A purely hypothetical discussion regarding the poking of bears

Would that be before or after I pointed out that I had nothing left to argue about?  The topic had been dropped until you posted.  I'm completely calm.

Dude, don't poke the bear.  He's a moderator and he asked you (and others) to stop arguing.  Knock it off.

I am in fact exactly the sort of person who is willing to risk a mauling in order to teach the bear a lesson about bullying "weaker" creatures.  At least in theory.  I did not argue; I pointed out, very respectfully that I wasn't arguing.  If the bear is going to go around roaring at everyone she thinks is threatening her cubs, then somebody needs to smack a little sense into her, so that she will change her behavior.

(I'm not talking about Rabit at all anymore, for the record; I'm just running with the metaphor.)

The most effective method of behaviour modification is reward, not punishment. Punishment actually makes learning more difficult. 

You can also ignore it - that works too (unless the person in question is trying to stab your etes out with a pointy stick or something, in which case it may not be the best option under those circumstances ;))…obviously, best done with behaviours you don't want repeated. Otherwise yeah, rewarding is good :).

Heaven forbid anyone should be stabbed in the etes with a sharp stick.

…whatever "etes" are.

I have seen this behavior on another board that I'm on. It didn't end well for the smacker.

Well, the bear started it; the smacker was completely within his rights to stand up and defend himself.  If he "died" for it, well, more proof that the world is an unjust place, which to me is even more reason to get yourself killed in search of justice.

No, they weren't. Especially when they were told specifically to back off.

By the "bear", I would assume.  My whole point was that the opinion of the enforcer is not more important than that of his/her intended victim, no matter how powerful s/he is.

Yeah, actually it can be.

Take this board, for instance. The moderators say "stop", you stop. If you don't, you suffer the consequences. Totally unilaterally. Not unfair. Not one-sided. It's what was agreed to when a user signs up to access and interact on the board.

That is a complete contradiction in terms.  If it's unilateral, then it's one-sided.

It's what was agreed to when a user signs up to access and interact on the board.

"By reading this End-User License Agreement, you agree that Envisioner owns you body and soul until the end of time.  If you disagree with this agreement, please immediately cease using the Earth's atmosphere."  Yeah, no.  I don't accept that entire branch of law as legitimate.  My use of the Internet, and any and all sites thereon, is part and parcel of my First Amendment right to free communication; no form of legislation or administration may legitimately prevent this.  They certainly have the power to prevent it, but never the legitimacy; I will always roundly condemn such acts as injustices.

This is not a SOtM rules question, can it be moved to off topic? (To be clear I am asking if it is possible to move something from one section to another after it is spilt or if it is only possible at the time of the split)

Seconding the request to move this to off-topic.

Point of order: Your First Amendment rights have nothing to do with this situation. The First Amendment prevents the government of the United States from curtailing your freedom of speech; it does not affect the behavior of private entities on their own website, or individuals empowered by those private entities. GTG and their moderators are within their rights to tell you what they told you.

It's also not an injustice. You're not being bullied. A discussion which you were involved in got heated and caustic, and a moderator asked for that to change or else for the discussion to be ended.  I totally sympathize with your annoyance at being told to stop - it's an unfortunate part of being an adult talking with adults in a moderated forum that sometimes you don't always get what feels like your full say. The mod found the conversation, which was not only problematic because of you, and they pulled the plug at that moment. At no point did they single you out. Contesting the mod's behavior is not heroic nor is it standing up for injustice; it's just further complicating an already stressful situation.

Mods, I have tried very hard not to get too personal here, but this is an issue that I get very hot under the collar about; if you think I've crossed a line drop me a note and I will gladly shut the heck up and even apologize if you think it's warranted. Thanks!

First, apologies for forgetting to move the thread when I split it - totally my bad, and thanks for raising it, folks.

Balo, you're fine. You're not attacking anyone, you're pointing out behaviors and actions, while being civil and mature in your response. Believe me, that's appreciated.

And believe me, I'm not like to say anything more on this thread... 

I poked a bear and I liked it.

I hope your other bear don't mind it.

Do bears taste of cherry chapstick?

That First Amendment stuff would only apply to American stuff, I would imagine, as well - I'm not American, I'm not in America, nor have I ever been, and thus I'm pretty sure that none of the Amendments (however many there are, and whatever they all actually mean) would ever apply to me. Or to anyone else not from the USA, which doesn't own the Internet anyway (no-one does, hence it being the Internet ;)), so probably can't really do very much to stop people doing anything they want on any site unless said people are American/in America, and trying to do stuff that's blatantly illegal (like, erm…running their criminal business or trying to hack a US government site). That was what all that SOPA stuff was about a year or two ago, wasn't it? Plus, if a site is hosted in one country, I don't think there's anything the government of another country can do about it if they find something objectionable about it. Other than complain, I suppose. Otherwise, the site belongs to whomever's hosting it and that person/company can do whatever they like regarding permissions and access granted to people who visit it.

Ameena is my hero today.

All of you win.

The freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution are not meant to be exclusive to US citizens; they're supposed to be fundamental to all humans, America was just the first country to stand up and talk about them (well, not really; the ancient Greeks had a lot of the same ideas, they kinda didn't survive Rome and the Dark Ages, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be tried again).  The USA spent a lot of the 20th century promoting these ideals worldwide, and for the most part their efforts were welcomed, up until the MIC got too heavily involved and the emphasis shifted from "making the world safe for democracy" to "making the world profitable for US businesses".

(Note:  I am discussing history, not politics.  But if that's still too close for comfort, I'll let it drop.)

That was what all that SOPA stuff was about a year or two ago, wasn't it?

Not really; SOPA was about Hollywood et al fearing that the Pirate Bay et al was going to cut into their profit margins.  Mostly-American companies trying to control the rest of the world's access to American products, in order to maintain their quasi-monopoly over entire sectors of the world market.  It had very little to do with legality; it was about money, plain and simple.

The right of free speech is not American, referring to it as a 1st amendment right is.

However, while the United States Supreme Court has granted the Internet "The Highest Level of Freedom of Speech" that doesn't in any way affect the rights of >G to restrict what is allowed on their forums.  As long as they are not clearly discriminating against a protected status they aren't in any violation.

Due to >G not being the US Government the first amendment doesn't apply to their policing of this forum.  They are not a public entity.

But with the SOPA thing, I seem to recall it being said that the US government would be able to basically shut down any site they didn't like due to "piracy" and stuff. The whole thing sounded rather silly. I mean, you can't control the Internet - it just doesn't work that way. A load of sites (including Wikipedia, and a load of YouTube channels) had a day-long blackout in protest. Even if the SOPA thing had gone through, I don't really know what the US thought they'd be able to do if they found a site hosted in <insert any country here except the USA> that they didn't like. I mean, even if you're American, if your site's hosted in Germany or something, what are they gonna do? ;)

Pretty much.  But USGov is all but a functioning plutocracy; they wouldn't be shutting down sites whose activities are beneficial for the lobbyist agencies that fund the Congressmens' re-election, and would shut down the ones that are bad for their business.

The whole thing sounded rather silly. I mean, you can't control the Internet - it just doesn't work that way.

That will never convince the Bastions of Control to stop trying.  It's kind of what they do.  All you have is a hammer, and all that.

I mean, even if you're American, if your site's hosted in Germany or something, what are they gonna do?

Block access to that site in all American computers, quite obviously.  It's exactly what China already does to anything they don't like.  But of course…

200×311 20.2 KB

(For "fascism" substitute "communism" if you want to be technical; actual search results for that term suffer from the fact that a large number of people seem to think "socialized medicine" means "socialism" which in turn means "communism", when in fact even communism barely means anything different from fascism in practice, so I figured this image was close enough.)

Also not American here, and no Amendments are relevant to me (whether they're meant to or not), or any of our other non-US members - and there are a lot of us. 

And this is a private forum, and the owners of said forum can basically set whatever rules they like as long as they aren't breaking any laws, just like someone could ban smoking in their own home, even up to the point of physically removing a smoking guest who refused to put the cigarette out (or calling the police to evict said person).

Isn't communism like the opposite of fascism?

And I strenuously object to the caption of that picture. Feminism is nothing to do with this. 

Blocking content/whole sites in certain countries is entirely possible, and happens over here in good old Blighty.

If the governement (or even just your IP) want to they can be stop access to the sites legitimately (there are work arounds though).

International agreements work pretty well.

SOPA wasn't nearly as dangerous as people made out, nor would it have been effective.  It was a bad idea, and never had a good chance of passing.  But it made great publicity.

TWO COWS ~{Matthias Varga}

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
throws the milk away

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy
grows.
You sell them and retire on the income

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to
produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why
the cow has dropped dead.

A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
You still only have two cows.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and
market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows,
but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive…

TOO MANY COWS

WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE 2 COWS!?

WHY DON'T I HAVE ANY COWS?

Ironically enough, in the Sentinels Shattered forum game, I accidentally caught myself typing Ammo Drop as Amoo Drop.

All I could picture was Bunker calling in a squadron of Holsteins in army helmets and parachutes!

I've never herd such silliness. 

It would be a misteak to let this thread get hoof as off-topic as other pun threads have.

Let's not Stampede into something we'll regret later.

I have no beef with that idea. We can't hide the fact that given the chance, we'll make dodgy puns until the cows come home. And that'd be milking it. 

Shut up the lot of you, all that talking and it's just a load of old bull. There's so much of it in here it's almost past-yer-eyes, I am not amoo-sed.

I need to ruminate on this for a while. It cud get messy.

All this pun threads, it's getting udderly redonkulous.

Don't you mean "udderly"? ;)

ITT: as usual, every conflict dissolves into puns.