Admin please deal with mr CC

    • Gold Top Dog

    Admin please deal with mr CC

    Who is openly dissing our moderation AGAIN in this post he "ran by me first"...I am sorry but this isn't running by me first this is veiled whining and I am tired of it.

    Cita should be spoken to and possibly edited...I will do that...But I am NOT dealing with this wank.

    "

    Please advise

    I guess I should run this post past you for a second opinion.  When I mention trying to be tactful, what I mean to say is the world doesn't center around 'Cita', but that would be mean I guess.  What do you think of this post if you don't mind offering an opinion?  If it is no good how can I clean it up? Thanks.  Sincerely, Charlie

    This is what I would like to post:

     Cita:
    Are you actually insinuating that my close friend is a terrorist who spikes trees?? So wanting to improve local air quality by planting trees in public parks and parking lots not only makes you a "tree-hugger" but a terrorist?

    As for making sweeping, stereotypical, insulting, ignorant statements about a city you not only haven't visited, but would never visit... well, I think it says a lot more about the person making the statement than it does about the city itself. That's about as nicely as I can put it.

    BTW, it's "adamantly opposed" - "animately opposed" doesn't make sense, unless you're talking about giving life to your opposition.

    I'm sorry to have run OT so much, I'm bowing out of this thread because I don't know if I can bite my tongue much longer.

    CC, some of the things you have said are extremely insulting, and if you didn't intend them to be I suggest you attempt to rephrase your ideas

     

     

    Thank you for the spelling correction, however, the word I was thinking of which I did spell wrong was "animatedly" opposed as in vigorously or energetically opposed.

    Now, I do feel you owe me an apology.  Not that am expecting one, not that I think anyone here would come to my defense in regards to 'moderation', but you did in essence call me ignorant.  That is not necessary and if I had said something like that I'm sure it would be "strike-two".  You see, I just picked up strike-one for merely mentioning someone is not open to diverse ideas in a nutrition thread, construed as  "personal attack".  I consider your comment a "personal attack".  No one needs the name calling.  Also, I feel you crossed the line with the following: "I suggest you attempt to rephrase your ideas".   You should never attempt tell other people what they should think your say merely because you disagree with their thoughts.  Does that make any sense?  In other words (trying to be very tactful here) everything doesn't have to be to one individuals liking.  You don't like what I have to say, but it's OK,  I don't have to speak in a manner to please anyone....follow?  Now, IMO, this can be seen as a perfect example of why many folks take exception to liberal agenda.   If it doesn't go their way, they get upset.  If something is not said to their liking, a personal insult.  You are attempting to tell me how should speak and think... please don't.

    CC"

    • Gold Top Dog

    I removed the phrase where she correct's CC because that's rude. The rest I left pending Admin review...and I sent the below PM to Cita. She does NOT, imo call CC ignorant...but does say his statements and stereotyping are ignorant.

    "Cita...

    The phrase correcting CC was removed. We need to not resort to correcting one another's English...not everyone here is a great speller/writer and we can all glean meaning well enough.

    The rest of your post is staying pending Admin review but I do see you voicing your opinions, which is fine. Just be careful so as to not go too far and be trapped into trouble by certain users deliberate button pushing. K?

    Thanks,

    Gina H.

    Moderator"

    • Gold Top Dog

    OK, I needed to speak to him anyway re: a PM he sent to Lani, so I'll write to him.  Just making some tea first.


     

    • Gold Top Dog

    Cita's response to me...she may need a note too...but I am mainly posting this so you can see her request that the WHOLE thread be looked at, not just her post.

    "Re: Berkley thread

    You are certainly entitled to edit as you see fit, of course, but please if you or anyone else is considering "reviewing" the post in which I "voice my opinions," please also consider reviewing CC's post(s) as well. If correcting someone's word usage is considered too rude for forum guidelines, then in my personal opinion referring to a group of students as "too stupid and whacked on so many drugs to think of ideas on their own" and receiving help from terrorist organizations to "promote socialist agenda and hatred for America" would also be considered too rude for forum guidelines. I don't really understand why you would say that the rest of the post is staying "but" there is concern I'm voicing my opinions - if the issue is personal attacks, or inappropriate language, or something equally against the TOS, feel free to edit it or ask me to edit it. I'm just feeling like there's not a very clear standard being maintained here - I wouldn't mind some clarification as to what is going "too far" versus not.

    I'm not sure where the current forum guidelines are kept, so I'm not sure if sweeping insults are acceptable if they are targeted at a group instead of an individual, though I would hope not - maybe I was out of line, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. The two aren't necessarily related. But if there is some sort of a review of the thread, I hope I would not be the only subject of scrutiny.

    Sorry if I'm coming across as snarky - I'm not intending to, I know you're just doing your "job," I'm just perturbed. I'm sure you're not floating in an innertube with a margarita in hand, either, so again apologies for any sharpness I might not have avoided well enough.

    Thanks,

    Courtney 

    P.S. If anything I was "baiting" not not being "rude" Stick out tongue

    P.P.S. It might not hurt to make posting rules more easily accessible - if I'm having trouble finding the content guidelines (other than movie disclaimers, etc.) I'm sure others are as well.

    • Gold Top Dog

     Been busy, hadn't read the thread yet...off to do that now.