Why is Andy getting censured? (2 Viewers)

[Fitzgibbon]

Sixpence each way is probably not how moderators moderate, old son. And we in the antipodes are used to holding up the north; it's why we find things so **nny. And we almost never take umm..a..bridge, having already been called all those nasty names before. I don't think that 'childish' really cuts the mustard. After about twenty posts, I was no longer aware there was such a thing as a "real question" - with Howard here; I think that it is all good **n, but it's for adults.
I agree with you and Bader: Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men....

 

[maddadicus]

Sixpence each way is probably not how moderators moderate, old son. And we in the antipodes are used to holding up the north; it's why we find things so **nny. And we almost never take umm..a..bridge, having already been called all those nasty names before. I don't think that 'childish' really cuts the mustard. After about twenty posts, I was no longer aware there was such a thing as a "real question" - with Howard here; I think that it is all good **n, but it's for adults.
I agree with you and Bader: Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men....

I am no **rther enlightened as an answer to the original question. Except for Mitch, not sure what any of you Aussies are talking about and thus no longer find this topic interesting. Whatever Andy said, if it was as convoluted as the discussion here, I would not blame the the mods that they would have to call an international conference just to interpret...and guess what is offensive or not. Michael

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I am no **rther enlightened as an answer to the original question. Except for Mitch, not sure what any of you Aussies are talking about and thus no longer find this topic interesting. Whatever Andy said, if it was as convoluted as the discussion here, I would not blame the the mods that they would have to call an international conference just to interpret...and guess what is offensive or not. Michael

Andy made some racial jokes about Chinese that were from 50 years ago that were kid's jokes then but not acceptable today. It's just that simple.

Terry

 

[glossman]

Andy made some racial jokes about Chinese that were from 50 years ago that were kid's jokes then but not acceptable today. It's just that simple.

Terry

I missed that one........fortunately.

Raymond:wink2:

 

[The Military Workshop]

Mitch,
I disagree with your assessment of what happened.

Andy made a comment that a member found to be offensive. However it is clear in that thread that nobody else saw the offence or thought that Andy had set out to offend. I am referring to the name of Shyster Shyster and Flywheel which is from a Marx brothers radio show that was re-done in the UK in the 90's. It was a harmless reference taken the wrong way.

However the same member has previously taken offence at a LAH release (no problem there as entitled to not like it). However that member at the same time indicated that he thought that LAH release had been timed to co-incide with Hannaka. Personally I thought that was an outrageous comment to make no matter what was thought of the figures. It also implied that Andy and we should all know when Hannaka is which I though was presuming a bit much (it was about 3 weeks later the following year and I did PM the member to wish him happy Hannaka). You may recall that thread was also accompanied by the member inserting images of Jews being persecuted in WWII. On that occasion there was much comment about this and the member apologised.

I strongly disagree with your opinion that the other thread was ''more'' mocking as this implies the first was mocking. You may wish to read the "offending'' post again and also your first response in that thread which was :
''I had an interview with shyster shyster but, flywheel was busy. Their firm motto was malpractice makes perfect!!!!''

So if we take it that Andy was mocking as you now imply then you yourself joined in. In a **rther post after the member had pointed out the offending word (in his opinion) you said "can shyster really offend the jewish community or be seen as racist when they are not even mentioned in a conversation??? I am not so sure''. You were not the only one who was not sure as nobody thought that any offence intended.

So which is it ?

A minor technicality but please note the term used was the name of a law firm from a very well known show and not just the word "shyster''. Even the offended person realised the Marx brothers reference.

I totally understand Andy's frustration as shown by both his subsequent threads and in my opinion he was the wronged party on both occasions when this has been raised by the forum member concerned. Based on his comments on another forum (about Andy's deleted thread) he seems to be of the opinion that the customer is always right. Well in my opinion in this particular case he could not be more wrong.

Regards
Brett

PS Also have no idea what the Chinese joke reference is either so must have missed something.

 

[Fitzgibbon]

Censorship is a strange phenomenon in the context of www. The discussion here is as if Andy was not present; and allegations are being made now to which the moderators cannot reply and which concern posts already deleted so that none of us can confirm or deny them. The very rule of offence that sits at the core of this thread is again at melting point; the alleged offender now the potential victim. The humour that Mitch referred to as a smokescreen of support at least did not go there. Oz is the land of a fair go, and we generally take as Gospel that "I may not like what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" - lots of our folk died in other people's countries for this value so we get a bit prickly when others take the value lightly. Sometimes we get it a bit wrong but we hold it out there as an aiming point. We would do it for Mitch - and I don't think you get this mate. It doesn't mean we won't reply or that we won't disagree, nor if there is a bully, that we won't give as good as we get. What is missing is a clear guideline that says that this censorship is not just random and driven by narrow interest.

 

[Peter Reuss]

Gents...when something is deleted a PM coversation usually ensues with the person who had their post deleted. That is what happened here.

The mods prefer to work with people behind the scenes...meaning that ya'll are not privvy to every conversation. That does sometimes lead to vast conspiracy theories...but we can't control that {sm4}. As is usually the case, the truth is often much more boring than the theory!

 

[aujj65]

Bob mate,
This has got to stop. Your the second bloke in two days who has made me spill my morning cuppa with laughter. The good lady wife is not happy.^&grin She is beginning to think this is a girlie website and not a TS Forum.:smile2:
Cheers Howard

Your wife could be half right Howard, as sometimes it appears there are more than a few old women on here! {sm2} {sm4}

Jeff

 

[Mitch]

I just don't really care andy was in the wrong according to the rules and ethos behind this forum and is not in anyway above those rules simple. The same applied to the immature way the anzac biscuit thing was done as all the other stupid stuff from threats of violence to not being able to say certain things in case the little clicks try to gang together to stop what they don't want to hear. pathetic and very sad IMO

Fitzgibbon... take a five minute breather and look back at some of my posts defending on here peoples right to do just that say what they want without bullying and censor its why I have probably ruffled a few feathers. so, I do get it and, I say what I think not hide around subjects and play with innuendo. however, on a forum with specific rules that causes problems.

Brett...

Not surprised here. just a quick point as a qualified barrister my comments about interview with shyster was more aimed at the fact that shoddy law firms exist and run by the malpractice makes perfect mantra. I am not surprised you did not get that but, many lawyers on here did and, I sent brad a PM to apologise if my comments offended as I put in my post I am not jewish so, its often difficult to see what may offend some that are.

I did not imply that the first post was mocking but, the second was and the third was going to far on one subject. some have to learn to let go (I include myself in this)

It also should not matter whether its one or a thousand who are offended once someone is then we know the ground we are on. The second post may have been **n to you but, not to many. You just get different PM's etc to what others do and, many would not dream of contacting you saying so. They do with others.
Mitch

Censorship is a strange phenomenon in the context of www. The discussion here is as if Andy was not present; and allegations are being made now to which the moderators cannot reply and which concern posts already deleted so that none of us can confirm or deny them. The very rule of offence that sits at the core of this thread is again at melting point; the alleged offender now the potential victim. The humour that Mitch referred to as a smokescreen of support at least did not go there. Oz is the land of a fair go, and we generally take as Gospel that "I may not like what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" - lots of our folk died in other people's countries for this value so we get a bit prickly when others take the value lightly. Sometimes we get it a bit wrong but we hold it out there as an aiming point. We would do it for Mitch - and I don't think you get this mate. It doesn't mean we won't reply or that we won't disagree, nor if there is a bully, that we won't give as good as we get. What is missing is a clear guideline that says that this censorship is not just random and driven by narrow interest.

 

[The Military Workshop]

Mitch,
I may not be a Barrister but your repetition of the term Shyster Shyster and Flywheel in your first post indicates to me you did not take it as an offensive term or reference that might offend anybody. Otherwise why would you repeat it ? Seems like changing the evidence after the case has been presented.

Just because Brad then comes in to say he is offended it does not follow that Andy was using it in a derogatory way towards Jewish lawyers.
I have no issue with Brad thinking the word is derogatory as that depends upon his life experience. However that it was known as such to others including Andy does not appear to be the case. There is a difference.

Notwithstanding the ''many lawyers on here'' you refer to the simple fact is nobody in that thread took it that Andy was being offensive. You will therefore forgive me if I take that view based on the overwhelming majority based on the evidence of multiple comments by known people (as opposed to your unknown many lawyers).

When you said "more mocking'' my understanding would naturally be that it implied the first was mocking. Clearly I am mistaken. My understanding of English must be slipping now that I am in Australia.

Regards
Brett

 

[Rob]

Guys, do the words dead, flogging, and Horse mean anything here? I 've watched these threads unfold from what Andy said clearly in humour to Aussie humour to conspiracy theories and back again. Time to put it to bed as a Nurse once told me:wink2:

Rob

 

[Phantom Warrior]

{sm4}

Guys, do the words dead, flogging, and Horse mean anything here? I 've watched these threads unfold from what Andy said clearly in humour to Aussie humour to conspiracy theories and back again. Time to put it to bed as a Nurse once told me:wink2:

Rob

Well said Rob. You have my vote.

And the term Horse is offensive - they prefer to be called Equine these days
Terry

 

[Rob]

{sm4}

Well said Rob. You have my vote.

And the term Horse is offensive - they prefer to be called Equine these days
Terry

^&grin

The Nurse was quite offensive too, in a really good way though mate:wink2:

Rob

 

[Jack]

I agree that people may well be feel offended at a variety of things given their own personal background and world view. People have a right to be offended. It is a part of holding things sacred. When others appear to attack them it is natural that there is, to some degree, a capacity to feel this offense quite keenly.
Yet I believe it to be equally true that the mere act of feeling offended does not bring with it an inherent legitimacy. Just because a person feels offended does not, of itself, render the cause of his/her offence, offensive. That is, just because I am offended, does not mean that someone has been offensive. Saying 'I am offended' is little different from saying 'I am right'. It is a point of view, not an absolute truth.
I see some of the people posting have used the term 'Aussie'. I also know that the three letter descriptor for our English friends is forbidden. If someone from Pakistan was on the forum and I shortened his national origin to describe him/her, even in jest, it would, quite rightly in my view, be deleted. Yet from some of the posts it would appear that if I said 'I am offended' that would carry some weight. Surely that cannot be the case? If I was offended by that word, and to be strictly (and illogically) just about the rules of the forum, I would have a case, it would reveal nothing about the people using the word, but it would reveal an enormous amount about me.
At a recent in-service a group of one hundred of us were shown a video of two basketball teams of four (yes, my American friends, I know that is not a team!) doing passing drills. Our task was to count the number of times the white team (they were dressed in white, not divided on racial lines) passed the ball. They split us into young and old (now that hurt!) and they made it a competition to see who could get the right number. Of the hundred people, most got it right. Then the organiser said, who saw the Bear? Five people did (not me) . He replayed the video and in the middle of this tightly framed shot of eight people passing two basketballs, a 6 foot man dressed as a bear moonwalked through the middle. The ball only just missed him!
We saw what we wanted to see, as so often we hear what we want to hear. In many cases, we are offended when we want to be and we are charmed when we want to be.
I will meet Andy in July. I can choose to see him as an anti-Semite, anti Afro American, price rising, retiring that wounded Scots Grey, controller of Ebay with no regard for my collecting preferences (which are ridiculously cheap high quality metal toy soldiers)…or, I can see him as a decent chap who has flown to Australia to promote his business and talk about a hobby that I have fallen in love with.
In the final analysis, how I choose to see him will say nothing about Andy…but it will say a good deal about me.
Feel free to put me on your ignore list if I have offended…but I warn you…you will find the movie game hard to play!

 

[Mitch]

Brett...

Could not reply before as it was a shut down. The terminology did not offend me as I said in my first post because I have been in situations where I have been called worse and live by the mantra of sticks and stones and, also as I said I am not jewish and don't know what jewish people could or could not be offended by. As was stated one person was.

Now this will all fall on deaf ears as you will never say anything other than positive about andy and, thats obvious as you don't want to offend that hand that feeds and, thats fair enough but, if you do not think that the second and third attempts were either not mocking and sticking a thumb at those offended or, the forum owners for sheer persistance then I don't know what the point of responding to you is.

I have read and been told of all the occasions that andy has been curt even mocking customers and, have read and seen that with my own eyes since my time on here and, I am amazed at the fact that people just lap it up and think its ok. I find that remarkable that a person seems to have so little concern for the people who buy the products he sells. I am constantly told by yourself how nice the chap is well, I would think he should begin to show more respect for customers in the manner he speaks with them on here. Its easy for you and some to say well its the usual suspects but, thats not the case I could rail off a list of many he has spoken to rather crudely who are not anywhere near that snotty little comment which, has been generated by a clan who think they have the right to belittle anyone who dares say anything against him or the brand.

I stand by my comments that there is very little correlation between humour and rudeness. whatever way its defended when andy speaks in the manner he does it permeates contempt for the very people who have placed him in the privaleged position he finds himself in today. The second and third posts IMO were correctly deleted

As jack just mentioned if people are offended by this place me on the ignore list or, the super ignore list.
Mitch

Mitch,
I may not be a Barrister but your repetition of the term Shyster Shyster and Flywheel in your first post indicates to me you did not take it as an offensive term or reference that might offend anybody. Otherwise why would you repeat it ? Seems like changing the evidence after the case has been presented.

Just because Brad then comes in to say he is offended it does not follow that Andy was using it in a derogatory way towards Jewish lawyers.
I have no issue with Brad thinking the word is derogatory as that depends upon his life experience. However that it was known as such to others including Andy does not appear to be the case. There is a difference.

Notwithstanding the ''many lawyers on here'' you refer to the simple fact is nobody in that thread took it that Andy was being offensive. You will therefore forgive me if I take that view based on the overwhelming majority based on the evidence of multiple comments by known people (as opposed to your unknown many lawyers).

When you said "more mocking'' my understanding would naturally be that it implied the first was mocking. Clearly I am mistaken. My understanding of English must be slipping now that I am in Australia.

Regards
Brett

 

[Desertkiwi]

I agree that people may well be feel offended at a variety of things given their own personal background and world view. People have a right to be offended. It is a part of holding things sacred. When others appear to attack them it is natural that there is, to some degree, a capacity to feel this offense quite keenly.
Yet I believe it to be equally true that the mere act of feeling offended does not bring with it an inherent legitimacy. Just because a person feels offended does not, of itself, render the cause of his/her offence, offensive. That is, just because I am offended, does not mean that someone has been offensive. Saying 'I am offended' is little different from saying 'I am right'. It is a point of view, not an absolute truth.
I see some of the people posting have used the term 'Aussie'. I also know that the three letter descriptor for our English friends is forbidden. If someone from Pakistan was on the forum and I shortened his national origin to describe him/her, even in jest, it would, quite rightly in my view, be deleted. Yet from some of the posts it would appear that if I said 'I am offended' that would carry some weight. Surely that cannot be the case? If I was offended by that word, and to be strictly (and illogically) just about the rules of the forum, I would have a case, it would reveal nothing about the people using the word, but it would reveal an enormous amount about me.
At a recent in-service a group of one hundred of us were shown a video of two basketball teams of four (yes, my American friends, I know that is not a team!) doing passing drills. Our task was to count the number of times the white team (they were dressed in white, not divided on racial lines) passed the ball. They split us into young and old (now that hurt!) and they made it a competition to see who could get the right number. Of the hundred people, most got it right. Then the organiser said, who saw the Bear? Five people did (not me) . He replayed the video and in the middle of this tightly framed shot of eight people passing two basketballs, a 6 foot man dressed as a bear moonwalked through the middle. The ball only just missed him!
We saw what we wanted to see, as so often we hear what we want to hear. In many cases, we are offended when we want to be and we are charmed when we want to be.
I will meet Andy in July. I can choose to see him as an anti-Semite, anti Afro American, price rising, retiring that wounded Scots Grey, controller of Ebay with no regard for my collecting preferences (which are ridiculously cheap high quality metal toy soldiers)…or, I can see him as a decent chap who has flown to Australia to promote his business and talk about a hobby that I have fallen in love with.
In the final analysis, how I choose to see him will say nothing about Andy…but it will say a good deal about me.
Feel free to put me on your ignore list if I have offended…but I warn you…you will find the movie game hard to play!

Well said Jack, Regards Toddy

And to anyone I may have offended by my recent ramblings & off thread bunter, I apologise profusely.

 

[ROUGH RIDER]

Here's the perfect quote for this thread from my Wife's Grand Mum (There's nowt so queer as folk). I think that said it all.

 

[maddadicus]

Now, the light bulb has gone off!^&confuse With the references to the SS and F..and the mention of the offended member, I now understand what happened. One hopes that the issues between the 2 members ( offening and offended ) are not coloring any negative responses to most anything K/C of late..Since I know a little about Brad, I can see what might have been uncomfortable to him in the prior Andy postings..Michael

 

[Jack]

Here's the perfect quote for this thread from my Wife's Grand Mum (There's nowt so queer as folk). I think that said it all.

Langauge changes over time and means different things to different people. Look at the word queer which you have used{sm4}

Seriously, though - no offence intended and certainly none taken. Am chained to my desk at the moment on a public holiday and searching for distraction! Any chance of picking an argument with you?{sm4}{sm4}

 

[TomNT]

I agree that people may well be feel offended at a variety of things given their own personal background and world view. People have a right to be offended. It is a part of holding things sacred. When others appear to attack them it is natural that there is, to some degree, a capacity to feel this offense quite keenly.
Yet I believe it to be equally true that the mere act of feeling offended does not bring with it an inherent legitimacy. Just because a person feels offended does not, of itself, render the cause of his/her offence, offensive. That is, just because I am offended, does not mean that someone has been offensive. Saying 'I am offended' is little different from saying 'I am right'. It is a point of view, not an absolute truth.
I see some of the people posting have used the term 'Aussie'. I also know that the three letter descriptor for our English friends is forbidden. If someone from Pakistan was on the forum and I shortened his national origin to describe him/her, even in jest, it would, quite rightly in my view, be deleted. Yet from some of the posts it would appear that if I said 'I am offended' that would carry some weight. Surely that cannot be the case? If I was offended by that word, and to be strictly (and illogically) just about the rules of the forum, I would have a case, it would reveal nothing about the people using the word, but it would reveal an enormous amount about me.
At a recent in-service a group of one hundred of us were shown a video of two basketball teams of four (yes, my American friends, I know that is not a team!) doing passing drills. Our task was to count the number of times the white team (they were dressed in white, not divided on racial lines) passed the ball. They split us into young and old (now that hurt!) and they made it a competition to see who could get the right number. Of the hundred people, most got it right. Thoulden the organiser said, who saw the Bear? Five people did (not me) . He replayed the video and in the middle of this tightly framed shot of eight people passing two basketballs, a 6 foot man dressed as a bear moonwalked through the middle. The ball only just missed him!
We saw what we wanted to see, as so often we hear what we want to hear. In many cases, we are offended when we want to be and we are charmed when we want to be.
I will meet Andy in July. I can choose to see him as an anti-Semite, anti Afro American, price rising, retiring that wounded Scots Grey, controller of Ebay with no regard for my collecting preferences (which are ridiculously cheap high quality metal toy soldiers)…or, I can see him as a decent chap who has flown to Australia to promote his business and talk about a hobby that I have fallen in love with.
In the final analysis, how I choose to see him will say nothing about Andy…but it will say a good deal about me.
Feel free to put me on your ignore list if I have offended…but I warn you…you will find the movie game hard to play!

I find playing the movie game with you hard enough as it is Jack, that's why i gave it up.....^&grin

Seriously though, i couldn't agree more with your comments. I have met Andy personally and he is one of the nicest blokes you can meet. I am still relatively new to this forum and i am not totally up on what has happened in the past, but i am generally a good judge of character and i am sure Andy never meant to offend anyone. As far as i am concerned Andy used humour which we Aussie's generally use all the time. I have had to restrain myself for not using certain words and phrases on this forum (and i still think i messed up on a couple of occasions!) so i know how difficult it can be to not say certain things and with Andy being a "tall poppy", it would be even harder for him as people scrutinize his every word. I'll leave it at that but i'll wrap it up by saying everyone is different and likes/dislikes certain things and or way things are said. This is just human nature and for me, i find nothing in what Andy has said offensive, just good o'l Aussie banter or humour that most of us i think can relate too.

Tom