UK GENTECH LABS

[Dr JIM]

Millard I have to say my primary concern in your earlier comments related to this issue was look around, bc there are personal disputes (depending upon one's perspective) in many of Meso's threads, and as a result it can become quite difficult for any of those involved (myself included) to know the meaning of an "unproductive discussion".

But it's the slippery slope that I am most concerned about. Could not then any oppositional defiant speech be deemed an unproductive discussion? Or how about referring to another member using derogatory monikers such as Clown, Dick head or Dirt ball etc.

I know you mentioned the degree, duration and the placement of "ad hominem personal attacks" within multiple threads as contributing factors but how will any member KNOW when enough is enough absent an open forum admonishment based on such elusive standards?

I will also admit even the threat of being openly criticized can restrict free speech and this is particularly true when the involved parties are unsure of the rules! The sequela has a tendency, having been a witness to an administrative rebuke, to create pause among forum members that they could be next if they are not MORE CAREFUL.

I'm only saying what should be obvious, which is, until otherwise defined an unproductive discussion is NOT necessarily a black and white issue. After all, there are few threads on Meso that are infinitely less productive and in fact border on being inherently and deliberately combative, IMO.

Regardless since the authority to use power is often more influential than the power itself, I'd like to suggest Meso members be given a heads up by PM, prior to being openly reprimanded bc their discussion is deemed less than desirable for whatever reason.

CBS it's great to have you back "where you belong". (Someone said that to me a while back )

Regards
Jim

 

[Mr.Bravo]

Name one lab? How can I know of all transactions that has gone on with every lab? I don't, neither do you.



Millard's words do not hold more weight than anybody else. Millard is posting as a MEMBER and like he said people can ignore what he says or consider the post for what it is worth.

Many others have posted the same thing, the personal attacks and vulgar childish remarks are non-constructive.

Millard suggested having more constructive comments and posts. That's it! CBS's rant is totally out of context. He is feeling embarrassed and trying to save face.

CBS is trying to DEFLECT and THWART this into Millard "using his admin power" which hasn't even happened. CBS will soon stop responding because he cannot back up his statements, which didn't even make sense in the first place. Typically he will resort to personal attacks at this point, but for now I think he will just be quiet to save face as he is obviously severely confused about the situation. Or he may leave a statement "fuck this board, it's obviously being censored" when that has never been the case.



CBS your post was nonconstructive and you even made it seem like Millard was censoring something which clearly he hasn't. You are creating drama and the sole purpose of the post is just that. Either way, your post is still there and everybody can interpret it the way they want.

Millard can interpret your post however he wants, and you can interpret his post however you want.

Further discussion of the topic will continue to show and provide information to support one side of the argument stronger than the other.

That's the beauty of this board and that's further proof of freedom of speech and lack of censorship.

didn't know that, but let's think about something for a second...

we have several members who say "all UGLs will eventually scam", so then theoretically no matter what sworder runs from a UGL, they will all go belly up, wouldn't they? i think this could be an argument for correlation vs causation. i think the message you may be saying is "sworder has run logs on UGL's that fuck people", i dont think he's necessarily related i.e. sworder running the logs and the UGL"s going "belly up" is just a correlation and not a causation. so then you have to accept either 2 initial assumptions: 1. all UGLs go belly up, 2. not all UGLs go belly up.

in assumption 1, of course sworder runs logs for UGL's that go belly up, they all do! so now the message "dont run logs on UGL's that fuck people...i.e. all UGLs" so let's all just run "private labs". that adds little value when every single member is running private labs. suddenly, new labs are tested and old UGLs are kept in check. with no one running logs and running reports, UGLs are going to get away with shit.

in assumption 2, sworder's point exactly, not all UGLs fuck people.

You realize the question I asked wasnt answered. So you will deflect like you accuse everyone of doing. Your are real class act you hypocritical Pot stirring......
Iam done you real dont have any legs to stand on and its pathetic, why dont you go disappear for anoth 6 months and come troll again. Its sad really cause I agree with you on one fact, what ever test we r6n its only on that one vial. When brutus asked how can we fix it you said you dont know, how about when a src comes to set up shop they have their own data and we can test to cross reference. But you just want to bitch about a problem instead of helping to come up with solutions.
D8nt bother to reply, I have lost all respect for you.
sincerely
Mr.Bravo

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

But it's the slippery slope that I am most concerned about. Could not then any oppositional defiant speech be deemed an unproductive discussion? Or how about referring to another member using derogatory monikers such as Clown, Dick head or Dirt ball etc.

And who defines what constitutes unproductive discussion.

I know you mentioned the degree, duration and the placement of "ad hominem personal attacks" within multiple threads as contributing factors but how will any member KNOW when enough is enough absent an open forum admonishment based on such elusive standards?

Therein lies the problem. A set of standards or set of rules will be a speech code and that will be a restriction on speech. By definition, an uncensored forum can't have a speech code.

I will also admit even the threat of being openly criticized can restrict free speech and this is particularly true when the involved parties are unsure of the rules! The sequela has a tendency, having been a witness to an administrative rebuke, to create pause among forum members that they could be next if they are not MORE CAREFUL.

I agreed that the potential for censorship is not censorship, but as you pointed out, the threat of public criticism can result in self-censorship. Millard said no one listens to him anyway and there's still name calling and personal attacks going on, but I still think there will be some degree of self-censorship taking place, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

You realize the question I asked wasnt answered. So you will deflect like you accuse everyone of doing. Your are real class act you hypocritical Pot stirring......
Iam done you real dont have any legs to stand on and its pathetic, why dont you go disappear for anoth 6 months and come troll again. Its sad really cause I agree with you on one fact, what ever test we r6n its only on that one vial. When brutus asked how can we fix it you said you dont know, how about when a src comes to set up shop they have their own data and we can test to cross reference. But you just want to bitch about a problem instead of helping to come up with solutions.
D8nt bother to reply, I have lost all respect for you.
sincerely
Mr.Bravo

I think it's very fitting that Sworder's only friend is another screwball troll (KnowNothing) that uses multiple identities.

Sworder is only here to whore himself out for free gear because he got fired from his cashier job at a pharmacy - no doubt due to his obvious mental problems. You can actually see his deterioration if you look at his posts from a few weeks ago and today. It's dramatic. The use of large fonts and pretty colors are just within the last few days.

Do yourself a favor and don't read the idiot's posts. There's nothing in them worth your time. Most people have him in their kill file. Judging by his mental status, he'll be gone soon enough. Someone will notify the authorities and they'll put him back in the hospital.

 

[I_know_nothing]

You realize the question I asked wasnt answered. So you will deflect like you accuse everyone of doing. Your are real class act you hypocritical Pot stirring......
Iam done you real dont have any legs to stand on and its pathetic, why dont you go disappear for anoth 6 months and come troll again. Its sad really cause I agree with you on one fact, what ever test we r6n its only on that one vial. When brutus asked how can we fix it you said you dont know, how about when a src comes to set up shop they have their own data and we can test to cross reference. But you just want to bitch about a problem instead of helping to come up with solutions.
D8nt bother to reply, I have lost all respect for you.
sincerely
Mr.Bravo

I must have missed something, what exactly is the question are you asking?

Sometimes we can identify problems but we don't know how to fix it, or there are no easy solutions. I don't think there's a problem with bringing up an issue for discussion even if there is no solution. You don't have to have a solution when you identify a problem.

 

[I_know_nothing]

I think it's very fitting that Sworder's only friend is another screwball troll (KnowNothing) that uses multiple identities.

Sworder is only here to whore himself out for free gear because he got fired from his cashier job at a pharmacy - no doubt due to his obvious mental problems. You can actually see his deterioration if you look at his posts from a few weeks ago and today. It's dramatic. The use of large fonts and pretty colors are just within the last few days.

Do yourself a favor and don't read the idiot's posts. There's nothing in them worth your time. Most people have him in their kill file. Judging by his mental status, he'll be gone soon enough. Someone will notify the authorities and they'll put him back in the hospital.

Back to the personal attacks. Idk why you do this cbs, you're not a dumbass- why not just criticize the man's argument rather than the man? Personal attacks are often the weakest form of argument, especially on the Internet where you don't actually know anyone, how can you accuse them of anything? Really a shame you're not taking millard's vision to heart.

 

[Sworder]

Come on now sworder you know damn well every source that has came in to ower house has ripped someone off one way or another. since your all about facts why dont you name one that hasnt fucked someone.

Come on sworder name one lab thats all. There is good gear out there iam not saying there isnt.

Ok, Mr Bravo, I am sorry for not answering your question, I did answer your response and say that I cannot possibly know that. Do you know of every transaction from every lab on here? No, neither do I.
I can tell you that I have had 0 problems from; Roxi labs, power performance, domestic-x, and there are some more too. Those labs are old and yes I did pay for the gear.

When brutus asked how can we fix it you said you dont know,

I actually responded, first of all don't use labmax at all, and I have been asked on how to better the situation. I responded with brewing your own gear, that way you are 100% in control of how your gear is manufactured. Sure you are going to still have to question the raws, but then when you HPLC/MS a larger batch you know what you have. You are in control and don't have to rely on the middle-man's word, which also get his raws from China.

I'm only saying what should be obvious, which is, until otherwise defined an unproductive discussion is NOT necessarily a black and white issue. After all, there are few threads on Meso that are infinitely less productive and in fact border on being inherently and deliberately combative, IMO.

Jim, do you really need a definition of what an unproductive discussion is? I am all about defining terms but this one is quite obvious..
An unproductive discussion is a discussion where the original topic is no longer being discussed and the main point of the discussion is to slander and throw personal attacks.
Millard, the member, Millard, stated his opinion as a member and didn't say that you are not allowed to have "unproductive discussion." Why are you putting words in his mouth as well?

Therein lies the problem. A set of standards or set of rules will be a speech code and that will be a restriction on speech. By definition, an uncensored forum can't have a speech code.

And who defines what constitutes unproductive discussion.

The problem with common sense is that it is not common...

Therein lies the problem. A set of standards or set of rules will be a speech code and that will be a restriction on speech. By definition, an uncensored forum can't have a speech code.

Nobody has established a speech code, you are continuing to put words in Millard's mouth.

You are making this situation seem like the Member Millard stated something which he completely didn't.

First it was that he was censoring material, that argument was shot down. Now it's a speech code?

Yes, sorry CBS for highlighting and making the font larger to emphasize most of your vacuous statement.

And no CBS, I don't need any gear. If I need gear I will make my own, do you really think that I would continue to buy from sources and depend on them for QC and all that?
Not to mention the 400% less cost...

The use of the word 'please' doesn't make that statement anything less than a demand - a demand from the administrator. It was an intimidating post even if that wasn't your intent.

Still laughing my ass off at this comment, like really CBS. You were intimidated?

 

[hammertime]

War and peace.

 

[MANWHORE]

Now who gets to ride off with the princess. ..
I will play Part of the princess .. anyone??

 

[mands]

Millard I have to say my primary concern in your earlier comments related to this issue was look around, bc there are personal disputes (depending upon one's perspective) in many of Meso's threads, and as a result it can become quite difficult for any of those involved (myself included) to know the meaning of an "unproductive discussion".

But it's the slippery slope that I am most concerned about. Could not then any oppositional defiant speech be deemed an unproductive discussion? Or how about referring to another member using derogatory monikers such as Clown, Dick head or Dirt ball etc.

I know you mentioned the degree, duration and the placement of "ad hominem personal attacks" within multiple threads as contributing factors but how will any member KNOW when enough is enough absent an open forum admonishment based on such elusive standards?

I will also admit even the threat of being openly criticized can restrict free speech and this is particularly true when the involved parties are unsure of the rules! The sequela has a tendency, having been a witness to an administrative rebuke, to create pause among forum members that they could be next if they are not MORE CAREFUL.

I'm only saying what should be obvious, which is, until otherwise defined an unproductive discussion is NOT necessarily a black and white issue. After all, there are few threads on Meso that are infinitely less productive and in fact border on being inherently and deliberately combative, IMO.

Regardless since the authority to use power is often more influential than the power itself, I'd like to suggest Meso members be given a heads up by PM, prior to being openly reprimanded bc their discussion is deemed less than desirable for whatever reason.

CBS it's great to have you back "where you belong". (Someone said that to me a while back )

Regards
Jim

Isn't using PM going against a non-censored forum and certainly not lying all the cards on the table?

@brutus79 asked Millard to do the same for CBS. I asked Brutus the same thing when he called me out last year. His reply was mands you stand where everyone else stands with me. Right out in the open. Well something to that effect.

@Millard Baker didn't single out @CensoredBoardsSuck. I did. I did for good reason and if cbs wants to enlighten anyone on that conversation he can.

I have called out members in the past for doing the same thing. Personal attacks and bullshit that you can't even follow a thread.

I've gone as far as calling members out and making a thread specific for them.

So many intelligent and gifted individuals on this board it's frustrating to see them act out.

mands

 

[mands]

I would also to add that CBS has contributed a whole hell of a lot to this board.

I also wish I had half the skills and intellect he has.

mands

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I have called out members in the past for doing the same thing. Personal attacks and bullshit that you can't even follow a thread.

I've gone as far as calling members out and making a thread specific for them.

That's great but it's not the past anymore. Take a look around, there's lots of people needing called out - including a certain one that you and I discussed in PM. But no one else is doing it. No one wants to do it because they don't want to risk their 'friendly' reputation by coming off like an asshole. They'd rather ignore those needing called out, or leave it to someone else to do the dirty work. So I did it.

I did the dirty work that you wouldn't and I looked like an asshole doing it. But a bunch of trolls, shills and sources thinking I'm an asshole didn't bother me. It was the guys that refused to get their hands dirty who turned around and called me an asshole that finally ended it for me.

So now that no one is willing to do it anymore, are you going to step up and play the enforcer? I doubt it. From what I've seen, it's not in your nature. That's not a bad thing, it's just your personality. But without an enforcer(s), you better be prepared for the shit storm that's coming. It's going to start with sources moving into the underground in droves. They'll quickly be followed by shills, reps, trolls and gear whores. Enjoy.

 

[mands]

That's great but it's not the past anymore. Take a look around, there's lots of people needing called out - including a certain one that you and I discussed in PM. But no one else is doing it. No one wants to do it because they don't want to risk their 'friendly' reputation by coming off like an asshole. They'd rather ignore those needing called out, or leave it to someone else to do the dirty work. So I did it.

I did the dirty work that you wouldn't and I looked like an asshole doing it. But a bunch of trolls, shills and sources thinking I'm an asshole didn't bother me. It was the guys that refused to get their hands dirty who turned around and called me an asshole that finally ended it for me.

So now that no one is willing to do it anymore, are you going to step up and play the enforcer? I doubt it. From what I've seen, it's not in your nature. That's not a bad thing, it's just your personality. But without an enforcer(s), you better be prepared for the shit storm that's coming. It's going to start with sources moving into the underground in droves. They'll quickly be followed by shills, reps, trolls and gear whores. Enjoy.

I know exactly what you are saying. I've changed overtime and I've let others come in and play the role that suits them best.

I would say you are indeed an "enforcer" and a great one at that. I just singled you out because I know you and you're better than what was being displayed. That's all nothing else. I'm sure @Millard Baker would agree as I've seen in his post, he has a lot of respect for you. As do I.

mands

 

[MANWHORE]

You know in 50yrs none of us will remember this ...
I am just trying to cheer everyone up...

Let's all have a beer .. and a Pepsi for me ... Make it a double

Goodnight

 

[Millard]

No, that was regarding my comment that "Authority used to impose censorship is even more sinister than deleting posts." What I meant was using authority to scold members (to make them acquiesce to any admin demand) is worse than just censoring the member by deleting their posts because they're being forced to participate in their own censorship.

No, of course not. You asked what power you used to censor and I was trying to show how an admin could use power - intentionally or not - to censor or force self-censorship, and how the power imbalance can lead to a sense or feeling of intimidation. Nothing more. You seemed unaware that admin power could be perceived as threatening without actually threatening someone.

I wasn't censored, it looked like you were asking me to self-censor. You said you weren't and I've accepted that.

I was simply trying to express how and why I felt like I was being asked to self-censor. I don't know if any of this makes sense but the bottom line is that you didn't censor me and I didn't censor myself because you didn't ask even though I wouldn't have self-censored myself anyway, because Meso is an uncensored forum where everyone hates censorship including me and you. No one was censored.

That was a nice move trying to transition from claims of censorship to claims of self-censorship. Self-censor. Self-censorship. Again and again you introduce for the first time.

There was certainly no merit to your claim of censorship as you conceded. And you know you are on much stronger ground when you claim you were asked to "self-censor". So why not reframe your argument?

This one works so much better in your favor:

CBS claims Millard asked him to self-censor vs. Millard denies asking CBS to self-censor.

Of course, you also know this is a straw man argument.

I NEVER denied asking you and @Docd187123 to stop the name-calling. It was obvious to everyone that that was exactly what I asked.

Finally, you take your argument a step further. You don't merely attempt to equate self-censorship as the same as censorship by using oxymorons like "force[d] self-censorship". You make the claim that if I ask a member to self-censor, it is far worse than censorship.

The logical extension of your argument is that the imposition of censorship would be an improvement over the current situation where I ask members to self-censor.

I guess we've finally found something you hate more than censored boards - an uncensored board where I ask members to self-censor for the sake of more productive discussion. This must be the realization of the "monster Millard" mentioned by @Dr JIM in jest.

 

[Docd187123]

That was a nice move trying to transition from claims of censorship to claims of self-censorship. Self-censor. Self-censorship. Again and again you introduce for the first time.

There was certainly no merit to your claim of censorship as you conceded. And you know you are on much stronger ground when you claim you were asked to "self-censor". So why not reframe your argument?

This one works so much better in your favor:

CBS claims Millard asked him to self-censor vs. Millard denies asking CBS to self-censor.

Of course, you also know this is a straw man argument.

I NEVER denied asking you and @Docd187123 to stop the name-calling. It was obvious to everyone that that was exactly what I asked.

Finally, you take your argument a step further. You don't merely attempt to equate self-censorship as the same as censorship by using oxymorons like "forc[ed] self-censorship". You make the claim that if I ask a member to self-censor, it is far worse than censorship.

The logical extension of your argument is that the imposition of censorship would be an improvement over the current situation where I ask members to self-censor.

I guess we've finally found something you hate more than censored boards - an uncensored board where I ask members to self-censor for the sake of more productive discussion. This must be the realization of the "monster Millard" mentioned by @Dr JIM in jest.

For whatever it's worth, I don't view your request to stop the personal attacks as any form of censorship. You merely asked they be stopped and it's up to the ppl to accept or reject your request.

 

[Sworder]

\ including a certain one that you and I discussed in PM. But no one else is doing it. No one wants to do it because they don't want to risk their 'friendly' reputation by coming off like an asshole. They'd rather ignore those needing called out, or leave it to someone else to do the dirty work. So I did it.

Actually this is what you Dr Jim, Brutus and Johnnyball do. You guys stick up for each other through thick and thin. Being completely wrong they still stick up for you. Even Dr Jim jumped in on this conversation to try to back you up on something you are completely wrong on and misleading the original statement to be something it is not.
My hat is off to Mands for telling you to chill out, as I understand he is your friend and he did have the balls to tell you to step down.

Again, the "dirty work" has never been needed or asked of you to do. You are still trying to make it seem like you were doing somebody a favor but you have shown none of that in the posts you have made in a long time. The only thing you show is that you want to degrade people and show that you have authority and a loud voice to back it up. You intimidate and scare people, and twist almost everything into something it is not. You have done it twice in this thread and in multiple others.

So now that no one is willing to do it anymore, are you going to step up and play the enforcer? I doubt it. From what I've seen, it's not in your nature. That's not a bad thing, it's just your personality. But without an enforcer(s), you better be prepared for the shit storm that's coming. It's going to start with sources moving into the underground in droves. They'll quickly be followed by shills, reps, trolls and gear whores. Enjoy.

Enforcer of what? The forum doesn't need an "enforcer" that cannot take criticism and when questioned turns to insults. From what I see and hear, your posts create resistance to people whom can contribute to the forum but fear the CBS/Bru/JohB bombardment of insults and slanders keep them from posting.
Enforcing the SCOC that is so flawed and pushing money into the Labmax scam? The shit storms you brew are far worse than "the shit storm that's coming from shills, reps, trolls and gear whores." All of which I am from your deductions and that's fine, call me what you want.

Also, most people whom do this long enough brew their own gear to avoid all these "underground" issues. Perhaps more activity should be in the "homebrew" section than here, I would think traffic over there is a better investment for the members of Meso for several obvious reasons.

The use of the word 'please' doesn't make that statement anything less than a demand - a demand from the administrator. It was an intimidating post even if that wasn't your intent.

And I am so sorry but I really can't get past this one Mr. Enforcer.

 

[brutus79]

Actually this is what you Dr Jim, Brutus and Johnnyball do. You guys stick up for each other through thick and thin. Being completely wrong they still stick up for you. Even Dr Jim jumped in on this conversation to try to back you up on something you are completely wrong on and misleading the original statement to be something it is not.
My hat is off to Mands for telling you to chill out, as I understand he is your friend and he did have the balls to tell you to step down.

Again, the "dirty work" has never been needed or asked of you to do. You are still trying to make it seem like you were doing somebody a favor but you have shown none of that in the posts you have made in a long time. The only thing you show is that you want to degrade people and show that you have authority and a loud voice to back it up. You intimidate and scare people, and twist almost everything into something it is not. You have done it twice in this thread and in multiple others.



Enforcer of what? The forum doesn't need an "enforcer" that cannot take criticism and when questioned turns to insults. From what I see and hear, your posts create resistance to people whom can contribute to the forum but fear the CBS/Bru/JohB bombardment of insults and slanders keep them from posting.
Enforcing the SCOC that is so flawed and pushing money into the Labmax scam? The shit storms you brew are far worse than "the shit storm that's coming from shills, reps, trolls and gear whores." All of which I am from your deductions and that's fine, call me what you want.

Also, most people whom do this long enough brew their own gear to avoid all these "underground" issues. Perhaps more activity should be in the "homebrew" section than here, I would think traffic over there is a better investment for the members of Meso for several obvious reasons.


And I am so sorry but I really can't get past this one Mr. Enforcer.

Are you completely unaware of the fact that nobody is engaging you in any of these conversations? You are spending time and effort on your replies for nothing. Take some of your own advice and step away from the computer...

Watching you alternate between giving millard, scally and mands rim jobs is nauseating. Give it a rest. Mands had several posts about how much cbs has contributed to this board in this thread alone. You, unfortunately, will never have someone say that you contribute because you don't. You try so hard it is painful to watch... the kid who doesn't have a place on a team- the girl who nobody wants to dance with- the stripper who is hopefully about to punch out and go home.

Even if you decide to continue conversing publicly with yourself I don't mind of course- i just felt it would be nice to let you know that when this manic episode you are on turns depressive you might want to avoid looking at your posts in the last two weeks. You just might kill yourself.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

That was a nice move trying to transition from claims of censorship to claims of self-censorship. Self-censor. Self-censorship. Again and again you introduce for the first time.

There was certainly no merit to your claim of censorship as you conceded. And you know you are on much stronger ground when you claim you were asked to "self-censor". So why not reframe your argument?

I really have to wonder if you actually read any of my comments or if you're intentionally misrepresenting them. It should have been obvious to anyone that when I was referring to censorship, I meant self-censorship. You didn't delete any of my posts, did you? No. You asked me to censor my posts. You asked me to restrict the speech that YOU deemed unproductive. You asked me to SELF-CENSOR. I can't believe I actually had to clarify that statement. And you talk about unproductive discussion? Gimme a fucking break.

I NEVER denied asking you and @Docd187123 to stop the name-calling. It was obvious to everyone that that was exactly what I asked.

You're all over the place, Millard. One minute you're telling me you didn't ask me to censor myself and the next you're telling me that's exactly what you asked. So which is it?

Finally, you take your argument a step further. You don't merely attempt to equate self-censorship as the same as censorship by using oxymorons like "force[d] self-censorship". You make the claim that if I ask a member to self-censor, it is far worse than censorship.

Oxymoron? Really Millard? Forced self-censorship is not an oxymoron. An ADMIN telling a member to restrict speech he defines as unproductive is FORCING the member to self-censor, i.e., it's "forced self-censorship."

And where did I say you asking a member to self-censor is worse than censorship? You're putting words in my mouth. That comment was specifically in reference to an admin using authority to force a member to self-censor. Come on, Millard! You're better than that.

The logical extension of your argument is that the imposition of censorship would be an improvement over the current situation where I ask members to self-censor.

More misrepresentation. In the scenario I presented above, if the admin uses his authority to force the member to self-censor - with the threat of repercussions if the member doesn't comply - that is, in my opinion, worse than the admin deleting the members posts. It's worse because the admin is asking the member to participate in his own censorship. And before you jump on that comment, no, I'm not saying that's what you did, although it could be inferred by someone who doesn't know you.

I guess we've finally found something you hate more than censored boards - an uncensored board where I ask members to self-censor for the sake of more productive discussion. This must be the realization of the "monster Millard" mentioned by @Dr JIM in jest.

What is productive discussion? You said "Sometimes, personal attacks are the most appropriate and logical course of action. Most of the time they are not." How many ad hominems in a post are too many? One? No, it can't be one because you said some personal attacks are appropriate. What about two? Or three? How many? And who makes that determination? Do you make that determination - for everybody? Is productive discussion only what you say it is?

I know you take pride in providing an uncensored forum and having a passion for free expression so I would fully expect you to become a bit defensive when someone questions your commitment, but you seem intent to conflate the comments where I was speaking in general terms with those that were specific. You seem to be taking my criticism as a personal insult. If my comments were about another admin on another forum you would be backing them up and you know it. You're taking my criticism personally because you know it has some merit. Do you feel guilty, Millard? Even a little?

All that aside, what do you think your criticism accomplished? Your stated goal was to encourage/influence/induce/coerce members to refrain from engaging in ill defined unproductive discussion in favor of the even more ill defined productive discussion. But by your own admission the personal attacks are still happening so your criticism didn't have the intended result. As far as I can tell, the only thing your criticism accomplished was raising questions about your commitment to free speech and changing the way I look at Meso.

 

[WCL]

@Millard Baker
You tried your best, and everyone sees how out to lunch these guys are. No point arguing with someone who can't be wrong. You have better things to do with your time, unlike these vigilant keyboard warriors.