Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
--Do we have to put up with this kind of vile abuse, as in
- http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=3232833
Can anything be done?
It is really depressing!
Rosie
----Do we have to put up with this kind of vile abuse, as in
- http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=3232833
Can anything be done?
It is really depressing!
Rosie
[email protected]
--I'm with you guys
do you guys think that Phil should expell posters who put
inflamitory links in their signature? Scott did just that. I bet
if some poster had a link to a KKK site in his signature, you guys
would think he should be banished. What's the difference...they're
both lifestyle choices that some people find threatening and
offensive. Scott has posted for months on the Canon forum and no
one has commented on his signature...until he told someone he was
full of BS. It was only after that that the name-calling begun.
The fellow you are defending partially brought it upon himself.
Here's a post later in the same thread. Tolerance is needed here,
not expultion.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=3234223
Keep your wits about youselves...no need to sensor the site.
None of this has anything to do with cameras!do you guys think that Phil should expell posters who put
inflamitory links in their signature? Scott did just that. I bet
if some poster had a link to a KKK site in his signature, you guys
would think he should be banished. What's the difference...they're
both lifestyle choices that some people find threatening and
offensive. Scott has posted for months on the Canon forum and no
one has commented on his signature...until he told someone he was
full of BS. It was only after that that the name-calling begun.
The fellow you are defending partially brought it upon himself.
Here's a post later in the same thread. Tolerance is needed here,
not expultion.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=3234223
Keep your wits about youselves...no need to sensor the site.
So where do you draw your line exactly?I agree, did you read what the guy scott said first? Why was it
alright for him to be inflammatory. I could care less about his
sex life, he started the ball rolling though.
So where do you draw your line exactly?I agree, did you read what the guy scott said first? Why was it
alright for him to be inflammatory. I could care less about his
sex life, he started the ball rolling though.
I have seen many flames similar to Scotts all over this forum - I
dont like them either, but the response was of a completely
different order - it was about as hateful, bigoted and poisonous as
anything I ever read on any forum anywhere - and you think this is
"justified" ??
--
Steve
So where do you draw your line exactly?I agree, did you read what the guy scott said first? Why was it
alright for him to be inflammatory. I could care less about his
sex life, he started the ball rolling though.
I have seen many flames similar to Scotts all over this forum - I
dont like them either, but the response was of a completely
different order - it was about as hateful, bigoted and poisonous as
anything I ever read on any forum anywhere - and you think this is
"justified" ??
--
Steve
Wrong!Nothing on this site should be about anything but cameras,
photography etc.--including lifestyle signatures--these types of
postings just invite the kinds of bigoted comments etc.
Wrong. Very different. Here he was being disagreeable--at the same time saying something about himself personally. When the attacks start to get personal, the comments do as well. Inevitably, anything the guy knew about Scott would be brought up--it could be anything like his height or weight or anything. If he didn't advertise that he was gay, which I don't know why he has to do this, especially here, it would not be used as a source of attacking him. This is very different than an innocent non provoking **** victim.Wrong!Nothing on this site should be about anything but cameras,
photography etc.--including lifestyle signatures--these types of
postings just invite the kinds of bigoted comments etc.
Come on, now. That's the old way of thinking that blamed the ****
victim for the **** because she wore here jeans too tight.
Ron
Leeves,Wrong. Very different. Here he was being disagreeable--at theWrong!Nothing on this site should be about anything but cameras,
photography etc.--including lifestyle signatures--these types of
postings just invite the kinds of bigoted comments etc.
Come on, now. That's the old way of thinking that blamed the ****
victim for the **** because she wore here jeans too tight.
Ron
same time saying something about himself personally. When the
attacks start to get personal, the comments do as well.
Inevitably, anything the guy knew about Scott would be brought
up--it could be anything like his height or weight or anything. If
he didn't advertise that he was gay, which I don't know why he has
to do this, especially here, it would not be used as a source of
attacking him. This is very different than an innocent non
provoking **** victim.
I agree that neither attack is right. It just seems like the person that complained here pointed out this guy and not the first one. That's like pointing out the second to swing in a fist fight. I do believe that a personal insult is a personal insult. If you start it, then be prepared to recieve them. No matter how bad it gets. In my mind the first guys personal remarks are just as bad as the second's. I may be worng,, but I don't remember seeing anything in the rules about one level of personal insult being better than another. This is the fist posts I have read from either, incidentily. I'm not familiar with either.Leeves,Wrong. Very different. Here he was being disagreeable--at theWrong!Nothing on this site should be about anything but cameras,
photography etc.--including lifestyle signatures--these types of
postings just invite the kinds of bigoted comments etc.
Come on, now. That's the old way of thinking that blamed the ****
victim for the **** because she wore here jeans too tight.
Ron
same time saying something about himself personally. When the
attacks start to get personal, the comments do as well.
Inevitably, anything the guy knew about Scott would be brought
up--it could be anything like his height or weight or anything. If
he didn't advertise that he was gay, which I don't know why he has
to do this, especially here, it would not be used as a source of
attacking him. This is very different than an innocent non
provoking **** victim.
You're missing the point, I think. Advertising a controversial
lifestyle--be it gay, republican, democrat or Franklin Mint Plate
Collector--is no more reason to be "attacked" than dressing
provocatively is a reason to be attacked. Even though the levels
of attack are much different in these two cases, neither attack is
justified nor worthy of being condoned.
Ron
I was doing no such thing. I was simply stating that if the flame was against someone who had included a link celebrating the kkk in his signature, you (or others taking scott's side in the scott vs rock flame) might be taking the other side. It was my contention that including a link in your signature that celebrates something as controversial as homosexuality, a lifestyle that, when openly practiced, is cause for imprisonment or worse in much of the world, is an invitation for conflict. I didn't compare the kkk to homosexuality, other than to say that they are both morally offensive to large numbers of people. When offront people with what they perceve as immorality, they often become indignant. This is scott's crime...and it has been ignored until this thread. Everyone graciously ignored his signature that invited people to read his gay life web site. Scott then calls someone a liar and the accused responds by calling scott a faggot, and the open-talk forum calls for roc's expultion. I just posted to make the case that the problem does not lie entirely with roc. was roc's response appropriate? no. However, it's like the Punk Rocker with purple hair who, with a nasty snarl says, "What are you looking at? You looking for a fight?" How can you expect not to be stared at when you have purple hair?As for equating the KKK with homosexuality, please stop being
rediculous.
I was doing no such thing. I was simply stating that if the flameAs for equating the KKK with homosexuality, please stop being
rediculous.
was against someone who had included a link celebrating the kkk in
his signature, you (or others taking scott's side in the scott vs
rock flame) might be taking the other side. It was my contention
that including a link in your signature that celebrates something
as controversial as homosexuality, a lifestyle that, when openly
practiced, is cause for imprisonment or worse in much of the
world, is an invitation for conflict. I didn't compare the kkk to
homosexuality, other than to say that they are both morally
offensive to large numbers of people. When offront people with
what they perceve as immorality, they often become indignant. This
is scott's crime...and it has been ignored until this thread.
Everyone graciously ignored his signature that invited people to
read his gay life web site. Scott then calls someone a liar and
the accused responds by calling scott a faggot, and the open-talk
forum calls for roc's expultion. I just posted to make the case
that the problem does not lie entirely with roc. was roc's
response appropriate? no. However, it's like the Punk Rocker with
purple hair who, with a nasty snarl says, "What are you looking at?
You looking for a fight?" How can you expect not to be stared at
when you have purple hair?
