abacaxi
|
posted on October 6, 2000 09:10:20 PM new
Helen -
Networker67 was skating on thin ice from previous infractions.
|
wgerald
|
posted on October 6, 2000 09:17:46 PM new
pat - I hate to question authority and it is afterall your site to do what you please. But I fail to see any post in this thread that could be interpretted as combative which was posted by networker67. Just addressing today's posts because per your message a warning was issued today. I counted 7 posts by networker67. They were at 9:06am / 1;13pm / 1;39pm / 2:54pm / 3:11pm/ 3:54pm / 4:44pm /. Which one did you find combative since the warning which you spoke of is not in this thread I will assume it is elsewhere on auction watch.
Post one 9:06am - nothing combative there care to tell what you saw as combative or leading to something combative.
Post two 1:13pm - nothing combative there unless asking a user to read a thread before commenting is combative. I don't see where they could be construed as combative.
Post three 1:39pm - A reply to a user that answered a portion of the post from 1:13pm. And a discussion from I suspect was touched upon earlier in the thread. Nothing combative there either.
Post four 2:54 - Asking the user to re-read the thread since obviously the answer was in the thread and since the user has yet to reply again I will suspect they found it on page three of the thread. I guess you guys have the ignore feature but it is combative to tell a user you are going to place them on ignore. I would say that was stretching it a bit.
Post Five 3:11pm - An explanation to another user why the user that asked the same question in which the location of the answer was disclosed. What's combative about that? I suspect this particular user and networker have had problems before. It seems to me networker67 very intelligently and nicely avoided a situation with user. guess this is what you choose to call combative.
Post Six 3:54pm - a three reply post, one reply to a user who created a combative situation by saying networker67 shouldn't have an opinion. The other two replies to questions asked in the thread nothing combative there. Unless explaining why he is entitled to an opinion is IYO combative. If that is the case the poster questioning the ability of networker67 should have been warned also.
Post Seven 4:44pm - hummm a reply to the user with the combative post about networker's right to an opinion on the subject. Seems this user totally ignored the factual information fro the post of 3:54 to the user about listing these items for coming up in a search. Nothing combative there unless you find it combative that a person read a thread before slinging challenges to having opinions. If so that user should have been warned for being combative.
Well I analyzed all seven of networker67's post of today the only combative post I read happe to belong to codasuarus and reddeer. Seems they were combating his ability to have an opinion. Furthermore the most combative thing I read was from reddeer and I will post it below since it also appears to me to also be an insult that you didn't bother to moderate.
I keep searching for the portions of your spiels that involve "intelligent rational discussion" , but for some strange reason I just can't find them? That was posted by reddeer at 5:10pm. Now that was combative and insulting since the entire thread was rational and intelligent except a person who tried to go straight racial and was warned and both codasaurus and reddeer.
Perhaps you meant to suspend user reddeer and confused the two. Or maybe you just found some of networker's historical accurate statements from yesterday a challenege to your personal conceptions about your own heritage. The bottomline is there is nothing combative in any of his posts today in this thread. In fact joyce tried to invent a reason to suspend him by making an obvious false accusation of a threat. Another user caught her on that one and unlike you she was nice enough to ask for clarification first.
I looked at the other threads of day. Seems that suggesting that some people in the on-line community is alien is combative today. I thought it was funny, and I am sure you must agree some of the things in the auction world are very alien. Seems to me pat you invented a combative situation to appease either yourself or user reddeer or user cathammer. As a lurker around these parts I found it strange that a user that was not a part of the thread appears after your moderation with something to say.
So where is the combative nature of a post in this thread. If you like you can email me with what you thought was combative. I suspect I am not the only person to miss it.
|
wgerald
|
posted on October 6, 2000 09:35:45 PM new
HJW - It appears that Pat taylor the moderator thought or thinks something said today in this thread was combative. As you can see I took the time to analyze all of networker67's post and there is nothing that could be combative there.
In fact the moderation of Pat Taylor even loses some of its strength when you consider the sensitive nature of the topic. I guess an African American bringing the facts to such a discussion is more than some are able to accept. It is a shame that AW is taking that position. Reading the whole thread I saw networker as the least combative.
|
pattaylor
|
posted on October 6, 2000 09:46:59 PM new
wgerald,
Your posting privileges have been suspended because it appears your account was created by a suspended member.
Pat Taylor
Moderator
[email protected]
|
mzalez
|
posted on October 6, 2000 09:59:51 PM new
Someone earlier thought the word 'Jew' might be offensive?
I grew up being taught that it was OK to call a Jewish person a Jew. A week or so ago I heard something on the news that the Democrat VP candidate called himself a Jew, and some people were offended by that. I didn't pay much attention.
So what did I miss? What is the latest on that word? I was even taught that Jesus was a Jew, so in my mind it ought to be an OK word.
I sure hope it is because I've got an auction description up right now with Jew in the title.
|
Crystalline_Sliver
|
posted on October 6, 2000 10:11:17 PM new
Old Asian Saying goes:
"You can insult a wall, but you cannot insult a person. A person can hit back."
:\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
|
skyscout
|
posted on October 7, 2000 01:52:31 AM new
Wow you folks have gone crazy with my post I started here. I was really only referring to items pre-1930 that have the stereotypical black representation on them, but no actual slurs printed on them. Not really good taste to just decide that they're "niggers" or "coons" just because it's from 1920 and they have bug eyes and a big grin (the only way they knew to represent them then, it would seem!) Never more than a few examples on at any given time I'd guess. Just makes me wonder about those folks that sell that stuff that way..... I generally avoid it though it is everywhere at (live estate sale) auctions, I bet I could have bought at least 30 ceramic mammies and porters and such in the past 3 months if I'd wanted them. I don't think Ebay should get too much into the censorship biz. They have to be to some extent due to legal concerns about hate groups, I guess.
[ edited by skyscout on Oct 7, 2000 01:53 AM ]
[ edited by skyscout on Oct 7, 2000 01:55 AM ]
|
mseal1
|
posted on October 7, 2000 04:12:23 AM new
Nigger is a word to which some people are overly and/or selectively sensitive. Remember that fellow not too long ago that used the word niggardly (which means stingy) in a board meeting and some of the black board members took offense (I assume because they didn't know what the word meant and didn't take time to find out) and the guy ended up resigning. I hope I don't have any stock in that company through a mutual fund holding if that's the caliber of their board.
Another example is that black people call each other nigger almost as a term of endearment...black entertainers can do so on stage in public...and the black community never seems to take offense. Richard Prior has albums out with the word nigger in the title!! I'm sure they'd be banned if he wasn't black or that the black community would boycott his albums.
To me, this causes the claim that nigger is an offensive term to loose redibility....it's OK for blacks to call each other nigger, but it's a huge problem for anyone else to do so.
I personally do not use the word nigger, but I also believe in free speech. It's just a word.
|
HJW
|
posted on October 7, 2000 05:34:56 AM new
wgerald,
Thank you for your very thoughtful and thorough analysis of networker's posts.
I believe that his viewpoint is needed and
it is very unfortunate that his posting
privilidges were censored by auction watch.
And as you pointed out, there were several
other posters who were really combative and
insulting yet they remain. In my opinion,
Networker showed remarkable restraint in
replying to these posters needling questions
and offensive remarks.
Your remarks are much appreciated!
Helen
|
HJW
|
posted on October 7, 2000 07:11:35 AM new
The infamous bank was just on CNN. Director
Spike Lee is addressing this issue in the
movie "Bamboozled."
Helen
|
HJW
|
posted on October 7, 2000 07:17:51 AM new
The link to the CNN information is,
http://www.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/04/bamboozled/index.html
|
figmente
|
posted on October 7, 2000 07:27:47 AM new
mseal1 - that was an employee of the Washington D.C. government. He was reinstated after a couple of weeks.
|
mzalez
|
posted on October 7, 2000 07:31:33 AM new
The White House reinstated the 'niggardly' man? I guess his firing was all a show to pacify people.
|
mseal1
|
posted on October 7, 2000 08:54:45 AM new
Peachy77 - Your high school teacher makes a very valid point. This trend to lump people into some kind of hypenated-american category has got to be one of the most divisive things that we have allowed to occur. We are all Americans.
I do not use the word African-American. I'll typically use black and if that offends anybody that's their choice to be offended. Using the word African-American is really confusing because there are a good many people originating on the African continent that are not black.
But, if you really want to have fun playing the game and you believe what many archeologist say about human kind starting in Africa, I guess that means we are all African-Americans if you take it to the extreme. I'm white and I've often been temped to try that. I don't think that anyone requires DNA testing to support your claim of race or ethnic background.
|
mseal1
|
posted on October 7, 2000 09:08:06 AM new
figmente - I stand corrected. Government employee or board member, the point is the same. The people who took offense to the use of the word niggardly are overly sensitive and don't want to be confused by the facts (by looking up the word in the dictionary to see what it means).
Thanks for point out my error.
|
figmente
|
posted on October 7, 2000 01:25:11 PM new
City government, not federal.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on October 9, 2000 07:35:56 PM new
Hello JeanYu,
You asked...
"But I beg to differ--what is accurately describe? And can an item be accurately described without racial slander? I think so."
If an object has the title "Jolly Nigger" inscribed on it (such as the mechanical bank mentioned in some of the posts here) then I would consider an accurate description of that item to, of necessity, include that title. The title is a simple matter of fact.
My question to Networker67 came about because his posts seemed to be saying that it was perfectly acceptable to sell such an item but it was not acceptable to use the title of the item in the auction title (but it was acceptable to place the title of the item in the auction description). See Networker67's post dated October 4, 2000 07:23:24 PM on page two.
If using "Jolly Nigger" in the title is unacceptable then why is using it in the description permissable? Indeed, if the mere mention of the item's title is to be construed as a racial pejorative then why should the item even be legal to sell? If eBay bans firearm auctions because of the undue violence brought about (in part) by firearms then why not ban everything that could conceivably result in violence? Racial prejudice is intellectual violence of the worst sort, only equalled in the misery it causes by the sexual violence due in part to pornography.
Are we to believe that anyone who sells such a bank and uses "Jolly Nigger" in the title of the auction is de facto a racist?
And are we to believe Networker67's post dated October 4, 2000 11:47:51 AM on page 1:
"The N word is only offensive if a person other than another African-American uses it to describe something or someone that is African-American."
What if one Black person calls another Black person "Nigger" in order to insult the other person? Because both are Black, it is permissible to use the word in the pejorative sense?
Who decides what is permissible? The person using the word? Or the person that the word is applied to? Or a third party?
What if someone were to call you "Nigger"? Or "Spic"? Or "Kike"? Or "Nazi"? Or "Chink"? You don't have the right to be offended by such pejoratives for the simple reason that you and the person insulting you are of the same ethnic group or political persuasion?
I believe most folks know when a word is meant as an insult. And using the words "Jolly Nigger Bank" in the title of an auction for a "Jolly Nigger Bank" could hardly be considered an insult. Who is the seller insulting?
|
