# subjective



## RogerGarrett (Aug 2, 2010)

Here are the rules:

*Submit only appropriate content. Material that is  unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous,  defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy,  hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable...*

We saw a university professor fired from University of Illinois fired from his job several weeks back because a student complained that his email was "hate speech" regarding the Catholic view of gays.  The course was specifically created to teach the Catholic viewpoint - and the prof. was simply doing his job.  This is called breach of academic freedom, and it is a gross misuse of power with regard to this well-liked teacher.  Why was he fired really?  He was going to cause a problem for the university in terms of the complainer. 

I find it interesting that this same professor was offered a contract for this next year - I expect to avoid more problems - because of the mistake.

Similarly, you have to love it when a post on this forum gets deleted without breaking any rules except the last one - and it was objectionable to the party who remained unnamed but got mad, as well as the person who deleted it because it suggested something he didn't like (notice the word "suggested").

I realize it isn't a free-for-all, but limiting an opinion that was not threatening, abusive, harassing,  invasive of another's privacy, hateful, etc. is just flat out un-American!  It also appears to be much more subjective than the rules suggest.

I fully expect the threat of being booted off the list (or maybe even that step will be skipped) because I disagree with the way things are handled in deference to the original offender.  I certainly hope I am wrong about this last notion.  I've been contributing a long time - both in terms of information and wood, as well as financially to help support this forum.  

Best wishes,
Roger Garrett


----------



## RAdams (Aug 2, 2010)

I think the problem, More than WHAT was being said, was WHERE it was being said. I do agree that the Original thread that started this convo was not out of hand. It was however, against the rules for the forum we were in (Classifieds). 

I think a better way to handle that would be to ask that person to continue that conversation here, which is exactly what one of us should have done. 

As far as the part about the subjectivity, That is between you and the person that deleted your thread, so i will politely stay out of that part.


----------



## RogerGarrett (Aug 2, 2010)

RAdams said:


> I think the problem, More than WHAT was being said, was WHERE it was being said. I do agree that the Original thread that started this convo was not out of hand. It was however, against the rules for the forum we were in (Classifieds).
> 
> I think a better way to handle that would be to ask that person to continue that conversation here, which is exactly what one of us should have done.
> 
> As far as the part about the subjectivity, That is between you and the person that deleted your thread, so i will politely stay out of that part.



Ron - a quick note.......

In the original thread, posted in Individual Classifieds, the individual in question asked if he appeared to be asking for free handouts.  The response to that question was "yes."  It was the original poster who asked the question - therefore, the intent of the post was maintained.  Further, the original poster then attacked the response because he didn't expect it.  The entire post was deleted and then the original poster posted again.  At this point, the moderator was the first to respond to the post stating that everyone should remain on topic.  The person who posted then responded to the moderator thanking him.  Regardless of truth, with no answer from the moderator to the thank you, it gave the impression to all who read it that the response to the original post was out of place when, that behind the scenes discussions had taken place to insure that it wouldn't happen again, and that the moderator supported the original poster.  Thus - the "ludicrous" claim that management may be "protecting" the original poster.  At the very least, it was not well handled.

*whew* Hard to follow.

At any rate - I agree with the notion that we stick to categories.  However, given the opportunity to answer a question asked in the same forum - I would do so again - giving benefit of the doubt that the person who asked was considering he might have made a mistake (instead of someone just trying to scam free blanks!).

Just my two cents!

Best wishes,
Roger Garrett


----------



## RAdams (Aug 2, 2010)

Actually, If i am not mistaken, It doesn't matter if the original poster asks the question or not. If answering that question is against the rules, then it is our responsibility to start a new thread discussing the topic here, in casual, or in private thru PM's. 

I do agree that it could have been handled differently, but I don't think Curtis took anyones side but the TOS and AUP. We also have to realize that it is likely that Curtis didn't read the entire thread. He has to Moderate the entire site, which has alot of forums and alot of posts on a daily basis. There is no way he can read them all, So someone flagged that thread to him as breaking the rules. He spotted the infraction and acted on it. Of course we took that as Curtis being on his side, especially with the finger wagging post that backed up the RE-post (which WE should have flagged for being spam (two threads started on the same exact topic because he didn't like where the first was going)). 

Instead of us doing any of the right things, we did all the wrong things, and he (Phillip) did all the right things. So he got to come out smelling like roses, and we came out looking like troublemakers for breaking the rules in the classifieds forum. 

A much better way to handle that (I think), would have been to explain to Phillip that there are alot of people on here that are on limited budgets, or that are just plain poor folk. Also tell him that most of the people on here are stubborn, proud men that do not ask for help unless we absolutely have to, and it is irritating to these people that have been part of the site for a long time that are too proud to ask for any help to see a relatively new member trying to finaggle kits for cheap or free. Explain to him that this action will likely rub alot of people the wrong way, and that he should really just buy some slims from Smitty or something, and get surplus later when it comes up on it's own accord. 

We were quick to jump to the defense of IAP, which is excellent for IAP, when IAP needs it. Unfortunately sometimes it is hard to tell when that time is. If we come here with the mindstate of teachers and students we will get much further than the mindstate of watchdog or defender. It has taken me a LONG time to learn this (Over a year).


----------



## Smitty37 (Aug 2, 2010)

*Freedom of speech*

This being a private forum freedom of speech exists only to the degree that the forum owner allows.  We all accept that condition when we use the forum and of course if we do not like that there is always another forum that will be more to our liking.

I remember the original post and thought something but decided not to answer.  I admit that other than reading a enough posts to see what it was about, I didn't follow the follow up thread, but if I had I would likely have agreed with the moderator.


----------



## dexter0606 (Aug 2, 2010)

We're all guests of our gracious host. We're all expected to follow the rules.
I have a rule that there will be no peeing in my pool. My house, my rule. it's not law but it is a rule. Follow it or leave my pool.
These posts are just dragging on and on. And I think dragging down the whole forum.
Can't we just deal with it and let it drop???


----------



## RogerGarrett (Aug 2, 2010)

dexter0606 said:


> We're all guests of our gracious host. We're all expected to follow the rules.
> I have a rule that there will be no peeing in my pool. My house, my rule. it's not law but it is a rule. Follow it or leave my pool.
> These posts are just dragging on and on. And I think dragging down the whole forum.
> Can't we just deal with it and let it drop???



Sure - I can let it drop.

But if I saw someone getting stabbed in the street I would probably jump in and try to do something - just the way I am.  If I see a crook doing something and he asks if I think he's a crook - I'm going to say yes.

I answered a question truthfully from the original poster.  It isn't against the rules.  It is interpretive.

By the way, I have yet to mention a person's name or handle.

The forum would not exist without us - so it grows and adapts.  Rules are subjective.  None were broken.

I think the moderator SHOULD read an entire post before making a decision.  Just like a judge reads all the briefs and reviews the evidence before making a ruling.  If he doesn't, he hasn't made an effort to be fair and impartial in enforcing whatever subjective rules exist.

Best,
Roger Garrett


----------



## dexter0606 (Aug 2, 2010)

Dropped


----------



## MesquiteMan (Aug 2, 2010)

And Roger, how do you know that I do not read every word of every post in a thread before I delete something?  As a matter of fact, if I see a post in a thread that appears to need moderating or if a post gets reported to me, I go back and read the ENTIRE thread from the beginning to make sure I understand the context of the reported post.


----------



## RAdams (Aug 2, 2010)

RogerGarrett said:


> Sure - I can let it drop.
> 
> But if I saw someone getting stabbed in the street I would probably jump in and try to do something - just the way I am. If I see a crook doing something and he asks if I think he's a crook - I'm going to say yes.
> 
> ...


 


Herein lies part of the problem i think... We DID break the rules. We were having a discussion that had nothing to do with the OP. Regardless of who started that conversation, it was against the rules. The forum we were in is one of the strictest on the site. In fact, i think all the classifieds are the toughest forums, for reason. Just like i complain about vendors using the site for their own personal gain, we have no right to have random discussions on Business threads. No Double standard. There is a place for advertising, and there are places for random conversations. We had a random conversation in the individual classifieds.


----------



## RAdams (Aug 2, 2010)

http://www.penturners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13



No polluting: Don't go into another member's classified ad and pollute it by slamming their price, talking negatively about their product, or posting a link to somewhere cheaper. Classifieds ARE NOT the place for this type of discussion. If you want to buy from the poster, then do so. If not, please move on and keep your negative comments to yourself.


----------



## bitshird (Aug 3, 2010)

Ron, one of the parties in this discussion has been called on the carpet in the past for polluting other peoples classifieds so he has an adequate level of experience and should have known better. At least this time he wasn't trying to undersell the OP in the thread.


----------



## RAdams (Aug 3, 2010)

Yeah, ya gotta read the sub-forum rules too! They are just as important as the tos and aup!


----------



## Smitty37 (Aug 3, 2010)

*You didn't*



RogerGarrett said:


> Sure - I can let it drop.
> 
> But if I saw someone getting stabbed in the street I would probably jump in and try to do something - just the way I am. If I see a crook doing something and he asks if I think he's a crook - I'm going to say yes.
> 
> ...


 
You didn't see somebody get stabbed in the street.....


----------



## RogerGarrett (Aug 3, 2010)

MesquiteMan said:


> And Roger, how do you know that I do not read every word of every post in a thread before I delete something?  As a matter of fact, if I see a post in a thread that appears to need moderating or if a post gets reported to me, I go back and read the ENTIRE thread from the beginning to make sure I understand the context of the reported post.



Because one of the people who contacted me said that you do not - and that you told him so.  Is this untrue?

Roger


----------



## RogerGarrett (Aug 3, 2010)

RAdams said:


> Herein lies part of the problem i think... We DID break the rules. We were having a discussion that had nothing to do with the OP. Regardless of who started that conversation, it was against the rules. The forum we were in is one of the strictest on the site. In fact, i think all the classifieds are the toughest forums, for reason. Just like i complain about vendors using the site for their own personal gain, we have no right to have random discussions on Business threads. No Double standard. There is a place for advertising, and there are places for random conversations. We had a random conversation in the individual classifieds.



Then the thread should have been deleted when the original poster mentioned that he hoped no one thought he was asking for freebies - or at the very least - when he responded to the answer he received and flamed the responder.  Otherwise - it appears bias and favored towards certain people.

I don't agree - the thread was within the original intent of the person who originated the thread - via his asking if others thought he was out of line.  If that was the reason for deleting - _*it should have been made very clear.*_


----------



## RogerGarrett (Aug 3, 2010)

Smitty37 said:


> You didn't see somebody get stabbed in the street.....



It was an anaology...........


----------



## dexter0606 (Aug 3, 2010)

My God Roger!!!!!!!!!!

Drop it


----------



## MesquiteMan (Aug 3, 2010)

Oh, so someone told you that I told them that I don't read every post of every thread so it must be true, huh?  Give me a break.  I don't read every THREAD, get it, THREAD.


----------



## VampMN (Aug 3, 2010)

Curtis, I don't think you need to defend yourself. I think any reasonable person would see that you are doing the best job you can. You have a huge responsibility, and I think some people fail to realize that.


----------



## bitshird (Aug 3, 2010)

MesquiteMan said:


> Oh, so someone told you that I told them that I don't read every post of every thread so it must be true, huh?  Give me a break.  I don't read every THREAD, get it, THREAD.



Curtis, you are a good man, But your flaw in this instance is trying to use logic with in illogical person. I really don't approve of having to see you defend you self in a situation like this, I think Professor Garrett's record for tainting/poisoning other peoples classified adds should speak loudly and clearly for it's self, and remember Logic need not be necessary, it would be like trying to describe a Duck Billed Platypus to a optically challenged person. 
Please continue to do the excellent work you have done with out pay for such a long time.
Keep up the good work sir!!!!


----------



## DCBluesman (Aug 3, 2010)

One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him. 
*Socrates*


----------



## glycerine (Aug 3, 2010)

RogerGarrett said:


> ...I realize it isn't a free-for-all, but limiting an opinion that was not threatening, abusive, harassing, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, etc. is just flat out un-American! It also appears to be much more subjective than the rules suggest.
> ...


 
This IS an "INTERNATIONAL Association of Penturners"...


----------



## glycerine (Aug 3, 2010)

RogerGarrett said:


> Sure - I can let it drop.
> 
> But if I saw someone getting stabbed in the street I would probably jump in and try to do something - just the way I am. If I see a crook doing something and he asks if I think he's a crook - I'm going to say yes.
> 
> ...


 
Hhhmmm... would a police officer (or you) get the entire story of why someone is being "stabbed in the street" before stopping the stabbing???


----------



## Phunky_2003 (Aug 3, 2010)




----------



## glycerine (Aug 3, 2010)

Woodlvr said:


> Why do we have to have these kinds of discussions on a forum for PENTURNING? I am not a really smart person and just wanted to enjoy penturning as a hobby for enjoyment purposes-but seeing these posts keep me (my personal choice) from participating. JMHO.


 
You just participated by submitting your post!

On a serious note, this thread along with a ton of other non-penturning-related posts exist on the site in the "Casual Conversation" forum.
Now, it may be a good idea to filter the "Casual Conversation" threads from the front page, but there are occasions where even in the casual conversation section, we talk about penturning!


----------



## RAdams (Aug 3, 2010)

RogerGarrett said:


> Then the thread should have been deleted when the original poster mentioned that he hoped no one thought he was asking for freebies - or at the very least - when he responded to the answer he received and flamed the responder. Otherwise - it appears bias and favored towards certain people.
> 
> I don't agree - the thread was within the original intent of the person who originated the thread - via his asking if others thought he was out of line. If that was the reason for deleting - _*it should have been made very clear.*_


 


If you, or I, or someone else would have reported the thread when the original poster started the flames then i would totally be on your side. Instead, we antaginized the situation, returning the heat, and Phillip reported his own thread. Like Lou's post said, You cannot justify harming someone. No matter what they did first. It is our responsibility to act like adults, no matter what anyone else says to us. 

This thread, for instance, is teetering on going south, but we have all stayed civil, so it will continue to get hits and replies, Even if someone reports it as being offensive or out of line... As long as it doesn't break the TOS, the AUP, or the subforum rules, we are safe. 

Now, If we moved this conversation to the individual classifieds, it would be in violation of the subforum rules, and therefore deleted. We aren't allowed to have even friendly convo's in the classifieds. IT IS FOR CLASSIFIEDS. 

Now if you remember, I was totally on your side when you were getting slammed on the thread in question. I even sent you a PM about the first thread you started in casual about it (the one that got deleted). But in this case, I think we are arguing a non-point. 

Who cares who's side Curtis is on? If you care, WHY???? Who cares who was at fault? and why? The fact of the matter is this... The thread was breaking the rules. We were having a discussion about intent, in a forum for buying and selling stuff. REGARDLESS of who started the discussion, it was in the wrong place. Phillip had already started his second thread before the first one was deleted. The whole site knows what would have happened if Curtis didn't post the warning on Phillip's second thread... We woulda lit it on fire! 

I, for one, appreciate Curtis posting the warning on the second thread. It made me back up a step or two and re-evaluate what was happening. I still feel pretty strongly about leeches, and will gladly stand up to anyone that i think is leeching. Ironically enough though, the site has a funny way of weeding out the Leeches. I have seen it first hand, and even been involved to a point. It is pretty simple really. Everyone will quickly see if someone is leeching, or honestly trying to get by and accepting a little help. 

As far as the second half of your comment, The thread was far from the original intent of the post. The original intent was Phillip trying to get some pen kits to go with his new blanks. His excitement, and possible slight lack of comprehension of a second language put him in a funny place when he made the post, and he didn't word it very well, especially for the sharks that swim these waters! HIS intentions had nothing to do with the OP, regardless of if he was trying to get kits for free or not.


----------



## RAdams (Aug 3, 2010)

Woodlvr said:


> Why do we have to have these kinds of discussions on a forum for PENTURNING? I am not a really smart person and just wanted to enjoy penturning as a hobby for enjoyment purposes-but seeing these posts keep me (my personal choice) from participating. JMHO.


 


I may be weird, but i think threads like this one help. We can talk about our disagreements like adults, and discuss disagreements that we may have. As long as it stay civil, I thin ktehy help us get to know each other and how we think!


----------



## glycerine (Aug 3, 2010)

RAdams said:


> I may be weird, but i think threads like this one help. We can talk about our disagreements like adults, and discuss disagreements that we may have. As long as it stay civil, I thin ktehy help us get to know each other and how we think!


 
...which may or may not be a good thing!


----------



## RogerGarrett (Aug 4, 2010)

Well, despite all of the personal attacks for sharing my opinion of the way something was handled, I've said pretty much everything I want to say.  One last thing here - for Curtis' sake - for the record - I don't think Curtis is a bad guy - never did - and I've told him so privately.  I just don't like the way it was handled.  I told him that too.  I don't dislike Curtis.  What I don't like is when people get on the list and scam away - hide behind rules and those who are simply posting questions or pictures or products are deleted because they respond to it.  That was my sole motivation in responding to a post that asked the question.   I've been deleted before - without this stuff happening.  Yes - I have posted in the classified's before when the rule was "new" a few years back - but that was different - didn't know about the new rule.  This time around - completely different motivation.

I'm not questioning Curtis' motives - he has no motives that I can see in this case.  I just didn't appreciate the way it was handled........._everyone get it_?  Seems logical to me.

As far as I'm concerned, if y'all want to go on with this thread - go ahead.   Ok - now for the final "last words" from everyone..........bash away!


----------



## ed4copies (Aug 4, 2010)

RogerGarrett said:


> Well, despite all of the personal attacks for sharing my opinion of the way something was handled, I've said pretty much everything I want to say.  One last thing here - for Curtis' sake - for the record - I don't think Curtis is a bad guy - never did - and I've told him so privately.  I just don't like the way it was handled.  I told him that too.  I don't dislike Curtis.  What I don't like is when people get on the list and scam away - hide behind rules and those who are simply posting questions or pictures or products are deleted because they respond to it.  That was my sole motivation in responding to a post that asked the question.   I've been deleted before - without this stuff happening.  Yes - I have posted in the classified's before when the rule was "new" a few years back - but that was different - didn't know about the new rule.  This time around - completely different motivation.
> 
> I'm not questioning Curtis' motives - he has no motives that I can see in this case.  I just didn't appreciate the way it was handled........._everyone get it_?  Seems logical to me.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, if y'all want to go on with this thread - go ahead.   Ok - now for the final "last words" from everyone..........*bash away!*




Roger our BASH comes in February.  I'll look forward to having your help in prize distribution!!!

PM me in January!


----------



## glycerine (Aug 4, 2010)

RogerGarrett said:


> Well, despite all of the personal attacks for sharing my opinion of the way something was handled, I've said pretty much everything I want to say. One last thing here - for Curtis' sake - for the record - I don't think Curtis is a bad guy - never did - and I've told him so privately. I just don't like the way it was handled. I told him that too. I don't dislike Curtis. What I don't like is when people get on the list and scam away - hide behind rules and those who are simply posting questions or pictures or products are deleted because they respond to it. That was my sole motivation in responding to a post that asked the question. I've been deleted before - without this stuff happening. Yes - I have posted in the classified's before when the rule was "new" a few years back - but that was different - didn't know about the new rule. This time around - completely different motivation.
> 
> I'm not questioning Curtis' motives - he has no motives that I can see in this case. I just didn't appreciate the way it was handled........._everyone get it_? Seems logical to me.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, if y'all want to go on with this thread - go ahead. Ok - now for the final "last words" from everyone..........bash away!


 
All bashing on the back burner... my last words are "I love the car on your website!"  I have a 1950 Chrysler New Yorker that my dad and I rebuilt about 5 years ago.  I can't tell you how much fun it is to drive around in an old car like that... but I guess you know how much fun it is!  I've got some before and after pics of my car posted here if you're interested: http://underground.glycerinesystems.com/chrysler.html


----------



## tbroye (Aug 4, 2010)

To change the subject a little

Roger did your son finish his Eagle Scout Project?


----------



## RogerGarrett (Aug 4, 2010)

tbroye said:


> To change the subject a little
> 
> Roger did your son finish his Eagle Scout Project?



Tom,

Here is the posting I made after the project was completed:

http://www.penturners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=38808

We have his Eagle plaque and award framed and on the wall.

Thanks for asking.

Best,
Roger


----------



## EBorraga (Aug 5, 2010)

Roger, me being a car nut, I really enjoyed the story on your Chevy. Would really inspire some people, if they'd take the time to read it. My dad has a 55 Packard Clipper that my grandfather bought new. I'm hoping we can do a job like you that is well documented. Only difference being that we'll be doing most of the work.


----------



## DocStram (Aug 5, 2010)

RogerGarrett said:


> Here are the rules:
> 
> *Submit only appropriate content. Material that is  unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous,  defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy,  hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable...*
> 
> ...






Being an academician myself, with 32 years of university teaching experience, I'm surprised that one would attempt to draw an analogy between "academic freedom" and the rules of IAP.   

I read an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education website that seems particularly appropriate.  Here is a brief statement from that article:

_"The practice of citing academic freedom to condone a limitless range of  bad behavior has begun to take on the flavor of that hackneyed student  excuse: The dog ate my paper (or, nowadays, My computer crashed). The  magical incantation—"I'm protected by academic freedom"—is thought to  offer instant indemnity.'"
_
Academic freedom at your university and the rules of IAP are two completely different situations.  The harsh reality is that no one is protected by academic freedom when she/he is visiting IAP.

We're all guests of Jeff . . .  and his host, Curtis.


----------



## glycerine (Aug 5, 2010)

EBorraga said:


> Roger, me being a car nut, I really enjoyed the story on your Chevy. Would really inspire some people, if they'd take the time to read it. My dad has a 55 Packard Clipper that my grandfather bought new. I'm hoping we can do a job like you that is well documented. Only difference being that we'll be doing most of the work.



Have you guys ever restored an old car before?


----------



## RogerGarrett (Aug 5, 2010)

DocStram said:


> Academic freedom at your university and the rules of IAP are two completely different situations.  The harsh reality is that no one is protected by academic freedom when she/he is visiting IAP.



The comparison had to do with the way the university poorly handled a situation in which they have "rules."  I felt the handling of the IAP rules was not done well.  That is the end of the comparison.

Anyone else need clarification?  Otherwise, I'm more than happy to leave it alone..........


----------



## RogerGarrett (Aug 5, 2010)

glycerine said:


> All bashing on the back burner... my last words are "I love the car on your website!"  I have a 1950 Chrysler New Yorker that my dad and I rebuilt about 5 years ago.  I can't tell you how much fun it is to drive around in an old car like that... but I guess you know how much fun it is!  I've got some before and after pics of my car posted here if you're interested: http://underground.glycerinesystems.com/chrysler.html



Beautiful work on the Chrysler.  A first class job in my opinion.  Pretty car!

RG


----------



## glycerine (Aug 5, 2010)

RogerGarrett said:


> Beautiful work on the Chrysler. A first class job in my opinion. Pretty car!
> 
> RG


 
Thank you!


----------

