Suck it, Ben.

[Asher]

He's a liar because he has different beliefs and views than most on this forum, and not always can link to some online source?

No, Ben Jr.

Ben is a liar because he blatantly and constantly lies. Then he tries to spin it after or just ignore it completely. He does this constantly.

A perfect example is in this thread: he keeps insisting that this pro-life group puts up signs around campus -- signs he hasn't seen personally on the UofC campus and signs I certainly haven't seen personally on the UofC campus and I was there for four years. He keeps saying he has proof -- he has pictures of them being on the UofC campus. So what does he do? He replies with two pictures -- one of which shows a sign put up by the University itself (with clear official University logos and content), and one put up by the Students Union -- all in response to the complaints about LACK of signage given the grotesque and graphic imagery on large signs.

Then he ups the ante by posting a clearly cropped sign with a source no one but Ben can verify, where he claims it was posted on the University of Calgary campus.

He's a liar. He has no integrity. He lies through his teeth. It's not that we disagree with him, it's that he lies. I disagree with many, many people on this site (many about abortion itself), but they're not all liars...but Ben is.

[Nikolai]

Ben Jr.

Is that supposed to make me offended or something? Making me feel small? You need to train your offence meeter.

[Nikolai]

Since you call me that, I guess you think I'm a liar too then? It seems like you imply that. Fine. Prove it.

[Asher]

Ben Jr.

Is that supposed to make me offended or something? Making me feel small? You need to train your offence meeter.

If that doesn't offend you, then that should say enough about you that I need not insult you.

[Asher]

Since you call me that, I guess you think I'm a liar too then? It seems like you imply that. Fine. Prove it.

You're not a liar, you're just off-the-charts naive.

[Nikolai]

Better that than a xenophobic bigot like a certain OT president.

[Asher]

Better that than a xenophobic bigot like a certain OT president.

Careful, or I'll have you sent to Feztanamo Bay.

[Nikolai]

Bring it on, big boy.

[Asher]

Bring it on, big boy.

For a while there I forgot I sent you my nude photos.

[Nikolai]

[Alinestra Covelia]

if Poly banned Ben, most of us would have to go. He's far from the worst poster here, behaviourwise. A banning is something you get for breaking posting rules and insulting other posters.

I think this hits it on the head.

Controversial viewpoints shouldn't be bannable behavior.

Even unsubstantiated controversial viewpoints shouldn't be bannable behavior. If somebody's dead wrong about something, then the rest of the forum will come to that conclusion on their own. No need for mods to step in as a replacement for forum user's thinking.

On the other hand, antisocial behavior should be actionable by the mods. The extremes of this would be abusive, ad hominem, and personal attacks against other users. The forum is a community, and having an unpopular viewpoint is nowhere near as damaging as insults of other members and making them feel unwelcome.

For the record, I disagree with most of what Ben Kenobi says politically and philosophically. But he does so in a way that doesn't constitute personal attacks on people. I also think he has shown a great deal of restraint in his responses, given the context that some threads will devolve into BK-bashing even when he has not posted in them.

Asher is somebody I agree with much more politically, in terms of civil liberties, fairness towards homosexuals, and many other hallmarks of a liberal agenda. But correspondingly he is much more prone to... occasional lapses of his even temperament


But this is all water under the bridge. Even when you don't agree with the mods' level of service, the Ignore feature is just a few mouseclicks away. And Poly is at heart a privately funded endeavor, and we are all guests in the property of a fee-paying few. That already allows the mods to be far more dictatorial if they wanted to. The fact that they're already relatively hands-off makes Poly pretty unusual among the Internet.

[Zkribbler]

I agree. Practially the whole political spectrum lies between me and Ben, but I consider him to be a friend.

[Asher]

I agree. Practially the whole political spectrum lies between me and Ben, but I consider him to be a friend.

You need to be more discerning in your friends.

Or is this case of keep your friends close, your enemies even closer?

For someone to qualify as a friend of mine, there's a plethora of unofficial criteria to meet...integrity is something way up there on the list. Just because someone is polite while they spew vitriol, lies, and propaganda about something doesn't mean they are nice people. Ben is not a nice person. If his tits were just a bit bigger, he'd be on Desperate Housewives as Bree's nemesis.

[DaShi]

Yes, they were permitted. They did the same things as the campus prolife club, they applied for the space, and received permission to protest. I don't have a problem with protests in general regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them, I think they are a very important part of society

The prolife people received permission to protest? As for the rest, you ignored the second two questions and when on a non sequitur. Focus, Ben!

I believe the campus club should be permitted to do the same as any other club. They should be able to book space for peaceful demonstrations. I don't see how they can have one set of rules for some clubs, and another set of rules for other clubs.

The rules are the same. GAP violated them by using those images without permission. You are saying nothing here.

Soliciting? I suppose then all the Fraternities should be suspended. That's the craziest thing I've heard. They aren't collecting money, they aren't selling anything at all, they are protesting.

For illegal solicitation, yes fraternities have been punished for that. And now your argument has changed to protesting. And where does the money come in? There are pills for your problem, you know.

I'd be all for KKK demonstrations, provided they are peaceful. I don't believe they would be very effective in their goal at the universities.

Of course you would, Ben. No one here denies that you would support KKK demonstrations. It's the rest of society that would have a problem with it. Anyway, your entire response is another non sequitur that ignores what I said. I didn't ask for your personal opinion on KKK demonstrations. That's 4 out of 4 now.

First off, it isn't their property. I'd agree that a private university could restrict this, but a public university is bound by the fact that they are supported by taxpayer dollars. U of C is a public university, thus the students have the right to be there and protest, as the taxpayers are the ones that own the university.

And the state has the right to prosecute protestors who violate rules, which I mentioned and you ignored. And "First off"? Where's the rest?

It's a reasonable question. It's been tried both ways, and GAP with the images is much more effective at getting the point across as to the nature of abortion. I hope there will be a day when the demonstrations aren't required.

I'm sure images of the corpses of women who died during childbirth would be more effective at promoting abortion. But that too would not be appropriate in a public venue. And, as I stated and you ignored again, the images only serve to generate an emotional response. They don't add to your scientific evidence argument. And to use them while trying to reason with people would be disingenuous.

Depends on the regulations. Turning your signs inwards is blatent viewpoint discrimination. They obviously don't mind the protests other then the fact that the protest communicates ideas that they find repugnant.

You can read their minds now? The university only offered to turn the images as a compromise. From your own statements "They obviously don't mind the protests" which negates your arguments of discrimination. There is no evidence on their opinions of the ideas of the protest (you made that up, which is why people call you a liar), but there is evidence that they won't permit graphic images. And since the images were graphic, it can not be viewpoint discrimination.

You said very clearly that indoors had a more intellectual air, which is why indoor holocaust displays are fine, but outdoor ones are tacky. I call BS.

I never said that indoors had a more intellectual air or that outdoor holocaust displays are tacky. In fact, I challenge you to prove it or admit that you are lying and mention clearly that you lied in your sig. And since you are calling BS, I won't accept any backpedalling here. Put up or shut up, as they say.

[DaShi]

Ok, I have pictures with the warning signs in with the display, which is why I can't post them.

That's part of the problem. The warning sign should be away from the display so that people can avoid the display. I'm having a hard time believing that warning signs are always there and, if they are, they are put up in good faith.