Green Osiris Posted February 8, 2007 No, I don’t think Green Osiris had anything to do with it either (also I am known to be biased). But that’s what makes up the elements of freedom. It’s that some people are well within their rights to misconstrue another’s intentions however they please. Effectively banning one person is another one’s right, so much more so if they hold an esteemed position in which they have been honoured enough to be granted - through dedication, knowledge, open-mindedness and community responsibility. To those screaming ‘wowserism’ to the SAB moderation club we must consider that, despite my assumptions, so far this is not a lock-down entirely. Much to my surprise, my first mod-queued post was in fact posted, to my mind unedited, albeit with a 24 hour delay which has since been explained publicly. We aren’t to know whether the post was released on the basis of the moderator’s own mind, or whether it was first given the seal of approval from mister T, but the fact is that it was released. So give some credit where it’s due, people. To draw upon a hypothetical example that comes to mind, one which may or may not be perceived as relative in this situation, the moderation-queue system is flawed in many respects. Whilst the administrator may consider him/herself as an unbiased party, it cannot be assumed from the rest of the team, dependant on which forum one may post in. Let’s say a post was queued for approval where the decision maker has a poor, primary school level of understanding basic English, due not to ethnicity but simply bad education. Can this person be trusted to make independent decisions on another’s commentary, and the inert true nature of the author’s intent ? And what if that same moderator had shown an assumed aversion to a poster in previous times? Fortunately, in this hypothetical scenario I personally have no cause for concern, for I don’t post in such environments. Whilst I will staunchly disagree that my posts are a significant contribution to the alleged vibe shift, in a small societal element like SAB the rule makers are the rule enforcers, and if perceptions are assumed to be fact, then general members cannot make judgements on these managerial actions. It makes little difference that X people have a problem versus Y people enjoying the tone. An all-encompassing generalisation must be assumed. So too with personal insults being acceptable in certain circumstances and from specific origins. Unlike a local RSL club that will offend old-timers if the establishment threatens to alter the vibe of a club by renovating, putting in pool tables and making it attractive to newer generations in order to maximize profit and keep the place brimming with new and exciting variants of guests, the Corroboree has no such need to undergo a shift in the tried & true ways, and long-term members and their wishes should be looked after. Let’s just hope that they stick around. From many private communications received (yes, some people ARENT pissed off with me), I would hazard a guess that there are a multitude of reasons that some of the early members have dropped off. However it is not for me to comment further. A final word of warning to those who think they're in line for moderating. Personal settings (avatar/signature etc) are blocked - no doubt due to a perceived threat, but one of which I cannot fathom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FungalFractoids Posted February 10, 2007 i they then talked about how much better american slaves were treated, how arabs had more sex slaves but americans used slaves mostly for work etc etc etc If I were a slave I'd prefer to fuck than work Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted February 10, 2007 If I were a slave I'd prefer to fuck than work Sure, but I think to aptly describe the situation, it'd have to be called rape. So you'd rather be raped than work? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sobriquet Posted February 10, 2007 So you'd rather be raped than work? Reminds me of a world war II story an Italian veteran once told me where a convent in Rome was repeatedly marauded by the advancing German troops where they raped all the nuns except for Sister Maria. He said that this occurred on at least on 12 occasions and I obviously asked why the German troops never raped Sister Maria in all those raids. He replied that "Sister Maria didn't like that sort of stuff". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted February 10, 2007 Sexist bullshite. I'm sure all those women taken as slaves to be in some dudes harem just loved the time they spent there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sobriquet Posted February 10, 2007 Sexist bullshite. I'm sure all those women taken as slaves to be in some dudes harem just loved the time they spent there. Cheer up apoth, it was actually a joke You'll find it amongst Irish comedian Dave Allen's repertoires. (One of his trademarks was making jokes about the Catholic church). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nil Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) if we were all in a room together, i wonder how many of us would be able to draw our eyeballs back out of our skulls. Edited February 10, 2007 by evolutionNth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FungalFractoids Posted February 11, 2007 Sure, but I think to aptly describe the situation, it'd have to be called rape.So you'd rather be raped than work? Rape is a very relative term, from what I understand of Arab harem's they weren't particularly violent or anything. So given the choice between that and beingg flogged by American slave drivers while picking cotton for 16 hours a day, yeah I'd prefer the harem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hagakure Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) im pretty sure in all cases of slavery, slaves were used for hard work. and the african slaves sent to america were often raped by their white owners. but in the case of harems some would have indeed been absolutely amazing. good food, palace like surroundings. humans are pretty basic at times, many would adapt very quickly. plus lots of other girls for support etc. i would definately rather be in a palace harem than be a regular slave. but most slaves taken for sex probably would have been in the most horrific whore houses you could imagine. messed up shit. was thinking about similar things the other day. was watching the ken burns "jazz" documentry - its really really good. they were talking about billie holiday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_Holiday who worked in a brothel when she was about 13 or so. this is the 1930s in america. now there are still horrible things in america but there must be a lot less young girls in brothels. australia was probably very similar. things can appear bad in these modern times but look at how far we have come. also makes me think of 3rd world countries. many seem like they are just many years behind us and as they develop they will shake off a lot of those horrible side effects of rampant poverty etc. Edited February 11, 2007 by Hagakure Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted February 11, 2007 Cheer up apoth, it was actually a joke You'll find it amongst Irish comedian Dave Allen's repertoires. (One of his trademarks was making jokes about the Catholic church). Forgive me, I don't find sexist bullshite funny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted February 11, 2007 Rape is a very relative term, from what I understand of Arab harem's they weren't particularly violent or anything. So given the choice between that and beingg flogged by American slave drivers while picking cotton for 16 hours a day, yeah I'd prefer the harem. That's because you're selecting between being an Arabic female in the harem and being a female slave in the harem. i.e. ones group had their rights as a female protected by Islam (at least as far as that protection goes), but the other had no rights at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stonewolf Posted February 13, 2007 What really annoys me is that disagreeing with a countries foreign policy these days is more and more being equated with racism or a distaste for the people of that nation. I can't stand the isreali government and beleive that esentially isreal does not have any "god given right" to the area of land they currently control. I dont begrudge them having it because they've now been there several generations and it would be wrong to displace people living there for so long (in the case of about 10% of Isrealis its been 1000s of years), but the arrogance of the isreali government would suggest they have always had a right to the entire of the middle east. The wall and their constant invasions of the gaza strip are seen to be just fine, when i see it in the same catigory as suicide bombers. This makes me VERY racist apparantly. I've been told im a JEW HATER because i dont sanction the actions of a government. When the hell did a fierce pro isreali streak slip into the mind of the average australian, cant we be neutral and judge them for their actions? I wouldn't even be suprised if this gets me branded racist here anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
onz Posted February 13, 2007 I can't believe no ones mentioned the hilarity of botanikas posts. Brilliant humor. It was refreshing amungst all the bad vibrations Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gomaos Posted February 13, 2007 imagine you'd be a male slave involved in a harem... they'd cut your nuts off... personally i 'd rather work... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted February 14, 2007 I can't believe no ones mentioned the hilarity of botanikas posts. Brilliant humor. It was refreshing amungst all the bad vibrations I definitely noticed it. It was the sort of dry humour that had enough balls to stand on it's own without much comment Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
