Er... I Spy... no violation?

[Pooky 3,909]

You obviously studied at a very, very progressive high school then. I studied Latin in High School as well, and yes we even studied Catullus, but Carmina 16 was definitely NOT on the curriculum, not just because of the language but because of the sexual acts it discusses. University is a different matter and I never doubted you worked on a translation at University. So,while I find myself astonished that a high school would address that particular poem, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and apologize for my comment.

Thank you for your apology.

Ah, a private apology. The insult was public, I don't see why the apology shouldn't be.

The apology was not private.

Just an FYI.

[Ban Hammer 14,478]

Bullsh*t Charles. You meant it as an insult.

you can't read minds - so don't even try. you don't know me any more than i know you.

And if YOU had posted the poem, it would have been inappropriate because you would have been using it in an inappropriate context. Because that's what your posting history shows, inappropriate posts meant to demean and ridicule. So yeah, coming from you people would have been screaming for your head because you most likely would have been directing it at a female poster who'd dared to get a little too uppity for your tastes.

judge, jury, executioner. i expected no less.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thing is it does beg the question why you posted that link with no explanation. It does rather suggest a deliberate ambiguity.

[Ban Hammer 14,478]

The thing is it does beg the question why you posted that link with no explanation. It does rather suggest a deliberate ambiguity.

that was my mistake, thinking readers would catch on and not need a lengthy explanation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yet everyone who read it and commented arrived at the interpretation that it was baiting. Kathryn said so too and removed it for that reason.

[Ban Hammer 14,478]

Yet everyone who read it and commented arrived at the interpretation that it was baiting. Kathryn said so too and removed it for that reason.

reading just a few posted words when one is biased towards the poster can lead to the wrong conclusions.

[Doris_G 4]

Does the expression "#######-shaming" resonate with anyone else here?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

True. But people not biased against the poster arrived at the same initial conclusion. Your post was removed for that reason.

Obviously only you know the truth, but sometimes these things are quite obvious. Especially if you've had similar experiences with the same person in the past.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[William33 110]

Does the expression "#######-shaming" resonate with anyone else here?

No, not really. Context should have been provided and a correction was made. Let's move on, shall we?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I don't have to read your mind, I just have to read your posting history.

Ah yes, so we're all absolute complete morons and just don't "get" you. Yeah.

Again...your posting history leaves your intent very clear.

Why? Charles seems to think he's done no wrong, which would sort of imply that not only is his apology bogus but that the moderating team made a bad call to remove his post.

It's the moxster!!!

[Ban Hammer 14,478]

I don't have to read your mind, I just have to read your posting history.

Ah yes, so we're all absolute complete morons and just don't "get" you. Yeah.

Again...your posting history leaves your intent very clear.

Why? Charles seems to think he's done no wrong, which would sort of imply that not only is his apology bogus but that the moderating team made a bad call to remove his post.

so you admit being biased towards anything i say. glad to get that out in the open.

as for my post being removed, sure, it's understandable due to the complaints (which wasn't a surprise either). i didn't expect anyone with an ax to grind to get it when it's so much easier to shoot the messenger.

i also get the irony in you vehemently objecting to any attempt by me to perform any moderation action on you, yet you continually complain about anything i do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the clarification was provided in the first place, there wouldn't have been any controversy, which suggests that it was omitted deliberately.

The interpretation of that post in the way it was posted was not clear cut. You didn't need a bias to read it in the way that it was.

[Ban Hammer 14,478]

If the clarification was provided in the first place, there wouldn't have been any controversy, which suggests that it was omitted deliberately.

The interpretation of that post in the way it was posted was not clear cut. You didn't need a bias to read it in the way that it was.

easier to shoot first, and ask questions later, isn't it?

[The_Dude 1,142]

easier to shoot first, and ask questions later, isn't it?

As a deputy moderator and as such a representative of the website, you should take care not to mince your words.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Shoot first? I don't think so.

Benefit of the doubt tends to be given when there is doubt. There wasn't any.