Invitation
To all interested parties
to convene a Jury of Review
in order that we might consider
issues pertaining to
Site Rules


• Case: Site Rules v. Dr. Lou Natic (04-001)

• Accusation: Inflammatory topic post in violation of Site Rules.

• Advocates (As of February 20, 2004):
For Site Rules - Tiassa
For The Defense - Dr. Lou Natic, Thefountainhed


Notes on Jury Voting - I'll figure something out; voting should not take place while arguments are being posted.

Notes on "Conviction Standard" - Obviously, Innocent until proven guilty should suffice.

Notes on "Sentencing Phase" - I do not propose a ban, and do not necessarily propose any direct administrative or moderating action at this time. Part of the purpose of this topic is to explore both the issue of inflammatory posts and what to do about them.

Necessary Information

Objectionable Topic:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218
("If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in ...")

Site Rules:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20345
or
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20363


Principals and Accusation: The Site Rules have been in effect since April, 2003. Dr. Lou Natic has been a member for one year. The Objectionable Topic takes place in the Religion Forum, long known for acrimonious disputes.

Dr. Lou Natic now stands accused of devising and posting an inflammatory topic post in violation of the Site Rules, which read, in part:You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening.Schedule: Undetermined, experimental. Future challenges include invocation of a Jury Poll, establishing relevancy protocols, and what comes next in the event of conviction.

A Personal Note: By and large, I have little--if anything--against Dr. Lou Natic as a poster or in my impression of the greater human being on the other end of the network. But I must put my foot down at some point. Thus I request to convene this discussion in order to examine inflammatory posts and their effects in the Sciforums community.

Quite frankly, I enjoy Sciforums, except of late for the other posters around here. On the one hand, without them, there wouldn't be anyone to discuss anything with. To the other, even with them around, the same problem applies.

And given the Ban Wars, the tirades against posters, and of course the tantrums about the eventual moderation, I'm officially curious.

Lastly:

Accused, Dr. Lou, of posting an inflammatory topic post. I'm sick of that sort of topic around here, and except for the chance to bash ideas that escape knowledge and understanding, I don't see that other posters like them much either.

And, yes, I do have an extended purpose tucked away in a mayonnaise jar, though not in the custody of Price-Waterhouse. For now, determining whether or not such a topic post is inflammatory is all I need.

I'll give anybody interested in this exercise some time to think it over. Arguments can commence sometime this evening, if we like. I intend to begin with a discussion of site rules and principles, an evidentiary presentation with interpretive comments, and considerations of degrees.

Postscript: Apparently, there has been a six-hour delay in posting this topic as I never clicked the "submit new thread" button before tying myself up in domestic duties. As such, I'll probably worry about the opening argument tomorrow morning.

Define inflammatory (in a way i can understand)
I would call that post colourful.
Wouldn't the intent need to be to incite a flame war for it to be considered inflammatory? In truth the intent was to educate people by way of making them feel stupid for not already understanding. "Mean"? yes, inflammatory? Not by my definition. Not only was I not expecting a flame war, i wasn't expecting a response at all. I wanted any creationists left out there(and I honestly didn't think there was any here) to read it and say "seems I was wrong, how embarrassing".
Was that wishfull thinking? Probably, maybe I even knew that before I posted it, but thats what I hoped for, I did not scheme to ruffle feathers or propogate hate or anything else you try to claim I was doing.

Also, I'm out of the loop, i hadn't been stopping by much when I posted that and did not know there was heaps of inflammatory topics on the board(still haven't seen them).
It should be obvious to anyone that I'm not interested in muslim issues enough to be "against" muslims. I think you think I am pro-jew attacking muslims or something which is ridiculous, I am outside of all that crap and could not give half the end off a shit.
I AM firmly against creationists who don't "believe" in evolution as though they have a choice.
Trying to explain why they don't have a choice is all I'm guilty of, you can disagree with my lack of tact and a whole range of things, but the actual offenses you are trying to pin on me are unfounded and frankly confusing as though you are talking about someone else.

I do believe you need to lay off the bongs, and thats not a "quip" for entertainment value, I've seen what it can do to people and myself and making people confidently confused without them realising it is a rarely talked about yet prevalent symptom of consistent marijuana use over an extended period of time with no "detoxing" breaks.
What others call "laziness" as a symptom of thc use, I refer to as what I said above. Its not the laziness, its the not realising what a problem their laziness is. Everyone would be lazy if they didn't think there was anything wrong with it.
You seem to be confused into thinking I'm "attacking" certain cultures or races or religions because someone of a commonly persecuted culture was offended by my post. Like you're dazed and not paying attention, just reacting to the stimulai of a distressed muslim.
That is the impression I get. Could be wrong, but you continuously fail to show me how your beef makes any sense whatsoever.

BTW I was expecting a proposal to ban me and a poll, you are going to make that right?

Add, as one counsel to the defense, thefountainhed. Please illustrate to us how his post was "obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening" by citing specific examples-- within context, from that thread, that were not in response to specific individuals, and also present the people(s) who may have been threatened, thought the post obscene, vulgar or hateful.

Example of an "obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented" post with no substance:
by tiassa;
"It could be heroin.
But aside from that, how's his wife? Would you do her?"

Example of a "hateful, threatening" post:
The first post in this thread.

Examples of inflammatory topics:
WE&P, Religion, Mac vs. PC, "alternative" physics, UFO's and anything else where there
are varied viewpoints.

I am a creationalist and remain unoffended. This is because my belief rests on faith, so I generally avoid the debating of the religion forum. Dr Lou Natic had good supporting evidence and didn't seem to rant and rave (too much).

Plus, I think the odd doctor had a good point... even if it was not the best way to put the idea forward. 'Selective acceptance' is an interesting topic.

First Argument

On Site Rules

Over time, the posters at Sciforums have never much liked the site rules. The terms of agreement were eventually shortened, specific site rules were eventually put into place. Even the simplest of these are disregarded so openly that moderators have no real chance of keeping up.

Quite obviously, one of the challenges is to maintain a certain air of civility while allowing people the liberty of their passions. A perusal of topics in the Sciforums Open Government forum shows a series of Ban Wars as members proposed to ban one another. What is most interesting is people's criteria for wanting a ban. There was a proposal to ban Undecided for a week for "unprovoked personal insults and foul language" and "arguing an unsupported position ... when provided with ample references and citations [to the contrary]". One proposal sought to ban Wanderer for "being out of touch with reality . . . for at least a week." A proposal against Fluid1959 sought to ban him for cross-posting. Undecided sought action against EI Sparks in response to what he considered an offensive ban proposal.

The first thing we have to note is that none of these ban proposals were successful. Undecided won his vote, Porfiry offered rulings on cross-posting and being out of touch, and the counterproposal against Sparks was shut down for its admitted vindictiveness.

However, there is an important consideration to note: People were upset enough by what to propose a ban?

Unfortunately, our purpose here sets aside the cross-posting issue, which is an excellent example of how Sciforums Open Government can work. Because in the ban discussions arising from conflicts between members, the lack of a successful ban proposal indicates that the standards by which the complaining party sought action did not meet the necessary severity to convince a majority of voters, or, in some cases, administrative tolerance.

In the case of whether or not to ban Undecided, eight people were offended or annoyed enough to vote for his ouster.

So whether or not we agree with the ban proposals of the past, we can observe that people are upset by the state of discussion.

Moving through the more argumentative fora, we find a plethora of bad sentiment in a diverse variety of acrimonious topics. Some of this bad sentiment is an unfortunate result of posters trying to communicate with one another, but much of it is posters reaching out to zing one another, to needle and provoke.

How are the moderators, for instance, to handle this? The time commitment of "babysitting" certain fora to make sure absolutely no violations of Site Rules would be stupendous. It is obvious that the posters discussing certain topics choose a certain amount of distress between themselves, otherwise bad sentiment would be reserved to legitimate collapses of communication. Meanwhile, moderators are criticized both for overasserting themselves and also for not doing enough to calm the storm. Posters are left with the appearance of an inconsistent standard and often must choose between allowing perceived abuse to stand without response or risk sanction by moderators.

A glance at the Site Rules shows clearly that few of the standards are adhered to, but there are at least four standards which I hope to consider today:

(A) You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening.

(B) Posts that interrupt a serious thread with ANY inane comments that in no way, shape, or form relates to the original topic, will be deleted

(C) Threads that repeat a previously posted theme may be merged together or deleted in its entirety.

(D) It is our intention to moderate in such a way as to encourage profitable discussion and discourage flame wars, and no forum can be moderated to everyone's liking.

Regarding the Accusation

In the case we consider here in this topic, I hope to demonstrate that the topic in question violates these standards. While they are drawn from the Site Rules in the order they appear, it will be easier to work backwards. It will be asserted that such a topic post does not encourage profitable discussion (D); it will be asserted that the thread repeats a previously-posted theme (C). I hope to consider, in reference to posts interrupting a serious thread with any inane comment the idea of what to do about an inane topic post which cannot be said to warrant a serious thread (B). And, upon demonstrating these points, it should become clear that the topic post in question fails standard (A) by being hateful insofar as it is is not profitable, repeats an old theme, does not constitute a serious topic, and on top of that was designed as a provocative attack.

The post, in its entirety:If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary".
Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway, so I will make it more specific, you are not allowed to acknowledge the science behind black people having black children, in doing so you are acknowledging evolution, you must assume it is a coincidence that black people have black children, in fact you can't acknowledge that people birth children at all.

You don't believe in the sperm joining wih the egg, god is the creator, you were created by god, sex is what evil people do, it does not produce babies, god creates babies in a factory in the sky.
Perhaps black people have black children because god makes black children for them, ok for you the word hereditary refers to the way god customizes children to what will suit parents, remember you can't accept the passing on of genes as something that happens. This is evolution, what I'm basically saying is you can only have on or the other, if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe in all the things associated with evolution.
Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.

If you believe that sex creates babies, and you believe that the traits of the parents are passed onto the babies, if you believe in individuals, that people are different from one another and that different people produce different babies, you believe in evolution, bottom line. You can't go that far and back out, I am here by declaring such an act as illegal, or at least immoral or something(obviously its irritatingly ignorant but thats not enough anymore).

If you believe god created all, you can't believe in anything appearing by way of evolution (ie being birthed out of a female organism). You believe in creation, that means you believe things are created, not concieved, concieved is evolution, giving birth is evolution, sex creating babies is evolution.

You don't believe in these things, pregnant women are just lazy and fat, if a baby falls out of their vagina they must have put it in their themselves to try to trick theists into going over to the dark side.
The baby was not a product of evolution, you don't believe in evolution, obviously it was created by god and handed down to its parents.

Consistency is all I ask, you believe in creationism, you stick with it and try to live day by day believing in that. If you don't see hands coming out of the clouds delivering babies to newlyweds but you do see spiders laying eggs, recognise that you are indeed witnessing evolution.
If you do see giant god hands coming out of the sky with new creations, maybe planting a tree here and there and delivering puppies to your female dog at home, then by all means believe in creationism, untill then though I don't see why you would or how you could. The topic begins with an absurd thesis--

If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary"

-- but that's what theses are for: to be demonstrated, supported, proven, or otherwise validated. In support of that thesis, the author follows with a generalized personal attack:

• Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway . . . .

The author clarifies the thesis:

• . . . . so I will make it more specific, you are not allowed to acknowledge the science behind black people having black children, in doing so you are acknowledging evolution, you must assume it is a coincidence that black people have black children, in fact you can't acknowledge that people birth children at all.

In order to support the thesis, the author continues by telling his target audience what they do and don't think:

• You don't believe in the sperm joining wih the egg, god is the creator, you were created by god, sex is what evil people do, it does not produce babies, god creates babies in a factory in the sky.

I would challenge the author to establish that such a sentiment exists among a significant percentage of creationists. Without statistical support, the assertion is absurd, and unheard of among Lutherans, Catholics, and others who believe God created the world.

• Perhaps black people have black children because god makes black children for them, ok for you the word hereditary refers to the way god customizes children to what will suit parents, remember you can't accept the passing on of genes as something that happens.

This characterization is faulty because it overlooks a central tenet of monotheism: that God is responsible for everything that happens. Thus, yes, black people have black children, from a monotheistic point of view, because God wills it to be so. If God did not want a child to be black, the child would not have black parents. So here we have a softball point from the author, one that utterly and completely ignores the most common theistic models involved in the Creationist movement.

The author then comments on his own argument, delineating his purpose:

• This is evolution, what I'm basically saying is you can only have on or the other, if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe in all the things associated with evolution.

In other words, the author is trying to tell people what they are allowed to think and believe. Furthermore, he assets a wholly untenable position--

• Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.

--about Universal origins. He compares the issue of Universal origins to something as observable as 2+2. While to many it might seem this way, such a position is clearly erroneous, as the final answers of Universal origins are as remote as the idea that one can prove God exists.

From the untenable assertion, the author returns to his fallacious assignations:

• If you believe that sex creates babies, and you believe that the traits of the parents are passed onto the babies, if you believe in individuals, that people are different from one another and that different people produce different babies, you believe in evolution, bottom line. You can't go that far and back out, I am here by declaring such an act as illegal, or at least immoral or something(obviously its irritatingly ignorant but thats not enough anymore).

More of the same: the bulk of the post is a common fallacy and a frequent complaint around Sciforums - straw man, to a degree that transcends the ridiculous insofar as it would be exceptionally difficult to find a person who calls themselves a Creationist and would be even reasonably represented by the object of the author's focus:

• You don't believe in these things, pregnant women are just lazy and fat, if a baby falls out of their vagina they must have put it in their themselves to try to trick theists into going over to the dark side.
The baby was not a product of evolution, you don't believe in evolution, obviously it was created by god and handed down to its parents.

An appeal to consistency, and a plea for clarification, all couched in thick layers of straw:

• Consistency is all I ask, you believe in creationism, you stick with it and try to live day by day believing in that. If you don't see hands coming out of the clouds delivering babies to newlyweds but you do see spiders laying eggs, recognise that you are indeed witnessing evolution.
If you do see giant god hands coming out of the sky with new creations, maybe planting a tree here and there and delivering puppies to your female dog at home, then by all means believe in creationism, untill then though I don't see why you would or how you could.

So what we have for a post is a thesis that is in itself a fallacy, a mixture of a straw man and a description of composition, supported by a generalized personal attack and a series of straw men. Devoid in the topic is any foundation for profitable discussion (D); the topic itself is inane (B). Quite obviously, in undertaking the topic of evolution and creationism is nothing new (a two year-old topic on evolution and creation was recently revived, most likely through the Related Topics list) (C).

The author was even addressed by another poster on the object of his focus--

• I don't think your attacking theist in general, but a select group of Christians. (Okinrus)

--and responded accordingly:

• Yes I'm addressing those who don't believe in evolution more than the rational(yet stubborn) theists who can't deny the blindingly apparent and numerous evidences for evolution.

Now, just who are these folks? Absent from the topic post and the clarification is any evidence of a real argument coming from anyone characterized by the topic post. A hyperlink would do. A transcript of a few words from a book or magazine or tract, even.

The author offers further clarification in yet another post:

• I'm saying that creationists are constantly being disproven by everyday things, ie someone being born rather than created. I've never seen a creationist try to deny individual people come into existence in the way science describes, but right there to me they are acknowledging evolution in action, and so I question their faith if they don't question such things as, people being born. I don't think they are taking creationism seriously enough.

And this, apparently, is what the topic is about: Because certain people don't behave according to the author's prejudices, he is apparently offended.

For instance this argument:

• To be a creationist, you have to deny such things as different people produce different children.

The author is perfectly happy to tell us why this denial is wrong, but why must a creationist deny such a thing?

Because the author says they must.

And so we arrive at point (A)--In what way is this topic post hateful?

While it is true that simply because one stacks fallacies atop a personal attack and supports that combination with straw men does not necessarily mean one has acted in spite or hate, what if one does so simply because other people are not behaving according to one's prejudices?

The author, in the later clarification, notes:

• Some say god created the evolutionary system, and though its a cop out I can't really attack them with the logic I am using here, i can however attack the hardcore creationists that don't believe in evolution, I have an incredibly good case actually.

Again, who are these people? Why do we not have before us an example of their arguments so that we might understand what the author purports to understand?

Quite simply, it is because the author is presenting a fallacy.

Who are these people? The author asserts to have been inspired by an old thread, but offers no link by which other readers might understand the basis of his characterization.

The author suspected he might be shouting to an empty house.

The topic was not posted in any good faith. The topic was vindictive and spiteful, and based solely in the author's prejudices, and by this we might invoke the Site Rules and describe it as hateful.

Beware the Appeal to Popularity

What if the topic was aimed at Jews? What if the topic post asserted that if you are a Jew and do not cut your son's penis off, your faith is in question? It is a similar distortion; an exaggeration. It is a straw man constructed according to a bigoted template that depends on hyperbole in lieu of fact; circumcision is most definitely not castration.

What if the topic was aimed at gun owners? What if the topic post asserted that if you are a gun owner you cannot believe in the court system because you believe that killing is the only way to solve a problem?

I raise the issues of Jews and gun owners as comparative examples, to beseech the jury to not fall into the trap of a fallacious defense based in an appeal to popularity.

For while I feel comfortable asserting here that a majority of Sciforums users probably find evolution a secure scientific theory and see varying degrees of wrongness and even absurdity in the Creationist argument, it would be fallacious to appeal to the popularity of evolution and the mistrust shown Creationism in order to justify an inane topic that cannot be shown to seek any profitable discussion alongside a slew of other topics regarding the same basic issue devised in accordance and for the comfort of the author's personal prejudices against an ideology.

Matters of Degrees

Additionally, I accused out in the topic, the topic post is heavily invested in a relativist fallacy. Dr. Lou acknowledged this fallacy, and argued that he had in the past posted topics rejecting a number of topics, thereby demonstrating that he, personally, was not subject to this fallacy in this instance.

Which brings us to matters of degrees. Quite obviously, the productive end of the discussion comes from a disregarding of the topic post and a repetition of numerous prior topics concerning evolution and creationism. It is well enough to look past the relativist fallacy on two points:

• Lack of any bandwagon to the topic post itself
• A matter of degrees: While Dr. Lou may well be right, he is human, and thus cannot fully escape the relativist fallacy

On that second point, then, how fine a hair to split? While the point can reasonably assert some value in the long run, it serves in the immediate as a fine starting point to consider matters of degree.

The relativist fallacy is one that occurs so deep in the strata that it really is inconsequential to the discussion at hand. Thus it would be rather unreasonable to ask a jury of peers to hold against a poster a fallacy that occurs, in the metaphysical, on nearly a universal level.

Likewise, some may say--and the defense is already afoot to plead the case--that it is a matter of degrees. "Selective acceptance," as one poster has it.

I point to the examples above about Jews and gun owners. What is the criteria for acceptance? That a majority of people think it is okay to be deliberately provocative as long as it's directed at this or that minority group?

The Defense Afoot

We might for a moment examine the chosen defense of the topic post already recorded by the post's author.


• In truth . . . this thread was intended for nothing more than a reality check for anyone who was not in check, religion is not something I take into account, I'm talking to human beings and in reality there is only one way the world operates, we are all on the same planet and it is what it is.

• If representatives of certain religions come in here and say "wrong it works like my religion says", no I will not be sensative to their cultural heritage, no one is exempt from knowing the truth.And:

• I would call that post colourful.

• In truth the intent was to educate people by way of making them feel stupid for not already understanding.

• "Mean"? yes, inflammatory? Not by my definition.

• Not only was I not expecting a flame war, i wasn't expecting a response at all.

• I wanted any creationists left out there(and I honestly didn't think there was any here) to read it and say "seems I was wrong, how embarrassing".

• Was that wishfull thinking? Probably, maybe I even knew that before I posted it, but thats what I hoped for, I did not scheme to ruffle feathers or propogate hate or anything else you try to claim I was doing.

• I AM firmly against creationists who don't "believe" in evolution as though they have a choice.

• Trying to explain why they don't have a choice is all I'm guilty of, you can disagree with my lack of tact and a whole range of things, but the actual offenses you are trying to pin on me are unfounded and frankly confusing as though you are talking about someone else.

• I do believe you need to lay off the bongs, and thats not a "quip" for entertainment value, I've seen what it can do to people and myself and making people confidently confused without them realising it is a rarely talked about yet prevalent symptom of consistent marijuana use over an extended period of time with no "detoxing" breaks.

• You seem to be confused into thinking I'm "attacking" certain cultures or races or religions because someone of a commonly persecuted culture was offended by my post. Like you're dazed and not paying attention, just reacting to the stimulai of a distressed muslim.Colorful, indeed. But trying to make people feel stupid is downright inflammatory. Yet, the author wasn't trying to make anyone feel stupid, as he didn't expect anyone to respond, or at least respond the way he wanted them to.

The author admits it was a mean post. The author admits it was intended to make people feel stupid. The author admits it was not intended for profitable discussion. The author seeks to poison the well, declaring the issue tainted by marijuana use.

That the author preemptively defends himself without knowing what issues to defend is not by any means a self-indictment. But even if we take out the parts that are colored by the fact that Dr. Lou is "disturbed with tiassa's ass licking of pm and the islamic faith in general," we are left with,

• Acknowledgment that topic was intended to make people feel stupid
• Acknowledgment that the topic post was "mean"
• Acknowledgment that the topic post was not intended to foster profitable discussion insofar as no responses were expected
• Assertion against ideological freedom
• Acknowledgment of a lack of tact
• Aggressive fallacy
• Straw man

Admittedly, that last one, the straw man, was colored by Dr. Lou's disturbance at his perception of ass-licking. But still, we might hope that the next defense is better considered.

Is a mean post intended to make people feel stupid that is based on a fallacy supported by a personal attack and a series of fallacies inflammatory? To what degree is such a post, in its assertion against ideological freedom, hateful? Do we split hairs and cite degrees invested in fallacies of their own?

As one who believes in evolution, I was personally offended by the topic post; that someone would assert such fallacies with such belligerence in an attempt to reinforce science was a gross disservice to those of us who believe in evolution and feel that humanity can prosper through education. It is hypocritical, demanding consistency while providing only hyperbole at best. It is agit-prop intended to demean a vague and unrepresented body politic--without any specific examples of the doctrine or argument he's objecting to, the author leaves the audience addressed as a generalization.

Recap

It looks like a duck, it smells like a duck, it quacks and waddles like a duck. The author calls it a mallard, and declares he was aiming to goose the loons.

There is no doubt that the post in question is rooted in fallacy. There is no doubt that the post was mean and intended as such. There is no doubt that the post was not intended to facilitate profitable discussion. There is no doubt that this topic was intended to demean.

And as much as Dr. Lou might wish a ban war, that is not our purpose today. Rather, all I ask is whether or not the jury agrees that the post in question is inflammatory.

Beyond that, we can figure out what to do. Because what I put before a jury of peers is, in its extended form, a rather simple decision: Is this what we want at Sciforums?

To find the post in question inflammatory will simply represent an attempt to declare a conventional standard. To find that the post in question is not inflammatory will be to license such topics in the future, and to leave a traditionally acrimonious body social to continue, potentially unabated.

Go ahead and put the specifics to it; they'll read like a shock liturgy. White supremacy, Muslim militancy, American warmongering, sexism, anti-Semitism--all will have a toehold, and a license to seek to offend for no better reason than seeking to offend.

Which, while it won't invalidate the Site Rules, will reduce them even further.

What do we want for our community? Put before you is an opportunity to make such a declaration.

Yes, the post is inflammatory. No, we're not going to ask to kick him. No, we won't even ask him to apologize. But we can begin to establish the shape of the community in which we wish to operate.

We can choose mean, demeaning, and without intellectual merit or profit, or we can choose something better.

Thank you.

See Also

• Labossiere, Michael C. Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Sciforums Links

• If you don't believe in evolution . . . . See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218

• Deal with Fluid1959. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32464
• Proposal: Ban Undecided from WE&P for one week. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32278
• I propose to ban Wanderer for being out of touch with reality. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32431
• Proposal: Ban Fluid1959 (with poll). See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32359
• Re: Proposal, EI Sparks. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32359

Come on man, be damn serious. I need to be high to read through all that! Perhaps later tonight...

In Re: Site Rules v. Dr. Lou Natic (04-001)

Interesting style, Tiassa.

As we have already had the Complaint and Answer, followed by a First Argument, I suggest we either move to the Argument of the Defense, by Dr Lou Natic (or counsel Hed, if accepted as such by Dr Lou), or we backtrack just a bit to discuss the Voir Dire process. Is the jury just a free-for-all, open to anyone and everyone? Or were you expecting to select neutral parties to eventually vote for a verdict? You (Tiassa) seem intent on following a court room style here, so I thought a bit of clarification was in order.

Personally, I am neutral in this matter (thus far). I have read the opening post in question.

Rude? Yes.

Inflammatory? A: Hateful and/or Threatening; B: Inane; C: Repeated topic; and/or D: Unprofitable and encouraging of Flame Wars? That all remains to be proven.

I am also rather new here, so that is one reason I think clarification is needed. New enough that many might consider me a passer-by. Is inclusion in this jury based on a minimum length of membership, or post count?

Silverback

There is no minimum length of membership required to vote. This is your community, too. Welcome to it; in the long run this process, which even I admit is overstated, hopes to enhance your time here.

Additionally, on edit, I would add that your sense of the process is fairly accurate; I have no demand for a maximum number of allowable rounds of discussion, so "fairly" merely indicates that there is no set process. Furthermore, anyone can join the party. I only included an advocates list at all for formality's sake ... er, perhaps it was even more ceremonial than that.

Well, tiassa definitely gets kudos for crafting his defense miraculously, and putting more effort into keeping his posts readable and organized. :)

After reviewing the first post in the thread (which I believe is the post in question?), I am siding with the Doctor on this one. There are so many worse posts out there, that to single out one which violates the Site Rules to a minor magnitude is not a great course of action to take. The post did have a bit of substance, an argument sprinkled lightly with the fuel for a potential flame war, but at least it had more of a topic and a more logical debate than some threads in other parts of these forums...

But I'll leave the decision up to the moderators. *walks out of room*

Claiming Lou's post as inflammatory is like calling 'a time of being mad at your friend' betrayal. Maybe it's more like accusing someone of being an unfit human because of their incorrect answer on a calcus test. Lou didn't hurt anyone, he merely expressed an opinion contrary to yours tiassa. Maybe you should try to remember the days before you thought you had the perfect view of all issues... or was there ever such a day? He even put it up for us to dissect. Perhaps the young doctor was thinking about an issue, was in the middle of trying to figure it out, thought he came to a reasonable conclusion and posted it to see what people thought. Calling that "inflammatory" is IMO; fascist.

You know if you simply showed him where his logic is flawed he'd likely even have thanked you for it (regardless he might have actually learned something other than to ignore you). It baffles me that you think the approach of;

admonishing someone as inflammatory because you don't think his analysis lives up to your standards

- is the way to solve a problem or educate anyone. It makes me think you had a cruel parent (and it skewed your ability to judge people as you continue to project your pain upon them) or were particularly sensitive (or some combination) , or that your perception is somehow skewed to a paranoid slant (perhaps a touch of mental illness) in which you consistently accuse people of doing exactly what you're doing while accusing them of doing it.

Did it at all occur to you tiassa that you might be wrong, that he wasn't trying to piss people off, that he wasn't concerned if people were pissed at all but just putting what he thought? You seem to act like the idea of people not being exactly what you say they are is wholly inconceivable.

"I think it's symptomatic of people's conditions that so many words and so much energy has been wasted on an irresponsible and intentionally-provocative topic"

That amounts to character assasination, as you claim knowledge you can't possible have. You are not privvy to Lou's intent, yet pretend you are. From what I can directly see, you are horribly inaccurate at gauging people's intent, yet you seem to consistently claim you are right beyond question about something that again... you simply aren't privvy to. "Irresponsible and intentionally provacative"? Could you be any more hypocritical?

How did it not occur to you that it is inflammatory to call someone who isn't being inflammatory, inflammatory? Since you are wrong, you are being inflammatory so you can now proceed with admonishing your own presumptuous, pretentious and obnoxious behavior. On with it then.

Claiming Lou's post as inflammatory is like calling 'a time of being mad at your friend' betrayal. Maybe it's more like accusing someone of being an unfit human because of their incorrect answer on a calcus test. Lou didn't hurt anyone, he merely expressed an opinion contrary to yours tiassa. Maybe you should try to remember the days before you thought you had the perfect view of all issues... or was there ever such a day? He even put it up for us to dissect. Perhaps the young doctor was thinking about an issue, was in the middle of trying to figure it out, thought he came to a reasonable conclusion and posted it to see what people thought. Calling that "inflammatory" is IMO; fascist.And your opinion is valid, but in this case you've merely stated your opinion. It would be helpful to this process if you could fill in the detail of what leads you to your opinion.You know if you simply showed him where his logic is flawed he'd likely even have thanked you for it (regardless he might have actually learned something other than to ignore you). And I did discuss the problems of the topic post, within the topic.

• http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218&page=9&pp=20

You'll notice that Dr. Lou chooses to not respond to those issues.It baffles me that you think the approach of;

admonishing someone as inflammatory because you don't think his analysis lives up to your standards

- is the way to solve a problem or educate anyone. It makes me think you had a cruel parent (and it skewed your ability to judge people as you continue to project your pain upon them) or were particularly sensitive (or some combination) , or that your perception is somehow skewed to a paranoid slant (perhaps a touch of mental illness) in which you consistently accuse people of doing exactly what you're doing while accusing them of doing it.I would invite you to read through the topic and watch how that situation develops. Resorting to accusations of mental illness don't really do much to establish the validity of your complaint.Did it at all occur to you tiassa that you might be wrong, that he wasn't trying to piss people off, that he wasn't concerned if people were pissed at all but just putting what he thought?I did. And in the context of your question I am vindicated by later expressions.You seem to act like the idea of people not being exactly what you say they are is wholly inconceivable.Again, it would be helpful to this process if you chose to fill in the detail.That amounts to character assasination, as you claim knowledge you can't possible have. You are not privvy to Lou's intent, yet pretend you are.If you check the record, Dr. Lou responded rather quite appropriately. I don't think this issue has merit.From what I can directly see, you are horribly inaccurate at gauging people's intent, yet you seem to consistently claim you are right beyond question about something that again... you simply aren't privvy to. "Irresponsible and intentionally provacative"? Could you be any more hypocritical?Again, it would be helpful to this process if you could fill in the detail of your complaint.How did it not occur to you that it is inflammatory to call someone who isn't being inflammatory, inflammatory?It occurred to me. And, again, in the context of your question, I am vindicated by later expressions.Since you are wrong, you are being inflammatory so you can now proceed with admonishing your own presumptuous, pretentious and obnoxious behavior. On with it then.Again, it would be helpful to this process if you could detail your complaints. That way, you can clearly establish both the validity and relevance of those issues.

Thesis- Tiassa makes fallacious pressumptions and is a cyborg

Evidence- I would challenge the author to establish that such a sentiment exists among a significant percentage of creationists. Without statistical support, the assertion is absurd, and unheard of among Lutherans, Catholics, and others who believe God created the world.

Here the accused(tiassa) presumes dr lou has made a claim regarding the beliefs of creationists.
When one of biological origins examines the material from which the accused came to these conclusions, it is clear that dr lou was using his human-personality to illustrate the repurcussions of not believing in evolution.
Rather than claiming this is what creationists do believe, he was giving an example of what they could believe without contradicting their lack of belief for the process of evolution amongst living organisms.
The accused flagrantly has displayed that he is incapable of distinguishing the layered styles in which the human species is capable of arguing a point.
Although it is aknowledged that a human being of inferior mental ability could also struggle to distinguish this, it is argued, and there is evidence for, the accused being of stable 'mind', and in some ways superior to real human beings in certain mechanical processes of the 'mind'
*jury rabbles "mind? lololol"~"the guys a cyborg he doesn't have a mind"*
judge- "order! order!"
hehe ahem, thank you your honour.
There is no way a homo-sapien of tiassa's apparent mental capacity would fail to detect the subtleties, and consequent intent, within the structuring of the human language in this instance.
Ofcourse had a cyborg that is open about his artificial origins made this mistake, no one would raise an eyebrow, infact, we would expect a metal man to make such a mistake.
But the accused has, on numerous occassions, indicated that he is indeed a human being, he has gone out of his way to convince others that he is a hominid(perhaps to make them feel comfortable we don't know) even "confessing" that he too is at times a slave to his primal desires...
Were he to clearly state these desires as drinking motor oil, chewing aluminium foil, rubbing himself with a magnet or playing "pong", we again would have no reason to incriminate him, BUT his alleged primal desires were clearly human in nature, he also has clearly said "I am a human being"(2001) and he is therefore breaking cyborg-law #08764: No cyborg shall impersonate a human being on an internet message board or imply that they are anything but cyborg at anytime, failure to abide by this sacred law will result in the crushing and recycling of the offending cyborg, at the taxpayers expense
Now it was certainly not the intent of this investigation to waste the taxpayers money crushing and recycling a cyborg, but we must put our foot down, if cyborgs are going on the internet without their mandatory cyborg identification number post-user name honest hard working human beings could end up talking to them as though they are talking to another fine young human being. This is the worst case scenario, and unfortunately it is what we have seen here today.
Tiassabot77 has been impersonating a human being at sciforums.com since july 29th, 1999.
I apologise but I'm struggling to hold back my emotions, if you'll excuse me ... *bites fist*.... *exhale* *blink repeatedly*
In light of this horriffic detail we believe there is no choice but to punish the defendorg to the fullest extent of the law.
Thank you, your honour.

Judge- "will the defendent..err "org" please be switched onto "honest-mode" and wheeled to the bench"...

I find Tiassa guilty of an inflammatory post. Now piss off and get a life.

Ri-ight. Remember, Dr. Lou wanted this discussion too, Spurious.

Ri-ight. Remember, Dr. Lou wanted this discussion too, Spurious.

So what. You started this childish behaviour. And you can forget about an apology. Since I can't figure out why you should get one. And don't bother to PM me anymore. If you have something to say then say it in the open.

Okay. Don't be dishonest. If you're having a bad day, don't take it out on me. Take your own advice (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=526189#post526189) and don't worry about it.

I won't message you anymore. I just thought I'd give you a chance to resolve this issue forthrightly, but I now have my answer.

I did not want this discussion.
I could very easily find this thread offensive if I wanted to with all the mocking of my literary skills and such. And in this case the inflammatory intent is flagrant.
The irony is what gives this thread the little value it has.

I did not want this discussion.So ... which one did you want?I could very easily find this thread offensive if I wanted to with all the mocking of my literary skills and such.The mocking of your literary skills? And such? Please, do expand.And in this case the inflammatory intent is flagrant.How so?The irony is what gives this thread the little value it has.Okay. If you say so. I just don't see why you're so upset.
But hey, I don't want to discourage anything, I'm not even interested in this crap anymore, when will I be making my debut in sfog?
I'm genuinely excited.

Note; "genuinely excited"
Does it not then naturally follow that this wasn't the thread I was expecting?
This is about as exciting as paying taxes(won't be surprised if you don't understand how that isn't exciting).

Mocking of my literary skills- is there something else you addressed in your original argument?
As far as I know there is nothing vulgar or obscene or hateful about not giving valid evidences for my 'thesis' or lacking in intellectual merit, you were grading my paper, not giving reasons why my post was in violation of site rules, you'd SAY it was in violation of site rules, and then point out flaws in paragraph structure, and then say it was in violation of site rules again and so on.
I understand you'd be hardpressed to find evidences of me needing to be banned, but whats the point of filling in time by "critiquing my work"?
Even if I was building a straw man or whatever the fuck, how would that be relevent? was I building a "nigger" straw man? Was the structure of my paragraphs set out in such a way that a swastika would appear if you stared at them for long enough?
You know none of that means shit untill you find evidence of me attacking someone for no reason.

And you could never make me upset tiassa, don't flatter yourself.
I don't need to be upset to spot the blinding irony of you starting an inflammatory topic on the subject of my non-inflamatory topic being inflamatory in your imagination.

I find this thread boring yes, but I'm still pleased with it because predictably everyone is just wondering what the hell your problem is. As any unbiased person would do after looking at this "issue" in its entirety.
You don't have a case and you never did. The real reasoning behind this episode remains a mystery.

Does it not then naturally follow that this wasn't the thread I was expecting? Funny. I just asked you which discussion you wanted. I don't see that question answered.Mocking of my literary skills- is there something else you addressed in your original argument?In other words, you say it's so, so it must be? Please, Dr. Lou, present some evidence.As far as I know there is nothing vulgar or obscene or hateful about not giving valid evidences for my 'thesis' or lacking in intellectual merit But there is about intentionally posting something intended to be mean, as you admitted, and to make people feel stupid.you were grading my paper, not giving reasons why my post was in violation of site rulesI, of course, see it differently:
So what we have for a post is a thesis that is in itself a fallacy, a mixture of a straw man and a description of composition , supported by a generalized personal attack and a series of straw men. Devoid in the topic is any foundation for profitable discussion (D); the topic itself is inane (B). Quite obviously, in undertaking the topic of evolution and creationism is nothing new (a two year-old topic on evolution and creation was recently revived, most likely through the Related Topics list) (C) . . . .

. . . . And so we arrive at point (A)-- In what way is this topic post hateful?

While it is true that simply because one stacks fallacies atop a personal attack and supports that combination with straw men does not necessarily mean one has acted in spite or hate, what if one does so simply because other people are not behaving according to one's prejudices? . . . .

. . . . The topic was not posted in any good faith. The topic was vindictive and spiteful, and based solely in the author's prejudices, and by this we might invoke the Site Rules and describe it as hateful.Just for starters.you'd SAY it was in violation of site rules, and then point out flaws in paragraph structure, and then say it was in violation of site rules again and so on.I demonstrated a series of fallacies and then examined the conditions by which they violated the Site Rules.I understand you'd be hardpressed to find evidences of me needing to be banned, but whats the point of filling in time by "critiquing my work"?You're the only person here who thinks this is about banning; your question is answered in the course of the "First Argument" post:
Quite obviously, one of the challenges is to maintain a certain air of civility while allowing people the liberty of their passions. A perusal of topics in the Sciforums Open Government forum shows a series of Ban Wars as members proposed to ban one another. What is most interesting is people's criteria for wanting a ban. There was a proposal to ban Undecided for a week for "unprovoked personal insults and foul language" and "arguing an unsupported position ... when provided with ample references and citations [to the contrary]". One proposal sought to ban Wanderer for "being out of touch with reality . . . for at least a week." A proposal against Fluid1959 sought to ban him for cross-posting. Undecided sought action against EI Sparks in response to what he considered an offensive ban proposal.

The first thing we have to note is that none of these ban proposals were successful. Undecided won his vote, Porfiry offered rulings on cross-posting and being out of touch, and the counterproposal against Sparks was shut down for its admitted vindictiveness.

However, there is an important consideration to note: People were upset enough by what to propose a ban?

Unfortunately, our purpose here sets aside the cross-posting issue, which is an excellent example of how Sciforums Open Government can work. Because in the ban discussions arising from conflicts between members, the lack of a successful ban proposal indicates that the standards by which the complaining party sought action did not meet the necessary severity to convince a majority of voters, or, in some cases, administrative tolerance.

In the case of whether or not to ban Undecided, eight people were offended or annoyed enough to vote for his ouster.

So whether or not we agree with the ban proposals of the past, we can observe that people are upset by the state of discussion.

Moving through the more argumentative fora, we find a plethora of bad sentiment in a diverse variety of acrimonious topics. Some of this bad sentiment is an unfortunate result of posters trying to communicate with one another, but much of it is posters reaching out to zing one another, to needle and provoke.

How are the moderators, for instance, to handle this? The time commitment of "babysitting" certain fora to make sure absolutely no violations of Site Rules would be stupendous. It is obvious that the posters discussing certain topics choose a certain amount of distress between themselves, otherwise bad sentiment would be reserved to legitimate collapses of communication. Meanwhile, moderators are criticized both for overasserting themselves and also for not doing enough to calm the storm. Posters are left with the appearance of an inconsistent standard and often must choose between allowing perceived abuse to stand without response or risk sanction by moderators. And,
And as much as Dr. Lou might wish a ban war, that is not our purpose today. Rather, all I ask is whether or not the jury agrees that the post in question is inflammatory.

Beyond that, we can figure out what to do. Because what I put before a jury of peers is, in its extended form, a rather simple decision: Is this what we want at Sciforums?

To find the post in question inflammatory will simply represent an attempt to declare a conventional standard. To find that the post in question is not inflammatory will be to license such topics in the future, and to leave a traditionally acrimonious body social to continue, potentially unabated.

Go ahead and put the specifics to it; they'll read like a shock liturgy. White supremacy, Muslim militancy, American warmongering, sexism, anti-Semitism--all will have a toehold, and a license to seek to offend for no better reason than seeking to offend.

Which, while it won't invalidate the Site Rules, will reduce them even further.

What do we want for our community? Put before you is an opportunity to make such a declaration.If you still hold by your point that you do not understand the point of why we're going through this, could you at least examine that aspect in relation to the reasons already on the record?Even if I was building a straw man or whatever the fuck, how would that be relevent? was I building a "nigger" straw man?That it is intended to make people feel stupid, that it is intended to be mean.You know none of that means shit untill you find evidence of me attacking someone for no reason.Which you've kindly confirmed. Boasted, even.I don't need to be upset to spot the blinding irony of you starting an inflammatory topic on the subject of my non-inflamatory topic being inflamatory in your imagination.Gosh, Lou. Don't you think you're being a little bit dishonest here calling a topic inflammatory when you wanted it to happen?I find this thread boring yes, but I'm still pleased with it because predictably everyone is just wondering what the hell your problem is. As any unbiased person would do after looking at this "issue" in its entirety.I doubt your use of the word unbiased for obvious reasons. But people are welcome to give into the appeal to popularity.You don't have a case and you never did.So you say now. But you were happy enough then to boast of being mean, and of seeking to make people feel stupid.The real reasoning behind this episode remains a mystery. That's fine.

Eventually, people will vote, the results will be tallied, and I will have my answer. At that time I'll open the mayonnaise jar and we'll get to that.

In the meantime, I'm awaiting a response to the First Argument at least before calling a vote. I was hoping that you might have a stronger response than "because you say so even though it is at odds with what you've already said." As far as I know, Thefountainhed still intends to respond at some point. Additionally, the superficial and immediate reasons are spelled out in the "First Argument," in the opening (On Site Rules) and closing (Recap) sections, for instance, and also in the middle when I discuss Matters of Degrees.

I'm going to borrow a phrase from someone else: Did it at all occur to you, Dr. Lou, that the clincher for holding this topic in the first place was your encouragement? That's part of the reason it took longer than I expected; it's also the reason for the quasi-formal tone of this topic and the First Argument. With you hoping for a ban war, I took the time to make sure I was clear about things; we have better things to do than try to ban you.

It's almost funny--last night I was searching for an old topic about Gibson's movie that I thought I had posted, when I first heard about the film; it's not there, so apparently I only emailed some friends and then forgot about it. But while I was doing that, I came across an old bit from July, 2002 that seems relevant today:
• People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying. It's an old piece that reflects my frustration with a certain brand of pretending to have a point. That particular aspect is actually irrelevant to the present. However, every once in a while, the atmosphere gets so thick around here that I go off and do something like this. Read through the first section of the First Argument. And the part about Appeal to Popularity. And the Matters of Degrees. And the Recap.

Between those points and your desire to have a topic to discuss the topic post, I figured it was as good a time as any.

People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying.

Have you figured it out yet?

Yuck, fillibustering son of a twat. I still haven't managed to read through it.

T. I mean this with all sincerity. This is not intended as a flame.

You have got to get a grip. This entire thread is an exercise in asshattishness. While it's probably been fun for you, considering your affinity for long, complex posts, it's not really effective. The thread in question was no big deal.

Ease up on the bong.

I couldn't possibly guess your intention here, but you're not coming off well.

Okay. Don't be dishonest. If you're having a bad day, don't take it out on me. Take your own advice (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=526189#post526189) and don't worry about it.

I won't message you anymore. I just thought I'd give you a chance to resolve this issue forthrightly, but I now have my answer.

Gosh...you think it is not 'dishonest' to complain about an inflammatory thread started by another member and at the same time send another member a PM in which you tell them to 'stick a shotgun in their mouth and do the right thing'???? That wouldn't be inflammatory? Would it even be worthy behavior of a moderator?

I never got this shit from Goofyfish for instance. He as always been neutral.

Or do you think what you said is on the same level of a public 'piss off' and 'get a life'???

Could you please respond in a message that is three pages long? (because everybody knows that the longer the message is the more true it is)

Gosh...you think it is not 'dishonest' to complain about an inflammatory thread started by another member and at the same time send another member a PM in which you tell them to 'stick a shotgun in their mouth and do the right thing'????So disrespect is good enough for you to give, eh?

I see.

Noted.

So disrespect is good enough for you to give, eh?

I see.

Noted.


You have to earn respect.

And goodbye to this discussion since it is not going anywhere.

You have to earn respect.

how true , how true .....

So disrespect is good enough for you to give, eh?

I see.

Noted.

What a piece of shit you are tiassa.

Everyone is a hypocrite, but you make it a hideous artform.

You tell a guy to put a shotgun in his mouth?

- you are unfit to moderate

- you want respect after you say some shit like that?

I believe I will now appeal to the popularity of the idea: FUCK YOU.

After wading through the diatribe in this thread, I now realise why I rarely participate in SFOG. The level of hypocrisy, backstabbing and bastardry is sickening.

You have to earn respect.Then why cry in public about it, Spurious?

Answer the question: Is it good enough for you to give disrespect but demand that respect be given you?

I would ask you privately about your serious problems with honesty and fact, Spuriousmonkey, but you've demonstrated yourself incapable of handling things that way.

You tell a guy to put a shotgun in his mouth?No, not exactly.

See, that's the problem with folks who like to complain about stuff but don't ever want to say what they're complaining about.

Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk.

But you wouldn't know that, would you, because Spurious would like to simply complain and hope that there's someone there who doesn't need anything more than a complaint to compel them to rash action. You stepped up for him, Wes.

Look, it's real simple: Take a look around - people are repulsed by fact.

We'll call a vote, soon. As far as I can tell, there is still some response yet to come from people alleging to wish to discuss the issues put forth, so it's a little early for a vote.

Consider your assertion, Wes: How can it be "fascist" to call the post in question inflammatory?

I don't know why people object so much to the idea that intentionally being mean, that setting out to make people feel stupid is inflammatory.

But that's sort of the point that isn't addressed very well by the responses. Like you, for instance. I know how you feel, especially as you're willing to be so clear about that, but since I don't see what you see, should I think on your behalf and presume some set of ridiculous circumstances that allows me to see a route from A to B and simply assign it to you in order to respond? Or would it be better to find out how you get from A to B and have something to respond to?

Since you find these considerations fascist and inflammatory, Wes, and since you're willing to offer theories in contradiction of fact, how about one that's based a little more in reality: What are your thoughts on the first section of the "First Argument" post?

No, not exactly.

Perhaps you'll write an encyclopedia about it to explain?

See, that's the problem with folks who like to complain about stuff but don't ever want to say what they're complaining about.

Surely you can't be serious. I could stand right in front of you and say "your shoes stink like shit, I don't like that"... and you'd come up with a volume for your encylopedia about why my sense of smell is fucked up. I'd say, "but that's how it smelled to me" and then you'd complain about how I never said what I was complaining about. I don't know about the rest of the croud, but the popularity of the idea "fuck you" when it comes to YOU, is like, of rockstar proportions. I judge you a piece of shit and I don't care if you don't like it.

Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk.

Ever noticed how everyone but you is a jerk to you, you fucking dipshit? (i mean except for those who kiss your ass or who have something you want)

But you wouldn't know that, would you, because Spurious would like to simply complain and hope that there's someone there who doesn't need anything more than a complaint to compel them to rash action.

I saw it in another thread actually, found it annoying there, assumed it was your sorry pretentious pompous ass he was referring to and then he confirmed it. That along with all of the other shit you've pulled here is just too much to contain myself anymore. i'm sick of your bullshit you dirty fucking bitch.

You stepped up for him, Wes.

no, I stepped up to your bullshit. i'm not the lawyer you are tiassa. i keep my points as short and simple as I can for the most part. for idiots like yourself however I end up having to repeat myself over and over, because your thick skull is basically impenatrable to perspectives that don't align with your own, regardless of validity. so here it is: fuck you, you're a piece of shit.

Look, it's real simple: Take a look around - people are repulsed by fact.

I thikn it's more that people are repulsed by sorry cunts like yourself.

Consider your assertion, Wes: How can it be "fascist" to call the post in question inflammatory?

To me, it seems part of your ploy to control the information flow on this site. You are a verbal bully, you bury people under more of your diatribe and horeshit that they could possibly sort out for you, and then you call them stupid because they can't sort out the mess you made. that pisses you off and so you bury them further. IMO, you're a fucking fascist bitch, not sharing, but IMPOSING your paranoid retardation and reflected self-hate on anyone who would question it. Plainly, you suck.

I don't know why people object so much to the idea that intentionally being mean, that setting out to make people feel stupid is inflammatory.

I can't wait to hear this one. What the fuck? Okay, being a stupid bitch is inflammatory, that's a free clue for you. You're welcome. You're the stupidest bitch around. Got it? You seriously don't see what you do eh?

You hold everyone responsible to your shallow little world, and if you think they don't fall into it, you try to force them into it by weight of word. You weave such a tapestry of horseshit it's fucking overwhelming to most, not in nobility, not in wisdom, but in sheer fucking volume. One day I assure you if you don't cut it out, that thing is going to smother you.

But that's sort of the point that isn't addressed very well by the responses.

As if you would know? You don't understand that other people use words differently than you. That will kind of make communication impossible. You obviously don't care though, and if you would read your posts with any attempt at objectivity at all, you'd see it. You don't, you can't, I'm done with it, I judge you, fuck off asshole.

Like you, for instance. I know how you feel, especially as you're willing to be so clear about that, but since I don't see what you see, should I think on your behalf and presume some set of ridiculous circumstances that allows me to see a route from A to B and simply assign it to you in order to respond?
No, you SHOULD however, give me the credit for having come to a reasonable conclusion from my perspective and try to understand it such that we can actually communicate (or not bother trying to communicate at all). After all, that's how communication actually works. Since you don't get that and presume you're the authority on all perspectives, you can get judged and fuck off.

Or would it be better to find out how you get from A to B and have something to respond to?

It would just be better if you were to fuck off.

Since you find these considerations fascist and inflammatory, Wes, and since you're willing to offer theories in contradiction of fact, how about one that's based a little more in reality: [i]What are your thoughts on the first section of the "First Argument" post?

I think that you are a fascist as you mischaracterize just about everything I ever see you characterize. You call me a liar. You call lou inflammatory. You say the monkey: "Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk."

From that advice, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING EXCUSE BUT TO KILL YOURSELF OR ACCEPT THE LABEL OF HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SHIT... and then try to stop being that way.

So to recap:

I judge you.

You're a piece of shit.

Accept that you're a piece of shit such that you can stop it; or kill yourself per your own advice.

Here is the fact about your hypocracy:

I don't know why people object so much to the idea that intentionally being mean, that setting out to make people feel stupid is inflammatory.

IMO, that fits the definition of jerk pretty well. "I want you to feel stupid". "I will be cruel to you". WTF?

JERK.

Surely you can't be serious. I could stand right in front of you and say "your shoes stink like shit, I don't like that"... and you'd come up with a volume for your encylopedia about why my sense of smell is fucked up.Actually, I would rather that you check again, whereupon you will discover that I am barefoot. Quit asking me to take off my shoes when I'm not wearing any.I judge you a piece of shit and I don't care if you don't like it.This isn't a new judgment, Wes. Am I supposed to feel any worse about it this time than any of the previous times?Ever noticed how everyone but you is a jerk to you, you fucking dipshit?If you're going to go to the point to call me a fucking dipshit, at least use the word "everyone" responsibly.I saw it in another thread actually, found it annoying there, assumed it was your sorry pretentious pompous ass he was referring to and then he confirmed it.That's a set of "facts" that really pares it down.

What are you talking about, Wes?That along with all of the other shit you've pulled here is just too much to contain myself anymore. i'm sick of your bullshit you dirty fucking bitch.That's hardly news, Wes. You've been aiming for my head for a while, now.
no, I stepped up to your bullshit Wrong. You stepped up and acted on a notion not supported by fact.i keep my points as short and simple as I can for the most part. for idiots like yourself however I end up having to repeat myself over and over, because your thick skull is basically impenatrable to perspectives that don't align with your own, regardless of validity. so here it is: fuck you, you're a piece of shit.Short and simple and ... what? Devoid of substance?

Really, Wes ... all you're showing is that you have no real care for what's actually taking place here but are just seeking to pick a fight with me. Why you go from topic to topic behaving like this is beyond me.I thikn it's more that people are repulsed by sorry cunts like yourself.What does that say about them if they're willing to exist according to such thick spite instead of, oh, say, reality?To me, it seems part of your ploy to control the information flow on this site.I see.You are a verbal bully, you bury people under more of your diatribe and horeshit that they could possibly sort out for you, and then you call them stupid because they can't sort out the mess you made. that pisses you off and so you bury them further.It's a coin-flip, Wes. The way I figure it, if I'm going to bother with a point in the first place, I ought to consider the value of covering as many bases as possible.

Take as an example, from Dr. Lou's topic, my first input to the topic at all. It was a wisecrack about heroin and obesity. A poster with whom I've had some nasty fights in the past noted the point and discussed the shortcomings of its presumptions. That, actually, speaks much to me inasmuch as I think it answers the contextually-inappropriate charge that comes with listing an excerpt as an example of an inflammatory post. More relevantly, however, am I somehow upset at GB-Gil for assuming that I wasn't aware of those factors? Hardly. And here's the thing: to cover all of those points in order to keep the focus on the backdoor point, that we didn't know enough about the formerly obese man's partner, the post would have been ... well, lots more information. I chose not to. Am I actually annoyed at Dr. Lou for rightfully pointing out the degree to which the fallacy I noted in his topic was answered by his other topics decrying similarly mythical institutions? Hardly. He had to make a whole second post just to start to annoy me.

Now, does any of this change the fact that Dr. Lou's topic post was intended to make people feel stupid? That it was intended to be mean? Not in the slightest. Go follow the development of the discussion of this topic in Dr. Lou's. Especially where Flores and I exchange a couple of posts.IMO, you're a fucking fascist bitch, not sharing, but IMPOSING your paranoid retardation and reflected self-hate on anyone who would question it. Plainly, you suck.And you're welcome to that opinion, Wes. Just as you always have been.I can't wait to hear this one. What the fuck? Okay, being a stupid bitch is inflammatory, that's a free clue for you. You're welcome. You're the stupidest bitch around. Got it? You seriously don't see what you do eh?

You hold everyone responsible to your shallow little world, and if you think they don't fall into it, you try to force them into it by weight of word. You weave such a tapestry of horseshit it's fucking overwhelming to most, not in nobility, not in wisdom, but in sheer fucking volume. One day I assure you if you don't cut it out, that thing is going to smother you.That sounds like brilliant insight, but it's mere hyperbole. If just once you had bothered to support.

See, the thing is that I wouldn't consider it inflammatory if you, finally having more than you can take, finally decided to hold a similar topic about me. I would, however, find it inflammatory if, unlike me, you were to continue to tell me all about your judgment without ever establishing the basis of it. Saying, "Look, I have an interpretation," isn't helpful to me or you unless you can explain to me the basis of that interpretation.

Something goes here about how communication actually works, but you might find it inflammatory.Since you don't get that and presume you're the authority on all perspectives, you can get judged and fuck off.That's really a substantial argument, Wes. Why are you avoiding the idea of providing a basis for your anger?It would just be better if you were to fuck off.I'll file that one under "unwilling."I think that you are a fascist as you mischaracterize just about everything I ever see you characterize.If only you could show why that is, we might find some profit in your hatred.From that advice, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING EXCUSE BUT TO KILL YOURSELF OR ACCEPT THE LABEL OF HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SHIT... and then try to stop being that way. Forgot one: it's easier to simply operate with some integrity.So to recap:

I judge you.

You're a piece of shit.Nothing new here. Of course, that's why it's a recap.Accept that you're a piece of shit such that you can stop it; or kill yourself per your own advice.Establish your opinion with some fact and I'll consider it.
IMO, that fits the definition of jerk pretty well. "I want you to feel stupid". "I will be cruel to you". WTF?So why are you taking that up with me?

After all, it's Dr. Lou who boasted that his post was mean, that he sought to make people feel stupid.JERK.So in other words you have nothing to actually contribute to the discussion of whether or not Dr. Lou's topic post was inflammatory?

You've told us plenty about your opinion, Wes. Perhaps you might grace us with a few facts at some point?

Like that last one of yours. Great. So you think that's the definition of a jerk. Now ... why are you taking that point up with me?

Then why cry in public about it, Spurious?

Answer the question: Is it good enough for you to give disrespect but demand that respect be given you?

I would ask you privately about your serious problems with honesty and fact, Spuriousmonkey, but you've demonstrated yourself incapable of handling things that way.

I don't believe in privacy on a public forum anymore. Not since they put my identity and personal information on this forum for everybody to see.

Don't expect me to send shit like that through a PM and think I would keep it private. I am an asshole after all. I don't think I ever hid that fact. That's probably why I never get PMs.

I'm crying about it in public because you crying in public about your high morals, but it is all just a show. apparently You feel no hesitation to insult people in private (well at least me). As long as the public doesn't know about it; isn't that what you are thinking? You trying to control the damage to your precious reputation by trying to look reasonable now. Let me tell you, honest people tell the truth and they do it openly. You would make a good politician. At least I am honest about being an asshole.

And I am not interested in talking privately with you. You bore me and your silly imaginary problems. Nobody seems to know what your problem is but yourself.

You feel no hesitation to insult people in private (well at least me). As long as the public doesn't know about it; isn't that what you are thinking?Obviously not, as I corrected Wes on his error. If you're going to address me in such a rude manner, at least do so for a legitimate reason. If you're going to be rude to me without regard to certain issues which undermine the basis of your rudeness, what, really, do you expect?

You can believe in privacy or not; I just wanted to give you a chance to apologize without making a public issue of it.

Obviously not, as I corrected Wes on his error. If you're going to address me in such a rude manner, at least do so for a legitimate reason. If you're going to be rude to me without regard to certain issues which undermine the basis of your rudeness, what, really, do you expect?

You can believe in privacy or not; I just wanted to give you a chance to apologize without making a public issue of it.

I don't really expect anything from you but some backstabbing to be honest.

I was under the impression that it was already a public issue.

And why did you think you deserve an apology? Because you can't help your own behaviour?

And why did you think you deserve an apology?You're welcome to tell me to piss off and get a life, Spurious, but at least base that jab in fact. When you found your attitude problem on a falsehood, you can expect to offend me.

So, would you please be so kind, then, since you're unwilling to discuss the issues at hand in this topic, to at least explain how it is inflammatory to accommodate Dr. Lou's desire to see this topic happen.

I mean, I can't figure out why you're asking a question like that, Spurious. Like I told you in that message you complained about, if you're going to go out of your way to be a prig, at least have your facts straight.

And frankly, I don't think that's asking a hell of a lot.

But I know how it goes, Spurious. Honesty is a hard thing to sell yourself when you can be rude instead. I suggest you spend some time making the pitch again.

You're welcome to tell me to piss off and get a life, Spurious, but at least base that jab in fact. When you found your attitude problem on a falsehood, you can expect to offend me.

So, would you please be so kind, then, since you're unwilling to discuss the issues at hand in this topic, to at least explain how it is inflammatory to accommodate Dr. Lou's desire to see this topic happen.

I mean, I can't figure out why you're asking a question like that, Spurious. Like I told you in that message you complained about, if you're going to go out of your way to be a prig, at least have your facts straight.

And frankly, I don't think that's asking a hell of a lot.

But I know how it goes, Spurious. Honesty is a hard thing to sell yourself when you can be rude instead. I suggest you spend some time making the pitch again.

I tried to process your message with my universal translator, but it exploded.

Update the firmware.

For what it is worth.... long posts are never read in full.

Dr. Lou Natic's post as reproduced by Tiassa was childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way. Should not have been posted and should be deleted.

Personally I am not a creationist, but I believe in a Creator, I do not believe in Darwinian evolution... IMO it is all genetics... I would think that Dr Lou needs a new mind.

Rude/not rude? Who was rude first, who second? Do two wrongs make a right? How about three or four?

I started off neutral in all this and I have read all the astonishingly long arguments about it and most importantly the posts in question, so I will pitch in with my opinion.

Is Dr Lou "guilty"? Well, guilty of one thing. In his post he tells people what they are allowed to believe. That is the same thing organized religion does and that is why I don't do religion. That is the most damning thing I can really say about it.

Strangely, I think that might actually mean something to Dr Lou. Maybe I am wrong. Whatever. He can tell me to piss off, or he can laugh about it and I will too.

The beauty of the forum boards! If you don't like what you are reading, flip the page.

Dr. Lou Natic's post as reproduced by Tiassa was childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any wayZarkov

What would you propose is a scientific treatment of the post? I would assert there's not much to go on, as I pointed out.

The beauty of the forum boards! If you don't like what you are reading, flip the page.Silverback

That would appear to be the standard that will arise from this discussion, which is fine with me. I look forward to the end of the useless flamewars that have plagued this forum for some time. It would appear that, even as much as people complain about one another, "move on" can become the official manner of handling problematic posters. This will make things easier on moderators and posters alike.

And, technically, that will be fine with me.By and large, I have little--if anything--against Dr. Lou Natic as a poster or in my impression of the greater human being on the other end of the network. But I must put my foot down at some point. Thus I request to convene this discussion in order to examine inflammatory posts and their effects in the Sciforums community.

Quite frankly, I enjoy Sciforums, except of late for the other posters around here. On the one hand, without them, there wouldn't be anyone to discuss anything with. To the other, even with them around, the same problem applies.

And given the Ban Wars, the tirades against posters, and of course the tantrums about the eventual moderation, I'm officially curious. (Topic Post)


Over time, the posters at Sciforums have never much liked the site rules. The terms of agreement were eventually shortened, specific site rules were eventually put into place. Even the simplest of these are disregarded so openly that moderators have no real chance of keeping up.

Quite obviously, one of the challenges is to maintain a certain air of civility while allowing people the liberty of their passions. A perusal of topics in the Sciforums Open Government forum shows a series of Ban Wars as members proposed to ban one another. What is most interesting is people's criteria for wanting a ban. There was a proposal to ban Undecided for a week for "unprovoked personal insults and foul language" and "arguing an unsupported position ... when provided with ample references and citations [to the contrary]". One proposal sought to ban Wanderer for "being out of touch with reality . . . for at least a week." A proposal against Fluid1959 sought to ban him for cross-posting. Undecided sought action against EI Sparks in response to what he considered an offensive ban proposal.

The first thing we have to note is that none of these ban proposals were successful. Undecided won his vote, Porfiry offered rulings on cross-posting and being out of touch, and the counterproposal against Sparks was shut down for its admitted vindictiveness.

However, there is an important consideration to note: People were upset enough by what to propose a ban?

Unfortunately, our purpose here sets aside the cross-posting issue, which is an excellent example of how Sciforums Open Government can work. Because in the ban discussions arising from conflicts between members, the lack of a successful ban proposal indicates that the standards by which the complaining party sought action did not meet the necessary severity to convince a majority of voters, or, in some cases, administrative tolerance.

In the case of whether or not to ban Undecided, eight people were offended or annoyed enough to vote for his ouster.

So whether or not we agree with the ban proposals of the past, we can observe that people are upset by the state of discussion.

Moving through the more argumentative fora, we find a plethora of bad sentiment in a diverse variety of acrimonious topics. Some of this bad sentiment is an unfortunate result of posters trying to communicate with one another, but much of it is posters reaching out to zing one another, to needle and provoke.

How are the moderators, for instance, to handle this? The time commitment of "babysitting" certain fora to make sure absolutely no violations of Site Rules would be stupendous. It is obvious that the posters discussing certain topics choose a certain amount of distress between themselves, otherwise bad sentiment would be reserved to legitimate collapses of communication. Meanwhile, moderators are criticized both for overasserting themselves and also for not doing enough to calm the storm. Posters are left with the appearance of an inconsistent standard and often must choose between allowing perceived abuse to stand without response or risk sanction by moderators. (First Argument)Beyond that, I find it very interesting that people are so repulsed by the idea of having to give a small issue deep thought.

It is my sincere hope that this topic, then, can be the end of horseshit at Sciforums. People obviously enjoy being provocative around here, and that's fine. I mean, take Wes, for instance, who has admitted privately that he's just in this because he hates me. Frankly, the course of this topic makes it easier for me to deal with him as he seems to be on the side that advocates the outcome that will undermine any cause he has to be offended by what I write.

You see? This works out for everyone. I just wish y'all weren't so damned impatient. It would have been nice to see what could have happened if people were willing to put two cents' worth of effort into their considerations, but obviously Sciforums isn't worth that.

At any rate, I thank you all. I think we can skip the vote, as the outcome is fairly clear. In the meantime, I'll step aside and let the tantrums continue.

(SciForums Open Government: In action and you don't even know it.)

Hi Tiassa

>> for instance, who has admitted privately that he's just in this because he hates me.


seems to be a trait common to anonymous posters..... a slight discounting of THEIR theory (be it a pet or established) can create bitter immature enemies FOREVER

Curious is it not ???

Basically it is a sign of the mental state of the world at this time in history IMO.

Basically it is a sign of the mental state of the world at this time in history IMO.I agree, though my phrasing of a similar concept--the amount of time we devote to intentional provocation being indicative of people's conditions--was considered inflammatory; I believe the description was "character assassination."

Nonetheless, I'm very curious about how I could have given Dr. Lou's post a "scientific" treatment.Dr. Lou Natic's post as reproduced by Tiassa was childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way.It would be very helpful if you could give some comment on what a scientific treatment would look like.

>> It would be very helpful if you could give some comment on what a scientific treatment would look like.

Oh I see an error.... I apologise...I was referring to Dr Lou's post, and not your appraisal

I did mean that Dr Lou's post was "childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way.", not your treatment,....

I believe you were correct to highlight the inflamatary nature and it's condescending tone....

:)

Thank you for clearing that up. Now that you put it that way, I can't see how I read it any differently.

Maybe "they" are right. Maybe I'm making myself paranoid.

WTF?
Not scientific in anyway? Since when would you have anything to do with science?
No this really irritates me.
Who said it was intended to be scientific you jackass?
It was logic, based on science, point out the flaws einstein.
"not based on science" doesn't mean shit to me. I can say your post was "based on faggottry" and that comment would have as much validity as yours did.
You piece of $h!t n!993R f@99()t j3\/\/!$h p!nko /\/\(_)$[!/\/\ 9()df(_)cker.

>> You piece of $h!t n!993R f@99()t j3\/\/!$h p!nko /\/\(_)$[!/\/\ 9()df(_)cker.

>> Basically it is a sign of the mental state of the world at this time in history IMO.

QED

It was logic, based on science, point out the flaws einstein.
1. You pointed out obvious & apparent work of subtle evolution.
2. You extra-polated this as a proof of 'orgin of species' as against creation.
3. And then you argued, if the 'creationists' do not accept your 'logical' proof of 'orgins' then they are forbidden & not to talk of heridity.

Most of the creationists, obviously don't agree with (2), the very bone of contention (whether it is right or wrong), but have no serious problem with (1). And hence your demand appears to be arrogant since it does not prove anything from the POV of creationists. For them, its like siezing the meagre property of the poor for the crime of withholding a fat tax that 'he could not pay'.

I think you have good points everneo, which might summarize the asshat's point in a much less inflammatory and much more succinct way.

Though I agree that you are correct, I still don't think the topic was intentionally inflammatory. I think this is a verbalization of Lou's attempts to understand the issues interacting here. Pretty much anything that is posted can be interpreted as inflammatory.

I suppose that raises the issue of "by whose standard is it inflammatory". Then I would say "a mod" I guess, in which case a mod should just behave as they deem pertinent.

I suppose I'm just saying that if you want to actually make a case for it, "inflammatory" should be clearly demonstrable in less than a goddamn thousand words. If you can't clearly show it's inflammatory in a paragraph or two, then shut the fuck up, try to extend a little understanding, perhaps educate someone and move on. Otherwise, be a mod and do what you have to do.

BTW:

I mean, take Wes, for instance, who has admitted privately that he's just in this because he hates me.

Our narcissistic host has mislead you as I'm growing to expect:

What a judgmental twat you're being, Wes.
I do judge you a piece of shit, yes.

Let's face it, you just like haters.
Nope, I just hate you.

It was an attempt at wit. I'd say it failed. In retrospect what I would have said is (instead of "I just hate you"): "No tiassa, I like people. Seems to me you spend too much of your time labelling people haters. Seems to me that uhm.. well, you're a fucking hater. Seems to me that I hate you, so obviously I don't like all haters eh? Piece of shit."

*shrug*

I do hate you tiassa (in the manner that one despises the biggest lying jerk they've ever met), I think you are a despicable asshat hypocrite hater. As a matter of fact I think you're king of the goddamn haters given that you apparently don't even realize you're doing it .... even while you're accusing those around you of the behavior you indulge in. Jackass.

In other words, what a ridiculous amount of words for never intending to communicate."No tiassa, I like people. Seems to me you spend too much of your time labelling people haters. Seems to me that uhm.. well, you're a fucking hater. Seems to me that I hate you, so obviously I don't like all haters eh? Piece of shit."The only problem with your logic is your demonstrably supreme lack of qualification to make such assessments. I mean, look at the number of words you waste hating me, Wes. And in the end, all your complaints in this topic do is undermine your basis for complaint in general.

Turn the page, move on, lose the hate.

You could have helped set a standard, Wes, but this is what you chose instead.

Oh, and btw, get some new insults. Borrowing from 15ofthe19 and KalvinB only reiterates the anemia of your tantrum. I mean, your words really are wasted on your hatred, Wes; you can't even be creative in your effort to assert tribal dominance.

In other words, what a ridiculous amount of words for never intending to communicate.

*is flabbergasted*

That you cannot see (or do not care about) the blatant hypocracy in your words in fucking amazing to me. I don't get how you can say I have ever spent a ridiculous amount of words on anything. Wow. You are seriously out of touch. :rolleyes:

The only problem with your logic is your demonstrably supreme lack of qualification to make such assessments.

What? You're running the fucking Q course dipshit? FUCK YOU. YOU DON'T MAKE MY ASSESSMENTS FOR ME, GET IT FUCKNUT? That is a large part of your smarmy little problem. You somehow think you're entitled? I have made the assessement and I believe very accurate. Your approval is irrelevant since it is you that is being judged. You are entitled to your case which IMO, you have long since lost. I'll hear an appeal if you get an ego transplant, jackass.

I mean, look at the number of words you waste hating me, Wes.

After the number of words you've spent ensuring that I do, it's difficult for me to take your request seriously.

And in the end, all your complaints in this topic do is undermine your basis for complaint in general.

How clearly you've demonstrated that too. Gee tiassa, you said before that I didn't even know what I was talking about right.. if so, how is it that I could have a basis for complaint right? I mean, I'm just making shit up because I hate you right? Obviously I don't have a basis for complaint to be undermined then right? Jackass.

Turn the page, move on, lose the hate.

How compelling. What if my hate serves a purpose? What if in this instance, it is warrented? What if for instance, hating you keeps me on gaurd and sharp when I know you're around, such that I will not be accosted by you? What if my hate keeps me suspicious of your motivations and as such, allows me to keep you from poisoning the minds of those you would infect with your disgusting perspective? I do not celebrate my hatred of you, but I will not pretend it doesn't exist. I'll leave that to you.

You could have helped set a standard, Wes, but this is what you chose instead.

LOL. I chose to judge a piece of shit who has repeatedly lied and misrepresented about everthing I've ever said to him. I chose to judge a jackass who (for the nth time) was calling someone I like a "hater" and "inflammatory" because the stick up his ass broke his record some time ago. I chose to judge you because you told someone I respect to kill themselves, be it an off-handed comment or not. I judge you and I think you are a despicable ass.

Oh, and btw, get some new insults.

Why in the fucking world do you think I give a snot what you think of my insults? Perhaps there's some reason for them T. Perhaps there's something about those particular words that your jacked ass doesn't get. Perhaps you are ignorant. Oh you judge it though don't you? No? You're not a judgemental twat are you? LOL. Man you are a fucking mess. I'll be happy to help you sort through all of it if you can come clean and cut your bullshit hypocracy. If you can face it when confronted with it. Until then, fuck you, you worthless jackass.

Borrowing from 15ofthe19 and KalvinB only reiterates the anemia of your tantrum.

LOL. Right. I "borrowed it from them". LOL.

I mean, your words really are wasted on your hatred, Wes; you can't even be creative in your effort to assert tribal dominance.

What a joke you are man. Seriously. Tribal dominance? You've got to be kidding right? You are a seriously fucked up individual BD. My words are wasted on you no matter what I say I'm sure, but as long as I've decided to deal with you - I'll do it on my terms. If that includes reminding you very frequently of what a dipshit jackass asshat you are... then I will do so. Face your hypocracy or my slurs. It's your choice bitch.

**Enters room briefly, overcome by the smell of charred flesh rushes quickly for the exit. Carnage is overwhelming.**

Wow. That's ... nice, dear. Have a cookie.That you cannot see (or do not care about) the blatant hypocracy in your words in fucking amazing to me. I don't get how you can say Ihave ever spent a ridiculous amount of words on anything . Wow. You are seriously out of touch.Imagine that we're looking at a round blot, a rorschach of sorts. Now, I might see any number of things. I might recall a fuzzy, two-dimensional black and white picture of a human egg, I might think of the sun; perhaps, if there's an air bubble there just right, I might see the Death Star, or if there's a pattern behind the blot, I might see a dime.

Now, you can disagree with that all you want. But ... if you're going to tell me you see Mickey Mouse in the blot, I'm going to wonder where the hell you're getting that. Where are the ears? The nose? The hands and feet? The goofy red lederhosen?

And you're flabbergasted that I don't see what you see, and yet you're unwilling to tell me how it is you see what you see.

For all the words you've written, Wes, the only thing you've really lacked in your hateful pursuit of me is a point. Maybe you think you've got one, but you're not making much of an effort to make it clear. All I know is that you're angry about something, and you have been for a while, and it leads you to hate me and carry on this way.You're running the fucking Q course dipshit? FUCK YOU. YOU DON'T MAKE MY ASSESSMENTS FOR ME, GET IT FUCKNUT? That is a large part of your smarmy little problem. You somehow think you're entitled? You've proven yourself of dubious reading skills and carry an attitude problem which makes you sincerely predictable. There's nothing surprising about your assessments, as I'm already aware of the dishonest basis upon which you make them. Hence, you are demonstrably and supremely unqualified to decide what I am thinking.

You can be offended that I don't find you qualified to decide what I'm thinking, but Fuck you. You don't make my assessments for me, get it fucknut? is actually a response that should be reserved for a different circumstance.

No, I didn't make your assessment for you, Wes. I told you that your assessments are as worthless as your hatred.

Seriously, if you're going to bother cussing me out, at least learn to read well enough to know what you're cussing me out for.After the number of words you've spent ensuring that I do, it's difficult for me to take your request seriously.Oh, poor you. Right, Wes. We're back to this again? That I somehow can force you to do something?

Nonetheless, hang on to that point of yours for just a moment.Gee tiassa, you said before that I didn't even know what I was talking about right.. if so, how is it that I could have a basis for complaint right? I mean, I'm just making shit up because I hate you right? Obviously I don't have a basis for complaint to be undermined then right? All that for nothing, Wes? Toss a coin for me, Wes: Are you actually lacking reading skills or are you letting your hatred color your perception and judgment?

Wes, you undermine your own basis for complaint by advocating the position that tells people to turn the page and move on when they're offended. Hence, regardless of how you think you're "victimized," regardless of your paranoid delusions of being forced to respond to me (and dishonestly at that), you need to turn the page, move on, and feel better about yourself.

And it would work out well for both of us; you wouldn't need to go out of your way to try to agitate me, and I would save the relatively minor expenditure of swatting your attitude problem like it was a gnat. In addition, we could spare our fellow users these long and drawn out tantrums of yours, and perhaps, for once, despite your best efforts to the contrary, we can make some sort of progress around here.What if my hate serves a purpose? What if in this instance, it is warrented? What if for instance, hating you keeps me on gaurd and sharp when I know you're around, such that I will not be accosted by you? Wes, you feel accosted by someone disagreeing with you. I know you worked hard to set up that tantrum of yours in the Economics thread, but what a waste! And all because of your hatred, Wes.

It makes you irrational. It makes you weak. Strangely, and thanks in part to South Park, I recall the gawky young dude in Red Dawn scratching at his rifle stock; maybe his hate kept him warm, but it did burn him up in the end.What if my hate keeps me suspicious of your motivations and as such, allows me to keep you from poisoning the minds of those you would infect with your disgusting perspective?I would say you make me far too important in the grand scheme of things.I chose to judge a piece of shit who has repeatedly lied and misrepresented about everthing I've ever said to him. I chose to judge a jackass who (for the nth time) was calling someone I like a "hater" and "inflammatory" because the stick up his ass broke his record some time ago. I chose to judge you because you told someone I respect to kill themselves, be it an off-handed comment or not. I judge you and I think you are a despicable ass.Well, I hope the expenditure of energy and time is worth it to you. I hope you do manage to feel a little better about yourself, but hatred rarely if ever actually accomplishes that.Why in the fucking world do you think I give a snot what you think of my insults?Because in addition to the lack of creativity in your contrarian assaults, there is a lack of creativity in your insults. Hell, it might as well be two years ago and you might as well be telling the jackass to talk to the wall.

I don't mind cover songs. Band of Susans does a nifty "Guitar Trio," MBV tears up "Map Ref," Boiled in Lead makes a career out of innovating traditional material--their "Twa Corbies" is mesmerizing; their cover of "Over Under Sideways Down" is hilarious; they play a mean "Go! Move! Shift!" but honestly, they could have done without the Springsteen cover. And that last brings up the other side. Tiffany should never have covered Tommy James or the Beatles; Roger Daltry and George Michael both should have let the sun go down; I only wish more people had heard Kik Tracee's cover of "Mrs. Robinson," or Sanctuary's cover of "White Rabbit."

Some cover songs should never have been recorded.

Likewise, I don't know how many times I've seen this routine before. The number of people who have complained over time in ways very similar to yours does tell me something, but it's not particularly complimentary to the complaining parties. Seriously--an arbitrary beginning, lots of anger and cussing, rubber-glue attempts to turn tables, and throughout a lack of any coherent point or any evidence to give weight to the opinionated horsepucky they keep turning out.

I admit, you fooled me. For the most of our association, I thought our differences really were simple issues of communication. So congratulations, it actually took me until the last couple of months to catch on and then accept that I really was seeing what I was seeing.

But most people who consider a bombastic argument with me to be a way to raise their own self-esteem generally tip their hands earlier.

Nonetheless, it's no more advisable than the "Yakkity-Yak" rap at the beginning of Book of Love. (Thankfully, I can't remember who recorded that atrocity.) I'll be happy to help you sort through all of it if you can come clean and cut your bullshit hypocracy.I'll pass. I don't ever want to spend my existence so frightened as you behave.I "borrowed it from them" Well, you have this habit of latching onto words that other people are using and then use the words over and over again. Most recently, "asshat" and "jackass."Tribal dominance? Well it has been a spectacular show you've put on. Any topic, any time; you seem willing to take issue with me whenever there's a crowd.

Of course, "tribal dominance" is just one possibility. Your repeated pointless assaults do remind me of any number of mating-season power struggles between mammalian males.

But you're right. It is doubtful. Because you would be aiming at the wrong target. (I wouldn't know what the right one is, aside from the default to our fearless leader.)

More than likely, the irrationality you're demonstrating is rooted in the ideologically violent hatred you seem to be allowing to dictate the form and content of your posts.My words are wasted on you no matter what I say I'm sure, but as long as I've decided to deal with you - I'll do it on my terms . If that includes reminding you very frequently of what a dipshit jackass asshat you are... then I will do so. Are you proud of yourself? Are you going to tell your children bedtime stories of your heroic war against the evil Tiassa?Face your hypocracy or my slurs. It's your choice bitch. It's hard to face my own reflection when you hold up a painting of yourself and tell me I'm looking in a mirror.

It would have been nice if you could have shown some of that hypocrisy instead of just complaining that it apparently existed. It would have been nice, as well, if you could have demonstrated a reading comprehension that was not thoroughly invested in such a narrow hatred.

You can either deal with yourself or continue to attempt to define yourself through me. That, Wes, is your own choice.

Look at you squirm. Hey, you're sweating too.

At least now I know you're not dead.

>> **Enters room briefly, overcome by the smell of charred flesh rushes quickly for the exit. Carnage is overwhelming.**

Arrrrrrrrggghhhhhh, I'm outa here ------------------------------------>

1. You pointed out obvious & apparent work of subtle evolution.
2. You extra-polated this as a proof of 'orgin of species' as against creation.
3. And then you argued, if the 'creationists' do not accept your 'logical' proof of 'orgins' then they are forbidden & not to talk of heridity.

Most of the creationists, obviously don't agree with (2), the very bone of contention (whether it is right or wrong), but have no serious problem with (1). And hence your demand appears to be arrogant since it does not prove anything from the POV of creationists. For them, its like siezing the meagre property of the poor for the crime of withholding a fat tax that 'he could not pay'.

Your arguments don't seem to matter (if I put it bluntly) since creationism is not science.

Or did I misunderstood your point?

I think you have good points everneo, which might summarize the asshat's point in a much less inflammatory and much more succinct way.
I too wonder why Tiassa was weaving a web rather than strike it short. May be his writer part wants to elaborate a theme.

Though I agree that you are correct, I still don't think the topic was intentionally inflammatory. I think this is a verbalization of Lou's attempts to understand the issues interacting here. Pretty much anything that is posted can be interpreted as inflammatory.
Thanks, Wes. But that topic was not unintentional. Lou always wants to take a loo at humans who are skeptic of evolution's way especially back to orgins. Inflammatory or not, it is mischievious in total.. anyway a trial like this is far fetched, IMO. Debunking in that thread itself and moving on would have been sufficient. Tiassa has his own ways as Lou has his own.

Your arguments don't seem to matter (if I put it bluntly) since creationism is not science.

Or did I misunders