[rusty trawler]

Hi Panda

I’m guilty of that,
But please feel free to ignore anything i write.

Sorry if it offends.

[rusty trawler]

@pepsi wrote:

A Mark Rothko Contemporary piece of art…. Preferably the Orange, red and yellow one … :lol:

Only joking ! Btw!

8-[

lol pepsi

[rusty trawler]

Dear lucy lox

Many thanks for your Christmas letter and please accept my apologies for taking so long to get to you back to you.

As you know this happens to be my busy time of year so it’s hard to get back in a timely fashion to all the girls who have behaved all year long. Normally I can rely on the assistance of Mrs Claus, but last week she went AWOL with the wives of all the elves. The only clue was a scribbled letter that said, ‘Men are useless.’ Naturally I’m quite worried. They emptied the drink cabinet as well!

I also received a letter from a stocking factory that requested that I try to dissuade women from asking stockings for Xmas as there seems to have been a run on pink stockings and they can’t cope with recent demand.

And there was a vituperative letter from the partners of some people called Kenty, Gill, Angelbabe and Jewel stating that their Missuses didn’t seem to be too impressed when they said that all they wanted for Christmas was comedy Y-fronts to spice up the traditional Boxing Day bedroom action. They have no idea what’s going on, but they are not happy bunnies.

I’d write more but I’m currently on a recruitment drive because some pop star has asked for a beefed-up security detail for her Christmas present, something to do with her being scared because some crazy woman has a mad crush on her.

So you can see it’s all gone pear-shaped at the grotto. But you’ve been a good girl, right? Remind me what you want again.

With love

Santa

PS: If you happen so to see a bunch of tipsy ladies dressed head-to-toe in pink with T-shirts that say Crimbo Bimbos, kindly point them in the direction of the North Pole.

[rusty trawler]

Mostley,i agree with what you have to say.What do you mean though fantastical refrences to sexual predelictations?Look if you mean me talking about things that disgust and abore me.I have talked about three people in this way.One was Jadey in which i was way off the mark,she did explane to me and the room that her brother told me these things,saying it was some sort of test,to see howe i would react.The other two im not willing to talk about on the boards.One person sed in the room that sexual consent should be dropped to the age of twelve.This incensed me,i was very angry and upset about this.The other one,someone sent me something that botherd me.Yes i havent went about things the right way,i should have but diddent.But you know im not the onley one.I wouldent have knon about these things if i hadent been told them.You seem very willing to add my name to that statment,but to be honest i dont care.It gives me a chance to clear things up.You dont seem willing to use anyone elses name but me and claires.

Hi moon,

I don’t want to use to the boards to engage in a tit for tat debate because i think it’s counterproductive and not particularly fair on you. But I’ll respond briefly.

I did mention both your name and Claire’s but only in direct response to things that had already been posted. The thread is primarily about you and is titled rosebabes stop booting moonshadow all the time, so I’m not guilty of putting your name in the public domain. But I relish no enjoyment in this and I also made the following statement:

“Incidentally, I only mention these names because they have otherwise been identified in this thread, there other culprits that I think are just as ‘guilty’.”

I do tend to go on a bit and I think you may have glossed over this. I don’t blame you because I understand what I sense to be your frustrations.

You mentioned my comment about ‘sexual predilections’ but it this wasn’t necessarily directed at you. Not that I’m suggesting that you’re blameless, but more so because I have the memory of a gnat and can’t remember specific instances in detail. I’ll gladly replace that statement by saying a lot of very insensitive things are said – and again I will say there are other culprits that I think are just as ‘guilty’.

I don’t know all the details and to be quite frank I don’t want to. From my vantage point it looks like a petty squabble gone horribly wrong. I’d hazard a guess a few others will share that observation. Again, I’m not necessarily blaming you as it takes at least two people to have a spat.

If I was to ask myself if I thought you are own worst enemy on JC, I would have to state that I do. But if I was to ask the supplementary question do I think you are treated fairly, then I would have to state I don’t think that you always are.

I hope you understand that I don’t intend you any malice and the last thing I would want is for my words to add to any frustrations you may currently have. Feel free to PM if you want further clarification, from experience I’m sure you know I’ll gladly talk to you.

[rusty trawler]

@Sgt Pepper wrote:

I recommend that Rusters be banned for life for telling that totally atrocious joke!! :)

In saying that, I came in using the name Dalai Lama one night.
I was subsequently booted by an evil guide citing me for overt use of Profound language :roll:
Go figure.

lol Sgt. you think that’s bad? i’m almost tempted to tell a joke a day in the lobby, and no-one will complain about anyone else anymore.

[rusty trawler]

I’m a relative newbie to Just Chat and I suspect there is a lot of historical context that I am unaware of with regards to the booting of the some of the aforementioned, so I don’t expect my argument to cover all the bases. It’s easy to note that the guides and hosts have an unenviable task – damned if they do, damned if they don’t – and although I don’t envy any of them, I do know that JC would be a hell of a lot worse without them: despite how entertaining, gregarious and downright weird many of you are, it’s way too easy for those few who are hell bent on making it a crappy experience for the majority of us to accomplish their task if we didn’t have the guides to ensure of modicum of decent behaviour.

However, that said, it does sometimes appear that the boot policy is rather arbitrary. If some are on a boot on site order for what appears to be a silly squabble between several participants, then I fail to understand why others whose contribution to JC can be relied upon to be sexist, racist or homophobic don’t appear to be similarly censured. I’m not condoning Moon or Claire, whilst calling someone ‘fat’ or ‘ugly’ or making what appears to be fantastical references to sexual predilections is reprehensible, it’s not on a par to denying the Holocaust. Incidentally, I only mention these names because they have otherwise been identified in this thread, there other culprits that I think are just as ‘guilty’.

I don’t know if the technology exists to permanently ban someone, I suspect it doesn’t and enterprising chatters will probably find a way to circumnavigate any obstacles, and this might be in part why people tend to get away with dreadful statements. Nonetheless, I have personally witnessed situations where guides have been present and certain names (I can’t say with any degree of certainty that the same person is behind the chat names on all these occasions) appear to get away with stuff. This may not be the case. It’s possible that there are processes in place that chatters are not privy to. But it is then perhaps understandable why some chatters suggest that favouritism exists or certain special allowances are permitted for some people.

I don’t entirely buy free speech as a counter-argument because it’s not without certain limitations, of which organisations tend to be aware of because it affects their bottom line. I don’t see how JC can be insulated from this.

Ultimately, I have to conclude that, for the most part, those that do get banned, gagged or censured in some other way, tend to have themselves to blame.

1. We can all be a little bit more thick-skinned and ignore the idiots and haters.

2. We can all accept that we have the right to offend and be offended, within reason. We don’t need to react to every slight in JC. We can stick pins in dolls, curse the person under our breath or simply laugh at their lack of social skills.

3. We could all remember that those that attack us rarely know anything about us.

4. There’s an iggy button that we all should use a little more. Failing everything else there is an off button on every computer and we can simply leave the world of JC for a bit.

I’m just as guilty as anyone else, show me an internet bully and watch my futile attempt to persuade him/her of the error of his ways. Sometimes rational thinking is the last thing that we tend to use.

On a lighter note I saw a silly joke in Saturday’s Guardian that tickled me:

Teacher: “Use the word fascinate in a sentence.”
Kid: “My coat has ten buttons but I can only fasten eight.” Ba boom!

[rusty trawler]

I think reasonable people can deduce the aims and goals of the SBL and other similar organisations quite easily. The SBL purports to exist to address historical imbalances in the representation of black people in the British legal system. And this may in turn address the disproportional representation of black people in the penal system (this bit is a rather complex argument and if I get started I’ll go on for yonks, so I’ll wait for someone says ‘rubbish, rusty, you don’t know what you’re talking about…‘ before I get going on that).

We are all (minorities too) complicit in racism, sexism, homophobia etc whilst we struggle to live our own busy lives; despite our best intentions we don’t always have the necessary skill/ knowledge/time/courage to tackle the status quo, and we let things slide. Hence, for example, we all watch telly despite its consistent inability to reflect the society we live in. A personal peev of mine is crime fiction: watch almost any programme and, rest assured, there will be a black person who is a member of the police team but invariably is nothing more than a bit-part in the series. I have personally dubbed this type of tokenism ambient casting, because they are part of the programmes’ wallpaper, simply there to add to the ‘gritty realism’ and it also helps to tick the ‘we’re doing our bit for multi-cultural Britain box.’ But we watch, because generally speaking we are not mindful of the problem. When racism doesn’t personally impact on us, it’s harder to see. When we are the beneficiaries of societal inconsistencies, it’s easy for us to say all our gains are purely the results of our jolly good hard work.

Organisations like the SBL consist of members with a keener eye on such issues. As others have very eloquently stated on this thread, the raison d’etre of organisations like the SBL is to make society fairer. And their members are well-placed to understand and construct strategies to combat the problems of racism in a conducive environment.

Ethnic minorities are underrepresented in many positive strata of our society and overrepresented in areas that can keep them downtrodden. Any group with a mandate that allows minorities to collectively confront these things is surely a good thing.

The whole football thing has been an own goal for the SBL. The FA is no more institutionally racist than the BBC or any other organisation. I think they have been very inept in tackling racism, but I readily acknowledge that they have achieved more than similar ruling bodies in other countries – although that change has mainly been driven mainly by the terraces.

[rusty trawler]

You make a good point Mrs Teapot.

I think there is a witch hunt underfoot and that sociologists would define some elements of all this as a classic moral panic. But we can also evidence some terrible incompetences on the side of the authorities and the press.

I question how seriously the police would have taken allegations of a group from a snotty-nosed kid back in the seventies. And back then there was a greater expectancy, particularly among women, that these things happen and you just had to endure/handle a bit o lechery.

I fear it will mostly be a no-win state of affairs for those making genuine allegations and for anyone who is wrongly accused. Hopefully relevant institutions will adapt their processes to make things a bit better.

[rusty trawler]

@kent f OBE wrote:

@panda12 wrote:

I asked a friend of a friend why he used the word paki.

He said its an abbreviation of Pakistani.

He explained it’s no different from calling British people Brits or Australian people Aussies or American people yanks or Japanese people Japs.

What do you think?

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows it is offensive for obvious reasons….you can argue till you are blue in the face about the Brit comparison
I am British so why do I get called a Paki and not a Brit? Because Brit isn’t offensive…doesn’t have the same negative impact as Paki
When I am told to go back to where I came from….I say “ok I will make my way back to Dartford shortly”
When I am called a Paki I ask the abuser to go back to school and pay attention to Geography lessons more

Asian, fine, Female fine. British, well that’s fine too. But Dartford? Dartford!….. never darken my jc door with your presence again.

I agree. Like i said, it would be difficult to conflate the two terms in most circumstances. I would always question the motives of someone who would want to use terms that are widely considered offensive.

[rusty trawler]

@panda12 wrote:

I asked a friend of a friend why he used the word paki.

He said its an abbreviation of Pakistani.

He explained it’s no different from calling British people Brits or Australian people Aussies or American people yanks or Japanese people Japs.

What do you think?

My initial thoughts are that your friend is either very silly or at the very least very naive. I’m surmising that your friend is either British or Australian, and in which case I’m hard pushed to see how he can’t understand the cultural context of that word here or in Australia. He might suggest that it is just a contraction of the word Pakistani, but it has been used to define certain Asian people (regardless of whether they are from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc) as being ‘other’, i.e. not British. It’s a term that has been used to imply that they are inferior. Generally speaking, you can’t make a similar correlation with the terms like Brit or Aussie (not too sure about Jap).

If the goal is not to be offensive then I personally don’t find this very difficult. For me it’s simply a case of identifying the terms that the people you want to describe find unacceptable and refrain from saying them. We all make mistakes sometimes, naturally, but a quick apology and willingness to adapt should more than enable us to communicate effectively with each other.

[Author]

Posts