Quote from dgabriel:
I believe that an impartial review of the thread here will reveal that you first resorted to churlish, puerile sarcasm as a response to my initial posts. I then felt justified in negatively commenting on your intelligence. It appears I am not alone in this assessment.
You began an incendiary thread and you failed to properly manage your own emotions during the life of the thread. You initiated attack with offensive sarcasm and upon receiving it in turn, you feel the need to whine to the management in the hopes of eliminating an ET member with whom you disagree. It is not so odd that your target has accused you of fascism, a social order under which no dissent is tolerated.
Perhaps it's time to move on Hapaboy. Or return to the debate at hand with politeness and respect.
Let's do that then. Let's review the thread. You were the first to inject sarcasm with the following:
Quote from dgabriel:
Shoot the drug dealer. Wow, inventive solution. Does that include your 16 year old nephew who dealt a couple of joints to his freinds?
And let's be realistic. Sarcasm by itself does not bother me in the least. But YOU were the first to employ it. My response:
Quote from hapaboy:
There would of course be amounts that would be enough to label one a dealer. A couple of joints of marijuana won't be enough. I'm talking about the big fish - the cartel boys overseas down to the distributors in the major cities.
Hardly sarcastic, wouldn't you agree? I merely answered your sarcasm with a straight answer!
YOUR next post then escalated things when YOUR emotions got the better of you:
Quote from dgabriel:
I think you have a visceral hatred of the classic "pusherman" and you are trying to build policy around it. You make no sense at all to me.
Then you threw in the beef, dairy, and egg industries out of the blue, which definitely did not aid in keeping this thread on track at all! Before I could respond, Fluidity made his first post on the thread in a very civil manner:
Quote from Fluidity:
Hapaboy you are a fucking idiot...
This mentality is as much to blame for the current drug epidemic as the dealers themselves...
You are living in a state of illusion! WAKE UP!
My response to Fluidity DID NOT incorporate profanity, which, given his attack, I had every right to do so. Sarcasm yes, but not profanity. And did you caution Fluidity? No? Why? Because you're not responsible for the thread? That's a sorry excuse. As a moderator aren't you supposed to monitor profanity, regardless? And my response to your last post asked questions about cheaper drugs leading to more crime. I did, to be fair, respond to your throwing in the beef, dairy, and egg industries with some sarcasm:
Quote from hapaboy:
Good grief, here we go again. Let's extend this proposal out to everything that is bad for us! Yeah, you're on the right mark - I eat too many eggs. I now advocate killing all the poultry farmers. Are you really a moderator?
I think my moderator comment is what pissed you off, I could be wrong. I then said that I do have a visceral hatred for drug dealers, and asked "Don't you?" To which you responded in your next post with:
Quote from dgabriel:
Only a mild dislike, unless they step on their stuff too much.
So here you go tit-for-tat with the sarcasm. Then you threw this in for good measure:
Quote from dgabriel:
I don't care if you hate drug dealers, I really don't.
Fine. Then you shouldn't have taken offense when I responded "I don't care....I really don't" to your points in my next post. I then suspect you got riled up because freealways and daniel_m disagreed with you and posted as such. Anyway, your next comment to me was the following, which I think anyone can see is a case of YOU not being able to properly manage your emotions:
Quote from dgabriel:
That's some deep thinking there Hap-a-boy. You cannot think of anything (and this I believe, I really really do) so why not kill some people to fix the problem.
We now have an advanced model for a maturing society. Come and collect your Nobel.
Thus you ridiculed my username with sexual innuendo of the worst kind, child perversity, which really shows the level you can sink to. And you totally disregarded the questions I asked about legalization in-between our exchanges, questions I posed with the utmost civility and genuine interest in a response. As you clearly had lost it and insulted me in such a childish manner, our next posts degenerated into tit-for-tat exchanges of sarcasm and offensive commentary, which I won't detail here.
Clearly, dgabriel, you lost control of your emotions at an earlier stage then I did, and threw sarcasm in first. Yes, we're both guilty of it, but for you to say I'm completely at fault with a false claim that I initiated it and for you to try and act as innocent as a virgin is completely absurd.
And if your comment above about you "not being alone in this assessment" includes Fluidity, well, it just proves not only how biased you are but that you are quite willing to accept profanity in personal attacks as long as the swearer has the same point of view that you have. A review of the posts will also reveal that Fluidity again attacked me with profanity and I NEVER used it back at him.
And FYI, I have tried to bring this thread back on track "with politeness and respect" but Fluidity keeps jumping in from left field and derails it. But I suppose that's okay, along with his profanity, because you share his point of view.
As far as "whine to the management" I am merely bringing up the Terms of Service that exist for this site! Or do you consider those terms of service worthless and anyone who refers to them as whiners? Don't bother to answer - it's obvious the answer is "yes" to both queries. You're like France at the UN, complaining when the US points to Resolution 1441. In effect, your view is "yeah, we've got these rules, but enforce them! Ha!"
Furthermore, I have not advocated "eliminating" Fluidity! Good grief, but you are ever so good at jumping to conclusions and putting words in people's mouths! I have advocated discipline of some kind, possibly suspension. At least a
WARNING for chrissakes! The Terms of Service clearly prohibit abusive and obscene language. But I guess that only is enforced whether or not the abuser is in agreement with the moderator at the time or not, if at all.
Anyone who takes an "impartial review of this thread" will note that there was a very civil and informational exchange with RS7 and bungrider throughout all of this, a very cordial discussion that stayed on topic and elicited good questions from both sides of the drug debate. It's too bad your escalating tactics and Fluidity's aggressive, profane-laced, and un-censored attacks had to basically ruin the thread.
If this quote from a moderator about a moderator's function is accurate
Quote from inandlong:
Our purpose mainly is to keep threads on topic, delete excessive vulgarity and profanity, and prevent spam.
then, dgabriel, you only score 1 out of 3. I'm sure you're extremely effective at preventing Spam.
