Should Rashmun take a break from posting?

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
There is a problem here. If PP went in and started deleting such posts and threads, he will accused (by the same Rashmunullah) of censuring and controlling the content. So the solution is to let it all open and rely on self - control. This cannot be successful either bcz there are always bad elements who would distort and push the boundary.

So should he also control posters who attack personally? attack family members? use vulgar words? use unacceptable words? comment on religion? bring out the atrocities of iSalami terrorists?

Please state your boundaries, conditions, and punitive criteria.

Just expressing his public disapproval of these tactics would go a long ways in eliminating this problem. Instead he preferred to laugh out loud when the pictures of JM's wife and daughter were posted on chat with the claim of the poster that he wanted to have sex with both of them--all this in the presence of JM.

Rashmun wrote:In my opinion, huzefa kapasi is mischievous but not malicious.

Rashmun wrote:i believe he has expressed regret for hacking into your sulekha account and making your private details public on sulekha.

Rashmun wrote:I never saw him revealing private info about you on this forum.

Rashmun wrote:I agree with your assessment of Charvaka, Hellsangel, and Propa. One other poster who has indulged in mutual coddling with Charvaka is Tracy Whitney. Perhaps their shared hatred for QueenBee brought them together initially.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Rashmun wrote:In my opinion, huzefa kapasi is mischievous but not malicious.

and in mine, he is ill with his caste's proclivities.

Rashmun wrote:i believe he has expressed regret for hacking into your sulekha account and making your private details public on sulekha.

i don't think he has.

Rashmun wrote:I never saw him revealing private info about you on this forum.

he's apparently a coward. he admitted revealing the private info secretly to hellsangel. in other words, he did something far worse.

Rashmun wrote:I agree with your assessment of Charvaka, Hellsangel, and Propa. One other poster who has indulged in mutual coddling with Charvaka is Tracy Whitney. Perhaps their shared hatred for QueenBee brought them together initially.

Rashmun wrote:

Hellsangel has got to be mentally ill for using the private info which Huzefa told him privately in public discussions.

Hellsangel wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Hellsangel has got to be mentally ill for using the private info , which Huzefa told him privately , in public discussions.

Does that even make any sense?

Rashmun wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Hellsangel has got to be mentally ill for using the private info , which Huzefa told him privately , in public discussions.

Does that even make any sense?

I had omitted the commas earlier.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:one of the downsides of sulekha was that we never had recourse to corrective action when private info was disclosed. i'm happy that it's different here.

Hellsangel wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Hellsangel has got to be mentally ill for using the private info , which Huzefa told him privately , in public discussions.

Does that even make any sense?

I had omitted the commas earlier.

Still makes no sense. Considering how public this is:

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_vivekananda-on-caste-system-1083049#1083240

Rashmun wrote:

Hellsangel, I now realize that you are really mentally ill. I wish you luck with your mental treatment.

Hellsangel wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Hellsangel, I now realize that you are really mentally ill. I wish you luck with your mental treatment.

Poor Rashman. You need to reacquaint yourself with the laws of the internet.

goodcitizn wrote:I think you are wearing kit gloves in dealing with this guy.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:I think you are wearing kit gloves in dealing with this guy.

"kid gloves," not "kit gloves." to treat someone with kid gloves is to be gentle with him/her. read this.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:I think you are wearing kit gloves in dealing with this guy.

"kid gloves," not "kit gloves." to treat someone with kid gloves is to be gentle with him/her. read this.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:I don't know who is revealing what here? Considering almost everyone here uses fake handles and fake info. about himself / herself, I wouldn't take any "revelation" seriously even if it were true.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:lookie here and make your own conclusions. please make sure you read the blog, scroll down, and click more comments until you read all the comments. in particular the comment by the author of the book in question.

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:lookie here and make your own conclusions. please make sure you read the blog, scroll down, and click more comments until you read all the comments. in particular the comment by the author of the book in question.

She promoted her book with the bloggers, and let someone write about it, maybe once or twice. If you think it's all right for someone to keep highlighting her name in an offensive way in the forums (for reasons other than the book), specially after she had been on forums for so many years, and had had bad interactions with him, and when she not only wanted to hide her name in the forums but wished the same explicitly, then sorry, we are on a different page altogether.

(please [anyone], don't try correcting me on all the commas above)

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:lookie here and make your own conclusions. please make sure you read the blog, scroll down, and click more comments until you read all the comments. in particular the comment by the author of the book in question.

She promoted her book with the bloggers, and let someone write about it, maybe once or twice. If you think it's all right for someone to keep highlighting her name in an offensive way in the forums (for reasons other than the book), specially after she had been on forums for so many years, and had had bad interactions with him, and when she not only wanted to hide her name in the forums but wished the same explicitly, then sorry, we are on a different page altogether.

(please [anyone], don't try correcting me on all the commas above)

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:lookie here and make your own conclusions. please make sure you read the blog, scroll down, and click more comments until you read all the comments. in particular the comment by the author of the book in question.

She promoted her book with the bloggers, and let someone write about it, maybe once or twice. If you think it's all right for someone to keep highlighting her name in an offensive way in the forums (for reasons other than the book), specially after she had been on forums for so many years, and had had bad interactions with him, and when she not only wanted to hide her name in the forums but wished the same explicitly, then sorry, we are on a different page altogether.

(please [anyone], don't try correcting me on all the commas above)

my concern here is not the tone of interaction or the message in the posts. that is between posters. i was only addressing the disclosure part of the interaction. you seem to have moved the goalpost now. and it's not as if there was a wall of separation between the forums and the blogs. information freely flowed between the two. all you had to do was click on a poster's profile to go to their blog page.

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:lookie here and make your own conclusions. please make sure you read the blog, scroll down, and click more comments until you read all the comments. in particular the comment by the author of the book in question.

She promoted her book with the bloggers, and let someone write about it, maybe once or twice. If you think it's all right for someone to keep highlighting her name in an offensive way in the forums (for reasons other than the book), specially after she had been on forums for so many years, and had had bad interactions with him, and when she not only wanted to hide her name in the forums but wished the same explicitly, then sorry, we are on a different page altogether.

(please [anyone], don't try correcting me on all the commas above)

my concern here is not the tone of interaction or the message in the posts. that is between posters. i was only addressing the disclosure part of the interaction. you seem to have moved the goalpost now. and it's not as if there was a wall of separation between the forums and the blogs. information freely flowed between the two. all you had to do was click on a poster's profile to go to their blog page.

I posted a reply to your earlier version, but upon rereading my post, realized that I have said nothing new. So deleted it. Am not going to fall back into long dead-end discussions.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the PP bashing is very unfair...

i couldn't disagree with you more.

pp (charvaka) has encouraged propagandhi, hellsangel, and huzefa kapasi, among others, to make crude posts that he knows violate others' privacy, and are otherwise harmful to them. he gave them the clear impression that they could make such posts with impunity. charvak has mentioned whom he dislikes, and these rogue posters target them, partly in order to please charvak. among the class of posters charvak coddles are women.

regardless of charvak's encouragement of rogue posters, suCH, which charvak started, and over which he has administrative control, serves as a platform from which innocent bystanders -- people with families, careers, professions, and interests, unknown to him and the rogues, and bearing no ill will towards any of them -- can be and are crudely attacked and harmed. charvak knows all this well. he has no excuses.

given all this, i have no idea why you support charvak. i can guess the reasons why, but for the same reasons, you have lost something valuable.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i believe he has expressed regret for hacking into your sulekha account and making your private details public on sulekha.

i don't think he has.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:propah blah blah huze blah blah whine whine charvaka blah blah whine whine max cry cry whine whine cry cry cry blah blah hellsangel whine whine blah blah cry cry ...

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:pp (charvaka) has encouraged propagandhi, hellsangel, and huzefa kapasi, among others, to make crude posts that he knows violate others' privacy, and are otherwise harmful to them.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:he gave them the clear impression that they could make such posts with impunity.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:charvak has mentioned whom he dislikes

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:and these rogue posters target them, partly in order to please charvak. among the class of posters charvak coddles are women.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:regardless of charvak's encouragement of rogue posters

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:suCH, which charvak started, and over which he has administrative control, serves as a platform from which innocent bystanders -- people with families, careers, professions, and interests, unknown to him and the rogues, and bearing no ill will towards any of them -- can be and are crudely attacked and harmed. charvak knows all this well. he has no excuses.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:given all this, i have no idea why you support charvak. i can guess the reasons why, but for the same reasons, you have lost something valuable.

panini press wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:pp (charvaka) has encouraged propagandhi, hellsangel, and huzefa kapasi, among others, to make crude posts that he knows violate others' privacy, and are otherwise harmful to them.

To the contrary, I have consistently disapproved of such activity and made my views known clearly. This was one of the early reasons you came to dislike me; I used to oppose your violation of Tiana's privacy. From the early days of SuCH, I have made it clear that I completely disapprove of disclosure of any private information about other posters. What propagandhi, Hellsangel, Huzefa Kapasi, Rashmun, and you have done over the years is despite my disapproval, not because of my approval.

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:pp (charvaka) has encouraged propagandhi, hellsangel, and huzefa kapasi, among others, to make crude posts that he knows violate others' privacy, and are otherwise harmful to them.

To the contrary, I have consistently disapproved of such activity and made my views known clearly. This was one of the early reasons you came to dislike me; I used to oppose your violation of Tiana's privacy. From the early days of SuCH, I have made it clear that I completely disapprove of disclosure of any private information about other posters. What propagandhi, Hellsangel, Huzefa Kapasi, Rashmun, and you have done over the years is despite my disapproval, not because of my approval.

You laughed out loudly when pictures of JM's wife and daughter were posted on chat by Propa with his express desire that he wishes to have sex with both of them. you were present at that time along with JM when this happened. You issued the public warning to your buddy Hellsangel that his posts are liable to be deleted if he continues to post private information about JM in his posts only after repeated protests by me, otherwise you would not have issued such a warning.

JM is right. You have been caught with your pants down and are now busy trying to cover your ass.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:one line synopsis:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:propah blah blah huze blah blah whine whine charvaka blah blah whine whine max cry cry whine whine cry cry cry blah blah hellsangel whine whine blah blah cry cry ...

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:]it's different here, but worse. the admin took no action for over 1.5 years, except make a perfunctory post or two that mocked posters' concerns. charvak is only covering his arse now.

panini press wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:]it's different here, but worse. the admin took no action for over 1.5 years, except make a perfunctory post or two that mocked posters' concerns. charvak is only covering his arse now.

There's a saying in Telugu... aDagandE ammayinA peTTadu. If you don't ask for food, even your mom won't feed you. If you can't bring yourself to ask for action, no action can be taken.

If only you could take a break from whining and take the action needed on your part to remove the information that you so eloquently whine about, the world would be a better place. I do understand if whining about a problem is more pleasurable to you than taking action to solve the problem. To each his own!

panini press wrote:There's a saying in Telugu... aDagandE ammayinA peTTadu. If you don't ask for food, even your mom won't feed you. If you can't bring yourself to ask for action, no action can be taken.

If only you could take a break from whining and take the action needed on your part to remove the information that you so eloquently whine about, the world would be a better place. I do understand if whining about a problem is more pleasurable to you than taking action to solve the problem. To each his own!

Hellsangel wrote:The old dog has too much pride to ask.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The old dog has too much pride to ask.

it seems il professore has not been asking for him as much (or as aggressively) of late. from the notes of il professore, to JM, that i have read, it seems that il professore was once his ardent disciple in sulekha to the extent he thought it to be his wont to give JM a heads up about posters: specifically whom to ignore (and that came with an unconditional devotion for JM of course).

Hellsangel wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The old dog has too much pride to ask.

it seems il professore has not been asking for him as much (or as aggressively) of late. from the notes of il professore, to JM, that i have read, it seems that il professore was once his ardent disciple in sulekha to the extent he thought it to be his wont to give JM a heads up about posters: specifically whom to ignore (and that came with an unconditional devotion for JM of course).

The explains the reluctance to say anything with some explanation about not being a part of mob condemnation.