censorship

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, the 'fork' thing was my line, so I don't see why he should get praised for it...though it'll probably end up in his book.....

Apologies aplenty, and most sincerely offered.

It was a kind of false etymology (speaking of which on this forum I find I invariably first spell that word entymology). narffork seemed so much more applicable than spoonem or forkem. Although come to think of it, I can think of times that davork might have characterised certain statements--oh, wait, let's not go down that path, or I shall find that I become one Bathbelly, for having taken a bath on a bellyful of laughs.

Originally Posted by Squatter

[EDIT] I now have 1,912 posts recorded under a picture of a Titanic survivor. I'm tempted never to post again.

pps. Although I did, almost immediately. So much for that idea.

And I'ms sure we are all glad you did, although now I have thoughts of the Spectre of DK somehow related to sporking.

I suggest that as a symbol of our good intentions here we now spell the word "plastic" as "plastick." I bet I can come up with a false historical etymology for that too.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Although come to think of it, I can think of times that davork might have characterised certain statements-

I note that 'vork' is Dutch for fork. Another spooky synchronicity right there....

I was not going to say anything else but now I am irratated, if that's ok and no one is sad or afraid or discouraged by that...I agree with you one hundred percent the reason this issue came up is because I did not do any of those things and the reason for the existence of the constitutional protections you site is to protect individuals from untenible violations, point being who is to decide what is slander and defemation of character. For crying out loud! The moderator needs to be someone who has some good measure of discretion other wise every little good natured yet provacative tit for tat will be treated like criminal slander. Rediculous! But you people are really running it into the ground., My purpose for the topic was so that people could view the comments in question and then decide whether they met the bar but they had already been summarily deleted. UGHHHH! I thought it would be good to develope a more accurate standard of what is fun and competitive, meaning someone has to start the game, nudge nudge, cheap shot, and what is, as you and the other have so succinctly discribed in your lengthy posts as "Slander" and Defamation. Allright allright God forgive me for slandering and intimidated Naciso(can't remeber his name) although I didn't hear any victimized out cry from him. Help me moderator, Help me! This big mennie is gonna get me. Allow the MAN to take me on, and maybe just maybe kick my a..................
We are grown Men here, and we have no duty to retreat.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

, My purpose for the topic was so that people could view the comments in question and then decide whether they met the bar but they had already been summarily deleted.

The point is some of us don't actually care how 'sharp' or 'antagonistic' your responses are - mainly because we could take anything you throw at us, turn it around & send it back at you so hard it would make your eyes water & you'd wish you'd never touched your keyboard - believe me, Narfforc could, I could, & so could many others on this board (Lal, Bb, Boromir, Squatter, & ... I'll stop there because we know who we are )- hence if you're 'censored' its as much for your good as anyone else's.

But other's can't do that & they would be hurt by too sharp a response. Some are even bothered by comments not aimed at them, but simply because they don't want to read them, some want to 'protect' other members - whether they need protecting or not. Its complicated & not a little boring to go into - hence the tendency to divert this thread inot something a bit more entertaining...

[The Might]

Umm...I guess moderators have the right to decide what is ok, and what not, since they were given that right by the Barrow-Wight. And he didn't choose them randomly, the moderators are definitely members who have proven they can handle such situations.
Also, I don't want to sound annoying, but I believe if you are unhappy with certain remarks being deleted by a moderator you should adress them or another member of the moderation team via PM.
I think you should just let it be, and forget that issue.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by davem

The point is some of us don't actually care how 'sharp' or 'antagonistic' your responses are - mainly because we could take anything you throw at us, turn it around & send it back at you so hard it would make your eyes water & you'd wish you'd never touched your keyboard - believe me, Narfforc could, I could, & so could many others on this board (Lal, Bb, Boromir, Squatter, & ... I'll stop there because we know who we are )- hence if you're 'censored' its as much for your good as anyone else's.

But other's can't do that & they would be hurt by too sharp a response.

Whether or not a person is witty has nothing to do with it. Most of us (I believe) just consider flame wars, whether they consist of decent grammar and spelling or not, to be childish and a waste of time, and, perhaps more importantly, a waste of bandwidth.

Let's take the Movies for example. Now because of my own, I guess very unique way of viewing Tolkien I dislike greatly the movies and I, forgive me!, feel a desire to explain why, not just blandly and in narrative style, but lively and personally, and, if I may, just ask that if anyone out thinks that the movies do Tolkien honor, and are good, and if you feel passionately about it, and would like to take me on, I would like the oppertunity to debate you in open forum. God I'm so ashamed!

[The Saucepan Man]

The purpose of the forum rules, to my mind, is primarily to maintain the essential (family friendly) nature of this site: a place for civilised, respectful, friendly and good-humoured discussion and debate, in keeping with the tone of Tolkien's works. That, in my view, is one of this site's greatest strengths. It marks it out from many other sites that I have visited and makes it the sort of place that I enjoy returning to time and time again.

Whether or not someone is bothered by rude, aggressive or insulting behaviour, whether or not they need protecting from it, and whether or not they can "give as good as they get" is not really the issue, as I see it. The fact is that such behaviour is unpleasant and out of keeping with the tone of the site.

In any event, I have never understood why anyone would consider rudeness, personal insults and generally obnoxious behaviour to be a worthwhile endeavour on a site devoted to Tolkien's works. None of these are necessary for, nor indeed, conducive to, constructive, intelligent and witty debate. There's enough unpleasantness in the world (and on other forums) without it needing to be spread around here.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Durelin

Whether or not a person is witty has nothing to do with it. Most of us (I believe) just consider flame wars, whether they consist of decent grammar and spelling or not, to be childish and a waste of time, and, perhaps more importantly, a waste of bandwidth.

No, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about 'flamewars' here - no broadswords are necessary. If you check out Bb's post (no 47) in the 'Pre-baptism' thread you'll see how effective the stilletto can be.....