Huh. Yeah, I'll be 10.

I think she meant the collected decisions of the Buffistas stuff. Doesn't Jon have that?

Yeah -- I've got it. I've been a Bad Buffista.

We only need 10, right? Well, regardless, I'll throw my second (tenth, eleventh, whatevereth) on the pile. Please warn her on the content of Caroma "Natter 14: What number are we on?" Jul 25, 2003 5:48:36 am PDT.

Should Caroma choose to come to bureaucracy, I feel the need to post the following here. I've repeated her content (I didn't see the spoilers, but included the stompy edit citation) in my response, below.

---

...

Now I'm a liar and said that people here advocate child rape and soldier killing? And now ita, the person I had the most respect for, can't understand that I can't be rushing back here to post every three minutes like the rest of you?

I don't have time for this. Time to get out of this cave and back into real life. Gee, how much lower can I go?

Let's see...

OVERWEIGHT AND FLABBY WOMEN SHOULD NOT WEAR CORSETS! THOSE PICTURES ARE LAUGHABLE AND PATHETIC!

It's called what's your choice, it's called count to ten, it's called burn your bridges, start again, folks.

edited by amych on Jul 25, 2003 5:52:29 am PDT

Caroma - there's little of substance up there. You didn't respond to anyone's concerns. Instead, you chose to attack with personal digs and spoil people in the process? And this would help resolve or close anything - how, exactly?

The above post raises to the tenth power, the problems people have had with your posts. Before I thought that you maybe just didn't get the distinction. Now, from the above, it at least seems as if you never wanted to. It seems as if you wanted to twist posts to fit your truth and win some sort of imaginary points. I'm sorry it came to this. You've been around a long time. I figured this would blow over.

(Natter 14:2001)

[Caroma this was your post that started the rapist discussion]

Whoops. Those soldiers are going to be in huge trouble now. Any leading questions like that MUST be referred to the Public Affairs Officer. I can understand the guy's frustration--nobody knew that so many of the people we 'liberated' would turn out to be such electricity-sabotaging rapist sniper coward bastards--but personally sniping at the DoD head? Hoo boy. Soldiers bitch all the time; my little bro has some hilarious stories--but to the press? Not done.

People objected (and were clear about what) to the fact that you were categorizing the Iraqi people (the implication in your post is Iraqis as a whole) as 'electricity-sabotaging rapist sniper coward bastards'.

You twisted their objections to make it sound as if you were being called out for being anti-child-rapists. Now that's offensive. You did that in Natter 14:2256:

But Betsy, do you disagree with it? Why can't I get mad at child rapists?

On a board, on a day where people were ranting against (hoax or not) adult, consensual naked paintball for pay, to twist people's objections to the point where you're saying you're suddenly not allowed to get mad at child rapists - was both untrue, and patently unfair, not to mention a ridiculous example of dirty pool.

Betsy then clarified the objections in Natter 14:2271

Because you didn't just get mad at child rapists, you got mad at the entire Iraqi people. You said:

nobody knew that so many of the people we 'liberated' would turn out to be such electricity-sabotaging rapist sniper coward bastards

This has several assumptions:

The postwar chaos in Iraq could not have been predicted (false; it was widely predicted)

Many Iraqis are involved in the post-war crimes (the Bush administration claims it's a tiny fraction of Baathist loyalists)

The same people who are raping children are the people who are sabotaging infrastructure, looting, and killing US soldiers (unknown)

That doesn't read like outrage at child rape. That reads like outrage at the people of Iraq for not being grateful for their liberation, with child rape just one in a list of complaints.

The conversation turned reasonable enough for a while, but at some point, people who were still catching up (and given how busy you are, you should understand that happens) took issue with your earlier charges of groupthink.

Then, in Natter 14:2293, Betsy said:

Caroma, you keep trying to say that anybody who opposes you must favor child rape. Why is this?

In Natter 14:2304, your response was:

Uhm, Betsy, that's not when I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the people who oppose the war oppose it so strongly that they even take a story about child rape as just another instance to bash the Administration without stopping to say anything about the child.

This was a gross mischaracterization of the comments that took place. NOT ONE PERSON used child rape (as committed by Iraqis) as an instance to bash the administration. They took issue with your enormous generalization about the Iraqi people, and they gave their opinion that the government should have expected the unrest now present in Iraq. Your twisting of their posts is offensive, and was in fact untrue, and as (I think) ita pointed out yesterday, untrue = lie.

In Natter 14:2308, Betsy again clarified the objections:

Caroma, you used a story about child rape as an opportunity to bash a large subset of the Iraqi people. And that's what I responded to.

You didn't say "God, child rape is horrible". You said

nobody knew that so many of the people we 'liberated' would turn out to be such electricity-sabotaging rapist sniper coward bastards

That's not a statement about child rape. I responded to your statement.

Now in your bridge burner, you stated: Now I'm a liar and said that people here advocate child rape and soldier killing?

Apart from your rape comments, what you said was that people here gloated over difficulties which include the death of ambushed soldiers. Here, in Natter 14:4065 (as part of your justification for your comments on the Hussein sons)

We have ten, so an official stompy warning will be issued.

fudge - I didn't save it, and the board ate the end of it.

At any rate...

Caroma - aside from all the political fights, that's not even why I want you warned.

I want you warned because you intentionally spoiled people in Natter, when you know it is a current season spoiler free zone, and because you insulted posters with cracks about their physical appearance, in a discussion about the ethics of arguing politics.

Shame on ya.

Caroma - aside from all the political fights, that's not even why I want you warned.

FTR, I didn't feel the political fighting merited an official warning either.

I want you warned because you intentionally spoiled people in Natter, when you know it is a current season spoiler free zone, and because you insulted posters with cracks about their physical appearance, in a discussion about the ethics of arguing politics.

This is why I requested the action. Even if the post were factually accurate (which it isn't), there is no justification for the flaming contents of that post. Ever.

Cindy, thanks for the detailed report. It's educational to see it all laid out like that.

Just to throw in my (rather late) 2 cents:

I don't follow Natter - moves too damn fast for me. However, I caught up on this latest incident, and, as the guy who is ALWAYS against offical warnings & sanctions, etc, I have to say this:

She deserves it. Stomp her, stomp her hard.

Thank you stompies

Cindy, thanks for the detailed report. It's educational to see it all laid out like that.

Heh. I just came back to delete it, because for me, the big issue is really the spoilage and the flames. And also, because I probably lost about 1/3 of it, which was where I made points. Feh. I write too much. I'll let it stand though, and thanks, Nutty.

Thanks amych for performing the stompy duties. I can't imagine it feels very good wrt a Buffista who's been here a long time.