This is not a new user account as you claim, it was created some months ago, and they got into a spat over Tibet with another user.
Much harsher words are written here on ET about political and religious leaders than what Antonymous has written in this thread and which you characterise as "abuse". Very specific claims are made. Refute them if they are transparent lies.
What do you suggest, that we also ban people who rated Antonymous' comment highly because they are "encouraging" abuse?
It took me about 5 seconds to find a source associating the Aum Shinryko story with Chinese attempts at character assassination of the Dalai Lama. Surely it can't be that hard to debate the claim on their merits or lack thereof? It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
If you have access I have request to delete my account and all my diaries.
If you really wish, then we can hide your diaries and rename your account but you have made many excellent and valuable contributions on this site that it would be a real shame to remove your diaries.
Most people who have commented have been really interested in this topic and just one comment doesn't support your view - although it has clearly caused offence to you. If others find it offensive they can troll rate it and the comment will become hidden, which is a clear message to that user that such comments are not acceptable here.
If you refer to the FAQ section on front pager duties it outlines how we deal with offensive comments and trolls, as a community. We have this in place to try to keep things as fair as possible. Ad astra per aspera
I know too little from the situation to take position - ET has prided itself to confront accepted truth and lies in all shapes and forms in a civilized manner and I'd like it to stay it like that.
You being offended is mysterious to me, and your refusal to engage antonymous also. As Colman said, simply based on antonymous's post I can't see a reason to troll it, although I'd say it's harshly worded and the arguments are unfounded by evidence. Asking for an immediate ban is not appropriate at this point.
Please tell us why you think it's nonsense.
A practising Buddhist revering the Dalai Lama, and a non-White to boot, seeing him accused in a reverse-racist context? His reaction is excessive by ET standards of stomaching strong disagreement, but certainly not mysterious. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Just trying to help, but if I'm setting things up for another race-centred argument, I'm out off here right now.
<sheesh> I didn't say there isn't. I tried to explain to you why someone like FarEasterner would be offended. That you don't find it offensive is entirely different matter. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
I see it in the same way you seem to: Perceived discrimination on behalf of coloured people by white people / racism implied in coloured people by white people. Often for questionable reasons, but also potentially correct.
Off to sleep.
Another time I'll deal with my thoughts on (reverse) racism, because there's plenty for everyone where I live.
Now, clearly, there are nicer ways to put it than "prostrated himself before the White Man". It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
Presumably he lives in The WestTM, too, whatever that is. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
If he's wrong, correct him.
We can't go around banning people just because they insult and abuse world leaders: there would be nobody left here in that case.
