BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Banning thread: Epop

  
  

Page: 1(2)34567... 9

 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:05 / 09.04.07
Epop So, *if* you're a woman - in this Dawkensian sense

What's a 'Dawkensian woman'? After the Andrew Dworkin thing above, I'm just asking to see if this in any way related to the theories and ideas of the noted evolutionist and holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, Rachel Dawkins?
 
 
penitentvandal
08:09 / 09.04.07
No, I think he's talking about Charles Dawkens - you know, the Victorian writer whose works are largely tales of impoverished working class orphans who pull themselves up from the gutter by hard work and dedication, only to eventually fail when confronted by their role as nothing more than vessels for the replication of their genetic material, and the terrifying realisation that there is no God.

Incidentally, in case no-one's clear where I stand on Epop: velvetvandal votes to ban.
 
 
Princess
08:46 / 09.04.07
I'm for banning.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:58 / 09.04.07
Can we ban for invoking pseudoscientific jargon, refusing to cite references same, and making pronouncements based on highly suspect theories as if they were self-evident unversally accepted truths instead of unproven (and in some cases unprovable) theoretical work? At this point my scientist is feeling as harrassed as my woman. I would certainly accept that a fair bit of human behaviour appears to be hardwired, including some of the uglier facets, but what's being stated here goes well over and above accepting that.

furioso: Barbelith is not the internet. It's a messageboard. Posting here is not a basic human right. There are countless places where this stuff would fly. It doesn't fly here.

Epop: More than your evident sexism, more than your magical grandstanding, it is your blistering lack of empathy that makes me feel ill. I feel a great swell of sorrow for any rape survivour unlucky enough to be left to the tender mercies of your "therapy."

Oh yeah, and BTW--I've never, ever seen a female rape survivour conduct herself like Epop is, but if I ever did she would get a similar bollocking, don't worry.
 
 
penitentvandal
09:03 / 09.04.07
It's the fact that he's a rape survivor but uses phrases like 'ram it up your ass' that makes me uncomfortable.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:08 / 09.04.07
I don't think that means anything. I would never stoop to questioning someone's survivour status--as far as I'm concerned, if he says he's a survivour then that is what he is.
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:24 / 09.04.07
Following up the post above of Talks to strangers on the same point but in greater detail:

Epop's gritty scientific reality vs. the vast majority of the board's more touchy-feely opinion

Objection! On the grounds that, as XK says:

"We can discuss gender roles productively if we agree to not make assumptions and to use third party scientific articles, studies and subjective experience."

And entity too:
"... primarily a group of people who believe in the equality of people of different sexes and genders, the equality of people of various racial identities and backgrounds, and the need for empirical evidence to back up claims of empirical fact." [my italics for clarity, I hope.]

We, the majority of contributors to Barbelith, are the ones who are interested in references whilst Mr Shouty is the one out there in 'I say this is true!' land with no willingness to show his working. It's documented in the FAQ ("The aim of Barbelith is to create an online space where the standard of conversation, discussion and debate is higher than anywhere else online"]: we have expectations of posters in our attempts to make this a board with high standards of discussion.

I spend a lot of time when I'm outside work encouraging non-scientists to have confidence in challenging scientists and pseudo-scientific generalisations: often those inside them are trapped in v narrow thinking and are purely ignorant of the wider implications and influences on their work. The world needs all of us to engage with and in science.

Have confidence, you on the board who don't have undergraduate or higher degrees in science, that we as a board are relatively good at the core skills of science: at looking for the evidence trail and applying critical thought to the claims that are presented to us. It's an important feature of science and the other disciplines of critical thinking: they are based in social processes, continuous trails of evidence, and respectful communication. As bell hooks points out in her book 'Teaching to transgress' (PM if you want me to hunt for the page references), critical thinking is liberatory. Don't let the occupation of well-resourced and high-status institutions by white supremacist male hierarchies fool you: the techniques of liberatory thinking belong to us and will justify us.

It is sad that Epop's trauma is preventing him from participating in rational discussion, because he obviously has a lot of interesting ideas. But he is so far showing no ability to contain his trauma and interact appropriately with the rest of the board. As has occurred previously as when Paranoid Writer became ill, sometimes we have to remove sick people from the board so the rest of us can carry on with the project.
 
 
penitentvandal
09:30 / 09.04.07
Oh yeah, I agree with that - not questioning his status - it's just that some of the stuff he comes out with seems kind of aggressive and invasive. Though god knows I'm not prescribing the idea that rape survivors have to always use non-invasive language, it's just, I don't know, there seems to be a lot of aggression in Epop that I'm not sure he's dealing with in the best way.

It's probably best that I do reiterate that I feel sympathy for him as someone who's been through a terrible experience, but that I'm not going to stand for him then going about and upsetting others. And, as I'm not sure how well Epop's processed his own experience, I have to record that I, like others, am worried about his qualifications to be 'putting back together' women who've been through a similar experience.

I'm torn, in a way, between sympathy for the guy because of the bad stuff he's been through (including his traumatic experiences with magic) and the fact that I am thoroughly pissed off with the way he responds to others in argument. I vote ban because there's been no sign that he wishes to mend his ways, but, not to be too 70s batman about it, I wish there was some other way.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
09:33 / 09.04.07
I'm slightly curious as to why it's taken Epop, who's been a (reasonably productive - eight topics started) member of Barbelith since 2004, over three years to start talking about the kind of material he's got into over the last few days. We seem to have gone from tasteless, but essentially flip, remarks about motherhood as it relates to the study of magic into some extremely dark territory in a very short space of time.

It may not matter by this point, but I just wonder; why now? Why not two years ago, or whenever?
 
 
HCE
09:34 / 09.04.07
AG - do you think the suit's been hijacked?
 
 
This Sunday
09:42 / 09.04.07
I was thinking personal, IRL issues, and trying to be forgiving/excusing on that basis, but even under those circumstances... maybe it is a hijacking. I'd never noticed Epop around before. What fora did he frequent as a poster, if at all? Were they more relaxed, reasonable, or otherwise not the sort of thing to make people want to yell 'Ban!' all at once?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:45 / 09.04.07
Well, there are other reasons for a dramatic change in posting style outside of suitjacking. A person my bottle up the uglier parts of hir personal philosophy until ze gains a certain critical mass of confidence; a person may become mentally unwell, or stop taking hir medication, or start taking a medication that is inneffective or toxic for hir. If you bring magic into the mix all kinds of crap can potentially go awry, leaving our hypothetical individual with temporary difficulties in relating to others. For examples.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:08 / 09.04.07
(PS: Saturn's Nod--well said.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:52 / 09.04.07
I think Saturn's Nod pretty much covered what I was going to say on this. Talking about:

Epop's gritty scientific reality

fails to take into account that Epop is not providing supporting material, or actually presenting a model of scientific reality. He is making statements that have not been subjected to the scientific method, as far as one can tell, and then claiming that they will be proven right by evolutionary psychology once it develops as a discipline. Epop's reality is neither particularly gritty not particularly scientific.

Of course, people believe things that are not scientifically proven all over the place on Barbelith. A lot depends on how they express those things, and how open they are to a) talking about other people's views of them and b) being respectful of other people while doing so. Also, of course, c) how contentious those things are. There have been things which should, by this formula, have resulted in banning but have not, but these should hopefully not be precedents.

In this case, regardless of whether Epop feels that the way he is laying out his ideas and the way he is responding to people who question them is acceptable in this social situation, a number of other people disagree. At this point, as far as I can tell, Epop is not interested in this, or prepared/able to moderate himself, and as such it may, if it is the general wish, have to be moderated.

A brief note on survivor status: I'd say that Barbelith is generally pretty supportive of people's trauma. However, people have in the past felt that their trauma has entitled them to behave in a way that to other people feels like harrassment or like activity aimed at or responsible for disrupting the board. Most often, this has taken the form of attacks on members of the board identified as authority figures or, in particular, psychiatric professionals. Sympathy for the original trauma, however, does not necessarily preclude attempts to improve behaviour currently, or an obligation to forget the limitations of Barbelith as a counselling or medical space, which are profound.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
11:22 / 09.04.07
Now this is UGLY. You want to talk about things you can't say in public to people and have them still talk to you, feel free to use this as an example.

That's pretty much why your posting privileges to this forum should be zapped, kid. There's an option with that UGLY stuff, that so-called 'hard reality' you seem to think everyone must be subjected to. You can choose not to articulate it. Then maybe someone will want to talk to you.

When you know this crap is going to offend, there seems little reason for you to be writing it, other than to to offend, to draw attention to yourself, and therefore further smoosh yourself into a messiah complex corner. Good luck with that; please take it elsewhere.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
11:36 / 09.04.07
AG - do you think the suit's been hijacked?

Not sure, but I doubt it. If anything, I think Epop was probably just having a lousy weekend, and had a couple of things he (perhaps didn't even necessarily realise he) wanted to get out of his system, and it all snowballed from there. Not that this would excuse some of stuff he posted, particularly on the rape issue, but if that is the case, hopefully he's feeling a bit better now, even if nobody else is.

Out of interest, did anyone PM him once he started in on the rape material? If not, mightn't that have been the way to go? The idea that 'we're all animals', or variations on the theme, usually being, once expressed on Barbelith, a sign of trouble ahead.

A stock PM for these situations might read something like 'While you, Poster X, are entirely entitled to your opinion on subject X, you should be aware that, as it's being put across currently, it is likely to cause problems for both you and the board in general.'

Which seems pompous, admittedly, but seeing as banning people's difficult at the moment, it might be an idea to think about some sort of conflict-avoidance strategy along those lines. I'm possibly being a bit wide-eyed here, but I still think it's a relatively rare individual who genuinely wants to read pages and pages on the internet about what an arse they are, at least in the cold light of day.
 
 
Epop Bastart the Justified, I
11:49 / 09.04.07
Hm. No, it's me, alright. Same human behind the keyboard.

So let's do a bit more of this:

I SAID:
Let me push this harder: men earn 1/3rd more than women. This is useful because women are *biologically* *attracted* to men with money, in the same way that men are *biologically* *attracted* to women with strong physical symmetry and a 1/3 waist/hip ratio.
QUOTE ENDS

ELECTRIC MONK SAID:
I read this as saying that it is okay to pay women one-third less than men because women are biologically attracted to wealth. Okay, not "okay". "Useful" is your word. "Useful" seems a pretty positive read of the disparity in pay between the genders, and a strikingly odd one at that. Seems to promote sexist practices as a good and desireable thing. Sexism. Misogyny. Right there.
QUOTE ENDS

So, *YOU READ* that as saying that I thought it was OK. I don't. I do think, however, that in a culture where women stop earing for several years around child birth and the neonatal period (in many cases,) and expect that the man they are with to take care of their financial needs for that period (in many cases,) it's necessary for the man to be earning enough money to make this work. It's an extremely large and expensive undertaking, and the fiscal burden mainly falls upon men. A woman with serious intentions of reproducing is looking (in many cases) - and I think this is fairly obvious - for somebody to cover those costs.

So now re-run those numbers with women and men making exactly the same amount of money. Where does the extra *CAPITAL* come from? If men are doing the financial support for women during the non-earning parts of the reproductive process, they're being penalized for carrying the financial costs of that process without any other financial resources being made available.

So try that again: now with income equality between men and women, and a large financial grant from the Government that's given when women become pregnant to help cover the costs of the process.

Conclusion: one of the things which maintains economic inequality between men and women is that the costs of raising children disproportionately fall on men, due to women not working for a long period of time in many cases, during pregnancy. If that changed, by government action or a social convention which involved sharing that financial burden more equally, it would remove one of the primary things maintaining income inequality between men and women.

Misogyny?

I don't think so. Nothing in this is about hatred of women: it's about looking clearly at why things are as they are.

===========

What I'm seeing is a lot of cognitive dissonance caused by exposure to some extremely unconventional and hardcore work on the foundations of rape, and the biological foundations of human gender.

I do not believe that, in any way, shape or form, you would be responding to a female who had been raped as you're responding to me. I think that's flat out wishful thinking.

As things stand, I'm more than willing to explain my thought further if you continue to accuse me of misogyny, sexism and so on. So far, I think that other than being asked to start citing references, nobody has demonstrated that what I said is in any of these categories in a decisive way.

But by all means kick me off the board because my magical work - in this case, digging into the origins of rape at a biological level - makes you uncomfortable. I did a *ton* of work to hack into the core of these issues, and what I came back with might be raw, but as you can see it makes a lot of sense at an intellectual level...

Goodness knows, comfort is the best friend of every working magician, and ideas that upset you and challenge your beliefs should be safely confined to places on the internet you never go.

I said this before, and I'll say it again: grow up, people.

==========

Finally: *IF* you want me to put in two or three days digging up and exhaustive list of articles and URLs on this stuff, I'd like to take that process point by point so that I'm not wasting my time or yours digging through the literature.

Here's what I think would be a fair approach:

1> Take a claim I've made that you think is dubious - quote it from what I've said, rather that arm waving, because I make points pretty specifically, which is why it's quite hard (for example) to show that I'm misogynistic.

2> Find some data which suggests that I'm talking smack. If I say "I think it's about 10%" and you've got references which suggest 2%, I'd like you to post those first.

I'm suggesting that because, if you're invested enough to find references, then we're talking about facts, rather than character assassination and complaints because I offend your personal gender political beliefs.

I *think* that I can find sources for everything I've mentioned, but I'm not going to answer generic "put up or shut up" any more than I'm willing to accept blanket accusations of misogyny without anybody identifying exactly what makes that accusation real.

Possibly a thread to move to the Lab, at that point.

I hope this seems reasonable. Detail counts.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:06 / 09.04.07
Ah - so, you make claims, and then put the onus on other people to find contrary evidence?

You're not a trained scientist, are you, Epop? I believe that we have a fair few people with degree-level qualifications in the sciences on the board, so perhaps if you asked them nicely they will help you at with how one presents a scientific case. Whether this would be a worthwhile use of their time I don't know - that's a matter for them to consider. However, at the moment your claims to be merely shattering our reality tunnels with your scientific fact is not well-represented by the absence of fact in your science.
 
 
penitentvandal
12:07 / 09.04.07
Hold on, now. I don't think you have proved your points on an intellectual level. I also think it's somewhat disingenuous of you to ask others to post data which refute your assumptions. You are the one making these points, it's up to you to cite data in support of them. That's how it works. Saying 'that's how it is, now prove me wrong' isn't science, it's rhetorical grandstanding.
 
 
Red Concrete
12:09 / 09.04.07
I posted the 2% references back in the Sexism in Magic thread.

I can have a go at getting some references for why you are incorrect. But evolutionary psychology... you can make up whatever story you want with that, and it's impossible to prove or disprove.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:12 / 09.04.07
Because it's a young science. Quite.
 
 
penitentvandal
12:14 / 09.04.07
You know, one wonders what, without getting too far off-topic, is the difference between 'a young science' and 'making shit up'?
 
 
Red Concrete
12:18 / 09.04.07
That, and lack of adequate time travel.

Epop, just FYI - I'm not doing this to antagonise you, or just for the sake of proving you wrong. You've come up with quite an elaoborate theory for why rape occurs. I just think it would probably be helpful for you to develop it more, in the first instance by correcting it with what is and isn't scientifically verifiable.

Perhaps Barbelith isn't the place to do that. In fact, I'd suggest talking to professionals in the field to see what the prevailing theories are, and get interactive feedback on some of your ideas.
 
 
electric monk
12:25 / 09.04.07
What I'm seeing is a lot of cognitive dissonance caused by exposure to some extremely unconventional and hardcore work on the foundations of rape, and the biological foundations of human gender.

What is actually happening is that people are becoming very upset with your hostile style of posting. We know fuck-all about your work. You haven't shown any. You keep talking about it and talking about it, but it's just too "edgy" for this space or something. I'm still not sure. But it's not impressive. In fact, on a forum where lots of contributors are willing and able to show their work and show that they live their work through their posts, it looks kinda sad. For myself, I'm very tired of your subject matter and the way you choose to present it, more than tired of you trying to set the terms of debate, and woefully tired of hearing how "hardcore" you are. This is following a typical formula now. I'm in favor of the next logical step.
 
 
Red Concrete
12:38 / 09.04.07
OK, I realise I'm might be going further than I should with this, but here is a good freely available review of the area which might show you why, Epop, many of your fundamentals might be wrong.

Keep an open mind in this area; to paraphrase Lorenz, it's a good exercise for a scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast (it's no coincidence that he studied animal behaviour).
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:40 / 09.04.07
Epop you really aren't painting a great picture for other male survivors of rape.

I have a suggestion for why you as a rape victim are you projecting your rape on to data to do with women who are raped. Its an effective way for you to not deal with your own rape and externalise what you feel about what happened to you onto data and research to do with women and rape.

The validity of that data is not important as long as you get to disassociate from the act of what happened to you. The anger you display in this regard is coming from the fixed identity roles you are placing on men and women. This in turn reflects your own notions of why it should not of happened to you being a male and why the need to equate such acts with something other than male. Thou you have recognized institutionalized male rape.

I dont think you have delt with your issues, and i dont think what you are displaying is going to help you. I hope you have group or single therapy to help you. i think you really need to stop being so hard on your self with your hard facts about yourself trying to justify yourself to yourself.

Take my opinion as you will i am just another male survivor and there are lots of us, but i think you really need to examine the motivations behind why you have done this research and why you present it in the context you do, i think its very damaging for you as a survivor, i wouldnt want to be where i imagine you are, please get some better help if this is all the help you are giving yourself.
 
 
Ticker
12:54 / 09.04.07
Oh this is a nice amount of fuckery to wake up to.

Ok Epop. Let's break in down *again*.

sex·ism (s?k's?z'?m) pronunciation
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.


from here

We've asked you to base your opinions in third party fact and you seem to be refusing to do so. what you have been doing is "2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."

I personally have asked you to go start that gender/biology thread if you can respectfully accept that your language choice is a problem for the rest of the board.

You keep saying you have interesting things to talk to us about and maybe you do. So why can't you accept that we need you to change your approach?

Why is it so hard for you to accept that your presentation style is not working here? One of the definitions of insanity is to repeat the same action and expect different results.

I myself have been trying very hard to direct you on how to engage with the board productively and you keep ignoring my suggestions or dismissing them out of hand. It's hard to tell as you're not really saying anything I can use including your questionable opinions.

Gender
In the vast majority of countries, the population of amateur radio operators is overwhelmingly male. In the United States, approximately 15% of amateur radio operators are women.[3] In China, only 12% of amateur radio operators are women.[4] Some amateur radio activities have a more balanced male/female ratio, such as Amateur Radio Direction Finding: 33% of the competitors at the 2004 World ARDF Championship were women.[5]
A male amateur radio operator can be referred to as an OM, an abbreviation used in Morse code telegraphy for "old man", regardless of the operator's age. A female amateur radio operator can be referred to as a YL, from the abbreviation used for "young lady", regardless of the operator's age. XYL was once used by amateur radio operators to refer to an unlicensed woman, usually the wife of a male amateur radio operator; today, the term has come to mean any female spouse of an amateur radio operator, licensed or not. Although these codes are derived from English language abbreviations, their use is common among amateur radio operators worldwide.


Hey do you wonder if the wives are included in the overall stat for women? these are the things we could be talking about if you would accept that you need to adjust your approach to these topics for this board.

Now I'm tired of repeating the same action and hoping for a different reaction. I keep offering you the manual on the board's engagement style and you keep ignoring that you need to read it. Obviously there is a cultural miscommunication issue happening here.

Are you going to address the issue that it is your posting style and presentation of this information that is the problem? Yes or no. Please stop wasting my time.
 
 
Chiropteran
13:04 / 09.04.07
(Cross-posted with everybody, but saying my bit before I re-lurk...)

Epop is a repugnant presence on Barbelith, once again not for the topics he posts about, but because the way he posts about them is insensitive to the extreme and short-circuits possible productive discussion of those topics. Rape, and possible biological factors surrounding it, may be a topic worthy of discussion, but that discussion does not have to burn the eyes of those who read it (from which it follows that Epop is not the one to discuss it, at least not here). I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said upthread, but once more for the record.

If it comes to a vote, count me in for banning.

I'm also not thrilled to see Epop using his banning thread as a platform to continue posting his ideas about rape and gender (in the same harassing manner that necessitated this thread in the first place). This thread is to "discuss the possible removal of Epop" based on his posting conduct, not to give him another space in which to justify his beliefs - or for us to engage with him on them. If the board decides to let him stay, then he can go start a thread about the evolutionary basis of pay-disparity, or whatever, but can we at least have a moratorium on that in this thread?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:07 / 09.04.07
I'm inclined to let the offending behaviour continue in this thread as it is

a) contained in one easy to avoid place and not contaminating other areas of the board and

b) making my case for me so I don't have to.
 
 
Papess
13:09 / 09.04.07
I apologize for questioning the status of Epop's survivor status. That was out of line. However, I just wonder if Epop realizes that many of the people who disagree with him are survivors too, yet, they do not support his views or posting style and language. For instance, using the word "victim", instead of "survivor". In fact, I suspect it points to struggles with one's recovery - still playing the victim role thing, perhaps? I can relate to that, and I can empathize, and perhaps, it is taking me a while to get past all the offensive gesturing of Epop to really see that he is too, wounded and still healing. I think if Epop was to reflect on the issues people have with his posts, it would go a long way toward his own healing process, and that perhaps is the one bit of victory that situations like this have - there is opportunity for growth. Still, one has to seize that opportunity.
 
 
Chiropteran
13:12 / 09.04.07
Talks to Strangers: point granted. I just have an innate distaste for scaffold speeches.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
13:20 / 09.04.07
Hmm, leaving aside how objectionable various of Epop's posts have been demonstrated to be, it's perhaps worth drawing back and asking exactly why somebody who is, by his own account, a crazy powerful magician, and a serious mover and shaker in fields as various as low cost housing, environmental lobbying, refugee work and putting the breaks on the surveillance society is spending this much time and energy posting this kind of thing on Barbelith? Or to put it another way: Epop, either a) you've got more important things to be getting on with, or b) if you haven't, I really can't see this being a healthy experience for you.

Either way, perhaps it'd be a good idea for you to take some time out from posting. Go for a run, spend some time with someone you love, even synthesise your thought into a no-doubt-bestselling book entitled, ooh, I don't know, maybe "Grow up, People: The Abyss Slipped Me its Winky, and I Farted on its Balls"?

Point is, Epop, that you're coming across as the exact opposite of the person your posts are trying to conjour up. You see a keen intellect that cuts through the crap, coupled with serious magical and socio-political clout. Other people on the board see something else, in various shades of sad, ridiculous, or plain offensive. Me, I see somebody who's really not in a good space emotionally. If this is the case (and you'll know, deep down, if it is), step back from this thread, and maybe this board too, and concentrate on getting well.

In terms of calling for a ban, I'm not in favour, mostly because on present from it's likely to take a while for Tom Coates to become aware of this situation and make a call either way, and there's a fair bit of damage that could be done in the meantime, both by Epop and to him. Seems to me that a number of members of the board have ably demonstrated the problems in Epop's posts already, and repeating them ad nauseum is only a) feeding a possible troll, and b) using up time and energy that could be more profitably spent elsewhere on the board. If we were to let this thread alone for a while, we'd allow Epop some space to consider the problems in his posts outside of a combative, post / counter-post dynamic, and allow (as now seems inevitiable) Tom Coates to be able to make a decision on a ban on the basis of the evidence so far, and not the even-more-bat-shit-loopy-than-we've-seen-from-Epop-so-far things under-fire members tend to post when they feel, rightly or more likely wrongly, subject to what Epop described as a 'witchhunt'.

I can understand anyone's disinclination to treat Epop with any clemency at this point, but the same time I think that a little time out might help.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:30 / 09.04.07
Will it help him stop calling me a chick and normalising/trivialising gender stereotypes and rape?
 
 
Ticker
13:35 / 09.04.07
Hey Bees,

I do think your post:

Either way, perhaps it'd be a good idea for you to take some time out from posting. Go for a run, spend some time with someone you love, even synthesise your thought into a no-doubt-bestselling book entitled, ooh, I don't know, maybe "Grow up, People: The Abyss Slipped Me its Winky, and I Farted on its Balls"?


Is disrespectful and hurtful to a rape survivor and while I suspect you didn't intend it to be read that way please take that reading into consideration.

By focusing Epop's attention here hopefully he will not be posting his problematic views on the rest of the board and potentially he will consider some of the points we are trying to make about the nature of the board's exchanges.
 
 
electric monk
14:07 / 09.04.07
For those who missed it in the other thread, I PM'd Epop and suggested that he take some time away from the board and possibly have a think about how he's conducted himself, shortly before posting this. I've gotten no response and it doesn't seem to have had any effect whatsoever.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34567... 9

 
  
Add Your Reply