But I say to you who are hearing, Love your enemies, do good to those hating you, bless those cursing you, and pray for those accusing you falsely; and to him smiting thee upon the cheek, give also the other, and from him taking away from thee the mantle, also the coat thou mayest not keep back. And to every one who is asking of thee, be giving; and from him who is taking away thy goods, be not asking again; and as ye wish that men may do to you, do ye also to them in like manner; and — if ye love those loving you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful love those loving them; and if ye do good to those doing good to you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful do the same; and if ye lend to those of whom ye hope to receive back, what grace have ye? for also the sinful lend to sinners — that they may receive again as much. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward will be great, and ye shall be sons of the Highest, because He is kind unto the ungracious and evil; be ye therefore merciful, as also your Father is merciful. And judge not, and ye may not be judged; condemn not, and ye may not be condemned; release, and ye shall be released. Give, and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed, and shaken, and running over, they shall give into your bosom; for with that measure with which ye measure, it shall be measured to you again.
– Some weird dude named Jesus. No wonder they killed Him.
What’s your point, Mung. I cant be sure I followed all that, but it appears you marked up someone else’s post, which is against the rules here, even if WordPress allows it.
Richardthughes,
Maybe you should lobby for the banning of people who remove comments from posts they did not author. But you just might catch Lizzie in that net.
The fact is, I did not delete any content from Reciprocating Bill’s post.
So much for principles.
Shorter Mung:
He’s also whining at UD:
You can post whatever you like in your own comments, Mung, except for what Lizzie has listed. Be a big boy.
Waaaaambulance for Mung.
Mung, when you start marking up others posts you are the ‘We’ of moderation, so the removal of your loud speaker in the sky (and have a word with yourself about that) was to ensure the rules (which you broke) were followed. Silly boy.
I find Mung to be categorically similar to Joe G.
Mung,
You edited someone else’s post. That’s against the rules. Your rule breakage was rectified.
Is that clear enough or do I need to use words of only one syllable?
hello petrushka, where have you been!?
I left my name so people would know it was me. There’s no “appearance” about it. I added a comment to the end of a post authored by Reciprocating Bill. I confessed to doing so. Mea culpa. I did not delete anything he wrote nor did I change anything he wrote.
But then my comment was deleted. A clear violation of the “principles” held so dear here at TSZ. Apparently the principles apply to some, but not to all.
“No Loudspeaker in the Ceiling.”
Whatever.
Are you trying to tell us you can’t be trusted and this is all a cheap points-scoring excercise for you, Mung? How do you think you look?
You can apologize any time, Mung.
Mung,
Followed two sentences later by:
You changed his comment with your addition, by definition. You violated the rules. Your violation was addressed.
Make your comments separately and you’ll be within the rules. This is not difficult to understand.
Mung, if you’re Butthurt over not knowing basic stats, don’t be. Participate positively, don’t go fishing for ‘death by cop’.
The funny thing is that all of mung’s posts still exist and he’s still allowed to complain about being mistreated. Whereas back at UD, posts asking about the disappearance of posts are disappearing, along with the banning of anyone who rsises questions.
Exactly as predicted, Mung high tails it to UD and starts lying about his experiences here
link
Nothing of yours was deleted Mung as you well know. It was merely moved to Guano like all posts that violate the rules do. Many people here including myself have had post moved, not deleted.
Why do you feel the need to lie about this to your UD buddies?
ETA: Just realized that keiths already caught this example of Mung’s “honesty”. It won’t hurt to point the behavior out twice however.
Umm, that’s not exactly true.
Here’s the start of this problem:
ReciprocatingBIll comment May 9 11:26
Sometime in the next three hours, Mung saw fit to insert some words of his own into RB’s comment. Rather than simply replying to RB, as everyone does, Mung (accidentally??) used his thread-author editing power to be The Loudspeaker In The Ceiling,
We know this happened, because Mung admitted he did it, after Reciprocating Bill made this comment:
Mung’s edit to insert that “slow learner” bit has been re-edited (by Lizzie??) to remove the damage Mung did to RB’s first comment. Now it’s back to the way it was and Mung’s edit has disappeared into the ether, with only the ghost left behind in RB’s quote of it in RB’s second comment.
Mung’s illegitimate edit was not sent to Guano. It was actually deleted. So Mung is telling a tiny bit of truth when he whines that something of his was deleted.
The problem is, Mung is acting stupid to whine that one of his comments was deleted. It wasn’t one of HIS comments to begin with, it was a wrongful edit of someone ELSE’s comment, which was set right by merely undoing the wrongful edit.
You would think that TSZ rules would not have to spell out the difference between “we don’t delete comments” and “we do fix by undoing wrongful edits”. But, if you’re dealing with the gotcha boys from UD, maybe you do need to spell it out in a way that even their willful stupidity cannot misunderstand.
I know that most USAian christians are exposed to the virus of “we’re persecuted for our faith, just like Jesus”. I think that forms a lifelong propensity to be an unattractive self-pitying “they’re not treating me fairly” arse. I didn’t want to think that Mung was one of those kind of christians, but it appears my hopes are dashed again.
It’s a tempest in a teapot, really. Here was my response to Mung at UD:
Mung:
Just so we are clear: You inserted a comment into one of MY posts. I assumed it was you. I asked whoever it was to please refrain from doing so again. I did so because I don’t want my posts misunderstood.
Lizzie reinforced and generalized my request and your tampering was removed. Her aim was to restore my post to it’s original state in response to my objection. She has my (retroactive) permission to do so, and certainly would have known that at the time.
You have no standing in the matter. Just as one has no ownership of graffiti one sprays on others’ property, and no basis from which to complain when it is removed, you have no ownership of content you insert into others’ posts – and no basis from which to complain when a post is restored to it’s original form and your tampering removed.
Typical of Mung to complain about something that is a strength of TSZ: we don’t allow moderators, thread owners, or anyone else to deface other people’s comments.
Since a WordPress expert has offered help, perhaps we can get a setting set, preventing even thread authors from editing other peoples’ comments or deleting them (and maybe even preventing them from moving comments to Guano or Sandbox).
I would be happy, when I author an OP, to not have this power, but just to be able to beg the Powers That Be to intervene, if there seems to be some need.
(And if this comment gets moved to Moderation I will entirely understand).
Joe,
That’s exactly what I’m hoping for, too. I was glad to see that Lizzie accepted Paul Barthmaier’s offer of pro-bono consulting.
Mung, I repeat: posts will not be edited at TSZ.
You edited a post. So I unedited it.
Your own posts are intact and will remain so. RB’s post is intact, and will remain so.
If you want to make a comment at TSZ, then make your comments. They will not be edited.
And if you, in contravention of those moderation rules, edit someone else’s comment, by the same principle, that comment will be restored to its original state.
The fact that you added, rather than subtracted, is irrelevant. It was an edit. The post was restored to its unedited version in accordance with TSZ rules.
I repeat: posts will not be edited at TSZ.
So don’t, OK?
Some folks are desperate for us to be ‘as bad’ as UD. 🙁
Elizabeth Liddle said:
“I repeat: posts will not be edited at TSZ.”
Oh really? My April 30th comment, which is now in Guano, was edited by Alan Fox, and you obviously approve of that. So, you’ll immediately restore what was edited out, right?
Creodont2,
To be fair Lizzie wasn’t here then I think. What was the nature of what was ‘edited’?
If memory serves, the post Creodont2 refers to is one which contained multiple instances of the offline name of ID-pusher KairosFocus, and the “editing” Creodont2 refers to is that every instance of said offline name was replaced by the string “[redacted AF]”.
I guess you need to be of a certain level of sophistication and awareness to appreciate the irony of complaining about comments being removed at UD at UD.
And this goes under the exception that has to do with personal details that Elizabeth mentioned. Moreover, KF’s online persona is exceptionally protective of his real-life personal details, as evidenced by his frenzied rambling sprawling attack on Elizabeth over at UD. So this particular exception is double justified.
cubist,
Offline? Are you serious? [redacted]’s real name is certainly online, and he’s the one who put it there.
And nobody posts it here. I hope that is clear.
Elizabeth,
So much for “I repeat: posts will not be edited at TSZ.”
In fact I don’t hope it’s clear. It is clear.
Creodont, either you agree to abide by this rule, or you don’t post here.
Do you agree to abide by that rule?
Except for the narrow category of material I specified, namely: porn, malware, or personal info, which will be redacted. A RL name is person info.
Yes, I’m serious. “Cubist” is the name I go by in my online activity, hence “Cubist” is what I think of as my “online name”; I go by a different name in my offline activity, so that other name is what I think of as my “offline name”. Now, while I tend not to mention my offline name when posting to blogs & etc, I also don’t much care whether or not my online name is known to other people. And frankly, anyone who happens to want to ferret out my offline name probably wouldn’t have much of a problem doing so. None of which has any bearing on the fact that “Cubist” is the primary identificatory label by which I’m known online, hence it makes sense to think of “Cubist” as my online name.
The analogy between “Cubist/[my offline name]” and “KairosFocus/[KF’s offline name]” is left as an exercise for the reader.
I have redacted the personal info from Creodont’s post and moved it to Guano.
Creodont’s posts will be held in moderation before they appear (I hope anyway, I’ve forgotten how these dang WP buttons work).
cubist,
You obviously don’t know the difference between offline and online.
Oh, and have you ever clicked on [redacted]’s “always linked”? If it takes you more than a minute to see his real ONLINE name, you might want to ask the nearest 7 year old for help.
Creodont2, I have put your recent comments into moderation. This is temporary and reversible. Lizzie has advised you by all avenues we know of that your account is suspended until you give assurances about adhering to the rules in future, in particular the one about “outing”.
That is totally irrelevant
CubistCreodont.The reason I have strict rules about this is because once someone’s real name is posted in a post, it can be found in a google search for that name. People may be perfectly happy to say who they are in real life in a context in which a google search for their own name will take them to something benign they wrote themselves.
They are not so happy when it lands in a post here that might not be so benign.
That is the reason for the rule. Not to prevent people finding out who people they know on the internet people are in RL (that is usually pretty easy), but to prevent people who know people in RL (or come across, e.g. in a job application) from inadvertently finding out shitty that has been written about them on the internet.
If you google my RL name you will still sometimes find shit that was written about me years ago when I was involved in the Great Exit Poll Affair of 2004. I’d rather they didn’t. And I’d rather nobody had the same problem.
Well, apart from Rick Santorum, that is.
So don’t do it here.
ITYM Creodont2 rather than cubist.
ouch
I know of one instance — not Joe g — of a person being fired from a government based on the content of his online posts.
His posts were in the nature of strong political opinion, including criticism of the agency he worked for. They were not illegal, were not vulgar, were not libelous, except that they alleged incompetence. They were well within the norms of political commentary.
I know firsthand of several people who have abandoned screen names due to fears of becoming unemployable.
I do not understand the obsession with finding out and disclosing people’s real names. I can think of a possible exception, and that would be authors who post reviews of their own books, or who have friends and relatives spam Amazon reviews. Another possible exception might be authors who defend their writing anonymously at chat forums. The first is unethical and the second is comical.
I’ve seen a rather amusing example of the second at Larry Moran’s site, where a guy who runs a YEC website under his own name also posts at Larry’s site without admitting being a YEC. I think it is fair to call attention to blatant hypocrisy and self contradiction.
But unless some is advocating something illegal — in real life or using an internet persona — I see no reason to know who they really are.