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

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Maven's anecdote was not imparted in confidence and was intended for people's amusement (and, for its duration, I think it succeeded). The content was racy, certainly, but I've seen many, many posts on VJ considerably more explicit than that, which no one seemed to react to.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I didn't miss it, on the evidence of the example you used, I don't buy it. It simply doesn't say what you want it to.

[mox 298]

Actually, you should read the link. You will find out Charles was doing nothing of the kind - merely adding additional information that he thought useful to the discussion, although it came across as an inappropriate comment.

Come on Kathryn, few of us here are stupid enough to believe that. Charles doesn't "merely add additional information he [thinks] useful to the discussion." You can sell a lot of shite here on VJ, but nobody's buying that particular load.

Thank you for your apology.

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

I would just like to remind everyone what Visa Journey's purpose is:

Would love to know how the completely tolerated racism and misogyny fits into VJ's "purpose." None of it is friendly or helpful, but it sure as hell is tolerated.

if anyone interpreted my posting of that link to be that maven was a "ho" that was not the intent, nor did i say that about her. it was only to show an inconsistency in what is and isn't accepted based on who posted it.

if i, for example, has posted that poem that maven had posted, how many would have been screaming for my head? i'd be willing to bet it would include quite a few of those defending her posting it.

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

[Pooky 3,828]

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.

[mox 298]

The apology was not private.

Just an FYI.

Ah. I missed it. I retract the comment.

[Ban Hammer 13,519]

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 13,519]

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 13,519]

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?

[mox 298]

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

judge, jury, executioner. i expected no less.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[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!!!