Not goin to even repsond to the guy above.
My main conceron as always is the rules, are some rules in fact not followed? this is really improant as I will follow the rules and if they are not followed be mods then I need to know
Printable View
Not goin to even repsond to the guy above.
My main conceron as always is the rules, are some rules in fact not followed? this is really improant as I will follow the rules and if they are not followed be mods then I need to know
I definitely would love to request that, if it wasn't much of a trouble. I don't normally like to see posts deleted because they interfere with what I consider the preservation Cboard's history. The good and the bad. But this has gone so blatantly off-topic, i'm sure if Polybius is reading he has scratched it from his notes already.
While moderation on request is certainly neccessary, every user can request moderation because this is a public place. As soon as somebody feels it's inappropriate, we will decide how to moderate.Quote:
If something bothers you, do not use your moderator power to do what no other person on this forums can, unless you got a specific request to moderate a thread by one of the persons involved.
Besides, what's up with this? Do I smell the foul stench of democracy? The sick odor of free will? The frosty breath of freedom? This is a dictatorship! We enjoy torturing others and when we aren't eating babies or killing kittens, we close threads just to be able to let out an evil laughter in front of our monitors. We are the webmaster's evil henchmen. We always were, even back when we were alive *muahahaha* *rattle*. Doing evil deeds is part of the job description.
Yeah. I didn't construe that statement you quoted well. What I mean to say really is that a user request for moderation does entail immediate action (if you see fit, of course). I'm comfortable with that. It's when no such request exists that a moderator should use more caution when feeling the need to moderate. Unless there's something very obvious going on, I'd really prefer if the moderator announced its intentions prior to take action. It's the least they could do. Otherwise their behavior is just plain rude.
I was not entertained. I could be, if you hadn't tried to make a point with it. However, I don't see how your authority is in any way questioned if you take the time to actually moderate instead of just using its tools.
As to the moderation, may I make a couple of suggestions?
- If a topic degenerates--or starts to--into a flamewar, publicly ask that all members stop and get back on topic (PM is never a good idea since only the receiver can read it and by doing so, other people reading the thread will not get that message, especially lurkers). Failing that, start deleting offensive posts and hand out warnings.
- If a side topic appears in a thread, not related to the discussion, split it into a new thread. No point stopping a good discussion.
- If a topic is hijacked (another question, jokes, etc), split it. Let people have their fun / question.
Well, that is my take on the whole.
I'm going to try give more warnings before closing a thread from now on, but there are occasions where that just wont do.
It would be nice to think that I can issue a warning and prune a few posts and that that will put things back in order, but its rare that one poster is the sole problem when a flame-fest begins and sometimes closing a thread and allowing people to walk away is actually a good remedy - I've had "offending" members PM me later and thank me for closing a thread that had got out of hand and got everyone's blood up. This might result in a loss of adding to what was the main body of the discussion, but sometimes its for the best.
It can also take a fair amount of time and effort to sift through all posts and judge what's flame what's off-topic and what's valid especially when a single post contains a good mix of the three. Whatever judgement call you make, you can guarantee that the poster of the thread you prune will think otherwise.
Also, there are some threads that are just blatant rule-breakers (hacking related stuff) and they need to be closed. Personally I find a lot of the potentially non-legitimate topics interesting, but the rules on these subjects are the rules and they have been longer than I can remember (if not as written rules then at least as the "culture" of these particular boards).
I'd also like to add that if anyone has anything to say about a moderation decision, you can always contact the moderation via PM and discuss it. Contrary to what some of you might think, we aren't (all :)) power hungry killjoys and I'd say we were open to reversing a decision if we could see it was wrong.
O_oQuote:
Also, there are some threads that are just blatant rule-breakers (hacking related stuff) and they need to be closed.
I'll stay out of the other argument, but I have to say, I'm right with you on that bit. That last thing CBoard needs is to become known as that sort of place.
Soma
I agree pruning threads isn't always easy or desirable to do. Neither I'm happy with the idea of a moderator having to go through a lot of work in the course of their responsibilities. That's up to you to decide of course, but for what it's worth I don't think that should be a part of the job description.
Something I've done myself just recently. After reading the last post on it, I was sure I would be requesting that thread to be closed. Especially considering the thread title. I would gladly have taken the argument elsewhere. Just not that thread. So I thanked the moderator who closed it.
You are right. There's so much this issue can be debated in a public manner until it becomes awkward to moderators and users alike. I'm done.
I must admit I find discussions of what moderators should or should not do rather tedious.
A basic fact of life, in any community, is that there is a percentage of members who will ignore the rules, deliberately break the rules, or even accidentally break the rules.
Without some group (be it a police force in a city, or a moderator team in a forum) to limit such behaviours, any community will become an anarchy. In an anarchy, the one who can force his or her will on others will prevail in any argument and there will be regular power struggles as someone or some group seeks to dictate the community norms.
When there is such a group, there will always be some other group who insists that the policing should be restrained more. These might be the folks who resent not being able to force their will on others, they might be the "treat us as adults" crowd, or they might even be people who have experienced the consequences of an honest mistake by a moderator..
Much as people insist otherwise, there is always someone who will pick a fight, someone who will insist on imposing their will on someone else, someone who thinks the rules don't really apply to them. So moderation or policing always becomes necessary.
Sure, there is always potential for a moderator to abuse their powers. That is why there is value in a diverse moderator team. About the only requirements to be an effective moderator are a willingness to put the interests of the community "at large" above personal interests (which is actually really hard to do), a willingness to stand by unpopular decisions, but still be willing to listen to reason. For people willing and able to do all that, being a moderator is not a privilege. It is a burden. Moderators also need to be willing to accept that there is some proportion of members who deem that moderators do not have a right to participate and others who deem that any minor human failing in a moderator is a sign of malice or incompetence.
No active community will ever be perfect so moderators are always necessary. People are just too contrary for that. It is fine to discuss tweaking the rules, but moderators must often deal with some circumstance (or member behaviour) that is not covered by the rules. If a rule is put in place to stop a moderator doing something (like closing a thread) then eventually more behaviours will emerge that make it necessary for a moderator to act.
In the end, just accept that no member is perfect, no community is perfect, moderators are human. Let the moderators get on with their job as long as they don't over-do it. Question what moderators get up to, certainly, but look long and hard at your own behaviour before worrying about what moderators are doing right or wrong. Try and lead by example. If enough members do that, there will be less need for moderation. With less need for moderation, members will tend to be happier, and moderators will breath a sigh of relief at having a lower workload.
Be careful what you say. Because you're a moderator, and thus in a position of power and influence, those comments can't be construed as levity. Words that are innocent and entertaining when spoken by non-moderators magically become veiled threats and confirmation of ill intent when spoken by a mod.
:rolleyes:;)
Just as a technical note, "anarchy" refers to a system without leaders, which makes it impossible for "the one who can force his or her will on others" to prevail at anything, because anarchists do not respond to people who try to do those kinds of things -- those people are wannabe leaders, not anarchists.
Rules, democracy, and (to a lesser extent) policing have all been features of the anarchist communities I've witnessed or participated in. People deemed unsuitable (eg, because they are frequent rule breakers) by the community at large get the boot.
In fact, since the webmaster is pretty laissez-faire and the mods are not leaders (they are police), cboard is not too far from being anarchistic at all. I'm sure that if enough of the users got together via. a poll or something, and made a coherent request for a rule change with enough democratic support, we'd be listened to, and the mods would be as bound by that as anyone else.
Aren't you the clever one! No, you aren't. You coming into a thread and saying the thread is over has more weight than if I walk into a thread and declare it over. You're an idiot if you don't think that's true.
I can go back and quote your lack of smiley face and "j/k"s if you want. You decided there was nothing to say further on the matter and indicated that the thread was done.
Quzah.
All I have gotten out of this thread is that CommonTater has been here just over a year and he has over 7000 posts. All I can say is wow!!! That is almost 12 posts per day for 1.5 years.
That is some serious cboard activity. :)
Wow... you guys are really subtle... :redface:
You are mistaking the concepts.
Anarchy actually refers to a state of society without government or rule of law (where law is a body of principles and rules that are applicable to all members of a community).
You are describing the idealist's view of anarchy, which involves a lack of any government that has the power to enforce laws, and cooperation between members of the community - who agree to live by some set of rules or guidelines. The pessimist's view of anarchy is a lack of government, with a fragile state of cooperation, and the society exhibits chaotic behaviour if enough individuals choose not to cooperate with others. The realist's view of anarchy is somewhere between those.
You are also mixing up the concepts of leadership and domination. Leadership is not about forcing one's will upon others - it is about having attributes that others are willing to follow through informed choice. Domination is about forcing one's will on others. Anarchy does not prevent leaders arising (although, when that happens, the society may become something other than an anarchy) and also does not prevent some people dominating others. In fact, in an anarchy, dominators (or dictators) often become firmly entrenched, because there is no systematic way to remove them.
Sure. But the rules at any point in time in an anarchy are determined by who is strong enough to defend or enforce their chosen rules, or who can persuade or force others to enforce those rules. An anarchy does not offer any consistency of rules, orderly evolution of rules, or even any attempt to treat individuals fairly. It only guarantees that the rules will be chosen by the strongest or the most influential, without any checks or balances associated with other types of society.
Unlike an anarchy, other forms of society attempt to guarantee some consistency of rules and orderly transition of rules, other than what is determined by the most powerful or influential. Different forms of society vary in how much, and how, they achieve that.
Again, you are misinterpreting what an anarchy is. The role of police in most societies is a mix of enforcement and leadership, to varying degrees.
In an anarchistic society, the role (or even existence) of police varies over time, because the nature of rules they enforce also varies over time.
What you describe here is not anarchy (although it is what idealists claim anarchy to be). It is actually a form of democracy.
What the crap?! I didn't come to the general forum for weighty philosophical debate! :lunaticsmiley:
Quzah.
:childwithrunnynosesmiley:Quote:
:lunaticsmiley:
Soma
I'd expect a slight variation from this. In an anarchic regime, rules would be voted by the general population. Do not expect anarchic regimes to not institutionalize democratic proceedings. However the decision of what to vote and what not to vote is where the system shows its great weakness. That's where the power of an anarchic leader usually resides and essentially why anarchy is nothing but yet another unattainable utopia built from yet again trying to fight human most basic territorial and dominance instincts.
Anarchy, if we take an interested look at history, has never proved itself to be a goal. It was always the beginning of a form of government. Anarchy just isn't sustainable.
True, Mario. Other types of community or society can emerge from an anarchy. It is a bit difficult to predict in advance which one will emerge. Just as, when another type of society breaks down, it can descend toward anarchy.
The idealistic form of anarchy tends to break down to something less ideal because there are always people who don't cooperate with others. The view of anarchy as a chaotic society also tends to break down, usually to some non-anarchic form of society, because there are always people who seek or prefer some form of order.
Well, if it's still perceived as veiled threats, I should practice my threatening voice. Germans were pretty threatening screaming and driveling in b/w and creaky sound. Maybe I'll try that next :)
Okay, jokes aside, a mods job is to decide. To decide who is right and who is wrong in the context of the community. And we're not King Solomon so at least one participient will always feel he was deemed "wrong" and be unhappy. Even if there is no right or wrong side, no black and white. Most interpersonal communication is quite gray, even on the internet. And while it would be cool to instantly jump into a discussion when something offensive happens for the first time, it doesn't work that way. A mod probably comes in after sombebody else mentioned the thread as offensive, so the offenders are already 5-20 posts further along their path to a full blown flamewar. When we see something, we can say "hey, wait, don't do this again, or else...". But if that was 20 posts ago, I would feel pretty idiotic to say "hey, wait, don't do this another 15 times, or else...". Sometimes, the thread is too far gone to send a warning just like I wouldn't expect an officer to fire a warning shot if somebody killed 15 people and is aiming at #16.
Hmm... I'm sure you should realize by now that analogy doesn't make much sense. For starters, to my knowledge police officers are always instructed to shout at least one arrest order. But mostly, I'll agree to that analogy when an actual crime is committed on these boards (knock on wood!).
Anyways, no chance for this?
I'm sure you can see the value in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capital M Moderator
Nope. "Ana" from the greek means "against" and/or "without", depending on context. "Arch" refers to ruler. Anarchy refers to a form of political organization which eschews leadership and rulers. Not rules. And anarchist groups are more likely than hierarchical groups to truly have "a body of principles and rules that are applicable to all members of a community" because there is no hierarchy among the members allowing a rule to apply to one person but not another.
That's what it literally means. It also has a concrete history going back centuries, of which you appear to know absolutely nothing.
These are all conjectural -- they refer to what you may think a theoretical anarchist society might be like if such a thing existed, but presumes it does not, because there is no need for conjecture about what really existing things "might" be like.Quote:
The pessimist's view of anarchy is a lack of government, with a fragile state of cooperation, and the society exhibits chaotic behaviour if enough individuals choose not to cooperate with others. The realist's view of anarchy is somewhere between those.
Since there are real anarchist communities and organizations in the world, your conjecture is meaningless (even that of supposed "realist"). Empirically, it can be observed that anarchists do follow rules and are organized. No grand conjecture needed. I often criticize religion, but when I do it, I at least make reference to the actual behavior of real religious people.
The pejorative and inaccurate use of the term "anarchy" floated by people who's political experience mostly takes place in an armchair in front of a TV is just that. I could teach my children that US Republicans eat babies for breakfast. The fact that they might believe me does not make it true.
I am not questioning the value of what you refer to as "the pessimists view", however, that is not a view of anarchism, it is a view of a society which "exhibits chaotic behaviour if enough individuals choose not to cooperate with others". I think it is worth noting that anarchism requires cooperation -- without sufficient cooperation, you do not have anarchy, you have chaos. Chaos does not equate with anarchy, and using it that way is just about political spin and slander. If I hear of someone eating babies and say, "This is what the US Republicans have brought us to, everyone knows that is what they are advocating", I think it would be fair to say I am employing spin and slander. Same thing.
Sure there are good leaders and bad leaders. However, I do not see how one person can force one's will on another if you are equals -- you have to be in a position of power, whether it is one you take by force or one given to you because of the "informed choice" of others. Hitler was a leader in both ways at different times, but IMO at least, always a bad one. Anarchism does not allow for one individual or group of individuals within the community to take power (by any means) and wield it, hence the kind of domination you are talking about would be considered illegal and dealt with by the community appropriately.Quote:
You are also mixing up the concepts of leadership and domination. Leadership is not about forcing one's will upon others - it is about having attributes that others are willing to follow through informed choice. Domination is about forcing one's will on others.
It is important to understand that there is no such thing as an "Anarchist Nation" that holds dominion over its subject. Anarchists communities are voluntary. If you do not agree with or cannot abide by the tenants of anarchism and the community, then you do not have to participate.
Yes, it does. That is what it is by definition. As you admit, theoretical despots that may rise up out of anarchist communities would not any longer be members of an anarchist community. Their despotism would be taking place in society at large, not within an anarchist context. Of course, this is still very conjectural, because AFAIK, no (former) anarchist has ever done such a thing anyway.Quote:
Anarchy does not prevent leaders arising (although, when that happens, the society may become something other than an anarchy)
Going back to my example about the "anarchistic" side of cboard: beyond webmaster, there is no mechanism to allow anyone to seize power or attain leadership at present. By not allowing it, we prevent it. That is also how anarchism works.
Again, you are talking about some theoretical state that does not exist. Eg, Somalia is not a homogeneous anarchist state. It is just a state without a central authority, and various warring despots. Ie, it is heterogeneous and chaotic.Quote:
an anarchy, dominators (or dictators) often become firmly entrenched, because there is no systematic way to remove them.
WRT to the anarchist communities that do exist, as I've said repeatedly, these do have systematic means of removing would-be dictators. However, again, if your political experience is imparted to you solely via the mass media, this might have escaped your attention. But having an entrenched opinion on something completely off your map does not make you informed -- it makes you ignorant. By definition.
Again, you are speaking of something you are completely ignorant of; no actual anarchist community has ever operated that way. Previous to the modern age, "anarchy" in colloquial English may often have been used as a synonym for chaos. Very likely, this conflation was natural to people fiercely committed to their rulers, people who could not imagine getting along with out them.Quote:
But the rules at any point in time in an anarchy are determined by who is strong enough to defend or enforce their chosen rules, or who can persuade or force others to enforce those rules. An anarchy does not offer any consistency of rules, orderly evolution of rules, or even any attempt to treat individuals fairly. It only guarantees that the rules will be chosen by the strongest or the most influential, without any checks or balances associated with other types of society.
But that usage become apocryphal during the 18th century, when actual anarchists came into being. You will not find a reference to anarchists previous to that because there were not any. Since then, people on the political right have often resurrected the apocryphal usage in order to create the impression that there is some group of wacko leftists -- the anarchists, who do really exist, and are often very critical of the hegemonic right -- who's goal is to bring society to a state of chaos. Which has never been true. But telling the truth is not always high on everyone's political agenda.
At the very least, people who call themselves "anarchists" and advocate social chaos are A) a self fulfilling prophecy of the hegemonic right, and B) a rare exception*. I'd also guess: not part of any collective. The vast majority of anarchists do not promote chaos. This is sort of like cyber crime "hackers". Most people and organizations who call themselves hackers are not criminals.
* The hegemonic right would like to convince you these exceptions are a representative norm, because of course everyone on the left is some form of wacko, from who's chaotic tenancies all decent people need protection.
Over and over again: there is nothing about the philosophy of anarchism which rejects rules or consistency. In fact, that would be oxymoronic, since it literally means, no leaders. A consistent rule.Quote:
Unlike an anarchy, other forms of society attempt to guarantee some consistency of rules and orderly transition of rules
There are plenty of books by and about anarchists, grumpy. I assume either you are unaware of this or you have choosen to ignore this and make yourself the authority. The later is an attempt to edit/re-write history and a dismal standpoint epistemologically; if I decide knowledge is whatever I want to believe and completely eschew empiricism, what does that knowledge reflect? The world, or just me?
Yes, grumpy, in real life anarchism is pretty much always a form of direct democracy, and very often operates by consensus (100%) and not majority (51%). Meaning it is more democratic than most citizens of modern "democracies" can wrap their head around (because, of course, our society is already perfect and so anything that is not exactly the same must be flawed).Quote:
What you describe here is not anarchy (although it is what idealists claim anarchy to be). It is actually a form of democracy.
O_oQuote:
"Ana" from the greek means "against" and/or "without", depending on context. "Arch" refers to ruler.
Look at the way "Spouse" is written in Japanese or antiquated variations of "Quarrel" in Chinese.
The components of a word don't always add up so literally as you are implying.
I actually agree with your interpretation of anarchy, but talking about the etymology is a bloody poor way to defend your view.
Soma
And you don't see a problem with this?
Being you someone who spent most part of his post accusing someone else of ignorance of your ideological beliefs, it doesn't surprise me it didn't take you too long to reveal your own ignorance about what other political ideologies actually mean. Such is how it usually goes.
I'd like also to hear about what anarchist societies have emerged starting with the 18th century. I'm dying to understand what's this amazing fact of history I've been missing all these years.
I brought up the etymology because I think it is fundamental to understanding where anarchists came from and why they would choose to call themselves that.
You are right, pure etymology or semantics is not much of a "defense" of anything. But it can shed light on who said what when and why.
I do not think it would work in a nation state, where citizenship is compulsory and not voluntary. But I do not think an anarchist nation state is possible -- even if it worked by simple majority. You cannot force people to accept anarchism. It is something which must be choosen.
Which is probably why consensus works well in the situations (anarchist or otherwise) I've seen it deployed, tho most people (including myself) consider it absurd at first. This is pretty much a cliche amongst advocates of consensus ("Yeah, I thought it was the dumbest idea I'd ever heard. Then I gave it a chance..."). What happens is this: you have one person in 20 who repeatedly stands in the way. Eventually, such people recognize they are wasting their own time at least as much as everyone else's, and they quietly disappear. I've never heard of such a person wanting to stick around and just blatantly play the saboteur publicly, but maybe it has happened somewhere.
Nb, just because you need 100% agreement (consensus) on decisions that will affect everyone does not mean everyone has to agree about everything.
My jury is out about how well direct democracy (separate concept) could work in a nation state.
Kind of surprised to see you asking a LMGTFY type question.
History of anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to which it would seem there were anarchist collectives prior to the 18th century, but I'm sticking with the clear-cut explicitly (not just implicitly) Anarchist. :)
I am aware of that history (or, more precisely, the derivation of the word). What you are neglecting is that, although english words are derived from words in other languages (greek in this case), the english words do not mean precisely the same as the words from which they are derived.
The word "anarchy", as it has been used in the english language for some centuries, has the meaning I described. Granted, your description captures the derivation of the word "anarchy". But, given that I was writing in a modern english rather than in ancient greek, the definition I gave is one that may be found in any current and reasonably comprehensive english language dictionary.
I wrote in english, not in greek, so I will concede my argument may not seem quite right if my words were translated literally into greek.
A large part of political theory is concerned with progressing towards a desired end-state that is resisted by a number of your ostensible equals.
No, you are deeming me ignorant based on the fact I am not using the same modes of expression that you are. So I can justifiably accuse you of as much ignorance as you accuse me. Pot, kettle, black, and all that.
If I was to decide knowledge is only what I can observe empirically, and can only be expressed with reference to a particular historical context, what would that knowledge reflect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
I'm not against this ideal (progress), but I'm skeptical of how it is defined and understood, which is part of why I would call myself an anarchist. A major significance of anarchism in the 19th and early 20th century was that it was taken up by people who dissented inside communist groups (who were very much about proceeding toward a "desired end state"). Some leftist-marxist types (the anarchists) said this was too crass an application of dialectical materialism and pointed out it would most likely lead to one lousy system replacing another, which turned out to be mostly true. Because of this history, communist regimes are extremely intolerant of anarchists and consider them dangerous opponents to be weeded out and eradicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy
I suppose I don't see that as progress toward a desirable end state, maybe you have some other version.
If the other choice is "whatever pie in the sky party goes on between my ears", I'll settle for the empirical.Quote:
If I was to decide knowledge is only what I can observe empirically, and can only be expressed with reference to a particular historical context, what would that knowledge reflect?
Again, the big issue here is your desire to conflate anarchy with chaos. The only reason I see to do this is because you want to align yourself with a tradition whereby human beings are naturally inclined to destructiveness (might be so!) and the only way to restrain this ungodly chaotic nature is a strong hierarchical hegemony of Rulers (not so).
You are entitled to disagree with the philosophy of anarchism. Unfortunately, you have chosen to do it by attacking a textbook straw dog.
it seems to me that you're getting off topic a bit.
this was a discussion of heavy-handed tactics by forum moderators, and you've turned it into a discussion of the history and effects of anarchy in general.
I can certainly appreciate the merits of BOTH discussions, although one is relevant to the original subject of this thread, and the other is not. if you want to continue the anarchy discussion, it might be best to split it off into its own thread, so that this thread can get back on topic, just in case there is any more to be said on the subject.
I had no such desire. I simply observed that, in practice, anarchy is often overtly associated with some forms of chaotic behaviour.
There are rules that govern how gaseous particles interact (based on interchange of momentum and energy) but observable net effects such as brownian motion are difficult to predict in advance so exhibit some elements of unpredictable, possibly chaotic, behaviour. Analogous statements might be made about any type of complex system, including societies.
My actual points though (coming back to the topic of this thread) are that a forum site needs rules, it needs some systematic enforcement of rules (by moderators), that moderators are imperfect but things are usually alright as long as they genuinely try to do the right thing, and that tying moderators hands is not a solution to any problems in a forum.
It is you who interpreted my words as a wider attack on your specific preferred form of society.
You have to define anarchy as chaos to do that, otherwise you do not have any observations of anything in practice, because your examples did not involve anarchism or anarchists.
In fact, the whole discussion of "what happens under chaos" (I'm going to save confusion and use that word) hinges on the reification of the concept of social chaos. But there is no real thing "social chaos" (conversely, there are real anarchists) -- it is just conceptual.
That concept is weighted in order to produce a desired conclusion (a cart before the horse) because otherwise it is unnecessary. I referred to Somalia as "heterogenous and chaotic", but that does not explain why something really happened or what could really happen. To understand that, you would need to understand the actual events, the people involved, the specific history etc.
If you were interested in doing something in Somalia (start a business, wage a war, whatever), the stupidest thing you could do would be to hire a consultant working "top down" from Mario or grumpy's premise (various reified armchair philosophy things about what happens in "a state of social chaos"). Instead you would hire someone who knew specific details of what is really going on where and when.
Ie, the concept is useless except for curmudgeons in armchairs to mull over after dinner, or as political rhetoric in influencing policy making, etc. That's why ALL of Mario & grumpy's posts dealt in complete abstraction, without any real examples.
So if
You are unconsciously playing out someone else's (inherited hot air), which is probably even more unfortunate.Quote:
I had no such desire.
I would suggest you are consciously playing out someone else's (inherited hot air). I remind you this started as a discussion about moderation of a forum, not attempting to wage a war.
You are the one exhibiting contempt for those who don't subscribe to your views, not Mario or I. And that contempt, which I've seen shown by others who advocate anarchy, is one reason I consider anarchic systems to be fragile. You don't exhibit the behaviours that you espouse.