URGENT: Members views needed on my signature

[Snaga]

Please have a look at my signature. Does it offend you?

A PM to me from our good Webmaster:
Signature

I've had a little more than a few complaints about a segment of your signature. I'm wondering if perhaps you could be a proud member of a less controversial group than The Axis of Evil.

I'm quite uneasy about this, because I believe I should be able to express myself freely, as long as I am not obscene or personally insulting. WM has made this as a request, rather than an instruction to me. Therefore in good faith I want to canvas the opinions of members as to what I should do. I don't want a fractious row, or insults flying: just a grown-up discussion. I accept that ultimately 'the managements decision is final' - and so I will abide by anything I am specifically told I must do. But while I have an option, I want to be sure I understand how most people feel. Since this matter is one about what is or isnt deemed acceptable, it concerns everyone at TTF. So I would rather it was done in the open.

Please vote in the poll, and post your thoughts.

The Case Against My Signature

I have received two complaints about my signature both in the last 48 hours. So let me post them:

An email from Galdor:Hey, before I bring this up with the Mods I thought it would be better to try and settle things with you as privately and civilly as possible.

The term "Axis of Evil" was coined by president Bush on I believe the day after 9/11, and was used to refer to terrorist, and those nations who harbor and support terrorist. Therefore by saying that you are a "Proud member of the Axis of Evil" you are showing direct support to those who murdered over 5,000 Americans on 9/11, and calling yourself a terrorist. I assume that your intention was only to show your general anti-Americanism and anti-war with Iraq positions. But none the less I find you sig very offensive and cold hearted, and so ask that you remove it from your sig immediately.
A PM from Dr Ransom:Snaga, I think you need to lighten up a bit. You may not like RD making a joke about the war in iraq, but maybe I don't like being compared to a Nazi either. Maybe the families of 9/11 victims don't really like you proudly praising the axis of evil as well. Sheesh, have a little respect. If you have a problem with the war, maybe you should come and dicuss it like a gentelman in the guild of politics, instead of just lamblasting any hit of pro-america sentiment around here...

and on a personal notel: I suppose you didn't see the thousands of iraqi's in the streets today chanting "long live George Bush and the Unieted States!" This war may not be a perfect clear cut good vs. evil. But to suggest the America is Morder is downright rediculous.

I very much enjoy a good argument, and would love to have you post in my threads if you're willing to argue and not just thow emotional spin around.

But please, back off on the thread crashing. You won't see me crashing all the pro-french threads or something...

I will let those in support of this view add to or develop their point of view themselves, should they wish.

Case for the Defence

(1) Firstly I am not a terrorist, or a supporter of terrorism. I'm sorry if anyone believed this. The events of 9/11 were an appalling crime, sickening beyond words. I have taken advantage of the new 'Deep Thoughts' space to express this.:)

(2) My intention was to be satirical on a number of levels. Firstly I am one of the most active members of the Dark Legion. My 'evilness' is part of my forum persona. Secondly, this is a reference to a joke made by Wonk's father about how some of her family might view me. Long story that I don't want to share in public. Thirdly I believe that Bush's Axis of Evil speech was harmful, and wrong on a number of levels so, yes, I was intending to poke fun at it.

(3) More on the Bush Speech. My personal belief is that the countries named (depending on which the current list is) are either mostly or completely NOT INVOLVED with Al-Qaeda. They did not in anyway sponsor the events of 9/11. This is perhaps a matter that has been debated in GOP, and widely in the media. I do not agree with labelling countries as 'Evil', and I find the threat to change the regimes by force scary, and an affront to international law and the sovereignty of those countries. (Note even Dr Ransom says its not straightforward as a case of Good vs Evil!) So, yes, there is a political element to my satirical statement but it is NOT a pro-terrorism statement.

(4) The complaints are not: 'I am offended by your signature because you support terrorism.' but 'Someone else might be offended if they think you support terrorism.' Does anyone think that? Noone has said so.

(5) I have had this signature for over 3 months. Noone complained. I participate in the war debates in the GOP, and suddenly people decide to get angry. Are they mad at my signature, or mad at me because I don't support the war?

(6) For the record I am not anti-American. Hehe... this makes me laugh. So anti-American I'm marrying... an American! But the scary side of this is that people believe opposing the war makes you anti-American. There are so many other cases.

(7) I feel that setting limits such as this on what members can and cannot say is drawing the boundary far too tightly. Thankfully at the moment I am not being told I must, but I don't like this pressure to conform. Freedom of expression is something to be cherished and protected. Supposedly this is what the US and British troops are bringing to Iraq. If so, then some tolerance is called for here, and attempting to understand one another. Labelling anyone who doesnt conform is just plain wrong.

(8) I think these complaints are from a tiny vociferous minority trying to impose a new form of 'political correctness' upon us all. If most members agree with them, then I will be very surprised.

As a result I feel very disinclined to remove the statement. But I will listen to the debate before making my decision.

Thank you.:)

[TheFool]

I've noticed you've had it for ages, it is obvious to me it's a joke and I look on it with a wry smile ;). There are some sigs where every available space has been crammed with 'Bush my hero' and other, I think, naive comments, which I look on with a big 'rolleyes'. So I don't think it's a big deal.

------------

Personally I don't participate in any of the politics or war threads anymore because I was turning into an armchair general...

[FoolOfATook]

Just for the record, Bush first used the phrase in the 2002 State Of The Union Address.

Snaga's joke doesn't bother me in the slightest, for whatever that's worth.

[Eriol]

Personally, I don't think people should get offended by your signature. In fact, I don't think should get offended at all (a long discussion...). But they do. It's a fact. You have to weigh the two factors involved: (a) your right to say whatever you want and (b) the possiblity of hurting others. On (a), I think there should be no limits, and I mean NO LIMITS. If someone wants to bash Jews, defend the Holocaust as a great event in history, and declare that Adolf Hitler is his great role model, let him rant, and thank the oh so valuable Ignore option. This is my own personal take on it (and please do not think I am implying your stance is in any way comparable to that! I am arguing by extremes).

This should be his right, regulated only by the WM. But the WM should be as lenient as possible, interfering only to keep the Forum working. I suppose that if a member acted like a Nazi there would be a great commotion and WM would eventually (very quickly in fact) be forced to take a position. In our contemporary environment, this hypothetical guy would not last long. But this is the loss of our present political over-sensibility. By banning the Nazi you open the door to banning you, snaga1, because of that (not that it has or ever will reach this point. But the possibility is there). And who knows? Someday we may be banning people who like Fëanor.

Note that no one is really at fault for this situation, it is the result of our contemporary environment. There are some people who take offence very easily at remarks that may be rude (perhaps). This is a mistake, in my opinion, and the world would be better if they just let it slide (the WORLD would be better -- I am not talking about the Forum). To give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker, to assume that you may have misinterpreted him...

Anyway. There is also (b). And this depends on your subjective judgment. There is a chance that people will get hurt because of your signature. Perhaps this may not be classed as "a real need" (I liked the phrasing of this option), but it is surely a "perceived need". You may disagree with their opinion, but they (hypothetically) perceive the sig as offensive. I'm sure you don't want to hurt anyone, not even inadvertently, and not even if you think the other guy is wrong in feeling hurt.

But the chance of this happening is quite clear. You have to judge if this is worth the exercise of your clear right to speak your mind, as regulated by WM (this would be STANDING YOUR GROUND!). I know how I would answer this question, but you must answer it yourself.

I trust you will decide to the best of your abilities, and this is enough for me.

[the_third_rider]

first off i had no idea what your sig ment, but now that i do i feel that it is kinda rude, to me this forum is suppose to be like a family, a suport system in which you should be able to fully express your opinions. in a family you do not try to bring people down, now the fact that your sig. to some people might bring up 9/11 i feel that it is extrmly disrespectful to keep it on. now, what galdor and dr. ransom said i would have to agree with, just to be nice to your fellow members i think you should just back off, and be the bigger man and take it off, once again this is my opinion but in order to be respectful i would take it off.

[Aulë]

I've always thought that the 'Axis of Evil' that you are referring to is in fact the trio of 'Evil' role players in the War RPs, and had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist-related activities.

[Maedhros]

I think it's okay. It's funny really. There was something similar with regards to the movie The Two Towers, that people felt that it had something to do with the WTC thing. Totally ridiculous. The book and movie were made BEFORE such event and you had that message in your signature before GWB state of the Union address.
Like Erasmus would say: It's all in Praise of Folly.

[Parrot]

I voted you should keep it if it's that important to you. If it says something you really want to say then that is your right. Rock on.

What bothers me is a fear that many of those who might support you on this will be some of the same people who cried the loudest about Cir's burning U.N. flag avatar. If you are going to be a champion of free speech you must champion it for everyone - not just those you agree with.

CONSISTENCY! PRINCIPLE! CATCH IT!!!!!!!!!

[Idril]

I can appreciate how Snaga's sig may upset some in these sensitive times, but really, the phrase itself is ridiculous - the blanket labelling of countries as evil . Every country has terrorists including America - irrespective of governmental support.

I did not see it as "you are showing direct support to those who murdered over 5,000 Americans on 9/11, and calling yourself a terrorist" as Galdor saw it. Many member have 'pro-American/pro-war' sigs and avatars which I view as 'in your face' and could be construed as offensive to not only an Iraqi or Arab forum member - if we had one, but others.

I agree with Snaga's "then some tolerance is called for here, and attempting to understand one another."

This forum is supposed to be multi-national and should therefore not be ruled by American sensibilities.

Snaga, I can't see any big issue with your sig. Do what you must, I and others will respect your final decision.

Finally, 2,106 Americans died on 9/11- Source: New York City Department of Health. Bandying exagerated figures about enflames emotions, and does nothing for a civilised discussion.

[Beleg]

Stand your Ground Snag. We all understand its has nothing with The Axes of Evil used by Bush, its really funny though.

[Nenya Evenstar]

I honestly never thought twice about your sig. Like some, I took it mainly as something that went along with your RP character, especially since it fits right in with the rest of your sig. I honestly think that people who are offended by it are going too far.

It is completely fine by me if you keep it.

[Ancalagon]

Previously, up to a few weeks back, my view would be that if it is offensive to a single member, then it should not be acceptable within the forum and be removed immediately. Now as it stands, my opinion means naff all, so I wouldn't be able to advise one way or the other.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Beleg_strongbow
Stand your Ground Snag. We all understand its has nothing with The Axes of Evil used by Bush, its really funny though.

It's always good to have someone explain what we "all" understand.........
Originally posted by Snaga1 So, yes, there is a political element to my satirical statement but it is NOT a pro-terrorism statement.[/B]
.......especially given that it is quite clearly a take on Bush's statement.

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Idril
I can appreciate how Snaga's sig may upset some in these sensitive times, but really, the phrase itself is ridiculous - the blanket labelling of countries as evil . Every country has terrorists including America - irrespective of governmental support.

I did not see it as "you are showing direct support to those who murdered over 5,000 Americans on 9/11, and calling yourself a terrorist" as Galdor saw it. Many member have 'pro-American/pro-war' sigs and avatars which I view as 'in your face' and could be construed as offensive to not only an Iraqi or Arab forum member - if we had one, but others.

I agree, Idril. There is nothing wrong with your avatar, Snaga.

[Bethelarien]

I think you have the right to have it in your sig. People can take anything the wrong way, and can get offended by basically anything and everything. Personally, I think that if someone gets offended at something so small, it's their problem. (Go ahead and yell at me for that, if you want to--not my problem:D ) Stand your ground, buddy. After all, it is a free country!:D

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
Previously, up to a few weeks back, my view would be that if it is offensive to a single member, then it should not be acceptable within the forum and be removed immediately. Now as it stands, my opinion means naff all, so I wouldn't be able to advise one way or the other.

You are "a single member", Anc, and of course we all know you are much more than that. So advise all you can, whether you think it is offensive or not!

Even though I disagree with your opinion ;)

[Talierin]

I've always known it referred to rping and don't have a prob with it, but maybe you could make it "Proud Member of the rping Axis of Evil" :confused:

[YayGollum]

Yikes! Look around! How many signatures here are over three lines long! :eek: Whoops! We're not talking about that. oh well. Let me see here. As I told your wife, it doesn't matter to me at all, but I would think that if it has the potential to offend someone, make it achingly clear what you mean. ---> 'Proud Member Of The Axis Of Evil! Ack! The Dork Legion! Come on! You think I'm that stupid?' Something like that. Did I say dork legion again? Silly me. :rolleyes:

[menchu]

I never actually thought of a special translation for the expression. Now I know, sounds funny to me. This whole business about the signature is probably giving me some reasons to ponder about, which is good.
Still, I have quite a temper and see that people who don't agree with it, even if they were... let's say 'searching' for the right, a tolerant philosophy, might however have this small 'ache' of not understanding your humour. Hehe. Well, before someone who writes obviously better than me comes quoting me and this and that, sorry, I didn't refer to anyone in particular. In fact it could be me sometimes... hahaha.

I like your sig!

Go Yaygollum! :D He's right on the sig lenght!!

[Ciryaher]

I am all for free speech, which is why my avatars have been rather controversial, regardless of what I intended them to mean.

It is bad form to enforce rules upon one person, and yet give leniency for another. The masses cried out against my UN Flag which was burning, and we have people complaining about Snaga's signature. Both were not meant in the context by which they were taken, yet in my case, I was forced to remove mine, even after I tried to explain what it meant. I would hope that Snaga realizes this and that he removes the questionable element ere this turns into another argument.

[Nenya Evenstar]

Unless we'd prefer to fix this problem now so that we do not have to continue dealing with it . . . .

The sig length was extended to five lines. :)

[Rangerdave]

The term Axis of Evil reminds me of the old Legion of Doom from that absolutely dreadful Super-Friends cartoon.

For that reason alone, I believe you should keep it.

Not to mention the fact that it violates none of the rules that I am aware of. No harm no foul.

I like it.


RD

[YayGollum]

Why was this so urgent anyways? Doesn't look like it. I haven't noticed any snaga1 people running around, thanking us profusely for tossing our opinions at him so readily. oh well. Yikes! The signatures can now be five lines long? I did not know that. Will people using smaller sized writing still be allowed to squeeze their violations in?

[gilgalad]

This is a definate example of a huge over-reaction on the two complainers' parts. It's obviously a joke. Even if it's not taken as such then it doesn't mean that Snaga1's a terrorist. The Axis of Evil consists of Iran, Iraq and N. Korea, three legitimate countries, not terrorist organisations.

And let's face it, this wasn't a whole load of people complaining en masse, it was two people in, what, three months? If you have to remove it over that i don't know what to say.

[Wonko The Sane]

Snaga can't post because he's away for the weekend, but I can tell you that I am keeping him up to date and he appreciates all of your opinions.

The overwhelming point of view here is that it doesn't bother most of the members, and indeed the mods seem not to have a problem with it as well.

:) I agree with Snaga's supporters wholeheartedly.

I'm really tired of this highly vocal minority dictating their uber-sensitivity about EVERY LITTLE THING to us.
I'm of the opinion that free expression is necessary, (and sometimes a necessary evil. ;))

And let me just say: I hate how ANY anti-war sentiment is immediately construed as anti-America and terror-mongering.
:rolleyes:

[ms Greenleaf]

Firstly YOu are going to the Pearl Jam concert...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGG jealous

second do you mind if I TAKE YOUR SIG...we can be a coalition of the willing


Ps I still WISH I was allowed to have my sig as


"Dogs always win thats why I am a *****"

(my mum thought that was funny...so its not really THAT bad ...is it/

Ms Greenleaf, please do not continue posting that about the forum. The reason it should not be in your signature is that people should not see it.

Thank you,
Nóm

[Maedhros]

I would hope that Snaga realizes this and that he removes the questionable element ere this turns into another argument.
Or Snaga can do the following. He can alter his sig say for a couple of days (3-10 days), and when it dies down, he can revert it back again.
That way the complainers are happy because they think that you have changed it and you will be happy because you wouldn't really change anything in the long run. And you would save the forum a lot of trouble for this trivial matter.

[Snaga]

Firstly thanks to everyone for their opinions and advice.

I am happy that so many of you are so supportive. It means a lot to me. Yay: perhaps it is NOT so urgent now as I thought when I posted this. At the time I felt pushed into a corner. Its not very pleasant. Now I know that the complaint really only represent a small number of people, I feel much better.

Parrot: I want to take my hat off to you. You are acerbic and uncompromising in debate. I usually disagree with you! But we at least share that we don't want to stifle peoples right to debate. I was not one of the people that wanted Cir to be forced to change his avatar. To me it was thought-provoking. That's a good thing...

To Anc: I understand your point of view. If I felt that people were genuinely upset by it, I would be more minded to take it down. But it feels more like an attempt to force conformity. I don't think anyone is really being hurt here. (BTW... I'm sure all the members of TTF would agree: of course your opinion is valued!:) )

ms greenleaf... confused about the Pearl Jam concert... not me. Yes: by all means use my sig.:) You shouldnt call yourself that tho, not even in fun. Its not cool.

Maedhros... I'm more likely to keep my sig as it is now to show that people are entitled to their point of view but change it later. Its been like that for a while: I'm bound to want to change it soon.:)

In the meantime... I'm still listening to people's views...:)

[HLGStrider]

It annoys me a little but it doesn't offend me. I normally try to use my sig for lighthearted reasons, and though I have some strong political opinions, I wouldn't put them in there. There is a danger it will offend someone, yes. It shouldn't be banned, of course. I would say that if you actually get an e-mail that says,
"When I saw your sig I was so hurt that I almost left the forum" or burst into tears or something like that "because my brother died in the attack" or is currently fighting in Iraq or something like that, you should change it, but that hasn't happened.

However, I wouldn't say those two over reacted. They saw something that could very well hurt someone and they pointed out to you, in what sounds like very mature language, that it could hurt someone, and then you started a thread that explained your intentions. . .

That's a good thing that has come out of it.

[Oren]

Ditto most of HLGStrider's comment. It really doesn't offend me at all, and I think that it is just something that you have on your sig because you like it. When at first I saw it, I thought it was kinda funny. I don't really think that you should take it off, I like it, and I think that people shouldn't be offended by it... I mean, it doesn't have anything to DO with the war...

[Parrot]

"acerbic"?!!!??? Moi?

[Thomas Baggins]

Being extremly pro war I have decided not to speak of the matter but if someone, Snaga, wanted to let people know of his beliefs then thats his peragotive I just happen to choose not to. So in conclusion........................................ ...Go Snaga!!!:D dude if you think you're right then don't back down and if your sig is just in referance to your charecters, then the more that people speak agains't it the more foolish they'll look!!! :)

[FoolOfATook]

Snaga- as far as I can tell, ms. Greenleaf was addressing the Pearl Jam concert to me, if that eases your confusion a bit.

[Snaga]

Ahhhhh! That makes sense FOAT!

Parrot: Oui, acerbic toi! (as they say in the language of terrorism!:rolleyes: .... that's a joke!!! )

Thomas, Oren, Elgee thank you. Especially Elgee I hope too that this thread has been positive.

[Talierin]

hehehe...

[howdie]

how nice, i bet this wedding boy gets all the breaks....i bet IF i were to say that i agree with Dubya and Blair in their search for "Weapons of EDITTED" i would get banned. ... So i wont say it lol :D

Don't use that sort of language. It's not amusing, whatsoever. ~Cir

[Idril]

I think Talierin's cartoon proves that the 'phrase' has now come into general usage and does not now solely refer to the terrorists.

[Wonko The Sane]

Parrot: Oui, acerbic toi! (as they say in the language of terrorism! .... that's a joke!!! )

*laughs pretty little head off*

CRAZY ORC!!!!!!!!
*sidles up to him*
You're funny, are you seeing anybody?

*coughs*

Sorry...um...serious thread. Back to topic.

Ok here's my take on what a few of you have said.

Elgee you mentioned that you wouldn't post a political opinion in your thread, and so did a few others.

But his sig is NOT a political opinion. It's 2 part RPG and 3 part stupid inside joke about my crazy family.

I WOULD like to hear the opinions of the people that complained...
Just so I can argue with them. :rolleyes:

[Gandalf White]

Sorry Wonks. You said, Elgee you mentioned that you wouldn't post a political opinion in your thread, and so did a few others.

But his sig is NOT a political opinion. It's 2 part RPG and 3 part stupid inside joke about my crazy family. but Snaga himself stated:

Thirdly I believe that Bush's Axis of Evil speech was harmful, and wrong on a number of levels so, yes, I was intending to poke fun at it.

(3) More on the Bush Speech. My personal belief is that the countries named (depending on which the current list is) are either mostly or completely NOT INVOLVED with Al-Qaeda. They did not in anyway sponsor the events of 9/11. This is perhaps a matter that has been debated in GOP, and widely in the media. I do not agree with labelling countries as 'Evil', and I find the threat to change the regimes by force scary, and an affront to international law and the sovereignty of those countries. (Note even Dr Ransom says its not straightforward as a case of Good vs Evil!) So, yes, there is a political element to my satirical statement but it is NOT a pro-terrorism statement.


I must admit when I first read it, I went "wow" how dumb can you get? Then after reading his explanation I was like "whew" there's a good reason for it.
Regardless of how I feel I believe he should keep it up (even if he didn't mean to imply his membership in the Dark Legion and the family joke.) because "I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking." ~ Woodrow Wilson

[Wonko The Sane]

The part about it being political (reason 3 that Snaga gave) was more of a side benefit of the term...

Originally it was something my dad said...which is what first gave him the idea to put it up. It also coincidentally managed to fit in whit his RPG character and echo some political sentiments.

[Arvedui]

I believe in freedom of speech. Total freedom of speech.
Therefore, I defended Cir's right to have a burning flag as an avatar, and I therefore defend snaga's right to have whatever signature he wants, as long as you don't try to tempt someone into something illegal.
When I first saw it, I instantly thought of your membership as linked to you being an orc, not to that infamous speech by the US President. Maybe it is because I read a lot of Tolkien...;)

[Ciryaher]

It's nice to know that someone did.... :(

But anyways, even though my freedom of speech was retracted (on various occaisions) I will strongly stand up for anyone else's right to speak freely (of course only if it's not breaking any of the rules).

[Scatha]

I do believe we are on a roleplaying forum here, where people come to relax and play their characters.

Snaga, you should leave the signature as it is.

Everyone else, can we now get on with roleplaying, without dragging this ridiculous war in RL into this forum every time??? People come here to play, if you want to discuss Iraq, the war, etc... go somewhere else!!!

This is a roleplaying forum and to discuss the works of Tolkien.
Lighten up everyone, signatures here usually state something about the characters!! Without people like Snaga here, we'd have nothing to fight in character.

[Thomas Baggins]

Very good piont Scatha! Sorry if my last post was a little weird but I was in a really strange mood! Anyway in case it was confusing here's this:

Snaga, your sig is completly within reason ant mod or other person who thinks it isn't really needs to look at themselves and truly see what they'er saying cause it's a whole lot of junk. I'm not as :mad: (mad) as I sound, just outgoing that's all.:D

[Ciryaher]

Um, Scatha, this isn't just an RPG Forum...in fact that is only a minor part of it, and soon, it won't be any part of it.

[Elendil3119]

What do you mean by that, Cir? Are the RPG forums being deleted?

[Galdor]

Hey Cir, do you mind explaining that last part of your post? i.e. the part about RPGing not being a part of the forum for much longer.

[FoolOfATook]

you were using a phrase which was used in the aftermath of 9/11.

I beliveve this to be somewhat of an overstatement- the phrase was used four months after the terrorist attacks, and did not refer to Al Qaeda, but to three rogue states bent on developing and possessing weapons of mass destruction- Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Of these three nations, only Iraq has been alleged to have any ties whatsoever with Al Qaeda, and those ties can be termed informal at best. The phrase really does not have a great deal to do with the attacks.

[Snaga]

Dr R, I don't want any kind of personal dispute with you and for my part there is none.

My reason for quoting your PM to me was that I had a complaint directed to me by WM. He didnt give any specifics rationale for the complaints. So in order to try to let people comment, I wanted to give both sides of the argument. I had your PMs and Galdors email. I'm sorry if I have annoyed you by publishing your PM.

I accept you do not wish to restrict my freedom of expression. But someone, not you, have gone to WM to try to put pressure on me. I stand by my opinion that there is a vociferous minority trying to impose a form of political correctness as regards these issues. But I exclude you from it.

As for why I chose to 'go public' at all with this: I don't believe that it is always best to do things behind closed doors. If there is something wrong with my signature, others need to know where the line is. Also I wanted to find out what other people thought. If I was out on a limb, I wanted to know, and this was the best way I could think of to find out. Finally, when things are done behind closed doors, then it leads to gossip and misinformed speculation. This way at least, noone can be accused of skulduggery after the event.

I don't know where I implied your views were akin to naziism. I don't think that. Let me know the offending post and I'll clarify matters.

Finally can I repeat what I said in my opening post:I don't want a fractious row, or insults flying: just a grown-up discussion. By and large I think we've achieved that, which is to everyone's credit.:)

[Wonko The Sane]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
Dear Wonks:



I also did not find this statement very kind either. It fact, it is downright false, and it would be nice if you apologized. Galdor and myself have been the ones who were NOT vocal. I PM'd Snaga so that other people wouldn't have to know that I didn't like it. I never mentioned it in public at all! Snaga than posted my PM without asking for everybody to see. Who is being vocal? Who Wonks? I really don't care, but geesh, nobody can express their opinion on this forum anymore w/ out getting lamblasted.

So Wonks, You and Snaga are in fact being the vocal ones. I never wanted this to become an issue. You did.

Here was my reply to Snaga:

Dear Dr. Ransom,

I stand by my opinion that there is a heightened senstivity to anything and everything that can be construed as having political grounds, especially in regards to this war, and that this sensitivity is being forced upon the rest of the population by this said vocal minority. People are taking EVERYTHING too seriously, they're making an issue out of things that are issueless. I'm not saying you are one of those people by any means.
That is up to you and the attitude you choose to take.
I am merely stating that those people are now creating this new kind of political correctness as Snaga said. We are constantly having to watch our backs.
It goes both ways, I know. But both sides are at fault. Those against the war are shouted at for being terrorist, or supporting terrorism if they even so much as stand to voice an opinion against the president and his cronies. Those pro-war are labeled as insensitive, ethno-centric American jerks and slagged off left and right. It's wrong either way and I'm sick of it.
Those kinds of people, and they exist on both sides, run rampant in the GoP and if you ask me they should stay there. As Scatha said there's absolutely no reason for people to drag politics into EVERYTHING and taint the rest of the forum with their fractious squabbles.

And by vocal I don't necessarily mean making a big squak about it in public. Sending a PM, or writing an e-mail is just as vocal as spreading your opinion across the forum if it leads to the infringements of other people's expression. I'm not saying you or Galdor are at fault.
Maybe the people that complained to WM about Snaga's signature never spoke out against it on the forum in general. It doesn't make them any less vocal.
The comment I made was fairly benign as comments go adn I find your offense surprising.
As for an apology I'm not giving one. Except to say I'm sorry that you were offended.

*laughs* Lamblasted isn't a word btw, but it HAS to be the funniest typo I've seen in FOREVER!!! :) Hehe.

Just for the record I don't recall Snaga implying your beliefs were Nazism. I read that thread and what you inferred is not necessarily what Snaga implied.

And you keep saying, "I couldn't care less." And "I really don't care." Obviously your multiple posts suggest otherwise. :rolleyes:

And Dr. Ransom, as a last thought Snaga creating this thread had nothing to do with any sort of personal attack against you and was not meant as one. He was merely gathering opinions on his signature. The last thing he wants to do is start trouble.
(Well...knowing Snaga it's probably the FIRST thing he wants to do...but he restrains himself. :rolleyes: Crazy evil orc! ;))
Your defensive position in this case is somewhat understandable given he quoted your PM, but unwarranted as he meant nothing against you.

I hope this little misunderstanding can be resolved. :) People should make love not war. *smiles and hopes everyone knows she's not a hippie.*:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[HLGStrider]

I really think the whole thing should be dropped.
Here is an extremely simplified version of what happened as I've observed it:
Snaga1 puts up a sig meaning one thing
A few people interpet it as another
Two people calmly contact Snaga about the misconstrued meaning.
Somebody freaks out and contacts WM.
Snaga gets worried makes this thread.
We all talk about it.
Now what?

Just forget about it. I don't think WM is going to give Snags warning points for it, and no one is losing their temper though I think some people are becoming annoyed. So, let's drop it. It would make sense.

[Wonko The Sane]

Dear Elgee,

It's a good idea to drop it as I see that some people are annoyed.
I want to make a point of saying I'm not annoyed but rather amused. :)

I'm all for dropping it if that's the consensus but if people still find they wish to discuss it I am all for that as well. I hate to drop things when people still have concerns about the issue.

Utlimately though I think it's up to Snaga (or some mod or WM) to decide when to drop it...

So...any last points anyone wishes to discuss?
Or shall we let it go. :)

P.S.-Yay Elgee the mediator! ;):rolleyes: ;)

[Idril]

I (in my great wisdom - ha ha he he) think Snaga should make a decision on his sig. now and confirm with the WM if it is acceptable. This will then bring this particular discussion to an end, which, I believe it has served it's purpose, as we have opinions of interested members and Snaga's explaination on his sig.

Come on guys - we're a community here - sometimes disagreements arise, that's a fact of life, how much we allow it to upset us or disrupt things is down to us.

[Wonko The Sane]

Yay Idril the peacemaker!!

:) If I may speak for Snaga (only because he's sleeeeping) he's going to keep his sig for a while based on the members' overwhelming support.

And then eventually change it to something new. He's getting tired of his current one I believe. :)

[Dr. Ransom]

You know? I thought maybe I was obligated to go back and answer all the questions posed to me in the last couple of posts.


But quite honestly, I tired of defending myself in this thread. I have no personal vendeta against anyone on this forum, as I said before, I personally wish for the entire matter to be dropped. I am not backing down because I got out gunned, but because I finially decided that somebody has to take their finger off the trigger first. So I'm going to delete every single post defending myself out of this thread and the ROMD thread.


I would like to personally request to Snaga and Wonko that this thread be entirely deleted, as well as some of Wonko's in ROMD. I am not recanting, but agreeing to disagree. I apologize for not being as thick skinned as I could be. I wish to personally show to this forum that Cir/Hurin situations can be avoided.

Ransom

[Wonko The Sane]

Dr. Ransom...

A final thought to you.

It is one thing to take the initiative to delet your own posts, but I personally resent your insistence, or as you call it your "request" that we delete our own posts and our own threads.
You may have a point about deleting posts in RMD thread, but this thread has nothing to do with that one.
And you carried the argument over here single handedly.

I do not think this thread should be deleted until the owner deems it no longer necessary.

And to keep a post up, even when it was a disagreement or an argument is also personal prerogative, so long as a mod or WM hasn't ordered it.

So while I respect your opinion, I apologise for not complying with your request.

[Ciryaher]

I request that Snaga find this thread no longer neccessary ;) *so that it can be removed*

I think that the longer this remains, the longer and greater the consequences. Right now we've got ruffled feathers, so let's not let it come to bruises and bloodied noses!

[Wonko The Sane]

What has Snaga said about it?

I think it's pretty unnecessary now as he changed his siggy anyway. ;) :rolleyes:

[Snaga]

Yes I changed it. With the new RPing forum an RP-ing sig here is redundant. Delete the thread if you wish.

[Wonko The Sane]

No!! NO!!! ARCHIVE IT!!!

I think it's an excellent example of TTF diplomacy and debate on real life issues reagarding the way our forum operates.