Gentlemen,
(minus Chris, who asked to be taken off the list),

I agree that there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the discussion.  I have tried to convey that no malicious intent was involved, but I've been quite unsuccessful.  And I've heard enough insults directed at me to quite fill my quota.

It's been educational.

Best regards,
Charles

Richard Neal <richard@[email domain]> wrote:

Charles,

 

You had been warned of the inappropriate words for popsyndicate. Now you libel me with your hate epitaph? You do not know me nor does jflan so you try and validate your point by bringing a fowl racial slur into the dialogue.

 

This is not a discussion. We're done here.

 

richard@[email domain]

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [Charles's email addr]

To: Stefan Halley

Cc: chris@[email domain] ; richard@[email domain] ; CBQ Steve ; CBQ Eric

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:25 PM

Subject: Re: A forum banning problem

Stefan,

Begging your pardon, but I think your interpretation of my AFB response is an example of the problem.  No one bothered to ask me what I meant by the response, no one asked me to stop using textual euphemisms for the 3 words, no one said that discussing the word "faggot" was unacceptable.  I get that, in your circles, that may be true.  But the fact that others in the CBQ forum brought up using the word "faggot" certainly suggests that I'm not alone in the latter. I obeyed the rules that I had been told, and got no warning before being banned.

In the AFB case, I described what seemed to me to be surreal situation to my friends, and one of them expressed support in a way that was specifically intended to be ironic.  The appropriate use of the word "faggot" was the topic, and he played off of that by calling the banner (is that Richard then?) a "faggot".  His intent was not to be insulting to gays -- I've never seen any suggestion that "jflan" is in anyway homophobic, and I don't think that any of us assumed that a PopSyndicate moderator who dislikes risque language would be gay.  He was directly playing off of the intolerance of the word in his expression of support.

I responded by showing appreciation for his support -- support that I felt like I needed, at the time, since the banning came way out of left field and was a bit shocking to me.  I showed that support by saying "Well said!", because I recognized the irony in what he was saying, and thought that it was a particularly pithy and effective word choice given the context.  Certainly it isn't a word choice that would be appropriate in all contexts, but AFB is extremely free-spirited and non-PC, which is one of the reasons that I appreciate it.  And note that I didn't say "Yes, he is!", or escalate it with epithets.  I acknowledged the turn of phrase -- again, showing my appreciation for his support.  I thought this was especially necessary with jflan, because he and I don't always agree on everything, and since that forum can get kind of wild, we've had some strong arguments. So I particularly valued that support, coming from him, and felt the need to say say so.

But if you're not an AFB forum regular, you don't know any of the context.  You don't know the style of the forum, you don't know any of his subtext or mine.  And if you never bother to communicate with me about it, you never will.

I absolutely apologize for my end of this miscommunication.  You guys at PopSyndicate have a very different understanding of what constitutes valid and useful communication, and that's entirely your prerogative.  But my own assumptions, based on the interactions of my own family, friends, and coworkers, tends to be that anything is fair game for discussion and humor.  I have no problem adhering to your customs in your environment, as long as those customs and taboos are explicitly defined, in the same way that I have different styles of behavior with friends than in the workplace.  But if you don't really don't see the possibility of there being misinterpretation on both sides, if you don't think that my behavior could come from anything but maliciousness, then I don't know that anything else I could say would sway that viewpoint.

Best Regards,
Charles

Stefan Halley <shalley@[email domain]> wrote:

Let's bring everyone in on this.

You can talk about the denaturing any word you want. You
missed the point. When you went on the ANTIFanboy site
and aired your grievance with Richard, Chris and myself
there and then agreed with someone when they called
Richard a faggot, you stepped over the line. I don't care
if your gay and you think that calling another gay person
a faggot is ok because you are gay. I don't know that.
The Internet is blind to color, sex and sexual
orientation.

I accept your apology and believe you are truly sorry for
you actions but I want you to understand, there are
repercussions for what you do. The Internet isn't a free
ride to do and say what ever you want. People think that
message boards are democracies but they aren't. Every one
of them, no matter how open you may perceive them, is a
benevolent dictatorship. You can't go on and try to skirt
the rules and expect there to be no consequences.

I don't follow your posts. I don't know what you talked
about in the CBQ forum. I read the threads from time to
time and most people can follow simple guidelines of don't
use three words. You however failed to do so and where
there for banned.

I am open to discussing this with Steve and Eric if they
feel that I am wrong.

Stefan


On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
>
> Stefan,
>
> I'm very sorry that my actions antagonized you guys
> enough that you would be that derogatory. It is
>absolutely
> true that I've posted parts of my conversations with
>Chris
> and others on ANTiFanboy, but it was not my intention to
> antagonize him by doing so. The guys at ANTiFanboy are
> like-minded friends, and I've gone there to share what I
> considered to be bizarre and amusing experiences. I
>wasn't
> aware that Chris was a member -- and I still don't see
>him
> obviously in the member list -- but even so, I'm not
>aware
> of anything I misrepresented in those postings.
>
> The only message that I know of from Chris that could
>have
> been considered private was one where he asked me not to
> continue the conversation on the main thread, and I
>wasn't
> aware that this was meant to be private. I thought that
>he
> was just replying off of the main thread. If he'd asked
>me
> not to share the contents, I would certainly have
>respected
> that. Perhaps this was naive of me -- despite my years
>in
> computers, CBQ and ANTiFanboy are the only forums I've
>ever
> participated in, so perhaps there was a subtext of
>privacy
> that I should have recognized. If so, I apologize.
>
> You have definitely cleared something up for me; I
>thought
> that the issue was the bad language, when it turns out
>that
> it was because I agreed with others the offensive terms
> like "faggot" would benefit from being denatured by use.
> I
> thought we were having an intellectual discussion about
>the
> use or non-use of the term, which I fully expected
>people
> would agree or disagree with as they saw fit. I've had
> these conversations in real life many times -- and The
> Daily Show recently did a similar segment on the use of
>the
> word "nigger". I'm certainly sorry that a discussion of
> whether the word was allowable or not was considered to
>be
> that offensive.
>
> All that being said, I understand if my viewpoints or
> attitudes are considered inappropriate for the
>guidelines
> you've established. I stayed within the literal rules
>that
> I was told, but if there was a subtext that you feel I
> should have known then, again, I apologize. I'm a
>computer
> guy, and I deal mostly with other computer people and we
> can be a rather literal lot.
>
> I'm including Steve and Eric on the reply so that they
> understand your objections and my apologies. I do have
> enough sense of subtext to get that you'd rather I not
> discuss your reply with my friends on the ANTiFanboy
>forum,
> and I'm willing to oblige.
>
> Best Regards,
> Charles
>
>
> Stefan Halley wrote: Hi
>Charles,
>
> I've been talking with Richard and Chris about your
> banning. It's been brought to my attention that you
> repost private messages from Chris in order to annoy and
> antagonize him in addition to trying to skirt the censor
> with childish methods.
>
> I was inclined to give you a second chance but I don't
> believe that you can adhere to even the most basic of
> rules that the Pop Syndicate message boards have. All
> we've asked is that you don't use three simple words.
> Apparently you have an adolescent need to act out. I'm
> sorry it's come to this but you were warned when we put
> the word censors in place, which was my doing.
>
> When you decided to air your grievance on another board,
> you effectively lost any appeals you have, that and
> calling someone a faggot as a derogatory name. I know
>you
> didn't say it yourself but by encouraging others, you in
> effect said it. I'm sure this email will end up on the
> ANTIFanboy forum as well.
>
> I wish you the best in the future but you knew the rules
> and you chose to disregard them.
>
> Stefan Halley
> www.popsyndicate.com
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
> wrote:
>> Dear Shalley,
>>
>> There was a misunderstanding in the Comic Book Queers
>>forum which led to a user named "Dedagda" banning my
>>account without warning for what he considered foul
>>language. I didn't know it had happened until Steve of
>>CBQ told me, at which point I confirmed that I couldn't
>>see the site (although it said "Site Offline", which was
>>strange). So I visited as a guest, found the problem
>>thread, and saw that Dedagda said that I could question
>>the banning.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I couldn't contact him without being a
>>registered user (I haven't received any direct e-mails
>>that I could respond to). So I carefully registered a
>>new account with the very clear and deliberately
>>non-deceptive username "BannedCurious". I sent Dedagda a
>>polite message, which I've included below, trying to
>>clear up the misunderstanding. But a short time later,
>>the new account was also deleted, and I'm left not
>>knowing whether he got the e-mail and deleted the account
>>without responding -- or whether the e-mail was never
>>read and someone just thought I was being a problem,
>>deleted the account, and perhaps the associated e-mail as
>>a consequence.
>>
>> So I've come to your website's contact page and gotten
>>your e-mail address, hoping that you can forward the
>>message along -- to Dedagda, or to "Chrischris" or
>>"Stefan", whom he mentions -- or at least let me know
>>that I should stop trying to resolve the problem.
>>
>> Very Appreciatively Yours,
>> Charles
>>
>> My earlier message to Dedagda follows:
>> ===================================
>>
>> Begging your pardon, Dedagda, but I was sincerely
>>unaware that I was doing anything forbidden. When the
>>subject of illegal words came up earlier, a number of us
>>switched over to using spellings that were not forbidden.
>> And I've never used the forbidden correct spellings
>>since.
>>
>> I have no objections to following whatever the rules
>>are, but I and others have used the alternate spellings
>>many times in the weeks since that conversation, and this
>>is literally the first time that anyone has suggested
>>that we couldn't. My honest impression was that only the
>>use of the literal word was forbidden, and that
>>alternates were not -- analogous to the French Connection
>>UK chain plastering their "FCUK" logo on storefronts, and
>>that being acceptable when everyone knows what they mean
>>by it. So that's the rule that I and others have
>>respected and followed. But all you needed to do was ask
>>me to stop, and to use no variant of spelling or meaning,
>>and I would have done so. While I'm certainly a believer
>>in the benefits of free expression, I'm also a believer
>>that the guy who builds the forum makes the rules.
>>
>> If you really feel that banning is the only appropriate
>>option... well, again, it's your forum. I'll live. But
>>an e-mail at any time since we started using the
>>alternate spellings a few weeks ago would have been
>>equally effective.
>>
>> Sincerely Yours,
>> Charles
>>
>> [quote author="Dedagda" date="1177400872"][quote
>>author="HowTaoBrownCow" date="1177387856"]I like
>>"f*uckery"... I'm going to have to start using that one.
>>
>> One always enjoys the opportunity to expands one's
>>vocabulary. :-)[/quote]
>>
>> I've made the decision. You can talk with Chrischris or
>>Stefan, but its my decision. It's not about witty reparte
>>or ribaldry. Its the lack of respect and ignoring the
>>decency of the forum. Your language is offensive to the
>>moderators. You are banned.[/quote]
>>
>
>