Board Member's User Names

[Pundit]

I am not sure if we should be allowing folks to come in with names like AH, and also parading the real man's picture. I know members have rights on this matter, ofcourse, but AH accompanied by pics can be considered as extreme. In my opinion, it reflects poor taste as well.

But I may be wrong

Ok, now no interpretation of my thoughts on the Arab Israeli conflict, ok!!

[Nasif]

This thread will be moved support forum soon.

Members can post views on this. We will then discuss and take measures accordinly.

[Sorry]

spot on, pundit.

[Bancan]

can i use this pic as my avatar

[Tigers_eye]

I have no problem with AH name. To me AH, Alexander (the great) and many other world leaders are all the same. They all wanted to rule the world. As for biased historians we look at some of the these people differently, even though they are the same kind. Evil.

[Sorry]

Originally Posted by Cats_eye
I have no problem with AH name. To me AH, Alexander (the great) and many other world leaders are all the same. They all wanted to rule the world. As for biased historians we look at some of the these people differently, even though they are the same kind. Evil.

if you think they are evil, why do you want them to be promoted?

[Bancan]

A H is dead. for most of the people he is bad, and for some people he is a hero. so if that user respects him u dont hav the right to tell him to change it. but if u worry abt how others feel abt this website then well we hav a problem!

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Sorry
if you think they are evil, why do you want them to be promoted?

To show parity or equality. To point out the truth. To show our media/history is biased. The world sees Alexander as a hero and A H as a zero (because jews were victims). That should not be the case. All should be zero.

[Sorry]

I can’t see your point, guys. You are manipulating one crime to justify others. There is no equality for criminals, no matter what media portray Alexander a hero or AH a zero. Personally I don’t submit myself into media bias to justify my stance. Criminal is a criminal and cannot be justified by any means.

[Tigers_eye]

Bottom line, I don't have a problem with AH name and pic, or a Tikka Khan, Feroah, bhutto, Mir Zafar etc. They are mere name to me. But as Bancan has mentioned if we are concerned about the website's image, I would vote to block these names.

[Sorry]

I suppose that is not the right approach just because it’s bad for BC’s reputation, instead, to be a true human being. Well, I don’t like Israel is killing civilians, I don’t like hezbollah is using children for the shelter or I don’t like Tikka khan chopped our Hindu citizens, but that doesn’t necessarily put me in a position where I can justify to promote one because another one did the same. And if you think they are just names, do AH or Fazal nicks have the same bearing in your mind? Be honest.

[Bancan]

sorry
its his personal opinion. i dunt even mind the names either.
i hav a interests in logo/signs and the AH sign is one of logos i find interesting . but that doesnt mean i support wat he did, or i m a member of any of those groups.

the name may giv a bad image for the site but if it comes to personal choice , u hav the right to choose.( as long as its legal)

[rafiq]

I was going to open a Support thread on this but nice to see our good friend Pundit has already done so. It is common courtesy and netiquette to have a policy where user names are not offensive to other members. Any nick could be offensive to anyone for whatever reason, but there are certain ones that are tasteless and cross the line. if I wanted to adopt the nick 'I_Want_to_Rape_your_mother" that would be considered offensive and mods would ask me to change it, or ban me for being looney to begin with.

So it follows that other nicks associated with people generally considered to be "evil" will be offensive to at least some members or potential members. Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Golam Azam are just a few examples and for different reasons which should be self-evident. Unless, of course, one's name was truly Adolf Hitler, in which case it would be within the member's rights to use his own legal name as a nick. Given the picture icon associated with the member Hitler, I don't think that is the case here, and the member should be asked to adopt a differnt nick in my opinion.

[rafiq]

Now that I read some other posts, it is sad that the Hitler nick is being discussed in refernce to what side of the current israel-lebanon-hezbollah conflilct you are on. One has little to do with the other.

[Sorry]

Originally Posted by rafiq
Now that I read some other posts, it is sad that the Hitler nick is being discussed in refernce to what side of the current israel-lebanon-hezbollah conflilct you are on. One has little to do with the other.

although i agree with your first post, i fail to understand what you are trying to say in your second post. could you elaborate highlighted bit? are you referring to brain washing thread?

[Rabz]

i hv absolutely no problem with the nick Adolft Hitler and his avatar.

it is his personal choice. as long as he is not breaking the forum rules and guidlines, he has the right to use that nick. and also agree with Rafiq, as long as they r not offensive in nature, i cant see what the big fuss.

yes, it is a creation of our modern day media. even the name Hitler is being uttered with great shock and in a villanious tone. as said by Cat's Eye, every single ruler, from the days of Julies Ceaser, to the Great(?)Gengis Khan, Alexander the Great or even our Moghuls, they were all the same. killed millions, looted and plundered, raped and abused. but all we see is how history perceive them.

if bush can be the leader of the free world, if ariel sharon can be called a man of peace and if nobody utters a single word when hundreds of innocent people are being killed as we speak,

why cant a man use a nick Adolf Hitler and put his pic in the avatar??

[Sorry]

Let me elaborate my point once again. I see avatar and nick as a tool as same as any commercial advertisement designed to promote a particular product. I am not offended just by seeing Hitler’s picture or nick but I am offended by the weight, the symbols transmit. I am finding it alarming and puzzled by the motivation of using such a nick and avatar as the member seem extremely knowledgeable on the relevant topics.
For some people Hitler is seen as hero just because he killed many Jews but for most he is a criminal. I will leave it for personal judgement and choice.
Many people get offended if some one uses a naked harmless picture of female body, but it’s a pity that a few people don’t seem to be offended by the endorsement of a historical killer, and is described as just a nonsense picture (has no face value?). Lets not forget I am not talking about only Hitler, any evil, in general.

[Mr-Cricket]

Originally Posted by rafiq
Any nick could be offensive to anyone for whatever reason, but there are certain ones that are tasteless and cross the line.

I agree with Sorry & Rafiq.

I was going to say something about this a week ago, but decided to keep it to myself. However, now that it has been brought up, I feel that I need to speak out.

Firstly, let me just say that I have no ill feelings towards the individual at the center of this debate. It is certainly not my contention that members be censored purely for expressing their opinions. On the contrary. Without opinions, forums would not exist.

Nevertheless, I must say I find it quite disturbing that a member of a public forum has chosen to express himself under the pretence of a dictators name and image. I also find it highly inappropriate that this individual has subsequently and now regularly posted in a thread concerning a current political event involving a community which was massacred under the authority of the aforementioned dictator.

Even without reading this individuals posts, it becomes quite clear that the individual is using the username as a medium to express his own political views. This may sound somewhat prejudicial, but I firmly believe that it is also the truth.

While it seems that the majority of members who have posted in this thread have no objections on the matter, I still feel that this matter must be looked into further.

For example, to avoid any unnecessary conflict, one proposition is to introduce a blanket ban on the use of Usernames of recognised individuals (be it a sportsman, a politician or a Scientist - I noticed Albert Einstein posthumously joined our forum in February 2005).

While members should still be able to retain their right to express themselves, what do they gain, and indeed, what does this forum gain from individuals parading themselves under the pretence of 'Adolf Hitler' or indeed 'Albert Einstein'. We must be wary of the consequences should we allow this matter to be left unresolved at this time.

[Miraz]

I don't mind with the nick AH or George Bush or any other name.
Every member has got the right to choose his nick and express his views with civility.

Only Nicks which carry pervertion should not be allowed.

[Sorry]

Originally Posted by Miraz
Only Nicks which carry pervertion should not be allowed.

Does it mean that pervertion is the only crime in this world? Research suggests that 90% of male population are pervert one or other way. just ask fazal or cats_eye how to get a computer virus.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Sorry
Does it mean that pervertion is the only crime in this world? Research suggests that 90% of male population are pervert one or other way. just ask fazal or cats_eye how to get a computer virus.

হায় রে, কোথাকার পানি কোথায় গড়ায়?
As for punishment to "Sorry", I am not translating this. Install bangla font now.

[Fazal]

What have I done to you, Sorry? Why you are after me... in a mission to ruin my clean reputation?

[Sorry]

Originally Posted by Fazal
to ruin my clean reputation?

koila dhuile moila jai na.

[RazabQ]

Strictly as myself:

I went back on forth on this a number of times. Here's my দুই আনা for what it's worth.

I agree with a lot of what Sorry, Rafique, Mr-Cricket et al have said. Yes one should not take abuse free speech to adopt pseudonyms and monikers that are blatantly hostile/inflammatory. Yes Adolf Hitler was/is an embarassment and cautionary tale for all of humanity. However, I am opposed to a blanket ban on nicks or avatars or sigs which seem to be using a controversial person/image as their source or inspiration.

Let me give an example. A little while ago, a male BC member chose the picture of a 12-13 year old female actress as his avatar and in his sig openly professed his "aspirations" regarding her. Some of us mods (myself included) were all "oh my god - we have a pedophile on BC", "off with his head", etc. etc. However, wiser head prevailed and we first tried to learn about this user. Turned out he himself was 13 or 14. Obviously in such a context, his choice of avatar and sig were perfectly understandable and, I daresay, acceptable as well.

So how does this apply to Adolf Hitler sig? I've been tracking that FC thread and so far, AH has not gone off on blatant bigotry, troll-like behavior or any of the other oh-so-evil characteristics of his name-sake. True his positions can be disturbing - especially the one about so-and-so deserving holocaust but much like Mel Gibson, he does have a right to that viewpoint.

Therefore, while I personally find the usage of the nick and avatar AH to be tasteless to the umpteenth degree, I don't believe it deserves an automatic ban. He has to do more to "earn" that

[Alien]

Regardless of what evil one might associate Hitler with, one fact remains indisputable which is Hitler was one of the key figures of 21st century. The other day I was browsing the member's list and came accross this guy named Joseph_Stalin. Now, people well versed in History will know he is a bigger shark compared to Hitler. Yet no one bragged about his nick.

Please don't judge people by thier nick. If you get offended by my post or anti-Israeli stance thats one thing but picking on my nick isn't really fair.

If I sport a picture of Charlie Chaplin will that make me less offensive? even though they look quite the same?