GrazingCattle wrote:Requesting that this be officially moved to the flame wars.
I agree, your cursing and personal attacks justify this.
GrazingCattle wrote:This was a good project that could easily have been accepted or shunned by the community.
And, to a significant extent it was shunned. Why can't you accept that without crying?
GrazingCattle wrote:Comparing the ignore list to a red dawn scenario is insane!
Do you lack all knowledege of classical debate? Just in case you need a lesson: demonstrating the irrationality of another's point by equating effectively to another irrational point is a common tool of argument.
GrazingCattle wrote: It is your poor since or moral standards that has lead to the downfall of western nations. You permissive attitude towards those that have shown ill will to the community at large is forcing the mods to be more permissive.
Example? Obviously your debate skills largely exist of unsupported claims - exacty how I feared this committee would be run.
GrazingCattle wrote:...morals aside this was meant to be a place for the community to restore its power to judge a persons actions, instead of saying the mods should make the calls on what or what isn't appropriate behavior. This was a healthy outlet for the community to express their opinion on certain behaviors.
Again, example? Who asked anyone to stop expressing their opinions in any way? Just because people with better logical faculties and genuine maturity took away the little soapbox you were standing on, doesn't mean that you couldn't express your opinions from the same altitude as everyone else. The amount of non sequitors you employ is staggering!
GrazingCattle wrote:You claim that you aren't defending people's actions, yet by permitting it to go on "unnoticed" is the same as tolerating.
I'm not encouraging any undesirable game behavior to go unnoticed. I'm encouraging people to ignore your observations of others.
GrazingCattle wrote:I saw a community with now vocal point. No way of enforcing its own will. No mechanism to condemn people's poor behavior.
What do you call the forums, the feedback system and everyone's personal ability to ignore playing with whomever they please? The tools of free association and free disassociation are tremendously successful on this site.
GrazingCattle wrote:This was a program that was very dear to me. I felt that most would see it's merits and help to work out any flaws, by helping. Instead I was met with opposition by many and by disrespect by others.
So you are saying that being met by opposition when you present an idea means you were wronged? Calling a very bad idea a very bad idea is not disrespect. That's how the forum of ideas in the real world works.
GrazingCattle wrote:... when I tried to contact opposer's of the list to join the committee so that they could help insure a fair list they turned me down.
You never contacted me. But, I would have turned you down as well. I can't tell you how proud I am of those who shunned you privately in such a consistent manner.
GrazingCattle wrote:You illogical fallacies put aside, you cannot maintain a view that the committee approved list is wrong.
You have yet to support any claim you've made by example, never punctured any dissenters' claims with anything more elegant the "GFY" So, don't make us all laugh by such weak statements.
GrazingCattle wrote: The only way to say that rule by the people is fair is by election. All committee members were going to be elected on regular basis, but the founding Committee was formed to handle business immediately.
Even if this committee were "duly" elected, I would equally oppose its fundamental nature. Nonetheless you've poked even greater holes in your own mental makeup. How high was the burden to have the election up front? How pressing was the emergency that the time needed for such and election was unavailable? Such despotic claims have been made by the Bolsheviks coming into power and every other dictator seizing power of anything.
GrazingCattle wrote:You have helped me to decide to leave CC for good.
Win-win. Either you do leave, or you continue to participate in CC and demonstrate beyond anyone's doubt that your appeals to emotional claims are all that you have in your bag to make a point.
GrazingCattle wrote:... the CSIL cannot work.
Even on this point, we disagree. I think it easily could work. If I thought it couldn't work, I wouldn't have bothered pointing out its flaws to everyone. Although it "working" would be a functioning witch hunt, especially considering its founder's inability to stick to his guns without resorting to either cute swearing acronyms or emotional appeals.
Cheers!