You are not allowed to report posts in this board.

[NE2]

I'd like to report this bullshit: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1665.msg236673#msg236673

Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness

[Alps]

And you called him out on it. That's not what the report feature is for.

[agentsteel53]

Christ on a toothbrush, NE2, I believe you have somehow managed to set a new record for whiny and immature behavior.

I think this might earn a trophy. 

[corco]

Why is that comment within the realms of what is considered acceptable behavior though? It's one thing to disagree with somebody's political views in a productive way- it's quite another to question motive and/or resort to attacking other opinions.

Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness

adds absolutely nothing to any conversation- it's just a pointless blow that does nothing but make people who disagree with him not take him seriously and fosters a hateful environment for those that do agree with him. Everybody loses with this sort of comment, and it's the sort of thing that made MTR terrible and I'd hate to see it leak over here.

Wouldn't reporting those sorts of comments that are unacceptable be what the "Report to Moderator" button is for?

[Alps]

Why is that comment within the realms of what is considered acceptable behavior though? It's one thing to disagree with somebody's political views in a productive way- it's quite another to question motive and/or resort to attacking other opinions.

Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness

adds absolutely nothing to any conversation- it's just a pointless blow. This is the sort of thing that made MTR terrible and I'd hate to see it leak over here.

Wouldn't reporting those sorts of comments that are unacceptable be what the "Report to Moderator" button is for?

I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.

[Alps]

Christ on a toothbrush, NE2, I believe you have somehow managed to set a new record for whiny and immature behavior.

I think this might earn a trophy. 

I'm offended. I'm reporting this.

[NE2]

I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.

If I put in my sig "I am an environmentalist" would it qualify?

[corco]

It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.

It's not? Just because you don't mention people by name doesn't mean you aren't attacking people. It just fosters a toxic posting environment for no reason, and that sucks for all of us- it's an attack on each and every poster here.

It's like if I say "Since gun rights are just another word for selfishness" - that's going to piss off every pro-gun person here (cue pro-gun people chiming in to say "that didn't piss me off"), but the anti-gun people are going to be like "yeah! for sure!"- it's divisive and it's pointless. I didn't advance the debate any further, I just helped make us all hate each other a little bit more.

[J N Winkler]

Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness . . .

. . . adds absolutely nothing to any conversation- it's just a pointless blow that does nothing but make people who disagree with him not take him seriously and fosters a hateful environment for those that do agree with him. Everybody loses with this sort of comment, and it's the sort of thing that made MTR terrible and I'd hate to see it leak over here.

My observation over the years has been that this particular individual will from time to time make a divisive comment of precisely the type quoted, row back and allow the furor to die down, and then come back to the same thread and post something else equally divisive which is constructed as a shot over the heads of the people who objected to the first comment, never as a direct reply to them, so that there are now two layers of insult (the original flamebait plus rejection of others' attempts to engage).  A classic case in point, also evident in earlier pages in the Corridor H thread, is his attacks on California for serving as the birthplace for the environmental movement while benefiting from reclamation investments which he argues the Sierra Club and its fellow travelers would not permit now.

I am not sure what the moderators can realistically do to prevent a person from taking this approach to discussion, but even so it is disappointing to see anyone--let alone a lawyer working for a government agency--act with such cynicism.  This forum should be about exchange of ideas, not attempting to grind axes while remaining just under the threshold for moderation.

[agentsteel53]

oh, I agree that the original comment is a shitty one, but I think NE2's "fuck you" was more than sufficient a response.

[Alps]

Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness . . .

. . . adds absolutely nothing to any conversation- it's just a pointless blow that does nothing but make people who disagree with him not take him seriously and fosters a hateful environment for those that do agree with him. Everybody loses with this sort of comment, and it's the sort of thing that made MTR terrible and I'd hate to see it leak over here.

My observation over the years has been that this particular individual will from time to time make a divisive comment of precisely the type quoted, row back and allow the furor to die down, and then come back to the same thread and post something else equally divisive which is constructed as a shot over the heads of the people who objected to the first comment, never as a direct reply to them, so that there are now two layers of insult (the original flamebait plus rejection of others' attempts to engage).  A classic case in point, also evident in earlier pages in the Corridor H thread, is his attacks on California for serving as the birthplace for the environmental movement while benefiting from reclamation investments which he argues the Sierra Club and its fellow travelers would not permit now.

I am not sure what the moderators can realistically do to prevent a person from taking this approach to discussion, but even so it is disappointing to see anyone--let alone a lawyer working for a government agency--act with such cynicism.  This forum should be about exchange of ideas, not attempting to grind axes while remaining just under the threshold for moderation.

At the same time, the forum tries to be an open forum. Just because someone posts a disagreeable opinion doesn't mean they're not allowed to post it. There's a fine line, and after some of what's gone on here, I think we've decided in general to moderate less and watch more.

[J N Winkler]

At the same time, the forum tries to be an open forum. Just because someone posts a disagreeable opinion doesn't mean they're not allowed to post it. There's a fine line, and after some of what's gone on here, I think we've decided in general to moderate less and watch more.

I have acted as a moderator myself, so I fully appreciate these difficulties, and I am not suggesting that a specific action be taken in this instance.  The issue here is not that the opinion expressed is disagreeable per se, but rather that it is an open expression of spite, and also fits into the poster's past one-two pattern of giving offense, going away, and returning to reoffend, which shows bad faith.

Returning to the original thread, I think Sherman Cahal had the best response; "fuck you" just drags down the tone of discussion.

[seicer]

I guess this is over SP Cook. When he was on misc.transport.road, his comments were on borderline insulting, racist or classist. It's one thing to disagree with another person's viewpoints, but when you drag in a person's race, belief, class or wealth - then the discussion isn't worth having.

[bugo]

I guess this is over SP Cook. When he was on misc.transport.road, his comments were on borderline insulting, racist or classist. It's one thing to disagree with another person's viewpoints, but when you drag in a person's race, belief, class or wealth - then the discussion isn't worth having.

Sherman, I've forgiven you because you were very young when it happened, but I seem to remember you making a few borderline racist posts back in the eMpTyR days.  They have nothing to do with who you are now, but don't ever forget your past and never allow yourself to go down that road again.  Even those of us who don't "grow up" still try to make themselves a better person which is a form of growing up.

[Brandon]

At the same time, the forum tries to be an open forum. Just because someone posts a disagreeable opinion doesn't mean they're not allowed to post it. There's a fine line, and after some of what's gone on here, I think we've decided in general to moderate less and watch more.

I have acted as a moderator myself, so I fully appreciate these difficulties, and I am not suggesting that a specific action be taken in this instance.  The issue here is not that the opinion expressed is disagreeable per se, but rather that it is an open expression of spite, and also fits into the poster's past one-two pattern of giving offense, going away, and returning to reoffend, which shows bad faith.

Returning to the original thread, I think Sherman Cahal had the best response; "fuck you" just drags down the tone of discussion.

Much agreed.  We don't need to resort to vulgar insults when we have much more entertaining and verbally expressive insults.

[Molandfreak]

I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.

Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"

I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.

[corco]

(see the devolution of that thread into pointless name-calling for an example of why that was a terrible comment that should have been moderated)

[roadman65]

I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.

Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"

I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.

I think that the word you are looking for is moderation!  You take everything in moderation, as some people in this world do not.  What gets me is some people get real bent out of shape over other people's opinions not only here, but elsewhere as well.  When I first joined this forum a few years ago I was surprised to find that there are actually people  around who are willing to die for strange causes that are not even on the normal political agenda that you hear each day.

[Molandfreak]

I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.

Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"

I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.

I think that the word you are looking for is moderation!  You take everything in moderation, as some people in this world do not.  What gets me is some people get real bent out of shape over other people's opinions not only here, but elsewhere as well.  When I first joined this forum a few years ago I was surprised to find that there are actually people  around who are willing to die for strange causes that are not even on the normal political agenda that you hear each day.

Sorry if it's obvious, but what on earth are you talking about?

[seicer]

I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.

Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"

I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.

There are contradictions on both sides, those who view mass transit and bicycles as nothing more than wastes of money and energy, and those who view cars and trucks as the death of the nation. No one seems to be interested in happy mediums anymore. It's one against the other.

[corco]

Right, and back to the original comment there are two "valid" arguments for why environmentalists are selfish/are not selfish

Environmentalists are selfish because:
- In the views of those who disagree, they try to press their worldviews on others
- In the views of those who disagree, They don't want people to have access to places
- In the views of those who disagree, they are denying people the right to access cheap energy
- In the views of those who disagree, their regulations hinder job growth and make it impossible to do business

Environmentalists are not selfish because:
- In their view, they are preserving resources for future generations
- In their view, they are looking out for members of other species instead of putting humans first (which in their view would be pretty selfish for humans)
- In their view, they are exploring new ways to generate energy
- In their view, they are trying to employ people by creating an environmental protection sector in the economy


And neither side is completely right or completely wrong. Everything has tradeoffs and nothing is as black and white as that bullet list. I'm not seeing anybody try to actively prove or disprove any of those points- they're basically just repackaging those partial truths and proclaiming them as gospel. That's not productive and just leads to flame wars.

[Molandfreak]

I have nothing more to add. Seems like everything's been pointed out that needed to. 

[roadman65]

I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.

Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"

I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.

I think that the word you are looking for is moderation!  You take everything in moderation, as some people in this world do not.  What gets me is some people get real bent out of shape over other people's opinions not only here, but elsewhere as well.  When I first joined this forum a few years ago I was surprised to find that there are actually people  around who are willing to die for strange causes that are not even on the normal political agenda that you hear each day.

Sorry if it's obvious, but what on earth are you talking about?

Simple, its when views of your own clash against each other you end up meeting in the middle which causes compromise.  You say you are an environmentalist, but you say to be a true one you have to hate roads.  On the other hand you love roads and like to see them built whenever.  You have obviously met in the middle to make both work.

Basically you love the environment, but you are not all out protecting it as if you were you would not be in favor of new roads, therefore you like to be environmentalist, but you are taking issues to a moderate level.

Corco brought up an interesting point that you have to be one side or the other in today's world which causes things to be taken out of context.  He made it good to express that being called selfish is not really that bad of a thing as we all have those tendencies and brought that out from an objective standpoint.  To further exemplify my other point is that many of us here on this forum take things too personal when we do not need to.   

[Billy F 1988]

NE2, as much as I respect you as a fellow member of this board, you really are starting to annoy the hell out of us and judging by others' comments regarding your recent behavior, I have to ere in agreeing with them. Yea, some of my comments in our recent interactions have been somewhat of a nuisance, but I don't take that to the levels you are putting this through. We don't always agree with you. But this is too much. You have two options, bud. Get your act together or hit the road. Your choice. You decide.

To the rest of us, we can go on about this environment crap when we're not actually on the boards.

Would someone do the honors of locking this up so that it doesn't end up a potential shitstorm here, please and thanks?

[NE2]

I have to ere in agreeing with them.

what