posted on September 29, 2000 05:22:49 AM new
I debated whether to post this, but since the ugly issue was raised by a clueless poster in the now locked thread, I at least, need to have closure on this.
Regarding the accused murderer of an 11 y.o.boy.
Exerpt from the Pgh. Post Gazette, (entire article can be read online.)
Much of XXX life remained cloaked in mystery yesterday.
He was born on July 3, 1953, in Uniontown. Even as a child, he drifted. He attended three high schools in three years for reasons that school records do not explain........
He spent his sophomore year in Peters, most of his junior year in Mt. Lebanon and his senior year of 1971-72 at Uniontown Area High School . ......
He went to Penn State University's Uniontown campus, where he was enrolled as a liberal arts student from September 1972 to May 1974. He did not graduate. .......
Just before his college days ended, he married a nurse's aide named XXXXX. Just 19, she was from Brownsville. .........
They were wed by a justice of the peace April 6, 1974. On the license, XXX listed his occupation as "maintenance man." ......
.
After marrying, XXXX joined the Air Force. Military records located by television station KDKA said he served as a medic until his discharge in 1977. .......
Summary of KDKA early evening Newscast top story my synopsis in parentheses. The relevant words are what was actually stated, I did not change them in any way.
"And the latest info regarding the accused murderer and mutilator of an 11 y.o. boy.....a drifter..a loner.....seemed like he was mad at the world...past criminal record...including solicitation and dui in various states... cut to
Reporter live at Mother's home in Uniontown....zoom camera in on little sticker on storm door "POW's never have a nice day."(and here it comes, you knew it was coming didn't ya, knew it all along!) ON the scene reporter: "We don't know if J XXXXX was a prisoner of war, but we DO KNOW he was a VIETNAMeraVET. We have his service records here (waving wildly in air). He entered the Air Force in 1974 and was stationed at Lackland Air Base from 1974-177.( and therefore has as much experience of the war as, oh ,how about Bill Clinton, and did Texas secede and take prisoners of war??. But rest assured that by the way we reported this, we know you will remember the significant fact is that he was a VIETNAMeraVET.)
Which report do you think will have the most impact on the average clueless person.
cariad......and now I am done with this topic, it does hurt too much
posted on September 29, 2000 05:35:12 AM new
cariad,
Calling another AW member clueless (see copy of the sentence below) is an insult and I'm issuing you an informal warning.
I debated whether to post this, but since the ugly issue was raised by a clueless poster in the now locked thread, I at least, need to have closure on this.
Please do not continue to post in that vein.
Joice
Moderator.
*spelling
[ edited by joice on Sep 29, 2000 05:35 AM ]
posted on September 29, 2000 09:13:34 AM new
I see the word police are alive and well. If you read cariad's entire post and then observe how he ends his release "Which report do you think will have the most impact on the average clueless person," it appears that cariad is being discriminated for (his) vocabulary.
He appears to use the word clueless to mean, without facts or complete information. He also does not specifically identify any particular poster as the person not having the facts or complete information.
Whether or not the poster, or the poster's comments, are to the liking of readers, I firmly believe such autocratic interpretations and conclusions by the moderators are too repressive. Maybe all comments should be submitted to the moderators so (they) can write our comments as they desire them (comments) to read.
I would like someone to explain how the term, "Without a clue," or the word, "clueless," is, in any form, insulting. If it is, for many years, I and other criminal investigators often referred to ourselves in an insulting manner when indicating the investigative status of certain cases.
Can anyone coin a new word that subordinates the term, ludicrous? Presently, I am clueless.
posted on September 29, 2000 09:18:27 AM new
cariad, Thanks for the post. Live is full of choices in this case you made the right one.
I debated whether to post this, but since the ugly issue was raised by a clueless poster in the now locked thread, I at least, need to have closure on this.
posted on September 29, 2000 09:47:01 AM new
Just piping in here...
As a former homeless person myself (and even if I never had been), I'm a bit offended that jeanu expressed an interest in spitting upon me...me and my kind that is, which includes my children, other members of my family at various times, and various multiples of all sorts of other people, which also could include all or any of us, everybody, any-one any-one has ever met or might meet, any-time any-where, you never know for sure...
posted on September 29, 2000 10:00:51 AM new
I didn't see anything offensive by Cariad post. In fact, I thought he/she used a lot of restraint. I'm assuming that he/she was a lot more frustrated than came across in the post. I'm also a little more than disgruntled with the stereotyping that society as a whole seems to love to engage in.
posted on September 29, 2000 10:08:08 AM newherself
You presently do not fall within any "insulted" category. AW has categories for, "Implied Insults, Interpreted Insults, Insults By Redefined Words, Insults By Restrictive Definition Of Words, Belated Insults, Biased Insults, Supposed Insults, Because I Said Insults, and Ignored Insults" but I do not believe a category for "Unintentional Insults" yet exists.
Standby one, I am sure the moderators will eventually create one.
posted on September 29, 2000 10:15:08 AM new
Platoon (Commander) fred, your sadly mistaken if you believe the community is heavily comprised of Nathan Hale types.
posted on September 29, 2000 10:15:26 AM new
My psychic abilities are going through the roof this a.m. I'm sensing - just a guess - the Sarge is in a mood today.
Standing clear now... sorry Fred I don't wanna warning. I figure I'll get mine the natural way, eventually.
posted on September 29, 2000 12:02:03 PM new
Aw, sgtmike. Are ya sure I don't fit in some-where (I'm trying ever so much)...
Two members of my immediate family are homeless right now - does that count? Who decides these things anyway?
Hey there Fred... I'd join you if I thought I ought to be monitored but I don't think I should be. I haven't offended anyone have I? I'm not quite sure though. Could have I suppose. But I don't think you should be monitored either. I don't really think anybody ever should be monitored (for words)...Anyway still, I'll stand right next to you...
P.S. freebie moderation granted (ooh!) take a shot for the future if you feel like it. I don't care! Hee! Hee! I'm feeling crazy! Happy too!!!
posted on September 29, 2000 01:56:41 PM new
As I sit here doing other work, I read cariad's post several times, trying hard to detect the alleged implied insult. I cannot discern any. In fact, after I read his post several times, it becomes quite clear his use of the word clueless is quite proper.
His emphasis is on the fact that in the previous post, a person not yet having a clue regarding the elements of the story raised the issue. That would include me. If someone had asked me for details, I would have said, "I don't have a clue." cariad has now clarified the elements and his emphasis is on how the media will identify the perpetrator. Hence, I am not as clueless now.
Although cariad argued the stats regarding homeless vets, It appears that he too was somewhat clueless until today. However, thanks to his post, many that were clueless will no longer be once they read his post, the newspaper, or TV.
I believe joice was too hasty in concluding that what she what she read was an insult. I believe the insult came from joice for treating an AW user (cariad) the way she did. After all, it is cariad and the other AW users who cause and represent the financial worth (advertisement popularity) for AW, not a moderator. In fact, a careless moderator can do more damage than someone using the word, "clueless."
I believe an AW official should require joice to apologize to cariad.
posted on September 29, 2000 02:02:09 PM new
A moderation call may be discussed only in the Moderator's Corner, not in the thread where the moderation call occurred.
posted on September 29, 2000 02:25:43 PM new
I am not directing my comments at joice, nor am I discussing her moderation specifically with her. I am commenting on her actions to other posters.
It has been my understanding that the thread is not considered an open thread for discussion by others when the discussion between a moderator and the moderated takes place in the "Moderator's Corner."
posted on September 29, 2000 02:31:59 PM new
You're wrong, as usual.
You can open a separate thread in MC for what you intend, Cariad may open another for his discussion with Joice.
What you are doing now will result in your suspension.
"Note that discussions concerning general moderation policy must be conducted in the Moderator's Corner only. In such situations, all interested Community Members may participate."
[ edited by krs on Sep 29, 2000 02:36 PM ]
The CG reg you posted refers to general discussions of moderating policy. I am not discussing policy, I am commenting on actions and a specific act,,,to other posters.
CG Regarding discussing a moderation and appeal:
Post a Message in the Moderator's Corner Forum or Email the Moderator.
" The discussion surrounding the specific moderation will take place between the member and the Moderator ONLY. No other members will be allowed to join the discussion. If your posting privileges have been revoked, you may contact the Moderator via email.
I know the difference, but I cannot be sure the moderators do.
posted on September 29, 2000 02:52:09 PM new
Uh, huh.
"The CG reg you posted refers to general discussions of moderating policy I am not discussing policy, I am commenting on actions and a specific act,,,to other posters."
In other words you are discussing a moderation call in the thread where it took place, and specifically violating the CG which is a portion of the agreement you entered stating your willingness to abide.
Fine. Be suspended. You've only your own self to blame for it now.
posted on September 29, 2000 03:09:16 PM new
And since the particular usage which you chose to discuss is an instrument in a moderation call in this thread. you violate CGs by discussing that usage here.
There is nothing to prevent a thread in MC for the purpose of the discussion of what you may perceive to be new moderation policy.
So go to it, and don't waste your suspension foolishly violating the most plain portion of the CGs available.
posted on September 29, 2000 03:24:56 PM newsgtmike,
You are walking a very fine line. I suggest you take a step back before posting again.
Saying "I don't have a clue" is very different than calling someone else "clueless". That is the last I am going to say on the subject here.
We are going to lock this thread as it has again become combative. If the topic of Vietnam veterans and/or military involvement cannot be discussed without the thread degenerating into general insults, the topic will be disallowed in this forum.
