Anonymouse

Licensing

Anahid,

You had to suffer through several paragraphs of my comment only to come up with a conclusion based on a misread sentence. :)

Oh well. Stating reality is not the same as endorsing it. But go ahead and assume.

Here is a song which I find so very humorous about people we think we know so well, those we have held, kissed and loved, let alone those on whom we have never set eyes nor ever will but insist we can pinpoint and label. 

Thanks Anonymouse for the great blog and my vote is YES to brown basmati.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNKWGySZssg

Lay my head on the surgeon's table
Take my fingerprints if you are able
Pick my brains, pick my pockets
Steal my eyeballs and come back for the sockets
Run every kind of test from a to z
And you'll still know nothin' 'bout me

Run my name through your computer
Mention me in passing to your college tutor
Check my records, check my facts
Check if I paid my income tax
Pore over everything in my c.v.
But you'll still know nothin' 'bout me
You'll still know nothin' 'bout me

Search my house with a fine tooth comb
Turn over everything 'cause I won't be home
Set up your microscope, and tell me what you see
You'll still know nothin' 'bout me
You'll still know nothin' 'bout me
You'll still know nothin' 'bout me etc.
You'll still know zip a-bout me

NO, why should we have the ability to control comments?

So we can censor comments we don't like and goes against our world view? So we can only leave bale ghorban goo style posts below our blogs to make us feel better about our beliefs? 

Q,

again, in reading down the thread--I have found an important point you made about Hoder which I would like to discuss with you, but I don't want to do it here because it's off-topic. When you have time, would you mind please posting on the following blog letting me know you're there, and then I will ask you a question.

//iranian.com/main/blog/rosie/hossein-derakhshan-hoder

thx

Sampling:: correction for anyone who's aware of the problem

I was hoping the thread was over but since it's not I will just say that I was just rereading down the thread and I noticed my post titled 'Mouse, may I ask you a question?' had a big mistake in it so I changed it. It sounded at the end  like I was saying the thread is a good statistical sampling of all the regular members. What I was saying is that it is a good sampling of all the regular members who CARE; therefore it is the legitimate sampling.

Anahid

Libel (not slander, slander must be spoken and audible) and defamation is a political tool of choice used by the dominant clique(s) on this site to silence, marginalize and generally ostracize the voices of various people and their views which this  in-group clique doesn't happen to like.  Unless the libel/defamation is coming from someone not part of the in-group, they are generally not deleted and so are kept. The moderators will not act.  Period! This tactic has been used on me many times here and it is curious that a well known representative of the in-group perpetrators of this tactic is now locking horns with you.

When the public libel/defamation does not work by silencing a given individual, the in-group clique then initiates whisper campaigns against the individual by privately contacting various contributors of site who have either contributed to a posters given blog or commented favorably, and they are basically fed libellous porkies about the given poster and manipulated into shunning said individual. I've caught a certain dominant in-group red handed doing this when an individual contacted me privately forwarding private email exchanges between themselves and several individuals posting here (and amongst the dominant in-group) who were basically trying to shake this individual down not to talk or interact with me or respond to my blogs.

Just note the patterns here! IC is a virtual Fascist state.

-

May we be amongst those who are to bring about the transfiguration of the Earth - Yasna XXX 9

AntiMozakhraf. What are you talking about?

AntiMozakhraf, what does my comment have to do with you?

Dear Solo, what you have written is licensing slander on IC

Dear Solo, you have written a very long comment but basically what it says is that I am supposed to be OK with slander because IC is a scoial site? With all due respect, what you have written makes no sense. It is one thing to make light of others ' comments and it is totally another to slander a person with real name when the writer uses fake user Id. Worse than that are those who no one knows them with their fake user id. At least there are writers who even though they use fake id on IC, they are known to some on IC so they keep a minimum of respect and truthfulness. But when one registers for the sole purpose of slandering another one, how can you approve it by casually saying "IC is a social site". Your argument is super weak and just gives license to slander on IC.

Spy Work

Anahid,

IC is not a social site, though some use it to socialize. I am even told that there is a subterranean group - a certain clique whose concern is to construct a 'who's who' list. What fun for people who are here to find out about others - and not just opinions or comments.

People are multi-layered. The same person who writes poetry can write political essays, he/she can crack a joke or two and also can have ill feelings towards the writings of another, and may wish to voice them.  There is no rule that says all these facets of a person have to come under the umbrella of one handle, and even if it does, there arer no means to validate the character of the commenter as good, bad or indifferent.

The moment one attaches certain attributes to the person behind a handle that go beyond what is written, one is prone to be projecting, extrapolating, guessing and misleading oneself.  People can have very different styles in writing. There is no hallmark to identify who is behind a certain piece of text. Good writers in English can engage in pidgin English writing. Polite people who write under their own name and family name can write nasty remarks under another handle. And there is no way to decipher who is who, so why bother.

If someone writes something unkind, then one is better off simply glossing over it and moving on. Spy work in Cyber does not benefit anyone because one is almost always going to be left empty handed in terms of proof.

But content remains intact - no matter who writes it and for whatever reason. There are no awards for people who write under one name, their own name, their dog's name or whatever. To have this matter pointed out over and over again by people who have chosen through reasons of their own to disclose their own names is futile. 

Like I said, some come here to socialize and they do wish to find out a great deal about another poster who interests them. For that there is the 'contact' button whereby a one on one conversation can be had to one's heart's content. Others want to only read comments from any and all.

As for slander etc, acid comments come in all shapes and sizes. One can be directly aggressive, post a nasty comment to a blogger; another may choose a passive aggressive approach - e.g. write a blog making fun of another blogger, get others to join in for fun, have a good laugh at the expense of the said blogger, and then delete the blog. IC is a free for all. So, one needs to simply let it be.

Over time a blogger develops a thick skin for criticism and life goes on. 

I'm not a regular user...

But my vote is NO. And some of you will undoubtedly feel that this is out of line coming from an infrequent contributor, but aside from the obvious cencorship issue, I vote NO because I do not consider the average IC blogger worthy of such power.

With that out of the way and advance apologies to the owner of the blog for going off subject here, please allow me to address Ms. Hojjat: 

You wrote "By the way, "Shepesh", this is a curious kind if thing that has stuck in your mind from a blog written many weeks ago."

What excatly are you insinuating Ms Hojjat? That this user is somehow connected to me? Because I assure you he/she is not. Given this fact, wouldn't you agree that your comment is libelous? Odd (or perhaps not), coming from someone who cries foul at the remotest hint of criticism or merely being questioned even.

That brings me back to my vote - This behaviour is typical and a perfect example of why a blogger on a site at IC's level should not have control over comments.

Anonymouse, I'll take my apology back if you don't mind. Looks like I wasn't going off subject afterall.

......

I did not vote 'cause I know I am just a smal fry, not a mover and shaker on IC! :O))

Please enjoy yourself and don't stress out!

Relax!!!!!!!!!

What I am trying to say is

even those who use own names attack others and should not assume they are somehow superior because of it. It stuck in my mind because I read all the comments on that blog, even the ones which were deleted by moderators. The comments are for everyone to see.

MM,

25 votes.?

19 to 6.?

Fin

Shepesh, funny the kind of thing that sticks in your mind

Shepesh, I don't know what you are trying to achieve, what I wrote is true. Many readers on this site have seen it too. I don't like to go on endlessly exchanging comments with you on this subject. I just bought a book about "Akhavan Sales which in addition to his poems, has some writeup on him. I am excited to read the book. Also there are other blogs on IC. I think I join others who consider this case closed. Nays have it.

By the way, "Shepesh", this is a curious kind if thing that has stuck in your mind from a blog written many weeks ago. 

2376 reads, 190 comments, 17? votes - no stuffing ballot box

.

Anahid

The reason I asked is because I read another blog which stuck in my mind, where you accused someone of being registered for one hour when they asked you a simple question politely.

//iranian.com/main/blog/anahid-hojjati/i-just-wanted-express-my-gratitude-jahanshah-javid-his-contributions-site

Shepesh, an example is user id "YeahLikeWhatEver"

On a Sunday at the end of August 2010, a person just registered as "YeahLikeWhatEver. He/She slandered me and I flagged the comment. However, the person was not blocked so later at night, he/she came back and continued the slander. This time, I flagged and I believe he/she was blocked. He/she might have written slanderous comments against others too. By the way, this is not my interpretation. Solo had commented that really it does not matter if a person has been on IC few minutes or many years. In reality, if a person is very new on IC, they are not going to write slanderous comments against other writers of IC. It is the pattern of some established commentators who are abusive of others but sometimes do it under brand new user ids.

Okay, the last one was a spoof. Read it or don't, doesn't matter

It's a satire. A reductio ad absurdum. A blog unto itself. The only thing that really matters here is that the tallly is now something like 19 against, 6 in favor. So unless Mouse convincingly assures me that he would have made the same fuss about the sampling not being representative if the tally were the other way around, I feel the case is closed.

Anahid

You say "there are times that it is important the length of time a person has been on IC when it is too short"

Please can you give an example? Why did you not flag the comment? Why are you putting your own interpretations on people's comments?

Mouse..you asked me if I am worried...

about others deleting my comments. No, I am not, because I would just make a copy of my comments that I had put a lot into and/or thought could possibly be seen as abusive, if I were on a thread of someone who doesn't like me. It would not be a lot of work because I am rarely abusive. Then if one of my comments were deleted, I would just repost it, asking the person to please explain why they deleted it, in most deferential terms.

Of course we would need a RULE about whether that was allowed. Something like:

COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DELETED CANNOT BE REPOSTED EVEN IF THEY START OFF DEFERENTIALLY, UNLESS ANY PARTS THAT THE WRITER THINKS MAY HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED AS OFFENSIVE TO THE BLOG AUTHOR ARE EITHER EXED OUT OR MODIFIED. IF THE BLOG AUTHOR CHOOSES TO DELETE THE REPOSTED COMMENT TOO, HE  MUST PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION OF WHY HE STILL FOUND IT OBJECTIONABLE.

HOWEVER (still on the rule here...):

COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DELETED CAN BE REPOSTED IF THEY ARE COMPLETELY REWORKED IN CLEARLY POLITE FASHION, THERE IS A PRECEDENT. JAVID ALWAYS ALLOWED THAT. BUT HE DIDN'T ALWAYS ALLOW REPOSTS OF THE COMMENT IN THE ORIGINAL FORM QUESTIONING THE DELETION, ONLY SOMETIMES. SO THAT IS THE RULE BECAUSE JAVID MADE IT (ALBEIT ONLY IMPLICITLY. NOT EXPLICITLY), AND HE IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF THE NEW AUTHOR-CONTROLLED FORUM, AS WE ALL KNOW. 

End of rule.

Of course first we would have to somehow get Javid to explicitly draft the rule--even though he admitts he hates rules AND ISN'T GOOD AT MAKING THEM--because obviously we couldn't make it ourselves. That would be too complicated. And anyway we couldn't even vote on it, since voting does not give a representative sampling. But that's all fine because Javid is the ultimate arbiter of the author-controlled forum. As we all know.

So in answer to your question, Mouse, I would just follow the rule.

_______________

I'm not sure if you also wanted to know if I am afraid that specific OTHER people might be unjustly deleted by specific people who don't like them. Yes, of course I am, but if it happened I would just remind them of the rule.

****************

Fer crissake, people, this is not Hoder's blog. That was HIS. He could and did do whatever the f-k he wanted.. And this is not Facebook. A Facebook account is someone's OWN private account for their friends, AND THEY CAN SIMPLY BLOCK ANYONE, ANYONE AT ALL, at any time. This is a public open free speech forum.

And they lived happily ever after.

THE END

Dear Flying Solo, the reason sometimes, length of...

Dear Solo, in your comment, you stated that you do not care if someone has been here on IC long time or short time. The reason sometimes it is mentioned that someone has been on IC only for 15 minutes is that some regular IC contributors are against others. However, rather than using their own user id, they register with a new id.  Then they use this new handle; as you call it, to attack the other person whom they don't like and these are worst kind of attacks since the person will not be even using this new id much in many cases. So there are times that it is important the length of time a person has been on IC when it is too short.

A total mess!

This blog has became a total mess! I came back after just one day, and can't follow the trend at all!

Good luck to everyone!

PS-Mardom Mazloom jan: I agree with you on Q and Kadivar...just remind you that the correct word is "yek saal motevali" and not motevari. Because Motevari means "farari"....LOL

Farsi hamamoun kharab shodeh. We need to help each other. Hope you forgive me for that.

LOL, Q calling me hypocrite

Earlier today on this thread, Q called me and VPK hypocrite. This is so funny. As a matter of fact I wear it as a badge of honor that Q calls me negative names. I am not going to respond to him for multiple reasons. But I don't have to. Fortunately, many people on IC know about him and his MO.   "Khers" had a very good comment on this  thread where he wrote:

Khers
Sat Oct 02, 2010 05:50 PM PDT

که خودش تنها تهمت و افترا زن در این سایت باشه.  آخه خجالت هم خوب
چیزیه.  از یک طرف بلاگ مینویسه به چندین نفر در این سایت میگه اسرائیلی، و
از یک طرف اشک تمساح میریزه و ننه من غریبم در میاره که مردم اینجا
"slander" میکنند.  

آقای کیو سابقهٔ تهمت و افترا زدن شما در این سایت برای همه مشخصه.  هیچ
کس این فیلم بازی شما رو اینجا باور نیمکنه.  برو این اراجیف رو به کسانی‌
بگو که نمیشناسنت. 

Sorry, my last post is a bit of a mess.

I got carried away by the heat of the moment. I will rethink and rewrite it. I know there are some important points somewhere in there...

_____________

Oh, the hell with it, I deleted it instead.

DEL

No

Giving the blogger the power to moderate his/her own blog is like IC renting out space. If that is what IC wants to do, all well and good. There could be a fee built into that option.  Bloggers who want to be in complete charge of their blog can 'rent' a corner on IC. Who knows, in time this could be a good revenue generator as well.

But if a person places their blog on IC which is a site open to public, then that blog needs to be open to all for commenting.  Some comments are not going to be to the liking of the blogger or the readership. So what? That is real life. Not everyone is going to agree with us.

I like the idea of rating blogs and comments. Many of us readers hardly ever comment but we also may want to let it be known that we like a blog or a comment. That function would be great.  A blogger can 'build' a 'like' library and a 'dislike' one as well.  That's more stats than censorship and, in time, it will be a reflection of the readership of IC. That would also only work if each 'registered' user gets to click 'like' or 'dislike' only ONCE! :)

Lastly, I have noticed that there are posters who feel more 'ownership' to this site because they have been here longer. They are quick to point out for e.g. that a new poster is only a 'few hours old'.  I can't see this as being relevant. Whether you have been on IC for 15 years or 15 minutes, your comment ought to be viewed just for content not the source.  Plus, people are multi-layered. Some bloggers write poetry with one handle, political pieces with another and jokes with yet another. Why should it matter? I for one am not hung up about how many handles a 'person' has. Each may have their own reason for why they choose that route.  Some folks are here to socialize and therefore are keen to get to know the 'person' (with or without real name) but others are here to read content and for those, really the source and seniority counts for nil. 

You be nice, Q - let others go

e.g., I made a comment to your thread and the first sentence of your reply was something like I was not worth it or something like that.  Do not worry about others.  Attend to your own garden.

Now, here are people throwing slop/ps Mouse.(Re-edited

del

آقا مظلوم

اون بلاگی رو که من بهش اشاره کردم از طرف کسی‌ دیگری نوشته شده بود و کیو خودش رو دخالت داد.  تازه، مساله اینجا اذیت و آزار بقیه مشترکان این سایت است.  فرق بین گمنام بودن و استفاده از اسم اصلی‌ یک مو شکافی کشکی کیو است که میخواهد از زیر مسوولیت در برود.  کیو استاد تهمت زدن به بقیه مشترکان این سایت است. چیزی که کیو میگه اینه: "شما اگر اسم اصلی‌ خود را استفاده نمیکنید، آقای کیو آزاد است که هر تهمت و ناروا و "slander" که می‌خواهد بر ضد شما بنویسد و از تمام بلاگ‌های این سایت جنگ و دعوا درست کند".  آیا این درست است؟  

Mouse, may I ask you a question?

Why did you write this blog? Didn't you say it was a vote?

So...if it were the other way around and if the aye's had it...would you still be arguing so vociferously that the sampling is not valid?

Of course you could say that you didn't expect such a small sampling but if you check the number of hits it is clear that the VAST majority are simply indifferent. Please don't give me the argument that when a lot of people participate on a thread the number of hits is meaningless. When I first posted here today there were about thirty people who'd posted on this thread and 1670 hits. So the people who posted are the ones who count (no pun intended) because the majority don't care. The blog has been up for days, it has been most discussed for days, and highly visible on the recent comments page for days. The regulars know perfectly well it's here and they're not voting.

Okay maybe it's not 80%--no doubt a good number of people who care haven't seen this--but the sampling is clearly indicative of a good majority of those who care against author control.

But let's say just for argument's sake that it's not a good sampling. I ask you again: would you be arguing so ardently that it isn't if it were reversed and it were 18 yes and 6 no?

چرا آقا خرسه، کیو اینجا راست میگه...

این کدیور بود که اول کیو رو به اندازیه یک سال تمام به ماتحت مبارکش تشبیه کرد. من اگر همین کارو با شما میکردم، شما هم خوشت نمیومد, برادر!

someone else made a comment on the airport police

and how they forced a girl to show her Facebook page, and I agreed with them since I was told, first-hand, that similar incident happened.