westy

Member Profile


Member Since: July 25, 2006
Last Power Points used: never
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to westy

enoch says...

i got ya westy,
and i understood that it was just an example.i responded to sia,but it pertains to your comment also.
i think i clarified my point..i tried to anyway.
the taliban is more about control of land and commerce than religion.its the religion they hide behind to enact their control.my response alludes to that.

vairetube says...

there will be a new sift roast soon, of me for some reason. come roast me, though im rather bland, and be roasted in kind!

also... are those things starting to itch yet?! only another week and a half to go, and then you can go back to neglecting the edit feature in proper form!

have a good one sir westy.

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

In your analogy- I would say it's more likely that the half-blind policeman thought you were driving on the sidewalk purposely trying run over old ladies- and should therefore be executed.

The judge determined that you were in fact just trying to scare the old ladies into dropping their groceries and didn't really want to kill anyone. Still guilty of reckless driving.

In reply to this comment by westy:
Update,,,

"You are guilty. I think your intention was ironic satire - but you are guilty. A driver can still be charged with reckless driving- even though it was surely not their intention to cause harm."

Well this analogy is not correct a corect analgy would be

1) A half blind policeman perceives a driver to be driving reckless and he happens to work for the half blind community where 30% are half blind

2) a judge determines that the guy was not driving reckless due to the fact that the only evidence is from sumone whose senses directly relating to the crime are compramized.

3)yet the juge decides to repramand the driver non the less in order to prove to the community that drunk driving will not be tolerated.


now you can see how this is not fair on the driver who was not driving bad in the first place?

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You are guilty. I think your intention was ironic satire - but you are guilty. A driver can still be charged with reckless driving- even though it was surely not their intention to cause harm.

Managing a community that is not 4chan - often seems to be about deciding where the boundaries are. From the very beginning of the Sift, we decided to draw a line prohibiting racist comments. Where to put that line is also a judgment call. Your comment fell on the wrong side of the line IMO. It is my opinion- and unfortunately that's the system we use now for deciding these things.

I don't want you to modify your comment while hobbled, because I want the line to be visible.

In reply to this comment by westy:
In reply to this comment by dag:
Westy- this is your official reprimand notification for this comment. I believe what you said was ironic satire- but it could set a low bar and encourage hate speech in less sophisticated members - which is something we'd like to avoid in our community. I also don't enjoy the shit storm your comment stirred. You've disturbed the Sift wa.

Your sentence is 30 days hobblement with remand credit to be given for hobble time served. Your release date is Thursday, August 6th - 2009. During this period, any further actions contrary to the Sift community guidelines may result in temporary or permanent banishment.


........................................................................................................

Not that it matters because you are paying for web hosting but

You believe what I said was ironic satire and are hobbling me because I might cause Hate speech in the “less sophisticated” sift crowd?

That is not a very just attitude and in fact doesn’t make that much sense.

Firstly I don’t agree that what I put would likely cause more people to be racist and secondly surly you would just ban them for actually braking the sift user agreement?

What you have done is say not guilty but then sentence me with a guilty verdict any way In the form of a punishment.

In addition to this You claim I am responsible for all the comments on the post despite the fact that I made no attempt to engage or encourage discussion, when in fact what I did was to clarify my position and the realty of the situation with anyone that asked me I even replied with a PM to the first person that commented on my profile (before all the “less sophisticated” people made comments and sift talk posts ) and then subsequently posted My response in the discussion as I believe this more than adequately explained my position.


You should unhobble me .
If anything to allow me to edit my posts so they make more sense , in fact rather ironically the only real Negative the Hobblment has is on the community who want / bother to read the shit I write all the other functions that im barred from I don’t think I normally use.

I have decided to send this to you as a Profile reply as to not start another huge “less sophisticated “User sift talk people discussion.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos