|PERIGO BANS PUKE BECAUSE HE CAN
When shall they come for me? Well, since I don't know, let me say what I know and stand up for what I believe in before the censors do their worst.
My view of events:
1) Puke mocks and insults Perigo repeatedly, in what some have agreed is bad taste (I'm obviously biased here).
2) Perigo dislikes it and asks that Puke tone it down (I presume that Perigo asked because honestly, I know other people have asked Puke to tone it down, but I cannot remember such a request on the part of Perigo).
3) Bertelsen defends Perigo and attacks Puke with an insulting post.
4) Puke responds with an insulting post, but knowing and admitting that he was trying to insult Bertelsen, tries to tell Bertelsen that there is no point in insulting people if you do not like to be insulted, and that he thinks that Perigo is generally insulting. This should have made it clear that nothing Puke wrote was personal.
5) Perigo uses that fact that Puke responded to Bertelsen's insults as an excuse to ban Puke.
Why not just tell the world that this is Perigo's web board, he can ban who he wants to, and that the reasons don't have to be just either?
It's odd how people who like to insult others react when they get insulted too. I think that some form of the Golden Rule should be in effect, but I guess it is easy to dehumanize whoever you are insulting and prove to yourself that he deserves your insults.
For the record, I once posted on the now-defunct Objective Science Forum, which was run by the editor of CapMag.com. It is partly a result of my discussions on forum that I see Objectivists as subsuming a wide variety of personalities (the common denominator is intelligence). I posted under my real name (no big secret by the way) and my arguments (and a bit less often, my person) got insulted by all kinds of Objectivists. I stated my disagreements, made arguments for them, and sometimes got convinced that I was ignorant (thankfully, it was a science forum). I've used my SOLO name on many web boards and it is a part of my e-mail address. It comes from a time that I was a part of the hiphop culture. So what is this nonsense about cowardly anonymity? I've repeatedly declared that if anyone wants my name, they can have it, and that I can provide my name if it becomes part of SOLO policy, and not some selective attack that Perigo uses on people that he doesn't like.
In fact, the main reason that I haven't provided my real name is that I enjoy Perigo's rants, and I sometimes wonder how the animus that drives him to insult me so will manifest itself if he knows my real name. I amuse myself by watching him bellow at arguments he has no interest in responding to because he deems them irrational, but which I know are quite reasonable and are usually differences of perspective and even when factually motivated, are significant indifferent contexts. But I am by nature an intellectual empath - sadly, I cannot say the same for many people I know, but I do what I must. I look for wider and wider explanations all the time to subsume more and more facts, including anomalies, which I do not dismiss as exceptions (they still have to be causally explained).
In any case, this "coward", finds Rooster's banning to be the prerogative of Mr Perigo, but to be clearly at odds with fair play. Why should you ban someone who responds to insults in kind? Because you were the butt of his insults?
Fine, but you like to insult people in general, Linz. If you want charity to begin at home (a traditional moral standard, by the way), then why are you encouraging your insults and those of your friends?
Thankfully, Linz wasn't George Washington. Some of us just like to make the rules and not play by them.