WWYD if your child was gay?

[Electric Amish]

I wouldn't do anything. Why would anything need to be done?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Skacer
Personally, I was waiting for someone to say they'd throw their gay baby down a well. But when all the tame responses got axed I knew my dream of a good old fashioned conservative, emotion fueled response was a loss.

I dunno. I've been saying for a long time that there never seem to be any news stories of children falling down wells anymore. Maybe the wells don't exist.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

not all said murder. one said fix the dna.


but the point some of us are pointing out is if they are not going to allow all points in a thread that ask for it. then the thread should have been locked. not threatening bans to those that have a alternitive viewpoint.

 

[TheFamilyMan]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: fatdragondzc
sleep on it and wen i wake up hopefulli its all a dream. if not, time make a new baby and start from scratch. label this one failure and send it off.

We have many good, contributing members who happen to be gay.
You may not continue to post such verbal abuse on our forums.
Doing so again may be reason to suspend your posting privileges for an indefinite period of time.

Is that clear?

AnandTech Moderator hzl

Not trying to call a mod out here, but please explain why ATOT also has many good, contributing members who happen to be Catholic, Christian, et al and they suffer worse abuse at the hands of many agnostic, atheistic and anti-religion posters? Why are the anti-religious posters not sent on vacation/banned or at least held to the same standards mods like holding someone who posts something regarding anything but positive responses regarding homosexuality? I mean ffs, a topic was locked because someone called people who think Tony Romo is good "Tony Romo-Homo's" (which is quite fifth-grade but made me chuckle regardless) but I've seen more than one post bashing/flaming/attacking religious beliefs that had mods posting within...

Because calling someone a failure for being gay is not the same as blasting religious beliefs or religion in general.

Bashing is bashing...whether you bash them for religious beliefs or because of homosexuality...the bottom line is that you attack them and/or make fun of them. Calling someone a failure for believing in Jesus Christ or of believing in a higher value is just as despicable as calling someone a failure for being gay...it's just that calling someone a failure for being religious here on ATOT is protected while calling someone a failure for being homosexual is bannable. Double-standard straight and evident.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Skacer
Personally, I was waiting for someone to say they'd throw their gay baby down a well. But when all the tame responses got axed I knew my dream of a good old fashioned conservative, emotion fueled response was a loss.

I dunno. I've been saying for a long time that there never seem to be any news stories of children falling down wells anymore. Maybe the wells don't exist.

was'nt there one a few months ago?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

No, she used a mod edit to warn 3 members that their comments were not welcome and that they would be banned if they continued.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

No, she used a mod edit to warn 3 members that their comments were not welcome and that they would be banned if they continued.

in a thread that is ASKING for the opionons.


it sets the tone you can't be honest for fear of banning. the thread should have been locked and no threats.

 

[Chaotic42]

Deal with it. It might catch me off guard at first, but I'd be okay with it. I'd have to do a lot of prepping to talk about it with the rest of my family though.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: fatdragondzc
sleep on it and wen i wake up hopefulli its all a dream. if not, time make a new baby and start from scratch. label this one failure and send it off.

We have many good, contributing members who happen to be gay.
You may not continue to post such verbal abuse on our forums.
Doing so again may be reason to suspend your posting privileges for an indefinite period of time.

Is that clear?

AnandTech Moderator hzl

Not trying to call a mod out here, but please explain why ATOT also has many good, contributing members who happen to be Catholic, Christian, et al and they suffer worse abuse at the hands of many agnostic, atheistic and anti-religion posters? Why are the anti-religious posters not sent on vacation/banned or at least held to the same standards mods like holding someone who posts something regarding anything but positive responses regarding homosexuality? I mean ffs, a topic was locked because someone called people who think Tony Romo is good "Tony Romo-Homo's" (which is quite fifth-grade but made me chuckle regardless) but I've seen more than one post bashing/flaming/attacking religious beliefs that had mods posting within...

Because calling someone a failure for being gay is not the same as blasting religious beliefs or religion in general.

Bashing is bashing...whether you bash them for religious beliefs or because of homosexuality...the bottom line is that you attack them and/or make fun of them. Calling someone a failure for believing in Jesus Christ or of believing in a higher value is just as despicable as calling someone a failure for being gay...it's just that calling someone a failure for being religious here on ATOT is protected while calling someone a failure for being homosexual is bannable. Double-standard straight and evident.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone call someone a failure for being religious. Again, attacking a person for who they are is different than attacking a religious belief.

Besides, nobody is entitled to free speech here. Ultimately, the mods decide what is and is not acceptable. Don't like it? Post somewhere else.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

No, she used a mod edit to warn 3 members that their comments were not welcome and that they would be banned if they continued.

What do you mean no? Did you even bother to look at what I'm talking about?

what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

That's not a warning.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Deal with it. It might catch me off guard at first, but I'd be okay with it. I'd have to do a lot of prepping to talk about it with the rest of my family though.

yeap. and if the rest of the family does not like it (though my family would be open. only one worry about would be my step-father) then fuck em.

if they don't like how my son/daughter is i really don't give a flying fuck.

 

[intogamer]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: fatdragondzc
sleep on it and wen i wake up hopefulli its all a dream. if not, time make a new baby and start from scratch. label this one failure and send it off.

We have many good, contributing members who happen to be gay.
You may not continue to post such verbal abuse on our forums.
Doing so again may be reason to suspend your posting privileges for an indefinite period of time.

Is that clear?

AnandTech Moderator hzl

Not trying to call a mod out here, but please explain why ATOT also has many good, contributing members who happen to be Catholic, Christian, et al and they suffer worse abuse at the hands of many agnostic, atheistic and anti-religion posters? Why are the anti-religious posters not sent on vacation/banned or at least held to the same standards mods like holding someone who posts something regarding anything but positive responses regarding homosexuality? I mean ffs, a topic was locked because someone called people who think Tony Romo is good "Tony Romo-Homo's" (which is quite fifth-grade but made me chuckle regardless) but I've seen more than one post bashing/flaming/attacking religious beliefs that had mods posting within...

Because calling someone a failure for being gay is not the same as blasting religious beliefs or religion in general.

Bashing is bashing...whether you bash them for religious beliefs or because of homosexuality...the bottom line is that you attack them and/or make fun of them. Calling someone a failure for believing in Jesus Christ or of believing in a higher value is just as despicable as calling someone a failure for being gay...it's just that calling someone a failure for being religious here on ATOT is protected while calling someone a failure for being homosexual is bannable. Double-standard straight and evident.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone call someone a failure for being religious. Again, attacking a person for who they are is different than attacking a religious belief.

Besides, nobody is entitled to free speech here. Ultimately, the mods decide what is and is not acceptable. Don't like it? Post somewhere else.

It is free speech until the mods get to ya. There is no open free speech.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

See my example. Saying:

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

Is expressing a personal opinion as a moderator.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Bashing is bashing...whether you bash them for religious beliefs or because of homosexuality...the bottom line is that you attack them and/or make fun of them. Calling someone a failure for believing in Jesus Christ or of believing in a higher value is just as despicable as calling someone a failure for being gay...it's just that calling someone a failure for being religious here on ATOT is protected while calling someone a failure for being homosexual is bannable. Double-standard straight and evident.

Not really. You can bash people for many reasons here, it just so happens that bashing of minorities is disallowed. Religious folks are in no way a minority.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

No, she used a mod edit to warn 3 members that their comments were not welcome and that they would be banned if they continued.

No, she specifically replied to one post with a viewpoint which would have been better served as a regular post. For the other two, you are correct.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

 

[intogamer]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

See my example. Saying:

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

Is expressing a personal opinion as a moderator.

Moderator edits are teh superior authority.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

No, she used a mod edit to warn 3 members that their comments were not welcome and that they would be banned if they continued.

What do you mean no? Did you even bother to look at what I'm talking about?

what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

That's not a warning.

Yes, I read the posts and I took it as a warning. A subtle warning but yes, that's a warning IMO. I think the italics (which you edited out) make a point that she was concerned with the direction the thread was going.

Edit-You guys get your panties in a twist over the dumbest shit sometimes... :laugh:

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: fatdragondzc
sleep on it and wen i wake up hopefulli its all a dream. if not, time make a new baby and start from scratch. label this one failure and send it off.

We have many good, contributing members who happen to be gay.
You may not continue to post such verbal abuse on our forums.
Doing so again may be reason to suspend your posting privileges for an indefinite period of time.

Is that clear?

AnandTech Moderator hzl

Not trying to call a mod out here, but please explain why ATOT also has many good, contributing members who happen to be Catholic, Christian, et al and they suffer worse abuse at the hands of many agnostic, atheistic and anti-religion posters? Why are the anti-religious posters not sent on vacation/banned or at least held to the same standards mods like holding someone who posts something regarding anything but positive responses regarding homosexuality? I mean ffs, a topic was locked because someone called people who think Tony Romo is good "Tony Romo-Homo's" (which is quite fifth-grade but made me chuckle regardless) but I've seen more than one post bashing/flaming/attacking religious beliefs that had mods posting within...

Because calling someone a failure for being gay is not the same as blasting religious beliefs or religion in general.

Bashing is bashing...whether you bash them for religious beliefs or because of homosexuality...the bottom line is that you attack them and/or make fun of them. Calling someone a failure for believing in Jesus Christ or of believing in a higher value is just as despicable as calling someone a failure for being gay...it's just that calling someone a failure for being religious here on ATOT is protected while calling someone a failure for being homosexual is bannable. Double-standard straight and evident.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone call someone a failure for being religious. Again, attacking a person for who they are is different than attacking a religious belief.

Besides, nobody is entitled to free speech here. Ultimately, the mods decide what is and is not acceptable. Don't like it? Post somewhere else.

Except we now have written rules albeit rules in name only as this thread again demonstrates.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

No, she used a mod edit to warn 3 members that their comments were not welcome and that they would be banned if they continued.

What do you mean no? Did you even bother to look at what I'm talking about?

what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

That's not a warning.

Yes, I read the posts and I took it as a warning. A subtle warning but yes, that's a warning IMO. I think the italics (which you edited out) make a point that she was concerned with the direction the thread was going.

Well it was a lame warning then, as thinly veiled as it may have been.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

No, she used a mod edit to warn 3 members that their comments were not welcome and that they would be banned if they continued.

What do you mean no? Did you even bother to look at what I'm talking about?

what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

That's not a warning.

Yes, I read the posts and I took it as a warning. A subtle warning but yes, that's a warning IMO. I think the italics (which you edited out) make a point that she was concerned with the direction the thread was going.

Concern?! As much as I disagree with 0roo0roo's opinion, he was expressing it. The mod blatantly questioned that opinion (implying an opinion of his/her own). That isn't acceptable. Either this issue can be discussed or it can't. There should be no "my way or the highway" approach from the mods.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

No, she used a mod edit to warn 3 members that their comments were not welcome and that they would be banned if they continued.

What do you mean no? Did you even bother to look at what I'm talking about?

what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

That's not a warning.

Yes, I read the posts and I took it as a warning. A subtle warning but yes, that's a warning IMO. I think the italics (which you edited out) make a point that she was concerned with the direction the thread was going.

Concern?! As much as I disagree with 0roo0roo's opinion, he was expressing it. The mod blatantly questioned that opinion (implying an opinion of his/her own). That isn't acceptable. Either this issue can be discussed or it can't. There should be no "my way or the highway" approach from the mods.

Well, maybe hzl can weigh in on this. I'm curious to see what she has to say since none of us are her all we can do is jump to conclusions about what her intent is/was.

Besides, it's not like she banned him for saying it.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: fatdragondzc
sleep on it and wen i wake up hopefulli its all a dream. if not, time make a new baby and start from scratch. label this one failure and send it off.

We have many good, contributing members who happen to be gay.
You may not continue to post such verbal abuse on our forums.
Doing so again may be reason to suspend your posting privileges for an indefinite period of time.

Is that clear?

AnandTech Moderator hzl

Not trying to call a mod out here, but please explain why ATOT also has many good, contributing members who happen to be Catholic, Christian, et al and they suffer worse abuse at the hands of many agnostic, atheistic and anti-religion posters? Why are the anti-religious posters not sent on vacation/banned or at least held to the same standards mods like holding someone who posts something regarding anything but positive responses regarding homosexuality? I mean ffs, a topic was locked because someone called people who think Tony Romo is good "Tony Romo-Homo's" (which is quite fifth-grade but made me chuckle regardless) but I've seen more than one post bashing/flaming/attacking religious beliefs that had mods posting within...

QFT, although what do you expect in the new communist AT world. At least I wasn't disapointed in my estimate of the replies once I saw the thread title and number of replies.

Because anyway you look at it, religion is a true choice.
You are not born a Catholic. You are not born Baptist.
Religion has always been a center point for arguments because in essence it is no more than an opinion. And unfortunately the opinions of the masses can alter the world of people who don't believe in what you do. There is a lot of resentment when it comes to religion.

And I could find an equally large portion of people whom would happily make the same statements about gays.

Similiar statements maybe, but not the same.
My statement was just stating the truth.
Don't teach a kid about Christianity, don't drag them to church, never mention it, and until your kid reaches a public environment, he or she will never know who Jesus is.

As for homosexuals, I'm not sure what you should do to prevent that. Taught or not taught, rich, poor, tall, short, black, white, American, British, blonde, brunette, single parent, nuclear family, male or female.
It just happens. I'm not 100% sure why. Are you?

Long before you, me, or even the time of Jesus many different groups of people were trying to identify/classify their thoughts and feelings into what we today would call Jesus/God; so while the precise name may not be there, I think it's a stretch to say the methodology would not form.

Not all opinions and beliefs are religion. All religions are opinions and beliefs.
Religion is taught. Opinions and beliefs formed through experience are not. They may be lessoned learned but only within yourself.

Sexuality on the other hand can be quite a struggle, to those who struggle with it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
It's complete bullshit that hzl used her moderator privilege to reply to people as though she was posting in the thread.

i think the correct avenue to pursue this is by Pm'ing Derek
otherwise it could be construed as a mod callout

If she's going to use her moderator privileges to post personal opinions then, yes, I am calling her out.

What personal opinions did she post? She made 3 edits that I saw on the first page in response to a couple members who suggested murder as a solution to a gay child. All I see are 3 warnings that if those members continued they would be banned.

I see nothing wrong with her edits.

She used a mod edit for a response that really should have been posted using her own account (see 0roo0roo's post).

No, she used a mod edit to warn 3 members that their comments were not welcome and that they would be banned if they continued.

What do you mean no? Did you even bother to look at what I'm talking about?

what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

That's not a warning.

Yes, I read the posts and I took it as a warning. A subtle warning but yes, that's a warning IMO. I think the italics (which you edited out) make a point that she was concerned with the direction the thread was going.

Edit-You guys get your panties in a twist over the dumbest shit sometimes... :laugh:

:roll: You got your panties in a wad because I copied/pasted the text and it didn't maintain the italics. It's not a warning, it's an opinion. And it's an opinion that she didn't put a whole lot of thought into IMO. What parent would WANT their child to have to deal with the problems associated with being a homosexual? Parents want what's best for their kids. Why should sexual preference be any different? I don't want my kid to have to deal with ridicule and hate from ignorant people. So if there was a way to alter DNA (prior to birth) and make a kid NOT be gay without affecting anything else, can you honestly say you wouldn't consider it?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Yes, I read the posts and I took it as a warning. A subtle warning but yes, that's a warning IMO. I think the italics (which you edited out) make a point that she was concerned with the direction the thread was going.

Well it was a lame warning then, as thinly veiled as it may have been.

Thinly veiled? Shit, if that was a veiled warning then a friggin wool burqa, wrapped in a fire blanket, would have been easier to see through. Hence why I think it was simply a reply, not a warning.