Request to moderator

fontplayer's picture

Recently my fontplay was deleted without a comment. I realize this is a very liberal group, and you probably got complaints, but I think an explanation would be nice when you delete a post, if only by e-mail. I remain curious as to what aspect of my comment was over the top?

fontplayer's picture

I guess another case of liberals for free speech unless they don't agree with it? It's to be expected when they control the forum, I guess.

I was kind of proud of that one since I had made every aspect of it, including the target; when my old printer's cartridge ran out of yellow, I printed a bunch of magenta targets before putting in a new one. Not to mention putting 21 shots in a 2" hole with a .45 ACP is a *tad* better than most law enforcement officers can do.

(I once considered being one until watching COPS made me realize that they deal with the bottom of the barrel, and more power to them...)
: )

Miss Tiffany's picture

It might have been an accident, Dennis. Although it does take an effort to delete a comment accidentally. For the record, the forums aren't run by liberals either. It may seem that way, but I think we have made an effort not to guided by our politics.

If a comment is deleted, and you feel it was done wrongly, you should e-mail the moderators. E-mailing us even a few days after it happens won't guarantee we recall what or why it happened in the first place.

oldnick's picture

I certainly hope it was no accident, Tiffany: the macho bravado exhibited in comment #2 above leads me to believe that the subject of the post in question has no place in this forum, nor in any other forum other than one devoted to bulletheads.

Handgun worship is simply militarism writ small. This year alone, the nation-states of the world will spent almost one trillion dollars on various kinds of hardware and software intended to maim, mutilate and kill other human beings. The companies and individuals who manufacture this hardware and software will become rich(er); meanwhile, tens of thousands of children will starve to death, and millions will die of preventable diseases or avoidable mishaps. Destroying lives is easy: any fool can do it (hence, this foolish discussion); saving lives is far more difficult, yet it's entirely within our means as a species, if only we allocated these misplaced resources to saving lives, instead of destroying them. If that's liberal thinking, then call me a liberal all you want: I'm not ashamed to wear the label...

fontplayer's picture

then call me a liberal all you want: I’m not ashamed to wear the label

"Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense". (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

The above has been proved time and again. Of course liberals don't usually let the facts get in their way.

The FP in question

Liberals: Making sure only the criminals have them.

fontplayer's picture

PS, Thanks for answering Tiff.

fontplayer's picture

Btw, before anyone gets too worked up, I prefer a Canon D20 these days, although I don't have as much skill with it. But I have some photos I took at the OC Fair yesterday here - the last two days entries. Some nice flower shots in the "60 new photos" link.

Jackson's picture

Of course liberals don’t usually let the facts get in their way.

Please take this crap somewhere else.

Paul Cutler's picture

I don't think that belonged here fontplayer, although I have no idea what the context was.

Also - you forgot don't yank the trigger… :)

peace

fontplayer's picture

Although I respect Nick's fontmaking, I couldn't let that idealistic diatribe float through as relevant.

Sure, we all wish we lived in an ideal world. Guess what. Ain't gonna happen. Not in the way the idealists think anyway. In the meantime, as far as real people are concerned, the FBI also reports that firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them.

But in claiming the moral high-ground with us ignorant hicks, what is important is ideals, not facts.

Now I'm willing to drop it, unless someone else gets on their high-horse.

fontplayer's picture

I don’t think that belonged here fontplayer, although I have no idea what the context was.

OK, I sort of agree. I think a sub-conscious mischieviousness may have been the context, although I can't be sure. Reading Nick's post did give me my best laugh of the day. He sure makes nice fonts, so I am willing to cut him a bunch of slack.

This is just another of those issues that has a lot of emotion attached. And wildly diverging opinions. Long ago, I advised religion and politics (this is a political issue in my mind) be avoided, but was voted down. So I guess I should have known better.
; )

ER's picture

Guns are bad, I much preferred when men dealt with their "issues" by slapping a couple of steel blades together, ahh the good ole days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn8pknWiKfs&mode=related&search=monty%20p...

fontplayer's picture

Hey, controversy isn't the same without you. Thanks for putting it in perspective.
; )

William Berkson's picture

Dennis, I always have an itch to check facts that don't ring true.

Googling I discover that this claim about more weapons being used in self-defense than in crime comes not from FBI statistics but from the research of Prof. Gary Kleck, whose methodology has been severely criticised by others--though the NRA quotes him often.

see for example

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/announcements/kleck.html

and

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

I don't know who is right, but it's not FBI statistics.

ER's picture

You know, I've been thinking about it, this place really needs to either censor everyone, or stay out of the way and let people be the idiots that they may be. We're all adults here, we can take it. But picking and choosing does not make sense to me at all. Censoring any speech or piece of art is truly where things start going awry, it's not what people in the business of communication should practice.

ER

William Berkson's picture

>Censoring any speech or piece of art is truly where things start going awry

As I've argued before, censoring views on politics and religion is not called for, but deleting personal attacks is. It will keep typophile a happier place, in my opinion, with no loss to vigorous argument about any subject.

ER's picture

o.k., they can delete personal attacks, and links to the BBC website, but that's it! Stay away from the video links moderator.

ER

ER's picture

My thing with the BBC, which is often quoted in political discussions here, is that you can do a search there and find anything that backs up your point, so what's the use? For example, let's say I wanted to make the point that TV is actually good for you. Go to the BBC, do a search, and here you go:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_1838000/1838703.stm

Stephen Lording's picture

Guns are bad, I much preferred when men dealt with their “issues” by slapping a couple of steel blades together, ahh the good ole days:

Steel blades, you say? There are more satisfying things to use for slapping than steel blades...

fontplayer's picture

Kleck, whose methodology has been severely criticised by others—though the NRA quotes him often.

I guess it comes down to being a case where statistics can prove any point, depending on what you want your outcome to be. Here's what the NRA says about one study refuting Kleck:

To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide.
------
But to go in another direction, this is from Wikipedia:

In Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses, which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals (since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. With this change, crime rates continued to fall alongside the issuance of concealed weapons licenses.
-------------
In the end, I believe you will believe what you want to believe.
: )

bieler's picture

I know this isn't politically correct nor reliant upon statistics, but truth be told, there are dark places in our dear world/planet where having a weapon by your side is a positive thing (in the sense that it can save your life, albeit, at the cost of another's), and that includes the good ole U.S.A.

Gerald

ER's picture

Ah, yes, forgot about the fish slapping! That's pretty much how we solve issues around here isn't it? And by posting pictures of PETS!!! Any new cat, dog or bunny pictures? Although, like guns, bunnies can kill too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxy4MvXPghI&mode=related&search=monty%20p...

fontplayer's picture

And now for some religion:

I took this photo at the fair Friday.

(I heard someone say God should have told Adam not to eat the serpent)

Bald Condensed's picture

> (...) there are dark places in our dear world/planet where having a weapon by your side is a positive thing (in the sense that it can save your life, albeit, at the cost of another’s), and that includes the good ole U.S.A.

Touché! :^)

Bald Condensed's picture

BTW I started reading this thread to check if any moderator had already replied to it, but by the 5th post I already was cursing myself for even opening it. It inevitably sends icy shivers down my spine whenever I'm reminded of what ugly people roam this earth. :^/

Am I glad I don't have to moderate General Discussions and can happily stick to the Type Identification Board. This is also the sole reason why I don't feel I have to maintain moderator impartiality in my comments here.

And thank you Nick, for your wonderful, thoughtful, sensible comment. :^)

Molly Stoyles's picture

I have been an avid reader of Typophile for about a year now. It has been a great source of humour and knowledge for me in my hectic life as a designer and student. I am always mesmorized by the wealth of information one can glean from exposure to other like-minded individuals.

I have up to this point been merely a reader not a participant; mainly I enjoy trolling the forums for new ideas for type-choices and the like. But this weekend with the appearance of this thread I feel it is time to contribute.
How or why this discussion started I am not really sure...but for those us us who are beginning our careers as designers and trying to fuel our typographic fires, it is stomach-turning. I live in Ottawa - I get enough polictical diatribes here.

And for your consideration...perhaps you'd reserve your comments about gun control if for example, you had RCMP officers in your family and this weekend several mounties were shot while in pursuit of a suspect. Then you had to wait by the phone to hear if your sister was dead after being shot by an unregistered rifle.

I respect the rights of free speech and even the right to bear arms - however it doesn't help me sleep at night.

So, let's talk about type and leave the soapbox at home please.

William Berkson's picture

Dennis, is your latest graphic supposed to imply that those critical of your viewpoint just don't want to hear the facts? If so, that is really off base. It is you who were not factual when you stated that FBI statistics show that more guns were used in self-defense against crime than in commiting crime.

Also you do not acknowledge your error, which makes me think you are not interested in a rational dialogue about the issue.

Also the NRA is rather notoriously biassed on these issues, so quoting them alone is not very convincing.

Let us look at what Prof. Kleck actually did. He had phone surveyers ask gun owners whether they had ever used a gun in self-defense against crime. This would include waving a gun at an 8 year old child who is cutting across your lawn (trespassing). So a few cranks who are constantly waving their guns at those they imagine to be trespassers could create the large 'self defence' numbers Kleck reports. And it might be that a polite request would have been just as effective--and a lot more civilized--than waving a gun at someone. So it seems to me that Kleck's numbers (from 1993!) don't prove much of anything.

The gun control issue is not a simple one. But just quoting the NRA and ignoring problems with their supposed 'facts' is not going to shed any light on the issue, nor convince anybody of anything.

Also Dennis, if you act on your principle "you will believe what you want to believe," then what is your point in posting your provocative graphics?

svenni's picture

To me this is pretty simple.

This place is about typographic work. If it's good, but contains politics that I dissapprove of, I still try to appreciate the work, and discuss it as such.

No one here, you included, Mr. Type Play, seems to be interested at all in discussing this on a typographic or design basis.

So here it goes:

There doesn't seem to be much typography in the whole thing. The typeface is standard and unspectacular, the composition is pretty cheap, and you don't seem to have given the whole typography thing much thought.

It seems to be more about wordplay than typeplay. And the word joke is kind of cheap too, in the sense that the motif has been used millions of times before in this discussion.

I consider myself to be on the right-wing side of politics, I don't really have an opinion on Gun Control, allthough in my country we don't allow handguns at all, and hunting weapons are really just used for hunting.

I don't think you're gonna change anyone's mind with the trite word game on your "type play". And since you've allready come here with the preconcieved notion that the users of this site are of a liberal bent, comeing in here and posting this and then focusing on creating a hostile discussion on gun politics doesn't paint a very pretty picture of the people and politics you're representing.

I for one am not fond of the idea that people who like to enter situations with the intent on starting up a fight should posess lethal weapons.

fontplayer's picture

Dennis, is your latest graphic supposed to imply that those critical of your viewpoint just don’t want to hear the facts?

Heavens no. It was the latest FP I did, and I merely thought it was fun. It is more a comment on man's nature. And went back to my comment about the two things we should steer away from in discussions.

Also you do not acknowledge your error, which makes me think you are not interested in a rational dialogue about the issue.

When I started reading the page you cited it made my head swim. I did see that it was by a very liberal source, and I know how fluid they can be with the truth. But I may have made an error in citing Kleck. But even Diane Feinstein believes the same as me when it comes to her personal safety.

Also Dennis, if you act on your principle “you will believe what you want to believe,” then what is your point in posting your provocative graphics?

It was just something I made, and liked. As stated before, there may have been an undercurrent of mischief involved, or I may have been simply tired and didn't think. It is too long ago now to say for sure.

So, let’s talk about type and leave the soapbox at home please.

I don't think there are any more sensitive topics to wade through, except maybe global warming , so I'm with you.
; )

Miss Tiffany's picture

Dennis, you may think the liberals run this place, but they usually don't bark unless someone throws something at them. Will you please for the love of pete stop posting things that cause such useless and negative waves!?

fontplayer's picture

OK. Mind you, sometimes it is unintended. I am just not very politically correct, no matter how I slice it.
: )

fontplayer's picture

PS- I would have been fine with the original delete if someone had just had the courtesy to tell me why, for a point of reference.

ER's picture

Hi Tiffany,
What Dennis mentions here is what this should be all about. A place where people can post things, and through discussion, learn something about themselves. The only way you might change a gun toting homophobe is to talk to the person about it, rather than censor him/her.

It might be hard for you, or others here, to realize, but some people at times don't know where the "line" is, there are a lot of different folk in this world. I actually appreciate Dennis's random weird graphics. At times, they are not the smoothest of things to swallow, politically, or visually, for some here. But the guy is honest, has passion and is excited about type, photography, etc. which is more than can be said for a lot of people.

ER

Paul Cutler's picture

Come on fontplayer - you knew that would be provocative.

Don't you think there's enough strife here already? And if not, have some mercy on the moderators. I moderate another board and it is challenging when people turn into the Human Torch.

On the plus side - nice tight group! :)

peace

Miss Tiffany's picture

I guess what really bothers me is the fact that the majority of people don't enjoy it. And as for myself I'm with those who don't enjoy it.

I agree that there cannot be education without discussion, but this isn't a general education forum, it is a type/typographic forum.

fontplayer's picture

Paul- Stuff like this is probably why I was always getting sent to the principal's office.

To be honest, I was very disappointed when my suggestion to discourage certain things wasn't implemented. So in a sense I was just playing within the rules. Some people seem to love discussing these things, but others just get too emotional.

Maybe if I start thinking good thoughts and hope the badness goes away.
; )

Tiff- I'm with you. (...this isn’t a general education forum, it is a type/typographic forum)

ER's picture

"Type" and "general education" go together, it's what type is supposed to do, educate. Try to avoid it and someone else will put up another thing, and another thing.

Type says "stuff", it's not all about the ligatures.

Paul Cutler's picture

I'm sure I saw the principal just as much as you fontplayer. We weren't exactly friends… Back then there was corporal punishment so it was potentially a painful experience.

Glad you got to the heart of the matter. I understand. But it's not your board, or mine.

I highly recommend good thoughts. They're free…

peace

fontplayer's picture

“Type” and “general education” go together, it’s what type is supposed to do, educate.

In a history class they aren't going to teach formulas, are they. A general education about type is not a silly idea. Occasionally some subject may be tied into a type discussion in a relevant way, but just discussion for the sake of debate isn't necessarily productive on some levels, especially when they might deter some people vewing the fracas from getting involved at all.

And rather then the noble route of simply admitting I am right, some people get upset by discussing things that don't fit the world view they have embraced.
; )

fontplayer's picture

Back then there was corporal punishment so it was potentially a painful experience.

My worst memories were of Mr. Schmidt. He had holes drilled in his paddle to cut down on wind resistance. And back then I had almost no natural padding on my backside.

Paul Cutler's picture

My worst was Mr. Blanchfield, a former drill sergeant and minor league baseball player. And my principal in grade school.

In 6th grade I also had the classic Mr. Butts who liked to administer swats.

We would have to make the paddles in woodshop class that they were going to use on us.

I guess there is such a thing as progess…

peace

fontplayer's picture

Mr. Butts

How appropriate. I'll bet 6th graders took advantage of the obvious behind his back.
; )

Paul Cutler's picture

No doubt. But he seemed to even the score somehow…

peace

oldnick's picture

I once had the misfortune of getting caught behind an incredibly inconsiderate driver who, ironically, had a bumper sticker on the rear of his vehicle which asked "What Would Jesus Do?" My first thought was, "Jesus would use his turn signals, you moron!"

On the other hand, one could equally well ask, "What wouldn't Jesus do?" I think I can say, with some degree of confidence, that Jesus would not bomb abortion clinics, vote for tax cuts at the expense of social programs, bash gays, attempt to criminalize immigration, carry a handgun or belong to the NRA...

Village's picture

If one cares to view Fontplayer's photo/type compositions, they can do so at his site. There is absolutely no reason for them to be posted on Typophile. Those compositions which use political, religious, or any other non-typographic texts are even more irrelevant to typographic discussions which take place on this board, (if it is possible for something to be doubly irrelevant.) Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and everyone is entitled to their art-making, but that doesn't mean that they should bring their opinions and art to Typophile.

Bald Condensed's picture

[Edit: self-censored]

I said something inappropriate here, which I shouldn't have done. It's not because I personally consider my being moderator restricted to the Type Identification Board that this is perceived as such by the Typophile community. And we all know perception is everything.

My sincerest apologies to Fontplayer.

oldnick's picture

the noble route of simply admitting I am right

I believe it was Bertrand Russell who said, in effect, that isn't it an odd world in which we live, where intelligent people have doubts, and only the ignorant are cocksure?

Miss Tiffany's picture

OK. That's it. Name calling has to stop here folks.

Stephen Coles's picture

Dennis, as a general guideline (which is what I believe you are seeking): I don't think anyone would object to your fontplays residing in your own blog, but they serve little purpose in the General Discussion forum.

oldnick's picture

Tiffany,

Pointing out an egregious instance of ignorance is not name-calling; it is pointing out an egregious instance of ignorance. Ignorance is no crime: we are all born ignorant, and we overcome it to greater or lesser degrees as we grow older. The title of this particular forum is "General Discussions," which would seem to imply that give-and-take are the order of the day here. Persons who believe themselves to be in possession of Absolute Truth (that is, the Ignorant Militant) do not, by definition, allow much latitude for discussion: they wish to state their "considerable opinion" (thank you, William Golding) and have it affirmed, praised, perhaps even worshipped. That is not a discussion: it's a sermon.

People who think they have all the answers aren't asking the right questions.

Syndicate content Syndicate content