Proposal: Ban "Undecided" from WE&P for one week

[EI_Sparks]

For unprovoked personal insults and foul language, not to mention wasting bandwidth by arguing an unsupported position even when provided with ample references and citations.

Relevant thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31954)

[sweet Pentax]

sparks ....... grow up :rolleyes:

[EI_Sparks]

This is being done on porfiry's recommendation (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32276) SP. It's justified in my opinion, and presumably in his as well.

[CounslerCoffee]

Actually, I believe that Undecided is Nico. And Nico was banned.

[sweet Pentax]

yes , you have the right to make such proposal
no , you shouldn´t make use of it

ps : why do YOU always want the ban of certain people ? really , it´s YOU who should change ....

[Xerxes]

I voted 'no'

..I think this is a teensy bit immature. Why not put him on your ignore list for a week?

Anyways, fight it out :)

[CounslerCoffee]

What I don't understand is why this post wasn't deleted:

Undecided:
So pussy bitch Sparks has put me on ignore eh? Seems some of us can't stand the heat. I would hate hot flashes too...

Anyways, fight it out

And that's what we're trying to avoid, a fight.

[Porfiry]

yes , you have the right to make such proposal
no , you shouldn´t make use of it

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

[EI_Sparks]

I think this is a teensy bit immature. Why not put him on your ignore list for a week?
I've tried that approach before and wound up with half the posters in WE&P on my ignore list - and not for single annoying posts, but for repeatedly doing the "racial hatred"/"personal insults rather than debate"/"tinfoil-hat positions without evidence" kind of posts. I'm sick of it and about ready to quit sciforums and give it up as a waste of time. But this forum might be a viable solution, so I figure, one last try to raise the level of debate in WE&P to at least a civil level. I think Counsler's post shows that it is a real problem.


SP, what's the point in a useful procedure which you never exercise?

[sweet Pentax]

hmmm .... it was pretty easy .... :rolleyes:

let me try an example
i CAN call you sucker .... but that doesn´t mean i SHOULD do it !
pretty pretty easy , and nothing new in this world !

[sweet Pentax]

SP, what's the point in a useful procedure which you never exercise?

see my example above

[EI_Sparks]

Therein lies the point of this exercise SP - should you have the right to use personal insults with abandon in WE&P, or should we impose (even through self-moderation) artifical restraints on the language used to express an idea (which is not the same thing as censoring ideas and thus removing free speech), in the interests of promoting discussion with people who would otherwise regard WE&P as a playground for foul-mouthed adolescents?

[sweet Pentax]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.


hmmm .... this is an insult , too !
it´s not that i care about that ( because i know what i said makes a lot of sense ) , it´s just that YOUR rules should apply to YOURSELF , not only the users

you don´t want foul language here , porfiry ?

[Xerxes]

Okay. Understandable. I've seen a lot of intolerance on WE&P, and I don't usually post there for that exact reason. Canadian parliament has the same problems.

I'm just a little worried that this sort of thing might eventually lead to a Lord of the flies. -- People being stoned while posting at their computer desks, Goofyfish's glasses being stolen to set fire to undecideds hardrive and so on..

[CounslerCoffee]

Tiassa gets stoned, and Goofyfish doesn't wear glasses.

it´s not that i care about that ( because i know what i said makes a lot of sense ) , it´s just that YOUR rules should apply to YOURSELF , not only the users

I disagree. Your own "rules" or "ethics" are going to influence what you post in this forum. Why should I listen to your proposal on bans? Simple, because you have a reason to post it and I have a right to disagree with it. That's what this forum section is all about; giving a voice to the members. If you don't like it, then don't post in this section.

[sweet Pentax]

I've seen a lot of intolerance on WE&P

i´ve never made this experience !

[Xerxes]

You mean you've never 'had this experience'?

I've been here two and a half years..and I have. On a few occasions, though I don't remember you causing any of them.

[CounslerCoffee]

I've experienced them, and I witness them on a daily basis. That's why I post on another forum for politics, but I still come here for all my UFO, Scifi, and A&C needs.

[sweet Pentax]

Why should I listen to your proposal on bans?

never going to happen , i´m not in the KINDERGARTEN anymore like some other people here :rolleyes:

Simple, because you have a reason to post it

because i post - i have a reason ???

and I have a right to disagree with it. That's what this forum section is all about; giving a voice to the members.

this section was just opened and look , there is the first person that calls for the ban of another person .... that´s just stupid , this shouldn´t be a place of personal revenge


If you don't like it, then don't post in this section.

ha , and leave the field to some few suckers ? no , you want to take undecided down and try to avoid that ! it´s my RIGHT ;)

[sweet Pentax]

xerxes

You mean you've never 'had this experience'?

well , of course - some people are intolerant ( sometimes even me ) , but that´s how the world works , not everybody will agree with you on things

[Porfiry]

this section was just opened and look , there is the first person that calls for the ban of another person .... that´s just stupid , this shouldn´t be a place of personal revenge

Given that this "revenge" requires the approval of a majority of peers and myself, it sounds more like "justice". One is free to bring petty fueds here, but they'll fail miserably unless they are backed up by general community support.

[Xerxes]

this section was just opened and look , there is the first person that calls for the ban of another person .... that´s just stupid , this shouldn´t be a place of personal revenge

Only a temporary ban..and limited to WE&P. And I don't think its based on revenge...

[Xerxes]

well , of course - some people are intolerant ( sometimes even me ) , but that´s how the world works , not everybody will agree with you on things

Tolerance has nothing to do with 'agreeing'. It has to do with maturity and giving respect to other opinions..even if they're stupid. If intolerance was the cause of this 'intolerance' the poll can be justified.

[EI_Sparks]

this section was just opened and look , there is the first person that calls for the ban of another person .... that´s just stupid , this shouldn´t be a place of personal revenge
As I've already said, this isn't my idea, it's porfiry's (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32276). It's not personal revenge. (I'd be rather depressed if I ever got to the stage where I felt I needed personal revenge on an anonymous poster on an internet forum).

[sargentlard]

Will banning him for a week provide you comfort for 7 days or change his behavior towards the forum? I am betting it is the former since you're mistaken if you are expecting the latter.

[sweet Pentax]

porfiry

i didn´t think this proposal had any chance .... thing is that such propasals are in most cases just made to demonize some people ( of course with the intention to get increasing support for their "proposal" )


xerxes

only ? come on , that´s lame ...
btw , of course it is revenge - you should search for threads by sparks in sitefeedback - and you´ll see eventually

[Xerxes]

Maybe it could function as a trial period.. Give him a chance to become more tolerant in that time instead of sending him to the corner.

[EI_Sparks]

I'm hoping for the latter SL, but the idea of banning someone permanently without any prior warning or lesser sanction doesn't sit well with me. It's too nonlinear.

[CounslerCoffee]

Now that is an idea, Sparks. A great idea...

[EI_Sparks]

SP there are prior threads from me in SiteFeedback because this problem has existed in WE&P for as long as I've been posting here, and I've brought it up before. None of this is hidden.

[Porfiry]

i didn´t think this proposal had any chance .... thing is that such propasals are in most cases just made to demonize some people ( of course with the intention to get increasing support for their "proposal" )

Fair enough. But that doesn't invalidate the process, does it? The mere existence of a community process encourages all users to abide by community standards. As long as this process is not abused, this is entirely positive to the community.

[sweet Pentax]

because this problem has existed in WE&P for as long as I've been posting here

:D
you still don´t see the real problem , do you ;)

[EI_Sparks]

SP, I'm rather sure that my expectation of basic civility isn't the problem.

[EI_Sparks]

Two valid questions to my mind about this process however, are
1. How should the poll be announced in WE&P - in a seperate thread or sticky, or in the thread the offensive behaviour is in? Should a PM be used to notify the object of the thread?
2. Should there be a minimum number of votes required in total to render a poll valid?

[sweet Pentax]

porfiry , what about a third option ?

yes
no
ban the poster of this proposal

i think it would decrease enormously the number of such proposals ! ( though we just have this one case :D )

[sweet Pentax]

1.it shouldn´t be announced in we&p ( or anywhere else )
2.yes , at least 100 ( if anyone is a real problem - you get enough votes )


perhaps you can´t see this but you are crying for support !!!
if undecided would be a problem , you wouldn´t need to do it ;)

[EI_Sparks]

SP, if you feel that I should be banned for bringing this proposal, why not simply put a proposal forward yourself, rather than build in a mechanism for discouraging people from using the open government forum?

[EI_Sparks]

SP, we don't have a hundred regular posters in WE&P in total. And of course this thread has to be announced, to Undecided by PM at the very, very least. To not do so would be kafkaesque in the extreme.

[EI_Sparks]

perhaps you can´t see this but you are crying for support !!!
Indeed I am - I asked the moderators for moderatorship and this is the response. Personally, I think it's workable and justified (if not horribly overdue).

[sweet Pentax]

i meant you are crying TOO MUCH for support , you try to demonize undecided !
he has made great posts and gave a lot to we&p

[Porfiry]

porfiry , what about a third option ? ban the poster of this proposal

Well, you're totally free to start your own proposal.


Should there be a minimum number of votes required in total to render a poll valid?

There is. Quorum for all proposals in this forum is tentatively set at 100 votes, though I may change that.

[sargentlard]

Isn't 100 a tad high...?

for mod elections the highest vote count was 19, for Tiassa....less than 50 voted.

I doubt 100 of us care to ban a member many of us do not even know about (the ones who actually come here to serve this place purpose.)

[sweet Pentax]

hmm ...sparks ... i´m curious ;)
as we can see , votes are fairly divided --- what will happen if nothing happens by end of the poll ? are leaving sciforums ? will you try again to get undecided banned ?

[Porfiry]

Isn't 100 a tad high...?
Maybe. I don't know. This is all an experiment.

[EI_Sparks]

I'll probably call it a day SP. It's not a "it's him or me" situation, but I'm just sick of reading racist posts from the same posters all the time, and seing the same foul language and poor arguments and general adolescence across the forum. The signal to noise ration is just too low. If this approach doesn't work, I don't see much point in remaining.

And Porfiry, 100 is far too high. As I've said, there aren't a hundred regular posters in WE&P to begin with.

[spuriousmonkey]

I do not understand the proposal really. I propose that people write down all important aspects of the proposal.

What's an undecided for instance.

[Porfiry]

Undecided is a person. We're just talking about one person here.

[spuriousmonkey]

Undecided is a person. We're just talking about one person here.

Aha...me stupid...

I now read the thread in feedback that started it all...now I get the picture. Everything is clear now.

[thefountainhed]

This is crazy. We have a member who primarily posts in WE& P, and his fate as a poster is being decided here? Some of the people here don't even know a single post of his. Also, if the community decides who gets banned, then should there not also be a communal moderation? And to ask that a member who disagreed with your position be banned because of personal insults, as opposed to a deletion of the posts? Do you claim to have never insulted someone on this forum? Do you claim undecided to have been the first to insult you? What exactly about his insults sent you over the edge?

This "right" simply begs for abuse, especially towards the more unpopular members.

[spuriousmonkey]

This is crazy. We have a member who primarily posts in WE& P, and his fate as a poster is being decided here? Some of the people here don't even know a single post of his. Also, if the community decides who gets banned, then should there not also be a communal moderation? And to ask that a member who disagreed with your position be banned because of personal insults, as opposed to a deletion of the posts? Do you claim to have never insulted someone on this forum? Do you claim undecided to have been the first to insult you? What exactly about his insults sent you over the edge?

This "right" simply begs for abuse, especially towards the more unpopular members.

In fact it is already abused since I voted without even bothering to check out if I like undecided posts or not.

In fact I went back after voting to the forementioned thread and I noticed that I voted for banning someone which I don't think should be banned.

I am so superficial.

[Tiassa]

Call me crazy ... you wouldn't be the first.

Look ... the list of people that I would see banned according to some of the standards offered up around here is somewhat on the far side of ridiculous. Anyone care to take a guess at how annoyed I get at posters who don't really seem to want to discuss a topic but would rather take up some personal issue with me? (Like the one where apparently I'm supposed to write more anti-liberal posts in WE&P; the nearest I can figure is that the opposition is either stupid or lazy.) For how long must I endure people who wish to undertake what seem to be simple issues yet actually refuse to state what their problem is? (Oh, you can't tell me why you're upset? Oh, I see ... you won't tell me? Then shut up.) How about the guy that's so damn stupid that he thinks he can play two roles, one publicly and one privately? (Nearest I can figure is that he thinks I read his posts and messages as poorly as he reads mine.) What about the stupid twitch that just randomly decided she wanted to go rounds? (I have no explanation for that showdown.)

Rather than rushing to the burnings, I would propose that people take a few days, murmur about, and try arguing about something useful.

• What, in Sciforums' context, is a troll?
• What should be done about trolls and spammers in general?
• What amounts to due process in the witch hunts?
• How much of this crap will Porfiry choose to endure?
• What precedents and standards do people really want to set?

Establish standards of convention. If I'm the only person that sees the coming plotline, we're screwed.

Seriously, folks ... just stop and think about it for a moment.

Think about Sciforums. Think about it as its own memetic identity or some-such. What is happening in Sciforums with the advent of the Open Government forum? What does every great story, every dismal history, say about these endeavors among humans?

Rushing toward ... what? Certainly not oblivion? Mayhaps chaos, and a healthy dose?

There are a few general outcomes we might predict for the S/FOG endeavor. Let's aim for a good one, eh?

Welcome to Sciforums, where users now have a voice. What would we like that voice to be worth?

[orthogonal]

tiassa wrote:
What precedents and standards do people really want to set?
No one is going to be shocked by my answer. I say that we ought to have a zero tolerance for personal insults. This should be clearly stated on the registration page and rigorously enforced. This is how people are expected to behave in polite society. Why should we expect less of this community?

Martin Buber said that the difference between a monologue and a conversation is the "otherness," or the moment of surprise. In order to have a conversation I must be prepared to hear surprising things; otherwise, I’m only talking to myself. Your polite critique of my idea is not an insult. If you can show me where I’ve made an error then you’ve actually done me a kindness.

Some of you might remember that I left this forum after making this post:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=8833&highlight=plea

I returned some six months later after I noticed a diminution of the level of virulence. Recently, though, I’ve begun to wonder again if this is the place for me. Xev and gendanken, along with the relative newcomers, Wanderer and David Mayes, are making this forum as inviting to me as Penn Station after-hours. Here’s one current case-in-point:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32289

I don’t come here expecting to find Department of Philosophy Heads waiting to debate issues of metaphysics and ethics with me. By the same token, I don’t expect to find inmates from an insane asylum waiting here to attack me. It doesn’t matter a great deal if I choose to leave. What does matter, I think, is if most of the good people, EI_Sparks included, head for the door. If that should happen then I’m afraid the administrator would simply turn off the lights and lock the door. It would be a shame to see that happen.

I’m asking that we consider making all deliberate personal attacks verboten.

Michael

[Undecided]

Aww, Sparks is just angry because he has no points in threads. I think that Sparks has a little problem, shall I show you. For instance he has supposedly put me on "ignore" but yet still quotes me, and answers, and posts on my threads? The question is, is my characterization of Sparks as a "pussy bitch" all that incorrect? You see for weak minded individuals like Sparks who needs guns to satisfy his ego, semantics mean a lot. Do tell me what is the difference btwn "pussy bitch" and "coward"? There is no difference, apart from an infantile connection to the words, "pussy" and "bitch". If you were to ban me for this minor infraction, it would be tantamount to intolerance, and ignorance. Look if he has to satisfy his infantile ego by actually banning me, it shows something about his character not mine. Notably he cannot stand the heat, and that he is intellectually so bankrupt that he cannot past a semantical play. But at least I know that Sparks so much about me that he is actually wiling to start a thread about a person that he is "ignoring" ;) ;) So Sparks, where is the money going to come from?

[BigBlueHead]

Yer in the asylum bai...

Or to paraphrase...

Alice: But I don’t want to go among mad people!
Cheshire Cat: Oh, you can’t help that. We're all mad here.

Honestly, if Wanderer and David Mayes want to get into an ear-pulling contest, who cares? It's not like you can't see them coming from a thousand miles away. I agree that this material isn't suitable for the Philosophy forums, but that's no reason to forbid all personal attacks.

[Undecided]

Also a personal insult is generally said to someone that you hate. I don't hate Sparks I just think that he is not worthy of the time wasted on him. Also a personal insult is usually if not always rooted in innuendo, and lies. My characterization of him was neither; it was based on an easily verifiable sequence of events. The problem that Sparks has is the wording not the intent. Which is pathetic at best, this thread simply would not exist if called him a yellow bellied coward. But because some infantile standard some get all pissed at an accurate characterization of a individual, in words not of his choosing. If we ban because on says something true, just in language that is not liked, then that is simply infringing on rights. I am not slandering Sparks, because I am not saying anything that is untrue. Free Speech is the victim here, and censorship is being promoted.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/images/232_hammer_sickle.jpg

[Title 2] Fundamental Freedoms
Section 2 [Freedom of Religion, Speech, Association
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication;

[Tiassa]

Notes around:

• Big Blue HeadHonestly, if Wanderer and David Mayes want to get into an ear-pulling contest, who cares? It's not like you can't see them coming from a thousand miles away.As a basic consideration, I agree with you. But after four years here I'm prepared to assert that it does no good. Other people give them credibility despite their behavior.

We've always had furious discussions here; my history is thick with them. But a while back the Religion forums were invaded by a few characters and things have never really been the same.

I remember that it wasn't so shocking to me that such minds had turned up at Sciforums; religious representation prior to that was tempestuous, common, simple, but well-intended. But along came one or two characters who received some credibility for being able to argue the dumbest possible circular arguments--some even appreciated their disruptive "wit" and "pith". And things have been building ever since.

The Bush administration, September 11, and the Iraqi Bush Adventure brought new levels of acrimony to WE&P, though superficial agitation had been building for a long time.

A recent row in WE&P revealed that some people have difficulty with something about the magnitude and number of my posts. I don't know whether it's just that I'm perceived as better at the slamming game, confuse people who want A-B-C politics and high school debate club debates, or what's up with those complaints because, at 8,000 posts the one indicator of that curious weight (not exactly authority, but ....) that was not in evidence was any sense of respect; I do not yet know what people were trying to describe to me aside from, possibly, a myth of punditry.

And while I know for a fact that Sciforums does not orbit the House of the Tiassa, perhaps we might put some of my history into a context which lends to this topic. Simply, I've managed to set new precedents in fighting. Many escalations in the general attitude around here are chronologically related to some of my more titanic episodes.

Dropping names is a must if I am to make my point clearly:

• I used to do all manner of combat with Christian posters Truestory and Lori. One was prone to what we consider nonsense and one was oversensitive and hyperreactive. Truestory was frustrating, and I considered her false, but at the time my fights with people didn't really stand out.

• Tony1 - I was always puzzled at the credibility given the ultimate Christian skeptic. My rows with him did set new standards for acrimony, yet history indicates that people actually liked T1's method of provoking fights and never having anything to stand on.

• KalvinB - This guy had serious problems. People tolerated him as much as they could, but by the time he had a serious blowout, things had gotten pretty nasty.

• Adam - Never could figure out what the trouble was, but we had some scandalously huge rounds. During those fights a new precedent was set that people, to this day, seem to love at Sciforums: When you make a mistake, (A) lie about it, (B) refuse all evidence showing your mistake, (C) counteraccuse with no basis, (D) refuse to show evidence supporting your accusation, and (E) demanding evidence of your original mistake which has already been shown and refused. The gamble is that by the time you get to (E), your mistake, your lie (A) and your refusal of evidence (B) will be forgotten. People inevitably hop on the bandwagon because they either have a grudge against the other poster, or they simply like a good fight.

• Xev - I think everything negative we could say about Xev has been said elsewhere. That I consider her the current low standard of Sciforums shouldn't surprise anyone, given how we've tangled in the past.

• Gendanken - I think I've pretty much said enough about Gendanken over the last few months.

• Stokes Pennwalt - I still don't know what I did to piss this guy off, but by the time he got to writing my arguments for me in order to hate me ... what? Y'all seem to love that kind of show.

• Wesmorris - We seem to set new standards for MOAB argumentation around here.

• Mr. G - A first-tier representative of a movement in which people seem to prefer to argue with posters and not about issuese. I mean, at some point, I'm putting up with his shit apparently because he thinks that I owe it to conservatives to write their criticisms of liberalism for them.

• 15ofthe19 - The latest incarnation of a dog-tired tactic previously described. I really don't get it in the long run, since he and I tend to match up on certain issues, but the general illiteracy of the rabble that followed up his recent provocateur routine (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31404) did, in fact, set a new standard in stupidity around here. So let's think about it for a moment: When you make an accusation that is factually incorrect and then refuse to support that libel against character, someone tell me again what it is that is admirable about those occasions? Are y'all just out looking for a feeding frenzy?

And along the way, if someone were to argue to me that in the wake of these and other large fights I've had with people over time, posters rushed to fulfill the new standards set by the vitriol of the argument--rushed like children to try on a new image or attitude--I would have a hard time dodging it. That the longer I engaged T1 or KB, the more people started to think that was the way it was around here, so that by the time we get to 15ofthe19 it's pretty much a common method.

And yet you can't get too good at it. Take a look at Spookz and Gendanken, both of whom have elevated chaos and scorn to hitherto undiscovered heights. They're both really good at it. And they've both gone too far recently. But the only thing that really seems to be annoying about those two is that they're that much better at it than other people.

Anyone know what Nico's actual mistake was? He didn't reset the scorn meter often enough. With people just following him from topic to topic solely to mouth off at him, he finally held those people to their behavior and was unforgiving whenever he came across them. In the end, he was banned, as I understand it, for calling someone an "idiot." And I don't want to know which posts it was that finally did it, because if it's the period I think it is, then I really do think the other poster ought to be tossed as well.

But it took a couple of people recently quite a while to figure that out about themselves. If they didn't come into a topic and spit at me for no reason they got treated like any other poster. Once they decided to befoul the air, however, I was perfectly happy to keep their behavioral patterns among the accounting.

That list above--on the one hand, it's incomplete. To the other, I hate making such a list because the names really shouldn't be grouped together like that, ever. I have considerably more respect for Wesmorris, for instance, than I do a couple of other people on that list, for instance. But throughout time, I've engaged all of these people in fights that would get us all banned if we're going to chuck Undecided.

Recently I ducked a problematic form of argument in which a poster ... well ... see Terror in America - Homegrown (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32099). It's not much of a topic, but I'm still puzzled by the response that reads, Hmmm. Kids get bullied; kids have access to firearms and no training with them; kids use firearms to take revenge on bullies.
And somehow, the problem is the firearms?

*knocks on tiassa's head* Hello? Anyone home?

The problem is not the guns Tiassa, the problem is the bullys.Now, between you, me, and anyone who's still reading, I still want to know what the hell this has to do with anything.

It's the introduction of a new issue hitherto unknown to the topic, and in which a poster has invested some degree of negative enthusiasm.

Asking what the issue is, as you will see, I am advised of what the issue is, and while I don't take issue with what the issue is, I don't see how the issue that is relates to the issues presented in the topic. Not only does the poster refuse to clarify, but a second poster rides in to further distract the issue.

Quite frankly, they're both being disruptive prigs. If they have so little to offer a topic, why do they bother staining it with their crap in the first place?

They'll do all the ear-pulling they want, Big Blue Head, and not only to they have the free hand to do it, but they actually earn credibility from their Sciforums neighbors for doing it.

I don't disagree with your point at all, BBH, but rather find it slightly impractical in the current Sciforums atmosphere.

• Orthogonal

As much as I would enjoy an insult-free forum, there are some aspects that seem problematic to me.

• Expression: There is a certain degree of free expression going on here that I support. I'm never sure what to think of it in its extreme degrees, though.
• Priorities: People choose to represent what's important to them.
• Literacy: Recent events have provided me a shocking view of literacy around Sciforums.

Now, people have their passions, and I'm always a fan of rhythmic, dignified fury. But just like the pundits argue about the Dean Machine and the former Vermont governor's "teapot" temper: People don't trust animated passions.

It slays me in general that some of my best underhanded slams go unnoticed while people are willing to invent a sense of insult out of thin air about other things in order to have an issue.

So of course this place will become ultimately boring and uninspiring if we reign in the passions, and the problematic aspect of why that will happen comes with priorities and literacy. I'm sure you can see the issues that arise when identity politics and poor reading comprehension come together and suddenly someone's complaining about the mere passion of a post--what constitutes a deliberate personal attack? I recently thought I was making a very direct point when a topic was derailed by the accusation of a deliberate personal attack that could not be demonstrated in any sense of reality. I consider that subversion of the topic rather quite deliberate. One person's good point is another person's "deliberate personal attack."

Which leads us to this forum, where such things can be argued and hammered out.

Deliberate personal attacks verboten? I don't think it can be written as such. But I do think the condition can be achieved if the minds that care about this forum decide they're ready to discuss things like what exactly constitutes a troll. ("Troll" is perhaps the only term around here that invokes more controversy than when I point out a deliberate falsehood in someone's post but cannot--for risk of personally offending them--call it a "lie.")

To invent another possible controversy, I think of another poster I had a recent row with, and while I respect him, I was puzzled by his strategy of running avoidance. It was a guerilla hit-and-run, a layering of public and private debate that became a disgraceful nest of dishonesty. It was a guy saying anything he could think of in order to create a negative impact, and it was rather quite sick to witness. Such harassment ought to be verboten, but I can't think of how to institute a functional rule that says, "Say what you mean and don't screw around."

Forcing people to be polite will create a positive but superficial aesthetic adjustment, but in the end, our posters need to understand that it is within their power to choose a better Sciforums. Porfiry keeps giving us the tools--the clay, the room to work, the kiln to fire in; all we need to do is bring ourselves and the tools inherent in us to the worktable. That the posters at Sciforums generally choose to fashion idolatrous heaps of shite more often than not is an expression of their priorities.

• Undecided

Don't call him a pussy bitch, or a soccer mom, or anything so over-the-top. Remember that life is performance art, and one of the things you're accomplishing is a testament to the potency of the absolute horsepucky you so despise in other people's posts.

Think of two classic phrases, juxtaposed:

- "Are you stupid?"
- "Did I stutter?"

They both say the same thing. They both convey a degree of annoyance. Which one is going to piss someone off?

Originally, this was the context of my slamming reading comprehension. I don't doubt that people can interpret certain things the way they do, I just wish they'd let me in on how they go from A to Q to H the way they do.

Nowadays I actually believe it to a certain degree. People really do seem to have those kinds of problems with words arranged for reading.

But reading comprehension has been a useful blade for me to employ. Because it's true in both a neutral and an active sense. In the end, it really does come down to reading comprehension in many cases. To the other, one can leave that point as open as they want, and allow the other poster to presume whether it's a neutral or negative thing. Most people leap on the negative, and that's fine with me. But if two people read the same sentence and comprehend different aspects of what it says, there is an issue of reading comprehension afoot that must be reconciled in order to explain the difference in perception.

But in the end there's a functional difference in how you call someone an idiot, or a pussy bitch, or anything else. Some people like to disparage their political opposition by calling them "soccer moms," or calling an issue "gay." Frankly, I don't see "pussy bitch" as being any worse than these things. And yes, it would be nice to be able to call someone an idiot when that's what they're up to.

So consider:

- "You're just an idiot if you think that."
- "I cannot see what idiocy would compel me to believe that."

The other person has a way out according to the second, and that makes a huge difference. In the first, one says, "You are an idiot." The second makes the idiocy an ideological construct leading to a result. The "idiot," as such, can actually be a victim of idiocy. The practical effect is, in fact, the same, but you're leaving it to the priorities of the other to determine the magnitude; if it becomes perceived as vicious, as such, that vice can be placed with the other.

And by the time you get to choosing the vicious, there are other forms to consider. Lately I've found that if I just cite the questionable text and say something like, "Hmmm?" folks are afraid to clarify themselves. Generally speaking, if they don't want to back themselves, they're hoping you'll do them the honor of leaping into the abyss first.

And, frankly, sometimes you do.

Let them come to you, Undecided, and then put on an antebellum gentleman's air and make it look like you're swatting flies without making any real effort.

• In General

I would propose that we have not yet reached a point in SciForums Open Government (S/FOG) that we should be undertaking these issues. I would hope the folks worried about "trolls" would put together a topic proposing various contexts and definitions--troll around here is used much like terrorist is used in American media, so thorougly saturating that the word has no real meaning anymore. To the other, I have a few things to say about provocateurs and haters that I'll get around to at some point.

Think, on the one hand, about the myths of American founding fathers. A Declaration, the Articles, a Constitution; midnight oil burnt and spent away to future generations, &c, &c, &c.

Now think about "La Resistance," in South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. Terrence and Phillip are about to be killed, so to protest ... let's order pizzas and send them to the police.

So any day you land me in the role of the stuck-up kid in South Park, I'm going to chuckle at the lot of you.

S/FOG is one of those things that sounds great but rarely, if ever, happens. Look at the US Declaration of Independence; look at the Constitution. The ideas contained therein were insane in their day, and sooner or later, somebody had to get around to trying it, or else these ideas would just be a tempting idea that nobody ever felt like trying.

Open Government in the internet age seems an almost laughable idea, largely because those places that it will pop up tend to be questioned by others. It is completely within our grasp to change that, to decide to actually make this something other than a Salem Witch Hunt, or post-revolutionary France.

To guess according to various Religion forum debates that involve questions of life, the Universe, and everything, and also by various WE&P and EM&J debates, I don't see among the most part of my Sciforums neighbors a certain perspective that suggests to them a few things about how to go about S/FOG. Had the Reign of Terror brought Justice, would it not be called a reign of justice?

As it is, debates to ban members can come down to popularity contests. Ought there not be some convention of rules underpinning the process?

[EI_Sparks]

Now, between you, me, and anyone who's still reading, I still want to know what the hell this has to do with anything.
Well, since you ask, I'll repost on that thread and clarify.

[Tiassa]

Fair 'nuff. :cool:

[EI_Sparks]

As to rules for this process, I'm all for it - but I tend to go with the MIT way of deciding where footpaths go.
ie. You build the buildings, leave the surface as bare earth for a month's normal use, then pave the most-trodden paths and landscape the rest.

Or, to put it more directly, you see how it works then you codify it.
So we need to do this a few times to see where the problems are and fix them. And we both know that there are enough people who continually post things in WE&P that would have gotten Martin Luther King mad enough to throw punches, that there is no shortage of test cases.

[Tiassa]

The only problem is whether to lift bans and apologize to people banned whose "crimes" do not meet the standard eventually settled upon.

We must also remember, also, that the most-trodden paths are often the easiest passage, and not necessarily the most direct, appropriate, or, once the grading and paving is done, efficient.

[Xerxes]

Tiassa,

I'm pretty sure that Nico wasn't banned.

[CounslerCoffee]

Nico was banned.

[sweet Pentax]

but nico ISN´T banned ;)

[Tiassa]

I just don't get what the issue is with people and Nico. Who gives a rat's behind if he's returned in another form? It's not like he would be the first person to do so.

Nico was among the least of our problems.

Undecided is even less of a threat to sanity or stability around here.

[Undecided]

So I guess this truly idiotic, and childlike poll has finished? Stalin seems to have lost this time round.

[orthogonal]

tiassa wrote:
So of course this place will become ultimately boring and uninspiring if we reign in the passions, and the problematic aspect of why that will happen comes with priorities and literacy.
A prohibition against hostile ad hominem attacks would, if anything, only produce more interesting expressions of passion. If a gendanken isn’t allowed to post “Eat my shit,” and then walk away, then in order to post at all she might be forced to mine some hitherto undiscovered vein of intelligence coupled with civility. At first it might be an excruciating exercise for her. But with enough practice she might even forget the prohibition exists. Murderers lament the fact that murder is prohibited, but the rest of us barely notice this prohibition. Similarly, only would-be rapists are denied the explicit expression of their passion for rape. Those that can express their passions by no other means other than abusive attack would suffer the most from a prohibition against doing so. We don’t make laws to protect ourselves from good men; laws only set minimal standards of behavior. Most of us fly so high above the laws that we seldom pay attention to them. I think the same would be true of my proposal.

Stevenson described his Mr. Hyde as “...a soul boiling with causeless hatreds.” If there’s an honorarium given in Sciforums for clever trash-talking then I’ll have naught to do with it. Xev and gendanken are quite welcome to it. Some very clever chemistry was required to create Zyklon B. And given that we have a Nobel Prize for chemistry why shouldn’t we also have a Hyde Prize for chemistry? The answer is that civilization is engaged in a noble struggle to raise itself out of the muck, not to search for the bottom of it. Once upon a time, students used to write the words: Ad majorem Dei glorium at the top of each page of their exercise books. The posts of too many here ought to be prefaced with: Ad majorem excrementi glorium. Eleanor Roosevelt wrote:

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

I agree with this sentiment. But I also think the task of maintaining one’s dignity is far less daunting by not having to sit at the back of the bus; by not having to ride a boxcar to Auschwitz. It might be possible to smell roses in a garbage dump, but if it’s really the aroma of a rose that we're after then why not head instead for a rose garden? Likewise, it might be possible to hold serious political and philosophical discussions in a forum seething with causeless hatreds and endless vitriolic diatribe, but why shouldn’t we instead try to create an inviting and cordial environment where we can disagree about the issues rather than constantly defend our personal worth as humans?

Michael

[CounslerCoffee]

I can't say much for Undecided's posts in WE&P, as I never really post there. But I can tell you that he does post in SciFi, and that his threads/posts (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32037&page=1&pp=5) are most welcome. I have no problem with him (Except for the fact that he thinks the Enterprise D is a good design). So I vote no.

[Undecided]

CounslerCoffee

Thank you, and you don't like the NCC-1701D! *Slaps faces*

[CounslerCoffee]

No I don't! It's a God awful design, the worst. I like a Borg Cube better than the 1701D!

Except... The future version of the 1701D, the one with the extra warp nessel, is pretty cool.

[Undecided]

Tiassa

I would imagine simply people are so threatened by us that they attack us for no warranted reason. Notice that I have to usually debate against people who are just there to argue with no point in the end. There are great WEP posters, Tiassa (you), Godless, Hypewaders, Spyke, and when he complaining and acting like a child EI_Sparks. The rest...well... :eek: They are either threatened, or they are just there to annoy.

[Undecided]

Except... The future version of the 1701D, the one with the extra warp nessel, is pretty cool.

Do you by happenchance have a link to that? I am sorry the 1701D is so much cooler then the rest of the designs apart from the intrepid class ship. I am still debating which one satisfies my aesthetic hunger.

[CounslerCoffee]

The 1701D-Modified, is shown in the episode "All Good Things" (The Last TNG episode, ever).

http://member.nifty.ne.jp/se/d-3nsl.jpg

It has an extra warp naselle which gives the ship the ability to travel up to warp 13 (I know, it's so stupid - even for a false future - because in the first season of ST:V we see Tom Paris fly a ship at warp 10, he then mutates and goes crazy - They said that no ship could ever travel at warp ten, and that the next step beyond warp 9.9 was slip stream. Er, I'm just nit picking...).

Er, I seem to of derailed this thread. Sorry.

[Undecided]

Oh it was a development of the Galaxy class ships, oh yes. I thought it was a Constitution class ship that was modified, oh yes I have seen that before.

[CounslerCoffee]

Yes. It was Riker's decision as an Admiral to keep the 1701D around. It had modified weapons to. The 1701D destroyed a Klingon Bird of Prey in five seconds flat. Bam! Right through the hull, like tissue paper.

[EI_Sparks]

We appear to have wandered (deliberately I suspect) well clear of the topic...

[Undecided]

I wouldn't want to mess with this:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/mechanics/agt-enterprise1.jpg

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/factfiles/agt-enterprise-side.gif

[Undecided]

Does that mean Sparks that you can see what I am writing in clear contradiction to the fact that I am supposed to be on ignore? Sorry, but this thread is useless, and finally something that is at least worthwhile to talk about is going on. Edit: Are you also suggesting that me and Coffee deliberately went on a tangent on this thread?

[EI_Sparks]

To get back on topic:
Porfiry,
what's the ruling on announcing this thread in WE&P?

[Undecided]

The votes have said no, I assume that Dave allow this thread for a reason. The thread closed (poll) last night Sparks. Get over it...

[CounslerCoffee]

We appear to have wandered (deliberately I suspect) well clear of the topic...

Something that you must expect from me, Sparks, is that if you talk about ST around me, or any other scifi, I will talk back. In this case it was my fault, I did mention the 1701D and Undecided mentioned it back. I'm sorry that I've taken your thread and thrown it sorta off topic.

Not that this off-topic stuff matters, the score is 6 yes, and 15 no (And this was the score before the conversation about the 1701D).

Edit: Those pics you just posted are the ship that I was talking about. Isn't it cool? It's the "All Good Things" enterpirse (The name of the episode).

[Undecided]

According to my friend he says:

"That ship never existed, b/c it was only created by a false future created by Q. The Enterprise D (the nnormal one) was destroyed in Star Trek Generation, thus refit was impossible".

Edit: Those pics you just posted are the ship that I was talking about. Isn't it cool? It's the "All Good Things" enterpirse (The name of the episode).

Yes it does look cool, but it looks a bit overdone IMO, it's not sleek. A sleek ship woulde intrepid class or the Sovereign class ships:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/sovereign.jpg

I have brdige commander so...

[CounslerCoffee]

"That ship never existed, b/c it was only created by a false future created by Q. The Enterprise D (the nnormal one) was destroyed in Star Trek Generation, thus refit was impossible".

In a way it didn't, but in a way it did. It was the last ship to explode inside of the temporal cloud thingy (Three Enterprise D's were in the cloud). So that ship did excist, it excisted in an alternate universe.

[Undecided]

I really liked that episode a lot; it was real cool to look at three Galaxies together. But I don't like the ship itself as much as I like the 1701-D or the Sovereign for instance. I think that the new show "enterprise" is not very interesting to me at least. I don't want to see low tech, pre-federation ships that much. Also it would look very queer that the graphics of "ENT" is actually better then "Star Trek" even though it would be many centuries behind? I would have rather seen a stronger battle against the Borg and more plot development on these Xindi characters. Supposedly the Xindi could destroy planets?

[Tiassa]

I hate to interrupt such a fascinating discussion (sarcasm level only about 8.333%), but are there any more arguments to be had, or can we call this experiment in SFOG complete? It would appear that people are already moving on with life.

[Undecided]

Tiassa this thread was childish and idiotic to start with, and I am ashamed that it was even allow to last this long. Albeit it did boost my ego, it shows how ppl are simply either threatened by me, or love me. Yin and Yang I guess...

[sweet Pentax]

don´t overact , and be modest :D ;)

[wesmorris]

Tiassa

I would imagine simply people are so threatened by us that they attack us for no warranted reason. Notice that I have to usually debate against people who are just there to argue with no point in the end. There are great WEP posters, Tiassa (you), Godless, Hypewaders, Spyke, and when he complaining and acting like a child EI_Sparks. The rest...well... :eek: They are either threatened, or they are just there to annoy.

LOL so you ARE nico. Funny.

It is this delusional idiocy, this disgusting display of your lacking comprehension that makes me appreciate that you were banned in the first place. When you first came back, I believe you were doing better than you were as nico, it seemed you were at least semi-respectfull.

It looks as if you're quick to bare you ass, child. I believe it should be swatted.

[Undecided]

I am not nico... where have I even indicated as such? delusional idiocy seems to suit you well in this instance... :D Also I suggest classes in reading:

Tiassa

I would imagine simply people are so threatened by us that they attack us for no warranted reason

Hmmm... us? Could that mean I was talking to Tiassa? Well... interesting enough, I expect cognitive surrenders to ensue.

[Undecided]

Also the apparent lack of meaningful content of any of your posts in WE&P shows why you aren't respected in that area of the Sci forums community. Not only do you lack the ability to concede defeat, you are asking for objectivity in politics which is quite simply the funniest thing one could ever try to comprehend. I have seen your posts against hype for instance, and the newest one seems to have a reference to nico, are you being a 15ofthe19 on purpose or what? I have noticed this apparent pseudo-intellectuality complex emanating from you constantly. Oh course I do not expect a reply to this, because you should be better then this correct troll? It seems that you are the antagonist, based on nothing but on you're delusional idiocy. If I were nico, and if increase in posts directed to me were to increase, it is obvious you are nothing better then a common troll. I had noted you're initial flammer and it was better then you're failed attempts at cognitivity in WE&P. Now since I am not even worth the time to waste, I don't expect a reply to this. Frankly I would prefer if you were to put me on ignore.

[Tiassa]

Notice that I have to usually debate against people who are just there to argue with no point in the end.I know the feeling.

Dealing with disgruntled rabblerousers is a bit of a Zen art.

[Undecided]

And the troll replies... my god.

Edit: Not you Tiassa!

[wesmorris]

Also the apparent lack of meaningful content of any of your posts in WE&P shows why you aren't respected in that area of the Sci forums community.

I don't concern myself with matters of reputation. LOL. Here I'll spell it out for you: IMO, you don't deserve respect if you attempt to intentionally manipulate people into respecting you. If you really understood respect, you'd understand why.
Not only do you lack the ability to concede defeat, you are asking for objectivity in politics which is quite simply the funniest thing one could ever try to comprehend.

Can you back that up?

I have seen your posts against hype for instance, and the newest one seems to have a reference to nico, are you being a 15ofthe19 on purpose or what?

LOL. You make a generalization from one occurrence and while doing so, further behave exactly like nico. Hehe. I'd think that would be hard to do but you make it look so damned easy.

I have noticed this apparent pseudo-intellectuality complex emanating from you constantly.

Then please, point out my flaws. I'm here to improve myself so if you have some valid criticism I'm down.

Oh course I do not expect a reply to this, because you should be better then this correct troll?

LOL. Troll? Justify it. Please make a rational case that I'm a troll. I'm interested.

Further, your expectation is not my concern. I suspect you're nico mostly because coffee said it.

Actually, I believe that Undecided is Nico. And Nico was banned.

I figure he'd likely know eh? If you're not nico, then your post was unbelievable to me in that:

would imagine simply people are so threatened by us that they attack us for no warranted reason

... is honestly what I would expect from a third grader. Seriously, I'm not saying that as a dig I'm saying that literally, that is what i would expect from a third grade jeer on the playground. ICK, I mean truly ICK. It's like, fucking smarmy and gross for you to be so egomaniacally skewed. You are bright, but as you may have noticed, there are a lot of bright people here. "threatened" in this group of your peers is evident of such a grossly negligent analysis that I'm simply astounded and reach the conclusion that you are a detriment to this community. (hence the swatting comment)

It seems that you are the antagonist, based on nothing but on you're delusional idiocy.

I am when I sense a true jackass in my observable area. If you are not nico, I'm still amazed by the comment.

If I were nico, and if increase in posts directed to me were to increase, it is obvious you are nothing better then a common troll.

Can you name the logical fallacy or... nevermind. This is simply silly. Call me names with not even a sentence to support why. I realize I did the same thing, but the fact that I think you're nico made me suspect that an explanation was of no matter, since reason if of no consequence to you. I simply meant to, as your purported (by you) superior, admonish your behavior. Otherwise (if you're not nico) I should have provided an explanation and have done so in this post.

I had noted you're initial flammer and it was better then you're failed attempts at cognitivity in WE&P.
"failed attempts at cognitivity"? LOL. Okay man I'm busted. I didn't do any 'cognitivitigating' at all. Feel free to actually demonstrate my stupidity rather than simply claim it.

Now since I am not even worth the time to waste, I don't expect a reply to this.
Who are you to tell me how to spend my time?

Frankly I would prefer if you were to put me on ignore.

I don't use the ignore list.

[wesmorris]

And the troll replies... my god.

LOL, I just realized that reads a number of ways. Talk about evasion. Heh.

[Undecided]

wesmorris
Blah, and a little more balh

It is obvious that you are so self-absorbed, and narcissistic that you actually think I care what you think about me. I can tell you think you have a grandeur of importance that cannot be denied. Well, get over yourself, you're simple demeanor is that of a vengeful troll. You see the entire premise of you even posting here is for ad hom attack, and just to flame. I advice is stop wasting time trying to look smart, and actually waste your time on issues that matter.

[wesmorris]

It is obvious that you are so self-absorbed, and narcissistic that you actually think I care what you think about me. I can tell you think you have a grandeur of importance that cannot be denied. Well, get over yourself, you're simple demeanor is that of a vengeful troll. You see the entire premise of you even posting here is for ad hom attack, and just to flame. I advice is stop wasting time trying to look smart, and actually waste your time on issues that matter.

More name calling eh? And you call me simple? LOL. That's good stuff.

[Undecided]

None of it was name calling because all of it was true. Name calling would be me saying something that wasn't true, or overblown. Anyone who has read the masses of pointless replies in WE&P or your other trollish adventures on sci could quickly take the same tact. So has your vainglorious rants finally ended, or do I expect more of this http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/edoom/sleeping.gif to ensue? I think anyone who can read, can tell the only reason you are even posting here is too flame.

[certified psycho]

why though :bugeye: :confused:

[wesmorris]

why though :bugeye: :confused:

You agree with undecided?

Edit:

Oh are you asking him why he said what he did?

[wesmorris]

It is obvious that you are so self-absorbed, and narcissistic that you actually think I care what you think about me.

Not at all, but you are most vitriolic in your response. Why?

I can tell you think you have a grandeur of importance that cannot be denied.

I honestly don't think your judgement is particularly keen and have explained specifically why.

Well, get over yourself, you're simple demeanor is that of a vengeful troll.

I disagree. I think you're an immature punk/jerk and aim to expose you as such, nothing more. I think you're assisting me nicely. Thank you.

You see the entire premise of you even posting here is for ad hom attack, and just to flame.

See above and if you claim I've ad-hommed you please cite the example.

Perhaps if you understood what an ad-hominem attack was, you'd be able to use the term accurately.

I advice is stop wasting time trying to look smart, and actually waste your time on issues that matter.

I have no need to "try to look smart" and have yet to do so. How I utilize my time is my business.

To me, your "advice" is absolutely worthless, but somewhat amusing.

[Undecided]

Wow, you never cease to amaze me, I will simply quote from before to characterize someone like you:

Notice that I have to usually debate against people who are just there to argue with no point in the end.

Go on, look even more worthless, flammers are the best.

[wesmorris]

Wow, you never cease to amaze me, I will simply quote from before to characterize someone like you:

Notice that I have to usually debate against people who are just there to argue with no point in the end.

Go on, look even more worthless, flammers are the best.

How is your quoted text applicable to the conversation? How do you surmise that you "have to" debate against anyone? How do you think your words fit the definition of a 'debate'.

Oh and if you wouldn't mind adding "flamer" to the list of assertions which you should back up with logic/reasoning/arguments (at least something to justify the claim besides the claim itself), I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

[Undecided]

Let's take a look at the troller and the passive agressive one here shall we:

This is Wes' objective: http://www.smilies.okipages.com/s/contrib/sarge/BoomSmilie_anim.gif

This is my reaction: http://cmw.dailymoviereviews.com/otn/laughing/yelrotflmao.gif

Notice that the only taking wes seriously, is wes. The funniest thing is this folks he will flash his pseudo-righteous crusade against me (which is an ad hom), as an argument. Sadly he think I actually give a shit...

[wesmorris]

Nah I just think you're a jerk and you keep talking shit so I keep asking you to back it up and you keep on jerking on.

As you wish.

Oh and I have a sweet sense of humor, it's just that I saw no indicators that you were attempting humor.

[Persol]

The more of this thread I read, the more I wish I'd voted yes.

[wesmorris]

LOL maybe we should try the first "I'm banning that ass" official 'do over'. ;) *giggle*

[Undecided]

Wes the only one here is actually wasting his time quoting, and thinking he's arguments are relevant is yourself. I don't think you can get past the mirror, because you aren't talking to anyone else. That is the funniest thing about you, which I will never understand. Why do you insist on trolling, do you get some sick pleasure? Well the ball is entirely within your court, because I ain't catching it.

[Tiassa]

Actually, Persol, our neighbor Undecided is quite the intelligent and useful poster when people aren't giving him loads of useless crap.

[Undecided]

Thank you tiassa, the my newest thread is testamount to that:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32423

I don't even understand why Persol would even say that but neither at this point do I nessecarily care. Tiassa and the other 18 ppl who voted no, don't let these trolls sway you, notice they are on a fatwah against me. It's not going to work, look at wes' demanor, and mine. Notice the difference?

[wesmorris]

Don't you think it would be wise to avoid another confrontation at this time tiassa (between you and I)? I have no qualms with you at this time and do not feel like the battle. I ask you to please butt out.

[Undecided]

Irony wes, real irony: I ask you to please butt out.

compared to:

How I utilize my time is my business.


Remember? Hypocrisy yes...

[Persol]

Actually, Persol, our neighbor Undecided is quite the intelligent and useful poster when people aren't giving him loads of useless crap.Well, I'll take your word for it. The point I was attemping to get across (which seems to not have made it) is that Undecided isn't helping his case any by his posts in this thread.

[wesmorris]

It's not going to work, look at wes' demanor, and mine. Notice the difference?

That is truly flabbergasting to me, since your demeanor is IMO, detestable.

[Undecided]

Exactly the problem, “in your opinion”, which no one asked, and the person that matters (me) necessarily doesn’t care for. Thus keep your fatwa to yourself please, I know you will insist on pursuing this to your own detriment.

[wesmorris]

LOL, you didn't notice the thread title either eh?

[Undecided]

The thread title was simplisitic:

Ban "Undecided" from WE&P for one week

Which in all your posts have neglected to mention, you are just here to attack. I'm actually looking foward to the time when the mirror breaks wes, the allegory of the cave in reverse, all you see is yourself.

[Undecided]

At this time as well I would like to extend my apologies to Sparks for calling him a pussy bitch.

[wesmorris]

Persol's comments might contradict you if you actually had to capacity to see what has happened here. You have exposed yourself and made your own case for being banned. I didn't realize you'd do that.

Your repeated apparent lies about your identity prompted my initial post. Note that I don't care about your identity, but that you would persistently lie about it and libel other members of the community based on your lie. IMO, that warrants that you be called out.

Perhaps I'm incorrect about your identity, but you have clearly demonstrated your ilk.

[wesmorris]

At this time as well I would like to extend my apologies to Sparks for calling him a pussy bitch.

Finally, a crisis of conscience?

Well, if you are sincere that is mature and commendable. I doubt your sincerity. I think you've maybe just realized what you've done now play politics in an attempt to "save your reputation". I hope I'm wrong.

[Undecided]

Do other sci forum members see to what I was referring to? He is attacking me for no warranted reason. He is simply following the lead of those who I was referring to earlier whose sole purpose in threads is to combat me. I don't know what he is talking about lies, and I am not who he thinks I am. Of course he knows since he is omnipotent correct? I am ilk? Interesting tact in lieu of the former conversation. Ask yourself the question wes, whom here is the one attacking who? I am not even putting up a defense to your ad hom fatwa. That is what is obviously getting up right up the wall, and digressing further into the mirror (cave). The more you post the more you sound irate, and you are just proving you are here simply for one thing:

To attack.

[Tiassa]

How do you surmise that you "have to" debate against anyone?This is, perhaps, the outright stupidest argument I've ever heard.

Sciforums is a discussion board. Undecided, or anybody else, is perfectly welcome to discuss with the air around them. But inasmuch as one debates or discusses around here, the idea of "have to" is an unfortunate result of the available participation.

Why do people leap from the particuar to the general only for political purposes?

It's just that the leap is functionally inappropriate, in that it intentionally forsakes the observable limitations of the situation to the point that once again the alternative is to never post at Sciforums.

A number of our recent ugly arguments around Sciforums have had much to do with petty provocateurism, when people let their need to prod someone else to frustration interfere with any viable use of this board's resources.

I'm not about to ask Undecided to leave this board to the corrupt and silly. Rather, the petty provocateurs need to reconsider their priorities.

What is it about passion and integrity of principles that people find so frightening?

Dealing with people at the intellectual and personal level they request, prefer, or outright demand is apparently quite problematic around here. People need to demand higher standards of themselves as well as the people around them.

Ask nothing of others that you would not be prepared to undertake yourself.

Please, please, please don't give me a reason to start quoting Michael Jackson songs.

[wesmorris]

This is, perhaps, the outright stupidest argument I've ever heard.

It was not an argument, it was a question. Why do you presume it's an argument? I was attempting to get one single straight answer. If he'd simply have said "because you made a claim that I was immature" or anything to that effect, that would have been a starting point for an actual dialog.

Sciforums is a discussion board. Undecided, or anybody else, is perfectly welcome to discuss with the air around them. But inasmuch as one debates or discusses around here, the idea of "have to" is an unfortunate result of the available participation.

So you won't think for me, but you're okay with thinking for undecided and then you accuse me of politics? I think you're all mixed up because you're presuming you understand my question without actually understanding my question. Perhaps if you'd just asked me directly instead of saying 'what a stupid argument' I was making... ? I think that's really rude and ask that you reconsider.

Why do people leap from the particuar to the general only for political purposes?

Do you see how you're doing that right now? You doing exactly what you say I'm doing.

- You're talking about me, but you say "people", that is switching fro the particular to the general.
- I think you do that for exactly political reasons, as in to sway the readers to your perspective (even though the basis for your argument is a complete projection of your own expectations onto my words).

It's just that the leap is functionally inappropriate, in that it intentionally forsakes the observable limitations of the situation to the point that once again the alternative is to never post at Sciforums.
If you truly believe this, they you have violated your own conviction as far as I can tell.

A number of our recent ugly arguments around Sciforums have had much to do with petty provocateurism, when people let their need to prod someone else to frustration interfere with any viable use of this board's resources.

LOL. You just did it again. With respect I ask if you're insinuating that I've lied and if so, request that you stop that line of accusation and assert that you are flat wrong. I know you don't think so, but I ask that if you respect me, you open your mind to the possibility that I'm not lying now, nor have I ever lied on sciforums. I have been frequently wrong, but I have never intentionaly lied.

I'm not about to ask Undecided to leave this board to the corrupt and silly. Rather, the petty provocateurs need to reconsider their priorities.

Please tiassa, stop it. I don't want to rumble with you, you're simply wrong, the basis for this post is wrong and well, please, do not continue in this manner. I don't mean that in a mean way, it's a request from your neighbor.

What is it about passion and integrity of principles that people find so frightening?

I have no idea. I think that undecided has no integrity and no discernable principles until he just apologized to sparks. I'm still suspicious as I noted.

[Undecided]

Please tiassa, stop it. I don't want to rumble with you, you're simply wrong, the basis for this post is wrong and well, please, do not continue in this manner. I don't mean that in a mean way, it's a request from your neighbor.

The Boogieman, watch it folks...

http://www.rhyners.com/00picks/00images/blackstalin_2000_newtimes.jpg'

Wow never have I seen one individual place their self-importance so high that it is literally immeasurable. Nemesis sucks...

Making love with his ego
Ziggy sucked up into his mind
Like a leper messiah
When the kids had killed the man
We had to break up the band

[wesmorris]

Please tiassa, stop it. I don't want to rumble with you, you're simply wrong, the basis for this post is wrong and well, please, do not continue in this manner. I don't mean that in a mean way, it's a request from your neighbor.

Wow never have I seen one individual place their self-importance so high that it is literally immeasurable. Nemesis sucks...

Can you enlighten me as to how we can all tell how important I think I am? Again, I don't see the connection between the quoted text the your purported point.

[Undecided]

Send us a picture of your mirrored world... because there is no other way you could explain you’re pretentious self-righteousness.

[Undecided]

Sorry I don't reply to ineptitude of massive editing...

[Tiassa]

The point I was attemping to get across (which seems to not have made it) is that Undecided isn't helping his case any by his posts in this thread.Persol

That's an unfortunate symptom of the mentality around Sciforums. A person accused is to be judged. Defending oneself is a sign of guilt. &c. Ad nauseam. Typical lowbrow mob perspective. It actually would suit my purpose well in issues I'm formulating regarding provocateurs if Undecided actually is Nico, because the arguments leading to Nico's banning are a triumph of provocateurism. Unfortunately, Nico didn't account for the curious herd rule--seen in pro sports, politics, &c. in American culture at least--that one should not defend oneself under certain circumstances.

• Pro sports: These days in pro football the league is reviewing violent incidents after the fact because fans have long recognized that the penalized party is usually the victim when fights break out.
• Politics: If someone lies about you and creates a massive scandal that really shouldn't be in the first place, the one thing you cannot do is defend yourself. A lack of passion suggests that you're conning people; Americans generally distrust passion--e.g. from Democratic frontrunner to "Herr Dean" in a day. Why did Clinton "dick around" with the nation in the zipper scandals? Because that was the only realistic and functional choice he had. And he did it brilliantly. But if he'd given just a solemn but dispassionate defense, it would have been perceived as an empty lie; the more emphatic and passionate he got, people would have perceived desperation.

But think about it for a moment ... Undecided should be furious at this point. He should be foaming-at-the-mouth incensed at this point. Sure, I think he's a little anxious, and perhaps a bit trigger-happy under pressure, but given that people really do set out to aggravate him ....

(There's an irony that strikes me here that would take more words to explain than it's worth. In fact, this whole situation is so fraught with ridiculous irony that a decent respect for the suggestion that people have lives to get to prevents me from exploring the ironic facets in depth.)

Given that he's got a dedicated corps of obsessive detractors, that he's got Wesmorris apparently willing to join the throng, that he's got this topic with his name in the title at all ... sure he could be holding up a little better, I guess, but he's doing well enough.

Being that people don't seem to want him to respond to this public flogging at all, and being that Wes doesn't want anybody writing on Undecided's behalf at the extortive threat of a large conflagration of rhetorical crap, we might actually expect blind fire coming from Undecided soon enough. And people will be upset about that, but what do they really expect?

If people don't like the way he responds to their crap, they shouldn't be slinging crap for him to respond to in the first place. I mean, if someone brings you three pounds of sh@t, and you give them a sh@t sandwich in return, what really can they complain about if you did what you could with what you were given to work with?

[Persol]

That's an unfortunate symptom of the mentality around Sciforums. A person accused is to be judged. Defending oneself is a sign of guilt. &c. Ad nauseam.Defending oneself is not a sign of guilt. Defending oneself by insulting others (when that is the accusation) is.
If someone lies about you and creates a massive scandal that really shouldn't be in the first place, the one thing you cannot do is defend yourself.Yet, Clinton did defend himself. He also did this without insulting his accusers. While Undecided may not be blunt about it, the insults are still quite obvious.
But think about it for a moment ... Undecided should be furious at this point. He should be foaming-at-the-mouth incensed at this point. Of all the things in life, I sure hope that this thread is not enough to push him to 'furious'.
Sure, I think he's a little anxious, and perhaps a bit trigger-happy under pressure, but given that people really do set out to aggravate him ....It is easily noticed that most posters in WE&P set out to aggravate each other.... undecided included.
Being that people don't seem to want him to respond to this public flogging at all, and being that Wes doesn't want anybody writing on Undecided's behalf at the extortive threat of a large conflagration of rhetorical crapYeah... that is quite wrong. Undecided has every reason to respond. His 'method' of response in parts of this thread do not help though.
we might actually expect blind fire coming from Undecided soon enough. And people will be upset about that, but what do they really expect?I do not see why. Clearly the masses have spoken... and on his side.
If people don't like the way he responds to their crap, they shouldn't be slinging crap for him to respond to in the first place. I mean, if someone brings you three pounds of sh@t, and you give them a sh@t sandwich in return, what really can they complain about if you did what you could with what you were given to work with?I'd much rather they explain why the shit stinks.

[wesmorris]

Okay then. *sigh*


Given that he's got a dedicated corps of obsessive detractors, that he's got Wesmorris apparently willing to join the throng, that he's got this topic with his name in the title at all ... sure he could be holding up a little better, I guess, but he's doing well enough.

tiassa, you openly criticise me here. you, in doing so, you join undecided's thong. how is that any different that my stating that I think this lying jerk should be swatted?

LOL so you ARE nico. Funny.

It is this delusional idiocy, this disgusting display of your lacking comprehension that makes me appreciate that you were banned in the first place. When you first came back, I believe you were doing better than you were as nico, it seemed you were at least semi-respectfull.

It looks as if you're quick to bare you ass, child. I believe it should be swatted.

IMO, this applies perfectly to nico. The last part in particular was my attempt at an amusing way to say he should be banned temporarily because he's a lying disruptive jerk (nico). He then proceeded to give nothing more than horrific input, leaving me to conclude that he was indeed the person I knew.

I decided to try to reason with him anyway by simply asking him for the basis for his repeated accusations and he would not answer. He is free to avoid my questions, and I am free to continue asking questions when he makes accusations no? Perhaps if he'd simply asked me about my accusations to begin with we'd be done? Yeah I know, it's all my fault eh tiassa? LOL. You couldn't be wrong right? LOL. You don't see how he was a total jerk to all of sciforums?:

"I would imagine simply people are so threatened by us that they attack us for no warranted reason. Notice that I have to usually debate against people who are just there to argue with no point in the end. There are great WEP posters, Tiassa (you), Godless, Hypewaders, Spyke, and when he complaining and acting like a child EI_Sparks. The rest...well... They are either threatened, or they are just there to annoy"

To me, this is completely disrespectful of this community (besides you tiassa). Given that and that coffee said he thinks he's nico. 2+2= lying jerk who needs to be banned becaue he's a lying jerk, regardless of his username.

I realized in after my initial post that I should have explained why I thought he was a lying jerk, so in my second post I explained it:

would imagine simply people are so threatened by us that they attack us for no warranted reason

... is honestly what I would expect from a third grader. Seriously, I'm not saying that as a dig I'm saying that literally, that is what i would expect from a third grade jeer on the playground. ICK, I mean truly ICK. It's like, fucking smarmy and gross for you to be so egomaniacally skewed. You are bright, but as you may have noticed, there are a lot of bright people here. "threatened" in this group of your peers is evident of such a grossly negligent analysis that I'm simply astounded and reach the conclusion that you are a detriment to this community. (hence the swatting comment)

IMO, his comment was disrespectful to every other poster on this board but you and him (note the "us" was you and he). Were you at all influenced by this stroke of your ego?

Being that people don't seem to want him to respond to this public flogging at all, and being that Wes doesn't want anybody writing on Undecided's behalf at the extortive threat of a large conflagration of rhetorical crap, we might actually expect blind fire coming from Undecided soon enough.
You imply that I'm generally rhetorical. Please give at least one example. I simply didn't want to have to go into an in depth analysis of every word in this thread. It's exhausting and all in all a waste of my time due to the fact that you cannot speak directly. I think "obtuse" is quite fitting, though I still don't know if you intend to be that way. You call my aversion to brawling with you fucking 'extortive'? I think that is distorted. I've never considered an attempt to avoid an un-necessary fight "extortive". Hmm. Yeah I think that's very twisted.

The only reason I didn't want YOU involved is because of the 100,000,000 words you have to put into saying "you suck". I fuckign hate that, it's SO goddamn annoyign to me. ARgh. Why to you distort that into "Wes doesn't want anybody writing on Undecided's behalf"? You take an issue with YOU and make it an issue with everyone? LOL. Man how are you so off?

And people will be upset about that, but what do they really expect?

I expect a direct conversation. It may start with a little mudslinging, but it's easy to get out of if you're willing. IMO, I responded to mudslinging (as I mentioned above where he had called all of sci 'afraid', which is just annoying to no end due to excessive smarm). I didn't intend to sling mud, I was emotionally satisfied that a person I thought deserved shit was getting it. In the process I did sling mud, but I still think it's exactly accurate for my take of the scenario. He was acting like a shit and I called him on it, as you are doing now no? I stopped slinging mud soon after I started.

I will concede that it may have been a miscommunication in that his original comment about you and he striking fear into the hearts of sciforums was an attempt at humor. It's not really very funny to me as you might have noted by my reaction. I think it's disgusting really, but maybe I was being stodgy or something at the time, it's possible.

He could have just said "I was only kidding" (since it was obvious that to me it seemed that he wasn't) and flamed me a bit or whatever and I would have reconsidered. (I'm not sure what the results of the consideration would have been) Instead he moved to jerkulate. Having already done so that was fine, so I just wanted him to explain his accusations and repeatedly and with growing patience asked that he answer the questions, none of which were answered.

finally, i reiterate that i think it's perfectly valid for him to choose to ignore my questions and talk shit the whole time and it is perfectly fair for me to continue to ask him to justify his assertions. it is my perogative to continue this as long as he keeps slinging accusations.

[wesmorris]

Yeah... that is quite wrong. Undecided has every reason to respond. His 'method' of response in parts of this thread do not help though.
I do not see why. Clearly the masses have spoken... and on his side.
I'd much rather they explain why the shit stinks.

But where did I claim that he shouldn't respond? I think it should be obvious I wanted him to respond, preferably with answers to my questions. Further, I don't care if people speak up for him, I care if tiassa involves himself in my bickering with someone else which tiassa apparently doesn't understand, in which case I strongly suspect that it will take hours and hours and hours to get abosolutely nowhere, only in that he an I have a history of long dead end conversations. I don't see how this could be productive, so I'm more than willing to listen to other people's side of the story regarding undecided, but i'd rather tiassa leave it alone such that we avoid a big huge thing. too late I guess.

[Tiassa]

in doing so, you join undecided's thong I don't think he's consented to that yet.I decided to try to reason with him anyway At what point?Yeah I know, it's all my fault eh tiassa? That was quite an entrance, Wes. Showy. Useless. But quite an entrance nonetheless.You don't see how he was a total jerk to all of sciforums?I would ask you to try explaining it to me, but I'm aware that you just skim through topics looking for ammunition.

Go for it, though. Surprise me.To me, this is completely disrespectful of this community (besides you tiassa) Look at the topic, Wes.

Disrespectful of this community?

You pick the strangest time to invoke your principles, Wes.2+2= lying jerk who needs to be banned becaue he's a lying jerk, regardless of his username.And you are a lying jerk, Wes.

Jesus H. Baldheaded Freaking Christ on a Pony, Wes ... did you really think I wouldn't notice?

So pack your bags while you're at it, boy.I realized in after my initial post that I should have explained why I thought he was a lying jerk, so in my second post I explained it: And what a useful explanation that was.

Think for just a minute, Wes, of how annoyed people get when I call them "boy" with all of that laconic southern bite. (See above, amended for your benefit: So pack your bags while you're at it, boy.)IMO, his comment was disrespectful to every other poster on this board but you and him (note the "us" was you and he).This statement is factually incorrect.

However, given that "thinking for you" isn't a stretch on this occasion (the common phrase is, "I think I know what you mean,") I'll go so far as to point out that Undecided was responding directly to me. His statement is well-within the bounds of context. Your error would appear to be in confusing the general and particular.Were you at all influenced by this stroke of your ego?Not in the least. In fact, were he not placed on the defensive by the nature of the topic, I would consider that paragraph to be a strategic error.

However, it seems to have had some effect.You imply that I'm generally rhetorical. Please give at least one example. How so?You call my aversion to brawling with you fucking 'extortive'?The bit you're complaining about, Wes, refers to you telling me to butt out of the topic because you don't want to rumble with me. Sounds a bit extortive to me.The only reason I didn't want YOU involved is because of the 100,000,000 words you have to put into saying "you suck".This is your problem, Wes, not mine.I fuckign hate that, it's SO goddamn annoyign to me.This is definitively your problem.Why to you distort that into " Wes doesn't want anybody writing on Undecided 's behalf"?Because you threatened a rumble if I didn't butt out.You take an issue with YOU and make it an issue with everyone? So it's only me you're threatening, Wes?

Nonetheless, it's still extortive.I expect a direct conversation. It may start with a little mudslinging, but it's easy to get out of if you're willing. IMO, I responded to mudslinging (as I mentioned above where he had called all of sci 'afraid', which is just annoying to no end due to excessive smarm). I didn't intend to sling mud, I was emotionally satisfied that a person I thought deserved shit was getting it. In the process I did sling mud, but I still think it's exactly accurate for my take of the scenario.It's passages like this that do such damage to your integrity, Wes. You expect a direct conversation? Try having one.

In the meantime, I recognize that your priorities are, indeed, your chosen priorities.He was acting like a shit and I called him on it, as you are doing now no?I think he has every right to be blazing furious.I stopped slinging mud soon after I started.Yet you have yet to contribute anything positive or useful to the topic.

You're a petty vigilante thug, Wes. That's all I see in your participation in this topic, from your flaming entrance to your petty provocation. And apparently for absolutely no good reason.
I will concede that it may have been a miscommunication in that his original comment about you and he striking fear into the hearts of sciforums was an attempt at humor. It's not really very funny to me as you might have noted by my reaction. I think it's disgusting really, but maybe I was being stodgy or something at the time, it's possible.I can deal with that, but what are the practical implications?
He could have just said "I was only kidding" He could have.Instead he moved to jerkulateExcuse him for being courteous enough to speak your language of pettiness, Wes.

So you walk in, spit on him, and then get upset at him because you think his reaction qualifies as jerkulation?Having already done so that was fine, so I just wanted him to explain his accusations and repeatedly and with growing patience asked that he answer the questions, none of which were answered He's got better things to do than offer you the courtesies you historically refuse other posters. How can you possibly demand of Undecided what you are unwilling to demand of yourself?
finally, i reiterate that i think it's perfectly valid for him to choose to ignore my questions and talk shit the whole time and it is perfectly fair for me to continue to ask him to justify his assertionsA gold star for the no-brainer?it is my perogative to continue this as long as he keeps slinging accusations. Just as it was your prerogative to walk in and be a paternalistic, curmudgeonly twit.it is my perogative to continue this as long as he keeps slinging accusations.Wes, I suspect that this is another case in which your politics and ambitions leave you as the only person asking this question. I would invite you to go back and read the discussion between Persol and myself.Further, I don't care if people speak up for him, I care if tiassa involves himself in my bickering with someone elseSo ... why, exactly, did you spit at me to get my attention, Wes?

Ah, and it is just about threatening me. I could have guessed. Thank you for clearing that up, though.

Wes, I see you trying to split certain hairs. It won't work. Sciforums is evolving. So get out of the tar pit or become a fossil.

[wesmorris]

I would ask you to try explaining it to me, but I'm aware that you just skim through topics looking for ammunition.

How is that more than a cheap shot? I cruise through the threads looking for things that incite me to comment. If you call that "looking for ammunition" I don't care.

Disrespectful of this community?

Yeah, he seemed to be on an egomaniacal bent like david mayes or wanderer, or nico. Maybe you're right that i confused the specific for the general in his comment, but I just reread it and disagree with your assessment. He was talking specifically to you yes, but making a general comment about how everyone is "so threatened by us (you and him)". He did mention he thought three other posters are good, then said "The rest...well... They are either threatened, or they are just there to annoy."

That is just icky.

I stand corrected, he insulted everyone except a total of five members of sci: "himself, Tiassa (you), Godless, Hypewaders, Spyke". As I had just learned for likely sure that he really was nico (via coffee), it struck me as a particularly icky comment, mostly from my knowledge of nico. perhaps I'm incorrect. if so, I wouldn't think it would have been difficult for him to explain, but obviously he didn't have to. as such, I just kept asking him why he was saying what he was saying, in hopes of changing the dialog from shit to productive. obviously it was not effective but he kept talking shit so I kept asking. *shrug*

I don't care what you think of it tiassa.

I'm not going to indulge you further at this time. Is that direct enough?

[Tiassa]

How is that more than a cheap shot? Because it's accurate and relevant. Remember, Wes, that you have repeatedly noted in our discussions that you didn't read, that you don't read, or that you didn't want to read something.I cruise through the threads looking for things that incite me to comment And what comments they are ....He was talking specifically to you yes, but making a general comment about how everyone is "so threatened by us (you and him)". He did mention he thought three other posters are good, then said "The rest...well... They are either threatened, or they are just there to annoy."So ... what now? For your benefit, then, Undecided should not respond to me?That is just icky.That is your opinion, Wes.

You're perfectly welcome to feel that way.as such, I just kept asking him why he was saying what he was saying, in hopes of changing the dialog from shit to productive Thank you for the hearty chuckle.I'm not going to indulge you further at this time. Is that direct enough? Fine with me.

But get this straight, you gutter vigilante punk: Don't threaten me.

Y'hear, boy?

Got it?

Good.

[EI_Sparks]

Right. So after a lot of personal insults and noise from Undecided, and a completely justified request that the WE&P forum be moderated in general, Porfiry suggested this thread as a new method for moderation. Given the poll results, and given how clear-cut the case was in the first place against Undecided, and given the total lack of any moderation within this thread (what use is a regulatory system where the offending poster can ramble on unchecked about completely irrelevant topics? Did this not strike anyone else as an insult to the purpose of this entire forum?), I've decided that Porfiry's suggestion is a rather acute failure. And frankly, that's it for me. I've seen no attempts in the time I've been posting here to moderate WE&P or any other forum. The average poster (in fact, the vast majority of the posters) give the impression of being particularly sub-par high school students. The few who don't sound like they're still completing high school tend to sound as though they would be happier posting on freerepublic.com, or just off shooting people with a different skin tone or culture to their own. The very, very, very few whose posts are consistently worth reading, which basicly boils down to tiassa, are simply not worth the time it takes to sieve their posts from the rest of the dross and noise on the boards.

Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, there are boards out there with far, far higher signal-to-noise ratios, where basic civility is a mandatory prerequisite for posters, and where as a result, time is better spent.

Porfiry, I'm cancelling my subscription and you can delete my account.

[hypewaders]

How rude. (snort)

[wesmorris]

Okay it's later now.

[font=trebuchet ms]Because it's accurate and relevant.

It is innacurate and thusly irrelevant. That you would characterize that I skim threads as "looking for ammunition" is simply indicative of your distaste for me. I skim threads "looking for something interesting". When I stumble upon something slagging everyone in this forum in a childish manner, someone who I have just recieved strong evidence is a lying punk child (even if that evidence was incorrect) I felt compelled to comment. Since this thread was set up specifically to discuss the validity of undecided's membership of this community, I commented about him. Since this is a public forum, anyone is free to comment on my comments to him. However in this case I asked that you specifically not do so, only after you insinuated something shitty about me and only in an attempt to avoid further shit between us.

Remember, Wes, that you have repeatedly noted in our discussions that you didn't read, that you don't read, or that you didn't want to read something.

It's a matter of practicality. I have a life to attend to. I find YOUR STYLE (note that my comments about reading were directed to you, and how I read the forums where you are not concerned is none of your concern unless you have a specific issue about something) incredibly cumbersome and innefficient. I understand that you find it necessary as it is your style, but IMO, it's difficult to deal with because you are IMO, wholly indirect and oblivious of what I see as obvoius. I realize as well that your impression of me is similar and so instead of indulge in an encounter I knew would go nowhere I respectfully asked that you butt out.

The worst part to me is that you will now insist (I guesstimate from experience) that my motives are what you say they are rather than what I've attempted to explain to you... no matter how much time I spend trying to explain them to you.

For your benefit, then, Undecided should not respond to me?

I commented about his comment to you. Did I ask him to shutup?

That is your opinion, Wes.
Which is exactly what this thread asks for regarding undecided. If you want to start a thread about how bad I suck feel free, but this one is already dedicated.

You're perfectly welcome to feel that way.

LOL. Why gee thanks for allowing me my own perspective tiassa, if only for a moment.

Don't threaten me.

I never intended to.

[Undecided]

This is still going on? It reminds me of "Ferris Beulers day off", at the end when he says "It's over, go home..." I find it painfully poignant that someone here is desperately in need of being listened too. Living in the world of innuendo, lies, smoke screens, mirrors, and illusions has corrupted a person here so violently that, he/she believes that their subjective views on a situation is fact. Calling others as ilk for instance, yet basing it on nothing more then spite, and irrational hatred. Anyone who has read the conversation should notice that I was attacked 3 times on this thread. At least one was within justifiable anger and justifiable results. The other two were just vehement attacks by posters. I find it largely disturbing that some people get angry at things that aren't even directed at them, and literally make up new rules in the English language to justify their claims. Of course we are dealing with a battle of the wills here; Nietzsche would have loved this thread. The will to power here is as strong as it was at Stalingrad, but sadly there really is only one actor on this stage, and the only power struggle is with himself, it's really a cannibalization of character. He is the only one who is actually considering himself so important that only he is the only thing that matters. Notice the extreme egoism, and self-righteousness exhorted by this poster. But for no reason? I have been passively watching him waste his time in lame attempts at ad hom arguments, and trying to pass it off as a legitimate critique of me. I really couldn't be bothered, that poster is ignorant on issues pertaining to me, and it's evident. Anyone who regularly visits WE&P knows that is a tinge of as tiassa says, provocateurism. He totally ignores that fact, which makes him ignorant, and that fits perfectly with the Platonic idea of the Allegory of the cave, he sees only what he wants to see, and when told the truth, reverts to his own version of the story because he sadly knows no better. This thread ladies and gentlemen is not about me, it's about provocateurism, and antagonists. Life is a stage….

[Tiassa]

It is innacurate and thusly irrelevantRight, Wes. That makes about as much sense as I believe you.That you would characterize that I skim threads as "looking for ammunition" is simply indicative of your distaste for meThat you would defend yourself as such is indicative of your inability to avoid the issue. You've admitted it in the past, even boasted that you don't read everything. Yet how often does that something "interesting" something that compels you according to your priorities to attack a poster?When I stumble upon something slagging everyone in this forum in a childish manner, someone who I have just recieved strong evidence is a lying punk child (even if that evidence was incorrect) I felt compelled to commentSo ... you attack the guy?Since this thread was set up specifically to discuss the validity of undecided's membership of this community, I commented about him. You attacked the guy.Since this is a public forum, anyone is free to comment on my comments to him Funny, seeing that from you.However in this case I asked that you specifically not do so, only after you insinuated something shitty about me and only in an attempt to avoid further shit between us.I'd be interested to know what it is you're referring to.I respectfully asked that you butt out.Respectfully?

You threatened a rumble, Wes.

Real respectful, boy.The worst part to me is that you will now insist (I guesstimate from experience) that my motives are what you say they are rather than what I've attempted to explain to you... no matter how much time I spend trying to explain them to you.Consider this, Wes:

• There is a difference between you telling me what to think and actually explaining the issue. You say it's so, but one of the reasons I'm interested in what the hell it is that set you off is that I have no idea what you're referring to, and thus your "butt out" seems rather quite rude. So don't just say it's so. Try explaining it, if that's what you genuinely think you want to do.I commented about his comment to you. Did I ask him to shutup?Well, since you decided to take Undecided in a context that allowed you to attack him instead of the context of his discussion with me, I think it very inappropriate of you to attack him the way you did. It was cheap, dishonest, and pretty much what I've come to expect of you, Wes.Which is exactly what this thread asks for regarding undecidedIf you were in a courtroom, and they asked you to come and testify about Undecided would you tell the court about him or would you sit on the witness stand and yell at him?

You should have given your opinion, not made up a bunch of nonsense as a basis for attacking him directly. You sought to provoke in this topic and you got a reaction, Wes.LOL. Why gee thanks for allowing me my own perspective tiassa, if only for a moment.You're welcome. Especially since it's more than you'll give people.I never intended to.Right.

Whatever.

If you say so.

:rolleyes:LOL so you ARE nico. Funny.

It is this delusional idiocy, this disgusting display of your lacking comprehension that makes me appreciate that you were banned in the first place. When you first came back, I believe you were doing better than you were as nico, it seemed you were at least semi-respectfull.

It looks as if you're quick to bare you ass, child. I believe it should be swatted. (Wesmorris, offering his "opinion about" Undecided)

[Undecided]

As I have said numerous times before, he lives in a house of smoke and mirrors, unable to see the grievous errors in his basic logic. We cannot expect the person to say anything but mere rhetorical responses, and rationalizations. Which doesn't not help his cause. I expect there will be overtones of "Dennis Miller" here.

[Tiassa]

Unsolicited Advice

It may be time, Undecided, to consider simply letting this topic run its course.

I admit this suggestion comes because the necessity of your personal proactive defense happens to get in my way.

Sorry, it's just that I think this topic is a prime example of why SFOG should not at this time be undertaking ban proposals.

As we look around, we see what the topic has brought. The plus side is that you've decidedly won the vote; discussion at this point is merely reflective of the acrimony of the topic. People have not, for a while, made any real case about your banning. The discussion has shifted to sidebar campaigning. The only reason this topic with your name in the title is still alive is because other issues are sustaining it.

So I think at this time you can afford to leave the field; without you to shoot at, I'll be the only target left in here, and at that point, this topic can appropriately die, as that discussion I'm wrapped up in contributes nothing to the topic anyway.

Take comfort in the historical record established in this topic. People have taken their shots, and recorded some rather unnecessary aggression. At this point, all that's left is a rather ... disgraceful mess that I don't think was intended at the outset.

In that sense, I offer also the strange comfort that comes from the chaos; SFOG needs to be stronger than this, and this topic will stand as a testament to the need for foundational process and structure.

Whether or not any individual's complaint against you is legitimate was originally irrelevant to me, though I tend to view the issue--obviously--in different scale than others. So at the present, when I see a direction by which you can hop out of this nasty crossfire, catch a breather, and enjoy the spectacle of this topic in its dying throes, I at least want to mention it to you. It's not that I would suggest you shouldn't defend yourself, but that I think the defense is established and that the first seizures rippling through this dying topic will leave people with a choice to let it die or to embarrass themselves trying to keep it alive.

Again, I do not wish to suggest that you should not defend yourself. It's just that I want this topic to die. SFOG will be stronger as this debate passes into obscurity.

But you've defeated the ban proposal comfortably. The only thing left is for people to continue to seek to provoke you in order to extend their complaints. This topic can be left to die.

The last note I wanted to include is that the audience sees more than you might give them credit for. To the one, prudence is often wisdom insofar as one might choose to make sure the bases are covered. To the other, though, is the vote.

You've won. Let's wrap this thing up and let it die.

Or ... so says my unsolicited two cents.

:cool:

[Undecided]

I agree, I bid this thread adieu for now. I will re-visit this episode of sci history with contempt and with hope. I have seen that this thread has changed the face of sci, and in this I am not joking. This thread was the first true test in democracy, and a test of egos. I have had my fun, and it looks like Sparks sure had his. I am sorry at his passing from sci, but I guess it was destined to happen. This thread like Dennis Miller will not die soon sadly. It seems that I have caused quite a up stir here on sci, for better or for worse. At first I must admit I was scared that I was going to be banned, for what I considered a over-zealous poster who felt emotionally torn over semantics. The more I read I more I actually sympathized with Sparks, and just said sorry. So Tiassa my advice to you is simple as well, just don't let the flamers get to you. The thing is that he objects to us because we say that there are trolls, flamers, and disingenuous people here on sci, all the while proving those same points. Just Tiassa don't waste too much time on this, it's really not worth it.

P.S. I'd also like to thank the 19 valiant people who saw beyond the B.S that this thread presented you.

Ciao! (for now)...

[hypewaders]

Unfortunately, 15 of them just enjoy torturing you.

[otheadp]

Tiassa: you're a f**king jerk. the self-rhiteousness you sprinkle on your last few posts makes you look even worse.


Undecided: you're better at talking shit, sure. but you yourself do the things you accuse wes of doing... and then use your spin power to divert all the attention to him. (sounds like a super-villain from Spiderman...)
when we argued, you did the same thing.

to intimidate me instead of debating me you called me "troll".
same thing you did to wes

good going there.

[15ofthe19]

Should I apologize for pointing out what's obvious to anyone with a brain in their head? Nico was getting his butt whipped by Spyke in the thread about the Marine. He went too far on a personal level, and Dave banned him. Within minutes Undecided shows up and picks up Nico's sword and continues the ridiculous argument. I smelled a rat immediately.

Days later I outed Nico on the Saudi Arabia thread and he immediately began to send me PM's trying to dissuade me from further exposing his identity.

It's no biggie except that he continues this ridiculous charade.

What disappoints me is that someone as sharp as Tiassa could defend this kid.

Undecided will eventually go the way of Wraith and get banned too. It's inevitable.


T. I'm flattered to have merited such attention from you.

[wesmorris]

Tiassa: you're a f**king jerk. the self-rhiteousness you sprinkle on your last few posts makes you look even worse.


Undecided: you're better at talking shit, sure. but you yourself do the things you accuse wes of doing... and then use your spin power to divert all the attention to him. (sounds like a super-villain from Spiderman...)
when we argued, you did the same thing.

to intimidate me instead of debating me you called me "troll".
same thing you did to wes

good going there.

I thought I was the only one who saw it.

*kowtow*

[otheadp]

Should I apologize for pointing out what's obvious to anyone with a brain in their head? Nico was getting his butt whipped by Spyke in the thread about the Marine. He went too far on a personal level, and Dave banned him. Within minutes Undecided shows up and picks up Nico's sword and continues the ridiculous argument. I smelled a rat immediately.

Days later I outed Nico on the Saudi Arabia thread and he immediately began to send me PM's trying to dissuade me from further exposing his identity.

It's no biggie except that he continues this ridiculous charade.

What disappoints me is that someone as sharp as Tiassa could defend this kid.

Undecided will eventually go the way of Wraith and get banned too. It's inevitable.


T. I'm flattered to have merited such attention from you.

another thing is, one of the pics that Decided posted in this thread (something about a black Stalin :confused: ) appears on nico's icon on MSN.

[Porfiry]

The poll appears to have closed and the proposal has failed. As heart-warming as this thread was, I am going to close it now.