board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Split from Article 3 thread-posts about the Hearing

Post Reply   Page 1 of 2  [ 38 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 »
Author Message
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 9:53 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Quote:
I have a great deal of sympathy with yov's observation that the problem was essentially dealt with and we shouldn't still be arguing but there has been enough people opposed to the status quo to require changes.
I have to correct you, it was not the status quo before these people made it the status quo by using the forum in a way that wasn't prescribed.

I really do object to this mistaken notion that the people who are fighting to have the Bike Racks remain what the Charter describes them as are the people who are not satisfied with the status quo. It is the people who want to use Bike Racks for other than serious attempts at resolving personal disputes who are not pleased with the status quo, and who are forcing the realignment of these forums.
Quote:
I think it works just fine, some don't, so it is incumbent on them who don't think it is working to change it.
It works fine for you, because you broke the rules, and are forcing a realignment of the forum to accommodate your breaking of the rules, because no one was willing to stop you out of concern for the rage that would ensue and what it would do to this board. I will not stand by and see the history of the Bike Racks re-written. We are re-writing it now because some people were not willing to respect the boundaries set out in the Charter.

Quote:
The burden is on them.
Yes, the burden is on us, because no one was willing to tell you, 'no'. No one was willing to move your thread to where it belonged. So now we are rewriting the rules to accommodate you.


Apologies, I did not have time to label the quotes properly.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 9:58 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Need I point out again that it is only YOUR interpretation of the charter that must be "realigned?"

Many other people think that nothing wrong or against the charter was done.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 10:00 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Cerin I am giving you fair warning.
If I see one more post from you that makes anymore false allegations, I.E. It works fine for you, because you broke the rules, and are forcing a realignment of the forum to accommodate your breaking of the rules, because no one was willing to stop you out of concern for the rage that would ensue and what it would do to this board, I will edit your post and I will call for a hearing.
There were no rules broken. Fact.
It was not out of fear that the occurence was not stopped. Fact.

I have had enough of this divisiveness and have had enough of the part you have played in all of this. You are tossing insults around here with the best of them. You are in part responsible for the disruption of this board.
I will no longer stand by and watch this.
The next step is The Bike Racks and a hearing.
Fair warning.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 10:30 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
It is pretty amazing that after lord knows how many pages, hal still needs to say that.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:02 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Need I point out again that it is only YOUR interpretation of the charter that must be "realigned?"

It is pretty amazing that after lord knows how many pages, hal still needs to say that.

In fact it is not anybody's interpretation that the charter must be realigned.

The Charter is being realigned because (1) when I invoked Article 3 that automatically convened a charter convention committee, and (2) the committee is leaning now strongly in the direction of concluding that the charter does need to be realigned.

No member asked for this committee. I forced it to convene by invoking Article 3.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:04 pm
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Hal wrote:
Need I point out again that it is only YOUR interpretation of the charter that must be "realigned?"
If I understand you correctly, Hal, you are saying above that Cerin was alone in interpreting the Charter to mean that the Bike racks was intended as a place for serious disputes and misunderstandings.

If I AM understanding you correctly, l need to state that you are wrong in asserting this. Cerin was/is not alone in interpreting the Charter in that way. There are many people who agree with this interpretation and I am amongst them (I would name them but I know I'd miss out some) - just as there are many who disagree, with you amongst them. I would not have made a song and dance about what I perceived as mis-use (I make my judgements privately) but I feel I need to clarify that Cerin does not stand in isolation in her views.

I am simply stating here my interpretation. I'm not arguing for it; I'm not arguing with you. I'm not feeling peevish or passionate. I'm just stating, is all.

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:08 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
"YOUR" interpretation was not singlular to Cerin. I am aware others share this point of view.

Jnyusa, the committee may lean towards the fact that something needs to change, that doesn't mean the board will.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:09 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Correct, Hal.

The board will have to opportunity to vote up or down whatever the committee proposes.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:14 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Impy,
Cerin wrote:
I have to correct you, it was not the status quo before these people made it the status quo by using the forum in a way that wasn't prescribed.

Cerin wrote:
It works fine for you, because you broke the rules...
She states these things as absolute facts. Time and time again. The fact that the rangers thought otherwise, that there has been almost 60 pages of debate, and that there is a committee in place discussing amendments, seems not to even suggest to her that she might, just might, be wrong, and that these are not facts - just her opinion, her interpretation, her allegations, and nothing more than that.

It ain't the rules that's broken, just the record that's playing.

For someone who insists on being this way for a whole week and more, someone who refuses to debate with me when I started to compromise, for someone who cannot go to the BikeRacks for fear that a serious debate will not be taken seriously (does anyone else really think that - especially after all this kerfuffle?), for someone who runs off for a Hearing when they are 50% to blame, well, I'm actually starting to feel pity.

Last edited by Lidless on Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:27 pm, edited 4 times in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:19 pm
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
...

Last edited by jewelsong on Sat 10 Dec , 2005 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:22 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
opinions are all relevant... as opinions. Claiming your opinion as fact and basing your entire argument on that "fact" does not make it MORE relevant than any other opinion.

Of course, admitting it is an opinion leaves it open for compromise.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:23 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Already edited JS, but I agree with hal.

Facts are relevant. Opinions not as much. Opinions masquerading as facts can lead to unjust wars (whether they be religious as in the past, or from the current Administration of the US), FOX News, Michael Moore and are the most divisive and dangerous things on the planet.

Opinions masquerading as facts which are repeated over and over again is a form of manipulation and brainwashing. Luckily, I already hang my brain out to dry before posting here so I'm not affected by it. The others here are just too smart to get caught by it. It, er, well..it doesn't wash.

If only people stopped doing that and invested that energy into more concrete things the world would be far more carefree and ahead of where it is now.

This, of course, is only my opinion.

Last edited by Lidless on Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:38 pm, edited 4 times in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:35 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Not just FOX news, Lidless, but ALL modern news organizations. They all try and tell a "story" to generate ratings, not present the facts. There's FAR more opinion on the news than fact, and that is truly a sad thing...

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Nov , 2005 11:50 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
I think Holby make an excellent post.

We have had two interpretations of the rules for the BR. One is not more right than the next. No rules were broken, just one interpretation was acted upon. Does this mean this interpretation is the correct one? Not necessarily, but that doesn't mean it is incorrect. The number of people agreeing with one interpretation is irrelevant to the interpretation's validity. Cerin's interpretation is just as valid as mine, hal and liddy's. Does this mean we have to follow hers? Not anymore than she has to follow ours.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Nov , 2005 12:02 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Lidless wrote:
Impy,
Cerin wrote:
I have to correct you, it was not the status quo before these people made it the status quo by using the forum in a way that wasn't prescribed.

Cerin wrote:
It works fine for you, because you broke the rules...
She states these things as absolute facts...
Liddy, that may be (that she is stating those things as absolute facts) but that is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying only, and nothing more, that my INTERPRETATION of the charter is parallel (I was trying to clarify my position in response to misunderstanding what Hal was asserting). I'm saying nothing about rules, I'm talking interpretation.

Hal, okay then. Thanks for that clarification.

- Imp

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Nov , 2005 12:10 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
halplm wrote:
Of course, admitting it is an opinion leaves it open for compromise.
Edgar Rice Burroughs (of all people) once said that wars unmake words. He was referring to the word "collaborationist" which before WW II was a perfectly respectable word, but ever since has a negative connotation.

That is what I am seeing here with the word "compromise". Lidless, at least, was good enough to agree to Ax's request to stop repeatedly using the word as a way of subtly (or not so subtly) poking at someone.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Nov , 2005 12:11 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
do you disagree that opinions provide for areas of compromise, where facts do not?

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Nov , 2005 12:19 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I disagree that the difference between an opinion and a fact has anything at all to do with a willingness to compromise.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Nov , 2005 12:22 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Jnyusa wrote:
I disagree that the difference between an opinion and a fact has anything at all to do with a willingness to compromise.

Jn
I said nothing about willingness to compromise.

The fact is. If you are arguing with all facts behind you, there is no ROOM for compromise.

If you are arguing with all opinions behind you, there IS room for compromise.

So if you maintain that all of your opinions are in fact facts, you do not have to admit there is room for compromise, because you are recognizing none.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Nov , 2005 12:24 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Well, its kind of irrelevant to my comment, but since you ask, yes I would disagree with that statement because I think it is too simplistic. In my experience (and keep in mind that 98% of my livelihood comes from negotiating compromises of my client's claims) it is the hard facts that encourage compromise (by demonstrating what the dangers of continuing the dispute could be) whereas it is the opinions that the parties hold that are the biggest obstacles to reaching a compromise.

But again, that doesn't have anything to do with my comment.

And with that, I bid you all a fond adieu (not from b77, but just from this particularly discussion)


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 2  [ 38 posts ]
Return to “Business Room” | Jump to page 1 2 »
Jump to: