and although I may have lost my temper a bit, they were brought out by ONE person, HStorm, who seems to think his word is final on all matters, as does his other half! He is the one reason why I will have to leave, no doubt he does similar things where he goes
With such militant posts I can only imagine that if anyone dare oppose H-Storms opinion, they will quickly be thrown off seeing as he is a a 'Global Moderator'. Therefore there is not much chance for me is there??
So HStorm you may remove my account, I imagine you'll take great pleasure in that won't you?
GOODBYE!
|
|
|
Post by TheAntiThatcher on May 16, 2004 15:41:27 GMT
You're the militant one - not HStorm. You didn't listen to anyone except yourself when you were here, making you extremely narrow-minded. YOU were the one who insisted they were right and didn't take any other ideas into account.
Goodbye - and don't take too long leaving, will you.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 16, 2004 16:03:20 GMT
Mysteria, don't be so bloody childish. Once again you paid absolutely no attention to what I said. I never said I was going to remove your account for disagreeing with me - I actually offered you a handshake and made it clear that you're welcome to keep posting here as long as you show more respect other people's opinions.
Still, I'm not surprised you didn't notice that I said that as you obviously can't read. By the way it was Rob who said that you might get into trouble - for persistent rudeness, and he's damn right.
If you think that throwing tantrums like this is going to win you any sympathy from people you're gravely mistaken. If you leave the forum now that will be YOUR choice entirely. But remember, YOU are the one who lost their temper, YOU are the one who resorted to patronising and childish name-calling, and YOU are the one who refuses to pay attention when people try to reason with you. So no one is going to miss you.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 16, 2004 19:15:05 GMT
Ironic really, HStorm attempts a make up and you say he is attempting to throw you off whilst ignoring a formal administrator warning, HStorm is very correct when he says no one will take your side with your current attitude as he said
You clearly don't take the time and effort to read other peoples posts yet consider yourself in the position to insult, offend and act like a moody child when people attempt to engage in discussions with you, i'm afraid if you will keep this attitude there is little point you being here however no one is forcing you off, HStorm will not do anything to you as a Gmod and if he were to (which I know for a fact he would not) then he would be punished for doing so. You seemed determined to play the victim to the point where you will leave for no reason, if you insist on doing this no one will stop you but with this attidude you won't be missed...
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 17, 2004 10:28:07 GMT
Mysteria, firstly I would like to point out that as GMOD, HStorm only has the power to ban people, not delete member accounts like administrators. Even if HStorm banned you he would have to justify it to an administrator on a forum this size. That would also mean I would get to hear about it. If you were unjustly banned something would be done to reverse it, and if the reason was insane HStorm would either be demoted or given a severe warning. If you were banned by HStorm it would be justified considering your disturbing attitude on this topic.
The management has discussed this matter and have decided to revoke your membership (in other words, you are to be deleted). You may re-register and post if you undergo a distinct attitude change for the better.
Until then, (in the words of Nineteen Eighty Four), Mysteria was never an existent identity on this forum and shall never be referred to with the exception of the two minutes of hate.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 17, 2004 10:54:55 GMT
Excellent, at last this matter is sorted. I would like to welcome Mysteria should she wish to join with a better attitude, however I say good riddance to the rotten attitude whining victim attitude. Now let the topic go back onto course, ladies and gents anymore political correctess comments?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 27, 2004 16:53:40 GMT
Yes, I do have something to say on the subject that might interest viewers:
I have read recently of two political correctness incidents that have caused problems (like they always do).
The first is that is has emerged that judges have been banned from saying innocent words that apparently might offend someone. These words include:
Asian: Should not be used by judges as it is a 'term of convenience'. (*Someone please explain this*)
Asylum Seeker: 'Almost pejorative'.
British: Use only to 'include all in our multi-ethnic, multicultural society'. (*multiculturalism doesn't work*)
Businessman: *Implies an evaluation of the sexes'.
Common Sense (*what PC lacks*): 'Becomes problematical when there are parties from differing cultural backgrounds with their differing world views'. (*Common sense is existant, and is simply a shared sensibility between people. It is used to make sensible decisions, unlike PC*)
Evening: The notion of time can be relative. Evening can mean something completely different to a Scottish person and a Spanish person'. (*what the f**k? What a load of bullshit*)
Handicapped: 'Insulting' (*There is nothing whatsoever insulting about the term 'handicapped'. It is nothing more than the truth, and is not used with intention to offend. Indeed, those who take offence to it must be mentally handicapped to take offence to such an innocent term!*)
Immigrants: 'Highly innacurate given the time the majority have been settled in the UK. The term is exclusionary and is liable to offend'. (*There is nothing whatsoever insulting about the term 'immigrant'. It is an innocent reference to foreigners who are miving into the country*)
Normal: To be avoided as a comparison with the handicapped. (*There is a definition of 'normal', as average. There is nothing offensive about it*)
Man and Wife: See businessman.
Wheelchair bound: Use 'wheelchair' user. (*Nothing offensive about the truth here either*)
These innocent references have been banned by those who have got it in their head that they are in some way offensive. The reasons given are pathetic excuses, as I am sure you will agree with me.
The second case is to do with 'racial sensitivity'. The situation has arisen because there is a criminal who originates from the Carribean area who is guilty of more than 80 assaults on pensioners. Through some revolutionary DNA technology that I am unable to explain, the forensics are able to identify him. The only thing required are volunteers who originated from the Carribean area.
50 ordinary black policeman volunteered to give DNA samples to catch this criminal. Some hindering PC authority heard about it, and complained on the grounds of race sensitivity. Now the case has ground to a halt and the attacker is still on the loose.
PC is responsible for the freedom of someone guilty of horrific assaults.
Please post any thoughts and comments you have had on reading these examples.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 28, 2004 6:43:43 GMT
If those terms have truely been banned on the grounds you state then political correctness had reached a new level of insanity. May I ask the source of this information?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 28, 2004 12:34:44 GMT
You may. The original story I read in the Daily Mail, but it has been mentioned in other newspapers.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 28, 2004 16:51:24 GMT
Wouldn't trust the mail to report it correctly but still, if it's been in many papers it might be slightly correct.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 28, 2004 18:45:02 GMT
However radical papers are they can't lie. If any recognised newspaper says that judges have been banned from saying certain words they will have been banned. If a newspaper lies they get sued.
All newspapers can do is give their views on the matter, only choose to mention the facts that benefit their argument, and bend the truth through interpretation so it cannot be classed as lies.
The truth is, and has been corroberated by different papers, that judges have been banned from saying innocent words by a politically correct elite who have got it in their heads that people will be offended by these words. Does else anyone have any views on this topic?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 1, 2004 12:31:40 GMT
New development, children are being refused spaces in some nurseries if they are; white, speak English and/or have a garden. Meaning ethnic minorities and even illegal immagrents have a higher chance to get places in the nurseries, I for one am appalled at the whole concept, what do the rest of you think?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 1, 2004 19:21:37 GMT
PC too far. A fine example of how it is now oppressive. It fights against Brits under the guise that it is promoting equality. It is actually promoting inequality.
Just to set out some of my points again, PC fights against the ordinary British taxpayer. Take the case study that brought out the issue:
The mother of this child is an example of the taxpayer who goes to work and pays his taxes. He is effectively working to benefit the country.
PC does not want to reward this hard-working taxpayer. Instead, they want to favour undeserved illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, who have contributed NOTHING to our country.
PC is a disgusting majority-opressive disease.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 21, 2004 8:17:31 GMT
Also, an advert in a job paper was not allowed to add the words 'hard-working' as this was apparently discriminating against lazy people! Now surely this is beyond the pale, laziness is a negative quality in people and surely jobs have the right to request people who are going to work hard!
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 21, 2004 9:18:46 GMT
Banning discrimination against lazy people propels PC still further into madness. There is NO justification whatsoever for PC at that level.
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Jul 21, 2004 9:19:05 GMT
I Have no idea whether any of this has allredy been addressed, but: When i was filling out an application form for college last week, i was shocked to see the following things;
In the 'Racial Diversity Monitoring' (Bullshit) section, it asked your racial background. The sections were somthing like 'Black' 'Asian' 'Mixed' And 'Other'. Guess what! 'White British' was pigeon holed into other! OTHER!!! Those PC bastards have made us third rate peoples in our own country.
As if to add insult to injury, after that there is a WHOLE page devoted to the origins of the applicant. it explores ever single concievable place of origin, except for britain! Only after a quick search, it was revealed that there was a small tick box at the bottom declaring 'i was born in britain and have lived here for the last three years'. I am supprised that it did not say; 'I am very sorry that i was born in britain. Becasue of this i will now bin this application form (unless i am disabled, becasue in this case i get instant prefferal treatment) and go and take my own life for i no longer have a place in my own country'
I would not be at all be supprised if it one day comes to that. Then, the revoloution shall begin.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jul 23, 2004 11:42:58 GMT
I can't help but wonder how many of you know these little gems that PC has given employment law:
At least 3% of staff in any company above a certain size (I think it's 50 employyes) should be classed as disabled
A further 3% should be classed as belonging to an ethnic minoirty.
There is NO corresponding law to say at least 3% should belong to an ethnic MAJORITY.
That means that, while you could theoretically have a company where every employee is disabled, or asian, or both, it is not possible to have every member of staff white or able-bodied. Is that not polical correctness to such an extent as it becomes un-PC?
Also, those of you with an interest in Political Correctness sould read Rob Grant's Incompetnce. It's a fine send-up of the entire system.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 23, 2004 19:44:44 GMT
I would appear to me that it has, also I have been meaning to get hold of Incompetance after I read an interview with Rob Grant about it.
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Jul 26, 2004 8:15:30 GMT
Is this 'Incompetence' A book? If so i will borrow it from the library
|
|