RK77

What are you supposed to be----his personal body guard??

Only a handful of people here have EVER been accused of being racist---two of whom have been me and al saaad and neither of us are whining or running to other boards pissing and moaning about it.

The label has not STUCK with most---BUT those who the label have stuck to have worked VERY HARD to earn it!

Your response DRS has made me curious---would you think it appropriate to HIDE racists? Would the administration here (admin and mods) want to be the BEARD for these folks?

Eric posts when he does not agree. So have you. But beyond that is CosmicCracker HONESTLY suggesting that you MUST enable racism or be bitched at about it??

Isn't that EXACTLY how the KKK and other racists made Jim Crow work??? They harassed decent white people for NOT hiding their racism and hate crimes???

Isn't CosmicCracker basically INSISTING that you are being a good white guy and siding with him because he is white and ENTITLED to your special protection?

I don't see you defending any of the black posters around here from the HEINOUS remarks that we are exposed to either. But don't worry----I don't think any of us feel we NEED a mommy. We've got this!

Being "pissed" --- if that is what you are ---which I think mischaracterizes your tone---about someone carrying pissing matches from this board to another board is has NOTHING whatsoever to do with a wise administrative position to let adults handle themselves.

It gets into a MYRIAD of legal issues that I am certain Eric has no reason or desire to be dragged into. I am frankly surprised that the other boards admin has not banned someone doing that on their board (as most admins do to nip the legal risks in the bud). As I pointed out previously--RT and Bill Maher Boards PERMANENTLY banned the idiot who tried it with them.

What CosmicCracker is complaining about---as he has been for weeks now---is your not being as INTOLERANT as he feels you should be.

He should be glad he has a tolerant admin (lots of boards ban racists for making racist remarks on their boards) ---but if he WANTS intolerance start by being intolerant of HIM---his snarky posts, his whiney posts, and his racist posts! Let him learn a pot--kettle lesson first hand!

The FACT that he is telling you that he has a psychological instability that has him so paranoid that he consumes himself with going from thread to thread looking for stuff about him should be a warning sign!!

RK77

I agree! Although, for example I can't see the WHOLE conversation here---just what is quoted---which is enough.

Thing is ----the biggest whiners on the board want someone ELSE to make ewee ting better por itty bitty them!

They are jumping on a grown man for NOT playing mommy for them and stopping us mean ole Obama supporters from bashing Hillary or identifying their racist remarks!

Apparently one of them has gotten so desparate that he went to Rumbleville and whined there about it! ---The definition of PUNK----if you ask me!!

DanS.

My take...any accusations of racism by anybody are only the interpretation of their posts...unless somebody comes out and says "I am a racist" it is only a guess...with shades of credibility...just like any other label attached to people...

For instance...many times I've been accused of being a "neo-con"...does it make it true? No...that's just the conclusion that people came to based on my posts...I would like to think I'm not....but there are some who disagree

So it would probably be more accurate to say that thier posts sound racists or whatever...

but what you gonna do....

__________________
Second Verse, Same as the First

ImusWallower

umm there are 2 posters identifiable as racist to any literate person

__________________
"I would have to say Cooper would cost less than Clooney

Cooper looks more feminine and he doesn't seem like he would be an asshole about it." Dan S referring to whom he would go gay for

DanS.

Yes...I know who you are talking about....but they are not who we are discussing here...

__________________
Second Verse, Same as the First

ImusWallower

this is what happens when i only read the last post

__________________
"I would have to say Cooper would cost less than Clooney

Cooper looks more feminine and he doesn't seem like he would be an asshole about it." Dan S referring to whom he would go gay for

RK77

So----wouldn't it be on the individual who generated the posts to make an argument to refute the interpretation---not the mods??

What are they expecting YOU to do about someone interpreting THEIR words in a fashion that THEY disagree with??

I am sincerely not even following the logic.

As for the ---moving to other boards to talk about posters from here---maybe you guys should consult a lawyer. If is was me----I could give a shit---but others may get upset.

Lots of legal issues for both admins I guess.

DanS.

I don't think that there is any legal issues involved...

I take it you are referring to slander or libel? Those only apply when a declarative statement is made that is supposedly based on fact that the person knows to be untrue....but if it is a statement of opinion then no action can take place...or if the person did not know the statement was untrue....also there has to be measurable damage as well....

For instance...let's say that somebody made a statement(written or verbal) that my business knowingly sells cars that do not meet safety requirements....and that because of that statement I lose business and could prove so...then I would have a case....but if somebody said that my business sold crappy cars....nothing could happen...because that is a statement of opinion....

__________________
Second Verse, Same as the First

RK77

No---there are three posters who have repeatedly made assertions that have been ARGUED to be racist. They have been both been consistently unable to illustrate how their posts are NOT racist.

AND----they have been woefully unable to learn to STOP making posts that could be viewed as racist.

Now they think someone ELSE should DEFEND them!

RK77

I don't know for sure----

When I reviewed the cases their seemed to be issues about harassment and "trolling" all mushed in with slander and libel. I have NO idea what the actual arguments are. Or how courts are ruling.

I do know that the women whose case is pending are making the ARGUMENT (not ruled on as far as I know) that the admins of several different sites were INTENTIONALLY providing a forum in which they could be harassed or maligned or something.

I presume that "intentionally" means they formally complained to the admins and it didn't stop.

BUT---I do recall that the issue of the TRANS SITE was bigger than what was said on the main site.

Malicious misattibution---can be considered slander or libel---so for example: if you wear green every day because it is your favorite color--- and someone goes around telling people that you do it because you believe you are a leprachan---that can be a case of libel or slander also.

Or <huge grin> I could sue you for saying that I give patients more time because they are rich!

The issues of there being some "damage" is becoming sort of fluid one with the internet.

The reason is that the anonimity is relative. It would not be a safe or wise bet for an administrator to make that a good percentage of their posters don't know one anothers real life identities. For example a good many of us know who Eman is and could damage his professional reputation should we desire to---merely by sending his posts to the right place.

This HAS occured---apparently with the mayor of some small town who sued an internet site.

(I would have to surf it and find it again)

As I said----I don't really care what the loon says ---- but there are others who may.