So I posted a message on SM after my banning, which they kept but switched the handle around to shroud its true source:
link
I responded to the SM staffer personally, but I wanted to put it up here for those few lost souls who continue to meander to this corner from time to time.
*note this is not a verbatim response, it's a paraphrase, with some more added.
HMF.
Thats my name. dont wear it out.
Let's leave aside the fact that I haven't even had the opportunity to respond to your email...
this wasn't made known to me until now.
Let's leave aside the fact that you circumvented being banned, which was a total middle-finger at all of us and what we are trying to do (we didn't ban you impulsively, or without discussing it)...
if you mean by posting from a different machine, you wouldn't even have known had I not used my true handle. Secondly, the banning was impulsive, as the "explanation" given came later. And what exactly are you trying to do? stifle opinions that deviate from your own?
And finally, let's leave aside the vitriol-laced tirade of comments on your personal blog about us, regarding how we like to give Razib rim-jobs, where Manju patiently, repeatedly articulated our (and many of our readers') concerns better than even we could...
My blog is my space. I know some of you like to think you're all powerful, but the line must be drawn when you start to govern what other people say on their blogs. Also, if comments where I state my great respect for the work you and your crew have done constitutes "vitriol" I shudder to think what constitutes praise.
I'm sorry if my opinions of Razibs post makes you quiver. i find them cumbersome and preachy.
...your second comment after the helpful, on-topic one about Selvam was obnoxious. A massive "fuck you" to all of us. "Guess I'm back and better than before" or some such sentiment.
thats a misunderstanding then, it was my acknowledging that you had chosen to make the ban less than permanent.
THAT is why I deleted it. If you notice, the comment where you didn't congratulate yourself for breaking rules, the comment which wasn't rude or hostile or combative is still up.
After you turned me into a soft-core porn magazine.
And please don't print this email. Not cool,
Well, I believe banning someone unjustly is equally uncool. besides who even reads my blog anyway?
but you have no respect for us (and especially me), so I don't have high hopes.
well, again, I must say your respect for my point of view has deteriorated of late as well
I have always defended our decision to allow you to stay when others have been banned for far less. I have always tried to be fair.
The only problem is, I do actually provide engaging commentary and discussion, if I was a common troll, as you would like to believe, I would have been banned much earlier.
As for topics I repeatedly bring up, I think they are important. I'm sorry you don't. but these are two I've studied and pondered for years.
So, with certain topics in hand, I will say I am energetic about my opinions, but again, I've never directly attacked someone until provoked. Then the gloves come off. Isn't that fair in your book?
I am not posting on SM regularly or writing you back immediately for a reason: my health.
I hope you feel better.
Instead of giving me the courtesy of hearing me out and working with me, you switched IPs like a common troll and came back anyway (and then left a bad comment after a good one).
The good comment is effectively deleted, as it's not ascribed to me. Im not sure what "hearing you out" and "working with you" means, but I still maintain I did nothing other than state my own opinions (and if people deem it off topic they can choose not to respond)
Resignedly,
XXXXX :(
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Response given
So, The folks at SM have provided me with a response, here it is:
sorry that you feel you were banned without cause. You know that I have always tried to be fair to you.
It was not one comment but rather the progressive trend of increasing hostility and lack of consideration for others that we have seen in your comments. Put simply, your confrontational nature and tendency to hijack posts turns people off and discourages them from commenting on our site. We reserve the right to maintain an atmosphere that is inclusive where people can feel comfortable exchanging ideas. I hope you find another forum where you can engage in the types of discussions you seem to be seeking.
Best,
XXXXX
Now, lets just have a look at the last thread which apparently was "the straw that broke the camels back" in this situation.
link here
My first post, said I had no interesting stories, and I stated an opinion that inter-religious weddings where each side is deep into their religions would probably not work out, that if anything would require one side to not so connected to the ritualistic side of their religion.
I had a few energetic posts.. but no vitriol directed against any one person.
The first time I directed any insults at ANY ONE PERSON was here
but lo and behold, it was in direct response to this statement.
Namely, this excerpt: "i can't believe what a penny pinching scrooge that hmf fellow is. i feel sorry for his partner and children."
Not only is this person a gold-digger, they have the gall to insult my family.
Now, in my response, I called this person for the gold-digging b*tch she is, basically assessing a man's value by his wallet, which is the clear implication in her statement.
I invite any of you readers to go back to ANY thread, and locate a direct attack I've made that wasn't provoked in this way. You'd be hard pressed to find any examples.
And yet the usually fair folks at SM, have now renegged on their own claim to create an environment with a willfull exchange of ideas.
Apparently they are happy only when you agree to spending money on big weddings.
sorry that you feel you were banned without cause. You know that I have always tried to be fair to you.
It was not one comment but rather the progressive trend of increasing hostility and lack of consideration for others that we have seen in your comments. Put simply, your confrontational nature and tendency to hijack posts turns people off and discourages them from commenting on our site. We reserve the right to maintain an atmosphere that is inclusive where people can feel comfortable exchanging ideas. I hope you find another forum where you can engage in the types of discussions you seem to be seeking.
Best,
XXXXX
Now, lets just have a look at the last thread which apparently was "the straw that broke the camels back" in this situation.
link here
My first post, said I had no interesting stories, and I stated an opinion that inter-religious weddings where each side is deep into their religions would probably not work out, that if anything would require one side to not so connected to the ritualistic side of their religion.
I had a few energetic posts.. but no vitriol directed against any one person.
The first time I directed any insults at ANY ONE PERSON was here
but lo and behold, it was in direct response to this statement.
Namely, this excerpt: "i can't believe what a penny pinching scrooge that hmf fellow is. i feel sorry for his partner and children."
Not only is this person a gold-digger, they have the gall to insult my family.
Now, in my response, I called this person for the gold-digging b*tch she is, basically assessing a man's value by his wallet, which is the clear implication in her statement.
I invite any of you readers to go back to ANY thread, and locate a direct attack I've made that wasn't provoked in this way. You'd be hard pressed to find any examples.
And yet the usually fair folks at SM, have now renegged on their own claim to create an environment with a willfull exchange of ideas.
Apparently they are happy only when you agree to spending money on big weddings.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Banned from SM. With no response.
Banned from SM.
Well, it finally happened. Those at SM, who I've immensely respected for the last year or so for their commitment to people
voicing their opinions and defending themselves when attacked, have blocked me with no information as to why.
I have requested information from various SM parties as to the rationale for the banning, and have received no such response, again very unbecoming behavior for people I generally hold in high regard. Even the ones whose only response to me is unhinged vitriol, without provocation.
My last thread was an inter-religious wedding topic, where I stated my opinion that if either partner heavily practices their religion then a marital union would be quite difficult. And the case where one party doesn't practice their religion overtly (of course saying nothing about their beliefs in underlying principles) would facilitate an inter-religious marriage to much more substantially.
Now, another discussion ensued where I stated an opinion I have that large expenditures on wedding festivities is a complete
waste of money, even for those who have it. A flurry of messages came in response of the sort, "well certain expectations must be met"
to which I responded, in essence, screw the expectations and opinions of others, and do what you feel is right.
Ak, again, one of the more sane commenters on SM, attempted to "catch me in my own words" by implying that if the disregard of others opinions should be accepted broadly, then my own opinion on large spending for weddings should be equally disregarded by the spenders.
However, I explained that if doing so, trangresses the very "law" that she's invoked, it's a logically unsound argument.
To which she responded, she didn't imply they should disregard my opinion out of following my advice to categorically reject all persons expectations, rather they can selectively reject my expectation (to spend thriflly on a wedding) but engage in large spending to meet others expectations (ie prove to the patels and shahs across the street they're rich)
To which I responded, "no duh, thats a backtrack" because you're essentially saying everyone has the right to do what they want, which is fine, there's no reason to bring up my statement of "disregard expecations" if you're not implying their following of my "rule", however it was clear in her statement , she was attempting to "use my words against" me, and I spent a great deal of time pointing this out, as I felt it was important.
Now if the SM moderators felt it was too far off-topic (which I agree it was), and not constructive in any way, a simple closing of the thread would have sufficed. So if any of the SM brigade can offer a reason why I was banned, without violating any of their rules (or at least point out in what way I did violate their rules) it would be much appreciated.
Well, it finally happened. Those at SM, who I've immensely respected for the last year or so for their commitment to people
voicing their opinions and defending themselves when attacked, have blocked me with no information as to why.
I have requested information from various SM parties as to the rationale for the banning, and have received no such response, again very unbecoming behavior for people I generally hold in high regard. Even the ones whose only response to me is unhinged vitriol, without provocation.
My last thread was an inter-religious wedding topic, where I stated my opinion that if either partner heavily practices their religion then a marital union would be quite difficult. And the case where one party doesn't practice their religion overtly (of course saying nothing about their beliefs in underlying principles) would facilitate an inter-religious marriage to much more substantially.
Now, another discussion ensued where I stated an opinion I have that large expenditures on wedding festivities is a complete
waste of money, even for those who have it. A flurry of messages came in response of the sort, "well certain expectations must be met"
to which I responded, in essence, screw the expectations and opinions of others, and do what you feel is right.
Ak, again, one of the more sane commenters on SM, attempted to "catch me in my own words" by implying that if the disregard of others opinions should be accepted broadly, then my own opinion on large spending for weddings should be equally disregarded by the spenders.
However, I explained that if doing so, trangresses the very "law" that she's invoked, it's a logically unsound argument.
To which she responded, she didn't imply they should disregard my opinion out of following my advice to categorically reject all persons expectations, rather they can selectively reject my expectation (to spend thriflly on a wedding) but engage in large spending to meet others expectations (ie prove to the patels and shahs across the street they're rich)
To which I responded, "no duh, thats a backtrack" because you're essentially saying everyone has the right to do what they want, which is fine, there's no reason to bring up my statement of "disregard expecations" if you're not implying their following of my "rule", however it was clear in her statement , she was attempting to "use my words against" me, and I spent a great deal of time pointing this out, as I felt it was important.
Now if the SM moderators felt it was too far off-topic (which I agree it was), and not constructive in any way, a simple closing of the thread would have sufficed. So if any of the SM brigade can offer a reason why I was banned, without violating any of their rules (or at least point out in what way I did violate their rules) it would be much appreciated.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
My first sexual experience.
Are you f'n kidding me?... do you expect me to actually blog about this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)