This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1RickHarsch 
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
I think it does not. I think it suggests the possibility of psychosis but is not definitive in and of itself. I hope I am not violating TOS in writing this. My argument is that much of what is posted here, including my assertion that private property is anti-human, could be construed as evidence of possible psychosis and so this tantrum is but a more obvious example.
3timspalding
I'm sorry, but this post is obviously over the TOS line. There's no conceivable way to read it otherwise. And it isn't a minor slip, but an intentional and serious violation of the Terms of Use.
You have been warned. If you violate the TOS again within the next month, you will be suspended from the site for an appropriate period.
If members would like to report TOS violations, please PM or email myself or Jeremy and we will take it from there. Flags do their thing, but they may not rise to the attention of an administrator. We do not generally go looking for violations, so please report them instead.
This discussion is closed.
You have been warned. If you violate the TOS again within the next month, you will be suspended from the site for an appropriate period.
If members would like to report TOS violations, please PM or email myself or Jeremy and we will take it from there. Flags do their thing, but they may not rise to the attention of an administrator. We do not generally go looking for violations, so please report them instead.
This discussion is closed.
4RickHarsch
I'm sorry is a good start. This discussion is closed is a rather authoritarian and rude ending. And as you contribute to this site, please offer an opinion of a spree of TOS postings.
5RickHarsch
I also do not like the tone of 'You have been warned.' As I recall no other 'offenses' I find this overbearing response itself to be offensive. If I have done wrong, discuss it with me, don't fling your authority about.
6timspalding
LibraryThing staff have and will continue to act against gross violations of the Terms of Service. We have warned, suspended and removed users in the past, and shall continue to do so as the need arises.
please offer an opinion of a spree of TOS postings
I do not think they violate the Terms of Service. As admin, I have no other opinion of them.
please offer an opinion of a spree of TOS postings
I do not think they violate the Terms of Service. As admin, I have no other opinion of them.
7theoria
My argument is that much of what is posted here, including my assertion that private property is anti-human, could be construed as evidence of possible psychosis and so this tantrum is but a more obvious example.
Eh?
"The major symptom of these disorders is psychosis, or delusions and hallucinations. Delusions are false beliefs that significantly hinder a person's ability to function. For example, believing that people are trying to hurt you when there is no evidence of this, or believing that you are somebody else, such as Jesus Christ or Cleopatra. Hallucinations are false perceptions. They can be visual (seeing things that aren't there), auditory (hearing), olfactory (smelling), tactile (feeling sensations on your skin that aren't really there, such as the feeling of bugs crawling on you), or taste." http://allpsych.com/disorders/psychotic/
Eh?
"The major symptom of these disorders is psychosis, or delusions and hallucinations. Delusions are false beliefs that significantly hinder a person's ability to function. For example, believing that people are trying to hurt you when there is no evidence of this, or believing that you are somebody else, such as Jesus Christ or Cleopatra. Hallucinations are false perceptions. They can be visual (seeing things that aren't there), auditory (hearing), olfactory (smelling), tactile (feeling sensations on your skin that aren't really there, such as the feeling of bugs crawling on you), or taste." http://allpsych.com/disorders/psychotic/
8RickHarsch
As admin, can you step back and review your manner of dealing with me? I find it autocratic and grossly impolite, particularly the unsolicited private note that I am currently discussing on another thread. If you had a history of any kind with me, I would understand perhaps. But you don't.
9timspalding
It's very simple. I did not send you an "unsolicited private note." I sent you an official notice of your violation of the terms of this site. These terms prohibit personal attacks. Your post is a very clear example of one. This isn't personal.
You will notice that I sent you a second one, as I reviewed your recently-flagged posts. As noted, posts like "You, sir, are a brainwashed dipshit" are clearly outside the scope of the rules of this site. The rules of the site--at least this rule--are not up for debate, and I don't think anyone could ever see your recent attacks as anything other than a violation of them. I regret that I was not aware of these posts earlier.
If you are unwilling to abide by a site's rules, you should not be on it. In only warning you, I assume that you can stop violating the terms of the site. But I assure you I will remove your account if your violations continue to be so clear and so severe.
You will notice that I sent you a second one, as I reviewed your recently-flagged posts. As noted, posts like "You, sir, are a brainwashed dipshit" are clearly outside the scope of the rules of this site. The rules of the site--at least this rule--are not up for debate, and I don't think anyone could ever see your recent attacks as anything other than a violation of them. I regret that I was not aware of these posts earlier.
If you are unwilling to abide by a site's rules, you should not be on it. In only warning you, I assume that you can stop violating the terms of the site. But I assure you I will remove your account if your violations continue to be so clear and so severe.
10RickHarsch
Yes, okay, now your second note is public, so I will repeat: I did write that dipshit post and later referred to it as a flaggable post. I asked you privately and now I ask you here: can you find another of mine that was flagged away? If not, you have not reason to refer to 'your recent attacks.' If yes, then it should be brought to my attention because I would then be sliding into territory I wish to avoid. Not because of you manner, which I don't much like, but because it is fair to have TOS and it is good to be restrained when one is beginning to go overboard.
But let me ask you: do you warn every flagged off poster as you warned me?
I think I have asked two fair questions here and given the 'severity' of your 'threats' I think you are obliged to answer.
But let me ask you: do you warn every flagged off poster as you warned me?
I think I have asked two fair questions here and given the 'severity' of your 'threats' I think you are obliged to answer.
11timspalding
I did write that dipshit post and later referred to it as a flaggable post.
Thanks. The policy is just to look at things said—specific messages, without context. Nevertheless, I think your admission that it was flaggable is important, as it cuts down the sense that the violation is completely eggregious.
can you find another of mine that was flagged away?
The test is whether you violate the TOS. I see at least three others that I'd consider violations of the TOS. (1) "Prosfialaes is a rat, how about that." (2) "Dear dipshit," although you call that an "ironic" violation of the TOS, (3) Your limerick at http://www.librarything.com/topic/150109#3926147 . All three involve name-calling and insult. That said, none are, I think, near as severe as the two mentioned already. If they alone had been brought to my attention, I probably just would have posted a general note about obeying the TOS. There is a very big difference between a conversation that boiled over into anger—something I myself have done, for sure—and starting a new topic with the express intention of degrading another user.
But let me ask you: do you warn every flagged off poster as you warned me?
Certainly not. Neither Jeremy nor I regularly check the flags. We generally only respond when a violation is reported. In this case, nobody reported it, but I saw a member described as a "fucking psycho" in the title of a topic on the Talk tab. That was clearly over the line and, after a walk with my family, I came back and set me looking more deeply. You would surely have gotten away with it if you had kept it in the text.
When I've warned members, however, yes, I warn them. Generally I warn by saying something general, so that everyone has an opportunity to consider avoiding violations. In this case, the premise and title of the thread were an egregious violation, and the topic had yet to acquire much more than that. A message like "Please consider the TOS before posting" would not have made much sense in this context.
Thanks. The policy is just to look at things said—specific messages, without context. Nevertheless, I think your admission that it was flaggable is important, as it cuts down the sense that the violation is completely eggregious.
can you find another of mine that was flagged away?
The test is whether you violate the TOS. I see at least three others that I'd consider violations of the TOS. (1) "Prosfialaes is a rat, how about that." (2) "Dear dipshit," although you call that an "ironic" violation of the TOS, (3) Your limerick at http://www.librarything.com/topic/150109#3926147 . All three involve name-calling and insult. That said, none are, I think, near as severe as the two mentioned already. If they alone had been brought to my attention, I probably just would have posted a general note about obeying the TOS. There is a very big difference between a conversation that boiled over into anger—something I myself have done, for sure—and starting a new topic with the express intention of degrading another user.
But let me ask you: do you warn every flagged off poster as you warned me?
Certainly not. Neither Jeremy nor I regularly check the flags. We generally only respond when a violation is reported. In this case, nobody reported it, but I saw a member described as a "fucking psycho" in the title of a topic on the Talk tab. That was clearly over the line and, after a walk with my family, I came back and set me looking more deeply. You would surely have gotten away with it if you had kept it in the text.
When I've warned members, however, yes, I warn them. Generally I warn by saying something general, so that everyone has an opportunity to consider avoiding violations. In this case, the premise and title of the thread were an egregious violation, and the topic had yet to acquire much more than that. A message like "Please consider the TOS before posting" would not have made much sense in this context.
12RickHarsch
Okay, fair enough. The reason I asked for others is that you were swift, severe and impolite, AND suggested a pattern of behavior that you actually had to look for to find sort of weak evidence of. I say weak because, as you know, the spirit DOES count and only the dipshit one was an exasperated nastiness. The others perhaps pushed limits, but were intended to be light. (Though I don't know what number 2 refers to, the 'Dear Dipshit'...)
I really don't like this business at all: you can look at a recent post that had excrement coming out of my ears, several cases of people calling me delusional...nothing that I would report and would only have flagged if it seemed to be going the flagging way (support the flaggers!). Though only today did I realize that flagging does not mean absolute disappearance, so I doubt I will flag again. And I really can't imagine a scenario in which I would go to the principal's office to tell.
While we're on it, I would also consider the constant attentions of Lawecon to me and RidgewayGirl a sort of stalking, but that too I would not mention were it not for this whole todo.
There was also my defense of the calling of Thatcher 'ironcunt', which I argue is quite fair for reasons of what we all call free speech and especially for the spirit of Rabelaisian mockery of the powerful. Maybe that upset someone.
Finally, as Clemenza says in the Godfather, paraphrasing here: these things gotta happen every so often, gets rid of the bad blood.
I really don't like this business at all: you can look at a recent post that had excrement coming out of my ears, several cases of people calling me delusional...nothing that I would report and would only have flagged if it seemed to be going the flagging way (support the flaggers!). Though only today did I realize that flagging does not mean absolute disappearance, so I doubt I will flag again. And I really can't imagine a scenario in which I would go to the principal's office to tell.
While we're on it, I would also consider the constant attentions of Lawecon to me and RidgewayGirl a sort of stalking, but that too I would not mention were it not for this whole todo.
There was also my defense of the calling of Thatcher 'ironcunt', which I argue is quite fair for reasons of what we all call free speech and especially for the spirit of Rabelaisian mockery of the powerful. Maybe that upset someone.
Finally, as Clemenza says in the Godfather, paraphrasing here: these things gotta happen every so often, gets rid of the bad blood.
13jjwilson61
Call public figures, or anyone who is not actually posting here, anything you want. It won't violate the TOS.
14RickHarsch
It was more the word cunt than who it was directed at, if I am not mistaken.
16RickHarsch
Simon, I've had my discussions with Tim and the drama is over.
17SimonW11
As long as you fail to understand the TOS the potental for drama is high. Post 14 showed you do not understand the TOS. The problem was not the word. The problem was that it was directed at another user. You were mistaken.
18RickHarsch
Why do you think I fail to understand the TOS? I did not call anyone a cunt, and it is clear enough in numerous posts that I get the obvious that the problem is directing various nasties directly at others. I was flagged for directly calling someone a dipshit and I have several times by now said I agree it violated TOS--plus I never argued with its flaggation. Murr called Thatcher Ironcunt, my part in it was not flagged or flaggable as I simply argued freedom of expression (of curses and such, not of curses at those we are arguing with) (besides, that was Murr targeting a public figure). As I suggest in 16 time to drop it. I don't see why you persist.
19lawecon
~18
Well, it is obviously because Simon is stalking you, Rick. Isn't that your characterization of anyone who persistently disagrees with what you say?
Well, it is obviously because Simon is stalking you, Rick. Isn't that your characterization of anyone who persistently disagrees with what you say?
20lriley
LT is made up of many members--when you start personally insulting another member the site becomes the stage for flame wars or to put it another way it has the potential of escalating way beyond the starting point. Tim--in this case is simply putting a fire out in a kitchen before it burns down the whole block. At least to some degree--public figures--non members of LT are subject to more personal critique and lambasting. I like that. The whole point of the pro and con group is to talk and debate politics--whether happening now or in the past or ideas about the future. I personally don't care very much for Deniro's opinions however he has the same right to express himself as best he can on subjects he feels like opining on as anyone else here without being called names. That IMO is as much a free speech issue as anything else--the comfort zone needed by any person needs to express him/herself--not necessarily whether what they say can be proven 'right' or 'wrong'. Saying an opinion on something is stupid is one thing--saying that person is stupid is another. It's a bad way to argue anyway. It's not respectful and other posters pick up on that and even if they more or less agree with you there's always a kernel in the back of their minds thinking that you will resort to any means to win an argument by putting yourself before the thing you are arguing about.
21timspalding
This topic is excessively personal—starting about one member and turning into the activity of another member. I suggest we drop it. The Terms of Service are always assessed on a message-by-message basis. The member in question understands the objection.
If clarification is needed, LibraryThing does not prohibit personal attacks on non-members. If by some miracle someone like Obama were to join LibraryThing, personal attacks on him would still be allowed qua president, but not qua member.
If clarification is needed, LibraryThing does not prohibit personal attacks on non-members. If by some miracle someone like Obama were to join LibraryThing, personal attacks on him would still be allowed qua president, but not qua member.
22jjwilson61
21> That would be a fun distinction to police. Good thing anything like that isn't likely to happen.
23lawecon
~21
I guess I should have disclosed this before, but, as many of the participants in these forums have guessed, I'm really Satan. Does that mean that posters may attack me personally in my official capacity? (After all, we don't want such posters to have nothing to do.)
I guess I should have disclosed this before, but, as many of the participants in these forums have guessed, I'm really Satan. Does that mean that posters may attack me personally in my official capacity? (After all, we don't want such posters to have nothing to do.)
24Michael_Welch
Well "Satan" should have a lot of interesting things to say! There's a lot of questions to ask that we hadn't thought of before!
Actually as for me I've been just puzzled by uh "Mr Satan" but not offended. I didn't especially understand the Gingrich re FDR stuff as I thought the point I was making about Republicans (a number of them anyway) being more "liberal" in the 1940s, '50s and '60s was obvious, as opposed to today's rightward "tea partyist" fixation on "no compromise" or we'll bleed you in the next primary!
LIBERAL Republicans used to WIN primaries etc., was my "point."
I LIKE an opposing view and I DON'T take it personally unless it's made clear that I ought to eh. I welcome dispute and I really try to explain myself while having a little fun.
Harsch by the way is an "old friend" but we don't necessarily believe the same things though we are more simpatico (I having moved more "his way" than he my previous) than we had been in the past when I was a dedicated Reaganite.
Harsch of course speaks for himself but he defends me at times because he knows I'm not always "here" and he's as I said my friend. But I'm not here to collect HIS animosities or his "enemies": I just like to "talk" about stuff!...
Actually as for me I've been just puzzled by uh "Mr Satan" but not offended. I didn't especially understand the Gingrich re FDR stuff as I thought the point I was making about Republicans (a number of them anyway) being more "liberal" in the 1940s, '50s and '60s was obvious, as opposed to today's rightward "tea partyist" fixation on "no compromise" or we'll bleed you in the next primary!
LIBERAL Republicans used to WIN primaries etc., was my "point."
I LIKE an opposing view and I DON'T take it personally unless it's made clear that I ought to eh. I welcome dispute and I really try to explain myself while having a little fun.
Harsch by the way is an "old friend" but we don't necessarily believe the same things though we are more simpatico (I having moved more "his way" than he my previous) than we had been in the past when I was a dedicated Reaganite.
Harsch of course speaks for himself but he defends me at times because he knows I'm not always "here" and he's as I said my friend. But I'm not here to collect HIS animosities or his "enemies": I just like to "talk" about stuff!...
25RickHarsch
not here to collect his animosities, beautifully put, Michael
26lawecon
~24
Nice series of random thoughts, but I am at a loss as to how to respond. Do you expect a response, or are you just telling us all how nice and wonderful you are? I also like the way you both affiliate yourself with Rick and distance yourself from him at the same time. Masterful.
When you come up with an actual topic regarding which discussion is possible, let me know. Until then, I think I'll go torture some souls.
Nice series of random thoughts, but I am at a loss as to how to respond. Do you expect a response, or are you just telling us all how nice and wonderful you are? I also like the way you both affiliate yourself with Rick and distance yourself from him at the same time. Masterful.
When you come up with an actual topic regarding which discussion is possible, let me know. Until then, I think I'll go torture some souls.
27RickHarsch
Guide to post 24:
MW is a bit puzzled by the strange fuss over the Gingrich likes FDR story, point being that MW talking about liberal Republicans and it is thus ironic that Newt 'likes' FDR as he couldn't be more opposed.
MW makes clear that he doesn't mind said fuss.
MW makes two clear points: 1) Republicans were more liberal, a 'number of them, anyway' in the recent past and he thought he had made that point clearly (he had); 2) 'LIBERAL Republicans used to WIN primaries etc., was my "point."'
As for this line in 26: 'Do you expect a response, or are you just telling us all how nice and wonderful you are?' : those are petty words, reminiscent of a lover scorned and yet to recover.
MW is a bit puzzled by the strange fuss over the Gingrich likes FDR story, point being that MW talking about liberal Republicans and it is thus ironic that Newt 'likes' FDR as he couldn't be more opposed.
MW makes clear that he doesn't mind said fuss.
MW makes two clear points: 1) Republicans were more liberal, a 'number of them, anyway' in the recent past and he thought he had made that point clearly (he had); 2) 'LIBERAL Republicans used to WIN primaries etc., was my "point."'
As for this line in 26: 'Do you expect a response, or are you just telling us all how nice and wonderful you are?' : those are petty words, reminiscent of a lover scorned and yet to recover.
28lawecon
~27
Rick, once again you apparently haven't read the thread. It is a rather useless activity to try to respond to you until you bestir yourself to do so. Further, I detest people who KNOW what other people are REALLY saying and want to explain it to third parties. Michael is a mature human being. How about getting down from the arrogance and allowing him to speak for himself? (In other words your defender of the weak against the big mean monsters routine is wearing a bit thin. In fact, it was a bit thin the first time you engaged in it.)
Rick, once again you apparently haven't read the thread. It is a rather useless activity to try to respond to you until you bestir yourself to do so. Further, I detest people who KNOW what other people are REALLY saying and want to explain it to third parties. Michael is a mature human being. How about getting down from the arrogance and allowing him to speak for himself? (In other words your defender of the weak against the big mean monsters routine is wearing a bit thin. In fact, it was a bit thin the first time you engaged in it.)
29RickHarsch
I quoted him.
30Michael_Welch
Am I "wonderful"? I've never heard anyone say that about me -- but my mother liked me.
I'm only trying to say what I believe, adding fillips of my life to illustrate. One oughtn't go to these blogs for "friends" I think -- Rick has um "proved" his friendship for me for years, in "real life," and consider what he has "endured" from me "ideologically" you could say but he always liked to hear me talk about movies!
If I bore or upset you Mr Satan I'm not really "sorry"; we both take our chances when we indulge in publicizing our ideas huh.
So keep your cap on, you're doin' all right here and you get a lot of attention. That's okay eh...
I'm only trying to say what I believe, adding fillips of my life to illustrate. One oughtn't go to these blogs for "friends" I think -- Rick has um "proved" his friendship for me for years, in "real life," and consider what he has "endured" from me "ideologically" you could say but he always liked to hear me talk about movies!
If I bore or upset you Mr Satan I'm not really "sorry"; we both take our chances when we indulge in publicizing our ideas huh.
So keep your cap on, you're doin' all right here and you get a lot of attention. That's okay eh...
31RickHarsch
Explanation of post 30 available upon request.
32Michael_Welch
That Welch is so "opaque"!?...
33lawecon
~32
Yes, well I have noted that Rick feels a need to explain what everyone else really means.
Yes, well I have noted that Rick feels a need to explain what everyone else really means.
34Michael_Welch
He does pretty well "explaining" me but then he's known me for oh twenty five years I believe...
35RickHarsch
>33 lawecon: everyone
36RidgewayGirl
OOh, Mr Harsch, may I choose who you have to deconstruct next? Do you charge a fee?
37RickHarsch
Well, literally speaking I've already done with you, but hell, I can toss in a free one. By using Mr. Harsch rather than Rick, you are maintaining the illusion of distance, fearing a certain unpalatable truth may come out. Yes, baby sister, you let that rat out of the bag.
It's not her fault.
It's not her fault.
38Michael_Welch
"Mr Harsch" NEVER charged me ANYTHING when he critiqued me (which was often)!!!!...
39RickHarsch
And rumor has it MW has stopped shaving.
40Michael_Welch
It's true but his "beard" is uh "wispy" at the moment but then we shall see what we shall see! ("He" looks more like Wayne in "The Searchers" than say Walter Brennan in "Northwest Passage"? Well he likes to THINK he does...)
