Mods posting in threads

monument

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The response from Monument is to link 3 news reports that he/she feels backs up the assertion that it's (always) the motorist that's at fault and who is ultimately responsible in this situation...

I never made such a point -- I never claimed and nor do I 'feel' that motorists are always at fault.

Even if I had not been taking part in the thread there's a good chance that if I had sanctioned you or deleted your post you'd be on hear making up what I 'feel' based on past threads.

monument

For the record, here's the deleted post...

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I could bother to respond to some of the points made in this thread since my last post but there's clearly no point.

Certain posters clearly think that the average person should be "protected" at all costs from roaming sadistic (Mad Max style) motorists who are out to run them over at any opportunity, or assault their precious sensitive ears with the "noise" from their evil engines. :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoAD3kUmN9s

(The above is NOT a documentary - just in case some of you aren't sure!)

Ridiculous? Not as much as the PC, nanny-state, cotton-wool loving, total rejection of personal responsibility nonsense that's being thrown out here.

As already explained via PM, it breaks more than one rule in the C&T charter.

_Kaiser_

monument wrote: »

For the record, here's the deleted post...




As already explained via PM, it breaks more than one rule in the C&T charter.

Handy trick that.. ah the joys of being a Mod I guess.

The idea that I'd be bothered to trawl your posting history just to "make stuff up" about you (to be honest I rarely even take note of who posts what as I'm more interested in the content) is just childish and not worth commenting on beyond that. As a general rule I just ignore most of the trolling, but when it's coming from a "Mod" and a Mod of that forum, and then find that I'm not the only one to have had that opinion well ...

However your responses and inferences here do make it clear to me that you're more concerned with getting validation than supporting the argument you made originally (which prompted my response) so we shall agree to disagree I guess and you can go back to modding your forum.

Dades

Kaiser2000, that sarcastic response coupled with a loathsome 'rolleyes' would garner the attention of most moderators of a reasonable discussion. Therefore the simple fact that the mod who called you on it happened to be involved in the thread doesn't prove anything.

Would it sit better if a different C&T mod had deleted your post?

Friend Computer

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

[...] My own position is that this is a ridiculous idea by a PC nanny-state mentality that only serves to absolve (primarily) pedestrians of any responsibility for their own actions or safety by "punishing" the private motorist instead - ref this post [...]

[...]basically reiterating my belief that this proposal is another example of PC nanny-state do-goodery that only seeks to absolve people of any personal responsibility or accountability for their actions and that the situation is far from the view expressed by some in that thread of roaming (Mad-Max) style motorists just waiting to run innocent (jay-walking) pedestrians down, or deafen them with the noise from their evil cars. [...]

Jesus, even on After Hours this would be laying it on thick; "PC nanny-state do-goodery", really? I realise I'm out of line in saying this but I'm getting the feeling that certain regs of the Motors forum can't handle the idea that they aren't the only road users; you see it especially on threads dealing with cycling.

If you really can't see how couching your opinions in the above manner isn't trolling then you're beyond help. Personally, I think this is just another case of a user not being able to see their own post for what it is and cries bias when the mod takes action.

Amirani

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

So, given this spurious and misleading "evidence" to backup their point, I replied that there was obviously no point in trying to debate the matter if that was the counterpoint offered, and basically reiterating my belief that this proposal is another example of PC nanny-state do-goodery that only seeks to absolve people of any personal responsibility or accountability for their actions and that the situation is far from the view expressed by some in that thread of roaming (Mad-Max) style motorists just waiting to run innocent (jay-walking) pedestrians down, or deafen them with the noise from their evil cars.

Why not actually attempt to refute and discredit the "evidence" (or allow others to do so) rather than ignoring it and posting something that doesn't contribute to the discussion?

I actually thought the standard of debate in that thread was pretty good for the most part, from both sides. Plenty of statistical and reasonable anecdotal evidence being used.