An Appeal Against the Bloodshed

[Joe Shearer]

I came back to PDF this evening about an hour ago, and was puzzled to see a number of posts which seemed to be hanging in the air. It was only then that it occurred to me to look at the messages from people on my 'ignore' list, and that is when it all fell into place. If you are interested to know my reaction to these messages and the sequence, you are invited to read the comments below.

I hope Joe sir does that, though me and him do not always see eye to eye on certain issues. So im not sure how he would react to this "appeal" of mine.
Anyways...i hope sanity prevails.

M'am was on a vacation.

"few times" is a lie
You quoted me just once. Thats the only notification which i got from your side. Lol

Well... since i know the member whom i had quoted, i was pretty sure he is not someone who can be associated with the word "naive".
Pls dont misunderstand it as my stubborness..atleast not in this case.

The following clarifications:

1. I had put @Levina on my ignored list, since it did not seem proper to bandy words with a woman, especially due to a propensity to lose my temper quickly. So the original appeal never came to my notice until 'ignored' messages were brought back into the sequence.
2. The appeal, or, if that is too strong a word, and if it seems to leave too much to the personal discretion of an individual, the request was not addressed to me. It is hypocritical after addressing others for a rectification to then shift grounds and 'hope' that I would rescind the rating. It is precisely this shiftiness that drove me to invoke the ignore facility, which I use very, very rarely. There may not be more than ten people on that list.
   PS: I just looked up the ignore list; there were nine names there.
3. As far as the request is concerned, the reasons for rescindment are said to be my prior insulting words, and the undesirability of using it in an argument. Here the sequence is not correctly reported. There was a blatant attempt at projecting me as sympathetic to terrorists, and thereafter, in a shift of ground, at projecting me as so eager to please Pakistanis as to abandon my position. Those who have read the exchange will note that I tried repeatedly to explain that drafting a petition for others not aligned with my own position necessarily requires a sense of those others' views of various roles and activities which may not agree with my own.
4. This complete failure of communication finally ended with a direct questioning of my integrity and patriotism when I was called 'Jaichand'. The connotations are known to everybody with even the faintest knowledge of history.
5. Before going further, my conclusion at the end of this set of clarifications is that I invite @Levina , @nair , and @SpArK to share with us
   • what they each, individually believe should be the grounds for awarding a negative rating;
   • what they each, individually believe should be the response to a question raised about my honour, and to this particular unbearable insult;
   • what they each, individually think about the persistent malignancy of the person rated, who persisted in that defamatory attack even after being asked to retract it.

In order to learn the views of the person concerned, I am putting @Levina off my ignore list.

Appeal was good.
The rating was unnecessary.

I note your judgement and disagree completely. However, if you remain of the same opinion after applying your mind to it, please let me know. Please see my comments above.

Completely different debate. The current topic is on the current protests, killings, violence and etc, etc...Would be wrong to just bring it in like this.
Would do a piece on Kashmiri Pundits here, give me some time...
https://defence.pk/threads/history-of-gilgit-baltistan-ajk-and-jammu-kashmir-updates-and-discussions.438053/

And honestly speaking, i have said this many times that we need to forget about IOK, period. India is not letting go of the land, get our people on this side of the border and forget about. Sick of the killings and suffering.
Not trolling at all, honest opinion has been expressed many times. And this is coming from a Gilgiti, please note...

Joe's call, i guess. I think we need to make sure ratings are not used during an argument, especially negative rating. Even if the poster has earned it, i think we have discussed it too.

@Joe Shearer

Again, I note the comment. We have been through this before. I believe that this was an appropriate case for a negative rating, and I also note that apparently, in your view, the rating should be used at arm's length, in cases where the rating is not assigned by a person involved. However, I would like to know if you are aware of the context of the use of the term 'Jaichand'. That would make an enormous difference.

Its related.

ever wondered how did it all begin?

May be my perception of the situation is diff from your's.

Sure

It is not clear to me that any of the comments above are relevant to the questions that have been put to me,directly or indirectly.

 

[nair]

• Before going further, my conclusion at the end of this set of clarifications is that I invite @Levina , @nair , and @SpArK to share with us
  • what they each, individually believe should be the grounds for awarding a negative rating;
  • what they each, individually believe should be the response to a question raised about my honour, and to this particular unbearable insult;
  • what they each, individually think about the persistent malignancy of the person rated, who persisted in that defamatory attack even after being asked to retract it

I am not advocating or agreeing to what he said...... (to be honest i did not know the history part of the name mentioned and it's significance in the first place, later had to take a help of a friend to understand).......For me both were not understanding each others points.........

1) You were using pakistani perspective for them to sign,
2) He was upset looking at an Indian using that term to a terrorist (even though that was on a different perspective)
It should have ended there.......... Both were right on their perspectives, but did not understand each other's perspective....

This is my understanding..... ( i could be wrong though)

Everyone has their own views, I respect yours even though i do not agree with it..... Cheers

 

[Levina]

especially due to a propensity to lose my temper quickly.

There!!!
Need i tell you more why you should reconsider your rating?

• what they each, individually believe should be the grounds for awarding a negative rating;

Negative rating was introduced with the intention of hiding posts which are abusive.
It helps when mods aren't around to moderate posts, or when one of the member starts behaving astray. But i still doubt if it serves its purpose, because despite the negative rating members can open the post and read it. Just like the posts of ignored members.
So, i do NOT support negative rating.
I dont think it serves any purpose other than sending negative vibes and this is not the first time I'm saying this.

what they each, individually believe should be the response to a question raised about my honour, and to this particular unbearable insult;

Sir, did you realize that you provoked the member?
I'm sorry to say but you got down to personal attacks, this happened despite the member reminding you to avoid personal attacks.

what they each, individually think about the persistent malignancy of the person rated, who persisted in that defamatory attack even after being asked to retract it.

The 2nd question has been rehashed.

I know you might have got hurt at his (Jaichand) comment, but intentionally or unintentionally you provoked him to say it.
In the worst case scenario, you could have reported the post. (Negative rating is not something that i would recommend anyone).

and now...
lets take a look at how such a situation could have been avoided.
Look at your post below>>>

This complete failure of communication finally ended with a direct questioning of my integrity and patriotism when I was called 'Jaichand'.

Sir, you as a badge holder have the privilege to start a PM but he can not. You could have started a PM and put forward your views instead of a public show-down.

Now, this is my take on the situation.
@third eye , as i know him, is a sane member. But let me be frank, i have on many occasions picked up arguments with him. This negative rating should actually be none of my concern, but there's another issue which needs to be addressed here >>> Sir, i have seen you loose your temper quite often on the forum, and get down to personal attacks. It can be tolerated as long as you do that to a troll but not to a reputed member of the forum.
This is my humble opinion.

PDF is not my website, nor am i badge holder here. So finally its your and admin's call.

 

[SpArK]

I note your judgement and disagree completely. However, if you remain of the same opinion after applying your mind to it, please let me know. Please see my comments above.



It is not clear to me that any of the comments above are relevant to the questions that have been put to me,directly or indirectly.

My judgement is not based on what the conversation or disagreements you 2 were having.

When quoting or requoting , a person with rating power position dont usually rate the other guy negative because he disagrees over his views or opinion, usually other people with that privilege does it.

Or else normal members will have a fear of engaging in a conversation with that guy.

Also third eye is an old member with an excellent track record of civility and commonsense, or else you would have had the opportunity to negative rate almost all his posts after you shot the first bullet "at him".

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not advocating or agreeing to what he said...... (to be honest i did not know the history part of the name mentioned and it's significance in the first place, later had to take a help of a friend to understand).......For me both were not understanding each others points.........

1) You were using pakistani perspective for them to sign,
2) He was upset looking at an Indian using that term to a terrorist (even though that was on a different perspective)
It should have ended there.......... Both were right on their perspectives, but did not understand each other's perspective....

This is my understanding..... ( i could be wrong though)

Everyone has their own views, I respect yours even though i do not agree with it..... Cheers

Briefly, the strongest suggestion of treachery that a north Indian could make would be to call someone a 'Jaichand'. Cultural contexts differ; in the east, the equivalent, used in that sense, and provoking the same reaction.

I understood the other perspective very well, and felt that it was asinine. One does not draft a petition for Jews and use the phrase "....going together like bacon and eggs".

Finally, I asked you to speak up about what you felt should have been, since you were clear that what happened - the negative rating - should not have been. It is a pity that this most important part seems to have missed your attention. May I once again request you to consider sharing your views on the three questions? It is easy to criticise in general terms and then turn away when asked what should have been the proper way. I hope you will not take recourse to it.

There!!!
Need i tell you more why you should reconsider your rating?



Negative rating were introduced with the intention of hiding posts which are abusive.
It helps when mods aren't around to moderate posts, or when one of the member starts behaving astray. But i still doubt if it serves its purpose, because despite the negative rating members can open the post and read it. Just like the posts of ignored members.
So, i do NOT support negative rating.
I dont think it serves any purpose other than sending negative vibes and this is not the first time I'm saying this.


Sir, did you realize that you provoked the member?
I'm sorry to say but you got down to personal attacks, this happened despite the member reminding you to avoid personal attacks.


The 2nd question has been rehashed.

I know you might have got hurt at his (Jaichand) comment, but intentionally or unintentionally you provoked him to say it.

and now...
lets take a look at how such a situation could have been avoided.
Look at your post below>>>

Sir, you as a badge holder have the privilege to start a PM but he can not. You could have started a PM and put forward your views instead of a public show-down.

Now, this is my take on the situation.
@third eye , as i know him, is a sane member. But let me be frank, i have on many occasions picked up arguments with him. This negative rating should actually be none of my concern, but there's another issue which needs to be addressed here >>> Sir, i have seen you loose your temper quite often on the forum, and get down to personal attacks. It can be tolerated as long as you do that to a troll but not to a reputed member of the forum.
This is my humble opinion.
PDF is not my website, nor am i badge holder here. So finally its your and admin's call.

Thank you for your closely-argued response.

1. You point to my short temper as a reason to reconsider my rating. I note it, but believe that you are not looking at the full picture. Please read on.
2. About the function of negative ratings, I believe that quite apart from hiding a post, which it does in a very inefficient manner, since that same post might have been quoted and might appear in all its inglory in quoted references down the thread, another use is to signal strong disapproval of warped or perverted sentiments, or ethnic or national or religious abuse, or the like. The moral dimension should matter.
3. You mention that I started personally attacking the member, and that provoked the comment in question. In reply, putting it bluntly, if you were to insult me, called me stupid and incompetent, I would probably retaliate (but probably not, for reasons I adduce), but I would stop far short of sexual abuse or insinuations about your personal character. Those are not comparable. Nor was my calling someone stupid enough justification for his calling me a traitor. That is an equation which is totally unacceptable.
4. You are of the opinion that an exchange through a PM might have averted the situation. PM is not available any more; it is available on a very restricted basis. You are mistaken in assuming that a badge-holder can PM any other member; I have not found that to work. So unfortunately, your proposed solution was never technically possible.
5. If you have seen me lose my temper often, you might have noticed two things: first, that those incidents are due to complete ignorance of a subject and dogged insistence on a point of view at odds with all the information available on it, or on an abusive and intolerant position which, again, strays from the topic and becomes an exercise in calumny; second, that if the lapses in gathering information and making informed posts, or any unwholesome references to persons or groups are rectified, I am the first to acknowledge it and to welcome it. If you wish me now to become smarmy and hypocritical, it is too late for that. I try not to be personal, but sometimes it is honestly very difficult.

My judgement is not based on what the conversation or disagreements you 2 were having.

When quoting or requoting , a person with rating power position dont usually rate the other guy negative because he disagrees over his views or opinion, usually other people with that privilege does it.

Or else normal members will have a fear of engaging in a conversation with that guy.

Noted. @Levina just made the same point.

Also third eye is an old member with an excellent track record of civility and commonsense, or else you would have had the opportunity to negative rate almost all his posts after you shot the first bullet "at him".

I didn't get the logic of this last. Could you explain in simpler terms? Are you saying that he was very tolerant for a very long time and finally succumbed, and that is why only his last remark was one that could attract censure?

 

[nair]

Briefly, the strongest suggestion of treachery that a north Indian could make would be to call someone a 'Jaichand'. Cultural contexts differ; in the east, the equivalent, used in that sense, and provoking the same reaction.

Well I explained it in my previous post what i thought about it....... Now when it comes to provocation, it came from you in the first place...... Yes the "Jaichand" word was harsh towards you......

Now ln to your questions...

what they each, individually believe should be the grounds for awarding a negative rating

Agreed...... But there there was an unwritten rule (discussed in tta section) not to award a rating if you are in a direct conversation with a guy who does not have the power of rating......

what they each, individually believe should be the response to a question raised about my honour, and to this particular unbearable insult

Well I would not rate it myself , i normally report these posts and move on or quit the conversation..... That is me....

what they each, individually think about the persistent malignancy of the person rated, who persisted in that defamatory attack even after being asked to retract it

Again I have been reading his post for a very long time, and barring few posts he is one of the very few sane members from our country in this forum.... Not only that he is a ex military guy (if i am not wrong)....... So I guess heat of the moment or got tempted with the personal attack on him...... He should not have done that or not gone to that level.... It is your personal choice and judgement (based on the rules laid) to rate any post......

It is my opinion.... I guess we can always have a difference of opinion on a forum like this...... I respect your opinion, and you may respect mine and agree to disagree (if there is one)

Let us move on...........

 

[SpArK]

Noted. @Levina just made the same point.



I didn't get the logic of this last. Could you explain in simpler terms? Are you saying that he was very tolerant for a very long time and finally succumbed, and that is why only his last remark was one that could attract censure?

Yup, he is tolerant for a very long time and didnt succumbed either not even in this thread,...thats why he survived here long, longer than you and me and without any fancy tags with power...

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yup, he is tolerant for a very long time and didnt succumbed either not even in this thread,...thats why he survived here long, longer than you and me and without any fancy tags with power...

Very well.

@nair
@Levina
@SpArK

1. Your point that the rating is to be used outside a discussion one is having oneself, and is to be used solely for hiding an unacceptable post, is noted. It does not seem to be the whole position, but that is another matter.
2. I bitterly disagree with your cursory, dismissive attitude to the abuse I received, but understand that it does not seem very serious to you.
3. I have responded in line with the inputs given, however strongly I disagree with them. And I disagree very strongly with them.

 

[nair]

Very well.

@nair
@Levina
@SpArK

1. Your point that the rating is to be used outside a discussion one is having oneself, and is to be used solely for hiding an unacceptable post, is noted. It does not seem to be the whole position, but that is another matter.
2. I bitterly disagree with your cursory, dismissive attitude to the abuse I received, but understand that it does not seem very serious to you.
3. I have responded in line with the inputs given, however strongly I disagree with them. And I disagree very strongly with them.

Let us move on.... I have nothing to more to add.....

 

[Levina]

another use is to signal strong disapproval of warped or perverted sentiments, or ethnic or national or religious abuse, or the like.

Moderation serves the same purpose. Next comes the infraction which sends a strong message across.
There is no good reason for marking a reputed member negative.

Nor was my calling someone stupid enough justification for his calling me a traitor.

Sir, its human psychology. When you called him stupid and thick head, your post was being read by a lot of other members on the forum. Ever wondered how would that have effected him? The same logic of honor applies on the member you marked negative.

PM is not available any more; it is available on a very restricted basis. You are mistaken in assuming that a badge-holder can PM any other member; I have not found that to work. So unfortunately, your proposed solution was never technically possible.

Where there's a will there's a way!!!

You being a senior member are looked upon by others.
If not PM, you could have taken this conversation to any of the threads in members club and resolved it there. I have seen many TTAs do that.

first, that those incidents are due to complete ignorance of a subject and dogged insistence on a point of view at odds with all the information available on it,

Au contraire, i have felt that its your perception that the other member doesn't have any knowledge on the subject.
I am being honest here. I wanted to point this out on many occasions, but I refrained because you and me have not been able to see eye to eye recently. Or you can say, i kinda knew that i was on your ignore list, which is fine with me since we hold divergent views. This conversation is a proof.

if the lapses in gathering information and making informed posts, or any unwholesome references to persons or groups are rectified, I am the first to acknowledge it and to welcome it.

Yes, i know. Once you apologized to me after marking me negative. I know it takes a lot of courage to apologize. So you earn my respect there.

 

[MilSpec]

1. Before going further, my conclusion at the end of this set of clarifications is that I invite @Levina , @nair , and @SpArK to share with us
   • what they each, individually believe should be the grounds for awarding a negative rating;
   • what they each, individually believe should be the response to a question raised about my honour, and to this particular unbearable insult;
   • what they each, individually think about the persistent malignancy of the person rated, who persisted in that defamatory attack even after being asked to retract it.

My comment might be unnecessary here, But I will point out the general idea of rating for me is
>Insult to nationality, community, religion, (in rare cases organisation)
>Personal insults
>Profanity
>and extremely low quality posts.
(all four of the criterion are based on my judgement/interpretation of the post)

I try not to rate on personal attacks especially when in direct discussion with the individual, as rank holders are easy target for most of the posters with a different opinion to indulge in personal attacks when they run out of rational or factual argument. If I do, I generally guide them to the post review thread of @Slav Defence to get a review on the rating and to get it reversed if the moderators choose to do so....

@Levina
Joe sir to me has been one of the most prolific members here, there have been a couple of occasions when he hasn't liked a post or two of mine and given a a good bit of scolding, I apologized, and moved one. We are all here to learn, and @Joe Shearer has a lot to teach at-least to kids like me. If he thinks there was a need to rate, just take it as a slap on the wrist, let the mods decide, and move on.

@third eye in all my interactions has been a pleasant and respectful member to interact with, I rarely get involved in political threads, and most of the time my take is similar to centrist-right leaning, the times that I do have an opposing view, I do come under attack from the uber-right winger.

I don't think there is any need to either of them to hold any negativity towards each other, try and understand each others positions, respectfully disagree, and disengage. That's all i will add.

 

[Levina]

@Levina
Joe sir to me has been one of the most prolific members here, there have been a couple of occasions when he hasn't liked a post or two of mine and given a a good bit of scolding, I apologized, and moved one. We are all here to learn, and @Joe Shearer has a lot to teach at-least to kids like me. .

For the same reason i have maintained that if ever i meet a PDF member in my real life, it would be Joe sir. Its a completely diff issue that we hold very divergent views. Lol

If he thinks there was a need to rate, just take it as a slap on the wrist, let the mods decide, and move on.

As i said, this is none of my business, but then as a forum member i decided to point at something unpleasant, which could have been avoided.

 

[nair]

Joe sir to me has been one of the most prolific members here, there have been a couple of occasions when he hasn't liked a post or two of mine and given a a good bit of scolding, I apologized, and moved one. We are all here to learn, and @Joe Shearer has a lot to teach at-least to kids like me. If he thinks there was a need to rate, just take it as a slap on the wrist, let the mods decide, and move on.

I guess All of us respect him, and which could be sensed from the posts here (after the issue raised), normally if anyone of us were in his place, this would have been a different discussion, Just because he is respected better than any of us, and rightly so .....

"Last 2 pages it was totally off topic discussion"...... I guess it is time that we get to the topic and focus on the bloodshed and Kashmir unrest

 

[Slav Defence]

I am looking into the issue.Stick to the topic or else thread will be locked.

 

[MilSpec]

"Last 2 pages it was totally off topic discussion"...... I guess it is time that we get to the topic and focus on the bloodshed and Kashmir unrest

On topic,

I have very little to contribute,
Never been to Kashmir, don't know much about the political situation, did date a Kashmiri Pandit girl whose family was displaced and know that it was a sensitive topic for her to talk about. I will refrain and commenting and rather just learn a bit.