Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #1 
MonarchistCatherine, who I do not believe had posted for the past couple of years seems to have quit the forum altogether since then. She was Polish, born in 1994, I think, and had nearly 200 posts here. Sad that she left our company, even if she had been inactive for years.[frown]


EDIT: Her birth year was 1996. Sorry. One of our youngest members quit.

Also I will note that AugieDoggie hasn't posted in about five months and his signature now says (and it has for a while actually) that he is "on indefinite hiatus from the forum".[frown]
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #2 
You know, I miss the forum the way it used to be up until about a year ago. I used to enjoy the discussions I could have with you, KYM, as well as Jovan, Peter and countless others because we all at least shared a common purpose even when we disagreed.

The problems can really be traced to two people:
1) Jonathan in his two appearances on this forum (and he's also trolled on Facebook as well), and the fact that he was allowed to do a lot of damage to the atmosphere and cohesion of the forum.

2) Wessexman, whose making everything out to be One Big Fuss didn't really fit with what we're trying to do, and who just made some other posters (mostly Peter and myself) prickly (at least one other poster told me in PM he was also annoyed by him).

I'm only happy to start posting again only if a lot of changes are made. I just wished we could get back to the way it was before it all happened. I'm sorry it all spun out that way.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,743
Reply with quote  #3 
It is true that even before my current health issues I had considerably restricted my participation, largely because of my distaste for Wessexman. I have since relaxed that a little, posting now and then outside of the genealogical section, but still with no interest in engaging with that particular individual. Jonathan actually didn't bother me in that way, he was clearly a disturbed and confused young man and I mostly felt sorry for him. The views he espoused and propagated here were however unacceptable even to the most tolerant of moderators, which we have (and Lord knows he's put up with enough from me in the past).

I'm not sure that we've ever had all that much discussion between us, though there has been some. I always suspected that my views, beliefs or rather lack thereof, and nature were all unacceptable to you, and you preferred not to engage with me for fear of causing friction. If so that was fine by me, and I respected your views and beliefs and what you brought to the forum. I hope that you will like me make at least a beginning of a return.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #4 
Peter, that has always been my point. It is clear that there are many issues - social and cultural, and views on history - that we are distinctly unlikely to agree on. In the context of this forum, I always consider this secondary to what the primary mission is here, which is defending and restoring monarchies, and about education, advocacy and lobbying (which includes detailed history of royalty and monarchy) towards that end. I never pretended to be anything else.

I confess that my unrepentant "Culture Warrior" and "Cold Warrior" mentality does not mesh well with many, but is understandably forged from my background and experience, including a focus on confronting the Left. This is important too, in the context of monarchism and defending the Crown.

I don't think, either, I would feel sorry for Jonathan. He clearly tried to push something that he should have known is forbidden on this forum, and was made clear to him but he wouldn't listen. My fear, with good reason, was that what he was bringing onto the forum could be very damaging to it and to monarchism in general - again, real world experience validates this.

As for Wessexman, it is very hard for me to be polite about him. Again, there are some points of agreement, but he was more obsessed with over-fussing and pursuing me for my beliefs (particularly my views concerning Iran, Islam and tyranny) and the fact I have a sincere desire to promote monarchism in whatever way is practical. He also made claims about me that were obviously false, if I'm blunt, he was just being a massive prick who shouldn't have been here in the first place.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 835
Reply with quote  #5 
I guess the best way to deal with it if you annoyed over something that happens online is just to turn off the computer for a while and then get back. Constantly keeping the idea in the back of my mind that the internet is not real life has allowed me to stay much calmer at whatever I read online (republicanism excepted) and enjoy it much more. 

Reading this thread so far gives the impression that Wessexman is responsible for inactivity on the forum, and I do want to say I consider that unfair. Perhaps I am sounding a bit naive now, but I think that if we remember we are just a bunch of people giving our opinion and no harm comes of it, there is room for everyone.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #6 
Unfortunate as the disputes have been, I don't think I have much to apologise for (except all the usual stuff less than ideal things we all say and do in such disputes).

I was generally polite to Peter. His dislike of me seems to entirely stem from his dislike of my views on homosexuality and SSM (views I don't shy away from defending if I feel like, though I don't often initiate discussions of them). I never had anything against Peter, though

David V was almost entirely responsible for our dispute, being petty, vindictive, and having a persecution complex - all of which are on display in his posts above. He seemed intent on turning this forum into a place where only his views on monarchism (and much that was tangential) were welcome and were preached constantly. The problems he is referring are that his views were questioned and his will was not followed. I'd be more than happy to bury the hatchet with him. But unless Theodore wishes it, I see no reason to bend to David's peculiar demands (such as not to criticism his views when I feel like it), though, for the good of the board, I will double check in future whether my criticism or disagreement is warranted and worth pointing out.

Jonathan, whatever his views, didn't deserve the quite vicious personal attacks David insisted on making. How this was supposed to help the situation, I have no idea.

I suggest some stop being so sensitive and silly and just discuss and debate issues like grown ups. Yes, I can be opinionated and sometimes enjoy robust discussion. But this is a message board. Posters like me are quite normal and can make quite positive contributions to online forums. Indeed, far more active forums often have plenty of robust debate, and even their fair share of rancour. The suggestion that, within limits, a bit of debate and even tension will cause a message board to die is absurd. I currently moderate a forum myself, and there is plenty of disagreement and yet the place doesn't fall part.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #7 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman

David V was almost entirely responsible for our dispute, being petty, vindictive, and having a persecution complex - all of which are on display in his posts above. He seemed intent on turning this forum into a place where only his views on monarchism (and much that was tangential) were welcome and were preached constantly. The problems he is referring are that his views were questioned and his will was not followed. I'd be more than happy to bury the hatchet with him. But unless Theodore wishes it, I see no reason to bend to David's peculiar demands (such as not to criticism his views when I feel like it), though, for the good of the board, I will double check in future whether my criticism or disagreement is warranted and worth pointing out.


That was never my intention. What I don't like was you making up positions (like calling me a "modernist", "liberal" and "neocon"). Here are two examples of you making stuff up about me that are not true:

http://royalcello.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1285068329&postcount=78
http://royalcello.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1284067104&postcount=37

How exactly am I to respond to this apart from making the 10-paragraph long argument that you seem to demand?

Quote:
Jonathan, whatever his views, didn't deserve the quite vicious personal attacks David insisted on making. How this was supposed to help the situation, I have no idea.


I did not insist on making "vicious personal attacks". Again this is a lie you construct. I simply wanted to remind him that what he was promoting was beyond the pale and damaging to our cause.

Quote:
I suggest some stop being so sensitive and silly and just discuss and debate issues like grown ups. Yes, I can be opinionated and sometimes enjoy robust discussion. But this is a message board. Posters like me are quite normal and can make quite positive contributions to online forums. Indeed, far more active forums often have plenty of robust debate, and even their fair share of rancour. The suggestion that, within limits, a bit of debate and even tension will cause a message board to die is absurd. I currently moderate a forum myself, and there is plenty of disagreement and yet the place doesn't fall part.


I have no problem with robust debate. What I have a problem with is you making up things about a poster without presenting evidence. What you seem to want is to present multi-paragraph arguments about everything and delve into things like spirituality and philosophy that really don't have much to do with promoting the idea of monarchy. If you say you are a "traditionalist even more than a monarchist", it means that monarchism takes a back seat to your peculiar tastes.

I admit that I felt I was being unfairly targeted because you seemed hell bent on questioning everything unreasonably in a way other forum members normally don't. It's a matter of personal pride because that was really hurt, I never hid that I hated you to death as a result. I just don't think that what you offer here is helpful in any way to achieving a goal.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV

That was never my intention. What I don't like was you making up positions (like calling me a "modernist", "liberal" and "neocon"). Here are two examples of you making stuff up about me that are not true:

http://royalcello.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1285068329&postcount=78
http://royalcello.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1284067104&postcount=37

How exactly am I to respond to this apart from making the 10-paragraph long argument that you seem to demand?



I simply reject the idea I have made anything up about you. I critiqued what you wrote based upon what I felt was a legitimate interpretation of your comments. Sometimes you have even stated my interpretation was wrong (such as your support interventionism) and then later posted what seems by any common sense reading to support my interpretation.

If you don't like an interpretation of your comments, the best thing to do is not start moaning about it and casting dark aspirations on the poster's motives. Rather, simply say that it is wrong and state what you actually meant.

Quote:

I did not insist on making "vicious personal attacks". Again this is a lie you construct. I simply wanted to remind him that what he was promoting was beyond the pale and damaging to our cause.


Well, I won't press this unless I can find the post(s) in question. But I do remember your post was gratuitously personal and insulting.

Quote:


I have no problem with robust debate. What I have a problem with is you making up things about a poster without presenting evidence. What you seem to want is to present multi-paragraph arguments about everything and delve into things like spirituality and philosophy that really don't have much to do with promoting the idea of monarchy. If you say you are a "traditionalist even more than a monarchist", it means that monarchism takes a back seat to your peculiar tastes.

I admit that I felt I was being unfairly targeted because you seemed hell bent on questioning everything unreasonably in a way other forum members normally don't. It's a matter of personal pride because that was really hurt, I never hid that I hated you to death as a result. I just don't think that what you offer here is helpful in any way to achieving a goal.


It seems a strange thing to say you hate me to death because of a little internet disagreement and discussion. I'm sorry, but that just isn't a normal reaction.

I disagree I targeted you or anything of the sort. This is a small forum. That many others weren't that interested in critiquing some of your posts doesn't seem to me to prove much.

You always say things like "promoting the idea of monarchy". No doubt that is an indirect purpose of this forum, but it is first and foremost just a discussion forum. What goal are you taking about? Why should I be bound by your views of what the purpose of the forum should be? Anyway, you yourself constantly used to post on topics that were only tangential to monarchism. And you gave views on these topics (some I agreed with and some I didn't) that are highly controversial. This just seems like double-standards to me.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman

Well, I won't press this unless I can find the post(s) in question. But I do remember your post was gratuitously personal and insulting.



It's hardly surprising that one is tempted to get personal and insulting when the subject matter is so obviously offensive as to make one forget about civilised manners. Some things really should be consigned beyond the pale of civilised discussion, and support for any kind of totalitarianism is that.

Quote:

You always say things like "promoting the idea of monarchy". No doubt that is an indirect purpose of this forum, but it is first and foremost just a discussion forum. What goal are you taking about? Why should I be bound by your views of what the purpose of the forum should be? Anyway, you yourself constantly used to post on topics that were only tangential to monarchism. And you gave views on these topics (some I agreed with and some I didn't) that are highly controversial. This just seems like double-standards to me.


I have always had in mind the following:
- defending existing monarchies, and education and public advocacy to that effect
- restoring monarchies, and education and public advocacy to that effect
- discussing the past, present and future of monarchies and how best we can do the above two

It is really not such a difficult task, as I post on things like history, genealogy, and current affairs with a view to defending monarchies and monarchism. You on the other hand seem to think we need much wider and deeper discussion than that. I don't give a damn what your spiritual and philosophical standpoint is. I don't care that you call yourself an arch-traditionalist Perennialist Platonist universalist (geez that's a good way to sell yourself in public). I only care that people are willing to be on our side when opposing the enemies of monarchy and of our civilisation in general without hesitation. I'm more concerned about education, advocacy and action first.

I'll leave this place for now, since I think it'd be best for us not to cross paths. I took a long break because I was tired of arguing. So I'll leave it there.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #10 
I never referred to myself in quite that way of course (I have used those labels, but never combined them all together).

The problem is that your idea of the task of the forum seems to be different to mine. I can discuss those things because I treat this as just a normal message board, simply with a monarchist theme. I treat it as just a place for discussion and debate, and only in an indirect way as a place with a mission to further monarchism. You clearly have a different purpose in mind. I don't see, though, that my view of how to use the forum is wrong. It is up to Theodore, of course.

Again, I must also say that you often bring in issues not directly related to monarchism, and express controversial views about them (some I agree with and some I don't). So there still seems to be a double-standard here.

But I certainly still recognise you are a committed monarchist and bear you no real ill-will.
KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #11 
Attention, everyone, stop the squabbling or I shall be forced to call the zombie penguins!
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I never referred to myself in quite that way of course (I have used those labels, but never combined them all together).


You have called yourself those things so that's the point. Just as you have mocked and insulted me in the past, I think I feel obliged to throw it back at you and your smugness and arrogance.

Quote:
The problem is that your idea of the task of the forum seems to be different to mine. I can discuss those things because I treat this as just a normal message board, simply with a monarchist theme. I treat it as just a place for discussion and debate, and only in an indirect way as a place with a mission to further monarchism. You clearly have a different purpose in mind. I don't see, though, that my view of how to use the forum is wrong. It is up to Theodore, of course.

Again, I must also say that you often bring in issues not directly related to monarchism, and express controversial views about them (some I agree with and some I don't). So there still seems to be a double-standard here.


Well it is a discussion forum but one where monarchies and monarchism receives priority in discussion, to which even non-monarchical topics are related. My fight against the Left and multiculturalists is more or less related to monarchism because of the Left's hatred of the British monarchy and of all monarchies in general, and the fact their anti-Western inanities also undermine and threaten monarchies.

Yes I admit I have a mission, goals in mind, and clearly want to build support for them. Most of us here have at least a strong priority for defending and restoring monarchies whatever our other concerns may be. I tend to believe that those who are willing to put their liberal or traditionalist concerns ahead of monarchism to be utterly selfish. I'm passionate and admittedly that passion can turn to frustration.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:


You have called yourself those things so that's the point. Just as you have mocked and insulted me in the past, I think I feel obliged to throw it back at you and your smugness and arrogance.

You have always been far more insulting and personal towards me than the other way around. Anyway, to successfully mock it takes more than just sneering. You have to show that it is founded upon something. Any republican can just sneer at the very idea of monarchism, any atheist can sneer at the very idea of anyone believing in Catholicism. But such sneering means little unless a good reason why the idea in question should be mocked is conveyed.
Quote:


Well it is a discussion forum but one where monarchies and monarchism receives priority in discussion, to which even non-monarchical topics are related. My fight against the Left and multiculturalists is more or less related to monarchism because of the Left's hatred of the British monarchy and of all monarchies in general, and the fact their anti-Western inanities also undermine and threaten monarchies.

Yes I admit I have a mission, goals in mind, and clearly want to build support for them. Most of us here have at least a strong priority for defending and restoring monarchies whatever our other concerns may be. I tend to believe that those who are willing to put their liberal or traditionalist concerns ahead of monarchism to be utterly selfish. I'm passionate and admittedly that passion can turn to frustration.
I don't know why such people would be selfish, unless you can show why it is selfish not to put monarchism above all else. Anyway, we still clearly have different ideas about the purpose of this forum. Indirectly, it may support the monarchist cause by bringing us together. But I don't see why we must treat it as doing more than that, why we must see it as directly and immediately organising for the cause. Therefore I see nothing wrong with discussing the topics you mentioned above, or with debate between different kinds of monarchists.

Also, I think you'll find, I never brought up any of these topics you don't want to be discussed except when the discussion had already broadened into issues like culture or terrorism or other theoretical or tangential (to monarchism narrowly defined) discussions. Again, there seems a double standard here. You are, it seems, allowed to post on issues not directly related to monarchism, and even make controversial comments on controversial issues in a way just as likely to divide monarchists as anything I have said, yet I am not.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #14 
I admit that I have been more put off by your posting style which I think is needlessly aggressive in terms of questioning and critique. If you know when to lay off people, you would not have provoked such an adverse reaction. I don't deny that I have been wrong in how I have conducted myself, but the fact is it takes two to tango.

Now I don't know who you are, though I actually know who many other forum people are over a considerable period of time. I'm just wondering if you really consider monarchism an important priority to require that you come here and make a fuss about everything, now that you've got a forum of your own more likely to your tastes. What can you offer with your very quaint perspective to the cause of monarchism?

I apologise to other forum members who I respect and who are my friends. I just feel the need to settle something.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
I admit that I have been more put off by your posting style which I think is needlessly aggressive in terms of questioning and critique. If you know when to lay off people, you would not have provoked such an adverse reaction. I don't deny that I have been wrong in how I have conducted myself, but the fact is it takes two to tango.

Now I don't know who you are, though I actually know who many other forum people are over a considerable period of time. I'm just wondering if you really consider monarchism an important priority to require that you come here and make a fuss about everything, now that you've got a forum of your own more likely to your tastes. What can you offer with your very quaint perspective to the cause of monarchism?

I apologise to other forum members who I respect and who are my friends. I just feel the need to settle something.


And I deny all this talk about critiquing you too much or anything like that. It is your sensitivity to criticism that has given you this impression, and perhaps the make up of the board prior to my arrival, not my behaviour. My behaviour has been perfectly normal for a message board. I deserve an apology from you, not the other way around.

I am a monarchist. That is my qualification to post here. I am not sure why your peculiar vision for the forum should be the judge of who gets to post here, especially as you also like to post on controversial issues only indirectly related to monarchism.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.