Dear Reverend Blair,

[Paco]

I assume it was you who edited a post of mine. If I assume incorrectly then please point this out to the "admin" who edited my post. You replaced "Baghdad Bob" with ***deleted racial epithet***

"Baghdad Bob" is not a racial epithet. Baghdad Bob was the information Minister in Saddam Hussien's government. His real name is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Baghdad Bob was a nickname he earned for his propensity to lie. Here is an example...

After U.S. Forces Seized Baghdad's Airport:

"We butchered the force present at the airport. We have retaken the airport! There are no Americans there!"

I called moghrabi, "Baghdad Bob" because his posts are about as accurate as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf announcements to the world ON TV as his country fell around him. It has nothing to do with race. Unless of course, you have knowledge of moghrabi's race and that his race has a propensity to lie. I have never heard of such a thing, nor would I believe it, if told. You, on the other hand believe many strange things.

For example your signature has a quote from a song written by Steve Earle. It includes the line "Skank for me Condi..."

Just to make sure everyone knows who he is talking about, Earle uses Rice's full name Condoleeza once in the song. Written from Bush's perspective, this song includes the line, "Skank for me Condi show me what you got." The definition of skank is "One who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl." While Earle fashions himself a progressive, this song reeks of sexism and racism.

Yet, I see no ***deleted racial epithet*** in your signature. So, "Skank for me Condi" is a good thing and "Baghdad Bob" is not. Those jokes about Canadians smoking a lot of dope may not be so funny after all.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Dear Paco,

Bagdad Bob has indeed become a racial epithet in recent months...it's right up there with the rest of the phrases of hatred spewed by those on the radical right who wish to dehumanize those from the Middle East so that murdering 100,000 of them does not keep them awake at night.

It was also a personal attack on another poster, much like your personal attack on me regarding my signature.

The point of Steve Earle's "love" song to Condoleeza Rice is that she, like the rest of the Bush administration, is nothing but a corporate whore. It's supposed to cheap and demeaning towards her...she earned it.

More than that, I change my signature quite regularly and have had the present one for a week or so, so there are likely a lot of people wondering what the hell you are talking about.

You are out of control, Paco. You have been launching personal attacks whenever you feel you are losing an argument. You concentrate on Moghrabi most of all.

I have seen people like you destroy sites like this before with your refusal to discuss things, instead reverting to name-calling, obscenity and racial epithets. If you'd like I can direct towards some Canadian sites where such things are not only tolerated, but tacitly encouraged by the inaction of the moderators. This is not one of those sites though.

 

[peapod]

Its getting close to christmas *group hug*

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

It was also a personal attack on another poster, much like your personal attack on me regarding my signature.

For the record Reverend Blair: first, I do not agree with the personal attacks by Paco, and I agree that such things should be removed. But why haven't the personal attacks by moghrabi towards Paco, like moghrabi wishing to see Paco commit suicide, been removed too? This is not a personal attack towards moghrabi, but I think it's hypocrit to remove certain remarks by Paco, but not certain remarks by moghrabi which implement the same.

The point of Steve Earle's "love" song to Condoleeza Rice is that she, like the rest of the Bush administration, is nothing but a corporate whore. It's supposed to cheap and demeaning towards her...she earned it.

But can't Paco then claim that mister al-Sahaf "earned" the title of Baghdad Bob too? Your reasoning on this point does sound a bit vague Reverend.

 

[Paco]

Re: RE: Dear Reverend Blair,

Bagdad Bob has indeed become a racial epithet in recent months...it's right up there with the rest of the phrases of hatred spewed by those on the radical right who wish to dehumanize those from the Middle East so that murdering 100,000 of them does not keep them awake at night.

Fair enough. Enlighten me. Many racial terms are obvious in their meaning. Explain how this term has become a racial epithet in "recent months." Please provide a careful examination of its evolution. As recently as November 30, the nickname was used in American newspapers. An American press that is stupidly overcome with political correctness.

It was also a personal attack on another poster, much like your personal attack on me regarding my signature.

What is not a personal attack in your view?

I provided an explanation of how I find your (previous) signature offensive. You accuse me of not discussing points of view, and when I do, you call them personal attacks.

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf is a known liar. Bill Clinton lost his license to practice law in America for lying under oath or perjury. In the future, if I find it necessary to again compare one's point of view to a known liar would you consider it a personal attack if I called one "Slick Willie."

If I say, "Your words hold as much truth as Slick Willie," is that a personal attack or just a comparison?

The point of Steve Earle's "love" song to Condoleeza Rice is that she, like the rest of the Bush administration, is nothing but a corporate whore. It's supposed to cheap and demeaning towards her...she earned it.

So it's OK for Steve Earle to attack Condi Rice and you can echo and repeat that attack, but if one has an opinion different than you...

You are out of control, Paco. You have been launching personal attacks whenever you feel you are losing an argument. You concentrate on Moghrabi most of all.

Out of control? That is a matter of opinion also, is it not? Confrontational, yes. But out of control?
:roll:

 

[Reverend Blair]

ut why haven't the personal attacks by moghrabi towards Paco, like moghrabi wishing to see Paco commit suicide, been removed too?

In my case because I never noticed it right away and you gave Moghrabi hell for it right away. Things seemed to have settled down after that so I never bothered. Probably a mistake in hindsight, but I've made the same mistake with some of Paco's and other's posts...things that were obviously meant to be inflammatory.

But can't Paco then claim that mister al-Sahaf "earned" the title of Baghdad Bob too?

And if Paco was referring to the original Baghdad Bob, I would have let it stand. He wasn't though. He used a term that US soldiers have taken to using as a racial slur while raiding Iraqi's homes. He used it to describe a poster here who is of Middle Eastern descent. He did so in attempt to either start a fight or intimidate people into silence.

 

[moghrabi]

I called moghrabi, "Baghdad Bob" because his posts are about as accurate as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf announcements to the world ON TV as his country fell around him. It has nothing to do with race. Unless of course, you have knowledge of moghrabi's race and that his race has a propensity to lie. I have never heard of such a thing, nor would I believe it, if told. You, on the other hand believe many strange things.

Paco,

If you think my posts are lies, I put a link to every single one of them. They are from the media that you and I read everyday. I am not creating anything out of the blue. If you wish to prove me wrong, do it the right way and lead me to something that proves my point null.

It does seem clear now that you do have a racist feelings against me. Yes I am from the ME and I hate everything your government is doing in the ME. However, that does not mean I hate the American people. There is a big difference there. You started the insult by saying Arabs are still living in their own feces. This is an attack on the whole Arab race. My attacks are on your government practices.

 

[peapod]

Paco I think everyone likes a good debate, I suggest you go and and read the debates between moghrabi and researchok.

 

[Reverend Blair]

So it's OK for Steve Earle to attack Condi Rice and you can echo and repeat that attack, but if one has an opinion different than you...

See, I've never said, "Paco is a corporate whore just like Condi Rice."

Out of control? That is a matter of opinion also, is it not? Confrontational, yes. But out of control?

Yes, out of control. Your posts are not confrontational or meant to support your argument anymore. More and more those posts are meant to start a war of words between yourself and anybody who disagrees with you, mostly Moghrabi. You've gone from being controversial to being nasty. You've gone from attacking the argument to attacking fellow posters.

Now you are taking the step to attacking moderators.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

[Now you are taking the step to attacking moderators.

Reading through this thread, I do not see anything written that could be defined as 'attacking the moderators', Reverend. I am no fan, by any stretch, of the views held by Paco, yet it appears to me that this possible warming-up-to-a-banning situation is stemming more from offense taken over the views he holds rather than his expression of those views.

(Your statement above is why I start to wonder if you might be building a case for banning this member.)

 

[peapod]

I also do not agree with some of paco's views, and I don't agree with some of moghrabi either. I found his remark about suscide very offensive, but I had a very close friend that took their own life. I dunno maybe its just me, but I don't find any difference between telling someone to kill them selves, and saying that individuals leave there feces in the street.
Again I suggest Paco that you read the debates between researchok and moghrabi.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I have no intention of asking for him to be banned, Haggis. On the contrary I think that his views add an element of debate to the site that would otherwise be missing. If nothing else he provides something for us to talk about.

I have not deleted his posts when they contained something offensive, just the offensive parts, so that his point of view would still be represented. At the same time I think that people deserve to know why something was deleted, so I put that right in there where everybody can see it.

I do expect him to respect other posters though, if not their views.

As for whether he is attacking me personally...the fact that he started this thread is a pretty good indication of that. The final line of his first post,

Those jokes about Canadians smoking a lot of dope may not be so funny after all,

is a pretty definite shot directly at me too.

He never PM'd or e-mailed me to discuss the matter or present his case, instead starting a new thread in my honour.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

Re: RE: Dear Reverend Blair,

As for whether he is attacking me personally...the fact that he started this thread is a pretty good indication of that. The final line of his first post,

Those jokes about Canadians smoking a lot of dope may not be so funny after all,

is a pretty definite shot directly at me too.

Hmm, now you see, I had the impression that he started the thread because of the edits you made to his post. Yes, this could have been done by private message, but I am sure he wanted it known that his text had been edited. I would do the same, even though I also know that would be a no-no.

As for his shot about smoking dope, a) it seems awfully benign as insults go, and b) it appears to be directed at Canadians in general, not you.

I hate to say it, but there is no question in my mind that Canadians are, as a general rule, awfully tolerant of slurs against the U.S. and its citizens while being properly intolerant of slurs against other entities. I think Paco has some good points in this regard. I have been greatly guilty of the mindless habit of US-bashing.

I am glad that Paco is not going to be banned. Such calls are yours to make, of course, but I feel fortunate to have a chance to read the views of a hardcore conservative willing to hang around and debate with this crazy buncha (dope-smoking) liberals. It can't be easy.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Hmm, now you see, I had the impression that he started the thread because of the edits you made to his post. Yes, this could have been done by private message, but I am sure he wanted it known that his text had been edited. I would do the same, even though I also know that would be a no-no.

I made it clear that his posts had been edited and why though. If he would have simply stuck to the subject of whether "Baghdad Bob" was in fact a racial epithet it would have been another matter, but he did not do that.

I am glad that Paco is not going to be banned. Such calls are yours to make, of course,

No actually, that is not my call to make, nor is it something that I would ask for until the repercussions of the actions or words of a poster have implications well beyond this board.

As for his shot about smoking dope, a) it seems awfully benign as insults go, and b) it appears to be directed at Canadians in general, not you.

When I look at the context it seems very much to be directed at me.

I think Paco has some good points in this regard. I have been greatly guilty of the mindless habit of US-bashing.

I agree that Paco has made some good points in this and other regards, although I very much see a difference between going after Bush and the policies of the US government (old and new) and "American bashing." That's why instead of editing entire posts I only edit parts of posts...so that the point of view still comes across. I don't believe moderators should be the thought police, but I have seen what happens...hell I've partaken in it...when the name-calling and threats start.

A while ago, before I was a mod here, Andem asked me about making the site grow. I expressed some reservations about too much growth too quickly because of what I've seen at other places.

This place has grown since then. I know that at least some of the people here are refugees from other places who ended up here because they were tired of the screaming match that is always the result when the crap starts flying. I will continue to do my best to this place open to everybody, and I will not edit ideas, but I will not let this place slip into the stupidity other sites have.

Here's a little factoid for you...I have about the foulest mouth on earth. Ask Zen...he's seen me talk in person. Ask Ten Packs...he's seen it on the internet. Ask Twila...she was reading something I wrote at another site just this week. It was calculated to be ugly and it was taken as such. That place is like that though, and I had a point to make in a Lenny Bruce kind of way.

This place is not like that though, and if I can edit myself then so can Paco. If I fail to edit myself sufficiently I expect that it will be pointed out. I'm also willing to discuss my decisions in public, which isn't something you'll find in most places.

 

[Andem]

I'm just going to jump in here and give my views on how the situation has been handled.

We do not delete full posts here unless they're outright spam or there for the sole purpose of attacking someone.. otherwise breaking the guidelines and/or Terms of Service.

Reverend Blair did the right thing in «snipping» certain parts of the post that he felt were (in this case) in the wrong context which may constitute racism or personal attacks. He obviously used his personal discretion in editing it.

There is always more of a chance that a thread will get edited if a moderator has more interest in the subject and gets around to reading it first, I believe this is probably the case in moghrabi's thread. This forum is going at about 300 posts per day and growing, it's impossible for us to read everything.

Paco: Be assured that you are entitled to your own opinion here, and there's no one on this site that will suppress your opinions. Just keep it to clean debates.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

This place is not like that though, and if I can edit myself then so can Paco. If I fail to edit myself sufficiently I expect that it will be pointed out. I'm also willing to discuss my decisions in public, which isn't something you'll find in most places.

This is quite true, Reverend.

Everybody should edit themselves, yes, and forum moderators do have a responsibility to edit or delete offending posts for the general peace, goodwill and harmony of the group. I do think that sometimes emotions simply fly high, and things are said that oughtn't be said, but they tend to sort themselves out more often than not. Pea mentioned the old Moghrabi/Researchok conversations, which were often highly volatile, full of the most amazing insults imaginable, yet when a slur was made against one by an 'outsider', the other would leap to their defense. It was actually kind of cute (sorry, but it was).

This site is exceptional; good dynamics, a lack of heavy-handed tactics, a general sense of goodwill, all of which is why I said anything at all... I simply felt that this thread loomed large as a possible - only possible - contradiction to the freedom that I have seen, and enjoyed, on this forum.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

Yea, I do think this is a very decent forum, much more decent than other forums I've encountered so far. Just wanted to let you know.

 

[Reverend Blair]

This site is exceptional; good dynamics, a lack of heavy-handed tactics, a general sense of goodwill, all of which is why I said anything at all... I simply felt that this thread loomed large as a possible - only possible - contradiction to the freedom that I have seen, and enjoyed, on this forum.

Which is why I don't mind discussing this in public. Actually I'd prefer to be omniscient so this would never come up, but I'm not. My decisions are based on my experiences. I've gathered a lot of scars over those, just like everybody else.

I do my best not to be heavy-handed, but at the same time I don't want to be doing my Lenny Bruce imitation here either. Or my George Carlin imitation. Or my Hunter Thompson imitation. Those things run very close to my surface and they come out pretty quickly if I let them. I'm not as good with words as any of those three, but I can get by. So can most.

 

[Paco]

And if Paco was referring to the original Baghdad Bob, I would have let it stand. He wasn't though.

I was indeed referring to the Iraqi Minister of Information. I explained so above and if one goes back and reads my “Baghdad Bob” post, one will see where I said, “Baghdad Bob assertions” ( I misspelled assertions in original). That would be in reference to the "wild ass" assertions made by the Iraqi Minister during the war.

Actually, I think you knew what I was saying and so too have others, who seem to have noted it.

As for whether he is attacking me personally...the fact that he started this thread is a pretty good indication of that. The final line of his first post,

is a pretty definite shot directly at me too.

Actually it was not. It was a shot at all Canadians. I am jingoistic in my love of my country. It was retaliation for what I perceive to be stupidity.

You want to say George Bush made a mistake in choosing Iraq as a battleground, fine. I can discuss that. What I cannot abide is some moron that claims my country is murdering innocents. When you make that kind of accusation, expect an attack from me.

Now you are taking the step to attacking moderators.

This is not the only board I post at, yet it is by the far the board where I am misunderstand the most. This was not attack on moderators. (Thanks Haggis) I wanted to discuss your opinion of the term “Baghdad Bob.” You claim it has evolved into a racial epithet. I humbly said, “Fair enough” please explain the evolution of the term.

I started this whole post to discuss what is a racial epithet with you. You have avoided the discussion. Something you accuse me of doing, then do yourself.

If he would have simply stuck to the subject of whether "Baghdad Bob" was in fact a racial epithet it would have been another matter, but he did not do that.

Changing direction to the Condi/signature subject was simply a point of hypocrisy. I felt you edited a post of mine for an outrageous claim of racism but flaunted sexism and racism in your signature.

 

[moghrabi]

It is amazing to say that someone who believes that your country is killing Innocent people in Iraq is a Moron. There are about 6 billion people on this planet that think that you are killing innocents around the world except for 50% of your people who voted for the moron (Bush as we call him in Canada) think otherwise. Statistically, this makes your argument null and void, unless you consider 6 billion people stupid.