These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Conduct Unbecoming a PIE officer
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Brother Ludwigus
#81 - 2013-02-19 14:19:15 UTC
I have been instructed not to post further but I will gladly accept and am ready for any and all consequences that may come of making this post. But a man cannot stand by while he is being viscously slandered apropos of nothing and maintain his dignity.

Allow me to state explicitly and unambiguously the sequence of events which has just occurred over the course of the last handful of contributions of this thread for the skimmers among you who have me suddenly billed as a terrible person.

1. Knoot wrote a sentence.
2. Jev responded to a fraction of it.
3. I pointed out the qualifying part of said sentence.
4. A whole lot of people read into that things that were not there at all.

Now allow me to point out that I am not privy to logs. I am not even acquainted with the involved parties beyond the writings of one once-promising essayist. So I am not commenting on the particular event. I cannot believe she asked for it when I am not aware of the specifics. Nor am I condemning women for behaving in a similar manner to men in their sexual expression. Quite the opposite. Harlotry of the sort I object to occurs more frequently in men as they seem less able to exert self control, as von Khan has unfortunately become a tragically prominent example.

I pointed out to someone something they seem to have not read or to have misinterpreted.


"PUSH BUTTON RECEIVE GENITALS"? How dare you read such rot into my words where there is no such thing.

I have devoted my live to the Empress. Claiming that I "hate women" because my values do not agree with sexual promiscuity in general calls this into question and I cannot abide this sort of slander.

Soli Deo gloria.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#82 - 2013-02-19 14:27:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberious Thessalonia
Brother Ludwigus wrote:
I have been instructed not to post further but I will gladly accept and am ready for any and all consequences that may come of making this post. But a man cannot stand by while he is being viscously slandered apropos of nothing and maintain his dignity.

Allow me to state explicitly and unambiguously the sequence of events which has just occurred over the course of the last handful of contributions of this thread for the skimmers among you who have me suddenly billed as a terrible person.

1. Knoot wrote a sentence.
2. Jev responded to a fraction of it.
3. I pointed out the qualifying part of said sentence.
4. A whole lot of people read into that things that were not there at all.

Now allow me to point out that I am not privy to logs. I am not even acquainted with the involved parties beyond the writings of one once-promising essayist. So I am not commenting on the particular event. I cannot believe she asked for it when I am not aware of the specifics. Nor am I condemning women for behaving in a similar manner to men in their sexual expression. Quite the opposite. Harlotry of the sort I object to occurs more frequently in men as they seem less able to exert self control, as von Khan has unfortunately become a tragically prominent example.

I pointed out to someone something they seem to have not read or to have misinterpreted.


"PUSH BUTTON RECEIVE GENITALS"? How dare you read such rot into my words where there is no such thing.

I have devoted my live to the Empress. Claiming that I "hate women" because my values do not agree with sexual promiscuity in general calls this into question and I cannot abide this sort of slander.


I am afraid you have entirely misread the point. Go back and try again. This is not an apology for or an explanation of any of the behavior you have demonstrated in this thread.

You assumed from the get go that Silas was "asking for it", as it were, and then doubled down upon that error in judgement by stating that a woman who teases but does not "put out" is as bad as a woman who "puts out", both of which assume that a woman ought to be utterly powerless when it comes to sexual relations. You then doubled down further on this in your explanation for your belief that this is the case.

People are, rightly, jumping on you because the opinion you have stated is utterly barbaric in nature.

Your post did not state that it was against promiscuity in general. It stated that you expected the woman to "put out" when, laughably, you believed that is what she implied. You, sir, are entirely for promiscuity. You are also then for calling the woman a harlot.

You are a misogynist, and you are being rightly attacked for it.

You should have listened to your admiralty and not posted again.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#83 - 2013-02-19 14:30:53 UTC
I hereby submit the latter portion of this thread (up to this point of the discussion) as a case study for why interjecting into a situation without context should be avoided at all costs, especially by individuals bearing representation for another individual or entity.

~Malcolm Khross
Gwen Ikiryo
Alexylva Paradox
#84 - 2013-02-19 14:34:35 UTC
I should hope you have a rope to go with that spade of yours, Mister Ludwigus; You're digging yourself into a quite considerable hole.
Brother Ludwigus
#85 - 2013-02-19 14:43:05 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:


I am afraid you have entirely misread the point. Go back and try again. This is not an apology for or an explanation of any of the behavior you have demonstrated in this thread.

You assumed from the get go that Silas was "asking for it", as it were, and then doubled down upon that error in judgement by stating that a woman who teases but does not "put out" is as bad as a woman who "puts out", both of which assume that a woman ought to be utterly powerless when it comes to sexual relations. You then doubled down further on this in your explanation for your belief that this is the case.

People are, rightly, jumping on you because the opinion you have stated is utterly barbaric in nature.

Your post did not state that it was against promiscuity in general. It stated that you expected the woman to "put out" when, laughably, you believed that is what she implied. You, sir, are entirely for promiscuity. You are also then for calling the woman a harlot.

You are a misogynist, and you are being rightly attacked for it.

You should have listened to your admiralty and not posted again.


Once again you have read into my posts things which are not there in an effort to sully my reputation, and I foolishly am not remaining aloof and ignoring it. My pride prevents me from allowing you to drag me through the mud unhindered.

My presumption at the outset was not that Silas was 'asking for it', but that she was using sexuality as a weapon to manipulate someone to her desires. This is the harlotry I am against, be it performed by man or woman. Then for someone already engaged in such a sinful act to void their part of the bargain, to remove the carrot as it were, the incentive to von Khan's supposed betrayal and disgrace compounds the sin. Rescinding on a contract is grave enough a crime but on such a demonic pact worse still. The pair of them can go screw each other and whoever else the please for the rest of eternity for all I care, I will still regard sexual manipulation as sinful, dishonest sexual manipulation moreso. This doesn't even relate to gender, but morality.

Soli Deo gloria.
Natalcya Katla
Astropolitan Front
#86 - 2013-02-19 14:53:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Natalcya Katla
Two for the price of one, Captain Vitalia. Bravo.
Lasairiona
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2013-02-19 14:56:40 UTC
I fully agree that women are not put here to be used and taken advantage of by men.

However, the way this was dealt with on the part of the victim was a bit childish. I couldn't help but imagine her stomping her feet in outrage.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#88 - 2013-02-19 15:07:18 UTC
Brother Ludwigus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:


I am afraid you have entirely misread the point. Go back and try again. This is not an apology for or an explanation of any of the behavior you have demonstrated in this thread.

You assumed from the get go that Silas was "asking for it", as it were, and then doubled down upon that error in judgement by stating that a woman who teases but does not "put out" is as bad as a woman who "puts out", both of which assume that a woman ought to be utterly powerless when it comes to sexual relations. You then doubled down further on this in your explanation for your belief that this is the case.

People are, rightly, jumping on you because the opinion you have stated is utterly barbaric in nature.

Your post did not state that it was against promiscuity in general. It stated that you expected the woman to "put out" when, laughably, you believed that is what she implied. You, sir, are entirely for promiscuity. You are also then for calling the woman a harlot.

You are a misogynist, and you are being rightly attacked for it.

You should have listened to your admiralty and not posted again.


Once again you have read into my posts things which are not there in an effort to sully my reputation, and I foolishly am not remaining aloof and ignoring it. My pride prevents me from allowing you to drag me through the mud unhindered.

My presumption at the outset was not that Silas was 'asking for it', but that she was using sexuality as a weapon to manipulate someone to her desires. This is the harlotry I am against, be it performed by man or woman. Then for someone already engaged in such a sinful act to void their part of the bargain, to remove the carrot as it were, the incentive to von Khan's supposed betrayal and disgrace compounds the sin. Rescinding on a contract is grave enough a crime but on such a demonic pact worse still. The pair of them can go screw each other and whoever else the please for the rest of eternity for all I care, I will still regard sexual manipulation as sinful, dishonest sexual manipulation moreso. This doesn't even relate to gender, but morality.


There was no harlotry involved, unless you consider a non-committal "you have my interest" as an invitation to immediate sexual intercourse, in which case I have to question your sanity.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#89 - 2013-02-19 15:11:17 UTC
Lasairiona wrote:
I fully agree that women are not put here to be used and taken advantage of by men.


The same is true of the reverse.

~Malcolm Khross
Lasairiona
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2013-02-19 15:15:34 UTC
Malcolm Khross wrote:
Lasairiona wrote:
I fully agree that women are not put here to be used and taken advantage of by men.


The same is true of the reverse.


Yes, I agree with that as well. It goes both ways. I think some forget that though.
Brother Ludwigus
#91 - 2013-02-19 15:47:14 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:


There was no harlotry involved, unless you consider a non-committal "you have my interest" as an invitation to immediate sexual intercourse, in which case I have to question your sanity.


Read what you quoted again. I did not and have not had the opportunity of perusing these logs. I was not discussing the particulars of something I'd not read. I was pointing out something someone else seemingly hadn't read. You have every right to question my sanity, just as I have every right to question your reading comprehension.

Soli Deo gloria.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#92 - 2013-02-19 15:49:24 UTC
Brother Ludwigus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:


There was no harlotry involved, unless you consider a non-committal "you have my interest" as an invitation to immediate sexual intercourse, in which case I have to question your sanity.


Read what you quoted again. I did not and have not had the opportunity of perusing these logs. I was not discussing the particulars of something I'd not read. I was pointing out something someone else seemingly hadn't read. You have every right to question my sanity, just as I have every right to question your reading comprehension.


My point is that regardless of seeing the logs or not (and the part I quoted from Silas was from a thread on this forum) you assumed that it was Silas's fault, that she led your brother into temptation, and was therefore a harlot, when in fact he was the one gleefully pulling himself along by his generative organs, and Silas never indicated at any point that she wanted anything to do with them.
Anabella Rella
Gradient
Electus Matari
#93 - 2013-02-19 16:02:42 UTC
You really should have kept silent as you were directed, Ludwigus. The more you protest and attempt to paint yourself as innocent the deeper you dig your own grave.

When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.
Brother Ludwigus
#94 - 2013-02-19 16:03:47 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:

My point is that regardless of seeing the logs or not (and the part I quoted from Silas was from a thread on this forum) you assumed that it was Silas's fault, that she led your brother into temptation, and was therefore a harlot, when in fact he was the one gleefully pulling himself along by his generative organs, and Silas never indicated at any point that she wanted anything to do with them.


The post in question as I have repeatedly said was to point out the rest of a comrade's sentence an other poster had seemingly failed to read or deliberately ignored. It was not an accusation or an assumption. I was pointing out the content of another's post and agreeing with it. I think I've adequately explained why.

And the fact that what I said happens to relate in this particular instance to a man and a woman is of little relevance. If I made the same statements regarding two men engaged in manipulation and betrayal would it be misogynist?

I demand that you withdraw your accusations of misogyny.

Soli Deo gloria.
Silas Vitalia
Doomheim
#95 - 2013-02-19 16:05:09 UTC
Blake, I haven't had this much fun watching your pilots make blithering public fools of themselves in years. I really should give them a reward.

I'll choose the next ones to corrupt and push into public stupidity a bit more carefully; we'll see if we can't make a large splat when they hit bottom.

Sabik now, Sabik forever
Alizabeth Vea
Doomheim
#96 - 2013-02-19 16:13:11 UTC
Brother Ludwigus wrote:

I demand that you withdraw your accusations of misogyny.


#Patriarchy Lives seems to be a common hashtag trending among baseliner social galnet sites. Instant response polls in the Gallente Federation have #PIEAmarr and #BroLud at record low levels. You're not doing much better in the State. As for the Minmatar that have computers, you're a lost cause on that on, I'm afraid. Self identified female respondents are running 17% below males in (dis)approval ratings.

I think your only course of action is to release a holo of you with a Dominatrix, if you hope to salvage your reputation.

Retainer of Lady Newelle and House Sarum.

"Those who step into the light shall be redeemed, the sins of their past cleansed, so that they may know salvation." -Empress Jamyl Sarum I

Virtue. Valor. Victory.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#97 - 2013-02-19 16:19:37 UTC
Brother Ludwigus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:

My point is that regardless of seeing the logs or not (and the part I quoted from Silas was from a thread on this forum) you assumed that it was Silas's fault, that she led your brother into temptation, and was therefore a harlot, when in fact he was the one gleefully pulling himself along by his generative organs, and Silas never indicated at any point that she wanted anything to do with them.


The post in question as I have repeatedly said was to point out the rest of a comrade's sentence an other poster had seemingly failed to read or deliberately ignored. It was not an accusation or an assumption. I was pointing out the content of another's post and agreeing with it. I think I've adequately explained why.

And the fact that what I said happens to relate in this particular instance to a man and a woman is of little relevance. If I made the same statements regarding two men engaged in manipulation and betrayal would it be misogynist?

I demand that you withdraw your accusations of misogyny.


Once I see evidence that you are no longer a misogynist I will be glad to do so. Until then, I am afraid you are going to have to live with it.
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#98 - 2013-02-19 16:57:47 UTC
I begged that this conversation be closed, and now I find myself commenting. I apologize.

Brother Ludwigus;

There is another word for a woman or man acting suggestively while not carrying out on any implied "contract". It's called flirting. This has been a staple of human interaction for about as long as there have been humans, by my unprofessional estimation.

Further.

Suggesting that flirting results in a "contract" which, if unfulfilled, is reason to shame and insult the individual, is deplorable. This is why we Caldari require our contracts to be written, to clarify these malicious assumptions which can so easily result in pain.

Further.

You have exhibited this behaviour towards women, and have not done so towards men.

Concluding.

This displayed attitude makes you, definitively, misogynistic.

Were you to display this attitude towards men you would be, definitively, misandristic.

I pray you consider these things deeply. This is not an attack, but an opportunity for you.
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#99 - 2013-02-19 19:27:01 UTC
Alizabeth Vea wrote:
Brother Ludwigus wrote:

I demand that you withdraw your accusations of misogyny.


#Patriarchy Lives seems to be a common hashtag trending among baseliner social galnet sites. Instant response polls in the Gallente Federation have #PIEAmarr and #BroLud at record low levels. You're not doing much better in the State. As for the Minmatar that have computers, you're a lost cause on that on, I'm afraid. Self identified female respondents are running 17% below males in (dis)approval ratings.

I think your only course of action is to release a holo of you with a Dominatrix, if you hope to salvage your reputation.


I'm thoroughly confused, Ms Vea, though through no fault of your own. What is a hash tag? You make it seem to be a statistical term, but I am unaware of it. Oh! Let me guess. Is it a gallente term for a hash value for statistical survey data critical points? Oh, I like that term, nice and compact. Am I right?

Also, don't you mean "with a Dominix" instead of "with a dominatrix"? I've never heard of that sort of a ship before. It is an excellent idea, though. A display of valour would certainly help.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#100 - 2013-02-19 19:38:27 UTC
Scherezad wrote:
Alizabeth Vea wrote:
Brother Ludwigus wrote:

I demand that you withdraw your accusations of misogyny.


#Patriarchy Lives seems to be a common hashtag trending among baseliner social galnet sites. Instant response polls in the Gallente Federation have #PIEAmarr and #BroLud at record low levels. You're not doing much better in the State. As for the Minmatar that have computers, you're a lost cause on that on, I'm afraid. Self identified female respondents are running 17% below males in (dis)approval ratings.

I think your only course of action is to release a holo of you with a Dominatrix, if you hope to salvage your reputation.


I'm thoroughly confused, Ms Vea, though through no fault of your own. What is a hash tag? You make it seem to be a statistical term, but I am unaware of it. Oh! Let me guess. Is it a gallente term for a hash value for statistical survey data critical points? Oh, I like that term, nice and compact. Am I right?

Also, don't you mean "with a Dominix" instead of "with a dominatrix"? I've never heard of that sort of a ship before. It is an excellent idea, though. A display of valour would certainly help.


I can't tell you what a Hashtag is, but a dominatrix is a woman who performs the sexual domination of men or other women, often for a living.