quote:
The concept of "taking back a message board" is kind of lost on me


The idea is lost on me, too. I don't know what state of board nirvana or, I guess, the board's former Garden of Eden status that's implicit in the reactions of members to DEBATE STYLES, TONE LOCO and, now, RB's thread.

quote:
at the end of the day, some lunatic degrading a message board is going to be on the low end of my priority scale.


It's not the priority scale that's the problem. It's the lack of having "lunatics" on the LOW END on the RESPONSE SCALE. Members aren't being honest with themselves. They often enable said "lunatics"... That seems to be a high priority. Perhaps people enjoy it. If they do, they should own it. Or maybe it's like the bug and the zapper...

"Don't feed the trolls" or, in this case, "don't help a lunatic degrade the message board."

I have my theory why this happens, especially since I've received/earned a certain kind of person-non-grata status around here. A number of people who consider me a "lunatic" of some sort didn't/don't care to respond to any topic or post I make. Funny how that could happen to me but certain people who put me on ignore, etc. just can't resist the likes of CON-Feed, Michael Lofton, RB, etc., etc., etc.

So, what I'm saying is that there is quite a bit of culpability on the part of board members who get all worked up over the "loonies" to the point of allowing the "loonies" to determine whether they enjoy this board or not. Why should the loonies have that kind of power of (the figurative) you? The member culpability also includes how they are willing participants in the "lunatic degrading" the board because of the enjoyment they get going after said lunatic. Whether its a personal attack or a solid point made about the topic or the way the lunatic treats the topic/response... it's still a contribution towards the lunatic running the asylum.

Also, there should be enough non-lunatic members around for them to be able to approach and conduct the kind of discussions they want. That, or people should be honest enough to admit that they have a particular affection for lunatics or some level of opinion (and personality) conflict.
I had typed up almost an entire e-book in response to this thread and topic. But its best to keep things short and to the point.

Good topic, wrong poster. The word hypocrite seems to float around in my mind regarding this.

In terms of my previous comments about Romulus, I meant every word. I think that something is wrong with a person who exhibits so much disdain for black children and is a teacher. Which Rom said was his profession when he first joined the board.
It is illogical and unnatural to be a teacher and hate children (that is the impression I get from his posts on youth). In my opinion, something in fact is wrong with Romulus mentally. He may not be bi-polar but he has serious issue(s).
So if he calls a young black girl a 'trick' or a 'ho', as a parent and woman I'm taking issue with it and with him. EOD.
This is sooo painful to watch. VOX, there is absolutely no way you will make any headway in this, or any discussion with Romulus - where you are not in 100% agreement. His fragile ego won't allow it.

In case folks haven't noticed, there is a direct relationship between the strength of your argument and the lack of common sense that Romulus exhibits, i.e., the righter you are the more outrageous Romulus' conduct.
One other thing, Vox...

A prime example of what I'm talking about is what you and I are almost doing -- i.e. thread snatching. Members can simply talk over, around or without the "lunatics" even in threads they start. That's what tangents are for. lol

Soooooooo... In this thread, seems to me members could make the point Yemaya makes -- "Good topic, wrong poster" -- and keep the focus on whatever they feel is worthy of discussing even if it requires speaking over, around and without engaging the "lunatics."

The "wrong poster", at most, should be a passing reference and certainly not the focus of members' remarks... IF... people honestly and earnestly want AA.org to be all they feel INTELLIGENT.BLACK.COMMUNITY should be. That's how members can drive the discussion, any discussion, no matter who starts it.
quote:
Again, my friend, the ONLY thing you said the ANYBODY had ANY disagreement with was when you said she should "put her psychiatrist on hold."


Wrong again, vox. You're purposefully trying to misconstrue SistahSouljah's misunderstanding of my use of words as her not agreeing with my advice, which is one of the main reasons why I posted the excerpts from Deborah Tannen's book:

When you're having an argument with someone, you're usually not trying to understand what the other person is saying, or what in their experience leads them to say it. Instead, you are readying your response: Listening for weaknesses in logic to leap on, points you can distort to make the other person look bad and yourself look good.

You didn't care that I had made a clerical error, vox. You were too interested, too eager, as you are now, to try to prove that my advice was wrong. Anyone could see that I had made a CLERICAL ERROR in how I worded my response not an ERROR IN JUDGEMENT. Otherwise, why would I tell SistahSouljah to put her then current pscyhiatrist on hold yet also tell her to put searching for a new psychiatrist on hold too? That would mean she wouldn't have been recieving treatment from ANYONE. Firstly, my CLERICAL ERROR was in not proofreading what I had written. Secondly, my ERROR IN JUDGEMENT was in wasting my time responding to you and kweli4real when I should have been more focused on my interaction with SistahSouljah.

I'll re-post the entire section of that conversation in context:

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus:

First of all, she said none of the medications her psychiatrist prescribed her are working, hence, for now, her psychiatrist can be put on hold. If none of the medications she's been taking have had any effect, then it would surfice to say she's gone without treatment for a considerable amount of time and she hasn't died or killed anyone, so, once again the pursuit of another psychiatrist can be put on hold for now.



quote:
.I don't agree.

I am not putting total blame on my psychiatrist because it's not like she isn't doing her job. These specific medications simply don't work for me. I don't think it should mean I should say to hell with psychiatrists for now. And while I have not killed anyone nor committed suicide, I HAVE harmed myself, and depression is something you do not let sit and marinate, waiting for it to get worse, as mine has. Indeed, the very polar opposite should be done. If I am going to stop seeing this one, I need to find another ASAP style so I can try to once again exhaust the pharmaceutical possibilities.



AGAIN, I will admit I made a CLERICAL ERROR but it was an ERROR in how I [B]worded my statement NOT in how I advised SistahSouljah. If I had noticed I made that error in my post I would have corrected it. Unfortunately, I allowed myself to be DISTRACTED by KWELI4REAL'S continuous UNPROVOKED insults. The ORIGINAL ADVICE I MADE AT THE BEGINING OF MY STATEMENT STILL STANDS:[/B]

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

First of all, she said none of the medications her psychiatrist prescribed her are working, hence, FOR NOW, HER PSYCHIATRIST CAN BE PUT ON HOLD.



quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

I HAVE harmed myself, and depression is something you do not let sit and marinate, waiting for it to get worse, as mine has. Indeed, the very polar opposite should be done. If I am going to stop seeing this one, I need to find another ASAP style so I can try to once again exhaust the pharmaceutical possibilities.


Once again you try to distort the meaning of my comments by quoting PART of my statement, which is what lead you to make this distracter statement:

quote:


That is not a personal attack, disrespectful or any of that. It IS however, disagreeing with some dangerous advice.


Let's put the COMPLETE response--WITHIN ITS CONTEXT--I made as clarification to SistahSouljah that you and kweli4real ignored in order to distort my words:

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

Firstly, didn't you say that you wanted to look for another psychiatrist? Secondly, I did ask you how long you had been taking medication(s) from your current psychiatrist. Has it been a few weeks, a few months or what? Thirdly, I didn't tell you to think "to hell" with psychiatrists. I said to put looking for a new psychiatrist on HOLD for FOR NOW. The reason why I suggested you put searching for a new psychiatrist on hold for now is to try to find a family and marriage therapist - that is IF you are interested in involving your significant other in your sessions. If involving your man in your sessions ISN'T a priority, then perhaps you COULD seek a second opinion from another psychiatrist.

Nevertheless, as of now you haven't divulged how long you have been with your current psychiatrist nor have you divulged the type of medication(s) you've been prescribed nor how long you've been taking this prescription(s). You're leaving out too much information to think you can get a solid answer from anyone online, first of all, and secondly, have you talked with your psychiatrist about any research where you've found out about a certain medication she hasn't tried yet?

And if you have researched the various forms of medications available for bi-polar disorders you would know it isn't like taking Tylenol or Advil. Some medications may take 2 weeks to 6 months to a year before results can be achieved. You can't just drop your current psychiatrist and pick up another one tomorrow, get a prescription(s)on the spot and get desired results in a few days. It doesn't work that way. The main thing I would be concerned with, if it were me, is if my current psychiatrist is receptive or resistant to my advocacy. If you have spent a considerable amount of time with your psychiatrist and her methods have not worked and she's resistant to your input, thereby, not having had the opportunity to "exhuast the pharmecutical possibilities" due to her uncooperativeness, then, again, it's time to seek another psychiatrist.





I gave her the correct advice she needed in the beginning--to put her at the time current psychiatrist on hold. Even if I hadn't completed the rest of my comment the mere fact that I said SistahSouljah should put her psychiatrist on "hold" would mean she shouldn't count on her current psychiatrist's assistance as her psychiatrist's efforts to provide her with the appropriate meds to correct her undesirable behavior were unsuccessful. Therefore, she SHOULD seek another Psychiatrist. I take mental and physical healthcare very seriously and I would have loved to have gone further into depth on this discussion board in regards to various health issues as I did in my Crohn's Disease thread. But when people like you--vox and kweli4real--seek to contaminate threads by initiating unprovoked, uncalled for, unecessary attacks one loses interest in doing so as well as loses respect for the members that consider themselves to be scholarly, open-minded intellectuals.



Now, lets move on with this deposition:

quote:
Originally posted by vox:

But you have attempted to insult my intelligence, with this out of context nonsense and obvious lies.


You, vox, "attempted to insult my intelligence" when you said: Romulus, that was a very well thought out, brilliantly worded piece. Would you mind please citing where you got it from? which implied that I wasn't capable of the excerpts I wrote at the beginning of this thread. But did I call you a "fool"? No I didn't. You and a couple other members on this discussion board relish in your expression of critical thinking skills and scholarly vocabulary to the point where, firstly, you think you're somehow unique and special and, secondly, you're of the mindset that if others don't express themselves to the same effect they are considered less than, inferior, common, which is why you and a couple other members feel the need to utilize condescending, obnoxious, demeaning, sarcastic rhetoric as a display of your scholarly and intellectual superiority.

I do not subscribe to this haughty, rigid, indifferent, contemptuous, state of being, which is why 90% of the time when I interact on this discussion board I prefer to speak in a more relaxed, common tone. Now don't confuse my reluctance to employ a scholarly demeanor on a regular basis as a display of anti-intellectualism. I wouldn't be on this discussion board if I didn't appreciate intellectualism. But to use my intellect as a weapon instead of a tool? I'll pass. That's why I also prefer to cuss somebody out in common language rather than browbeat someone to death like some kind of frigid, snobbish, vacuous, supercilious, conceited adjunct professor.


What is so interesting is in your attempt, once again, to find a weakness in my judgement you have proven that I gave SistahSouljah the correct advice in the very beginning of my involvement in the "Mental Illness in Relationships" thread when I said:

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

Put your psychiatrist on hold and seek out a good psychologist or a family and marriage counselor. If you research hard enough you may even be able to find a counselor or a psychologist that will have secured the credentials to prescribe medication.


However, in your eagerness to see a weakness in my logic, you and kweli4real got caught up over this part of my comment:

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

If you research hard enough you may even be able to find a counselor or a psychologist that will have secured the credentials to prescribe medication.


To which kweli4real responded:

quote:
Originally posted by kweli4real:

There is no such animal as a pyschologist with presciption writing credentials. They are called PYSCHIATRISTS.



To which I replied by posting information regarding the victories some nonphysicians, particularly, psychologists had won in the effort to indeed prescribe medication, particularly in New Mexico, which could have possibly been within reach of SistahSouljah since she is or was living in Southern California at that time. The article I posted specifically stated:

quote:
Nonphysicians such as naturopaths and psychologists, having seen their colleagues in other states win the right to prescribe or otherwise expand their scope of practice, are expected to push hard for the same authority in more states in 2005. Meanwhile, organized medicine is getting ready to fight their efforts.


Once again, KWELI4REAL was so eager to find error as well as distort my words he quoted the same section of the article like this:

quote:
Nonphysicians such as naturopaths and psychologists, having seen their colleagues in other states win the right to prescribe or otherwise expand their scope of practice, are expected to push hard for the same authority in more states in 2005. Meanwhile, organized medicine is getting ready to fight their efforts.


kweli4real subsequently responded saying:

quote:
Yes. Reading is fundamental; but comprehension is essential. Notice the future tense? Roll Eyes


In his eagerness to make himself look good he failed to comprehend that the very section of the article he quoted said: nonphysicians such as naturopaths and psychologists, HAVING SEEN their colleagues in other states WIN THE RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE.... "having seen" is in the past tense, which means somewhere in North America there were/are psychologists who were/are prescribing medication, which is why I suggested SistahSouljah take the time to RESEARCH and find out where those psychologists would be.


Again with the underminding distractors:

quote:
Originally posted by vox:

And now, two years later, you're hoping to find support for a losing argument from some forgotten thread... apparently not understanding that we can go back and read the thread and refresh our recollection.


This isn't about seeking support. I'm doing quite well pointing out your inconsistancies on my own. I don't need anyone high-fiving me or responding with smilicons or condescending remarks. The evidence speaks for itself.
quote:
Originally posted by vox:

YOUR immediate response began with hostility. You replied: "This is why you should READ before you open your mouth." YOU started the hostility.


But wait a minute. Didn't you just say in this very thread:

quote:
Originally posted by vox:

(Note, I don't necessarily consider STFU a personal attack if it's in the context of a point being made.)



Interesting. STFU is an acronym for SHUT THE FUCK UP. So you think it's okay to tell someone to SHUT THE FUCK UP but if I tell someone they should READ before they open their mouth, then that's considered being hostile? Your rationale is flawed not to mention biased to say the least.
Romulus ... STFU IT'S OVER AND DONE WITH.

quote:
The "wrong poster", at most, should be a passing reference and certainly not the focus of members' remarks... IF... people honestly and earnestly want AA.org to be all they feel INTELLIGENT.BLACK.COMMUNITY should be. That's how members can drive the discussion, any discussion, no matter who starts it.


yeah But I must confess being an adult about it lacks a certain flavor. Big Grin
Just a quick correction to start with:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by vox:
And now, two years later, you're hoping to find support for a losing argument from some forgotten thread... apparently not understanding that we can go back and read the thread and refresh our recollection.

This isn't about seeking support. I'm doing quite well pointing out your inconsistancies on my own...
I mean seeking support as in finding a point that supports your position. I didn't mean garnering support from others. Just a simple preliminary correction.

As for the rest of this... all I can say is LOL. If I'm reading this correctly in my haste, you are now claiming that you mis-typed. You're saying that you didn't mean for her to not see ANY psychiatrist, but just stop seeing the one she was seeing.

Most people reserve this kind of pathetic desperation for, like, LIFE-THREATENING issues. You throw the sorriest, most pitiful arguments to salvage something you did wrong. And what's so hilarious, is that you have time to work out a more intelligent response. Message boards, not being a real-time medium, allow you to sit and ponder the merits of a response. This is... wow.

You told her to "put her psychiatrist on hold," and I guess you're saying that later in the paragraph when you state, "once again the pursuit of another psychiatrist can be put on hold for now," -- that this was your "clerical error" (I mean, yo! Clerical error, LMBAO!).

Okay.

So then THIS was also a clerical error?
quote:
I said to put looking for a new psychiatrist on HOLD for FOR NOW. The reason why I suggested you put searching for a new psychiatrist on hold for now is to try to find a family and marriage therapist...


So you made the same clerical error in two different posts?

Okay.

Then, after Kweli expressed disagreement with you, you posted two consecutive posts of articles on whether non-MDs should be allowed to prescribe meds... a "bitter pill" for the psychiatrists that you made a "clerical error" about. And you continuously tried to defend not just the leaving of the one psychiatrist, but the avoidance of looking for a new one.

Now that you say that this was a "clerical error," you basically are now admitting that you spent that whole thread angrily focusing on defending something that you didn't mean to say.

Frankly, that is FAR, FAR more disturbing than defending a wrong position after you know it's wrong. Defending the content of a TYPO is WAYYYYY more insane than that. So you just defeated the whole purpose of this new claim you're making.

Of course, I know you're lying. But you should be more careful about what rag-tag desperate b.s. you rush onto a post.

I'm out.
Presenting known lies as the other side would be harmless if there were, as Czech poet and president Vaclav Havel put it, "a special radioactive power of the truthful word." Sadly, there is no evidence that there is. People are often persuaded by lies rather than by truth.

In the worst cases, our situation is comparable in this respect to that of totalitarian countries whose governments deliberately mislead their people by spreading disinformation. This is one of the most dangerous effects of the argument culture. It creates an atmosphere of animosity that spreads like a fever.

Aggression was a weapon in a war against specific wrongs. The spirit of attack today--aggression in a culture of critique--is disinterested, aimed at whoever is in the public eye. And a show of aggression is valued for its own sake. In other words, it's agonism: automatic, knee-jerk aggression.

The aggression often surfaces as a sneering and contemptuous tone that has been remarked--and questioned...



quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
Presenting known lies as the other side would be harmless if there were, as Czech poet and president Vaclav Havel put it, "a special radioactive power of the truthful word." Sadly, there is no evidence that there is. People are often persuaded by lies rather than by truth.

In the worst cases, our situation is comparable in this respect to that of totalitarian countries whose governments deliberately mislead their people by spreading disinformation. This is one of the most dangerous effects of the argument culture. It creates an atmosphere of animosity that spreads like a fever.

Aggression was a weapon in a war against specific wrongs. The spirit of attack today--aggression in a culture of critique--is disinterested, aimed at whoever is in the public eye. And a show of aggression is valued for its own sake. In other words, it's agonism: automatic, knee-jerk aggression.

The aggression often surfaces as a sneering and contemptuous tone that has been remarked--and questioned...






quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Romulus, that was a very well thought out, brilliantly worded piece. Would you mind please citing where you got it from?
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Just a quick correction to start with:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by vox:
And now, two years later, you're hoping to find support for a losing argument from some forgotten thread... apparently not understanding that we can go back and read the thread and refresh our recollection.

This isn't about seeking support. I'm doing quite well pointing out your inconsistancies on my own...
I mean seeking support as in finding a point that supports your position. I didn't mean garnering support from others. Just a simple preliminary correction.

As for the rest of this... all I can say is LOL. If I'm reading this correctly in my haste, you are now claiming that you mis-typed. You're saying that you didn't mean for her to not see ANY psychiatrist, but just stop seeing the one she was seeing.

Most people reserve this kind of pathetic desperation for, like, LIFE-THREATENING issues. You throw the sorriest, most pitiful arguments to salvage something you did wrong. And what's so hilarious, is that you have time to work out a more intelligent response. Message boards, not being a real-time medium, allow you to sit and ponder the merits of a response. This is... wow.

You told her to "put her psychiatrist on hold," and I guess you're saying that later in the paragraph when you state, "once again the pursuit of another psychiatrist can be put on hold for now," -- that this was your "clerical error" (I mean, yo! Clerical error, LMBAO!).

Okay.

So then THIS was also a clerical error?
quote:
I said to put looking for a new psychiatrist on HOLD for FOR NOW. The reason why I suggested you put searching for a new psychiatrist on hold for now is to try to find a family and marriage therapist...


So you made the same clerical error in two different posts?

Okay.

Then, after Kweli expressed disagreement with you, you posted two consecutive posts of articles on whether non-MDs should be allowed to prescribe meds... a "bitter pill" for the psychiatrists that you made a "clerical error" about. And you continuously tried to defend not just the leaving of the one psychiatrist, but the avoidance of looking for a new one.

Now that you say that this was a "clerical error," you basically are now admitting that you spent that whole thread angrily focusing on defending something that you didn't mean to say.

Frankly, that is FAR, FAR more disturbing than defending a wrong position after you know it's wrong. Defending the content of a TYPO is WAYYYYY more insane than that. So you just defeated the whole purpose of this new claim you're making.

Of course, I know you're lying. But you should be more careful about what rag-tag desperate b.s. you rush onto a post.

I'm out.


There you go twisting, omitting, and distorting again while trying to add more insulting rhetoric. You're not doing a good job of being open-minded and objective. In fact, let me just stop you right there. what's really far,far more disturbing is the fact that you diligently tried to base your entire argument on the comments I made, firstly, after the fact of my already having made clarification of what SistahSouljah and I discussed on PAGE TWO of the "Mental Illness in Relationships" thread, which, once again, your 'legless' argument omitts the COMPLETE evidence of my further investigation into SistahSouljah's situation. Should I re-post it for you? Here you go:

quote:
Firstly, didn't you say that you wanted to look for another psychiatrist? Secondly, I did ask you how long you had been taking medication(s) from your current psychiatrist. Has it been a few weeks, a few months or what? Thirdly, I didn't tell you to think "to hell" with psychiatrists. I said to put looking for a new psychiatrist on HOLD for FOR NOW. The reason why I suggested you put searching for a new psychiatrist on hold for now is to try to find a family and marriage therapist - that is IF you are interested in involving your significant other in your sessions. If involving your man in your sessions ISN'T a priority, then perhaps you COULD seek a second opinion from another psychiatrist.

Nevertheless, as of now you haven't divulged how long you have been with your current psychiatrist nor have you divulged the type of medication(s) you've been prescribed nor how long you've been taking this prescription(s). You're leaving out too much information to think you can get a solid answer from anyone online, first of all, and secondly, have you talked with your psychiatrist about any research where you've found out about a certain medication she hasn't tried yet?

And if you have researched the various forms of medications available for bi-polar disorders you would know it isn't like taking Tylenol or Advil. Some medications may take 2 weeks to 6 months to a year before results can be achieved. You can't just drop your current psychiatrist and pick up another one tomorrow, get a prescription(s)on the spot and get desired results in a few days. It doesn't work that way. The main thing I would be concerned with, if it were me, is if my current psychiatrist is receptive or resistant to my advocacy. If you have spent a considerable amount of time with your psychiatrist and her methods have not worked and she's resistant to your input, thereby, not having had the opportunity to "exhuast the pharmecutical possibilities" due to her uncooperativeness, then, again, it's time to seek another psychiatrist.



Why would you ignore the entirety of that informative dialogue just to focus on a clerical error I made on a subsequent page, which was really just a reiteration of what I had previously said? You and kweli4real blatantly ignored the fact that SistahSouljah wanted to involve her then boyfriend in her endeavor to control her bi-polarism, which is why I RE-STATED this comment:

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

Secondly, and once again, if sistahsouljah is considering involving her man in counseling it would be better to seek out a family and marriage counselor because it is UNLIKELY a psychiatrist will be willing to counsel the client as well as the significant other mostly out of personal choice. I would add, however, that it wouldn't hurt to ask her current psychiatrist if he or she is willing to counsel both her and her man. If not, then a logical alternative would be, once again, to seek out a family and marriage counselor.



Furthermore I stated...

quote:
Considering SistahSouljah's psychiatrist may not approve of therapy sessions with her and her boyfriend (since negrospirtual has in effect co-signed) a possible alternative would be to seek out a family and marriage counselor. Why? Because family and marrige counselors, more specifically, a psychotherapist, is better trained to deal with couples counseling. Why is suggesting group therapy a bad idea? From SistahSouljah's description of her boyfriend (IF a person has been paying attention all along instead of acting like an ass out of embarrassment) he may be more comfortable in a couples session (that means just two people and the therapist for the fools that don't get it) rather than being put in a group with strangers. However, if Sistah talks with her man and discusses with him the option of whether to attend a group session or a more private couples session he may be more receptive.

There are advantages and setbacks to being in a group session, particularly, in the case with Sistah's boyfriend. Some advantages in being in a group session are you get to spend more time with a therapist and a group session is more inexpensive than a couples session. The setback is the therapist's attention is dispersed amongst other people, which may make Sistah's boyfriend feel marginalized as he's forced to listen to other people's problems as well as have to share his time with other people. On the other hand, it may help to listen to other people's problems in the process of Sistah and her boyfriend solving their own issues. Nevertheless, in the process of effectively exhausting all avenues of treatment, SistahSouljah is provided with more options. That way she has a better opportunity to find a solution that will better suit her needs rather than listening to an idiot that's using this thread to beef with me.


Neither one of you had anything to say otherwise nor did you offer any substantial, effective, appropriate advice of your own but somehow you and kweli4real thought the advice I gave was "horrible" despite neither negrospiritual nor sistahsouljah disagreeing with what I said.
quote:
Neither one of you had anything to say otherwise nor did you offer any substantial, effective, appropriate advice of your own but somehow you and kweli4real thought the advice I gave was "horrible" despite neither negrospiritual nor sistahsouljah disagreeing with what I said.


That's because I agreed with most of your posting ... all but the dangerous and irresponsible suggestion that she put seeing her doctor on hold.

And regarding Sista and NS's silence, I would suggest that their silence was more in ignoring you than agreeing with you.

lol Romulus ... Just stop! Do you not see how silly you make yourself look? Just let it go and move on.

And BTW, the archives will show ...I only get stupid [aggressive/personal] when someone gets stupid first.
(shulamite, hoping she doesn't regret this...)


quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
You, vox, "attempted to insult my intelligence" when you said: Romulus, that was a very well thought out, brilliantly worded piece. Would you mind please citing where you got it from? which implied that I wasn't capable of the excerpts I wrote at the beginning of this thread. [edit]

Now don't confuse my reluctance to employ a scholarly demeanor on a regular basis as a display of anti-intellectualism. I wouldn't be on this discussion board if I didn't appreciate intellectualism.



Romulus, I honestly believe that you appreciate intellectualism. You have introduced some very thought-provoking topics since I've been reading the board and, sans the personal discussions, I actually appreciate reading your point of view on various issues.

But the request to cite your source was not a dig that you weren't "capable of the excerpts [you] wrote at the beginning of this thread".

Of course you're capable of composing that statement. But the truth is that you didn't.

And for that reason, a citation for the person who did is appropriate.

It's not about academic brow-beating. It's about honesty.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

The flame wars have subsided mainly because the main people that used to keep beefs up with me, members like khaliqua, Rowe, ricardomath, and Oshun Auset, are the ones that have been put on blast for their undesirable behavior on AA.org


You must have me confused with somebody else, Ironhorse.

I don't recall much in the way of "ongoing beefs" with you. In fact, for a long time I had you on ignore, so it would have been quite difficult for me to maintain any sort of discussion with you, whether in the form of a beef or not, since I skip past most of your posts even when you are not on ignore.

To me, you are simply an irrelevant poster with a knack for gratuitously and spontainously dropping turds in the punchbowl, as you did totally out of the blue in my "Blacks in Colombia" thread. You can be amusing in your personal attacks on other posters who for example might make land purchases that you disaprove of. Not sure what category of mental illness makes folks behave the way that you do, but I will admit to posessing the human weakness of being amused and entertained by it from time to time, much as with Lofton.

So while I may snicker at your antics from time to time, please don't confuse that with some sort of ongoing beef. I would actually have to read your posts and respond to them on a regular basis for that. No time for that these days, actually. In fact, not much time for posting on internet forums in general, however amusing it is to find my name mentioned in your post as one of your regular tormenters.
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
(shulamite, hoping she doesn't regret this...)


quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
You, vox, "attempted to insult my intelligence" when you said: Romulus, that was a very well thought out, brilliantly worded piece. Would you mind please citing where you got it from? which implied that I wasn't capable of the excerpts I wrote at the beginning of this thread. [edit]

Now don't confuse my reluctance to employ a scholarly demeanor on a regular basis as a display of anti-intellectualism. I wouldn't be on this discussion board if I didn't appreciate intellectualism.



Romulus, I honestly believe that you appreciate intellectualism. You have introduced some very thought-provoking topics since I've been reading the board and, sans the personal discussions, I actually appreciate reading your point of view on various issues.

But the request to cite your source was not a dig that you weren't "capable of the excerpts [you] wrote at the beginning of this thread".
Shulamite, he knows. He's just trying to make up a way to paint me as a hypocrite for complaining that he insulted my intelligence. But like with every single other one of his issues with me in this thread, he's being dishonest. When he first responded, he himself cited other reasons why it should have been obvious that he didn't write it. Things that had nothing to do with his intelligence level.

Plus, if he really thought I was insulting his intelligence with that, he would have said so back then. This is just another game he's playing.
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
(shulamite, hoping she doesn't regret this...)


quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
You, vox, "attempted to insult my intelligence" when you said: Romulus, that was a very well thought out, brilliantly worded piece. Would you mind please citing where you got it from? which implied that I wasn't capable of the excerpts I wrote at the beginning of this thread. [edit]

Now don't confuse my reluctance to employ a scholarly demeanor on a regular basis as a display of anti-intellectualism. I wouldn't be on this discussion board if I didn't appreciate intellectualism.



Romulus, I honestly believe that you appreciate intellectualism. You have introduced some very thought-provoking topics since I've been reading the board and, sans the personal discussions, I actually appreciate reading your point of view on various issues.

But the request to cite your source was not a dig that you weren't "capable of the excerpts [you] wrote at the beginning of this thread".

Of course you're capable of composing that statement. But the truth is that you didn't.

And for that reason, a citation for the person who did is appropriate.

It's not about academic brow-beating. It's about honesty.


You should go back and start at the beginning of the thread. In case you didn't notice I responded to vox's inquiry by saying:

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

I was waiting on someone to pick up on the fact that I posted in a boldfaced, italicized format instead of my usual normal typeface for a reason. If anyone is interested in reading the book entitled: The Argument Culture or researching the author, Deborah Tannen, and her other writings you can google her and pick up a book on Amazon.com or research her on a scholarly database.

Her book is one of many books I'm having to digest in the endeavor of trying to complete this doctorate program. But yeah I've been interested in how things have been turning out on AA.org lately with this slow exodus of old heads and the gradual influx of more open-minded, objective members.

And as to your response, vox: Ummm. Yeah. I save the critical thinking jargon for my papers not for posting on AA.org. But thanks the same.


Was there any sign of aggression there? NO. Was there any sign that I was reluctant to cite the excerpts I used? NO. I clearly offered not only the book I also gave the author's name. What you overlooked was vox's attempt to justify this comment:

quote:
Originally posted by vox:

I'd pay money for somebody to explain to me, how a fool thinks he can get away with QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT, WHEN THE ORIGINAL POSTS ARE RIGHT THERE FOR ANYBODY TO FIND???



By saying:

quote:
Originally posted by vox:

But you have attempted to insult my intelligence, with this out of context nonsense and obvious lies.



This is vox "obviously" crying wolf in an attempt to justify resorting to insults.


quote:
Originally posted by Shulamite:

But the request to cite your source was not a dig that you weren't "capable of the excerpts [you] wrote at the beginning of this thread".


You don't know vox that well. No matter how long you've been lurking this discussion board before you decided to make your presence known through interacting with us you can't make a 100% accurate observation of someone's particular M.O. especially if they go out of their way to conceal, shroud their intent in a veneer of sarcastic cynicism, which vox is known for, and which he applies only to members he 'hates'.

Anyone who has written and/or read graduate and, particularly post graduate writing knows that when a person is quoting another person the text is italicized to signify to that effect. 99.9% of the time I always put words that are not mine in italics to signify that I didn't write those words on this discussion board and everyone knows that. In fact, as far as I have seen, I'm the only one that does that. Nevertheless, considering this is supposed to be a discussion board geared to more of a casual atmosphere for the general populus and not a discussion board that's a closed to the public online dissertation course no one should have to go so far as to inact full fledge APA style format to appease someone's feigned scholarly standards.
quote:
Originally posted by vox:

But you have attempted to insult my intelligence, with this out of context nonsense and obvious lies.


Since you can't answer any of my questions I want to see all of these alleged "lies" you said that I made, vox, or you can take your own advice and "STFU."
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Romulus. Bottom line: Address a point substantively or STFU!


All the evidence is layed out on the proverbial table for everyone to see. The only excuse you and kweli4real can come up with for thinking that the advice I gave in the "Mental Illness in Relationships" was "horrible" was that you and kweli4real thought I told SistahSouljah to stop seeing her at the time current psychiatrist and also not to seek a new psychiatrist. You also tried to further distort the situation by quoting my words out of context from a statement I made that was with clerical error--a statement that I only reiterated from the full response I gave SistahSouljah on the second page:

quote:
Firstly, didn't you say that you wanted to look for another psychiatrist? Secondly, I did ask you how long you had been taking medication(s) from your current psychiatrist. Has it been a few weeks, a few months or what? Thirdly, I didn't tell you to think "to hell" with psychiatrists. I said to put looking for a new psychiatrist on HOLD for FOR NOW. The reason why I suggested you put searching for a new psychiatrist on hold for now is to try to find a family and marriage therapist - that is IF you are interested in involving your significant other in your sessions. If involving your man in your sessions ISN'T a priority, then perhaps you COULD seek a second opinion from another psychiatrist.

Nevertheless, as of now you haven't divulged how long you have been with your current psychiatrist nor have you divulged the type of medication(s) you've been prescribed nor how long you've been taking this prescription(s). You're leaving out too much information to think you can get a solid answer from anyone online, first of all, and secondly, have you talked with your psychiatrist about any research where you've found out about a certain medication she hasn't tried yet?

And if you have researched the various forms of medications available for bi-polar disorders you would know it isn't like taking Tylenol or Advil. Some medications may take 2 weeks to 6 months to a year before results can be achieved. You can't just drop your current psychiatrist and pick up another one tomorrow, get a prescription(s)on the spot and get desired results in a few days. It doesn't work that way. The main thing I would be concerned with, if it were me, is if my current psychiatrist is receptive or resistant to my advocacy. If you have spent a considerable amount of time with your psychiatrist and her methods have not worked and she's resistant to your input, thereby, not having had the opportunity to "exhuast the pharmecutical possibilities" due to her uncooperativeness, then, again, it's time to seek another psychiatrist.


The original statement I placed in boldfaced type I made as a response to clarify SistahSouljah's misunderstanding of my comment as well as having identified Sistah as not having given more detailed information as to her dilemna for me to make a better response to. AGAIN, vox, why is it that you ignored my original response to SistahSouljah on PAGE TWO to harp on an obvious clerical error I made on a subsequent page?


In fact, you ignored the advice I gave SistahSouljah on PAGE ONE, which was:


quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

I am in therapy and seeing a psychiatrist. I'm trying different medications right now because nothing seems to work. I'm trying to be patient but it is extremely frustrating.



quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

Perhaps you could try seeking out psychiatrists or psychologists that may be involved in research that tests medication on volunteers - at the very least, follow their research and find out their results. You might also want to apply for a subscription to the APA journal and other mental wellness publications. Another avenue would be to research who conducts seminars on behavior disorders and attend a seminar.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

Anyone who has written and/or read graduate and, particularly post graduate writing knows that when a person is quoting another person the text is italicized to signify to that effect.


Im my own articles, generally italics is reserved for mathematical formulas ("math italics") or for the statement of Theorems, Propositions, Lemmas, Corollaries, Conjectures, etc. Not so much for Definitions, Remarks, Examples. But there really are no ironclad rules about it, except for rules that various individual journals might enforce as part of their own journal style.

I don't think that I have ever used italics for quoted material. I might narrow the margins for blocks of quoted text, and will always include a reference to the original material.

quote:
99.9% of the time I always put words that are not mine in italics to signify that I didn't write those words on this discussion board and everyone knows that.


Maybe some of us are not sufficiently obsessed with the stylistic conventions that you follow in your posts to have noticed this self-imposed rule. Assuming that "everybody knows that" seems to be a result of rather extreem self-centeredness, where you imagine that everybody is going through your posts with a fine toothed comb to figure out what stylistic conventions that you use in your posts here. Honestly, some of us have neither the time nor the interest to undertake such a thourough study of your stylistic conventions, as much as it might feed your ego to imagine that we do.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
Anyone who has written and/or read graduate and, particularly post graduate writing knows that when a person is quoting another person the text is italicized to signify to that effect.
On message boards, the proper convention is to cite within the post where you got a quote from. If it came from a website it should be a link. The one time I can think of where I forgot to do that, somebody called me on it.

And in any event, even in scholarly writing, while you may italicize, you also credit the author. You didn't do that in the OP, and you wouldn't have if you hadn't been called on it. What you did would have been considered plagiarism within a scholarly paper. Even if you'd italicized it, the failure to cite would have been a problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by vox:

But you have attempted to insult my intelligence, with this out of context nonsense and obvious lies.


Since you can't answer any of my questions I want to see all of these alleged "lies" you said that I made, vox, or you can take your own advice and "STFU."
I already did. And you know as much.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
Anyone who has written and/or read graduate and, particularly post graduate writing knows that when a person is quoting another person the text is italicized to signify to that effect.


Without a footnote (which you didn't provide), this practice alone is incorrect and would land anyone doing "graduate and, particularly post graduate writing" on academic probation for misconduct.

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
99.9% of the time I always put words that are not mine in italics to signify that I didn't write those words on this discussion board and everyone knows that. In fact, as far as I have seen, I'm the only one that does that.


Perhaps you're the only one you've observed who does that because the act is inherently dishonest.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by vox:

But you have attempted to insult my intelligence, with this out of context nonsense and obvious lies.


Since you can't answer any of my questions I want to see all of these alleged "lies" you said that I made, vox, or you can take your own advice and "STFU."
I already did. And you know as much.



Where are the lies?

The only "lie" you proclaimed to have caught me in was that I took your words out of context, which in itself was a lie. I clarified the reason why I referenced your "kweli said..." as an example that you were biased as you ignored all of the insults kweli4real stated yet you suggested that I be the one to "chill".

Where are the LIES?
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
Anyone who has written and/or read graduate and, particularly post graduate writing knows that when a person is quoting another person the text is italicized to signify to that effect.
On message boards, the proper convention is to cite within the post where you got a quote from. If it came from a website it should be a link. The one time I can think of where I forgot to do that, somebody called me on it.

And in any event, even in scholarly writing, while you may italicize, you also credit the author. You didn't do that in the OP, and you wouldn't have if you hadn't been called on it. What you did would have been considered plagiarism within a scholarly paper. Even if you'd italicized it, the failure to cite would have been a problem.



This is an unecessary explanation considering I provided links in every post I've made where I used information from a second source, so don't even begin to pretend that I haven't done so in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:

Without a footnote (which you didn't provide), this practice alone is incorrect and would land anyone doing "graduate and, particularly post graduate writing" on academic probation for misconduct.

Once again, as I stated BEFORE, this is not a University owned and run, closed to the public, dissertation course discussion board. This isn't even a professionally refereed academic/scholarly website. This is an informal discussion board open to the general populus--anyone that wants to join and participate can do so. There are no "official guidelines" requiring that one utilize full fledge APA format style of writing even though some of the members of this discussion board want to PRETEND as such.

Perhaps you're the only one you've observed who does that because the act is inherently dishonest.

Inherently dishonest by who's standards? AfricanAmerica.org?


Intelligent - do posts contribute to greater understanding about the issue being discussed? This does not mean that every post has to agree with your opinion (or mine), it just means that posts and opinions should be construed to be a part of an intelligent dialog about an issue.

To be sure, disagreement and debate - even of a vigorous and passionate kind - has a home here. Nevertheless, it is entirely reasonable to expect that kind of opposing discourse without succumbing to personal attacks and needlessly inappropriate language. Those things are not welcome and will not be permitted.

Black - is a post in any way relevant to the African American community? Of course, our interests are - and should be - broad and wide.

Community - this is a broad "catch-all" criteria that basically asks if a member is contributing to building the kind of community that we hope to establish here? In addition to those attributes in our "mantra", characteristics of AfricanAmerica.org include adjectives like Afrocentric, smart, warm, curious, respectful, supportive, funny, committed, helpful, friendly, etc. Behavior that is in any way inimical to "Intelligent. Black Community." and adjectives like those listed here are not welcome.

Building Our Community

To maintain a healthy community here, it requires the commitment and contributions of all of our members. We've all got to help make our community into what we want it to be. For example, as members, we must all model the type of behavior that we expect of others - particularly newcomers. If we don't like something in others, we must ensure that we don't participate in that same behavior!


Firstly, I don't recall seeing any guidelines stating that I have to provide ANY kind of references or citations with what I've posted. Nevertheless, I've always done so (i.e. links and/or italicized text). Secondly, Since this ISN'T a professionally refereed, scholarly/academic discussion board I will post my sources in any manner I choose. When MBM decides he wants to run his discussion board in an academic/scholarly, professionally refereed capacity I can assure you I'll be more than up to the task of satisfying those standards. Until then I can and will continue to post my sources any way I choose.

quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
Until then I can and will continue to post my sources any way I choose.


Fine. It is your choice. But don't act like a scalded cat when another poster calls you on it.

Integrity is integrity, where ever one is...


Wrong, sister. No one has called me on anything. If you are as well versed as you say you are on the past postings of nearly every core member on this discussion board, then you should know I've provided links as well as italicized text in nearly every post I've made where I used second sources--another instance where as far as I know I'm the ONLY one to have utilized BOTH a link AND italicized text to emphasize the words I used are NOT my words. Furthermore, no one should act like a "scalded dog" when they consider themselves 'calling me on it' and I call their bluff. That's another undesirable trait that needs to end on this discussion board. Members have an uncanny ability to criticize people yet think no one should respond to their criticism otherwise be negatively labeled.
We all tend to think of ourselves as reacting to others and others' behavior as absolute. If we hear ourselves snapping at someone, we focus on what we're reacting to. We think of ourselves as nice people who were provoked. But if someone else snaps at us, we rarely wonder what we said to provoke this response. Instead, we judge the other person's personality: He's rude, she is tempermental.

The culture of critique undermines the spirit not only of people in public roles but those who read about them, afraid to believe in anyone or anything because the next story, if not the next paragraph, will tell them why they shouldn't. The aggression culture makes it harder for leaders to solve problems because it encourages citizens to lose trust in their leaders.

Part of the cult of objectivity is a lack of responsibility for the human suffering caused by attacking others. It's all part of the game; the attacks should not be taken personally. No matter how viciously [members] are attacked, they are expected to continue to be cordial, friendly, and open to those who have attacked them because the assaults are supposed to be ritual, not real (though they have very real consequences for those who are attacked).
quote:
Originally posted by vox:

Let's face it, two years ago, if I had called him out about failing to post a link or citation on a quote he posted, he'd've spent the next three pages calling me all kinds of this & that.


This is indeed a lie. Find the post where this type of behavior you described exists.
quote:
Originally posted by kweli4real:

the archives will show ...I only get stupid [aggressive/personal] when someone gets stupid first.


You only got that partially right. The archives show you shoot first and ask questions later. You get "stupid" first when you decide you're a professional, published authority concerning every issue that exists. Instead of asking for clarification you quickly jump to the conclusion of declaring my statements as wrong. This would be fine if you had evidence supporting your position but you don't. You never have. You simply come out of the blue with the 'Romulus, you're wrong' mantra and proceed to throw a temper tantrum--contaminating unrelated threads out of embarrassment and frustration wherever you see me post.

You were wrong when you said:

quote:
Originally posted by kweli4real:

There is no such animal as a pyschologist with presciption writing credentials. They are called PYSCHIATRISTS.


Then when I proved you wrong with the two articles I posted you responded by quoting part of the article I posted and attempted to distort the very section of the article that proved there being such an "animal" as a psychologist that can write prescriptions by boldfacing an irrelevant part of the article:

quote:
Originally posted by kweli4real:

Nonphysicians such as naturopaths and psychologists, having seen their colleagues in other states win the right to prescribe or otherwise expand their scope of practice, are expected to push hard for the same authority in more states in 2005. Meanwhile, organized medicine is getting ready to fight their efforts.


You subsequently responded with your distorted quote by saying:

quote:
Yes. Reading is fundamental; but comprehension is essential. Notice the future tense?


Trying to emphasize the future tense of that part of the article is irrelevant considering the part of the sentence just before the section you put in boldface clearly identifies psychologists with prescription writing rights in the past tense:

quote:
Originallly posted by Romulus Burnett:

Nonphysicians such as naturopaths and psychologists, having seen their colleagues in other states WIN the right to prescribe or otherwise expand their scope of practice, are expected to push hard for the same authority in more states in 2005. Meanwhile, organized medicine is getting ready to fight their efforts.


As if that weren't disturbing enough you turn right around and acknowledge the fact that prescription-writing psychologists DO exist by referring to the article I posted:

quote:
Originally posted by kweli4real:

And even in the 2002, it appears that the only place where this is possible, is New Mexico. So is your solution really practical?


Your question was irrelevant primarily because you had previously said: There is no such animal as a pyschologist with presciption writing credentials.[/



Next issue:

I had to confront you about banks having fudiciary responsibility to recover the identity of a customer if it is determined that a bank employee stole that customer's Identity, thereby, committing fraud:

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

...what you're saying is banks don't have a fiduciary responsibility to aid in their members' recovery of identity theft if that identity theft was a result of one of their employees misusing the information and funds of an account holder (savings and checking)? By the way, don't come up with some backsliding, backtracking explanation. All you have to say, kweli, is yes or no.



You demonstrated how you could get "stupid" once again by jumping to conclusions and saying:

quote:
Originally posted by kweli4real:

Actually, and by way of pointing out another inaccuracy that I previously chose to ignore ... I did not what to further confuse you. But the bank is responsible for recovering any lost moneys ... The recovery/repair of any damage to the account holder's IDENTITY is the responsibility of the account holder.

So ... Mr. Know Nothing ... YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN



But after having provided two sources, one from USA Today and the other from First Federal Savings Bank of Twin Fallsproving you wrong you replied:


quote:
Originally posted by kweli4real:

My bad ... I stand corrected. You are correct. Banks, as a marketing tool, have recently begun offering assistance in repairing the damage done by ID theft. For accuracy's sake, in my previous post, I should have included the qualifiers "UNTIL RECENTLY" and "MOST".

Now see how easy that was [to admit inaccuracy]


Once again, stating deviating factors like 'including qualifiers' is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you had introduced "UNTIL RECENTLY" or "MOST". The fact remains that you denied banks were fiduciarily responsible for recovering customers' stolen identity. In fact, here's another article about a class action lawsuit on Bank of America which they were forced to uphold their fudiciary responsibility to PROTECT banking customers' identity.

Next issue:

In the issue of personnel having the right to use appropriate or reasonable force to restrain a child I said:


quote:
Originally posted by kweli4real:

There are approved ways to take a child down but even then a trained and licensed person has the authority to use the appropriate amount of force to match the child's level of aggression. However, in the case of law enforcement an officer can be more aggressive than an educator or a person employed by a local or state board.


You responded by saying:

quote:
Originally posted by kweli4real:

Not true

This is an example of Romulus flapping off at the lips. And no doubt is the reason he is no longer a substitute teacher.


Subsequently, I proved you wrong yet again when I provided Florida state statutes proving state personnel having the right to use reasonable force to restrain a child. You responded by saying:

quote:
Okay ... you got me. Red Face


You even stated once again in that same thread:

quote:
originally posted by kweli4real:

and oh yeah ... banks do not have a fiduciary responsibility to restore a customer's identity if a bank employee is the one that stole the customer's identity


Information was already provided years ago proving you wrong that you conceeded to back in 2007 yet you come up in AfricanAmerica.org in 2009 to repeat the same lie.



This is why I have no respect for you, kweli4real, and also why I strongly question the character of anyone who unwittingly follows you, giving you the utmost respect, admiration, loyalty, and unquestioned authority while turning a blind eye to your lying, decietful, disrespectful actions as they simultaneously criticize my actions in response to your unwarranted, uncalled for, unecessary, excessive attacks.
RB, I'll get to you in a second.

quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
So, what I'm saying is that there is quite a bit of culpability on the part of board members who get all worked up over the "loonies" to the point of allowing the "loonies" to determine whether they enjoy this board or not. Why should the loonies have that kind of power of (the figurative) you? The member culpability also includes how they are willing participants in the "lunatic degrading" the board because of the enjoyment they get going after said lunatic. Whether its a personal attack or a solid point made about the topic or the way the lunatic treats the topic/response... it's still a contribution towards the lunatic running the asylum.

Also, there should be enough non-lunatic members around for them to be able to approach and conduct the kind of discussions they want. That, or people should be honest enough to admit that they have a particular affection for lunatics or some level of opinion (and personality) conflict.
OIC... Guilty as charged... at least in this thread. And point well taken, too.

In this case, it felt like certain things needed to be said/corrected, given the topic of the thread (a feeling best summed up by YEMAYA: "good topic, wrong poster)." But I admit, I didn't have to indulge it as much as I do. It had/has a certain entertainment value, right up to the point where you think, "wait, why am I wasting time with this?"

I like your overall suggestion, though.

Having said that...

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
In the last couple of threads Romulus Burnett has participated in heavily, he's offered some incendiary opinions, and the responses have been harsh. But for example in the "cops beat teenage girl" thread, it looks like the first remarks that went beyond disagreeing with the his opinion, and entered the realm of "personal attack," were by other people, aimed at him.

...past beef, from past threads, should not go into how you respond to somebody in another thread. Even if it's the same old crap you're used to from him, if it's not in the nature of a personal attack, then don't personally attack him. Just attack the position, like Kweli & Fab did.

...if his actual positions are all that's wrong, they can be attacked without getting personal.
And on top of writing that, I recently hit Romulus with a yeah about something he said.

Clearly, something was very wrong with me. But this thread has set things to right once again. The trolls don't need to be enabled, either through acknowledging agreement with them or engaging them in useless discussions about themselves (or anything else). Auf Wiederschreiben, Herr Burnett.
All boards have an argumenititive culture to one degree or another. It can usually be controlled by the owner coming up with some firm rules on how one can interact with others. I remember in one of my first threads Romulos can in calling me racist and so on and so forth. I do not have any problem with being called racist, but it did set the culture for my interactions with the board. While you can't stop disagreement and arguments, you can stop people from being able to attack others. That is the most simple of moderation rules. Thus far MBM has proven he find that behavior acceptable and since it his site it is his culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Afro Saxon:

Thus far MBM has proven he find that behavior acceptable and since it his site it is his culture.


Uh, no. Just because I don't have the time - or interest really - to moderate every thread doesn't mean that I accept poor behavior here. I have tried to clearly articulate what this site should be about - from its tag line (Intelligent. Black. Community.) to publishing a set of Community Guidelines to posting about how we should interact here to banning people when necessary. I created AfricanAmerica.org as a platform to facilitate lots of dynamic interchange between smart folks who like and want to communicate with others. It is my hope that we've created that - to whatever degree - and that we continue to strive toward that objective.

I do know that as in the world - we all would be better if we kept the Golden Rule in mind. It may sound corny, but it would work! 15
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Afro Saxon:

Thus far MBM has proven he find that behavior acceptable and since it his site it is his culture.


Uh, no. Just because I don't have the time - or interest really - to moderate every thread doesn't mean that I accept poor behavior here. I have tried to clearly articulate what this site should be about - from its tag line (Intelligent. Black. Community.) to publishing a set of Community Guidelines to posting about how we should interact here to banning people when necessary. I created AfricanAmerica.org as a platform to facilitate lots of dynamic interchange between smart folks who like and want to communicate with others. It is my hope that we've created that - to whatever degree - and that we continue to strive toward that objective.

I do know that as in the world - we all would be better if we kept the Golden Rule in mind. It may sound corny, but it would work! 15


Why not promote a long time trustworthy member as moderator?
quote:
Originally posted by Afro Saxon:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Afro Saxon:

Thus far MBM has proven he find that behavior acceptable and since it his site it is his culture.


Uh, no. Just because I don't have the time - or interest really - to moderate every thread doesn't mean that I accept poor behavior here. I have tried to clearly articulate what this site should be about - from its tag line (Intelligent. Black. Community.) to publishing a set of Community Guidelines to posting about how we should interact here to banning people when necessary. I created AfricanAmerica.org as a platform to facilitate lots of dynamic interchange between smart folks who like and want to communicate with others. It is my hope that we've created that - to whatever degree - and that we continue to strive toward that objective.

I do know that as in the world - we all would be better if we kept the Golden Rule in mind. It may sound corny, but it would work! 15


Why not promote a long time trustworthy member as moderator?


I've raised that but people get very concerned when the word moderator is brought up. I think the fear is that someone with clear alliances will get the job and discriminate against others.

Honestly, I just wish we could get folks to police themselves, to model good behavior for others, and to take the high road more often than not.
Romulus,

I propose that we, you and I ... but mostly you ... let this sh!t go. I could go back and cut and paste from each of those threads and conclusively dispute each and every one of your points as factually and/or intellectually dishonest.

But the fact is I have no interest in doing so ... it just ain't that important. [I][and no ... this is not some backhanded admission of that you have bested me] [/I] The fact is, anyone that has an interest, and a 8th grade reading comprehension level, can go to the threads and see what you said and what I said. And by doing so, would clearly see that you have cut and parsed, distorted and taken both of our remarks out of context, to the point of oblivion.

But in the end so what? The fact that you would engage 4 pages in a quest to show yourself to be the victim of some vast "you're picking on me" conspiracy speaks unflattering volumes about the person tagged Romulus. And quite frankly, you have done far more to reinforce my initial assessment of you as a fragile-egoed, insecure to the point of delusion, attention seeking, drama-junkie, than anything that I could done or would have thought of investing the time into doing.

So my proposal to you is that we move along. Cool?

If not, then STFU and pass the damned greens.
quote:
Originally posted by Afro Saxon:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Afro Saxon:

Thus far MBM has proven he find that behavior acceptable and since it his site it is his culture.


Uh, no. Just because I don't have the time - or interest really - to moderate every thread doesn't mean that I accept poor behavior here. I have tried to clearly articulate what this site should be about - from its tag line (Intelligent. Black. Community.) to publishing a set of Community Guidelines to posting about how we should interact here to banning people when necessary. I created AfricanAmerica.org as a platform to facilitate lots of dynamic interchange between smart folks who like and want to communicate with others. It is my hope that we've created that - to whatever degree - and that we continue to strive toward that objective.

I do know that as in the world - we all would be better if we kept the Golden Rule in mind. It may sound corny, but it would work! 15


Why not promote a long time trustworthy member as moderator?


19

Perhaps a campaign and election is in order...


DDOUBLE FOR AA.ORG MODERATOR!!!

PUNKS JUMP UP TO GET BEAT DOWN!!!



16

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×