S.a.m.

Except the logic doesn't work. She creates her opposition through negative interaction not intellectual rigor. She creates her opposition and then cries foul and accuses all others of being racist against her etc. Its to a point that she attracts the opposite reaction from what she is looking for, I agree with Baron that now I have become indifferent to the issues she wishes to highlight. Now I just find myself thinking how to best protect the west and its values and think let others take care of their own. Hence she alienates those who actually sympathize with the issues she wishes to highlight.

I think she is more ego driven as opposed to 'topic' driven.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will agree with clueless husband, first,

but then with Fraggle on the loss of patience with the irritatingly (and yes, dishonorably) disengenuous approach, the merry-go-round of jello-nailing that so many arguments with SAM devolve into.

Nevertheless I will still defend her, and the reason is that her faults are relatively mild and her virtues more significant in comparison with the faults of the Bandar-log troop of critics that follow her around on this forum, trolling her postings

I just don't want to see this kind of stuff pass unquestioned on one side only:

There is nothing - nothing at all - "bigoted" about the rhetoric of SAM's original statement there. It is a legitimate, pointed, and in the thread pertinent rhetorical question. It ought to be possible to post like that on this forum, without drawing down a barrage of personal attacks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

heh
i see the mighty james is still at it....doing his best to turn this forum into a cesspool of petty and spiteful grudges and incompetent management

way to go buddy boy
you suck

as for the goatman and iceaura's "original statement".......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

like she said, she wrote nothing. she quoted an article by jay janson, the sentiments expressed is presumed to be shared by sam to an unknown and probably varying degree depending on which particular point in the article one focuses on

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, we shouldn't have banned sam.

 

basically what i get from this addled garbage is that.......pointing instances of hypocrisy to either lucy or the baron will see them backing them into a corner where they discard all pretense of an intellect and come out screeching and snapping like rabid dogs

awesome
i must praise your honesty lucy
woohoo!

 

who is this we?

it is only the vindictive administrator and one other moderator that voted to perma ban her in the 2/3 majority vote

that failed
so....

the 1 mth ban was james's decision
his alone. his disingenuous plan b

by gad! i dont give a fuck what you guys have to say! sam is going down!

 

I assume you mean my logic. I wasn't putting forward logic, I was assessing her through my experience of her.

I think a leftist muslim on science forum is going to run into opposition. Implying that she is controlling her discussion opponents seem illogical to me.

I think religionist or anti-third world perspective would be more likely to be her claim. The former should be obvious and I think a great many people here would admit to being opponents of religion. As for the latter, there are people who are more conservative than her. They are the ones who are against her. Seems to me there is a connection.

SAM has made you indifferent to certain issues? What do you think about this? What does that mean about you? Are you saying you would have different opinions on these issues if she had acted differently?

So she has controlled your thinking?

Same response here.

Well, that's mind reading.

 

Sure, it's a loaded question, but as an American I look at the liberal, dovish citizens around me and they do not care about the Pakastani civilians. They do not think of them. They are still basking in the glow of a very charismatic man. James may have a nuanced understanding of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He may sympathize with the civilian victims of drone, but the actual question seems utterly valid and not bigoted to me. Do you really think a high % of Americans, I mean like even a significant minority - say 5% - have spent time concerned about those Pakastani's or wondering if we are fighting that war for Taliban women or to get Al-Quiada or that, strangely enough, the liberal president may also have oil in the back of his mind like his predecessor. I don't think they are thinking of that.

 

Thanks, Baron. I appreciate that.

Ah, come on Baron. If this was really the case, than you know what you should do. Ignore her and let your suppressed sympathy come out into the sunshine. I said that in humor, but the truth is, it is a strange thing to say

I would care more about the plight of the Palestinians if I didn't keep reading SAM's posts and getting pissed off at her and so being closed-minded about them.

You know what I mean?

No, prob. And as I said. You are most like her in style of anyone here. I can see you both smiling when you get in your indirect jabs, asking all those questions....come on, you two.

I won't. I promise not to quote this post.

 

But that choice does not have to be under duress, especially the kind of duress in this situation. If he had said what he thought she did wrong and asked for an apology, she has a chance to do that. He can then act as he thinks best given her response.

 

james addressing tiassa.......

yup
paramount are the vindictive grudges
the welfare of sci?
not even in the radar

james
leave
don't come back

 

Addled garbage? You're the one to talk.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Quite simply, to try and deny that S.A.M sometimes trolled would be the equivalent of shoving your head up your ass and claiming that the surroundings aren't brown. Whether her trolling merited a banning is a different but related matter.

 

Remember immediately after 9/11? Everyone all over the world had their eyes glued to the television for updates, and were full of sympathy for the poor Americans. And then the Americans went on and on about the event. And on and on. And on and on some more. They harped on about it until kingdom come, and even used it to justify a pre-emptive strike against a nation whose arsenal amounted to a microfart. And eventually people just rolled their eyes and changed the channel at the mention of 9/11, or even turned to criticism of the U.S.

Quite simply, beating a dead horse doesn't help your cause, it just desensitises people and gets them thinking 'Oh no, not this bullshit again.'

 

of course
this from a person who continually demonstrates he cannot reasonably interpret nor understand sam's points without distorting and twisting them to fit his own despicable agenda to ban her for good

for the good of the forum?
you lie
self serving bullshit

"..bear in mind that you'll be burning bridges by linking yourself so strongly to SAM's wagon."

see that, sci?
this is what this monster has in store for sam's supporters
hound them incessantly and watch for opportunities to ban

utter pathology and sheer megalomania

i say abandon ship
its being run into the ground by james and his fundie ilk

 

a weak and ineffectual strawman that could only be produced by other addled brains

/spits

you really think no one would notice the topic post, sparky.....

...??

/sneer

 

Strawman? Where? How? Against whom? /scoffs

What were you saying about addled garbage?

 

haha
another pathetic deflection
a bogus account of events
troll much, mr mordea?