Robsk II

Very difficult question, this, and one I can't answer with a simple yes or no. It's very easy to be incredibly moralistic or incredibly naive about this, from both sides. In the end, I suppose I have to go somewhere along the 'needs of the many' route. The problem is, it's so entirely barbaric. You need nutters to do it, frankly, and many people tortured over the centuries have been with no reason. Trying to extract something means it's hidden, which could also mean it isn't there. I'm a pragmatist, and while my ideals rail against the concept of torture, in any form, the fact of the matter is that 1 million lives at stake do outweigh that of an individual, pretty much whoever that is. I don't believe that it being done to a subjective 'bad guy' makes a great deal of difference either, but I would feel slightly more ok about such an act if it was 100% certain the victim was a murderous bastard who intended massive crimes, and with whom torture could genuinely bring about the salvation of many others. But I would never, ever be comfortable with it, would always seek other ways first, and would seek to ensure it was always considered a highly unpleasant act - never one undertaken as a matter of course or in any way taken lightly.

Thank f*ck for that.

Sorry, Jimmy, but this isn't a matter of interprative difference. Brass Eye is spoof, parody, comment on exactly the kind of reactionary rubbish that causes half the moral panics in the world. It is categorically not racist, it actively mocks racism and so on. Maybe irony isn't a strong point of yours, I don't know, but based on that view of it, I honestly can't believe you are best placed to pass judgement on things like this. Mods surely need to have some level of cultural awareness, emotional intelligence and a vague ability to understand meanings and messages that are relayed in a manner beyond the most simple? I mean, have you even seen the show? Do you not understand the social context within which it exists? Of course I shall respect your position as a mod, and given the way in which the quote was used I do support the infraction. It wasn't made clear to anyone that it was a quote, and so can be punished as you say - a poor challenge, if innocently meant. But.. I am genuinely baffled by that comment.

Agreed, of course plenty is said elsewhere. But if the club is involved, it can;t be seen to be attached, and to be honest, that doesn't mean the people concerned aren't idiots IMO. And also agreed that you can ignore. First and foremost people should try to sort stuff themselves, ignore or whatever, unless it's something that should be generally challenged, and thent ake to mods only after these steps.

haha

Smirking - Well, I'm not entirely impressed by such a claim. Personally, outright racist, homophobic, ablist stuff etc should be reported and infracted, on top of eprsonal disclosures and so on. This site does, after all represent the club to an extent. I don't think it makes you a better person for never reporting anything; rather a worse one if you hold to that principle above anything else even if it's worth reporting. Like saying you've never told your kids off.. sometimes it's best to, even though within itself it;s not admirable. Although if you are saying that many reports are just inane and stupid, overtly personal or petty, then I agree.

You see my point about how justifying intentions doesn't matter, though. No-one can be expectd to rely too heavily on individual history if the rules are the same for everyone, either. And yes, the mods take getting used to and are still getting ued to things themselves, I'm sure. And you're naughty for intentionally crossing lines, lol!!1

But the whole point is that we can all go back and explain things that were taken the wrong way, or say they were, and suggest what was actually meant. I could say about a picture of a black dog 'That looks like n!gger' - this would then be reported and infracted, and then I could say I was talking about the dog belonging to the dambusters squadron - called n!gger. Should the infraction then be removed? It can't work that way.

Oh well sorry hypo, only going with what I've been told. Changing stance is difficult; Baj, SG and the new mods put a lot of work into this place for nothing in return, so constantly re-evaluating every decision can't really be expected of them - plus your intentions could have been misconstrued, thus making them racis (in the eyes of the receiver). if you say something racist, even if it's a joke, surely you can get an infraction? I could say something like that, get infracted, then point out why it was a joke or quote after, you know? What DO you think is OK to report, then? because sometimes people get reported for something genuinely funny, but others don't for openly racist or homophobic things. Also abuse. I mean, if I called you a f*cking pr*ck, would you report me? Would you if Deppo did? It's a complicated area.

Don't worry so much Hypo. It's just a few points. As some have pointed out, it IS only the internet, after all, and only one miniscule part of it. Plus to be honest, flippant remarks on the main board are hardly worth reporting, are they? It's just a bit petty really. But that's the nature of the beast, sometimes you have to take knocks if you're going to give them, you know?

Nuke.

Anything North of Nottingham, really. That's north in my book. Or if I'm being unkind, anything north of Oxford.

Oh well, eh? If it was a flippant remark on a serious topic, surely that's all people like Deppo ever did, and he got complained about by some people and banned! So I'd think yuorself lucky really, LOL!!1

Most of my memories are from the past.

So you've never needlessly reported anyone for anything hypochondriac? Someone ITK told me you reported people loads, for nothing more than the odd joke or insincere remark. I mean, yuo can't have it both ways!!

np

I guess if you're a god-squadder in the first place, ALL countries are god's. Maybe in yorkshire, it's more that to live in half of those places, you have to have a lot of faith. Have you BEEN to bradford? Genuinely the worst place I think I've ever been.* * I hope you are not offended by that comment, i dont want to offend people. ** ** I hope you are not offended bymy plagiarism, i dont want to offend people.

Credit.

The only legitimate measure in in harmful consequence, and Nutt has been telling it like it is for a long time. He was shafted by the last government. Just because most people in this country are reactive morons who don't seem to care about rationality or scientific fact, doesn't mean the government should pander to them if the government sees its role as doing what is best rather than what is wanted. If what was wanted is correct, we'd enver have gone to war in Iraq etc... I've kept up with this sort of research for some time, and while cultural things should be taken into account - ie amount of usage etc - Nutt does. It's fair to say that it would be harsh to ban alcohol completely because some take it far too far, and suffer real problems because of the substance. Yet the same applies for the majority of 'hard' drug users.

Ignore this thread. Norwaysaint is just trying to justify his massive smack habit.

No aspirations, no culture, a problem class created by various injustices and various idiots who then self-reinforce and celebrate their own ridiculous life choices.

It seems likely.

Nice.

Brasilian Ronaldo isn't just Ronaldo, Ronaldinho isn't Ronaldinho, Robinho prob. isn't Robinho and Kaka isn't Kaka. He's Ricardo Izecson dos Santos Leite.